BBF religious matrix

[Fluffy]

I find that interesting. It strikes me that the only explanation for this would be a desire that your mother not be really 'dead': that there is an afterlife.

 

I have long thought that this wish-fulfillment is a major factor in the religious belief of most and that many of the more 'sophisticated' arguments in support of religious belief are just smokescreens or rationalizations.

 

We actually have no reason, founded in fact or observation or even logic, to think that there is anything 'out there' that even knows we exist, let alone gives a damn about us. Even if we accept some form of divine explanation for the creation of the universe, there seems to be no reason why we should think that such a divinity would in any manner provide for a life after death for any of us, let alone a heaven, a hell or purgatory.

Yes, I know all of these, because it is the third time you tell me about it, that's partly why I asked others, it seems Rik and others don't agree with you, they don't get any need for feeling their close ones are still alive.

 

BTW you didn't answer my last message more than a week ago.

 

 

 

[Winstonm]

 

 

Nobody answered the second part question: when a tragedy happens: is your first though empathetic towards victims or egocentric towards how it matters to you?

 

I can only tell you my personal experience and my interpretation of events, not what actually happens. When I worked it was as a hospice nurse, and later my own wife became ill and expired, so I have seen an inordinate amount of death up close. The overriding lesson to me is how alike each death was - to the point of being fairly predictable as far as time left, etc. Regardless of the life experiences of the persons involved, each death appeared to be simply a biological event, x, y, and z occurred in a fairly straightforward and predictable pattern.

 

My feelings in each case was the same - but always self-centered at first. It angered me. Death sucks.

 

It is no wonder that belief systems have evolved to assuage the feelings that arise when faced with the finality of death. I cannot fault anyone for adopting such a belief system, as we are all capable of different levels and amounts of psychological stress. What I can bear is not necessarily the same as what you can bear, and that only makes us equally humans, not one better than the other.

 

Selfish, angry, and then sad. That is how death makes me feel.

[mikeh]

BTW you didn't answer my last message more than a week ago.

Your last message to me indicated, as I read it, that you haven't any desire to think about the subject: you know what you want to believe, so you believe it. Moreover, you have now several times publicly belittled all atheists. A reference to 'atheist giberish [sic] we all know' was the last straw for me. It is abundantly clear that even if you know the words written by atheists, you have no clue to the meaning of the words, and you are frankly obnoxiously certain that your incoherent choice to believe in religion is right.

 

If you want to have a discussion in which you at least indicate that you are prepared to 'think' or at the very least put forward a logical argmument, then I'd be happy to have that discussion. But so far the evidence suggests the opposite.

[Fluffy]

Ok, I realice my language might not have been best, but please, note that I am heavilly out numbered on some debates so I tend to use some sort of self-defence. I might attack atheist stereotype, but its kind of silly of thinking there is one, in fact I think on all members of the forum independently. As said before I don't understand why any of you should feel identified with a stereotype either, at least not fully.

[Codo]

Oh, he can feel whatever he likes, that's fine with me - as long as he keeps it to himself. As soon as he tries to convince us of anything, however, he needs to say things that make sense if he wants them to count as arguments - especially when he is insinuating that what I might say is "atheist gibberish" at the same time:

 

 

How do you plan to answer such a question without knowing what's being asked?

 

Why did you write something if you better had kept it to yourself according to your own standards? Or do you think that your words makes more sense then Gonzalos?

 

I usually enjoy your input, but if I take the stadards you claim for yourself, you better don't write here anymore- nor should I or anybody else of course.

Just because you deny the existence of things does not make this true for the rest of the world...

[32519]

Due to often inadequate translations of the New Testament, much of the beauty of what Jesus said or what Paul wrote is all but lost to the reader. Then added to this you have fictitious characters that have somehow managed to creep into the Bible. An example of these fictitious characters is Satan, the personification of all evil. Click on this link to get the full story http://www.realdevil.info/devilcontents.htm

Personally I do not agree with everything this guy wrote, but I certainly do agree with a hell of a lot when measured against what I read in the Bible. To get more tongues wagging on who Satan and the devil really are, go and read what Jesus said in Matthew 13:24-30 and the explanation of the parable in Matthew 13:36-43. Nearly every translation in verse 28 says that “an enemy” sowed the weeds among the wheat. The original Greek uses two words here; “echthros” (NT:2190) and “anthropos” (NT:444). “Echthros” means hateful or hostile. “Anthropos” means human being. Jesus actually said that a hateful hostile human being sowed the weeds. In verse 39 he identifies the hateful hostile human being as the devil.

