Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

What do you think about the Revelation?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
472 replies to this topic

#381 phantom   Moderators   -  Reputation: 7565

Posted 29 July 2011 - 05:09 PM

Umm, what you're missing is that the O.T. laws were for Jews, not Gentiles, so Christians are not expected to follow them. The verse you quotes has nothing to do with the O.T. laws applying to non-Jews. Posted Image



Lovely, now care to go back and address the questions I asked here in response to your dropping of The Verses Of Truth (please read with heavy sarcasm)?

Sponsor:

#382 phantom   Moderators   -  Reputation: 7565

Posted 29 July 2011 - 05:22 PM


The problem is nailing down WHAT a religion teaches; because if it was easy then you'd all believe the same thing in your respective beliefs. Yet, there are multiple takes on even Christianity which differ wildly in what they think is right.


In the case of Christianity the basics are really quite simple. Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. The rest is secondary.


Which brings me back to an earlier questions; What does god need with a starship?

"Love me first and do as I say" strikes me as nothing more than a control sentiment, and one issued forth from man rather than some all loving god. Frankly the whole idea of a 'jealous, love me only' god goes against the idea of 'perfection' which god is meant to represent. (wait isn't jealousy a sin?)

You have to love god or you won't go to heaven, and the command to 'love thy neighbor' is simple logic if you are trying to control people; you don't want them rising up and toppling you in the name of god.

More importantly I'm willing to bet that most, if not all, christians down the ages will have fallen over on that second part quite often in some way or another.

And here is something that occured to me the other day; you say (and other christians will say it too) that they have no problems with others beliving in other gods... but somewhere, in your head, you've gotta be thinking something like 'suckers, you are so wrong!'... maybe not those words but the thoughts must exist in some form; you've got to think they are 'wrong' because you have to be right... I mean, by the very fact your believe what you say you believe they HAVE to be wrong... there is no wiggle room here...

#383 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 29 July 2011 - 06:03 PM

Which brings me back to an earlier questions; What does god need with a starship?

bwah?

"Love me first and do as I say" strikes me as nothing more than a control sentiment, and one issued forth from man rather than some all loving god. Frankly the whole idea of a 'jealous, love me only' god goes against the idea of 'perfection' which god is meant to represent. (wait isn't jealousy a sin?)

You have to love god or you won't go to heaven, and the command to 'love thy neighbor' is simple logic if you are trying to control people; you don't want them rising up and toppling you in the name of god.

Jealousy isn't a sin (not to be confused with envy) and he doesn't require you to love him or to do what he says; that is why we are here and are fully capable of not loving him or doing what he says. I don't see why people think getting into heaven should be an expectation. It's essentially coming into a loving eternal union with God. You shouldn't expect to get into heaven for doing nothing for the same reason that you shouldn't expect to be able to walk up to a random girl on the street, tell her to marry you, and expect her to actually marry you.


And here is something that occured to me the other day; you say (and other christians will say it too) that they have no problems with others beliving in other gods... but somewhere, in your head, you've gotta be thinking something like 'suckers, you are so wrong!'... maybe not those words but the thoughts must exist in some form; you've got to think they are 'wrong' because you have to be right... I mean, by the very fact your believe what you say you believe they HAVE to be wrong... there is no wiggle room here...

There is a large difference between thinking someone is wrong and thinking someone shouldn't be allowed to practice whatever religion they practice and not thinking less of them for it.



#384 Machaira   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1028

Posted 29 July 2011 - 09:37 PM

So, based on the verses above would you say it is fair to say that if you do not hear of Jesus, thus can not accept him, then you are going to hell? (ref: Jhn 14:6)

Nope. The Bible talks about this, not as much as Christ and salvation of course since the text in the Bible is addressed to those that are Christians.


I also wonder if maybe you can explain; As noted in Jhn 14:6 you can only get into heaven via Jesus, yet in Rev 20:12 is says you are judged according to what it says in the books?

Since it's the Book of Life and Jesus is the way, truth, and life, the two go hand-in-hand.

So, if jesus is the only way in what use are the books? Unless the books are simply a list of names, however implied context of those verses would seem to indicate it comes down to what you have done?

Yup, what you've done with accepting Christ.


