Gods Existence...real or not.

[Tipsy]

Tipsy, sry to tell you this, but something can come from absolutely nothing. I am standing on my point that I've made in my previous posts.

Well I was pretty sure our science had said that something could not come from nothing, but since science cannot truly prove anything beyond a doubt, I will assume for a second the laws of science are wrong. If something did come from nothing, what caused that nothing to turn into something. No matter what way you look at it there is going to be an uncaused cause, stop trying to get around it and just admit it is there.

So to put this all simply.
If you believe that there was something in the universe, in the form of energy or whatever, then there was an 'uncaused cause' that made it so.
If you believe that something came from nothing then what caused the something to come from nothing.

No matter what you believe in this, there is going to be an 'uncaused cause'. Have anymore random circumstances you can throw at me before you realize that in the beginning there had to be an uncaused caused.

Note: I am assuming in this you are not referring to something technically being created when it changes from energy when referring to breaking the laws of science.

 

[amrtin77]

No matter what you believe in this, there is going to be an 'uncaused cause'. Have anymore random circumstances you can throw at me before you realize that in the beginning there had to be an uncaused caused.

logically you are right, something had to come out of nothing. to think otherwise defies everything we as humans can comprehend. but we also know that matter does not just appear. so were pretty stuck. but i do not feel that god is a reasonable answer to the "what was the uncaused cause?"

i feel that simply adds an unnessicary step in the process.

uncaused cause(tiny point of energy) -> big bang -> planets, life ect.
OR
god -> tiny point of energy -> big bang -> planets, life, ect.
OR
god -> planets, life, ect.

now the big bang is the most scientifically backed theory as of now. god is nothing more than an unnessicary step. what caused the big bang? well, we dont know. is god a reasonable answer? no, because then you are back where you started. "what created god?" another god? god created god created universe? no, ill just say that if a god can come out of nothing, so can a universe.

 

[Tipsy]

now the big bang is the most scientifically backed theory as of now. god is nothing more than an unnessicary step. what caused the big bang? well, we dont know. is god a reasonable answer? no, because then you are back where you started. "what created god?" another god? god created god created universe? no, ill just say that if a god can come out of nothing, so can a universe.

The whole point of the 'uncaused cause' thing is that the 'uncaused cause' is what is, for lack of a better phrase, had always been, though the whole 'uncaused cause' thing itself technically makes absolutely no sense it goes down to one thing. Maybe the thing that caused it all was a God, maybe it was a particle, maybe was a slice of apple pie, but I am just trying to get out that there is an 'uncaused cause' no matter how much people fight it.

Though I do find it amusing that when we refer to the particle as the 'uncaused cause' we can just stick with that, but when we refer to god/s as the 'uncaused cause' you ask what created it/him/her/them.

The 'uncaused cause' thing just merely means that science is not going to be able to do what many people who do not believe in a higher power hoped would by disproving that a supreme being/s created the universe. After all, science is religion's best friend.

 

[amrtin77]

no one can disprove god. god is not meant to be disproven over time. maybe stories explaining how things happen can be disproved, using scientific evidence that it happens another way. but "god" can never be completely disproven because you have no evidence either way, and you never will have evidence.

the reason people can accept the point coming out of nothing, is sure, it defies logic, but so does god. its just instead of a point of energy appearing out of nothing, which is unbelievable in itself (yet the only explanation i can think of) your suggesting that a god(which has come out of nothing) created the point of energy out of nothing. this is adding an extra step, with no evidence to rightfully do so. now if we find out how that point of energy got there, in a tested, or maybe mathmatically supported theory, then you can add the extra step saying "this is how this got there, now we need to find out how this new thing got there."

as far as im concerned though, as far as you can go, there must be an uncaused cause.... according to human logic. but hell, i wasnt around then. anything is possible, just some things more probable than others.

 

[Homem mAIOR]

irst off, this is not actually dogma, it is dicipline. The difference is, this could be changed, but it is thought to be better if they are not. To answer the question why is it better, "An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided" (First Book of Corinthians 7:32-34). That is one of many obvious reasons. Basically, the priest will be completely dedicated to our father and it is also symbolic of there being no marriage in heaven. There are more reasons, but that is all I can think of off the top of my head.

Not sexist at all... nope. I mean saying that a women is only a cause of distraction is not sexism... And, if Eve existed (wich she didn't cause if so she and the first five generations must have had around 800K of kids!!) she was made of a rib from Adam... I mean God created men to it's own image. And women are just a mens rib... no male superiority in here as well...

