Are you religious?

[Elmo]

ok people, if "god" exists, be it a christian god or any other god from any other religion... WHY does he allow so many people in this world die from such things as hunger, aids, war, etc? why does it allow such terribly awful things happen to people who just dont deserve it? Surely "it's" well...job is to SAVE people? salvation etc?

Also, if the accuracy of the bible is unquestionable for it's time, and it's translations havent been altered in its rewritings, then who is to say it wasnt written by 2 guys on crack (or whatever other halucinogenic drug going at the time - after all, they did eat all kinds of berries etc...)? It would be true enough to how life was at the time, because they were living it, but they decided to write this book about it and exaggerated parts and wrote down some "mad" ideas.

It's been done before - magic roundabout for instance...

[nichomach]

ok people, if "god" exists, be it a christian god or any other god from any other religion... WHY does he allow so many people in this world die from such things as hunger, aids, war, etc? why does it allow such terribly awful things happen to people who just dont deserve it? Surely "it's" well...job is to SAVE people? salvation etc?

God doesn't allow people to die from war, AIDS, hunger etc - we do. It's called free will. It's funny that the very people who complain about religion "controlling" people then complain when it doesn't...

War, hunger and disease are all things that we could either prevent or ameliorate; indeed as I've noted above, faith-based organizations spend a lot of time trying to do just that. In the end, however, what God is likely to ask is that given that he's given humans all the power needed to stop hunger and war, to at least treat people who are suffering from diseases like AIDS and if we spent some more time and money on it perhaps to cure them, why haven't we dealt with it?

Also, if the accuracy of the bible is unquestionable for it's time, and it's translations havent been altered in its rewritings, then who is to say it wasnt written by 2 guys on crack (or whatever other halucinogenic drug going at the time - after all, they did eat all kinds of berries etc...)? It would be true enough to how life was at the time, because they were living it, but they decided to write this book about it and exaggerated parts and wrote down some "mad" ideas.

Ooooooo....K..... So these would have been very long-lived crackheads then? Different parts of the New Testament were written over periods of several hundred years and The Bible as a whole was written over thousands. Also they'd have to have been very well organized crackheads to ensure that the supporting evidence from Roman records for the existence of Jesus and the supporting evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls was around to be picked up.

In fact it hasn't been "rewritten" at all. If I take the same text and translate it from Greek to English, from Greek to Russian, from Greek to Cantonese, have I rewritten it? No. Has it been translated through multiple languages? No. It has gone through one translation in each case.

It's been done before - magic roundabout for instance...

I was unaware that anyone had ever claimed that the Magic Roundabout was true in any sense, or that Dougal had produced witnesses and followers dedicated enough to suffer death in his name...

[Elmo]

I was unaware that anyone had ever claimed that the Magic Roundabout was true in any sense, or that Dougal had produced witnesses and followers dedicated enough to suffer death in his name...

the point is, they COULD have. There's nothing to say they couldnt. But if talking dogs and torsos on springs seems too far fetched for us to believe was true, then why should we believe in someone who supposedly walked on water or any of the other miracles?

[nichomach]

the point is, they COULD have. There's nothing to say they couldnt. But if talking dogs and torsos on springs seems too far fetched for us to believe was true, then why should we believe in someone who supposedly walked on water or any of the other miracles?

Well, actually, they couldn't, since there'd be rather too many eye-witness accounts stating "it was all done with strings, you know". As opposed to the eye-witness accounts of people who knew Jesus and were prepared to stand by the truth of their accounts even to the point of death.

[yamangman]

Those are some rather flouncey arguments against the proflieration of Religion. Humankind created Religion and it's God's, from Greek and Egyptian to the benignly forever-tollerent Gods of today. In this day and age, Religion and God are not needed, and perhaps the few people who do seek without other influence are struggling with some inner purposelessness. Perhaps they can't grasp that we live, then we die.

[Stewart]

Those are some rather flouncey arguments against the proflieration of Religion. Humankind created Religion and it's God's, from Greek and Egyptian to the benignly forever-tollerent Gods of today. In this day and age, Religion and God are not needed, and perhaps the few people who do seek without other influence are struggling with some inner purposelessness. Perhaps they can't grasp that we live, then we die.

