Okay bro, that was the Parable of the ten minas. The parables are basiclly a heavenly truth put into an earthly context, so everything is symbolic of something else. This verse you bring up isnt Jesus literally telling you to kill non believers. By this parable Jesus was showing that He wouldn’t be setting up His Kingdom in the way the people expected, but would be leaving soon to be made King. When He returns He’ll reward His followers, punish His enemies, and then He’ll establish His Kingdom. You would have to actually read the passage to understand this instead of Googling these one liners that SEEM to help your argument.
This is where the whole "bible up for interpretation" thing comes from. Maybe the Koran doesn't actually mean to kill all infidels who don't believe in Allah and instead just kill evil as an idea. Sure that link is probably a little biased and doesn't give context to those passages but the point is holy books weren't written with a step by step analysis of what is meant so your view point on the matter is just as valid as shuman's is. The only "credible" source to even be told how to interpret the translated and retranslated ancient texts of civilizations past would be from the priests or religious hierarchy. Well that just turns into the whole oracle/interpreter story. If no one can hear or understand the "oracle" then they are forced to accept what the interpreter has to say which puts all the power in the interpreter. Power is a nasty temptation and its influence has affected thousands of years of history all because of interpretation.
Well, that parable isnt exactly an unbreakable code. Its sort of a symbolic analogy I guess you would say. It also says nothing of murdering gays, thats for sure. I also wasnt trying to compare gay sex with murder. Of course murder is completly different so here is a less violent analogy of my opinion. Transhuman wants a 25 cent gumball from a machine that takes quarters only. While his penny may fit in the quarter slot, it will never produce the gumball. The ***** fits in other places, but it was meant to produce children through a ******. That is my main point that cannot be refuted. By saying it wasnt meant to be, I am not 'nicely' saying burn in hell. I am plainly saying, it wasnt meant to be. You cant play XBOX with a gamecube remote. You cant open the front door of your house with the car key, though it may fit in there in some cases, its not gonna unlock it.
But what if I enjoy just sitting in front of my Xbox with my Gamecube controller and pretending to play? Why is that considered evil? Why does god condemn me to hell if I do that? People do things that "weren't meant to be" all the time. Is no-scoping a sin because Bungie intended the sniper to be used at long range, and using it otherwise defiles the sanctity of Halo?
Lol, there is quite a difference between anal sex and no scoping, but if the bible told me not to no scope, I would zoom in every time. Thats the thing. Whether you agree or not, I am a Christian. I am going to live by the examples I am taught from the bible. Honestly, nobody can believe that abstenence, hetero-sex, or being kind to your neighbor could cause any wrong or harm in the world. Matty can say all he wants about warping minds and brain washing our children, but the facts are that people choose what they want regardless. How many people were raised Christian but changed their beliefs in this thread alone. As well as me not being raised a Christian but becoming one later. The morals and ideas I am going to teach my son are Bible based, and not a single one of them are evil. I will in no way force him to be Christian. Just teach him to be one and he will go his own way when the time comes.
But that's the thing zombie, this is what we were trying to tell radiantrain that you can't just accept only the good things in the Bible and ignore all the bad things or things that are just plain wrong. That's like cutting all the horrible parts out of a horror movie and leaving it with 10 minutes of "good" things. You don't need a book to tell you what is morally righteous and what is immoral. I mean if I wanted to placate myself with passages from a book to help me live my life I wouldn't pick a book that is so historically inaccurate or one that has been "handed down" as it were through history as much as the bible.
Debate - William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens - Does God Exist? - YouTube Edit: There are objections to Graig's arguments. Yes, the arguments do not prove a deity exists, nor did Hitchens provide evidence that a deity does not exist. Based off the discussion in this thread, I think that many atheists (of those who willed) have little understanding of the Biblical text, other than self-fulfilled internet searches. It makes me believe that they don't know a whole lot about what's core to Christianity, and to discredit an entire way of life through animosity and arrogance seems plainly illogical to me. Also, as I said before, you have to remember that there's an immense study of religion, its influences, its truths, etc. You cannot look for the 25 cent gumball as zombie said, and it's complicated. People study the Bible their entire lives, and if you expect to understand it all within one thread on FH then you are not doing it right.
Found a quote that acts as a metaphor for evolution and human psychology. "... imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise." -Douglas Adams Just thought I'd share.
If you're referring to how Christianity is "losing ground" and has had to "readjust" their beliefs according to science, I suggest you watch the above debate. This is touched on.
I watched it a few months ago; very interesting, and Hitchens always manages to inspire. I'll certainly rewatch it when I get the chance to, since it's been a while. However, that is not how I interpreted the quote, at least not exactly. Like how a liquid will conform to its environment, humans have evolved and conformed to the environment around them, making the world seem as if it were made for them. To me, the quote hinted at the psychology behind early humans that lead to the formation of ideas such as Intelligent Design. However, the hole was not made for the puddle, just as this world wasn't made for us; we just adapted to fit it. Also, this is my problem with faith. EDIT: Possibilianism
Another possible interpretation is that human extinction is completely plausible. Not wanting to speak for anyone's beliefs, but many Christians have a "human exceptionalism" view of such things, which is dangerous.
