I’m an agnostic, I’m in a minority tho for sure
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Religion
- Thread starter idahoblues
- Start date
Yes, sure. And I find his tone very different in those threads. Enjoyable, even :)You’d like his music threads then.
Lots of opinions and debate about the good and the bad, but everyone accepting that it’s all subjective.
not once have i said they are thick, now who's twisting wordsAre you purposely twisting what I’m writing?
genuine question because “my dad is bigger than your dad” is very far from what point I was trying to make.
The point I was trying to make is calling billions of people thick and scared because of their religious beliefs is absurd. You’ve no idea what lead them to that belief or what they’re experience has been. I was giving an example of the sample size of people being stereotyped
The majority will just be religious because they’ve grown up in a country where everyone is and they’re taught it from a young age. but others go to it not through being stupid or scared but other reasons.
The only rule to getting into heaven in the New Testament is faith in Jesus, as a faith there is no real code. The “law”, as Paul put it, is there as an example of how to live but it’s not a determining factor on salvation.
i do, indoctrination as children by parents,schools and church
there is a genuine fear with a lot of people of faith undoubtedly there is, that was my point
and below is a snapshot the type of things i mean
none of this is faith in jesus
Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
a bit of the fear factor from mark
And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell.
god loves us all equally, well not quite all
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
maybe this is faith in jesus, sounds like a threat to me though
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
and how dare you graft your bollocks off and earn a few coin
And he said, “All these I have kept from my youth.” When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” But when he heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. Jesus, seeing that he had become sad, said, “How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.
Last edited:
Now I know you’re not doing it on purpose, you’re forgetting who started the conversation and who I replied to.not once have i said they are thick, now who's twisting words
there is a genuine fear with a lot of people of faith undoubtedly there is, that was my point
none of this is faith in jesus
Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
a bit of the fear factor from mark
(1) And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell.
god loves us all equally, well not quite all
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. (2) But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
maybe this is faith in jesus, sounds like a threat to me though
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
and how dare you graft your bollocks off and earn a few coin
And he said, “All these I have kept from my youth.” When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” But when he heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. Jesus, seeing that he had become sad, said, “How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God. (3)…
That Bluehammer chap called them thick and that is who I was responding to, you questioned my reply but I was still referencing him calling them thick.
I’ve added numbers to your reply so I can respond:
(1) This is a parable, metaphors and parables were very common in Jewish religious teaching and Jesus specifically used them to make his points - or so the gospels claim. An example of this would be if you’re going to the pub every night, getting drunk and this is causing you to sin, then stop going, cut that out of your life. If you have a friend that’s leading you astray, cut them out and do the right thing.
(2) what do you think the last bit of that passage means? This is Paul by the way in his letters. Off the top of my head I think it’s Corinthians.
(3) This goes on to say “but through God anything is possible
2 and 3 are condemning people for their sins but then go on to say that through the blood of Christ Jesus you have been sanctified and have received salvation.
Elizabeth and Aaron.
It gets it mixed up with John the Baptists mother and a relative of Moses who lived over 1000 years before, confusing the two figures.
There is only a passing reference to Elizabeth(ra) in the Qur'an. I think you are probably referring to the "O sister of Aaron(as)" epithet used for Mary(ra), mother of Jesus(as). This was questioned by the Christians at the time itself, and it was relayed back to the Prophet who explained that it was only a way of addressing her.
Mughira b. Shu'ba reported: When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read" O sister of Harun" (i. e. Hadrat Maryam) in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus. When I came back to Messenger of Allah ﷺ I asked him about that, whereupon he said: The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them.
(Sahih Muslim 2135)
parable or no parable its a threatNow I know you’re not doing it on purpose, you’re forgetting who started the conversation and who I replied to.
That Bluehammer chap called them thick and that is who I was responding to, you questioned my reply but I was still referencing him calling them thick.
I’ve added numbers to your reply so I can respond:
(1) This is a parable, metaphors and parables were very common in Jewish religious teaching and Jesus specifically used them to make his points - or so the gospels claim. An example of this would be if you’re going to the pub every night, getting drunk and this is causing you to sin, then stop going, cut that out of your life. If you have a friend that’s leading you astray, cut them out and do the right thing.
don't do the above of course, yes its paul but the new testament never the less(2) what do you think the last bit of that passage means? This is Paul by the way in his letters. Off the top of my head I think it’s Corinthians.
