Questioning Society discussion
More Enlightment
>
What Happens When You Die?
it has so many flaws and un fact based opinions in it it's not even funny!
I can't find flaw with the Bible because it doesn't have flaws.1. Circular reasoning.
2. Confirmation bias.
3. Ignoring the question.
Or, as I like to call it, the Holy Trinity.
Mod
Alright, I admit it. I didn't read 23 Minutes in Hell. But that link sounds like it. Have a couple friends that I'm pretty sure both read it. I really should though. But I do have Bill Weise's other book, simple entitled Hell.
"Well it seems you've decided science is never wrong. Well, not science, exactly, since we already see that science has made mistakes and it does correct them, though not always in the expected way. But it seems that nothing can penetrate what you believe to be true."The reason we believe science is right it because it's not a set of facts, it's a method of finding facts. The Bible hands you some ideas. Science is going out and finding them yourself.
((oh, wait, Dan said that. Drat idea stealers >.>))
Mod
And by him all that believe are justified from all things.
Acts 13:39
There is ONE unpardonable sin.
He tgat shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness.
Mark 3:29
Obviously these are two contradictory statements. they are mutually exclusive. Only one can be true. Therefore, there is an error in the Bible. The Bible is not inerrant."
It says "hath never forgiveness." Doesn't that mean will never be forgiven?
Mod
What opinions?
Mod
Evidence. Verifiable evidence. That's it."
And still science doesn't know where the Big Bang came from. It happened, but before that they're not sure. Sure, there might be evidence that it happened. But why isn't there evidence of how it happened? I mean, it does say how, but where did the stuff come from that created the Big Bang?
Ninja wrote: "GreenDaisy BlackStem wrote: "it has so many flaws and un fact based opinions in it it's not even funny!"What opinions?"
Well let's start here: Witches should be hanged
And here: slaves are property and you may herm them as long as they don't die!
Mod
No one ever claimed this."
But no one seems open to what I have to say and the facts I give. Unless they want to disprove and argue against them.
Mod
And here: slaves are property and you may herm them as long as they don't die!"
What is wrong with doing what you wish with your property? As I stated, slaves that were slaves and not indentured servants were the property of their owners.
And where in the Bible does it say witches should be hanged? (Not saying I doubt it does or doesn't, just wondering where.)
I don't own a bible it was somewhere in my friends
Ninja wrote: "And still science doesn't know where the Big Bang came from. It happened, but before that they're not sure. Sure, there might be evidence that it happened. But why isn't there evidence of how it happened? I mean, it does say how, but where did the stuff come from that created the Big Bang?"Why does it matter that science is still trying to figure stuff out? Even if the Big Bang theory were falsified tomorrow (that would take a lot of work, let me tell you), that wouldn't mean that God is the answer. It wouldn't mean that some omniscient being started it all.
"I don't know" is an acceptable answer sometimes. "I don't know but I'll work hard to find out" is even better.
But in the case of the Big Bang, we have enough evidence to know that it happened. Why did it happen? I personally don't know. But that doesn't mean that science will never know.
Or Jesus fleeing to Egypt and only returning after Herod is dead in Matthew. The only Herod who died is Herod the Great. He died in 4 BCE. Ergo, Matthew has Jesus born in before 4 BCE, more likely around 6 BCE.Luke, on the other hand, has Jesus born in the first Roman tax census in Judea -- it is the reason Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem (if they were -- they "had" to be there according to prophecy and this was a reason for it). The census is recorded in history and occurred under the reign of Herod Antipas in 6 CE. Luke correctly cites by name the Roman governor of the time who oversaw the Census. There can be no mistake.
Matthew and Luke cannot be reconciled. They have Jesus being born ten years apart in time, under two different Herods, with an obviously contrived story in Matthew intended to make it sound like Jesus fulfilled another (nonexistent) prophecy (where Luke, at least, is possibly true).
This makes complete sense. Matthew and Luke never met Jesus. They never met anyone that KNEW Jesus. None of Jesus's followers would have had any clue about the circumstances of his birth, and all of this happened seventy to ninety years before the author of Matthew or the author of Luke and Acts wrote it down. They probably wrote it in Greek, in Rome, and only knew that there had been a king named Herod and roughly when he was alive. They probably got that from Mark, since they copied Mark in nearly everything outside of the Nativity that they wrote.
Being (after all) mere superstitious mortal men telling a mythicized story to justify their belief that they were "special" and sure to be saved as soon as Jesus returned, they simply got it wrong. Any other explanation is infinitely convoluted and is at best a supposition.
