Religion: Pros and Cons

[winewood]

airspirit,
I can understand the debate, but you seem near hostile. Tell me about your mother.
No seriously, why would you be so angry man?

[jaydee]

Originally posted by winewood
airspirit,
I can understand the debate, but you seem near hostile. Tell me about your mother.
No seriously, why would you be so angry man?

I just skimmed through his posts and airsprit and I think exactly the same on the issue. I don't think he was being a bit hostile. No one wants to listen to him and keeps spamming BS without any real backing. He's trying to get someone to actually shed some evidence to support the rehtoric they are spewing and no has, can, or will because they can't. Sounds a bit familiar....

[cristoff]

Hey look at it your right just as I was. They are created by inorganic elements.

But you know what I am going to stop there. I read your further post. I know you want to prove me wrong. And although have shown no real evidence of your statements, and in fact have been proven wrong. I guess ignorance of god is bliss. Meaning you have to answer to no one for your actions.

But you still havent answered my questions fully. I will not continue to amuse you will answering your questions fully. I am not going to comment any further untill you do. Becuase really it is going no where if it is a one sided conversation. And well from your posts it certainly isnt a truly adult conversation at your end of things.

We have an inherit will to live. Thats fact. Tell me do you want to die? and answer my other questions and facts posed. I might answer back.

This thread is such a flame thread. You can't reason with unreasoning ones, those that arent humble, meek, and hunger for truth.

later

[bigben2k]

The issue IMO comes from man reaching an early understanding of the marvel and complexity of our world, and human beings. An instinct that immediately kicks in tells us that it's so great, that it could not have been created by anything but a higher intelligence.

The problem is that there's no proof of one or the other. Scientist will create theories, including the Big Bang, but they're still theories. However, they are based on existing facts.

The other problem is that it could be considered arrogant, to assume that a higher intelligence could be involved, and also because this assumption would be typical of human behavior. It casts a lot of doubts, when looked at it that way, but only to those who can, and are willing to take another look.

It's no wonder only 5% of the US population believes in Darwin's theory! (quote: USA Today). Now where are those stats on the number of people who have a college education...

[pHaestus]

I took biology in college around the same time that one of the states (Tennessee?) was involved in some political anti evolutionary debates. Maybe putting a disclaimer on the textbooks that evolution was only a theory and that creationism was another valid theory? Not sure of the details.

Anyway my prof, in a class of 300, went over the syllabus the first day. When he got to the sections on evolution he asked if there were any students who would prefer not to study evolution because their religion didn't allow them to believe in it. A few tentatively raised hands. He said "No problem. I have some alternate materials for you all. Come on down and get them. When they got to the bottom of lecture hall they were confronted with drop slips.

lol

The debate seems to have turned from evolution vs. creationism to atheism vs. christianity. Not my cup of tea. Please keep it civil EVERYONE, and please be aware that in a real debate, logic holds sway. The position of neither side thus far can withstand serious scrutiny on that point. For the Christians, your intrinsic assumption is that the bible is the infallible word of an ultimate being. Every thing you have said is based upon that, but unfortunately there is no logic behind it other than "I was told that this is true, this is a cornerstone of my religion, and it seems reasonable to me." The other side doesn't believe this first point, so your job is to discredit their arguments without relying on "the bible says". This is a hard one without a scientific background. On the other side we have people who strictly speaking from a scientific standpoint can't PROVE their theories.

As a scientist, one of the most important things to consider is a precise vocabulary. I believe that the creationists here are, by and large, attacking Darwinism. Darwinism and "the evolution of species" ARE theories and nothing more. But evolutionary processes (constant genetic changes and natural selection) are FACT. I have mentioned 4-5 examples in this thread, and there are thousands more if you go into the literature. Whether the mechanism of evolution proceeded on geological time scales as Darwin suggested is conjecture though. And indeed there is room for evolution and even Darwinism in the belief systems of most denominations of Chrstianity. It's just a mechanism.

Why then does this debate push so many buttons and stir people up so intensely? It's in essence arguing over the meaning of rocks. Well I read a quote in Scientific American by Arthur C. Clarke the other day that said something like:

Science does not need to ignore religion to make it go away. It is enough merely to ignore it. Philosophers never rigorously disproved the existence of Zeus, but today he has very few followers.

So THAT'S why religious leaders keep debates like this going; the whole "I don't know about you, but my momma never had sex with no monkeys" argument is good press and is a relatively easy way to get people stirred up against an otherwise rather innocuous and socially-accepted group of people (when's the last time you saw a barfight break out at a scientific conference?). Ok then I have a motivation for leaders of ultra-conservative congregations to spark these debates. But what are we accomplishing by having them?

