To all religious people....

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
but who has the RIGHT to make claims on it then? What is the CRITERION for saying what is and isn't literal truth? Only God can decide what is right and wrong, we HUMANS can only interpret it. and i believe that GOD intended to right it as a literal book, not up for interpretation. And by God, i mean ignorant Bronze age men.

lol

ok, cool, so you believe, as every fundamentalist nutjob does, that the only interpretation of a religion that can possibly be true is the one that follows the most literal interpretation of the sacred texts

like, ****, it goes without saying that I personally agree with you about how much meaning there is in the bible and of what useful household purpose it could be put to. What I am saying is that, just as the fundamentalist has no absolute knowledge of what the bible says, neither do you.

Of course I think each person should be able to garner their own truth from it and they will be equally wrong. The propoganda you posted in this thread, and your view on the necessity of a literal interpretation of the bible, however, are counterproductive to any position you could possibly be pushing for.

Rather than engaging rational and tolerant religion, you justify and give credit to backward and dated interpretations of religion.

Sacred Texts are usually vastly more complex than any other form of literature. I find it very unlikely that anyone here has studied the Bible enough to give a credible and insightful interpretation of the text- all they can do is rely on other peoples interpretations.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
but who has the RIGHT to make claims on it then? What is the CRITERION for saying what is and isn't literal truth? Only God can decide what is right and wrong, we HUMANS can only interpret it. and i believe that GOD intended to right it as a literal book, not up for interpretation. And by God, i mean ignorant Bronze age men.

Catholics have a ready CRITERION as you put it...also the Bible was not written in the bronze age by nutty men. If its all fake then you have to confess it is an excellent job done by very intelligent people. The teachings of Christ themselves are very complex and open to debate as to his meanings.

Also, Jesus said the law (scripture) was not written in stone but was alive, thus it needs to be reviewed over and over.

Also, do you know what a Rabbi is?

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Ahh, but Jesus is God and God is omnipotent and perfect. So that God can, or should be able to, do it. Maybe there is a God. But the god we are talking about, Yahweh, is imaginary because he cant do it.

I assume you've never beaten a man to death with his own femur even though you would be able to if you were real. Should I assume you don't exist?

Moff, i am talking about the old testemant, that was written by nutty bronge age men. Jesus may have been real, probably was. and he was just a wise man is he was real. Thats all.
And inimalist, i personally believe that the old testement was SUPPOSED to be taken literally. Of course i dont want it to be. Of course you can take things metaphorically, but what do you take metaphorically and what do you take literally? That is my question. The punishment for breaking any of the ten commandments, including working on the sabbath and using gods name in vain, is punishable by death. Is that literal, or metaphoric. According to everything god says in the bible, and his actions in the bible, it should be taken literally. And who says the moderate religion is correct? Maybe the outdated one is right, and humans have corrupted religion. Or maybe not. WHO KNOWS? Can a priest, or the Pope, or a rabbi, give you a reason why something is literal and something is metaphoric? Maybe they are wrong, maybe not. Religion cannot be proven, or disproven, so therefore no body is an "expert" in it. Thats all i am saying. We can be equally wrong.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Of course i dont want it to be. Of course you can take things metaphorically, but what do you take metaphorically and what do you take literally? That is my question. The punishment for breaking any of the ten commandments, including working on the sabbath and using gods name in vain, is punishable by death. Is that literal, or metaphoric.

It used to be literal, though I'm sure that in this day in age people would pronounce it as a metaphor. What's most important I think is, why the change from literal to metaphorical(assuming people take it as a metaphor)? I would reckon that people's moral values and ethics have changed throughout the centuries to accommodate for this change.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
lolz. for the whole thumb screws thing, you cant FORCE people into accepting logic and reason, they have to do it on their own. So no thumb screws here.
Oh, and i did not see that Jesus one.
and Dr, Evolution through Darwinian natural selection is anything but random. i would think a bio major would know that. so please, why would you think it is random when all evidence goes against being it being random?

again, i make quick posts here and there, don't have time like i use to to post on KMC.

