Ignorance and the Bible

[Cypress]

There’s nothing about nature that indicates a personal deity. Nothing.

Revelation in nature points can reasonably be interpreted as evidence of a rational mind, or a purposeful organizing entity given the lawful, mathematically rational, organized, and finely tuned nature of the cosmos.

If one accepts the evidence and testimony of God entering human history as the human being Jesus of Nazareth, then there is a personal God.

You don't have to agree with it

I just don't think it's irrational and idiotic to hold a basic Christian belief based on the evidence and weight of the testimony.

I never said anyone “has to” believe in the virgin birth. Nobody “has to” anything on any religion. It’s a choice, not a requirement. As I said, you can talk to any of the millions of Catholics worldwide about their Virgin Mother.

The birth story was just another concoction to fulfill prophecy. Just as the deification of Jesus was a concoction to fix the problem of their messiah getting killed. That wasn’t supposed to happen to a messiah, so now what the fuck to do? Oh, let’s make him a god.

Then, it took another couple of centuries for them to concoct another fix regarding the god thing. He can’t be a subordinate god to the Big Guy, so let’s invent the Trinity to fix that problem.

There always needs to be a fix, doesn’t there?

That's what I used to think.

The fact is there was a fully reported resurrection story from the earliest days of the Church in Jerusalem found in 1 Corinthians. And Phillipians (dated 50 AD) cites an early Christian creed that refers to Jesus as God in nature.

Those creeds are from very early days, probably from the 30s AD. Which means the resurrection account and the belief in Jesus as lord in nature goes back to the earliest days of the Church in Jerusalem, and were not later legendary accounts fabricated out of whole cloth.

 

[Cypress]

Correct. That's why fanatics, be they atheist or theist, are idiots. It's a matter of faith, not fact.

OTOH, since no deities or morals exist, killing assholes means one's soul will never be harmed regardless of their beliefs or disbeliefs, eh? LOL

That's about the least attractive part of atheism: evil ultimately wins in the end, and there is no ultimate justice.

That may very well be true, but it's not an appealing philosophy.

 

[Tobytone]

This is why religion has no role in the sciences.

The absurd claim that religion has no role in science is laughably ignorant, a lazy trope born of modern biases rather than historical reality. Science as we know it didn’t spring from some secular void or someone with all the ignorance of a gmark who dared to go against the grain, its roots are not just tangled in religious thought, they're a direct result of it. Ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Greece laid early groundwork, and it was medieval Islamic and Christian scholars who systematized inquiry. (translation for morons: early roots of science)

Figures like Al-Biruni and Avicenna for starters, grounded in Islamic theology, advanced mathematics and astronomy. In Europe, monks and clergy like Roger Bacon and Copernicus, (heard of him?) yes, a Catholic canon, pushed empirical methods while devoutly religious. The scientific method itself owes a debt to scholasticism, (look it up) a religious framework that demanded rigorous logic and evidence.

Religion didn’t just cradle early science, it bankrolled it. The Church funded universities, observatories, and research, from the Jesuits’ astronomical work to Mendel’s pea plants, oh, by the way, he was a monk. Even Galileo, many libtards poster child for "religion vs. science," was a devout Catholic whose clash was more about politics than faith, of course, modern morons fail to understand or purposely overlook that inconvenient fact.

To pretend religion inherently stifles science or your brilliant comment that religion has no role in science, is to ignore history and ignore the countless believers who propelled human understanding forward. More than that, it demonstrates the complete and total ignorance of the average libtard today.

I looked through many of the comments on this thread and it was hard to pick the dumbest to reply to. It was a tossup,= but you won, congrats.

 

[Hume]

Thanks for admitting you don't comprehend theology

I have studied theology. You seem barely literate.

 

[Margot]

I have studied theology. You seem barely literate.

Oh good! What's Melchizedek's role in the Harvest?

 

[Hume]

Oh good! What's Melchizedek's role in the Harvest?

Who fucking cares.

 

[Margot]

Who fucking cares.

So much for your theology

 

[Hume]

So much for your theology

Indeed. Couldn't give a shit.

 

[Margot]

Indeed. Couldn't give a shit.

So apparently you were lying about Theology!
I don't Debate liars

 

[Hume]

So apparently you were lying about Theology!
I don't Debate liars

I have only seen you discuss that stuff you obsess on.