You talk 100%, pure, unadulterated common sense, my man.

[Moonshade]

Those are some rather flouncey arguments against the proflieration of Religion. Humankind created Religion and it's God's, from Greek and Egyptian to the benignly forever-tollerent Gods of today. In this day and age, Religion and God are not needed, and perhaps the few people who do seek without other influence are struggling with some inner purposelessness. Perhaps they can't grasp that we live, then we die.

too, that is so true! great..

[ajbrun]

WOW - this thread is doing better than I though it would!!! Over 100 posts and counting.

[Galant]

To Knox and his 'preconditioning' - so what you're basically saying is you wont take anyone's turning to faith seriously unless they grew in a religious void, never having heard of God or a particular faith, and oly if their parents made it absolutely, specifically clear that they had the complete freedom of choice in all matters pertaining to faith? Well not only does that sound a bit unrealistic it also doesn't say much for human independence the ability to think clearly. I mean if the inclusion of faith or tlak of religion so affects someone's life as to determine that will at some point turn to God, then I wonder what influence other people views will have. If they grow up with scientists are they destined to become the same, or if they grow up in communism are they destined to forever be good little followers of the state?

Is the ideal for people to grow up with no-one making any suggestions at all and letting people educate themselves in anyway they see fit - just so they can say they've never been influenced by anything?

I wonder about those converts (both young and old) in countries like India and the middle-east who have grown up being massively influenced by and educated in Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism. What happened to that influence? Is it that it only matters that you've been introduced to God and then you're bound to accept religion of some form you just have the freedom to choose which? How about those who grew up for years in other faiths, with their whole families, and then upon hearing about Jesus Christ decided to convert, leaving their prior faith and suffering the condemnation and loss of support from their family. Were they conditioned for that?

I think I understand where you drawing your thoughts Knox, but honestly speaking, I think you're over simplifying the issue. I think the problem is that Christianity is such that one cannot simply dismiss it on or one or two seemingly difficult problems. An honest investigation will provide answers to those questions.

To the "the Bible is a myth/was made up/is a product of a government" crew - there are many notions and ideas that you can come up with and throw out but the fact is that they are wrong. History and science have shown the Bible to be a reliable document. They have shown Jesus Christ to have existed. These are decided and non-contested facts (expect by a very few fringe individuals) established over time and with investigation. All the arguments tossed out about pot-heads, government conspiracies and chinese whispers are just plain wrong. That's not my argument, it's the argument of science and history.

What you must then consider is if those arguments are wrong and the Bible is more accurate, reliable, and truthful than you had previously thought - what then does that mean and do you want to pursue the investigation further?

[Stewart]

To the "the Bible is a myth/was made up/is a product of a government" crew - there are many notions and ideas that you can come up with and throw out but the fact is that they are wrong. History and science have shown the Bible to be a reliable document. They have shown Jesus Christ to have existed. These are decided and non-contested facts (expect by a very few fringe individuals) established over time and with investigation.

Galant me old mate, me old mucker, me old <Insert Word Of Choice Here>, I am one of the crew of which you speak (well, type) and I never have, am not at the present time, nor ever will claim that Jesus Christ did not exist. To do so would be rather foolish, as his existence is not really something you can question - he was walking about, standing on orange boxes speaking about this and that, back in the day. Of course he was.

No one is claiming that the Bible does not contain historically accurate 'reports' of some events either mate, however, what we are saying is, the more far fetched stuff, like Jesus being the Son of God / Walking on water / Coming back from the dead is, perhaps, not quite so true.

Call me crazy, but if I read a story about someone walking on water, I tend to only believe that story if there is incontrovertible proof backing it up. I don't 'have faith', I don't believe this nonsense, as it is, as anyone but the most gullible can surly see, just a nice story.

Religion and the belief in God is simple the easiest way of opting out of the human condition; the human situation. You are born, you live your life and you die.

When you die (and this is the harsh part you don't want to believe, but deep, deep down, like everyone else, you know is true) you get put in a wooden box, which is then buried in the earth, and you decompose, probably with the aid of worms, maggots, etc.

Alas, it would be nothing short of really spiffing, if you floated up to Heaven, with 'Barbers Adagio For Strings' playing in the background, to speak to a big man with a white beard (Or am I confusing this with Christmas?) who opened a big gate, and let you in, so you can sit on a cloud and play Bukaroo or whatever. Sounds great doesn't it?

