WTF is this forum coming to? Awesome discussions on life, the universe & everything!

[Nexxo]

Nope, but neither did it give carte blanche to be a self-righteous, judgmental dick who gets to dictate to other people how they should live their lives. I guess that bit appeals to me too.

[SuicideNeil]

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

The fact that God inspired the writing of his word means that human error was wholly eradicated; the human component in the writing of scripture is not fallibility, otherwise we cannot hold to the infallibility of scripture and the Christian idea of objective truth falls down.

Explain why there are different gospels which have contradictory stories in them then.

Go on, I dare you.

[KayinBlack]

I spend a morning designing a radless system for Knight's Rest and I come back to this. Yay.

All right. There are multiple things to address here. So first off, screw the metoprolol, I'm having a Dr. Pepper. Caffeine is good. Or at least it used to be.

Let's step back to the reply that was eaten last night. Why should a woman marry her rapist? That's punishing her, right? We'll see who gets it worse here. In a tribal society like early Judaism, a woman that was not a virgin was unmarriageable. She became a draw on her parents' home, and was a social outcast. So rape was about a lot more than just sex then. It was in truth a bigger deal than it is now. Not that rape was ever a small issue.

So a man decided to rape a woman. This man is then found guilty by the community around him. He's committed multiple crimes in one-he's raped, of course, ruined the woman's prospects of marriage, denied her father the bride-price and cost her father's household to put her up perpetually. There's also the incredible social stigma for being an unwed woman, and a "ruined" one at that. So by forcing the man to marry her (notice what I did there?) you solve many of these problems at once. I should note up front that the woman is judged innocent and wronged at all times in this. This isn't an issue about it's her fault. If someone tells you it is, kick them. They're stupid. Stupid should hurt.

The man in question here would be vilified for his entire life. His only option to redeem himself would be to marry her, pay an extortionate bride-price to her father (I mean, he sets it, and you KNOW he'll punish the guy with it-whole sum of earthly possessions has been recorded) and hope the assembly doesn't kick his ass every day for the rest of his life. The entire group would also work together to make sure that he treated her right-if he raped her in the first place, it's generally asumed that he had some sort of interest in her, though there is the concept of rape as a power play, though this addresses both issues in one. At no point is the man allowed to mistreat her over this issue. Social justice here. The community took care of its own. While many people would cry foul today, back then it seemed to work rather well. So well in fact it was a way to steal a bride for yourself.

Now, on to the concepts of the Bible as the Word of God and such-I may as well explain the concept of textual criticism. We don't just cross our fingers and hope either translation or repeating things will be OK. There are multiple forms of literary criticism at play in order to make sure that we're not repeating an error, as well as to determine what goes in and what doesn't.

Let me give you guys a number here. One half of one percent. That's the amount of text that is currently either contested or we have a suspicion about its proper translation. In that amount, no actual doctrine of the church hinges on it, and a fair bit of that is weights and measures. This is also a number agreed upon by all denominations that use the Bible as their primary source of doctrine, its OT transcription/translation agrees with the Jewish sources, and the only people who I have seen set up an argument against any of it tend to be people who have an ax to grind and shaky footing.

Now that we have that number firmly in mind, let's look at how we got there. How did we arrive at the 66 books of the Bible? Well, councils were convened in the early church to deal with this issue, because there were some twenty-off gospels widely distributed, with a large number of various local texts. The majority of these texts, however, failed one or both of two criticisms. The first is historical criticism-if it doesn't match the written eyewitness accounts (of which we have copies of still today, though now mostly fragmentary) then it probably didn't happen. This is an easy criticism. It's the same thing, by the way, that's used to keep oral traditions in line. The Torah, for its many thousands of years of existence, is in a form almost identical to the oldest copies we have found. Because when a boy learns it, and recites it, if he gets something wrong, the entire community says "no, that's not right, it's this" and the line stays undiluted. It's worked in largely oral cultures the world over since time immemorial.

Speaking of, there's chronological criticism. We know the narrow bands of years that X even occurred within. If it falls outside of that gap, it's more likely to have been corrupted by mythologizing. Now, if the text fits historical criticism and chronological critisism, then there's form and textual criticism. Does it fit the known writing styles (for OT, Hebrew lyric and acrostic poetry largely, for NT, Koine Greek/Aramaic depending on writer/audience, with proper vowel pointing for the period within Aramaic and the proper archaisms for Greek) and does the actual subject matter of the text fit? Is it inline with both the prophecies of Isaiah and the accepted eyewitness accounts of the Gospel? If not, such as the Gospel of Thomas where Jesus brings mud birds to life and kills rabbis that disagree with him with a word, then it is rejected.