First off, it is obvious that some women are better at public speaking than men, so that aside, the reason isn't because some women couldn't do as good as or better than some priests. This is basically because Jesus had other things in mind for women within the church. Jesus appointed women such as shown in the bible as being the ones to spread the word that Jesus had arisen. There is also the fact that it would be changing some of the sacrements. This is something that cannot be done because if you use something other than bread for cosecration the sacrement becomes invalid, it is the same here. Here we go, I looked up a good quote for you from the recently departed JP2:
"Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (Luke 22:32), I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful" (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis).

The thing is you're not following Jesus church... your following Petters who must have been a repressed homo because of his hatred from women...
So I think that this is just more male Xauvinism in church.

After the Roman empire collapsed, Barbaric hordes turned to christianity and the priests that were more extreme (following Peter's guidebook) started preaching hings like that... because before the fall of the romans, Catholic Church was a mean to gain controll of the masses; and priests were allowed to mary and so on... afterwards, in the dark ages, that's when the shit hit the fan! Mankind ceased to evolve due to the heavy censorship of churches institutions (little latter the inquisition) and it only took them 300 bloody years to admit they did wrong on burning Coppernico and nearly buening Galileu... I say REALLY???

Well than please explain to me because I do not understand how something can be created when there is aboslutely nothing in the universe in existence. There has to be an 'uncaused cause' because I am quite sure that something can from from absolutely nothing.

Well that's because you are 3 dimensional and, the universe has about 11 dimensions already proved... That number might increase though... So you see we can only (for now) quantify things in three dimensions never in more (if so, you could see a whole sphere at the same time... just like you can see any 2d object without restrictions.)... So until we can we can't do much to try to explain what happend... Hell it could even be an infinite chain reaction with no beggining and no end and that takes mass and energy from previous chain reactions evewr increasing it's power... we'll never know in our lifetime...

 

[Laharl]

Actually, it was PAUL who hated women.

Paul hated everybody, and he hated all type of sex. That just can't be human.

 

[SoD-GoD]

Sry to all that saw my last post, I fixed it to say that something cant come from nothing.

Homem_mAIOR, you really don't like the Roman Catholic church do you? You really should look into a religion before you make assumptions on them. You say that the Barbaric hordes went to Christianity when the Roman empire fell? Catholisism is a form of Christianity smart one. Also, Romans created Christianity because of the feeling that they had for murdering an innocent Jew.

Your assumption that a chain reaction may be true, but the increasing of energy isn't so. Energy cannot be created nor distroyed. If energy were to increase, that means that energy has to be created, which is proven, scientifically, to be impossible.

 

[Zarn]

If our level of comprehension is greater than any other living thing on Earth, then isn't it only logical to assume that somewhere out there is something with a greater comprehension than our own? And if this is so, then wouldn't it be true that the meaning of life may be out of the range of our comprehension?

 

[Tipsy]

I mean saying that a women is only a cause of distraction is not sexism...

So you are saying that if I concentrate on pleasing one thing, I can concentrate on pleasing two things just as well. It is common sense, if you divide you attention you will not be as focused as if your attention was not divided. This isn't sexism, it is common sense. And if you are being serious and not sarcastic then ignore this.

And, if Eve existed (wich she didn't cause if so she and the first five generations must have had around 800K of kids!!) she was made of a rib from Adam... I mean God created men to it's own image. And women are just a mens rib... no male superiority in here as well...

First of all, you are reading the bible completely literally, which if you wish to argue don't do it with me because literal reading of the bible is not in Roman Catholicism. I am also assuming that if you are saying women are not created in God's image, just a rib, then they do not have free will. Last time I checked they did (unless you go into predestination which isn't a Roman Catholic teaching so it won't apply here). If you read the bible literally I can see where you get what you are saying, but if you understand the bible then it is very easy to see where these misconceptions come from.

The thing is you're not following Jesus church... your following Petters who must have been a repressed homo because of his hatred from women...

Well, let's see:
"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hell will not overpower it." (Matthew 16:18)
Well considering Jesus built his church on Peter and made him his vicar on the Earth, I am pretty sure this is still Jesus' church. Also, just incase you don't understand this, just to point one thing out. Jesus renamed Peter to Kepha (I'm pretty sure that is how it is spelt) and translates literally to rock in Aramaic, which is the language he was speaking.

So I think that this is just more male Xauvinism in church.

Keyword in this sentence is 'think'. You can think whatever you want, I'll stick with what God says.

