Christianity

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Jerichi

>All you need to do is ask for proof, and you'll get it. The problem is, no one asks, they think it should be handed to them without any effort at all on their part.

I think part of the problem with that is it's not quite that simple. How do you ask for proof? How do you know it's proof when it's presented to you and not just random happenstance?

Personally, I think it all derives from personal perspective and your own interpretation - your view of the world is your reality, and for someone to tell you something different is them imposing a non-reality (for lack of a better term) on you. If you believe something to be true or proof of something else, it is to you until you convince yourself otherwise.

That's why I don't really support or believe in organized religion - spirituality is a personal journey and experience and not something that can be dictated by man, church, book or even a divine being.

I like this post. I completely agree. People do not know how to ask, or even if they can ask, so they do not. Religion is not something that can be dictated by any being, earthly, or divine, so telling someone what they know is false, just won't work.

That is why The Holy Spirit exists. As mentioned at the Baptism of Jesus by John, the Spirit of God descended like a dove. (not "in the form of a dove," but in a similar manner as a dove would; lightly, and gently)
It is through this Spirit that we can know the truth of all things, and all humans are entitled to feel it's presence. It is feeling the Holy Spirit that converts, not logic and reasoning. It's all about recognizing it.

Now, I could go and describe what it feels like, but then you'll probably just say, "that's no different from any other feeling, you're simply calling a common emotion 'divine.'" But it is much more then that. Feeling the Holy Spirit is a feeling of peace, warm, comfort and calm, almost a glow resonating with your whole being. But it's much different from what would commonly be considered calm, warm, and comfortable. It really is something you can only recognize once you have felt it.

That is why our church sends out missionaries. Not to proclaim your religions are false and ours is true, but to invite people to feel the Holy Spirit, teach them how to recognize it, and allow make their own decision about what is true and what is false. I'm sure they would do a much better job explaining this all to you then I could though.

Originally Posted by Shuckle

If a great voice came down from the heavens and yelled, "There is no God," I would probably not be skeptical.

But more to the point, it would take proof. I would like to see someone explain exactly why God can't possibly exist. Free will is a common front, but I'm still waiting for somebody to actually give a satisfactory attack on it. Evolution is old hat.

It is. Welcome to Roman Catholicism, buddy, that believes that all other religions are true except for where they conflict with Christianity. Where they conflict with each other and not Christianity is a different (and far messier) matter that is best discreetly swept up under the carpet. Fortunately, such instances are rare enough that I haven't heard of any.A little piece of wisdom I like to use sometimes whenever I'm feeling particularly depressed by the state of the internets."The Babel fish," said the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy quietly, "is small, yellow and leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Well, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.


Ummm...no. That is overexaggeration, plain and simple. It's also taken far out of context, and it was a totally unprepared-for miracle that required proof. If I told you that I had just turned into a helcopter, flew over the Atlantic Ocean in six and a half seconds, and then flew back and showed up at your house, what would you think? I think you'd think I was off my rocker, and I think I would, too. What Jesus did was so amazing, somebody needed to be shown, or else nobody would believe it. He didn't go off and do miracles off in the woods by himself, you know. Or, if he did, then we didn't hear about them.

tl;drDoubting Thomas is blind faith embodied. Jesus showed him the marks so that he could believe, and then tell everyone about it. In other words, he was told so that he could tell. Capisci?

I completely agree with everything you said.

Our Church does not deny that other religions have some truth to them. After all, legends are based off facts, that have been distorted through the ages. Many religions, even non-christian ones agree on a flood myth, yet science can not prove such a flood ever occured. Even if the Hebrews borrowed much of their "History" from the other civilizations living during their time, is that to say the other religions were wrong? Or had they simply become corrupted versions of the "true religion" God had given to Adam and Eve?

Our church claims only to have the Fullness of the Truth, the complete Truth.
Mind you, we never claimed to have a fullness of Knowledge, and there are probably a vast number of secrets from the Ancients that we will never know again until the Millennium where Christ Reigns.

IMO, and IMO only (my church does not claim this), the Pagan Religions contain the Ancient Knowledge, (Natural Laws of the Universe, and ways to use them), but the Christian Religions contain the Ancient Truths (the Divine Laws of God, and how to become "Gods" ourselves).

Both of which filtered through the sieve of time and manipulation of evil to become not quite as accurate, save ours, which was given directly from God much more recently, and has not yet become corrupted at it's root.

[Shuckle]

Originally Posted by unownmew

and has not yet become corrupted at it's root.

...

Not according to one recently deceased terrorist leader. If you listen to him, pretty much the whole world is corrupted except for the people who wholeheartedly support blowing it up.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Shuckle

...

Not according to one recently deceased terrorist leader. If you listen to him, pretty much the whole world is corrupted except for the people who wholeheartedly support blowing it up.

And the opinion of a terrorist concerns me why?

[Selena]

Originally Posted by unownmew

And the opinion of a terrorist concerns me why?

Because he's taking everything from his holy book litteral?

The Koran isn't nice if you do that, but the Bible isn't innocent either.

[Lonely Cubone]

Don't worry, any Hitchiker's Guide quote forgives necromancy automatically.

[deoxys]

I was going to write a long argument against organized religion and why it's inherently bad for society (to a degree), even though I'm a Christian myself (how hypocritical of me, right?), but then I realized I don't particularly feel like debating this topic.

Carry on then.

[Mozz]

ROUND UP THE JEWS

[DaveTheFishGuy]

Originally Posted by deoxys

I was going to write a long argument against organized religion and why it's inherently bad for society (to a degree), even though I'm a Christian myself (how hypocritical of me, right?), but then I realized I don't particularly feel like debating this topic.

Carry on then.

Essentially my standpoint here too. I'm a Christian but organised religion has a bad influence on the world.

Also, quoting Hitchhiker's Insane Troll Logic doesn't count as an argument, no matter how awesome it is.

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by Shuckle

Welcome to Roman Catholicism, buddy, that believes that all other religions are true except for where they conflict with Christianity.

Originally Posted by unownmew

Our Church does not deny that other religions have some truth to them.

Huh?

Are we talking about the same Roman Catholic Church here, and not, say, Freemasonry? Because while the RCC takes a blind eye to non-standard localized practices among its members (like voodoo/hoodoo in Louisiana) doctrinally everything religious in nature when non-Catholic is anti-Catholic. The RCC would be much more hardcore on hammering out obedience to central dogma if the Church still had a monopoly on Western religion and fingers in politics pies, but it doesn't anymore. The only reason it is permissive of deviant practices is to maintain membership, in an ideal world we'd merge back with the Russian Orthodox Church and all opposing religions extinguished.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by milotic111

Because he's taking everything from his holy book litteral?

The Koran isn't nice if you do that, but the Bible isn't innocent either.

I see. IMO, the teachings of the bible should be internalized figuratively, however knowledge and history out to be taken literaly. (With a grain of salt, since it's undergone so many re-translations that parts of it are completely incorrect, or missing, by accident or design)

Originally Posted by deoxys

I was going to write a long argument against organized religion and why it's inherently bad for society (to a degree), even though I'm a Christian myself (how hypocritical of me, right?), but then I realized I don't particularly feel like debating this topic.

