Religion (that old chestnut again)

"If tigers have Gods, which they may well do, I wouldn’t be surprised if they also have devils as well. And if they have devils, then as we choose a serpent or Pan of the Forest to represent our devil, it’s on the cards that they embody their devil as man. Ten to one that man is devil to the animal kingdom." Karl Wiggins 1995

You guys bring up some good points, and I’m not sure if I can answer all of them. (And … many questions that Karl brings up are things that I’m still trying to find answers to, namely why people were damned before Christ. That just doesn’t seem fair to me, either!) About the stoning thing, there is no clear answer and what Karl & Mississippi say is inevitably true about Christians interpreting what they want to out of the Bible (which is *exactly* why we have denominations) because much of the Bible is vague. Also, various translators argue about what the author meant by … etc. I have tried to prepare an “answer of sorts” about the stoning passages that I hope will be beneficial in proving my point. There are many verses in the New Testament that leads me to think that this aspect of the law was reversed. ----- Colossians 2:14, says that following some of the Jewish law was cancelled, because it was nailed to the cross with Jesus. “having wiped out the handwritings of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he has taken it out of the way having nailed it to the cross.” Hebrews 9: 15 - 18, the OT no longer applies as the definite law "For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant." Now, I exaggerated on previous posts. Not the entire Jewish Law is cancelled … just those that specify daily routines, shedding animal blood for your own sins, and/or those which were “against us.” The rest of the Old Testament is used as a guideline, Paul said. Now, the question is (and an answer I’m unsure of): exactly which laws have been cancelled? And, which laws were “against us?” For some reason, Karl failed to mention another verse in Leviticus that says that adulterers should also be stoned to death. However, clearly, Jesus said that we should not stone adulterers. (Read the whole thing, please) "Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives, but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and Pharisees brought a woman they had caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd. "Teacher," they said to Jesus, "this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?" They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, "All right, stone her. But let those who have never sinned throw the first stones!" Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust. When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. Then Jesus stood up again and said to her, "Where are your accusers? Didn't even one of them condemn you?" "No, Lord," she said. And Jesus said, "Neither do I. Go and sin no more." John 8:1-11 Okay … so why didn’t Jesus condemn the adulterer? The answer: “Because she can be saved” comes immediately to mind. Under the Jewish law, she was condemned, yet Jesus doesn’t condemn her. If all of God’s commandments are equal in his eyes (2 James 2:11), and the adulteress is not condemned, then who are Christians to condemn friends who try to lead us astray? It would seem to me that he/she would not be condemned in Jesus’ eyes either, because they can still be saved as well. If that round-about argument failed, then remember what Romans 12:17 says: “Repay no one for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men.” This passage might also go to prove my point: "You have heard that it was said, `AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you." Matthew 5: 38-42 Here, Jesus is clearly adding onto the Jewish Law. Such is obvious. When he says "do not resist an evil person" and "whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two" it also strongly indicates that Karl's passage was indeed cancelled. ----- And … wow … I just happened to come across this, David: "I've obeyed all these commandments," the young man replied. "What else must I do?" Jesus told him, "If you want to be perfect, go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." But when the young man heard this, he went sadly away because he had many possessions. Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is very hard for a rich person to get into the Kingdom of Heaven. I say it again – it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!" The disciples were astounded. "Then who in the world can be saved?" they asked. Jesus looked at them intently and said, "Humanly speaking, it is impossible. But with God everything is possible." Matthew 19:21-26 So, I’d have to conclude that it certainly HELPS to be poor, but it is clearly not a requirement. However, Christians are supposed to be giving in nature. A rich Christian is not a contradiction, it just indicates that they aren't so strong as one. ----- I’ll give in for the sake of me not wanting to research the issue on the Koran more. I admit the “violence on every page” comment was hasty … rather, I amend that to saying “there is violence on some pages.” Instead of saying that “Islam is a terrorist religion,” I will amend that to saying “there are passages in the Koran that are real eyebrow-raisers.” ----- And … oh this has got to be the longest post in the history of this site … Christianity IS based on the teachings of Christ! I didn’t say Christianity is based on the WRITINGS of Christ. Who are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John quoting all throughout these books? They’re writing down what Christ is teaching. Therefore, Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ. Paul’s writings are based on the teaching of Christ as well. I’m not sure why this argument was raised, it seemed to me to be the very definition of Christianity. ----- Mississippi: Don’t worry about offending me! As long as they’re not personal attacks. However, I must add that it is difficult for me to deny the Holy Spirit because I have seen it very vividly in action. (Unfortunately, I’m not lucky enough to have felt it as often, perhaps because I’m not as strong of a Christian as I ought to be … however I have felt it on many different occasions whether you believe me or not!)

Did anyone see The Wicker Man on telly last night? Top.

