I was thinking...

[*DAMN Bondo]

GS, if you believe in everything the Bible says...how do you manage to believe mutually exclusive things when the Bible contradicts itself?

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

[spike]

The bible contradicts itself in the first few chapters of the book of genesis. The bible is a collection of stories, the details may differ, but the over all feeling remains the same.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

GS, if you believe in everything the Bible says...how do you manage to believe mutually exclusive things when the Bible contradicts itself?
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

The Bible does not contradict itself.  It says the same thing a different way in different parts, and it sometimes tells the same story through the eyes of different people, but it does not contradict itself.  If it did, if it really contradicted itself, then all religions based on the Bible would have fallen apart 2,000 years ago.  2,000 years of standing Christianity based on the Bible is proof of its perfection.  And that is far more convincing to me than some deviant trying to make people disbelieve.[/size]

[Acri]

Then there a lot of religions that are even more perfect, GS. I don't know why you christians who are supposed to be so understanding and whatnot always are the most aggressive and narrow-sighted. Yes, you. Not the muslims. You.

I repeat: The christians - YOU

Compare the number of deaths to innocent people (includes rapes and plunders if you wish) in the name of God with the one's in the name of any other religion.

Christian people simply know best all the darn time and they are so nonchalant. It's a pity such a good religion attracts so much SCUM (not you, gs).

I am a confirmated catholic (converted, at that) so I know my christianity well enough to say that most americans has got it all wrong. Yes, ALL wrong. The Bible has a lot more to tell you if read it allegorically.

Christians are murderers.
Muslims are murderers.

How is Jihad any fucking different from Bush saying God is on America's side?

One large pfffft @ american christianity and the lack-wits that pursue it (this MIGHT include you, gs)

["Sixhits"]

The Bible does not contradict itself. [/size]

Whatever.

[BTs_Lee.Harvey]

Actulay the bible does contradict its slef alot.. Well the King James Transation does.. due to the fact of you loose the trues meaning of the words in the original lang when you translate them to other lang.. and b/c of the fact the the KJV is in old english.. with some words used back them have a diff meaning then they do now.. In the KJV of the bibble.. It says to fear god.. but in old english.. fear was an evporesion meaning love.. so its realy saying to Love god.. but yes there are alot of places where the modern bible contractics itslef and where the modern church does also.

[BFG]

Christians are murderers.
Muslims are murderers.

Ok i think thats taking it a touch far... firstly those terrorists who claime to be acting for/in the name of etc their religeon are talking bullshit - they are in no means true muslims and the Koran does in no way support or allow what they are doing.

As for the christians...well i know lots of guys that ar christian and not murderers

Then again if your talking fanatical fundamentalist christians...


You want a good religon? Somthing that is really increadably possitive, caring and just makes me feel good knowing their are people like that... Buddism. Without a doubt. Forget the rest.

[Guess Again]

    You will please note that I said that the Founding Fathers were not Christian. That is a true statement. The majority of them were Deists. Deists believe in the God of the Bible, but disbelieve in the Church.

What's your source?  I've read often that over half of the Founding Fathers were ordained ministers.  I've only heard of 2 that proclaimed themselves Deists.  3 if you count Paine as a Founding Father.  The Bible was written by men, and has been rewritten and edited by men over the centuries.  For the devout, it doesn't matter.  Finding small imperfections doesn't change the actual meaning, the message found in the pages.  

A real irony is that moslems are supposed to read the Bible, and are taught that Jesus was a prophet of god.  The two beliefs are very close together, but both sides forget the tolerance that is preached and think the other side is doomed to hell.  

Faith is good.  Faith is more than good.  Faith should never ridiculed.  Anyone that makes fun of christians or moslems or jews or anyone else because of their faith is just as wrong and screwed up as the worst example of the religious zealot.  If you put your beliefs or lack thereof before another persons, you are joining in the worst practice of most organized churches.  Nobody really knows the truth, at least nobody talking, so live and let live.  Funny how so many people so learned can't accept that.  Everyone should just get over themselves, let go of the ego, and accept people for their own beliefs.  No, respect them for having made a choice, no matter what the choice is.  

The only thing wrong with the bible thumping christians that want to stop gay marriages and such is the exact same thing that is wrong with the atheist not wanting "god" in the pledge, and the exact same thing that's wrong with terrorists blowing up markets.  Everyone needs to stop trying to force their own ideals upon everyone else.  We'll all find out the truth when it's our time.  Till then, EVERYONE IS RIGHT.  Deal with it and show some tolerance.