Carry on then.

I'm curious. You don't have to debate it.

I can see where organized religion can be bad for society (when it's corrupted, used to gain power, used to control the population, etc.)
But a true religion, IMO, can not bad, and organized religion, when used correctly, can be a great source of good in the world.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Huh?

Are we talking about the same Roman Catholic Church here, and not, say, Freemasonry? Because while the RCC takes a blind eye to non-standard localized practices among its members (like voodoo/hoodoo in Louisiana) doctrinally everything religious in nature when non-Catholic is anti-Catholic. The RCC would be much more hardcore on hammering out obedience to central dogma if the Church still had a monopoly on Western religion and fingers in politics pies, but it doesn't anymore. The only reason it is permissive of deviant practices is to maintain membership, in an ideal world we'd merge back with the Russian Orthodox Church and all opposing religions extinguished.

I'm not Roman Catholic, so I don't know any of their workings.

[Shuckle]

Originally Posted by DaveTheFishGuy

Also, quoting Hitchhiker's Insane Troll Logic doesn't count as an argument, no matter how awesome it is.

However, it does work wonders when exposing flaws in others' logic, as you can clearly see.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Huh?

Are we talking about the same Roman Catholic Church here, and not, say, Freemasonry? Because while the RCC takes a blind eye to non-standard localized practices among its members (like voodoo/hoodoo in Louisiana) doctrinally everything religious in nature when non-Catholic is anti-Catholic. The RCC would be much more hardcore on hammering out obedience to central dogma if the Church still had a monopoly on Western religion and fingers in politics pies, but it doesn't anymore. The only reason it is permissive of deviant practices is to maintain membership, in an ideal world we'd merge back with the Russian Orthodox Church and all opposing religions extinguished.

...

I don't think we're talking about the same Roman Catholic Church here, either. What I learned from my couple of years at Catholic school (which is limited, true) was that Catholicism was religion in its fullest, truest form. My teacher(s) explained that, if Catholicism dismissed outright all other religions in the world, then it would collapse. Case in point flood myths and other random crap that also happens to please those sciency blokes. Those things are included in the Bible and thus are part of the religion, but other religions have their input, too. So, Roman Catholicism says that the flood happened (truth in other religions), but that God caused it (falsehood in other religions).

In addition, the RCC does, as I understand it, actively support the existence of evolution, explaining that science and religion have the same goal, which is to find the truth. Our only stipulation is that it was God who caused it, and not Random Chance alone.

:P Not actually debating here, just discussing at this point. Nobody's come across with a "God doesn't exist" or "Allah be praised, Jesus is a phoney" yet.

Oh, and I found some evidence from JPII, may he R.I.P. Still working on finding some evidence for the "other religions have little bit true, little bit false" claims, which are mostly due to memory and days spent in church ^^;

[Concept]

Originally Posted by Shuckle

I don't think we're talking about the same Roman Catholic Church here, either. What I learned from my couple of years at Catholic school (which is limited, true) was that Catholicism was religion in its fullest, truest form.

A protestant will tell you the same about protestantism, as will Shi'a and Sunni Muslims about their own respective beliefs and so on. Until any religion has significantly more than "no me!", you'll forgive me for remaining sceptical about any claims made.

Out of interest, can any of the religious here give me a good reason - any good reason - that believing in a religion is a good thing? And by "good reason" I mean one that doesn't go "I have faith the religion is true, thus having faith the religion is true is right because it says so" or Pascals Wager (which is massively flawed). I don't, I should clarify, think it's necessarily a bad thing (religion gets blamed for all sorts of stuff but humans are bastards and would find excuses to butched each other without it).

Originally Posted by Shuckle

It's also taken far out of context, and it was a totally unprepared-for miracle that required proof. If I told you that I had just turned into a helcopter, flew over the Atlantic Ocean in six and a half seconds, and then flew back and showed up at your house, what would you think? I think you'd think I was off my rocker, and I think I would, too. What Jesus did was so amazing, somebody needed to be shown, or else nobody would believe it. He didn't go off and do miracles off in the woods by himself, you know. Or, if he did, then we didn't hear about them.

The bolded part is pretty much my attitude to religion, yes. You've just argued the need for proof, yet religion provides none - so why believe? I mean, I don't definitely believe, 100% totally sure, not even the remotest possibility I'm wrong that there isn't a God, that's presumptious. But I don't definitely believe, 100% totally sure, not even the remotest possibility I'm wrong that there's definitely not a teapot on the moon, and I have the same amount of reason to believe that there is as I do to believe there's a God.

I also fail to see how someone who required proof before he'd believe is "blind faith emobodied". Surely blind faith requires no proof?

[Shuckle]

Originally Posted by Concept

A protestant will tell you the same about protestantism, as will Shi'a and Sunni Muslims about their own respective beliefs and so on. Until any religion has significantly more than "no me!", you'll forgive me for remaining sceptical about any claims made.

Out of interest, can any of the religious here give me a good reason - any good reason - that believing in a religion is a good thing? And by "good reason" I mean one that doesn't go "I have faith the religion is true, thus having faith the religion is true is right because it says so" or Pascals Wager (which is massively flawed). I don't, I should clarify, think it's necessarily a bad thing (religion gets blamed for all sorts of stuff but humans are bastards and would find excuses to butched each other without it).

I believe and subscribe to the Catholic Church because, in my mind, it makes complete and total sense. Looking at the world around me, how I think and feel, how emotion came to be; there's so much that can't possibly be explained in any way. Not only complexity; there's also the concept of beauty, complete with the Golden Ratio, the spirituality inherent in human beings, and the fact that miracles happen almost all the time that simply does away with any argument against it.

I am a biased creature, I do admit. I was raised with good morals and a strong faith, and I lack nothing in my life spiritually. The same cannot be said for many others, both Christian and atheist, and I consider myself lucky that I am such a blessed person.

Oh, and before you denounce that as a sappy anecdote, that's what I really and truly believe in my mind. It isn't as fun as "I was such a baaaad boy and then I was good ", but it does for me.

I don't actually have a great big reason for convincing you to subscribe to some form of Christianity. If I had to guess, it might be that I'm so happy and excited about my religion, I would like others to share in what I have found. It's human nature, I suppose.

I also fail to see how someone who required proof before he'd believe is "blind faith emobodied". Surely blind faith requires no proof?

Gah...this is hard to articulate. Let me try again.

Doubting Thomas is a story about how miracles can be hard to understand, but that we should believe in them anyway, blindly. In the midst of such darkness, the Lord can take us and lead us onward, but only if our hands are out and reaching. Thomas the apostle refused to believe on faith alone, and he was reprimanded. Key word being punished, chided, scolded. Thomas wasn't the priveleged one who got to see what he wanted, he was the silly one whose head, pointed towards the ground, needed a light smack to see a little more clearly.

