Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I totally hate the king james bible. its such a shame

NLT is the closest to word for word from Roman if I am not mistaken.

Monster Rain wrote:

Muhr wrote: His books are absolutely pivitol to our understanding and are essential reading to anyone who is serious about gaining some truly monumental insights into science. Read a few of his books before you pass judgement. At least then you will know what you are talking about.

His books that are related to science are great, no one could deny that.

This whole "God" gimmick of his is trolling in order to make money, not unlike Ms. Ann Coulter.

Honestly, I find this to be ridiculously unfair.

Ann Coulter is ridiculous, Richard Dawkins isnt, he is just saying out loud what many people arent willing to say, sure some of it can come across pretty aggressive, but nothing he says is outright illogical like Ann "roll tanks into Canada and crush them" Coulter.

Your comparing a world renowned evolutionary biologist the writer of a seminal work (The selfish gene) and the man who popularised the term meme, who is an actual Oxford professor, with a wing nut. And it really isn't fair just because the bloke has genuine distaste for Religion.

Its also clearly not a gimmick. I read The Blind Watchmaker last year, and he writes in one paragraph how (talking about biologists work is being constantly trolled by Religious pseudo scientists) makes him so angry he is "off to dig the garden"

The man is clearly sincere. Look at him speak, you honestly believe he is just in it for the money? He has enough money!

He just really hates organised Religion, and I do to. Its sincere, its not a gimmick.

And so do a few hundred million other people. If all Religious people were like some of the pleasant well meaning "live and let live" Christians you see on here, then there would be no reason for hate. I wouldn't be the way that I am.

But mental Muslim suicide bombers, mental Christian pro-life 5000 year old earth coconut T-rex dudes and Orthodox hardline Jews have dragged me into this position. Before 9/11 I was blissfully ignorant of Religion, now, reading about it takes up all my spare time. It really really DOES boil the piss of millions and millions of people.

If he isnt sincere, Ill eat hay with a donkey, cos i am sincere, and I'm not a renowned biologist getting the piss took out of my work by lackwits who frankly don't have the education to pass judgement on me.

Rimmy wrote:

Soladrin wrote:To be considered dead, you have to be alive first.

Gods don't live, they are.

you have no idea how powerful that statement really is.

in Genesis when Moses is speaking to God at the burning bush he asks "who shall I tell them sent me?" God's reply was "I am, that I am" (depending on interpretation, it can also mean I am because I am. in Hebrew its pronounced YahWey, in the latin dialect it came out as Johovah. in Arabic the same letters are Alluaha. hence the term Halleluallah, which is a sentance in Arabic. Hallel: to be pure and fit for sacrifice u: (an informal to) Allah: I am.)

so in effect, you are more correct than any statement I have ever heard.

Wait wait wait...

Did I just come off as defending religion? I think believers are absolutely bonkers XD

Soladrin wrote:

Rimmy wrote:

Soladrin wrote:To be considered dead, you have to be alive first.

Gods don't live, they are.

you have no idea how powerful that statement really is.

in Genesis when Moses is speaking to God at the burning bush he asks "who shall I tell them sent me?" God's reply was "I am, that I am" (depending on interpretation, it can also mean I am because I am. in Hebrew its pronounced YahWey, in the latin dialect it came out as Johovah. in Arabic the same letters are Alluaha. hence the term Halleluallah, which is a sentance in Arabic. Hallel: to be pure and fit for sacrifice u: (an informal to) Allah: I am.)

so in effect, you are more correct than any statement I have ever heard.

Wait wait wait...

Did I just come off as defending religion? I think believers are absolutely bonkers XD

thats fine. you just simply validated one of mine.

purely speaking as a bonkers person that is.

this all stemming from a group of grown men that follow a wargame in science fiction that aregue points of contention over matters that take place in the future context and from people that do not nor have they ever existed.

Bonkers is a relative term wouldn't you say?

The important thing to remember is that the Bible in its current form actually predates the Nicaean councils. The early Orthodox Church was using it at the same time and many Christians widely recognized John, the Synoptic Gospels, and the letters of Paul as authoritative going back to the late 1st Century and early 2nd. Revelation was the notable inclusion as early in the Christian community it was very controversial.

