Friend found religion...

[Twirlywoos]

I say found religion because I have no problem with God and have my own interpretation of faith however can't abide the church or the hypocritical nonsense that goes on inside the church on a regular basis...

Anyway a good friend of mine house shared a couple of years ago with a over the top Christian couple, you know the type, they lived together but had separate bedrooms etc as they where not married and where always in your face about how they way you choose to live you life is so very very wrong if you don't follow the bible...*sighs*

I think my friend is in love with the girl and over the past few years has become a shadow of his former self spending an unhealthy amount of time with the above couple and living his life to how they and members of their bible study group or informal church believe he should, yes they just meet in peoples houses...

I happened to get roped into one of these meetings at one point when I made the critical error of stating my interpretation of what faith is to me (I'd only met them the one time) and well it felt more like a cult as opposed a Christian group, their beliefs where extreme and when questioned they became rather angry and set to trying to convince me I was possessed by the devil etc etc etc

My friend has never been the party animal type but I know the way he is now just is not him, he has never been so judgemental as he is now and has made several comments regarding me and my family, live with partner and two young children that would normally warrant a good kicking had I not known him so long

point is I'm concerned and want to help my friend get a grip on reality again but I have no idea where to begin as he is so very very touchy over it!

Have any of you ever come across anything like this?

Thread title is misleading.

Your mate did not find a religion, yet he found someone he is attracted to and to get with her he is copying and following the things she likes.

Ever seen American Pie? Ever Seen Coming to America? Same stuff happened in those movies. Guys do all sorts of crazy **** to win a women's affection.

/thread.

 

[Haggisman]

So just to clarify that you believe this person to be correct in all that he says?

I feel that the hypothesis of evolution is far more logical and verifiable (fossil records) than a hypothesis that everything was created by a floating magic fairy, based on a single book with no other evidence to back it up.

You see that just doesn't make sense to me. I mean 'randomly developed rudimentary lungs' - how can that be?
[...]
Then randomly growing fur? I may be missing something but personally I think the probabilities of all those random events is just way too high.

So I take it you're not familiar with the concept of Siamese twins, cats with 2 faces, or any other random mutations?

How would life have been sustained during the time when these lungs were being formed?

They would have had fully functioning gills at the same time, allowing them to breathe in the water as normal.

Surely they would have died had the conditions not been right.

Correct. Which is why the process takes hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years.

Aside from the above my concern goes back further. If it was a soup to begin with then how can we explain the distinction between male and female for example. Were they all males to begin with, then they evolved into females? They they discovered that they could mate? Why only two sexes then?

There are still some species which mate asexually.

I find it easier to accept that there was a higher power involved.

Understandable, it requires less thought

The Bible suggests the snake was said to have been very subtle and deceptive. Sin entered as a result and therefore tarnished all future generations.

It was still a talking snake

Besides if man was created perfectly, then it wouldn't matter how subtle and deceptive.

The Bible doesn't claim that he was an actual normal man - it claims he was the son of God. There is a difference.

And the historical evidence you've been harping on about to back that fact up?

Oh yeah:

In fact history records that he was an actual man. The debate is around whether he was who he claimed to be or not.

 

[ringo747]

Which archaeological finds? Where is the evidence for Adam & Eve, the garden of eden, immaculate conception, the resurrection, etc.?

Whilst I'm not arguing against a lot of the content of the bible - I'm sure many of the events did occur - there isn't really anything to back up these fantastical claims.

I'm talking about the manuscript finds. I have mentioned already about other historical accounts that mention the resurrection. The resurrection is the pillar of the Christian faith as it is proof that God is who he claimed to be. If that pillar is removed then there is no salvation and the man Jesus who died died for no reason.

Why not? Most of us aren't trying to pick holes in the Bible as a whole (excuse the pun ) merely the parts which are so far fetched as to be impossible. No one is disputing the fact that many of the events in the bible occurred, or even that there was probably a bloke named Jesus kicking around at some point, however, stating that "everything in the bible must be true because some of it is" is just daft

What is to say that resurrection isn't possible? To us as humans the concept is impossible but with the mention of a higher authority in the Bible then what is there to suggest that that shouldn't be considered?

Using my Harry Potter example from earlier, it's like saying "because London is a real place, all the stuff about wizards must be true as well".

No it isn't. Does Harry Potter claim to be inspired? Is there supporting historical evidence of a person called Harry Potter? No.

Yes we do have that ability. So why do so many people need to rely on the crutch of heaven/hell in order to use it?