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by Shuckle

Doubting Thomas is a story about how miracles can be hard to understand, but that we should believe in them anyway, blindly. In the midst of such darkness, the Lord can take us and lead us onward, but only if our hands are out and reaching. Thomas the apostle refused to believe on faith alone, and he was reprimanded. Key word being punished, chided, scolded. Thomas wasn't the priveleged one who got to see what he wanted, he was the silly one whose head, pointed towards the ground, needed a light smack to see a little more clearly.

Do you not realize that an organization which would want you to blindly obey them would feed you this very sort of moral? Do you not realize that under no circumstances is blind faith acceptable? Sometimes you have to make uninformed decisions, but it is never better to make a decision in the absence of evidence or knowledge when the very same decision could have easily been made with that evidence or that knowledge. Saying "it's all part of God's plan," "He wants to know if you truly believe in him," etc etc isn't a convincing argument: it's just more of the same. These are the very arguments you're going to hear out of the leader of any religious group who is trying to get you to obey his commands, be it Catholicism, be it Islam, or be it Heaven's Gate.

By creating the character of Doubting Thomas and painting him to be a jackass of sorts -- "let us all laugh at the sensible man who demands proof of Our Heavenly Zombie! " -- the Church is furthering its very agenda. It's the very sort of trap which, once ensnared in, most theists find it impossible to get out of.

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by unownmew

I'm curious. You don't have to debate it.

I can see where organized religion can be bad for society (when it's corrupted, used to gain power, used to control the population, etc.)
But a true religion, IMO, can not bad, and organized religion, when used correctly, can be a great source of good in the world.

after having reread my below post... meh, I was pretty tempted to scratch it all and just be done with it, but at this point, what the hell, I already wrote out this much, so I'll just leave it, I suppose... -_- Here goes nothing...

I feel like I'm being goaded, but if I am, I'm just bringing this on myself sigh.

Well, okay I guess. Let me add here at the beginning; I had written out a very large explanation against the idea of organized religion, but after I reread it it was full of gaping holes in arguments that really didn't make much sense, so I just deleted it. I basically tore down (my own religion) Christianity (since that's what the topic is about, I used it as the example) and that wasn't my intention at all, which I find hilariously depressing.

Basically, here's a TL;DR: The concept behind Christianity is a fantastic one. One that most people can benefit from. The same goes for other religions. But when they become organized, you run into a few large problems.

(A) It becomes very easy to manipulate followers of the movement. All you need to do is put on your pokerface for a few years, work your way up into the ranks, and then spread the message out that you want to spread, and make it convincing. This is especially easy to do when you have a guy who seems trust worthy and you've known for years or whatever. Let's take, I dunno, Billy Graham, for example. One of the most popular evangelicals out there. Lotta Christian's respect him. Let's be honest here, if he wanted, he could say "I just had a vision from God, and the world is going to end in 2012. Give me all of your money and we can stop it", and bam, it would work, I guarantee it (obviously that isn't going to happen, but you see what I mean, right?)

(B) Power. It's a human instinct, and a fucked up one, but it's a natural thing. You hear about corrupt megachurch pastors almost every other week it seems. Some pastor gets put into a position where he's a leader to people, and, sure, like point A, he can mislead people. Or, he becomes so blinded by the size of his own preachy girth, he suddenly thinks he can do whatever the hell he wants and get away with it. In fact, I've seen this happen to a pastor of a church my parents attended when I was a kid. Donations come in from hundreds of churchgoers, and man, that new 2012 Mustang looks really nice... you see where I'm going with this?

(C) Political agenda. In my completely and honest opinion, all forms of religion need to stay out of politics. Sure, it's great and all to know that such and such has values, that's fine. But when you go insane with your power and your religious beliefs, you need to stop being a politician because you're putting a lot at risk. I'll give a few examples, which you probably will not like or agree with in the least. Rick Perry, had 30,000 evangelicals pray for him when he entered the race, Michele Bachmann and her husband, both of whom run a therapy to 'pray the gay away', and also have a FEAR of gay people (whether you're pro gay or anti gay, if you look at people as decent human beings, this is completely unacceptable behavior, especially for a politician). Those are just two examples of that in society today, there are much more. Other examples would be sects like the Muslim Brotherhood who have intent to create a theocracy in unstable muslim countries (can't find any really good links for this, sorry), Operation Snow White, where Scientologist's attempted to infiltrate the US Gov't in the '70s, Ahmedinijad's fervent stance against other religions, etc etc etc, the list goes on and on and on. Politics today is literally littered with religious extremists all over the world, some who have their own agenda, and others who think they are supposed to be some catalyst of prophetic events, which is quite honestly scary as fuck and incredibly dangerous to the well being of society. And since they're so religious, most of these politicians have the base to back them and have a dedicated amount of people who will honestly do or believe anything they say.

I could go on, write books, as there is A LOT more that can be discussed, but those are the ones that instantly come to mind... but I think I've made my point... I don't really want to debate it, like I said, but I think after having written all of that, it's most likely too late, haha. I dunno. EDIT: Let me add here, there are indeed some good uses for religion, such as missionaries who go to third world countries with food and water, or help out with projects like habitat for humanity (in order to be an example, but let's be honest, their number once mission is to spread the message they carry and hopefully convert), and of course helping the poor with donations such as money, food, and shelter... there are I'm sure other great things that help out people from religious backgrounds, but unfortunately, the bad really does outweigh the good, even if it's just because the bad is a lot more vocal than the good....

As for the actual topic of Christianity we're discussing, let me close with this well known quote: "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." - Gandhi. Why do you think he said that? Honestly? Because most Christian's themselves don't see it, because they aren't on the outside looking in. Many Christian's are incredibly prideful for who they are, think they're out doing something great and are very arrogant about it. Some take a different path, in which they become bitterly hateful towards other religions (sure, there are others that are hateful towards Christianity, but what was that thing Jesus said again? Something about turning the other cheek?), and in doing so, they contradict their own belief of loving their neighbor. There is way too much seething animosity between many religious extremists right now, Christians, Jews, and Muslims, being the three big ones that immediately come to mind, and it's fucking stupid. None of these people are actually practicing what they preach. I can't even properly fathom the sheer amount of stupid that radiates from the very thought that they are taken seriously at all. There is so much unnecessary tension between these three in specific when the three of them are honestly the most closely related religions in the world. It greatly upsets me and really puts me off. Nothing ruins my day faster than to hear some nonsensical "Christian" American who shouts "Wooo! Bomb 'dem towelheads!" or something to that effect.


*SIGH*

I think that's a lot of something I've been needing to get off my chest for a while. I feel a little better now, just having typed that out.

Again. I know for a fact there were many, many things in there which could stir up controversy or be cause for debate, and maybe I will, I don't know, it depends on my mood and lately I'm just not really feeling in 'debate' mode. The above was all for ranting purposes... keep in mind.

