Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Benguin]

2 minutes ago, murphy said:

You also asked why belief in God was illogical, well there is a good example.  If God created life from amoeba and the whole grand design was to end up with humans 4bn years later by way of evolution is that logical?  Why not just create man and the animals in the first place?

 

And what role did dinosaurs play in this grand scheme?

 

And what about the early humans?  The neanderthals and others.  Where do they fit in?   At what point does God reveal himself and then why go into hiding after that?

 

Why even create a physical world in the first place with all of it's pain and disease when you already have a much nicer one in the spiritual world?

 

Do you see what I mean about it all being illogical?

 

I am not trying to mock religion or have a go at you, but as soon as you start to look at it with any kind of logic the thing just unravels.

1.  Well for a start, he might have done. I don't think we are in a position to say macroevoltion is certain. Regardless I'm not sure how it is illogical if we evolved. 

2. I don't know and am not sure how dinosaurs make God's existence illogical. 

3. Again, I don't know but not sure how that goes against my worldview. 

4. I don't know what God's intentions are but the second part to this is dealt with pretty conclusively in the bible "original sin" I reccomend Cs Lewis's mere christianity for a fun approach to this. 

5. no I don't? Do you? 

6. Can you show me? 

[the fox]

Ben, believing in human evaluation is against what the people of the Abrahamic Faith believe. Maybe you meant adaptation (like people getting darker is places where it's hot and sunny a lot).

 

 

Dinosaurs contributed to fusel fuel. The same fuel that allowed humans to have amazing achievements.

 

 

 

 

[Izzy]

5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

As an atheist, I endorse this message.

 

I believe that only a tiny minority of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists or Atheists are implicated in harmful prejudice, mockery, hate or violence.

(Though such undesirable traits can mushroom among the followers of any cause - religious, political, racial or whatever - if circumstances fuel it and leaders provoke it).

 

I also believe that only a tiny minority of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists or Atheists are consistently or massively saintly in their conduct.

 

I believe that the vast majority of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Atheists are decent if mildly flawed people who do no harm most of the time, do some good some of the time and occasionally behave badly.

 

It's mods, prog rockers, hippies and Tories that we need to kill. 

We all all flawed brother Alf. 

 

This is a trustworthy saying, and everyone should accept it: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners”—and I am the worst of them all. But God had mercy on me so that Christ Jesus could use me as a prime example of his great patience with even the worst sinners. Then others will realize that they, too, can believe in him and receive eternal life.

 

Timothy 1: 15-17

[the fox]

7 minutes ago, Izzy said:

We all all flawed brother Alf. 

 

This is a trustworthy saying, and everyone should accept it: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners”—and I am the worst of them all. But God had mercy on me so that Christ Jesus could use me as a prime example of his great patience with even the worst sinners. Then others will realize that they, too, can believe in him and receive eternal life.

 

Timothy 1: 15-17

Matthew 15:24

 

“But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

[Benguin]

4 minutes ago, the fox said:

Ben, believing in human evaluation is against what the people of the Abrahamic Faith believe. Maybe you meant adaptation (like people getting darker is places where it's hot and sunny a lot).

 

 

Dinosaurs contributed to fusel fuel. The same fuel that allowed humans to have amazing achievements.

 

 

 

 

I believe in Microevoltion, that changes occur within a species. I am not convinced about macroevoltion but what I'm saying is that I can't see any reason why macroevoltion being proved true would alter my worldview.

 

Whether God litterally created Adam from dust on the ground or whether dust refers to a set of biological changes that resulted In Adam is neither here nor there for me personally. That said, I do see the bible as absolute authority though. 

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, Izzy said:

We all all flawed brother Alf. 

 

This is a trustworthy saying, and everyone should accept it: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners”—and I am the worst comedian of them all. But God had mercy on me so that Christ Jesus could use me as a prime example of his great patience with even the worst of joke tellers. Then others will realize that they, too, can contribute to the forum and receive a few questionable rep points.

 

Izzy 1: 15-17

 

Amen, Brother Izzy!

 

(Though personally I find your jokes immaculate in their conception)

[Suzie the Fox]

Oh my, the last few pages were an interesting read. It was nice to see both views without anything getting personal. 

 

I have to admit i had to google a few words which i am not sure will broaden my vocabulary but at least i learnt something new. 

 

For what its worth i don't believe in God, although i do believe there was a guy called Jesus who had the gift of the gab and storys were written about him and passed down and eventually making up the bible. 

 

I would love to able to have faith and some belief in something but a creator of all, just doesn't wash with me.  

[Izzy]

4 minutes ago, Suzie the Fox said:

Oh my, the last few pages were an interesting read. It was nice to see both views without anything getting personal. 

 

I have to admit i had to google a few words which i am not sure will broaden my vocabulary but at least i learnt something new. 

 

For what its worth i don't believe in God, although i do believe there was a guy called Jesus who had the gift of the gab and storys were written about him and passed down and eventually making up the bible. 

 

I would love to able to have faith and some belief in something but a creator of all, just doesn't wash with me.  

[the fox]

4 minutes ago, Benguin said:

I believe in Microevoltion, that changes occur within a species. I am not convinced about macroevoltion but what I'm saying is that I can't see any reason why macroevoltion being proved true would alter my worldview.

 

Whether God litterally created Adam from dust on the ground or whether dust refers to a set of biological changes that resulted In Adam is neither here nor there for me personally. That said, I do see the bible as absolute authority though. 

I am pretty sure your way of thinking isn't mainstream.

 

 

Plus, the Bible never claimed to be the word of God so why take it as absolute truth.

 

But anyway, if you do, take a look Matthew 15-24 and see if it is the absolute authority. 

 

What the church preaches and What Jesus taught are different.

[Alf Bentley]

18 minutes ago, Izzy said:

We all all flawed brother Alf. 

 

This is a trustworthy saying, and everyone should accept it: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners”—and I am the worst of them all. But God had mercy on me so that Christ Jesus could use me as a prime example of his great patience with even the worst sinners. Then others will realize that they, too, can believe in him and receive eternal life.

 

Timothy 1: 15-17

 

I did always like that parable of the mote and the beam (particularly when I had a child's more literal, exaggerated perception of a "beam" - that added to the parable).

 

My parents were both atheists (more unusual back in the 60s/70s) who had both come from devoutly Catholic families (even more unusual). So, I probably have some watered-down, second-generation Christian thinking.

 

I even got our Primary School's Religious Prize when I was 11 (it was a C of E primary and the vicar came in once a week). 

I'd love to know the basis for that decision (which really should have gone to VAR)......God moving in mysterious ways or Jesus performing his greatest miracle, perhaps? 

[Benguin]

5 minutes ago, Suzie the Fox said:

Oh my, the last few pages were an interesting read. It was nice to see both views without anything getting personal. 

 

I have to admit i had to google a few words which i am not sure will broaden my vocabulary but at least i learnt something new. 

 

For what its worth i don't believe in God, although i do believe there was a guy called Jesus who had the gift of the gab and storys were written about him and passed down and eventually making up the bible. 

 

I would love to able to have faith and some belief in something but a creator of all, just doesn't wash with me.  

Jesus was either a nutter, a liar or the Son of God. It all pins on the resurrection. Given what we know from historical evidence, there isn't an option for anything else. 

 

I think it's important to point out what the new testament is as well. Many people think its simply one book. Its actually 27 books and letters. A third of it is written by Paul, almost all of his writings are incredibly early. The Creed in his 1 corinthians letter is dated to around 45 A D. 

 

The new testament isn't a book written many years after the event it is comprised of very early sources. 

 

I encourage anyone to not simply think of it an old book but consider it for what it is, you may be surprised what you uncover. 

[Benguin]

7 minutes ago, the fox said:

I am pretty sure your way of thinking isn't mainstream.

 

 

Plus, the Bible never claimed to be the word of God so why take it as absolute truth.

 

But anyway, if you do, take a look Matthew 15-24 and see if it is the absolute authority. 

 

What the church preaches and What Jesus taught are different.

I disagree the bible claims to either be the word of God in some instances or inspired by the Holy spirt, which is to say the same thing. 

 

Your last point is very valid, we should examine everything and pray for discernment. The Bible warns of false teachers. 

[Fox92]

1 hour ago, the fox said:

A belief can be true without the existence of evidence. But it has to be backed with a logical explanation or it becomes delusion.

 

 

 

Quite right. Believing is seeing.

[Suzie the Fox]

Just now, Benguin said:

Jesus was either a nutter, a liar or the Son of God. It all pins on the resurrection. Given what we know from historical evidence, there isn't an option for anything else. 

 

I think it's important to point out what the new testament is as well. Many people think its simply one book. Its actually 27 books and letters. A third of it is written by Paul, almost all of his writings are incredibly early. The Creed in his 1 corinthians letter is dated to around 45 A D. 

 

The new testament isn't a book written many years after the event it is comprised of very early sources. 

 

I encourage anyone to not simply think of it an old book but consider it for what it is, you may be surprised what you uncover. 

Or just a very clever man who saw what the world needed and gave it to them... A belief in something ie faith?  Thats not too far fetched, i dont think and what i believe in. 

 

I have actually read the bible, albeit many years ago so do get the concept of it being words from many different people. I think what gets me with the new testament is the fact that a few of the chapters from the Old Testament have just been missed out. Why is this and whose choice was it to do it.. why pick some and not others, especially as some of the missed out ones, were written around the time of Jesus and yet the later ones written 200 odd years later are included. 

 

 

[the fox]

10 minutes ago, Benguin said:

I disagree the bible claims to either be the word of God in some instances or inspired by the Holy spirt, which is to say the same thing. 

 

Your last point is very valid, we should examine everything and pray for discernment. The Bible warns of false teachers. 

I didn't understand the first point fully so I won't assume something until I get clarification if you want to clarify. I want to know if you believe it's fully inspired or not.

 

 

I'm still interested on your take on Matthew 15-24.

 

Indeed the Bible says that. Paul is obviously someone who was doing the fales teachings and Jesus's apostles punished him for it (all according to the bible of course)

Edited 18 July 2020 by the fox

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, Suzie the Fox said:

Or just a very clever man who saw what the world needed and gave it to them... A belief in something ie faith?  Thats not too far fetched, i dont think and what i believe in. 

 

I have actually read the bible, albeit many years ago so do get the concept of it being words from many different people. I think what gets me with the new testament is the fact that a few of the chapters from the Old Testament have just been missed out. Why is this and whose choice was it to do it.. why pick some and not others, especially as some of the missed out ones, were written around the time of Jesus and yet the later ones written 200 odd years later are included. 

 

 

The evidence that Jesus claimed to be the son of God is overwhelming hence not leaving any other options than the ones I said. With that claim he can only be telling the truth, lying or be delusional I don't see how anything else is logical. 

 

There is of course a lot of debate about what should or shouldn't be in the bible but the current composition is widely considered by scholars to be the correct composition as lots of the other documents you are referring too are historically falseifiable. 

 

Scholars use textual critisism to determine this for example if we had the following copies with mistakes

 

1. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son. 

2.For God so adored the world that he gave his one and only son. 

3. For God so loved the earth that he gave his one and only son. 

4. For God so loved the world that he gave them candy.

 

We can see which copies are accidental mistakes and which one is blatantly wrong. . 

 

 

 

[Benguin]

6 minutes ago, the fox said:

I didn't understand the first point fully so I won't assume something until I get clarification if you want to clarify. I want to know if you believe it's fully inspired or not.

 

 

I'm still interested on your take on Matthew 15-24.

 

Indeed the Bible says that. Paul is obviously someone who was doing the fales teachings and Jesus's apostles punished him for it (all according to the bible of course)

The whole Bible is written by God through man, that is to say all of it is his word. 

 

Thoughts on Mathew. I think Paul deals with this well in Romans. Jesus isn't saying don't follow the rules of God but rather to align your heart with your actions. The pharisees practised the law but sinned in their hearts. 

 

Do you mean before his conversion? I absolutely disagree that any of Paul's writings in the new testament are false witness to God. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Benguin said:

1. The evidence is the original post. Granted its a philosophical argument rether than a scientific argument. 

2. We know the probability to be high based on the scientific fact that incredibly small changes in variables results in us not being here. 

3. I'm not sure you're following my point here. I'm saying onjective morals can't exist in your worldview, I'm yet to hear any compelling reason from you that murder is objectively wrong in an atheistic worldview. 

4.  Again think we are on different roads here. I'm saying a theistic worldview justifies absolute knowledge but an atheistic one does.not.you are applying the conditions in an atheistic world view to my own to make this point. 

5. Are you saying you know there is meaning in your worldview that is not illusory? If so how do you justify this? 

6. Feel free to Google "historicty of Jesus and you'll find a wealth of Scholars both religious and atheists who attest these facts. Bart Erhman the great sceptic is a good place to start given he shares your worldview. The sources are of course the gospels and Pauline epistles, Josephus the 1st century historian, tacitus and many more.

7. Its not claiming to know God's will but rather following the logic.

1. Yes, it is - which is why I don't really hold truck with it. I'm looking for evidence, not sophistry.

2. We certainly don't know that a small variable would result in humans or even life no longer existing - we think it might well be the case, but we have zero other frames of reference to actually test the hypothesis and prove it.

3. Yeah, I agree that "objective" morality as you would state it doesn't exist. As such, murder is not objectively wrong, but subjectively wrong in the vast, vast majority of cases and not in just a few (self-defence of ones life when under capital threat, for instance).

4. What, so it's all "our knowledge is absolute and objective because in certain places "God said so" and that's enough? Nah, not getting there.

5. Nope, there's not in mine, except what meaning we make of it, and there's not in anyone else's, including yours either, because, once again, there is no evidence that meaning comes from anywhere other than the inside of a human head.

6. I'll have a look, thank you.

7. Logic leads to probabilities, not certainties, as logical processes followed by humans are always going to be flawed. That's science and epistemology 101.

 

I think I'm going to leave this one there because it's reasonably evident that we have pretty opposed viewpoints on all this that will remain so. I got involved purely because I don't like the idea of unsubstantiated and unproven opinion and conjecture being presented as fact. That being said, I wholly respect your right to have the beliefs you have, despite my own opinions on them.

[Rain King]

46 minutes ago, Benguin said:

That said, I do see the bible as absolute authority though. 

When Noah was 500 years old, he had three sons. Genesis 5:32

 

Hosea 13:16 - "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."

 

 

[Suzie the Fox]

15 minutes ago, Benguin said:

The evidence that Jesus claimed to be the son of God is overwhelming hence not leaving any other options than the ones I said. With that claim he can only be telling the truth, lying or be delusional I don't see how anything else is logical. 

 

There is of course a lot of debate about what should or shouldn't be in the bible but the current composition is widely considered by scholars to be the correct composition as lots of the other documents you are referring too are historically falseifiable. 

 

Scholars use textual critisism to determine this for example if we had the following copies with mistakes

 

1. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son. 

2.For God so adored the world that he gave his one and only son. 

3. For God so loved the earth that he gave his one and only son. 

4. For God so loved the world that he gave them candy.

 

We can see which copies are accidental mistakes and which one is blatantly wrong. . 

 

 

 

Please don't think i am critisizing you or anything like that, i am really enjoying the discussion and i appreciate you spending time explaining your faith  

However (there is always a however) There is no evidence that Jesus claimed to be the son of God at all, its just hearsay isnt it?  For the sake of the discussion though, lets go with he did claim he was the son of God ... its not hardly a shooting gun is it? I mean i wake up in the morning, look in the mirror and tell myself i'm beautiful and still look 25, but i'm pretty sure that not everyone will agree with that.. it doesn't make it fact just because i say it, right. 

 

Thanks for clearing up the other part about the missing texts. 

 

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Jesus was either a nutter, a liar or the Son of God. It all pins on the resurrection. Given what we know from historical evidence, there isn't an option for anything else. 

 

I think it's important to point out what the new testament is as well. Many people think its simply one book. Its actually 27 books and letters. A third of it is written by Paul, almost all of his writings are incredibly early. The Creed in his 1 corinthians letter is dated to around 45 A D. 

 

The new testament isn't a book written many years after the event it is comprised of very early sources. 

 

I encourage anyone to not simply think of it an old book but consider it for what it is, you may be surprised what you uncover. 

 

I prefer to think of Jesus as a great (but purely human) moral philosopher and popular leader - so popular, it seems, that the authorities saw him as such a threat that they put him to death.

His followers were then highly effective in promoting his ideas over the decades and centuries after his death, mainly through the merit of those ideas but partly by talking up his divine status, at a time when deities were almost universally believed in.

 

I presume you'll know more than me about when different parts of the New Testament were written, but the 4 Gospels were written later, weren't they?

Between 30 and 70 years later, and at least some by people who never met or heard Jesus, I think?

