Christ's birthday

[fr0d0]

Only problem with your theory chatpilot is that it only applies to nutjob literalists. With 99% of Christians it crumbles like fine powder.

Not that I disagree that religion evolved and was perfected.

[Minimalist]

Not that I disagree that religion evolved and was perfected.

But that means that the original story wasn't good enough so it had to be improved. So what are they worshiping?

I almost have more respect for the fundies because at least they insist that their bullshit is true and don't fall back on "symbolism" when things get dicey.

Of course, that leads to the conclusion that the nuts of the Westboro Baptist Church are the world's best xtians....and perhaps they are.

[leo-rcc]

Of course, that leads to the conclusion that the nuts of the Westboro Baptist Church are the world's best xtians....and perhaps they are.

If nothing else they are at least consistent. "God is a prick, but he is our creator so we better worship him or we go to hell."

[fr0d0]

But that means that the original story wasn't good enough so it had to be improved. So what are they worshiping?

So now you're saying it's bad to have been developed?! You want it both ways.

They sense something... define what that something is.

[chatpilot]

fr0d0 I don't see how my theory only applies to "nut job literalists" I am referring to religion in general. Mythology in my view is not mythology but rather it is religion in its infancy. Religion has not improved it has evolved with the times otherwise it would fallen away into obscurity. The whole god or gods beliefs are rooted in world mythology. The god of the gaps theory is just that, filling in the gaps of the unknown. God did it explains many things but then it also raises more questions than any religionist could ever hope to answer. Saying I don't know why god did X and Y but he does answers nothing and in my view is nothing more than a cop out.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

solarwave your answers to my posts border on the absurd.

Nice flair for the bleedin' obvious you have there mate.American I presume?

[Minimalist]

But that means that the original story wasn't good enough so it had to be improved. So what are they worshiping?

So now you're saying it's bad to have been developed?! You want it both ways.

They sense something... define what that something is.

Look, let us be clear about something. I think ALL religion is horseshit. From Osiris coming back from the dead to jesus pulling the same silly trick. None of it happened.

But if early adherents found a need to "improve" the story doesn't that indicate that THEY suspected some imperfection? After all, they "developed" it....not me.


I wouldn't have bothered.

[fr0d0]

fr0d0 I don't see how my theory only applies to "nut job literalists" I am referring to religion in general. Mythology in my view is not mythology but rather it is religion in its infancy. Religion has not improved it has evolved with the times otherwise it would fallen away into obscurity. The whole god or gods beliefs are rooted in world mythology. The god of the gaps theory is just that, filling in the gaps of the unknown. God did it explains many things but then it also raises more questions than any religionist could ever hope to answer. Saying I don't know why god did X and Y but he does answers nothing and in my view is nothing more than a cop out.

That's because you think 'God' should answer the scientific questions, which is only true for literalist nut jobs. You're grossly mistaken (a nut job) if you think theology is ever really about filling gaps in scientific knowledge. It never is.

Yes I agree mythology is infantile religion. For you to use the word 'infancy' tells us you regard it as 'developing'. Primitive people tried to understand what it was, and that was honed to perfection in Christianity, which you are always telling us doesn't change. Well no, because it has reached perfection in the genre. It evolves to be relevant in it's practitioners.

But that means that the original story wasn't good enough so it had to be improved. So what are they worshiping?

So now you're saying it's bad to have been developed?! You want it both ways.

They sense something... define what that something is.

Look, let us be clear about something. I think ALL religion is horseshit. From Osiris coming back from the dead to jesus pulling the same silly trick. None of it happened.

But if early adherents found a need to "improve" the story doesn't that indicate that THEY suspected some imperfection? After all, they "developed" it....not me.


I wouldn't have bothered.

Early adherents could see the logical imperfections and improved on the ideas. We end up with a logically coherent system. 'Magic' was a foolish diversion. Superstition was separated out as harmful.

[Minimalist]

We end up with a logically coherent system.

You did? Can't prove it by me.

What's so fucking logical about xtianity?

[chatpilot]

Very funny Minimalist Lol!!

Christianity is far from perfect and as has been witnessed throughout history it is ever changing. fr0d0, you keep accusing me of being a literalist but I am really not a literalist at all. I am aware that in the bible there are some things that are to be interpreted as literal, allegorically, and at times some of the stories are parables. Who determines how to interpret a certain text and separate fact from fiction is another story altogether. But when you come to think of it the bible is nothing more than a book of hearsay and myth. I remember when I was in church and I had my little red letter N.T. that highlighted the alleged sayings of Christ. I used to cherish those text and cling to those words with such joy and hope. But looking back now and knowing what I know about how the N.T. in fact the entire bible was compiled, I have to ask myself: "Did Jesus really speak those words?"

What we actually interpret as Jesus words are words put in his mouth by others. You could not go to court and defend your case based on he said she said now could you fr0d0? The entire N.T. is based on he said she said that he said etc etc. There are no original documents in existence and so we must rely on unreliable copies of copies to piece them together. There are characters in the bible whose existence is not even verified in any other writings outside of the scriptures. Were Adam and EVe, Moses, Jesus, historical figures? Or were they just creations of myth? The bible in my opinion raises more questions than it answers and the ones that it does attempt to answer are so vague that the answers are usually unsatisfactory.