Well, Justyn, you've obviously have been dealing with those people that truly embarrass me. Perhaps I ought to tell you something about myself ... I was raised in the church, but I spent much of my middle school years and high school years basically as a cynic. I understood nothing about the religion (and there is still A LOT that I need to learn) and I essentially believed that whole Big Bang thing, evolution, etc. and that's how we got to where we are today. Okay ... here's a truncated version of my personal theory. (Remember, that I am not representing all Christian's beliefs with this.) However, it was about two years ago that I changed. I studied the Bible with an open mind, I hung around some devout and truly serious Christians, and I changed. You might call it brainwashing, but I seriously doubt as such (if I thought I was being brainwashed, I would have gotten out of there, probably). I believe logic is as important as anything and ... true ... as someone who is majoring in geology, I cannot deny that some sort of evolution took place. However, taking the issue on the Christianity point of view, the earth could not have started at Time 0. If it did, Adam and Eve would have melted! (Because at Time 0, the Earth was a ball of molten magma.) So, it's logical to assume that when God created the Earth, he created an aged Earth. And, while he was at it, God knew it wouldn't make sense to create an Earth with a blank slate. So he gave it a vast history ... perhaps only if it would give people like me something interesting to dig up. Now ... the evolution theory assumes that there had to be a first homo sapien human. The rock record proves there were other human-like creatures existing about at the same time. However, there was a mutation in one of these beings, and viola! The first human. This could have been Adam. The major kink with this theory is that there was a major gap of unexplained time. Geologists say this took place somewhere around 1 million years ago. However, Bible scholars think time started around 4004 B.C. I've got to figure this out. Fast forward time a little bit to the times of Moses. I was told in a secular setting by one of my geology professors that when the Red Sea parted, a volcano exploded, which was at the head of the sea, which would have created a tidal wave powerful enough to actually empty the sea briefly. Now, I'm sure many of you would assume that Moses would have just happened to witness this tidal wave and made up a story about it. I have nothing to prove that this didn't happen (as, obviously, I need to do more research). However, I find this situation as illogical as you find that God had phyiscally parted the sea as illogical. If there was such a thing as secular proof that Moses led the slaves across the Red Sea and into safety, then how on earth did he just happen to be at the right place at the right time? There is geologic evidence of the Red Sea parting! Isn't that bizarre? We know that there is definitely proof of Jesus's existence. Around the day that Jesus was born, astronomists estimate that there was a comet in sight. (This was told to me by a particualrly scathing Christianity cynic.) Alright ... so the wisemen followed this comet to give the newborn Christ gifts. Of course, you might also assume that this was made up by a particularly creative author. But how on Earth, if he just made it up, would he have known that on the day Jesus was born, there was a moving star out there for the wisemen to follow? Isn't that fascinating? If an author just made it all up about Jesus, then how could there be some astonomic evidence that what he wrote down is true? Either he was being extremely careful and had a lot of foresight, or he was telling the truth. And, the Romans, who absolutely hated the Jews and Christ, actually witnessed Christ raising from the dead. Is he an ancient Sigfried and Roy, doing the world's greatest stunt? (Probably not.) Or is he really God? I also find it amazing that Constantine was able to convert all of Rome into Christianity ... even though the sign he saw (which was a cross) he had never seen before. I guess the point I'm trying to make is ... why all the elaborate stunts? If it was all a conspiracy, then how could it have all happened through periods of thousands of years? I approached this religion with some biting skepticism like many of you guys have it today. However, through these years, I've just become absolutely impressed with the Bible ... how there is absolutely NOTHING about it that can be proved wrong ... also how the Bible had so many authors (many of them who might have previously been the world's worst and evil murderers ... and God chose these people, like Paul, for a very important reason) and also how none of it contradicts each other. About Christianity being a terrorist religion ... that's just wrong. I agree that people used it as an excuse to go to wars in the past and only some of these wars were probably legitimate. (I am unlearned on the subject, but I do believe that the Crusades were a legitimate war.) However, if there is one thing that is a totally wrong assumption about Christianity is that it is a terrorist religion. Islam, on the other hand, teaches its followers to kill everybody in world who is not Muslim. I mean ... just that clause is terrorist, and this is the whole reason that 9-11 happened and other such events. There is nothing in the Bible that says such things!

Oh, I didn't think there was anything sinister in your post Shacky, I remember the song too, in fact I play it every now and then. By a group called 'Pussycat', I think they were actually Dutch. Yes, it is a bit frustrating being restricted to the forums (I can't seem to get to grips with the rest of the site as it is, and I'm not a very patient guy so I stay away for the time being). Unfortunately it leads to extra stress here, and that leads to strained relationships, to put it in a palatable way, not that I'm suggesting you are a strain, more that I am.

I know you were addressing James, Don, but I can't wait for Warsaw to check in. There is absolutely NO scientific proof for anything in the bible, it's a lot of fairy stories written to coincide with natural events and so usurp them as proof of the stories. All religions have started wars and almost without exception all wars have been started by religion in one form or another. Some of the events that you describe as being 'facts' only appear to be so to 'believers' and as you ARE one your stance is inevitable. There is far too much concrete scientific evidence to back up Darwinism to disbelieve in it. >> ...there is absolutely NOTHING about it that can be proved wrong ... << There is nothing about it that can be proved right. Some people are desperate to hang onto a childlike belief because it relieves them of the responsibility of thinking too deeply about the origins of the planet. Personally I don't give a toss where, why, how it originated, I think the effort would be better expended on saving it from ourselves.

You make some good points, Don, and are obviously doing your research, which is commednable. Well done for taking up the challenge and conceding a point or two. It's late, and I'm afraid I don't know where to begin. I think Shack may have a point in that the bible was written several (I thought it was about 200) years after Jesus's death, but that may have been when it was all collated. If I'm right, the politicians of the day put together the parts that they thought would best control the people, and tucked the rest away with the Dead Sea Scrolls and such like. Sorry, it's late and I must go to bed.