I am confused too - no idea what point you are trying to make. Are you trying to say that some people rely on religion to be nice? No idea.

 

[Dannyb01y]

I think the only hope for the OP is to find a hot non religious girl for your mate to fall for so he readily abandons his new found values in this new pursuit.

 

[fez]

Is it proven that information wasn't disseminated well back then? How did you come to that conclusion? You surely must be referring to history! O wait, the history that you just said was dodgy. Vicious circle?

No, we know that because they didn't have a mail service, the internet, phones etc. In fact, how did they get information. Word of mouth and writings, both of which tend to be somewhat easy to manipulate or twist.

If someone says to me now "mount everest is 20 million centimeters tall" I can go and find out with 100 certainty if they are right or not. 2000 years ago there was no such luxury.

So despite the historical accounts you still want to classify this as dodgy evidence? Is history based around facts mostly? I mean if a number of writers claim that John the Baptist existed and was murdered by Herod would this not give a fairly good indication that it happened? I can't prove it scientifically but history gives a good reason to investigate further. Why is there no other historical records that affirm the contrary? Surely if something was so blatantly wrong then it would have been nipped in the bud.

Similarly I couldn't prove that someone existed back in the 1800s for example, but history would prove that they did.

No one here is saying that the bible is a complete work of fiction. I don't doubt that a lot of the writing in the bible has parallels in reality and history. I can't see how you think that makes the bible any more relevant. If I write about president obama passing the health bill and pulling out of Afghanistan that doesn't allow me to write that he was also a 50 foot tall robot with rockets for his arms.

If you wish to trick people then you have to make it believable. I doubt that christians 2000 years ago would have been thick and poorly educated enough to listen to someone making up stories without any basis in reality. We have never ever ever ever seen anything happen that remotely comes close to a miracle since the bible times and yet for a time they were happening all the time. Very strange to me.

Not sure which religion this refers to but there is nothing associated with my beliefs as a Christian that would make me consider suicide.

I think you are missing the fact that these people who were martyrs claimed to be witnesses. They weren't basing this on conjecture.

I am not referring to a religion as such but you said that people wouldn't be prepared to die for a religion without proof and offered that as proof of proof.

I am saying that plenty of people join cults and there are cases of mass suicide where there has not been anything other than some nutter convincing them that they will go to heaven so I don't think you can use that as a case for the presence of evidence.


The parts of the bible that make it anything other than another work of fiction are the miracles performed. Strangely enough these are the very things that have absolutely no evidence for them. Someone claiming they saw something doesn't make it so. If he had travelled the world performing miracles and we found records in lots of places of him doing the same thing then I might be more inclined to give it a second thought.

What would have happened if Derren Brown was sent back to those times. He would blow their minds. We would be worshipping Derren Brown.

 

[AJK]

What would have happened if Derren Brown was sent back to those times. He would blow their minds. We would be worshipping Derren Brown.

What a horrible, horrible thought.

 

[ringo747]

I feel that the hypothesis of evolution is far more logical and verifiable (fossil records) than a hypothesis that everything was created by a floating magic fairy, based on a single book with no other evidence to back it up.

I forgot that the verification process is 100% guaranteed to be accurate and is void of human error. Maybe it is? I dunno.

So I take it you're not familiar with the concept of Siamese twins, cats with 2 faces, or any other random mutations?

I am actually. What is your point?

They would have had fully functioning gills at the same time, allowing them to breathe in the water as normal.

Conjecture or proven?

Correct. Which is why the process takes hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years.

So why didn't they all become extinct then? Are any of these fish that grew fur still around or did that part of evolution take a much shorter time than the others? Do we only have fish, monkeys and humans as the only remnant today - what about all the other stages of this long process. No doubt if the world is millions of years old we should be able to find 'creatures' from all stages of this process.

Understandable, it requires less thought

Combine that with a book which contains historical records of some of the events, with faith that God is who he claims to be, and also the fact that as Christians we have a personal spiritual relationship that we only are aware of then yes it makes sense.

And the historical evidence you've been harping on about to back that fact up?

Oh yeah:

Yes historical evidence claims he was a real man that actually existed. Many on here even deny there was such a man. The Bible is what claims that he was no ordinary man. You need the two together so don't misquote me.

 

[fez]

What a horrible, horrible thought.

I don't know, at least he would have come clean by now and told us that it was all a clever trick.

 

[realBabelfish]

So just to clarify that you believe this person to be correct in all that he says?