As in, suppose there was a tax census in the first Herod's reign. There wasn't, of course -- Judea wasn't paying Roman taxes at the time because there was no Roman governor. Nothing like this every happened in other provinces and there is no record that it happened here. Suppose that the governor mentioned by name in Luke, Quirinius, was governor in the first Herod's reign. He wasn't, he was somewhere else at the time. Judea wasn't a client state at the time. THere is no evidence that he was governor, and good reason to believe he was elsewhere, doing other things. Suppose Herod used secret police to kill all the babies, or that we've lost all records of the massacre. Except that this is ridiculous -- this would have been one of the most noteworthy thing in Herod's reign, and yet no historian so much as mentions it?
Suppose that we're just reading the words wrong, when Matthew has Jesus leaving for Egypt and Luke has Jesus going home. Maybe "home" was a secret code for "Egypt".
Stack up enough suppositions, and sure, your apologists can "explain" this. If five or six or eight very unlikely things are all true at the same time, they both could be true, and since the Bible says that they are both true, all of those things must be true as well!
Or, Matthew and Luke contradict each other, and Matthew at least contradicts known history as well. At least Matthew, more likely both, are simply mistaken. Look at how simple an explanation this is. Nothing complex, just that they were wrong.
How unlikely is that? People being wrong! Unheard of! But you'd sooner make history wrong, sooner ignore the physical evidence we have for the sequence of events that determines Luke's Herod as Antipas and Antipas alone, sooner believe seven impossible things before breakfast rather than believe that just one or two people, people with an enormous stake in lying, in telling stories, in writing down a myth that they themselves did not witness, itself probably a copy of a copy of a copy of a verbal story, that those one or two people might just possibly have made a mistake.
I'm going to keep reposting this, by the way, until you respond. Note well that I actually type my entire responses, usually out of my own knowledge. So what, exactly, is that you personally know that would refute this? Where are you going to find some non-apologist historical sites that refute it? Two Herods, more than ten years, and two distinct series of events. Mistaken men (mistaken Bible!) or a ludicrously unlikely series of events without a shred of evidence to support them.
You choose.
rgb
Mod
Hm okay. Well if you mind it you can let me know.
Person: We don't know how the Big Bang happened.Scientist: Hmm, well we'd better start doing work to try to figure it out. That's what we do when there's something we don't know; we investigate.
Chrstian: Ha! See, you don't know anything. Must've been God.
Mod
So when slavery was legal in America, it was moral of their masters to rape, beat and kill them? "
Not necessarily. In the Bible people saw humans AS humans. But they were a human that they owned. Slavery in America was different. It was racist, and slaves were seen ONLY as property. People in the Bible understood that slaves were people, but they were just people they owned.
Mod
Scientist: Hmm, well we'd better start doing work to try to figure it out. That's what we do when there's something we don't know; we investigate.
Chrstian: Ha! See, you don't know anything. Must've been God."
I didn't say they don't know ANYTHING. They just don't know everything. But, neither do I. But my God does.
"And where in the Bible does it say witches should be hanged? (Not saying I doubt it does or doesn't, just wondering where.)"Does "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" ring a bell?
lol Dan
THANK YOU!!Witches do not curse people! They do not eat babies! In fact the main principal of witchcraft is "Harm none and do what ye will" in fact Christianity TOOK many of the Wiccan/Pagan holidays and used them for their own religion!!
Well, we have to distinguish between the traditional meaning of witchcraft, what the crazies who write the bible thought, and modern Wicca.
very true but the people I know that are Christian and actually know that witches exist still think they are evil!!
MY mOUSSE ABSORBED INTO THE CARPET!!!!!!
Mousse. It's a hair product I put it on the carpet!
I know what it is.Why did you put it on the carpet?
If God existed, I think that most of the world would consider him a horrible person. Homophobic, infantcidal, racist...
Lauren wrote: "If God existed, I think that most of the world would consider him a horrible person. Homophobic, infantcidal, racist..."Same
Also I put it there because i felt like it!
No offence to the people who believe in the Bible but you can't have your cake and eat it too with the Bible. For those of you who MIGHT not understand the saying, if you believe in the Bible you can't take the good tings and then pretend the bad things aren't there, you know the contradictions, the bigotry....absolute boringness of it all. :P Anyways...so is this about what happens when you die or slavery? I'm confused? :P
Mod
Anyways...so is this about what happens when you die or slavery? I'm confused? :P"
The Bible has no contradictions.