Microsoft XNA MVP | Check out my blog for random ramblings on XNA game development

#385 rozz666   Members   -  Reputation: 636

Posted 30 July 2011 - 02:19 AM


Which brings me back to an earlier questions; What does god need with a starship?

bwah?


http://en.wikipedia....with_a_starship

#386 rozz666   Members   -  Reputation: 636

Posted 30 July 2011 - 03:57 AM

@Machaira: still waiting for your replies...

#387 mdwh   Members   -  Reputation: 901

Posted 30 July 2011 - 05:40 AM


Examples?

see my links posted a bit earlier.


The original quote by A Brain in a Vat was "Science, on the other hand, being perhaps the most obvious example of using logic and reason as a source of Truth, does not share this characteristic. A scientist can believe firmly in something, and if evidence or reason leads to the contrary, the scientist is forced to change his mind. Even if the scientist loses sight of logic and reason and refuses to change his mind, the scientific community at large will realign its beliefs."

You responded with people having their lives ruined for being correct.

I haven't had time to read every single entry listed in those links, but AFAICT they're talking about scientists being, at best, ridiculed, not having their lives ruined. Moreover, in all these cases, the scientific community at large did realign their beliefs, once the evidence was presented.

In fact, I would argue that this is part of the way science works, if unfortunate. As well as adopting new correct ideas, it's also important to be sceptical about new claims, otherwise we'd be adopting homeopathy, belief in Unicorns and who knows what. Yes, it's unfortunate if people's feelings are hurt, but that's more a social issue than a scientific one.

Now, I'm sure you're going to claim that the religious opposition to new scientific ideas is just the same thing, and eventually religious people accept the new thing. The first problem is that there is no clear mechanism by which this works. E.g., if we're disputing evolution because of what the Bible says or what you think God says, and later religious people accept evolution, then what changed? You have to accept that either the Bible wasn't right after all, or what you thought God was saying wasn't correct, or that God changed his mind - none of which are particular ringing endorsements for religious belief. With the scientific method, the change is "we tested it and found enough evidence to convince us this was true".

The second problem is that a significant number don't change their beliefs long after the scientific community has accepted them - again for evolution, significant enough to cause political debates in the US over education.

The third problem is that people's lives have been affected more than simply being ridiculed (although I'm willing to accept that this isn't an issue today in Western countries - though it's still a concern the way that religious belief can have political strength, e.g., laws preventing new research because it offends people's religious beliefs).

Your political examples aren't scientific ones. And I fail to see how the "video game" murders are anything to do with your claim about scientists ruining people's lives over new correct theories?

Like I said before. I am not arguing for religion as an answer to everything. I am arguing for religious people to not be looked at like idiots because they are religious. To use your "But officer..." scenario it's the same as the presumption of innocence in most western legal systems. It is not an excuse for being stupid. Religious people have every chance to be as stupid/ignorant as anybody, but that doesn't mean that all religious people are stupid/ignorant.

I agree that religious people aren't necessarily stupid - the evidence suggests that religious people can otherwise be quite intelligent.

I do think that religious belief is misguided (i.e., not supported by any evidence) and irrational. I also think we shouldn't uphold religious belief, faith and so on as being good things, or things that should be respected, just as we wouldn't for any other kinds of irrational belief.

I am not arguing at all against the scientific method. Just like religion the fault with ignorant/intolerant scientists lies with the man not with the method. I am just showing that holding science to a different standard when there are plenty of intolerant scientists just like there are plenty of intolerant religious people is ignorant.

So what is this religious method you talk of? I mean, I can explain the scientific method, and I believe it's a rational way of finding out about the Universe, that works. Examples of scientists being irrational are cases where they aren't doing the scientific method.

So let's talk about religion - when religious people, and leaders of religious organisations, cling to a belief even if evidence or reason leads to the contrary, is this following the religious method, or is this not following the religious method?

If it's the former, then that's exactly what we are criticising here. And if it's the latter - perhaps you can join us in criticising the billions of religious people who are doing it wrong. (I'm not sure our views are that different - I acknowledge that there are some religious people don't seem to use it to base their beliefs about the world on, other than that there is a God.)
http://erebusrpg.sourceforge.net/ - Erebus, Open Source RPG for Windows/Linux/Android
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.harman/conquests.html - Conquests, Open Source Civ-like Game for Windows/Linux

#388 Machaira   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1028

Posted 30 July 2011 - 07:58 AM

Before you claim that it's OT, last time I checked the Christian Bible begins with Genesis.