[1398342003]

Originally posted by airspirit
My favorite are these tidbits:

1) human embryos have gills and tails
2) a rather common genetic defect causes people to be born with tails ... enlongated coccyges
3) appendixes
4) cancer's causes
5) goosebumps
6) wisdom teeth
7) little toes
8) dew claws
9) back pain
10) optical construction
11) your five fingers
12) hemoglobin
13) shared pseudogenes with other species
14) the plantaris muscle from our monkey days
15) your monkeylike incisor roots (feel your gums and look at a smiling chimp pic)

1 Are they really gills.
2 You said it "defect"
3 The Egyptians thought the brain was usless. We don't know what the appendix does.
4 Cancer is DEvolution
5 Less blood to the skin decreases the amount of heat lost.
6 The biblical fall coupled with devolution could cause this.
7 God thought about appearances when he made us. Imagine your foot without the little toe.
8 Coppied DNA
9 Or we aren't treating ourselves right.
10 God gave us what we need. Do you need eagle's eyes? Do your eyes work?
11 See #8
12 What about arcenic, cyanide, lead.
13 http://www.reasons.org/resources/con...?main#junk_dna
So a car that doesn't have it's own oil well is poorly designed?
14 Shared DNA
15 Stronger teeth. They have to last us through childhood into the rest of our lives.

So? All life uses DNA, does that make all life the same?

----------------------------------------------------------------

Let me summarize how (I think) evolution occured.

1. Suddenly a whole bunch of unstable matter and anti-matter appears in one spot and spontaniously explodes.

2. The fragments of the explosion use gravity to make stars.

3. Planets form. (Let's skip the difficulty of orbits and how ours is perfect for life as we know it)

4. A bunch of atoms get welded into protien strains, mitocondria, DNA, and other cellular bits.

5. #4. repeats a few quadrillion times

6. Compatible bits join together, this happens to happen inside a cell membrane.

7. Something for #6. to eat must already be formed

8. A large number of #6. get together and make a simple plant. Another group do the same and make an animal.

9. A cell mutates naturally to create a better life form. (must have happened all at once due to lack of in-between critters, but we'll disregard that)

10. #9. happens several trillion * several trillion (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) times.

11. Ice age. Scratch off 99% of all species. Back to #9.

12. People (human) mutate into existance. They already know everything (Oog. Nothing ever be better than hard stick.)

13. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics comes into effect, (the one about action tending towards entropy/degenerating over time) all life prepares.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Something else I wonder about. What's wrong with murder/rape/incest if we're just a better version of animals?

[cristoff]

yeah i was thinking the same thing...

I mean a motorcycle is not the same as a car. It serves a purpose specific to the owner. Just becuase it moves and it has some of the same parts, does that mean its a car?

Also... how did the car or the motorcycle come about? An intelligent being made it. No? Far fetched there a creator?

Also showing absurdness of evolution.

All Good points 1398342003...

[pHaestus]

Originally posted by 1398342003
A ton of seemingly randomly generated stuff that makes it clear I know much more about religion than you do about science.

THEN

Something else I wonder about. What's wrong with murder/rape/incest if we're just a better version of animals?

Funny you should bring up morals vs. religion. I find these issues to be some of the clearest evidence that what organized religion is selling isn't what I want to buy.

For example: There are no little sins or small sins, right? And according to your argument without religion then we are all animals running around raping and pillaging. But is the percentage of people who commit adultery or lie on their taxes really much different between the churchgoers and the nonbelievers? Somehow I doubt it.

And what about raping and child molesting? How does that fit into the idea of a God who is all seeing and all knowing and in all times and places at once? In the old days this God would strike you down from on high if you dared to not take him seriously, but he does NOTHING to stop little kids from getting molested? Incongruous. And let's look at a common theme in the news:

Priest molests congregation members and periodically is moved around to do this through the course of his life. The kids or members of their family are pretty likely to turn away from God as a result. At some point the priest repents of his ways. Priest goes to heaven after a life of molesting, but those he molests burn in hell for all eternity for turning away from an organization that commits sexual criumes against them.

Most bible scholars agree that Job is an allegory, but it has been constantly played out in Catholic churches throughout the world over and over again.

