God REAL or FAKE

Ejayrazz · Dec 26th 2011, 5:43pm

Scaredycrow wrote:

That's a pretty far jump considering all the creation stories/Gods that exist. Why Jesus Christ? Because that's what he was raised to believe? He offers an explanation, but even so, I don't think it excludes Islam or Judaism. Besides, using literal quotes from the old testament - while his entire book is based upon the fact that it mustn't be taken literally - doesn't really line up.

The problem with literal interpretation is the differences between English and Hebrew - one being the most noun-enriched language, the other being the poorest. Because of this, taking the bible literally is a huge debate even among the religious.

"Augustine & other Church Fathers: “Day” in Genesis is a long period of time
If you read the early fathers of the church, the vast majority of them adopted the view that these days of creation were long time periods, not 24-hour periods.
Why King James? The English language is the largest vocabulary language that man has ever invented. The Hebrew language, by contrast, is one of the most noun poor languages that man has ever invented.
English vs. Hebrew
So, the English reader has a difficult time appreciating that in the Hebrew Old Testament, there are very few words to describe periods of time. The Hebrew word Yom, for “day long” can mean 12 hours, 24 hours or a long time period. You have to examine the context, to determine which of the three definitions to use.
Incidentally, we have the same problem with the word “heaven”, for which the Hebrew language has three different definitions. In Genesis One, you have to examine the context in order to determine which heaven is being used in which place. That’s why Paul referred to the third heaven. So you’d know which one he was talking about."

Kollegah · Dec 26th 2011, 6:09pm

So the disapproval of homosexuals isn't supposed to be taken literally either?

Ejayrazz · Dec 26th 2011, 6:34pm

Alexis Sanchez wrote:

So the disapproval of homosexuals isn't supposed to be taken literally either?

I was mainly speaking about the HUGE difference between Hebrew and English.

To address your question though, many denounce homosexuality because the Bible teaches it and that it's a sin (please understand there are so many different viewpoints that i'll just list mine) In my personal opinion, I do not care because they have that choice and I do not look down upon them (Btw: My sister is Gay). It's not my position to judge because that's not my authority or position. I see potential good in everyone especially from a social science perspective (Sociology changes a lot) What Christians need to remember is that Sin is Sin. There is no "Greater" sin or "Lesser" sin. If you commit a sin, you commit a sin. If you cheat on your wife, it's a sin. If you are a homosexual, you're sinning. If you're stealing, you're sinning. None is worse than the other, as they're all equal.

"According to the Bible, God’s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Philippians 4:13)"

Goddess of Judecca · Dec 27th 2011, 2:49am

Wait...you believe that homosexuality is a choice and a sin? ... Fer srs?

~Maggot

Scaredycrow · Dec 27th 2011, 3:32am

Ejayrazz wrote:

The problem with literal interpretation is the differences between English and Hebrew - one being the most noun-enriched language, the other being the poorest. Because of this, taking the bible literally is a huge debate even among the religious.

Interpretation is indeed a huge debate. That aside, I'm just saying that Ross is essentially taking literal quotations from the bible and connecting it to scientific knowledge. Like I said, I never read that whole page, but it seems as though he:
a) applies God/bible when it's not required in the explanation
b) applies God of the gaps
c) indirectly uses the watchmaker analogy
d) essentially sets up some version of infinite monkey theorem or hoyle's fallacy (both of which aren't particularly accurate depictions of how the universe works)

You don't have to read all of that - I just wanted to save myself some typing, but if you're interested, it's sometimes good to know why these types of arguments aren't necessarily proof of God.

Ejayrazz wrote:

To address your question though, many denounce homosexuality because the Bible teaches it and that it's a sin (please understand there are so many different viewpoints that i'll just list mine) In my personal opinion, I do not care because they have that choice and I do not look down upon them (Btw: My sister is Gay). It's not my position to judge because that's not my authority or position. I see potential good in everyone especially from a social science perspective (Sociology changes a lot) What Christians need to remember is that Sin is Sin. There is no "Greater" sin or "Lesser" sin. If you commit a sin, you commit a sin. If you cheat on your wife, it's a sin. If you are a homosexual, you're sinning. If you're stealing, you're sinning. None is worse than the other, as they're all equal.

"According to the Bible, God’s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Philippians 4:13)"

While we're talking about translation, there are numerous gay Christian support sites who believe that you can interpret the bible in ways that don't condemn homosexuality at all (no hebrew word for homosexuality, old testament vs new testament, etc., IIRC).

