"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever

[DJ1990]

believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" - John 3:16

how about, "For God liked a small part of the world, kind of, so he allowed the only son he has to suffer briefly, so that a very small part of humanity could escape the eternal suffering of hell which God created".

Makes more sense.

 

[Ambrocious]

During those 6 days of creation...which date did God create hell? The Bible doesn't say.

I know the teachings of Jesus were very good and a great way to live by but since I have been backed out of a relationship with God for so long, I can't say that I make a strong defense for this really.

This world does need a hero though. If Jesus is real and is alive out there with God the Father, we sure could use their help right about now.

 

[Royal Heart]

During those 6 days of creation...which date did God create hell? The Bible doesn't say.

The Bible doesn't say a lot of things it should and it says a lot of things it probably shouldn't. It's full of inconsistencies and fallacies.

I know the teachings of Jesus were very good and a great way to live by but since I have been backed out of a relationship with God for so long, I can't say that I make a strong defense for this really.

I personally disagree, but that's because of the parts where Jesus tells his followers to bring non-believers before him and slay them; and that part in Mark where it's essentially said that true believers can drink deadly poison and survive. I have a hard time believing that the nice men in suits who come to my house can chug a bottle of Draino and live.

This world does need a hero though. If Jesus is real and is alive out there with God the Father, we sure could use their help right about now.

There's this really awesome quote, said by Gandhi, which I believe is “Be the change you want to see in the world.” The world needs all of us to step up to the plate, not a lone wolf to shoulder our burdens and insecurities. We all have it in us to change the world for the better. Let's be each other's hero.

 

[kevin23]

"
I personally disagree, but that's because of the parts where Jesus tells his followers to bring non-believers before him and slay them; and that part in Mark where it's essentially said that true believers can drink deadly poison and survive. I have a hard time believing that the nice men in suits who come to my house can chug a bottle of Draino and live."

Jesus does not tell his followers to bring non-believers before him and slay them. Jesus is peace and love, he never condemned anyone. Mohammad in Islam may say it , but it is not in the Christian Bible.

The part in Mark is close to what you quoted , it says "if you drink" not" can drink " but most scholars agree that it was not in the orgional manuscrip, but added some time later by an unknown author.

 

[Serenx55]

Asinine debate; one which stems from the belief that the Bible is a literal guideline for living your life.

 

[conrad]

Friends, do try to make a distinction in your mind between taking the Bible seriously and taking the Bible literally.

In conversations with others don't close off discussion by bringing up points you know the other person will have difficulty with. You can have very good conversations this side of bringing up the loads of misinformation and disinformation which many folks grow up with.

And, to those of you who enter these threads just to announce that you don't believe any of the Bible or the Gospel of Christ: Why not lay off a bit and let those who are still seeking insight with an open mind have a crack at the discussion.

 

[hotatlboi]

And, to those of you who enter these threads just to announce that you don't believe any of the Bible or the Gospel of Christ: Why not lay off a bit and let those who are still seeking insight with an open mind have a crack at the discussion.

LOL at this.

Having an "open mind" is what finally rid me of the absurdity of the Bible.

I have an open mind to anything. If you have some evidence that makes the Bible true, I'm open to it. Haven't heard anything compelling so far though.

 

[Royal Heart]

Jesus does not tell his followers to bring non-believers before him and slay them. Jesus is peace and love, he never condemned anyone. Mohammad in Islam may say it , but it is not in the Christian Bible.

You're right, my mistake. Sorry about that.

The part in Mark is close to what you quoted , it says "if you drink" not" can drink " but most scholars agree that it was not in the orgional manuscrip, but added some time later by an unknown author.

Really?

New International Version: and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all

English Standard Version: if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them

King James Bible: if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them

Across multiple versions this part still seems to say the same thing: True Christians can guzzle deadly toilet bowl cleaner and survive. Even if it was added later, then why is it still in there? If it isn't true, then shouldn't it be removed? As long as it's in there, it's still considered part of the Bible and, therefore, it's still a Christian belief.

 

[FirmaFan]

And, to those of you who enter these threads just to announce that you don't believe any of the Bible or the Gospel of Christ: Why not lay off a bit and let those who are still seeking insight with an open mind have a crack at the discussion.

This guy beautifully explains "open mindedness", specifically addressing open mindedness with regards to religion.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI[/ame]

 

[zoltanspawn]

Truth-and-falsity is not the only axis on which our minds operate.

If you only consider questions of truth-and-falsity, your mind is not open.

 

[WillMc88]

Truth-and-falsity is not the only axis on which our minds operate.

If you only consider questions of truth-and-falsity, your mind is not open.

What does that even mean?

 

[TX-Beau]

What does that even mean?

I suppose it means that if you evaluate the claims religious people make in terms of whether they are true or not, you don't have an open mind.

Which of course is just more pretentious babble intended to disguise the fact that the religious rarely question anything about their religions in terms of whether it's true or not. Their minds are completely closed when it comes to their mythology.

