Your Opinion?

1. 42

   RanaKmposted 10 years ago

   
   This is not the only book that gets modified... No offence to believers but this is my opinion..
   Why can't we live peacefully in a world without religions, gods,  politics, discrimination etc...???

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Jeremy Gillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Not all believers are bad. Some respect the viewpoints of atheists, and have struggled with disbelief themselves. Unfortunately, some are very inconsiderate and force their beliefs on others. Hopefully, we'll create a world where you are free to believe or disbelieve without judgement or separation.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Sed-meposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         What are the percentages?

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Jeremy Gillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I'm afraid I can't say, since most believers think they're respectful, when many aren't. In my own life, it seems to be about 50-50, but of course the actual percentage would be different (and continuously changing.)

            replyreport
            1. 82

               Sed-meposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Would you imagine that could be said of basically all ppl with all beliefs or lack thereof?

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  Jeremy Gillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes. Unfortunately, we often encounter believers and non-believers who can't agree to disagree, and are incapable of respecting each other's opinions. Still, there are plenty of folks who appreciate others' viewpoints, even if they disagree. Thank you to everyone like that!

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     When you said, "Still, there are plenty of folks who appreciate others' viewpoints, even if they disagree. Thank you to everyone like that!"  My thought was, ditto that!    I totally agree, and would encourage more like that!

                     replyreport
   2. 88

      Marisa Wrightposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Why do you say the Bible is God's perfect word?  It was written by human beings, so it is not God's word, it's  mere humans' attempts to convey His word.    That means it is, by definition, fallible because all humans are fallible.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Vishal Ingleposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         yeah i am agree your right merissa

         replyreport
   3. 84

      tsmogposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I guess it comes down to if you like editors or not. Who knows what 'really' was as most are oral stories to begin with. At question is having faith in the 'word' or having faith in what the 'word' says. A scientist has faith in what the 'word' says and what the written 'word' is. Simple enough.
      
      For example. I have a lean and background with symbolic interactionism. That stems from pragmatism formed from the work of George Herbert Mead. With that knowledge I don't try to work to hard interpreting the Bible. For instance Matthew 8:22 (New International Version) shares Jesus said, ""Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead." So, using symbolic interactionism I simply follow 'me'.
      
      Regarding Genesis being edited and changed  who really, really knows as I reiterate it was from oral presentations. Simply, once reading this post how many different interpretations could be formed regarding meaning? It is public knowledge within the internet. It is open to interpretation as read and retold even if that person retold to is yourself. Change is inevitable. Thus, any written word is subject to change. Else, what purpose are editors, readers, and listeners.

      replyreport
   4. 58

      Vishal Ingleposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      hey this question doesn't have a specific answer the man who made the some things like as the discrimination between cast and religion.but god is not make such really things beacause god have dont time to  discuss over it.

      replyreport
   5. 61

      MonkeyShine75posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Just because some don't accept God, why should the ones who do have to give it up or deny it to make others happy?
      I don't see the bible as infallible, because man as he heard it from God, interprets it based on his mind, and how he received it.

      replyreport
   6. 67

      SwordofManticorEposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      this post in a Christian topic is an offence.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         You shouldn't be offended. It's a difference of opinion. Thank goodness those who believe are intelligent enough to attempt a better understanding. And, have attempted throughout history (with some well documented attempts to fight it, mind you).
         
         If Man wasn't allowed to use their minds to formulate new theories as to the meaning, we might be mired in a Christian version of Sharia law. That wouldn't be fun.

         replyreport
      2. 77

         wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         How is it offensive?  The OP points out that as we learn and grow, so does the religion - is that not how it should be?  Christianity used to be no better than the radicals of Islam today - is it not a good thing that the religion outgrew those beliefs and actions?

         replyreport
         1. 70

            firstcookbookladyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            You seem to be offended that he is offended.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Offended, no.  Saddened perhaps - there was no obvious intent to offend, yet he seems to have taken offense.  Far better, IMO, to ignore offensive words until such a time as it IS obvious that offense was intended to be give.  It makes for a better discussion and a better life overall if that philosophy is followed rather than carrying a chip on the shoulder.