[BFG]

A real irony is that moslems are supposed to read the Bible, and are taught that Jesus was a prophet of god.? The two beliefs are very close together, but both sides forget the tolerance that is preached and think the other side is doomed to hell.?

Muslims Muslims But youve got a point - people often forget how close the two religions tie in with each other.

[*DAMN Bondo]

BFG, Moslem is an acceptable alternate spelling.

I think a lot of the founding fathers were Unitarian. Not exactly Christian.

[BFG]

oh shit sorry... just sounded really funny (god im easily amused) !

ps. have a read of this if you can face it... http://members.aol.com/TestOath/deism.htm

[jn.loudnotes]

I'm inclined to agree with your post as a whole, but there are a few lines worth critiquing, since you've adopted a rather sweeping and omniscient style in your anonymity.

For the devout, it doesn't matter.  Finding small imperfections doesn't change the actual meaning, the message found in the pages.

Fundamentalists, however, often base their "interpretation" of the meaning in the pages off of a very literal reading of the text.  Rather than searching for deeper meanings, ones which might very possibly hinge on the translational veracity, they accept the Word in hand as absolute and not open to discussion.  How they apply that to life may vary, but, for a specific example in this thread - where a fundamentalist sees the post-apolcalyptic 1000-year reign of Christ as a literal 1000 revolutions of Earth around sun, many other Christians view the passage as a message of hope that a long peace will follow the greatest periods of strife.  If the translation did not actually read "1000 years," their understanding would in fact be changed.

Faith is good.  Faith is more than good.  Faith should never ridiculed.  Anyone that makes fun of christians or moslems or jews or anyone else because of their faith is just as wrong and screwed up as the worst example of the religious zealot.

Faith can be good.  It can be a powerful comforting and motivating force, it can sustain and enrich life in many ways.  However, blind faith can also be very dangerous.  When faith blindly contradicts epistemological truth, it is worthy of ridicule.  For while no one can prove or disprove religious faith in the existence of God, there is plenty of evidence - within the constraints of our sense perception - that, for example, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  Continuing to have faith that there are weapons, especially without solid evidence, is irrational and perfectly worthy of ridicule.  Overall, faith in religion is fine, but faith that directly counters established truth is unacceptable.

To counter my own argument, I would also contend that their are times when even religious faith is excessive, such as when someone professes a "religious" belief counter to accepted religious standards.  Perverted militant strands of both Islam and Christianity (and probably Judaism, though I can't name an example) evidence this.  Violence and intolerance, as fundamentally un-Christian, un-Islamic, a-religious principles, are worthy of ridicule no matter what "religious" legitimacy someone attempts to ascribe them.

The only thing wrong with the bible thumping christians that want to stop gay marriages and such is the exact same thing that is wrong with the atheist not wanting "god" in the pledge, and the exact same thing that's wrong with terrorists blowing up markets.  Everyone needs to stop trying to force their own ideals upon everyone else.  We'll all find out the truth when it's our time.  Till then, EVERYONE IS RIGHT.  Deal with it and show some tolerance.

Much as I said above, although I take issue with your pledge reference.  God in the pledge is a specific religious reference that distinctly infringes on an atheist, whereas the lack of God in the pledge does not in any way reduce its significance (after all, one is still pledging loyalty to a nation, not a religion) to religious people.  Your example should be the other way around - religious zealots (also anti-communist 1950s fear-mongers) should not force their views of our nation as being "under God" on those who do not believe that to be the case.

Finally, while everyone may be right in their own minds, when two beliefs contradict each other directly, there is sometimes the possibility that one is right and the other wrong.  When and if that may be proven, the incorrect faith can be fairly considered illegitimate.

[Don't look for conflict]

Fundamentalists, however, often base their "interpretation" of the meaning in the pages off of a very literal reading of the text.  

Only if they read it in the original language, so as to not be subject to transcription errors.  Men translated the bible many times.  There are plenty of transcription errors in other documents from that period, why not the bible?  

Faith can be good.  It can be a powerful comforting and motivating force, it can sustain and enrich life in many ways.  However, blind faith can also be very dangerous.  When faith blindly contradicts epistemological truth, it is worthy of ridicule.  For while no one can prove or disprove religious faith in the existence of God, there is plenty of evidence - within the constraints of our sense perception - that, for example, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  Continuing to have faith that there are weapons, especially without solid evidence, is irrational and perfectly worthy of ridicule.  Overall, faith in religion is fine, but faith that directly counters established truth is unacceptable.