When translating, we apply all of these as well, and add another-contextual criticism. If these mean the same thing, but the context around it alters the meaning, then we pick the interpretation that agrees with the original contextual meaning. Example:If we have a sentence that reads "let's eat grandma" and we have no surviving punctuation, then we read around it to make sure we put it in the right place. So if we're talking about being at grandma's house, then it would be properly rendered as "let's eat, grandma." If you and grandma are buried in a snowbank, and poor grandma has expired, then the original, non-punctuated sentence is most likely correct.

Attacking an argument by attacking its worst defenders remains to be a low blow and a poor debate practice. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that pedophilia is OK, that contraception is wrong or that mistreating others is ever OK. In fact, the parts on slavery are more like "since we can't get you to not keep slaves, at least treat them like proper human beings." For things like Leviticus, we record them as history, a "this is how it was before," and should not be using them as a guideline for today. When they were given out to begin with, it was stated that it would not always be like that. Continually harping on Leviticus (Judaism) for a reason why a person should have a problem with Christianity is a misdirection.

[SuicideNeil]

Originally Posted by Shichibukai

Proves my point again, "You don't like it" If you looked into Christianity further you'd see why God instituted that law.

Because he's a ****.

How about I rape your sister and then force them to marry me, then continue to abuse them- are you just going to sit back and allow that? Ofcourse not.

Red herrings.

your opinion.

In this society it's not realistic because of a large amount of different factors, but just because it's hard doesn't excuse you. If so then any act of sin can be excused and lastly you're attacking a denomination of the Church again instead of what you found in the Bible.

Bible & church should be mutually inclusive; what is the church without the bible ( paedo & old person club I guess ). Feeling bad about committing a 'sin' ( everything is a sin, including having sex in the wrong position- remember what has been said about how much the church sticks it's nose into peoples personal lives ) is why people say sorry & make ammends- there are few excuses for being a jerk to other people, but it does not require a little old man in a booth to free you of that sin- it's a nonsense.

Once again can you show me this in the Bible? I know what you're referring to and I know from reading the Bible why some parts of the Church have these "rules". I don't agree with them either because they're not supported by the Bible, but your main gripe with this is "I don't like it" once again.

What right-minded person would like being what to do, what to say & how to think & feel all the time... oh, yeah... well anyway. Point is though, people are capable of thinking for themselves and making their own decisions- especially when it comes to their sex lives ( what is it with the church & people's bedroom antics? ). We make want to make our own mistakes; if we aren't prepared for the consequences, then we will learn eventually to stop making them.

We already live in a world where people can't live their lives as they want to...that's why we have laws and prisons.

Weak- you have got to try harder than that. Breaking the law and harming others is never a good thing in any society, that has nothing to do with having sex with someone who we aren't married to, or doing it in an interesting position or using protection to prevent unwanted consequences. Seeing as sperm only live for a few days anyway I see nothing wrong or immoral with such acts, or yoghurt dispensing...

Have you read the entire Bible or substantial parts of it? Then inquired of someone who's studied it about these books of "pure self-contradictory fiction".

It is well documented that different gospels have contradictory statements in them. I had to study the bible at school for 12 years so I know just ho much nonsense there is in that glorified instruction manual.

I find it hilarious Atheists think Christians accept the Bible blind to any supposed contradictions, all of the ones you guys see that have been regurgitated over the years, I've come up against too and lots more and I can say the Bible does not contradict itself despite how many times it may seem so at first. (Don't bother with one of your link bombs on this stay on the topic.) Not saying I can answer everthing that seems to be contradictory, I base this assertion on track record.

link bomb? Oh, you mean evidence & intelligently written articles to prove or backup my claims& point of view. Can't be assed this time- sounds more like you don't like it methinks...

I agree with you on hypocrites, but to the man that says the Church is full of hypocrites I have to reply, " We could use one more "

No thanks- I prefer to think for myself.

Neil overall you've just repeated the same mistake made in your first post by attacking a denomination of the church and not showing quotes from the Bible itself relation to the initial topic...

