42% of Americans aren't "absolutely certain" that God exists.

[py2e]

There is a difference between sharing the gospel to people and forcing it into someone's throat. I know many Christians will get off your back if you don't want to hear it... At the same time you can't silence them if their church is doing a public event... but that's a freedom of speech issue.



I can't say that I don't agree with the Bible... I do believe that Jesus is the only God, and He is the only way to heaven. I do think Christians are suppose to spread the Word. However, I disagree with some people's methods... like telling people that they'll go to hell... without much explanation... or even knowing that person. That's not spreading the gospel... that's just crazy.


Ok, I'm done defending... flame on.

 

[Blind_Io]

So someone who lives a life of charity and humility, doesn't "sin" in the Christian sense of the word is going to hell simply because he believes in the wrong god (or no god)?

Some charitable lord that is. It that's the standard then he doesn't deserve to be worshiped, he deserves to be scorned.

 

[jeffy777]

So someone who lives a life of charity and humility, doesn't "sin" in the Christian sense of the word is going to hell simply because he believes in the wrong god (or no god)?

Don't jump to conclusions. I don't believe that. I believe God is merciful and takes people where they are. He went to great lengths to make salvation available, so He wants to save as many as are willing.

Anyway, I don't really want to debate with people that don't agree with me, so that's all I got to say

 

[Blind_Io]

I'm not jumping to conclusions, that is what py2e said.

 

[jayjaya29]

I've just finished reading the first chapter in "The God Delusion" and Richard Dawkins presents a very valid point: we cannot mess with religion because it is held so sacredly by society. For example you can argue your political views, your sports related views, your any views and opinions, but the moment you bring up religion, it is almost shunned to argue about religion in society.

I Highly highly highly recommend this book to everybody.

 

[jeffy777]

I'm not jumping to conclusions, that is what py2e said.

Well, I don't know exactly what he believes since there is a wide range of views among Christians (a surprise to some probably), but to say that "Jesus is the only way to heaven" doesn't necessarily mean that everyone has to have made a cut and dry decision that Jesus is their Savior. The Bible indicates that people will be saved who didn't know the specifics about God, but everyone there will be there because Jesus made it possible.

I've just finished reading the first chapter in "The God Delusion" and Richard Dawkins presents a very valid point: we cannot mess with religion because it is held so sacredly by society.

Yeah, it is sacred (that's where the word comes from), but I don't understand why some non-Christian people feel obligated to mess with a Christian's beliefs anyway. If you don't believe in it, that's fine, but you don't have to go out of your way argue against it, make fun of it, or whatever. Just take it or leave it. The Christian people that I know (for example) are fantastic people that don't want to impose their views, but they'll share if someone is interested (Yeah, there are also those Christians who are annoyingly zealous, and they need to mellow out).

I don't really see why some people like to argue about religion just for the sake of arguing and belittling when they think they know all the right answers and they just want to tear the other person down. It's a lame practice that accomplished nothing. (There are atheists who are just as conversion-minded and intolerant as the over-zealous Christians)

I admit that I am somewhat bothered (for lack of a better word) when people make fun of my Christian beliefs because they are dear to me, but I recognize that it's their freedom to do so and I continue living my life knowing that my faith has been strengthened enough to withstand whatever. If you've been through what I have, you would know why. To me, there's no doubt that God is real. I would be a fool to say otherwise with my personal experience in mind. (And no, Christianity wasn't ingrained into me as a child or anything. I was basically an atheist till I was about 18 when my life took a crazy spiral that eventually led me to God. If you knew me then and now, you would acknowledge that I am a much, much better person because of it.) I know I expose myself to slander by sharing stuff like this to people who don't understand where I'm coming from, but I trust that I'm among friends who hopefully respect my beliefs as I mutually respect their's, differ though they may

 

[zenkidori]

Klutch: all those verses are very open to interpretation, just like the rest of the bible. Just as the words of Mohammed are twisted by terrorists, so are the words of Jesus, his disciples and even god by many religous people, even churches.

In my ever so humble opinion, all modern christian faiths are incorrect and at times very misleading. The religion and bible has changed so many times to adapt to new and different cultures that people aren't getting the real meaning and are even taught things that condradict this.

of course, tell this to 99.999% of supposed "christians" and you're just another godless heathen out to destroy the church and lead people away from god.

 

[jeffy777]

In my ever so humble opinion, all modern christian faiths are incorrect and at times very misleading. The religion and bible has changed so many times to adapt to new and different cultures that people aren't getting the real meaning and are even taught things that condradict this.

