Prayers and praying.......

[theskull1]

Even though "they" produced the four best selling books in the history of the world, there is simply no way to trace with any accuracy if "they" even existed. The picture you are presented with is always based on assumptions and guesses by scientists and theologians with agendas.

But, because one synposis they heard once upon a time happened to strike a chord, the fellas above have picked up a couple of tidbits that they're happy to believe in above all things else.

The argument above about the authors of the bible is the kind of thing that makes me think of soccer. It's like when your granda tells you Nat Lofthouse was a better player than Ruud van Nistelrooy, and you continue to push this as a fact when people will listen, even though the closest your granda got to Nat Lofthouse was through a wireless in the front room.

Why do you think scientific study would have "an agenda"? 

Yes there will be unknowns but there will also be things that will have a high level of certainty when studying that period in history.


Writing material was very easily damaged so lots of copying taking place over 300 years and the subsequent 1100 odd years before the printing press (error prone copying)
The vast majority of people in these times could not read
At the time of their writings - god told no one to write a bible. It was a collated group of writing commissioned by the Emporer of Rome 300 years after the death of the historical Jesus and the content of which was debated continually for centuries.
Mark was copied by Matthew and Luke.

Should we not consider such things and ponder the notion that the Bible is the inspired word of god?

[The Iceman]

I was given a daily dose of religion for about half an hour a day from the age of 3 when I started school to the age of 16 when I finally escaped the catholic brainwashing system.  We were drilled in great detail about ALL the minute details of the faith. The colours of the vestaments, the meanings of all the ceremonies in the mass, the prayers, the philosophy behind the faith, the scholarly origins of it, line-by-line study of Mark's Gospel, you name it we covered it at least once. 

I spent a great deal of time thinking about this faith business. I looked around me wondering how many people were actually falling for this. I tried my damndest to believe it when I was a child because that's what I was taught was the right thing to do. It was as if to be an atheist was to be synonymous with being an evil devil-worshipper. When I finally admitted to myself that I wasn't buying it (age 12, I remember it well) it was like a huge weight off my shoulders, I felt a huge sense of relief because I could finally stop fooling myself and stop the battle going on in my mind.

Nothing insults me more than the assumption that people throw at me all the time, "Oh you haven't really thought about it."  Excuse me, buster, I've thought about it harder than you'll ever know.

Were your thoughts done at 12 years old or did this process continue? Because to tell me on here you had it all figured out at 12 is insulting to me. You barely had a grasp of your times tables at 12 but you had figured out the answer to whether or not God existed. Bravo!

[thewobbler]

Why do you think scientific study would have "an agenda"?

Scientists and theologians will set out to either prove or disprove a theory. Like it or not, their vested interests in the study will colour many of the assumptions that simply have to be made to fill in the blanks. 

Writing material was very easily damaged so lots of copying taking place over 300 years and the subsequent 1100 odd years before the printing press (error prone copying)
The vast majority of people in these times could not read
At the time of their writings - god told no one to write a bible. It was a collated group of writing commissioned by the Emporer of Rome 300 years after the death of the historical Jesus and the content of which was debated continually for centuries.
Mark was copied by Matthew and Luke.

Should we not consider such things and ponder the notion that the Bible is the inspired word of god?

At its heart the Bible is a wonderful book, but presenting it as a unified source of God's thoughts, teachings and wishes, requires a tremendous amount of faith, that in all other walks of life would look misguided.

You believe that current status of the Bible is the result of God's intervention and guiding hand. Personally I believe that the current status of the Bible (whichever one your prefer) is the result of several thousand rewrites, edits, additions and translations, each undertaken by human beings with different interests, motivations and goals.

I'm not trying to discredit the Bible, but if either of us is lucky enough to be alive 2100, I can only imagine that by then the "outdated" and possibly perilous passages of the Bible which advocate (or at least turn a blind eye to) misogyny, slavery and racism, will have been discreetly phased out. According to you, this will be by the hand of God. According to me, it will be by the needs of churches to react and stay relevant, and through the judgement of professional copywriters.

Were your thoughts done at 12 years old or did this process continue? Because to tell me on here you had it all figured out at 12 is insulting to me. You barely had a grasp of your times tables at 12 but you had figured out the answer to whether or not God existed. Bravo!

