AchrisK
Weakling
I thought there were holes in the Biblical timeline (or something) that cause people to come up with a whole range of ages of the Earth from 6,000-10,000. Is that not the case?
The great and all powerful religion thread!
- Thread starter cookiecutter
- Start date
I thought there were holes in the Biblical timeline (or something) that cause people to come up with a whole range of ages of the Earth from 6,000-10,000. Is that not the case?
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
Let's definitely not refer to King Diamond as an authority on Biblical studies and history. He's far from educated on the matter.
Despite his error in referring to Cain and Abel, I think what is important here is the implication. This God who demands that Abraham sacrifice his son is the same God that says "Thou shalt not kill." I think it ironic, because this statement is contradicted numerous times in the Bible. Now, there is the argument that of course killing is acceptable in some cases (I personally believe it is too). However, I think the story of God demanding that Abraham sacrifice his son is one of the cruelest I have ever read. In today's world most of us could never imagine doing such a thing, or that God would ask such a thing of us. I believe this is also why most of us feel dissociated with Christianity. However, there are elements of the story that we should reconsider. Today, we would call someone insane who kills their child in the name of God; but we must remember that in the story Abraham was in direct communication with God. God was commanding him to do these things. So of course, he was justified in carrying out this sacrifice, right?
Why is it, I ask, that we're so eager and prepared to believe this story told to us by the Bible, but in today's world if the same event transpired, we would call Abraham insane?
Dak
mentat
It was a test of obediance and trust. YHWH wanted to see if Abraham put Him over his son, not to mention since YHWH had promised that Abraham's line of descendents would come through Isaac, it would stand to reason that Abraham expected that YHWH would intervene. Especially considering the interchange at Gen 22:7-8.
The overall picture gets lost focusing on the detail.
The overall picture gets lost focusing on the detail.
AchrisK
Weakling
Consider that the 10 commandments and the rest of the Jewish law had not yet been established. I realize this may not be all that important, as we believe God doesn't change in his nature. Also the commandment is "thou shall not murder", not "thou shall not kill". I know this also doesn't make a difference in this context, though.
Yeah, some things in the bible seem strange, but it is a recording of God interacting with individuals for all kinds of reasons. I mean, talk about unfair, look at Job. But in this case, besides the test of faith for Abraham, this whole story foreshadows what God would do years in the future, and some believe in the same location, in sacrificing his own innocent son.
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
Dak
mentat
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
I don't feel the need to argue my beliefs anymore really, but I really have to question why anyone could or would voluntarily fucking believe in this god.
AchrisK
Weakling
Do you have a choice whether or not to believe in trees? I believe because I am convinced it is the truth. I believe I have chosen to accepted the truth, rather than choosing to believe in a religion. Do you see the difference? I think people choose not to believe all day long. Are your objections really based on a lack of evidence? If someone reasonable convinced you that Christianity might be true, would you be willing to even consider it for yourself? Do you even care whether it is the truth or not?
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
the reason that some see 'holes' in the biblical timeline is because Luke mentions a name in his chronology that is not mentioned in other accounts. Luke got his extra name from the LXX or Septuagint Greek translation of the OT.
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
For one thing, almost every religious person to have participated in these arguments is Christian, and secondly, Christianity, as the main religion of most of our geographic locations, is the most familiar to us by association. Plus, some of us, myself included, used to be Christians.
A Hebrew or Arabic UM might be a different story, but not for English.
If by any remote chance scientifically testable proof of Christ's resurrection comes up and is supported by the scientific establishment, then I will convert back to Christianity.
It is not fair to compare the potential evidence for a religious miracle with the potential evidence for something more concrete as whether a far-away planet sustains life. The latter is possible because there is a universally-affirmed example of it, the former has no documented instance as affirmed by logic.
Dak
mentat
Not to mention "dickhead" is a pretty arbitrary label, other than in reference to the end of a penis.
Matt
Active Member
Then stop coming in this thread making inflammatory comments if you don't want to actually participate.
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
Mathiäs;7867156 said:
I wouldn't take as much offense to flaming words against Christianity as to flaming heaps of wood over which atheists have been murdered by Christians.
Matt
Active Member
I'm not taking any offense, as I've lost a lot of my faith for reasons I'm not going into. It's annoying when people come in here make dickhead remarks on a somewhat serious topic.
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
I initially got into Christianity mostly for emotional issues, i.e. it felt right or made moral sense out of the world. As my thought processes matured I found I needed to justify my 'fantastic' beliefs with some kind of evidence or at least compelling reasons beyond 'oh it seems right to me'. Initially Christian apologists were convincing. As I learned more about science, life and other religions I found these apologists to be generally unconvincing and shallow. In fact I found them only to be convincing to people who were uninformed about things and already with an emotional commitment to their religion that they were trying to defend in the face of some problems.
AchrisK
Weakling
How about the lions to which children of Christians were fed in an effort to get them to deny their faith? How about the Atheists who have perpetrated atrocities? How about the modern day persecution millions of Christians throughout the world deal with?
What are you even talking about?
Dak
mentat
Without any kind of actual personal spiritual experience I think the majority of people would go this way.
A couple of very good friends are hanging somewhere between athiest/agnostic and we've talked about it. I've told them my side and they told me "Well if [we] have those same kind of experiences we will believe too, but until then ,[we] have seen nothing to make us believe in any particular god, or god in particular". We left it at that and it really isn't an issue.
I can at least respect that attitude (and they respect my personal position) as opposed to an attitude like V5's.
On the flip side I understand the dislike for the religious people like the ones outside of the Gorgoroth concert.
AchrisK
Weakling
Oh yeah, Christians have done plenty to put a bad taste in the mouth of the world. But all kinds of humans have been guilty of that.
