Religion

[Sebastian]

You do know the Torah is the Old Testament right? And the stuff that predates the Bible is probably crap that false teachers wrote back in the day. Haven't you noticed that ever since the beginning people have always been trying to cover up the Bible and get rid of it? The Bible has stood the test of time and isn't going anywhere.


And for the record, there is a 5th gospel that never made it to the Bible (one written by Judas Iscariot) that tells lies about Jesus and says a lot of crap.
I heard this somewhere I don't think it's a reliable source though

[FireArrow]

In layman's terms, Zoroastrianism -> Judaism -> Christianity -> Islam. Don't make it like Christianity is anything special compared to other religions.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

You do know the Torah is the Old Testament right? And the stuff that predates the Bible is probably crap that false teachers wrote back in the day. Haven't you noticed that ever since the beginning people have always been trying to cover up the Bible and get rid of it? The Bible has stood the test of time and isn't going anywhere.


And for the record, there is a 5th gospel that never made it to the Bible (one written by Judas Iscariot) that tells lies about Jesus and says a lot of crap.
I heard this somewhere I don't think it's a reliable source though

The Torah came long before the Bible.
Except teachers didn't write it, it's historical documentation, lol.
Gee, I wonder why we're trying to get rid of a book like the Bible.

[FireArrow]

You do know the Torah is the Old Testament right? And the stuff that predates the Bible is probably crap that false teachers wrote back in the day. Haven't you noticed that ever since the beginning people have always been trying to cover up the Bible and get rid of it? The Bible has stood the test of time and isn't going anywhere.


And for the record, there is a 5th gospel that never made it to the Bible (one written by Judas Iscariot) that tells lies about Jesus and says a lot of crap.
I heard this somewhere I don't think it's a reliable source though

How can you say the Old testament withstood the test of time if people now go by the new testament? Unless of course you condone stoning, slavery, rape, and all the other ridiculous stuff in the old testament.

[SuperFireKirby]

MLF, the Bible is far from the first religious text. And it it the single most edited document in the history of mankind. You have never read anything close to the original document. Nobody has. It has been changed, translated, re-translated, interpreted, and misinterpreted countless times. Not to mention half the book is taken from other religions, Sumerian mythology and its derivatives and Zoroastrianism being the most prevalent.

Religion by itself isn't that bad, or maybe spirituality is the a better word. Jesus preached about the necessity to love others, be kind, and love God more than the need to follow traditions and customs, specifically those of the Pharisees. He had a lot of good ideas, I think. But he was incredibly anti-church/organized religion. Ironic, right? And people fucked it up by tacking on a resurrection myth and eventually creating the exact opposite of what Jesus was preaching about.

[FireArrow]

^The same could be said about some forms of Buddhism.

[mikey]

Actually part of the point of Jesus' ministry on the earth was setting up an organized church

[FierceDeity]

If you claim that denying something beyond the realm of proof is faith, well, guys I have a confession, I'm God. You can't disprove my claim since I can just respond to anything with "I'm omnipotent, I allowed that inconsistency to happen", thus anyone who doesn't believe me is doing so entirely out of faith. In fact, so much so to the point that it could be called it it's own religion. I'll name it "FireArrow is an idiot."

Pastafarianism is my favorite example for this. PROVE THAT A GIANT SPAGHETTI MONSTER DIDN'T MAKE EVERYTHING, I DARE YOU

The definition of faith I prefer is "belief in what cannot be seen."

Technically this doesn't disprove FA's claim in the slightest. Can you actually observe FA's omnipotency? The fact that he (probably, idk I've never met him) has a physical existence on this earth doesn't change that fact. Faith in Jesus as the messiah follows a similar principle; he was definitely here at one point. There is enough empirical evidence to support that. But to believe the accounts on his identity as the son of God is what takes faith.

Here's my spiel, guys. I was raised protestant, and am still Christian to a certain extent (though honestly it's probably closer to agnosticism at this point). But I believe in a rational and just God more than I do in some unverified, widely variable scripture written by imperfect men on his account. The probability that certain parts were included just as a reflection of each writer's personal views, or of the views of the culture in which they were written (because who's going to follow a religion that doesn't make at least some concessions to what you already believe?), is just too high for me to accept them as truth.

When it comes down to it, I don't really care whether somebody believes in God or not. And unless God is a narcissistic prick, he/she/they/it shouldn't care, either. Here's what I do care about:

1. People should not expect their faith to be forced onto others, or treated as fact by the rest of society. and
2. People should only follow their faith insofar as it does not infringe upon the rights of, or cause considerable suffering to, others, just as they should only oppose practices against their faith if those practices do the same.

