How did the church make a comeback
| but their truths constantly change with the flux of society. |
Many truths do change with the flux of society.
Last edited on
Yea it was a little exaggerated but the points still sound. Religious "facts" have been falling down for the last 1000 years. It's just a matter of time until there's nothing left.
| It's just a matter of time until there's nothing left. |
New religions rise to take the place of old. As long as humanity has societies with shared codes of conduct, we'll have religion. It's only a problem when people miss the point and take it seriously.
Last edited on
closed account (3qX21hU5)
Facts have been falling down for the last 1000 years everywhere not just in religion. Everyone before like previous people have stated have thought the world was flat, then we found out it wasn't. Times evolve and facts become false as that happens. Religion evolves just like everything else does, we start to understand more about it. And really you can't judge every christian together. Each has a different way of looking at it and what we believe. Every view of it is not the same.
Though I do see your point about some things the church has said turned out to be false, but its not like that only happens to religion. And I would like to apologize for being kind of rude to you I just got angered by such a closed mind attitude where your beliefs are correct and everyone else's are false.
Though I do see your point about some things the church has said turned out to be false, but its not like that only happens to religion. And I would like to apologize for being kind of rude to you I just got angered by such a closed mind attitude where your beliefs are correct and everyone else's are false.
Last edited on
| Moschops wrote: |
|---|
| Many truths do change with the flux of society. |
I agree, but the problem is Catholicism/Christianity speak in 'absolute, unchanging' truths. They claim to be teaching the infallible word of God.
So how can infallible teachings change? Aren't they infallible? Was God wrong? Or were they interpretting God's word incorrectly? If it's open to interprettation, then how do they know they have any of it right?
You can't claim to have divine, eternal wisdom, then turn around and say "whoops we got it wrong, things are different now" without losing credibility.
closed account (3qX21hU5)
See that is what I think people don't get. Christians don't claim to have "divine, eternal wisdom" (At least most don't but there will always be nut jobs) we believe that god has divine eternal wisdom. We make mistakes all the times that is the human nature, we interpret things wrong. So in my opinion the teachings can be infallible its just the reader and how they interpret what they are reading that is failing.
That is why I go to church, to learn more about Jesus and his teaching. I don't know everything and certainly don't claim to.
That is why I go to church, to learn more about Jesus and his teaching. I don't know everything and certainly don't claim to.
Last edited on
The bible is not claimed to be written by god (maybe Torah is? I'm not sure). Also, I'm not sure what these absolute truths are (rather when were they claimed to be such?), but maybe that doesn't matter.
Hopefully we can all agree that god is not an old bearded man sitting on a cloud. You seem to be treating him as such. The atheist half of us can certainly agree that there is no god and that woman was not made out of man's rib and etc. But if myths are all you can see in religion, you're missing out.
Before the next time you write something about "false religious truths", play a little game. Imagine that instead of "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" it said "God made the Universe in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly" and etc. How would that impact Christianity? Hopefully you'll agree that the answer is "slightly". And in that case they are not much of "religious truths", are they?
Hopefully we can all agree that god is not an old bearded man sitting on a cloud. You seem to be treating him as such. The atheist half of us can certainly agree that there is no god and that woman was not made out of man's rib and etc. But if myths are all you can see in religion, you're missing out.
Before the next time you write something about "false religious truths", play a little game. Imagine that instead of "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" it said "God made the Universe in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly" and etc. How would that impact Christianity? Hopefully you'll agree that the answer is "slightly". And in that case they are not much of "religious truths", are they?
What exactly has changed that we claimed was some divine message? Surely you don't believe that everything a Christian says is inspired by the divine? Such things as the world being flat and the like were never claimed to be the word of God (at least as far as I know). The religion itself is unchanged, our beliefs and rules the same.
About gay marriage, I have yet to find a Christian or church that says its ok. Sure, they allow it because it's wrong to impose your belief on everyone else (although it's apparently ok for non-religious people to impose their anti-religion views on the religious, but not the other way around). I personally believe gay marriage is wrong, but I also believe that everyone has the right to make that choice for themselves.
On the note of the corruption of the Catholic church, I was trying to point out the difference between the "church" (human made and run organization) and the "religion" (divine inspired belief system). I was not saying that modern churches aren't corrupt, but that it's not Christianity that makes them that way. Rather, it's humans that make them that way.
And did that change the meaning of the Bible? No. For translating a text written thousands of years ago and in mainly 3 different languages and being hand copied for hundreds of years, they're doing a pretty damn good job. No one is intentionally changing the wording of the Bible to alter its meaning. Yes, there are people who would twist its words to fit their own goals, but they are a minority and not true Christians, just posers who use the religion as false cover. The same phenomena happens all over. Don't believe me? Go to a court and listen to lawyers argue over what a given law meant, each altering its original meaning to benefit themselves.
@everyone using quotes from the Bible: You're acting like a bunch of 5th graders who saw a dirty word in a book about the bees and the birds. Grow up.
