The Bible; how can Christians abide by this? & your views on religion

the idea of Christianity to me is merely to bring comfort to those who are in need of it most, when you actually interpret the bible literately as many bible bashers do (including my very pushy RE teacher) it makes little sense and can seem obscene at times that so many world wide follow it. the majority of catholic's now i believe have just grown up with catholic parents and just accept god without giving it much thought. I have no problem with people being followers of any god if it is what you believe, but what i do dislike is people using the bible in a way to attack others or try to justify or argue about it with you. these are the people that seem to like picking and choosing from the bible, mainly about homosexuality.

here's some examples Christians never seem to mention during arguments.

Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:5)

People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)

what's your guys thoughts on religion? as i've stated above, i respect it, but don't understand nor follow. I don’t believe in God because there is absolutely no scientific evidence for his existence and from what I’ve heard the very definition is a logical impossibility in this known universe.

basically, i don't believe in 2,870 gods, you don't believe in 2,869?

 

I think most of your points are valid. I will say, however, that science has yet to come up with an explanation for the most simple form of existence. The more modern theories posited in quantum physics rapidly change and scientists haven't been able to agree on any specific one. In that sense, I dont think a god-like figure should be ruled out, even if the existence of "god" just means that some things supersede science.
But do I think "god" is the guy described in the christian, muslim, or jewish texts? I think there is close to no chance.

 

Completely agree with your last point. However, just because science hasn't found all the answers yet, doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention to it. I simply think it's absurd to devote your whole life to organized religion. Like the OP mentioned above, religion brings comfort to those who need it in desperate times. The three main religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) give their followers a sense of belonging and acceptance. Wanting to belong and feel safe is something sought out by most people. Of course that's not the sole reason as to why people choose to follow a certain religion but it is a very important determining factor as to why a lot of people choose to either stay in a religion or convert to another one. Although these religions do give a lot of people hope and keep a lot of them from "sinning" and doing evil things, there really is no need for organized religion in an advanced society. This might sound a little arrogant or evil even, but the way I see it, as a whole, religion is for the weak minded. By the way, I acknowledge the fact that we truly don't know if there is a god or not, but as stated above, I highly doubt it's anything like organized religion says it is.

 

I did not say I support believing in a monotheistic religion because we do not know how the universe formed, I simply meant it is fine to accept the possibility of something greater than understanding to be out there. Putting a name and a face to that which is out of our current understanding, whether that be "God" or not, is a natural instinct. I too disagree that people should be religious, but what you must realize is many people are religious just because of the customs and traditions in the religion, and because their family has followed those traditions for generations.
Some of the smartest, most principled, and strongest people I know are religious, so I think it is foolish and intellectually elitist to suggest that being religious means you are weak and using the religion as a crutch.

 

There are very intelligent people from all paths of life. I stated religion as a whole, not just a select few.

 

I agree. To me, science and religion should be two sides of the same coin. One is a parable for existence, the other an explanation of it.

 

I am non religious, but I don't necessarily think that the concept of religion in general is stupid or impossible. I agree that the Christian faith is incredibly flawed though and most monotheistic religions have major holes from the passage of time and contradictions / ridiculous claims.

 

philosophy > religion in that sense.

 

I agree, i don't believe in God or religion as a whole either, its idiotic.

However my girlfriend is a Christian, and her faith just emphasises the points you've made, although she classifies herself as a Christian, she:

1.) Doesn't go to church
2.) Doesn't abide by the "no sex before marriage"
3.) She drinks alcohol

So it really just does show, they don't even abide by the rules themselves, so good luck getting us to.

 

you can't make generalizations about all Christians based on your girlfriend's mannerisms.

 

I don't know if this will help you guys out, but think of the bible as a a "guideline" to life. Granted a bunch of things have changed from then to now. But most religious books set guidelines for the people to live by, and basically leading us to be civilized. I don't think it's fair to bash any religion for what there book says as they're ancient and obviously times have changed. But anyone who still interprets these and follows them exact is an idiot. Kind of like Afghanistan gives a bad name for Muslims.

 

The bible is used as a tool to justify bigoted behavior and reinforce social stigma.

 

I wasn't, i was generalising Christians anyway from experience of people I've met over the years and was using my girlfriend as just an example to emphasise how my point is backed up by it. Was trying to say a lot of Christians are the same as her. Which i do believe, to an extent, is true.

 

Everything you quoted is from the Old Testament, which is essentially the same thing that the Jews and the Muslims believe in. So why are we singling out only Christians with this discussion?

To be honest, my answer to the whole Christianity(/all other religions too) vs Science debate is that the scientists are denying their own principles in order to "win" the debate. I agree that the Christian argument is circular reasoning, but it is nobody's right to call someone else wrong without proof. The backbone, the fundamental quality, in science is that you should always doubt what you expect and strive to continue to test your hypotheses. Even if you do prove something right, then your hypothesis and methods are subject to a massive battery of confirmation tests, and those tests to confirmation tests, and so on. Very seldom does science actually get to conclude anything at all. Why do you think you learned a crap load of "Theory of __________" and very few "Law of ___________" in science class?

At best, science has the hypothesis of "God does not exist," but it continually falls short of proving this hypothesis correct. Only in the court of law does a lack of evidence mean acquittal. In the true, blue scientific community, profound evidence that is more than just a string of events happening is the only means to making a true assertion.