This applies in multiple ways:

-If your beliefs contradict scientific findings, that's fine. Just don't expect your beliefs to be considered on the same level, or to limit advancement in that field.

-If a cultural practice such as gay marriage opposes your faith, that's fine. And if you are a pastor with such beliefs, I believe that you should have the right to refuse to oversee such weddings, so long as they have another feasible option available. However, this does not mean that we should prevent the practice itself on a legal basis. It would incur no plausible detriments to society. It would not infringe upon anyone else's rights, nor would it incur any plausible detriments to anyone. As such, it is purely based on faith, something that cannot be expected to be forced onto others at the cost of their rights.

-If someone believes differently than you, you have no reason to treat them differently, unless they are using that belief in opposition to rules 1 or 2, in which case it is only acceptable if intended to rectify said behavior (and of course, without infringing upon rights or incurring considerable suffering, yourself). I want to stress, this applies equally to both sides. Mistreatment of another human being is wrong, regardless of what they believe. (That's not to say there shouldn't be legal ramifications for anything, but in this case I interpret "cruel and unusual" to mean anything excessive to solving the problem.)


This isn't a perfect theory by any stretch of the imagination. For example, it still leaves "rights" as pretty ambiguous, as when is one right infringing upon another, instead of the other way around? For this, my interpretation is that "intrapersonal rights" (i.e. things that affect you and noone else) take priority over "interpersonal rights" (i.e. rights you have regarding your interactions with others). But that's in the realm of legal theorists, and is not the point of this spiel. My point is:

People should have the right to their own faith, and should respect the different faiths of others. But for this to happen, there has to be a middle ground for societal interaction when these faiths are in opposition. And the only rational solution to this is to have the middle ground be that which is empirically observable. It is okay to believe differently than these observations, but the moment that you try to use your faith as grounds to disprove, or even worse, ignore, these things, you are misusing your faith.

[mikey]

Is this holy scripture from the sect of George Foremanism

[Sebastian]

In layman's terms, Zoroastrianism -> Judaism -> Christianity -> Islam. Don't make it like Christianity is anything special compared to other religions.

The only thing Christianity is is a relationship with God. I don't care what you call yourself as long as you are saved and have a relationship with God :p
There isn't really anything "special" about it.

How can you say the Old testament withstood the test of time if people now go by the new testament? Unless of course you condone stoning, slavery, rape, and all the other ridiculous stuff in the old testament.

It says right in the Bible that when Jesus came back and died for our sins that he fulfilled the Old Testament Law. In other words, that the New Testament Church (anyone wanting to follow God after the crucifixion) did not have to follow the Old Testament Law. That's why there is a new law in the New Testament.

But he was incredibly anti-church/organized religion. Ironic, right? And people fucked it up by tacking on a resurrection myth and eventually creating the exact opposite of what Jesus was preaching about.

Honestly, this makes no sense to me.


Oh boy.....Fierce is here.

[FireArrow]

-snip-

Honestly, this is the truth about religion and atheism right here, and he explained it perfectly. Not surprised in the slightest because it's fierce.

ggwp everyone go home

[Sebastian]

Nice explanation, Fierce.

[Ruto]

I mean as the first book used for religions. Not as any book ever.
That's called a translation. The King James Version was translated from the Greek as accurately as possible. I'm not saying this version is perfect which it's not because Greek is a very different language than English
Originally, it was because of people. There was no disease etc. before the Fall.
I said what I think, not what the World thinks.

The only thing Christianity is is a relationship with God. I don't care what you call yourself as long as you are saved and have a relationship with God :p
There isn't really anything "special" about it.

It says right in the Bible that when Jesus came back and died for our sins that he fulfilled the Old Testament Law. In other words, that the New Testament Church (anyone wanting to follow God after the crucifixion) did not have to follow the Old Testament Law. That's why there is a new law in the New Testament.
Honestly, this makes no sense to me.


Oh boy.....Fierce is here.

You really need to stop making it sound like everything revolves around Christianity. Or better yet, you should stop saying that everything revolves around your literal interpretation of Christianity. Look up "circular reasoning."

The stuff I said is at least based on scientific and archaelogical research.

[Sebastian]

You really need to stop making it sound like everything revolves around Christianity. Or better yet, you should stop saying that everything revolves around your literal interpretation of Christianity.

I'm not :p
lol

I said is at least based on scientific and archaelogical research.

Of course.....

[FireArrow]

Dude, come on:

The only thing Christianity is is a relationship with God.

So every religion is secretly Christianity, it's just that no one knows it?