Just believe!!!!!!!!!! Drink the kool-aid or go to hell!!!

Wooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL


To all of you religious people out there, come on. There are plenty of places you can go and not be bothered with pesky questions you don't want to think about, these places are called churches, we don't go in them.

I, like most of us in here who aren't religious are perfectly happy to entertain any arguments you have, but that doesn't mean we're just going to swallow everything you say. It's not personal. If you can't get anywhere with your arguments, maybe that's the fault of the argument.

I don't really feel for you if you think that people with questions and counter-positions is persecution. It's not, it's debate. Nowhere does it say that you have a right to go unquestioned. No where does it say that you must be automatically given preference, and the assumption of superior truth in a discussion.

All those claims to persecution basically boil down to y'all insisting you be given special privileges that disallow debate, that require the burden of proof for your magic claims to rest on someone else, that your fantastic premise be automatically accepted and respected as truth without evidence, all of which kinds of privilege you will deny anyone else.

Frankly, y'all Christians treat other religions exactly the way you complain about when the shoe is on your foot.

 

[zoltanspawn]

I suppose it means that if you evaluate the claims religious people make in terms of whether they are true or not, you don't have an open mind.

No, that's not what I wrote.

 

[TX-Beau]

Do tell.......

 

[zoltanspawn]

Do tell what I wrote?

I think my post is pretty straightforward. Where is the confusion?

.....

Religious expressions are not always religious claims to be considered in terms of truth or falsity. If that is the only way one engages religious expressions it's close-minded.

More generally, our minds don't only process evidence to determine truth, but also have enormous appetites and imaginations. Exercising those portions of our mind is worthwhile. It diminishes us to pretend like we are strictly factual creatures.

 

[WillMc88]

Religious expressions are not always religious claims to be considered in terms of truth or falsity. If that is the only way one engages religious expressions it's close-minded.

More generally, our minds don't only process evidence to determine truth, but also have enormous appetites and imaginations. Exercising those portions of our mind is worthwhile. It diminishes us to pretend like we are strictly factual creatures.

What exactly do you mean by 'religious expression?' Religious claims, like all claims, can be evaluated individually.

And there is nothing wrong with exercising your imagination. But you can't imagine something into existence. The most reliable (if not only) method of determining if a thing exists or does not exist is with evidence.

My imagination can lead me to believe that lightning is created by Zeus, who hurls it down from a mountain in the sky, but that doesn't make it true.

 

[zoltanspawn]

What exactly do you mean by 'religious expression?' Religious claims, like all claims, can be evaluated individually.

Will, religious expressions are extremely varied. An expression of religion may simply be a dance or a painting with little resemblance to a claim about things. Or, a religious expression may appear to be sort of a soft claim, like a native american trickster etiology. Or, a religious expression may take the shape of a hard claim, like some Catholic philosophy. But there is a full range of ways religions express themselves. Treating every religious expression as though it were a hard claim to be evaluated by trial of evidence is overly dismissive. (Personally, I feel that even some of the hard religious claims, while demonstrably false, get short shrift from us. Engaging remarkable ideas may bear unknown fruit.)

And there is nothing wrong with exercising your imagination. But you can't imagine something into existence. The most reliable (if not only) method of determining if a thing exists or does not exist is with evidence.

My imagination can lead me to believe that lightning is created by Zeus, who hurls it down from a mountain in the sky, but that doesn't make it true.

I have distinguished the imagination from the truthful, not conflated them.

 

[WillMc88]

Will, religious expressions are extremely varied. An expression of religion may simply be a dance or a painting with little resemblance to a claim about things. Or, a religious expression may appear to be sort of a soft claim, like a native american trickster etiology. Or, a religious expression may take the shape of a hard claim, like some Catholic philosophy. But there is a full range of ways religions express themselves. Treating every religious expression as though it were a hard claim to be evaluated by trial of evidence is overly dismissive. (Personally, I feel that even some of the hard religious claims, while demonstrably false, get short shrift from us. Engaging remarkable ideas may bear unknown fruit.)



I have distinguished the imagination from the truthful, not conflated them.

I wouldn't consider a religious dance to be a claim. I don't know who is contesting the truth or falsity of such things, but it is certainly not I.

ACTUAL religious claims about anything objective, however, can be evaluated and their truth (or likelihood of truth) assessed.

 

[WillMc88]

I have distinguished the imagination from the truthful, not conflated them.

I don't see the point you tried to make by bringing up imagination.

 

[TX-Beau]

I don't see the point you tried to make by bringing up imagination.

It's an attempt to squeak around the germane point, that religions claim actual facts and empirical truths, that the religious can't back up.

God either factually exists as the religious claim, or he does not. There is no amount of imagination filled, dances of semantic obfuscation that alters that one little bit.

Christ was either resurrected or he was not.

Mary either had a virgin birth or she got knocked up by some guy.

Imagination without the underpinning of belief in the factual truth of the above claims is not religion, it's fiction.