"What we've got here is failure to communicate..."

[Shaker]

I'll give you that one.

... although the ethical precept known as the Golden Rule long predates Christianity, of course.

Slavery was actively and explicitly supported by some Christians while being opposed by some others.

A significant number of Christians seemed to be against equality when it came to marriage equality for gay people.

... and anybody who seriously thinks we live in a rational, dependable universe needs to bone up on some quantum mechanics, fast. The earliest scientists worthy of the name were the pagan polytheistic (or atheistic, in some cases) Greeks.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

None of those political idea have anything to do with Christianity. Slavery was abolished a mere 1,500 years after Christianity became widespread, civil rights a mere 1,700 years after Christianity became widespread and equality hasn't really happened yet. In fact many Christians are actively fighting against equality.
That is not a Christian ideaThat is not a scientific idea.

I'll give you that one.

Science as originally carried out in the west was highly influenced by faith in a rational God creating and underwriting a dependable universe.

[Leonard James]

Science as originally carried out in the west was highly influenced by faith in a rational God creating and underwriting a dependable universe.

Will some scientist please tell me that is no longer true! Such a thought is horrifying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Len,

Will some scientist please tell me that is no longer true! Such a thought is horrifying.

Relax - it never has been. It would be more accurate to say something like scientific discovery has often come out of societies that were religious in nature - the great flowering of knowledge from the early Islamic world for example, but the charge sheet of dogmatic religious belief crushing rationalist/scientific endeavour is every bit as long (and some would argue much longer). It's not much of a claim in any case as all societies historically were religious of one stripe or another so not until the 19th century were there secular societies to point to for comparison purposes. And when you do that of course you find that pretty much all worthwhile scientific advances have come from secular societies and virtually none from religious ones.

Which isn't surprising really. After all, if you think you have all the answers because they're written in a "holy" book, then what need is there of looking for answers in the natural world? Worse yet, if you want to do that anyway then you're dissing the holy book - heretic! 

Incidentally, even if there was an argument to show us to be further along the road of science because of religion rather than further back (just think - we'd all be flying to work on jet packs by now but for the deadening hand of religious dogma!) that would say the square root of diddly squat about the truth or otherwise of the supernatural claims those religions make.     

[Khatru]

... although the ethical precept known as the Golden Rule long predates Christianity, of course.

Absolutely!

The Golden Rule deals with ethical goodness on a reciprocal basis and you'll see it manifested in numerous religions in many different words. Jesus mentions it in the NT although he was far from being the first.  I think the Jains or Hindus beat Jesus to this by a few thousand years.

I'm confident there will be no arguments that wishing no harm or suffering on others is understandably a good thing. Yet harm is exactly what the Bible god wishes on people and he expects his followers to obey him and break the Golden Rule. 

Seems to me that the merit of any religion isn't so much about what someone believes but more about what they do.  In other words, it's all about how they treat their fellow human beings. Extending the same good treatment to other people that you'd expect to receive from them has to be a major, if not, the highest, point of human ethics.

I know there are different types of Christian and I'm yet to know what particular denomination Vlad belongs to.  Maybe it's the one where you make it on faith and belief in Jesus rather than your deeds.

With that in mind, let's look at the god of the Bible: the main condition for us to get our pass for heaven is not about treating our fellow humans decently and respectfully. Oh no, the Golden Rule doesn't matter to God. All that matters to him is that we love Jesus more than anyone else and with every fibre of our being.

I'll rephrase it slightly: the NT tells us that the main condition for getting into heaven is not that we observe the Golden Rule.  Instead, it's that we love Jesus, and to God, that's more important than following the Golden Rule.  It's not nice to harm your fellow humans but as long as you end up loving Jesus with all your heart then you'll be ok for heaven.  I guess some believers must like the idea of spending eternity with such a vain egotistical deity.

[OH MY WORLD!]

 Khatru,
Well of course you are the typical atheist making things up about scripture. Like I said you are very late to this rodeo. Christian will be held to account for our actions.

Just to school you,

"But I say unto you, That EVERY idle word that men shall speak, They shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."   Matthew 12:36

And read Romans chapter 3

[Khatru]

Khatru,
Well of course you are the typical atheist making things up about scripture. Like I said you are very late to this rodeo. Christian will be held to account for our actions.

Just to school you,

"But I say unto you, That EVERY idle word that men shall speak, They shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."   Matthew 12:36

I will be held accountable for my actions?

Ah, you must be one of those believers who claims we are not judged by our faith in Jesus.