Even the greatest scientific minds can't really get around intelligent design when they find a real hypothesis of how the universe was formed. Consider Richard Dawkins in the following quote: (If you don't know who he is, don't bother coming back to SFA)

source

I'm not attacking Dawkins or science here. In fact, Dawkins should be commended for considering a logical hypothesis for the creation of the universe, and explaining a logical means of testing this hypothesis. Most of the rest of the atheistic science community just gawks and finds the closest place to hide when they are truly faced with the situation of explaining the big bang. This example just goes to say that true science still has not yet ruled out creationism, and without finding those "signature" tags, it's still definitely inconclusive at best.

 

There was morality and ethics way before Christianity formed. You are right, it does give a lot of people a reason to be a good person but is that person truly a good person? Or just because they are afraid of going to hell? You don't need religion to be a good person. If someone is only a good person because it says so in the bible, then is that person genuinely good?

 

Yes, that person is.

If you cure cancer just because you knew it would lead to a billion dollar drug, are you genuinely good? I'd definitely say yes. Selfishness is not a bad thing unless you are in true communism. Religious people do good things because they choose to, and they use the Bible/other texts as help. Likewise, a medical scientist chooses to cure cancer because he wants to, and he uses any other incentives as help as well.

Religious people use their writings and teachings much like scientists use theirs. Without the help from reading the Bible or textbooks, nobody would get any farther than the generation before and we'd still be stuck in the stone age.

 

Curing cancer has no negative effect on the person that creates this billion dollar cure. You can't compare both scenarios. Those who follow the bible and are good people because "God says so or they go to hell", are the way the are only because in their belief system there is a consequence if they commit evil acts. I'm not saying that the people themselves aren't good people, but if you really think about it, they only do it because they believe it will get them into heaven, or that they will be rewarded in heaven. If there was no law against killing another human being, would you do it?

I consider myself to be a good person. I have only read the Bible and the Qu'ran recently (roughly a year ago) and was raised by my mother (who is agnostic) and my father on the weekends (who I think is an atheist, not sure). Both are good people and did not use any religious book to teach me right from wrong. I don't think I'm the only one that's been raised without the influence of any religion.

 

I didn't mean to imply that you, your mother, your father, or any athetist/agnostic in general cannot be a good person for not having a "structure" to support him or her doing good. I just meant that a Christian can (and should) be considered good, even if he does believe that being good is the only possible choice.

You say a Christian has to be good or will face negative consequences, but how can you say a scientist not curing cancer has no negative consequences? I can think of a long list of negative consequences of the scientist not curing cancer. For starters, people he knows will begun to drop dead from him not yet finding a cure. Also, since he is not doing the job he agreed to do, he will face consequences with his employer; or he would simply just go bankrupt if he was a freelance scientist who was not producing results (which doesn't exist). There is also the opportunity cost to consider for this scientist not curing cancer: if he doesn't cure it today, someone else might do it instead and take all the potential money/fame he would have made. Indeed, I think the scientist is subject to more or less just as much of a Hell for not curing cancer as Christians are for not doing good.

However, I really don't think it's correct to view any of these phenomena from the negative perspective. Sure, Christians will "go to Hell" for doing bad, and scientists will lose their job/etc for not curing cancer. However, the real reason Christians are good is because of the promise of eternal salvation and a chance to be with God in the afterlife. It is this positive motivation that drives Christianity; looking at the negative side exclusively is inappropriate unless you are just trying to prove a point. (I think it's also fair to point out that, just like the Christian doing good for God's Grace, a scientist does good for his positive incentives as well.)


I can also say with absolute certainty that I have never once in my life considered killing somebody else. The only thing that has stopped me from doing this is that I have never, ever desired to do such a disgusting thing. It was this and only this, and I'm sure this is true for almost every single person you meet. I've never decided, "Oh darn I really want to kill Suzy but can't because I'll go to jail;" nor have I ever decided, "Oh man I want to kill Suzy but it says in Genesis that I shouldn't." You don't need laws to do good.

 

I understand that, I didn't take it as a personal attack, I was just simply stating my situation so you can understand where I'm coming from. I am not saying that a Christian that does good deeds to get into heaven isn't a "good person". Yes, they would be considered "good" because of their deeds, but what I'm asking is; are they considered good if you look at their motives? If I volunteer at a homeless shelter just because I want to help others, am I a good person? Now if I volunteer at the same shelter, doing the same type of "work", but this time, I am doing this volunteering so it looks good on a school application, resume, and I in-fact hate volunteering; am I still considered just as "good" as I was just doing the same thing but for different motives?

I'm pretty sure no scientist out there has claimed that he will cure cancer in X amount of time. If one is to make such claims, then your argument would make sense. Searching for a cure is not the same as committing a "good deed". For all we know there might never be a cure to cancer. Does that mean that scientists who searched for it are evil? If I tell you go find a cure for cancer or I'll deem you immoral and evil are you going to even take me seriously?

Would these same people do what they do if there was no reward and no consequences? That's where I'm getting at. Yes, you're right. We can't just look at the negative side. It doesn't make sense if you have no positive consequences to you actions and just negative, but if we take away both (no hell, no eternal salvation) would the same people commit the same acts? Or would they be different? I also am not denying that scientists have their own selfish motives (money, fame, "status", etc.)

 

The bible is not meant to be taken literally, did you forget to post those verses like everyone else who quotes the bible?


I think people need to be spoon fed things. We're all just a bunch of sheep. The bible helps.