And we are supposed to pray to God, who answers the prayers of the faithful. But God does NOTHING to help kids who are raped and killed by evil men. Guess their parents didn't pray enough? And one of the main missionary jobs of churches is to go to prisons and save those poor sinners after they are caught. I guess that makes sense in Job-logic since they were just a mechanism for testing out the faith of the congregation eh?

I would submit that if churches and religion are the only impediments to stop their congregation from raping and murdering, then those people are not as socially evolved as I am. Religion would seem to have dumbed them down with its carrot and stick mentality where there are dos and don'ts to live by with an eternal reward to follow rather than a real code of ethics and morals. Maybe keeping those kinds of people in a tightly confined social group IS a good thing for everyone in society then! Or a correlary:

"Are those gates put up to keep crime out, or keep our ass in?" asked the resident of govt. assisted housing in Atlanta when security gates and fence were added.

[winewood]

I am a Christian. I am a student of science.
What I see here is a determination based on faith by both parties. Party X points at A and says, this happens because of this, and here is the reasoning. Party Y points to A and says this happens because of this, and here is the reasoning. Neither can prove beyond a doubt to the other one the facts scientifically. However, in the eyes of both parties they see that you have to ignore scientific data to abscribe to the other theory.
Now, I am not saying that X or Y is wrong, but to say based on science (mans understanding- based on human intellect) you cannot say that ANY theory is correct in its entireity. So arrogance is on both sides! (some being hostile and condesending) Every side can say "no, based on A,B,C,D, and E." Where the separating facts in the issue divide is: one says they don't have complete understanding of something and yet still believe, YET claim to have no faith. (amusing) The other side says, I don't have complete understading, and may never, yet I believe because I have faith.
One acknowleges faith, the other doesn't. Both sides accept things in which they don't understand. The question is, will you accept that both sides use a degree of the SAME means to reach "understanding" in their hearts.

btw, I do not fear science at all. I think if man had enough time, he would see that Gods word was right all along. peace

[1398342003]

Originally posted by pHaestus
Funny you should bring up morals vs. religion. I find these issues to be some of the clearest evidence that what organized religion is selling isn't what I want to buy.

For example: There are no little sins or small sins, right? And according to your argument without religion then we are all animals running around raping and pillaging. But is the percentage of people who commit adultery or lie on their taxes really much different between the churchgoers and the nonbelievers? Somehow I doubt it.

And what about raping and child molesting? How does that fit into the idea of a God who is all seeing and all knowing and in all times and places at once? In the old days this God would strike you down from on high if you dared to not take him seriously, but he does NOTHING to stop little kids from getting molested? Incongruous. And let's look at a common theme in the news:

Priest molests congregation members and periodically is moved around to do this through the course of his life. The kids or members of their family are pretty likely to turn away from God as a result. At some point the priest repents of his ways. Priest goes to heaven after a life of molesting, but those he molests burn in hell for all eternity for turning away from an organization that commits sexual criumes against them.

Most bible scholars agree that Job is an allegory, but it has been constantly played out in Catholic churches throughout the world over and over again.

And we are supposed to pray to God, who answers the prayers of the faithful. But God does NOTHING to help kids who are raped and killed by evil men. Guess their parents didn't pray enough? And one of the main missionary jobs of churches is to go to prisons and save those poor sinners after they are caught. I guess that makes sense in Job-logic since they were just a mechanism for testing out the faith of the congregation eh?

I would submit that if churches and religion are the only impediments to stop their congregation from raping and murdering, then those people are not as socially evolved as I am. Religion would seem to have dumbed them down with its carrot and stick mentality where there are dos and don'ts to live by with an eternal reward to follow rather than a real code of ethics and morals. Maybe keeping those kinds of people in a tightly confined social group IS a good thing for everyone in society then! Or a correlary:

"Are those gates put up to keep crime out, or keep our ass in?" asked the resident of govt. assisted housing in Atlanta when security gates and fence were added.

The churchgoers are (generally) saved and forgiven for their sins. the non-believer isn't. (The devil believes in God but he goes to hell.) Both can sin though. God loves everyone, but the saved are the ones that he has a relationship with. He wants a relationship with everyone, not everyone chooses to do so though.(through free-will) Raping is an abuse of (God given) free-will.

The rapist may or may not be a true Christian. The little kid may or may not be. The family may or may not be. If any are, they get in.

BUT no sin goes unpunished. All receive equal repayment for their sins -even the saints- after they die.

Why, according to you, should rape bad?

-----------------------------------------------

The work of the spirit keeps people on the moral side, not religion or the church, even though that won't save them.

