So what's your point, that the Lord God is constant? WOW! Shame on him. Many here can spout unrelated isolated quotes from the Bible, no great trick.
Escorts and Religion
- Thread starter Azprint
- Start date
Actually the idea that the covenant is specifically for the people of the covenant is thousands of years old. That is kind of the whole idea of a covenant right? One quote taken out of context will not change that (in fact the book of Malachi, read properly really reinforces the whole covenant for the jews theme).Sorry, not ignorance or misunderstanding, but disagreement. Dispensationalism, covenant theology, and progressive revelation are Christian excuses for a Bible that is immoral. "For I, the Lord, do not change" Malachi 3:6.
You are perfectly entitled to believe the bible, NT or OT is immoral, but to suggest that the idea that the covenant applies to people other than the jews, just avoids the document. It is the same as making something up.
You are trying to reverse engineer a historical reality to fit your world view. Kind of like saying money was invented so that Karl Marx could invent communism.
Sorry, it's been too long since I've done Systematic Theology.Actually the idea that the covenant is specifically for the people of the covenant is thousands of years old. That is kind of the whole idea of a covenant right? One quote taken out of context will not change that (in fact the book of Malachi, read properly really reinforces the whole covenant for the jews theme).
You are perfectly entitled to believe the bible, NT or OT is immoral, but to suggest that the idea that the covenant applies to people other than the jews, just avoids the document. It is the same as making something up.
You are trying to reverse engineer a historical reality to fit your world view. Kind of like saying money was invented so that Karl Marx could invent communism.
In my opinion, the problem of evil and the silence of God are answered by atheism, far better than theism: "The fall" or a stochastic world? I believe the latter. Which one is the true religion: Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Arminian, Calvinist, Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist; Orthodox, Reform, Conservative Judaism; Shiite or Sunni Muslim? Most people choose the religion that they were born into. Is God silent on this all important matter or is religion simply a byproduct of cultural evolution? I believe the latter.
No worries. To my mind atheism is a perfectly rational and useful way to think about the world. I am not at all impressed by some of its more vocal adherents, but that is a different story. To be fair I am also not impressed by many of the more vocal adherents of a number of religions.Sorry, it's been too long since I've done Systematic Theology.
In my opinion, the problem of evil and the silence of God are answered by atheism, far better than theism: "The fall" or a stochastic world? I believe the latter. Which one is the true religion: Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Arminian, Calvinist, Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist; Orthodox, Reform, Conservative Judaism; Shiite or Sunni Muslim? Most people choose the religion that they were born into. Is God silent on this all important matter or is religion simply a byproduct of cultural evolution? I believe the latter.
Most people do chose the religion that they are born into, but there is probably more "religious mobility" than ever before. Interestingly though atheism has a very low generation over generation retention rate from what we can tell. It begs the question, from a cultural evolution point of view, as to why atheism is less successful at reproducing itself.
Personally I am agnostic, I don't know if there is a god or not. I have no clue if any of the current, or extinct religions, are the correct one.
While the study of religion as a social/historical/cultural phenomena is an interesting one, the fact that religion evolves does not mean there is no god.
To beleive, or not to beleive
And I really don't understand the need for religion, when I'm told that the various gods are all powerful, or at least mighty enough to have created our world ( and as I now understand, more recently, the whole universe of other possible worlds),... why not just have a preset time, one day a week (maybe Sunday) for a meeting to discuss how we are progressing, or not.
I hear about people talking to god all of the time,...so the technology is there.
And once again,...I have to take issue with the label,...atheist, its really growing out of favour with people who just don't want a religious label assigned to them for NOT having a belief
More recently accepted terms, are variations on the "none religious" theme when polls are taken in various countries.
This category is growing continually at the expense of the “religious”, while the atheist category is seeing little increase,…and for obvious reasons.
Lastly,…I agree %100,… that religion is nothing more than a logical, at the time(s) when they were created by man, simply a social phenomena.
FAST
Good post,...a few comments,...I would have put it that people do not choose the religion they are born into,...but are guided, as a minimum, by their parents at a young age, which leaves little room to think otherwise.In my opinion, the problem of evil and the silence of God are answered by atheism, far better than theism: "The fall" or a stochastic world? I believe the latter. Which one is the true religion: Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Arminian, Calvinist, Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist; Orthodox, Reform, Conservative Judaism; Shiite or Sunni Muslim? Most people choose the religion that they were born into. Is God silent on this all important matter or is religion simply a byproduct of cultural evolution? I believe the latter.
And I really don't understand the need for religion, when I'm told that the various gods are all powerful, or at least mighty enough to have created our world ( and as I now understand, more recently, the whole universe of other possible worlds),... why not just have a preset time, one day a week (maybe Sunday) for a meeting to discuss how we are progressing, or not.
I hear about people talking to god all of the time,...so the technology is there.
And once again,...I have to take issue with the label,...atheist, its really growing out of favour with people who just don't want a religious label assigned to them for NOT having a belief
More recently accepted terms, are variations on the "none religious" theme when polls are taken in various countries.
This category is growing continually at the expense of the “religious”, while the atheist category is seeing little increase,…and for obvious reasons.
Lastly,…I agree %100,… that religion is nothing more than a logical, at the time(s) when they were created by man, simply a social phenomena.
FAST
Last edited:
A more accurate word would be indoctrinated.Good post,...a few comments,...I would have put it that people do not choose the religion they are born into,...but are guided, as a minimum, by their parents at a young age, which leaves little room to think otherwise.
Probably because atheists don't spend as much effort indoctrinating their children, or sending their kids to weekly meetings for that purpose.. . . Interestingly though atheism has a very low generation over generation retention rate from what we can tell. It begs the question, from a cultural evolution point of view, as to why atheism is less successful at reproducing itself. . . .
Probably the only rational position any of us can take. All else requires a leap of faith.Personally I am agnostic, I don't know if there is a god or not. I have no clue if any of the current, or extinct religions, are the correct one. . . .
Be prepared
FAST
Now, now,...your going to have THE GREAT UNDECIDED ONE, all over your case.A more accurate word would be indoctrinated.
Probably because atheists don't spend as much effort indoctrinating their children, or sending their kids to weekly meetings for that purpose.
FAST
Of course save for that from a Christian perspective Systematic Theology deals with the New Testament.Good postSorry, it's been too long since I've done Systematic Theology.
Thanks rld. People (Americans) who identify themselves as atheists, agnostics or "no affiliation" are on the rise according to Pew Research: http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/No worries. To my mind atheism is a perfectly rational and useful way to think about the world. I am not at all impressed by some of its more vocal adherents, but that is a different story. To be fair I am also not impressed by many of the more vocal adherents of a number of religions.
Most people do chose the religion that they are born into, but there is probably more "religious mobility" than ever before. Interestingly though atheism has a very low generation over generation retention rate from what we can tell. It begs the question, from a cultural evolution point of view, as to why atheism is less successful at reproducing itself.
Personally I am agnostic, I don't know if there is a god or not. I have no clue if any of the current, or extinct religions, are the correct one.
While the study of religion as a social/historical/cultural phenomena is an interesting one, the fact that religion evolves does not mean there is no god.
I do however understand the appeal of religion, and its popularity. Community and comfort. The promise of eternal life. And on a practical note, religious people tend to have more children!
For me, when I became an atheist, the realization hit me that this life is all we have, so I want to make the best of every moment in the here and now.
Aardvark, I studied Systematic Theology in the 80's so my memory of the details are sparse, but it was not limited to the NT. Christians accept the OT as the Word of God (but conveniently filter it).Of course save for that from a Christian perspective Systematic Theology deals with the New Testament.
