What's your religion?

[Feops]

I'd also just like to add in that the Bible does not contradict itself. I have never heard of or seen a passage in the Good Book that does.

 

[Costrin]

Costrin, what we are getting into now is errors in our translations. There are no errors in the original text.

Unfortunately, I can't read the originals, so I can't verify this.

Every seemingly contradiction has no effect whatsoever on the main doctrine. Also, some of those contradictions listed on that one the SAB are erroneous. The sections of the bible that they say contradict each other don't in any way.

Mmk.

In regards to some of the numerical "errors" there are mistypes in copies of the bible just like any other book. the difference between 10,000 and 100,000 is just a little dot on the paper. We could easily mistake an ink blot for that dot. We have copies from all over that we use to translate. Take a class on textual criticism and get back to me.

Mmk.

They copies are not inspired only the original. It's my belief that I could burn a bible and it wouldn't matter because it's not the inspired text.

I wish people who did these things would take a formal logic class or two because some of their arguments make no sense at all.

All I know, is that to me, these look like internal contradictions, contradictions with math science, dubious values, and stuff that is open to an extreme variety of interpretations, and just some silly stuff in general. When I read the bible, I don't feel anything, nothing that could be remotely described as God, or inspirations, or anything of the sort. When people assert that there are no contradictions, I just (mentally) roll my eyes. This website has a list of seeming contradictions, and arguments for why. If there are no contradictions, then one should be able to go through and counter every one of those. Maybe these contradictions don't exist in the originals. Well that doesn't help me at all, seeing how I can't read them, and I have no plans to learn how.

Of course, even if someone went through and disproved all claims of contradiction, it wouldn't convince me of the validity of the bible. I would need to see concrete evidence for me to believe.

 

[SillySapienne]

I am a philophile.

What can I say, I love me some love.

 

[Eagle]

So then it doesn't really matter what I say or how I say it. If you see it, it can't really be called faith. The latest website you linked to I would also disagree with. It doesn't take into account any of the philosophies that Christians have regarding God's behavior. Nor does it take into account the said reason why there are such differences between the old and new testaments. But, seeing as I can't convince you (not that I really ever was going to anyway) it's sorta pointless to go on. If someone else want's to take up the mantel I'll support them, but for now I'm just tired.

 

[FerventFox]

After reviewing both of the websites you provided, Costrin, I'm afraid that I agree with Eagle. A lot of the seeming contradictions listed are not actual contradictions. They are differences in the translation and/or added information. One book may contain further information on a topic while another book ends earlier leading to what would appear to be a contradiction but isn't. I could go through the contradictions and show you the truth in each of them, but as Eagle said, it doesn't matter. If you've already decided to disagree, nothing I say can change that.

 

[Owl]

hmmm...

I agree that most of the "contradictions" are not contradictions, but can you explain this one?

"On what day did the crucifixion take place?

On Passover Eve: John 13:1, 18:28, 19:14-15

On the first day of Passover: Mark 14:12-17"

(Taken from the Ebon Musings, the second website.)

 

[janey_girl]

Man created god in his own image methinks.... I don't believe - I am spiritual but not religious....

 

[Costrin]

So then it doesn't really matter what I say or how I say it. If you see it, it can't really be called faith. The latest website you linked to I would also disagree with. It doesn't take into account any of the philosophies that Christians have regarding God's behavior. Nor does it take into account the said reason why there are such differences between the old and new testaments. But, seeing as I can't convince you (not that I really ever was going to anyway) it's sorta pointless to go on. If someone else want's to take up the mantel I'll support them, but for now I'm just tired.

After reviewing both of the websites you provided, Costrin, I'm afraid that I agree with Eagle. A lot of the seeming contradictions listed are not actual contradictions. They are differences in the translation and/or added information. One book may contain further information on a topic while another book ends earlier leading to what would appear to be a contradiction but isn't. I could go through the contradictions and show you the truth in each of them, but as Eagle said, it doesn't matter. If you've already decided to disagree, nothing I say can change that.

Well, its not that I decided to disagree (technically, yes I did), but I just don't see any evidence for agreeing. So if you were to provide evidence than I would certainly review it and if convincing enough, I would become a believer. Otherwise, your right, nothing you say would change my position.

