organised religion

[Naffa]

This attitude is precisely why the people who could contribute most to this thread will pass it by.

You are not here for reasoning and argument (the scholarly kind). You are here to mock those you don't agree with and for argument (the fisticuffs kind).

I'll leave you to it.

I'm not here for that at all, all you need to do is search for another thread of this type to see how thoroughly I debate this topic. However, I see no real need to do it on here again unless someone actually wishes to debate with me.

For the record, it's fairly easy to mock those that are religious as it's such a ridiculous concept.

 

[SlugForAButt]

I'm not here for that at all, all you need to do is search for another thread of this type to see how thoroughly I debate this topic. However, I see no real need to do it on here again unless someone actually wishes to debate with me.

So don't post then, it's simple.
Your original post was extremely rude and uncalled for. If you can't be bothered to debate it, then why trash the thread?

Edit: I find religion incomprehensible, but I wouldn't dream of being as sanctimonious as you.

 

[Chimerical]

I think you're missing the point somewhat, toaster.

If the Ark story isn't meant to be taken literally then what is exactly? How do we know that Jesus "raising" Lazarus wasn't just something that wasn't meant to be taken literally? How do you know what is an what is not meant to be taken literally?


And what exactly is the moral of the Ark story? On the one hand god loves us all but on the other don't **** him off or he will drown everyone? Kind of a contradicting message don't you think? And im also pretty sure that the story of Noah and his insanely large dingy predates Jesus by a good few years.

The Old And New Testament both portray different Gods so its fine that they 'contradict' each other. Even so, Jesus' miracles could be taken to be symbolic or you could just disregard the entire thing. No-one's forcing you in particular to buy into it.

Picking holes in the Bible seems a limp way to attack religion as its just a book, an inanimate object. How people choose to interpret it or different bits of it (remember that most Christians are unlikely to have read it from cover to cover anyway) isn't necessarily the fault of the book itself.

For the record, it's fairly easy to mock those that are religious as it's such a ridiculous concept.

Which is a great way to crush free thought and expression. It's easy to be the cynic and if you choose to generalise and mock an entire of group of people then that'll simply alienate them even further.

You may also want to remember that most religious people simply don't fit into whatever stereotype you have of them.

 

[Gerard]

Even so, Jesus' miracles could be taken to be symbolic or you could just disregard the entire thing. No-one's forcing you in particular to buy into it.

Might want to tell that to the bible thumpers that come knocking every so often.

As far as the old and new testemant portraying "different gods". They may as well go the roman route and have a few hundred of them if thats the case, first of all theres one god whos slightly angsty, then thers another who loves us all and doesn't do floods..or much of anything from the looks of it.

Picking holes in the Bible seems a limp way to attack religion as its just a book, an inanimate object. How people choose to interpret it or different bits of it (remember that most Christians are unlikely to have read it from cover to cover anyway) isn't necessarily the fault of the book itself.

The bible is the basis of relgion so "attacking" something as flawed as it is seems fine to me.

 

[Arcimbaldo]

I am just giving my view hear, i do not mean to be offensive at all if i am i apologise.
I dropped religous studies last year as i was doing other options fo GCSE's, however i strongly belive in Buddhist morals (i am not a buddhist). I think buddhism is the only real religion that makes sense, they do not believe in a god (im atheist), universal principles and the we will not fight you attitude is great. onto other religions the school i am currently at is christian and is very forceful upon that principle which i do not find just, however i am stuck there for another 2 years so have to live with it. i find Islam perhaps one of the most misunderstood religions, Suicide bombers in the name of Allah and everyting like that does NOT reflect the religion and are simply extremeists, Mohammed (pbuh) did not mean for the religion to be like that, bit of an essay going on here

before i ramble on too much, i think that organised religion is a bit silly, as previously said influencing children is not the right thing to do they shoul be allowed to believe what they want to etc.

Better stop now i think

Arcimbaldo.

 

[Chimerical]

Might want to tell that to the bible thumpers that come knocking every so often.

So shut the door on them. I fail to see the 'force' aspect here.

As far as the old and new testemant portraying "different gods". They may as well go the roman route and have a few hundred of them if thats the case, first of all theres one god whos slightly angsty, then thers another who loves us all and doesn't do floods..or much of anything from the looks of it.

The bible is the basis of relgion so "attacking" something as flawed as it is seems fine to me.

I personally got over attacking the Bible at secondary school. Plus, you can't really attack something that you most likely haven't read in its entirety (as you'd know the difference between the Old & New Testament Gods if that were the case). It's like any piece of literature.

 

[Delvis]

So shut the door on them. I fail to see the 'force' aspect here.

I went to a party in Holand once that was 'set' so to speak around a demonic / hell view...and got grabbed by a bible person, theyre always there, they started shouting at me practically Saying the devil was inside and there was hidden messages in the music

I just ended up telling them I know what I believe so do not worry

 

[Gerard]

So shut the door on them. I fail to see the 'force' aspect here.

If i want to hear about Religion i'll go to church. People coming knocking your door wanting you to listen to them blabber on and on about something that hasn't a single shred of evidence in its favour gets tiring.

I personally got over attacking the Bible at secondary school. Plus, you can't really attack something that you most likely haven't read in its entirety (as you'd know the difference between the Old & New Testament Gods if that were the case). It's like any piece of literature

To be quite frank i really couldn't give a monkeys about the new or old testament and whatever they blabber on about. If we were to take the bible at face value then dinosaurs never existed..yet last i looked theres plenty of evidence that they did. Isnt the world only meant to be around 10.000 years old according to the bible?