Meh, church, bible, it's all hogwash dressed up as moral guidance- it's just far too invasive and unrealistic to be believed- regardless of denomination. Faith should be a personal thing that comes from within- it should not be taught & there need not be a manual or hand book for it.

I'll take my chances worshipping the sun & praying to Joe Pesci...

[KayinBlack]

Originally Posted by SuicideNeil

Explain why there are different gospels which have contradictory stories in them then.

Go on, I dare you.

OK.

We have the three synoptic gospels (synoptic translates to "with an eye," or these appear alike.
These were written by three people of similar background (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and so while the worldview is similar, there are differences of emphasis (such as Luke, being a doctor by trade, writing of the blood and fluid that flowed form the side of Christ after he was stabbed with the centurion's spear-an element that would have only been noticed by a physician.) The differences in those were more like asking three people who saw an event firsthand what happened-they will tell largely the same story, but individual prejudices and understandings will flavor the accounts.

John is the odd man out. John was also closer to Jesus than the other disciples, being referred to as "the disciple Jesus loved." Within it is a realized eschatology that presents Jesus as discussing His divinity, as well as the statement that salvation is real and accessible. This is most often explained by the accounts in the other gospels of his private conversations with Peter and John-Jesus, being human, had some friends who were better than others. Also, in this work, John decides that other signs are more important than the other Gospel writers do-If two people talk about the same event, but one has information about it the other doesn't, then their emphasis will be p[laced on different things, emphasizing their different knowledge. This is a well known occurrence from taking eyewitness accounts of events from lay people and experts in the field.

The synoptic gospels are newer than John, as well, but none are known to have been written after 100 AD. There are extant fragments of Mark especially that date to within a few years of the Crucifixion itself. While the dates are still contested, these are the generally accepted historical framings. We have a copy of John from 125 AD, though it is referenced in other works before that so we know that it existed well before 125. With the assumptive that John was put to paper in 100 AD, and Christ was crucified circa 33AD, that leaves 67 years, or within the lifespans of some people to say "I was there and that's not how it happened."

[Shichibukai]

Originally Posted by Nexxo

Oh, hai!

That post has gotten larger since I last read it. I haven't replied to that since it's clear we won't ever agree on the subject. If you'd like me to bring it up again sure...just reading the extra bit added in...

As for evolution I haven't replied because I just didn't want to bother after like a week away from the thread, I'd be happy to bring that up too.

I fail to see how my moral beliefs which I also look at from a scientific perspective, are equal to a hardline science only stance that is ignorant of the vast majority of the teachings on Chritianity because you keep stoping at the book's cover. It dismisses the personal claims of others because they doesn't agree with mainstream science which even isn't that accurate at its best.

[Shichibukai]

Originally Posted by SuicideNeil

Bible & church should be mutually inclusive; what is the church without the bible ( paedo & old person club I guess ). Feeling bad about committing a 'sin' ( everything is a sin, including having sex in the wrong position- remember what has been said about how much the church sticks it's nose into peoples personal lives ) is why people say sorry & make ammends- there are few excuses for being a jerk to other people, but it does not require a little old man in a booth to free you of that sin- it's a nonsense.

They should be but they aren't...same mistake third post.

Originally Posted by SuicideNeil

What right-minded person would like being what to do, what to say & how to think & feel all the time... oh, yeah... well anyway. Point is though, people are capable of thinking for themselves and making their own decisions- especially when it comes to their sex lives ( what is it with the church & people's bedroom antics? ). We make want to make our own mistakes; if we aren't prepared for the consequences, then we will learn eventually to stop making them.

Did you even read what you're replying to?

Originally Posted by SuicideNeil

Weak- you have got to try harder than that. Breaking the law and harming others is never a good thing in any society, that has nothing to do with having sex with someone who we aren't married to, or doing it in an interesting position or using protection to prevent unwanted consequences. Seeing as sperm only live for a few days anyway I see nothing wrong or immoral with such acts, or yoghurt dispensing...

The actions being right or wrong were not my point...my point is we already live in a world where people can't live how they'd like to...

Originally Posted by SuicideNeil

It is well documented that different gospels have contradictory statements in them. I had to study the bible at school for 12 years so I know just ho much nonsense there is in that glorified instruction manual.

Ah finally we see the root of your gripes...

