Christianity is barking mad!

[Akashic_Librarian]

Radical, what could you possibly think you would accomplish by blatently claiming Chrstianity is rubbish and crazy. I mean you could say that about all religion, there will be evidence somewhere I am sure. You have to understand the Christianity most see today is a warped version of its orgininal form. It was warped and changed to suit the Changer. I am not Christian you understand, but I like to expell ignorance on this matter because I can.

[Will Edwards]

Personally, I don't think the problem with Christianity is to be found in the Bible - it is to be found in the many faulty interpretations of the text.

Just my 2c.

[Joshiepoo3000]

Will Edwards chooses his words with wisdom.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Megan

Great quote, Radical. Dawkins is amazing, and has probably helped a lot of people get out of abusive religious situations. Wish I could have borrowed some of his backbone in my day.

His confrontation with (later to be disgraced) Ted Haggard, head of 30 million American Evangelicals, in "Root of All Evil" is just incredible, isn't it?

YouTube - Ted Haggard in "Root of All Evil?"

Yes, Dawkins is one of my heroes. I believe he is doing science a great service and I highly recommend his book The God Delusion to anyone who hasn't read it.

Originally Posted by Megan

I'm speaking of evolution itself, not the theory of evolution. I believe religion is part of the evolutionary process. How could it not be?

If the religious impulse is evolutionary in nature, could we not expect it to evolve as well?

I believe religion is a misfiring byproduct of evolution, whilst the religious ideas themselves are evolutionary in nature - they serve no purpose other than their own propagation and survival. With the help of people like Richard Dawkins, religion will become obsolete.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Will Edwards

Personally, I don't think the problem with Christianity is to be found in the Bible - it is to be found in the many faulty interpretations of the text.

Just my 2c.

What criterion I wonder do you use to decide what parts of the Bible to take literally? - other than your own discretion? All interpretations are faulty because the text is nothing more than a faulty mish-mash of contradictory nonsense. It makes an interesting work of fiction, but should in no way be taught to children as a moral standard.

[Joshiepoo3000]

Akashic Librarian has intelligent things to say about the subject. I do not disagree with one thing. Not all men are stupid. Intelligence is the ability to learn. Stupidity is hendering your own ability to learn. Subjective realism is stupid in this way. Through questions of everything, there are no answers. They ask me a question and I give them an answer. Because of my intelligence I will be painted into no corner. When I give an answer that they do not agree with, the subjective realist only changes the subject and asks a different question. By the time we have realized we have gotten nowhere, we are talking about something entirely different than we started. Subjective realists question the followers of religions so much that they blame the man that began it. The funny thing is that the teacher does not come around to object to the followers' ways. The men of other religions have died off, so they do not object, but my God loves us enough to give us our choices.

[Joshiepoo3000]

If anyone would like to ask me a question to test the faultyness of subjective realism, please direct it specifically to me. Please only ask a few questions at a time. It is difficult to answer them all in one sitting. I am only a man.

[Joshiepoo3000]

I take every bit of the bible literally. It may seem that one does not have a choice with God, but the over all theme of the Good Book is your choice. Your choice no matter what story is to choose God or choose death. Plain and simple. If a man is afraid to understand the bible without doubt, then he will never understand. But if a man realeases his doubt, then he will understand the bible. A belief is something you find true no matter what evidence is brought against it. All evidence against the bible has no rock beneath it.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Joshiepoo3000

If anyone would like to ask me a question to test the faultyness of subjective realism, please direct it specifically to me. Please only ask a few questions at a time. It is difficult to answer them all in one sitting. I am only a man.

Please stop hijacking my thread with your ramblings about subjective realism. You keep spurting out religious fanaticism, whereas I want an intelligent debate. You haven't contributed one bit of rational argument to this discussion.

[Joshiepoo3000]

Why do men fear faith so much that they choose death? Men fear everything then, because they fear death as well. I am not afraid of death. It is only how I die that I fear. I must have faith that He will not let me suffer. If you do not know where you go when you die, then you fear death. I know where I am going, so I do not fear it.

[Joshiepoo3000]

I am sorry I have offended you from Jesus, Radical. I ask you to please not lash out at me. I have meant no fault. I am only interested in the truth. If you find no truth in my words and wish me to leave, then I have no right to continue this.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Joshiepoo3000

I take every bit of the bible literally.