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  firstcookbookladyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes. Life is much better if a person just listens. I agree. No one forcing someone to agree with them, etc. And, if a person offers their opinion, there shouldn't be someone shouting "You're WRONG!!!" at them... Peace to you all.

                  replyreport
   7. 83

      oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I think it is good that we are fair too, for not only those things cause division, and not all the forms of them do either.  We have seen plenty of division for instance from non religious ideas over history.  So I just wanted to add, that whatever causes division, causes division.  This should go without saying, but it needs to be said, because some people assume that their own philosophy doesn't cause division, when history likely shows that it does, and might even continue to be.  (Just speaking in general here as you were.  There are some views that are especially harsh to some views, and are not fair to some people, and I think anyone that does that, does that.

      replyreport
2. 86

   NateB11posted 10 years ago

   that's right. All of the divisions--political, religious, etc--create violence and misery. We generally fool ourselves into thinking we need these fantasy divisions; in spite of the fact that they create hate and degradation. Everything political is designed to divide and antagonize and religions are themselves divisions and forms of coercion and confusion. It sends us backwards or keeps us stagnant but doesn't allow us to progress.
   
   So it is a good question: Why can't we live peacefully in a world without religion, politics, divisiveness?

   replyreport
3. 54

   paradigm searchposted 10 years ago

   Both books were written by humans.
   
   One book was written by a bunch of guys sitting around and making stuff up.
   
   The other book was written based on empirical observation and logic.
   
   Being a kinder, gentler paradigm search; I will not belabor as to which book is which.

   replyreport
4. 70

   firstcookbookladyposted 10 years ago

   my personal opinion is: it says The Word is in us. I think humans are hardwired with the truth. We just have to listen to it.

   replyreport
   1. 54

      paradigm searchposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I like that.

      replyreport
5. 78

   chef-de-jourposted 10 years ago

   Let the believers believe as long as their actions do not impinge negatively on my world! Let them keep their version of the truth within the boundary of their life sphere!
   In my humble opinion fallibility has to be the way forward. Blind faith has led us into a cul-de-sac of projected perversion. What we see and hear from those followers of ANY holy book is a perverted projection that leads to twisted interpretation of texts written when humans faced different historical and cultural challenges.
   I personally want nothing to do with any actions that blind faith results in, be they violent or non violent ritual.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      firstcookbookladyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Again. I agree with you.

      replyreport
6. 70

   firstcookbookladyposted 10 years ago

   the believers of 'what'.... the old testament is HISTORY... and the new testament says all you have to do is believe that Jesus died for you...
   
   IF you've read the bible at all, you'd have read that.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Good history, too.  The universe created in a week rather than the 15 billion years it actually took.  A world wide flood without the necessary water to do it with.  Woman magically made from the rib of a man. 
      
      Great history, at least as long as truth or reality isn't allowed to intrude.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         firstcookbookladyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Okay. Man was created from a little dirt and some spit. From ashes you have come, to ashes you will return.
         
         Okay. The body does decompose and does turn to dirt.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I don't know about literally becoming "ashes" (unless cremated?), but you will certainly become atoms/molecules not associated with a body.  All it takes is time.
            
            Likewise, the "you" that your brain defines will end as well.  There will be nothing left but memories in others.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               NateB11posted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Good stuff and well-said. The sooner a person understands what you said about "the 'you' that your brain defines", the better off they'll be.

               replyreport
         2. 70

            firstcookbookladyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Yes. Well said.

            replyreport
         3. 70

            firstcookbookladyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I agree with SwordofManticorE that the 'people' chose Barabas, the real criminal. Jesus was put here by God. ...The stories would have to have been written and recorded by men. For example:  Do I write the newspaper when I read the news? Of course not!  As far as believing or not believing: It is our right now, to choose Jesus, or choose Barabas, once again. I choose Jesus.

            replyreport
7. 59

   mishpatposted 10 years ago

   Where are our responsibilities: 1) myself 2) others 3)God 4) earth 5) nobody 6) majority thought?  Which one is first?  Which are not to be considered?  Why?

   replyreport
   1. 77

      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Indeterminate, and extremely variable by circumstance.
      
      Example: if earth is first, we must exist without causing damage/change to the earth.  No oil or coal (no fire at all) and no killing of plants or animals.  We die.
      
      Or, if others are #1, we can't feed or even dress ourselves as others have priority and we should give 100%.  We die.
      
      And if self has priority, no consideration is left for others.  No charity, no help, not even a kind word as that takes effort and time. 
      
      So the priorities have to be all mixed together, and circumstances will decide for each and every action.  Sometimes the majority wins, sometimes self, sometimes others and sometimes the earth.  (I leave out God as a manifestation of self - any thoughts of what God wants is purely decided by self and benefits primarily self; it thus becomes a part of that responsibility).

      replyreport
      1. 59

         mishpatposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         The question not posed is "Why."  But since you have negated God, the question must be asked.
         
