Official Religious Debate Thread

[excruciator]

It's funny how religion had different version of truth throughout ages. If God really did exist and did communicate with whoever, it would've been right the first time.

[PANZERCATWAGON]

or maybe one of them is the truth and the rest are false

[Psycho]

Anyone keen on getting into biblical contradictions? I know some people here takes the bible very litteral, so that could make for a good debate.

[The Geologist]

*Official abstain* I hope I can manage.

Why bother?  This is the place to get into it and hash it all out, instead of having to abstain out of not wanting to ruin other topics (not saying that's your case, just an example).

Anyone keen on getting into biblical contradictions? I know some people here takes the bible very litteral, so that could make for a good debate.

Name a few if you can, I'm curious.

[N. Escalona]

Religion keeps some people sane, science does the same for others. ...
People that go scientific or religious and base their thoughts and ideals of how they and others should act; depending on your level of extremism it correlates directly with anti-thought.

You're making this a false choice! Please understand that I am a very active Catholic, as well as an aspiring scientist who hopes to do research in (physics|chemistry|biology) for the rest of his life. It is NOT a choice between religion and science and do not make it one.

As for rejecting both I think that's just keeping oneself in ignorance.

EDIT: also, It is "impossible" for me to go to heaven if I wanted to according to Matthew 12:31, Mark 3:29, and Luke 12:10. They  all refer to the unforgivable sin of "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit." Which is an unforgivable sin. <--The only unforgivable sin.

Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven.

But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin.

And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but to him that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven.

There is no sin that, if repented, will not be forgiven. This blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, or the Holy Spirit, is final obstinacy. Refusing to repent even until death. More generally, willful rejection of God’s grace and forgiveness. These passages are saying that if sins are not repented, then they shall not be forgiven. If we continue to reject the Holy Spirit by ignoring its calls to conversion until we die, we cannot be forgiven. If however, we repent (even of the worst blasphemies), we are forgiven.

[GSx_Major]

Name a few if you can, I'm curious.

Who did what and told who? Only the lord knows...
Luke, Matthew, Mark, John

Maybe not important, but amusing.
Luke, Matthew

I always liked Genesis - light, day, night and plants before the sun and the stars. Classic. There's also God and Jesus being one, but not quite, or sometimes but then they're not and uh... I dunno. I have no idea what it's trying to say here... Is it explaining what options I have? If someone could explain what to do with folly fools, that'd be helpful.

There is no sin that, if repented, will not be forgiven. This blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, or the Holy Spirit, is final obstinacy. Refusing to repent even until death. More generally, willful rejection of God’s grace and forgiveness. These passages are saying that if sins are not repented, then they shall not be forgiven. If we continue to reject the Holy Spirit by ignoring its calls to conversion until we die, we cannot be forgiven. If however, we repent (even of the worst blasphemies), we are forgiven.

Most christians I've talked too seem to think that where it contradicts itself, the "highest ranking" book is the one to go with, why is that? Shouldn't it all be true? And what happened to the time in the eternal now thing, it was very interesting.

[N. Escalona]

There is no sin that, if repented, will not be forgiven. This blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, or the Holy Spirit, is final obstinacy. Refusing to repent even until death. More generally, willful rejection of God’s grace and forgiveness. These passages are saying that if sins are not repented, then they shall not be forgiven. If we continue to reject the Holy Spirit by ignoring its calls to conversion until we die, we cannot be forgiven. If however, we repent (even of the worst blasphemies), we are forgiven.

Most christians I've talked too seem to think that where it contradicts itself, the "highest ranking" book is the one to go with, why is that? Shouldn't it all be true? And what happened to the time in the eternal now thing, it was very interesting.

I've honestly never heard that before (except in Islam) but I think it's absurd. The entire Bible is true, though not all literally true. We do need to use our reason when interpreting.

