Another question: why do you think we (including the bible) refer to god as a male?
Last edited:
Religious/Evolutionary Debate Thread
- Thread starter QUALTHWAR
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Cat Fuzz
Qualthwar's Minion. Ph34r!
QUALTHWAR said:
Because Adam was male and the Bible says Adam was created in God's image, therefore it would be logical to refer to God as being a male. I don't think God is male or female, however.
I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase: that begs the questions.Cat Fuzz said:
When I took a Critical Thinking course, my instructor told us that ‘begging the question’ means to “assume” the very thing that is in question. I don’t think many people use the phrase in this way. Anyway, if I go by my instructor, you are begging the question.
You are saying we refer to god as man because the bible tells us to. But man wrote the authored the bible. That’s like saying we refer to god as a man because we said so.
I understand that there is no other publication to verify things, but it just shows that the bible says it’s this way, and that’s what you should believe.
Let me ask a different question: why do you think man authored the bible? Do you think it odd that no women authored parts of the bible?
Cat Fuzz
Qualthwar's Minion. Ph34r!
QUALTHWAR said:
Considering Jewish culture at the time, no. Women had little status and I would be surprised if many women even knew how to write or read.
Okay, I assumed something such as this.
Let’s address your views on the fossil record. I assume you read my earlier posts about the global iridium layer and how it corresponds exactly with the mass extinction that occurred 65 million years ago, according to the fossil records. Above this worldwide KT boundary there was abundant evidence of life, but below this worldwide boundary most species died off. What do you think about this evidence?
Let’s address your views on the fossil record. I assume you read my earlier posts about the global iridium layer and how it corresponds exactly with the mass extinction that occurred 65 million years ago, according to the fossil records. Above this worldwide KT boundary there was abundant evidence of life, but below this worldwide boundary most species died off. What do you think about this evidence?
Heh, Billy Connolly, the wonderfully entertaining free-swearing mad scotsman, has a unique view of the reliability of the bible.
"Moses on mount sinai, talking to a f***ing burning bush?
Any Witnesses?
NO!
How f***ing conviniant!"
It's a good point though. All these things that happened to an individual people... how can they all be right?
"These f***ing prophets who fasted in the desert fer forty days who talked angels? Let me tell YOU, you'd be seeing more than f***ing angels after 40 days."
etc. etc.
"Moses on mount sinai, talking to a f***ing burning bush?
Any Witnesses?
NO!
How f***ing conviniant!"
It's a good point though. All these things that happened to an individual people... how can they all be right?
"These f***ing prophets who fasted in the desert fer forty days who talked angels? Let me tell YOU, you'd be seeing more than f***ing angels after 40 days."
etc. etc.
Well what you have there is a scam. Religion is often used to milk people out of their money. The fear that God will act as "cosmic avenger" upon those who don't obey the preacher, is a common ploy.That's one of the key differences between religion and Christianity. For Christians, giving is a voluntary act that is lead by the Holy Spirit, as opposed to being lead by pressure. Jesus led by example when He gave. He also taught the significance of giving as an act of faith, driven by compassion and not an act of fear, driven by guilt.
The tithe however is a separate matter and must be distinguished from just giving. The tithe is not voluntary but instead is a sacred act of covenant worship (thanks giving) between you and God, concerning His promises to supply all your need through His blessings. Instead of keeping all of what you receive, you are willing to trust God's promised, blood sworn, Word when you give Him the ten%.
You're basically saying, "Lord, I love and trust you where my finances are concerned. You are Lord over all parts of my life and I thank you for the increase that you have increased me with. I may have a job but it is you who made it possible for me to have it in the first place. Now because I chose to declare you as being first place in my life and declare you as Lord over my financial prosperity, I honor, praise and thank you with the first fruits of the increase you have blessed me with."
That is the correct way to approach tithing. When it is done as a sacred and intimate act of faith between you (a child of God in Christ), and the all mighty God (your loving Father), great power and abundant blessings are released in your life as a result.