Oh, also, if anyone wants to discuss Roman Catholicism, I, not even being Catholic at any point in my life, have 12 years of catholic school begrudgingly ingrained into my system, so even though I'm not actually one, I know the religion very well, to the point where, in high school, I was actually having debates with catholics who lost and were completely destroyed when they didn't even know what they were supposed to believe on certain topics and I did. Catholicism, in my opinion, is just so... aaaa.... So, yeah, I'll be glad to pitch in there if needed :P

[Shuckle]

Originally Posted by Talon87

Do you not realize that an organization which would want you to blindly obey them would feed you this very sort of moral? Do you not realize that under no circumstances is blind faith acceptable?

Let me explain the two kinds of belief.

Belief Number 1. This is the kind of belief that most people like to have. It is the Direct Belief; if you see it happen, then you believe it happened. If you know it is happening, then you believe it is happening. Sensory input is essential to this kind of belief; you believe a user named Shuckle is telling you this because you are reading his words and probably disagreeing with most of them.

Belief Number 2. This is the kind of belief that most people end up with. Anything from a history textbook is this kind of belief. It is Belief With Authority. How do you know that Napoleon was defeated at the battle of Waterloo and exiled to the island of Elba? How do you know that the Earth revolves around the Sun? You yourself have not provided the necessary calculations for you to know for sure should you only rely on direct belief.

And this is why blind faith exists. Because we are able to take things and believe them on authority, or a source that we know and trust, or maybe just trust, then we are able to know and believe that Jesus was the son of God, that he died and rose again after three days, etc. etc.

Sometimes you have to make uninformed decisions, but it is never better to make a decision in the absence of evidence or knowledge when the very same decision could have easily been made with that evidence or that knowledge. Saying "it's all part of God's plan," "He wants to know if you truly believe in him," etc etc isn't a convincing argument: it's just more of the same. These are the very arguments you're going to hear out of the leader of any religious group who is trying to get you to obey his commands, be it Catholicism, be it Islam, or be it Heaven's Gate.

By creating the character of Doubting Thomas and painting him to be a jackass of sorts -- "let us all laugh at the sensible man who demands proof of Our Heavenly Zombie! " -- the Church is furthering its very agenda. It's the very sort of trap which, once ensnared in, most theists find it impossible to get out of.

And assuming that theism is a "trap" that ensnares those who wish to believe in it is immature and silly, in my humble opinion. This is basically saying that I am trapped and held against my will in a system that tells me how to behave and what I should be doing every week. I'll tell you this much; I'd much rather have Christianity doing that than high school. :/

>Organized religion

Organized anything becomes corrupt as soon as it expands in the number of members. Organized crime, organized sports, organized government...it's hard for human beings to resist temptation, which is what makes the ones who do so amazing; JPII, for instance. It's always sad to hear about examples of power abuse.

The Tea Party is a destructive influence on the world. I don't even know what they think, but whatever it is, it's sick and twisted and heavily influenced by their own interpretations on evidence, both factual and quacktual. While this is the Onion and thus not to be taken as actual news, this article is mainly funny because it's probably true. I have no idea what the Tea Party is doing, but if it's anything like what they've been doing, I don't want any of it.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Concept

Out of interest, can any of the religious here give me a good reason - any good reason - that believing in a religion is a good thing? And by "good reason" I mean one that doesn't go "I have faith the religion is true, thus having faith the religion is true is right because it says so" or Pascals Wager (which is massively flawed). I don't, I should clarify, think it's necessarily a bad thing (religion gets blamed for all sorts of stuff but humans are bastards and would find excuses to butched each other without it).

here's a couple:
1. For those who truly believe and practice the spirit of the Christian Law (as opposed to following it absolutely literally), it gives them a sense of peace and comfort despite all hardships that they may encounter.
2. Those believing in a religion, whether true or not, have a sense of purpose in their lives where, according to evolutionary science, there is none. In Christianity, even more so, "if I endure long enough and obey with faith, I will be welcomed into Heaven with open arms by Jesus himself." Discount it as a false promise if you'd like, but it certainly allows people to do great things they would otherwise be unable to do.
3. If everyone in the world followed the Spirit of the Christian Religion (does not require being engaged in organized religion, but if everyone was following the law, faithful religious membership would result regardless), ever improving, repentant, humble, Charitable, ect. The world would be a Utopia. (Granted, this isn't ever going to happen until the Second Coming, but it's a worthy goal.)

The bolded part is pretty much my attitude to religion, yes. You've just argued the need for proof, yet religion provides none - so why believe? I mean, I don't definitely believe, 100% totally sure, not even the remotest possibility I'm wrong that there isn't a God, that's presumptious. But I don't definitely believe, 100% totally sure, not even the remotest possibility I'm wrong that there's definitely not a teapot on the moon, and I have the same amount of reason to believe that there is as I do to believe there's a God.

I also fail to see how someone who required proof before he'd believe is "blind faith emobodied". Surely blind faith requires no proof?

Blind Faith it just that, blind, and it's not really faith.
Faith is the belief of things unseen, which are true. I have faith Moses parted the Read Sea. I didn't see him do it, but I believe he did.

The thing is, to have something to have faith in, requires that something to have been seen at one point, otherwise there's nothing to have faith in. If there was no record of Moses parting the Red Sea, I'd be unable to have faith in it. So, God did many miracles in the Ancient past, not so much for the benefit of those of them who saw them, but for the benefit of those who would come later.
Faith brings knowledge. Once someone believes, they can be shown. If you believe wholeheartedly in miracles, you will witness them. Whereas, if you do not believe, even if one occurred right in front of you, you would not believe it.
A good example of this, is the Brazen Serpent Moses erected, where the Isrealites, who were bitten by serpents, if they looked, would be healed, but those who did not believe they would be healed by the look, did not look at all, and died.

God provides knowledge to those who believe, and evidences even to those who do not. But it is only the believers who learn.
My religion does not ask or require blind faith in itself or it's teachings, it often encourages us to take all the tools we can find, and find out the truth on our own. Direct Revelation from God, is possible for everyone in the world, though seeing a vision is unlikely. However, according to your faith, so will it be.

Originally Posted by Shuckle

I believe and subscribe to the Catholic Church because, in my mind, it makes complete and total sense. Looking at the world around me, how I think and feel, how emotion came to be; there's so much that can't possibly be explained in any way. Not only complexity; there's also the concept of beauty, complete with the Golden Ratio, the spirituality inherent in human beings, and the fact that miracles happen almost all the time that simply does away with any argument against it.

I am a biased creature, I do admit. I was raised with good morals and a strong faith, and I lack nothing in my life spiritually. The same cannot be said for many others, both Christian and atheist, and I consider myself lucky that I am such a blessed person.

Oh, and before you denounce that as a sappy anecdote, that's what I really and truly believe in my mind. It isn't as fun as "I was such a baaaad boy and then I was good ", but it does for me.

I don't actually have a great big reason for convincing you to subscribe to some form of Christianity. If I had to guess, it might be that I'm so happy and excited about my religion, I would like others to share in what I have found. It's human nature, I suppose.Gah...this is hard to articulate. Let me try again.