 

[Eagle]

I found this interesting, but it makes sense to me. Going by knowledge of Jewish tradition the day starts in the evening. John is going by the Roman Time System (Similar to what we have today), while Matthew, Mark, and Luke are written according to the Jewish Time System (sunset to sunset). John was written considerably later than the other three so it makes sense that the Roman Culture would have had a more significant impact on the writings.

If it's convincing.. Can anything be convincing enough? Do I waste my time. That depends. Also, if it's just based on the knowledge in your head where does faith enter the picture?

 

[Costrin]

I found this interesting, but it makes sense to me. Going by knowledge of Jewish tradition the day starts in the evening. John is going by the Roman Time System (Similar to what we have today), while Matthew, Mark, and Luke are written according to the Jewish Time System (sunset to sunset). John was written considerably later than the other three so it makes sense that the Roman Culture would have had a more significant impact on the writings.

If it's convincing.. Can anything be convincing enough? Do I waste my time. That depends. Also, if it's just based on the knowledge in your head where does faith enter the picture?

What would convince me. Well this site lists some good ones (because linking to stuff other people wrote is much easier). Basically, physical evidence. If God came and spoke to me, if a miracle was performed in front of my eyes. If significant prophecies were shown to have come true. If physical evidence or written documents (the bible doesn't count naturally, as that would be circular) that Jesus existed, and furthermore that he was divine, and did perform miracles and come back from the dead. If geological evidence was found for any of the catastrophic events mentioned in the bible. Anything along those lines.

Stuff that wont convince me are personal anecdotes, minor miracles (things like the virgin Mary appearing on a piece of bread), disproving evolution/abiogenesis/big bang (its not enough to disprove another theory, you have to have positive evidence of yours also), appeals to morality, appeals to authority, appeals to majority (etc, etc), pascals wager, and faith.

I have no faith, and find it difficult to contemplate the idea. Assuming the common definition of "belief without proof", its just anathema to how I work. Similiar thing with "spiritual experiences". I've honestly never experienced one of those, and from what I know of humans and how susceptible they are to suggestion, I would doubt what I experienced.

 

[simulatedworld]

Parent indoctrination.
Grow up.

Are you suggesting that all atheism is due to parental indoctrination?

 

[Kangirl]

First, there's no such thing as a good Christian.

To CaptainChick there is. The ones who don't preach at and look down on non/other types of Christians for example. Her position is perfectly legitimate - she was making a personal statement about what bugs her.

I don't like being preached at either, and would attempt to avoid people who wanted to do so.

 

[Mole]

Man created god in his own image...

There are 10,000 gods. To which god are you referring.

 

[Eagle]

Costrin,
Honestly, you probably aren't going to get that kind of conclusive or inconclusive evidence. For the conclusive evidence how does that happening bring glory true glory to God (from the standpoint of my personal beliefs)? For the inconclusive ones most of it's subject to interpretation. It's just not possible. Humankind is to corrupted to get them. I can give you reasons till I'm blue in the face, but my previous point stands. The only thing that will change you mind is something that is real to you. I personal realization maybe. Regardless of whether or not I can convince of my beliefs, do think that there is a God? I know you at least reject these beliefs. My thoughts on your opinions on this are probably right, but I wanted to ask anyway.

Romans 1:19-20
"because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

 

[Costrin]

Costrin,
Honestly, you probably aren't going to get that kind of conclusive or inconclusive evidence. For the conclusive evidence how does that happening bring glory true glory to God (from the standpoint of my personal beliefs)? For the inconclusive ones most of it's subject to interpretation. It's just not possible. Humankind is to corrupted to get them. I can give you reasons till I'm blue in the face, but my previous point stands. The only thing that will change you mind is something that is real to you. I personal realization maybe. Regardless of whether or not I can convince of my beliefs, do think that there is a God? I know you at least reject these beliefs. My thoughts on your opinions on this are probably right, but I wanted to ask anyway.