Had already replied to the rest of your post then cut it out because you're just dancing away from the topic further. You still haven't answered my first question and since you've studied the Bible for TWELVE (12) years you should have no problem answering the first question and using it to back up your points.

[Nexxo]

Originally Posted by Shichibukai

That post has gotten larger since I last read it. I haven't replied to that since it's clear we won't ever agree on the subject. If you'd like me to bring it up again sure...just reading the extra bit added in...

As for evolution I haven't replied because I just didn't want to bother after like a week away from the thread, I'd be happy to bring that up too.

I fail to see how my moral beliefs which I also look at from a scientific perspective, are equal to a hardline science only stance that is ignorant of the vast majority of the teachings on Chritianity because you keep stoping at the book's cover. It dismisses the personal claims of others because they doesn't agree with mainstream science which even isn't that accurate at its best.

Yeah, sorry about the miracle gro post, but it's difficult writing long posts with links from an iPhone. Had to revisit when I was at a computer.

You asked me to demonstrate how you interpret evidence to fit your a priori beliefs, rather than basing your beliefs on the evidence. I think that post does.

But since you mention it, you do not look at your moral beliefs from a scientific perspective. I do, and I have to tell you, they are not supported by the scientific facts. That post illustrates that also. Of course you are free to believe what you want. Just don't appeal to science, because then you are doing both faith and science wrong.

[Shichibukai]

So to summarise, because I've looked at the evidence and still don't believe like you do I must be biased and not willing to accept the truth, is that right?

Originally Posted by Nexxo

When we read the actual study, guess what we learn? The study involved 192 subjects (comprised of 4 roughly equivalent groups of homosexual and heterosexual men and women) who were shown photographs of either male or female faces between the ages of 18 and 60

From the same study a few pages down...

The Kinsey Scale (Kinsey et al., 1953) was used to assess sexual orientation.
The stimulus set consisted of 30 facial pictures, 15 pictures of female faces, and
15 pictures of male faces. The faces of each sex category were constructed with
3 pictures from 5 apparent age groups; 15 years, 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, and
50 years of age. The stimulus set therefore consisted of 15 male faces (3 from each
of the 5 age categories) and 15 female faces (3 from each of the 5 age categories).

...

[SuicideNeil]

Originally Posted by Shichibukai

They should be but they aren't...same mistake third post.

What's the point then? Why have religion if it has little to nothing with Gods/Jesusususssus teachings?

Did you even read what you're replying to?

Yes, did you?

The actions being right or wrong were not my point...my point is we already live in a world where people can't live how they'd like to...

It's a weak point then, as I said- all people should have the freedom to do as they please so long as it does not bring 'harm' to others; sex in kinky positions =/= harm.

Ah finally we see the root of your gripes...

Had already replied to the rest of your post then cut it out because you're just dancing away from the topic further. You still haven't answered my first question and since you've studied the Bible for TWELVE (12) years you should have no problem answering the first question and using it to back up your points.

Hardly; there were many lolz had finding innuendo in bible passages- I think most of us were just intelligent enough to realise that a 2000 year old story book was not a very convincing foundation upon which to base the rest of our lives. Do not want.

I really have zero interest in trawling through the new testament just to quote a few verses; it is painfully clear what the bible expects of people in the way they should live their lives, and it is painfully clear that many of those teachings are at odds with modern society.

I ask again though, what is the point of the bible if the modern church is just seemingly making it up as they go along regards what is acceptable or not.

I think you'll find also that the original point of the this religious debate was proving or disproving the existence of god via the notion that morality is separate from life ( which ofcourse is nonsense since morality is just a word given to a set of feelings, which comes from people being generally altruistic in nature/society and being upset at the sight or sound of another being harmed yada yada yada ).

The bible is just a book/collection of books- irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Shichibukai

So to summarise, because I've looked at the evidence and still don't believe like you do I must be biased and not willing to accept the truth, is that right?

From the same study a few pages down...

...

15-50 vs 18-60; big deal. Considering 12 year olds have kids & 80 year old blokes can knock up their 50-60 year old wives, your attempt to discredit the source of the info is laughable at best- it makes not difference to the findings.

[Shichibukai]

Originally Posted by SuicideNeil

What's the point then? Why have religion if it has little to nothing with Gods/Jesusususssus teachings?

We're talking about the Bible not religion, the topic is here...you're somewhere on cloud 9.

