Prove it with religion! Oh wait. you can’t

prove-with-religion.jpg

  • Leave a comment ?

    28 Responses to Prove it with religion! Oh wait. you can’t

    1. This would be funnier if the text wasn’t all JPEG fucked.

      Reply

    2. On the subject of the historical accuracy of the Bible, I just read a great book about the origin of the Exodus story.

      The theory is that Akhenaten was the founder of a sun-god based monotheism that morphed into Judaism. Moses was a priest of this religion that fell out of favor with Akhenaten’s death, and the Exodus of Jews was also recorded in Egyption history as an “expulsion of lepers [unclean people] from the delta region. The pharoah that ruled during the Exodus was Tutankamen.

      There are a lot of cool books out there that try to reconcile biblical history with archaeological discovery, and it’s all fascinating. Nowhere is there any evidence of Magic Man, though.

      Reply

    3. Didn’t you guys learn anything in Sunday School? The Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true. That’s proof if I ever heard it.

      Reply

    4. out of the delta region…so the Borg kicked them out?

      Reply

    5. “Hence I think that I may reasonably conclude that whenever the Bible has occasion to speak of any physical conclusion (especially those which are very abstruse and hard to understand), the rule has been observed of avoiding confusion in the minds of the common people which would render them contumacious toward the higher mysteries. Now the Bible, merely to condescend to popular capacity, has not hesitated to obscure some very important pronouncements, attributing to God himself some qualities extremely remote from (and even contrary to) His essence. Who, then, would positively declare that this principle has been set aside, and the Bible has confined itself rigorously to the bare and restricted sense of its words, when speaking but casually of the earth, of water, of the sun, or of any other created thing? Especially in view of the fact that these things in no way concern the primary purpose of the sacred writings, which is the service of God and the salvation of souls – matters infinitely beyond the comprehension of the common people.”

      — Galileo Galilei: Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615

      What Galileo is saying here is that the Bible should not be used for scientific purposes. We can clearly see how the Catholic church at that time abused their position and used the Bible for purposes other than salvation. Also, it’s important to note that the Geocentric model of the universe at that time spawned from Aristotle, who was not a Christian. The wordings in the Bible was deliberately chosen to be ambiguous in order for even the most commonest commoner to comprehend the Bible.

      I’m sick and tired of people using this argument as a slam dunk. To put this into perspective, would you use a computer manual to learn about the Brazilian rainforest? Similiarly, the Bible should only be used what it was intended for and not as a basis for astrophysics. It’s time for you ignorant fools to grow up and learn a little culture and history before you go on bashing others.

      Oh and natakamus, would you mind telling us about this “great book?”

      Reply

    6. You’d have a point if the church didn’t finally admit that the Earth revolved around the Sun on October 31st, 1992. That’s what, 350 years later? Oh, but they still haven’t admitted that it was wrong to convict Galileo on charges of heresy.

      Don’t try to argue a pro-bible point of view using logic, it’s not your strong suit. Emotional outrage is definitely your best defense.

      Jesus is Magic! 😀

      Reply

    7. iddqd: What’s the Bible supposed to be used for? A moral guide? Sorry you planted two crops in the same field, time to die. Sorry, honey, you’re on your period so you need to leave town. Even the New Testament is pretty weak on morals by modern standards. If you really followed Jesus, you have to sell all of your things and give the money to the poor.
      The Bible might have some historical significance, but no more than the Tao Te Ching or the Norse Sagas.
      BTW, I don’t know exactly what book natakamus read, but that is a common theory. But you should know that, since you are so learned in history and culture.

      Reply

    8. Galileo DID commit heresy. He broke the law by contradicting the churches stance. Right as he may have been, he still knowingly broke the law.

      Why don’t you believe that the Bible is based on fact? Because it is impossible in your mind for these events to have taken place?
      Prove it with religion. What does that mean? Is there anything from more than a couple thousand years ago that can actually be proven? No, its all based on an educated guess. When I was a kid my favorite dinosaur was a brontosaurus. Turns out there is no such thing. But any of you back then would have told me with absolution that the mighty brontosaurus once roamed this earth.

      Here I will prove something with religion: The only way to God is through Jesus Christ because the Bible says so.

      Prove me wrong with science. Oh wait, you can’t.

