I think that if God did exist, he'd be pretty annoyed and angry about all these idiots in the world who claim to be doing things on his behalf...

Well, I can agree with that. Even though I believe in a God, there are obviously a lot of issues I have with it, like how natural disasters and especially manmade disasters like the Holocaust could be allowed to happen. But I'm not going to spend all my life worrying about them because I'm simply never going to get the answers.

... on the subject of athiests insisting they're right...

 

we have been using logic and known facts, like the mathematics referance... 1 + 1 = 2, it DOES equal 2, it has always equalled 2 and always will... now opinion is all well and good but to get to the truth of anything you have to deal in FACTS.

 

is the bible 'the truth'?... well i look at it like this, IF it really was the work of god, then the message would be very clear, unambiguous, everybody would know and understand it .... like any mathematical equasion from 1 + 1 = 2 to the most complex. the truth can be clearly understood by all, from the begining of time till the end of eternity... 1 + 1 = 2, gravity pulls every object downward, cut off a persons head and they will be dead, these are just examples, the laws of nature are full of immovable, unambiguous, reliable, facts. if nature is so accurate, so fixed, then if the bible had the same author with the most important message for the human race, it too would be totally unambiguous. the very fact that other religions exist and that even amongst christian religions there are different sections/cults all believing they are interpreting the bible correctly is clear evidence that the bible ISNT the work of god.

 

ok i want facts, and that isnt exactly a proven fact that the bible isnt gods work, but imho its a compelling argument against it being so. now if a believer can counter this reasoning with a well thought out point that doesnt grasp at straws then fair play! but saying that they believe the bible to be the truth simply doesnt make it the truth... its an unsubstantiated opinion.

 

The very fact that other religions exist and that even amongst christian religions there are different sections/cults all believing they are interpreting the bible correctly is clear evidence that the bible ISNT the work of god.

 

That makes no sense.

 

It's like saying that because there are so many different combinations of lottery numbers it means that winning the lottery itself is impossible.

 

Religion is a hay-stack - there are so many different sects and faiths that it is certainly comparable to one. Yet just because there are so many doesn't mean that one can't be right. That's the very definition of religious faith.

 

I believe in God. That comes from the fact I don't see how the world could come into existence without some kind of supernatural force. I'm well aware of the scientific explanation, but what no-one has ever explained to me sufficiently is how the first atoms or matter or whatever first came into being.

 

That's a perfectly reasonable argument to be fair, but on the other hand again, no-one has ever (or is likely to ever be able) to explain how God came into being. The flaw in the argument holds true for BOTH sides surely?

 

It's like saying that because there are so many different combinations of lottery numbers it means that winning the lottery itself is impossible.

 

Religion is a hay-stack - there are so many different sects and faiths that it is certainly comparable to one. Yet just because there are so many doesn't mean that one can't be right. That's the very definition of religious faith.

 

Your two analogies don't make any sense here.

 

The first makes no logical sense at all. There is definitely a winning number in the lottery which we all KNOW to be true.

 

The second is just as bad.

You have no way of knowing if ANY of the faiths are right. And even if one IS right then does that mean that all the others are wrong?

Surely a forgiving God would not mind which faith is right as long as people believe and follow God obediently.

 

You don't even know if there is a needle in the haystick at all.

That makes no sense.

 

It's like saying that because there are so many different combinations of lottery numbers it means that winning the lottery itself is impossible.

 

Religion is a hay-stack - there are so many different sects and faiths that it is certainly comparable to one. Yet just because there are so many doesn't mean that one can't be right. That's the very definition of religious faith.

 

agreed with grebo in his reply....