Oh ... here comes another long post ... sorry ... ----- Thanks, Karl. (Yikes! I took time out of my geology studying to do some of that amateur research ... I still think I did okay on that test, though. Although, this was research that I probably should have done years ago, so, in an indirect way, all of this was good for me!) I am no authority on the subject of who wrote the Bible and when, but this person seems to be, and he/she cites sources. Just read what's on here ... the Gospels might not be as innaccurate as you think. http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html As a sort of reflection to this, it's interesting to note that every Gospel essentially says the same general thing. Some of the events might differ, however, that is logically the product of an author (especially in the Matthew, Mark, and Luke Gospels) being a good historian and checking that the facts are accurate. It seems that they got their general information from the same source ... whether it be one of the actual Gospels or from some sort of outside sorce or document. If they found an innaccuracy or discovered something that they thought should be added or possibly subtracted, then they apparently went ahead and did it. But the point is that these books seem to differ on the minute details enough for me to think that they would have at least discovered and noted any MAJOR inaccuracies. The Gospel of John is a different story. I think that website has some good insight by noting that it could have been written down as memories of the dying apostle John, which is why some of the events are out-of-order and change. However, the message and most of the events are still the same. Also, I'm a journalism (and geology) major. As a sort-of functioning journalist, I know if there's four confirmations about a fact, then it's probably true, that is, if we can rule out the possibility of a grand conspiracy. If one of these left-out books says something radically different than what's in the four Gospels, then one could logically dismiss it. Even so, however, I would only totally dismiss the other books if they have entirely different messages. The actual stories in the Bible, for the practical purposes of Christianity, are irrelevant. After all, it's the messages in the Bible that matters! (There's something on that site that says one of these books reports that Christ didn't actually raise from the dead literally but it was more of a figurative event. Even in the, in my opinion, unlikely event that it might actually be the truth, so what? It still gets us to the same place.) And, the evidence in that web page indicates that it wasn't 60 years after the crucifixion. It was more like 30 ... not less than 40 ... years. Geez ... given that time period, most of the apostles were probably still alive! Even if the period was 60 years, it would require a still-living apostle to be in his 70's. (Yeah ... a 15-year-old apostle is logical. Mary, Jesus's mother, was 14 or something like that.) It nevertheless remains entirely logical that some of these gospels could have been written directly by one of the apostles, as it is unclear who the authors are (but certainly, the authors could very well have had access to these sources as well as other eye-witnesses). Also, note that there were, if I remember this number correctly, 120 apostles. Not just the 12 central ones. I also would like to point out that, as a journalist, just because I often report about things that I haven't personally witnessed, it doesn't mean that it's wrong. Four journalists working on the same story (possibly even based on a "press release" of sorts) will probably differ on a few details, but they would say the same basic thing. However, I would be very wary about those strange things that fifth journalist reports about, who writes for one of the supermarket tabloids. This would be a good thing for me to check out sometime, but I also believe that you can buy some of these left-out books in Christian bookstores. When I saw the Gospel of Thomas listed, the name seemed to strike me as something that I've heard that many Christians read and put on their bookshelves, but I could be wrong about that.

Very good, Don and I agree with it all at least 90%! The only thing I'd be wary of is making sweeping comments about Islam in the way that the guys here make sweeping and untrue generalisations about christianity; there's a sort of right-wing redneck element in the church which venerates Israel and has to have some bad guys in black hats to play the enemy - it used to be the Soviet block, now it's Moslems. I despair at how American christians in particular can be so holy-minded and fill their lives with prayer and praise then wave the flag for that piece-of-sh*t president of theirs and his wicked desire to control the whole world for his multi-national mates. That's obviously not a balanced post, and I've got my own agenda too! Blessings to you and your groovy website! [%sig%]

Don, It's pointless trying to prove religious beliefs scientifically. If there was scientific proof for Christianity or any of the others, then they wouldn't be religions. The whole point about religion is that because of your faith, you believe thing that can't be proved (or necessarily disproved) by evidence or logic. That's what it means to believe in God, isn't it? It's impossible to convince a non-believer to believe on the basis of scientific evidence or 'miracles' as they'll only be convinced if they believe in God already. I was brought up as Christian, I found it useful and it's helped make the person I am today but I'm not a Christian anymore for two reasons: 1. That I believe that the effects of organised religion (of all varieties) on the world is largely negative. 2. I don't believe in God - This is not a choice, I'm neither capable of proving myself correct or incorrect or of believing anything different. Question: "Islam, on the other hand, teaches its followers to kill everybody in world who is not Muslim." What evidence do you have for this bizarre statement?

Don, your posts bear all the hallmarks of a man desperate to prove his beliefs are built on solid foundations and fact. I respect that you've done a lot of research but the problem is that the only stuff that's available tends to be as speculative as that concerning the origins of the universe. You use terms such as, 'I know if there's four confirmations about a fact, then it's probably true' You REALLY believe that? Come on Don, don't be naive. Your use of the word 'fact' in this context suggest that you never doubted it's authenticity to start with, when it isn't a 'fact' until proven as such by empirical study, quite apart from which history is littered with accounts of events, supported by many agreeing sources, that have turned out to be crap. (Grand conspiracies abound in areas of conjecture) Has it not occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, that as on this forum perhaps the gospels were written by only one or two individuals using pseudonyms. 'it's the messages in the Bible that matter' You mean like 'an eye for an eye' being evidence that god expects us all to avenge our suffering at the hands of others? That's SUCH a good idea. '...the evidence... ' Again there is NO provable evidence of any of it, it's all supposition based on wanting to believe it. 'entirely logical' There is nothing logical about any of the contents of the Bible. It's full of fanciful accounts of 'miracles', 'virgin birth', 'universe construction in a week' and an endless stream of ridiculous assertions designed to strike awe into the reader. 'Four journalists working on the same story (possibly even based on a "press release" of sorts) will probably differ on a few details' In my life I've lost count of the stories reported in newspapers where the 'facts' differed so much that I thought I was reading about an entirely different event. I've even read accounts of events I have had first hand knowledge of, even knew the people involved, and knew the reports to be completely untrue and fabricated to suit the politics/interests of the papers concerned. I could go on ad infinitum but there's no point. You believe these things because you were raised to believe them and want to believe them. You will always find a way to 'prove' your beliefs. They make you feel secure in an insecure world. Was it a Catholic who said 'Give me the child and I'll give you the catholic for life' ? Neil, I assume I am one of the people you refer to, 'the guys here make sweeping and untrue generalisations about christianity' You are obviously another believer and as such will always dismiss contrary views as 'untrue generalisations'. That's ok, it's what I would expect.

