It Makes A Lot More Sense

Afraid to say you need to get a better definition of "Cult" while culturally normal it can not be named such

ATHEISM IS PRIME BRAINWASHING BS LAXATIVE



http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aendtime+Bible+prophecies+are+soon+to+be+fulfilled%3F+Zechariah+12%3A2-8,+Ezekiel+38-39,+Matt+24%3A30-42&sourceid=ie8-activity&hl=en />


MANY top scientists, from microbiology to astronomy, see SO much evidence of Intelligent Design that they reject atheist brainwashing & worship the Almighty Creator



http://www.DissentFromDarwin.org



http://www.IntelligentDesign.org



http://www.creation.com

Christ lived 2000 years ago, everyone thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it. No one knew that virgins couldn't be pregnant and anyone who tried to explain science would have been executed. God and religion were the only contexts other than violence in which a person could become a leader. If you were alive then and had any sort of education which was very rare, you would have believed in him simply because he was one of the smartest, most logical people in the world. People like Richard Dawkins were shunned, exiled or stoned to death, never followed by the masses. If Jesus had blurted out all the things he probably knew, he probably would have been killed soon after and no one would have heard about him after he was gone.

Sorry but I lost it about half way through your fourth para but to take up your point in the penultimate Im afraid that isnt a true analogy as a slug cannot communicate with a human, Im not sure its even self aware.

I do agree that a faith is nit "provable" but that is the very definition of a faith.

So many people seem to have paid a lot of attention to the history of the Jewish people in the old testament but fewer try to examine the truth of the New Testament. The elements of the faith are to me an answer, and do not pretend that it is such to everyone. However I do just ask that people take a look at the teaching and the ethos that Jesus brought. It could be that there then can be a realisation why some people, even many scientists, believe in the truth of a religion that preaches unconditional love.

You raise a very valid point, caring1. If there is a 'God', whoever or whatever it may be, surely the judgement of any person would be based on the intentions and integrity of that person. Regular attendance at a communal place of worship,or belief in any written word, does not make a person good. It would be a shallow God indeed that condemned a person purely for a lack of belief in the writings of man. And, as you say, the words attributed to Jesus were recorded centuries after his death.

It would be interesting to go back in time and separate fact from fiction. Most of what was written about people who lived (or may not have lived) thousands of years ago was written long after those people died, so how factual can the writings be?



Religion started out as a way to give people some control over things out of their control (weather, earthquakes, volcanoes and such). Although science has done a good job of addressing these unknowns, people still hold onto what is familiar. The rituals were adapted from rituals already existing, for non-believers would only buy into a new belief if there was a familiarity to it. Read Frazier's "The Golden Bough," if you want to see how these rituals developed and were passed on.



Holy books are declared to be perfect truth, yet they hold inconsistencies within their own writings. As books are translated, the translators take liberty to make things appear more impressive. For instance, the original text doesn't say the Red Sea; it say the Reed Sea. The Red Sea is more impressive than the Reed Sea, so the name was changed in English. Mary was supposed to be a virgin, yet how can any woman have a child with a "Y" chromosome? Wouldn't a true virgin birth only result in a female offspring?



I can't say for certain that Jesus made the statements attributed to him, so it isn't my place to judge him for those statements. Now Dawkins is another matter. He is verifiable and backs up his statements with facts. I'm one who is more likely to rely on facts than on blind belief. Show me I'm wrong, and I'll admit I'm wrong, but I get tired of people preaching at me and telling me what I should do or judging my choices as less humanitarian and caring than their hypocrisy. If I don't accept the truth (meaning "Their Truth") then I am a bad and unworthy person. I tell you what; I'll just continue to help people to enjoy their lives more by broadening their perspectives, teaching them how to provide for themselves, sharing the knowledge I've acquired and helping to build homes for people who are seeking a hand (not a hand-out). If that results in me facing this all-loving God (that people seem to feel they have to fear), after I die, and he condemns me to burn in hell for all eternity, then so be it. I'm not going to alter my view of being a part of humanity as a result of threats and other fear tactics. I'm sorry if people can't be tolerant of how I choose to live my life. I have no problem tolerating their choices. I'd just like to live in peace with mine.

I appreciate your input, bitlord. Thanks for the comments.

Dawkins, to my knowledge, is not trying to 'disprove' any religion. He is proving, nicely, that religion does not stand up to logical analysis.

That is quite a different thing.

