The birth of Jesus...Even children get it.

I am actually referring to the "order of creation" contradicting what is known to be true in science.

 

No ...going too far is shoving YOUR religion down poor kids throats.
Kids should not be abused and by brainwashing them that is EXACTLY what you are doing.

 

Maybe you should stop being dishonest...

 

It is clear as day that the young earth creationists believe that dinosaurs roamed with man.

I don't see the desperate need to deny and hide that fact.

 

But since that's what makes these people technically right, as you say, they don't even know what they are referring to?

Are you sure you want to make a third of the Texan population appear dumber than is warranted by the article Wolverine linked to?

 

I can respect that you are an atheist, but surely you can at least understand that an argument against the existence of God like that doesn't make much say. To say a God doesn't exist because we can't understand why He did what they say He did doesn't make sense. Surely you can agree if there IS a God, there is no way we could understand the reason for everything that happened or that He did. Ya know?

 

Where is the discrepancy? Say you don't take the Genesis story literally it happened like this:
There was light.
There was earth and water
There were animals (doesn't ever say there WEREN'T dinosaurs)
There were people. And one of them even came from the "rib" of another one. (sounds like an oversimplification of evolution doesn't it?)

Now the big bang theory:
BIG BANG (with I'm sure a BRIGHT light)
Stuff formed planets and suns and stuff (including earth and water)
Eventually animals formed and then eventually walked the earth
People started coming around, from the most basic homos all the way to the homo sapien sapien that we are considered now.

To me the stories are VERY similar.

 

I don't think SHOVING it down their throats is what happens. Most people teach their own children to believe in their own beliefs. Don't even try to tell me you wouldn't do the same (whether intentionally or unintentionally.)

 

That is true, however somewhat of a cop out. It makes much more sense to dismiss the things that make little or no sense in our world, and embrace the things that can be rationalized.

If a higher power felt compelled to correct our thinking, then it would have made its presence known a little bit more in human history. Not just an appeal to bronze age desert nomads. However such claims of divine intervention and miracles thrive in the absence of evidence.

 

What parts do you dismiss as metaphor though? The earth existing before light? Oceans existing before dry land? Stars coming into existence after the Earth's creation? Birds existing before land animals? Creating a woman from a rib?

There is quite a bit that must be excused for the verses to coincide with the observed universe. So I am not sure where you draw the line, what is literal and what is metaphorical? How is it determined?

 

Well I am not sure. I am just trying to point out that there aren't extreme differences. That they could agree with each other. I mean like my earlier argument we wouldn't understand everything a God does. Maybe science is right, and the original Genesis story is correct, but a little jumbled. It makes perfect sense, especially since God would have had to "simplify" it. Imagine if God had used logical science to try and get people thousands of years ago. It probably would have worked as well then as the real Bible seems to work now. You have to understand, it was written by simple people, for even simpler people. If you just look at the "moral" of the story, it is sound. There are alot of bad and negative things in the Bible, but I stand by the fact that if you get rid of the crap that is obviously political or outdated, you are left with a decent way to live. What you may not realize is that every single Christian person on this forum that tries to argue with atheists is wrong. Myself included. It is written in the bible (believe it or not!) that we are absolutely NOT supposed to argue with people of other beliefs. We are actually supposed to respect people of other beliefs. Be more than willing to discuss Christianity with them, if they would like. I think too many people (especially christians) look at the wrong parts of the bible. It also says we should pray for everyone, including our enemies. Even if you aren't Christian, you can understand that just because someone is our enemy, that doesn't mean they themselves are necessarily evil or bad. The Bible has many good things to offer, its just that too many Christians don't even know enough about their own book, so they look like hypocrites and idiots. If Christians acted the way they were SUPPOSED to, you yourself might even be one.

 

There are about 4 creation stories in the Bible.

In Islam where the Koran was delivered to Muhammad via the angel Jibril from God. So it is the clear unadulterated Word of God: "This is the Book, in it the guidance sure without doubt to those who fear God" (Surah 2:2). So for Islam the Koran is itself a source of authority and should be taken literally. There is no room for interpretation for the very reason that it is from Allah.

In Christianity there is a huge range of beliefs. I would take the 'divine encounter' approach developed by Karl Barth and Rudolph Bultmann.

 

From an agnositic point of view, without intending to insult my Christian friends, I simply find the story of the birth of Jesus to be illogical. Jesus is basically portrayed as a "man-god" where "god" impregnated the "virgin" Mary. This very proposition appears to be taken from Greek and Roman mythology where gods come down from the heavens and impregnate mortal women such as the story of Hercules that was the son of the god Zeus and the mortal woman Alcmene.