         Why bother with any of it if there is no God. 
         
         Absent God, none of the others has a positional need or requirement, only personal interest.  Certainly one can make their lives more simple, albeit it might shorten it also, if they live outside the box of social acceptance, laws and mores', so why not?   And please lets not get into the foolishness of "its the right thing to do" since right and wrong do not exist or have blanket meaning outside of the belief in God.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            For you, right and wrong do not exist outside of the definition you think your personal God gives it.
            
            For the rest of us, well, we accept that we make our own right and wrong definitions just as you do.  We just don't attribute it to an invisible persona in the sky. 
            
            And I did not negate the belief in a god; just put it where it belongs.  In the self that has described the god and it's wants and demands according to what they think of right and wrong.  Others, believing in the same god or a different one, make their definitions just as you do - witness Islam as a prime example, or Westboro Baptist Church.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               mishpatposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               There are constraints of belief in each of the "denominations" you name, denominations meaning those that have "God" as their creator regardless of how they might use or offend Him.  The question remains...
               
               What is the progenitor of morality of those without a belief in God?

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  You refer, of course, to the specific god you believe in.  Not Thor, not Odin and not the mountain or tree outside your window.  For if the other "gods" are not really gods, but mere hunks of stone, wood or imagination, they cannot affect man's morals without man himself being the root source of morality.
                  
                  The progenitor of man's morality, his sense of right and wrong, is man himself.  Not some make believe god that wrote on tablets of stone and gave orders on how to treat slaves and women.  If it were not so we would not see varying morals throughout time and place; nearly everything under the sun has been a "moral" act at one time or another.  Man makes those differences, not a god.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     mishpatposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Man's sense of right and wrong can only be attained from a knowledge of God.  Man, without a knowledge of God is incapable of discerning right and wrong.  The atheist, agnostic, etc. all had their beginnings in time past with a knowledge of God and thereby a knowledge of morality. 
                     
                     We see Judaism and Islam each find their roots with the God of Creation.  And, of course, Christianity is the "completion" of Judaism.  All other gods are mythological spin offs, formed and designed to eliminate the man's fear of retribution for living in their wanton libertine manner.
                     
                     Now, again, we find the atheist is a thinking person that has tasted "religion" and found it to be either confining or non rewarding.  So what better way to address it than to "think" God out of the picture.  I have not met every atheist or agnostic but I am convinced, from the ones I have met or do know, that their basis for "right or wrong" is not an inherent thing but a rebellion against.

                     replyreport
                     1. 77

                        wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        Hard to understand how the Amer-Indians religious views are a spin off of the Christian god, particularly as they left the area thousands of years before that god was invented.  And so did the cultures in the far east, and those in Australia.  And the cro-magnon man in Europe some 43,000 years ago.
                        
                        It is ego-centricity at it's worst to claim that all religions came from the one you were brought up in and very much goes against what we know of pre-history.  Just as it is to decide that because you base your morality on what an evil, sadistic, child says means that everyone else does, too.

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           mishpatposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           I think you miss the point.  God.  He put it all together in and around a place called Eden.  Now I know you like to discount God in all facets and processes.  That is you choice.  But that does not erase truth.
                           
                           Nothing, and that is absolutely nothing including the well worn word "religion", existed prior to Eden that has any effect on today's world.  And anything that came into being after the Creation is a spin-off, including "religion" as all was completed by God as He would have it. 
                           
                           The children of archeology and other related "sciences and toys" may pursue their quests for the missing link and such, but it will not be found.  There is no link between Eden and the post-Eden world, and the pre-Eden world, allowing for such as this last.
                           
                           What took place on this planet prior to our "present world," if anything at all, does not matter.  There is much conjecture on both sides of the Cross as to "pre-history" (for want of a better word), but again it is of no consequence to man today.  The relationship between God and man in our present paradigm is the story of mankind.  And it ain't a good story for the most part.
                           
                           Morality is of God as it only can be.  Man is incapable of proper and perfect virtue, thought or understanding.  To disagree with the God never answers a question as to why He did or did not act according to our perceived personal interests, but to reason with God might just do that.

                           replyreport
                           1. 77

                              wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              An interesting reply, let's take it a piece at a time.
                              
                              1.  you claim a god, you claim an Eden, presumably with an Adam, Eve and Satan.  Fine.  I doubt the claim; the next step is for you to back it up.  Show the god, show Eden and the magic trees, show Adam, Eve and Satan.  Can't?  Don't expect to be believed - your word is not one whit better than mine and I can claim differently with the exact same evidence (none at all).
                              
