PTR
Striker
Maybe not, but many people have made this point on the forum in the past. Its logic that I cannot understand.
Its like being in court and the defendant saying "you wouldn't dare say that if those coppers weren't there to protect you".
Atheist Britain ?
- Thread starter Narraback
- Start date
- Status
Maybe not, but many people have made this point on the forum in the past. Its logic that I cannot understand.
Its like being in court and the defendant saying "you wouldn't dare say that if those coppers weren't there to protect you".
Lewberry pie
Striker
Is this an apology?
Kent_Mackem
Striker
Well no, since I am not sure what I need to apologise for.
Text book avoid of my question though. I can of admire the way you can just ignore the awkward questions as if they are not there. I wish I was allowed to do that in real life.
Lewberry pie
Striker
To argue over Richard Dawkins would take days and ultimately be pointless.
I'm happy that all the evidence I'm aware of firstly points to a creator and secondly points to the bible as the word of God.
I agree with a lot of what people say about religion etc, none of this Matters since we're talking about you and it's you who is deflecting the questions
Kent_Mackem
Striker
I've answered all of your questions. You have again ducked the "Show me any of RD's conclusions that are incorrect" question.
If you honestly think your "evidence" points to a creator and also points to The Bible as being the word of God then continuing this conversation is pointless. I would be better off speaking to my 5 year old about the subject.
Mercia Blackcat
Striker
How can you know that especially when someone in that situation say that it does. There may not be some supernatural cure as a result of divine intervention but the power of prayer could help them become focused and cope with the illness and the treatment. If that keeps their spirits up then that alone can actually be of benefit as it prevents the immune system from becoming depressed. There is a human aspect to all this that is beyond the concepts of the mind.
Kent_Mackem
Striker
Fair point. I meant it is not going to summon some outside force to help, but I accept that it could well have benefits for the person in the way you suggest.
Mercia Blackcat
Striker
That is a fair point as Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven was within, that God was within. It is odd how Christianity transformed that into an external deity. What it does indicate to me, is that Jesus was not a conventional dualistic theist. For him God was internal. The actual method he proposes seems more suited to that of an internal process rather than an external being. Baptism with Spirit, single-mindedness, inner experience and everyday mindfulness. He also identifies the mind as the source of distraction. Recent research has indicated that we can consciously direct the flow of brain waves which could result in the stimulation of the pineal and other glands. Meditation has been considered a way of controlling this but I don't see why prayer could not have a similar effect. Perhaps faith is more based on trust than actual concepts of the mind that form a belief system.
Last edited:
L
Lexingtongue
Guest
Because he's an odious bell and has to post at least a smiley or worthless three word reply on very single thread ever created on the SMB?
greedminds
Striker
Seriously
Christianity
Christianity
Texasmac
Striker
Well you need to re look at your evidence, go back as far as you can, there are loads of scrolls/scripts written by men, not one that is written by a God or anyone with a direct chat with a God. Everything written down is a record of stories, told and of stories from travels of other people relayed to people with the ability and tools to write. What about the parts left out of modern bibles, or parts that may be hidden from you in the Vatican to stop you seeing other truths that would lead you away from the teachings of the established church?
Really there is only one question, why would a God need a reference book? And of course he/she/it wouldn't.
greedminds
Striker
I've just spent the evening with a fifty cal and a Singapore noodle
Randy Ostrich
Striker
Are these slang terms for drugs and hookers?
Kent_Mackem
Striker
When the next question that would come up is "Who created God?" and we think about the answer the Holy Joes will provide to that one, it is easy to see why they, as we see with our red and white friend on here, choose the "Creator" answer to our existence. It is a lazy way of thinking about things.
Lewberry pie
Striker
I'm not sure what your point is, I know there are lots of stories and legends passed down but only the bible contains prophecy and prediction which is evident to me.
It's an circular question that one, because to go beyond our universe and talk of infinity is something we'll probably never comprehend unless maybe we evolve into higher beings ourselves ala certain Sci Fi films I wouldn't want to spoil for you
Last edited:
Kent_Mackem
Striker
It's an circular question that one, because to go beyond our universe and talk of infinity is something we'll probably never comprehend unless maybe we evolve into higher beings ourselves ala certain Sci Fi films I wouldn't want to spoil for you
Oh I'm not denying that, I quite agree in fact. But to say "God did it" then sit back and relax is such a weak and lazy way out. Evidently it is enough for some, far from me to call them stupid.
