Religion... Why?
-
Christian Graus wrote:
And yet, they do not believe that anything He said was accurately recorded, which obviously means they never seek to do anything that He said.
I don't particularly care. Just saying he is believed in by Muslims. The few I know speak highly of him.
Christian Graus wrote:
ROTFL !!! So you don't have Halloween where you are ? In any case, this may be true, certainly a form of christendom ( but nothing close to what the bible says ) has been the state religion in places, which has caused things like the crusades, and the oppression of many for their beliefs. No argument from me.
Yule = xmas. Imbolc = Groundhog's day (Candle mass) Ostara = easter Beltane = May Day Litha,Lammas, and Mabon are all left out. Samhain = Halloween (All Saint's Day being the next day) Christianity did a great job of incorporating a lot of Pagan Holidays.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, the thing is that the bible does not say that. The Bible does not say that Adam and Eve happened the day after Genesis 1. In fact, it says there were other people on the earth, and does not say how long they had been there. It's 6,000 years since Adam and Eve, that is true. But, it's not 6,000 years since creation, nor is it clear, at least to me, that Gen 1 is not an allegory on some levels.
Hey, preaching to the choir. Genesis 1 and 2 directly contradict one another. I was just letting you know how they came about that figure. :)
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I don't particularly care. Just saying he is believed in by Muslims. The few I know speak highly of him.
If I speak highly of you, by name, but say that you're a molestor of children, do I speak of you at all, or just attach your name to someone else ? I mean, if you don't care, don't say it, but believe me, Muslims have no faith in Jesus Christ.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Christianity did a great job of incorporating a lot of Pagan Holidays.
No, the Romans did, and they subverted Christianity at least as much as Paganism.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Genesis 1 and 2 directly contradict one another.
Where ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Distind wrote:
Funny thing is, the bible doesn't say a lot of things, such as descriptions of the nativity scene people are complaining about above.
True.
Distind wrote:
Rather interesting to find out how many common beliefs have absolutely no basis in the holy text they're credited to.
Well, it's a good way of seperating people who believe the bible, and people who believe the traditions of their youth.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
EliottA wrote:
Why does that make them dangerous?
They believe that humans are a virus that is infecting the earth, so humans must be eliminated.
EliottA wrote:
I would think that's just as dangerous
It is.
EliottA wrote:
As a collective, Christians have probably done more damage to make them warrant the title dangerous over Luciferians and climate cultists more combined.
People in power using religion as a tool of control and manipulation have done a lot of damage. The Christain belief system is not the issue, as it is with climate cultists and lucifarians.
EliottA wrote:
And I don't think climate cultists are really a religion.
It is a faith based belief system, led by pied pipers.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It is a faith based belief system, led by pied pipers.
You can't be that diluted that you believe that, can you?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
They believe that humans are a virus that is infecting the earth, so humans must be eliminated.
Do 'they' have a website where they say this? Surely every major cult / religion has a website that explains their ideals, and I'm curious to see which source backs up what you claim?
Check out the CodeProject forum Guidelines[^] The original soapbox 1.0 is back![^]
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I don't particularly care. Just saying he is believed in by Muslims. The few I know speak highly of him.
If I speak highly of you, by name, but say that you're a molestor of children, do I speak of you at all, or just attach your name to someone else ? I mean, if you don't care, don't say it, but believe me, Muslims have no faith in Jesus Christ.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Christianity did a great job of incorporating a lot of Pagan Holidays.
No, the Romans did, and they subverted Christianity at least as much as Paganism.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Genesis 1 and 2 directly contradict one another.
Where ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Where ?
Genesis 1: God created animals day 5, man day 6. Genesis 2: God creates Adam (first man) Adam is bored, God makes him companions whom he names (animals) but they are not good enough. God makes Eve. So animals were before or after man? The fact that Adam had 2 sons, 1 kills the other and is cursed to wander among the tribes of people that hate him always makes me wonder "where'd they come from? Adam was the first man, this is 1 of his 2 kids, so who are they?"
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, it's a good way of seperating people who believe the bible, and people who believe the traditions of their youth.
Very true, but telling them that can get a tad ugly.