That's an unnecessarily pious and harsh response. Instead of condemning a 12 year old mind, why not take a step back and ask why an undeveloped mind can reach such clear conclusions? CS Lewis once said that the reason he took so long to embrace Christianity was because of the attitude of Christians.

[Hardy]

Why do you think scientific study would have "an agenda"?

Scientists and theologians will set out to either prove or disprove a theory. Like it or not, their vested interests in the study will colour many of the assumptions that simply have to be made to fill in the blanks. 

But the agenda of an individual scientist (or group of scientists) is irrelevant and has no effect on how science models nature and the universe. Whereas both theologians and scientists may have individual agendas and personal vested interests, science, unlike theology, has a reasonably reliable mechanism to ensure that dogma isn't accepted as fact. For that reason, an individual scientist's pet theories or petty prejudices have no effect on the credibility of science itself. The scientific method ensures that we can be confident of accepted scientific theories as the most reliable model of reality available to us based on all we know at any given time.

That's not to say that there is no argument about the areas where there is disagreement about interpretation of observations. In fact that's an essential component of the scientific process. It's a wee bit different to a system that relies on the ex cathedra pronouncements of a self proclaimed infallible interpreter of truth.

The essential difference, if I can be forgiven for repetition, is that religion insists "this is the answer" and disparages calls for proof to the extent of eternal damnation for those making such calls. Science spends its time trying to disprove what we think we know. Or, to put it another way, religion, which ironically proclaims humility as a value, is built on the hubris of presumption, whereas science, accused of hubris by many religious believers, presumes nothing and proceeds by assuming itself to be wrong about everything. It's the difference between a conman and a teacher, for me.

[theskull1]

ummmm 

Read that post of mine again wobbler. You've totally misinterpreted it

Similar to Eamonnca1 I was around that age when I started to become sceptical. In my late teens the cover up and protection of child abusing priest made me think...if all these Bishops and Cardinals with their vast theological knowledge (and you would have thought ...a devout belief in the existense of God and the consequense of their actions on earth) would put the interests of child molesters ahead of their victims.....that just doesn't stack up. Surely Christians with convictions would step out from behind the religeous institution and stand up for what is right....but none did. It was one cover up after another and they all stayed silent. What was one to think when these men of the cloth who are meant to be the leaders of the faith do such things?

[Hound]

ummmm 

Read that post of mine again wobbler. You've totally misinterpreted it

Similar to Eamonnca1 I was around that age when I started to become sceptical. In my late teens the cover up and protection of child abusing priest made me think...if all these Bishops and Cardinals with their vast theological knowledge (and you would have thought ...a devout belief in the existense of God and the consequense of their actions on earth) would put the interests of child molesters ahead of their victims.....that just doesn't stack up. Surely Christians with convictions would step out from behind the religeous institution and stand up for what is right....but none did. It was one cover up after another and they all stayed silent. What was one to think when these men of the cloth who are meant to be the leaders of the faith do such things?

The old cliche of power leads to corruption.

There is no doubt that the Church has been filled to the seams with corruption for hundreds and hundreds of years - actually probably 2,000 years.

Doesn't mean that God and Jesus aren't real, but believing that the teachings of the Catholic Church (or any of the Protestant churches) is the true Christianity is bullshít of the highest degree in my opinion. All the man made changes had absolutely nothing to do with God, and were just men making decisions for varying reasons. Just like all the murders, rapes, etc. carried out by "men of God" have nothing to do with God.

[theskull1]

The old cliche of power leads to corruption.

There is no doubt that the Church has been filled to the seams with corruption for hundreds and hundreds of years - actually probably 2,000 years.

Doesn't mean that God and Jesus aren't real, but believing that the teachings of the Catholic Church (or any of the Protestant churches) is the true Christianity is bullshít of the highest degree in my opinion. All the man made changes had absolutely nothing to do with God, and were just men making decisions for varying reasons. Just like all the murders, rapes, etc. carried out by "men of God" have nothing to do with God.