Oh right. I'm glad you think so. Well my point is that God, being outside time, sees all simultaneously. While God almost certainly used the Big Bang as a vehicle for his creation, that was not the sum of creation: The Big Bang marked, in some sense, the beginning of the universe, but it was an event at a particular time, long in the past. Its immediate effects are rooted in the past. Creation on the other hand, is not set in a particular time, having its effects in past, present, and future. Not any more in the past, and not any less in the future, but to the fullest extent everywhere, if that makes any sense.

[N. Escalona]

Alright people.

Going to try an experiment here, since it seems that no topic is safe from getting dragged into religious debate these days.

Instead of going off course in another topic where religious issues just somehow pop up, do it in here.

While I appreciate what you are trying to do here, don't expect religion to vanish from all other topics. For those of us who are religious, it's usually a critical part of how they see the world, even in situations and topics other may not consider explicitly religious.

In conclusion, I will try to make this topic my main place for religious discussion, but I won't pretend I'm not religious in other topics either. I hope that's all right. I'm not trying to grief the forums or anything.

[The Geologist]

It's unfortunate I lost the original version of that opening post after clicking a link and having to go back to this page.

I know that topics go off course.  I know that some topics are meant to be rooted in debate, and sometimes that debate involves religion.  And, I know that some topics will eventually spin off course and get into debate about other things than the original point, sometimes religion (which seems to be the front runner as of late). 

In order to prevent topics from getting totally sidetracked and eventually shut down, I made this topic as a place where the debate could be moved/continued without being totally destroyed.  I'm not saying there is to be no religious debate in any other topic than this, but it would be nice if such debates were moved here prior to upsetting other members/thread creators, and losing sight of the original point of the thread.

That is all.

[N. Escalona]

K I support that entirely.

[The Geologist]

Glad to hear it.  After all, I don't really want to stifle any opinions/beliefs around here.  I find a lot of the religious debates interesting at times.

I guess this topic is...kind of like a spillway, where otherwise intense debates can continue without hindrance, and without detriment to the topics they originated in.  That's the goal, at least.

[SDFilm]

Religion keeps some people sane, science does the same for others. ...
People that go scientific or religious and base their thoughts and ideals of how they and others should act; depending on your level of extremism it correlates directly with anti-thought.

You're making this a false choice! Please understand that I am a very active Catholic, as well as an aspiring scientist who hopes to do research in (physics|chemistry|biology) for the rest of his life. It is NOT a choice between religion and science and do not make it one.

But the only way you can be completely religious and scientific is to be Agnostic; as then you have the flexibility to believe 'God may be responsible for this scientific thing that we've found'; Where as Christians and especially Catholics are tied to the Bible. When Christians slowly open up to science it then looks quite mercenary.

[N. Escalona]

Religion keeps some people sane, science does the same for others. ...
People that go scientific or religious and base their thoughts and ideals of how they and others should act; depending on your level of extremism it correlates directly with anti-thought.

You're making this a false choice! Please understand that I am a very active Catholic, as well as an aspiring scientist who hopes to do research in (physics|chemistry|biology) for the rest of his life. It is NOT a choice between religion and science and do not make it one.

But the only way you can be completely religious and scientific is to be Agnostic; as then you have the flexibility to believe 'God may be responsible for this scientific thing that we've found'; Where as Christians and especially Catholics are tied to the Bible. When Christians slowly open up to science it then looks quite mercenary.

How would you define (or describe) being "completely scientific"? I'm not sure what you mean by this.

[GSx_Major]

I've honestly never heard that before (except in Islam) but I think it's absurd. The entire Bible is true, though not all literally true.

You just did it, when ignoring one part of the bible (its unforgivable) in favor of another part (its forgivable).

Doesn't our existance in an eternal now prove you wrong? Would mean that God didn't create us, or that it's not an eternal now. Also, if we already exist then continued creation seems like a waste of time and hardly necessary.