You see that just doesn't make sense to me. I mean 'randomly developed rudimentary lungs' - how can that be? How would life have been sustained during the time when these lungs were being formed? Surely they would have died had the conditions not been right.

Then randomly growing fur? I may be missing something but personally I think the probabilities of all those random events is just way too high.

Aside from the above my concern goes back further. If it was a soup to begin with then how can we explain the distinction between male and female for example. Were they all males to begin with, then they evolved into females? They they discovered that they could mate? Why only two sexes then?

I find it easier to accept that there was a higher power involved.



The Bible suggests the snake was said to have been very subtle and deceptive. Sin entered as a result and therefore tarnished all future generations.

The Bible doesn't claim that he was an actual normal man - it claims he was the son of God. There is a difference.

evolution can be seen working today. ther are species of lizards that have evolved in the last few years to give birth to young. evolution cant really be questioned as we can see it working.

stick loads of female frogs in a pond and 1 will evolve to be a male.

anyway, you seem to deny everything people say and prefer some blind faith. fair play but you wont sway any of us atheists we might as well stop now before we bang our heads too much.

 

[ringo747]

evolution can be seen working today. ther are species of lizards that have evolved in the last few years to give birth to young. evolution cant really be questioned as we can see it working.

stick loads of female frogs in a pond and 1 will evolve to be a male.

anyway, you seem to deny everything people say and prefer some blind faith. fair play but you wont sway any of us atheists we might as well stop now before we bang our heads too much.

I have no doubt that evolution occurs today. Don't recall stating otherwise.

Where did I deny what other people say? I asked some questions to stimulate thought. You deny my belief so sure that is the whole point of a discussion.

 

[Haggisman]

I'm talking about the manuscript finds. I have mentioned already about other historical accounts that mention the resurrection. The resurrection is the pillar of the Christian faith as it is proof that God is who he claimed to be. If that pillar is removed then there is no salvation and the man Jesus who died died for no reason.

Using historical manuscripts as evidence is as reliable as Wikipedia, anyone could/can write anything and who's to say what's true or made up if there is no actual evidence to prove it?

What is to say that resurrection isn't possible? To us as humans the concept is impossible but with the mention of a higher authority in the Bible then what is there to suggest that that shouldn't be considered?

To us as humans the concept of there being a ring of invisibility is impossible, but with the mention of a higher authority in the Lord of the Rings then what is there to suggest that that shouldn't be considered?

No it isn't. Does Harry Potter claim to be inspired? Is there supporting historical evidence of a person called Harry Potter? No.

Actually a quick search on the UK birth register shows supporting historical evidence to prove the existence of several persons named Harry Potter. Just because something claims to be inspired doesn't mean it is.

I am confused too - no idea what point you are trying to make. Are you trying to say that some people rely on religion to be nice? No idea.

That's precisely what I'm saying.

I forgot that the verification process is 100% guaranteed to be accurate and is void of human error. Maybe it is? I dunno.

You might want to look up the word "hypothesis"

I am actually. What is your point?

And yet strangely unable to grasp the fact that a random mutation could have at one point resulted in lungs developing.

Conjecture or proven?

Again, hypothesis.

So why didn't they all become extinct then? Are any of these fish that grew fur still around or did that part of evolution take a much shorter time than the others?

Rats, rabbits, cats, dogs, etc.

Do we only have fish, monkeys and humans as the only remnant today - what about all the other stages of this long process. No doubt if the world is millions of years old we should be able to find 'creatures' from all stages of this process.

Which we can, either still alive today, or evidenced in fossil records.

Combine that with a book which contains historical records of some of the events, with faith that God is who he claims to be, and also the fact that as Christians we have a personal spiritual relationship that we only are aware of then yes it makes sense.

You mean a book which claims to contain some historical records and attempts to appear more believable by interspersing those claims with actual historical events.

Yes historical evidence claims he was a real man that actually existed. Many on here even deny there was such a man. The Bible is what claims that he was no ordinary man. You need the two together so don't misquote me.

I'm not denying someone named Jesus existed, however basing all of your beliefs on a single book written thousands of years ago shows a shocking level of naivety.

 

[manic mushroom]

I dont want to live on this planet anymore

 

[Haggisman]

I dont want to live on this planet anymore

It's ok, I'm sure god has magiced up another one somewhere and can just teleport you across to it with his superhappyfuntime powers

 

[ringo747]

Using historical manuscripts as evidence is as reliable as Wikipedia, anyone could/can write anything and who's to say what's true or made up if there is no actual evidence to prove it?