I mainly agree with that. Most Christian churches today are missing the mark and off balance from Christ's original teachings. However, about the Bible, while there are many different Bible versions (from the King James to updated verisons in modern English), they are all derived from the same ancient manuscripts that date back to the time period of the early Christians. The earliest New Testament manuscripts correspond with the New Testament which we have today and of course we know the validity of the Old Testament because of the Dead Sea Scrolls for instance. The Jewish scribes were very meticulous in their preservation of the Scriptures. I think it's safe to say the original message is intact. I'm not going to debate that here, but I have studied it out and found this to be true.

 

[zenkidori]

However, about the Bible, while there are tons of different Bible versions, they are all derived from the same ancient manuscripts that date back to the time period of the early Christians. The earliest New Testament manuscripts correspond with the New Testament which we have today and of course we know the validity of the Old Testament because of the Dead Sea Scrolls for instance. The Jewish scribes were very meticulous in their preservation of the Scriptures. I think it's safe to say the original message is intact. I'm not going to debate that here, but I have studied it out and found this to be true.

There is actually a lot of debate about the translation of certain key passages. For example one word may mean one thing in one language, but when literally translated does not carry the same meaning, albeit similar, but not the same. it's these subtle differences that give rise to inaccuracy and misconceptions, for example, the premarital sex issue. many churches have redacted thier policy of premarital sex is a sin because of this. there are even explicit instructions in the bible as to what you need to do if you get a woman pregnant yet do not intend to marry her. All the while, they are teaching children that if you fall in love and have sex before you are officially married you're going to hell, this is a contradiction. this is but one example, there are many.

Plus, what about the books that have been left out?

there are many different translations and interpretations that give rise to different ways of looking at the world, just look at what has been done in the past regarding divorce, alcohol, banking, etc.

 

[zenkidori]

oh yeah, and another beef I have is that I can't think of a single church that follows any of the old testament laws that were NOT contradicted or "overturned" by jesus or his followers.

 

[jeffy777]

There is actually a lot of debate about the translation of certain key passages. For example one word may mean one thing in one language, but when literally translated does not carry the same meaning, albeit similar, but not the same. it's these subtle differences that give rise to inaccuracy and misconceptions, for example, the premarital sex issue. many churches have redacted thier policy of premarital sex is a sin because of this.

Yeah, the problem is with the churches, not really the Bible itself. The ancient manuscripts themselves are reliable. Sadly, many of the misconceptions and contradictions stem from the dark ages and the oppression of the Catholic church in their quest for dominance. Since that time and still today, many Christian Greek scholars are counter-acting the contradictions and bringing to light the real meaning of the passages. And I don't think any books were left out, but the Catholics tried to put some books in during the dark ages that didn't belong. The Protestant reformers saw past their schemes. After studying this out and reading from modern Greek scholars, I've found that the New King James Version Bible is very reliable and a good representation of the orginal message.

oh yeah, and another beef I have is that I can't think of a single church that follows any of the old testament laws that were NOT contradicted or "overturned" by jesus or his followers.

Many of the old testament laws in Leviticus for example were civil laws designed for the Israelite people during that specific time period before they had a king (such as stonings, etc). They were not meant to be applied to all people for all time. Other laws were part of the sacrificial system that symbolized the ministry of Christ and was this entire system was fulfilled at his coming. But yes, there still are laws that are applicable today, such as the health laws dealing with clean meat, etc. (science verifies the importance of these laws that God gave thousands of years ago) and I and many Christians still follow these, though unfortunately the majority of churches do not. So I share in this beef with you

 

[zenkidori]

Well it's nice to know that we're mostly on the same page, even though I don't consider myself a christian any longer.

 

[jeffy777]

Well it's nice to know that we're mostly on the same page, even though I don't consider myself a christian any longer.

I really appreciate what you have to say, man. I myself am not what you would think of as an "average" or mainline Christian, but I think that's ok

 

[Blind_Io]

Yeah, the problem is with the churches, not really the Bible itself. The ancient manuscripts themselves are reliable. Sadly, many of the misconceptions and contradictions stem from the dark ages and the oppression of the Catholic church in their quest for dominance. Since that time and still today, many Christian Greek scholars are counter-acting the contradictions and bringing to light the real meaning of the passages. And I don't think any books were left out, but the Catholics tried to put some books in during the dark ages that didn't belong. The Protestant reformers saw past their schemes. After studying this out and reading from modern Greek scholars, I've found that the New King James Version Bible is very reliable and a good representation of the orginal message.