To be honest, in my opinion, the "plate" should only be passed around once, after the service. After tithing, they can sow whatever financial seed the Lord directs the individual to give, if anything. The lion share of giving should be done in everyday life anyway and not confined to a church service.
The tithe is the ten percent of whatever financial increase (or first fruits) the Lord has blessed you with. In the book of Malachi, the significance of the tithe is spelled out in no uncertain terms.
Malachi 3;8, Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.
9. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.
10. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to recieve it.
11. And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the Lord of hosts.
Actually when you study it out, you can see that the forbidden tree in the garden of Eden was a form of tithe. It was God's and it was set aside. And then there was the whole situation with Cain and Able. They were actually presenting the tithe to God. Cain took it lightly but Able understood the seriousness of it and gave God his best. Able respected God and God respected his first fruit offering. Cain just brought something just to say that he brought, "something". It's kind of like the person who decides to get you a fruit cake as a holiday gift, just so it can be said that they got you something. It's a "half-assed" effort at best. God deserves better.
I think Cat Fuzz brought up a good point that not all religion is about big business. Not that we necessarily thought this was the case, but it needed stated, nonetheless.
Having said that, I still think that a great deal of religion has to do with money and power. It’s too bad it’s not all about nice people who are just trying to pay the bills as Cat Fuzz suggests. It’s the ‘power’ part of it that should be considered, and is considered when people talk about the ramifications of no god. Religion helps to ‘control’ people. If people discovered that the bible was a hoax, or god didn’t exist, can you imagine what would happen?
Society would head towards a downward spiral because many of the safeguards would be removed. People wouldn’t worry so much about their souls and anarchy would prevail.
This is a telling portrayal of our dependant society as a whole more than anything else. Doesn’t meant that’s it’s written in stone that this will happen, but it could happen.
This religious regulation goes back to what I mentioned earlier that the bible was written as a governing piece of work more than anything else.
Having said that, I still think that a great deal of religion has to do with money and power. It’s too bad it’s not all about nice people who are just trying to pay the bills as Cat Fuzz suggests. It’s the ‘power’ part of it that should be considered, and is considered when people talk about the ramifications of no god. Religion helps to ‘control’ people. If people discovered that the bible was a hoax, or god didn’t exist, can you imagine what would happen?
Society would head towards a downward spiral because many of the safeguards would be removed. People wouldn’t worry so much about their souls and anarchy would prevail.
This is a telling portrayal of our dependant society as a whole more than anything else. Doesn’t meant that’s it’s written in stone that this will happen, but it could happen.
This religious regulation goes back to what I mentioned earlier that the bible was written as a governing piece of work more than anything else.
Now it seems more clear that alien involvement is covered up. It would make many people rethink their ideas of god.
QUALTHWAR said:
I see your point, but I think it's overly simplistic; irreligiousnous != immorality.
Fair enough, if everyone on this planet knew we were all going to die tomorrow, then there would suddenly be a lot more murders, rapes, etc.
Nonetheless, in the long-term, being a "good person" can have distinct advantages in the way in which you interact and bond with (and hence receive support from) individuals and social groups. Another positive consequence is that a lot of negative qualities such as jealousy, fear, suspicion etc are no longer factors, whereas someone who is out only for themself has to watch their back.
Do you think that not enough people are able to recognise that? I'm not sure, but I seem to be meeting increasing numbers of people (still a minority) who belive in being good but don't derive it from a higher power or authority, instead seeming to draw only on human nature. The relationships of people who adopt alpha and beta roles are characterised by their one-sidedness (give or take), whereas the most fulfilling relations are characterised by equity. That's not just "fair exchange", but includes respect for self and others, summed up perfectly in the words "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "do to others what you would have them do to you".
There are also two definitions of anarchy: one is that of harmony, or self rule, which does occur sporadically and informally in many social settings. In certain settings this could be pared down to a minimal or temporary structures of authority. This is essentially a synergetic view (social, but not necessarily absolutely collectivist). The other definition is chaotic, it's imbued with dominance behaviour and has manifested itself before as, for instance, the beginnings of feudalism. It leads to an antagonistic, "might makes right" philosophy (individual, but not necessarily absolutely individualistic).