[quote]It's a weak point then, as I said- all people should have the freedom to do as they please so long as it does not bring 'harm' to others; sex in kinky positions =/= harm.[\QUOTE]

Sir you've studied the Bible for twelve years, I haven't please show me where the Bible retricts sexual positions.

[quote]Hardly; there were many lolz had finding innuendo in bible passages- I think most of us were just intelligent enough to realise that a 2000 year old story book was not a very convincing foundation upon which to base the rest of our lives. Do not want.[\QUOTE]

So you were actively seeking out flaws, instead of really studying in an attempt to comprehend...

[quote]I really have zero interest in trawling through the new testament just to quote a few verses; it is painfully clear what the bible expects of people in the way they should live their lives, and it is painfully clear that many of those teachings are at odds with modern society.[\QUOTE]

If it is ooooohh sooo painfully clear, why is it so painful for me to get you to answer my simple question?

Originally Posted by SuicideNeil

I ask again though, what is the point of the bible if the modern church is just seemingly making it up as they go along regards what is acceptable or not.

I ask again would you please please please answer my original question.

Originally Posted by SuicideNeil

15-50 vs 18-60; big deal. Considering 12 year olds have kids & 80 year old blokes can knock up their 50-60 year old wives, your attempt to discredit the source of the info is laughable at best- it makes not difference to the findings.

[SuicideNeil]

Originally Posted by Shichibukai

We're talking about the Bible not religion, the topic is here...you're somewhere on cloud 9.

no one cares about the bible in this discussion, only you.

Sir you've studied the Bible for twelve years, I haven't please show me where the Bible retricts sexual positions.

see above

So you were actively seeking out flaws, instead of really studying in an attempt to comprehend...

My comprehension was & is still fine; you'd have to a highly irrational and illogical person to swallow the whole zombie-jesus side of things. Like I've said numerous times before, I can think for myself- I don't need the bible to act as my moral compass & quoting the bible to back up a point is sheer lolz in itself- you might as well quote any work of fiction as it is just as deep & meaningful, and just as fictional.

If it is ooooohh sooo painfully clear, why is it so painful for me to get you to answer my simple question?

I seem to recall your question requiring me to quote something from the bible? I forget what exactly as it don't deem it worthy of my time.

Glad you agree.

[Porkins' Wingman]

Been away a few days. Somewhere around the end of p.59 we've gotten onto the Bible. Fair enough, but I'm not sure why we're bothering now. Clearly there are those convinced it is God's word, but it almost seems irrelevant. What is going to make the increasing number of sceptics give two hoots?

Basing an argument on the content of a book that does nothing but gather dust seems pretty fruitless. What's going to make the sceptics pick up the book and take notice? Fear of God? The Bible is increasingly becoming a relic. While there may not be many people who will consciously acknowledge and publicly express a belief in the purposeless of life, it seems apparent that there is at least a subconscious understanding of it in an increasing number of people.

Globalisation brings the cultural similarities and differences of the past from across the world to our attention and has already exposed religions for what they are. Uninterrupted this process will likely continue such that various religions will get so hybridized and watered down that they'll only be one (if that) religion worth talking about, that will comprise of a formula taking the various aspects of certain religions that have proved most successful at controlling populations en masse. God doesn't seem to have an answer to the influence of economics.

Originally Posted by Shichibukai

If it is ooooohh sooo painfully clear, why is it so painful for me to get you to answer my simple question?

I ask again would you please please please answer my original question.

Do us a favour - please paste in your original question when making such requests as I imagine many of us are struggling to place our fingers on what it was

[Shichibukai]

Originally Posted by SuicideNeil

no one cares about the bible in this discussion, only you.

Well ain't I special?

Originally Posted by SuicideNeil

My comprehension was & is still fine; you'd have to a highly irrational and illogical person to swallow the whole zombie-jesus side of things. Like I've said numerous times before, I can think for myself- I don't need the bible to act as my moral compass & quoting the bible to back up a point is sheer lolz in itself- you might as well quote any work of fiction as it is just as deep & meaningful, and just as fictional.

>Comprehension fine
>Zombie Jesus

Tell me Neil what's your real problem with Christianity? All you've shown is that you're angry at it in general for some reason beyond your wall of it all being illogical and defunct, hence all the emotions that seem to come out in your posts...