As Missi knows, this is where I agree with him 110%, so I won't embarrass him by joining in. Suffice to say: christianity and all religion, eh? What a load of old willy-tug. Believe in Santa if you feel it enriches your life, but stop spending my tax money on the round-the-clock pampering of charlatans spreading the word of Father Chrimbo, when they don't even (why would they?) believe in the tosh they are spouting in the first place. Religion has always, and always will be about power and control: "I can't handle the fact that I'm going to die, and that's IT!" "It won't be, if you do as I...er, I mean...as God says." "But even in this life, there are many more questions I want answers to." "Shoot." "Why am I here?" "God made you." "Who made the world?" "That'll be God." "If God is good and all-powerful, why is there so much suffering in the world?" "Mmmm. Tricky. Basically, it's God's perogative, and if you question him again, you'll burn in Hell." "Fair nuff." And don't even get me started on wars! Oops. Sort of joined in there, didn't I.

It says so in the Koran. Given, I probably should have mentioned that considering that I haven't personally read the Koran, but I went to a seminar where a former Muslim has dedicated his life to pointing out the hatred present in the Islamic faith. And he did so by pointing out passages in the Koran. Now, this man said that there are also passages in the Koran that express more peace-loving principles, but later on in the Koran, they were apparently cancelled. (Almost like how Christianity cancelled God's law.) I'm too busy trying to figure out what's in the Bible to bother with trying to figure out what's in the Koran. So, I think I'll just leave it as hearsay. (There are hundreds of essays discussing this on the Internet, however, if you just do a google on it.) Yes, I am aware that you cannot prove Christianity scientifically. I am also aware that if you are able to do so then there would not be other religions. However, what I was getting at through all of that is that how the Bible coincides with history just seems to be too amazing to be made up. In that post, I did mention that it can be proven the other way ... but what on earth could have posessed people (of all walks of life ... even some people who didn't know the other existed) to make up these amazing, historically relevant "fairy tales?" Something had to.

... that should read ..."I probably should *not* have mentioned that" ... sorry.

Mississippi: I didn't feel particularly desperate when I wrote that. (Honestly.) I think you probably took me out of context. When I said "fact," it was in the context of speculations of why some of the books are included and others aren't. But, you're right in assuming that do believe them to be "fact." A lot of your arguments suggest that Christianity was the most elaborate hoax played on mankind, and many of your other comments display a fundamental lack of understanding about this religion. You also don't seem to realize that Jesus is a historical figure. In contrast, I might also add that you *don't* want to believe, and so your comments are biased as well.

I'm lost in this debate, Don. Mainly because I lack the time. I would happily debate with you on ONE topic, but you bring so much into the framework that I'm afraid I'm unable to offer the credit your argument deserves. That's no insult by the way. I'm often very guilty of overstating my case myself, unable to give short, succinct replies. I go wandring off on a tangent at every opportunity. So here's the challenge. Choose ONE verse out of ONE chapter in the bible that you'd like to debate. Choose any of the above mentioned in this thread and start a new thread on it, and I'll debate it with you. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I will happily debate just one verse of your own choosing. The thread may die a death or maybe we'll all learn something, but I challenge you to pick up my gauntlet. It would be a pleasure to debate with someone who doesn't feel the need to resort to childish insults every time a point is raised that he disagrees with.

Alternatively, I'll debate the Koran with you. I know absolutely nothing about it - although I do know a little about the Muslim faith - but the research might do us both good.

Karl There's a lot of hypocrites around. Look how many religions have been at the forefront of war, blessing the troops and the arms. Turning a blind eye while women were raped & people taken into concentration camps because their religion or lifestyle was different. What is the answer?

I believe that it's wrong for any person or organisation to ask you to believe what THEY believe. You should, instead, believe what YOU believe. And if you can see it, hear it or feel it, then it exists. And if you don't like it, then you'd better order it to leave. And it really is as simple as that. And if you don't believe that, then maybe that's a belief that you may want to change. Once again, nobody should request that you believe what thgey believe. There's enough different religions around that'll do that for you. And I'll tell you one thing about all of them. They're just somebody else's dross. If you were to take the time to check them all out, something that would probably be a lifetime's work, you'd find that they're all pretty much the same. Christianity, for instance, has The Ten Commandments, which express the ideal of man's duty to God and his neighbour, by which Moses organised and led the Israelites. They're actually the basic tenets of the Jewish religion, the first Christian being a Jew, of course. Christians accept them, together with Christ's example and teaching, as the basis of their reality. Buddhism has The Noble Eightfold Path, as pronounced by The Buddha in his first sermon. The eight steps are not fully consecutive stages, but fall into three main groups. 1: Right understanding (of Buddha’s basic teaching) and right aspirations (towards benevolence and renunciation). 2: Right speech (no lying or abuse), right conduct (no killing, no stealing, no overindulgence) and right means of livelihood (nothing tending to the use or encouragement of wrong speech or conduct). 3: Right striving (towards the building up of good and the eradication of evil within oneself), right self-possession (involving self-knowledge and control of thought), and right contemplation (according to the traditional stages of meditation). This is the Buddhist way of life. And then take Yoga, which many people think of as just an exercise routine, but is actually a Hindu system of discipline and meditation. They maintain that enmeshed within the human organism is an eternally existent soul, and that complete control of the body can render the soul free from physical interference. They also have eight steps, which fall into three main groups. 1: Moral disciplines (against killing, lying, stealing, sexual impurity, possessiveness, and towards purity, contentment, austerity, study and God-centredness). 2: Physical disciplines (control over bodily posture, breathing and excitation of the senses). 3: Stages of meditation (concentration, contemplation and ecstasy). So you see how similar some of them are? And yet, as you say, they squabble and fight against each other, all claiming to be the one and only way. Like I said earlier, it's just somebody else's dross. There's good in almost all of these religions, but if any one of them tries to lay down the law and order that you believe all their dogmas, asserting their views as if they were facts, then it's time to vote with your feet. Take what you can and leave the rest. Who knows, Sab? You could be the next prophet. If you're nutty enough and you're a good enough saleswoman.