Now then, care to tell me what it is that you say I am making up about biblical scripture?

And read Romans chapter 3

Romans chapter 3?

All men shall refrain from sniffing the ladies seats outside the synagogue?

Sorry, I was in Red Dwarf mode.

[Bubbles]

I could say the same for you.

I lack the " one true wayism" that you have.

 

[Bubbles]

I will be held accountable for my actions?

Ah, you must be one of those believers who claims we are not judged by our faith in Jesus.

Now then, care to tell me what it is that you say I am making up about biblical scripture?


Romans chapter 3?

All men shall refrain from sniffing the ladies seats outside the synagogue?

Sorry, I was in Red Dwarf mode.

You said

"Seems to me that the merit of any religion isn't so much about what someone believes but more about what they do.  In other words, it's all about how they treat their fellow human beings. Extending the same good treatment to other people that you'd expect to receive from them has to be a major, if not, the highest, point of human ethics. "

If you believe and live up to that, I can't see there is an issue. ( what's to judge badly about those sort of actions ?)

I agree with what you have written above. Actions do speak louder than words ( or in this case, beliefs)

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Science as originally carried out in the west was highly influenced by faith in a rational God creating and underwriting a dependable universe.

Will some scientist please tell me that is no longer true! Such a thought is horrifying.Len,

Relax - it never has been....................... scientific discovery has often come out of societies that were religious in nature - the great flowering of knowledge from the early Islamic world for example,....................... all societies historically were religious of one stripe or another so not until the 19th century were there secular societies to point to for comparison purposes............................pretty much all worthwhile scientific advances have come from secular societies and virtually none from religious ones.
 

Only you are trying to parallel the 19th century secularism with 20th century secularism. Religion was still rife i'm afraid and of course you are leaving out the likes of James Clerk Maxwell.

That you have demonstrably blown out ,Hillside is clear. What is worse is that now you have claimed the good things for secular society you are bound to have them take responsibility for the bad things.....but I'm sure you will handwave that and declare that our grasp of secular society is wrong.

I have emphasised the rookie inconsistencies and contradiction in your post.

[Leonard James]

Len,

Relax - it never has been. It would be more accurate to say something like scientific discovery has often come out of societies that were religious in nature - the great flowering of knowledge from the early Islamic world for example, but the charge sheet of dogmatic religious belief crushing rationalist/scientific endeavour is every bit as long (and some would argue much longer). It's not much of a claim in any case as all societies historically were religious of one stripe or another so not until the 19th century were there secular societies to point to for comparison purposes. And when you do that of course you find that pretty much all worthwhile scientific advances have come from secular societies and virtually none from religious ones.

Which isn't surprising really. After all, if you think you have all the answers because they're written in a "holy" book, then what need is there of looking for answers in the natural world? Worse yet, if you want to do that anyway then you're dissing the holy book - heretic! 

Incidentally, even if there was an argument to show us to be further along the road of science because of religion rather than further back (just think - we'd all be flying to work on jet packs by now but for the deadening hand of religious dogma!) that would say the square root of diddly squat about the truth or otherwise of the supernatural claims those religions make.     

Thanks, man! It seems reassuringly clear that the scientific approach to discovering the truth about everything by studying the physical universe is to be preferred over the guessed and non-evidenced claims of religion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Len,

Relax - it never has been. It would be more accurate to say something like scientific discovery has often come out of societies that were religious in nature - the great flowering of knowledge from the early Islamic world for example, but the charge sheet of dogmatic religious belief crushing rationalist/scientific endeavour is every bit as long (and some would argue much longer). It's not much of a claim in any case as all societies historically were religious of one stripe or another so not until the 19th century were there secular societies to point to for comparison purposes. And when you do that of course you find that pretty much all worthwhile scientific advances have come from secular societies and virtually none from religious ones.

Which isn't surprising really. After all, if you think you have all the answers because they're written in a "holy" book, then what need is there of looking for answers in the natural world?   

Oh No not the minority representing the whole again Hillside.

I've emphasised your contradictions again.

What about James Clerk Maxwell?

If you are saying that secular societies are strong on scientific knowledge, achievement and understanding.....isn't it a tad embarrassing having Leonard pleading for a scientist and worse still grovelling to people he thinks are more scientific than he as happened with Nearly Sane seemingly nigh extorting a recantation of Len's free will belief.

All this of course is my humble opinion.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thanks, man! It seems reassuringly clear that the scientific approach to discovering the truth about everything by studying the physical universe is to be preferred over the guessed and non-evidenced claims of religion.