And you do not know what "theology" means.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

That's about the least attractive part of atheism: evil ultimately wins in the end, and there is no ultimate justice.

That may very well be true, but it's not an appealing philosophy.

The downside of a materialistic philosophy. It reduces us to being meat computers. Ambulatory robots responding only to genetic programming and experiences like animals. This means shooting an atheist in the back of the head has no more moral consequence than turning off a light switch.

Sure, there might be legal consequences, but that's more a matter of not getting caught, not about morality. LOL

 

[Based Chad]

I'm not the one calling religionists irrational, uneducated, superstitious idiots.

I've actually explicitly and repeatedly said religion can be rational. And gave coherent reasons for believing so.

My historical interpretations and literary criticisms of scripture are not as inflammatory and demeaning as are atheist claims about Christianity

You have to walk on eggshells around Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists because you aren't motivated by a principled dispassionate atheism. Your motivation is strictly based on anti-Christian zealotry.

but is morality rational?

 

[Based Chad]

That's one interpretation.

Hidden in plain sight? God's revelation in nature and conscience strikes me as a powerful argument, whether we assign it the name God, the Tao, or Brahman.

Bart Ehrman on Whether Christians Have to Believe in the Virgin Birth​

The reality is that the virgin birth is mentioned by only two authors of the New Testament, Matthew and Luke. And only in their opening narratives. But Matthew nowhere says that you “have to” believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem or that Herod slaughtered the innocents or you can’t be a Christian. He doesn’t say that about the virgin birth either. And neither does Luke.

If the Virgin Birth was so important – vital! – to these authors, why don’t they make a bigger deal of it? Why, for example, don’t they ever (not once!) refer to it again later in their Gospels? And if it’s an “essential” part of the faith, why doesn’t Paul show the slightest knowledge of it? Or John? Or James? Or Peter? Or anyone else? If someone were to ask Paul “Do I have to believe in the Virgin Birth to be saved?”, what do you imagine he’s say? I myself imagine he’d say “believe in the … what??”

In no passage of the NT does it say that anyone “has” to believe in the Virgin Birth

To claim you “have” to believe in a literal virgin birth to be a Christian, I would argue, is empirically wrong. Most of my friends who are Christian do not believe in a literal virgin birth. You could say they aren’t “really” Christian, but they could respond that *you* aren’t “really” Christian. And at that point, we’re at a standoff. No one has been given the authority to make that kind of pronouncement….

https://ehrmanblog.org/do-christians-have-to-believe-in-the-virgin-birth/

the only essential part of the faith is the golden rule.

you keep trying to deny what Jesus said was the most important one.

that's because you're a warhawk satanist.

 

[Based Chad]

"Live by the Sword" Etc

the amish do christianity and life best.

 

[domer76]

Revelation in nature points can reasonably be interpreted as evidence of a rational mind, or a purposeful organizing entity given the lawful, mathematically rational, organized, and finely tuned nature of the cosmos.

If one accepts the evidence and testimony of God entering human history as the human being Jesus of Nazareth, then there is a personal God.

You don't have to agree with it

I just don't think it's irrational and idiotic to hold a basic Christian belief based on the evidence and weight of the testimony.


That's what I used to think.

The fact is there was a fully reported resurrection story from the earliest days of the Church in Jerusalem found in 1 Corinthians. And Phillipians (dated 50 AD) cites an early Christian creed that refers to Jesus as God in nature.

Those creeds are from very early days, probably from the 30s AD. Which means the resurrection account and the belief in Jesus as lord in nature goes back to the earliest days of the Church in Jerusalem, and were not later legendary accounts fabricated out of whole cloth.

I get it. They needed the resurrection and exhaltation of Christ to fix the problem of the Messiah being killed. That wasn’t supposed to happen to the Messiah. Problem fixed if he becomes a deity.

In much the same way, the Trinity fixed the problem of Christ not being equal to his Father. It’s pretty easy to fix those theological problems when the gullible buy it.

 

[domer76]

That's about the least attractive part of atheism: evil ultimately wins in the end, and there is no ultimate justice.

That may very well be true, but it's not an appealing philosophy.

Who said evil always wins in the end?

The idea that we die, just like ALL living things, doesn’t have to be appealing to be the truth.

The odd thing about Christianity is that one can be as evil as possible, but still end up in their Heaven. Not very appealing to righteous non-believers, huh?