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_85.pdf Okay ... after about two hours, I found a decent essay about the whole Islam thing. Take it with a grain of salt if you like, but it's exactly where I'm coming from. (And it does cite verses in the Koran.)

We can only believe what we believe. We can tell people what we believe, but can't make them believe what we believe. I believe I'm going for the record of saying believe every other word. Seriously, we make our choices, I watch Arsenal, you watch Watford, neither of us is right or wrong. We have free choice. My choice is right for me, yours right for you. btw I would be a prophetess (of doom)

Christianity is verrrrry complicated, and some of the things we're trying to argue, and the issues I bring up (my "missing books" post was purely speculative, by the way) are things that theologians with PhDs argue over. And there are many aspects to Christianity that I just don't understand. I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for ... and I'm afraid if I choose a topic, we'll agree with each other. (For example, one misconception I think Mississippi has is that Christ says we should execute the "eye for an eye" principle without exception, which just isn't true. And, assuming you're against the death penalty, you should have no beef with this.) So, I think I'll let you choose the verse, because you might have something in particular in mind whereas I'm fairly clueless about what to pick. (If whatever you pick is too difficult, I'll seek answers from one of my Bible-guzzling friends, so show me no mercy.) (I'll tell you that I'm not fantastically interested in debating the Koran, if the only reason for that is because I don't feel interested in studying it (nor do I have the money to go out and buy a copy of it). I do, however, realize that there are other aspects to the Muslim faith that many Muslims practice that are of a right-heart. I also came to realize recently that just because a man comes to my church and says things bad about Islam doesn't mean that it's true. I remember one man coming to the same church some years back and actually attempted to prove that evolution was false ... and that was the biggest load of crap that was ever dumped on me. So, as I said before, anything bad I said about Islam was hasty ... I was acting more as a mindless parrot than someone with educated judgements.)

Hark at you Wiggins. The day you contribute anything of note to an intellectual debate is the date pencilled in for the financing of an ice-pop factory in Hell. But go on, allow us lower species to learn - *Thread is moribund*

It if we believe what we believe, that can be dangerous. And how can any of it be true if we just made it up? At least the other religions have a historical context. About the hypocrite thing: Just because someone claims to be Christian doesn't mean they're really a Christian. Those who so-called went to war and raped women (are we talking about the 1600's?) probably weren't Christian at all. This religion not only reqires one to believe that Jesus died for your sins, but also you must strive after a relationship with God. How you strive after God, you have to read and try to follow what's in the Bible. The raping thing is evident that these soldiers' minds were filled with extreme hate and lust ... something that a true Christian is not ... so I doubt these "hypocrites" were Christian at all. It's the same thing today with the extremist abortion killers, gay bashers, the Ku Klux Klan, etc. who claim to be devout Christian, but they are clearly following some other set of guidelines that is not Christian at all. These actions go severely against what is written in the Bible. [%sig%]

I think you're basically making Karl's point from the original post. I personally don't think much of the Christian belief system, but much worse than that, are the people who raise their hands and proclaim themselves Christians. A small number of those folks are fine, but most of them are terribly untrustworthy. I'm not talking extreme behavior here, just run of the mill untrustworthy, selfish, self-centered, and lying. Lots of people are like that, but it doesn't stick out so much unless they proclaim themselves to be the opposite.

This is a very long piece so I'm not going to comment on it but I'm not a site called 'Biblical Perspectives' can really offer an objective assessment of Israel. I would imagine that The Koran, like The Bible is extremely contradictory and can be interpreted to support both pacifism and campaigns of terror. I know a lot of Christians and a lot of Muslims. Some use their religions as an inspiration to do good things, some as an excuse for things that I don't think are good. In either case, the religion is not responsible, the individual is. To say that Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity is to me, both insulting to the majority of Muslim who have no truck with terrorism and also an excuse for the likes of Bin Laden to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. They're lunatics but it's not Allah's fault and the Islamic religion as a whole does not teach its followers to kill non-Muslims. In terms of the amazing co-incidences and The Bible, this has no relevance unless you are already a believer. The details of Christian beliefs have never been hugely important to the power of Christianity. The main reason why Christianity was so successful until recently was that it was politically expedient for those in power in the Western world, the main reason (although their are a number of others) that it is now less popular in most Western countries is that the opposite is the case. The USA is an anomaly, partly because it was largely formed by some of the few Christians from Western Europe who really believed all the God stuff in the first place.