-----------------------------------------------

Natural selection is a factor in what animals are where, and you can breed a trait into or out of an animal, but is it really evolution, or is it simply bringing out recessive traits?

[Alchemy]

Originally posted by bigben2k
It's no wonder only 5% of the US population believes in Darwin's theory! (quote: USA Today).

I have a 1991 Gallup poll that says naturalistic evolution is accepted by about 10% of American people, and statistics that indicate a much higher acceptance in the upper class, or with people having more education - 5% of people with no high school diploma and 17% of people with a college degree claim to believe naturalistic evolution, which may or may not mean all those people actually *understand* it.

A test on scientists only was only about 55%, which is a bit disconcerting, especially since no breakdown is given - assumedly this includes electrical and computer scientists, programmers, physicists, chemists, engineers, lab technicians, mathemeticians, etc. who would be no more read in biology than the general public.

I've seen a poll of biologists indicates personal belief in evolution of about 99.8% or thereabouts. Keep in mind that one of the good things in the scientific community is that we needn't take oaths about what we do or don't believe, nor do we have to actively believe in any scientific theory so long as we accept that the rest of the community accepts it. I think the fact that so many people who actually study or are very near to studying evolution both understand and believe it rather than simply understand it and do not believe it is testament to its authenticity as a personal worldview.

I've found some internet polls, but I don't trust their results at all. Some indicate as much as 50% of fundamentalist Christians believe and understand naturalistic evolution, which doesn't seem right to me.

Atheism seems to be around 14% of the US population right now - seemingly lower than most first-world countries, though I'm unsure (this is from a Creation website). Atheism and evolution are comparable in that they are more highly held onto among more wealthy people, and more educated people. The evolution stats are from the same Gallup poll, but I have only a footnote mentioning the atheism. In this sense, I believe atheism is equivalent to "no religion" - that is, not people actively believing there is no god but people who simply do not identify with any organized religion.

How to interpret these results? Is religion an opiate of the masses? A mental exercise for the uneducated? Does going to high school or college indoctrinate people into non-religion so that they can become soulless cogs in the machine of the American economy? Or is it that higher education opens a world of creative outlets to students, and the awe and wonder of the world, rather than directed to a god or a religion, is directed to learning more?

In any case, I'm sure these people will be happy to know their pro-creation site helped me find a good bit of unbiased info. I have to admit this site is well-written - the tone makes it difficult to tell whether the writer thinks its conclusion, improvements in science education eventually causing people to cast aside organized religion, is a profoundly good thing or a profoundly bad thing. I'd imagine the writer believes the latter. Their agenda is more clear in specific pages about evolution - many paragraphs of very good discussion followed by a misleading statements or outright lies.

http://nwcreation.net/atheism.html

For assuredly unbiased info (that is, a site with no agenda), religioustolerance.org is always a good read.

Alchemy

[cristoff]

Actually, 1398342003, the once saved always saved doctrine is false. Someone is only saved at the end when Jehovah judges us, our heart condition. The doctrine is false becuase it wouldnt make sense for someone that comes to have a relationship with god to err against him and still be saved. But, IF that person comes back and repents, which the bible brings out was actually better then a sacrifice back in bible times, then he is a person that is approved by god. But as the scriptures brings out in matt 24:13 "the one that endured to the end is the one that will be saved" not "if someone endures and then does wrong, since they endured for a little while will get the same benefit and rewards as someone that endures to the end"



Gotta go.. but later...

[cybrsamurai]

All I have to say is if there is a god I hope he/she/it is smart enough to understand why i didn't/don't believe in his/her/its existence.

[winewood]

He is smart enough. This is why he created hell. Separation from God. If He revealed Himself here and now, could you really say at the end if you had full choice? Choice is the only reason we are here.

Luke 12 8-10
8"I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. 9But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. 10And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

I understand personally that the blashpeme talked about refers to one who refuses God in his/her entire lifetime. The "Son of Man" in the scripture is Jesus Christ.

cristoff, The issue in which you argue will be resolved when we die. It doesn't matter in the scheme of things... really. Respectfully, we should take that to another thread.

[nexxo]

The churchgoers are (generally) saved and forgiven for their sins. the non-believer isn't. (The devil believes in God but he goes to hell.) Both can sin though. God loves everyone, but the saved are the ones that he has a relationship with. He wants a relationship with everyone, not everyone chooses to do so though.(through free-will) Raping is an abuse of (God given) free-will.