I'm not say that either.  It simply made one think about the fact that, in this massive institution, there existed noone with the courage of their faith to stand up for what was right. The man made institution was more important. That speaks volumes to me about what the leaders of the church believe when it comes to the existense of god. They were quite happy to be in the upper echelons of the institution and pump out the message to the masses whilst covering up one scandal after another.

[johnneycool]

I'd be an agnostic.

My take on Christianity is that it's religion's equivalent to soccer. It took off because it was easy to understand, easy to get involved in, easy to get passionate about. It's cheap and easy to run events, but potentially lucrative due to the sheer numbers willing to get involved. It's worldwide, with strongholds in Europe and America, and is controlled out of Europe by a group of men who, outwardly anyway, seem more interested in power than the thing they're meant to promote.

And like soccer, it has hundreds of thousands of people across the world who can't imagine life without it, people who get so passionate about a simple once-a-week congregation, that they're quite happy to ignore commonsense, hypocrisy and even morality in order to pronounce their allegiance. Plus they're quite happy to ignore the simple fact that most of the time it's not a rewarding experience; favouring instead to keep schtum and stay part of their crowd. Rather sadly, more than a few are quite happy to have stand-up rows, and even kill, just to show how much they care.


Frankly, I don't believe it's possible that a being who is smart and capable enough to create this absolutely baffling and unique universe we inhabit, could then in turn expect, demand or enjoy the repetitive, insular and myopic actions of Christians.

Nor do I believe that even if he did exist, that he must still be alive today; for this would be an unfair and unjust paradox to the universe he created.

If he does exist still, he's either having a bloody good laugh at our expense, or just doesn't care enough to bother with us anymore. We could have been his P6 science experiment, and he's now at university.

By the way, everything on this thread from either side of the argument is little more than conjecture. I personally believe that religion is little more than a self-preservation tool cultivated by society. But, I don't have either intelligence nor the will to understand, and therefore prove to myself, that the baffledom produced by scientists is any more trustworthy. If it was possible to remove ego and agenda from scientists, I might lessen this stance, but it's not, and if Christianity is one woman's lie that got out of hand, then we shouldn't repeat those steps again with science.

Fantastic post wobbler - , have appreciated both sides of the discussion, but would be agnostic like yourself. Still searching....

I also would consider myself agnostic but am not searching for any great answer, however the splinters are a bit sore now and again.

I have a question - with all our new-found wealth of knowledge on this subject do we consign our parents' generation of thinking to the bin? Do we dismiss them as fools or that they were not enlightened, or that their faith was blind?
Because the people I know who have a strong belief in God are neither stupid nor crowd-folllowing.
And as one post stated, faith has helped an awful lot of people through grief which otherwise would have killed them. Are all the examples of good people that I know wrong to believe in something that gives them direction, solace, and comfort?
I am not forgiving religion's influence on the world, but this is where faith and religion separate. Is it foolish to have a faith in a greater power?
To finish off, a list that I found interesting -  of people who believed in Jesus Christ:
Moses - A political leader, trained in the universities of Egypt,
Peter - A fisherman
Amos - A herdsman
Joshua - A military General
Nehemiah - A Cupbearer
Daniel - A Prime Minister
Luke - A Doctor
Solomon - A King
Matthew - A Tax Collector
Paul - A Rabbi

Were they, and our parents all wrong?

why does there have to be a right and wrong? If they believed in something you don't where's the harm?

If people get some good and fulfilling out of believing in god, attending the sacraments etc then let at it, I'm not going to sneer at them. Some people enjoy meditation and yoga, acupuncture and nettle tea, some sneer and look down their noses, but if they're getting something from it then fire away. If someone believes their life is more fulfilled by not believing in some all powerful being then good for them as well.

I take exception to anyone on either side of the believer, agnostic, atheist scale taking the moral or intellectual high ground.

[Hardy]

To finish off, a list that I found interesting -  of people who believed in Jesus Christ:
Moses - A political leader, trained in the universities of Egypt,
Peter - A fisherman
Amos - A herdsman
Joshua - A military General
Nehemiah - A Cupbearer
Daniel - A Prime Minister
Luke - A Doctor
Solomon - A King
Matthew - A Tax Collector
Paul - A Rabbi

Were they, and our parents all wrong?

Most of those people never heard of Jesus Christ.