That kind of treats religion as failed science. Not surprising if science is your religion.

Are those who want a scientist on hand to reassure them that the religious no longer do science.............still at the Shamanic stage?

It is no good recanting to a scientist with the admission that there is no free will until a scientist has demonstrated that scientifically................Neurology having made great steps not being sufficient.

IMHO.

[Leonard James]

That kind of treats religion as failed science. Not surprising if science is your religion.

Religion never was nor ever will be science ... despite the fact that some scientists are religious.

[floo]

Religion never was nor ever will be science ... despite the fact that some scientists are religious.

Exactly!

[Bubbles]

Religion never was nor ever will be science ... despite the fact that some scientists are religious.

I think some was, early medicine for example.

Many people took potions to have religious visions.

It was considered necessary to remove the veil.

It passed for science when they knew less.

Just because they got it wrong didn't mean it wasn't science.

It's just science changes, over time with new discoveries.

I think it is only recently we have separated religion and science.

[Shaker]

I think it is only recently we have separated religion and science.

Hm. Sort of correct in a way, not so much in another. Half a millennium BB (Before Brian) some of the brightest Greeks (Thales, Diagoros, Hippocrates and so on) were employing what we would now recognise as the, or perhaps a, scientific method. By today's standards they didn't have all the elements of it in place by any means but arguably the most important ones - empirical observation, experiment and especially methodological naturalism - certainly were.

In the West, for not very clear reasons, this died out for a long time as the real advances in science, technology, mathematics etc. shifted to the Muslim world, then in many places quite notably liberal and free-thinking, comparatively speaking. It's only when Europe gets to the early modern period (Bacon, etc.) that we see the rise of the sort of science for which we would use the term today.

[Leonard James]

I think some was, early medicine for example.

Many people took potions to have religious visions.

It was considered necessary to remove the veil.

It passed for science when they knew less.

Just because they got it wrong didn't mean it wasn't science.

It's just science changes, over time with new discoveries.

I think it is only recently we have separated religion and science.

I don't agree, although I can see why you think so. They took medicine because it produced a desired result. They ate because they were hungry and eating made them feel better, etc., but that is hardly science. Surely science would be trying to find out WHY/HOW it produced the result.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Religion never was nor ever will be science ... despite the fact that some scientists are religious.

Religion never was nor ever will be the instructions on a bottle of Brobat toilet cleaner.......despite the fact that some users of Brobat are religious.

[Sassy]

That's what the man in "Cool Hand Luke" said

I guess that's one of the problems with the god of the Bible; he's an appallingly bad communicator.

Rather man is a bad receptor when it comes to receiving God and his truth.
When men receive God and Christ the changes are spiritually changing and life becomes better all around.

The CEO of any company needs to communicate effectively with his people. If a company is in a mess and people aren't getting the message then the buck stops with the CEO.

How does the CEO become responsible if the people who are trained cannot and do not do their jobs.
Incompetence is not the fault of the CEO. Personal managers and others the company employ below him have to be at fault.
The wages of sin is something you earn and it is death. The free gift of God is eternal life because you cannot earn it.

CEO is not a good similie to God and mankind. Which defines the lack in your knowledge and understanding of God and Christianity.

Why should an omniscient god be wholly exonerated of blame when he fails to ensure that his message is clearly understood?

God made his message clear and simple.
John 3:16 and Acts 10:35-46.

Man has sinned and is to die. But through Christ the free gift is eternal life. God so loved us...

He did not fail. You understand what that says but you don't want it.
So God not failed to make his message understood. You and others like you fail to accept it, because clearly he gives you the ability to choose. That choice makes it clear you don't want it. And choose not to have it.

You've only got to look at the numerous different bibles that are out there to see that whatever the Bible god thinks, he doesn't seem too perturbed about the confused message he's sending out. Factor that in with thousands of different Christian denominations, sects and cults, all sure that their particular interpretation of whatever bible they choose to read is the true belief and you have a recipe for confusion.

You only have to know the contents of those bibles to know that God has not sent any different or confused message,
The truth has always come to man by the power of Gods Holy Spirit.
The Prophets spoke according to the leading of the Spirit. The Lord Jesus spoke according to the Spirit.
"My words are SPIRIT AND they are LIFE."  We see the disciples spoke according to the Holy Spirit.

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
Jesus in John 4.



Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


You see how the truth destroys your myth and mis-representational thinking that the different bibles are somehow a reflection on God. When in truth the bible whatever version will have the same words of Christ in and more importantly the OT the scriptures Christ referred to which show true believers have the word of God within them.

