scrubs. said:
Please stop making assumptions and come back to discuss after you reach puberty or learn the concept of free thought, systematic research and logic. It would be nice if you could actually challenge your immature presumptions instead of relying on a website to tell you the wonders of the New Testament. It is a great tool in life to learn. Just as it is stupid to take the word of the media, who has an aim of making stuff entertaining and controversial, it is not in your best interest to learn about a religion from a site actively against it.
What are my immature presumptions? That the Bible contains a lot of violent acts, or that I (foolishly) assumed that all the annotations were fair? I learn plenty about religion, not least because I am made to go to church each week. Please don't
assume I base all my opinions or learn things about religion(s) from the internet, let alone a single biased website.
scrubs. said:
Just interested in the whole idea of causation, premise and logic. How did they come to the conclusion that it is not to be taken literally from a short list of apparant evils in the NT which were purposely distorted? Please do show me oh wise year 10 student.
Actually, the cruelty and violence list is not the only things that were annotated, if you check the site more fully (as I'm sure you're eager to do). And I'm year 11, not that it matters. I'm not trying to be 'wise', I like to discuss things and you're giving me reason to question and look further into the things I write, which I thank you for, all your insults aside.
There is always talk of parables in the Bible, but who is to say what is parable and what is not? Is the creation account a parable? As it's fair to say in this age that it is not the true account of the beginnings of the Earth (and this is only one example I'm making), it puts doubt on just how literally you can take anything in the Bible if you want to maintain its value (for want of a better word). But perhaps this isn't the point of the Bible, it's not meant to be a true historical account, but a moral guide? Putting aside the millions of people who actually do take the Bible literally, acts of violence and other bad morals (such as archaic views towards women) leads you to conclude the Bible can't really be useful as a moral guide either.
scrubs. said:
Relevance?
It was never about the dichotomoy of good or bad included in the New Testament...?
Sorry, I was given the impression you thought the author was picking and choosing only the bad parts, and the "good list" goes some way to alleviate that.
scrubs. said:
Read the start of what I said...and the end. Anything that manipulates sources to achieve an original purpose, especially with such bias, simply cannot be trusted.
I agree and thankyou for pointing out what appears to numerous questionable readings of the SAB, from now on I won't make the mistake of linking to a long list for others to read if I don't read it all myself (it was a rather long list).
scrubs. said:
Now it comes to the point, if you don't believe in God and the NT says that the punishments come from God, in your mind it won't be an issue to you so why is something an issue to you if it may only, in your opinion, happen to you if the 'violence' happens in the mind of another person in an afterlife that you don't believe to exist. (tricky sentence)
Because even if all religion is a complete lie it still impacts me in the real world, because unfortunately a majority of people still appear to believe the stuff in the Bible (excuse any misunderstanding of your meaning there, tricky sentence as you said >_<). And last I checked, without religion (and in particular the Bible) there would not be as much prejudice as there has been (and still is) against women and homosexuals, to name the main two.
original123 said:
Point A -- The Big Bang couldn't have happened so that each flower has pollen, each living animal/insect/human has a heart and each living thing (with minor exceptions) works perfectly.
False. Heard of natural selection? It was a pretty big scientific revolution.
original123 said:
Point B -- Flaws make us stronger if we're ready to accept them. The point of God leaving us there and sitting on his throne laughing at us is simply misinterpreted. The strong people really do become even stronger when they ask for help, and they overcome their flaws.
Wouldn't it make someone even stronger still if they managed to accept and overcome their flaws without appealing to an imaginary being for help? I don't see the part where praying to God is necessary to improve yourself.
original123 said:
Point C -- Other religions SHOULD be respected no matter what. And Bible verses were taken out of context so many times in this thread that I can't count them. Generally, the Christians who happily believe in God, not out of force or convention, but from their own decisions, turn out to be the strongest people I know. However, EVERYONE has a reason for believing what they believe and we should respect that.
I agree with this, insofar as respecting religious people who don't try to force religion on others. Which is not the case for every religious person, unfortunately, and religion itself lends itself to misguided attitudes towards certain groups in society which further stalls progress.
I wonder how religion would fare if no religion was able to influence anyone younger than 20...