The fact that this quote comes from Douglas Adams makes so happy and reminds me of the whale in one of the Hitchhiker guide books. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy-The Whale and the Petunias - YouTube
Okay, was just checking. I can identify with this though, and it's definitely plausible. I disagree with it because I believe there's more indication for an intelligent designer than not.. what is it, something like 56% of physicists are atheists.. I heard a study on the radio last year which said both Liberals and Conservatives are, to a degree, irrationally biased towards their belief. For me, the concept of Christian freewill and faith is fascinating, and it may be part of my childhood, in all likelihood it is. Both of my brothers are agnostic, I believe, and I know one motive has been their lack of belief of anything clear. Makes me want to find some kind of truth. Edit: also, some food for thought, my confirmation mentor studied law at Yale and didn't believe in Christianity until he and a couple of his buddies sat down and went through/studied the Bible. Not quite sure what this means.. To me it sounds a lot like agnosticism, with the added belief that truth can be known outside our capability. Is that right? I guess, but I personally believe in the second coming of Christ to judge humanity as this "extinction." It's possible extinction could happen outside of any diety, but I believe otherwise. "Human exceptionalism" has lead to egomania and misinterpretation, as seen in the history of the Catholic church. I by no means will oppress others and I believe the Bible says against it. Spread the word of God not oblige it on others. So yea, I agree, it's dangerous, but not enveloping of all Christianity. We love what's good.
I find it unlikely that our planet was the product of an intelligent designer; there are far too many miseries, flaws, and imperfections for that to be true. All you have to do is a little bit of research on the atrocities that happen in Africa; the diamond trade in Sierra Leone, child soldiers, drug cartels, forced labor, genocide, and so much more. A universal designer, something akin to the idea of Deism, is much more plausible. Yet, with all of the advancements that humans have been able to make, Deism seems much less plausible in my eyes. We're on the verge of creating artificial life with machines, and experiments have already been done to theorize how the evolution of life on Earth began. Faith requires a person to be completely sure of themselves, despite any amount of evidence that would say otherwise. In Christopher Hitchens' book "God is Not Great," Hitchens details many events in history that show the type of decisions which faith and ignorance can create. I'll refer back to the Dark Ages on this one, since it's one of the most well-known examples of religious ignorance causing a set-back in humanity. Possibilianism was something I recently found, it's unrelated to the bertrand russell quote. It addresses its similarities to agnosticism in the article, and while the differences are very slim, they do create different outlooks and attitudes towards life.
I don't find the argument for lack of design from imperfection as remotely convincing as the argument against design through observation of earth/ the universe. The "why doesn't god help the sick children" is a perfectly good argument, but the "works in mysterious ways" counter is all that ever comes from it. But when you have people convinced that the earth is 6,000 years old when it's actually 4.54 billion years, the question isn't whether god exists, it's what word can't theists understand, fact or self-delusion? Not only is 56% exceedingly higher than the percentage of atheists in the average population, but if your point is that physicists are obviously in a more reliable position to comment on whether there is a god or not, they seem more certain there isn't a god. In fact the percentage of atheist physicists is much higher than 56% (though the country polled would make a large distance). This 1998 survey polled belief in a personal god among scientists in the National Academy of Sciences, which showed Personal Disbelief at 76.7%, Doubt or Agnosticism at 23.3% and a lowly 7.9% identifying with a person belief in god. It also showed that physicists and astronomers had the second highest rate of disbelief (92.5%) behind [surprise] biological scientists (95.5%). That's amazing. I mean, someone who actively decides to take the time to read through the bible becoming a Christian? That's as coincidental as someone deciding to read the Qur'an to learn about Muslim beliefs becoming a Muslim. Or someone deciding to read the Torah because they want to learn about Jewish beliefs and becoming Jewish. Or someone reading "The Materials of Dianetics" to learn about Scientology becoming a Scientologist. How exactly is it "food for thought". Are you trying to prove that people who willingly seek ignorance find it? ...and hate what's bad. You know what's good? Babies. That means abortion is bad. We should go TP an abortion clinic Erico. On second thought lets just blow it up.
@Rorak: I've lived in Africa. Just sayin', I know about these things, so please don't make it sounds like I just need to "read up on it." Have you thought that maybe poverty and everything "bad" in this world may be necessary? I personally wouldn't accept a God that made everything rosy-red and played the world like a puppet. That to me is ignorance. I believe the only way a person can know God and love is through freewill and faith. Besides, humanity can make a huge difference in these unfortunate peoples' lives (NOT saying in absence of God). @Pac: I see your point, but yeah^ @Transh: I'm pro choice. Your mind games are amusing, but distracting
So suffering is necessary to enable happiness by contrast? What about Heaven? EDIT: Even aside from that, the watchmaker argument doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny. The idea of the universe being too "perfect" to have happened by chance makes no sense. Perfect compared to what? We inherently only have an understanding of the way things are, there's no wider context in which to consider whether the universe is perfect or not, it's simply an argument that makes no sense and tries to explain the nature of the universe with arguments based upon the context of being within said universe. Or, to consider it another way: to understand the likelihood of something happening, one must consider the context in which it may or may not have happened. You have no way of knowing what is likely or not in the context in which the universe exists (indeed the very premise of a context doesn't really make sense in either atheistic or theistic frameworks, for the purposes of this argument anyway), thus the argument, once again, simply makes no sense.