More Religious Nuts

[ktrianta]

ktriana, you seem to be saying that you believe in one God. Why one? Could there be many?

My belief is in the traditional christian belief as expressed in God's revealation to us in the Bible.

My response to Bunyip's question is a good summation, albeit not an exhaustive summation. To simplify it, God created us and has chosen to reveal to us through the interaction in human history as recorded in the Bible.

I know we can go on many tangents and that wont change my mind or anyone elses mind about our individual beliefs.

Think that trainspotter made the valid observation, that far greater minds than us have wrestled with these questions and have come down on differing sides of the fence. As also stated, we cannot add anything new because I don't think there are any Nobel prize winners or rhodes scholars on these boards (why would they watse their time), but maybe someone can be caused th think from a post made by someone and that will be good.

A belief system that is not challenged is hardly a belief sytsem worth having.

 

[Sean K]

My belief is in the traditional christian belief as expressed in God's revealation to us in the Bible.

So, it's ONLY due to what is written in the bible.

OK.

 

[bunyip]

Bunyip, if you take the words literally (unless there is something in a previous passage that we may have missed), your son is to be stoned if he is stubborn and rebellious. It is when you are persuading the elders of the city to have him stoned that you make the additional claim that he is a glutton and a drunkard. In an attempt to sway the elders, you are to commit perjury by making those extra claims.

Whatever.
My point is simply that the Bible contains hypocrisy, contradictions and inconsistencies, one example being the command not to murder, and then in other parts of the Bible, encouraging murder and various other despicable crimes.
I find it quite perplexing why anyone would beleive this stuff is 'the word of God'.

 

[ktrianta]

So, it's ONLY due to what is written in the bible.

OK.

Partly but also because it is in my opinion (and you are entitled to have a different opinion on this) the best fit for the world in which we live.

So i refer to my earlier words as follows;

My response to Bunyip adds a bit more:

Q - How do you know God exists?

A - We do not KNOW that God exists. Christianity is based on faith, so to know that God exists would not require faith at all.
I could ask you the same question, not how you know that god does not exist, but rather than having you say you can't prove a negative I would rather ask :

How do you know:

That all space, time , matter miraculously appeared in a singularity?

How this singularity exploded and what caused it?

How complex single celled organisms spontaniously generated from inorganic matter?

How did asexual reproduction change to sexual reproduction?

How languages developed?

I could add many more such questions to this list, but the simple answer is that no-one really knows. Many theories and speculations abound but we just do not know.

What you then do is look at the world around us and then decide what is a best fit.

The fact that we are having this discussion is a better fit with a creator God than a random explosion as we have been created in the image of God with intelligence and the ability to communicate.

The fact that the universe follows certain laws is a better fit with a Creator God than a random explosion.

Morality with reference to an absolute is a better fit than a random explosion.

If a creator God exists, then it would be logical to assume that Natural selection is a better fit with a creator who creates using economy of design so that species adapt to their environment as they spread accross the earth. (speciation is indeed an intergarl part of creation models).

A creator God who creates different kinds to reproduce within their boundaries, is more logical than relying on random genetic copying errors to result in dinosaurs changing to birds to humans etc.

A creator God who creates humans would logically have interaction with them and this is the history throughout the Bible.

Now each of these topics can be expanded into a book, but I acknowledge that the biggest weakness in my position is that if you do not believe in a Creator god, then you cannot accept what I believe and that is fair enough and I respect your opinion but we both cannot be correct.

So simply put, why I believe is that it is a better fit with the evidence.

Who created God?

Bunyip, thought this was a bit disappointing this question as my 5 year old daughter could answer this. If you did extensive research you should know the answer even though you do not accept it.

Answer is no-one.

God created all space, time and matter and it is ridiculous to limit God to the creation boundaries he has placed us in.
I guess a good analogy to this is that if i write a book, you do not limit me to the contents of what i have written within the book.

So there you go. Hope you acknowledge that this is an attempt at an honest answer to your questions. I responded not so much for your benefit as you I am sure have considered these and rejected these ( and that is your prerogative). Hopefully there may be others who are interested especially given that you made it sound that these questions are questions whcih are in the too hard basket for christianity which they are clearly not.

 

[trainspotter]

I think we need to remember who wrote the Bible? Over a period of time I reckon it has been polluted by certain "people of faith" who wanted it to attest to what they required it to dictate to the masses. Since the Bible has undergone numerous translations, some Biblical scholars suggest that earlier translations were fraught with error. As well, not all Bibles are the same. The Catholic Bible, for example, contains several Books that are not in the King James Bible. This has to do with decisions regarding what books were divinely inspired, and what books were not. Thus the Catholic Apocrypha is considered to be not a part of the King James Bible, and to many non-Catholics, represents a divergence in what is believed in Christianity.

http://www.allabouttruth.org/when-was-the-bible-written-faq.htm for the dates concerned.