I am talking here about historical evidence which supports various facts. What sort of evidence are you after? Is historical evidence not good enough for you? After all if the Bible isn't inspired then it just another historical writing for you to analyse.

To us as humans the concept of there being a ring of invisibility is impossible, but with the mention of a higher authority in the Lord of the Rings then what is there to suggest that that shouldn't be considered?

As far as I am aware Harry Potter is claimed to be fiction. If it makes claims that are backed up and supported by history from the period of time then by all means consider it. What you are missing is that the Bible is a collection of writings by multiple authors, from different periods of time and is a collection of history, poetry and even prophecy.

Actually a quick search on the UK birth register shows supporting historical evidence to prove the existence of several persons named Harry Potter. Just because something claims to be inspired doesn't mean it is.

I am sure there are people called Harry Potter. I didn't dispute this. Your statements are getting increasing irrelevant.

Your point about claiming to be inspired I agree with totally. If something claims to be inspired then investigate it. I have done so, I looked at other supporting evidence from the time of some of the writings. I believe that history backs up the biblical account of the resurrection.

And yet strangely unable to grasp the fact that a random mutation could have at one point resulted in lungs developing.

I can totally grasp that.

Rats, rabbits, cats, dogs, etc.

So are humans the end point of evolution then? What about my other points about male/female and why was it only two sexes? Evolution seems to mean everything changing so drastically. Why then would there not be hundreds of different sexes?

You mean a book which claims to contain some historical records and attempts to appear more believable by interspersing those claims with actual historical events.

Err, no. Many of the new testament accounts are eyewitness accounts by people who supposedly witnessed these events. I think you need to re-read my first posts.

I'm not denying someone named Jesus existed, however basing all of your beliefs on a single book written thousands of years ago shows a shocking level of naivety.

Yay! We finally get another person to have to resort to personal attacks although 'naive' isn't the worst I've been called. You are just showing your true colours again I'm afraid.

I'm not talking this thread over any more as it has gone way off topic. In response to the OP, have a chat with the guy and have a proper chat about it. Tell him you don't like what is going on. Ask him why he is acting in such a way.

 

[Haggisman]

Yay! We finally get another person to have to resort to personal attacks although 'naive' isn't the worst I've been called. You are just showing your true colours again I'm afraid.

I'm not sure how my statement constituted a personal attack, unless you were taking the "you" part as directed at you personally rather than as a general term.

Regardless, I give up, you're welcome to believe what you want to believe, but don't make the mistake of trying to claim they are anything other than that - if nothing else it shows that faith isn't actually enough, if people feel the need to fall back on claiming the existence of "evidence" which isn't actually there.

 

[Mat]

Is now a good time to mention Hitler?

 

[craarc]

Scary isn't it?

yup somewhat concerning that is ive seen a couple like that robots brainwashed all in the name of religion

 

[James J]

Anyone can follow any religion they want to, they can believe whatever they like, so long as they keep it to themselves. As soon as they try to assert their 'right' to have their religion impact upon my life, it becomes a problem, and it becomes my problem.

Thankfully, I haven't ever come across someone criticising the way I live my life, from a religious perspective... I have Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Mormon friends (and other religions that I'm sure I don't know about), and we get along great. I remember the first time I met one of my Muslim friends at a party, and most of us were enjoying a bottle of red wine (we live in Bordeaux ), but he was enjoying some green tea. He didn't look at us any differently, or become disgusted, we just proceeded to have a great time. How could one have a problem with someone adhering to their religious beliefs, if it absolutely does not give them cause to assert them on me?

If, however, someone began to criticise my family, or friends because we don't live our life according to some bronze age teachings, then my conduct, and my feelings towards the religious beliefs of said person, change drastically.

I think most people will take this view, especially the last paragraph. I also have no issue with any religion until it is pushed in my face and makes out that my life choices and who I am is wrong according to their belief system. I know for a fact that some religions do need their members to do this as part of being in that church or religion, yet thankfully I've never really had much of a problem with it yet. My family has no religion at all, yet my girlfriends family is old fashioned roman catholic. Her parents aren't though thankfully so have quite relaxed views to who their daughter goes out with. I still firmly believe that religion creates more problems than it solves and many of the views and opinions of the ordained are naive and delusional in a modern world.

 

[wildman]

Get him a hooker.

or an altar boy ?

 

[shoes]

babies are sinners as they're selfish......

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

What a stupid ****!