I have a simple argument to pose to the atheists here. I think we both agree that there are 2 possible scenarios: I'm right and God is real, or you're right and He is not. So given those two, lets run through them. If you're right, we both will die and that will be all. Nothing after life. Lose lose. But if I'm right, I go to Heaven and have eternal life, whereas you go to Hell and have eternal torture. Win lose. In both scenarios, you lose, yet I win in one. Given that, what is the harm in believing? If you believe, you still have a chance, but if you don't, you're guaranteed to lose. Is your own foolish pride really worth it? Surely you find it a little bleak in your belief in nothing after death? At least I can still have hope.
About gay marriage, I have yet to find a Christian or church that says its ok. Sure, they allow it because it's wrong to impose your belief on everyone else (although it's apparently ok for non-religious people to impose their anti-religion views on the religious, but not the other way around). I personally believe gay marriage is wrong, but I also believe that everyone has the right to make that choice for themselves.
On the note of the corruption of the Catholic church, I was trying to point out the difference between the "church" (human made and run organization) and the "religion" (divine inspired belief system). I was not saying that modern churches aren't corrupt, but that it's not Christianity that makes them that way. Rather, it's humans that make them that way.
| zepher wrote: |
|---|
| They conveniantly change the bible as it suits them - note older versions of bible containing the word hell while modern ones don't. Apparently they discovered that hell was never a word/term referenced in those times as was made to believe when christianity was spread. |
And did that change the meaning of the Bible? No. For translating a text written thousands of years ago and in mainly 3 different languages and being hand copied for hundreds of years, they're doing a pretty damn good job. No one is intentionally changing the wording of the Bible to alter its meaning. Yes, there are people who would twist its words to fit their own goals, but they are a minority and not true Christians, just posers who use the religion as false cover. The same phenomena happens all over. Don't believe me? Go to a court and listen to lawyers argue over what a given law meant, each altering its original meaning to benefit themselves.
@everyone using quotes from the Bible: You're acting like a bunch of 5th graders who saw a dirty word in a book about the bees and the birds. Grow up.
I have a simple argument to pose to the atheists here. I think we both agree that there are 2 possible scenarios: I'm right and God is real, or you're right and He is not. So given those two, lets run through them. If you're right, we both will die and that will be all. Nothing after life. Lose lose. But if I'm right, I go to Heaven and have eternal life, whereas you go to Hell and have eternal torture. Win lose. In both scenarios, you lose, yet I win in one. Given that, what is the harm in believing? If you believe, you still have a chance, but if you don't, you're guaranteed to lose. Is your own foolish pride really worth it? Surely you find it a little bleak in your belief in nothing after death? At least I can still have hope.
| Grow up. |
| I have a simple argument to pose to the atheists here. |
Last edited on
closed account (3qX21hU5)
He argument happens all the time and so does your answer. People pretend to believe in higher powers just in case they are wrong. There is nothing wrong in it, I believe it is actually a good thing. Since while they are pretending to believe they might actually start to believe.
@ModShop
Pascal's wager is a terrible argument. Don't forget the thousands of other religions that exist, or the literally infinite other religions that no-one has thought of yet. If any one of those other than your own is right, you could go to its version of hell anyway. In fact, since there are infinite possible religions, everyone has an equal probability of being wrong: 0 (1/∞ is undefined, but the limit of 1/x as x tends to ∞ is 0).
Pascal's wager is a terrible argument. Don't forget the thousands of other religions that exist, or the literally infinite other religions that no-one has thought of yet. If any one of those other than your own is right, you could go to its version of hell anyway. In fact, since there are infinite possible religions, everyone has an equal probability of being wrong: 0 (1/∞ is undefined, but the limit of 1/x as x tends to ∞ is 0).
Last edited on
Of course there are ridiculous things in the Bible. I never said there wasn't. Not every sentence was handed down by God himself you know. I was just pointing out that it is rather silly of some of you use such quotes to negatively portray the Bible.
Of course the argument could encourage hypocrisy, but that was not where I was going with it. I did not mean "be some half-assed jerk who only goes to church for selfish reasons", I meant "what is the harm in devoting yourself to a religion and truly following what it stands for?". The whole "win lose" thing was meant to illustrate my point, not provide basis for selfish motivation.
Also I'm assuming that the supreme being thing about Dawkins was a joke, otherwise it would be an entirely hypocritical statement. You essentially call me blind, ignorant and stupid for believing in God while you yourself believe that a mere human is indeed the supreme being. On top of that, you call religion intolerant and yet this alleged supreme being would "save" (or whatever you would call it) the atheists and leave the religious to damnation. However, given said arguments and the fact that I could find no other source making such claims, I think you weren't being serious.
Of course the argument could encourage hypocrisy, but that was not where I was going with it. I did not mean "be some half-assed jerk who only goes to church for selfish reasons", I meant "what is the harm in devoting yourself to a religion and truly following what it stands for?". The whole "win lose" thing was meant to illustrate my point, not provide basis for selfish motivation.