This doesn't really have anything to do with proof of God's existence, but something to think about:

You say it's not your position to judge actions of others, but if everyone took that stance ("it's their choice") and left it up to God to be the ultimate authority, I imagine the word would be a much different place - possibly much worse especially if we decided not to pass judgement on some of the more heinous crimes that exist.

I'm also of the opinion that the teaching of all sins being equal is a very poor representation of good morality. I'd find it much easier to forgive my boyfriend for stealing my CD than for cheating on me. Murdering my sister is much different than lying about who really ate her Terry's chocolate orange. Being absolved from sin shouldn't be so easy; in fact it seems more dangerous to consider it that way than to not believe in God at all (atheists are often accused of lacking a moral compass).

Ejayrazz · Dec 27th 2011, 3:44am

Scaredycrow wrote:

Interpretation is indeed a huge debate. That aside, I'm just saying that Ross is essentially taking literal quotations from the bible and connecting it to scientific knowledge. Like I said, I never read that whole page, but it seems as though he:
a) applies God/bible when it's not required in the explanation
b) applies God of the gaps
c) indirectly uses the watchmaker analogy
d) essentially sets up some version of infinite monkey theorem or hoyle's fallacy (both of which aren't particularly accurate depictions of how the universe works)

You don't have to read all of that - I just wanted to save myself some typing, but if you're interested, it's sometimes good to know why these types of arguments aren't necessarily proof of God.

While we're talking about translation, there are numerous gay Christian support sites who believe that you can interpret the bible in ways that don't condemn homosexuality at all (no hebrew word for homosexuality, old testament vs new testament, etc., IIRC).

This doesn't really have anything to do with proof of God's existence, but something to think about:

You say it's not your position to judge actions of others, but if everyone took that stance ("it's their choice") and left it up to God to be the ultimate authority, I imagine the word would be a much different place - possibly much worse especially if we decided not to pass judgement on some of the more heinous crimes that exist.

I'm also of the opinion that the teaching of all sins being equal is a very poor representation of good morality. I'd find it much easier to forgive my boyfriend for stealing my CD than for cheating on me. Murdering my sister is much different than lying about who really ate her Terry's chocolate orange. Being absolved from sin shouldn't be so easy; in fact it seems more dangerous to consider it that way than to not believe in God at all (atheists are often accused of lacking a moral compass).

Very solid points. I am one of the few Christians who simply doesn't pretend to have the answers to everything - especially since I have a past and converting is what changed my life (Yeah, I'm only 21 and my past wasn't anything too too bad). I actually agree with you on leveling sins, especially in a societal view - someone who kills SHOULD be looked differently upon than someone who steals and it's still something I am trying to grasp - especially since I just finished an intern ship with the local police here in Rhode Island and guaranteed a job in 3 years time. There are many things I still need to learn as it's such a diverse subject unlike any other. It's not like my major, Criminology, where everything is organized and easy to follow.

As for homosexuality, that's something I was reading into today since that's something I was interested in because as far as I was concerned, homosexuality wasn't a word in Hebrew and only lead to "references" and I wanted to really dig deeper into it.

Goddess of Judecca · Dec 27th 2011, 3:51am

Scaredycrow wrote:

Being absolved from sin shouldn't be so easy; in fact it seems more dangerous to consider it that way than to not believe in God at all (atheists are often accused of lacking a moral compass).

Made me think of two things.
1: Biologists believe there are evolutionary bases to our sense of morality, and it has been starting to be studied. It's actually really fascinating.
2: "On Saturday night I would see men lusting after halfnaked girls dancing at the carnival, and on Sunday morning when I was playing the organ for tent-show evangelists at the other end of the carnival lot, I would see these same men sitting in the pews with their wives and children, asking God to forgive them and purge them of carnal desires. And the next Saturday night they'd be back at The carnival or some other place of indulgence.

"I knew then that the Christian Church thrives on hypocrisy, and that man's carnal nature will out!"

~Maggot

blt · Dec 27th 2011, 6:35am

Personally, I have never opted to make religion a part of my life. I neither believe in a god nor disbelieve that one exists. I don't consider myself to be agnostic, atheist or anything for that matter. For me... religion and god are simply absent from my life and psyche.

Albus Dumbledore · Dec 27th 2011, 8:44am

blt wrote:

Personally, I have never opted to make religion a part of my life. I neither believe in a god nor disbelieve that one exists. I don't consider myself to be agnostic, atheist or anything for that matter. For me... religion and god are simply absent from my life and psyche.

The more I think about it, this is pretty much the way I am. I'm technically a baptised Anglican from only a few weeks old. But I've never considered God, nor religion to be a part of my life. The only times i've been in a church other than my baptism which I can't remember were for weddings and funerals. Although now if someone asks me if I'm religious I'll tell them I'm atheist, it's probably more accurate to say that I'm indifferent. I have no desire to make religion a part of my life.

