**Official Religious Debate Thread**

[strigori]

That just sounds like semantics to me. Sure, he could reveal himself, but given that faith is an essential piece to a relationship with God, he can't.

 

So we are both really saying the same thing.

He has revealed himself through Jesus. He has revealed himself through Moses, Noah, and many prophets.

 

now you're complicating things.

The original question was "is there a god." Not which god. Your statement assumes that the Christian god is the only true monotheistic entity. And I hope to god (pun intended) that the Christian god is not THE god. Otherwise I fear that we have a cruel and jealous god ruling over us.

 

However, I "believe" that there is no mono-(or poly) theistic god(s). Rather, the idea of a god, or multiple gods, was created to ease the mind of man kind many years ago in order for them to understand life, death, and all of it in between.

I am not complicating things. Landlord said that he could reveal himself I just responded saying that God has. I would have responded in a different way if I had a different religion but I dont so I responded by what I know.

Assuming you believe that the accounts in those stories are correct. Those books were all written several hundred years after the events they chronicle. If you think about how much a story can change over a few years when there are written accounts taken at the time they were happening, how much change would oral stories (in cultures where there was not a true 'oral tradition') would change over two or three hundred years.

[dizzturbedNUfan]

There will be no good that comes from this thread.

We can all talk and for the most part get along on every other thread on this site, but you throw in a stupid little word "Religion" and World War 3 will start.

 

Good luck!

 

[redout22]

That just sounds like semantics to me. Sure, he could reveal himself, but given that faith is an essential piece to a relationship with God, he can't.

 

So we are both really saying the same thing.

He has revealed himself through Jesus. He has revealed himself through Moses, Noah, and many prophets.

 

now you're complicating things.

The original question was "is there a god." Not which god. Your statement assumes that the Christian god is the only true monotheistic entity. And I hope to god (pun intended) that the Christian god is not THE god. Otherwise I fear that we have a cruel and jealous god ruling over us.

 

However, I "believe" that there is no mono-(or poly) theistic god(s). Rather, the idea of a god, or multiple gods, was created to ease the mind of man kind many years ago in order for them to understand life, death, and all of it in between.

I am not complicating things. Landlord said that he could reveal himself I just responded saying that God has. I would have responded in a different way if I had a different religion but I dont so I responded by what I know.

Assuming you believe that the accounts in those stories are correct. Those books were all written several hundred years after the events they chronicle. If you think about how much a story can change over a few years when there are written accounts taken at the time they were happening, how much change would oral stories (in cultures where there was not a true 'oral tradition') would change over two or three hundred years.

Yes I believe and know that these stories are true and correct. I know that every detail in the Bible isn't true, most arent but the basis of the stories are right.

 

Also I agree with dizzturb. Nothing good can come from this thread.

[HuskersNow]

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

-Friedrich Nietzsche

[Husker_x]

That just sounds like semantics to me. Sure, he could reveal himself, but given that faith is an essential piece to a relationship with God, he can't.

 

So we are both really saying the same thing.

He has revealed himself through Jesus. He has revealed himself through Moses, Noah, and many prophets.

 

now you're complicating things.

The original question was "is there a god." Not which god. Your statement assumes that the Christian god is the only true monotheistic entity. And I hope to god (pun intended) that the Christian god is not THE god. Otherwise I fear that we have a cruel and jealous god ruling over us.

 

However, I "believe" that there is no mono-(or poly) theistic god(s). Rather, the idea of a god, or multiple gods, was created to ease the mind of man kind many years ago in order for them to understand life, death, and all of it in between.

I am not complicating things. Landlord said that he could reveal himself I just responded saying that God has. I would have responded in a different way if I had a different religion but I dont so I responded by what I know.

Assuming you believe that the accounts in those stories are correct. Those books were all written several hundred years after the events they chronicle. If you think about how much a story can change over a few years when there are written accounts taken at the time they were happening, how much change would oral stories (in cultures where there was not a true 'oral tradition') would change over two or three hundred years.

Yes I believe and know that these stories are true and correct. I know that every detail in the Bible isn't true, most arent but the basis of the stories are right.

 

Also I agree with dizzturb. Nothing good can come from this thread.

 

How can anything bad come from honest discussion and rational debate? I like discussions like these which start with a very general question that can then lead into sub-issues such as which god from the pantheon is the right one.

 

The question you have to ask yourself (the question I had to ask myself, actually), is why did Jesus appear in first century Palestine, a hick town of the Roman empire. Not only that, but he appeared in a culture already prone to vast superstition, that was 90% illiterate, that did not place any great value on written over oral tradition (try playing the telephone game), which had no printing press, no copyright laws, no empire-wide media outlet, and who also claims no objective source outside of mythical texts to confirm he even existed.