What we really have here is a failure to understand Gods word by you, fullstop....

[Sassy]

I see.  You're going to tell me that you are fully understanding of your deity of choice and his message.

Care to have a go at interpreting these scriptures oh knowledgeable one...

[1] "Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." - Ezekiel 23:19-20

This has to be an example using a parable above regarding Samaria and Jerusalem.
Rather it's people than the cities.   To do wrong and to do it with excess.

Israel,  Gods chosen people often committed idolatry with false Gods. Something you would have understood had you known the biblical history in the bible.

The kjv19 Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt.
20 For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

A paramour is a lover, and often a secret one you're not married to.

I am sure you preferred your own explicit form of the verses.
But they were not written to shock but to relate the idolatry and adultery of Gods people to foreign gods and nations.

[2] "His breasts are full of milk." - Job 21:24

[3] "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." - Deuteronomy 25:11-12

[4]“And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight." - Ezekiel 4:12

[5]“The fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers.”- Ezekiel 5:10

[6]“As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.”- Proverbs 26:11

[7]“Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces.”- Mal.2:3

Why so much preoccupation with coprophilia, human cannibalism, gynecomastia, and the like?

And what's all this interest in donkey dongs and horse cum. O holy! holy! holy!

The rest really is a reflection of your own debase  thoughts towards the bible and it's contents.
It reflects lack of knowledge and lack of understanding.

Shall any teach God knowledge? seeing he judgeth those that are high.
23 One dieth in his full strength, being wholly at ease and quiet.
24 His breasts are full of milk, and his bones are moistened with marrow.

Why not try studying the bible instead of trolling internet sites for verses which you think you can alarm others with or shock.
So far it only proves your lack of knowledge and understanding in the matters of the Bible and the true God.

[Leonard James]

Sass's usual regurgitation of Biblical rot.

[Sassy]

Here is a list of 5157 DENOMINATIONS from the Protestant arm of Christianity alone.

http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/DENOMS.php

Just did.

They do exist.

Now you know it and everyone who reads it knows it also.

Have you anything logically or intellectually interesting to say which doesn't expound on your ignorance of both Christianity and the bible?  You need to go over your post. It makes you look stupid.

[Sebastian Toe]

Have you anything logically or intellectually interesting to say which doesn't expound on your ignorance of both Christianity and the bible?  You need to go over your post. It makes you look stupid.

Is that how you admit that you were wrong Sass?

You need to go over your post.
It makes you look - really stupid.

[Khatru]

Rather man is a bad receptor when it comes to receiving God and his truth.
When men receive God and Christ the changes are spiritually changing and life becomes better all around.

How does the CEO become responsible if the people who are trained cannot and do not do their jobs.
Incompetence is not the fault of the CEO. Personal managers and others the company employ below him have to be at fault.
The wages of sin is something you earn and it is death. The free gift of God is eternal life because you cannot earn it.

CEO is not a good similie to God and mankind. Which defines the lack in your knowledge and understanding of God and Christianity.


God made his message clear and simple.
John 3:16 and Acts 10:35-46.

Man has sinned and is to die. But through Christ the free gift is eternal life. God so loved us...

He did not fail. You understand what that says but you don't want it.
So God not failed to make his message understood. You and others like you fail to accept it, because clearly he gives you the ability to choose. That choice makes it clear you don't want it. And choose not to have it.



You only have to know the contents of those bibles to know that God has not sent any different or confused message,
The truth has always come to man by the power of Gods Holy Spirit.
The Prophets spoke according to the leading of the Spirit. The Lord Jesus spoke according to the Spirit.
"My words are SPIRIT AND they are LIFE."  We see the disciples spoke according to the Holy Spirit.

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
Jesus in John 4.



Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


You see how the truth destroys your myth and mis-representational thinking that the different bibles are somehow a reflection on God. When in truth the bible whatever version will have the same words of Christ in and more importantly the OT the scriptures Christ referred to which show true believers have the word of God within them.

What we really have here is a failure to understand Gods word by you, fullstop....

Actually, what we have is an Old Testament a New Testament, I don't know how many different bibles and thousands of different Christian denominations, sects and cults.

You're saying you can whittle all of that down to a defining three word phrase "turn or burn". 

You closed your mind. You stopped wondering and bought into a dogma that allows no deviation from what is taught in church. No thinking needed. When you buy into religion, you turn off the light that says, "if there is no prove that something exists, it is reasonable to doubt any claims put forth for the faith".

Darkness rules your mind.