We took a good long look at those statistics in a thread not long ago where FAST made some substantive errors about them. The real conclusion is that the increase in "nones" is a bit of a blip and the rate of atheism, real atheism is not changing.Thanks rld. People (Americans) who identify themselves as atheists, agnostics or "no affiliation" are on the rise according to Pew Research: http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/
I do however understand the appeal of religion, and its popularity. Community and comfort. The promise of eternal life. And on a practical note, religious people tend to have more children!
For me, when I became an atheist, the realization hit me that this life is all we have, so I want to make the best of every moment in the here and now.
They really are interesting statistics, but when you look at the longer term trends and indicators, they are not telling us a great wave of atheism is coming. In fact when you take the time to really look at the issue some of the trends are very worrying.
What we are seeing is that religious people have two significant long term advantages that will likely lead to many first world countries having more religious populations than ever. The first is that atheists have a crappy retention rate. The second is that religious people tend to have more children. When you put those together you have a simple formula for a demographic success for people who believe in god.
Further you need to drill down a little onto the numbers for the "nones" to get a handle on what is really happening. Something like 68% of the nones (I am going from memory so forgive me if I am off a few points) believe in god. They also happen to usually fall into age groups that tend to come around to joining a more formal religion a little later in life. Real atheism seems to be stuck around 6% and tends to be pretty much a middle aged white guy thing.
The statistical trend that worries me in first world countries, is that membership in some moderate religions is shrinking, while growth in more fundamental religions is taking off. I am not big on extremists of any sort. It remains to be seen if the more moderate religions can reverse this trend, if not we may be in a whole heap of trouble.
One word is as good as the next. But children are indoctrinated into things all the time, it is how they grow up. We teach them capitalism is good, private property is sacred, sharing is good, rape is bad etc. All sorts of things. It is simply not practical to leave children as blank slates until they reach adulthood.A more accurate word would be indoctrinated.
.
Oh my god,...it can't be
http://www.wingia.com/web/files/ric...al_INDEX_of_Religiosity_and_Atheism_PR__6.pdf
RLD,...instead constantly saying that everybody else in the world is out of step except you,...do some none biased research for once.
The above poll clearly confirms the trends that I have stating over and over for you,...but you,...as a "believer " CANNOT accept these facts,...and common sense, which I can only attribute to your addiction.
The three terms used in this poll are, -religious, -not religious - “a person who does not manifest devotion to a deity“, lacking religious emotions, principles, or practices <grew up in a nonreligious family>Synonyms -godless, nonreligious, religionless", and of coarse -atheist.
You will notice that more people increasingly wish to be associated with the term NOT RELIGIOUS, than atheist, again for obvious reasons.
If one was to analyze the reason for this trend, assuming one was capable,…people do NOT want to be tagged by a religious label (atheist) when one is not religious, plus the other more recent almost religious like rantings by some of in this catagory.
You will also notice that contrary to your preachings,...the more educated AND wealthy are more likely NOT to be religious,...which again,...is just common sense.
FAST
http://www.wingia.com/web/files/ric...al_INDEX_of_Religiosity_and_Atheism_PR__6.pdf
RLD,...instead constantly saying that everybody else in the world is out of step except you,...do some none biased research for once.
The above poll clearly confirms the trends that I have stating over and over for you,...but you,...as a "believer " CANNOT accept these facts,...and common sense, which I can only attribute to your addiction.
The three terms used in this poll are, -religious, -not religious - “a person who does not manifest devotion to a deity“, lacking religious emotions, principles, or practices <grew up in a nonreligious family>Synonyms -godless, nonreligious, religionless", and of coarse -atheist.
You will notice that more people increasingly wish to be associated with the term NOT RELIGIOUS, than atheist, again for obvious reasons.
If one was to analyze the reason for this trend, assuming one was capable,…people do NOT want to be tagged by a religious label (atheist) when one is not religious, plus the other more recent almost religious like rantings by some of in this catagory.