 

surely if one religion was 'the truth' then it would be recognised as such, gravity for eg, or mathematics are recognised as 'truths' throughout the world and throughout history.. again its back to the whole perspective.... if the laws of nature (assuming its gods creation, but they exist regardless) are consistent, solid, fact, then why has not 1 religion 'god driven' been able to be as convincing? i cant see that god would create such a perfect universe, earth, with such accurate, complex natural systems to allow life on earth ... and then totally fail to come up with a matching system of religion. i dont see god in any religion, which supports the notion that its merely a system of control.... indeed the romans were losing control before constantine embraced christianity in order to regain control of a failing roman empire... if he hadnt have done this, then christianity would have disappeared without a trace...

That makes no sense.

 

It's like saying that because there are so many different combinations of lottery numbers it means that winning the lottery itself is impossible.

 

Religion is a hay-stack - there are so many different sects and faiths that it is certainly comparable to one. Yet just because there are so many doesn't mean that one can't be right. That's the very definition of religious faith.

 

What a stupid comparison.... We actually KNOW the Jackpot exists mate, there's a certainty there... :rolleyes: There's no certainty anywhere that God exists.... There's no certainty that The Messiah ever "died for our sins"....

 

And Grebo is spot on, you dont even know a "needle" is even in the haystack... Dude, you cannot live your life on blind faith, especially when all the rational evidence points in the opposite direction.... The Bible is absolutely flawed in almost every department, that's been proven.... A few vague truths here and there dont mean that this is a text that anyone should be living their whole lives by.... Ditto for the Koran...

 

Okay, i ask you this, if you're so religous, I take it that means you dont work on a Sunday... And that means ANY kind of work, whether it be paid work, voluntary, study or playing for the five-a-side pub team in the local park, the ONLY thing that particular passage in the Bible allows on the "Sabbath" is praising the Lord..... On punishment of death.....

 

Yeah, such a "forgiving and understanding God"..... -_-

Please actually check the Bible first, Grimly, before making ridiculous assumptions:

 

Matthew 12: 9:11 (NIV)

 

9Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"

 

11He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."

Mark 2: 23-29 (NIV)

 

Lord of the Sabbath

23One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"

 

25He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."

 

27Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

 

It's basic Biblical knowledge that Jesus never forbade any work on the Sabbath, as these are amongst some of his most reveered teachings - I thought even a non-believer such as yourself would have known that.

 

And as for the lottery analogy, apparently nobody understood what I meant. I wasn't comparing the chances of existence of God to the certainty of a winning combination of lottery numbers. Rather, I was stating that no matter the huge number of combinations possible, it doesn't mean it is impossible to win the lottery; ergo, despite the huge number of religions/sects and cults, it doesn't make it impossible that one of them can be true, simply because there are so many of them.

That's a perfectly reasonable argument to be fair, but on the other hand again, no-one has ever (or is likely to ever be able) to explain how God came into being. The flaw in the argument holds true for BOTH sides surely?

 

In my view, the argument doesn't apply to the spiritual theory. Imo, the concept of spirituality can explain the spiritual theory of how the Earth began consistently - but science can not explain the scientific theory consistently. I'll try to explain what I mean as best I can, but some of this might sound muddled haha...

 

If a person believes in supernatural forces, then, within that logic, it IS feasible for there to be nothing at one point and then a supernatural force could eventually be created out of "nothing", because it's exactly that - supernatural. Whereas, on the other hand, with the scientific theory, there's simply no scientific or logical theory for how the first atoms or matter or elements (not sure of the correct scientific term) could be created out of literally NOTHING - because science dictates that there MUST have been nothing at some point, scientifically and logically it's impossible for there to have ALWAYS been some kind of matter. This is all jmo of course.

And as for the lottery analogy, apparently nobody understood what I meant. I wasn't comparing the chances of existence of God to the certainty of a winning combination of lottery numbers. Rather, I was stating that no matter the huge number of combinations possible, it doesn't mean it is impossible to win the lottery; ergo, despite the huge number of religions/sects and cults, it doesn't make it impossible that one of them can be true, simply because there are so many of them.

 

Yeah but you haven't addressed the point of what about all the religions/sects and cults that are wrong?