Originally Posted by Porkins' Wingman

Do us a favour - please paste in your original question when making such requests as I imagine many of us are struggling to place our fingers on what it was

Here here

[Nexxo]

Originally Posted by Shichibukai

So to summarise, because I've looked at the evidence and still don't believe like you do I must be biased and not willing to accept the truth, is that right?

No, you must be biased because you selectively look for evidence only from sources that you know share your a priori beliefs about homosexuality, and disregard evidence from scientifically reputable sources that have no a priori beliefs on them. So you appear certainly not willing to accept scientific evidence from unbiased sources.

I managed to track down the author of the article you linked to, Dr. Timothy J. Daley:

Dr. Dailey received his Bachelors degree in Bible and Theology from Moody Bible Institute, his M.A. in Theological Studies at Wheaton College, and his Ph.D. in Religion from Marquette University. In addition, Dr. Dailey has completed graduate study at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Jerusalem University College, Jerusalem; and Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

Not a psychologist, not a psychiatrist, not a counsellor, therapist, epidemiologist or an expert in child abuse or development, gender or sexual issues of any kind. See what I'm saying here? Why does that matter? Because you need to know epidemiological research methodology not to get your conditional probabilities mixed up and confound your variables. Dr. Dailey says for instance:

Many pedophiles, in fact, consider themselves to be homosexual. A study of 229 convicted child molesters in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.

But hang on; he is talking about offenders against males, which is only a sub-group of all paedophiles. So how many of the 229 interviewed child molesters were offenders against male children? Checking out Erickson's (1988) paper, it is 54, or 24%. So how many of all the 229 offenders considered themselves homosexual? 21%. Not quite as "many", then. Interestingly the researchers observe that some of these self-described homosexual offenders were married, but unfortunately don't state how many. Furthermore, the researchers failed to examine whether these men had adult homosexual relations at any time in their lives. So, to raise your own question again: how do we know how many of these guys were really gay?

As someone once put it crudely, but clearly: "If you find someone screwing goats, you do not check whether the goats are male or female to work out whether the guy is straight or gay".

But that's OK; Dailey is free to believe what he wants, and so are you. Just don't claim to base it on scientific opinion, because scientific opinion certainly does not support your claims.

Originally Posted by Shichibukai

From the same study a few pages down...

And just below that:

However, because the categorization of the faces was based upon one researchers’ opinion (Z.A.S.), a further examination of the apparent ages of the stimuli was conducted. Three heterosexual women and three heterosexual men, of average age 39 and 38 years, respectively, independently estimated the age of each face without knowledge of its prior categorization. The average interrater agreement was .93. The average age estimates of the five male face age categories were 18, 23, 32, 44, and 58 years; the average age estimates of the five female face age categories were 19, 25, 28, 42, and 60 years. These average ages were employed in all subsequent analyses.

I know: details, details. But keep in mind that your source also misrepresented the results of this study.

I'll admit I haven't studied the Bible in great detail; Kayinblack is the expert on that (and incidentally, he is also a fully trained and qualified counsellor). But dude, how well can you read scientific research? It is just as difficult a subject, you know? Why so you think science students have to write so many literature reviews? It's not just to show they have read the literature, but that they can critically evaluate the research. It's not just regurgitating what has been read. It's why they have to do research: to understand the process, the biases, the methodology, the statistics and how all that affects the results and the interpretation of them.

[LennyRhys]

Originally Posted by Nexxo

I understand that you take it to be the word of God on faith, but my point is that you do this on the basis of what is written in that scripture.

And on the basis that scripture has a real, tangible link to history. The books which claim divine inspiration for all of scripture were written by Paul, the murderous persecutor of the church who had the most dramatic conversion recorded in the Bible and became the most influential Christian writer in history.

Originally Posted by shirty

Lucky you were born into a Christian environment then! You must feel a deep sense of sorrow for those to whom the truth can and will never be revealed.

First, me being born into a Christian environment is impertinent - many of the people who attend my church are from atheist backgrounds and come from all over the world; they weren't born into a Christian upbringing and became Christians later in life. I'm not a Christian because of my upbringing; I'm a Christian because I made that personal commitment myself. People who claim they are Christians because of their upbringing or because they live in a particular place are nominally so, not sincerely.

Second, why can (or will) the truth never be revealed to people of other faiths? I don't hold that, and in fact my experience contradicts that position.