The rapist may or may not be a true Christian. The little kid may or may not be. The family may or may not be. If any are, they get in.

BUT no sin goes unpunished. All receive equal repayment for their sins -even the saints- after they die.

Why, according to you, should rape bad?

With all respect to the Christians in this forum (and some of my best friends are, to quote the cliché), but that is the most wonky bit of moral reasoning I've come accross, and the main issue I have with the whole religion-as-a-philosophy thing.

Thing is, even moral reasoning, being a product of human cognition, goes through stages of development (OK, now the Psychology Grads amongst us may want to look up Kohlberg).

Kohlberg did some anthropological studies of moral reasoning, and studied the developtment of such in children. He found that it goes something like this (from infancy to adulthood):

Stage 1: You don't do bad things because you will get punished.
Stage 2: You do good things because you get rewards.

(This is why some people seem to believe it's OK to do something bad, as long as you don't get caught --at the extreme end of the spectrum: sociopaths).

Stage 3: You don't do bad things because others (family or community) will disapprove and reject you.
Stage 4: You do good things because others will approve and accept you.

(and if you remember my post about Attachment Theory, you'll realise how important other people's approval/rejection is to us. Peer Pressure, Socially Desired Behaviour --all powerful motivators. A valid form of reasoning, but the "escape clause" is that you can get away with it, as long as they don't find out).

Stage 5: You don't do bad things because it offends your own moral principles (it offends your sense of self).
Stage 6: You do good things because your own moral principles (sense of self) tell you that its the right thing to do.

(this is why people can act in ways that they believe are right, even if it leads to rejection by others, harm to self etc. We admire this heroic stance in e.g. the Film-Noir detective. There's no "escape clause" here, because no matter what you do, you'll know. Don't confuse these stages with terrorists blowing themselves up, by the way, as they are very much looking for approval from their own "peergroup").

Interestingly, Kohlberg found that most adults don't seem to go beyond stage 4. That makes sense as psychological studies on cognitive development have found that most people's cognitive reasoning does not develop beyond adolescence.

Now I'll admit that Kohlberg's is not the most sophisticated model when it comes to a rather complex human concept, but in terms of this model, guess where the Church is generally pegged?
It seems to me that it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you don't get caught (yeah, God sees all, bt he doesn't seem to do anything about it, so you can rationalise it away, can you?), and in the end you make sure to say you're sorry and get the approval of God by telling Him He's the greatest (makes sense of those molesting priests --although that also involves a psychological "splitting off" --but that's another story). So stage 1 to 4 at the highest.

Particularly, it supposes a True Christian rapist (???), who knew full well what he was doing (and let's get real here: he would have) can "get in" sooner than a non-Christian child, who at that stage of its development cannot really make an informed choice whether it wants to be a Christian or not, nor understand what that means. Sorry kid, off to Hell you go...

But if there's one thing the story of Jesus illustrates (as told by you, guys), is that sometimes you have to stand by your principles, because you know it's the right thing to do, regardless of how bad it's going to turn out for you. Sometimes you just have to do the right thing, regardless. No expectation of rewards, no approval from your peers, but the very real prospect of punishment and rejection. To your own Self be true. That's the Spirit.

Why, according to you, should rape bad?

Oh, let's see. Not because it is an abuse of God-given Free Will but because it is an abuse, violation, and humiliation of the victim?

[cristoff]

Winewood, I am saying those that say they are saved right now arent really saved. They might think they are but they aren't. God's the only one that know's our heart condition. If we reject him then yes, we aren't. Since also in Jude 3 "3 Beloved ones, though I was making every effort to write YOU about the salvation we hold in common, I found it necessary to write YOU to exhort YOU to put up a hard fight for the faith that as once for all time delivered to the holy ones. "
Its a continual thing. We must always be striving to continue to learn more about Jehovah god and continue to have a relationship with him. It's vital to our spiritual health and well being and in the long run (and sometimes even now) our physical health.