And as for the lottery analogy, apparently nobody understood what I meant. I wasn't comparing the chances of existence of God to the certainty of a winning combination of lottery numbers. Rather, I was stating that no matter the huge number of combinations possible, it doesn't mean it is impossible to win the lottery; ergo, despite the huge number of religions/sects and cults, it doesn't make it impossible that one of them can be true, simply because there are so many of them.

 

...but i refer you to my last post regarding 'truth'.... truth is a universal fact, gravity for eg...constant, understood, unambiguous, throughout history and worldwide. not 1 religion /cult/sect even comes close to being understood in that way... so no, i dont believe that any of them are correct.

 

 

In my view, the argument doesn't apply to the spiritual theory. Imo, the concept of spirituality can explain the spiritual theory of how the Earth began consistently - but science can not explain the scientific theory consistently. I'll try to explain what I mean as best I can, but some of this might sound muddled haha...

 

If a person believes in supernatural forces, then, within that logic, it IS feasible for there to be nothing at one point and then a supernatural force could eventually be created out of "nothing", because it's exactly that - supernatural. Whereas, on the other hand, with the scientific theory, there's simply no scientific or logical theory for how the first atoms or matter or elements (not sure of the correct scientific term) could be created out of literally NOTHING - because science dictates that there MUST have been nothing at some point, scientifically and logically it's impossible for there to have ALWAYS been some kind of matter. This is all jmo of course.

 

eh? i dont get it, how can a surpernatural force be created out of nothing? sorry m8, i dont agree that that holds any more water then the 'creation out of nothing' big bang theory.... which actually now isnt that simple.

 

the current thinking is that there is no one big bang, but a seriese of big bangs... after one, the universe expands (known fact) then it reaches a point where it stops expanding and then collapses in on itself and thus creating another big bang.... or pulse...

 

but regardless, even IF you can create a supernatural force from nothing.... (god), then where did HE (it) get matter from? in order to create the universe.... the fact is that matter exists, but no one can explain where it came from...

eh? i dont get it, how can a surpernatural force be created out of nothing? sorry m8, i dont agree that that holds any more water then the 'creation out of nothing' big bang theory.... which actually now isnt that simple.

 

the current thinking is that there is no one big bang, but a seriese of big bangs... after one, the universe expands (known fact) then it reaches a point where it stops expanding and then collapses in on itself and thus creating another big bang.... or pulse...

 

but regardless, even IF you can create a supernatural force from nothing.... (god), then where did HE (it) get matter from? in order to create the universe.... the fact is that matter exists, but no one can explain where it came from...

 

I don't know how a supernatural force could be created, because it's exactly that - supernatural, unexplainable, illogical.

 

Even if the theory of a series of big bangs is correct, there is still the question of where matter originated. And in my eyes, that points to there being some kind of supernatural force. There had to be a "spark" that set things into motion - but that "spark" cannot be explained by science and logic, because science and logic dictates that something can't be created out of nothing.

I don't know how a supernatural force could be created, because it's exactly that - supernatural, unexplainable, illogical.

 

Even if the theory of a series of big bangs is correct, there is still the question of where matter originated. And in my eyes, that points to there being some kind of supernatural force. There had to be a "spark" that set things into motion - but that "spark" cannot be explained by science and logic, because science and logic dictates that something can't be created out of nothing.

 

absolutely... when we go on about the origins of life/matter/the universe, it fast becomes a stalemate from whichever way you look at it... creationalist or scientific... because its a question that cannot be answered, where did matter come from?. either way, god or big bang, both are credited with making something out of nothing, both are as inplausable as the other.

 

tbh i cant accept the supernatural force theory though, because its just too conveiniant, it requires an acceptance of something magical to appear from nowhere and as ive said before, if it exists it can be seen/measured/predicted/quantified...

 

 

It's basic Biblical knowledge that Jesus never forbade any work on the Sabbath, as these are amongst some of his most reveered teachings - I thought even a non-believer such as yourself would have known that.

.