"Anarchy" means no more or less freedom than we already have on average, it just means different consequences for our actions. Basically, I'm not an anarchist, I just think we're already there most of the time. Anyone can put a hat on and claim to be the police, but they need the power to back their claim up - which funnily enough can only really come through social networks.
There's quite a bit of research out there that suggests that:
Being a good person is a worthwhile end in itself both for individuals and society, without any universal system of punishment or reward (though defining "good" remains quite debatable, there are certain things most people can agree on).
Characteristics such as destructiveness are not innate.
That culture should function as a restraining force on some kind of innately base or corrupt human nature is a cynical, fatalist view of our species. I think I'm capable of behaving well toward others, and that doing so is worthwhile, without society or any human construct commanding me to and telling me how. If anything, I think culture sometimes acts as a restraint on widespread pathology. I'm not sure how controversial the research is now, but several psychologists, including Abraham Maslow and, mainly, R.D. Laing, have suggested that to be "normal" means to be slightly mentally ill.
I suppose I agree with you, but I'd state it this way: If all constraints were suddenly removed, our pathology would lead us.
I suspect unadulterated human nature is either good or at least ethically unbiased, which of course puts me dead against the Christian doctrine of original sin.
Last edited:
In many ways, the bible seems to be a story about good and evil, and the triumph of good over evil. it doesn’t surprise me that we, as a society, want good to triumph over evil. one example might be: say you live in a village long ago and there is one of every necessary profession. There is one carpenter, one brick layer, one medicine person, etc. Then let’s suppose that this culture was isolated and evil became the theme. Not just slight evil, but everyone wanted to kill everyone else in the worst way. As soon as you walk out your front door there’s always a riot going on: arrows flying by you, spears being thrown at you, people jumping off roofs with knives trying to stab you.
How much sleep do you think you’d get at night? You couldn’t live like that. but let’s say you managed to kill everyone else who was trying to kill and you’ll all that’s left. Since you’re the town crop planter, you know how to plant food, but maybe you don’t know how to cook it. Maybe there is no adequate shelter anymore, but you don’t know how to build anything. You get sick, but you don’t know how to heal yourself.
You see, good must triumph over evil for our own good. Evil would destroy everything; at least in this example it does. the bible is full of stories of good over evil, and it embodies naturally good characteristics of humankind. If the bible wasn’t written, certainly something close to it would have eventually been published.
How much sleep do you think you’d get at night? You couldn’t live like that. but let’s say you managed to kill everyone else who was trying to kill and you’ll all that’s left. Since you’re the town crop planter, you know how to plant food, but maybe you don’t know how to cook it. Maybe there is no adequate shelter anymore, but you don’t know how to build anything. You get sick, but you don’t know how to heal yourself.
You see, good must triumph over evil for our own good. Evil would destroy everything; at least in this example it does. the bible is full of stories of good over evil, and it embodies naturally good characteristics of humankind. If the bible wasn’t written, certainly something close to it would have eventually been published.
I watched a small portion of a show about the Divinci Code. It talked about Mary Mandalin, or whatever her name was, and how this Mary was eventually turned into the Mary mother of jesus that we now know. What’s interesting is the show presented evidence that many books of the bible were left out in order to maintain a certain imagine of Christianity. I think they were saying that certain books reveled that jesus was just a man who married and had children. They said the authors of the bible went to great lengths to omit these facts. The show airs again this Saturday, and I plan on taping it.
There was an article in Newsweek recently about the "true" story of Christmas, and it had something interesting points about the intentions of Gospel writers. The Gnostic Gospels and Dead Seas Scrolls are surely more accurate recordings of Jesus' teachings, but as the first 20 pages of this thread have shown, we all believe only what we want to.
