What's your Religion?

BABYLON
13:20 "It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation" ---- Its inhabited right now. It has been for a long time. This is clearly wrong. It did predict Babylon would fall, but the bible also predicted a lot of cities would be destroyed and they werent-- in fact, it DID say Damascus will be completely destroyed and no longer be inhabited. Yet Damascus has never been completely destroyed and is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities. 17:1
. And you dont seem to understand this or care.



I can find any meaning I want in this book. I can show you a passage in the bible that says Jesus ascended on the same day as his "resurrection", eight days after, many days after, or 40 days after. Which is the truth of this infallible book? You ought to actually read it.

How do you answer that? That time travel is possible or that I'm wrong?
Come on man, I can do this all day.



The river of Egypt (identified as the Nile in RSV) shall dry up. This has never occurred. 19:5

This verse predicts that there shall be five cities in Egypt that speak the Canaanite language. But that language was never spoken in Egypt, and it is extinct now. 19:18



13:22 and dragons in their pleasant palaces
----You follow this book that speaks of dragons?

1. Was Abraham justified by faith or by works?
2. How many sons did Abraham have?
3. Was Abiathar the father or the son of Ahimelech?

Is it wrong to have sex outside of marriage? Yes. No. Exodus 20:14, Deuteronomy 5:18 Thou shalt not commit adultery. Hebrews 13:4 Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Hosea 1:2 And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms.... Hosea 3:1 Then said the Lord unto me, God yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress.

From what were the animals created? Water Ground Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air

When did Jesus ascend into heaven? On the day of his resurrection. Luke 24:1-51 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
...
And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. ...
And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus....
...
And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together....
...
And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
...
And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. Mark 16:9-19 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
...
After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
...
Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
...
So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. At least eight days after his resurrection. John 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Many days after his resurrection. Acts 13:31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. Forty days after his resurrection. Acts 1:2-3, 9 Until the day in which he was taken up ... he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
...
And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

 

^^^I was not allowed at work to access the site you got a lot of that info from due to it being deemed "racism and hate" category by my companies server. hope I don't get fired
are you just copying and pasting from this site>> www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/ascend.html or are you studying all the info you are taking out of context?

 

Never seen the "Skeptics Bible"...interesting! Dasmascus has not YET been destroyed, then again prophesy is still ongoing, thus the possibility still remains that it will happen, as no time line was given in the verse you provided...I'll check out others as I have time, thanks for sharing...

 

yep, take out what you don't want, and twist around what's left to fit what you want. I can do that with any book.

 

Jesus ascended to heaven forty days after his resurection. The verses in Mark 16 cited are omitted from many manuscripts as questionable whether they were in the original texts. The fact that Jesus was resurrected on the third day after his death does not mean that he was resurrected to heaven immediately. The scriptural record was that he appeared to his disciples up until his ascension recorded in Acts - 40 days after his resurrection.

As to the verse in Luke 24:51 referring to Jesus being borne up to heaven. Some manuscripts omit this. Even if it is a part of the original text, this is arguing semantics. There is a break in thought at vs. 50 which can denote a lapse of time. It is possible that the writer is simply indicating that the event of Jesus' ascension happened at a later time. This is further backed up by the fact that the writer of the book of Acts is none other than Luke himself, the writer of the passage in question. This Luke 24:51 is thus at worst a spurious verse added by an overzealous scribe (the Bible is inspired of God, however, the people who translate/record it are not perfect though), or a general statement of Jesus ascension which was later given a more detailed treatment in the book of Acts. When you consider that the book of Luke was written sometime between 56-58 C.E. and that Acts was completed around 61C.E. (three to five years later), either explanation is plausible and reasonable.

 

I just realized that my reply in regards to Abraham was incomplete and insufficient.

Context plays a role in these instances. Abraham indeed did have a son, Ishmael, by his wife's maidservant, Hagar. At the time of the events recorded in Genesis 22:2, Abraham had sent Hagar and Ishmael away (See Genesis chapter 21). Disowning would be too strong a word, but in a sense that is what happened. Therefore at the time of Genesis 22:2, Isaac was his only son.

Genesis 25 (events recorded after Genesis 22) shows correctly that Abraham later had more children. To illustrate this, I have two children today. Seventeen years ago I had none. If I had written a letter immediately after my first child arrived, and referred to them as my only child and then years later wrote a letter about my two children, would that later letter make my first letter a lie? No, because at the time it was written, it was true, I only had one child.