Irrelevant. The O.T. is history, not Christian doctrine.

A little strange to condemn drunkenness when Jesus himself turned water into wine.

Ummm, you do realize you can drink wine without getting drunk, right?!? Posted Image

And how are we defining sexual immorality here, should we use what the bible tells us?

Of course. Any sexual act outside of marriage is sin.

"Numbers 22:28-29
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
...
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."

Again, O.T. laws are not Christian doctrine.


We're talking in circles here. You're trying to bind me to rules that don't apply to me, just because you think they do.
Microsoft XNA MVP | Check out my blog for random ramblings on XNA game development

#389 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 30 July 2011 - 08:12 AM

You responded with people having their lives ruined for being correct.

I haven't had time to read every single entry listed in those links, but AFAICT they're talking about scientists being, at best, ridiculed, not having their lives ruined. Moreover, in all these cases, the scientific community at large did realign their beliefs, once the evidence was presented.

Maybe I weigh being fired an unable to find a decent job for years a little higher on the, "how fucked your life is," list.


In fact, I would argue that this is part of the way science works, if unfortunate. As well as adopting new correct ideas, it's also important to be sceptical about new claims, otherwise we'd be adopting homeopathy, belief in Unicorns and who knows what. Yes, it's unfortunate if people's feelings are hurt, but that's more a social issue than a scientific one.


I am not arguing at all against the scientific method. Just like religion the fault with ignorant/intolerant scientists lies with the man not with the method. I am just showing that holding science to a different standard when there are plenty of intolerant scientists just like there are plenty of intolerant religious people is ignorant.


The second problem is that a significant number don't change their beliefs long after the scientific community has accepted them - again for evolution, significant enough to cause political debates in the US over education.

Science shouldn't have accepted the neo-darwinist view of evolution in the first place purely based off of scientific evidence, as there are plenty of experiments with evidence counter to what should happen.

Your political examples aren't scientific ones. And I fail to see how the "video game" murders are anything to do with your claim about scientists ruining people's lives over new correct theories?

It's to do with extremists doing stupid things that have nothing to do with religion.

I do think that religious belief is misguided (i.e., not supported by any evidence) and irrational. I also think we shouldn't uphold religious belief, faith and so on as being good things, or things that should be respected, just as we wouldn't for any other kinds of irrational belief.

Why is it irrational? I find my belief to be logically consistent. Not to say some people's religious beliefs are not irrational, but certainly not all of us. There is an important difference between not having share-able evidence for something and being irrational.

So let's talk about religion - when religious people, and leaders of religious organisations, cling to a belief even if evidence or reason leads to the contrary, is this following the religious method, or is this not following the religious method?

If it's the former, then that's exactly what we are criticising here. And if it's the latter - perhaps you can join us in criticising the billions of religious people who are doing it wrong. (I'm not sure our views are that different - I acknowledge that there are some religious people don't seem to use it to base their beliefs about the world on, other than that there is a God.)

I can't speak so much to other faiths, but specifically on Christianity/Catholicism there is a very vocal minority that is in fact doing it wrong. I totally agree that they should be rightfully criticized, but that doesn't mean we should all be criticized generally.

#390 Machaira   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1028

Posted 30 July 2011 - 08:22 AM

Slavery is a bad example. It's supported by your Bible ;-)

No, not supported. God dealt with it since his people were practicing it.

But you don't seem to get it. Your god committed evil acts and you just dismiss it saying it's the old testament. That's cherry picking. You just pick the parts you like.
What about ten commandments?

Evil according to your viewpoint. As our creators he's perfectly within his rights to do as he sees fit to us.

Jer 18:1 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD:
Jer 18:2 "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message."
Jer 18:3 So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel.
Jer 18:4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
Jer 18:5 Then the word of the LORD came to me:
Jer 18:6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.

I gave you the quote when Jesus said that blessed are those who believed without evidence. Now you claim it's taken out of context, so it's your turn to provide one that supports your position.

You're talking about people that believe they're right about something that's contrary to what scripture teaches. That's not faith.