                              2.  Best estimates by those that have studied the Bible is that the world (Eden) (according to that ancient tome) is around 8,000 years old.  But man existed prior to that, and all over the world.  Religion existed in those areas where man was, and probably everywhere man was (should you doubt this, study up on some archaeology).  There can be no link between those religions and yours, unless your claim of a god is true AND your god visited those peoples and gave them false information.
                              
                              3.  Of course there is a link, four of them we are absolutely sure of.  God, Satan, Adam and Eve all link Eden to the post-Eden world.  So do the animals Adam named while in the garden, for that matter.  Your claim is thus false even in your own scriptural world.
                              
                              4.  What took place prior to our present world matters a great deal.  The asteroid that took out the dinosaurs and made room for mammals matters.  The peoples of Olduvai gorge mattered.  Those folk that crossed the Bering Sea land bridge mattered, and so did those that migrated north into Europe tens of thousands of years before Adam.  The are all the roots of our modern world, and pretending they never happened doesn't change that.
                              
                              5.  Some of the best philosophical minds of history never heard of your god, yet are recognized everywhere as great thinkers and moralists.  It would seem that your statement is again false, and based only on belief without any supporting structure whatsoever.
                              
                              In the whole, then, the post is quite fascinating.  "God exists because I say so even though I can't produce one".  "Eden existed because I say so (but can't produce it), and the biblical links are lies, again because I say so".  "Nothing historical mattered to our society or culture because I say so, regardless of the roots of that culture/world".  "Morality comes ONLY from MY god because I say so."  "Man cannot find virtue, or even though or understanding because I say so". 
                              
                              You say an awful lot, and always with the only support being "Because I say so".  You are also fully intelligent enough to know that your (unsupported) words mean less than nothing - why then do you repeat them ad infinitum, knowing they will not be accepted?  Do you think that repetition will convince people?  Does it make truth of lies to simply repeat them often enough?  I'm actually curious as to this - why do you repeat so many claims, all supported ONLY by your word that they are so, when you know full well that there is a huge amount of evidence to the contrary and your words will thus not be accepted?

                              replyreport
                              1. 59

                                 mishpatposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                 Let's not forget that this is a Christianity, the Bible and Jesus page.  I don't suggest that anyone be prohibited from responding.  However, my responses will be in the vein of the title.
                                 1. Yes, I claim God as the Creator.  The proofs are His Word which we call the Bible.
                                 2. I would go with closer to 6000 years.  Whatever may be conjured up regarding a previous world does not include mankind.
                                 3. Not sure what this means!
                                 4. What, if anything, took place before Eden is of no value to mankind of today with regard to their salvation and eternity.
                                 5. One of my profs, a secular minded man, referred to philosophy as "foolosophy."  I agree.
                                 6. The two unnumbered points are out of context.  I only claim the Bible to be true, inerrant and unchanging.  I do not claim to have infinite knowledge on all subjects.  I'll leave that to God, the author and the Bible and "the author and finisher of our faith."  My claim is that I believe every word of God.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 77

                                    wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                    And I fully accept your claim that you believe the bible and in a creator God.  I have zero reason to think you do not believe and much evidence to support the fact that you do.
                                    
                                    I just don't accept either as truth, which is what I said earlier.  You both believe AND claim both are true, I reject the claim and you decline to supply any supporting evidence to either the bible or a god as being real and factual.  We end there, as we always do (a written word in a book written by anyone, anyone at all, is proof of nothing but that they wrote the book).

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 59

                                       mishpatposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                       I always appreciate your responses.  Hopefully I read the proper emotion into them.  Our tilts do accomplish things.  They cause us both to revisit why we believe as we do, but it also makes others do the same.  Of special note, I appreciate your apparent personal study.  Unlike many who here throw out what they were taught with out examining it for veracity, or toss in some website, especially wikipee, I sense some deep personal studies in your responses.

                                       report
                                       1. 77

                                          wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                          Re-visiting subjects on which we have a belief accomplishes two things in my mind: to look at perhaps new ideas, or old ideas in a new light, and to at least try and understand how and why someone else comes to the conclusion they do.  The second is actually more important to me; if I can understand why you believe I will have a much better insight into not only what you believe but why. 
                                          
                                          As you (or someone else - I can get confused replying to several threads at once), I will make up my own mind, but more data is always useful and if I can understand the road you took to get to your conclusions it becomes data to be considered.  The conclusions not so much - it is the data that counts.  I will draw my own conclusions from that.
                                          
                                          Yes, I have put much thought into this subject.