The same is true of Galatians 4:22. The time frame that the verse is referring to is the time period prior to Abraham having more children. For instance, today there are 50 states in the USA. If an historian were writing about a prior period of time (say before Alaska and Hawaii became states) would he be wrong to refer to the "48 states"? No, because for the time period he is writing about, that statement would be accurate.

The questions was asked 'Have you actually read it?'. This is a pertinent question, because so often, actually reading what is in the Bible and thinking about it reveals that seeming "contradictions" are made clearer if the context of the verses, the historical time period and viewpoint of the author are taken into consideration. For instance, Jesus once used an illustration about not taking the straw out of another's eye until you first removed the rafter from your own eye. Is that to be taken as literal medical advice or as an illustration about not being judgmental of others when you very well may be worse than the person you are criticizing? Context of those verses make it obvious what the meaning is.

Cheers; and thanks for reading!

 

Einstein "predicted" the gravitational lens, but nobody considers him a prophet.

From which of these scenarios can we find evidence or data that anyone could verify even if they didnt know what outcome they are looking for? We can go one of 2 ways, and I feel there is a clear and obvious path.

The first one is a story that people simply "believe" and tho we have historical documents written by people, and stories written by people, and people made things up, Job did not "live for another 140 years." Obviously there's no reason to consider this evidence. Its heresay at best.

The obvious choice is the actual universe, and it still exists and anyone can look up and see it, study it, AND they can safely say that their own body is made of things that do not come from anywhere but collisions or explosions of stars. You can then do some work that will allow you to verify these claims. You can use your observations of the world around you to uncover the next mystery. Here's how-

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis (think and use logic and formulas etc)
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data (make sure it's as good as possible)
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results for others
8. Retest (anyone anytime anywhere should get the same results)

Then measure the uncertainty. This can usually be quantified pretty easily. The census is a scientific poll with a margin for error because some people will not be counted, and a slight error will be constant and the variable error will occur when certain groups of people do not want to be counted, etc...

From Wiki:
Normally hypotheses have the form of a mathematical model. Sometimes, but not always, they can also be formulated as existential statements, stating that some particular instance of the phenomenon being studied has some characteristic and causal explanations, which have the general form of universal statements, stating that every instance of the phenomenon has a particular characteristic.

Einstein "predicted" the gravitational lens, but nobody considers him a prophet.
Science. Math. Logic. Reason. Creativity.
Not mystery and boogie men.

Its so simple to apply this to the major tenets of religion. Prayer for instance. Prayer is completely ineffective- not once has a thousand gold bars landed on my property. Not even after a rainbow that I made with a garden sprinkler. Apply this method to your religion, and you'll see that it's full of things that just can not be treated seriously.

I'm not saying it's science vs religion. I'm saying it's reason over magic.

 

Born Presbyterian, went to Presbyterian and Southern Baptist private schools my whole upbringing. I have fleeting thoughts of agnosticism, but still believe in a Higher Being. I'm still convinced that most religions are guided my man's/men's personal agendas.

 

Everything on earth will be destroyed someday when the sun explodes. Then your prediction will be correct. Is that what a prediction is?

People only want to learn what is already familiar to them. That IS religion. Especially if you can teach children some happy stories about your religions leaders and icons, they will grow up to "want to know more." That's what we do, especially children. It is human to continue the knowledge we have, and to throw out information that is misleading- so when we're kids, we're given information to make whatever religion seem normal, rational, and even logical. The main players are literally in portrait form in every house everywhere. The church has infiltrated every neighborhood and the places that cant see it, can hear it. I've been to Africa, and they dont stop with bells. They get massive loudspeakers and scream it so there is no way to avoid it.

And that's religion. If you dont believe, you are branded an outcast, and going to hell, and eternal damnnation- and it sickens me. When I was 12, I started to feel so awkward beacuse I didnt see any reason to believe these stories other than to not be seen as a weirdo. Do an experiment- go to your close family and the people in your church and tell them your faith is on the cusp of failure. Say "I just dont think I believe anymore." They will react in horror, at first trying to help. Then they will turn their backs. Most of them. A few will linger and then ignore you. But then, one day, you show back up and say "God has spoken to me!" And without any reason to believe you, even if you are lying, they will immediately and joyously accept you.

