Pope Francis

Anon

chrisisall wrote:

Anon wrote:

So you'd have to agree, god's a pretty nasty character.

That story was exaggerated; he flooded a town of people yes, but they were all bad.

I meant the bit about Noah's ark. I thought he flooded more than just a town in that episode.
But even if it was a town as you say, he still murdered everyone indiscriminately.
They were ALL bad? Even the ones who'd only just popped out of their mothers?

Ludovico

Maybe it was a gay village he flooded...

Anon

Soundofthesinners wrote:

Also, a quick note as to the flooding of the Earth. First of all, it's likely that the story was allegorical. But even if it weren't, or even on the allegorical level, from a theistic perspective, God has the right to end life, and he does quite frequently. If it's not morally problematic for him to end life at different times, what changes when it's all at once? He can end our life, again, from a theistic perspective, whenever he wants.

In other words, god is a tyrant.

And of course the story is allegorical, but having accepted that why not accept that the whole of the bible is made-up, including its central character. The bible is not a historical reference book - it's a bunch of fairy tales cobbled together.

Dragonpol

The Noah and the Ark story concerned the flooding of the entire world, not only a single village, gay or otherwise. First get your Bible facts right before you start mouthing off about it - it's not too much to ask surely?

Ludovico

Dragonpol wrote:

The Noah and the Ark story concerned the flooding of the entire world, not only a single village, gay or otherwise. Get your Bible facts right beforee yo start mouthing off about it - it's not too much to ask surely?

I don't believe it happened at all, but chrisisall says it is an exaggerate account of a true event hence my comment, which was meant to be a way to say what would justify god to wipe out an entire village. Of course the biblical account is a story of amoral genocide. It says more about the worshippers of this unproven god than anything else.

Dragonpol

Ludovico wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

The Noah and the Ark story concerned the flooding of the entire world, not only a single village, gay or otherwise. Get your Bible facts right beforee yo start mouthing off about it - it's not too much to ask surely?

I don't believe it happened at all, but chrisisall says it is an exaggerate account of a true event hence my comment, which was meant to be a way to say what would justify god to wipe out an entire village. Of course the biblical account is a story of amoral genocide. It says more about the worshippers of this unproven god than anything else.

Scientists have found wood from parts of Noah's Ark, so it was real. Plus, the rainbow symbolises that God will never again flood the world no matter how decadent it becomes in the future. This shows a loving God capable of great change. I used to be a Sunday School teacher, so you know where my sympathies lie...

Master_Dahark

Dragonpol wrote:

Scientists have found wood from parts of Noah's Ark, so it was real. Plus, the rainbow symbolises that God will never again flood the world no matter how decadent it becomes in the future. This shows a loving God capable of great change. I used to be a Sunday School teacher, so you know where my sympathies lie...

Ludovico

You must be joking. Claims of wood parts of the arch have been debunked. And rainbows are an explained natural phenomena! There is not a shred of evidence of a world flood. Or of the accounts of the genesis. Or of the exodus. In fact knowledge of history, biology, heck geography contradicts the biblical account.

Dragonpol

I see very little point in continuing this line of argument. They say never discuss politics or religion and it's true. "The fool says there is no God" is a quote from Scripture that could apply to many here on this thread.

I will now bow out of this thread as we will never reach any form of agreement on this. Let's agree to disagree instead and leave it at that.

Skyfail

Dragonpol wrote:

I see very little point in continuing this line of argument. They say never discuss politics or religion and it's true. "The fool says there is no God" is a quote from Scripture that could apply to many here on this thread.

I will now bow out of this thread as we will never reach any form of agreement on this. Let's agree to disagree instead and leave it at that.

I think that's the only sensible option for this thread.

Ludovico

Dragonpol, the evidences are against you on this one, big time. And quoting scripture is no argument. Especially since I don't say there is no god. I say it is unlikely there is one and that the account of the Bible has been known to be inaccurate historically, even by believers, such as the catholic church. Say to a priest that the Flood happened and he will tell you it is an allegory

Dragonpol

"Even a fool need not err therein..."

As this thread has steered very far from its original meaning, I request that moderators now respectfully close it. It has become an arena for the ugly haranging of religion and has run ts course. There will never be any agreement on this issue.

Ludovico

Ugly haranging of religion? I'm not the one calling others fool. If you have evidence of god, or the events of the bible, please enlighten me. If not, then why call me fool?