And a word actually about hell.
First off the bible indicates what the dead experience. Ecclesiastes 9:5,10: “The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all." All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going.”
If they are conscious of nothing, they obviously feel no pain. And the word "Sheol,” AS, RS, NE, JB refers to “the grave,” KJ, Kx and “hell,” Dy or “the world of the dead,” TEV. ( these are differenct bible translations)

Many people have misconceptions that a person soul will come back from the dead to haunt them. This in fact is untrue. IN Ezek. 18:4: “The soul* that is sinning—it itself will die.” The “Soul,” KJ, Dy, RS, NE, Kx or “the man,” JB or “the person,” TEV.)
__This book read "“The concept of ‘soul,’ meaning a purely spiritual, immaterial reality, separate from the ‘body,’ does not exist in the Bible.”—La Parole de Dieu (Paris, 1960), Georges Auzou, professor of Sacred Scripture, Rouen Seminary, France, p. 128.
__And actually the Encyclopedia had this to say “Although the Hebrew word nefesh [in the Hebrew Scriptures] is frequently translated as ‘soul,’ it would be inaccurate to read into it a Greek meaning. Nefesh is never conceived of as operating separately from the body. In the New Testament the Greek word psyche is often translated as ‘soul’ but again should not be readily understood to have the meaning the word had for the Greek philosophers. It usually means ‘life,’ or ‘vitality,’ or, at times, ‘the self.’”—The Encyclopedia Americana (1977), Vol. 25, p. 236.

But who go to hell? exactly? Anyone that dies. Psalm 9:17, KJ: “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.” We established that hell means place of death, the grave for mankind. So the wicked go to hell. What about anyone else? Oh yes even good people do too. Job did as brought out in Job 14:13, Duay Version, when job was praying: "Who will grant me this, that thou mayst protect me in hell, and hide me till thy wrath pass, and appoint me a time when thou wilt remember me?” Since God himself said that Job was “a man blameless and upright, fearing God and turning aside from bad.”—Job 1:8. How could anyone rightly conclude that he was wicked? And even Jesus was in hell. We read at Acts 2:25-27, King James, David to Jesus: “David speaketh concerning him. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” The fact that God did not “leave” Jesus in hell implies that Jesus was in hell, or Hades, at least for a time, does it not? And for what would god torment his son? Since the bible says "he has commited no sin."

So will there ever be a time when those in hell or the grave will get out? The bible read in Revelation 20:13,14, KJ: “The sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.” So the dead will be delivered from hell. Notice also that hell is not the same as the lake of fire but will be cast into the lake of fire. And this goes somewhat in line with what Winewood said about being judged.

But why so much confusion about hell? Well to put it bluntly, a mess up one some translators parts. The Encyclopedia Americana (1942), Vol. XIV, p. 81. has this to say “Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception.”
__Also translators have allowed their personal beliefs to color their work instead of being consistent in their rendering of the original-language words. See The King James Version rendered she’ohl´ as “hell,” “the grave,” and “the pit”; hai´des is therein rendered both “hell” and “grave”; ge´en·na is also translated “hell.” And Today’s English Version transliterates hai´des as “Hades” and also renders it as “hell” and “the world of the dead.” But besides rendering “hell” from hai´des it uses that same translation for ge´en·na. And another,The Jerusalem Bible transliterates hai´des six times, but in other passages it translates it as “hell” and as “the underworld.” It also translates ge´en·na as “hell,” as it does hai´des in two instances. Thus the exact meanings of the original-language words have been obscured.

And we must remember as Winewood was bringing out in Romans 6:23: “The wages sin pays is death.” And in the bible it says at Romans 6:7: “He who has died has been acquitted from his sin.” So they won't be tormented for sins they have been acquitted of them. It would unloving for a god to punish someone when he himself has made their sings go away. And do you think that a parent who held his child’s hand over a fire to punish the child for wrongdoing? “God is love” in 1 John 4:8. Would he do what no right-minded human parent would do? Certainly not!

For rape, rape is defined as unlawful sexual intercourse without the woman’s consent, effected by force, duress, intimidation, or deception as to the nature of the act.

Jehovah warned of the consequences that would come upon Israel if the people disobeyed his law. He foretold that, besides suffering sicknesses and calamities, they would fall into the hands of their enemies, and he said: “You will become engaged to a woman, but another man will rape her.” (Deuteronomy 28:30) This took place when, because of their disobedience, Jehovah removed his protection from the nation, and the pagan enemies overran their citie. Babylon was also foretold to suffer such treatment, which occurred when it fell to the Medes and Persians in Isaiah 13:1,16. According to the Law, such would not happen to nations subjugated by Israel, for the soldiers were forbidden to have sexual relations during a military campaign as brought out in 1 Samuel 21:5 and 2 Samuel 11:6-11.