That. Is. Insane.
I've seen it happen (not to me).
____________

Have you ever seen those things where a guy says "send me a dollar and I'll send you my baseball predictions and I get them all correct." So he sends out to all the people 50% this team, and 50% that team. He looks like a loser to the people who lost, but to the winners, they say "wow he was right!" And he keeps doing this all the way to the world series, and a small group will rejoice "HE GOT THEM ALL RIGHT! HE CAN PREDICT THE BASEBALL WINS!"

How many religions have failed because it didnt have a winning strategy for people, and arent most religions just a variation on a theme anyway? People only want to learn what they already are familiar with.

I could predict someone's death. "At some point, this guy here will die." That dosnt make me a prophet. You can apply rigorous logic or you can ignore things willfully. You believe Job "lived another 140 years?" Come on. That's just not true.

Einstein "predicted" the gravitational lens, but nobody considers him a prophet. He used his brain to understand the universe, then he said "I bet it behaves in this manner that we have never experienced in any way." He had math to back his claim, but no proof. He could have been shot down, but people trained their observations on the position of stars behind a solar eclipse and they found that the gravity well of the sun was shifting the apparent position of the stars behind, leading us to know that the "path of a laser" is not always a straight line, which means the
"path of least resistance" is not always a straight line.

So we must never say that the easiest path between 2 objects is a straight line. If we have to go by a few stars, we would never take a straight line. The path following a laser line would be curved. It would be longer than a straight line, but it would use less fuel. When someone says "the shortest path is a straight line." Well, thats not exactly the best answer even tho it seems to be perfectly true.

With science, we can throw out seemingly obvious answers when we get better data.
Here's a better way to see the gravity lens, laser line etc...
A link - http://schools-wikipedia.org/images/274/27447.jpg

If I read that in the bible, I would say "wow these guys know what they are talking about." But that's not what I read, I read "a guy lived for another 140 years." Even with today's medicine and technology, nobody is 170+ years old.

The bible is a nice story, a good allegory, and at times judgmental and dark. Its a book written by people. Using it as a guide for life- to me- it's a problem. A huge problem. People teach children to dive into this particular idea rather than to seek the Truth. Whatever the Truth may be.

Jon Stewart the other night said something that is along the lines of my idea. He said something like "This guy says we should ignore the experts on X subject." He was not an expert but he disagrees with their position. But he IS a dentist. So Stewart says to him, ""Sir, dentists say brushing your teeth is the best way to fight cavities. But I disagree!!! I think rubbing chocolate on them is the best way.""

Should we then have a debate? Obviously, not. If we need to we can test it.

So when we have many "methods" competing for Truth, how should we recognize the one's that are fruitful? And what should we do with methods that turn out data that is just not verifiable? The scientific method works because it says "look around, make the best sense of it that you can, if other people agree then we move forward, and then we put it to the math and graphs and logical study" AND when the outcome is not consistent, we start over by throwing out the old data. It dosnt mean that "science" is the only way, it just means that this method is particularly good for sorting facts from other information.

And thats what these religious texts are! They are old, outdated, non standard information. They dont describe radio waves and basic models of fundamental particles that the universe is made from! They talk about the stuff in our heads, and the stuff in our heads is full of fear and artistry. Which is great! We have a method of expression that is robust!

And we have an external verification for logic and mathematics for the things that we rely on every day. Computing, communications, lasers, technology- things that keep us alive and able to learn more. Its the most positive force in the universe.

And the old religions dont mean we cant start new religions.

L Ron Hubbard is an american hero to many people! (he said "Scientology is a power-and-money-and-intelligence-gathering game" ) What could be more American? In 1966, Hubbard moved to Rhodesia, claiming to be the reincarnation of Cecil Rhodes. He was banned from the UK. He eventually had to hide on the ocean without laws in order to avoid US taxes or government "oppression."

Why? Because of a few things I think.
He was smart and knew that people will believe anything. He saw financial opportunity and he was charismatic. And going against established religion is the best advertisement money cant buy! And going against the government is the same!
And torturing people in a ships chain locker is a great way to show suffering for ones religion, and it starts a parallel to what people already know. Plus he had them sign contracts devoting the next trillion years of service to himself. That's charisma.

That's religion.

 

Prove your assertion that it was 40 days and not some other amount of days.
If you use the bible to do so, you will get a lot of different answers. Look it up. Read it.

 

Yeah, a sun god, a volcano god, a god of thunder, a god of wine, a god of television. That's good stuff.