Dragonpol

What I'm saying is that you all should let people believe what they want to believe. It's a free country after all. Freedom of speech, thought and religion is what all democracies are based on. Perhaps many of the posters on here should consider this before entering into their arrogant tirades against religion and for science. I feel this thread, originally on Pope Francis, has descended into something else entirely and it's none to palatable. It should be closed. End of.

Ludovico

You can believe whatever you want. And talk about it. But don't expect me to shut up if I hear nonsense. I have also a right to speak about religion and against it. arrogant tirade? I'm not the one using a holy book to say his adversaries are fools.

Oh and if you have proof of the Flood, congratulations on your future Nobel price. You will change human civilization's knowledge of history, physics, zoology, biology, etc. Forever.

RC7

Dragonpol wrote:

What I'm saying is that you all should let people believe what they want to believe.

I totally agree, my problem arises when kids are indoctrinated into this way of thinking. I think this probably sums it up best...



Religion is an ancient form of population control, nothing more. If people find sanctuary in faith, who am I to argue. But my life is short, I want to explore and discover, not have the life strangled out of me because of a bit of popular fiction. If people paid more attention to the here and now, rather than what happens when they snuff it, the world would be in a lot healthier state.

Skyfail

Ludovico wrote:

You can believe whatever you want. And talk about it. But don't expect me to shut up if I hear nonsense.

I am not a Christian but you have a very bad stance , in insulting someone for their beliefs. Those are basic fundamentals like respecting one another . Your parents should have taught you better.

I have met everyone from almost every religion that exists in modern day. I respect each and every one of their beliefs which is much more than what I can say for you.

Ludovico

Sorry Skyfail but Biblical literalism is nonsense. I can certainly say it is. I'm not going to shut up about it. If there is any evidence of biblical veracity, I'm more than happy to hear them. Until then, believers should not have such thin skin.

Skyfail

Ludovico wrote:

Sorry Skyfail but Biblical literalism is nonsense. I can certainly say it is. I'm not going to shut up about it. If there is any evidence of biblical veracity, I'm more than happy to hear them. Until then, believers should not have such thin skin.

@Ludovico
Buddy, I totally understand you don't believe the religion but that's not how you go about it !

All I am saying is everyone has the right to believe or not believe , You should not oppress or ridicule their faith. No matter how odd or wrong it seems to you. Its the courteous thing to do and it shows mature you are in character ;)

Risico007

Anon wrote:

Soundofthesinners wrote:

Also, a quick note as to the flooding of the Earth. First of all, it's likely that the story was allegorical. But even if it weren't, or even on the allegorical level, from a theistic perspective, God has the right to end life, and he does quite frequently. If it's not morally problematic for him to end life at different times, what changes when it's all at once? He can end our life, again, from a theistic perspective, whenever he wants.

In other words, god is a tyrant.

And of course the story is allegorical, but having accepted that why not accept that the whole of the bible is made-up, including its central character. The bible is not a historical reference book - it's a bunch of fairy tales cobbled together.

Thanks for posting the dumbest and albeit scariest post I have ever read are you one of those "the holocost never happened" folks... to say men like Moses King David Solomon never existed yeah what did the Joker used to say "And people say I'm Crazy" I mean Anon do you like being God saying who gets to exist and who doesn't when there is a CLEAR ARCHELOGICAL RECORD that goes hand in hand with everything the Bible is saying in fact I have yet to find a single archelogical study that counters anything within the bible sorry it just isn't there But if your so adament that you can find evidence that contradicts the bible's historcal data I will buy you a shovel and a plane ticket to Israel Good luck.

I have though Long and hard about posting Why I'm a christian but it can be summed up like this "Once you let the evidence speak for itself and once you remove the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable must be the tr even if theuth."

I see a lot of "science is brilliant and religion is dumb" comments ok Let's really look at Science shall we


I could point out the fossil record being thrown around as 100% fact is filled with a ton of eronious data that simply doesn't work Apart from the obvious Lucy is not a proto human just a chimp and Neanderthal Man is also a pigs tooth and a fraud yet is still used in science books to this day pushing the dogma of Evolution down kids throats.

I could point out that according to Evolution "Spontaious Growth" is what caused the first one cell orgnaisms to appear which one celled organims are created due to the enviormental pressure that was caused by our proto Earth Atmosphere...

First law of Thermo Nuclear Phisics Matter can neither be created nor destroyed just changed or altered...but maybe I am misinterprating what Spontanious growth is that its the proto atmosphere that changed the cells to cause them to be liiving....