Oh Dear ... could this be possible? Man has somehow influenced the Good book?

Ktrianta ... please no trolling allowed.

 

[Sean K]

Partly but also because it is in my opinion (and you are entitled to have a different opinion on this) the best fit for the world in which we live.

So i refer to my earlier words as follows;

My response to Bunyip adds a bit more:

Q - How do you know God exists?

A - We do not KNOW that God exists.

I would like to delve in to your post in more detail, but it is 1.45 am here, so there will probably be some severe gramattical errors.

However, I am happy that you have decided that 'we do not KNOW that God exists'.

OK.

 

[ktrianta]

I
However, I am happy that you have decided that 'we do not KNOW that God exists'.

OK.

This one does surprise me I must admit. Why does anyone consider this an issue? Have people missed those bits in the Bible where it talks about faith and belief?

Christianity is based on faith. Why do I need faith if I know God exists? It is a strange one for people to assume that we should KNOW that God exists.

 

[bunyip]

This one does surprise me I must admit. Why does anyone consider this an issue? Have people missed those bits in the Bible where it talks about faith and belief?

Christianity is based on faith. Why do I need faith if I know God exists? It is a strange one for people to assume that we should KNOW that God exists.

I think the issue for non-believers is that Christians have such absolute faith in God, and that he created the world and the human race, when they admit they don't know if God exists, and given that there's no evidence or proof whatever that he exists.
To non-believers it seems like faith without a solid foundation.

I once took a sheila to the races. Neither she nor I were racing people and we had no idea of how to pick horses. It was just a day out for us, but we reckoned we might as well have a couple of bets while we were there.

So we go through the names of the horses in the next race and she points to one of the names and says 'I'm backing this one'.
When I asked her why she chose that horse, her reply was 'Because it has a cute name'!
I said to her 'Just because it has a cute name, that doesn't mean the darned thing is going to win'.
But she was adamant.....'No no, this horse is going to win' says she, I can feel it in my bones. I have absolute faith in this horse'.
So she goes over to one of the bookies and plonks down $10. I'd love to tell you the horse won, but it finished well back in the field.

Now, the reason I've related this little story is to emphasize the point that this girl had faith that this horse would win, but what was lacking was solid reasoning to back that faith. She had faith without foundation.
It would have been a different story if she'd picked the horse because its recent form had been excellent - then her faith in the horse would have had some solid foundation.

Non believers feel that the Christian faith has no solid foundation, since there has never been any evidence, let alone proof, to support Christian beliefs.
On the contrary, science is slowly but surely making discoveries that disprove some Christian beliefs.
And please, don't anyone waste my time or yours by challenging me to name those discoveries.
We've all been to school, we all have access to the internet, we all have TV and access to libraries. There's nobody among us who can be unaware of some of the more notable scientific discoveries of our era.

Incidentally Ktrianta - the reason I thought you might be a sheila is that your name sounds a bit like the female name of 'Katrina'.

 

[beamstas]

The above comment about horses is completely retarded.

 

[bunyip]

The above comment about horses is completely retarded.

Guess I must be a retard then.

Would you care to explain your view?

 

[trainspotter]

Bunyip .. your sheila must have been betting on one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse? :

 

[beamstas]

If i have to explain why having faith in a horse with a nice name and believing in god are two different things, then im not even going to bother.

As usual, im not picking sides, it's just a terrible analogy.

 

[ktrianta]

If i have to explain why having faith in a horse with a nice name and believing in god are two different things, then im not even going to bother.

As usual, im not picking sides, it's just a terrible analogy.

Unfortunately Bunyip has lost all credibility with me ( and I am sure he could not care less). Selectively editing my post and won't explain why, becoming more irrational and dogmatic with each post on the issue.

 

[bunyip]

If i have to explain why having faith in a horse with a nice name and believing in god are two different things, then im not even going to bother.

As usual, im not picking sides, it's just a terrible analogy.

They may be two different things, but if neither faith is supported by sensible reasoning then it's fair to draw parallels between the two by saying that both are lacking in solid foundation.

If you can't see that, then your views look just as retarded to me as mine look to you.

Perhaps you many wish to make some intelligent contribution to this discussion by telling us why you do or don't share the Christian faith.

 

[beamstas]

They may be two different things, but if neither faith is supported by sensible reasoning then it's fair to draw parallels between the two by saying that both are lacking in solid foundation.

If you can't see that, then your views look just as retarded to me as mine look to you.

Perhaps you many wish to make some intelligent contribution to this discussion by telling us why you do or don't share the Christian faith.

I've already stated on this thread that im religion nuetral. Im not going to side with either.

