The Bible Offends

1. 63

   GodTalkposted 13 years ago

   And for some of their opponents!

   replyreport
   1. 71

      earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Better break out the dictionary again.
      
      Self worth and self reliance are not directed from this terrible affliction.
      
      It is very much about the way one sees ego from a position of having a special invisible friend.

      replyreport
2. 63

   GodTalkposted 13 years ago

   Megalomania: "A psycho-pathological condition characterized by fantasies of wealth, power,  or omnipotence.  Megalomania is characterized by an inflated sense of self esteem and an overestimation by persons of their powers and beliefs."   This sounds awfully close to some of the atheists I know.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know any non believers, (atheist is a religious construct) who threaten people with their invisible sky fairy do you?

      replyreport
      1. 63

         GodTalkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         All I know is atheists that are so afraid of the idea that there might just possibly be a god that they make up things about universes coming from nothingness, and order coming out of chaos completely on its own. Then, from some glob of inanimate matter, they think it perfectly logical that life can begin. Who has the greater fairy tale?

         replyreport
         1. 71

            earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Those are not atheists, they are scientists and curious men and women, and they did not set out to disprove your god, that happens as a matter of course with better sciences in all fields and further learning.

            replyreport
         2. 63

            amymarie_5posted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You're talking about scientists not atheists. Are you claiming to know more than a scientist? Do you think scientists are stupid? On the contrary, scientists are not out to disprove god, they have not found proof of his existence. That's a huge difference.

            replyreport
         3. 70

            Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            A prime example of you not knowing what you are talking about. Good job.
            
            The Universe didn't come from nothingness and that's not how Science has explained it. And for your second statement that order coming out of chaos? Even Chaos has order to it, it has patterns and can be recognized.
            
            So, both your statements are empty, just because you're attempting to defend whatever believe it is you have about a non-existent god.
            You do. Simply due to the fact that you're out of your depth. You claim a omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent god exists, yet even you cannot fathom the depth of that thought, much less wrap your mind around most of science.

            replyreport
            1. 63

               GodTalkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Deleted
               1. 63

                  amymarie_5posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Why so defensive? Nobody here said they worship scientists. Do you even know what you are talking about? There's nothing wrong with science. It's taught in school and you wouldn't have all your high tech toys if not for science. Obviously they know something huh? Lol

                  replyreport
                  1. 63

                     GodTalkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I am not against true science. But evolutionary "science" is purely theoretical and has been adopted by atheists to claim that there is no god, as is abundantly clear on this forum.

                     replyreport
            2. 63

               GodTalkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               And you are simply trying to defend Science that has no real answers for the beginning of the universe. This universe obviously had a beginning, so you have to postulate an endless series of Big Bangs and eternal matter, that doesn't seem to need a creator, or a beginning for that matter.  My point is, in order to not believe in a god, you must create a faith of your own that can never be scientifically verified. Get used to it. You've made a religion of Scientific evolution.
                  And that chaos having order thing! I laugh! Chaos is the very antithesis of order, otherwise words begin to lose their meaning.
                   Also,  you are darned right, I cannot wrap my mind around the God of the universe. If He is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent how would a finite being do this? But you who follow your own omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent beings, commonly known as scientists, would understand that completely.

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Really? The beginning of the Universe started from a singularity of matter, so tightly compressed that it would be unmeasurable by anything known to humankind. It then exploded forward and continues to move forward(expand). When the cycle is at it's end, then the entire Universe will once again collapse in on itself, wiping out all energy and matter, and everything else.
                  Correct, no creator(as in a being). And, if you actually understood science's explanation, then you would know that.
                  The only faith required is in self, with regards to understanding and gaining wisdom. Something apparently you want to chalk up to the mystical faith you have in a god and they are not the same, but nice try.
                  How about you get real?
                  Actually, I've done no such thing. I'm made understanding myself and my life a religion perhaps, but unlike you, I'm at least honest with myself.
                  Well, I guess the above statement shows all that needs to be shown. A lack of understanding. Good show on you yet again.