Also I'm assuming that the supreme being thing about Dawkins was a joke, otherwise it would be an entirely hypocritical statement. You essentially call me blind, ignorant and stupid for believing in God while you yourself believe that a mere human is indeed the supreme being. On top of that, you call religion intolerant and yet this alleged supreme being would "save" (or whatever you would call it) the atheists and leave the religious to damnation. However, given said arguments and the fact that I could find no other source making such claims, I think you weren't being serious.
closed account (1yR4jE8b)
| I meant "what is the harm in devoting yourself to a religion and truly following what it stands for?" |
This is at best a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Let's use Christianity as an example, the last time I checked there are 38,000 different sects. Each believing slightly different things about how to interpret the bible, what's a sin, what isn't, etc... It's impossible to be a "true" Christian, because they can't even agree on their own what one is. What a True ChristianTM to you is most definitely not one to someone else. It's completely up to your own personal interpretation.
We also have Sunni, Ahmadiyya, Shi'a, Sufism in Islam, reformed, orthodox, and conservative Jew, 20 some odd sects of Buddhists, 6 sects of Hinduism that I know of, etc...
Why don't we just throw out all this supernatural crap, and just use our own internal morality to determine how we live our lives. Religious people do this anyway when they cherry-pick what they agree from their own interpretation of their religion, though many are afraid to admit it.
I make moral decisions based on my internal empathy and the golden rule (Christians like to credit for this one, but Confucius was saying it long before Yeshua). It's been working out pretty good for me so far.
See my other posts. I'm not attacking the bible, so you shouldn't be defensive about it.
I understand where you were going, but you did not pick a good path to go. I'm not even sure there is a good path. In response to "what is the harm in believing?" I'll have to say, "loss of foolish pride".
Of course Dawkins was a joke. He was the only man who would "send christians to eternal torment" I could think of.
I understand where you were going, but you did not pick a good path to go. I'm not even sure there is a good path. In response to "what is the harm in believing?" I'll have to say, "loss of foolish pride".
Of course Dawkins was a joke. He was the only man who would "send christians to eternal torment" I could think of.
Not counting extremist sects, each sect believes in the same bi picture but nitpicks over minor details and gray areas. Not everyone will agree on everything, religion or anything else. Just look at the U.S. political scene. I don't think our country has been so divided since the Civil War.
Great, if only half of people were at the very least following that rule I imagine the world would be multitudes better. The amount of self centered ass hats really bothers me. Not to nitpick, but Confucius and Yeshua would have had to develop their own idea independently of each other. Cultural diffusion between ancient China and the Hebrew world simply did not happen until much later. I don't take credit for the rules and ideals I follow, I just think that the world would be better if more people followed them, with or without the religion to go with it.
| darkestfright wrote: |
|---|
| I make moral decisions based on my internal empathy and the golden rule (Christians like to credit for this one, but Confucius was saying it long before Yeshua). It's been working out pretty good for me so far. |
Great, if only half of people were at the very least following that rule I imagine the world would be multitudes better. The amount of self centered ass hats really bothers me. Not to nitpick, but Confucius and Yeshua would have had to develop their own idea independently of each other. Cultural diffusion between ancient China and the Hebrew world simply did not happen until much later. I don't take credit for the rules and ideals I follow, I just think that the world would be better if more people followed them, with or without the religion to go with it.
| Of course there are ridiculous things in the Bible. I never said there wasn't. Not every sentence was handed down by God himself you know. I was just pointing out that it is rather silly of some of you use such quotes to negatively portray the Bible. |
If a quote portrays the bible negatively, that's really not the fault of the quoter. And silliness is what it was meant to be.
| Grow up. |
Well, no.
| [quote]Grow up. |
Well, no.[/quote]
very wise cire
And by all means attack any incorrect mass held belief.
its not like christians arnt dogmatic anyway,"an eye for an eye" like it says in the first bible before Constantine decided its about time someone changed the religion so christians could fight, which is something else christians should be informed about if they want to continue with their religion kindly point out that a politician edited the message just over 1000 years ago, which aint that long ago historicaly speaking (unless your american)
wait i studied this i should of joined in earlier :/
Last edited on
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| ModShop wrote: |
|---|
| I have a simple argument to pose to the atheists here. I think we both agree that there are 2 possible scenarios: I'm right and God is real, or you're right and He is not. |
| So given those two, lets run through them. If you're right, we both will die and that will be all. Nothing after life. Lose lose. |
| But if I'm right, I go to Heaven and have eternal life, whereas you go to Hell and have eternal torture. Win lose. |
| In both scenarios, you lose, yet I win in one. Given that, what is the harm in believing? If you believe, you still have a chance, but if you don't, you're guaranteed to lose. Is your own foolish pride really worth it? Surely you find it a little bleak in your belief in nothing after death? At least I can still have hope. |
I have thought about if I am wrong in my belief; I came to the conclusion that it is better to live my life true to my belief and in a good and honest manner.
hey have any of you guys heard the holographic universe theory? complete with the recent 'we could all be a computer simulation' theory makes you wonder if scientists are getting religious(or wasting funding on something other than science and smoking it).
anyway may the great administrator in the sky watch over us all.
anyway may the great administrator in the sky watch over us all.