Wait for it.....

Wait for it.....

SHENANIGANS!

First of all, the King James Bible is a copy of a copy of a copy of a story told to some guy's girlfriend's sister's roommate who knows the dude who saw it. It has been translated and changed so many times there's probably nothing left of the original tale.

Secondly, the Bible had plenty of stuff taken out, here are links to the topics of discussion at the various councils that were held to polish the image of Christianity among other things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ephesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Constantinople
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Council_of_Constantinople
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Nicaea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinisext_Council
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Nicaea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Council_of_Constantinople
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_the_Lateran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_the_Lateran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Council_of_the_Lateran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Council_of_the_Lateran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Lyon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Lyon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Vienne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Constance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Basel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Council_of_the_Lateran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent


Wow, that's a whole crap load of changes for a church that had the Ultimate Truth and Word of God from the very beginning. Makes me wonder why they needed so many revisions if they were correct all along.

Oh, there are more, but they are mostly boring bureaucracy stuff and I got bored.

One last thing, how would you know if the King James bible is true to the original manuscripts that made up the first biblical writings? If you have them in your basement or something I'm sure some people would be interested in seeing them. Without the originals you can't say that the King James is any more true than any other version of the bible. You are asserting an impossible position

 

[jeffy777]

Blind, I really don't know why I'm replying to you when you're attitude illustrates that you really don't care to know the truth on this, but I feel compelled to do it due to the misconceptions of your post

Notice that all of those councils were by the Roman CATHOLIC church beginning with Constantine. They've done plenty to botch up THEIR version of the Bible (sure, they claim to be infallible, but they certainly and positively are not).

However, the King Jame version is a work of PROTESTANTS (there's a HUGE difference), independent of the blemishes that the Catholic church has applied in their councils. And since then versions such as the RSV have been translated from manuscripts that pre-dated all of those councils. Today, thousands of ancient manuscripts (some dating back to the 2nd centuries - pre-dating the councils you posted - exist that attest to the validity of the modern protestant Bibles. So you are wrong about the "copy of a copy of a story told to some guy's girlfriend's sister's roommate". The existence of the early manuscripts show the present day protestant Bibles to be solid in their validity and harmony with the original message. And it's pointless to dispute that the Old Testament (which makes up the majority of the Bible) has been changed since there are thousands of existing Old Testament manuscripts still existing today found throughout the Middle East, Mediterranean and European regions that agree phenomenally with each other (including the Dead Sea Scrolls). In addition, these texts substantially agree with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek some time during the 3rd century BC.

Here's some more very interesting info:

"The manuscript evidence for the "New Testament" is also dramatic, with nearly 25,000 ancient manuscripts discovered and archived so far, at least 5,600 of which are copies and fragments in the original Greek. Some manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries, with the time between the original autographs and our earliest existing fragment being a remarkably short 40-60 years.

Interestingly, this manuscript evidence far surpasses the manuscript reliability of other ancient writings that we trust as authentic every day. Look at these comparisons: Julius Caesar's The Gallic Wars (10 manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph); Pliny the Younger's Natural History (7 manuscripts; 750 years elapsed); Thucydides' History (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed); Herodotus' History (8 manuscripts; 1,350 years elapsed); Plato (7 manuscripts; 1,300 years); and Tacitus' Annals (20 manuscripts; 1,000 years).

Renowned Bible scholar F.F. Bruce declares:

There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.

Homer's Iliad, the most renowned book of ancient Greece, is the second best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, with 643 copies of manuscript support discovered to date. In those copies, there are 764 disputed lines of text, as compared to 40 lines in all the New Testament manuscripts. In fact, many people are unaware that there are no surviving manuscripts of any of William Shakespeare's 37 plays (written in the 1600's), and scholars have been forced to fill some gaps in his works. 9 This pales in textual comparison with the over 5,600 copies and fragments of the New Testament in the original Greek that, together, assure us that nothing's been lost. In fact, all of the New Testament except eleven minor verses can be reconstructed outside the Bible from the writings of the early church leaders in the second and third centuries AD."

When the Bible manuscripts are compared to other ancient writings, they stand alone as the best-preserved literary works of all antiquity.

One last thing, how would you know if the King James bible is true to the original manuscripts that made up the first biblical writings? If you have them in your basement or something I'm sure some people would be interested in seeing them. Without the originals you can't say that the King James is any more true than any other version of the bible. You are asserting an impossible position

If you read my post above, I said that I've read and talked to Greek scholars that have studied these ancient manuscripts and they are positive that the Bible we have today is a reliable translation.