I don't believe that one must be religious to have morality, and the religious people who do believe this, or look down at me or even just believe that I should change just make me even less likely to want to make their religion a part of my life. The way I see it all humans are equal, Sure sometimes I will argue with a christian who tries to shove their religion down my throat but more often than not I do this to satisfy my curiosity. I respect their faith, but I also have my faith- that I'm living a moral life as I should and that what will be will be. Besides isn't better to be a moral person for the sake of being a moral person rather than doing so just because "your god says you should" and that doing so ensure an eternal life of happiness. It;s kind of like giving, but doing so expecting to receive something in return.

So I suppose in many ways, I'm probably closer to being agnostic than atheist but either way It doesn't bother me

blt · Dec 27th 2011, 9:12am

Albus Dumbledore wrote:

The more I think about it, this is pretty much the way I am. I'm technically a baptised Anglican from only a few weeks old. But I've never considered God, nor religion to be a part of my life. The only times i've been in a church other than my baptism which I can't remember were for weddings and funerals. Although now if someone asks me if I'm religious I'll tell them I'm atheist, it's probably more accurate to say that I'm indifferent. I have no desire to make religion a part of my life.

I was baptized in a Catholic church. My parents stopped taking my sister and I to church when we were very young, actually I was just a baby. It wasn't really a religious reason for leaving, but right after I was born, my father had lost his job while my mom was taking care of my two year old sister and I. We lost our home and my parents struggled to provide for us. Times were very tough. In the past my parents had devoted everything to their church. They donated and volunteered constantly. Community was important to them. During our hard times, the church and it's people pressured us more than ever to make higher contributions and offered us no help or care at all. Because of that, my parents left the church.

My mom and dad had their religious roots. They never seemed interested in pursuing any other churches down the road. My family was able to pull through those rough times and make the best of it. They provided me with a very nice childhood and supported me to do bigger and better things. My family now owns a nice house, drives nice cars, and now and has a high standard of living. We didn't need church or prayers to get us through those rough times..

My parents never pressured me into a religion. Now when I ask them about this, they relay to me that the church and it's community went against what they preach and kicked them while they were down. They pretty much held that grudge and never made church part of our family again. In fact, we never discussed religion. Like I said before... it was simply absent. I never prayed. I never attended a church. The only times I was in a chapel were weddings and funerals. It never even occurred to me until later on that I was absent from anything.

So when religion comes up, I really don't even bother arguing for or against a god. I'm the one on the other side of the room saying "does it really matter?"

DamnImGood · Dec 27th 2011, 9:59am

blt wrote:

Personally, I have never opted to make religion a part of my life. I neither believe in a god nor disbelieve that one exists. I don't consider myself to be agnostic, atheist or anything for that matter. For me... religion and god are simply absent from my life and psyche.

Technically that makes you an atheist. At the very least, you're agnostic.

LittleBritain · Dec 27th 2011, 4:35pm

Fake!

Goddess of Judecca · Dec 27th 2011, 4:39pm

DamnImGood wrote:

Technically that makes you an atheist. At the very least, you're agnostic.

Personally, I call that apathetic agnostic. That's what my boyfriend is. Basically it's: "Dunno, don't care."

~Maggot

Little Raven · Dec 27th 2011, 4:42pm

blt wrote:

Personally, I have never opted to make religion a part of my life. I neither believe in a god nor disbelieve that one exists. I don't consider myself to be agnostic, atheist or anything for that matter. For me... religion and god are simply absent from my life and psyche.

Albus Dumbledore wrote:

The more I think about it, this is pretty much the way I am. I'm technically a baptised Anglican from only a few weeks old. But I've never considered God, nor religion to be a part of my life. The only times i've been in a church other than my baptism which I can't remember were for weddings and funerals. Although now if someone asks me if I'm religious I'll tell them I'm atheist, it's probably more accurate to say that I'm indifferent. I have no desire to make religion a part of my life.

I don't believe that one must be religious to have morality, and the religious people who do believe this, or look down at me or even just believe that I should change just make me even less likely to want to make their religion a part of my life. The way I see it all humans are equal, Sure sometimes I will argue with a christian who tries to shove their religion down my throat but more often than not I do this to satisfy my curiosity. I respect their faith, but I also have my faith- that I'm living a moral life as I should and that what will be will be. Besides isn't better to be a moral person for the sake of being a moral person rather than doing so just because "your god says you should" and that doing so ensure an eternal life of happiness. It;s kind of like giving, but doing so expecting to receive something in return.