 

First the good news:

It matters not what YOU believe, ultimately every single person who ever walked planet earth will be saved. This includes Hitler, Stalin, and anyone else who YOU consider unworthy of salvation.

Some gems from the Bible:

Approximately 300 copies of Paul’s letter to the Romans have been recovered. The oldest and most reliable of these copies places the doxology found at the end of chapter 16 (verses 25-27) at the end of chapter 14. Later copies have tried to ink out these 3 verses or omit them altogether. So what is it about these 3 verses that others have tried to delete? You can look it up for yourself as to how it has been translated in your Bible. A better translation would read something like this: "25 Now to him who is able to establish you according to the good tidings as I proclaim it as the herald of God's plan of providing salvation through Jesus Christ, which has been kept in silence before time began, but now is revealed; 26 brought to light by the advent, life, death and resurrection of Jesus, as prophetically announced through the scriptures, according to the command of the eternal God, and is being made known to all the nations to bring about obedience of faith 27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory forever. So it is."

 

The bit in verse 25 “before time began” was confirmed about 35 years later by John in Revelation 13:8 “the lamb was slain from the creation of the world.” The lamb was slain for the wrongdoings of Adam and Eve (and everyone else) even before they ever existed.

 

There is more in many of Paul’s other letters. My guess is that institutionalised religion tried to delete the 3 verses above. Why would they do that? Institutionalised religion often tries to control people through fear of eternal damnation and so get the people to live more moral lives. William Tyndale was the first person to challenge institutionalised religion. He was murdered in 1536 for his efforts. You can read his story here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale

 

Now the bad news:

The lake of fire described most notably in Revelations is real. But it is not for eternal damnation. It is for PURIFICATION! Eventually all will be saved; some the easy way, others the hard way.

[kenberg]

Well, to quote Jim Croce, I have done it the hard way every time.

 

I must say I find your post one of the most interesting that I have seen on the various religious threads. It probably will not surprise you that I am not panning a re-evaluation of my beliefs, but I may well go to a couple of your references.

[mgoetze]

Or do you think that your words makes more sense then Gonzalos?

Which word do you have a problem with? I will be happy to explain it to you, even in German. ;)

[mikeh]

Due to often inadequate translations of the New Testament, much of the beauty of what Jesus said or what Paul wrote is all but lost to the reader. Then added to this you have fictitious characters that have somehow managed to creep into the Bible. An example of these fictitious characters is Satan, the personification of all evil. Click on this link to get the full story http://www.realdevil.info/devilcontents.htm

Personally I do not agree with everything this guy wrote, but I certainly do agree with a hell of a lot when measured against what I read in the Bible. To get more tongues wagging on who Satan and the devil really are, go and read what Jesus said in Matthew 13:24-30 and the explanation of the parable in Matthew 13:36-43. Nearly every translation in verse 28 says that “an enemy” sowed the weeds among the wheat. The original Greek uses two words here; “echthros” (NT:2190) and “anthropos” (NT:444). “Echthros” means hateful or hostile. “Anthropos” means human being. Jesus actually said that a hateful hostile human being sowed the weeds. In verse 39 he identifies the hateful hostile human being as the devil.

 

First the good news:

It matters not what YOU believe, ultimately every single person who ever walked planet earth will be saved. This includes Hitler, Stalin, and anyone else who YOU consider unworthy of salvation.