Not to split too many hairs here but actually the Bible in it current form dates back to which ever version you are using as much changes in translation. More to the point, the Orthodox Church and early Christian groups as well as used diferrent books while many of the books were shared between them (such as the gospels and the pauline letters). In addition, it would appear the apostles used text from not only the septugint but from other teachings. All of this is to say the resulting segmentation and division is what prompted my initial question about how do christians know they got the right message

Rimmy wrote:

Soladrin wrote:

Rimmy wrote:

Soladrin wrote:To be considered dead, you have to be alive first.

Gods don't live, they are.

you have no idea how powerful that statement really is.

in Genesis when Moses is speaking to God at the burning bush he asks "who shall I tell them sent me?" God's reply was "I am, that I am" (depending on interpretation, it can also mean I am because I am. in Hebrew its pronounced YahWey, in the latin dialect it came out as Johovah. in Arabic the same letters are Alluaha. hence the term Halleluallah, which is a sentance in Arabic. Hallel: to be pure and fit for sacrifice u: (an informal to) Allah: I am.)

so in effect, you are more correct than any statement I have ever heard.

Wait wait wait...

Did I just come off as defending religion? I think believers are absolutely bonkers XD

thats fine. you just simply validated one of mine.

purely speaking as a bonkers person that is.

this all stemming from a group of grown men that follow a wargame in science fiction that aregue points of contention over matters that take place in the future context and from people that do not nor have they ever existed.

Bonkers is a relative term wouldn't you say?

It is, and it's not like I don't respect believers, do whatever the feth makes you happy Just don't bother me with it.

The less religion, the better, in my opinion.

thedude wrote:Not to split too many hairs here but actually the Bible in it current form dates back to which ever version you are using as much changes in translation. More to the point, the Orthodox Church and early Christian groups as well as used diferrent books while many of the books were shared between them (such as the gospels and the pauline letters). In addition, it would appear the apostles used text from not only the septugint but from other teachings.

Yeah it was a huge process, more a natural evolution of text collection than a effort to actually put something together I think. It gets more complicated with the knowledge that the 'Twelve Apostles' were not the only disciples of Jesus, but merely the twelve heads of what could have been a few dozen to a few hundred followers. A lot of the texts in Early Christianity could have come from any of them. Only a few are known for sure who the author is, namely some of the Letters of Paul. Out of the numerous documents and collections that existed, the current New Testament just won out and gained acceptance as the best we got.

EDIT: Some books, such as Enoch, also just weren't known even though they have very interesting contents for the Christian religion. Namely in Enoch, its last section is an "End Times" account that roughly matches up with that in Daniel and Revelation but predates both by a century or two.

All of this is to say the resulting segmentation and division is what prompted my initial question about how do christians know they got the right message

Arguably we can never really know for sure. There was a lot of variety in early Christianity even though there was a mainstream, so its entirely possible that we don't. It filters back into the whole faith thing I suppose which is ironic. We're supposed to take on faith that the document that tells us to take it on faith is an accurate account of what we're supposed to be taking faith in.

Twisted

Rimmy wrote:God's reply was "I am, that I am"

Wasn't that Popeye?

It filters back into the whole faith thing I suppose which is ironic. We're supposed to take on faith that the document that tells us to take it on faith is an accurate account of what we're supposed to be taking faith in.

Twisted

Hehe, yeah this is one of the reasons I chose to reject christianity/organized religion. I think if I viewed there are more positives coming out of christianity/organized religion than negatives, then it would be easier to take something like this on blind faith, but from my subjective view, I see so much bad that comes from this. :(


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS...Kudos on a 5 page thread title is God Dead that is not banned

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Rimmy wrote:God's reply was "I am, that I am"

Wasn't that Popeye?

...That was perhaps the best laugh I've had all day.

... Now, clearly the "idea" of "god" is still very much alive for some people...and I guess that's the real point.
Weather or not an actual "all knowing, all powerful space Father" exist or not sort of becomes irelivent...the fact that, for whatever reason, many believe he/she/it/they do ...and how they act/interact with the world around them based on that belife is the real issue.

It's amusing that the thread is a discussion of Christianity. Why not a discussion about deism versus agnosticism versus atheism?

It's not like the Christian god is the only one that people believe in.

mattyrm wrote:

biccat wrote:[qI simply don't care enough about other people to want to save them from their own mistakes.

Well, we can heartily agree on something there old chap!