Every bit? So you advocate all of god's law? Murder apostates? Stone those who blaspheme? Kill your children if (when) they backtalk? If someone comes to your door and wants to boof your guest, it's better to send out your virgin daughters for boofing?

"Every bit", you said! There are quite a few naughty bits.

[Joshiepoo3000]

Do not get the law of the Old Testament and the New Testament confused. Before the Word was born, God's chosen had the law. They did not have the Word in their hearts and minds, but only in the good book. With the Word in your heart and mind, you cannot get confused. The Father was strict with his people, because without the book they would stray. The Father said to choose Him or death. When the Word was born and then accepted into men's hearts and minds they were given the truth in them. If Jesus is in them, they do not need the book to hear the truth. Jesus said not to fear. I do not fear, because I cannot be confused. I cannot be confused, because He is in me. To have Jesus in you is to know Him. A man can be saved by Him and not know Him. If you do not know Him, then you do not know the truth. The people before Jesus' life on earth did not know Him, so they did not know the truth. Moses heard the Word speak to him, so he wrote it down, but he did not know Him, because the Word was not within him.

[Akashic_Librarian]

Radical is right. Joshiepoo3000 you are hijacking this thread and I think you are verging on Preaching Lets keep it nice I know you are doing now...some more than others....hmm Radical. Lets not get nasty, we are all intelligent peopleand we can debate this Intelligently.

Joshiepoo3000 can you please clarify for me what you mean by Subjective Realism?


And Radical you can't expect an intelligent conversation when you start off the topic by claiming Christians are crazy...get some sense man!


Oh and on the subject of my Signiture if you want to question it then you can start a new topic. I won't take up someone elses topic for it.

[DiscoDan]

Radical, let me ask you a quick question. Do you feel that there are no good reasons to believe in religion?

But, before you answer that question, please state your definition of religion. Do faiths such as Buddhism and Taoism count to you as religion?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Joshiepoo3000

Moses heard the Word speak to him, so he wrote it down, but he did not know Him, because the Word was not within him.

So you'e saying Moses wrote it down wrong? But you said "every bit." Where in the bible does it say, "oh by the way, Moses wrote it down wrong sometime back, let's get that straight."

According to your brethren, the bible is the infallible word of god. But these laws are in the bible! With no qualifications anywhere about how "oops, pay no attention to the moses behind the curtain."

p.s. sending your daughters out to get repeatedly boned in the butt in order to save your guest, whom you claim is an angel, has nothing to do with Moses. similar events happen more than once in the bible.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

Radical, let me ask you a quick question. Do you feel that there are no good reasons to believe in religion?

But, before you answer that question, please state your definition of religion. Do faiths such as Buddhism and Taoism count to you as religion?

Lets get something clear. I am only referring to religions with a belief in a supernatural deity/personal god.

[Megan]

I mean that kindly, Joshiepoo, but you did say, "I take every bit of the bible literally."

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
--Exodus 22:18

But, I see you just explained yourself. But now, after explaining yourself, you don't take every bit literally, do you? In fact, now you don't even need the Book to hear the truth.

But don't get me wrong, I understand your last post perfectly. And, though you may not believe it, I'm a fellow believer, even though I don't believe the actual historical existence of Jesus can be proved.

Radical, I think you should expect religious apologists to come on a thread like this, and do what apologists do, no? You want them to sit on their hands? Hmmm?

[nara]

Originally Posted by Joshiepoo3000

If anyone would like to ask me a question to test the faultyness of subjective realism, please direct it specifically to me. Please only ask a few questions at a time. It is difficult to answer them all in one sitting. I am only a man.

We don't need to ask you any questions about subjective realism because your posts prove that subjectivity exists. You may believe what you write whole-heartedly but most of us reading your posts would agree you're delusional. How is that not subjective?

Originally Posted by Joshiepoo3000

Subjective realism is stupid in this way. Through questions of everything, there are no answers. They ask me a question and I give them an answer. Because of my intelligence I will be painted into no corner. When I give an answer that they do not agree with, the subjective realist only changes the subject and asks a different question.

There are answers out there but it's not as cut-and-dry, black-and-white as many religions would have you believe. There are a thousands shades of gray when it comes to our existence and anyone that claims to have absolute answers after reading a religious text is lost in their own subjective reality.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

And Radical you can't expect an intelligent conversation when you start off the topic by claiming Christians are crazy...get some sense man!

I'm not calling anyone crazy. My post simply pointed out the sheer absurdity of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. A fundamental premise in Christianity.