Some gems from the Bible:

Approximately 300 copies of Paul’s letter to the Romans have been recovered. The oldest and most reliable of these copies places the doxology found at the end of chapter 16 (verses 25-27) at the end of chapter 14. Later copies have tried to ink out these 3 verses or omit them altogether. So what is it about these 3 verses that others have tried to delete? You can look it up for yourself as to how it has been translated in your Bible. A better translation would read something like this: "25 Now to him who is able to establish you according to the good tidings as I proclaim it as the herald of God's plan of providing salvation through Jesus Christ, which has been kept in silence before time began, but now is revealed; 26 brought to light by the advent, life, death and resurrection of Jesus, as prophetically announced through the scriptures, according to the command of the eternal God, and is being made known to all the nations to bring about obedience of faith 27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory forever. So it is."

 

The bit in verse 25 “before time began” was confirmed about 35 years later by John in Revelation 13:8 “the lamb was slain from the creation of the world.” The lamb was slain for the wrongdoings of Adam and Eve (and everyone else) even before they ever existed.

 

There is more in many of Paul’s other letters. My guess is that institutionalised religion tried to delete the 3 verses above. Why would they do that? Institutionalised religion often tries to control people through fear of eternal damnation and so get the people to live more moral lives. William Tyndale was the first person to challenge institutionalised religion. He was murdered in 1536 for his efforts. You can read his story here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale

 

Now the bad news:

The lake of fire described most notably in Revelations is real. But it is not for eternal damnation. It is for PURIFICATION! Eventually all will be saved; some the easy way, others the hard way.

Thank you for this post. I may well do as Ken suggested he would do, and look at some of your references.

 

However, while I am prepared to accept that parts of the 'original' holy writings are as you say, that begs the question of why anyone would actually believe that any of what it contains is, in any sense, true. So there is a description of everyone being 'saved': why is that more 'true' than the FSM? Why is it any more true than that Zeus inhabits Olympus? Or Odin Valhalla?

 

Why do you actually believe in a lake of fire in which we will be purified? What evidence do you have for its existence, other than a reference to it by an uneducated (by today's standards), superstitious man who lived in an age when the supernatural was a logical explanation for the numerosu events that could not otherwise be explained due to the prevailing state of ignorance in which everyone lived?

 

Religious belief seems to me to require the refusal to think critically. Certain axioms are assumed to be true: god exists therefore god exists. The bible is true so what it says is true.

 

 

Step back for a moment and ask 'why do I think the bible is true?'. See if the answer always distills into some form of 'I was raised to believe it is true' or 'I want it to be true'. It is known, beyond doubt, that the bible is a heavily and not always accurately translated collection of ancient stories with no real historical validity (OT) and long-after-the fact and often contradictory hagiography (NT). Even true believers like you have to pick and choose what you believe. Why believe that Paul got anything 'right'? So he wrote letters.

 

Look to the universe external to the bible and ask: is there evidence that points to the existence of the Xian god? There is the as-yet unexplained 'fact' of the existence of the universe, but the bible doesn't contain any plausible explanation either. 'God did it' is a statement devoid of content.

[32519]

To answer all your questions will need an extremely lengthy post. I can offer bite size chunks for you to consider. What you choose to do with them is up to you.

 

The incredible story of salvation for all begins in Genesis chapters 1 through 3. These 3 chapters are perhaps the most misunderstood and misquoted of everything else you read in the Bible. Yet they set the tone for everything else that follows.

 

Reading chapters 1 and 2 there are many significant differences. Some of these differences are so significant that many think that Moses erred when he wrote Genesis as it was given to him. Genesis chapter 1 is all about the “spirit man.” Genesis chapter 2 is all about the “natural man.” In chapter 1 the word “create” is used throughout. Create is the Hebrew word “bara” which means create out of nothing, to speak into existence. In chapter 2 when applied to the natural man, the word “made” is used. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines make or made as follows: construct, create or form from parts or other substances. The Hebrew Bible uses the word “asah” in Genesis 2 to refer to everything that God made or formed.