I'm glad you are so devoted to your religion. It is people like you, who, are true believers, and real Christians.
I do not want to sound like a missionary, but you seem like the one here who would be most accepting. I do not mean to say your religion is false, for, it does contain much truth, but, if you wish, I invite you to learn more. It is entirely up to you though. If you read the Book of Mormon, I believe you will learn many things, which will only support and encourage your Christian beliefs.

Originally Posted by Talon87

Do you not realize that an organization which would want you to blindly obey them would feed you this very sort of moral? Do you not realize that under no circumstances is blind faith acceptable? Sometimes you have to make uninformed decisions, but it is never better to make a decision in the absence of evidence or knowledge when the very same decision could have easily been made with that evidence or that knowledge. Saying "it's all part of God's plan," "He wants to know if you truly believe in him," etc etc isn't a convincing argument: it's just more of the same. These are the very arguments you're going to hear out of the leader of any religious group who is trying to get you to obey his commands, be it Catholicism, be it Islam, or be it Heaven's Gate.

By creating the character of Doubting Thomas and painting him to be a jackass of sorts -- "let us all laugh at the sensible man who demands proof of Our Heavenly Zombie! " -- the Church is furthering its very agenda. It's the very sort of trap which, once ensnared in, most theists find it impossible to get out of.

IMO, the morale of that story is not, "blind faith", but more, "even the doubting are allowed to see evidences of God if they seek it."

Originally Posted by deoxys

after having reread my below post... meh, I was pretty tempted to scratch it all and just be done with it, but at this point, what the hell, I already wrote out this much, so I'll just leave it, I suppose... -_- Here goes nothing...

I feel like I'm being goaded, but if I am, I'm just bringing this on myself sigh.

Well, okay I guess. Let me add here at the beginning; I had written out a very large explanation against the idea of organized religion, but after I reread it it was full of gaping holes in arguments that really didn't make much sense, so I just deleted it. I basically tore down (my own religion) Christianity (since that's what the topic is about, I used it as the example) and that wasn't my intention at all, which I find hilariously depressing.

Basically, here's a TL;DR: The concept behind Christianity is a fantastic one. One that most people can benefit from. The same goes for other religions. But when they become organized, you run into a few large problems.

(A) It becomes very easy to manipulate followers of the movement. All you need to do is put on your pokerface for a few years, work your way up into the ranks, and then spread the message out that you want to spread, and make it convincing. This is especially easy to do when you have a guy who seems trust worthy and you've known for years or whatever. Let's take, I dunno, Billy Graham, for example. One of the most popular evangelicals out there. Lotta Christian's respect him. Let's be honest here, if he wanted, he could say "I just had a vision from God, and the world is going to end in 2012. Give me all of your money and we can stop it", and bam, it would work, I guarantee it (obviously that isn't going to happen, but you see what I mean, right?)

(B) Power. It's a human instinct, and a fucked up one, but it's a natural thing. You hear about corrupt megachurch pastors almost every other week it seems. Some pastor gets put into a position where he's a leader to people, and, sure, like point A, he can mislead people. Or, he becomes so blinded by the size of his own preachy girth, he suddenly thinks he can do whatever the hell he wants and get away with it. In fact, I've seen this happen to a pastor of a church my parents attended when I was a kid. Donations come in from hundreds of churchgoers, and man, that new 2012 Mustang looks really nice... you see where I'm going with this?

(C) Political agenda. In my completely and honest opinion, all forms of religion need to stay out of politics. Sure, it's great and all to know that such and such has values, that's fine. But when you go insane with your power and your religious beliefs, you need to stop being a politician because you're putting a lot at risk. I'll give a few examples, which you probably will not like or agree with in the least. Rick Perry, had 30,000 evangelicals pray for him when he entered the race, Michele Bachmann and her husband, both of whom run a therapy to 'pray the gay away', and also have a FEAR of gay people (whether you're pro gay or anti gay, if you look at people as decent human beings, this is completely unacceptable behavior, especially for a politician). Those are just two examples of that in society today, there are much more. Other examples would be sects like the Muslim Brotherhood who have intent to create a theocracy in unstable muslim countries (can't find any really good links for this, sorry), Operation Snow White, where Scientologist's attempted to infiltrate the US Gov't in the '70s, Ahmedinijad's fervent stance against other religions, etc etc etc, the list goes on and on and on. Politics today is literally littered with religious extremists all over the world, some who have their own agenda, and others who think they are supposed to be some catalyst of prophetic events, which is quite honestly scary as fuck and incredibly dangerous to the well being of society. And since they're so religious, most of these politicians have the base to back them and have a dedicated amount of people who will honestly do or believe anything they say.

I could go on, write books, as there is A LOT more that can be discussed, but those are the ones that instantly come to mind... but I think I've made my point... I don't really want to debate it, like I said, but I think after having written all of that, it's most likely too late, haha. I dunno. EDIT: Let me add here, there are indeed some good uses for religion, such as missionaries who go to third world countries with food and water, or help out with projects like habitat for humanity (in order to be an example, but let's be honest, their number once mission is to spread the message they carry and hopefully convert), and of course helping the poor with donations such as money, food, and shelter... there are I'm sure other great things that help out people from religious backgrounds, but unfortunately, the bad really does outweigh the good, even if it's just because the bad is a lot more vocal than the good....

As for the actual topic of Christianity we're discussing, let me close with this well known quote: "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." - Gandhi. Why do you think he said that? Honestly? Because most Christian's themselves don't see it, because they aren't on the outside looking in. Many Christian's are incredibly prideful for who they are, think they're out doing something great and are very arrogant about it. Some take a different path, in which they become bitterly hateful towards other religions (sure, there are others that are hateful towards Christianity, but what was that thing Jesus said again? Something about turning the other cheek?), and in doing so, they contradict their own belief of loving their neighbor. There is way too much seething animosity between many religious extremists right now, Christians, Jews, and Muslims, being the three big ones that immediately come to mind, and it's fucking stupid. None of these people are actually practicing what they preach. I can't even properly fathom the sheer amount of stupid that radiates from the very thought that they are taken seriously at all. There is so much unnecessary tension between these three in specific when the three of them are honestly the most closely related religions in the world. It greatly upsets me and really puts me off. Nothing ruins my day faster than to hear some nonsensical "Christian" American who shouts "Wooo! Bomb 'dem towelheads!" or something to that effect.


*SIGH*

I think that's a lot of something I've been needing to get off my chest for a while. I feel a little better now, just having typed that out.

Again. I know for a fact there were many, many things in there which could stir up controversy or be cause for debate, and maybe I will, I don't know, it depends on my mood and lately I'm just not really feeling in 'debate' mode. The above was all for ranting purposes... keep in mind.

Oh, also, if anyone wants to discuss Roman Catholicism, I, not even being Catholic at any point in my life, have 12 years of catholic school begrudgingly ingrained into my system, so even though I'm not actually one, I know the religion very well, to the point where, in high school, I was actually having debates with catholics who lost and were completely destroyed when they didn't even know what they were supposed to believe on certain topics and I did. Catholicism, in my opinion, is just so... aaaa.... So, yeah, I'll be glad to pitch in there if needed :P

Now seeing it, I'm tempted to address your post point by point, however, I did say you did not have to debate, so I will resist. Thank you for sharing your opinions.

