Religion

[newboy]

Scoff if you wish, but there aint no atheists on the battlefield. Think that was what Goblin was getting at. Even those idealogical heroes of the SS and NKVD found God, in the hell of the Ostfront.

Desperate times, desperate measures. And that's not me scoffing or belittling those out there. Let's face it, if you're in a massively stressful situation you'll clutch at any straw you're offered.

It's all part of the delusion stuff I was going on about that lets us warp reality a little to cope with the current situation. Before interviews we pump ourselves up by thinking of only positives about what we can do and have done. Before a date we convince ourselves we're better looking than maybe we are to give confidence. In a war, you could easily see that someone latches onto the notion of God to give themselves hope.

I wonder if GJ is becoming a convert as I type?

[Mr Mosquito]

Desperate times, desperate measures. And that's not me scoffing or belittling those out there. Let's face it, if you're in a massively stressful situation you'll clutch at any straw you're offered.

It's all part of the delusion stuff I was going on about that lets us warp reality a little to cope with the current situation. Before interviews we pump ourselves up by thinking of only positives about what we can do and have done. Before a date we convince ourselves we're better looking than maybe we are to give confidence. In a war, you could easily see that someone latches onto the notion of God to give themselves hope.

I wonder if GJ is becoming a convert as I type?

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

2 Chronicles 7:14

[newboy]

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

2 Chronicles 7:14

So what about that tragic case (amongst countless others) where RuralDean's congregation prayed for that girl to be healed and she died? What about Haiti? Iran? The Tsunami?

Is there a money back guarantee of some sort on those promises the bible makes? After all it's only asking you to be subservient to God in return for what exactly?

[Philip Belgrave]

Whimsy. Marvellous word.

Lots of things give atheism a bad name - I've noted that many atheists take a patronising tone when speaking to religious folks because they can't just see how a grown adult can believe in something they think is patently absurd. I try to avoid it but I'm sure I've done it several times - it's hard not to get over one's own incredulity with what's being presented and accepted by many sane adults.

Equally many religious folks speak down to atheists because to them it's entirely natural that God exists - they feel it, sense it and just... know it. So it seems madness that someone can question what is to them an utter truth.

The nice thing for me about this discussion to date is that although it's confrontational in parts - after all that's how good debate is invoked, it's done with a healthy amount of respect. I can't for the life of me understand what Gater2 et al can use to justify their beliefs, but ultimately I respect their right to believe in it and want to know more.

I haven't read the Basso one, but by the sounds of it don't want to - for what it's worth many atheists I meet are genuinely nice people who believe in helping others (despite the absence of a moral God). It seems to be an odd phenomenon that they only get aggressive/patronising/mocking when discussing religion.

Re: users of this forum. I've found them to be no more nor any less intelligent than the people I generally meet.

So a question to you - I believe that you originally stated you're agnostic - have any of these discussions changed your mind either way?

Firstly , I would never ever,regard users of this forum as unintelligent- perish the thought! Anyone who supports CITY is okay by me. It's just that an ernest discussion on metaphysics is not something that you would normally expect to encounter within a football forum.

One could even argue that an indifference to such matters might be healthy. Why bother your head about something that you cannot influence ? Just accept the world as you find it.

But , as is obvious by this thread, some of us can't leave it at that: and, of course there's no ill-will in the discussion whatever.

Yes- the discussion has given me food for thought.

In many ways, arguing for atheism, is easier . There are obvious discrepancies in Holy Scripture and to try to reconcile the existence of an All-Seeing ,Loving God with all the tragedies, catastrophes and injustices that beset the world certainly requires some mental gymnastics. To dismiss them all as 'God's Will" or "all part of God's plan" as I have sometimes heard, is obviously a king-sized cop-out.

Are all the rituals, hymns, prayers, vestments,traditions, magnificent architecture etc merely play-acting on a vast scale? Were the martyrs who gave their lives for their faith in the past merely suffering from delusions ? Are we kidding ourselves ? Whistling in the dark to try to protect ourselves from the certain reality of personal death ?

On the other side, we have only our human minds to try to grapple with the infinite. All the arguments given above are the product of my rational mind and,as I have tried to indicate in previous submissions I am sure that we are only at the kindergarten stage in understanding the universe. Given that ignorance, I could not rule out the existence of a Divine Being.

I still find myself an agnostic. I find the pros just about balance the cons and the only thing that, for me, would tip the scales would be the possession of faith.

[ruraldean]

Philip

There's a damn good reason why arguing for atheism is easier ... but it's equally as frustrating.

I've argued with Christians before who have accepted every part of every argument I've presented, failed to offer any objective examples (same problem on this thread you'll note) but still end up saying "But I still believe". It's a question of: "Don't confuse me with facts - I have an opinion".

I'm looking forward to Red Goblin's reply following this post and Newboy's subsequent reference to the church situation I'd previously outlined:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

2 Chronicles 7:14

One could also add:

For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

(Matthew 7:8)

but don't expect miracles...

[newboy]

Philip

There's a damn good reason why arguing for atheism is easier ... but it's equally as frustrating.

I've argued with Christians before who have accepted every part of every argument I've presented, failed to offer any objective examples (same problem on this thread you'll note) but still end up saying "But I still believe". It's a question of: "Don't confuse me with facts - I have an opinion".

I'm looking forward to Red Goblin's reply following this post and Newboy's subsequent reference to the church situation I'd previously outlined:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

2 Chronicles 7:14

One could also add:

For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

(Matthew 7:8)

but don't expect miracles...

Indeed.

http://www.examiner.com/x-7780-Houston-Science--Religion-Examiner~y2009m4d10-Scientific-Studies-on-the-Effectiveness-of-Intercessory-Prayer

[Philip Belgrave]

Philip

There's a damn good reason why arguing for atheism is easier ... but it's equally as frustrating.

I've argued with Christians before who have accepted every part of every argument I've presented, failed to offer any objective examples (same problem on this thread you'll note) but still end up saying "But I still believe". It's a question of: "Don't confuse me with facts - I have an opinion".

I'm looking forward to Red Goblin's reply following this post and Newboy's subsequent reference to the church situation I'd previously outlined:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

2 Chronicles 7:14

One could also add:

For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

(Matthew 7:8)

but don't expect miracles...

O.K. But Christians might cite Luke 4; 12.

"THY SHALT NOT TEMPT THE LORD THY GOD ",

meaning, perhaps, that an Almighty God would not appear at the rub of a lamp, like a genie, or respond like a coin-in-the-shot-machine : toss in a prayer and lo- results.

Perhaps, if He exists, He operates in a far more subtle manner and on a different, indeed, eternal timescale.

[newboy]

O.K. But Christians might cite Luke 4; 12.

"THY SHALT NOT TEMPT THE LORD THY GOD ",

meaning, perhaps, that an Almighty God would not appear at the rub of a lamp, like a genie, or respond like a coin-in-the-shot-machine : toss in a prayer and lo- results.