 

My second question would be, if you say the Bible isn't true in every detail, then how do you know which details were accurate? The gospels have the same problems with details. Who first visited the tomb? How many women were there? What did they see when they arrived? Did they do what Jesus told them to or not? Minor details, maybe, but this is supposedly the most important event to ever take place in human history. When we later find out that entire anecdotes like the woman caught in adultery in John 8 doesn't appear in early manuscripts, and the last several verses of Mark probably weren't original to the author, it raises some hard questions. Questions which only multiply the more you look into the formation of the biblical canon.

 

A lot of people claim to know god X revealed himself to people Y and therefore behaviors A, B, and C are expected. What the claims seem to lack is anything concrete to back them up.

[Husker_x]

There is no god.

 

The burden of proof is on the claimant.

 

Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence, evidence that just does not exist.

 

To say "There is no god" is to make yourself the claimant. Now you have the burden of proof.

 

Probably what you meant to say was, there is a lack of evidence for god claim X, and therefore I reject the claim until better evidence can be presented. So far all god claims presented have followed the same trend.

[dizzturbedNUfan]

That just sounds like semantics to me. Sure, he could reveal himself, but given that faith is an essential piece to a relationship with God, he can't.

 

So we are both really saying the same thing.

He has revealed himself through Jesus. He has revealed himself through Moses, Noah, and many prophets.

 

now you're complicating things.

The original question was "is there a god." Not which god. Your statement assumes that the Christian god is the only true monotheistic entity. And I hope to god (pun intended) that the Christian god is not THE god. Otherwise I fear that we have a cruel and jealous god ruling over us.

 

However, I "believe" that there is no mono-(or poly) theistic god(s). Rather, the idea of a god, or multiple gods, was created to ease the mind of man kind many years ago in order for them to understand life, death, and all of it in between.

I am not complicating things. Landlord said that he could reveal himself I just responded saying that God has. I would have responded in a different way if I had a different religion but I dont so I responded by what I know.

Assuming you believe that the accounts in those stories are correct. Those books were all written several hundred years after the events they chronicle. If you think about how much a story can change over a few years when there are written accounts taken at the time they were happening, how much change would oral stories (in cultures where there was not a true 'oral tradition') would change over two or three hundred years.

Yes I believe and know that these stories are true and correct. I know that every detail in the Bible isn't true, most arent but the basis of the stories are right.

 

Also I agree with dizzturb. Nothing good can come from this thread.

 

How can anything bad come from honest discussion and rational debate? I like discussions like these which start with a very general question that can then lead into sub-issues such as which god from the pantheon is the right one.

 

The question you have to ask yourself (the question I had to ask myself, actually), is why did Jesus appear in first century Palestine, a hick town of the Roman empire. Not only that, but he appeared in a culture already prone to vast superstition, that was 90% illiterate, that did not place any great value on written over oral tradition (try playing the telephone game), which had no printing press, no copyright laws, no empire-wide media outlet, and who also claims no objective source outside of mythical texts to confirm he even existed.

 

My second question would be, if you say the Bible isn't true in every detail, then how do you know which details were accurate? The gospels have the same problems with details. Who first visited the tomb? How many women were there? What did they see when they arrived? Did they do what Jesus told them to or not? Minor details, maybe, but this is supposedly the most important event to ever take place in human history. When we later find out that entire anecdotes like the woman caught in adultery in John 8 doesn't appear in early manuscripts, and the last several verses of Mark probably weren't original to the author, it raises some hard questions. Questions which only multiply the more you look into the formation of the biblical canon.

 

A lot of people claim to know god X revealed himself to people Y and therefore behaviors A, B, and C are expected. What the claims seem to lack is anything concrete to back them up.

You answered your own question, It's religion, there won't be rational debate.

[Landlord]

That's why religion is such a terrible thing. It's no secret that religion is responsible for a lot of bad in this world, and one could maybe argue that it causes more negative than positive.

 

 

 

The difference with Christianity, (sorry I am kind of hijacking this thread to plug my faith ), is that it isn't about religion at all. Religion is a check list of things you need to do in order to please God, which quite frankly, is impossible to do. Our "good deeds" are filthy rags in the eyes of a holy God, so there isn't anything we can do to win his favor. The difference then, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, is that God loves us and yearns to have a personal relationship, so he sent Jesus to die on the cross, and not only endure the torture and punishment, but most importantly to endure God's wrath that should be directed towards the entirety of humanity.