From the New Testament story Mary was imprenated without her consent and this would really qualify as a case of rape in today's world. At least in Greek and Roman mythology the "gods" took human form and then seduced the woman admittedly in some cases taking the shape of a lover of the woman, such as the case of Zeus disguising himself as Amphitryon, and deceiving her which would also be considered rape.

Not a good story IMO and certainly no more ceditable that the stories from Greek and Roman mythology.

From a literary standpoint there appears to be a lot of plagerism in both the Old and New Testaments from sources like the Epic of Gilgamesh and Greek/Roman mythology respectively which is why neither can really be accepted as creditable.

Once again, no offense intended to anyone.

 

Well, this is true. However if the text contradicts what in known to be representative of reality, and must be dismissed as metaphor, then it has very little questions answering properties. If the book is of divine origin, then it should be perfect and consistent with everything we observe today. However, as you said, it was written by simple people a very long time ago, there are inaccuracies, so there is very little reason to believe it to be divine.

Again, most of this is true. However, if you need to remove absolutely vile bits from what is supposed to be a divine way of life, then that is a problem.

Killing unruly children, owning slaves, killing nonbelievers, adulterers, and purchasing your rape victim from her father is anything but "good". They morals are not practiced in most civilized societies for obvious reasons. Which is great. However, they is another negative for the idea that the book is from a divine source. As you said it was written by simple people, a long time ago. The book is far more reflective on the nature of those people at the time, than a deity that would actually adjust its own laws and morals for a small group of pions down below on the earth.

There are some great morals to be had once you remove the inconvenient bits, however my adherence to x, y, or z, is more of a matter of coincidence than the belief that x is right because it is associated with any given religion. I have been helping my neighbor, been pursuing a women for her way of life and personality (i.e. I don't don't pick up women at bars for a quickie), I try to work hard, and I try to be as honest as possible..... however these are removed from Christianity as a faith in my mind.

As for the last bit of your post, I agree to an extent. I despise the notion of using the government to enforce religious morals, I however do not mind if people engage in discussion. That is the only way to mature your own thoughts and beliefs. Simply attending your own church and engaging in a huge circle jerk every Sunday and hiding/protecting your beliefs for the other six days of the week makes very little sense. Without questioning and testing your beliefs will never mature, they can very well be a broken contradictory mess, and a person may not even realize it unless those beliefs are open to the world.

That is just one thing that cracks me up. I had people on Facebook accuse me of attempting to convince a high school girl to give up her faith based on my comments questions the militant inclusion of Christmas trees (pagan) in Christianity. They told me not to question her beliefs because no one was questioning mine. I found that to be rather amusing due to the fact that is the only reason why they believe that pagan symbols are associated with Jesus, they do not allow any question to enter their mind. They are right because they are right.

I am on the opposite side of the aisle. I am an open book, I enjoy my beliefs being questions. It is the only way to grow and cast out the illogical bits that may be floating around your mind.

 

Well, I agree that God would create a perfect representation, but I do not think everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. I think the fact that some Christians believe that everything in the Bible happened exactly as explained, when even Jesus himself used fake, made-up stories (parables) to explain heaven and morals, is just plain dumb. Look at any story in the Bible. If you look at it from a literal point of view, it just doesn't even mean anything. However, if you look at the story as a parable, there is almost always something that can be learned or taken from it.

Like people who think the story of Jesus is just stupid. Well, first I'd like to say that God didn't 'impregnate' Mary like go down and have sex with her style. If God IS a God, he would not have any reason to need to do it that way.

Also there is an interesting and simple parable to explain why God eventually chose to send Jesus. Its a story of a man who lived on a farm and owned a large lake. Every year during the winter, geese would fly south and spend the winter on his lake. Many geese grew up spending their winters on that lake. But one winter it was particularly cold, and the lake froze over. When the geese started coming, the farmer decided to open the barn so they could stay in there for the winter. However, as the first geese arrived they tried to land on the lake, and were either rejected by the ice, or fell through and died in the frozen waters. In an attempt to save the geese, the farmer went to the geese and told them to go to the barn, but the geese could not understand, and continued to go to the frozen lake. So then the farmer put up a huge flashing sign on the barn, inviting the geese in. However the geese took no notice of the sign and continued towards the lake. Out of desperation, the farmer dressed up as a goose and went down to the lake. The other geese saw him and congregated near him. He waddled back away from the lake and into his barn. The other geese saw this, and immediately began to follow. The geese that decided to follow survived the harsh winter in the barn, while the other geese died at the lake.