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick
did i say evolution was random? thanks for stating something i never said. my statement for 'randomness' was not parallel to evolution, but other significant factors, such as bacterial reproduction through conjugation etc..

again, i make quick posts here and there, don't have time like i use to to post on KMC.

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
sorry then. Bio isn't my strong suit so i couldn't tell. IDK, there is no reason to assume a divine being did any of those things, because there is no proof for the aformentioned divine being. Plus, what created that divine being? No, that is the God of the Gaps theory, and it is nonesense. I trust that science will soon, within a centuary, maybe two if we (humanity) live that long, will fill in all of those gaps.

as for me, yes i do believe in a higher being (im Armenian Apostolic Christian), and that is what has constructed my identity. i'm not a religious person, cuz going to church doesn't mean everyone in the structure is a good moral christian. in fact, most douchebags that i know that go to church every sunday, are the biggest pieces of shit on the planet.

anyway, good people don't need to be religious in any shape or form.

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick
Can't disagree with that. No empirical evidence that a higher being does exist.

as for me, yes i do believe in a higher being (im Armenian Apostolic Christian), and that is what has constructed my identity. i'm not a religious person, cuz going to church doesn't mean everyone in the structure is a good moral christian. in fact, most douchebags that i know that go to church every sunday, are the biggest pieces of shit on the planet.

anyway, good people don't need to be religious in any shape or form.

Exactly true because our morals aren't derived from religion, or religious text.

Good people are in abundance, as are bad people. Religious affiliation tends not to be a factor 'most of the time'. Sometimes I'm suprised how nice people are when I say that I'm an atheist. They try to engage in a conversation about it, rather than sitting there with their mouth wide open gasping as if I commited some atrocious crime.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
The teachings of Christ themselves are very complex and open to debate as to his meanings.

Are you serious?

Then why subscribe to a religion that speaks so absolutely in regards to their particular interpretation?

Originally posted by Devil King
Are you serious?

Then why subscribe to a religion that speaks so absolutely in regards to their particular interpretation?

Because our interpretation is the right one- in my belief.

Originally posted by inimalist
my website is better:

http://www.discovery.org/

God exists!

That is one cool website, even if you don´t agree with what they are attempting.

And a person of a different belief would make the same claim about their interpretation. So who is right and who is wrong? Both can't be true.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
And a person of a different belief would make the same claim about their interpretation. So who is right and who is wrong? Both can't be true.

Do I need to tell you a story about an elephant?

Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
And inimalist, i personally believe that the old testement was SUPPOSED to be taken literally. Of course i dont want it to be. Of course you can take things metaphorically, but what do you take metaphorically and what do you take literally? That is my question. The punishment for breaking any of the ten commandments, including working on the sabbath and using gods name in vain, is punishable by death. Is that literal, or metaphoric. According to everything god says in the bible, and his actions in the bible, it should be taken literally. And who says the moderate religion is correct? Maybe the outdated one is right, and humans have corrupted religion. Or maybe not. WHO KNOWS? Can a priest, or the Pope, or a rabbi, give you a reason why something is literal and something is metaphoric? Maybe they are wrong, maybe not. Religion cannot be proven, or disproven, so therefore no body is an "expert" in it. Thats all i am saying. We can be equally wrong.

you say a lot of stuff in there, most I covered in my previous posts, especially the longer one on the previous page. I still don't see why you are asking me those questions, as I don't even care what religious people use as their standard...

Here is what I think: You read Dawkins and Harris, now you are all terrified about big ol bad religion. You are trying to prostalatize your own point, much like a fundamentalist, that religion has one definition, like a fundamentalist, and that definition is either true or false, like a fundamentalist.

Reza Aslan, Islamic scholar, recently did a book called "How to Win a Cosmic war", where he talks about how it is impossible to beat Jihadi Islam through the hetoric of "us" and "them" etc. And in fact, by justifying those divisions, America makes Al Qaeda stronger

pt 1/6: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0nwfw5pZc8

the other parts are linked in the related videos

imho, you are doing the exact same thing. By claiming only the fundamentalist view of religion is correct, you empower the fringe wings of a religion and polorize even the most moderates against you, much like how Bush has empowered the Muslim extremeists with his "with us or against us" mentality.