 

Going back to the original question, ArmyHusker I am still saying the same thing as you, and I too believe that God has revealed himself in different ways, but I guess what I was getting at before was that he could choose to show proof of his existance, bad use of words on my part.

 

If someone is looking for "proof" of God (what is proof anyways, besides just an overwhelming amount of evidence), it's my opinion that you need not look any further than the natural world around us to see the hand of an omnipotent being at work.

 

 

DizzturbedNUfan, as far as the gospels go, the minor details, even though they relate to, as you say, the most important event to ever take place in human history, are still minor details. What's important are the teachings, the persecution, and the resurrection. The best evidence in favor of the most important of these three, the resurrection, lies in the fact that no Jewish or other text can explain the disappearance of Jesus' body in any way.

 

If we are looking outside of the gospels, however, I think it's pretty easy for an educated person to tell when a part of the Bible is meant to teach, or when it's meant to chronicle, for the most part at least (helps a lot if you have a good background in the original languages).

[Husker_x]

That's why religion is such a terrible thing. It's no secret that religion is responsible for a lot of bad in this world, and one could maybe argue that it causes more negative than positive.

 

 

 

The difference with Christianity, (sorry I am kind of hijacking this thread to plug my faith ), is that it isn't about religion at all. Religion is a check list of things you need to do in order to please God, which quite frankly, is impossible to do. Our "good deeds" are filthy rags in the eyes of a holy God, so there isn't anything we can do to win his favor. The difference then, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, is that God loves us and yearns to have a personal relationship, so he sent Jesus to die on the cross, and not only endure the torture and punishment, but most importantly to endure God's wrath that should be directed towards the entirety of humanity.

 

Going back to the original question, ArmyHusker I am still saying the same thing as you, and I too believe that God has revealed himself in different ways, but I guess what I was getting at before was that he could choose to show proof of his existance, bad use of words on my part.

 

If someone is looking for "proof" of God (what is proof anyways, besides just an overwhelming amount of evidence), it's my opinion that you need not look any further than the natural world around us to see the hand of an omnipotent being at work.

 

 

DizzturbedNUfan, as far as the gospels go, the minor details, even though they relate to, as you say, the most important event to ever take place in human history, are still minor details. What's important are the teachings, the persecution, and the resurrection. The best evidence in favor of the most important of these three, the resurrection, lies in the fact that no Jewish or other text can explain the disappearance of Jesus' body in any way.

 

If we are looking outside of the gospels, however, I think it's pretty easy for an educated person to tell when a part of the Bible is meant to teach, or when it's meant to chronicle, for the most part at least (helps a lot if you have a good background in the original languages).

 

Experiment time. Let me flip the story around.

 

It's true that Christianity is unique in its requirements for salvation. There is no weighted scale, no clear checklist (though there is an impardonable sin and that pesky Book of James to deal with), or magic words for your deathbed. But let's not get ahead of ourselves here. God's not a complete altruist. If you don't believe that Christ came, died, and rose––that is, at the very least acknowledge in some sense that the event took place––you don't make the cut. And it isn't like the Hindu gods' version of not making the cut, where you simply try again. It isn't like the Jewish not making the cut, where you pass from existence entirely. With the God of Love, not making the cut involves an eternity in the darkest dungeon, the most excruciating torture, where for all time you will scream out in agony, never a day closer to the end of your sentence even after a billion years has gone by––all because you failed to recognize that the fantastic events listed in copies of copies of copies of lost manuscripts were probably, like all such things from that time, at least partly mythical.

 

Now, God WANTS to save us. That means a being who is supposedly self-sufficient, lacking nothing, has found room for improvement in his existence and wants us to be a part of it. Okay, we'll skip that. But is God doing everything in his power to achieve our salvation? Is he doing everything he possibly can to make sure that every person on the planet has the appropriate information to make a decision as to whether or not eternal life with their creator is worth it?

 

If so, God's not as powerful as we thought. If not, why not? Is it that––maybe, uh oh, possibly––he doesn't actually want to save everyone?

 

See what I mean?

 

P.S. To the "looking at the natural world" comment. This is one of many well refuted teleological arguments. Even if a designer could be inferred from nature, it certainly doesn't mean it has to be a supernatural one (aliens could have seeded life here), and it especially lends no weight whatsoever to the God of the Bible over any other list of candidates. At best we're now at deism.

[Husker_x]

double

[strigori]

That's why religion is such a terrible thing. It's no secret that religion is responsible for a lot of bad in this world, and one could maybe argue that it causes more negative than positive.