Like all religions, Christianity has a fundamental flaw. It relies upon a suspension of disbelief in order to function at all. Like any fiction, you 'believe' until the moment the story grows too illogical to entertain in your mind.

Sadly, the hope of personal immortality is such that people will believe the MOST illogical things, like parthenogenesis of a MALE without examining the fiction objectively and noting that anything which, by nature of its claims, cannot, lets repeat CAN NOT be disproven is already false on its face, for any such claim cannot therefore be separated from all competing and contrary claims.

In the above example, it is as valid to claim that god came to earth in the form of a slug and therefore the only proper worship is on your knees in the garden, picking hte sons of god off the leaves and putting them into the compost pile so they may multiply and thrive as to claim that veneration of an instrument of torturous death is the only proper worship.

See? The two competing claims cancel one another, and both are equally invalid.

Hi Davy. Apology accepted. He does discuss most religions and cults, muslim included. Media attention in our society focuses on the christianity side because that is more relevant to audiences.

Thanks for your comments :)

Dont you ythink it a little mysterious how most criticism is directed at Christianity, how the learned and erudite try to pick apart this faith? It somehow strengthens my belief. I feel somehow sorry for Richard he is so desperate to disprove it. Why does it matter that much? if you find it impossible to believe ...dont, but I feel you will miss so very much.

I also feel it strange that he hasnt attacked the Muslim religion. I could be wrong but Ive never heard him. If Im correct is he a closet Muslim or just worried about the strong way they defend their faith while Christians turn the other cheek. If I am wrong and he has I apologise. But then why are his comments about that religion and many others not so familiar to the general public, again its the big "C" that gets it. Hmmmmm ?

Thanks for your thoughts, soundforsight. You are right, there are so many 'truths' out there. If there is A TRUTH, how can anyone claim to know it, to name it? It is just a matter of choosing the one you think offers the best chances for you, or the one with the most persuasive rhetoric. Or just believing your own truth.

Jesus in my opinion was a philosopher in touch with the divine. He was a man with much insight. But his insight and vocabulary is based off his Jewish upbringing. You can semantically take what Jesus said and apply it to things still being taught and discussed today, which is why he's one of, if not the most famous person that ever lived. But the hype has more to do with the story than what the man said unfortunately. People get wrapped up in the "magic" of it all. The Bible then starts to use that entertainment factor to attract disbelievers, And it's wrong. If people believe, they should believe because they get it, and why any of it was written, not because it so extraordinary it can only be true. However, I would just assume most people don't really get any of this, so you gotta pick a team if you wish not to die alone (or damned).

There are a lot of insightful people as you mentioned out there, and to claim there can only be one truth is flat out ignorant in my opinion. my 2 cents.

Hi Oja. No, I don't think there is a problem with a cult forming around Dawkins. He has an audience that looks forward to his books being published, and will watch a program on television if he is involved. But he only speaks his opinions, which he bases on fact. His beliefs are not an issue, although I think I have heard him say he believes in 'God'.

If ever he starts to say "My truth is THE truth, and if you don't believe you will not reach heaven!" Then, I will be concerned.

Until then, I think we are just known as Groupies. :)

Yes, Jesus had some wonderful ways about him, if we can believe the writing that has been passed down. But there are so many good people throughout history that have not had the stigma of being delusional - I think that all we can learn from Jesus, we can learn from others. There is nothing specific his life can teach us that another can't. Ghandi and the still living Dalai Lama are two that come to mind. Or even the beautiful Mother Theresa.

And on a side note, you mention his alarm at people following any one person, and forming a cult around him/her.



Is Richard Dawkins himself not getting close to that status?



Don't have a problem with the guy, just a thought worth considering.

I believe a lot of the stuff said about Jesus in the Bible was massively misinterpreted, horribly translated, and, yes, intentionally fictionalized.



That being said, I agree with you there is some "nobility" in many of the parables and morals found in there.



Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a good thing. That's something I think we can all learn from him now, to answer your question.

Some people did find him cool, he had his 'gang'. I'm not sure what we can learn from him now?

actually people didn't think Jesus was cool at all. His own people basically thought it was blasphemy to claim you are God or the son of God. He was basically killed for not being cool. I will say, Richard Dawkins is an understanding kind of guy, he's full of rational thought, and for rational people, he' s pretty comforting in this irrational world. Although, Jesus went out of his way for his belief, it was so strong and important, that death was to him necessary, even though he didn't want to die. We can learn from both in my opinion.