Nachimir, I've been saying for awhile that religiousity has nothing to do with morality. I totally agree. In America it manifests in politics too often. "Christians for Kerry" bumperstickers became an oxy moron for some people incapable of seeing that just because George Bush is a born again Christian and Republican that he is not immediately the moral candidate. (This was actually my chief interest in Kerry, he makes no connections to his secular decisions and his religiousness.)
I think in that regard religion can been seen as a control device and, especially with stricter christans, as a restraint device to natural behaviors and pathologies. A lot of devout christians I hear about get married very young. They want to have sex and have no idea how to deal with that tension, feeling sinful, the get married. I have no personal evidence to back that up, but I feel like setting an example for behavior to be a great benefit of religion, and when taken too far it causes some harm as well.
Nachimir, I've been saying for awhile that religiousity has nothing to do with morality. I totally agree. In America it manifests in politics too often. "Christians for Kerry" bumperstickers became an oxy moron for some people incapable of seeing that just because George Bush is a born again Christian and Republican that he is not immediately the moral candidate. (This was actually my chief interest in Kerry, he makes no connections to his secular decisions and his religiousness.)
I think in that regard religion can been seen as a control device and, especially with stricter christans, as a restraint device to natural behaviors and pathologies. A lot of devout christians I hear about get married very young. They want to have sex and have no idea how to deal with that tension, feeling sinful, the get married. I have no personal evidence to back that up, but I feel like setting an example for behavior to be a great benefit of religion, and when taken too far it causes some harm as well.
Chrysaor said:
Yeah, I saw quite a bit of that in the JWs. The worst thing was that masturbation was condemned, even though it's not mentioned at all in the Bible and there's no evidence whatsoever that it's unhealthy in moderation. JW teens and young adults have no sexual outlet whatsoever; everything sexual is laced with guilt until they get married, and by that time some of them, and by extension the relationships, are already screwed, so to speak.
Socially constructive behaviour should indeed be a great benefit of religion, but I got to see it actually engendering pathologically unhealthy behaviour instead by actually attempting to abnegate basic human needs and desires, while claiming to be the best thing for anyone. It's not the only religion I've seen doing it.
I think something great can come from "religious" or "mystic" experiences - mainly a better perspective on everything - but as soon as it has a name and a written law, I think it's pretty much bolloxed. Gang mentalities and demagogues increase, loopholes emerge (i.e. it's no longer about conscience, it's about the letter of the law) and essentially the whole construct becomes a pathological environment like any other, religious or not.
Many social environments and constructs are pathogenic, and while some are worse than others or just have different pathology, none are exempt (i.e. people might get shot and stabbed in slums, whereas upper middle class neighborhoods might just be full of people who never talk to each other and hence have no community). Few people seem to actually have the balls to do something just because they believe in it, rather than because they're fitting in.
Well... I think Nachimir said it all. We have no reason to feel intrinsically bad , there's nothing wrong with our bodily needs that the Church depicts as "temptations" to induce guilt and control us tighter.
I think that recognition should lead the thinking man, as Thoreau put it, to "Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away."
For all the things Jesus Christ as come to mean, I think ultimately he, as well as any of these other men of god, are no different from ourselves, and if we strive to be "that", with a little luck we may come to realize "that" within ourselves. Being truly content in ones life really trumps any concerns others would have about how you came to be so.
For all the things Jesus Christ as come to mean, I think ultimately he, as well as any of these other men of god, are no different from ourselves, and if we strive to be "that", with a little luck we may come to realize "that" within ourselves. Being truly content in ones life really trumps any concerns others would have about how you came to be so.
Last edited:
"Being truly content in ones life really trumps any concerns others would have about how you came to be so"
Well said :tup:
Well said :tup:
Don`t Piss God Off!!!
It`s okay if you don`t wanna believe in something you can`t touch, see, feel, or explain away.....but think of the rest of us for God`s sake!!! My God! Don`t piss him off!! It looks like he might be getting ready to wipe us out and start over!!!
It`s okay if you don`t wanna believe in something you can`t touch, see, feel, or explain away.....but think of the rest of us for God`s sake!!! My God! Don`t piss him off!! It looks like he might be getting ready to wipe us out and start over!!!