This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Religion IS crazy!

Jump to new
pavilion103 said:
The word "hate" here mean to "love less".
.
Click to expand...

I have heard all the backflips and twisting of words Christians use to try and make the bible sound more moral than it is.

If it was the word of an infallible god you wouldn't need to twist it so much to try and get at the meaning.

If it was the word of a mob of fanatical bronze age desert dwellers, you would have to twist it, hence why you have to do the twist when ever some one brings up a verse out side your pre selected cherry picked ones.
 
.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Judeo-Christian-ethic.html#ixzz36BECPvKer

VC and his supporters cannot accept that Australia has benefitted from its Crristian heritage. People living all around me in an over 60s retirement village, from all walks of life, whether they are church-goers or otherwise, demonstrate the values of Christian ethics. That, plus the sunshine, is what makes it such a wonderful place to live.
 

So in other words "I either don't care or I'm too lazy to research the proper meaning of this text, so I'll just say the Christians are twisting it".

Anyone who reads through the Bible, sees the teachings of Jesus, what he did, how he lives, the overall context, will get to this passage and think: "hmm.. what does he mean by this?, the word "hate" doesn't seem to make sense based on everything else. This is really interesting. I'm going to explore it further".



The truth about what the text says is there for all to explore and see.
If you choose not to, then so be it.
Rave and rant all you want, while the truth remains there any time you wish to explore it.
 

The truth in the bible is merely belief, just like Santa and the Easter bunny for the children.
 
explod said:
The truth in the bible is merely belief, just like Santa and the Easter bunny for the children.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you if Santa and the Easter bunny were supported by historical and archaeological evidence.
 
I'm not saying believe in Christ's resurrection because the Bible says so (you need to actually explore the evidence which is there).......

BUT.... we can fall into two traps


1) Believe that something just isn't possible
2) Believe something happend because a book says so.

The answer is
3) Examine the evidence. Come to a conclusion based on a consistent research/analysis, something like that used as the historical standard accepted in universities/research papers etc.

To just dismiss something without research is silly.


Imagine telling someone 2000's years ago that we would
1) Fly to the moon
2) Have this thing called TV where we could see each other from the other side of the world on a screen
3) Internet (imagine even explaining this).

These would have all been labelled fairy tales like Santa Claus and the Easter bunny (had they existed), yet with further research and technology we know they are possible.

Someone would have been put in a mental institution had they made these claims!

Things are not always as they appear on face value!

A little proper research and an open mind goes a long way!
 

I don't think there is anyway to research the proper meaning, the anonymous authors are long dead and with out talking to them its impossible to know exactly what they meant, and there is even debate amongst Christians as to the meaning of certain texts, it is certainly not clear.

But as I said, if it was the revealed word of god, it certainly shouldn't be open to interpretation, which it clearly is as everyone seems to have different interpretations.
 
There was a very good Oxford researcher Frazer, about 100 years ago, whose thesis is condensed Into a book called the Golden Bough.

He examined all of the religions and origins and the basic tenet is, that to control the village the chief created the witch doctor who they had to obey for fear of an evil sprit. These spirits became god/s and the people followed and obeyed.

The churches of the world keep the population under control, and as a bonus they may go to heaven. So the governments promote and support them full on. Just like the footy, keeps the indians happy.

One can research the bible till one is blue in the face, and I know from my studies of theology as a kid when I contemplated priesthood. But it is merely the written word of someone, and someone etc all along the line and survives because some get a good vibe which makes their mind see and feel things that in reality are not there.
 
pavilion103 said:
I would agree with you if Santa and the Easter bunny were supported by historical and archaeological evidence.
Click to expand...

Jesus is not supported by either of those things,

But even if there was a real man who the jesus stories were based off, just as there is for santa, it does not mean any of the supernatural stuff should be believed.
 

All your doing is pointing to the good things and saying "that's is it, that's Christian values" the truth is none of those good things are owned by Christian faith, they are common human traits, and you have to ignore all the immoral things.

A lot of the people in over 60's retirement villages may have practiced many immoral things such as racism, sexism and homophobic beliefs etc during their lives, So you have to be careful if you are saying everything we have done in the past is based on good Christian ethics, the fact is we have moved past some of those things because of secular reasoning, not biblical reasons.

It is probably more true to say Australia has benefited from good secular moral evolution.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Study the scriptures in the same way as any other historical document, by the same standard or examination (not more, not less) and the answers will be clear.

Throw out the window the whole "word of god" stuff and look at them as historical records alone, without any bias against them.

It is clear you have not done this.

The fact that you even mention that Jesus may not have even existed as a person is ridiculously laughable even in terms of historical examination by even the secular world.

The fact that you even have a shred of doubt over this point alone, is enough to show just how little study you have given the historicity of the Bible and people in it.
 
pavilion103 said:
Study the scriptures in the same way as any other historical document, by the same standard or examination (not more, not less) and the answers will be clear.

.
Click to expand...

Is this what you did with the qu'ran and the hindu texts?

Throw out the window the whole "word of god" stuff and look at them as historical records alone, without any bias against them.
Click to expand...

The bible hasn't been shown to be a historical document, It was written decades after the events have been said to happen, none of the authors met jesus.


The fact that you even mention that Jesus may not have even existed as a person is ridiculously laughable even in terms of historical examination by even the secular world.
Click to expand...

It isn't clear whether he existed, as I said, some person or persons may have existed that inspired the legend that became Jesus, eg how st Nicholas inspired the legend of santa. but just as st Nicholas didn't have flying reindeer, I doubt any real life jesus character was born of a virgin and did miracles.

There is no historical record of jesus out side the bible, and as I said none of the authors met him, and the stories were written decades after he died.

The fact that you even have a shred of doubt over this point alone, is enough to show just how little study you have given the historicity of the Bible and people in it
Click to expand...

Point me in the direction of a contemporary account of jesus.
 
pavilion103 said:
The law doesn't reflect morality but the majority consensus.
Click to expand...

Morality is in many ways the consensus of the majority. Taking young aboriginal children from their homes was once considered the "right" thing to do. Today it is a national shame that it was ever allowed. Ditto to taking new born babies from unwed mothers back in the 60's and 70's. If you start from the perspective that most people do not seek to do bad to others, then you'd have to accept that these actions were done largely because they were considered the "right" thing to do.

Where believers of organised religion start to lose me is when they start claiming that their beliefs are morality. Just because they are rigidly followed, doesn't mean they are right.
 

Holy crap! (pardon the pun)

That is one of the most ill-informed, ignorant posts I have ever seen.

If someone isn't prepared to do their homework, there is nothing more for me to add.


Jesus never existing as a person.
The quaran and hindu texts historicity compared with the Bible.
None of the authors met Jesus

 
An Internet Troll is:



See more;

http://netforbeginners.about.com/od/weirdwebculture/f/what-is-an-internet-troll.htm
 

The provides evidence that moarlity is not the consensus of the majority.

I would argue that whether taking aboriginal children from their homes was considered right or not back then it was still ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

So whether people thought it was right back then.....
Or whether people think it is wrong now.....

Neither changes the fact that it IS wrong and always has been wrong.
The action itself doesn't change from right to wrong, just the majority opinion.
 

Hindsight is always 20/20.

In many cultures sending an elderly relative to a nursing home away from their family in their final years would be considered particularly cruel, yet it's commonplace here.

In 100 years time will we look back and say...


...about nursing homes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...