Since we are talking religion, your Iraq comments are totally out of place and ignorant.  It's called context, look it up.

I also said "faith".  Not "blind faith".  Maybe you should look for clarification, not conflict.

To counter my own argument, I would also contend that their are times when even religious faith is excessive, such as when someone professes a "religious" belief counter to accepted religious standards.  Perverted militant strands of both Islam and Christianity (and probably Judaism, though I can't name an example) evidence this.  Violence and intolerance, as fundamentally un-Christian, un-Islamic, a-religious principles, are worthy of ridicule no matter what "religious" legitimacy someone attempts to ascribe them.

I would ask what someone trying to attach legitimacy of religion to their actions has to do with actual faith, since I see no connection.

Faith is a belief in something that cannot be proven correct or incorrect.  Believing it for many reasons.  Violence based upon religious fervor or the pretense of such is a sham, not faith.

God in the pledge is a specific religious reference that distinctly infringes on an atheist, whereas the lack of God in the pledge does not in any way reduce its significance (after all, one is still pledging loyalty to a nation, not a religion) to religious people.  

I don't believe the word "God" can infringe upon an atheist, since to them it means nothing.  And trying to make the united states atheist is pushing a belief.  The united states was built by christians upon christian morality, if you don't believe me do more research.  But it was also built with tolerance for all beliefs or lack thereof.  It is ironic because it seems atheists push their beliefs more than any other group, and try to use the separation of church and state to mean devoid of god instead of not ruled by the church.  

My example is that of an atheist trying to remove the word "god" from our culture and it's trappings.  God is a big part of the american culture, like it or not.

When and if that may be proven, the incorrect faith can be fairly considered illegitimate.

In the context of my discussion, this is stupid, since it can never be proven.  That's the whole point.

[*DAMN Bondo]

I don't believe the word "God" can infringe upon an atheist, since to them it means nothing.  And trying to make the united states atheist is pushing a belief.  The united states was built by christians upon christian morality, if you don't believe me do more research.  But it was also built with tolerance for all beliefs or lack thereof.  It is ironic because it seems atheists push their beliefs more than any other group, and try to use the separation of church and state to mean devoid of god instead of not ruled by the church.  

The word God does not mean "nothing" to an athiest just because they don't believe in it.

Having "one nation under god" is distinctly religious

Not having "one nation under god" is distinctly secular, not distinctly athiest.

If it said "one nation without a god" then it would be atheists pushing beliefs. As it stands, it is very much an endorsement of Judeo-Christian faith and saying that it is directly tied to our government (if we are under god as a nation, god controls us, but that is unConstitutional, god is not to control our country.)

[jn.loudnotes]

I don't see why you won't indentify yourself.  Don't you be an ass-pirate either

Since you posted in a thread about Ghostsniper's faith-based assumptions, I read your post in the context of the thread.  Since you apparently didn't read the thread through and were only posting regarding "faith" as a religious device, our entire argument is moot.

As I said in my first line, I do agree with your overriding point.  I took issue with fragments of it because in more general terms, your statements about faith are dangerous.  On religious grounds we already agree in the importance of tolerance.

If you're going to make blanket assertions anonymously, expect criticism.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

I don't see why you won't indentify yourself.

Which brings up something I've been meaning to ask on this forum, which is a little off-topic here, but here it goes:

Why do we allow people to post with accounts that are not registered?  Is there some way to turn that feature off so that only registered forum members are allowed to post?

[jn.loudnotes]

Yes it can be turned off, but Mauti chose to allow it.  Mostly it's because people will from time to time want to post when they are away from their home computers, and they don't remember their account passwords or don't wish to log in on a public computer.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Yes it can be turned off, but Mauti chose to allow it.  Mostly it's because people will from time to time want to post when they are away from their home computers, and they don't remember their account passwords or don't wish to log in on a public computer.

I see.  I log into other computers away from home all the time....at work, at friends' houses, at the library, etc....but then again I have a good enough memory to remember my password.

[jn.loudnotes]

Good for you.

["Sixhits"]

I don't mind anonimous speach.  If someone doesn't care to post their name then just analyize what they say accordingly -- they were unwilling to credit themselves with their comment.

Which can say a lot about their credablity, or not. :-)

(of course, it makes it much easier to discredit anonimous speakers cause, well, what I said above.  But it doesn't make them inherently un-credable.)



I found Don't Go Looking For Conflict's comments quite meaningful. Tho I do disagree with the thesis of his name.