I know it is an EXTREME oversimplification, but I think it is an excellent story, nonetheless. Also, I would like to point out that those Christians on facebook should not have acted that way. They should have been more than willing to respectfully answer any questions. I am sorry they treated you with disrespect.

 

Children are born knowing GOD. We are all born believing in god. Parents who disteach god abuse them...nuff said.

 

Children are born knowing nothing, dude. That's what the 612 years of school is for.

 

Jesus was no demigod. He was fully man and fully God. Now, I don't know too much about Greek Mythology, but from what I understand, the Gods impregnated women just because they wanted to shack up with them. Where in Christianity, it had to do with restoring man's relationship to God.

From the New Testament story Mary was imprenated without her consent and this would really qualify as a case of rape in today's world. At least in Greek and Roman mythology the "gods" took human form and then seduced the woman admittedly in some cases taking the shape of a lover of the woman, such as the case of Zeus disguising himself as Amphitryon, and deceiving her which would also be considered rape.

How do you come to the conclusion that Mary was raped?

"Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word."

- Luke 1:38

The Magnificat:

Luke 1:46-56

As a very faithful Jew, Mary was more than willing to accept.

Just as there are distinct similarities, there are distinct differences. For one, the relationship between the God(s) is very different. In the epic, the flood happened because the Gods had trouble sleeping with people making too much noise. In the Bible, the flood happens because of mans sinfulness.
Also, in the Epic, they sail off in a square box, compared to the arc, which make it ideal for sailing in rough seas.

Christianity had much in common with the mystery religions of the time, but the main difference was that Jesus was an actual person. Also, mystery religions required expensive initiation rites. Initiation in Christianity is simply accomplished by baptism.

 

I really don't want to get into the back and forth war between agnostics and Christians as we so often see but there are a couple of important facts.

Religions have historically adopted stories and lessons from prior religions. They slightly modify the stories in their establishment of the new religion to fit their own needs but we can see this "evolution" of religion from one to the next related to many religions. Follow just this succession of the Religion of Abraham. It originated with the Hebrew religion that certainly share similiar stories with the Epic of Gilgamesh. Christianity was an evolution from the Hebrew religion. The religion of Islam evolved from Christianty and centuries later the Morman religion also evolved from Christianity.

It is documented that the earliest writing of any of the books in the New Testament was about 30 years after the death of Jesus. At best any "quotation" of what might have been said was at best paraphrased and, at worst, was a complete fabrication. There were no recording devices and no record of a scribe recording any statements at the time they were made. Virtually no one's memory is good enough to remember what someone says verbatum 30 years later.

There isn't a single writing that is even claimed that it came from Jesus which could indicate he was illiterate (a strange consideration for anyone that would be acclaimed as being god). It would be illogical to believe that a literate person would never write anything down even including such minimal things as a shopping list or that such a writing wouldn't have been chrished by any of his followers. "Was god illiterate?"

Christianity originated as a small cult of the Jewish religion. As a cult of the Jewish religion it would have been extremely limited. It wasn't until it was marketed to non-Jews that it was able to secure enough followers to become a major religion. We see this "marketing" to non-Jews with the inclusion of the Greek/Roman god Hades in Revelations in the marketing of the religion to the Romans. It was the "marketing" of Christianity that enabled it to become a major world religion as opposed to being limited to being a small Jewish cult.

The virgin Mary was not a virgin. If she was then she was not married to Joseph under the Hebrew laws of the time as consummation of the marriage was required under Hebrew law. If she willingly allowed herself to become impregnated she would be an adulteress and if it was against her will it was rape. If Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus then Mary had an extra-marital affair.

The last fact that many know is that Jesus was not the only "messiah" of his times. He's the only one we remember but there were numerous individuals that claimed this status.

Finally I had to smile at this statement,

I think we can logically compare a one-time expensive initiation fee with a payment of 10% of all earnings for life which is what the New Testament establishes.

There is a common denominator related to major religions and that is they are generally about power and money. Christianity certainly fits this general mold.

Once agian I don't want any of this to be taken as an insult to any Christian. These are simple facts.

 

Nope. Children are taught religion.

 

This is absolutely true and is not an assumption but instead a proven fact. Children that are not taught religion at all have no knowledge of god.

 

This is true. I've met adults who've had no knowledge of god or gods.

 

I suppose assuming that I understand you correctly, I do agree. It can make much more sense as a parabol than a literal story.

*Begins listening to Tool's Parabol/Parabola*

 

what a load of crap....
Children are NOT born believing in your BS nor are they born knowing anything about it. Parents that brainwash their children with such nonsense should be put before the courts for child endangerment and abuse.

So I ask again, why is it you want to abuse children?

 

The first sentence is absolutely BS.. As is the second sentence..