3 is condemning someone who is rich that is not a sin(3) This goes on to say “but through God anything is possible
2 and 3 are condemning people for their sins but then go on to say that through the blood of Christ Jesus you have been sanctified and have received salvation.
Fiftyyearsandcounting
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 2,358
There once was a man from East CheamDo you ever read poetry? Just that poems are one way that universal themes can be expressed in many different ways. Might even find that the point of them can be to lure you into that which is beyond right or wrong, and in that way come to see life in a different light.
Who invented a churning machine
But on the 10th stroke
The bloody thing broke
And battered his bollocks to cream
Of course it’s a threat. According to New Testament doctrine you’re at risk of eternal punishment if you sin and don’t repent. The gospel of Mark tho is talking about it from a perspective of the Kingdom of heaven coming to Earth and repent before this happens.parable or no parable its a threat
don't do the above of course, yes its paul but the new testament never the less
3 is condemning someone who is rich that is not a sin
Not sure what the middle sentence means, I wasn’t saying it was Paul as a negative as Paul’s theology is in line with the New Testament. Which says to me he had scripture earlier than 50AD but that’s a different point.
Greed is specifically mentioned as a sin several times, even attributed to Jesus himself.
The point is, accepting Jesus and repenting means you’re saved even if you do sin. There isn’t a code for salvation, more a guide to how you’re supposed to live as Paul outlines.
Brightwell’s left peg
Well-Known Member
Well said mate…very well said.I never say fuck reigion. I lament the negative outcome of adhering to its numerous incantations. I lament the rejection of rationality, that is parked when people believe in a book so littered by horror and fantasy, not to mention, clear mistakes about how the universe began. There are still so many things we do not undersrand about this and indeed, may never solve, but to put god in that gap isn't intelligent. It denudes intelligence. I can and do get all misty eyed at the majesty of the universe, of the abundance and beauty of life. At the good side of people and humanity. Our compassion and solidarity. The difference is I don't give the credit to any man made god.
I remember the day when my second son was in hospital for a hernia fixing op as a baby. When he was ready to come home, we went to get him and he had been put onto a ward that had little kids with cancer. I saw them and the anguish etched on the faces of their parents. I vowed that even if someone conclusively proved god existed, I would never worship such an absolute **** who would visit such agony on innocent children and their parents.
And if youre reading this Jesus, you are a ****.
Yes that’s right but Elizabeth is Mary’s cousin in the New Testament and it gets the whole relationship mixed up and who Aaron is. I must admit I don’t have the experience of studying the Quran, I have just read bits of it and what I’m doing here is taking other people’s word for it.There is only a passing reference to Elizabeth(ra) in the Qur'an. I think you are probably referring to the "O sister of Aaron(as)" epithet used for Mary(ra), mother of Jesus(as). This was questioned by the Christians at the time itself, and it was relayed back to the Prophet who explained that it was only a way of addressing her.
Mughira b. Shu'ba reported: When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read" O sister of Harun" (i. e. Hadrat Maryam) in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus. When I came back to Messenger of Allah ﷺ I asked him about that, whereupon he said: The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them.
(Sahih Muslim 2135)
Why would they call Mary the sister of a prophet from 1000 years earlier and do others get similar treatment?
Also there’s a mistake with Imran and it’s tried to be corrected to Jesus’s grandfather, Mary’s father but in the Bible it’s Joachim.
hence my point of people being scared to sin as the kingdom of heaven is out of reachOf course it’s a threat. According to New Testament doctrine you’re at risk of eternal punishment if you sin and don’t repent. The gospel of Mark tho is talking about it from a perspective of the Kingdom of heaven coming to Earth and repent before this happens.
Not sure what the middle sentence means, I wasn’t saying it was Paul as a negative as Paul’s theology is in line with the New Testament. Which says to me he had scripture earlier than 50AD but that’s a different point.
Greed is specifically mentioned as a sin several times, even attributed to Jesus himself.