I rest my case. That's one of the idiots I was talking about.

I always agree with the majority of your postings, Neil, but I must take issue with this one. I can't help but find myself wondering as to what gives a priest in the Anglican Church the right to play God and grant us absolution from our sins? Another priest with a more executive position and a hot-line to God Herself perhaps? I've come to the conclusion that, although they have a fairly respectable sales pitch, this business of a priest having the power to let bygones be bygones and grant us amnesty for our scandals is all just one gigantic scam to con loads of money off a haunted and gullible public. What a brilliant way of obtaining money under false pretences! The whole sales pitch is based on guilt and fear - two of the most powerful and useless emotions. The priests create a smoke screen around our anxiety, our despair, our terror and our demons. They paint mind-blowing pictures that make us jittery, unhappy and afraid. (All sales pitches are based on emotion of some form or another. This “the end of the world is nigh” business is termed “creating urgency” in the sales world). And at this stage, they’ve got us. We’re just about ready to turn our faces to the wall and abandon hope. The priests are nothing but alarmists, pessimists and doom merchants. Calamity Jane personified. But to us they appear as Sir Galahad, Boadicea, Rambo or Joan of Arc. Stout fellows, all of them. “I have the ******* answer,” they cry. “Sign here, you plebs.” And we do! 463 million of us! Why? I’ll tell you why. Because we’ve been sold. We feel plagued by conscience and answerable to God only. And the only way we can get to God is through Her second in command, the priest. Ooooh, what an evil and dangerous way of ******* with people’s minds.

There's a 'something' I don't know what it is I've seen it in a baby's smile I've felt it in a handshake I've wept it in a lonely world I've read it in a sonnet I've known it in a love's embrace I've screamed it in the night I've heard it in a bawdy laugh I've sensed it in a crowd There's a 'something' A 'needing' A 'wanting' A 'longing' A 'crying' A 'yearning' A 'loving' A 'knowing' A 'something' A 'God' I don't know what it is I hope it's a 'God'

I think you must've known "Christians" who've hurt you, Justyn, and thinking that such is in the mind and hearts of most Christians is unfair. I urge you to read and reflect on the Bible, so that you might know what this religion is truly about. Karl: Just because a church is corrupt doesn't mean the religion is corrupt. Giving up money for payment for your sins is not Biblical. I don't even think people should do this! It doesn't anull anything! I go to a non-denominational church, and we don't do that sort of thing. Confession takes place between God and yourself. The priest, ideally, should be someone to help you make this connection with God ... he should not *be* God or be the only route to communicating with God. Anyone can talk to God. However, confessing sins in public or to a priest is like asking them to hold you accountable for these sins. And, when you know that people are doing this, it'll *really* help you stop.

I can hear the sound of Mark approaching......

http://www.geocities.com/tulsidas_ramayan/page169.htm This guy is actually Hindu. (The essay is shorter this time, but it's less professional ... full of sarcasm.) This guy makes some other points that ... well ... I'm just not going to go there ... they're fairly shocking! I've been scanning this guy's essays over the past month or so. He's written hundreds of them all on the subject of religion ... of course, as a Christian, I disagree with him a lot, but he does certainly make it interesting. There are some other links to essays about Islam here: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/3425/page409.htm It's not like it just hints at violence in one or two places. (The Bible has violence in it, of course.) In the Koran, there's hatred and violence printed on almost every page of the Koran. And, as that essay I posted up earlier said, the Koran does instruct its believers to make the entire world Muslim through war. Nevertheless, I agree with you David. It's inevitably up to the people and, thankfully, most Moslems have enough sense to not succumb to violence. Like Christianity, there are many different varieties who believe and do different things. I must also point out that one of my best friends is Moslem and, even though he seems to be obsessed with wars (which I don't think is unusual ... I know others like him), he's very peaceful in nature! But just like a peaceful religion can spawn violent followers, a violent religion can spawn peaceful supporters. Well ... anyway ... I'm not making any of this up.

No, not St. .....YB!

Stop spreading hope and rumours shacky.

Whatever is it you're suggesting?

Don, I've been reading your comments of 2 o'clock this afternoon, and they shout out to me to question them without reading the following comments, which is wrong, but I just can't help myself. You write: "However, if there is one thing that is a totally wrong assumption about Christianity is that it is a terrorist religion. Islam, on the other hand, teaches its followers to kill everybody in world who is not Muslim. I mean ... just that clause is terrorist, and this is the whole reason that 9-11 happened and other such events. There is nothing in the Bible that says such things!" Have you read Deuteronomy 13: 6-10? The ten (or inreality about 200) Commandments chapter. I quote below: "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; "Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; "Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. "And THOU SHALT STONE HIM WITH STONES THAT HE DIE; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage." So, if I read Moses's words correctly, he's claiming that God told him that if anyone attempts to get you to worship another God, you should stone him to death, right? This is one of the "200" Commandments. I shall now scroll back up and read everyone else's comments, and apologies in advance for jumping the gun.

The fourth para you quoted Karl, to me, shows just how f.ucked up and backward religion is... My opinion, of course.