A case of multiple rape in the city of Gibeah of Benjamin in the days of the Judges set off a chain of events in retribution, which resulted in nearly wiping out the tribe of Benjamin. Good-for-nothing men in the city, perverted in sex desires, demanded to have sex relations with a Levite visitor. Instead of submitting, he gave them his concubine who had previously committed fornication against him. The men abused her all night until she died. The Hebrew term `a·nah´, rendered “rape” in this account, also has the meanings “afflict,” “humiliate,” and “oppress.”—Judges chapters 19,20.

King David’s son Amnon forcibly violated his half sister Tamar, for which Tamar’s brother Absalom brought about his death in 2 Samuel 13:1-18. When the scheming Haman the Agagite was exposed before the Persian king Ahasuerus for his treachery against the Jews, and especially against Ahasuerus’ queen, Esther, the king was enraged. Knowing that he could expect no mercy from the king, Haman in desperation fell down upon the couch where Esther was lying, pleading with her. When the king reentered the room, he saw Haman there and cried out: “Is there also to be a raping of the queen, with me in the house?” Immediately he sentenced Haman to death. The sentence was carried out, and evidently afterward Haman was hanged on the stake that had been erected by Haman for the hanging of Esther’s cousin Mordecai in Ester 7:1-10. In the record of the king’s statement, Ester 7:8, the Hebrew word ka·vash´ is used; it means “subdue, subject”, in Genesis 1:28; Jeremiah 34:16, but can also mean “rape.”

Under the Law, if an engaged girl committed fornication with another man, both she and the man were to be put to death. But if the girl screamed for help, this was taken as proof of her innocence. The man was put to death for his sin in which he forced her, and the girl was exonerated.—Deuteronomy 22:23-27.
So it is truly wrong in god's eyes.

Also, of course god understands a human perspective, for he made us. But also the bible says in 2 Pet 3 "9_Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance." And at the end of everything though, this will happen at it says in Ezekial 7 "And the word of Jehovah continued to occur to me, saying: 2_“And as for you, O son of man, this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said to the soil of Israel, ‘An end, the end, has come upon the four extremities of the land. 3_Now the end is upon you, and I must send my anger against you, and I will judge you according to your ways and bring upon you all your detestable things. 4_And my eye will not feel sorry for you, neither will I feel compassion, for upon you I shall bring your own ways, and in the midst of you your own detestable things will come to be; and YOU people will have to know that I am Jehovah.’"

Hope this helps to enlighten everyone according to bible fact.

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by cristoff
...

Hope this helps to enlighten everyone according to bible fact.

But is the Bible an accurate representation of fact? It has not been proven to be, has it? If so, where? By whom? As I stated at the beginning of this thread, faith is not reality. Wishing will not make it so. Have you even bothered to pay attention? :shrug:

Bob

[pHaestus]

Though the trend in this thread seems to be towards ignoring that which doesn't fit into preconceived notions, I will submit the following anyway.

This is a famous riddle from a greek philosopher:

"Is god willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?"

-Epicurus


Comments? I would really be interested in seeing any logical fallacies in the above quote.

[winewood]

cristoff, The issue in which you argue will be resolved when we die. It doesn't matter in the scheme of things... really. Respectfully, we should take that to another thread. -winewood

cristoff, When I asked you to respectfully move that arguement to another thread, that wasn't me asking to spam me with a mile long response in spite of the suggestion. I ask that the opposing viewpoint not inclued his responses in with mine, this guys on his own. Thanks. The most outspoken doesn't always represent the views of the whole .
Romans 8 1-2
1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,[1] 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.
Sorry guy, this soul dying thing doesn't jive with my Bible.

edit: spelling

[airspirit]

Jehovah's Witnesses will believe whatever they're told to believe and regurgitate it back for others to have to listen to. Most of what they believe is nutty and indefensible even by a religious person's standards, and that is why they have the most convoluted and nonsensical arguments to defend their stance.

It is no wonder that like many other cults that they are not allowed to do personal research outside of their approved tracts and manuals (the Bible is not one of them ... they can get in trouble for doing unsupervised Bible study), because if they did so for any period of time, there is an increasing likelihood that they'll realize that the events and ideas described in the bible do not jive with what they're being fed down at the Kingdom Hall/Ward, and if they're able to get over the time and personal investment in their religion they'll leave. The leaders of those cults don't want to lose their revenue stream, so they write Big Brother rules that forbids autonomous thought and you end up with people like Cristoff.