Perhaps, if He exists, He operates in a far more subtle manner and on a different, indeed, eternal timescale.

We're back to my whisk again. Or the FSM. Or the all-powerful teapot.

Bottom line is that the Bible offers you an explicit trade-off - be humble and penitent towards God and pray and in return you shall get what you ask for. There's all sorts of Bill Clintonesque manipulation by the clergy to wriggle out of situations where that clearly doesn't happen but it doesn't disguise the ultimate truth - there's been no evidence of any intervention by God.

On a macro scale it fails due to large scale catastrophies - earthquakes, mudslides etc - killing believers and non-believers alike.

On a micro scale it also fails - hundreds of studies have been done on the effects of prayer and not one has come up with any evidence of any material change in cases where prayer was made vs a control group.

No doubt those who believe will point to cases where prayer has resulted in something happening. But this is positive affirmation again (bad thinking) resulting in people only looking at evidence that supports their theories. You'll find plenty of similar cases where the same thing happened where there was no prayer to those who don't believe.

But if we did suspend belief for a second, ignore all the studies and actual evidence and believe that God did operate in a subtle, imperceptible way over a very long timescale. I think we'd agree that we only call on God in emergencies and times of stress. What practical use is that to those who have natural disasters, dying kids or immediate grief? It's like phoning 999 and having to wait 50 days for a plaster to turn up when your arm is falling off. Personally I'd rather rely on fellow man. That kind of God is far too inadequate.

My final point would be the concept of an all powerful perfect God. If he exists, why would he alter his behaviour according to corruptible, conflicting mortals? Wouldn't that make him imperfect? How would he deal with conflicting requests for assistance?

[newboy]

Interesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...overcome_c.html

Although the acts themselves are outrageous, you have to acknowledge that this kind of stuff will happen in any organisation. There's no evidence that there are more paedophiles in the Catholic church than society at large (although you've got to wonder). However what's interesting to me is the previous lack of outrage over the cover up itself, which to me is far more insidious.

There were instructions sent out by the current Pope to forbid anyone in the clergy from discussing this with any law-enforcement agencies as it was "being dealt with" internally.

And when they mean "being dealt with", they mean relocating the offending minister to another parish to prey on new kids. Equally in Ireland when the police were presented with the evidence, they went to the Church to deal with it.

In the mean time, the Catholic church continues to marginalise gay people, women and atheists and preaches on a lack of moral compass in society at large.

You can be ex-communicated for being in a loving same-sex relationship with a willing partner or withdrawn last rites for allowing your child to marry a protestant, but apparently if you rape a small child you simply have to move parish and you'll be shielded from any criminal investigation.

These aren't one-offs. This is top-level endemic policy.

Are there any Catholics out there who are happy to keep on taking moral guidance from this organisation? How can you justify that?

[newboy]

Notable silence from the pro-religion side, so in the mean-time here's something that might amuse..

http://www.27bslash6.com/easter.html

[swji]

I will contribute the fact that I believe that Jesus = Son of God, Jesus also = God, and that Jesus= died to pay the punishment of all our sins and give us the opportunity to have a personal relationship with God. Sounds a little confusing initially, I know, but if you are curious and want to find out more I strongly suggest having a visit to Headley Park Church.

[ruraldean]

Well, that's tied that up nicely then...

[newboy]

I will contribute the fact that I believe that Jesus = Son of God, Jesus also = God, and that Jesus= died to pay the punishment of all our sins and give us the opportunity to have a personal relationship with God. Sounds a little confusing initially, I know, but if you are curious and want to find out more I strongly suggest having a visit to Headley Park Church.

I guess mixing belief and fact in the same sentence is the cornerstone of most religions. Some questions if I can:

How can Jesus be both God and his son? How does that work? And where does the holy spirit come into this? I've looked at Catholic articles on this and it's as clear as mud.

If he's paid for our sins, what does that actually mean in terms of real life? Does that mean that sinners can do what they will? How do we measure sin? What if someone is sinful for a greater good? Where do the lines get drawn?

On a personal note - how strongly do you believe this, how did you come to believe this and do you have/have you had any doubts? I'm interested in what makes people affirm their beliefs in this frankly incredible stuff.

To save us a visit to Headley Park Church could you elaborate? I'm not taking the p155, but your statements raise so many questions...

[swji]

I guess mixing belief and fact in the same sentence is the cornerstone of most religions. Some questions if I can:

How can Jesus be both God and his son? How does that work? And where does the holy spirit come into this? I've looked at Catholic articles on this and it's as clear as mud.

If he's paid for our sins, what does that actually mean in terms of real life? Does that mean that sinners can do what they will? How do we measure sin? What if someone is sinful for a greater good? Where do the lines get drawn?

On a personal note - how strongly do you believe this, how did you come to believe this and do you have/have you had any doubts? I'm interested in what makes people affirm their beliefs in this frankly incredible stuff.

To save us a visit to Headley Park Church could you elaborate? I'm not taking the p155, but your statements raise so many questions...

Hate to be divisive, but the Catholics aren't always the best people to ask about Jesus - they sometimes put him too much in the background - not all, some.

It's hard to conceive of God and Jesus being Father and Son and yet part of the same entity. However, I'm sure you've heard of the trinity - God being Father, Son AND Holy Spirit. Jesus is the son bit. I didn't really come to faith by cracking the code of that one, but I did come to faith and came to see the Bible as God's word for us, and it explains it a bit more in there. However, it is still mind boggling to an extent, but once you come to faith it makes sense - after all I'm sure you would agree that only some divine power could stop the winds and waves in their tracks. I could stand outside and tell the sky to stop raining, it's very unlikely to happen. However, Jesus did do that - as explained in the Bible with the eye witnesses (i.e. the disciples) still alive after the stories were first written down, allowing early readers to test them on it. Also, there is historical evidence for Jesus being crucified, then put in a tomb, and then the heavy stone rolled (by multiple men I might add) in front of the tomb. There is then evidence for the stone having moved (and not by the Roman guards who could testify to it moving itself having been on guard outside the tomb) and there being no body inside.

So the disciples moved it, you may say? Therefore it's all made up. No. Most of the disciples died because they would not renounce their belief that Jesus was who he said he was (God/Son of God/Messiah - whatever you want to call him). Now, you could say that they were mentally ill or something so died because they weren't all there. 10 people from the same friendship group are very unlikely to be mentally ill. The fact they died for their beliefs, knowing whether it was all true or not (having spent 3 years solid with Jesus before his death and resurrection) seems to suggest that it was very much real.