When regarding faith - yes. When regarding other areas, not at all.
Believing in a magic being that create universes without evidence is hardly reasonable.

There is evidence though, you just don't accept it as such.

So, special pleading?

No, just common sense.

Why do you thing I have a bias instead of being skeptic? I asked for your evidence that convinces you. Just give the one best you've got. Surely you should be able to defend it if it's correct.

There are historical texts, of which the Bible is 66 pieces (you do realize the Bible isn't just one book, right? Posted Image), that have archaeological backing. There's things that I've seen or know people who have seen that cannot be explained as anything other than God where coincidence isn't a possibility.


Personally, I think it takes more faith to believe that everything just happened by chance than to believe there's a God that created it.

One more question. How old is the Earth?

I have no idea. Before you go with the "The Bible says it's a couple thousand years old" - no, it doesn't. It doesn't give any indication as to how old it is.
Microsoft XNA MVP | Check out my blog for random ramblings on XNA game development

#391 Telgin   Members   -  Reputation: 200

Posted 30 July 2011 - 09:18 AM


Slavery is a bad example. It's supported by your Bible ;-)

No, not supported. God dealt with it since his people were practicing it.


Of course, He told them not to do a lot of other things. He must have accepted it on some level, else He would have just told them not to do it.


But you don't seem to get it. Your god committed evil acts and you just dismiss it saying it's the old testament. That's cherry picking. You just pick the parts you like.
What about ten commandments?

Evil according to your viewpoint. As our creators he's perfectly within his rights to do as he sees fit to us.

Jer 18:1 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD:
Jer 18:2 "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message."
Jer 18:3 So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel.
Jer 18:4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
Jer 18:5 Then the word of the LORD came to me:
Jer 18:6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.


This is something that has always bothered me. If God created us, surely He does have the right to do whatever He wants to us. I just don't buy the argument that He's all loving if He also does these things. He certainly didn't have to kill anyone in the Bible. He could have made his point in innumerable other ways (He can do anything after all), but He killed people instead (some without even giving them a chance to do anything about what they were doing wrong). How about Pharoah?

In the end, I suppose this argument could always end up at the point of, "God is beyond human understanding", which is impossible to argue with, so I'll leave it at that.

There is evidence though, you just don't accept it as such.


To be honest, when I still considered myself a Christian, I sought for such evidence. I never found any. What did you find? If it's God revealing himself to you personally, He never did it to me, no matter how much I begged.

There are historical texts, of which the Bible is 66 pieces (you do realize the Bible isn't just one book, right? Posted Image), that have archaeological backing. There's things that I've seen or know people who have seen that cannot be explained as anything other than God where coincidence isn't a possibility.


I have no doubt that there are archealogical findings that back some of the history of the Bible. I've never heard of any that back any of the supernatural things that happened in the Bible, though, so it doesn't really change anything.

I also have no doubt that you've experienced things that you believe had to have come from God. I've seen my church attribute lots of things to God that weren't surely His doing though. Recovering from cancer was a favorite, and we all know that it's not impossible to get over cancer without God. Maybe you've experienced something better, I don't know. If it's not too personal I wouldn't mind reading what it was.
Success requires no explanation. Failure allows none.

#392 rozz666   Members   -  Reputation: 636

Posted 30 July 2011 - 10:33 AM


Slavery is a bad example. It's supported by your Bible ;-)

No, not supported. God dealt with it since his people were practicing it.

I see giving laws about using slaves (both in OT and NT) as supporting.


But you don't seem to get it. Your god committed evil acts and you just dismiss it saying it's the old testament. That's cherry picking. You just pick the parts you like.
What about ten commandments?

Evil according to your viewpoint. As our creators he's perfectly within his rights to do as he sees fit to us.


Well, you presented your viewpoint. What's so surprising?
It doesn't matter whether he has every right (he doesn't), it's still evil.
What about ten commandments? They are also OT so they do not apply, right?


I gave you the quote when Jesus said that blessed are those who believed without evidence. Now you claim it's taken out of context, so it's your turn to provide one that supports your position.

You're talking about people that believe they're right about something that's contrary to what scripture teaches. That's not faith.

There was no NT yet at that time, so your reply doesn't make sense. In those verses (John 20:24-29) we have Jesus explicitly blessing those who believed him without seeing his wounds.
Faith is belief without evidence.