A table setting out these differences may help to recognise and understand them –

 

NATURAL MAN:

1. Made before or on the beginning of day 3 (Genesis 2 v 5 – 7)

2. Limitations were placed on the natural man

a) Limited to eat only from the trees from the garden in Eden (Genesis 2 v 16), excluding

b) The tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2 v 17)

3. God placed the natural man in the garden in Eden to tend and keep it (Genesis 2 v15)

4. The first Adam become a living soul (1 Corinthians 15 v 45)

5. The natural was first (1 Corinthians 15 v 46)

6. The first man was of the earth, made of dust (1 Corinthians 15 v 47)

 

SPIRITUAL MAN:

1. Created on day 6 (Genesis 1 v 27 – 31)

2. No limitations were placed on the spirit man

a) Was given all the seed and fruit of all the trees over the whole earth (Genesis 1 v 29)

b) No restrictions placed on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

3. Instructed to be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and subdue it, have dominion over every living thing (Genesis 1 v 28)

4. The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit (1 Corinthians 15 v 45)

5. Afterward the spiritual (1 Corinthians 15 v 46)

6. The second Man is the Lord from heaven (1 Corinthians 15 v 47)

 

Adam was made before or on the beginning of the third day. The truly amazing thing about this is that Adam stood side by side next to God when He caused every plant of the earth and every herb of the field to grow (day 3). Adam stood next to God when He created the sun, the moon and the stars (day 4). Adam stood next to God when He created the animals, the birds and the fish (day 5).

 

If Adam and Eve never transgressed the Bible as we currently have it, it would only have 4 chapters; Genesis chapters 1 + 2 and Revelations chapters 21 + 22. Everything else recorded between these four chapters is God’s incredible plan of salvation for all.

 

But the question that needs to be asked is this: “Why on earth would God create a spirit man and a natural man?

[mikeh]

To answer all your questions will need an extremely lengthy post. I can offer bite size chunks for you to consider. What you choose to do with them is up to you.

 

The incredible story of salvation for all begins in Genesis chapters 1 through 3. These 3 chapters are perhaps the most misunderstood and misquoted of everything else you read in the Bible. Yet they set the tone for everything else that follows.

 

Reading chapters 1 and 2 there are many significant differences. Some of these differences are so significant that many think that Moses erred when he wrote Genesis as it was given to him. Genesis chapter 1 is all about the “spirit man.” Genesis chapter 2 is all about the “natural man.” In chapter 1 the word “create” is used throughout. Create is the Hebrew word “bara” which means create out of nothing, to speak into existence. In chapter 2 when applied to the natural man, the word “made” is used. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines make or made as follows: construct, create or form from parts or other substances. The Hebrew Bible uses the word “asah” in Genesis 2 to refer to everything that God made or formed.

A table setting out these differences may help to recognise and understand them –

 

NATURAL MAN:

1. Made before or on the beginning of day 3 (Genesis 2 v 5 – 7)

2. Limitations were placed on the natural man

a) Limited to eat only from the trees from the garden in Eden (Genesis 2 v 16), excluding

b) The tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2 v 17)

3. God placed the natural man in the garden in Eden to tend and keep it (Genesis 2 v15)

4. The first Adam become a living soul (1 Corinthians 15 v 45)

5. The natural was first (1 Corinthians 15 v 46)

6. The first man was of the earth, made of dust (1 Corinthians 15 v 47)

 

SPIRITUAL MAN:

1. Created on day 6 (Genesis 1 v 27 – 31)

2. No limitations were placed on the spirit man

a) Was given all the seed and fruit of all the trees over the whole earth (Genesis 1 v 29)

b) No restrictions placed on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

3. Instructed to be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and subdue it, have dominion over every living thing (Genesis 1 v 28)

4. The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit (1 Corinthians 15 v 45)

5. Afterward the spiritual (1 Corinthians 15 v 46)

6. The second Man is the Lord from heaven (1 Corinthians 15 v 47)

 

Adam was made before or on the beginning of the third day. The truly amazing thing about this is that Adam stood side by side next to God when He caused every plant of the earth and every herb of the field to grow (day 3). Adam stood next to God when He created the sun, the moon and the stars (day 4). Adam stood next to God when He created the animals, the birds and the fish (day 5).

 

If Adam and Eve never transgressed the Bible as we currently have it, it would only have 4 chapters; Genesis chapters 1 + 2 and Revelations chapters 21 + 22. Everything else recorded between these four chapters is God’s incredible plan of salvation for all.

 

But the question that needs to be asked is this: “Why on earth would God create a spirit man and a natural man?