The concept of Jesus dying to pay for our sins can be difficult to understand - mainly because deep down we all know we do lots of bad things every day, even if we 'balance' them out with the good aspects of our personality. Fact of the matter is, if we assume there is an almighty God who created everything (I never bought an 'accidental' Big Bang - what put the particles there which needed to bang together?!) then he must have pretty perfect standards. Therefore as imperfect beings, we would never be able to match that perfection in order to get the reward of being with Him in Heaven when it all ends. I believe in a Heaven and Hell, but even if you don't, you may believe that once we die, that's it. I happen to believe that if you die, without professing a faith in God through Jesus (that's the key point which I'm sure could be inflammatory) you go to Hell. What 'Hell' exactly is is still a bit of a mystery. But the Bible says it's going to be hot. Very hot. Anyway, with out imperfect existence, full of sin, the end result is death. Be it eternal damnation in Hell or otherwise. Therefore we can deduce that sin = death. Therefore, Jesus needed to die - experience what we would - in order to take our punishment. However, if he didn't rise again, then it would show that even God cannot overcome death, meaning that we could not 'rise again' as it were from mortal death to eternal life in Heaven.

Hopefully you've kept up with me so far - please tell me if none of this makes any sense, I'll try to rephrase if necessary.

While those who believe in Jesus won't be going to Hell, and WILL be going to Heaven when they die, it doesn't mean that we still don't 'sin'. However, when I sin (that being anything that takes me away from God - be it getting unnecessarily angry at something, lusting after a woman [who isn't my wife - I'm not married so it's doubly difficult at the moment!] whatever) I feel terrible - I know God has came to earth as a human and went through pain in order to save me from the grip of sin and the death it causes, but yet I still fall to temptation at times. However, I don't think I do it as much (as 'walking with God' as it were is a journey, and something which continues to change me daily), but I still do 'sin' and I say sorry to God for that, and know that I am not going to hell because of it. However, I think when it comes to the point when you're still sinning without feeling guilty, then you have to question whether you really have any belief in God.

And how did I personally come to God? Well, there was a long set of circumstances and coincidences which led me to Church - some of it is ridiculous and so couldn't be a coincidence. I feel this was God leading me to him at last. I was always an agnostic - Kind of believed, but didn't really think much else of it. However, the first day a friend of mine took me to Headley Park Church, it all felt right. That was 2 years ago this summer, and I've never looked back.

That enough elaboration?

P.S. Also, I wasn't planning on making a big deal out of it, I was just pointing any interested parties towards a good local church in South Bristol which is full of king and open people, and where everything is explained very very well.

[Philip Belgrave]

Simpleton by name Simpleton by ............

And I suppose that sophisticates such as yourself have all the answers ?

[ruraldean]

And I suppose that sophisticates such as yourself have all the answers ?

In fairness Philip, simpleton's entry post, in the light of the pages of discussion preceding it, did come across as a little simplistic. Or did you think it was the definitive answer?

And he chose the handle "simpleton" which might be asking for trouble.

[Philip Belgrave]

No Philip, I do not have all the answers unfortunately. In my opinion, the said posters initial comment on this topic was Religious propaganda and smacked of brainwashing. Nothing more than a bit of free promotion for the Parish of his choice.

I am currently in the Agnostic's camp on this issue, but i am also open to listen/read any cold hard facts, that would change my views.

Since then, We have had the 'Factual' response from the said poster. All very good and I'm sure it would have attained A+ in the sixth form Religious Studies exam. The facts are however that No-one can prove these events did actually take place. I mean is the bible real ?? Is it full of stories that people were too scared or had no means to question??

If the Bible was to be recreated today would it be called 'The Chronicles of Jesus' ??

I .too, am an agnostic, but I must admit to admiring those who have, at least on the face of it, a simple faith ("Simpleton") and are prepared to stand by it.

(A bit like being a Bristol CITY fan ,really)

Whether that faith can be reinforced, or even justified , by a cold, hard rational view of the facts as presented by the Bible, filled as it is with allegory and mysticism, is another matter- and indeed, is the subject of this entire thread.

[22A]

Our local Vicar gave a practical sermon that became a parable on Easter Day. He started by stating that to die and then come back to life is not believed by many as they cannot comprehend it. He then asked if anyone was hungry and wheeled in a bike and offered it to those who wanted to eat.

"A few years ago a Frenchman ate a bike in 15 days. I wasn't there and I find it hard to believe, but there were witnesses to the event and it was recorded shortly after in writing. Look in the Guiness Book of Records under fastest time to eat a bike and it's there"

[newboy]

Our local Vicar gave a practical sermon that became a parable on Easter Day. He started by stating that to die and then come back to life is not believed by many as they cannot comprehend it. He then asked if anyone was hungry and wheeled in a bike and offered it to those who wanted to eat.

"A few years ago a Frenchman ate a bike in 15 days. I wasn't there and I find it hard to believe, but there were witnesses to the event and it was recorded shortly after in writing. Look in the Guiness Book of Records under fastest time to eat a bike and it's there"

Re: the bike story.

It's reproduceable. And doesn't contradict scientific law. And isn't from a source that's full of contradictory disproven stuff that's been translated and interpreted lots of times. And wasn't edited 100's of years after the event with parts of the story chopped out because it didn't fit. Etc etc etc etc/

Massive difference. No doubt if I took two more minutes to think about it I'd think of another half dozen massive differences why the bike story is credible but the supernatural bits of Jesus's story aren't. Not because I'm clever, but because the comparison is paper thin and massively flawed.

If that's the best your vicar can do I'd suggest he gets a different job!

[swji]

In fairness Philip, simpleton's entry post, in the light of the pages of discussion preceding it, did come across as a little simplistic. Or did you think it was the definitive answer?

And he chose the handle "simpleton" which might be asking for trouble.

My first post was deliberately simplistic - I cannot understand why people are having such a hard time understanding that! Simply because the thread was titled 'religion' so I thought I had better quickly explain that I was a Christian, and wanted to give everyone a good church to go to if they did feel intrigued enough to find out more. TO be honest, I wasn't going to be reading the pages of discussion preceeding it. As I prefaced, my original post, it was my intention just to add a church in the ring for any interested parties.

And 'simpleton' is simply a silly handle. No reflection upon my intellectual capabilities I hope

EDIT: Changed my handle. 'simpleton' really was a poor effort. Also syncs up my username on other forums.

My second post suggests that there is indeed evidence for the existence of a guy called Jesus living and preaching at the time the New Testament describes. Additionally, there is also historical evidence that the apostles died for what they believed in - they DID see Jesus die and then saw him multiple times afterwards. If it was not true, they could'e admitted it and escaped death. They didn't. That to me is some of the best proof out there.

[Philip Belgrave]

My first post was deliberately simplistic - I cannot understand why people are having such a hard time understanding that! Simply because the thread was titled 'religion' so I thought I had better quickly explain that I was a Christian, and wanted to give everyone a good church to go to if they did feel intrigued enough to find out more. TO be honest, I wasn't going to be reading the pages of discussion preceeding it. As I prefaced, my original post, it was my intention just to add a church in the ring for any interested parties.