After the Roman empire collapsed, Barbaric hordes turned to christianity and the priests that were more extreme (following Peter's guidebook) started preaching hings like that... because before the fall of the romans, Catholic Church was a mean to gain controll of the masses; and priests were allowed to mary and so on... afterwards, in the dark ages, that's when the shit hit the fan!

I'm not exactly sure which specific point you are attacking here, but it looks like we're still on the marriage thing, tell me if that is not what you were on. I would just like to point out once again that priests being celibate is not dogma, it is a discipline.

because before the fall of the romans, Catholic Church was a mean to gain controll of the masses;

You can think that if you like.

afterwards, in the dark ages, that's when the shit hit the fan! Mankind ceased to evolve due to the heavy censorship of churches institutions (little latter the inquisition) and it only took them 300 bloody years to admit they did wrong on burning Coppernico and nearly buening Galileu... I say REALLY???

Wait, let me get this straight, you, for some reason are implying that just because you are Christian, you are a better person? Since when does following God make you a 'perfect' person. You make it seem like the Catholic Church teaches that if you are a Christain you are going to heaven and are automatically a good person. I don't remember the church being infallible in political issues, unless God has personally told you otherwise, then maybe this could be.

Well that's because you are 3 dimensional and, the universe has about 11 dimensions already proved... That number might increase though... So you see we can only (for now) quantify things in three dimensions never in more (if so, you could see a whole sphere at the same time... just like you can see any 2d object without restrictions.)... So until we can we can't do much to try to explain what happend... Hell it could even be an infinite chain reaction with no beggining and no end and that takes mass and energy from previous chain reactions evewr increasing it's power... we'll never know in our lifetime...

You still don't get it do you. You right there admit there is an 'uncaused cause'. The 'uncaused cause' would be the infinite chain reaction. No matter what circumstance you give me or throw out of your mind will have an 'uncaused cause'. You make it seem like if an 'uncaused cause' exists then it proves God exists.

Sry to all that saw my last post, I fixed it to say that something cant come from nothing.

Your assumption that a chain reaction may be true, but the increasing of energy isn't so. Energy cannot be created nor distroyed. If energy were to increase, that means that energy has to be created, which is proven, scientifically, to be impossible.

Just to point out, nothing is ever 'scientifically impossible', because science can never prove anything beyond and doubt.

 

[Homem mAIOR]

Homem_mAIOR, you really don't like the Roman Catholic church do you? You really should look into a religion before you make assumptions on them. You say that the Barbaric hordes went to Christianity when the Roman empire fell? Catholisism is a form of Christianity smart one. Also, Romans created Christianity because of the feeling that they had for murdering an innocent Jew.

There are actual documents from meetings (good old romans kept everithing recorded and copied) in wich they discussed the beginning of the church like whom is going to be the messias and why!!
They had this meeting because there was a feeling of anger and revolt among the empire and, they needed something other than sheer millitary power to control the people.
Constantine was a sun worshiper in fact (I would rather not refer this book cause there are better sources of info but here it goes) DaVincy code explains quite succintly a lot of the paganism symbols in Roman Catholic Church.

So you are saying that if I concentrate on pleasing one thing, I can concentrate on pleasing two things just as well. It is common sense, if you divide you attention you will not be as focused as if your attention was not divided. This isn't sexism, it is common sense. And if you are being serious and not sarcastic then ignore this.

I say there is a time and a place for everithing!

So you are saying that if I concentrate on pleasing one thing, I can concentrate on pleasing two things just as well. It is common sense, if you divide you attention you will not be as focused as if your attention was not divided. This isn't sexism, it is common sense. And if you are being serious and not sarcastic then ignore this.

In my question, I was just being sarcastic...

Wait, let me get this straight, you, for some reason are implying that just because you are Christian, you are a better person? Since when does following God make you a 'perfect' person. You make it seem like the Catholic Church teaches that if you are a Christain you are going to heaven and are automatically a good person. I don't remember the church being infallible in political issues, unless God has personally told you otherwise, then maybe this could be.

No I'm not implying that! I'm saying that the Church should be more humble and admit they are wrong in so many things...and, that in some point, the Church was the break to human evolution...

"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hell will not overpower it." (Matthew 16:18)
Well considering Jesus built his church on Peter and made him his vicar on the Earth, I am pretty sure this is still Jesus' church. Also, just incase you don't understand this, just to point one thing out. Jesus renamed Peter to Kepha (I'm pretty sure that is how it is spelt) and translates literally to rock in Aramaic, which is the language he was speaking.