Having faith in a horse because you like the name is baseless, you are correct. It was a spur of the moment decision based on something that isn't at all related to the performance of the horse.

Having faith in god is not baseless to the person who has faith in god. It is not spur of the moment and takes alot of dedication and commitment, you can't have faith in your god overnight, nor can you just choose what you want on the spur of the moment.

I think that comparing a spur of the moment deicision based on the name of something to believing in god is ridiculous. Maybe if a person announced their faith in a certain god because they like the name that analogy could be used, otherwise it's just a bad analogy that wasn't well thought out.

 

[Aussiest]

I get what you were saying Bunyip. Your analogy could have been better, but we can always find things / said things that could have been better right?!

What you were saying is "whim" versus "reasoning and solid evidence". I get it. It's the old Science vs. Belief issue.

A better analogy could have been following the advice of a share trading guru based on their word, rather than learning for yourself through observation and back testing!

 

[bunyip]

I get what you were saying Bunyip. Your analogy could have been better, but we can always find things / said things that could have been better right?!

What you were saying is "whim" versus "reasoning and solid evidence". I get it. It's the old Science vs. Belief issue.

A better analogy could have been following the advice of a share trading guru based on their word, rather than learning for yourself through observation and back testing!

I was talking about faith that's without solid reasoning. Whether it's a horse or a football team or a politician or a god or a cure for an illness or a solution to a problem, or a trading system or whatever, if you're going to place your faith in it then my thinking is that your faith ought to have some solid reasoning behind it.
I've never yet heard any solid reasoning or seen any evidence or proof to support a belief in the existence in God, or that he created the world or the human race.

 

[beamstas]

I was talking about faith that's without solid reasoning. Whether it's a horse or a football team or a politician or a god or a cure for an illness or a solution to a problem, or a trading system or whatever, if you're going to place your faith in it then my thinking is that your faith ought to have some solid reasoning behind it.
I've never yet heard any solid reasoning or seen any evidence or proof to support a belief in the existence in God, or that he created the world or the human race.

While i agree there has been no proof of either, physical proof that will cause any argument against it to be estopped,

This topic is beating a dead horse.

The analogy was a bad one, that needed to be clarified. Im not having a go at you bunyip, i don't know you and i'm surely not going to judge you over a few posts, But you are laying an attack on people who devote their lives to their god. Saying that it's a baseless faith and comparing it to choosing a horse because of their name is not neccesary.

I don't know enough about religions to comment on their faith or why they believe what they believe. All i know is it must be strong, for them to devote their life to it, i think you should respect that.

In regards to the rest of the topic,
Was hitler religious?
Stalin?
Mussolini?

There are always going to be bad eggs, sometimes stupidity will get in the way of rational thinking (neale), sometimes religion (links to the news on here), there are many ways to skin a cat, or in this case many ways to be regarded as a "nut", don't just pin it on one group as a stereotype.

These people raping kids, or doing whatever they do, cannot be justified by the bible, they are living a fake doctrine. I will never condone this type of behaviour, religious or not.

Regards
Brad

 

[bunyip]

Unfortunately Bunyip has lost all credibility with me ( and I am sure he could not care less). Selectively editing my post and won't explain why, becoming more irrational and dogmatic with each post on the issue.

That's right ktrianta, I couldn't care less if you think I have no credibility.
But you don't know me very well if you think I'm the sort of person who dodges around answering questions.

I guess you won't believe me, but I had actually typed out a reply in which I explained why I edited your post. The reply is this.....I quoted the parts of your post that I wished to comment on. I edited out part of your post because I had no comment to make on that particular part. Simple as that. Nothing sinister about it, as you suggested.

As for being dogmatic and irrational and lacking in credibility, well I guess we must be two of a kind then, you and me. Because quite honestly, there's more than just me on here who has regarded you as irrational and lacking in credibility ever since you started posting on this thread.
The most glaring example or your irrationality is the fact that you admit you don't know if God exists, yet you have this unshakeable faith that he did all these wondrous things that are attributed to him. Further, that science disproves quite a few of your beliefs about God, but you persist with those beliefs anyway.

 

[bunyip]

you are laying an attack on people who devote their lives to their god.
Regards
Brad

What I'm doing, Brad, is questioning and challenging Christian beliefs. If you see that as 'laying an attack on people who devote their lives to their god', then you're welcome to your view even though I disagree with it.

The people I've laid an attack on are the bastards in Africa who tear apart the lives of little children by declaring them to be witches.....all in the name of God of course. Or the so-called Christians in Northern Ireland who use their opposing religions as an excuse to hurl petrol bombs and stones and bullets at each other.
Or the Muslim suicide bombers who kill and maim innocent people in the name of God.
These are the people who are truly religious nuts.