And 'simpleton' is simply a silly handle. No reflection upon my intellectual capabilities I hope

EDIT: Changed my handle. 'simpleton' really was a poor effort. Also syncs up my username on other forums.

My second post suggests that there is indeed evidence for the existence of a guy called Jesus living and preaching at the time the New Testament describes. Additionally, there is also historical evidence that the apostles died for what they believed in - they DID see Jesus die and then saw him multiple times afterwards. If it was not true, they could'e admitted it and escaped death. They didn't. That to me is some of the best proof out there.

I .for one, see nothing whatever wrong with being simple.

Perhaps it could be argued that, by intellectualising the whole matter, we are missing the point.

I sympathise with the thrust of your argument, as I mentioned in an earlier post. a reasonable argument for the validity of Christianity is that it's there.

And it's there because people have put their lives on the line -and they cannot all have been deluded.

[newboy]

I .for one, see nothing whatever wrong with being simple.

Perhaps it could be argued that, by intellectualising the whole matter, we are missing the point.

I sympathise with the thrust of your argument, as I mentioned in an earlier post. a reasonable argument for the validity of Christianity is that it's there.

And it's there because people have put their lives on the line -and they cannot all have been deluded.

It's nice to see religion being simple, because most of the time it obfuscates through obscurity - Catholicism and Scientology in particular have made it a dark art through protocols, hidden 'secrets' and basic guff to hide the mass of contradictions and provably incorrrect stuff they say.

However to reduce an argument to "I believe it because it's written down" is intellectual cowardice and far too simple. If that was the case why don't we believe every story ever written? Why don't we go through life believing every lie we're told?

Just because it's old doesn't make it more credible. And equally, if we take it on face value we have to believe in all of it because that's what you're proposing. If that's the case it rapidly falls apart because only the most gullible could swallow the whole lot as complete fact.

As for your argument that they cannot all have been deluded. We've been there before - yes they can. Millions of people used to believe in a Sun God. Millions of people believed in a flat earth. Crop gods. Millions of people reject Christianity and believe in Islam, Scientology, Paganism, Bhuddism. They all contradict each other to varying degrees and can't all be right. Therefore millions of people can be deluded. That's not intellectual, it's kindergarten logic and proof that age, number of believers, number of martyrs, number of words, number of men in cassocks means absolutely bugger all when it comes to the level of truth in the stuff they're saying.

Did that cult that believed when they died they'd be collected by a passing alien race have any more credibility because they died? No. It's just proof that mass delusion exists and people are irrational beings. Hence religion, superstition, new age medicine, horoscopes, ghosts and all the stufff that most adults eventually grow out of.

I've been through this train of thought before but clearly you ignored it or rejected it. If you're still to use the argument that it's credible because people have died for it then please can you give some rationale behind it or at least explain the contradiction that if one catholic does for the cause that makes it credible, but if one moony clan member does the same it's not.

[swji]

I agree that simply saying they died for it is not a good enough argument. HOWEVER unlike all the people who have died for 'religions' since, the disciples had eyewitness, face-to-face contact with a guy who (a) could heal people at will, (b) Control nature with his words, ( c) Fulfilled everything said about a messiah 500 plus years before, (d) Died and then somehow came back to life and rolled a huge stone away and left all the burial garments in perfect, unmoved position in his grave and then met with them a number of times before ascending to heaven.

So, yes I am still using the martyrdom argument because they SAW Jesus and SAW what he did for three full years. It he hadn't done all those amazing things, and hadn't defeated death, then it wasn't very smart to die anyway, wasn't it?!

EDIT: Also, are you saying faith is something an adult grows out of? Then you have a very poor conception of faith.

And secondly, I believe it because putting my faith in an invisible God has changed my life forever. The fact that there is hard historical evidence for to prove that the events of the Bible DID actually occur, just backs it up for me.

[newboy]

I agree that simply saying they died for it is not a good enough argument. HOWEVER unlike all the people who have died for 'religions' since, the disciples had eyewitness, face-to-face contact with a guy who (a) could heal people at will, (b) Control nature with his words, ( c) Fulfilled everything said about a messiah 500 plus years before, (d) Died and then somehow came back to life and rolled a huge stone away and left all the burial garments in perfect, unmoved position in his grave and then met with them a number of times before ascending to heaven.

So, yes I am still using the martyrdom argument because they SAW Jesus and SAW what he did for three full years. It he hadn't done all those amazing things, and hadn't defeated death, then it wasn't very smart to die anyway, wasn't it?!

EDIT: Also, are you saying faith is something an adult grows out of? Then you have a very poor conception of faith.

And secondly, I believe it because putting my faith in an invisible God has changed my life forever. The fact that there is hard historical evidence for to prove that the events of the Bible DID actually occur, just backs it up for me.

> EDIT: Also, are you saying faith is something an adult grows out of? Then you have a very poor conception of faith.

I'd say it's a perfect conception of faith, but I recognise you won't agree with that. If it helps to understand my point of view, think about how much you believed in Santa when you were a kid. Your parents told you he was real, your friends told you he was real. He was on cards, tv shows etc. You would not even countenance the possibility he wasn't real because you'd been indoctrinated. I don't see how that's different from any religion.

Re: all of the above. No time to go into it right now, but for starters:

a) do you believe all of the new testament? The water into wine. The river turning red. The plague of locusts.etc

b) what about the old testament? Is all of that to be taken on face value?

c) do you think the bible has been altered in any way since it's original 'creation'?

d) what do you think about the sections of the bible that were omitted? why was that?

d) do you think any form of editing took place when the stories of the bible were bought together?

e) assuming Jesus was real and he is part of God, why did he intervene 2000 years ago but hasn't come to Earth now when there's arguably more problems in terms of natural disasters?

f) if Jesus came down to earth to make water into wine, produce feasts, cure leprosy etc why isn't he intervening in the religiohs genocides that have occured in his name both after his resurrection and even now in Africa? why have the power to help a handful of lepers but not millions of people since? is he not powerful enough or just apathetic?

g) why do prayers for help go unanswered when the bible clearly states that prayers will be answered for true believers?

h) what would you say to a Muslim/Scientologist who has has much evidence as you to support their beliefs?

i) do you even entertain the possibility that when the bible was written there was no decent way of capturing real events other than stories passed from person to person. do you acknowledge that it's possible that those stories could be misinterpreted, added to or altered at any point by people who had a vested interest in creating a religion. given that superstition was rife 2000 years ago do you acknowledge that people then could easily have intepreted events as supernatural?

j) how do you explain that there has been no evidence of God or intervention by God in the last 2000 years? why produce a flurry of events in a 30 year period and then stop?

k) what do you think of Mormonism? if you don't believe in it, why not? same goes for scientology.

l) why are all religious events carried out at the same time as previous pagan ones?

There's loads more, but my wife is shouting at me. If you could give those a go I'd be very grateful.

