What's your Religion?

The same can be asked to you: Where did your "god" come from? I mean realistically how do you expect any of us to know where the first single cell came from? I can't even begin to fathom how we got here, but I think scientific research is way more on base than some being saying poof ever will be.

And to your posts about atheism being taught in schools...bulllllshit. Being only 24 I think I attended school much more recently than you and if anything, christianity was pushed in school by having prayer groups and even electing a "class chaplain." They will never teach religion in school because IT ISN'T FACT.

Also, you say "that's why they created the new testament." What does that mean? To smooth out all the corruption in religion that's in the old testament?

 

So naturally because it hasn't been proven, that makes the prophecies and folk lore in a out-of-date book more legit?

 

This is old, and probably beating a dead horse

but have any of you all discussing this watched the Zeitgeist movie ?

no matter which side of the fence you stand on, it really makes you say hmmm..... and gives a real rational explanation to christianity and how the Bible was probably created, or copied depending on how you look at it.

Furthermore... In basic, there's a whole lot of tangible evidence to backup a scientific approach to the creation life and the earth, not all of it fitting properly together like a perfect puzzle, but exisiting nonetheless, undeniably.

Where is all the tangible evidence of the story of the Bible ? Where are the bones of at least some of the people that existed in the story ? We have mummies and other relics that date back to the same timeframe as the bible. So where are these things, so many of them that supposedly existed ?

 

This is just a snip from wikipedia, but it doesn't look like many of his arguments are considered valid:

Skeptic magazine's Tim Callahan criticizing the first part of the film (on the origins of Christianity) wrote that "some of what it asserts is true. Unfortunately, this material is liberally — and sloppily — mixed with material that is only partially true and much that is plainly and simply bogus. […] Zeitgeist is The Da Vinci Code on steroids."[26] Acharya S (aka D.M. Murdock), a source and last-minute consultant on the official version of the film, responded to Callahan's critique in an article on her publishing company's website. She writes that "it is a curious fact that writers who toss around the words 'sloppy', 'garbled' and 'nonsense' are often guilty of these very things themselves" and that Callahan's "declaration that much of the material in ZG is 'plainly and simply bogus' is false."[27] Callahan responded to Acharya's rebuttal with a counter-rebuttal published in his website's forum.[28]
Chris Forbes, Senior lecturer in Ancient History of Macquarie University and member of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, severely criticized Part I of the movie, asserting that it has no basis in serious scholarship or ancient sources, and that it relies on amateur sources that recycle frivolous ideas from one another, rather than serious academic sources, commenting, "It is extraordinary how many claims it makes which are simply not true."[29]
Acharya wrote a "Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes concerning Zeitgeist, Part 1" in which she distinguishes 21 claims of fallacy made by Dr. Forbes regarding part I of the documentary and responds to each one. Acharya further stated that her "books and writings provide thousands of pages carefully cited with primary sources and the works of credentialed authorities from a variety of fields, supplying the evidence that Forbes and others claim does not exist."[30]

 

That said, I may still watch it if I can find it streamed online...I like documentaries and such, so I'll give it a shot.

 

whether it's credited or not, it's still interesting... There's a critic for every book or movie ever written... I don't support it, i'm just saying, it makes you say hmmmm

the second half is about the central bank, it makes you think even more

 

There's a third section to it now as well...where did you see it at? Wonder if it's on netflix..

 

I saw it like a year or two ago and it was still streaming from the Zeitgeist website... I'm sure it's still out there somewhere, parts of it were on youtube also.

 

Cool I'll check it out...sounds like some good lunch time streaming material lol.

 

hahaha, yes, it's definitely good for that

 

back to some comments made earlier in this thread... After any and all arguing, no matter how much anyone brings to the table, there still lies no strong enough foundation to say that Christianity and Catholicism is any more true, correct, or accurate than Polytheism with the Greek Gods and so forth.

