Burden of Proof: Proving God's Existence or Non-Existence?

[strings235]

you point out a very significant loophole in these religions, esp. the koran, which talks about killing people of other religions. Many of these are outdated but the Bible is not, at least the more applicable. The old testament does have extremities (I've read the bible) but after Christ died, the supposed relationship between God and man changed, consequently the new testament was written. Presumably, God is kinder now because we are "forgiven" or at least able to be forgiven. This is evident as many positive things pervade the new testament, such as the beattitudes, lessons on virtue and morals, talks of salvation and eternal peace. We must also realize that Christ himself said that the old testament was no longer applicable.

 

[marcflores]

Hmmm..apparently some people do not read the entirety of one's postI never said it wasn't violent. However, the view that since some parts are bad and therefore all parts must be discounted is a rather limited viewpoint. No single thing absolutely good or bad, not even science. Do we throw out science because parts of it are bad? The rise of nuclear power gave rise to nuclear weaponry. The rise of antibiotics gave rise to biological weaponry. Assuming you believe GW to be true, the rise of industrialization gave rise to GW. I for one refuse to see only good or only bad in anything. Life and reality are far too complex to compartmentalize and categorize like that. Yes, the Bible has pretty much no scientific basis. If people want to use it to proclaim that evolution is bunk and the world was created 6000 years or so ago, well, they're smoking some serious juju. However, if they want to say that Jesus said "Love thy neighbor as you love yourself" is a way to live your life, why throw that out as well? Taht's no different than those who use the Old Testament to condemn homosexuality by discounting the teachings and actions of Jesus (as written in the Bible).

Jesus also said in the book of Matthew (Matt. 5:17-19) that he did not come to abolish the Old Law or the Law of the Prophets (laws of the Old Testament), but to uphold them. He also said that anyone who detracted from those laws would have their share of the kingdom of heaven detracted from them as well. Therefore, this whole idea of "saved by grace" or that Jesus taught another message is bunk.

My main point is that there are other sources out there which are far better moral guides and codes than the bible. The bible is littered with contradictions and it's nearly impossible to sort the good from the bad because of interpretations and context. I'm not a spiritual or religious person anymore, but if I wanted to find meaning, morality, and spirituality in my life, I'm more inclined to read J. Krishnamurti or others who don't subscribe to heavily dogmatic religious beliefs.

 

[strings235]

marcflores,

I have to ask you, is what you say about Jesus not coming to abolish the old law a personal interpretation or the actual words of Jesus (I honestly don't know). That would be a major and outright absurd contradiction because the only reason Jesus supposedly came from heaven was to establish the new convenant between mankind and God. If he said that the old law still completely applied, it would completely destroy the foundation of Christianity. I'm thinking that Jesus said he respected the old law but did not say it completely applied. One obvious difference is that people no longer had to sacrifice animals to be "forgiven", after the new testament, prayer was sufficient as long as one recognized the death of Christ (the sacrifice in this case).

 

[marcflores]

Yes, those words were apparently straight out of Jesus' mouth. Then again, NONE of the gospels were firsthand accounts of the man himself, so take it as you please. With that being said, Christianity is a young religion. I believe it is the youngest of the three big monotheistic religions (the other two being Judaism and Islam.)

Christianity wasn't created until hundreds of years after Jesus of Nazareth's death where he was deified and given almost god-like status during or after the first century. I can't remember. The problem with most Christians who preach this love of Christ haven't actually read the bible or are misinterpreting verses and taking sections and verses out of context. What's worse is they are unaware of the origins of Christianity. The texts documenting the life of Jesus aren't entirely reliable and are questioned by a good number of historians for accuracy.

The church wanted power, but you can't vest power to someone unless you somehow make them higher and more powerful than everyone else. Suddenly Jesus was born of a virgin mother (not the first virgin birth in folklore, mind you) and was free of "sin." I put sin in quotation marks because it was men who convened and decided what sins were going to be, sin is manufactured. The books included in the bible were voted upon by the Council of Nicea (it was apparently Constantine who had a major driving force in deciding which books appeared in the canon or bible). It was also the Council of Nicea which voted upon and decided on the nature of Jesus... that he was not made or born but "begotten" or somehow just here from another place (through the virgin birth, of course).

Someone here on this forum said earlier that we should read more about religions than anything else. While I disagreed, I will agree in a different way. We should read about RELIGION, and not from religious texts. Religious history and studies show a lot about the nature, origins, and evolution of religion. It's easy for me to see why many religious studies majors are often atheists.

 

[asterias]

I don't understand why the discussions always have to come to this.

daveb also mentinoed this:

Otherwise, why read philosophy, literature, drama or a host of other subjects that aren't scientific in nature?

Science is not everything. What we need to learn or what we enjoy is much more :)

~S

 

[russ_watters]

Locked for religious content.