[Joshiepoo3000]

I see that some have made their choice no to believe. I write this only so that others that have not made their choice see the fault in your excessive skepticism. I value Meagans words. I am saying there is a difference between reading the bible and having the bible in you. I have the bible in me. Moses did not have the bible in him. He had to read it. Jesus is the Word and the Word is the bible. To have Jesus in you is not to have Him memorized, but to know Him. I know Him. I don't memorize Him, because He continues to speak to me. Moses had to memorize the Word that was spoken at the burning bush. Moses was not wrong, because wrong is evil. Evil is decreasing the value of a human being. In no way did Moses do this by writing down the Word's words. All I am saying is that Jesus was born to save us and let everyone know the truth.

Lot never literally said for the men to have sex with them. This is beside the point. You are talking about Genesis, which happened before Moses talked to the burning bush, and also before Deuteronomy. I do not understand the connection between Lot and Moses that you are talking about. Can you clarify? Forgive me for not understanding.

[Joshiepoo3000]

To not recognize absurdity IS crazy.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Joshiepoo3000

To not recognize absurdity IS crazy.

It is indeed.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Joshiepoo3000

Moses was not wrong, because wrong is evil. Evil is decreasing the value of a human being.

Comments of this ilk are what rankles, in a nutshell. The underlying message: "You are wrong (not to believe in god) and therefore evil, and therefore your value as a human being is less than mine." Joshiepoo, perhaps you don't mean to convey that, but it sure is a message that believers browbeat nonbelievers with. Joshiepoo, pardon my bluntness, but your communication style feels like browbeating to me.

Originally Posted by Joshiepoo3000

I do not understand the connection between Lot and Moses that you are talking about. Can you clarify? Forgive me for not understanding.

The connection beween Lot and Moses (and the Laws and the story of the concubine that gets sent out in lieu of traveler and gets herself boofed to death) is that these are all IN THE BIBLE which you stated you took literally, every bit. The bible emphatically implies that Lot did the right thing by offering up his daughters out in order to save the angels, and the bible nowhere indicates anything to refute that. Also, the bible nowhere states that you shouldn't take Moses's laws literally for any reason. (Lot's daughters mercifully survived and were able to later have sex with Lot, but the traveler's concubine was not so lucky. Boofed to death.)

My point is: if you say you take every bit of the bible literally, and consider yourself to live by its word, then you are in favor of killing children, sacrificing your daughters' lives (and orifices!) for strangers', and stoning to death anyone who rejects belief in christian god. If you try to have it both ways, "it's literal AND it's subject to interpretation," your argument is too slippery to take into serious consideration and, I believe, is subject to being ridiculed. If you take the point of view that it's all literal, then you're either a hypocrite or a psychopath, and if you tell me it's all subject to interpretation, then you beg the question: WHOSE?

My point is: the bible is a bunch of baloney.

[Megan]

...on which Western Culture is founded. Smarter folks than me, er, I say that.

The Emergence of Religion

Religion, so far as it receives external expression in human history, exhibits four factors or sides of itself. These factors are:

ritual
emotion
belief
rationalization

There is definitive organized procedure, which is ritual: there are definite types of emotional expression: there are definitely expressed beliefs: and there is the adjustment of these beliefs into a system, internally coherent and coherent with other beliefs.

But all these four factors are not of equal influence throughout all historical epochs. The religious idea emerged gradually into human life, at first barely disengaged from other human interests. The order of the emergence of these factors was in the inverse order of the depth of their religious importance: first ritual, then emotion, then belief, then rationalization.

The dawn of these religious stages is gradual. It consists in an increase of emphasis. Perhaps it is untrue to affirm that the later factors are every wholly absent. But certainly, when we go far enough back, belief and rationalization are completely negligible, and emotion is merely a secondary result of ritual. Then emotion takes the lead, the ritual. Then emotion takes the lead, and the ritual is for the emotion which it generates. Belief then makes its appearance as explanatory of the complex of ritual and emotion, and in this appearance of belief we may discern the germ of rationalization.

It is not until belief and rationlization are well established that solitariness is discernible as constituting the heart of religious importance. The great religious conceptions which haunt the imaginations of civilized mankind are scenes of solitariness: Prometheus chained to his rock, Mahomet brooding in the desert, the meditations of the Buddha, the solitary Man on the Cross. It belongs to the depth of the religious spirit to have felt forsaken, even by God.