What proves Thor isn't in the sky banging his hammer every time you hear lightning ??? oh, it's the ionic charge in the sky creating it ? what proves Thor isn't causing this to happen ?

mwahahah

 

Kathleen Kenyon comments: “One might have a suspicion that some of this is hyperbole.” But is it? She adds: “The archaeological evidence of the fall of the kingdom of Israel is almost more vivid than that of the Biblical record. . . . The complete obliteration of the Israelite towns of Samaria and Hazor and the accompanying destruction of Megiddo is the factual archaeological evidence that the [Bible] writer was not exaggerating.”

Professor David Noel Freedman commented: “In general, however, archaeology has tended to support the historical validity of the biblical narrative. The broad chronological outline from the patriarchs to N[ew] T[estament] times correlates with archaeological data. . . . Future discoveries are likely to sustain the present moderate position that the biblical tradition is historically rooted, and faithfully transmitted, though it is not history in the critical or scientific sense.”

At one time "higher critics" of the Bible said that Belshazzar (son of Nabonidus) never existed. Then the Verse Account of Nabonidus
was found that said “He [Nabonidus] entrusted the ‘Camp’ to his oldest (son), the firstborn, the troops everywhere in the country he ordered under his (command). He let (everything) go, he entrusted the kingship to him.”

This confirmed that Belshazzar not only existed but that he had the position of "king" under his father just as described in the Bible book of Daniel. Interestingly it also explains why Daniel was given the third position in the kingdom - the top two spots were already taken by Nabonidus and his son, (the previously "non-existent") Belshazzar.

The point? There is archaeological evidence that supports the Bible. Do all archaeologists agree on every point? No, they do not. Just as there is division in the field of human evolution as to what processes brought about evolution. For instance the above quoted Kathleen Kenyon dated the destruction of Jericho that the Bible states occurred in the 15th century BCE to the 14th century. Professor John Garstang and John J. Bimson place the destruction at the beginning of the 15th century and middle of the 15th century respectively. One thing that none of these three scholars disagree on is that there was a major destruction of that city that follows the description in the Bible.

The above examples are just a few that show there is indeed tangible evidence that supports the Bible.

 

For some people, being able to draw a general assumption based on a description in the book might be enough, for me it's not. I want bones. I want a tomb.

I think portions of the world's greatest fictional story were based loosely on factual events, and this is why one finds it easy to "talk himself into making a conclusion that it must be real" without holding a more firm and definitive piece of evidence in his hand.

 

I disagree. I am not Catholic, and do not agree with much of what is taught by many mainstream "christian" religions because it does not harmonize with the Bible. We would not expect to gather grapes from an orange tree or apples from a corn stalk. Jesus said that his true followers would be recognized by their "fruits" or the results of their actions. In a sense, that is scientific method. The results of an experiment tell you whether you are on the right track or not. Likewise, if someone were professing to be a Christian and was robbing, cheating on their spouse, molesting children and using foul language, the results would show them to not be the genuine article.

Likewise, if a person were to be kind, considerate and respectful of those around them and follow the other directions in the Bible (not someones opinion of what the Bible says - but what the Bible actually teaches) then that person would be shown to be genuine.

What did the Greek god's show themselves to be? Capricious, vile individuals who viewed humans as playthings and objects of lust.

While we are on the subject of Greek god's, consider this, The account of Noah in Genesis has a striking resemblance to the description of Greek god's and their offspring - including a thirst for violence.

 

There are a lot of similarities between other gods and the christian god (or the stories within the bible). Both greeks god and the christian god intervened in human life according to lore, but that is not evident now. Miracles are seen by many as acts of god, but what of all the rape, murder, and other heinous crimes committed? I know that's been asked in this thread at least a few times so I don't really expect an answer, but that is part of my reasoning to why I don't believe in a higher power.

 

There are hints I think in each religion, or religious book (Koran, Bible, what have you) that they cross paths somewhere.
My belief is that while the story was being made up, or written throughout time, some of the authors or contributors did actually cross paths.