Well, you know, whatever people believe, I don't think it's ever helpful to attack people. It's good to discuss things and present your point of view, but if you do it disrespectfully, why would anyone listen to what you have to say ? I'm not scared to tell people that Xmas is not in the Bible, but I don't think I go to hell for eating some pudding and accepting gifts. It's just a human tradition, it doesn't hurt anyone, it's just not part of my faith. If people get defensive when you try to tell them something calmly, then that's perhaps a reflection on the nature of their beliefs. People who are scared to have their believes challenged, obviously don't hold them very strongly.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Where ?
Genesis 1: God created animals day 5, man day 6. Genesis 2: God creates Adam (first man) Adam is bored, God makes him companions whom he names (animals) but they are not good enough. God makes Eve. So animals were before or after man? The fact that Adam had 2 sons, 1 kills the other and is cursed to wander among the tribes of people that hate him always makes me wonder "where'd they come from? Adam was the first man, this is 1 of his 2 kids, so who are they?"
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Genesis 1: God created animals day 5, man day 6. Genesis 2: God creates Adam (first man) Adam is bored, God makes him companions whom he names (animals) but they are not good enough. God makes Eve.
Well, the animal question is an interesting point, I'd not heard that. But, where does the Bible say Adam was the first man ? He was the first man that God dealt with, the start of Israel.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The fact that Adam had 2 sons, 1 kills the other and is cursed to wander among the tribes of people that hate him always makes me wonder "where'd they come from? Adam was the first man, this is 1 of his 2 kids, so who are they?"
See, there is your issue. The Bible does NOT say Adam was the first man, and in fact, this is one of the passages I'd refer to, to prove that this tradition is wrong. There were other people around, as you rightly point out. Adam was not the first man, nor was Adam created just after Gen 1. I'd assume that as Adam was in an area cut off from other people, that God introduced animals to that area, and Adam named them.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Genesis 1: God created animals day 5, man day 6. Genesis 2: God creates Adam (first man) Adam is bored, God makes him companions whom he names (animals) but they are not good enough. God makes Eve.
Well, the animal question is an interesting point, I'd not heard that. But, where does the Bible say Adam was the first man ? He was the first man that God dealt with, the start of Israel.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The fact that Adam had 2 sons, 1 kills the other and is cursed to wander among the tribes of people that hate him always makes me wonder "where'd they come from? Adam was the first man, this is 1 of his 2 kids, so who are they?"
See, there is your issue. The Bible does NOT say Adam was the first man, and in fact, this is one of the passages I'd refer to, to prove that this tradition is wrong. There were other people around, as you rightly point out. Adam was not the first man, nor was Adam created just after Gen 1. I'd assume that as Adam was in an area cut off from other people, that God introduced animals to that area, and Adam named them.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Look up Adam on (GASP) Wikipedia. Great bit of info. Mirrors what you say. Thing is, literalists aren't exactly the best people to argue with. And a whole lot of people thumping Bibles are literalists. Most Catholics are literalists in regards to the New Testament but traditionalists with the Old. (Figure the stories are allegories.) I was brought up Catholic. That changed after I realized they only cared about controlling me, not about listening to me at all.
-
Well, you know, whatever people believe, I don't think it's ever helpful to attack people. It's good to discuss things and present your point of view, but if you do it disrespectfully, why would anyone listen to what you have to say ? I'm not scared to tell people that Xmas is not in the Bible, but I don't think I go to hell for eating some pudding and accepting gifts. It's just a human tradition, it doesn't hurt anyone, it's just not part of my faith. If people get defensive when you try to tell them something calmly, then that's perhaps a reflection on the nature of their beliefs. People who are scared to have their believes challenged, obviously don't hold them very strongly.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I agree, generally I only start pinning down someone's beliefs and showing them the failing of their rhetoric when they claim I should be subject to it. I more enjoy seeing what the general concept floating around the public is, finding out the reality of something, and comparing them.
-
Well, you know, whatever people believe, I don't think it's ever helpful to attack people. It's good to discuss things and present your point of view, but if you do it disrespectfully, why would anyone listen to what you have to say ? I'm not scared to tell people that Xmas is not in the Bible, but I don't think I go to hell for eating some pudding and accepting gifts. It's just a human tradition, it doesn't hurt anyone, it's just not part of my faith. If people get defensive when you try to tell them something calmly, then that's perhaps a reflection on the nature of their beliefs. People who are scared to have their believes challenged, obviously don't hold them very strongly.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
People who are scared to have their believes challenged, obviously don't hold them very strongly.