Any possible positive outcome you might be trying to gain by telling people their personal beliefs are "illogical" and making fun of them will be counter productive to the end you wish. Do you want to live in a theocracy? keep telling people the only valid interpretation of a religious text is literal

Originally posted by Bicnarok
That is one cool website, even if you don´t agree with what they are attempting.

lol, I don't know...

actually, I was really surprised by how political the site is. I thought it was more an anti-evolution site, although it appears to be a catch all crazy conservative nut job place.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
And a person of a different belief would make the same claim about their interpretation. So who is right and who is wrong? Both can't be true.

Yes, they have a different belief.

I concede the point that I may be wrong, but I still believe what I do. That's the difference between a fundamentalist and a moderate.

Believing that abortion is wrong, doesn't make you a fundamentalist.
Believing that evolution is wrong, doesn't make you a fundamentalist.

You become a fundamentalist when you refuse to accept that your beliefs may not be correct.

Originally posted by inimalist
you say a lot of stuff in there, most I covered in my previous posts, especially the longer one on the previous page. I still don't see why you are asking me those questions, as I don't even care what religious people use as their standard...

Here is what I think: You read Dawkins and Harris, now you are all terrified about big ol bad religion. You are trying to prostalatize your own point, much like a fundamentalist, that religion has one definition, like a fundamentalist, and that definition is either true or false, like a fundamentalist.

Reza Aslan, Islamic scholar, recently did a book called "How to Win a Cosmic war", where he talks about how it is impossible to beat Jihadi Islam through the hetoric of "us" and "them" etc. And in fact, by justifying those divisions, America makes Al Qaeda stronger

pt 1/6: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0nwfw5pZc8

the other parts are linked in the related videos

imho, you are doing the exact same thing. By claiming only the fundamentalist view of religion is correct, you empower the fringe wings of a religion and polorize even the most moderates against you, much like how Bush has empowered the Muslim extremeists with his "with us or against us" mentality.

Any possible positive outcome you might be trying to gain by telling people their personal beliefs are "illogical" and making fun of them will be counter productive to the end you wish. Do you want to live in a theocracy? keep telling people the only valid interpretation of a religious text is literal

Isn't religion either true or false? I mean the core of the religion itself. Not bits and pieces of it because you could always find some minor truths/important life lessons in religion.

Originally posted by Admiral Akbar
Isn't religion either true or false? I mean the core of the religion itself. Not bits and pieces of it because you could always find some minor truths/important life lessons in religion.

in my opinion?

sure, but I don't believe in God, so the truth of religion, to me, is going to be a pretty easy question.

I think a religious person gets to define the parts of the religion that they think is true.

Like Jews for Jesus, or Christians who believe Jesus might not have existed but represents a moral life (I had a prof who identified both as a nihilist and Christian).

Sure, there is an objective truth about reality, but you have no more access to that (as in, your view of the world is just as subjective) than a Christian.

like, lol, if you want me to say reasons why I think religions are wrong, look at the civil rights movement in America. in the 50s, religion supports racism, afterwards, religions reformed themselves, and racism was wrong. Obviously God didn't change his mind. To me, there is really nothing more obviating of the human construction of religion than its willingness to change its beliefs in the face of social pressures.

Look, like, why does it matter to you if someone has beliefs that you don't? I'm sure you believe things that I could make insulting videos about. The real problem with religion is where it begins to impact members of a society who do not want it to. This is largely due to actions of fundamentalists, who like the thread starter, insist on a single definition of their religion.

Yes, you and I can think a plurality of religious ideas is more emblematic of religion as a fantasy, but christ, pick your battles. A christian libertarian is way better than an athiest fascist.

lol i am not a facist. and when i talk to religious people, i am completley polite. dont worry. I dont support fundamentalism, and i think it is very wrong. I do change my views, so no, please dont compare me to fundamentalists who wont accept facts and will never change their opinion. But then what do you suppose we do about religion? Let it keep growing unopposed until the world IS a theocracy?