When regarding faith - yes. When regarding other areas, not at all.
Believing in a magic being that create universes without evidence is hardly reasonable.

There is evidence though, you just don't accept it as such.

Evidence is or isn't. What you may not accept is where it leads. So what evidence do you have that leads to god (personal experience is not evidence)?


So, special pleading?

No, just common sense.

Common sense is not a reliable way of determining what's true in many cases (Special Relativity for example). You need evidence in every case. Otherwise, it's special pleading.

#393 rozz666   Members   -  Reputation: 636

Posted 30 July 2011 - 10:34 AM


Why do you thing I have a bias instead of being skeptic? I asked for your evidence that convinces you. Just give the one best you've got. Surely you should be able to defend it if it's correct.

There are historical texts, of which the Bible is 66 pieces (you do realize the Bible isn't just one book, right? Posted Image), that have archaeological backing.

Great. Then those things are most likely true. What about resurrections, miracles and stuff?

There's things that I've seen or know people who have seen that cannot be explained as anything other than God where coincidence isn't a possibility.

Read about an argument from ignorance (which, in this case, boils down to 'I can't think of any other way, therefore God did it'). God of the gaps fits here also.

Personally, I think it takes more faith to believe that everything just happened by chance than to believe there's a God that created it.

Who said it happened by chance?
Again, argument from ignorance. Why do assume there are only those 2 possibilities (false dichotomy)? If you say that one of them is wrong it does not mean that the other one is correct.

I have no idea. Before you go with the "The Bible says it's a couple thousand years old" - no, it doesn't. It doesn't give any indication as to how old it is.

Just asking. BTW according to our current knowledge it's 4.5 billion years old.

#394 rozz666   Members   -  Reputation: 636

Posted 30 July 2011 - 10:50 AM


Which brings me back to an earlier questions; What does god need with a starship?

bwah?


The clip is better: http://www.youtube.c...feature=related
You should be familiar with metaphors, they are everywhere in your holy book.
It means 'why does god need worship'?

#395 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 30 July 2011 - 11:10 AM

The clip is better: http://www.youtube.c...feature=related
You should be familiar with metaphors, they are everywhere in your holy book.
It means 'why does god need worship'?

Why do you think god needs worship in the first place? God doesn't need anything from us.

#396 SteveDeFacto   Banned   -  Reputation: 109

Posted 30 July 2011 - 11:37 AM

I'm interested to hear what other people think about this book and its consequences. Personally, although I consider myself to be a Christian, or at least try to, am not interested the least in the Revelation. From where I stand, it's even harmful: It talks about wars, armies, revenge, wrath, enemies and other stuff that seem very distanced from what Jesus tought. And it has been used by the Christian Church in numerous times to justify acts of extreme violence, which are shameful, to say the least, to be associated with Christianity. Overall, although as a young kid I used to read it for its vivid, fantasy imagery, I don't see how this book contributes positively to anything at all.

Your thoughts? (Please no flamewars!)



What do I think about it? You have effectively trolled GDNet. *golf clap*

#397 Telgin   Members   -  Reputation: 200

Posted 30 July 2011 - 11:59 AM


The clip is better: http://www.youtube.c...feature=related
You should be familiar with metaphors, they are everywhere in your holy book.
It means 'why does god need worship'?

Why do you think god needs worship in the first place? God doesn't need anything from us.


Which was another reason I lost the faith I had. God had absolutely no reason to create us, so why did He?
Success requires no explanation. Failure allows none.

#398 rozz666   Members   -  Reputation: 636

Posted 30 July 2011 - 03:34 PM


The clip is better: http://www.youtube.c...feature=related
You should be familiar with metaphors, they are everywhere in your holy book.
It means 'why does god need worship'?

Why do you think god needs worship in the first place? God doesn't need anything from us.


OK. Why does god need our love?

#399 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 30 July 2011 - 05:18 PM

OK. Why does god need our love?


He doesn't o.O

#400 rozz666   Members   -  Reputation: 636

Posted 31 July 2011 - 03:49 AM


OK. Why does god need our love?


He doesn't o.O


I'm starting to wonder if you are a troll.

Mat 22:36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
Mat 22:37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
Mat 22:38 This is the first and greatest commandment.






Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS