Why are you atheists so angry?

That is all old testament, there was supposed to be a new covenant after Christ.

It’s a good line – shame the New Testament and big J appears to disagree:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. “

— Mathew 5:17-19 (KJV)

Or maybe said god is a fan of free will.

when i make something and it does not work can I blame it for this failings or is this something only an all powerful and all knowing deities can do??

God has to give us free will or god is the author of all sin – its a cop out for why evil happens – obvioulsy all pwerful god could if god chose , stop evil, but he does not. The reasons for this are unclear, even to those who believe, but you stil need to keep the faith even though you dont understand gods workings and you cannot explain it.
I think that cleared up that one

CharlieMungus – Member

If you got a problem with the old testament you need to go complain to the Jews.
Jesus was a Jew……in fact Jesus was THE Jew.

Actually I think he may have been a Christian too.

So where in the new testament does it say to disregard the old testament hmmmmmm? I mean if we’re not in 2011 to take the old testament seriously because it is so obviously an objectionable collection of mumbo-jumbo, why didnt Jesus say so? I mean thats pretty fundamental to a new religion don’t you think?

Or maybe Jesus didnt plan on setting up a new cult based on himself. Maybe the people who came after him thought his story was a good one as far as it went but with a bit of polish on the script it could have real legs. St Paul anyone?

obvioulsy all pwerful god could if god chose , stop evil, but he does not.

maybe he can’t stop it.

“If god was all powerful he could create a rock even he could not move. If there was a rock god could not move he would not be all powerful.”

so can he create the rock or not?

If they can’t even agree on the basis of their beliefs in the same god, clearly he is not doing a very good job of guiding them.

Or maybe said god is a fan of free will.

Or, more likely, some people are not very good at being guided or sometimes interpret things incorrectly or don’t get things right all of the time … i.e the Roman Catholics worship/venerate Mary – nowhere in the Bible are believers told to revere anyone but God alone. Then there’s purgatory – the existance of which is also non-Bibical.

How many more ’til 1000 is it anyway?

Or, more likely, some people are not very good at being guided

That’s the ticket.

or sometimes interpret things incorrectly

If a believer spends his/her whole life believing they have interpreted the bible correctly and are acting in accordance to god’s wishes, yet when at the pearly gates it transpires their interpretations were wrong, do they get into heaven or not?

So where in the new testament does it say to disregard the old testament hmmmmmm?

If you are genuinely interested then I think a good starting point is the sermon on the mount, the key idea being the reinterpretation of some of the ‘rules’ such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek.

are we at 900 yet?

And if you are interested in the bits of the New Testament where it appears to quite specifically say you shouldn’t disregard the rules of the Old Testament then a good starting point is this:

http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm

😀

the sermon ion the mount does not reacnt the word of god

The LORD said to Moses – leviticus 20 :1
which then includes th ekill the gays bit

he did not recant the word of god – how could he?- though he may have changed the flavour of some aspects of “belief” and practice – or asserted some attributes – turn the other cheek – above vengenace ” but the lord said to leave revenge for god anyway.

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
romans 12:19

Jesus – “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

Oh dear

and the problem with all of this, such as GrahamS’s links and mine, are that they are single passages often out of context. So, for example, one of the links on GrahamS’s page was this

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

but the following verses say this “Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.”

16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”

and this happens all over the place. It’s what makes the Bible so difficult to work with but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t worth trying

and this happens all over the place. It’s what makes the Bible so difficult to work with but that mean that it isn’t worth trying

deep down, don’t you honestly think…….it’s just a bunch of mythical stories from the Iron Age. I mean honestly…..?

Do you mean do I ever doubt? That is really the best question so far and I’ll go for the honest answer – it is both yes and no. Yes in that sometimes stuff just doesn’t make sense and you can’t work it out. No in that in no way in my heart do I believe that God doesn’t exist so I continue to work it out knowing that there are whole swathes of stuff that I still have to work through. At least another 100 posts worth at least 😉

i see nothin i n your fuller quote that changes this
He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”

I find it odd that you can worship when you admit you dont understand – how crap is god at explaining stuff then? Oh hold it is your fault innit not gods.:roll:

We could easy do 100 shall we jump about the books a bit

“through a glass darkly”

Be fair if i gave either side everyone would know the passage and yet no one knows this bit 8)

These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.

Clearly the Son of God never experienced a good dose of the squits then! 😆

The point of that reference is that JC quotes an Old Testament “law” which they no longer follow as evidence of their hypocrisy, but he doesn’t say anything about it being repealed or it being okay not to follow it.

Surely it would only be hypocritical if he hadn’t announced there was a new contract in place?

“Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

..

Ye hypocrites.. “
— Mathew 15:3-4 (KJV)

Fair enough……I will leave you with my pitch

http://www.humanism.org.uk

Throughout recorded history there have been non-religious people who have believed that this life is the only life we have, that the universe is a natural phenomenon with no supernatural side, and that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. They have trusted to the scientific method, evidence and reason to discover truths about the universe and placed human welfare and happiness at the centre of their ethical decision making.

Today, people who share these beliefs and values are called humanists and this combination of attitudes is called Humanism. Many millions of people in Britain share this way of living and of looking at the world, but many of them have not heard the word ‘humanist’ and don’t realise that it describes what they believe.

It is one of the main purposes of the British Humanist Association to increase public awareness of what Humanism is, and to let the many millions of non-religious people in this country know that, far from being somehow deficient in their values, they have an outlook on life which is coherent and widely-shared, which has inspired some of the world’s greatest artists, writers, scientists, philosophers and social reformers, and which has a millenia-long tradition in both the western and eastern worlds.

We also hope to give greater confidence to people whose beliefs are humanist by offering resources here and elsewhere that can develop their knowledge of humanist approaches to some of the big ethical, philosophical and existential questions in life.

Defining ‘Humanism’
Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who:

•trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
•makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals
•believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.

I find it odd that you can worship when you admit you dont understand – how crap is god at explaining stuff then?

You wouldn’t give your child everything they’re going to need for their whole life whilst they are still a toddler – they couldn’t cope or understand it all, and wouldn’t know what to do with it.

As they grow and your relationship with them develops you teach them & guide them as needs arise, as things become necessary or appropriate etc.

In the same way, being a Christian is a relationship with God through the Holy Spirit … it’s a process that lasts a lifetime, nobody is perfect, understands everything, or has all the answers.

Was this thread resurrected or reincarnated today?

hehe, well done

The point of that reference is that JC quotes an Old Testament “law” which they no longer follow as evidence of their hypocrisy, but he doesn’t say anything about it being repealed or it being okay not to follow it.

The “law” referenced was from the book of Leviticus which were laws for the priests. The point being made I believe was one that you would probably agree with, that the priests were making up laws as they went along to suit themselves and it didn’t make any sense from a moral point of view. I think the two of you would get on well.

I’m pretty certain that he wasn’t in a position to just rewrite the laws, he could only try and point to a different way of making sense of them. I’m absolutely certain that I couldn’t win an argument with you over this though

oh, and if I may,

9 ‘undred

Nineun….

Oh ffs…. 😡

Don’t want to play anyway bloody stupid game.

(Storms off in a huff)

So, while we pic nits all about which word means what. Why should I believe, say, Hinduism, than follow the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Bekoz Hinduism is a religion what is very ancient and involves all sorts of fascinating myths and stories and stuff, and incorporates elements of even more ancient religions/beliefs, whereas the latter is just attention seeking by some knobber trying to appear clever and funny but in fact probbly din’t get enough hugs as a child or something…

So we’re saying, the primary difference is that the former have been doing it for a lot longer?

Sounds like it. Which means that we should really all worship the sun/moon and stuff?

Myths and stories may make up a ‘religion’ but not the actual gods, unless you’re into the Terry Pratchett stuff.

And there was me thinking that the flying spaghetti monster was an attempt to stymie the creationists from getting their beliefs being taught in American schools. Oh well since it’s Elf he must be right.

I’m absolutely certain that I couldn’t win an argument with you over this though

I’m more interested in “debate” than argument 🙂

I see your point about Him saying the priests were just making stuff up, but as I read it He is saying “this is the law according to Dad, but you’ve made up some bogus tradition-based sub-clause to void it. Ye cannae do that!” – which is quite the opposite to what you are suggesting.

The ESV version is easier to read (my emphasis):

“He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! — Mathew 15 (ESV)

And there was me thinking that the flying spaghetti monster was an attempt to stymie the creationists from getting their beliefs being taught in American schools.

Well, it’s not a great deal more than ‘oh look at me instead of them’ type thing really, is it?

‘I don’t like your views so I’ll attempt to stifle your voice’. How very open-minded…

I don’t believe in Creationism, and most Christians I know don’t subscribe to a lot of Creationist absolutism, but I don’t feel so insecure I need to create a whole new ‘religion’ to get people to notice me.

They notice me anyway, without me even trying very hard. 😀

I find Kent Hovind a lot more interesting than the FSM bloke whatever his name is.

‘I don’t like your views so I’ll attempt to stifle your voice’. How very open-minded…

Elf, this was an attempt to stop science classes teaching creationism, not religious classes. No one has any problem with kids being taught religion in religious classes.

Kent Hovind: LOL. Good one. I’m having a larf at that one. Any more? That old chap, paid his taxes yet? 😀

Well, it’s not a great deal more than ‘oh look at me instead of them’ type thing really, is it?

Have you actually read the original letter[/url] behind it Elf?

The Kansas school board wanted to teach Creationism in Science classes as an alternative to Evolution on the basis that evolution was wrong and Intelligent Design had been scientifically proven!