 

 

No: the question that needs to be asked is this: why on earth would you believe any of that to be real? What evidence, what chain of logical analysis leads to accepting as true anything written in the OT? Or the NT? I appreciate that there are genuine reasons to evaluate the testaments as separate works, hence framing the question in that fashion.

 

Your posts seem to assume the truth of the passages you quote, and I have no idea how you justify that assumption based on anything external to the bible itself. Which renders everything you say devoid of meaning in terms of why any non-believer would see your belief system as at all plausible.

[Cyberyeti]

No: the question that needs to be asked is this: why on earth would you believe any of that to be real? What evidence, what chain of logical analysis leads to accepting as true anything written in the OT? Or the NT? I appreciate that there are genuine reasons to evaluate the testaments as separate works, hence framing the question in that fashion.

 

Your posts seem to assume the truth of the passages you quote, and I have no idea how you justify that assumption based on anything external to the bible itself. Which renders everything you say devoid of meaning in terms of why any non-believer would see your belief system as at all plausible.

Exactly.

 

And how anybody could believe in the face of overwhelming evidence that the earth is only 6000 years old based on these writings is beyond me.

 

It also amuses me that some of the beliefs are probably based on mistranslations of the original writings. Example - apparently Adam's rib was taken to make Eve, is man missing a rib ? no, but he is missing one bone that most primates have, but saying his penis bone was taken would have been a bit fruity for later translations so it's speculated that this got changed quite early on.

[gwnn]

The really bad news is that eternal punishment, annihilationism and universal reconciliation all have good biblical basis (there is even some verses in the Old Testament that would seem to say that everyone just dies). Of course you can always pick one of the three and try to explain away the contradictions with other verses but usually it takes quite a bit of linguistic gymnastics.

[PassedOut]

One of the great benefits of living in these times in the West is that folks can speak the truth without fear of persecution by religious authorities. Susan Jacoby advocates speaking up in a non-abrasive way about these matters: The Blessings of Atheism

 

It is a positive blessing, not a negation of belief, to be free of what is known as the theodicy problem. Human “free will” is Western monotheism’s answer to the question of why God does not use his power to prevent the slaughter of innocents, and many people throughout history (some murdered as heretics) have not been able to let God off the hook in that fashion.

 

The atheist is free to concentrate on the fate of this world — whether that means visiting a friend in a hospital or advocating for tougher gun control laws — without trying to square things with an unseen overlord in the next. Atheists do not want to deny religious believers the comfort of their faith. We do want our fellow citizens to respect our deeply held conviction that the absence of an afterlife lends a greater, not a lesser, moral importance to our actions on earth.

 

Today’s atheists would do well to emulate some of the great 19th-century American freethinkers, who insisted that reason and emotion were not opposed but complementary.

I find the results of this poll heartening, a majority of the responders having shaken off the shackles of belief in god. Perhaps continuing to speak up in opposition to such beliefs (as mikeh does here) will get more folks thinking seriously about the whole subject.

[BunnyGo]

No: the question that needs to be asked is this: why on earth would you believe any of that to be real? What evidence, what chain of logical analysis leads to accepting as true anything written in the OT? Or the NT? I appreciate that there are genuine reasons to evaluate the testaments as separate works, hence framing the question in that fashion.

 

Your posts seem to assume the truth of the passages you quote, and I have no idea how you justify that assumption based on anything external to the bible itself. Which renders everything you say devoid of meaning in terms of why any non-believer would see your belief system as at all plausible.

 

There is a truth in stories. However, these same chapters of the bible warn against extending the stories to apply to things they shouldn't. That's not to mean they cannot answer questions or provide knowledge to the situations which they do apply to.

 

What is the story of the snake and Eve? The snake comes to Eve and asks about the tree. Eve says that God told them not to touch the fruit. This is in error, because God only told them not to eat the fruit. Eve made the mistake of expanding the truth of God from an area where it was true to an area where it was not true.

 

When the snake then demonstrates that there is no problem touching the fruit (since there wasn't), Eve decides that there's no problem eating the fruit either (another danger of forgetting the original purposes of these stories and only remembering their noncorrect expansions).

[Vampyr]

I was hoping the subject of the afterlife would come up, because I am interested in some opinions:

 

If a person who believes that goodness will earn him a spot in heaven, can he still be credited with personal moral virtue if he performs good acts? Does it "count" for you as a person if you are receiving an eternal reward in exchange?

[BunnyGo]

I was hoping the subject of the afterlife would come up, because I am interested in some opinions:

 

If a person who believes that goodness will earn him an eternal reward, can he still be credited with personal moral virtue if he performs good acts? Does it "count" for you as a person if you are getting "paid" for it?

 

Can one sin through thought? I (and I'm not alone) think not.

 

I think that having evil intentions, but mistakingly doing good is one thing. On the other hand, if one consistently does good in word and deed (and not by accident), then I do not think their thoughts should be condemned.

[Vampyr]

Exactly.

 

And how anybody could believe in the face of overwhelming evidence that the earth is only 6000 years old based on these writings is beyond me.

 

It also amuses me that some of the beliefs are probably based on mistranslations of the original writings. Example - apparently Adam's rib was taken to make Eve, is man missing a rib ? no, but he is missing one bone that most primates have, but saying his penis bone was taken would have been a bit fruity for later translations so it's speculated that this got changed quite early on.

 

Also, apparently the "many-couloured coat" was actually a "long" coat, and of course the "virgin" Mary was simply a "young girl/young woman".

[Vampyr]

Can one sin through thought? I (and I'm not alone) think not.

 

I think that having evil intentions, but mistakingly doing good is one thing. On the other hand, if one consistently does good in word and deed (and not by accident), then I do not think their thoughts should be condemned.

 

You seem to have read into my post something that wasn't there. I wasn't talking about evil or condemnation; just about whether a person can be considered virtuous (as opposed to neutral, not evil) if they believed that virtue would earn them eternal life.

[Vampyr]

Mods please delete duplicate.

[BunnyGo]

You seem to have read into my post something that wasn't there. I wasn't talking about evil or condemnation; just about whether a person can be considered virtuous (as opposed to neutral, not evil) if they believed that virtue would earn them eternal life.

 

I'm simply discussing the inference that if the thought of reward can turn a person's good deeds and actions to no longer matter, then perhaps thought is sinful (or at least matters--if not as much as actions, then enough to affect things).

[32519]

OK, so you’re looking for a shortcut as why you should accept or reject the Bible and its contents. I don’t know if there are any shortcuts but I will give an opinion.

 

To prove that he exists and is real, at various intervals we have recorded unexplained phenomena and miracles in the Bible. These miracles escalated dramatically during the 3½ years of Jesus’ ministry, most notably in the form of people being cured from all sorts of diseases etc. These miracles continued in the period immediately after the resurrection and Paul’s ministry before tapering off altogether. Since Paul’s death until now at different times and different places there have been revivals followed by a gradual falling away of the people again.

 

Jesus promised those who believe would perform greater deeds than him (John 14:12). Apart from the years immediately after the resurrection this hasn’t continued for subsequent generations of believers. If it doesn’t happen before his return then he lied to us. If it starts happening while you are still alive, you will get another chance of salvation the easy way. If it starts happening after you have already died, you too will be saved, only the hard way.

[mgoetze]

To prove that he exists and is real, at various intervals we have recorded unexplained phenomena and miracles in the Bible. These miracles escalated dramatically during the 3½ years of Jesus’ ministry, most notably in the form of people being cured from all sorts of diseases etc.

In other words: the bible is true because the bible is true.

 

Seriously people, do you want to waste your time debating with 32519? Have you seen his threads on the bridge part of the forum? LOL

[nige1]

In other words: the bible is true because the bible is true. Seriously people, do you want to waste your time debating with 32519? Have you seen his threads on the bridge part of the forum? LOL

We should be wary of ad hominem arguments. As a general rule, we learn less from debate with those who share our views than from those who challenge them.

[gwnn]

I was hoping the subject of the afterlife would come up, because I am interested in some opinions:

 

If a person who believes that goodness will earn him a spot in heaven, can he still be credited with personal moral virtue if he performs good acts? Does it "count" for you as a person if you are receiving an eternal reward in exchange?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgHVoHz8AcA