 

Well, again, this assumes that this "Jesus" even existed mate.... Which is a very big assumption.... As big an assumption as saying "God" existed.... And, again we have a contradiction... There are other passages in the Bible which totally contradict your arguments...

 

Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to The Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days The Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but He rested on the seventh day. Therefore The Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (Exodus 20:8-11)

 

"Then The Lord said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'You must observe My Sabbaths. This will be a sign between Me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I Am The Lord [see Rock Of Ages], Who makes you holy. "'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to The Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between Me and the Israelites forever, for in six days The Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He abstained from work and rested.'" (Exodus 31:12-17)

 

Being a "true believer" as you clearly are Ags, I'm surprised you didn't know this..... :P :lol:

 

So, who's right mate...? "Jesus" or "God"....? :rolleyes: Yet more proof that we should not be allowing the utterly contradictory text to rule our lives......

proof if any were needed that the bible ISNT 'the truth', if it cannot get across this one basic message in a clear, unambiguous manner then how on earth can it be trusted to be 'the truth'?

proof if any were needed that the bible ISNT 'the truth', if it cannot get across this one basic message in a clear, unambiguous manner then how on earth can it be trusted to be 'the truth'?

 

Precisely.... Which is my whole point... Which I backed up by quoteing the scripture..... There is a very clear contradiction within the text which makes it unreliable.... The Bible seriously just does not hold up even under the most rudimentary Academic scrutiny, a lay-man could spot contradictions such as this a mile-off..... :lol:

Without getting too bogged down in the theology of it, there is the 'Old Covenant' (Old Testament laws) and the 'New Covenant' (New Testament laws). This is why baptism replaced circumcision in the New Testament, why Communion (as based on 'The Last Supper' passage) replaced the Jewish Passover feast, and why Jesus' actions, death and resurrection in the NT serve to replace the old codes and laws.

 

That's a very rough description of why those seemingly contradictory laws aren't actually as contradictory as they appear. However, it's often this Old Covenant vs. New Covenant debate which has caused so many splits in the Church - more liberal believers would say that Christians should follow only the New Testament teachings and the Old Testament teachings which back it up; all other laws (such as those regarding homosexuality, tattoos etc.) are no longer applicable. Whilst other believers (Free Presbyterians, or Westboro Baptist Church for example) would state that unless Jesus specifically contradicted a law in the New Testament, then it is still relevant today. It's essentially the debate which has split the Church apart in the late 19th and 20th century, mainly around the issue of homosexuality.

 

For me, I'm more liberal in my views, and the New Testament is VERY clear on what is truly important:

 

28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

 

29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e]30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'[f] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[g]There is no commandment greater than these."

 

32"Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."

 

34When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions. [Mark 12, NIV]

Without getting too bogged down in the theology of it, there is the 'Old Covenant' (Old Testament laws) and the 'New Covenant' (New Testament laws). This is why baptism replaced circumcision in the New Testament, why Communion (as based on 'The Last Supper' passage) replaced the Jewish Passover feast, and why Jesus' actions, death and resurrection in the NT serve to replace the old codes and laws.

 

That's a very rough description of why those seemingly contradictory laws aren't actually as contradictory as they appear. However, it's often this Old Covenant vs. New Covenant debate which has caused so many splits in the Church - more liberal believers would say that Christians should follow only the New Testament teachings and the Old Testament teachings which back it up; all other laws (such as those regarding homosexuality, tattoos etc.) are no longer applicable. Whilst other believers (Free Presbyterians, or Westboro Baptist Church for example) would state that unless Jesus specifically contradicted a law in the New Testament, then it is still relevant today. It's essentially the debate which has split the Church apart in the late 19th and 20th century, mainly around the issue of homosexuality.