Religion in the Making - Alfred North Whitehead - 1926

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Joshiepoo3000

Lot never literally said for the men to have sex with them.

Yes, he did. When the mob of Sodomites raucously demanded that the "angels" be provided "so that they might know them" they are not looking for nice chat. They want sodomy. That's where it got its name, for heaven's sake! Lot offers his daughters to the mob "to do with as you please" instead of the men. Lot was not suggesting dinner and a movie.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Angela

Yes, he did. When the mob of Sodomites raucously demanded that the "angels" be provided "so that they might know them" they are not looking for nice chat. They want sodomy. That's where it got its name, for heaven's sake! Lot offers his daughters to the mob "to do with as you please" instead of the men. Lot was not suggesting dinner and a movie.

Gangrape and incest, lot's daughters aren't exactly the best role models for your kids. Neither is Joshiepoo's precious Moses.

God incited Moses to attack the Medianites. His army made short work of slaying all the men and burning all the Medianite cities, but they didn't kill the women and children. This merciful restraint infuriated Moses, and he gave orders that all the boy children should be killed, and all the women who were not virgins. 'But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.' (Numbers 31:18).

What kind of a role model do you call that?

[Megan]

Some of those people might not be as nice as you! I have a feeling Lot knew that already....

By Cylon, Yesterday, 09:40 PM

While trying to get to the bottom of this stuff, I came across Gnostic Christianity. From what I've read, it's possible that early Christianity viewed Christ as a metaphor, or perhaps as a mythology that you could perhaps relate to, without actually identifying with the literal belief that Christ was real.

Because when you start to believe that Christ was real, you owe it to yourself to learn about the pagan beliefs/stories that predate Christianity, which JUST HAPPEN TO BE VERY SIMILAR to Christianity, and give you a bigger picture of this belief that has dominated for two thousand years.

All the stories of Christ, that many think are exclusive to Christianity, inconveniently happen to be the stories of other Gods from that era and before.

I suppose the easiest solution to this conflict would be, Satan went back in time and created fairy tales that would end up being almost identical to the stories in the New Testament, in order to throw us off the path, and perhaps screw us out of eternal life. That Satan is a real clever sort.

Well, actually, the Satan story doesn't do a lot for me....

If the historicity of Jesus, in any degree, could be proved, it would give us reason for supposing - what I have personally always been inclined to believe - that there was also a historical nucleus for such personages as Osiris, Mithra, Krishna, Hercules, Apollo and the rest.

The question, in fact, narrows itself down to this, Have there been in the course of human evolution certain, so to speak, nodal points or periods at which the psychology currents ran together and condensed themselves for a new start, and has each such node or point of condensation been marked by the appearance of an actual and heroic man (or woman) who supplied a necessary impetus for the new departure, and gave his name to the resulting movement?

Or is it sufficient to suppose the automatic formation of such nodes or starting-points without the intervention of any special hero or genius, and to imagine that in each case the myth-making tendency of mankind created a legendary and inspiring figure and worshiped the same for a long period afterwards as a god?

As I have said before, this is a question which, interesting as it is, is not really very important.

The main thing being that the prophetic and creative spirit of mankind has from time to time evolved those figures as idealizations of its "heart's desire" and placed a halo round their heads.

The long procession of them becomes a real piece of history--the history of the evolution of the human heart, and of human consciousness.

--Edward Carpenter, Pagan and Christian Creeds

Joshiepoo, the reason this is really, really OK, I think, is that Jesus is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

[DiscoDan]

I have yet another question for you, Radical.

Let me set up the following scenario: A man is about to commit suicide, as he feels he has no self-worth.

Would it better for this man to believe in a jealous god who punishes all those who 'sin' against him (thereby sentencing this man to an eternity in hell if he were to go through with his suicide attempt), or would it be better for him to be an adamant atheist, with the belief that there will be no such consequences for his actions?

[Radical]

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

I have yet another question for you, Radical.

Let me set up the following scenario: A man is about to commit suicide, as he feels he has no self-worth.

Would it better for this man to believe in a jealous god who punishes all those who 'sin' against him (thereby sentencing this man to an eternity in hell if he were to go through with his suicide attempt), or would it be better for him to be an adamant atheist, with the belief that there will be no such consequences for his actions?

I don't know. I’m not interested in ascertaining answers to hypothetical problems which have no relevance to the validity of Christianity.