Actually no one knows if that is true... There were some boards found and it is suspected that they are jesus words... they say: My Church shall not be settled in wood or stone. Let everyone be a minister in their own houses and spread peace and love (actual words).
The church renegateed this boards and no one ever spoke about it but, if you consider jesus way of life it is more accurate to think that way...

There is no uncaused cause infinite as no beggining nor end so... in that example there is no unknown cause.

And about generating energy, as I referred, actually there are some sub quantum unstable particles who do that.

 

[SoD-GoD]

Homem, please dont use a book of fiction when trying to relate things. If you have any knowledge of the true manuscripts from the Roman Empire, I would like a link to them. Plus the reason that they were having those problems in the Empire, was because they murdered an innocent jew.

Look into other religions, and see what you find.

PS: This is no way retorts my beliefs on God being a meer man.

 

[Tipsy]

No I'm not implying that! I'm saying that the Church should be more humble and admit they are wrong in so many things...and, that in some point, the Church was the break to human evolution...

Too late, they already did. You seem to recognize every bad thing the church does, yet you don't look up any of the good it does. If you want to read something about it, take a look at "Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past". It is kind of hard to get more humble than that, making and publishing a book acknowledging and asking for forgiveness for all of the wrong the church has done. I am not exactly sure what you mean as to the church was the break to the human evolution, so please rephrase and I will talk about it.

Actually no one knows if that is true... There were some boards found and it is suspected that they are jesus words... they say: My Church shall not be settled in wood or stone. Let everyone be a minister in their own houses and spread peace and love (actual words).
The church renegateed this boards and no one ever spoke about it but, if you consider jesus way of life it is more accurate to think that way...

I don't see how that would work though. If everyone preached what they wanted, who would be the Vicar of Christ. Who would know what God wants? And the church is already universal, which the term catholic literally means. And are all of the lines such as, "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven", "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven", the whole thing about teaching other nations. Unless someone would like to somehow prove that a large portion of the Gospels are completely wrong, then it does look like Jesus is trying to create his house on earth.

There is no uncaused cause infinite as no beggining nor end so... in that example there is no unknown cause.

I think you misunderstood me here. The 'uncaused cause' would be the infinite chain reaction. Since as you plainly put it, infinity has no beginning and no end. If this is true, then there is no cause. So this would be the 'uncaused cause'. I don't see why people can believe there may be an infinite chain reaction, but can't believe there can be an infinite being.

If you have any knowledge of the true manuscripts from the Roman Empire, I would like a link to them.

I second that.

 

[cxoli]

Though I do find it amusing that when we refer to the particle as the 'uncaused cause' we can just stick with that, but when we refer to god/s as the 'uncaused cause' you ask what created it/him/her/them.

Funny how it works

I believe in God in the sense Tipsy has been trying to explain. Whether you believe in God or this never-ending chain people have been describing, you're still essentially believing in the same thing since both require admitting the existance of something infinite and beyond our understanding. God just sounds more reasonable to me, as something infinite outside of existance as we know it rather than an infinite chain within it.

I can't say for sure what kind of God I believe in beyond that. Personally, I don't believe in "unified" gods such as the one of Christianity (I'm doing it from this point of view because I don't really have any experience with other religions). Nowadays, "God" is simply a concept people use to back up their ideas, a thing created in their own image that seemingly has more influence than their own justifications because this God has the support of millions of other people. However, I don't believe this to be true since (for example) we take a text such as the Bible and, despite the fact we are all reading the same words, we all come to different conclusions and base our ideas of God (at least somewhat) on that. So while my ideas about God may have come from Christianity, they aren't Christian, and I would be lying to say I believe in the same God as others who label themselves Christian.

That's all. Not sure if I actually made a point with that...or anything...but whatever. At least Tipsy will read my post...! I think...^^;;

 

[Homem mAIOR]

I don't see how that would work though. If everyone preached what they wanted, who would be the Vicar of Christ. Who would know what God wants? And the church is already universal, which the term catholic literally means. And are all of the lines such as, "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven", "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven", the whole thing about teaching other nations. Unless someone would like to somehow prove that a large portion of the Gospels are completely wrong, then it does look like Jesus is trying to create his house on earth.

Well, in your own relligion does it not say that everyone should preach and spread the teaching of jesus?? Isn't that what being a priest is all about??
Or do priests are the only ones to whom god talks to ignoring everyone else??
...