Perhaps, it would be better if we all threw reason, logic and evidence out the window and just believed in this mush, but it wouldn't change anything.

Religion survives on ignorance and lack of education in poor countries, and on the terminally gullible trying to opt out of the fate that awaits us all in the richer, more developed countries, where you cannot site ignorance as a reason for still believing, in 2004, that a big man in the sky with magic powers made everything. (A simple version of the story of creation, I admit, but accurate I think you'll find).

I really can't understand the mindset of the truly religious. Why do you want to explain those things that you can not understand with stories and rather silly magical happenings? Why not think, study and come up with an explanation that actually makes sense, and can be scientifically proven or at least explained.

We don't need your stories of virgin births, talking snakes, rising from the dead, Heaven, Hell and the rest of it. You can't prove any of it, you can't even put together the beginnings of a case to show that it might even be the correct interpretation of anything.

Its time to think now, time to stop worshipping big men in the sky, like tribesmen, and passing on stories no more convincing than the Tooth Fairy or Father Christmas stories to our children. Its time to stop flying planes in buildings, with the ‘pilots’ believing they are going to heaven with 15 virgins, or whatever the correct amount is.

Religion has no place in the modern world; it is an outdated method of trying to explain what we cannot understand, that once had a place, but is no longer required. We can now strive for the real answers, without the ball and chain of religion holding us back. And if it means there are a few less Paedophile Priests in the world, abusing and raping children under the all consuming hypocrisy of religion and God (Strange how such a significant percentage of the people chosen to represent God, in Gods very house, are the worse kind of vile, evil scum, isn't it?), then I'll take that as a welcome bonus.

[Galant]

Leaving to one side your latter arguments against general religion, I'd like to address a few of your other points.

No one is claiming that the Bible does not contain historically accurate 'reports' of some events either mate,

Actually a few people were, but never mind, on to your own points.

Call me crazy, but if I read a story about someone walking on water, I tend to only believe that story if there is incontrovertible proof backing it up.

Fair enough, but to clarify we are talking about events that happened in the distant past, history. Therefore, if we wish to find some value in the past we need to find a method of analysing those events without the luxury of seeing them happen as we stand there. The first point to establish would be that good science/logic would not rule out anything as possible until given sufficient research/investigation.

Secondly, looking back we must take a look at our sources of history. Evaluate them in their reliability and bias, take a look at the events in question, the claims made, the results, and make a decision based on the best information available.

Would that be a reasonable position?

If so, I believe I can posit a decent case for the claims of Christ and his resurrection. I realise this isn't an "Is Christianity true" thread, but I believe the only to defend my position on the validity of religion, in my case Christianty, is by giving Vaul et al some food for thought.

So how does that sound sir?

[Stewart]

I can guarentee now, that you can not and will not be able to put together a decent case for someone, Jesus Christ or anyone else, being killed and then returning to life.

Its tricky, believe me.

Of course, if you are prepared to attempt such a task, then please do so.

[Galant]

But how does my above position sound? Would you agree with my comments on evaluating history?

[Stewart]

I don't think you've said anything I'd disagree with, no. We have to use the sources we have avalible, of course.

[yamangman]

Pointless. How can you 'prove Religion' on technicalities, it's equally balmy as trying to debase it on technicalities. Religion has no place in the world today. It's usefullness as a form of control continues in many countries across the world, but we have democratic governments now. It's place as a solution to unexplainable matters has vanished, we now all know of scientific fact - evolution. It belongs to ancient history, it was born there; and here in the present, we should know that is where it should be left.

[Stewart]

Pointless. How can you 'prove Religion' on technicalities, it's equally balmy as trying to debase it on technicalities. Religion has no place in the world today. It's usefullness as a form of control continues in many countries across the world, but we have democratic governments now. It's place as a solution to unexplainable matters has vanished, we now all know of scientific fact - evolution. It belongs to ancient history, it was born there; and here in the present, we should know that is where it should be left.

Well of course, but he was saying he was going to put together a case for a person coming back from the dead, and to be honest, I wanted to see what he was going to come up with.

That's something I'd like to read.