[SDFilm]

Religion keeps some people sane, science does the same for others. ...
People that go scientific or religious and base their thoughts and ideals of how they and others should act; depending on your level of extremism it correlates directly with anti-thought.

You're making this a false choice! Please understand that I am a very active Catholic, as well as an aspiring scientist who hopes to do research in (physics|chemistry|biology) for the rest of his life. It is NOT a choice between religion and science and do not make it one.

But the only way you can be completely religious and scientific is to be Agnostic; as then you have the flexibility to believe 'God may be responsible for this scientific thing that we've found'; Where as Christians and especially Catholics are tied to the Bible. When Christians slowly open up to science it then looks quite mercenary.

How would you define (or describe) being "completely scientific"? I'm not sure what you mean by this.

"religious and scientific": Accepting both science and the Bible/religious teaching. Not that Christians 'don't accept science' at all, since that's like saying "christians don't accept knowlege". But I'm reffering to things that contradict the bible, especialy issues with creation and the age of the earth.

[Smegma]

It's funny how science had different version of truth throughout ages.

Yea.

If God really did exist and did communicate with whoever, it would've been right the first time.

We never said it was wrong in the first place.

Not that Christians 'don't accept science' at all, since that's like saying "christians don't accept knowlege".

Those two are nothing alike.

[~Niko~]

I'm surprised nobody cares about any other god. There are lots of them.

[SDFilm]

Not that Christians 'don't accept science' at all, since that's like saying "christians don't accept knowlege".

Those two are nothing alike.

Being a bit specific aren't we? I wasn't implying that Science in education is the one and only form of 'knowledge'; if that's what you were getting at.

[Snow]

If "Intelligent Design" is a fact, (I said "if"), I still wouldn't understand why we would be given an instruction manual (Bible, Koran)
and be allowed to be free thinking, intelligent and have enough common sense ourselves to know what is truly right or wrong.

What's the point of putting free-thinking man on earth, but then tell him that his choices have consequences beyond
physical consequences.

Personally, I believe everything was created by something or someone and that "Intelligent Design" may be a fact to a very
basic point, however, our lives are up to us.

I was born into a Christian family and raised with Christian beliefs. I still believe the basic teachings of the guy: Live in peace
with one another, live a good life etc (no killing, stealing, etc). The basic teachings and rules span almost every religion or belief.
However, after seeing that the Bible was 2000-6000 years old depending on entries (books) and that the New Testament has
been retranslated and altered through the ages, if I'm to believe in the Bible and follow the rules outlined in it. Which is the correct
version? Plus, was it a text that was meant for people in the past?

It was definitely used as a tool to promote fear. Fear helps control large masses of people. The medieval ages were governed by those who abused
the book. Scores of innocent people were put to death or horrifically tortured... in the name of God!? Some of the most
unimaginable instruments of torture were designed during the medieval ages. The more pain, the better.. to get someone to confess
to being in league with the Devil.

There were smaller groups and sects who followed the more righteous example that Christ for instance was supposed to be about.
There was even one group, within the Vatican, I believe that declared the Inquisition pure heresay. However, the Inquisition, put a
muzzle on them, and eventually had the group put to death. The Cathars were another group - AFAIK evolved from the Catholics,
however, the Catholics at the time saw the Cathars as heretics also, hunted them down and killed them. 

In today's day and age we are much smarter know and know a hell of a lot more than anyone even 100 years ago did. I live my
life as best as I can and try to be respectful and live in peace with others. I don't do it because of the notion of Heaven, if it exists.
Or Hell. I simply treat others as I would want to be treated. I also don't do it out of fear of physical consequences. If you kill
someone, you will get punished someway or another. For things I've done wrong, I owned up to them and accepted humility.

I could go on and on. This is my 2 cents, plus I'm at work, being evil by wasting work hours lol. >.<

[UnknownSniper]

The only question I have is if Atheists don't believe in God or any of that stuff, why do they go out and read the bible just to try and tell people he doesn't exist?