You will also notice that contrary to your preachings,...the more educated AND wealthy are more likely NOT to be religious,...which again,...is just common sense.
FAST
47% of Chinese and 31% of Japanese are atheists acording to
rhis source. Sounds more like a militant atheist's propaganda than
an authentic study.
Too funny
FAST
So your saying this poll was conducted by militant atheist's,...your being comical,...right ?47% of Chinese and 31% of Japanese are atheists acording to
rhis source. Sounds more like a militant atheist's propaganda than
an authentic study.
FAST
There is a reason why the religion is called "Christianity" and not "Biblianity".If you don't take the words of the bible at face value then you're just like an archer who shoots an arrow, draws a target around the arrow where it lands, and says bullseye. When the bible says the earth is 5000 years old, what it really means is 4 billion years old. When the bible says that bats are birds, what it really means is that they're mammals. And by extrapolation, if the bible said that grass is blue, it must really mean that grass is green. No matter what scientific inaccuracies the bible has, you'll always find an excuse to justify it, which is comical and ridiculous.
Your problem FAST is that you don't want to think outside your hate.http://www.wingia.com/web/files/ric...al_INDEX_of_Religiosity_and_Atheism_PR__6.pdf
RLD,...instead constantly saying that everybody else in the world is out of step except you,...do some none biased research for once.
The above poll clearly confirms the trends that I have stating over and over for you,...but you,...as a "believer " CANNOT accept these facts,...and common sense, which I can only attribute to your addiction.
The three terms used in this poll are, -religious, -not religious - “a person who does not manifest devotion to a deity“, lacking religious emotions, principles, or practices <grew up in a nonreligious family>Synonyms -godless, nonreligious, religionless", and of coarse -atheist.
You will notice that more people increasingly wish to be associated with the term NOT RELIGIOUS, than atheist, again for obvious reasons.
If one was to analyze the reason for this trend, assuming one was capable,…people do NOT want to be tagged by a religious label (atheist) when one is not religious, plus the other more recent almost religious like rantings by some of in this catagory.
You will also notice that contrary to your preachings,...the more educated AND wealthy are more likely NOT to be religious,...which again,...is just common sense.
FAST
I posted multiple sources, all scientific, about why this is a short term trend, and why all the long term indicators show religion is gaining across the world. Then you abandoned that thread for some unknown reason.
There is no doubt, nor has anybody denied there has been a significant blip in North American "nones" but their growth has come to a virtual dead stop in the last few years. We also know that being a "none" likely means you also believe in God.
In fact the Editor in chief of Gallup, has just written a book called "God is Alive and Well" that argues exactly the opposite of what you are saying.
Feel free to keep quoting studies out of context. The only interesting data in that survey is the one out of Czech which is well studied and believed to be the result of severe communist repression of religion in Czech, as opposed to Hungary. So many commentators don't believe it represents a "free" movement towards atheism rather the social after effects of severe repression.
Also, what do you think of the methods used in this study? Do you think they have the chance to create skewed results?
That is a terrible analogy, and again shows fundamental ignorance of modern christianity.If you don't take the words of the bible at face value then you're just like an archer who shoots an arrow, draws a target around the arrow where it lands, and says bullseye. When the bible says the earth is 5000 years old, what it really means is 4 billion years old. When the bible says that bats are birds, what it really means is that they're mammals. And by extrapolation, if the bible said that grass is blue, it must really mean that grass is green. No matter what scientific inaccuracies the bible has, you'll always find an excuse to justify it, which is comical and ridiculous.
It is perfectly possible to be a committed Christian, believe that jesus is son of god and all that good stuff, but say, for example "The Epistle to the Hebrews is probably a forgery, not written by who it said is was, is not an Epistle and is not really directed to the Hebrews."
It is more accurate to say that such a Christian who does not accept the entire Christian Canon literally, is like a scientist trying to sift through good and bad data to find the truth.