[Philip Belgrave]

It's nice to see religion being simple, because most of the time it obfuscates through obscurity - Catholicism and Scientology in particular have made it a dark art through protocols, hidden 'secrets' and basic guff to hide the mass of contradictions and provably incorrrect stuff they say.

However to reduce an argument to "I believe it because it's written down" is intellectual cowardice and far too simple. If that was the case why don't we believe every story ever written? Why don't we go through life believing every lie we're told?

Just because it's old doesn't make it more credible. And equally, if we take it on face value we have to believe in all of it because that's what you're proposing. If that's the case it rapidly falls apart because only the most gullible could swallow the whole lot as complete fact.

As for your argument that they cannot all have been deluded. We've been there before - yes they can. Millions of people used to believe in a Sun God. Millions of people believed in a flat earth. Crop gods. Millions of people reject Christianity and believe in Islam, Scientology, Paganism, Bhuddism. They all contradict each other to varying degrees and can't all be right. Therefore millions of people can be deluded. That's not intellectual, it's kindergarten logic and proof that age, number of believers, number of martyrs, number of words, number of men in cassocks means absolutely bugger all when it comes to the level of truth in the stuff they're saying.

Did that cult that believed when they died they'd be collected by a passing alien race have any more credibility because they died? No. It's just proof that mass delusion exists and people are irrational beings. Hence religion, superstition, new age medicine, horoscopes, ghosts and all the stufff that most adults eventually grow out of.

I've been through this train of thought before but clearly you ignored it or rejected it. If you're still to use the argument that it's credible because people have died for it then please can you give some rationale behind it or at least explain the contradiction that if one catholic does for the cause that makes it credible, but if one moony clan member does the same it's not.

I don't reject anything, mate- I don't feel qualified. It's all grist to the mill as far as I am concerned.

You demand rationale, but as I mentioned previously, perhaps that's missing the point.

I was invited to a Christian Meeting a couple of weeks ago of the "born again"variety: the full deal with happy- clappy hymns, speaking in tongues, "begone Satan"and all the rest.

I must admit to feeling a comfortable sense of superiority while watching the show, secure in a condescending agnosticism backed ,probably, by a High Anglican upbringing.

But then it ocured to me that I had no right whatever to feel so smug. Perhaps these people with their super- emotional approach to worshipping their God arent so silly after all. They are not bothered with the finer points of theology and probably could not care less about trying to explain or justify the validity of the Holy Trinity.

They lived for the moment and obviously got a good deal out of it all.

"Opiate of the masses', maybe ,but whose to say they're wrong ?

As you have said earlier : "to each his own, I guess".

[newboy]

I don't reject anything, mate- I don't feel qualified. It's all grist to the mill as far as I am concerned.

You demand rationale, but as I mentioned previously, perhaps that's missing the point.

I was invited to a Christian Meeting a couple of weeks ago of the "born again"variety: the full deal with happy- clappy hymns, speaking in tongues, "begone Satan"and all the rest.

I must admit to feeling a comfortable sense of superiority while watching the show, secure in a condescending agnosticism backed ,probably, by a High Anglican upbringing.

But then it ocured to me that I had no right whatever to feel so smug. Perhaps these people with their super- emotional approach to worshipping their God arent so silly after all. They are not bothered with the finer points of theology and probably could not care less about trying to explain or justify the validity of the Holy Trinity.

They lived for the moment and obviously got a good deal out of it all.

"Opiate of the masses', maybe ,but whose to say they're wrong ?

As you have said earlier : "to each his own, I guess".

> "Opiate of the masses', maybe ,but whose to say they're wrong ?

It depends on which question you're asking, which has never really been made explicit on here.

If the question is "Is religion harmful?" which I believe is the point you're making above, then the answer is yes. And no. Yes because

• in a lot of cases people are still being killed today because of different ideologies. Take a look at what's happening in Nigeria right now. On a week's trip to India (one of the shining examples of religious tolerance) there was a story every day about Christians/Muslims/Sihkists attacking innocent people and each other with knives/machetes due to some perceived insult. One Christian group raided a shopping centre attacking everyone because they'd seen a poster with a picture of Jesus smoking a cigarette. Of course this is nothing compared to the wars and genocide happening now and over the last 2000 years directly due to religion.
• it's being used by organisations such as the Catholic Church to garner immense wealth, operate outside the law and tax systems and generally do what they hell they like. All that power has led to systemic corruption. People talk about the evil and power of global corporations but at least they're ultimately answerable to the law and pay taxes. People whinge about Gordon Brown but at least we'll be rid of him in a month due to democracy. You can't get rid of the Pope and he's got far more power.
• it establishes a mind state in people where religious organisations get treated differently from everyone else leading to the above. E.g. religious discussion is taboo. E.g Cops in Ireland reporting abuse to the Church to deal with, not their own law system.
• it is used to dictatie people's lives and used to justify intolerance and removal of civil rights. Think about Saudi Arabia where married couples kissing in public leads to jail. Think about the Taliban where women can't go to school. Think about East Africa where girls are stoned because they happen to have been raped. Think about Ireland where gay people have been oppressed for decades. Think about America where abortionists operating under democratic law have been killed. Condom policy in Africa. Hell - condom policy everwhere that means lots of unwanted children leading to delinquency and social breakdown. If you think about it - the biggest think stopping everyone in the world right now from having equal rights is not economic or political (apart from communist censorship in China) it's religion.
• it's a con. pure and simple. some religions (Scientology, Mormonism) demand portions of believers salaries in return for what exactly?
• it's clever in that religions like Catholicism have processes and sermons cleverly worded to put believers in a constant state of subservience and guilt. Think about the concept of confession and how that makes people both reliant and also powerless under the church.
• it's offering a trade off in life where subservience leads to the promise of prayers being answered and access to heaven. many people will put up with a crappy life and never achieve their full potential because they've either been disempowered or simply apathetic due to promises that won't be carried out
• they are actually a barrier for progress and have a history of interfering with, destroying and trying to smear advances in knowledge because knowledge and facts are the enemies of faith

I believe this discussion is not balanced by the pure fact that we happen to live in a country that whose religion is predominantly the mildest religion going. Personally if my kids ever decided to go into the CofE I'd be disappointed but not overly concerned - there's a lot in there to like (apart from it's ongoing identity crisis over gay relationships). However if we are to talk about religion as a whole then we have to take into account all of religion and that includes the more malevolant ones.

For the sake of balance one has to acknowledge that religion is good because:

• it acts as a focal point to bring communities together
• it can inspire people to do kind acts
• it can inspire people to great works of art/music etc
• it can bring order and rules where there is chaos
• it can provide a comfort blanket to those who struggle with their life as a whole or at a particular stress point
• it can provide answers (of sort) to those who seek understanding about their place in the world

Please don't infer that religion provides morality - that one's almost offensive in the church's hypocrisy on that one.