I think you misunderstood me here. The 'uncaused cause' would be the infinite chain reaction. Since as you plainly put it, infinity has no beginning and no end. If this is true, then there is no cause. So this would be the 'uncaused cause'. I don't see why people can believe there may be an infinite chain reaction, but can't believe there can be an infinite being.

Well cause there are evidences of infinite reactions and none of infinite beings... and I never said it is true... there are no evidences of it still but is probable...

Now haveen't you ever heard of google?? Geeezzz
Here's the link any way... but it's the last ****ing one!!

 

[Zarn]

بَلْ كَذَّبُوا بِالْحَقِّ لَمَّا جَاءهُمْ فَهُمْ فِي أَمْرٍ مَّرِيجٍ

Nay, they rejected the truth when it came to them, so they are (now) in a state of confusion.

 

[amrtin77]

just because you dont think god is the "uncaused cause" that starts everything doesnt mean there has to be a "infinate chain of reactions" or something stupid like that. obviously SOMETHING had to start the big bang. according to human logic... the point of energy that exploded had to have been there forever, or have spontaniously appeared. sure, it is an uncaused cause. it doesnt need an infinate chain of events or something dumb like that.

its not hypocritical at ALL to think a point of energy out of nothing is ok and god creating the poin of energy is not ok. ill tell you why: the point o energy comes from nowhere, defies logic. OK. thats settled. why do we need a god to create that energy? that STILL defies logic, and STILL has to come out of nowhere, but you arent even adding anything useful to the theory. its just an unnessicary step.

 

[Laharl]

You aren't using the actual 'bible', Tipsy, you are reading (guarenteed) an edited version of the King James version of the bible.

Way back when they had HUNDREDS of different scrolls containing 'diaries' of sorts of men who lived long ago. They took the ones that they felt would allow them to control and oppress the general populace.

One thing they did, naturally, was attempt to make women look evil.

There were originally a lot more books.

 

[TH3 R3D B4R0N]

I'm going to keep going on and on until somebody admits there was an 'uncaused cause'. If there was something before the big bang, what created that. If there was nothing before the big bang, then what caused the big ban? I did not once in my talking to you say it proves in any way an existence of [a] god/s. The thing is, there is an uncaused cause in the universe coming into existence.


So I'm guessing despite the fact that Mary, a woman, was the prophet of prophets, the most important prophet in Christianity who brought the words of God into flesh (Jesus) and she is our spiritual mother, the church is still sexist. Not only that, but it was Mary who said yes to the angel and directly caused mankind to be saved by Jesus. And she is also the only human other than the Son of God to not sin. But, I guess that is still sexist against women in some way...

I really don't see sexism in the bible, mostly because I know how to read it and how it works. You want to know why women aren't mentioned so much as men in the bible, look at how women were treated in the time period. If you say it should be different because it is the word of God, look how divine inspiration works. For every 'instance' of this misinterpreted sexism there are very simple answers.

As for Christianity hurting the world, show me any single church teaching that has hurt the world. You want to say all of the wrong done politically by the church, go ahead, just because your a Christian, it doesn't magically make you a better person. Show me one single piece of church teaching that has 'hurt' the world.

That is a very good point, Tipsy. Very good. Almost good enough to make me doubt my point. What I was saying was, maybe the Church should, well to put it in technical terms, give the bible a new patch. Bible V1.3 you know.
Oh, and I'm not saying the Church directly hurts people by teaching them their religion, I'm saying all religion INdirectly hurts the world. Have you looked at Pakistan and Israel lately? All the car bombing and suicides, murders, and terrorism in general is fought over a 'divine' city, over religion period. Man is too stupid to accept others. His instincts are too base, and religion, or at least these outdated ones, do not teach one to adapt to the modern world. Men in third world countries are learning principals from a time when people were nailed to crosses by the masses, on a daily basis. Where war was constant. These can't be the right values and teachings for the 21st century, can they? Maybe the religion is righteous in it's idealism, but it needs to be modernized. Get the Bishops to do it...when theyre not having sex with the choir boy, that is. Of course Christianity never hurt anyone with it's teachings!
(Preachers were taught, no? Preachers become Bishops, yes?)

 

[Tipsy]

At least Tipsy will read my post...! I think...^^;;

You thought right.
Btw, welcome back.

Well, in your own relligion does it not say that everyone should preach and spread the teaching of jesus?? Isn't that what being a priest is all about??
Or do priests are the only ones to whom god talks to ignoring everyone else??
...