So I suppose in many ways, I'm probably closer to being agnostic than atheist but either way It doesn't bother me

You're both Apatheists.

Goddess of Judecca · Dec 27th 2011, 4:43pm

Little Raven wrote:

You're both Apatheists.

I had no idea there was a word for it. KEWL. :o

~Maggot

DamnImGood · Dec 27th 2011, 6:15pm

Goddess of Judecca wrote:

Personally, I call that apathetic agnostic. That's what my boyfriend is. Basically it's: "Dunno, don't care."

~Maggot

I have a personal vendetta against agnosticism. Either you believe in a deity or you don't. I also have a thing against all this "splitting" into these specialized categories. An "apatheist" is still an atheist. It's not like I "care" or "think" about God or theism or whatever all day long; atheism doesn't require activity (the best part about it :)). I don't care about God anymore than most people do. But if someone were to ask me, "Do you believe in God?" and I answer anything but "Yes", then I'm an atheist.

I'm also a programmer which deals with true/false, 1/0, on/off, etc. so that's probably where my mindset comes from.

Goddess of Judecca · Dec 27th 2011, 7:27pm

DamnImGood wrote:

I have a personal vendetta against agnosticism. Either you believe in a deity or you don't. I also have a thing against all this "splitting" into these specialized categories. An "apatheist" is still an atheist. It's not like I "care" or "think" about God or theism or whatever all day long; atheism doesn't require activity (the best part about it :)). I don't care about God anymore than most people do. But if someone were to ask me, "Do you believe in God?" and I answer anything but "Yes", then I'm an atheist.

I'm also a programmer which deals with true/false, 1/0, on/off, etc. so that's probably where my mindset comes from.

Well I think atheism kind of implies an actual decision - no, there isn't a god. Period. People like my boyfriend really have never put any thought into it because they just don't give a fuck. If they were asked if there's a god, their response would probably be, "Don't know. Don't care." So I can see that those are two very different groups of people. But I can see where you're coming from, too.

~Maggot

Scaredycrow · Dec 27th 2011, 7:36pm

Goddess of Judecca wrote:

1: Biologists believe there are evolutionary bases to our sense of morality, and it has been starting to be studied. It's actually really fascinating.

Yeah, I wish I had more time to read about that kind of stuff. There was a study recently about morality in mice, but I can't really remember the details.

DamnImGood wrote:

I have a personal vendetta against agnosticism. Either you believe in a deity or you don't. I also have a thing against all this "splitting" into these specialized categories. An "apatheist" is still an atheist. It's not like I "care" or "think" about God or theism or whatever all day long; atheism doesn't require activity (the best part about it :)). I don't care about God anymore than most people do. But if someone were to ask me, "Do you believe in God?" and I answer anything but "Yes", then I'm an atheist.

I'm also a programmer which deals with true/false, 1/0, on/off, etc. so that's probably where my mindset comes from.

My understanding is that it's easier to think of 'agnostic' as an adjective and 'atheist' a noun, although I guess those aren't exclusive uses of the words.

I'm much the same way as everyone else - don't know, don't really care. Religion never comes up as a topic IRL and religion (or lack thereof) isn't an issue in my daily life. I'd never bring it up myself, but I still think it's interesting to talk about when the opportunity arises.

DamnImGood · Dec 28th 2011, 4:43am

Scaredycrow wrote:

I consider this chart to be bullshit, mainly because the gnostic options aren't even real. No one can know whether God exists or not. No self-respecting atheist would ever say they know God doesn't exist. To know something means you can demonstrate it. No one can demonstrate that God does or does not exist, thus everyone is agnostic atheist/theist, and the chart is rendered moot.

EDIT: I also find it difficult to believe that people have never been in a situation where they've had to give at least some thought into whether God or whatever may exist. You don't have to have a strong opinion on the subject, but I think people have already made a decision in their heads. Just reading this thread alone would make you think of the question.

Jarndyce · Dec 28th 2011, 4:55am

DamnImGood wrote:

I consider this chart to be bullshit, mainly because the gnostic options aren't even real. No one can know whether God exists or not. No self-respecting atheist would ever say they know God doesn't exist. To know something means you can demonstrate it. No one can demonstrate that God does or does not exist, thus everyone is agnostic atheist/theist, and the chart is rendered moot.

I don't think we should slam the chart too hard. You're assuming that those who would profess to hold these opinions are concerned with being reasonable and justifying their position. The entire realm of faith has a large element of unjustifiably, and many people hold strong views which they are happy to support without absolute evidence or justification.

Share