So next are you going to through a buch of supposed Biblical contradictions at me? Don't even bother as I am not one of those who believe that every single syllable and detail was directly inspired, but that the overall message of the passages is what is inspired by God. So basically just take it or leave it. If you don't believe it, there's no need to attack it If you do, you're being just as anal and close-minded as the most zealous of conservative Christians can be as well.

 

[py2e]

So next are you going to through a buch of supposed Biblical contradictions at me? Don't even bother as I am not one of those who believe that every single syllable and detail was directly inspired, but that the overall message of the passages is what is inspired by God. So basically just take it or leave it. If you don't believe it, there's no need to attack it If you do, you're being just as anal and close-minded as the most zealous of conservative Christians can be as well.

Thank you jeffy! For summing up how I feel about these posts!

 

[jayjaya29]

Yeah, it is sacred (that's where the word comes from), but I don't understand why some non-Christian people feel obligated to mess with a Christian's beliefs anyway. If you don't believe in it, that's fine, but you don't have to go out of your way argue against it, make fun of it, or whatever. Just take it or leave it. The Christian people that I know (for example) are fantastic people that don't want to impose their views, but they'll share if someone is interested (Yeah, there are also those Christians who are annoyingly zealous, and they need to mellow out).

I don't really see why some people like to argue about religion just for the sake of arguing and belittling when they think they know all the right answers and they just want to tear the other person down. It's a lame practice that accomplished nothing. (There are atheists who are just as conversion-minded and intolerant as the over-zealous Christians)

I admit that I am somewhat bothered (for lack of a better word) when people make fun of my Christian beliefs because they are dear to me, but I recognize that it's their freedom to do so and I continue living my life knowing that my faith has been strengthened enough to withstand whatever. If you've been through what I have, you would know why. To me, there's no doubt that God is real. I would be a fool to say otherwise with my personal experience in mind. (And no, Christianity wasn't ingrained into me as a child or anything. I was basically an atheist till I was about 18 when my life took a crazy spiral that eventually led me to God. If you knew me then and now, you would acknowledge that I am a much, much better person because of it.) I know I expose myself to slander by sharing stuff like this to people who don't understand where I'm coming from, but I trust that I'm among friends who hopefully respect my beliefs as I mutually respect their's, differ though they may

Fair point, and I don't want to make you a non-believer I am merely suggesting that you take a gander if you wish. What irks me is the mindset today in society that if you are atheist or something, you cannot be trusted. They had a poll on who you would trust the least in America and most people said they would trust Atheists the least. Now to me that is absolute BS, what is the background for these people to feel like that?

Another thing that irks me about religion, is the superbelievers (thats what I'll call them). I would not consider you one at all Jeffy since you are being open to this argument, but the people in this world that believe and act upon which religion means everything to them. I guess you could categorize evangelicals to be somewhat like them (although I may be wrong about that). But if you come across a superbeliever and try and have an open discussion with them about religion, all you get is ignorance, and that I think it truly not right. A good example is the creationism/evolution debate, the people who argue either side are so ignorant and not open.

I think that if you do want to believe in a religion, it should be used so that you have something to give you determination in life, someplace/something to talk to or believe in when times are tough, and generally to have something to believe in that is "bigger" than you are. However I disagree when people say that they are only good people, or are in good character at all times because of religion. I think that is wrong, you should be who you are because of your thinkings and morals, not because of what your priest said at the last mass.

 

[jeffy777]

What irks me is the mindset today in society that if you are atheist or something, you cannot be trusted. They had a poll on who you would trust the least in America and most people said they would trust Atheists the least. Now to me that is absolute BS, what is the background for these people to feel like that?

As was mentioned in the thread on that study: the "study" itself seems to be the BS since it was only based on the opinions of 2,000 people, and they were probably a select group (elderly folks perhaps) who would produce the answers that were sought after. Seems quite rigged. I think it's a mistake to emphasize that "study".

I think that if you do want to believe in a religion, it should be used so that you have something to give you determination in life, someplace/something to talk to or believe in when times are tough, and generally to have something to believe in that is "bigger" than you are. However I disagree when people say that they are only good people, or are in good character at all times because of religion. I think that is wrong, you should be who you are because of your thinkings and morals, not because of what your priest said at the last mass.

