I just did. I didn't see shit.
I meant all of the followers of his beliefs.
So have the Biblical theories. So has every fucking mythology ever. My point is, I do not care about the mythology. The mythology is irrelevant. God either exists or he does not, and why would it be Jesus Christ over Muhammad?
Because Jesus Christ had nothing to gain from it, this is the third time I've said this.
And fyi it doesn't matter whether we take Muhammad, Allah, Yahweh, FSM, IPU, whatever. Why does it have to be your deity?
Because I know unlike the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (which are funny parody religions that I happen to like, actually, more the latter than former), and unlike the person-gain seeking Muhammad's Allah, and the cruel Yahweh, I just happen to think Jesus's account rings most truthful due to circumstances. I do *research* other religions, I don't just blindly pick one. And from my research, I think Jesus had the least to gain but stated his beliefs anyway, and for that, they must've been important to him, thus I am inclined to believe in him.
Actually slavery is mentioned in the NT too, I believe it was in Luke somewhere. The NT is marginally better, but its morals are still pretty bad.
Evidence please.
I don't find it depressing. I find it depressing you're wasting your time on a psychological blanket, a thumb to suck. You've got such a beautiful world and all you wanna know is "what happens when I go?" Faith is a useless thing. How can you get hope from something like that? Doesn't hope consist of seeing good thing happens and making them come alive yourself, not waiting for anybody else to do it?
What beautiful world?
You're waiting for God, twiddling his thumbs, doing nothing. I'm making myself happy. If anything, atheism is comfort. Only it requires effort. You're just lazy.
Probably true.
Yeah, but my morals do not come from the Bible. I have independent criteria for that. You have independent criteria for the Bible too, else you would not be eating shellfish and stoning gays. But wait.... oh.
I don't get your use of irony.
But why? You get to choose your purpose. You can make your life happy. You just need to want to.
You just can't decide not to have psychological problems. Elsewise psychologists would not have a job.
The world isn't exactly random. That's a first thing. The world is cruel to some people and kind to others. But what it is is impartial. There is no guilt or punishment involved for any blind people. It's just bad luck if you're blind. Nothing can help you. But blind people can make their own lives, usefulness and purposes. I am impressed by blind people, or people who lose their limbs in an accident, and keep on being tough motherfuckers.
On a forum I go to, there was a guy that played drums. His arm developed a huge cancer and he lost his arm. He's got a bionic arm now. The only question he asked was: "Where can I get electronic drum pads to compensate for the loss of my arm?"
That gives me much more hope than clinging to some futile idea I'll get my arm back.
Ah, I see.
Why do you need hope? Why do you need to delude yourself into having hope? There's always hope. Hope consists of you yourself being a better person. Religion talks systematic guilt into you. I don't have guilt. I'm a happy person. I'm very confident in myself, I have my beliefs. I have faith in my girlfriend and my family. I love life. I love food. I'm happy. You're missing out on so goddamn much.
I don't think my lack of happiness is related to my theism.
How do you know we're all going to heaven? I'm not dead-set on anything. I would gladly accept a heaven if there was any such evidence. There isn't. That's why I don't accept theism. I already reviewed the evidence and then rejected it. It's nothing pre-made.
Well, when the time comes, I will be happy to join you there. I just have faith now that it exists.
But then how do you know spiritual things exist? Have you seen them yourself?
Yes, and heard them.
non-physical equals non existent, and the phenomena you're describing all have effects that qualify as physical and thus tangible
If all non-physical equals non existent, do numbers exist?
that is true! but credible facts come from many sources, not just one. additionally, my point was: how can something that contains passages that are irrelevant to modern society contain truths about how humanity should live? how can that be the basis of evidence for God, Jesus and so on?
Ah, but that is the thing. Its irrelevant to modern society but very relevant to the society of the afterlife. It answers questions on the things we need answers to in relation to the spirtual realm.
but this is exactly my problem! how can anybody believe an ancient text that does not accurately describe the existence of God? if we know for sure that there are some parts of it that are inaccurate, doesn't that kind of undermine the bible entirely, particularly because it's a book of Jesus/God's teachings?
me too! c:
Actually no, because the Bible is not just one book with a bunch of chapters. I know for a fact that the Bible's books were complied by a council ~1700 years ago, and whenever I say "X is not truthful based on the evidence of Jesus's speech cross-confirmed by all of the gospels" I am denouncing the council's choice of inserting the book as opposed to denouncing God's credibility.
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
Ugh Paul. That guy who was like "Jesus bandwagon!" and started writing stuff. But his analysis of Jesus's teachings let us know what they were in the first place, so, I suppose thats something.
Anyway, this may seem very sexist because your idea of a woman nowaday is at least an educated, literate person who likely cares about religion, average women in the Ancient Middle East would not be an educated bunch. They were not given oppurtunties for it due to sexism already there. I think was just more of "Don't let the uneducated women talk over the lesson, and if they want to bug the preacher with a question, have them ask their educated husbands." Again, this has oodles of unfortunate implications, but this was a series of practical preaching advice, it was by no means declaration of God's law.
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)
Again, this was Paul jumping on the Jesus bandwagon, and according to some scholars, someone copying Paul jumping onto his bandwagon. I only believe in what Jesus has said in the four gospels, as well as what the gospels describe, and the rest is just interesting bits of trivia.
:o please point them out to me! the dichotomies in there are because I can't really see any logical alternative to them. if they're false, it's accidental. do you have alternatives to what I've said?
Sure thing.
if God is real and actually cares about whether people do these things, why is it now acceptable to do things that were once taboo because of the bible?
We have free will.
surely he'd be smiting people left and right these days because people aren't following the bible quite as closely as they used to.
Again, free will. Everyone technically breaks the holy law, he'd have to kill everyone in order to fulfill that request.
either he simply doesn't care too much about people eating prawns any more, or the bible was wrong.
Or the portion that he said people eating prawns could have been:
a) Practical advice for the Hebrew people.
b) Not actually given by God, which I suspect most of the Old Testament is not given by God.
I am mostly arguing here because I'm interested to know what someone religious actually thinks; I don't hate religion and I'm not particularly against it. I'm just overly curious. :o
People religious just have faith in people's subjective experiences in history. Its like someone documenting what its like to see in a world of blind people 2000 years ago, and people believing that this whole world of "sight" exists.
in either case, I think it's pretty poor grounds for evidence either way. it's either not God's word (and therefore wrong) or God's ideas have changed, making the bible unreliable.
Or, portions of the Bible's books were not correctly chosen by the council while others were.
I was referencing your previous quote; how can you assume the existence of Jesus because people have been persecuted in their beliefs of God when Christianity has been used many times to persecute others? Isn't that a little too ironic? The bible itself (perhaps not Jesus' teachings particularly, I'm not quite well-versed in the bible enough to know that) does persecute women!
If you want Paul himself (who you used for the quotes) to give an opinion on women in relation to men:
Galatians 3:28 'There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