Of course, this is assuming that you put any faith in the events and ideas in the Bible. It is interesting to note that most of the miracles described therein either never happened, or was written decades or centuries after the fact. There is no record of a worldwide flood. That is a common myth among cultures in the Nile/Tigris/Euphrates river valleys due to the annual flooding of the rivers. In no place worldwide is there any evidence of a flood. Besides, the idea of holding two of every animal (seven of certain others) and the necessary feed in an area the size of seven basketball courts (assuming no hight restriction) is ludicrous. You couldn't fit two of every type of beetle, let alone anything else. The evidence that the ark was found can be discounted: multiple expeditions leave every year, and almost every one of them finds the ark, though in different places every time. Is it no wonder that you've never heard any reporting of the issue except in the Weekly World News? Even my wife believed it until she realized what the sources for the information was ... and that they run the same story every year but with different people and different places.

Lets take a look at the sun not rising on command. Gee, if the earth suddenly stopped rotating, then inertia would cause the oceans to wash over the continents wiping out all life. That didn't happen, so I guess the Joshua accounts were fudged a bit.

Oh ... and who was the witnessing author for the genesis events? Moses, wasn't it? Didn't he supposedly live over 2000 after the creation events? And he is an authority on these things?

I could eat some psilocybin mushrooms and have a conversation with God, the Devil, and Elvis Presley if I wanted to, but it would be foolish for you guys to take what I learn as scripture. Unfortunately, what you are putting your faith in has about as much basis in fact as what I'd come up with.

Oh ... sorry to disappoint, but most of the gospel stories (MMLJ) were written decades after Jesus's death by people who never met him. They were NOT written by the apostles themselves. Sorry to disappoint. This kind of brings the whole witnesses to miracles idea into doubt, eh? This has been proven by multiple independant historians and scholars, though church sponsored historians tend to disagree. Research must be much easier when you already have the answers in hand ahead of time and you're just trying to prove your point rather than find the truth.

[bigben2k]

For those inclined towards the scientific, there is an ethical aspect to a debate like this that should be respected: those whose belief is based on faith depend on it for their livelihood, so attacking it is very much a personal issue to them. The best thing to do, is answer questions, when they are asked, that's it.

It's human nature to stick to what we know, regardless of how flawed it might be: it keeps us grounded. Besides, it doesn't actually hurt anyone. Every single person goes through changes, but they all do it at their own pace, not anyone else's.

Live and let live.

[pHaestus]

Good advice Ben

[jaydee]

Originally posted by bigben2k
For those inclined towards the scientific, there is an ethical aspect to a debate like this that should be respected

Ummm, that should work the other way around to. Us, who belive in the scientific also deserve the same respect as science is the only thing we got that makes since why we exist. So listening to preaching about this fairy tale called religion (in our eyes remember) is not exactly on our favorite list. So expect some blunt and to the point replies from both sides.

Or is there a bias towards the religious?

[airspirit]

Precisely. I understand the debate and the motivations toward it, and under normal circumstances I'm willing to live and let live. Understand, however, that I've escaped from a lifetime of "hooey" to realize that everything I was taught by these self-proclaimed experts was bullpocky. It flips my trigger to be on a forum devoted to the advancement of scientific inquiry (look at the topics about chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc) and have people lurk here that label that same science as a bunch of "hooey". Science contradicts religion in every concievable way and they are mutually exclusive. It is a XOR situation, not OR. For people to believe in science when it is convenient and then disparage it when it contradicts untenable beliefs ... yeah, I guess I'm a little quick to go on the offensive.

The closest I've encountered to a compatible relationship between science and religion is the current belief of my wife: she believes in evolution and all other scientific reasoning, but believes that the original act of creation was triggered by god, and that the original events that worked toward the first viable cells were also guided by him. She believes that many of the hebrew myths in the bible are allegorical (which I agree with wholeheartedly) rather than literal. I don't have any problem with that kind of belief system because at least she leans on reason ... whatever else she believes makes her feel good so I'm not going to complain.

I don't despise religion at all. I despise the self-righteous bullsh!tters that try to tear down the pillars of logic and reason because it doesn't fit into their fairy tale beliefs comfortably. God forbid they have to think on their own ....

[bigben2k]

Actually, under the Constitution of the United States, we all enjoy a freedom of religion.

Anyone remember the Dixie Chicks? They exercised their freedom of speech right, but stepped outside of a line when they (she) attacked someone.

Freedoms involve responsabilities, and it's only when one has studied the intent behind a right, that one fully understands its limits. Regardless of what anyone says in here, we're all human beings, and we all have to live together. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but when you try to impose your point of view on someone else, you're not only acting against one person, you're attacking the very rights that we have all lived, and died for.

(Well, there goes my Memorial Day tribute )