Religion

[tonea2003]

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.

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.

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

 

[Marklr]

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.

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.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

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.

 

[Octavian]

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.

You don’t care about Scholars views, even atheist ones and you think the NT is all bollocks as well?

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]

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.

Yeah...that's why i said we were on two different pages. I'm not particularly interested in Jebus or the NT.

 

[Octavian]

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.

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.

 

[Octavian]

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

I agree that within Christianity you’re supposed to be fearful of god and god’s wrath.

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]

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]

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.

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.
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.

 

[Octavian]

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.