Originally Posted by Shuckle

Let me explain the two kinds of belief.

Belief Number 1. This is the kind of belief that most people like to have. It is the Direct Belief; if you see it happen, then you believe it happened. If you know it is happening, then you believe it is happening. Sensory input is essential to this kind of belief; you believe a user named Shuckle is telling you this because you are reading his words and probably disagreeing with most of them.

Belief Number 2. This is the kind of belief that most people end up with. Anything from a history textbook is this kind of belief. It is Belief With Authority. How do you know that Napoleon was defeated at the battle of Waterloo and exiled to the island of Elba? How do you know that the Earth revolves around the Sun? You yourself have not provided the necessary calculations for you to know for sure should you only rely on direct belief.

And this is why blind faith exists. Because we are able to take things and believe them on authority, or a source that we know and trust, or maybe just trust, then we are able to know and believe that Jesus was the son of God, that he died and rose again after three days, etc. etc.And assuming that theism is a "trap" that ensnares those who wish to believe in it is immature and silly, in my humble opinion. This is basically saying that I am trapped and held against my will in a system that tells me how to behave and what I should be doing every week. I'll tell you this much; I'd much rather have Christianity doing that than high school. :/

>Organized religion

Organized anything becomes corrupt as soon as it expands in the number of members. Organized crime, organized sports, organized government...it's hard for human beings to resist temptation, which is what makes the ones who do so amazing; JPII, for instance. It's always sad to hear about examples of power abuse.

The Tea Party is a destructive influence on the world. I don't even know what they think, but whatever it is, it's sick and twisted and heavily influenced by their own interpretations on evidence, both factual and quacktual. While this is the Onion and thus not to be taken as actual news, this article is mainly funny because it's probably true. I have no idea what the Tea Party is doing, but if it's anything like what they've been doing, I don't want any of it.

I've already addressed my views on Blind Faith, though I would say, we are not "required" to obey anything, even if our religion says we ought. If a religion tells us we do not have a choice, then that religion, or at least that pastor/teacher, is teaching false doctrine.
If we choose to obey the "morals" or "restraints" our Church places on us, (I'm ashamed to say, that I do not), we do so because we Want to. Because we feel it is the "right" thing to do. Not because someone tells us to.

I agree on organized anything, it will become corrupt, unless it is founded entirely on the Divine.
My Church has, 1 Prophet or "President of the Church", who presides over the whole church, with 3 councilors. Then 12 Apostles, just like Jesus had. Under these councilors are 70 others who preside over the various regions around the world where our church is located (I think it may be 70 per region, I don't remember exactly). Then there are various Branches, which contain stakes, which then contain wards, Each one set up with a President and 3 councilors presiding, except a Ward, which has a Bishop and 3 councilors.
Every single one of our "Clergy" are unpaid, including the prophet, so there's no worry about corruption there. Our leaders, as we as all other positions in our church are chosen by those in direct higher authority, through divine revelation, prayer and fasting, and then a vote of confidence is given by all the members that would be affected. If someone has concerns with a particular choice, the hierarchy allows any member to bypass their direct leaders and discuss with higher authority their concerns.

Our Prophet is chosen by prayer and fasting and a consensus of the 12 Apostles, revealed to them inside our Holy Temples. And voted on by all members in the next Annual Conference. There is no "Moving up the ladder," and All Positions of Authority save the 70, the 12, and the Prophet, are temporary, though their title will remain. It's just as likely a previous Bishop will be called to become a Nursery Teacher, as he will be called to a position of higher authority.

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by unownmew

IMO, the morale of that story is not, "blind faith", but more, "even the doubting are allowed to see evidences of God if they seek it."

I seek evidence. So where is it? Stories in a questionable manuscript are not evidence. Where is my Moses moment? My Daniel moment? My Peter? My Paul? My David? Where is my proof? "No, you just get to believe the stories we've fed you, simpleton." Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I'll believe Moses parted the Red Sea because you tell me he did, got it.

Apparently that actually is good enough for you, but for the rest of us extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Pointing to a story in a book is not extraordinary evidence. It's not even evidence period, but were it evidence it would be evidence of the most ordinary kind. The Old Testament actually does a good job of owning up to this idea (that bold claims require bold evidence) by granting its famous doubters all manner of crazy miracles, from burning bushes and rivers of blood to pillars of salt and surviving inside the belly of a leviathan. The funny thing is that the Old Testament itself is nothing more than a story you've inherited thousands of years after the fact. It cannot be, and should not be, submitted as evidence of the very claims it makes. That doesn't make any sense at all. That would be like saying that I have a paper which claims that I invented the light bulb and that the proof I invented the light bulb is, well, this paper which says so! It doesn't work that way: pointing to the Biblical stories of others who received proof of God's existence and saying to me, "See? There's your proof that God is real" is nonsense.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Talon87

I seek evidence. So where is it? Stories in a questionable manuscript are not evidence. Where is my Moses moment? My Daniel moment? My Peter? My Paul? My David? Where is my proof? "No, you just get to believe the stories we've fed you, simpleton." Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I'll believe Moses parted the Red Sea because you tell me he did, got it.

Well for one, you need to drop your pride, and seek humbly, otherwise you deserve nothing. What would you consider evidence?

Would you truly change your mind if you saw a miracle? Or would you go out of your way to excuse it? Fire and Brimstone from Heaven, "Oh it's just a freak meteor shower, we should have seen this coming, but we just weren't looking closely enough it until it was too late."

For what purpose do you seek a miracle, or proof of God's Existence? To disprove it so as to prove yourself right? Or do you seek the truth in order to convert yourself when you do see it?

I've quoted before, I'll paraphrase now, "If you seek wisdom, ask of God, but ask in faith, nothing wavering, and God will reveal the truth unto you."
Faith before Evidence. If you're not truly interested in changing, why should God accommodate you?

But would you really lose something if you tried to have a little faith just to see? It's a completely reasonable request. God's not asking you to put your life in danger, or mutilate your body, nor is he asking you to become a zealous missionary leaving your whole life behind you to live day to day preaching the word for him (yet). Although, with knowledge comes responsibility, so be cautious of that. If you're unprepared and take my advice, and gain a knowledge, we'll both be held accountable in the afterlife for what you do with that knowledge.

Apparently that actually is good enough for you, but for the rest of us extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Pointing to a story in a book is not extraordinary evidence. It's not even evidence period, but were it evidence it would be evidence of the most ordinary kind. The Old Testament actually does a good job of owning up to this idea (that bold claims require bold evidence) by granting its famous doubters all manner of crazy miracles, from burning bushes and rivers of blood to pillars of salt and surviving inside the belly of a leviathan. The funny thing is that the Old Testament itself is nothing more than a story you've inherited thousands of years after the fact. It cannot be, and should not be, submitted as evidence of the very claims it makes. That doesn't make any sense at all. That would be like saying that I have a paper which claims that I invented the light bulb and that the proof I invented the light bulb is, well, this paper which says so! It doesn't work that way: pointing to the Biblical stories of others who received proof of God's existence and saying to me, "See? There's your proof that God is real" is nonsense.