The meaning of the word 'Catholic' should answer the first part. Though it is true God talks to everyone, a lot of the time people just don't listen, priests, cardinals, bishops, etc, unless they become pope, are not the Vicar of God on the earth. Nobody else has the ability to be infallible on dogmatic teaching in matters of morals and faith. As for should everyone go out and teach, a priest is in school for quite a long time, you have to go through quite a lot more than a four year college to become a priest. You might as well have someone who knows addition go teach a discrete math class. It would be nice if everyone had the dedication to become a learned person in the field of religion to go teach, but the majority of people don't know enough.

Well cause there are evidences of infinite reactions and none of infinite beings... and I never said it is true... there are no evidences of it still but is probable...

First off, it doesn't matter if this example is true or not, the point is I have been multiple examples by different people and in everyone I have pointed out there is an 'uncaused cause'. I have constantly repeated that this in no way proves God exists, but it does hint at one. Also, does this mean you admit there is an 'uncaused cause' or must we continue?

Now haveen't you ever heard of google?? Geeezzz
Here's the link any way... but it's the last ****ing one!!

Well let's see this. This seems to be a controversy, and yet you claim your side to be right over my side, even though historians do not even know, how peculiar. I wait for you to prove that your belief is correct. Here is the direct quote from that website:

However, Constantine's claim to conversion is not without controversy. There are many who see in his conversion rather the political realization of the potential power of Christianity instead of any celestial vision.

its not hypocritical at ALL to think a point of energy out of nothing is ok and god creating the poin of energy is not ok. ill tell you why: the point o energy comes from nowhere, defies logic. OK. thats settled. why do we need a god to create that energy? that STILL defies logic, and STILL has to come out of nowhere, but you arent even adding anything useful to the theory. its just an unnessicary step.

How is it an unnecessary step. If 'God', who defies logic exists in the Christian sense, then it no longer makes the particle that was created out of nowhere illogical. It makes just as much sense as the other scenario. Nothing exists, the universe is nothing, no blackness, no nothing, then a particle just randomly appears. Though this probably just turns into an opinion matter.

One thing they did, naturally, was attempt to make women look evil.

Post why you think this then. I have already pointed out how important the role of women is to the church. If you are saying that the role of women is minimized, which in no ways is similar to ‘evil’, then it is due to the society of the time period. The reason this effects the bible is because of how divine inspiration works.

You aren't using the actual 'bible', Tipsy, you are reading (guarenteed) an edited version of the King James version of the bible.

That is why there is so much studying needing to be done before you can understand the English version of the bible.

What I was saying was, maybe the Church should, well to put it in technical terms, give the bible a new patch. Bible V1.3 you know.

There is a reason Jesus put a church and specifically a Vicar of God on the earth. Just to point out, I do not mean he was put here to patch the bible, but to well proclaim his word.

Oh, and I'm not saying the Church directly hurts people by teaching them their religion, I'm saying all religion INdirectly hurts the world. Have you looked at Pakistan and Israel lately? All the car bombing and suicides, murders, and terrorism in general is fought over a 'divine' city, over religion period. Man is too stupid to accept others. His instincts are too base, and religion, or at least these outdated ones, do not teach one to adapt to the modern world. Men in third world countries are learning principals from a time when people were nailed to crosses by the masses, on a daily basis. Where war was constant. These can't be the right values and teachings for the 21st century, can they? Maybe the religion is righteous in it's idealism, but it needs to be modernized. Get the Bishops to do it...when theyre not having sex with the choir boy, that is. Of course Christianity never hurt anyone with it's teachings!

Maybe if people would actually listen to their religion. If I had to pick out the most important teaching of God, which Jesus did for us in the bible, and everyone followed them, the world would be so much better. Jesus said the most important things were to love God and love your neighbor (except he said it in a longer way). You can trace nearly every Christian dogmatic practice down to those two lines. I don't see how those two lines can be modernized, they are basically the foundation of the entire religion of Christianity. And for nearly all the other examples you gave, keep in mind, we are all sinners after all. This does not exclude anyone, from a priest to a Pope, a theist to an atheist.
Note: The belief that Jesus and Mary did not sin is the exception to this, but the only one up to this day.

 

[Laharl]

Tipsy you didn't address my points at all. Go back and do it again, ok? And actually provide some evidence. Until now I was letting you get away with begging the point, but not anymore.

The bible was compiled by King James. They made sure that it had a consistant message, and that it would help maintain power. That is not an opinion, Tipsy, that is a solid and provable fact. Just look at the history books