 

 

 

The difference with Christianity, (sorry I am kind of hijacking this thread to plug my faith ), is that it isn't about religion at all. Religion is a check list of things you need to do in order to please God, which quite frankly, is impossible to do. Our "good deeds" are filthy rags in the eyes of a holy God, so there isn't anything we can do to win his favor. The difference then, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, is that God loves us and yearns to have a personal relationship, so he sent Jesus to die on the cross, and not only endure the torture and punishment, but most importantly to endure God's wrath that should be directed towards the entirety of humanity.

 

Going back to the original question, ArmyHusker I am still saying the same thing as you, and I too believe that God has revealed himself in different ways, but I guess what I was getting at before was that he could choose to show proof of his existance, bad use of words on my part.

 

If someone is looking for "proof" of God (what is proof anyways, besides just an overwhelming amount of evidence), it's my opinion that you need not look any further than the natural world around us to see the hand of an omnipotent being at work.

 

 

DizzturbedNUfan, as far as the gospels go, the minor details, even though they relate to, as you say, the most important event to ever take place in human history, are still minor details. What's important are the teachings, the persecution, and the resurrection. The best evidence in favor of the most important of these three, the resurrection, lies in the fact that no Jewish or other text can explain the disappearance of Jesus' body in any way.

 

If we are looking outside of the gospels, however, I think it's pretty easy for an educated person to tell when a part of the Bible is meant to teach, or when it's meant to chronicle, for the most part at least (helps a lot if you have a good background in the original languages).

 

Experiment time. Let me flip the story around.

 

It's true that Christianity is unique in its requirements for salvation. There is no weighted scale, no clear checklist (though there is an impardonable sin and that pesky Book of James to deal with), or magic words for your deathbed. But let's not get ahead of ourselves here. God's not a complete altruist. If you don't believe that Christ came, died, and rose––that is, at the very least acknowledge in some sense that the event took place––you don't make the cut. And it isn't like the Hindu gods' version of not making the cut, where you simply try again. It isn't like the Jewish not making the cut, where you pass from existence entirely. With the God of Love, not making the cut involves an eternity in the darkest dungeon, the most excruciating torture, where for all time you will scream out in agony, never a day closer to the end of your sentence even after a billion years has gone by––all because you failed to recognize that the fantastic events listed in copies of copies of copies of lost manuscripts were probably, like all such things from that time, at least partly mythical.

 

Now, God WANTS to save us. That means a being who is supposedly self-sufficient, lacking nothing, has found room for improvement in his existence and wants us to be a part of it. Okay, we'll skip that. But is God doing everything in his power to achieve our salvation? Is he doing everything he possibly can to make sure that every person on the planet has the appropriate information to make a decision as to whether or not eternal life with their creator is worth it?

 

If so, God's not as powerful as we thought. If not, why not? Is it that––maybe, uh oh, possibly––he doesn't actually want to save everyone?

 

See what I mean?

 

P.S. To the "looking at the natural world" comment. This is one of many well refuted teleological arguments. Even if a designer could be inferred from nature, it certainly doesn't mean it has to be a supernatural one (aliens could have seeded life here), and it especially lends no weight whatsoever to the God of the Bible over any other list of candidates. At best we're now at deism.

There are also some other issues with it. These are all things that are held to be true for Christians.

 

God is infallible.

God says that He is a 'jealous God'

Jealousy is one of the 7 deadly sins.

 

These are things that reason out if you actually think about it.

 

God is infallible and is all knowing and all seeing. And Christians like to talk about 'God's Plan' and HE sets everything in motion. Yet at this being that does not make mistakes, and knows all that is was and will be gets upset and punishes people who don't believe in Him. Which means if the first part is right, then God is punishing people for doing what He made them to do. And if everything is and always has been moving on a path that God started when the universe created, no one has any choice in anything, its all just an illusion.

[redout22]

That's why religion is such a terrible thing. It's no secret that religion is responsible for a lot of bad in this world, and one could maybe argue that it causes more negative than positive.

 

 

 

The difference with Christianity, (sorry I am kind of hijacking this thread to plug my faith ), is that it isn't about religion at all. Religion is a check list of things you need to do in order to please God, which quite frankly, is impossible to do. Our "good deeds" are filthy rags in the eyes of a holy God, so there isn't anything we can do to win his favor. The difference then, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, is that God loves us and yearns to have a personal relationship, so he sent Jesus to die on the cross, and not only endure the torture and punishment, but most importantly to endure God's wrath that should be directed towards the entirety of humanity.

 

Going back to the original question, ArmyHusker I am still saying the same thing as you, and I too believe that God has revealed himself in different ways, but I guess what I was getting at before was that he could choose to show proof of his existance, bad use of words on my part.