Pointing to evidence in an old book is not evidence? So, Archeologists who find ancient records of a people must assume such a people never existed, and that their history is just a fraud?

A more correct comparison, would be, finding a paper someone wrote in the past, about Edison's electric lightbulb, saying the premise of the electric light was actually designed by someone else, and Edison simply improved upon that design by inventing the carbon filament to make it viable. Which we know as a fact from hearsay. But since none of us was around when the light was actually invented, how can we know it to be true? By Faith, obviously.

If a written document, or multiple documents saying similar things can not be considered evidence, what can?

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by Shuckle

I don't think we're talking about the same Roman Catholic Church here, either. What I learned from my couple of years at Catholic school (which is limited, true) was that Catholicism was religion in its fullest, truest form. My teacher(s) explained that, if Catholicism dismissed outright all other religions in the world, then it would collapse. Case in point flood myths and other random crap that also happens to please those sciency blokes. Those things are included in the Bible and thus are part of the religion, but other religions have their input, too. So, Roman Catholicism says that the flood happened (truth in other religions), but that God caused it (falsehood in other religions).

Catholicism is "open" to other religions for the reasons I stated.

In the US, there are Christian denominations to satisfy any preferred doctrine or political bent. You decide what you want to believe, then pick the church that matches up with your beliefs. You could even invent your own if there isn't a pre-existing one. Protestant churches want membership but not so badly that they'd compromise their dogma or politics, since there's very little allegiance to the church itself and rather to the beliefs, and people would easily switch to another denomination.

The RCC isn't like that, it prioritizes membership above all else and is willing to informally bend its rules to accomodate anyone who provides donations. A great example is who to pray to. According to the Catholic Church, you are only supposed to pray to God the Father, but defer to ("ask") Jesus, Mary, Saints & Apostles or anyone else if God has reason to be angry at you. One does not worship anyone else aside from God the Father, even Jesus the Son.

Japanese Catholics and Latin Catholics have their native traditions blended into mainstream rituals. Latins pray to Mary, supposedly derived from a Pagan traditional belief in the "earth mother". I don't know specifically, but I'd surmise the RCC would connect praying to Saints with the Buddhist ancestor worship tradition. Officially, however, one is supposed to pray to God the Father and nobody else. In communities where flexible doctrine isn't mandatory to preserve membership, this is enforced, like in my church (the "English mass" was the only one told this specific bit of information, while it wasn't brought up in the "Spanish mass").

Originally Posted by Concept

Out of interest, can any of the religious here give me a good reason - any good reason - that believing in a religion is a good thing? And by "good reason" I mean one that doesn't go "I have faith the religion is true, thus having faith the religion is true is right because it says so" or Pascals Wager (which is massively flawed). I don't, I should clarify, think it's necessarily a bad thing (religion gets blamed for all sorts of stuff but humans are bastards and would find excuses to butched each other without it).

If you think of religous stories as fiction, we can apply the fictional characteristics (plot, setting, characters, style, themes) to describe them.

All true religious fables have a moral message meant to influence society. Morality is what elevates human organization and behaviour above animals and the utilitarians. It's the driving reason we've been successful as a species. You can appeal to logic, but most humans don't respond well to logical arguments. Superstition persists because of human nature, even critical thinkers are still susceptible to irrational fears or illogical practices. Stories are thus the most effective way to sell a moral message, but because the message is hidden, priests are needed to clarify the message so people don't behave errantly.

From a sociological standpoint, religion is necessary in whatever form to promote order. It doesn't matter what the plot, setting, characters or style are, so long as the themes are understood and followed. The problem is, not all religious stories favour the same message, and too many people get caught up in the superficial narrative elements of plot/story/characters.

Individually, spirituality done right promotes relief/comfort beyond bodily passions. A perceived sense of stablity stemming from a belief in God also allows one to control one's emotions better.

Most of what I've said isn't unique to religions, and is in common with phenomenon like oral tradition and propoganda,.

Originally Posted by Concept

The bolded part is pretty much my attitude to religion, yes. You've just argued the need for proof, yet religion provides none - so why believe? I mean, I don't definitely believe, 100% totally sure, not even the remotest possibility I'm wrong that there isn't a God, that's presumptious. But I don't definitely believe, 100% totally sure, not even the remotest possibility I'm wrong that there's definitely not a teapot on the moon, and I have the same amount of reason to believe that there is as I do to believe there's a God.

Think of it this way - first degree murder is punishable by death. The law is in place, and there has been historical precedent for it. Rationally, then, people should never murder another, because death is the highest price one can pay for a crime. But people still do, for an inconceivable number of reasons.

Even if you had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of God's existence, your behaviour wouldn't change because you'd still buy into "beliefs" so long as you lack omniscience. People who murder strategically believe they can commit the crime without punishment from the law. They don't know everything, but have enough evidence to convince themselves they can kill without repercussion. Likewise, if people knew God exists, they'd still murder knowing that any punishment would come after death, and that the punishment (if it is indeed coming) could be alleviated by good works and prayer. God killing them in this life-time as punishment wouldn't even be thought possible by someone confident they know the rules of the world.

If you buy Descartes, what you percieve to be the rules of the universe might be distorted if you doubt everything. To live a functioning life, then, you must draw a line at a point where you stop doubting. God's existence is a good theshold point. There is significant upside to believing in God if he exists (going to paradise), significant downside to not believing if he does (going to heck) and no effect if he doesn't exist at all.

Since you don't know what the rules and punishments are, you can't "game" the law-books and try to sin without retribution. You take on a lot of risk doing that.

Sleep time.

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by unownmew

Pointing to evidence in an old book is not evidence? So, Archeologists who find ancient records of a people must assume such a people never existed, and that their history is just a fraud?

1) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claiming who was the king of an ancient kingdom or who invented a particular invention ... these sorts of things aren't even in the same galaxy, never mind the same ballpark, as claiming that a deity is real and should be worshiped.

2) History based on only one source is INDEED sketchy. The Chinese claim that there was a Xia Dynasty which predated their Shang Dynasty. Most Western Sinologists consider even the Shang Dynasty to be of dubious historical origins. The Zhou Dynasty is the first one we really have any proof of. But out of respect for the Chinese, and out of confidence that there was a pre-Zhou society in ancient China, most Western Sinologists acknowledge the Shang Dynasty. But the Xia Dynasty? The one that the Chinese claim came before the Shang? Most Western Sinologists (and even some Chinese Sinologists) don't acknowledge the Xia Dynasty as anything more than a myth. (Note: no one debates Shang or even pre-Shang civilization. Oracle bones, bronze engravings, etc abound. The debate is with regards to the existence of an actual dynasty, the historical figures of importance advanced by Chinese tradition, the geographical expanse of the dynasty, etc.)