[Eamonnca1]

I was given a daily dose of religion for about half an hour a day from the age of 3 when I started school to the age of 16 when I finally escaped the catholic brainwashing system.  We were drilled in great detail about ALL the minute details of the faith. The colours of the vestaments, the meanings of all the ceremonies in the mass, the prayers, the philosophy behind the faith, the scholarly origins of it, line-by-line study of Mark's Gospel, you name it we covered it at least once. 

I spent a great deal of time thinking about this faith business. I looked around me wondering how many people were actually falling for this. I tried my damndest to believe it when I was a child because that's what I was taught was the right thing to do. It was as if to be an atheist was to be synonymous with being an evil devil-worshipper. When I finally admitted to myself that I wasn't buying it (age 12, I remember it well) it was like a huge weight off my shoulders, I felt a huge sense of relief because I could finally stop fooling myself and stop the battle going on in my mind.

Nothing insults me more than the assumption that people throw at me all the time, "Oh you haven't really thought about it."  Excuse me, buster, I've thought about it harder than you'll ever know.

Were your thoughts done at 12 years old or did this process continue? Because to tell me on here you had it all figured out at 12 is insulting to me. You barely had a grasp of your times tables at 12 but you had figured out the answer to whether or not God existed. Bravo!

1 - We learned our times tables at the age of 7.

2 - I'm sorry to hear that you find my belief system "insulting".

3 - The Catholic sacrament of Confirmation, when you're supposed to be old enough to have figured out all the stuff you weren't aware of at Baptism, is something you go through at age 10. "Bravo" indeed!

4 - Yes, this thought process has continued every single day since then and the more I think about it the more convinced I become that the God hypothesis is as antiquated as it is false.

Any other assumptions you'd like to make about me?

[Maguire01]

3 - The Catholic sacrament of Confirmation, when you're supposed to be old enough to have figured out all the stuff you weren't aware of at Baptism, is something you go through at age 10. "Bravo" indeed!

I was about to make the exact same point!

And as a general point, not being able to make a proper decision as a child is a very valid argument to delaying all sacraments until someone is old enough to make an informed decision for themselves. Maybe leave all sacraments until you're 16/18?

[Eamonnca1]

I had no idea what was supposed to be going on during my confirmation. I didn't understand the meaning of this word "confirmed" and nobody could explain it to me. I was told that you'll be sitting in the chapel, and at a certain moment in the ceremony you'll be filled with some sensation of something called the 'Holy Spirit' filling your body. I didn't feel a thing and it was around this time that I started becoming even more suspicious that the whole thing was a big elaborate hoax.

[mountainboii]

Maybe leave all sacraments until you're 16/18?

Interesting proposal. I think the solution to this issue lies in further research into earning potential. At what age is this maximised? When only seven or eight it's possible that you may be too easily fobbed off with a cheap fiver. While the drop off rate in random donations altogether towards the latter teenage years is even more concerning. I am certain though that it is crucial that at least two major fundraising events are retained.

[BarryBreensBandage]

To finish off, a list that I found interesting -  of people who believed in Jesus Christ:
Moses - A political leader, trained in the universities of Egypt,
Peter - A fisherman
Amos - A herdsman
Joshua - A military General
Nehemiah - A Cupbearer
Daniel - A Prime Minister
Luke - A Doctor
Solomon - A King
Matthew - A Tax Collector
Paul - A Rabbi

Were they, and our parents all wrong?

Most of those people never heard of Jesus Christ.

Even though they are listed among the authors of the bible?

[Eamonnca1]

To finish off, a list that I found interesting -  of people who believed in Jesus Christ:
Moses - A political leader, trained in the universities of Egypt,
Peter - A fisherman
Amos - A herdsman
Joshua - A military General
Nehemiah - A Cupbearer
Daniel - A Prime Minister
Luke - A Doctor
Solomon - A King
Matthew - A Tax Collector
Paul - A Rabbi

Were they, and our parents all wrong?

Most of those people never heard of Jesus Christ.

Even though they are listed among the authors of the bible?

Yes. Since a lot of them lived and died long before Jesus came around, knowing the man would have been quite an achievement.

(You are aware that the Old Testamant stories were all set in the BC era, aren't you?)