The point is, accepting Jesus and repenting means you’re saved even if you do sin. There isn’t a code for salvation, more a guide to how you’re supposed to live as Paul outlines.
my point in using paul was he didn't know of a jesus, so would no idea what he would of said
being wealthy is not necessarily greedy and that passage doesn't mention greed in any case
Marklr
Well-Known Member
Complete crap. The bible disproves that god without any effort from anyone. You only need to read the first paragraph to know it's complete nonsense. How did this god create the Earth before the sun? The perfect word of god?How can you disprove the God of the Bible if you don’t understand the Bible? The problem I’ve seen consistently with this thread is people thinking they’ve got it all figured out when they’ve blatantly not read it, and if they have read it they’ve not read it enough to understand it. If you’re going to try and disprove Christianity, Islam or Judaism you need to at least know the religious books of these faiths inside out.
Why do you think the Abrahamic Christian God is the easiest to dismiss? I’d actually argue the fact that Jesus very likely existed historically and the fact Muhammad did definitely, it gives those to faiths more credence. How you disprove them is inconsistencies across scripture and getting a sound argument together to pinpoint the inconsistencies.
Roman, Pagan and Greek Gods are the easiest to disprove, as they often claim there’s a god for each natural event that we know isn’t true.
We’re on two different pages alright, you think Matt Dillahunty debating that Jordan Peterson is worth any time whatsoever. The reason these people don’t debate scholars is because they’d get embarrassed.
Non Christian scholars debate each other all the time, the reason is they may disagree on particular claims made in the New Testament.
And it's not about the actual people that are on that call in show but more about the actual subjects... That's why I posted the vids....they were discussing slavery in Leviticus. The subject all Christians try and ignore.
I'm not arsed about some scholar's view on the NT..it'a all bollocks. By you referencing certain scholars..it might make you seem more intelligent...but it's still bollocks. You can't philosophize something into existence. I'm more interested in scholars views of the Loch Ness Monster.
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 17,873
Complete crap. The bible disproves that god without any effort from anyone. You only need to read the first paragraph to know it's complete nonsense. How did this god create the Earth before the sun? The perfect word of god?
And it's not about the actual people that are on that call in show but more about the actual subjects... That's why I posted the vids....they were discussing slavery in Leviticus. The subject all Christians try and ignore.
I'm not arsed about some scholar's view on the NT..it'a all bollocks. By you referencing certain scholars..it might make you seem more intelligent...but it's still bollocks. You can't philosophize something into existence. I'm more interested in scholars views of the Loch Ness Monster.
I think he needs to read the countless other religious texts and learn the languages they were originally written in to disprove all of them.
:)
It has strayed off the topic of religion now anyway. The historicity of Jesus is irrelevant to whether or not there is a creator god, which he has admitted himself.
Needs a new separate thread for the discussion of scholarship imo.
You don’t care about Scholars views, even atheist ones and you think the NT is all bollocks as well?Complete crap. The bible disproves that god without any effort from anyone. You only need to read the first paragraph to know it's complete nonsense. How did this god create the Earth before the sun? The perfect word of god?
And it's not about the actual people that are on that call in show but more about the actual subjects... That's why I posted the vids....they were discussing slavery in Leviticus. The subject all Christians try and ignore.
I'm not arsed about some scholar's view on the NT..it'a all bollocks. By you referencing certain scholars..it might make you seem more intelligent...but it's still bollocks. You can't philosophize something into existence. I'm more interested in scholars views of the Loch Ness Monster.
All this says to me is you’re satisfied with your complete ignorance on the subject. I’d rather know my stuff on it and seem clever than post Matt fucking Dillahunty. My word, it’s embarrassing. If you don’t care to learn it and understand it then what’s the fucking point on claiming you’re right in anyway?
Leviticus isn’t in the Christian part of the Bible and Christians are specifically told not to engage with that part within Paul’s Letters. The point of the Christian part is to fulfil the rest of the Bible and Jesus corrects how previous parts of scripture.
You’re one of those who acts as if the Bible is all one book, with one point of view, that’s all meant to be taken literally. You don’t want to learn.
It’s complete ignorance and arrogance at the same time and you called me arrogant.
Marklr
Well-Known Member
Yeah...that's why i said we were on two different pages. I'm not particularly interested in Jebus or the NT.I think he needs to read the countless other religious texts and learn the languages they were originally written in to disprove all of them.
:)
It has strayed off the topic of religion now anyway. The historicity of Jesus is irrelevant to whether or not there is a creator god, which he has admitted himself.
Needs a new separate thread for the discussion of scholarship imo.
Scholarship and archeology are the two most important factors of learning about religion. It’s like saying science has no business in the Covid thread.I think he needs to read the countless other religious texts and learn the languages they were originally written in to disprove all of them.