Or they cling to them desperately in the hope that they are not wrong and there is some meaning to an otherwise meaningless life. ;)
-
Look up Adam on (GASP) Wikipedia. Great bit of info. Mirrors what you say. Thing is, literalists aren't exactly the best people to argue with. And a whole lot of people thumping Bibles are literalists. Most Catholics are literalists in regards to the New Testament but traditionalists with the Old. (Figure the stories are allegories.) I was brought up Catholic. That changed after I realized they only cared about controlling me, not about listening to me at all.
See - the whole thing always comes down to the Romans....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
People who are scared to have their believes challenged, obviously don't hold them very strongly.
Or they cling to them desperately in the hope that they are not wrong and there is some meaning to an otherwise meaningless life. ;)
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Or they cling to them desperately in the hope
Exactly. I don't 'cling' to my beliefs, nor do I feel any desperation. That's kind of my point. You have a point with the lack of clarity in the animals in Gen 1 and 2. I don't have to pretend to have a full answer, although I can suggest a thought. It doesn't change my experience, and so does not move my faith.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Or they cling to them desperately in the hope
Exactly. I don't 'cling' to my beliefs, nor do I feel any desperation. That's kind of my point. You have a point with the lack of clarity in the animals in Gen 1 and 2. I don't have to pretend to have a full answer, although I can suggest a thought. It doesn't change my experience, and so does not move my faith.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Gen 1 and 2 are allegories. Stories told to explain things when science didn't exist. The fact that Gen 1 isn't all that far off if you look at it from a cosmic perspective is kinda neat. It shouldn't change one's faith to find out a 2000-3000+ year old book is a bit off. You are a rational good person, your faith will work itself out.
-
See - the whole thing always comes down to the Romans....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
This is going to be like black propaganda, isn't it?
-
Gen 1 and 2 are allegories. Stories told to explain things when science didn't exist. The fact that Gen 1 isn't all that far off if you look at it from a cosmic perspective is kinda neat. It shouldn't change one's faith to find out a 2000-3000+ year old book is a bit off. You are a rational good person, your faith will work itself out.
Yes, exactly.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
This is going to be like black propaganda, isn't it?
ROTFL - I bet it is.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It is a faith based belief system, led by pied pipers.
You can't be that diluted that you believe that, can you?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
They believe that humans are a virus that is infecting the earth, so humans must be eliminated.
Do 'they' have a website where they say this? Surely every major cult / religion has a website that explains their ideals, and I'm curious to see which source backs up what you claim?
Check out the CodeProject forum Guidelines[^] The original soapbox 1.0 is back![^]
EliottA wrote:
I'm curious to see which source backs up what you claim?
YouTube. Duh. :P
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Look up Adam on (GASP) Wikipedia. Great bit of info. Mirrors what you say. Thing is, literalists aren't exactly the best people to argue with. And a whole lot of people thumping Bibles are literalists. Most Catholics are literalists in regards to the New Testament but traditionalists with the Old. (Figure the stories are allegories.) I was brought up Catholic. That changed after I realized they only cared about controlling me, not about listening to me at all.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Do you think of the Bible as a historically-accurate text, or just as stories to instruct and guide?
Well, I think most people don't really argue that it's historically accurate ( that is, if you remove the bits where God does stuff ), on the basis that it was written by people who were around when the events occured. I think that parts of it are allegorical, but I don't believe that it's the intention of the authors that we make excuses and explain away the things that it says God did. I believe that Jesus healed people, that He rose from the dead, that Mary was a virgin until after Jesus was born, etc.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'm obviously no expert on it, but I've heard plenty of people talk about passage X contradicting Y, and things of that sort.
This is an interesting truism. The Bible is fundamentally about God, and His dealings with man. The Bible does not contradict itself on this front. The Bible is not written to be scientifically accurate, it's written to be understood by uneducated people thousands of years ago. In that context, it is surprisingly scientifically accurate, however, that is not it's purpose. If one book says there were 2000 people at an event, and another says 1500, I don't see that as a contradiction, I see it as two authors estimates, or perhaps a translation error through the years. The only thing that I believe God is going to preserve in the Bible, is the message that He intended it to have. I have never seen a claim of contradiction that holds water on that front. It's just something people take for granted because they heard it, without any proof.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
it was written by people who were around when the events occured.