      Reply

    9. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten#Speculative_theories

      Oh yeah reboot, you got me there. Speculative theories. Isn’t that another word for “crazy conspiracies?” I wouldn’t be surprised if you believed that 9/11 was an inside job and that the Kennedy assassination was orchestrated by the CIA. Go enjoy your AIDs.

      Foinlavin, did you read my post correctly? The Bible only concerns itself with human salvation. Galileo was persecuted by the church and that’s exactly what I said, the Catholic Church was corrupted and used the Bible for purposes that it wasn’t suited for. This means that you shouldn’t use the bible to prove scientific theories and condemn people on those grounds, it’s all based on belief and faith. Much like philosophy. If you guys want to call it magic, sure go ahead, I’m not going to argue with you, your belief is your belief. But what I can prove is that the Bible is historically accurate to an extensive degree that even archaeologists are using it as a guide for excavating ancient ruin sites in the Middle East.

      I’m not here defending the Catholic Church. People need to get it through their thick skulls that Catholicism != The Bible. What Galileo said was genius, science and faith should be completely disjoint.

      Reply

    10. @iddqd
      Wait hold on, I am trying to be on your side here. My Galileo comment was in response to Paul_is_Drunk’s comment on the Church not saying that Galileo committed heresy. Did you read MY post correctly? I am obviously in full Christian-defense mode. Its a phase. I’ll be over it in an hour or so.

      Reply

    11. Foinlavin: Why don’t you believe that the Bible is based on fact? Because it is impossible in your mind for these events to have taken place?

      Some of the stories related in the Bible might have happened. Some of the stories related in the Bibles seem to be retellings of myths from other religions. Whether I believe all the stories filling the modern Bible, or all the stories left out over the years by church leaders doesn’t really matter, does it?

      iddqd: But what I can prove is that the Bible is historically accurate to an extensive degree that even archaeologists are using it as a guide for excavating ancient ruin sites in the Middle East.

      You’re absolutely correct. A number of cities and large landmarks mentioned in the Bible existed and many of them were described in roughly the correct geographic positions relative to each other.

      Of course, by that argument, Lovecraft’s writings were also historically accurate to an extensive degree. So were the Greek myths. And many other texts, both old and new.

      Reply

    12. I enjoy reading the Bible and studying science. Not for religious purposes, but for investigation and enjoyment. The Bible has great stories. I’m not defending Catholics because I think they’re insane. Which is why I broke away from the Catholic church. The Bible, is actually for 99% scientifically accurate. Even the story of creation. The only thing that conflicts is the Birds. Faith can’t be proven true. And it can’t be proven wrong. Which is why we all need to believe in something, even if it’s nothing. I believe in at least an afterlife. I’ll live my life by the rules of Christianity and if i just rot in the ground when I die, so be it. But if not then that’s great. No one knows what will happen and it’s not up to us. I have only been a Christian for a short amount of time. Before that i was atheist/agnostic. I’m not trying to share a Christian apologetics story with you. Science just never really proved anything wrong for me.

      Reply

    13. WTFBURGERZ makes an excellent point.
      Ok, that was just fun to type.

      Reply

    14. Seriously though, one would never expect such a lucid, well-thought-out piece of typed response from one with the internet handle “WTFBURGERZ.”

      You, Burgerz, ar teh win of this thred.

      Reply

    15. eric
      Please for the love of god, never suggest that Lovecraft’s stories are real.

      That’s too terrible to contemplate.

      Reply

    16. This thread needs less Christians and more common sense. Come on people, this is MCS. Let’s see some hustle!

      Reply

    17. iddqd: read the linked article, there are seven different academic books cited as sources for the Akhenaten is Moses theory.
      “Go enjoy your AIDs [sic].”
      Truly, you are a model Christian and a tribute to your religion.

      Reply

    18. i just found out today that the fountain i was so fond of when i was a kid was located at a place called Christan science church park. Thanks google earth on iphone.
      I dont believe in religion but believe there is supernatural being of sort. Not atheist either, they are morons for trying to fight religion.

      But still Christian Science? I got an idea since modern science prove their theory through demonstration, why dont Christian research on their science to prove that the theory of things mention in the bible is true.