                                          report
                        2. 61

                           MonkeyShine75posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           And it seems that some of those who know God, still don't know right from wrong, or at least they don't separate the two, which makes it worse. And I've known lots of people who don't believe in God, and still do a lot of good.
                           I believe that faith in God, or a higher power should show in high morality, your good deeds, and how we treat others. A lot of religious people don't seem to understand this concept.
                           
                           Just thinking in writing

                           replyreport
                           1. 77

                              wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              Same here - on the average I don't find believers any more moral or ethical than anyone else.

                              replyreport
   2. 86

      NateB11posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The word responsibility means to be able to respond correctly; to respond correctly means you must respond in a true way; to be true it must be whole, not divided. So, our responsibility is everywhere all the time, no need to divide it.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         mishpatposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Just generating thoughts here.  Personally, if God is first then all else falls in line.  Note I say "if" as we all fall short of that which is important, and that might be most of the time.  Kenye.

         replyreport
8. 70

   firstcookbookladyposted 10 years ago

   Which made me google something... I was curious to know how many 'Christs' there were. We mostly associate Jesus with being the only one, but apparently, there was a lot of scuttlebutt 'back then' about who was the right one.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting, and something I had never considered.  Not surprising, though - without TV, radio or even photographs a days walk would put people into unknown territory, where you would not be recognized.  Charlatans and frauds have always been with us, always will.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         firstcookbookladyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Nice point, there, Wilderness. I am sure many would agree.

         replyreport
9. 59

   mishpatposted 10 years ago

   Where is the offense?  Certainly not to Christianity.  The cartoon is much closer to reality than we want to believe.  It makes me wonder, once again, again, again, why bother with "belief" if one does not believe the foundational truth is inerrant?

   replyreport
10. 61

    MonkeyShine75posted 10 years ago

    Prehistoric Animals
    
    Science
    Dinosaurs certainly did roam the Earth at one time  Fossils of dinosaurs have been found all over the world, and their bones are displayed in museums for all to see.
    I’ve visited the museums with fossils.
    
    Many say fake fossils were “planted” by modern man, yet the first ones they found were teeth. They were found in 1820 a time when faking such things would have been very hard to do.
    They were so different from anything they knew, that the doctor who found them believed that he had found an entirely new group of reptiles. (he didn’t know he had found dinosaur remains)
    
    By 1841 nine groups of different reptiles had been found. The bones were so big, they were called the “Terrible Lizards”
    
    They were different than the other reptiles in that the positioning of their limbs was different, meaning that they were erect, the same as mammals are. Their limbs supported them from beneath the body, much like a dog’s limbs, as opposed to the limbs of a turtle which sprawls out from the side of their bodies.
    
    Some were small, like today’s birds, but some weighed as much as 80 tons, and were about 40 ft. high, but most were the size of an Ox.
    
    The Bible
    I’ve looked up some stuff on the internet, and in an online bible and it speaks about the Leviathan, which was a sea monster, and is different from the whale, and crocodiles, because they are also spoken of, separately.
    
    It also speaks of the Behemoth, which is a monster. One that eats grass like an Ox
    Job 40:15
    15. Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eats grass as an ox.
    
    It says it had an armor that couldn’t be penetrated. Was it the plant eating Stegosaurus which had boney plates that covered it, and lived 150 to 155 million years ago?
    
    Job 41:19,20 says that sparks leap from his mouth like burning lamps, and smoke goes out of his nose. Verse 21 says that he can burn coals with his breath. Nothing can harm him, arrows can't penetrate his armor. He causes the sea to boil. It says no one is without fear, as he is.
    
    Or was it the Ankylosaur, which also ate plants and had armor?
    
    Todays armadillos, crocodiles, and some lizards have armor. Did some dinosaurs evolve into these small animals, and reptiles, to fit into the world today (by natural selection)?
    
    The only thing that throws me off about the bible, is that it says they breathed fire (like a dragon?)
    
    Always something to think about

    replyreport
    1. 77

       wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       "Boiling the sea" is a little outlandish as well, I'd say.
       
       But current thinking is that dinosaurs were the ancestors of the birds of today.  They weren't reptiles, or birds, and mammals existed then, but they DID have many of the attributes of birds.  Quite a comedown, from T-Rex to Robin Redbreast!

       replyreport