I would like to quote Mr Dawkins from his book The Selfish Gene regarding altruism: "We may frequently behave selfishly as individuals, but in our more idealistic moments we honour and admire those who put the welfare of others first. We get a bit muddled over how widely we want to interpret the word 'others', though." "Often altruism within a group goes with selfishness between groups. This is a basis of trade unionism. At another level the nation is a major beneficiary of our altruistic self-sacrifice, and young men are expected to die as individividuals for the greater good of their country as a whole. Moreover, they are encouraged to kill other individuals about whom nothing is known except that they belong to a different nation. (Curiously, peace-time appeals for individuals to make some small sacrifice in the rate at which they increase their standard of living seem to be less effective than war-time appeals for individuals to lay down their lives.)"

thedude wrote:Hehe, yeah this is one of the reasons I chose to reject christianity/organized religion. I think if I viewed there are more positives coming out of christianity/organized religion than negatives, then it would be easier to take something like this on blind faith, but from my subjective view, I see so much bad that comes from this. :(

Christianity gets a bad rap for a lot of things that I don't think are necessarily its fault. People do crazy crap. They often find things to justify the crazy crap they do and religion among other ideologies often ends up as the excuse. People are selfish and they can be cruel but of course selfish cruel people don't want to admit they're selfish and cruel so they find the best possible excuse. Religion has long been a tool of controlling populations. It really isn't that shocking that some guy wanting to take power in the wake of the collapse of Rome would walk around saying "You're Christian now and you do what I tell you to or you die." Even in the Crusades, there were cultural, political, and economic reasons for the violence even with religion as the major motivating factor.

All the while major contributions to the arts, culture, science get forgotten. Theological study sparked a rebirth of reason and logic in Western Europe when they were on the wane. Christianity helped keep Western Europe from a complete collapse in the wake of the fall of Rome. Christians along with Muslims were vital in preserving the legacies of the Greeks and Romans that helped give rise to the modern world. Christianity can't be separated from the Western tradition. Bad things have been done as a result of its teachings, but the same can honestly be said for just about any ideology/religion/idea etc.

Christianity is like the modern media. The bad gets a lot more attention than the good. Bad things happen and sometimes Christianity is to blame. That's not necessarily Christianity's fault or the fault of Christians. When you live a culturally complex world all kinds of wacky things can happen.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS...Kudos on a 5 page threaded title is God Dead that is not banned

Agreed. Hats for everyone (not really I don't have that many Hats)

LordofHats wrote:
Arguably we can never really know for sure.

Well, we can, but involves this kool-aid this one guy made.

dogma wrote:

LordofHats wrote:
Arguably we can never really know for sure.

Well, we can, but involves this kool-aid this one guy made.

Is the kool-aid made from water and can sons of deities walk on it? If so, we might be on to something

Melissia wrote:It's amusing that the thread is a discussion of Christianity. Why not a discussion about deism versus agnosticism versus atheism?

Because that argument is esoteric, and not emotionally resonant with most people.

Also, agnosticism doesn't really fit there, as it is not exclusive of either atheism or deism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
Is the kool-aid made from water and can sons of deities walk on it? If so, we might be on to something

That depends on whether or not you believe Jim Jones was the son of a deity.

dogma wrote:That depends on whether or not you believe Jim Jones was the son of a deity.

Let me consult Leo Ryan

dogma wrote:Because that argument is esoteric, and not emotionally resonant with most people.

Yeah, but it is the underlying debate here.

"There is no god, I've seen no proof of it."
"But there is a god, this old, confusingly written, self-contradictory book we think was written by some guy that claimed to be the son of god says so!"
"That isn't proof of god."
"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't."
"Let's just get it over with and stab eachother."
"Right you are."

LordofHats wrote:
Christianity gets a bad rap for a lot of things that I don't think are necessarily its fault. People do crazy crap.

The problem is that people tend to conflate philosophies (in the general sense) with the people that practice/believe in them. The other problem is that there is occasionally reason to do so.

dogma wrote:The problem is that people tend to conflate philosophies (in the general sense) with the people that practice/believe in them. The other problem is that there is occasionally reason to do so.

Of course. You can't separate Christianity from Christians (Clarify: Not in the cultural mind). The problem is that I think there is a difference between Christianity and Christians and things Christians have done, especially when Christians are people who exist in a large culture of which Christianity is a single part. Christianity is always a factor but there are many people who treat it as though it were the only factor which in many cases is not true.