      Reply

    19. I find the Akhenaten theory weak at best. First of all, Akhenaten’s cult wasn’t particularly popular or long-lived, and why some slaves would pick it up its thrust without its details is beyond me (and it also means you have to explain quite a bit of religious change in the rather short timeline, which the theory really necessitates). It also throws off a good deal of archaeological knowledge about the origin of monotheism and the decreasing importance of idol worship. Besides, many Egyptologists are starting to doubt just how monotheist he was. If we didn’t know the Ancient Greeks from handed-down documents, it would be easy to suppose that many Greek towns were monotheist, when in fact they just had popular cults that focused on one god. Hell, there were flashes of monotheistic language and god-essence all over the Mediterranean. IMO monotheism was a polytheist Mediterranean concept that was taken to its extremes by the Jews .

      The Akhenatin theory represents the problem you’d find in the bulk of comparative religion: Westerners – Christian and Atheist – reunderstand other religions via Christianity and distort them heavily. For a First Nations History class I’ve been taking, I’ve been hanging out in the local reservation archives a lot. Interestingly enough, that religion was seen as having monotheistic characteristics by a lot of white folks. Indeed, it has one God, in that it has an immortal universe-creator. But that “god” has no personal aspect to it, it’s a place. Land which created land, in effect. The land was a living, nurturing thing to these people, so it made sense. It didn’t talk or give commandments. It’s actually pretty marginal. Animals, for them, have always existed, and the human-creator, and the ethical teachers were very ungodlike: Typically animals, and always mortal and mainly dead. And that’s just the start of it. Trying to understand that worldview in Western, Christian terms like ‘God’ and ‘Monotheist’ is confusing and distorting.

      As for the historical veracity of the Bible, remember that most historical documents before 1600 were just about equally as religious. Keep that in mind any time you hear any historical fact or theory.

      Reply

    20. Caio, those are all good points and well argued. Personally, I don’t have any option about the truth of the Akhenaten theory. I was just trying to point out that it’s a theory that has some legitimate academic consideration.
      It should be noted that the early Hebrews were not strictly monotheistic either. The commandment “Thou shalt have no other god before me” does not exclude the possibility that other gods exist and it doesn’t even prohibit worshiping those other gods as long as they don’t come before YHWH. There were lots of other gods that were picked up from neighboring civilizations and later dropped, “demoted” or incorporated into the concept of God.

      Reply

    21. “Truly, you are a model Christian and a tribute to your religion.”

      reboot, I never said that I was a Christian. So go fuck yourself.

      Reply

    22. We are all atheists, I just choose to believe in one less god than you do.

      Reply

    23. Paul, that doesn’t make any sense. If I believe in God, how am I an atheist, regardless of the number of gods you chose to believe in?

      Reply

    24. You don’t believe in Thor, do you? Do you believe in Zeus? Therefore, in respect to those deities, you are an atheist. It’s arrogant to assume that atheism only applies to one doctrine of belief.

      Therefore, we are both atheists, and I simply choose to believe in one less deity.

      Reply

    25. Oh shit, how many times do I have to hear that witless “I believe in one less god than you do, but we’re both atheists” bullshit? An atheist is someone without a god, so if Foinlavin has *any* god than he’s not an atheist at all. Not believing in Thor doesn’t make him an atheist, it makes him a Christian if he believes in Christ. You still believe in one less deity though, if that’s any comfort.

      Reply

    26. *sigh*

      Honestly, whatever.

      I’m not cursing.
      I’m not getting emotional.
      I’m not trying to change your point of view (though you may argue otherwise).
      I’m not trying to convince myself of what I believe by vigorously defending my point of view.

      I’m using logic to point out the flaws in your argument, which being a subject based on faith, has very little logic about it. So get all riled up if you want, I don’t care. I’m not going to change your mind, you certainly won’t change mine.

      Though if you want to actually argue on something like this, you should understand logic and perhaps empirical evidence, which is the foundation of all sound arguments. Arguments, as in the subject of discourse on opposing points of view, such as what happens in the court of law, not what people do in bars before they get in fights.

      I’m through with this pointless internet argument. Now feel free to attack my grammar or whatever else you can do to make yourself feel like you have “won.” I’m out.

      Reply

    27. yeah, but you don’t believe in Thor, you caveman.

      Reply

    Leave a Comment




    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Art Awesome Things Batman Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Donald Trump Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Interesting LOLcats Military Movie Posters Movies Music Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Visual Tricks Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF X-Mas