Even 45 AD (if that is the earliest part of the New Testament?) would have been about 12 years after the crucifixion, wouldn't it?

 

Your first argument ("nutter, liar or Son of God") is discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis's_trilemma

 

"Lewis's trilemma is an apologetic argument traditionally used to argue for the divinity of Jesus by arguing that the only alternatives were that he was evil or deluded. One version was popularised by C. S. Lewis. It is sometimes described as the "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord", or "Mad, Bad, or God" argument. It takes the form of a trilemma — a choice among three options, each of which is in some way difficult to accept"

 

"A frequent criticism is that Lewis's trilemma depends on the veracity of the scriptural accounts of Jesus's statements and actions. This omits the possibility of those accounts instead being an invention of the early Christian movement, seeking to glorify Jesus. The trilemma rests on the interpretation of New Testament authors' depiction of Jesus: a widespread objection is that the statements by Jesus recorded in the Gospels are being misinterpreted, and do not constitute claims to divinity".

 

"Another criticism raised is that Lewis is creating a false trilemma by insisting that only three options are possible. Philosopher John Beversluis comments that "he deprives his readers of numerous alternate interpretations of Jesus that carry with them no such odious implications". For example, it is logically possible for Jesus's claims (if any) as to his divinity to have been merely good-faith mistakes resulting from his sincere efforts at reasoning, as well as for Jesus to have been deluded with respect to the specific issue of his own divinity while his faculties of moral reasoning remained intact. Philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig cites this as a reason why he believes it is an unsound argument for Christianity".

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, Rain King said:

When Noah was 500 years old, he had three sons. Genesis 5:32

 

Hosea 13:16 - "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."

 

 

The are good Christian debates but not ones to spare too much time with an atheist. Here's why

 

1. If one believes that Jesus was the son of God and he gave authority to the old testament, then it is enough to simply belive the other stuff by faith. Therefore I would rather debate the fact that Jesus was the son of God with an unbeliever as that is what the Gospel is predicated upon. 

 

2. You are now inferring a theistic viewpoint to argue against theism. In other words picking a verse that makes God sound immoral on the surface, when you yourself as an unbeliever cannot justify morality without God. 

[Benguin]

5 minutes ago, Suzie the Fox said:

Please don't think i am critisizing you or anything like that, i am really enjoying the discussion and i appreciate you spending time explaining your faith  

However (there is always a however) There is no evidence that Jesus claimed to be the son of God at all, its just hearsay isnt it?  For the sake of the discussion though, lets go with he did claim he was the son of God ... its not hardly a shooting gun is it? I mean i wake up in the morning, look in the mirror and tell myself i'm beautiful and still look 25, but i'm pretty sure that not everyone will agree with that.. it doesn't make it fact just because i say it, right. 

 

Thanks for clearing up the other part about the missing texts. 

 

The question is are you prepared to look at the evidence that jesus said that? There is a lot and I'd be more than happy to walk you through it. 

 

The point is if jesus said he was the son of God he can only be lying telling the truth or deluded, what else is there? There are many arguments against christianity but the idea that Jesus might just have been a good old. Chap from 2000 years ago is not one that complies with the evidence. You could say he didn't exist, he was mental or he was a liar but there isn't room for anything else. 

[the fox]

21 minutes ago, Benguin said:

The whole Bible is written by God through man, that is to say all of it is his word. 

 

Thoughts on Mathew. I think Paul deals with this well in Romans. Jesus isn't saying don't follow the rules of God but rather to align your heart with your actions. The pharisees practised the law but sinned in their hearts. 

 

Do you mean before his conversion? I absolutely disagree that any of Paul's writings in the new testament are false witness to God. 

There are many mistakes, contradiction, and flat out verses added that aren't in the oldest manuscripts. Are those also the words of god? I can post them if you want.

 

 

Jesus in the Bible says that he came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. I don't care what Paul says and I will show you why in a minute. 

 

 

It was after his conversion when he went around preaching that people shouldn't keep the dietary laws even though Jesus in the bible said that he did not come to abolish the law. The apostles called him and he had to take the punishment to prove that he wasn't preaching that "all food are clean". Yet here we are.

 

There is a theme here where Jesus says something and Paul blatantly going against Jesus's teachings and people are supposed to take Paul as some kind of an authority?

 

 

 

 

 

[Rain King]

Puss In Boots is my favourite fairytale.