What you got a hold of there is a bit of the Jewish Law, which was cancelled when Christ came by. There are many many other laws that are in the Old Testament that Christians do not have to follow. (Like how to conduct weddings, sacrafice animals, don't eat pork, etc.) Remember that the only religion who follows The Old Testement to the letter (or supposedly) are the Jews. Christianity takes its teachings from Christ, which means that the religion is 100 percent based on the New Testement. My theory: The reason that Christians don't need to follow the Jewish Law anymore (other than the specific ones that Christ taught, i.e. the 10 Commandments, among other things) is because the Jews did not have the Holy Spirit, and they were much more susceptible to being led astray. The Holy Spirit is a powerful thing. (Yeah ... it's God.) The Jews had to do things to the letter in order to please God, because they were not saved. If this sort of thing happens in the Christian realm, certainly what we're supposed to do is tell them about the Gospel and let the Holy Sprit work through to his/her heart. Especially among our relatives and friends, it should work! And most people back then were damned anyway. Now, we can't stone these people who try to lead us astray because they can still be saved. The reason Christians are still latching onto the Old Testement is for historical reasons. Jesus and the authors allude to it in the New Testement all the time. And, there are still many stories in there that teaches Christian values. But ... yeah ... the Jewish Law was cancelled, so that passage is irrelevant. (The passage you selected, I wouldn't even classify that as terrorist activities. Sure it's violent, but it's not even close to being as awful as those excerpts from the Koran state on the essays I pointed out. It doesn't say the Jews were supposed to stone strangers. It says: "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend..." These aren't even casual acquaintences. They're our closest friends and relatives.)

> A lot of your arguments suggest that Christianity was the most elaborate hoax played on mankind, and many of your other comments display a fundamental lack of understanding about this religion. You also don't seem to realize that Jesus is a historical figure. In contrast, I might also add that you *don't* want to believe, and so your comments are biased as well. < All power scams are a hoax Don, and they aren't particularly elaborate, all you do is take an impressionable (for which read superstitious and usually simple) set of people and then feed them with fear of eternal damnation if they refuse to accept your doctrine. It works every time. The problem occurs when some of the people start thinking for themselves. I don't so much lack understanding of the religion as my common sense and logic tells me it's all crap to start with. Why would I want to have an understanding of something I deduce to be a confidence trick? Whether or not Jesus is an historical figure is again open to question, has anybody seen his birth certificate? Do we have family records other than the bible? Do we have his grave? Do we have ANY material evidence? I think not. Lastly it's not that I don't want to believe, it's because I am a 'show me and prove it' person, it's the safest way to be.

I hesitated before posting this Don as I don't really want to offend you, but reading back over your posts I can see it's pointless trying to discuss this topic with you in any real depth as you are utterly convinced that 'God' exists. You do what all religious people do, take the bits you like and dismiss the bits you find unacceptable. You then invent reasons why some of the rules have changed along the way. ie. > Jewish Law, which was cancelled when Christ came by <. You rationalise your beliefs with stuff that non-believers see as crap. It's very difficult for some people who've been raised in the shadow of superstition to see through it and break free from the control, mainly for fear of upsetting the imagined awesome power/holy spirit that pervades and directs their universe . It occurs to me that if Lewis Carroll had lived and worked 2000yrs ago, you might be using Alice In Wonderland as your lifes 'handbook' instead of the rather poorly written compendium that you so revere now. The only 'Holy Spirit' I'm aware of comes from the Cognac region of France.

lol Shack A true poet

lol

Come on, Don, do you really believe that "most people back then were damned anyway. Now, we can't stone these people who try to lead us astray because they can still be saved?" Do you really believe that the people two or three thousand years ago couldn't be turned around? That they were so damned? I also have to question where exactly in the New Testament it cancels out all but ten of the Commandments God gave to Moses. If you can quote the exact book, chapter and verse, in order for me to read it myself, then I'll concede that Jesus taught that God has now changed his mind. Mind you, you have yet to concede that when you wrote, "There is nothing in the Bible that says such things," when dicussing, "Islam, on the other hand, teaches its followers to kill everybody in world who is not Muslim," you were mistaken, for I found the very passage. Instead you tried to excuse it.

I've been working for two days and it looks like I've missed a lot. First, I am far more interested in the behavior of living inidividuals than I am in what's written in the Bible. My observations about Christianity are based upon what I have personally observed in the behavior of self-proclaimed Christians. Just yesterday, for example, the very Christian secretary/admin assistant to my friends business here announced that she was leaving to take a new job.....in ONE day. Giving one day notice when she's been allowed to take vacation time in advance of officially earning it and been given all kinds of other considerations is precisely what I mean by typical Christian behavior. That is not how Christians are supposed to behave, but sadly it is how many of them do behave in actual practice. A lot of other people behave that way as well, but they are not publically proclaiming themselves to be Christians and thus setting themselves up as examples of a superior morality. THAT's the problem and it is consistent. As for the Bible, not one word of the New Testament was written by anyone who knew Jesus personally or had heard him speak a single word. Biblical scholars readily concede that we don't really know what Jesus taught and that the Bible is not a reliable source on that score. Of course, neither is anything else, so the Bible wins by default. Biblical scholars have been hoping to find the so-called Quelle (German for The Source) which would explain what Jesus actual did teach. No one knows. Ahem...my comments earlier about 'Paul' referred to the Paul, formerly Saul, in the Bible. Gee, what could the rest of you have been thinking. Gospels Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John tell essentially the same story four times. I forget which is the oldest, but as I recall, almost all of what people call the teachings of Christ are to be found in John, which was written much later when people complained that there was no information in the earlier three scriptures. I don't question the existance of the historical Jesus, even though the only contemporaneous mention of his existence is in the Histories of Josephus. I have the book on my shelf. The mention is two short sentences, saying that he we crucified. That's it. We don't have a record of that time because a couple of years after his death (or disappearance, however you choose to look at it), the Romans marched into Jeruselum, killed everyone they could find, and razed the whole figgin place to the ground because of the constant rebellions in the area. That's why the Arabs laugh out loud about Israel being the homeland of the Jews. There hadn't been a Jew in that area for nearly 2000 years until the founding of the modern state of Israel. I don't support the Arab position, but I can see where the get it. I personally believe that Christians (ie, leftover Jews from the Diaspora) burned Rome during the time of Nero as a terrorist act o revenge and that the Book of Revelations is a terrorist tract calling for the destruction of Rome for what they did to the ancient homeland. That's why Nero, rather foolishly, fed a few Christians to the wild animals. That was the official punishment for such acts in those days. He was also a nutcase, but that hardly distinguished him in ancient Rome. I can't prove this, of course, but it makes more sense than many competing theories. Back to the basic point, though, the Bible is of no interest to me in terms of its teachings. The parables and teachings of Jesus as written in the Bible sound like either very ordinary common courtesy or outright gibberish. I don't need the Church to exhibit courtesy, and gibberish I can find elsewhere for free.