Surey that's not true? I thought most of it was written years afterwards - and don't the surviving texts today differ significantly from any original documents? (I seem to remember there are some books 'missing' from the bible today - and some passages changed over teh centuries to suit what the church and society currently believed in?
Christian Graus wrote:
, it's written to be understood by uneducated people thousands of years ago
but it's not. It isn't a single thing, really, is it? It's jsut a collection of lots of different ritings by differrnt peop;le, editied and re-edited over thousands of years. How can you say it was written to be understood by uneducted people (who probably couldn't read) - each differnet passage was surely written for a variety of reasons and copied, copied and re-copied over time.
Christian Graus wrote:
I believe God is going to preserve in the Bible,
Doen't that presuppose an interventionist God?
Christian Graus wrote:
The Bible does not contradict itself on this front.
They seem to disagree here[^] It seems to me that 'believing' in the bible is really just maintaining a belief that someone else had and bothered to write about. Why should the Bible be any more or less 'special' than any other old 'religious' text?
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
In the past, though not so much in recent years (The times, they are a-changin'), I've been asked why I don't believe in "god," or some other higher power. For most of the world, it seems to be the default, and us atheists are the oddballs. That seems to be changing, albeit slowly (Recent studies show more and people people identifying as "non-religious," though not necessarily "atheist"), but belief in a deity is still the generally-accepted normal state. Now normally this is a bit of a taboo subject, but this is, after all, the Back Room. Given that the general audience here is comprised of geeks of various types, not the stereotypical mindless masses, I'm going to pose the forbidden question. Why do you believe in "god" (Or other deity)? Why do you follow your particular religion? Is it because of upbringing or habit, or do you really believe it? How much of your religion's teachings do you actually believe? NOTE: I'm not trying to convert anyone to/from anything. This is pure curiosity, as I've never been able to truly understand the religious perspective. (Oh, and if CSS chimes in with his garbage, let's just ignore him - Alex Jones and Ron Paul are not welcome here)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
I do not believe in any god or deity. I honestly cannot comprehend why otherwise apparently sensible people do so. It seems absolutely incredible to me that seemingly sane people can believe in such twaddle! See also my blog here[^] where I waffle on about my theory on the origin of all things religious. The 'Why do you follow a particular religion' question is a doozy - I mean, with so many contradictopry religions, does in not occur to people that it's more likely that NONE of them are 'true' than only one of them? I haven't studied the history of religion - and it would certainly be a facinating topic - but heirin lies a problem - those with strong beliefs tend to be the ones studying texts and drawing their own biased conclusions (a bit like CSS!!) whereas those who just don't beleive (as opposed to those with a stong Atheistic fervour) tend not to delve quite so deeply. My six year old son BELEIVES in Santa. He knows, for a fact, that there is a Santa because he has proof - presents at the foot of the bed on Xmas day, and EVERYBODY without exception confirms to him that there is a Santa. He's seen Santa at the mall, with his own eyes (although he does confirm that some store santas are just helpers, and not the real deal) But he'll grow out of it - he'll realise one day that it ain't real at all. He currently doesn't believe in God - his school is not of a religious bent, although some of his contemporaries have been told about God and have explained it to him, he's very sceptical "Xavier told me at school that God made us - but he's wrong because I came out of Mummy's tummy" (I didn't go too far along the how he got into mummy's tummy, as he'd not long before been showing me his 'stiffie' and I'd kinda had enough for one day!) It seems to me that many families that are religious breedoffspring that tend to be religious too - althought they may rebel against a specific religion, the belief in a deity does seem to be more prevalent in those whose arents also believed - and the converse is also apparent. It all goes to show (IMHO) what a bunch of bollocks it all is!
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
You have to remember that Christian thinks that Catholics aren't Christians. :suss:
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Well, that depends entirely on your definition. They are 'christian', in so far as they label themselves as such. Does the Catholic Church as a whole remotely adhere to any of the things that Jesus said are important, and that define Christianity, as He defines it ? I'm afraid not. They are not alone in that, by any means. And they have every right to get it utterly wrong. Just like I have every right to point it out.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.