[Shirty]

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

First, me being born into a Christian environment is impertinent - many of the people who attend my church are from atheist backgrounds and come from all over the world; they weren't born into a Christian upbringing and became Christians later in life. I'm not a Christian because of my upbringing; I'm a Christian because I made that personal commitment myself. People who claim they are Christians because of their upbringing or because they live in a particular place are nominally so, not sincerely.

Second, why can (or will) the truth never be revealed to people of other faiths? I don't hold that, and in fact my experience contradicts that position.

It's not impertinent at all. Whilst I don't disagree that everyone could potentially convert to Christianity, geography undeniably has a huge amount to do with religion. My argument is that had you been born into a Sikh environment, you would probably be a Sikh, not a Christian. Indeed, there are many millions of people on earth without any sort of access to the information that would even give them the option to convert to Christianity.

My argument is that without some kind of environmental/education exposure you would never have had what you refer to as the truth revealed to you. It's as simple as that. You had the choice as to whether to have faith, but many never had this luxury.

Atheism (or a lack of faith) is independent of geography, and I'm sure is far more prevalent than the statistics would indicate. Very few Muslims in the world would admit to atheism for fear of ostracisation or worse. FAR worse in some places.

[SuicideNeil]

Originally Posted by Shichibukai

Well ain't I special?

I would say so...

Tell me Neil what's your real problem with Christianity? All you've shown is that you're angry at it in general for some reason beyond your wall of it all being illogical and defunct, hence all the emotions that seem to come out in your posts...

I'm sure I've made my views perfectly clear many times- sorry if you weren't paying attention, I'll repeat them one more time, just for you:

Christianity is nothing but a scaremongering society; you spread nonsense about all the bad things that will happen to people if they don't do exactly as the church wants ( same with most religions- common theme.. ). Since many people are rather superstitious and frightened of what will happen to them when they die ( perfectly natural ), they decide to join a cult and practice its ways, in the hope not that they will just cease living, but in the hope that all those horrible things that the church & bible talks about wont happen to them. Control through oppression, intimidation & scaremongering, plain and simple. I dislike such methods of social control- stupid laws we have to put up with, hypocrites lecturing gullible old ladies, we don't.

Here here

Neil, since you seem quite confident about what you have to say there, can you please explain to the christians of the world:

1.) What the Bible teaches on sexual relations and marriage.
2.) How this leads to an increase of sexual diseases and overpopulation.

1. Why don;t you tell us, if it matters so much.
2. Already explained. I also explained that you cannot have the bible as mutually exclusive to christianity, otherwise christianity has zero basis upon which to found it's teachings- you can't have it both ways. If the church says no kinky sex & no condoms, but the bible explicitly does not, then you are contradicting your own spiel.

On a basic level though, no condoms = sexual transmission of diseases ( even with your only sexual partner- the causes are many fold ) + babies. Condoms = no STDs + 99.9% no babies.

At the end of the day, faith should be personal, it should not be organised and should not have ridiculous rules- that is when it stops being a matter of spirituality and becomes just another cult, lead by some over-zealous bigot.

[Da_Rude_Baboon]

I have been on holiday for two weeks and have spent the last two days catching up on the thread. Excellent work everyone, it's been a great read. I know it's slightly OT now but I did watch this excellent TED talk on Morality in animals.

Empathy, cooperation, fairness and reciprocity -- caring about the well-being of others seems like a very human trait. But Frans de Waal shares some surprising videos of behavioral tests, on primates and other mammals, that show how many of these moral traits all of us share.

Lenny while I was away in Rome I read Neil Olivers excellent History of Scotland and found the role of religion and especially the effect the reformation had on our country very interesting. As a matter of personal interest why have you chosen to be a protestant over being a catholic or any other christian sect?

[Nexxo]

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

And on the basis that scripture has a real, tangible link to history. The books which claim divine inspiration for all of scripture were written by Paul, the murderous persecutor of the church who had the most dramatic conversion recorded in the Bible and became the most influential Christian writer in history.

Historical links in themselves are no proof of divine inspiration. And Paul's conversion is no surprise to a psychologist. People at one extreme tend to flip over to another extreme, not the middle ground, because their thinking tends to be in terms of extremes. That doesn't invalidate that he had a genuine experience of enlightenment, but again you don't need divine inspiration for that. Although I agree that his example can be inspiring in itself.

Just to clarify: no disrespect or challenge meant to your beliefs; I'm just explaining how I think about it.