This sort of leads onto the next big question - "Is Religion necessary?"

I believe not - the 5 points above can easily be replaced with things that are not manipulative, are not based on a series of lies and do not demand subservience in return for help.

• A focal point for communities can be anything - a community centre does the job nicely.
• People do not need to be guilted/bribed into kind acts by warnings of hell/promises of heaven. People can understand how society works as an interconnected whole and how game theory means that sefless acts can benefit us all.
• Inspiration can come from anywhere - love, beauty, drugs!
• Order and rules are now in place via democratically elected governments in most countries. The days of chaos are largely over meaning that religion does not need to plug that gap.
• A comfort blanket maybe sometimes needed when people simply just can't cope but friends/professional counselling can provide this. In the wider scheme of things the harsh truth that we're gonna die and that's it can be more liberating than the comfort blanket of a next life.
• Answers to the origin of the comsos etc. The days of superstition should really be over. The bible has been proven to be complete bollards in a huge amount of explanations it gives. We have science now to explain a lot of things and should be humble enough to deal with the fact there's a lot of things we can't answer right now, but can work on it.

So yes some happy clappys are happy. But do they actually need a supernatural being to have that? Overall is this delusion a source of good or evil. Obviously it's a grey area, but there's a huge amount of harm being done right now and over the last 2000 years due to devotion to a delusion. And I'd argue very strongly that the positives it offers aren't unique and aren't reliant on a belief of a supernatural being.

For me the particularly crazy thing is that there's a belief in an all poweful God, but in your day to day life he/she/it has not actual any effect. So what's the point? I know plenty of people who get through life perfectly happy without any belief whatsoever in God/Shiva etc. So where's the benefit that only religion can bring? We know it's not knowledge - the stuff in the bible is soooo out of date and fallible. Prayer answering - we know that's bollards. The payoff of heaven/hell? Do you really want to spend your life subjugated by a belief that you can't actually prove?

In advanced societies law, community and science completely negate the need for religion. It can be no coincidence that religion is still strong in the most backwards of societies and that as you look towards the more advanced societies than atheism and agnositicism is more prevalent. Unfortunately for those backwards societies it's a vicious spiral - people are desperate so they are subsceptible to religion. Religion wants to maintain it's power base so it's uses the classic technique of divide and conquer and preaches hatred and intolerance. People become more desperate so turn to religion and so on and on and on.

I guess the final big question we've been talking about on here is "Does God exist?"

This one's simple. There's no evidence at all that the Gods mentioned in the texts exist. There's no evidence at all of direct intervention in the last 2000 years, so even if they did exist what's the point? The official texts that exist as the word of God is full of provably wrong facts so why believe them?

There's answers we don't know - the obvious biggy being how did the universe come around, but out of all the possible answers why believe in a book that's full of inconsistencies and wrong facts and being pushed by an organisation that wants to control you and has been proved to act in it's own interests and not yours?

[Philip Belgrave]

> "Opiate of the masses', maybe ,but whose to say they're wrong ?

It depends on which question you're asking, which has never really been made explicit on here.

If the question is "Is religion harmful?" which I believe is the point you're making above, then the answer is yes. And no. Yes because

• in a lot of cases people are still being killed today because of different ideologies. Take a look at what's happening in Nigeria right now. On a week's trip to India (one of the shining examples of religious tolerance) there was a story every day about Christians/Muslims/Sihkists attacking innocent people and each other with knives/machetes due to some perceived insult. One Christian group raided a shopping centre attacking everyone because they'd seen a poster with a picture of Jesus smoking a cigarette. Of course this is nothing compared to the wars and genocide happening now and over the last 2000 years directly due to religion.
• it's being used by organisations such as the Catholic Church to garner immense wealth, operate outside the law and tax systems and generally do what they hell they like. All that power has led to systemic corruption. People talk about the evil and power of global corporations but at least they're ultimately answerable to the law and pay taxes. People whinge about Gordon Brown but at least we'll be rid of him in a month due to democracy. You can't get rid of the Pope and he's got far more power.
• it establishes a mind state in people where religious organisations get treated differently from everyone else leading to the above. E.g. religious discussion is taboo. E.g Cops in Ireland reporting abuse to the Church to deal with, not their own law system.
• it is used to dictatie people's lives and used to justify intolerance and removal of civil rights. Think about Saudi Arabia where married couples kissing in public leads to jail. Think about the Taliban where women can't go to school. Think about East Africa where girls are stoned because they happen to have been raped. Think about Ireland where gay people have been oppressed for decades. Think about America where abortionists operating under democratic law have been killed. Condom policy in Africa. Hell - condom policy everwhere that means lots of unwanted children leading to delinquency and social breakdown. If you think about it - the biggest think stopping everyone in the world right now from having equal rights is not economic or political (apart from communist censorship in China) it's religion.
• it's a con. pure and simple. some religions (Scientology, Mormonism) demand portions of believers salaries in return for what exactly?
• it's clever in that religions like Catholicism have processes and sermons cleverly worded to put believers in a constant state of subservience and guilt. Think about the concept of confession and how that makes people both reliant and also powerless under the church.
• it's offering a trade off in life where subservience leads to the promise of prayers being answered and access to heaven. many people will put up with a crappy life and never achieve their full potential because they've either been disempowered or simply apathetic due to promises that won't be carried out
• they are actually a barrier for progress and have a history of interfering with, destroying and trying to smear advances in knowledge because knowledge and facts are the enemies of faith

I believe this discussion is not balanced by the pure fact that we happen to live in a country that whose religion is predominantly the mildest religion going. Personally if my kids ever decided to go into the CofE I'd be disappointed but not overly concerned - there's a lot in there to like (apart from it's ongoing identity crisis over gay relationships). However if we are to talk about religion as a whole then we have to take into account all of religion and that includes the more malevolant ones.

For the sake of balance one has to acknowledge that religion is good because:

• it acts as a focal point to bring communities together
• it can inspire people to do kind acts
• it can inspire people to great works of art/music etc
• it can bring order and rules where there is chaos
• it can provide a comfort blanket to those who struggle with their life as a whole or at a particular stress point
• it can provide answers (of sort) to those who seek understanding about their place in the world

Please don't infer that religion provides morality - that one's almost offensive in the church's hypocrisy on that one.

This sort of leads onto the next big question - "Is Religion necessary?"

I believe not - the 5 points above can easily be replaced with things that are not manipulative, are not based on a series of lies and do not demand subservience in return for help.