 

For me, I'm more liberal in my views, and the New Testament is VERY clear on what is truly important:

 

What the hell are you talking about....? Circumsision hasn't been "replaced" at all mate..... The majority of male kids, whether of religious or secular parents, in YOUR COUNTRY seem to get the "snip" for so-called "hygiene" reasons (which in this day and age of modern medicines amd hospitals, etc, is an entirely ridiculous caveat. It's more like the Bree Van De Kampp from Desperate Housewives reason - "It's unsightly!" :lol: ), which were actually the original reason why it was done in the first place thousands of years ago, which was understandable, deserts, lots of disease, no access to any kind of public health, etc..... :rolleyes:

 

And, AGAIN, you fall back on this "Jesus" person, whom it is questionable as to his actual, real existence..... Mate, you are saying absolutely nothing in here that actually deals with the very real contradictions, of which there are a LEGION of examples, certainly not just this one.... Sorry, but you cant just fall back on this "Old Testament/New Testament" excuse, it's still all part of the same text overall.... An author of a Science text who would discover certain mistakes or improvements to his old methods of doing things would go back and totally RE-WRITE the original theories, and very unambiguously CORRECT his errors.... Probably putting out an entirely different new version of the book superceding the old one....

 

Science admits mistakes and accepts new methods, religion bloody mindedly sticks to the old ways even when they no clearly no longer apply....

Without getting too bogged down in the theology of it, there is the 'Old Covenant' (Old Testament laws) and the 'New Covenant' (New Testament laws). This is why baptism replaced circumcision in the New Testament, why Communion (as based on 'The Last Supper' passage) replaced the Jewish Passover feast, and why Jesus' actions, death and resurrection in the NT serve to replace the old codes and laws.

 

That's a very rough description of why those seemingly contradictory laws aren't actually as contradictory as they appear. However, it's often this Old Covenant vs. New Covenant debate which has caused so many splits in the Church - more liberal believers would say that Christians should follow only the New Testament teachings and the Old Testament teachings which back it up; all other laws (such as those regarding homosexuality, tattoos etc.) are no longer applicable. Whilst other believers (Free Presbyterians, or Westboro Baptist Church for example) would state that unless Jesus specifically contradicted a law in the New Testament, then it is still relevant today. It's essentially the debate which has split the Church apart in the late 19th and 20th century, mainly around the issue of homosexuality.

 

For me, I'm more liberal in my views, and the New Testament is VERY clear on what is truly important:

 

again, this isnt CLEAR, natural law is totally unambiguous so 'god' has either made a complete bollox up of getting his message across...... or he doesnt exist/care...

What the hell are you talking about....? Circumsision hasn't been "replaced" at all mate..... The majority of male kids, whether of religious or secular parents, in YOUR COUNTRY seem to get the "snip" for so-called "hygiene" reasons (which in this day and age of modern medicines amd hospitals, etc, is an entirely ridiculous caveat. It's more like the Bree Van De Kampp from Desperate Housewives reason - "It's unsightly!" :lol: ), which were actually the original reason why it was done in the first place thousands of years ago, which was understandable, deserts, lots of disease, no access to any kind of public health, etc..... :rolleyes:

 

And, AGAIN, you fall back on this "Jesus" person, whom it is questionable as to his actual, real existence..... Mate, you are saying absolutely nothing in here that actually deals with the very real contradictions, of which there are a LEGION of examples, certainly not just this one.... Sorry, but you cant just fall back on this "Old Testament/New Testament" excuse, it's still all part of the same text overall.... An author of a Science text who would discover certain mistakes or improvements to his old methods of doing things would go back and totally RE-WRITE the original theories, and very unambiguously CORRECT his errors.... Probably putting out an entirely different new version of the book superceding the old one....

 

Science admits mistakes and accepts new methods, religion bloody mindedly sticks to the old ways even when they no clearly no longer apply....

 

*sigh* You're clearly not understanding the point at all, so there's no point debating with you. You said that the OT/NT are all part of the same text, but the reality is that this text was compiled from over 60 different authors and books. Think of it more of an encyclopedia rather than a novel and you'll see why the objections you raised there are incorrect.