I just love writing the following line:
Einstein "predicted" the gravitational lens, but nobody considers him a prophet.

 

Many people are conscientious objectors. I would not have killed someone for Vietnam. But for Afghanistan/911, WW2, WW1, and some other wars, obviously some of us need to get up and knock some heads. Wars of aggression and nation building- I'd rather object.

For Vietnam, a group called the JASONs had discovered that no amount of bombing was going to win the war. They had devised mathematical data to back that up, and our country's best minds were working on it. That group still exists, and it is basically professors and professionals who take a few weeks and crunch numbers and come up with alternative ways of getting things done. They think-tank as hard as they can and they are a check on the military- which sometimes the military uses and sometimes dosnt. At least its another way of thinking. Possibly objecting.

These quakers - if I went into their house by force, wouldnt they try to push me out? What if it was me an my friends- we all teamed up and took their village? Would they fight back? Or would they say "thanks for pushing us out into the winters cold" ?? What if there was some, lets say russian, invasion on US soil? Would I be out there fighting while they sat there with their funny hats and beards and smoking pipes?

I believe in peace. But sometimes you must defend your peace. I hate that, but it seems to be true. I love Gandhi. But defense of one's home seems just as natural. I'd rather not have to exercise my defense.

 

The account in Acts is pretty clear that it is 40 days. As I stated in the previous post, the fact that he was resurrected on the third day after his death does not mean that he ascended to heaven on that day. There is a period of forty days recorded during which he appeared to his followers and then on day 40 ascended to heaven. As for the verses in the Gospel accounts, it was alread discussed that these could be spurious (i.e. not in the original manuscripts) or simply a brief statement of what happened followed by a more detailed account in the book that follows (which was written by the same author).

If I approached the Bible as some do, without viewing it as a whole, I could try to make a case for many things. For instance, incest is wrong, yet the Bible records that Lot had sex with his two duaghters after they got him drunk. One could try (inaccurately) to use that account to say that drunkeness and incest is OK. Without taking into account context and the rest of the Bible, it can be misused.

 

If you what to find out the origin of the biblical stories see
Simon, Horus, Mithra and Dionysis

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. -- Thomas Jefferson

 

Wow. I wish I had as much free time as some of you..although I would put it to use rather than debate religion over the internet on a truck forum to such an extent.

That said, here's my 2 cents at the topic.

I'm not religous. I was raised Catholic but was never really into it...just dragged along to church. There are just too many things I don't like or agree with about it. Maybe later in my life I will take the time to look into different religions...doubtful though.

However I do not hate religion as I don't think it's all bad. For example, my sister and her family are quite religious. They go to church and pray, ect. However they don't take the bible literally. They don't believe all the stories about Jesus dying, coming back to life, ect. But instead use this religion for the positive ideas and such it represents. Being a good person, loving, caring, and so on which creates a very positive atmpsphere to raise a family in.

I think there are many people that don't understand just how many people support religion, but only interpret the stories for their values and messages, and not the literal meaning.

 

Yes, actually, that's exactly what Quakers do and no, they would not defend themselves. They are completely non-violent. No one actually bothers them though.

 

Wow. born and raised Catholic but now non-denominational Christian.

 

I'm an Atheist.Religion is the root of all evil and if you try to push your garbage religion on to me I will pummel your weak minded ass!

People believe in religion because they are afraid of death....simple as that.I believe when you die you go back to the same state as before you were born....which to me ain't bad at all! There ain't no Disneyland named "Heaven" waiting for you and if you believe there is you are dumber then I thought.Religion is for the weak minded pussies who are so scared to die that it consumes their everyday "Living" life.Such fools!

 

So, every example you provided or cited about the bibles translations makes it possible to just understand if I pretend what you say is real. It says Dragon, but you think it means snake. Ok. And the prophesy that was researched by you? You still need to do more research. These things were not foretold. Otherwise it would be common knowledge and god would be real. Its just not.

 

Please help me enlighten some of these people who think prophesy in a religious sense is real. Or that god is real.

Or at least help me show them the logical fallacy of their dementia. Such as,
"Is god all knowing?"
Yes
"then god knows the future?"
Yes "Then the future is knowable?"
Yes
"Then you have no free will."
--blank stare---
Uh, let me go back and edit my answers to fit what I really mean.

Einstein predicted the gravitational lens, but nobody considers him a prophet....