 

If someone is looking for "proof" of God (what is proof anyways, besides just an overwhelming amount of evidence), it's my opinion that you need not look any further than the natural world around us to see the hand of an omnipotent being at work.

 

 

DizzturbedNUfan, as far as the gospels go, the minor details, even though they relate to, as you say, the most important event to ever take place in human history, are still minor details. What's important are the teachings, the persecution, and the resurrection. The best evidence in favor of the most important of these three, the resurrection, lies in the fact that no Jewish or other text can explain the disappearance of Jesus' body in any way.

 

If we are looking outside of the gospels, however, I think it's pretty easy for an educated person to tell when a part of the Bible is meant to teach, or when it's meant to chronicle, for the most part at least (helps a lot if you have a good background in the original languages).

 

Experiment time. Let me flip the story around.

 

It's true that Christianity is unique in its requirements for salvation. There is no weighted scale, no clear checklist (though there is an impardonable sin and that pesky Book of James to deal with), or magic words for your deathbed. But let's not get ahead of ourselves here. God's not a complete altruist. If you don't believe that Christ came, died, and rose––that is, at the very least acknowledge in some sense that the event took place––you don't make the cut. And it isn't like the Hindu gods' version of not making the cut, where you simply try again. It isn't like the Jewish not making the cut, where you pass from existence entirely. With the God of Love, not making the cut involves an eternity in the darkest dungeon, the most excruciating torture, where for all time you will scream out in agony, never a day closer to the end of your sentence even after a billion years has gone by––all because you failed to recognize that the fantastic events listed in copies of copies of copies of lost manuscripts were probably, like all such things from that time, at least partly mythical.

 

Now, God WANTS to save us. That means a being who is supposedly self-sufficient, lacking nothing, has found room for improvement in his existence and wants us to be a part of it. Okay, we'll skip that. But is God doing everything in his power to achieve our salvation? Is he doing everything he possibly can to make sure that every person on the planet has the appropriate information to make a decision as to whether or not eternal life with their creator is worth it?

 

If so, God's not as powerful as we thought. If not, why not? Is it that––maybe, uh oh, possibly––he doesn't actually want to save everyone?

 

See what I mean?

 

P.S. To the "looking at the natural world" comment. This is one of many well refuted teleological arguments. Even if a designer could be inferred from nature, it certainly doesn't mean it has to be a supernatural one (aliens could have seeded life here), and it especially lends no weight whatsoever to the God of the Bible over any other list of candidates. At best we're now at deism.

There are also some other issues with it. These are all things that are held to be true for Christians.

 

God is infallible.

God says that He is a 'jealous God'

Jealousy is one of the 7 deadly sins.

 

These are things that reason out if you actually think about it.

 

God is infallible and is all knowing and all seeing. And Christians like to talk about 'God's Plan' and HE sets everything in motion. Yet at this being that does not make mistakes, and knows all that is was and will be gets upset and punishes people who don't believe in Him. Which means if the first part is right, then God is punishing people for doing what He made them to do. And if everything is and always has been moving on a path that God started when the universe created, no one has any choice in anything, its all just an illusion.

No God doesn't make anyone do anything. Its called called free will, which he gave us. We make our own decisions on earth and if we make awful decisions and are not sorry for it then we get punished.

[WVhuskerXX]

No God doesn't make anyone do anything. Its called called free will, which he gave us. We make our own decisions on earth and if we make awful decisions and are not sorry for it then we get punished.

 

Bingo

[bennychico11]

No God doesn't make anyone do anything. Its called called free will, which he gave us. We make our own decisions on earth and if we make awful decisions and are not sorry for it then we get punished.

 

I've posted this before in a previous discussion but I really love this quote:

"The idea that good behavior only depends upon your fear of what will happen to you after you die; that you will be punished. Well, that excludes all of philosophy. It excludes Plato, it excludes the mystery cults of Greece, it excludes the Roman idea of what is a good man. There goes Marcus Aurelius, there goes Epictetus, there go the Stoics. These are all better thinkers than anything that the Christian church has come up with in 2,000 years."

-Gore Vidal

[strigori]

No God doesn't make anyone do anything. Its called called free will, which he gave us. We make our own decisions on earth and if we make awful decisions and are not sorry for it then we get punished.

 

Bingo

Then God can't be all knowing. It is always claimed that God knows all, sees all and has a plan in order for people. Knowing the future in all things means there is predestination. And predestination means there is no free will. It can't work both ways. If everything thing you do is set in stone from the beginning of time, how can you have free will?