                  replyreport
                  1. 63

                     GodTalkposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     All this proves my point. Eternal unthinking matter, forming order, functionality and beauty versus an eternal thinking God. Unless someone is biased against a creator, the obvious choice each time is a creator.
                         If you have something that can be backed up by repeatable experiments then show them to me. Otherwise I will stick with the obvious.

                     replyreport
                     1. 70

                        Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Actually, it proves you wrong. It's your refusal to understand which is obvious.
                        I swear the more you talk, the worse hole you dig for yourself.
                        Untrue.
                        Please read up on the Grand Cycle and try to be honest with yourself when you read up on it. The Grand Cycle explains the process the Universe goes through over years(lots of years).

                        replyreport
                        1. 63

                           GodTalkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Purely theory which is unverifiable by experiment. Science hasn't even been around for that long, compared to the age of the universe. It sounds like good reading though. I like science fiction.
                              By the way, I am not opposed to the Big Bang theory. It is as good a theory as any to show what happened when God spoke into existence the universe. That doesn't prove me wrong. Some scientists, in order to explain how the universe is not eternal, have postulated that endless cycle that you just so eloquently talked about. I say prove it! It can't be repeated without us being destroyed and the cycle happening all over again. Then there won't be anyone left to record it. All theory! No proof!

                           replyreport
                           1. 70

                              Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Of course it's not verifiable through experiment. If humans could verify it through an experiment, they would destroy everything in this world. Duh! However, even with that said- it's verified by all the knowable knowledge and proved theories already in place......and follows logic. It's called "reverse" timeline. To go backwards from now, to the beginning. It's a timeline that can be understood because of the available knowledge already known.
                              Now you're just making excuses. Good show on you yet again.
                              Actually, it's great reading. Absolutely worth the time to learn that's for sure.
                              But, it's not actually science fiction.

                              replyreport
                              1. 63

                                 GodTalkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Good luck with that reverse timeline. I hope the available knowledge isn't proven wrong in the future, or your timeline may get out of wack.  And just because something is logical doesn't mean it is a fact.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 70

                                    Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 63

                                       GodTalkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       I am glad you can laugh at yourself. I laughed when I first read what you said too.

                                       report
         4. 59

            A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            That was a pretty big fairy tale, could be a winner.

            replyreport
3. 59

   DIY Backlinksposted 13 years ago

   Because they have been deceived by their master. The biggest lie Satan tells anyone is not there is no "God" but there is no Devil.

   replyreport
4. 83

   The Suburban Poetposted 12 years ago

   Yes, yes, yes... but answer me this:
   
   Killing - is it illegal because of the bible, evolution or because humans decided it should be?
   Stealing - is it illegal because of the bible, evolution or because humans decided it should be?
   Abortion - is it legal because of evolution? Should it be illegal just because of the bible or can atheists believe that a fetus is equivalent to a human being?
   Homosexuality - Should it be illegal just because the bible say's it's a sin? Does evolution make it not a sin? Can humans ignore the bible and evolution and just decide it's not a sin?
   
   What does the argument between the bible and evolution have to do with social issues? Neither side can prove or disprove the existence of a creator.... so now what?

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Socially unacceptable and in the best interest of the survival of the human species.
      Again, it's a social law.
      It's not about believing that fetus is equivalent to a human being. Science has already determined that upon fertilization creates a human organism. However, this particular topic shouldn't be a societal issue, because other people shouldn't be determining what other people should do with their life.
      No.
      Sin is only equates to those of the religious faith. It is people of the religious faith that bring their irrationality into the life of others. If they kept it to themselves, then there wouldn't be a problem.
      Evolution has nothing to do with morality and the bible has much to do with morality, but isn't to be a factual guide, because conscience rules, not written words.
      A creator? Many people believe a higher power exists, just by looking at the Universe, however, it's when the personalize it is when things are completely irrational. They also think that a higher power also correlates with a higher authority, which is false.

      replyreport
5. 83

   The Suburban Poetposted 12 years ago

   The only reason I ask these questions because it makes me wonder what is the point of the argument? You don't know what I believe and I'm not even sure I know what I believe. But I do agree that killing and stealing should be illegal, that abortion should be legal and that we should just give gay's their rights and end the fight. This is all not because of the bible or evolution but what I think personally about these specific issues.
   