Don, "there's hatred and violence printed on almost every page of the Koran." Is this true? Have you actually read almost every page of the Koran? I'd be highly dubious about taking evidence on the violence of Islam from people who have a clear axe to grind. It might be worth either trying to get a more objective assessment or reading The Koran yourself. "Christianity takes its teachings from Christ." This is simply not true. There's no evidence that Christ ever wrote anything. The vast majority of 'Christian' positions on social issues are taken from Paul who never met Christ or saw him speak. In terms of the old Jewish laws being cancelled, this, like most Biblical interpretation, either applies or dosn't according to the convenience to the Christian who is interpreting. Jesus quite explicity ordered his followers to sell everything they own and give the money to the poor. Most Christians, especially the US Christian Right seem to be extremely liberal in their interpretation of this order.

Oh ... there's not point in arguing with this. The elaborate hoax theory is always a possibility, as I indicated in my posts above. However, I have a really hard time believing that it was a hoax. If it was a hoax, it was an incredibly complicated one, and 'within it's own universe,' it remains remarkably consistant and ... oh, dare I say it ... sensical. Now, within the Christian realm, it is easy to argue that it was God's will that this content was left into the Bible and the others taken out, but that's a particularly pointless argument for this purpose. ----- And, I still think it's unfair to judge the basis of a Christianity based on what some (or many) people who claim to be Christian do. (And I'm really not saying you're doing that, but you could be thinking that.) You can tell a true Christian by how they act. And, the frequent cheaters, liars, etc. are not Christian, because Christians are supposed to strive after God, and you cannot strive after God if there is such an ill-regard for sin in your life. (If that secretary really had God, then she would have been convicted of that way before she did it ... planning such conspiracies are very difficult to do when you're a strong, practicing Christian. She was ignoring God.) Thinking you have moral superiority over someone isn't Bibically moral, anyway ... I guess what I'm trying to get at is that is if Justyn's trying to discredit Christianity by these arguements, then it's really a non-issue. Nor should the actions of mere people keep you away from God, because that just doesn't make sense.

If I meet someone for the first time, and they take that opportunity to tell me that they are a Christian, or a born-again Christian, it is reasonable for me to assume they think that means something. Why else would they say it? So, what are they trying to tell me? I suppose they are trying to tell me that they have committed to leading a life in accordance with the teachings of Christ, correct? In that case, and since they have made a point of telling me this right out of the starting gate, they have given me the right to judge their behavior according to their own standard. It's not my standard, it's theirs. Presumably, they believe the Christian standard is higher than everyone else's, otherwise what's the point? So I observe those people, and I find that in at least 80% of the cases, their behavior is substantially worse than that of mere mortals who simply go about their daily business without declaring their religious beliefs to everyone they meet. The remaining 20% do seem to live up to their own standards, or at least make a serious attempt to do so, but those standards are nothing special. I don't have to be a Christian to know that lying and stealing are wrong. Unfortunately, many Christians haven't figured that out yet. So until I begin to observe that the behavior and trustworthiness of 80% of the self-declared Christians I encounter is substantial better than MINE, and I am no prize in this respect, then I will pass on taking their declared belief system seriously. As for the Bible, I have read the it; in fact, I probably know far more about the Bible than most Christians. One thing I know is that Paul comes across like a mental patient. Read Paul's writings a couple of times. Except for the later one's where the Church Father's edited his work to make him sound less neurotic, he comes across as a very disturbed man with serious problems of sexual identity, among other things. And this is the guy who spread the word of Christ to the world? Well, no thank you. Now I'll say something good about Chrisianity. The one good thing is that the premise of the belief system is that a person can change themselves and their circumstances. With that as the underlying assumption of Western civilization, we have made far more progress, or at least change, in many areas than the rest of the world, as they are still stuck in systems that tell them to accept what life has handed them and shut up. However, and here's the kicker, that progress, or change, did not begin to materialize in a major way until Christianity lost its political power. While the Church actually ruled the world, nothing much happened. Christianity was for centuries a terrorist religion, very much like some people are using Islam today.

>> One thing I know is that Paul comes across like a mental patient. Read Paul's writings a couple of times. Except for the later one's where the Church Father's edited his work to make him sound less neurotic, he comes across as a very disturbed man with serious problems of sexual identity, among other things. And this is the guy who spread the word of Christ to the world? Well, no thank you. << I had no idea that Dicko had even been published, let alone so far back in time. He seems pretty consistent though as he's still the same now.

LOL :0) Read Paul's writings a couple of times. He comes across as a mental patient, a disturbed man with serious problems of sexual identity. Brilliant!

"I fear that Christians who stand with only leg upon the earth, also stand with only one leg in heaven." Dietrich Bonhoeffer 1943