• A focal point for communities can be anything - a community centre does the job nicely.
• People do not need to be guilted/bribed into kind acts by warnings of hell/promises of heaven. People can understand how society works as an interconnected whole and how game theory means that sefless acts can benefit us all.
• Inspiration can come from anywhere - love, beauty, drugs!
• Order and rules are now in place via democratically elected governments in most countries. The days of chaos are largely over meaning that religion does not need to plug that gap.
• A comfort blanket maybe sometimes needed when people simply just can't cope but friends/professional counselling can provide this. In the wider scheme of things the harsh truth that we're gonna die and that's it can be more liberating than the comfort blanket of a next life.
• Answers to the origin of the comsos etc. The days of superstition should really be over. The bible has been proven to be complete bollards in a huge amount of explanations it gives. We have science now to explain a lot of things and should be humble enough to deal with the fact there's a lot of things we can't answer right now, but can work on it.

So yes some happy clappys are happy. But do they actually need a supernatural being to have that? Overall is this delusion a source of good or evil. Obviously it's a grey area, but there's a huge amount of harm being done right now and over the last 2000 years due to devotion to a delusion. And I'd argue very strongly that the positives it offers aren't unique and aren't reliant on a belief of a supernatural being.

For me the particularly crazy thing is that there's a belief in an all poweful God, but in your day to day life he/she/it has not actual any effect. So what's the point? I know plenty of people who get through life perfectly happy without any belief whatsoever in God/Shiva etc. So where's the benefit that only religion can bring? We know it's not knowledge - the stuff in the bible is soooo out of date and fallible. Prayer answering - we know that's bollards. The payoff of heaven/hell? Do you really want to spend your life subjugated by a belief that you can't actually prove?

In advanced societies law, community and science completely negate the need for religion. It can be no coincidence that religion is still strong in the most backwards of societies and that as you look towards the more advanced societies than atheism and agnositicism is more prevalent. Unfortunately for those backwards societies it's a vicious spiral - people are desperate so they are subsceptible to religion. Religion wants to maintain it's power base so it's uses the classic technique of divide and conquer and preaches hatred and intolerance. People become more desperate so turn to religion and so on and on and on.

I guess the final big question we've been talking about on here is "Does God exist?"

This one's simple. There's no evidence at all that the Gods mentioned in the texts exist. There's no evidence at all of direct intervention in the last 2000 years, so even if they did exist what's the point? The official texts that exist as the word of God is full of provably wrong facts so why believe them?

There's answers we don't know - the obvious biggy being how did the universe come around, but out of all the possible answers why believe in a book that's full of inconsistencies and wrong facts and being pushed by an organisation that wants to control you and has been proved to act in it's own interests and not yours?

I was'nt asking an explicit question,merely making a statement in the light of my reaction to a charismatic service that I attended.

Make of it what you will- which you have.

[newboy]

I was'nt asking an explicit question,merely making a statement in the light of my reaction to a charismatic service that I attended.

Make of it what you will- which you have.

Not much of debate though is it? You're right in that in real life I'd wouldn't stand there and challenge people's beliefs - as we've both said each to their own. But this is a forum post on religion so it would be a bit rubbish if we all just came on here, made a statement and then didn't expect a response wouldn't it?

You've posted a scenario where religion was causing people to be happy in a harmless way. That's great. But if we just took these isolated incidences and didn't put it in the context of the world-wide damage religion is doing and has been doing for thousands of years we'd just be looking at one side of the argument. And it's that kind of blinkered approach that fuels religion in the first place.

[swji]

a) do you believe all of the new testament? The water into wine. The river turning red. The plague of locusts.etc

Yup. God/Jesus can do anything, so there's nothing to say he didn't do all of that. The latter two are Old Testament anyway.

b) what about the old testament? Is all of that to be taken on face value?

See above for the answer to the first one. However, it must be noted that not everything in either testament is meant to be literal - the differences between what is supposed to be taken literally and what isn't is more obvious in the original writing language of Greek, not English. Lots of our words are not really accurate to describe what the Greek words were getting at. For example, there is still debate among Christians whether the '7 days' of creation are literally 7 days or 7 periods of time. It's pretty irrelevant overall, but it shows that not everything is black and white. The key message (i.e. what Jesus' death and resurrection means for us) clear, however.

c) Do you think the bible has been altered in any way since it's original 'creation'?

The Bible as we read it is translated - and there are lots of different English translations - From the more word-for-word translation of the English Standard Version, to the slightly more readable New International Version to the incomprehensible King James Version. () All of the differences between these translations make some things read slightly differently - due to phrasing and sentence structure. However, the differences aren't all that major apart from whether they are readable in the 21st century or not. If you can read Greek and Hebrew you can go back and read the original scripts. But I guess what you are getting at is its construction - i.e. whether it's all man-made and so we should cast it off with a pinch of salt. Well, it is man-written, yes - Moses wrote the first books of the Old Testament. The NT is also written by different people - Matthew, Mark Luke and John were among Jesus' disciples, then Paul wrote many of the books afterwards which describe the plight of the early Christians and give great advice on how to improve your relationship with God by living a life pleasing to our maker. Man-written and I'm guessing man-assembled but inspired by God through the different writers' personal experiences with Him - be it Moses' relationship with God through their discussions (burning bush etc,) to the disciples and their face-to-face experience with the human form of God in Jesus Christ.

d) what do you think about the sections of the bible that were omitted? why was that?

I'm not sure about these 'omitted' books. However, I'm guessing that the people constructing it felt they were not needed. As I said, I believe the Bible was inspired by God, and God guided those who assembled it as a book, no doubt

d) do you think any form of editing took place when the stories of the bible were bought together?

Not any editing that would not be done in any non-fiction text - it is especially noticeable in the gospels that the different writers have different readers in mind, so have different emphases and utilise different literary techniques. Nonetheless, all tell the same basic - but inspiring - story of Jesus' life.

e) assuming Jesus was real and he is part of God, why did he intervene 2000 years ago but hasn't come to Earth now when there's arguably more problems in terms of natural disasters?

There's the common mistake I feel people make. God is in everything. He hasn't disappeared. Does God want to hurt people? No. People sin and people are hurt because we live in a fallen world thanks to the original humans (Adam and Eve) turning their back on God by eating the apple from the forbidden tree. I'm not saying natural disasters affect people because of the sins they have committed, don't get me wrong. Everything is somehow part of God's plan, and I don't really know the answers. Suffering is a terrible thing, and something hard to understand. However, all I know is that God/Jesus knows what suffering feels like.

I'll have a go at explaining some element of it: Without the possibility of evil and without the possibility of 'bad' things happening, then we cannot really experience what love is - how powerful God's love is for us. We need opposites to experience each pole of the spectrum if you see what I mean. Everything is in God's plan, but yet we do have free will to make decisions, to sin etc. It's a difficult paradigm to understand - that God knows everything that is going to happen, yet us still having free will. It comes down to the fact that we have no idea what God has planned for us, so we make decisions as normal. We make the decisions, but God already knows - but we don't know what he knows. It does make sense in time when you read more about it, honest!

f) if Jesus came down to earth to make water into wine, produce feasts, cure leprosy etc why isn't he intervening in the religiohs genocides that have occured in his name both after his resurrection and even now in Africa? why have the power to help a handful of lepers but not millions of people since? is he not powerful enough or just apathetic?