In Japan, the entire history of the nation up until the 8th Century A.D. is grounded in the claims of several historical texts penned in the 8th and 9th Centuries A.D. Even in Japan, historians are skeptical about many of the texts' claims about events predating their authorship. But in the West? It is totally considered myth with faint inklings of truth. (Just like the Bible! No one denies that the Old Testament does not contain archaeologically-relevant histories. But neither do people advance the claim in any seriousness that there were people who lived for 600+ years, that there was a 900-year old alcoholic who built a boat and placed two of every animal onto it, etc.) This brings us to ...

3) There is a difference between penning a history contemporaneously and penning one many years after the fact. The New Testament was not collected until several centuries after Christ, with the earliest known proto-manuscripts still dating back to a century after his death. And this is sadly a step up from the Old Testament whose stories were penned centuries, perhaps even a millennium after they occurred! There is unfortunately no archaeological evidence which proves that the story of Moses entered into the Old Testament within decades of Moses's leadership. We do not have an Old Testament that omits the story of Moses. In fact, many historians believe (contrary to claims by the Jewish community) that the ancient Hebrew texts were not put together any earlier than the 8th Century B.C. In other words, over five hundred years (minimum) to as many as one thousand years after the Biblical Moses would have existed and purportedly led Israel out of Egypt. This is the single greatest weakness of the story of Exodus: that we have no proof of its authenticity by way of proof that manuscripts detailing the story of Exodus existed around the time it would have occurred. It's the very same reason that historians reject many of the supposed proto-emperors of Japan as detailed by the Nihon Shoki and other historical texts from the 8th century A.D. Even if we found one book from the 8th Century B.C., it would not prove that the man listed in it as king of the land was indeed the king of the land. But it would at least be something. It would at least be sixteen hundred years closer to the truth than claims made in the 8th Century A.D. Similarly, the Old Testament's story of Exodus fails the test. Not only is the Old Testament the only record of the Exodus, it was also penned nearly a millenium after that exodus. (Penned circa 800 B.C., the Pharaoh of the Exodus, as described by Exodus itself, believed to have been someone who ruled Egypt between 1550 and 1200 BC.)

These are just three reasons why your line of reasoning is wrong. Any one of them is good enough to completely deflate your rebuttal, but I offer you all three to completely stamp it out.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Talon87

1) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claiming who was the king of an ancient kingdom or who invented a particular invention ... these sorts of things aren't even in the same galaxy, never mind the same ballpark, as claiming that a deity is real and should be worshiped.

2) History based on only one source is INDEED sketchy. The Chinese claim that there was a Xia Dynasty which predated their Shang Dynasty. Most Western Sinologists consider even the Shang Dynasty to be of dubious historical origins. The Zhou Dynasty is the first one we really have any proof of. But out of respect for the Chinese, and out of confidence that there was a pre-Zhou society in ancient China, most Western Sinologists acknowledge the Shang Dynasty. But the Xia Dynasty? The one that the Chinese claim came before the Shang? Most Western Sinologists (and even some Chinese Sinologists) don't acknowledge the Xia Dynasty as anything more than a myth. (Note: no one debates Shang or even pre-Shang civilization. Oracle bones, bronze engravings, etc abound. The debate is with regards to the existence of an actual dynasty, the historical figures of importance advanced by Chinese tradition, the geographical expanse of the dynasty, etc.)

In Japan, the entire history of the nation up until the 8th Century A.D. is grounded in the claims of several historical texts penned in the 8th and 9th Centuries A.D. Even in Japan, historians are skeptical about many of the texts' claims about events predating their authorship. But in the West? It is totally considered myth with faint inklings of truth. (Just like the Bible! No one denies that the Old Testament does not contain archaeologically-relevant histories. But neither do people advance the claim in any seriousness that there were people who lived for 600+ years, that there was a 900-year old alcoholic who built a boat and placed two of every animal onto it, etc.) This brings us to ...

3) There is a difference between penning a history contemporaneously and penning one many years after the fact. The New Testament was not collected until several centuries after Christ, with the earliest known proto-manuscripts still dating back to a century after his death. And this is sadly a step up from the Old Testament whose stories were penned centuries, perhaps even a millennium after they occurred! There is unfortunately no archaeological evidence which proves that the story of Moses entered into the Old Testament within decades of Moses's leadership. We do not have an Old Testament that omits the story of Moses. In fact, many historians believe (contrary to claims by the Jewish community) that the ancient Hebrew texts were not put together any earlier than the 8th Century B.C. In other words, over five hundred years (minimum) to as many as one thousand years after the Biblical Moses would have existed and purportedly led Israel out of Egypt. This is the single greatest weakness of the story of Exodus: that we have no proof of its authenticity by way of proof that manuscripts detailing the story of Exodus existed around the time it would have occurred. It's the very same reason that historians reject many of the supposed proto-emperors of Japan as detailed by the Nihon Shoki and other historical texts from the 8th century A.D. Even if we found one book from the 8th Century B.C., it would not prove that the man listed in it as king of the land was indeed the king of the land. But it would at least be something. It would at least be sixteen hundred years closer to the truth than claims made in the 8th Century A.D. Similarly, the Old Testament's story of Exodus fails the test. Not only is the Old Testament the only record of the Exodus, it was also penned nearly a millenium after that exodus. (Penned circa 800 B.C., the Pharaoh of the Exodus, as described by Exodus itself, believed to have been someone who ruled Egypt between 1550 and 1200 BC.)

These are just three reasons why your line of reasoning is wrong. Any one of them is good enough to completely deflate your rebuttal, but I offer you all three to completely stamp it out.

You have quite the powerful argument, and I can not dispute that, as a whole, the bible can not be relied upon for absolute proof. (Though I would venture to argue that it was never intended to be anyway.) It's a Compilation of Compilations of Compilations, where records were taken, and then compiled, further and further, and probably lots of data and truth was lost in these abridgements. Or it's complete and utter fantasy. (which, while the easiest to accept, is also the hardest to assume)

So, I say again:

Originally Posted by unownmew

A more correct comparison, would be, finding a paper someone wrote in the past, about Edison's electric lightbulb, saying the premise of the electric light was actually designed by someone else, and Edison simply improved upon that design by inventing the carbon filament to make it viable. Which we know as a fact from hearsay. But since none of us was around when the light was actually invented, how can we know it to be true? How can we assume someone named Thomas Edison ever really lived? Edit: (ignoring census records and official documents, which are likely the first to go if there's ever a national disaster)

If a written document, or multiple documents saying similar things can not be considered evidence, what can?

What would you consider an evidence then? Or do you even want to see such evidence?

[deoxys]

Fuck it, tear apart my post and debate it, and I may or may not debate back. I want to see what you have to say

[Mozz]

Originally Posted by unownmew

What would you consider an evidence then? Or do you even want to see such evidence?

A re-grown limb? A modern miracle comparable with anything in the Bible? Yahweh saying hi?