So, if I had a problem with the Big Bang theory (which is all it is, a theory, much like Creationism) being taught in schools, should I therefore start a ‘religion’ which does little else other than to mock those who choose to believe in something? That, and appeal to drunken students what think they know it all..

Is the FSM bloke poor?

Have you actually read the original letter behind it Elf?

Yes, it’s just some guff writed by some arsey student bod. I woon’t take it too seriously; it’s just a form of attention seeking, little more.

I mean, some people believe that Tracy Emin creates Art. Proof, if indeed it were needed, that people need to believe in something, in order to ‘belong’. Stuff like FSM is no different to any religion in this respect, as it serves as a ‘club’ where people can feel safe in numbers, part of something, not alone. Where it does differ to religion, is in the fact it’s just a load of student toss.

And if you can’t work that out, yer not thinking hard enough with the brain God gave you… 😉

So, if I had a problem with the Big Bang theory (which is all it is, a theory, much like Creationism) being taught in schools, should I therefore start a ‘religion’ which does little else other than to mock those who choose to believe in something?

(a) no, Big-bang-theory is not like creationism. There’s evidence for that. If you want to argue against it, bring forward your evidence.
(b) you can create whatever religion you like and I’ll back it being taught in religious classes. What’s your symbol? A pint? Do you have a creed?

So if I had a problem with religious people of any type trying to teach my children that their version of reality is right, without evidence, you’re all for it and no-one should say anything? How about it if they were (a) Christian? (b) Muslim? (c) Confucians? (d) Satanists? (e) Pagans?

Or should we, in science classes, teach the children that *every* single creation myth is the right one? Their single science lesson would take forever!

should I therefore start a ‘religion’ which does little else other than to mock those who choose to believe in something?

That really isn’t the point of the exercise is it?

FSM make the quite valid point that if you are going to teach Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory in Science classes then surely you need to teach other creation theories too, no matter how “unscientific”.

(GrahamS, 36, not a drunk student)

Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who:

Replaces God with man. Surely?

Regarding free will and the comments on “fire and brimstone” – answer me this “what sort of God would make you spend eternity with Him, if you’ve chosen to freely reject him all of your life?”

Finally, the root of this for me is the concept of ‘sin’. Some find the notion abhorrent and refute claims that it is real, whereas others recognise ‘sin’ within themselves and the world around them (with some recognising Jesus as the road to forgiveness, freedom and transformation). There is no compromise between these two positions and that is what it is.

Where it goes wrong for me is when the view is held that some ‘sins’ are worse than others and men make judgements about other men in this regard. It is not for us to judge – no-one is perfect and we don’t have the whole picture. Jesus is quite clear about this. What is more important than the behaviour is the heart of the person. As I said about 1000 posts ago :wink:, being a Christian is about transformation and not transaction.

On the old testament – it’s important to do our best to understand it, as it set’s the context for the New Testament. The OT points to Jesus and provides evidence for who he says he was.

Finally, I’d like to say this about the ‘do or die’ view of God. If your world view of God is as an oppresive, dictatorial, fun extinguishing, fire and damnation entity then it makes perfect sense that you would rebel against Him. Human’s have rebelled against oppression throughout history. However, my experience of God, my relationship with Jesus and reading his teaching and word in the bible suggests that He is the exact opposite and has in fact come to set the oppressed free, to provide light where there is darkness, to bring hope to the hopeless, to heal the broken and to demonstrate what it means to Love in all it’s fulness.

it’s a process that lasts a lifetime, nobody is perfect, understands everything, or has all the answers.

so like i said you dont understand so god is not very good at explaining it.

if I had a problem with the Big Bang theory (which is all it is, a theory, much like Creationism)

I dont think you can call ceationism a theory [ certainly not in the scientific sense nor do i think you can call them equal given where the evidence points/supports. One comes from observation one comes from supposition that then ignores the conflicting evidence as they have a book,faith etc.
There is as much evidence for FSM as god and all the same arguments “work”

I think you are being deliberately obtuse, Sir Elf of Poplar. The FSM thing was deliberately done to expose the silliness of fundamentalists in the US, and it worked a treat.

The difference between ‘This IS the word of GOD, and you WILL teach it in schools and WE KNOW BETTER THAN YOU, YOU HEATHEN ANTI-AMERICAN SWINE’ and the humble but far more noble approach of our very own barnsleymitch; ‘I am what I am, and I don’t know all the answers, but I will believe what I choose to, thanks’ speaks volumes about the way religion is used by individuals and groups of individuals with an agenda.

Big-bang-theory is not like creationism. There’s evidence for that

Where?

Videos? Photos? Artefacts?

No, there’s not, is there. It’s theory, based on ‘evidence’ that some beings on one tiny planet in a Universe which is supposedly infinite, think might suggest something like that mightuv happened.

Nothing more. 🙂

Well on the way to a Faasand posts now, I’m sure…

Can’t be ars*d to read this whole thread but quickly scanning through it and in response to the original title, I think this thread also proves …………. everyone is angry!