Mercia Blackcat
Striker
Well even Jesus, who appears to have been fluent in Aramaic but also probably Hebrew and Greek, didn't feel the need to author one. Maybe to avoid the kind of concepts that arose after him through Paul. Also because the way he practiced did not need one. What would be the point of a book on Baptism with Spirit.
Lewberry pie
Striker
Quite similar to saying evolution did it when talking about hypothetical fossils though.
And I'd agree filling god into gaps is not a grounds to stop learning, but that doesn't omit the idea of God or a creator.
He did change a few laws otherwise all Christians would obey the mosaic law, but ultimately he removed laws and unburdened the people.
Mercia Blackcat
Striker
I'm not sure what your point is, I know there are lots of stories and legends passed down but only the bible contains prophecy and prediction which is evident to me.
It's an circular question that one, because to go beyond our universe and talk of infinity is something we'll probably never comprehend unless maybe we evolve into higher beings ourselves ala certain Sci Fi films I wouldn't want to spoil for you
The messianic prophesies in the Old Testament that are referred to in the New Testament are very tenuous. They are merely very short extracts from much longer passages that have been taken totally out of context. One is even taken from a passage where the person at the time is talking about the past rather than the future. Old Testament prophets tended to predict events that were in the near future at the time, warnings on where contemporary attitudes and behaviour would lead. They didn't make psychic prophesies of the future, although they may have made general predictions. Certainly, none of the New Testament ones referred to were as specific about Jesus as is claimed. The prophesies by Jesus are also based on common sense projections of where human behaviour would lead over time but they were expecting the End of Days in the near future as is indicated by the number of messianic claimants in the First Century. Some of Jesus' references to the "Second Coming" of the "Son of Man" are probably what signs to look for in genuine masters that followed him to avoid the mistake of following one of the many claimants whose motivations were probably political.
Matthew in particular liked his prophesies from the Old Testament but he appears to have made up stories such as the Flight to Egypt in his narrative so that the prophecy referring to the Messiah coming out of Egypt could be included.
This is a contentious issue and would probably need a very long post in response but none of us what that especially me, as I would have to type the ducker.
I'll try to be brief.Christianity is based on the interpretation of Paul which is why it is referred to as Pauline Christianity. Jesus was a Nazorean, a Hebrew that was probably from Judea rather than Galilee. His mothers side of the family appear to have been Sadducees involved in the Temple services as High Priest. Jesus is quoted as saying that he has not come to defy the scriptures, and hence the law, but to fulfil them. To bring fulfilment to those who are sincere in their practice. He explains that the mind is the source of temptation and advises control of thought to achieve mindfulness. That adultery begins in the mind before the law has been broken. With Baptism of Spirit he revealed the source of virtue so that to a sincere disciple, the law was effectively redundant. To put it another way, best to avoid sin than have to deal with the consequences later.
And the Masters make the rules
For the wise men, and the fools.
However, new discip0les that were Jewish had already been circumcised but new disciples that were gentile were then required to be circumcised. The movement of Jesus in Palestine remained the same after his death as it had been before so Jesus did not end that aspect of Mosaic Law. In his breakaway religion of Christianity, Paul challenges circumcision for Gentiles, something that James the brother of Jesus who succeeded Christ, readily allowed. Paul's intense hostility to the Jewish "Christians" and Mosaic Law is easily determined when it is remembered that those who he is attacking in authentic letters such as Galatians are James the brother of Jesus and Simon Peter. His diatribes against them are also continued in other authentic letters such as Romans. So it was Paul not Jesus that abandoned Mosaic Law which is clear from his letters. The earliest Gospel is that of Mark but that is after several of Paul's authentic letters which he had at his disposal being a friend of Luke who was a companion of Paul. Mark therefore reflects Pauline Christianity and doesn't seem to know actual Jewish traditions as is demonstrated several times in his Gospel. He also misrepresents Mosaic Law as being unified across Palestine whereas it was interpreted differently according to locale. So the only perspective available is a Gentile interpretation of a Gentile breakaway religion.
I've tried to be brief but this a very complex subject.
The main argument here appears to be between theism and material atheism. If I was asked the question whether I was religious or followed any particular faith, my answer would be no as I am not a theist but that doesn't make me a materialist atheist which would be the wrong assumption. Maybe I am one of the "silent" majority.
Last edited:
- Status