Around 800(ish) years ago, Christians were invading Muslim countries and committing truly atrocious acts of murder, rape and general pillaging. Why? Because those Muslims didn't believe in 'the one true god'.
Fast forward to 2011 and the same gak is happening the world over.
For me, religion is an excuse to be really horrible to each other.
I find that people who believe in something without having actual, physical proof are just as insecure as the people they deride for not following a belief system.....

LordofHats wrote:there are many people who treat it as though it were the only factor which in many cases is not true.

I would go so far as to say it is never true. It is a major or minor factor depending on the nation and time period, but ti's never the only factor.

Christianity doesn't feed bellies or soothe ambitious minds.

Melissia wrote:Christianity doesn't feed bellies

MrDwhitey wrote:

Melissia wrote:Christianity doesn't feed bellies

...And that would be the second best laugh I've had all day.

I believe Religon has become a way to control, kill and rule over people. Simple as that, however there are people who truley do believe and I won't argue with that but I hate it when I'm told I can't criticise religion when it gets bad. I don't like some off the things said by many religions that threaten modern society. Believe what you want but sometimes people don't want to believe the same thing. 

biccat wrote:
Because movies, unlike religious beliefs, are not tied to a person's core beliefs of themselves and others. To criticize someone's belief in movies attacks their aesthetic choices while to criticize someone's religion is to criticize their life, morality and purpose in life.

There's no reason to believe that aesthetic choices are not key to a person's identity, just call a random hipster a hipster if you need an illustration. There's also no reason to believe that a person's religious belief are central to said person's identity, just scoff at Judaism in front of a liberal Jew if you need an illustration.

More importantly, there is no reason to believe that criticizing, making light of, or insulting a person's core beliefs is a bad thing. It might cause trouble, but sometimes trouble is good because sometimes people really are wrong, ignorant, or otherwise deserving of disdain. Hence we get the Civil Rights Movement, and Women's Suffrage.

biccat wrote:
If you're taking the position that criticism of belief is acceptable, shouldn't criticism of sexuality, gender, race, national origin, or native language be on the table as well? These characteristics have at best an equal impact on a person's concept of life and themselves than their religious beliefs.

What table are we talking about? The table of "What should I say in order to accomplish X?" or the table of "What is bad to do in and of itself?"

If its the latter then everything is on the table because nothing is bad in and of itself, if its the former then you have to figure what X is first.

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:
Around 800(ish) years ago, Christians were invading Muslim countries and committing truly atrocious acts of murder, rape and general pillaging. Why? Because those Muslims didn't believe in 'the one true god'.

A gross oversimplification. The Crusades is one of the few conflicts I think can be rightly blamed on Christianity as a major factor. Without Christianity, such a huge and long lasting conflict would not have happened at that time period. But Christians had traveled and lived in the Middle East and among Muslims for several centuries prior. To simply say, one side was Christian and the other was Muslim completely ignores the previous conflicts between the two, like the invasion of the Iberian Peninsula and the Battle of Tours, and the immediate conflict of persecution of pilgrims visiting the Holy Lands. It ignores the political and economic interests of European leaders of the time whose interests were not strictly religious. Byzantium wasn't even a target of the Pope, but it was sacked anyway. Why? It ignores the conflict between the monopoly the Italian city states had on trade and the conflict between them, European monarchs, and Pope.

It also ignores that the Crusades were more than just a war. It was a massive cultural exchange that led to the rise of Western Europe and the collapse of the Islamic golden age. It wasn't just a religious conflict. It was also to a lesser extent political and economic. Now I don't expect everyone to be a historian. I get that not everyone knows these things. I just get annoyed by the "the worlds problems disappear without religion" argument because it's crap. People don't need "god" as an excuse to enact atrocities on each other and it ignores the good things religion has achieved in the world and it contributions to the human condition.

Saying "It's Christianities fault" is not outright wrong but it belies an incredibly complex situation and doesn't adequately answer all relevant questions.

MrDwhitey wrote:

Melissia wrote:Christianity doesn't feed bellies

Lion's aren't real. Except for Aslan. But Aslan only eats evil witches

MrDwhitey wrote:

Melissia wrote:Christianity doesn't feed bellies

Feth it MrDwhitey, I am now in a moral quandary as I'm not sure whether the fact that I laughed at that makes me a horrible person or not...

LordofHats wrote:
Lion's aren't real. Except for Aslan. But Aslan only eats evil witches

So, Mother Theresa?