   But the interesting thing about abortion and the idea of ."..determining what other people should do with their life" (meaning choice?) is why it is that the idea of an abortion is so distasteful to many regardless of what the bible or evolution tells us. Evolution obviously is just something that happens and makes no comment on right or wrong. It's just something we observe happening in the natural world. Kind of like watching water erode sand. It doesn't tell me how to live my life. Yet those who seem to embrace evolution to the point of insisting that there is no God almost impute moral authority onto themselves because of the absence of moral directives from evolution. But abortion has an element to it that makes us flinch even though many people believe a fetus is not human therefore we can terminate it without punishment from society. So why is distasteful? Is there a undefined spiritualness to a fetus that each of us feels deep down inside?
   
   Another irony is how we object to a pregnant woman smoking or drinking just in case she decides not to have an abortion.... interesting.....

   replyreport
   1. 59

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps, it never occurred to you that moral directives are derived from evolution. Give that some thought.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         The Suburban Poetposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Sure... it has occured to me. Basic human consensus on moral directives is a product of experience and our observation of life and how things impact our lives can provide meaningful input.
         
         But the whole idea of "survival of the fittest" is an interesting concept. Animals eat each other without regard to moral implications. Yet we have decided that's not good. So were we steered in the opposite direction due to some elements of evolution? Or did evolution and the dying off of certain species because they could not adapt teach us to adapt by inventing moral directives?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            We aren't talking about eating each other, we are talking about "survival of the fittest". Would you think that people can survive together if they are stealing from each other or if they work together? Can they survive together if they kill each other off or help each other to survive? These are the origins of moral directives from evolution.

            replyreport
6. 83

   The Suburban Poetposted 12 years ago

   It would be anarchy and it would be true survival of the fittest. We have decided to protect the meek. Maybe somebody sat around and studied the animal kingdom long ago and the light bulb went off; or maybe somebody just objected on the grounds of human emotion when a loved one was killed. Where did empathy come from? From evolution? Did enough people finally realize that if they allowed something to happen to their neighbor that someday it could happen to them?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Why?
      
      
      
      Perhaps, but it is more likely that people began to understand that their survival benefited from not stealing and not killing others, that by working together their survival was more likely to occur.

      replyreport
7. 83

   The Suburban Poetposted 12 years ago

   At this point I don't think we are disagreeing... but let me add this... do "the faithful" have an impact because maybe they decided that a sin is a sin and the product is that ...sruvival was more likely to occur?
   
   To me it goes back to the discussion... have we all come to the same place concerning killing and stealing but used different roads? It is clear that society is not in the same place when it comes to abortion or homosexuality...

   replyreport
   1. 59

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Who cares what the faithful believe, they have so many different views and opinions that all hinge on magic and fairy tales that they are irrelevant.
      
      
      
      No, evolution brought mankind to understand that killing and stealing are not beneficial for survival.

      replyreport
8. 83

   The Suburban Poetposted 12 years ago

   Why don't you stick to denying a God; it's when you also try to deny the social impact of Christianity that you make yourself irrelevant.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The last two thousand years of bloodshed speaks volumes for the social impact of Christianity.

      replyreport
9. 60

   paradigmsearchposted 12 years ago

   490

   replyreport
10. 60

    paradigmsearchposted 12 years ago

    "The Bible Offends"
    
    Kinda tired of that... :-)

    replyreport
    1. 71

       LeslieAdrienneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Paradigmsearch,
       
       If you want you smileys to show up, click the formatting tab and follow those instructions... if you already know how this works please disregard this post...

       replyreport
11. 71

    earnestshubposted 12 years ago

    I  keep getting bad gateway and had to start a new post.
    
