Paul Dirac on Religion (96)

And why, pray, would the scientific description of love be the only valid one? Or even, necessarily, the best or most complete or accurate?

English

"It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others" - Anon

Edited 4 Apr 11, 12:15 AM by AnEnglishMaster

It predates any written evidence that has been found for the OT, yes, but not necessarily the 'oral traditions' that would have preceeded it. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? While i'm willing to keep an open mind about some of the stories in the OT, evidence in the NT suggests to me that much, if not all, of it is true. Of course, my belief that the NT is true helps. i get that.

i'm not trying to rationalise anything. i don't view faith as a rational thing at all, and because of that, i can totally understand why those who don't have it don't understand it. i question my faith all the time, and every time i draw the same conclusion: i'm right. It has evolved and changed over time, but the basics have remained.

When i read a book that is described to me as 'non-fiction' or 'reference', i generally DO believe it. i'll take bits with a grain of salt depending on who wrote it and when, of course, but unless i have a reason not to believe it, i do. But i'm also not a scientist. Far too right-brained for all that nonsense.

Haha! Hey, at least we're not trying to hide anything. We like to lay it all out there so you can ridicule us to your heart's content.

Why did i cry when my family left to go back to the States after a brief holiday here? Why did i mope around for days every time Master had to go back to the UK after visiting me? It just plain sucks not to see people you love for a long time.

But you're right; a Christian funeral SHOULD be a celebration, and i've been to plenty that were.

i don't choose (or 'chose', for that matter). i just do. And if i'm WRONG...it's no skin off your or anyone else's nose - just a bit of knicker-twisting that no one could get me to 'see sense' while i was alive. (i'm fighting the urge to snigger here.) But [if] i'm right...

Sorry; that was more 'How bemusing' and 'i really don't have time for this right now' than 'i give up'. And it certainly had nothing to do with 'you're right; what the hell was i thinking?'

i think Cassius has already covered the subject of Jesus's literacy. But which are you more likely to believe - the writings of someone who claims to be the Son of God (whether or not he actually is), or several eye-witness accounts which corroborate the story?

i'll be the first to admit that religion has been used constantly throughout history as a banner under which to do some downright horrific things, but one can hardly lay a blanket blame on religion as a whole and ignore the actions of individuals, or even groups of individuals.

As for the 'brainwashing' comments - how original.

No kidding.

And on that note...

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln

Edited 4 Apr 11, 9:56 PM by Neophites_jewel

How do you know that the accounts of Jesus' life were written by 'eye witnesses', how do you know that they didn't lie, how do you know that the writings were not edited and re-ordered at a later date?

For example, one of the 'eye-witness' describes how all the dead in Jerusalem rose from the grave at the moment of Jesus' death. Would you count this character as a reliable witness to anything?

A similar apology could be made for any ideology, from fascism to communism.

I don't believe that I made any references regarding 'brainwashing'.

Augusti Ro Laren Futatrix.

The stories all back each other up and are told in a pretty convincing way. Normally when people try to tell a collective lie, the story they all tell is very much the same and devoid of much detail. But the first four books of the NT all give the same story with different amounts of detail, and are all written in a way that makes sense given the particular person's background. Could they have been made up? Sure. But i really, really doubt it.

And it's not all the dead - it was 'some' holy people. i don't know why Matthew would lie about that. What a weird thing to make up. (i know you're probably thinking 'Indeed!')

True. What's your point?

That wasn't directed at you (and actually, neither was the previous paragraph - sorry if i was unclear).

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln

Edited 4 Apr 11, 9:10 AM by Neophites_jewel

"Trite" is however still true,despite being well-worn due to repetition. Do not blame the sentence,blame the speakers of it,who have clearly found it to be valid, because it has been used so much.Own goal,chum,sorry! "God is love"....I do not merely attribute it to the Bible,it is actually there.And "exploitative" - that is a matter of personal interpretation.The sentence exists,however battered and mangled. Case not made. Next please.

Be kind to your web-footed friend, for a duck may be somebody's brother.

Edited 4 Apr 11, 9:33 AM by Cassius

Be kind to your web-footed friend, for a duck may be somebody's brother.

Edited 4 Apr 11, 10:48 AM by Cassius

What evidence in the NT are you referring to?

***Disclaimer: I accept no liability for the content of this post, or for the consequences of any misconstruction taken on the basis of the information provided, unless that information is subsequently confirmed in writing. Please do not ask for credit as a punch in the mouth will often offend***

Edited 4 Apr 11, 12:12 PM by Amante_Velora

(My Edit)

The stories do not back each other up. Have you read the OT critically?

As for 'Why would Matthew' lie about that? Firstly it wasn't written by 'Mathew' it being dated to circa 110CE.

The argument that it was not all people but only 'some' holy people who rose from the dead still implies you believe people can rise from the dead!

Let's introduce Occam's razor on this point to see which is more likely:

1. DEAD people rose from their graves and SPOKE to people (something that hasn't been recorded by ANY secular source.

2. They didn't. It was made up.

I'm trying to work out if you're just a troll, or if you actually believe the self-important garbage you spew. If you think science is all about "fit everything into some predetermined narrow mould of the obvious-to-them-and-why-the-hell-cannot-you-agree-w ith-me?" then you've clearly never even thought about quantum mechanics and it sounds like your understanding of science and mathematics is, much like your entire outlook, completely distorted by you blind following of an old book of faerie tales.

Be kind to your web-footed friend, for a duck may be somebody's brother.

Edited 4 Apr 11, 9:15 PM by Cassius