What makes your faith true?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

It isn't true in any way and you have no evidence that it is.

Mary was not a virgin. Which is more likely in your mind. An unexpected teen pregnancy (something we know happens) or the arrival of some horny spook (something we know has never happened)? And how likely is it that an unexpectedly pregnant teen would invent a lame cover story? Especially when her only other option was being stoned to death as a harlot? And then we move along to the "sacred" malarkey. I am not having that. "Sacred" is simply an excuse to avoid any and all questions because the beliefs at hand simply are not able to withstand the slightest scrutiny, and yes, I have made my position clear. To not do so would be abjectly dishonest, a position which seems to be common among believers.

So I will state again. I am interested to read your thoughts and I will not reveal a word of it without your blessing.

At worst I will take that to PM and PM alone. Perhaps you are worried about paraphrasis and hyperbole? No that ain't happening either. My word is good.

This does, however, lead me to wonder...Why is it that you are so deeply ashamed of your deity of choice? You must admit, it is a rather strange position to take, no?

Did you see her losing her virginity to a man?
The miracle God caused to her son was enough to shape history permanently. Another sex that brings a child is not enough in my opinion and the opinions of so many to make a story like that.

That child literally brought down the western Roman Empire, presented a new religion that lived for 2000 years and still, believed by Billions -not just Christians; he is holy in Islam too-. His mother was a good woman, a saint that deserves every bit of respect for dealing with her sexist society.

Just a note from my side; that woman was pure. Her son was a Prophet. He talked as a toddler, and cured the sick with his touch.

If a typical muslim woman claimed that she got pregnant by the "holy ghost" she would be killed in an instant so why would you believe some silly story from 2,000 years ago?

[vorlon13]

That's not what I meant, what I meant was that the ten commandments does a good job of delivering the meaning or rather purpose of the Bible.


What I meant was that the world we're living in now was shaped by what happened in the past, it's like the ripple effect where one event leads to another and so on. It is said that even a small change of a variable in the past will result in a drastic change in the present.

Like for example, imagine you time travel back in time and picks up a rock and put it somewhere else, who knows maybe your great great great grandfather who is supposed to be alive will somehow die just because you misplaced a simple rock and lead to a vastly different present.

What I meant was the many things you disagreed with like for example the death of many people are precisely the reason you are alive today to disagree with that very thing, because if someone could travel back in time and stop those deaths from happening we would be living in a vastly different present, maybe one where you or I won't even be alive. I just thought it was ironic, sorry for overly complicating lol

And, of course, you're assuming the purpose of the bible.  If it's to convince people that the christian god exists, and is good and just, it fails miserably.

Well, one specific God, sure. But allow for 70,000 variations, the vast majority all inconsistent with each other (and most internally inconsistent with themselves) and you have something actually totipotent at inducing belief in myriads and myriads of Gods.

Of course, since it's main mission being to induce in belief in only a single deity and it gestating thousands, well that's laughably and ludicrously rich. You can't make this shit up.

Bible fails 2 ways; fails to convince atheists even a single God exists, and for gullible believers, it induces belief in myriads of Gods.


That is one great big heaping pile of FAIL.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

And, of course, you're assuming the purpose of the bible. If it's to convince people that the christian god exists, and is good and just, it fails miserably.

Nah, if the whole purpose of the bible was to convince the mass of the existence of a God it would've been filled with philosophical arguments, you know? I consider the Bible a collection of...lessons, read every part and there will be a underlying message in there. The ten commandments are like the guidelines and the whole of the bible is an explanation for these guidelines, some parts remind us what happens if we stray from God and some parts remind us the positives of following God's will(so to speak), that's what I think, I'm not sure whether it's right or not but that's what I think.

[The Grand Nudger]

Something tells me that you're reading the "lessons" in..like a common heretic. Don;t get me wrong, I;m not telling you that the "lessons" you take are wrong..that they aren't a palpable improvement over the actual text..just commenting on the most likely scenario.

[Fake Messiah]

Your whole method is wrong because what you're doing is cherry picking from here and there, it's possible to disagree with anything if all you do is cherry pick. Look at what the meaning or message of the whole of the Bible is.

My method? What about all the hate preachers, witch hunters, terrorists, young earth creationists, televangelists and so on. You say to take a Bible as a whole I should ignore the parts where Jesus lies, steals, curses people - you see how you don't make sense. Even the parts that you talk about on your mass like when Jesus was on the cross and told the thief that tomorrow he'll be with him in paradise is a big fat lie, since earlier Jesus said he'll be under ground.
And even if you take NT as a "whole" it sounds of very barking mad because you have a story in which God, to forgive people for eating from a wrong tree, kills violently his son /himself thus thereby, incidentally, condemning remote future generations of Jews to pogroms and persecution as 'Christ-killers'. Couldn't he just forgive people like any normal person?