:)
It has strayed off the topic of religion now anyway. The historicity of Jesus is irrelevant to whether or not there is a creator god, which he has admitted himself.
Needs a new separate thread for the discussion of scholarship imo.
If you read my comments previously you’ll know why I said Roman, Greek and Pagan gods can be disproven but a monotheist God is impossible to disprove as it’s suppose to be outside space time.
I agree that within Christianity you’re supposed to be fearful of god and god’s wrath.hence my point of people being scared to sin as the kingdom of heaven is out of reach
my point in using paul was he didn't know of a jesus, so would no idea what he would of said
being wealthy is not necessarily greedy and that passage doesn't mention greed in any case
But you can escape that by repenting and accepting Jesus. The whole point of Christianity is Jesus dying for the sins of humanity and taking the place of sinner’s punishment. To escape eternal hell fire you need to accept the free gift - that’s the doctrine.
Paul clearly has access to scripture as his Christian theology matches the gospels, which were written 20+ years after his letters, so there was something lying around that had Jesus quotes on - he referenced it within his letters also.
Jesus was dirt poor as an individual and a lot of his preachings were against the rich, he likely saw the rich as greedy people and therefore a sin.
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 17,873
Scholarship and archeology are the two most important factors of learning about religion. It’s like saying science has no business in the Covid thread.
If you read my comments previously you’ll know why I said Roman, Greek and Pagan gods can be disproven but a monotheist God is impossible to disprove as it’s suppose to be outside space time.
Well yes it's practically impossible to prove a negative. But I notice you have skipped to monotheistic god not just the Christian interpretation of the biblical god.
Why are most of the claims of creation and supernatural in the bible almost certainly false? Because a wicked god lied to his prophets or because people at the time didn't understand science, mental heath issues, natural disasters and diseases and came up with explanations that don't make sense in an enlightened age.
Scholarship and archaeology didn't disprove the existence of the Christian god, Science based logic did.
Or if you want to split hairs, made it i very difficult to believe in a literalist interpretation coherently. You need to cherry pick and that still doesn't make sense without "it is just faith aint it, bruv".
Why is the (Christian) monotheistic god a more reasonable belief than Pakiya the Crocodile?
mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
I think there is a big difference between faith and religion and I personally don’t see historical accuracy of something that a lot of posters don’t see as relevant either way, as addressing the issue of God and creation regardless of how well up you are on the history of religion.Scholarship and archeology are the two most important factors of learning about religion. It’s like saying science has no business in the Covid thread.
If you read my comments previously you’ll know why I said Roman, Greek and Pagan gods can be disproven but a monotheist God is impossible to disprove as it’s suppose to be outside space time.
Thst to me seems like an entirely different debate or argument and a very interesting one in itself.
But in my humble opinion, several people in here seem to be fundamentally of the same opinion regarding creationism but are debating different arguments and thus not agreeing with one another .
Now maybe I’m the one picking that up incorrectly, if so, apologies.
To me all the Quran and the bible prove, is that religion is man made. Regardless of who existed and who didn’t. Anything after that comes down to faith.
Well yes it's practically impossible to prove a negative. But I notice you have skipped to monotheistic god not just the Christian interpretation of the biblical god.
Why are most of the claims of creation and supernatural in the bible almost certainly false? Because a wicked god lied to his prophets or because people at the time didn't understand science, mental heath issues, natural disasters and diseases and came up with explanations that don't make sense in an enlightened age.
Scholarship and archaeology didn't disprove the existence of the Christian god, Science based logic did.
Or if you want to split hairs, made it i very difficult to believe in a literalist interpretation coherently. You need to cherry pick and that still doesn't make sense without "it is just faith aint it, bruv".
Why is the (Christian) monotheistic god a more reasonable belief than Pakiya the Crocodile?
I’ve not skipped anything, I said on the other page that it’s more likely Islam or Christianity are true than others because it’s almost certain their main protagonists existed and we know that gods of celestial events don’t exist as we’ve studied those events, whereas the god of the Bible or Quran sits outside of space time and therefore we cannot prove a negative as you say.
Do I believe either of those religions claims? No I do not and I agree it was a very superstitious time.
You wouldn’t have the chance to disprove anything in the Bible using science without scholars first determining what is biblical canon and what isn’t.
Firstly you have to recognise what you want to try and disprove.