 

[batsy]

With regards to the OP's question, i'd say it's just human nature that people with similar interests/beliefs will band together.

I'd view myself as an apathetic agnostic (not 'a pathetic'!) and have always respected peoples religious beliefs, but as i've got older i'm beginning to get more frustrated with friends who are Christians. They seem to attribute every positive event in their life to God, even though it was their own hard work and determination that made them succeed.

I find myself tuning out most of the time now when the conversation turns to Jesus/God etc Only a few mates are Christian though the rest are almost normal

 

[RDM]

If i want to hear about Religion i'll go to church. People coming knocking your door wanting you to listen to them blabber on and on about something that hasn't a single shred of evidence in its favour gets tiring.

Still struggle to see the force issue. It isn't like a quick "no thanks" or a small sign saying "no religous callers please" is exactly a hardship either.

Isnt the world only meant to be around 10.000 years old according to the bible?

Only one interpretation of it that isn't even shared by the majority of Christians.

 

[Gerard]

Still struggle to see the force issue. It isn't like a quick "no thanks" or a small sign saying "no religous callers please" is exactly a hardship either..

Well for me it is, around here theyre persistant enough to keep on calling, then it stops for a few months and then theyre back at it again.

Only one interpretation of it that isn't even shared by the majority of Christians.

And what would other interpretations say about it?

 

[RDM]

Well for me it is, around here theyre persistant enough to keep on calling, then it stops for a few months and then theyre back at it again.

Have you tried the sign approach? A no cold callers thing? Most JWs (the usual door to doors) are generally quite polite and will pay attention to such a thing. But then I don't find "No thanks" to be a particular hardship.

And what would other interpretations say about it?

The general interpretation shared by most Christians seems to suggest it was an allegorical tale with regards to the creation of the universe and that the various days could relate to ages. Literal creationism is not all that common despite the vocal minority that try and push it.

 

[Gerard]

Have you tried the sign approach? A no cold callers thing? Most JWs (the usual door to doors) are generally quite polite and will pay attention to such a thing. But then I don't find "No thanks" to be a particular hardship.

Im considering trying the claymore method. Not even sure what they were peddling at the time, no watchtower magazine in hand so maybe not JW's.

 

[Angst]

Only one interpretation of it that isn't even shared by the majority of Christians.

There goes the miracle of picking and choosing, they just seem to change the parts that are meant to be taken literally and the parts which should be followed based on what is currently accepted and/or proven fact.
It's a fact the earth is over 10,0000 years old so ignore that "interpretation", they also ignore the part about stoning homosexuals and killing non virgin wives because that is not socially acceptable in this day and age.

 

[Gerard]

There goes the miracle of picking and choosing, they just seem to change the parts that are meant to be taken literally and the parts which should be followed based on what is currently accepted and proven fact.
It's a fact the earth is over 10,0000 years old so ignore that "interpretation", they also ignore the part about stoning homosexuals and killing non virgin wives because that is not socially acceptable in this day and age.

Indeed, i watched some show a while ago that shwoed the "man may not lay with another man" line but right next to that it says about stoning disobediant children to death. Funny how thats omitted these days.

Theres a penn and teller thing on youtube "the bible is Bull****", worth a watch.

 

[RDM]

There goes the miracle of picking and choosing, they just seem to change the parts that are meant to be taken literally and the parts which should be followed based on what is currently accepted and/or proven fact.

It has been a reasonably constant interpretation for hundreds of years I believe.

It's a fact the earth is over 10,0000 years old so ignore that "interpretation", they also ignore the part about stoning homosexuals and killing non virgin wives because that is not socially acceptable in this day and age.

Surely that is a good thing? Or would you be happier if religions stuck to their guns and called for all the old punishments in Leviticus to still apply? Not to mention that most of the stoning to death stuff was Old Testament which is of somewhat less relevance to Christians being as Leviticus applies to the Children of Israel specifically.

 

[Angst]

Surely that is a good thing? Or would you be happier if religions stuck to their guns and called for all the old punishments in Leviticus to still apply? Not to mention that most of the stoning to death stuff was Old Testament which is of somewhat less relevance to Christians being as Leviticus applies to the Children of Israel specifically.

Well if they stuck to their guns like islam does then atleast they would have a bit of integrity. and why should the old testament be any less relevant than the new testament? its still part of their holy book.

 

[RDM]

Well if they stuck to their guns like islam does then atleast they would have a bit of integrity.

I would rather them not calling for the death of homosexuals, but each to their own I guess.

and why should the old testament be any less relevant than the new testament? its still part of their holy book.

Because the Old Testament was for the Children of Israel (i.e. The Jews) and so is not considered as relevant for Christians who follow the teachings of Christ. It is of course important because it lays the foundation for the coming of Christ but once Christ arrives the rules change. Have you actually read the bible?

 

[Angst]

Because the Old Testament was for the Children of Israel (i.e. The Jews) and so is not considered as relevant for Christians who follow the teachings of Christ. It is of course important because it lays the foundation for the coming of Christ but once Christ arrives the rules change. Have you actually read the bible?

so they ignore the part meant for the children of israel but they follow the teachings of a jewish profet/the king of the jews, whichever way you wish to interpret it.

 

[RDM]

so they ignore the part meant for the children of israel but they follow the teachings of a jewish profet/the king of the jews, whichever way you wish to interpret it.

Well yes, because they aren't Jews, they are Christians. For them it is the message of Christ that is important rather than the rules the Jews had to live by.