To think that your holy book and thus religion is beautiful and look only at the good parts is ignoring reality. Just like many people think of the natural world as universally beautiful. But this ignores reality. For every gorgeous bird there is a deadly earthquake. For every bright flower there are millions of microbes waiting to kill us in slow and agonizing ways. So it is with religion.

Some Muslims think it is justifiable to kill nonbelievers if they refuse to convert to Islam. And if you read the Koran you can understand why some more passionate believers would think that Allah wants this. There are statements that suggest that killing nonbelievers is not only acceptable but a duty as well. Fortunately, most Muslims disregard this or offer softer interpretations of the scarier passages and point to peaceful quotes within the Koran that would seem to counter calls for violence against nonbelievers. Still, some Muslims do believe that "kill the infidels" means kill the infidels. This is not beautiful. As it is in parts of the Bible that tell you to kill people who do not believe in the god of the Bible.

Every time good people sing religious song beautifully and from the heart, there is a preacher out there somewhere who is delivering a poisonous sermon that encourages believers to hate others and to embrace a medieval ignorance of the world. Wars, suicide bombers, televangelists and other evil deeds that were inspired by or sanctioned by religion provide a counterbalance to all the goodness that comes from religion. For every life improved by belief in a god, there are lives damaged by it. The belief inspired mistreatment of countless millions of girls and women alone proves that. It is either a mistake or outright dishonesty to describe popular religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism as completely peaceful and wholly good.

[Mystic]

I just want to say I believe in Catholic_Lady's words of the supernatural experience she had. Won't go into the details of it because I promised I would not.

You all have a good day!

[Fake Messiah]

I just want to say I believe in Catholic_Lady's words of the supernatural experience she had. Won't go into the details of it because I promised I would not.

You all have a good day!

So what do your expertise say about Dan Aykroyd and his supernatural experiences with 4 encounters with alien spaceships? (begins around 1m15s)





Really I genuinely want to know. Do you think he's honest or lying or what?

[Odoital77]

Whateverist Wrote:The problem with your latest answer is it is too long and full of bible-scripture-bullshit.  I guess this is where you strut away extolling your great victory.  But I can no more be coerced to wade into the morass of what you have written than a God almighty could be bothered to write the bible or whisper sweet nothings to his believers.
 
Odoital77 Write: It’s just a response.  I’m sorry that it’s not to your liking or too long from your perspective.  I do find your comment a bit odd though.  Why would I strut at all?  Not only that, but what supposed “victory” are you referring to?  I’m not trying to and have no illusions about “victory” or winning some kind of imaginary debate.  I’m simply responding to statement made and attempting to bring a little more clarity to those topics that were brought up.  I have no control over what’s done with them who might find them the least bit persuasive rather than “bible-scripture-bullshit”.  And just so you know, from my perspective, I’m not attempting to be coercive.  I’m offering a reasoned point of view that is generally based upon my own knowledge and understanding of the faith I claim (i.e. mere Christianity).  You’re free to read or not read.  It honestly make little difference to me.  In any case, I wish you well.

 

Abaddon_ire Wrote: None of that screed is convincing in any way shape or form. As written, it seems to be an attempt to convince oneself that god exists despite the lack of any evidence that any such entity exists at all. It is simply an attempt to account for the capricious nature of god.

Well, that’s okay if you’re not convinced.  There are any number of possible reasons for that.  It could be that what I’ve said really is genuinely unconvincing to you or anyone else.  That’s at least possible.  It’s also possible that you’re so closed minded to what I’ve said that there’s been a genuine failure to even engage with the ideas and comments I’ve shared.  And of course, there are many other possible reasons why you might have found what I’ve shared unconvincing.  As the author of the words in question however, I’m in the best position to know what exactly I was trying to communicate, and unfortunately, it had nothing to do with convincing myself of something about God in the absence of evidence.  Likewise, what I wrote wasn’t addressed to anything specific about the nature of God and certainly nothing related to capriciousness.  So as the author of the words you’re commenting on, I can say with high confidence that you’ve managed to drastically misunderstand both the meaning and intent of what I’ve written.  That said, I can’t give your opinion regarding what you’ve called “that screed” much weight at all.  I’m sorry that you’re either unable or unwilling to understand and therefore engage honestly with what I’ve shared, but I would urge you to reconsider your understanding on the basis of the author informing you that your assessment seems unrelated to the content shared.  I wish you the best in any case.  Thanks!