Romans 1:19-20
"because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

I do not believe in a god of any type. I admit the possibility, but I see no evidence for a deity, so I do not believe in one. Furthermore, even if a god did exist, I likely wouldn't worship it. Just because it may have made me, is no reason for me to worship it. If the god is good, then it would not care, if it is evil and I would be punished for not worshiping, then it can go ahead and punish me.

 

[harmonyizmine]

Are you suggesting that all atheism is due to parental indoctrination?

I too would like to know if that is what you are suggesting.

The interesting thing is that the majority of my atheist friends grew up Christian.

Also, *wildcat* why do you feel you have to attack this person for their belief?
--

If I were to answer the original post, I would have to say that I believe religion is man-made and created from people trying to explain something/some source...call it God if you like.

The reality is...we have no clue and no proof that a god exists. The majority of us have "FEELING" that it exists (which there is nothing wrong with this).

There have been some unexplainable events that have happened in my life. So I would say that I agree that there is "something" out there, but I refuse to define it because I have no substantial proof and it would still be based on feeling. For all I know, it could be the pull of the universe, self, god, aliens, etc.

I do not believe the holy books in religions to be infallible or proof of a godly existence. I feel that these books were man-made as well. However, it may be documentation of their culture's experience with this "source."

Saying that, I respect all people and their beliefs. The issue I have is when they have the "I'm right, and you're wrong" judgmental attitude, and cannot have a discussion about religion without making judgmental/mean/rude remarks. There is no reason for this attitude

 

[Mole]

Have you noticed that atheists and evangelicals have one thing in common?

They both take their stand on rationality.

But there is a whole continent of irrationality, from imagination to empathy to trance.

And it is on this continent that religion lives.

To try to push religion through the eye of rationality is like trying to push a rich man through the eye of a needle.

At first is appears ridiculous, but then, as they insist, it turns nasty.

But for both atheists and evangelicals it is compulsive.

Like all fetishists they mistake a small part for the whole, and focus intently on that small part.

And so they form a hypnotic loop between rationality and themselves and they just keep going round and round and round.

And each time they go round, they become more intense, more insistent that we join them on their merry-go-round.

The only way off the merry-go-round is l'alternance - to alternate between imagination, empathy and trance and reason.

In that way imagination, empathy and trance act as the antidote to compulsive rationalisation. And reason acts an antidote to compulsive imagination, empathy and trance.

In that way, with l'alternance, we are free from compulsion.

Really it's simple. Always remember that the toxicity lies in the dose.

And so religion and reason are nice in small doses, one after the other, in an elegant little dance.

 

[heart]

But for both atheists and evangelicals it is compulsive.

Yes, militant atheists and evangelicals both just as toxic and controlling. If they ever came to war with each other, it'd be a blood bath.

 

[Oso Mocoso]

I was raised to be a Christian, but I realized it was hogwash around the same time I outgrew Santa Claus and my imaginary friend. Since then, I've been an atheist. I don't claim to really know for sure there's no such thing as the supernatural, but I've gone looking for it in the places it's been reported and found nothing.

The story about the Magical Rib Woman, the sacred good and evil fruit and talking snakes tempting women into tempting men just doesn't seem a very plausible explanation of anything. And really, that one is pretty fundamental to Christianity. It's supposed to explain the origin of morality, why snakes are not lizards, why women have a menstrual cycle, some other stuff and it sets the stage for Jesus saving mankind later on in Testament 2: This Time It's Personal.

The Magical Rib Woman did it. That's why people had original sin before God turned himself into a human and the Jews killed him?

Really? Does that make sense to people? Maybe if they're tripping balls like the prophet Ezekiel apparently was. Anyone read him? Good stuff, but not about to make me convert.

I know I'm picking on Christianity here. Rest assured other religions I've looked into aren't much better with the exception of possibly Buddhism. However, the competitive advantage of making a lick of sense does not seem to have won it great numbers of adherents.

Anyway, that's my explanation for why.

Atheist.

 

[harmonyizmine]

I completely agree with you both (Heart and Victor)

Something I've always pondered is how people can become so militant in regards to their belief system that they become so engrossed that they don't care if they are hateful/hurtful because they are furthering their cause and that is more important to them.


To Oso:
Thanks for telling us the reasons why you are an atheist and showing it's not parental indoctrination either.