Obviously being a religious individual, and seeming to have much more knowledge of the Bible than myself (which I won't deny regardless of my beliefs has good lessons of humankind to teach) answer this question, why do I or anyone else need to pay homage to a church or other organization to learn from it ?

The church is what created the biggest beef with religion in the first place, in which I believe Jesus preached in the very beginning that there wasn't even a need for (wasn't that what was written in the hidden scrolls that the church tried cover up ?)

 

furthermore, what's to say those actions AREN'T the god everyone so much believes in, dabbling for his own amusement in human life ??? We're told to just have faith, without ever knowing for sure, and never to question it

 

Where did I say that? I think you may have misunderstood me.

so for evolution, I would expect you would like to have the transitional fossil records of the precambrian and cambrian era? Same principal.

 

I'm not against evolution, there IS fossil records that support it, not completely (just like evidence of the bible or the creation of the universe), but enough to convince me to support it more than other theories. I don't believe a magician waved his hand and we magically appeared, put it that way.

There is historical and current proof of Darwinism and natural selection as well. Examples ??? Come one, that's easy. A simple one I remember from science class is the Dodo bird, related to the Flamingo. We KNOW it existed, and how many Flamingo birds are left ? Want more proof ? What was the whale population 50 years ago verse today ? What's happening to the Jellyfish and the human race ? Evolution and natural selection is all around, you just have to open your eyes.

 

We are not to pay homage to a church, but to God. Again, if any organization professes to live by the Bible, it should be evident by their actions. If it becomes obvious that some teaching or basic tenant of their belief system is incompatible with the Bible, they should be willing to change - not try to soft sell what is in the Bible.

Interestingly, the Bible itself indicated that there would be an apostasy, or falling away from the teachings of Jesus and his Father. Even in the first century a constant effort had to be put forth by the apostles to keep wrong ideas from creeping in. For instance, Jewish Christians treated Gentile Christians differently at times an this had to be addressed as bigotry and prejudice are condemned in the Bible (yes, both "Old" and "New" testaments condemned this).

Much harm had been done to God's name by religion. I have earlier posts in this thread regarding the crusades, and behavior of so called "men of God". Does that mean that it is impossible to find the truth about God? No. To illustrate, if you bought a truck made by GM and it turned out to be a piece of junk, would you conclude that all trucks were a piece of junk or research to find one that was good?

Jesus taught that the Jewish arrangement was going away, as it was in place to lead the nation to the Messiah (who he was). Now that he had fulfilled the law, the altars, temple and animal sacrifices were no longer necessary. However, Christians continued to meet together while Jesus was on earth and after his death and resurrection. The 11 faithful apostles that were with him and other disciples formed the core of the Christian congregation, but it was not dependent on a building. The congregation was the people and the teachings, not literal stones and mortar.

You are right that many of the authors of the Bible crossed paths. The gospel writers all knew one another. Paul would have also known or at least met most of them as well. James was Jesus' half-brother. Many of the prophets lifetimes overlapped. Interestingly, though, over the roughly 1500 years and 40 different writers, the theme of the Bible remains consistent - God's Kingdom. Man erred in refusing to follow God's direction, God made arrangements to fulfill his purpose, the Jewish system of worship was put in place to provide the Messiah - or king for the promised kingdom. Time has been allowed to pass without major intervention by God so that the question of whether man can rule himself without God's direction can be answered. History has shown that man is totally incapable of ruling himself and needs the direction of his creator.

Once that issue is settled, never again can someone come forward and say "we know a better way". It will have been tried and proven a failure. Let's just call it God's version of the scientific method and he has been allowing man to experiment. Were he to intervene too soon, there could still be questions raised. Remember, that it was not his power that was called into question by Satan, Adam and Eve, but it was his right to rule. Could God intervene today and correct matters? Certainly he has the power to do so, but, eventually, someone would come along and say "We needed to try Stimulus 43,500 and that would have fixed everything" or some other such claim. Now, I don't claim to have any special insight on the exact day that God will intervene, that would be presumptuous so the above is just for illustrative purposes.