I pretty much agree I consider myself quite open minded on these matters since I was basically raised an atheist and remained so for the majority of my life. I do believe that God can influence our thinking and morals for good, but even most people who claim to be Christian don't really do much more than claim the name, while others abuse it and use Christianity for a cloak of corruption (see Dark Age history).

 

[jayjaya29]

As was mentioned in the thread on that study: the "study" itself seems to be the BS since it was only based on the opinions of 2,000 people, and they were probably a select group (elderly folks perhaps) who would produce the answers that were sought after. Seems quite rigged. I think it's a mistake to emphasize that "study".

Ah I was not as familiar with this study and I'm glad to hear something like that.

I could talk for days about religion/non religion, it is such a debatable argument if you argue with the right people like you Jeffy. 8)

I use argue in the sense of open discussion, something I picked up from my critical thinking class.

 

[Blind_Io]

Blind, I really don't know why I'm replying to you when you're attitude illustrates that you really don't care to know the truth on this, but I feel compelled to do it due to the misconceptions of your post

Notice that all of those councils were by the Roman CATHOLIC church beginning with Constantine. They've done plenty to botch up THEIR version of the Bible (sure, they claim to be infallible, but they certainly and positively are not).

However, the King Jame version is a work of PROTESTANTS (there's a HUGE difference), independent of the blemishes that the Catholic church has applied in their councils. And since then versions such as the RSV have been translated from manuscripts that pre-dated all of those councils. Today, thousands of ancient manuscripts (some dating back to the 2nd centuries - pre-dating the councils you posted - exist that attest to the validity of the modern protestant Bibles. So you are wrong about the "copy of a copy of a story told to some guy's girlfriend's sister's roommate". The existence of the early manuscripts show the present day protestant Bibles to be solid in their validity and harmony with the original message. And it's pointless to dispute that the Old Testament (which makes up the majority of the Bible) has been changed since there are thousands of existing Old Testament manuscripts still existing today found throughout the Middle East, Mediterranean and European regions that agree phenomenally with each other (including the Dead Sea Scrolls). In addition, these texts substantially agree with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek some time during the 3rd century BC.

Here's some more very interesting info:



When the Bible manuscripts are compared to other ancient writings, they stand alone as the best-preserved literary works of all antiquity.



If you read my post above, I said that I've read and talked to Greek scholars that have studied these ancient manuscripts and they are positive that the Bible we have today is a reliable translation.

So next are you going to through a buch of supposed Biblical contradictions at me? Don't even bother as I am not one of those who believe that every single syllable and detail was directly inspired, but that the overall message of the passages is what is inspired by God. So basically just take it or leave it. If you don't believe it, there's no need to attack it If you do, you're being just as anal and close-minded as the most zealous of conservative Christians can be as well.

A well reasoned and supported argument, I stand corrected.

However, there were generations of oral storytelling before the first bible manuscripts were written, if I recall my history correctly. That is when deviations from the original story would occur.

As for attacking organized religion: If it were as simple as "you believe what you want, I'll believe what I want and we'll get along fine" I would, but that's not the way it works. Sure there are individuals within the religion who think this way, and I sincerely appreciate that, but religion as a whole is exclusive and self righteous by nature. Churches get involved in things that don't concern them, such as the private lives of citizens they see as immoral, or politics. Some churches encourage violence and teach that anyone who isn't a part of the "true" church is a heathen and therefore less of a human. If everyone stayed in their own head and didn't bother anyone else I would LOVE it! But that's not the way it works. I don't want to be pestered by missionaries, or well-intentioned church goers that are trying to "save" me for my own good. I don't want those people to go out and march or protest the lifestyles of people they have never met and know nothing about, simply because their 2,000 year old book says to.

If religion really were about acceptance, love and charity I would be all for it, but it's not, that's only half the story. The other half is about what bad things it's ok to do to your fellow man and when you can get away with it. If people kept that to themselves then there would not be a problem, you can think whatever you like, it's the actions taken that I can't stand.
That's why I have a problem with organized religion, it has a problem with me. You know how I know that? Followers of various churches have been kind and loving enough to inform me of all the reasons I am going to hell. After about 5 years of that shit you start to develop a bad taste in your mouth about religion and not even gargling with Toilet Duck gets it out. I've tried.


That being said, I value our discussions, you have educated me about several aspects of the bible and theology I didn't know about before, and I value knowledge. Contrary to what you may think, I do respect you and I appreciate every post you make that criticizes or points out flaws in my arguments. I think it's through debates like this that we can begin to understand one another better. We may never entirely agree, but by remaining open to criticism we can see where our own reasoning is unsound and can examine why we believe what we do.