And yes, we're supposed to be talking about what happens when you die, but we have a hard time keeping on topic, I guess.
Mod
So when slavery was legal in America, it was moral of their masters to rape, beat and kill them? "
Well slavery in America was also racist. It was strictly black and darker skinned people. In the Bible, anyone could be a slave. The Bible says that a master is not allowed to kill a slave, however they may beat them. Raping a slave would probably be considered adultery.
Mod
Witches do not curse people! They do not eat babies! In fact the main principal of witchcraft is "Harm none and do what ye will" in fact Christianity TOOK many of the Wiccan/Pagan holidays and used them for their own religion!!"
I at least know that Halloween is a Pagan Holiday. Not sure what else is.
"The Bible has no contradictions."http://www.infidels.org/library/moder...
Snails do not melt
PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away
I could go on.
Halloween (or, by semantic correctness: Hallowe’en) is a holiday celebrated on October 31. It has roots in the Celtic festival of Samhain and the Christian holy day of All Saints’ Day. It is largely a secular celebration, but some Christians and pagans have expressed strong feelings about its religious overtones.
Wiki has it right, this time.
It's right before All Saint's Day and All Soul's Day. Christian stole the dates to make it more palatable to the Pagans when they wanted to convert them.
Ninja wrote: "Well slavery in America was also racist. It was strictly black and darker skinned people. In the Bible, anyone could be a slave. The Bible says that a master is not allowed to kill a slave, however they may beat them. Raping a slave would probably be considered adultery."I'm going to underline, italicize, and bold this for you so that you don't miss it again:
Slavery is wrong whether it's race-based or not.
You keep defending it by saying that it wasn't racist. Who the frak cares whether or not it was racist? It was slavery.
Oh, Ninja, simply repeating something over and over again, like "There are no contradictions in the Bible," doesn't make it so. We've shown you contradictions. You've block-quoted text from apologist websites in response. Those apologist websites are laughable. You're going to have to do better than that if you want to continue using the whole "there are no contradictions in the Bible" line.
There are contradictions. Slavery is wrong.
The Bible s full of both. So, the Bible is contradictory and wrong? I think so.
Lauren wrote: "There are contradictions. Slavery is wrong.
The Bible s full of both. So, the Bible is contradictory and wrong? I think so. "
agreed
Easter is a Pagan holiday Easter Eggs are a Pagan thing
May Day which is more of a society celebrated holiday I'm not sure if it's Christian or not is based off Beltaine a Wiccan holiday
I at least know that Halloween is a Pagan Holiday. Not sure what else is.Christmas.
Mod
You are aggravating. You keep saying the Bible has no contradictions. I pointed out one.
There is NO unpardonable sin.
And by him all that believe are justified from all things.
Acts 13:39
There is ONE unpardonable sin.
He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness.
Mark 3:29
This is a contradiction. It says two things that are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be true at the same time. Please explain how this is not a contradiction.
Please do not simply avoid this or plug your ears and pretend I didn't ask it."
I did already. Message 327
Mod
I gave you a contradiction. You did not answer it.
The Bible says that a master is not allowed to kill a slave, however they may beat them.
Not true. You can kill them as long as they take a few days to die from the wounds you inflicted. Yeah, that seems moral. Give me a break. How about actually answering the questions I asked you."
I'm sorry that I missed it! There are a lot of comments, sometimes I do miss them on accident. And I explained the one about the slaves already too. If the slave dies as a result(dies right away or bleeds to death or something else), then it's wrong. But if the slave is better in a couple days, it's okay.
Mod
Slavery is wrong.
The Bible s full of both. So, the Bible is contradictory and wrong? I think so. "
Slavery is wrong to who? Some people don't think it is. I'm not saying that includes me, though. Who's to decide what's morally right and wrong?
"But if the slave is better in a couple days, it's okay."*pause, let that sink in*
IT'S OKAY TO BEAT SLAVES BECAUSE. THEY. MIGHT. NOT. DIE.
Not to be offensive, but do you hear yourself?
How can you defend something with that in it, even IF you don't believe it yourself?
Mod
How many different sites do you want? They can't all be "laughable".
Mod
http://www.infidels.org/library/moder...
Snails do not melt
PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass aw..."
This verse doesn't literally mean that snails melt. It's a reference to the trail that they leave behind when they move.
Mod
Questioning Society
Books mentioned in this topic
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (other topics)Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife (other topics)
The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History (other topics)
The Upanishads (other topics)
It actually takes very little to "penetrate what we believe to be true".
Evidence. Verifiable evidence. That's it.