That doesn't work either. I vaguely recall ( and am not able to find the source on google) Scientist tried to create life in proto earth settings guess what they couldn't even when they inserted a one cell organism it still failed. In fact life is a failure of chemestry and biology. this isn't up for debate any scientsit will agree they just can't figure out why Life exists how it is created and where we came from.

Oh and before someone throws in the Chimps and humans have 98% og the same genetic material. Ok Jellyfish Clouds and Watermellon have 98% of the same genetic material as well (H2O) go find the missing link of those 3 items.


so lets see Does proto earth atmosphere create life NOPE. Nothing +nothing still does equal Nothing Does Big E Evolution work as a theory yes. is it fact No it's far from fact and only the most blowhard of scientists would claim it is fact. and as more and more evidence is piling up against Evolution as a source of human life the more the Theory become less likely There just isn't any evidence to back it up.

After My father died when I was 7 I explored all avenues and the only theory that made the most sense is Christianity. I just Can't think of a logical way around The Empty Tomb Problem. I know all the theories as to how one can get around it but none of them hold up

A few of my favorites

Lets start with the on Anon and Wizard will use "it was added on to the story much latter on and is stolen from egpytion mythology"

There are 4 very obvious problems with this theory

1. Apostles Creed which is dated to around 40. AD just 5 years after Christs death has his resurection right there so if the Romans wanted to destroy christianity parade the body through the streets bam end of christianity right there.

2. Egyptian resurection has to do with changing of the seasons and the earliest greek and egyptian myths dealing with resurection we have post date the emergence of christianity so if there is copying to be done it aint from the Christians

3. lets have a serious look at the gospels the earliest one was written around 50 AD (mark) the latest 70 Ad (John who definitly wrote before the destruction of the temple by the romans) Pauls letters were written before the first gospels and even they have in essence all the details Why would the Romans put up with a cult they can easily destroy?

4. The Gospels make clear references to historical people who would in theory still been alive so if you were around in 40 AD you could ask people who saw Christ and verify the sources.


The Tomb of christ has been found

God bless you for being so naive Yes I know James Cameron's delve into archeology i saw the special too but the story behind it is even more fascinating the Tomb had been known about since the 80's Jesus Mary were actually extremly common names (if I'm not mistaken One of the men on the cross was also named Jesus) but going beyond that the head of Jerselum antiquities in the 80's and 90s was Islamic and would love nothing more then to destroy christianity so he can take over that squadron of Jeresuleum. YET HE DID NOTHING ABOUT IT!!!!! for 20 years I might add why once again like the romans you have the chance to kill christianity and yet you don't do it WHY more then likely he realized what we all did A) the time of the tomb doesn't match the time of christ B) Jesus was a common name so even if you could wash away 200 years (the time difference between Christ and the Jesus of that tomb) you still aren't gaurentteing Jesus of nazareth is the jesus in the tomb plus C) jesus of the tomb was I believe in his teens when he died a far cry from the 33 year old Christ.

Christs followers stole the body

considering it took 20 men and 2 farm animals likely to put the stone in place that alone is a miracle 11 men can do it in one night and without the roman gaurds noticing man they could give tips to the Navy Seals! besides the obvious fact this is impossible why were 10 of the orignal 12 more then willing to be tortured for their faith and I don't mean a little torture I mean tortured to the point of death? Wouldn't they Recant? Why would they stay true to a lie and before you say islamist extremists are willing to die for a lie big difference Peter knew he was telling a lie any modern day examples would not.


Christ didn't die on the Cross he moved the stone and walked out.

There is Science there is pseduo science then there is Stopud Science this theory is part of that catagory. The blood loss ALONE would of killed him and even if somehow he survived it (a miracle in and of itself but we won't go into that) I just got through explaining how 11 men couldn't do it how can one man do it! A man who was whipped and beaten hung up on a cross and had a spear through his side.


Really?

So like i said when you remove the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable is simply the truth.

Dragonpol

Well, you can argue with yourself, then, Liudovico. I'm bailing out of this one and I'd encourage others to do likewise.

Risico007

Dragonpol wrote:

Well, you can argue with yourself, then, Liudovico. I'm bailing out of this one and I'd encourage others to do likewise.

So we should simply reward ignorance for ignorance sake? Neanderthal Man IS STILL BEING TOUGHT even though it's an undisputed fact that Neanderthal Man doesn't exist it's a pigs tooth

Same with Lucy as the earliest proto human It's a chimp folks. this was all known in 1998 yet in 2013 both are still being tought I am all for scientifc reason but who is trying to brainwash people into a dogma? The Church or "Science"?

DiscoVolante

I'll gladly close this derailing crap.

<b>Done</b>