    The preacher question is interesting. As a foundation member of our branch of the Christian Businessman;s Committee I was a part of a team that debated religions with many of the various church theologians.
    
    
    I was also a very evangelical christian.

    replyreport
12. 83

    The Suburban Poetposted 12 years ago

    Why use a tragedy to post a speculative comment meant to bolster your own obsessions?

    replyreport
13. 83

    The Suburban Poetposted 12 years ago

    I understand that feeding your hatred of Christians is a way of life for you but that’s cool. The fact is that normal people who believe in Jesus are very kind and nice. They are all over the place. They’ve had a large impact on the social directives and your refusal to acknowledge this and instead impute all good 100% to evolution just shows that you are an extremist. Why don’t you discuss the impact that secular societies such as Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China have had on the world’s social directives? The fact is you are obsessed with destroying the Bible and the clue is that you won’t give an inch.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Nice of you to make up stuff about me that's entirely false. Thanks all the same.
       
       
       
       Yes, people are nice, it is Christianity that makes nice people do bad things.
       
       
       
       LOL! Extremist? LOL!
       
       
       
       LOL! What do insane despots have to do with secular societies? In fact, if you didn't live in a secular society, you may very well be persecuted for your beliefs, but instead a secular society protects you and gives you the freedom to believe whatever you want. That is the impact of a secular society over one that promotes a religion.
       
       
       
       LOL! Again, you make up some pretty funny stuff. Why would anyone consider "destroying the Bible" when the Bible itself is full of violence, hatred and oppression. It promotes the persecution of those who don't believe in it.

       replyreport
14. 71

    earnestshubposted 12 years ago

    I know you would love to see non-believers wiped out, murdered by your fairy, but you will have to do what all fundies have done since the beginning of time to achieve that. Kill us all yourselves.
    
    How very christian of you.
    Sorry, it is no longer legal for you to murder non-believers, your happy days are gone.

    replyreport
15. 69

    lucieanneposted 12 years ago

    I wonder if anyone would care to explain why, after 2000 years of so-called Christianity, there has been no more 'written word' from God or anyone else. One more thing, who says Christianity is real? We supposedly have documents to prove the existence of Jesus (which I don't doubt for one minute that there was a guy of this name who lived 2000 years ago, and who probably was a radical) but where do I sit then if I believe in a divine entity (God) but don't believe in a book of stories written eons ago by a bunch of old men?
    Surely if the God of the bible wanted the human race to take him seriously, this book would have been updated into a more understandable text. Every time I read a quote from the book, it's quoted in the speech of the middle ages. Nobody speaks like that any more, and it's highly unlikely that Jesus ever uttered the words 'Verily I say unto thee' or anything else along those lines.
    Why did all the books of this bible suddenly stop being written?
    The book of revelation sounds like it's been written by someone who's tripping out on LSD. Why make it so difficult to understand if we are all supposed to take heed of its warnings? Oh yeah I forgot, it's not our place to question the why's and wherefore's.
    I know some smart Alec will come back with a retort along the lines of 'It's to make us study it' blah blah... But if I was wanting to warn someone of impending doom, I'd write it in such a way that they DID understand it, not make it as difficult as possible. Maybe.. if someone in the know took the time to update the text and explain a few things more clearly, people MIGHT show a bit more interest, although I doubt it. Religion is the biggest cause of war and unrest on the planet. The God of the bible really has got a lot to answer for if he has caused all this, and, if this God exists, why has he caused so much suffering for innocent people - The tsunamis, and earthquakes etc?

    replyreport