Not everything performed in Jesus' name is of God. Oh no. The Bible makes that clear, and I think things like the Crusades indicate that - the actions of those 'Christian's did not reflect the love and forgiveness offered by God to those who accept him. In terms of the current situation - again, suffering is hard to explain. However, a lot of things are down to human sin. Greed is preventing money from getting to those who really need it in Africa, our inability to deal with our planet properly has led to Global Warming and natural disasters. If God just stopped it all then we would not learn from our mistakes and try to earnestly seek a relationship with him. Faith helps a lot of suffering people through a lot of things. Take Haiti - yes there was a lot of voodoo and demonology going on, but I also saw people praying to Jesus and taking comfort from that. The book of Jeremiah featured God promising that everything that happens to his believers is, in the end, for their own good. In adversity I think people often see their relationship with God grow - because in all actuality, no bad thing can upset us permanently, as we will be with him in Heaven one day. That hope is so comforting through bad times.

g) why do prayers for help go unanswered when the bible clearly states that prayers will be answered for true believers?

The Bible says that God will answer every prayer - but we must understand that he's the all-powerful one, not us. As I explained above, He will do things that are, in the end, in our best interests. He always answers our prayer, just not always in the way we mortals would actually like him to at the time!

h) what would you say to a Muslim/Scientologist who has has much evidence as you to support their beliefs?

They may have 'evidence' to back things up like Christians do, but their theologies don't make any sense. I don't think Muslims believe Jesus was crucified, yet there is evidence for that. (Please feel free to correct me). They also believe that you can work your way to paradise/heaven by doing good things. If that were the case , we'd have to meet the perfect standards which God (and Jesus as the only sinless man to walk this earth) by his nature sets. We could never do that - we all know it if we honestly look at ourselves and our lives. Only by his grace, his generosity in offering us a place in Heaven which we don't deserve, can we get it. Only through believing this is the case through what Jesus came to earth to do.

i) do you even entertain the possibility that when the bible was written there was no decent way of capturing real events other than stories passed from person to person. do you acknowledge that it's possible that those stories could be misinterpreted, added to or altered at any point by people who had a vested interest in creating a religion. given that superstition was rife 2000 years ago do you acknowledge that people then could easily have intepreted events as supernatural?

Of course things can be passed down inaccurately by word of mouth - ala Chinese Whispers. However, I think the writers wrote things down pretty soon afterwards. Superstition was rife - the Bible mentions demon and idol-worshipping peoples surrounding the Israelites and later the early Christian communities. It warns not to entertain their beliefs, though. The difference between what Jesus did and what others could magic up (mostly through demons - I think the devil can still make things happen today to fool us and turn us away from God who does more than just glorified magic tricks) is that he did something noone else could do - rise himself - and others such as Lazarus - from the dead.

Another similar story is in the OT. Moses wants the Pharoah to set his people free in Egypt. God gives Moses the power to perform all these miracles and plagues. Up to a certain point, the Pharoah's magicians can replicate Moses' tricks. Up until a point - they can't copy the splitting of the red sea or the nile turning into blood. God > evil magicians.

j) how do you explain that there has been no evidence of God or intervention by God in the last 2000 years? why produce a flurry of events in a 30 year period and then stop?

God makes things happen everyday. Life's little miracles - the way I came to faith was so convoluted yet all tied together through different people, that it could not logically be a coincidence. Plus when I see how God has answered my prayers, it's an amazing feeling every time. Never fails to make me want to thank him for what he's done for me and other believers across the globe and across time.

k) what do you think of Mormonism? if you don't believe in it, why not? same goes for scientology.

I don't know loads about either. However, scientology is about aliens isn't it? That awful Battlefield Earth film was effectively the story of their faith if I recall rightly. Mormonism has its own books on top of the Bible. By their reasoning the Bible isn't enough - but what makes their books any better? Additionally, they don't believe that God is all-powerful which, if he is the creator of the universe, makes no sense to me. Must be pretty darn powerful to create the universe, all the planets, all the stars, every little thing that if it was an inch or so off, wouldn't work properly at all. I don't know lots about them so I can't comment fully, sorry. What I can say about all of the different 'cults' somehow linked to Christianity (don't think Scientology is at all) is that they've all got some part wrong compared to what the Bible actually says - be it that Jesus isn't actually God (Jehovah's Witnesses) or, in the case of the Mormons, that God isn't who he told everyone he was in the Bible. My personal experience with God daily shows me he is all-powerful and is with me every step of the way. I therefore cannot believe that God isn't all powerful.

l) why are all religious events carried out at the same time as previous pagan ones?

Christian ones often are, yes. Don't know about the other religions. I'm guessing it is because, like I mentioned above, Christians wanted to turn people away from the false teachings the Pagans were spreading by re-focusing people on God.

[ruraldean]

swji, this is all basic stuff, the like of which we've encountered and dealt with years ago. It is typical indoctrination, evidenced by constant references to "I don't know anything about..." which pervades your text. You really are going to have to do a LOT better. Because I have a life I'll just look at one teeny, tiny bit:

Quote: They may have 'evidence' to back things up like Christians do, but their theologies don't make any sense.

Let's talk about theologies making sense shall we:

Child is born of a virgin. Claims to be the son of God, or God himself. Is in fact both, plus the Holy Spirit. Is sacrificed by his father (himself) to pay the price for the sins of us all, following which he is resurrected by himself (God). Why does God demand sacrifice to satisfy himself? Why does he pick someone sinless, rather than the sinners themselves? Because he has to show us that he is willing to kill someone he loves just to let us know he's forgiven us. Killing someone you love is God's example to us of all that is good and holy. However, God knows that when he kills his son he'll only be dead for three days anyway, so although it'll hurt a bit, no real harm done eh? and he's only really killing himself anyway. Now we are all forgiven, but remain sinners. Only those with true faith in Jesus are to be saved. This is God's justice. But the Bible says faith is a gift of God. Therefore if you don't have faith, it's because you haven't been given the gift. So God seems to have pre-selected those for salvation by giving them the Golden Ticket of faith.

Meanwhile Jesus, who is both God and Man, is invisible like his father and the Holy Spirit, who all three form the Holy Trinity, who is one being who exists eternally and simultaneously as an indwelling of three persons. This is God's clear and transparent way of revealing himself. Of course, collapsing K2 and standing on top of the rubble in a shower of fire would have been too simple, and where's the challenge for us in that?

let's look at God's thought process shall we?

"I'm going to demand a blood sacrifice. This will be a third party, so none of you will have to suffer, and because it's my last one I'm gonna make it a biggie. Over time you will grow to see that blood sacrifice is no way to please me, but just for now indulge me".

Yup, you're right. Those Muslims and Scientologists (about which you know nothing apparently) sure don't have a theology that makes sense like ours do they?