God Condemns Two-Thirds of World to Hell

[Dirtie]

Because someone mentioned it, I'll copy what I stated in another thread:

Some people mentioned that the environment you grow up in could prevent you from getting into heaven (if you subscribe to the popular viewpoint). It is my belief that people are judged not on religion as such, but their capacity to have faith and love and follow God to the best their abilities and circumstances allow. If people are presented with evidence of God's love/plan and refuse to heed it, they are judged on that also.

 

[Agent_Smith]

Dominance is not determined by who is the biggest, most agile and fit anymore, it's determined by who is the most successful, who has the most money, who has the weirdest looking hair-piece.

Good point.

 

[Agent_Smith]

actualy, we are living LONGER lives. Because of science. In this society brains are what matters. Not size. And we are getting TALLER not shorter.

I was looking at things in the long run. (as far back as recorded history goes)

 

[Rhazdel]

I was looking at things in the long run. (as far back as recorded history goes)

That is the long run. The average height for an adult male in the dark ages (1300 A.D.) was around 5'0. Today, it is about 5'9. Same for females (changed from around 4'8 to 5'4).

Average lifespan in the dark ages for men: 30 years old
Average lifespan today for men: 70 years old

We aren't "evolving" physically anymore because physical evolution is a response to one's environment. Humans have reached a point where we can adapt our environment to our needs (ie: clothing for warm/protection, fire, shelter, etc.). We no longer need to evolve physically.

But this argument is more suited (as I orginially posted all this information) for the Evolution forum.

 

[Rhazdel]

I'm probably going to get crucified for this (pardon the pun), but the Bible does not constitute "recorded history".

Recorded history is first-hand documentation that captures the life and times of the world/location at the time it was documented.

These texts can be used to get a glimpse at how life operated at the time they were written.

Because the Bible not written first-hand (Adam and Eve did not actually keep a journal, for example), then it cannot be considered a part of "recorded history".

Agree with it or not, that is how the field of science has defined it.

 

[Andy6000]

Honestly, the whole religon thing can be compared to this:

You're standing next to a tall cliff. Lying on the ground are several parachute backpacks, and you're wearing the one your parents strapped on you. You don't know which ones (if any) of the backpacks actually have parachutes in them, but you have to pick one and jump anyway.

Except that you can't prove there's a cliff there, and instead of water at the bottom, it's somehow a 50-50 chance of being a pit of horrible lava or eternal happiness (just what is eternal happiness? Is what's considered a sin here also a sin in heaven? I mean, given that to live a sinless life, you'd be pretty bored and miserable, I can't imagine heaven just 'letting you get away with it', so therefore heaven = boring).

Anyways, I'd respectfully ask for this to be brought more... on-topic. There's topics for evolution, and there's topics for religion in general, and this topic is about the general silliness of every religion condemning the majority of the world to endless pain and suffering.

Everyone should just believe nothing, because that way, nobody else is harboring ill-feelings towards others based on something nobody can prove. I mean, come on, you're definitely feeling some sort of resentment when you simply claim someone is going to die, and then be damned to eternal torture and pain because they don't follow your little regulations (which oftentimes seem downright silly)

 

[Dirtie]

For that side of things:

http://www.rmxp.org/forums/showpost.php?p=190143&postcount=121

:P

 

[candle]

I'm probably going to get crucified for this (pardon the pun), but the Bible does not constitute "recorded history".

Recorded history is first-hand documentation that captures the life and times of the world/location at the time it was documented.

These texts can be used to get a glimpse at how life operated at the time they were written.

Because the Bible not written first-hand (Adam and Eve did not actually keep a journal, for example), then it cannot be considered a part of "recorded history".

Agree with it or not, that is how the field of science has defined it.

While most of the old testament was not reacorded by eye witnessess, as you said, nearly all of the new testament was. Look at the four Gospels for example

 

[arcthemonkey]

There are some theories (I don't necessarily pay them much attention) that the first half of Genesis was written by Adam. Again, there's not much to support the idea that Genesis was written by anyone but Moses, but still.

Now, Moses did write most of Exodus, and it was a first person account, so that's one part of the Old Testament that counts.

As for proving authorship, you can't "prove" that Sophocles wrote Oedipus. History and ancient literature are derived largely by anonymous accounts and face-value usage of assigned authorship. You don't need to prove Sophocles wrote Oedipus, because nobody has any critical reason to doubt it. The same holds true for the gospels.

You should read this:

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html

It's well cited and well written.

 

[Andy6000]

You should read this:

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html

It's well cited and well written.

That's way too long to read.

Also one of the synopsis points was, "There is no reason to suppose that the Gospel authors took creative liberties with the events they recorded, to the point of fabrication." Wouldn't trying to convert people be a logical reason to suppose they might've taken creative liberty? Not that I know or have an opinion, since I can't even bring to mind what was IN the gospels much less who wrote it and why.

Also seriously, what the hell does this have to do with the topic.

Also (three alsos in a row!) Adam didn't write genesis, because I did. Case solved.

 

[DESIRE]

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/4186 ... nthmt4.jpg[/img]

 

[candle]

Shouldn't that be "Hey" not "Hay?"

 

[arcthemonkey]

Scruffy, I can't believe you contributing to spam. Delete your own post and warn yourself, please. I'm busy.

 

[Andy6000]

Scruffy, I can't believe you contributing to spam. Delete your own post and warn yourself, please. I'm busy.

Delete Arc's while you're at it, because he sure would look silly if he started admonishing someone for something that wasn't there. Also Arc, I'm not even sure if Scruffy there can even delete posts in this area of the forum. Him not having powers here I don't think. But you know, whatever.

Historically speaking, the bible's generally pretty accurate. Which if you look at the thing with a 'if the proveable parts are right, then the others must be too' viewpoint, it seems pretty convincing. But then again, that logic doesn't come near to working. The most believable lie is oftentimes the one most laced with truth. It's that way because if the person you're telling it to decides to check with outside sources to make sure you're not lying, he/she is going to run into much of what you're saying being true, giving the illusion that it's the whole truth. Now, this works best if the only parts the person can make sure of are true. While this doesn't prove in any way anything, it certainly implies. And I certainly know how to lie, I've been covering my brother's blunders from my parents/police for years.

EDIT: Also, srsly, why dissension everything up? You could've just deleted the post, sent TREG a PM with what you said there, and not made a damn scene. Honestly, this ain't a scene, it's a godamned arms race. Yeah that's right, I quoted that piece of crap. And I don't know why either. Yeah.

 

[arcthemonkey]

Yeah, I know I could have, but I had a lapse in judgement. I didn't want to delete a mod's post though, so that's basically the reason why I decided the way I did. Silly me. Also, in case it wasn't clear, my post to Scruffster was a joke. An off-topic joke, but an on-topic mod-topic-topic joke.

Yeah.

You're right about the accuracy of the bible - while it doesn't necessarily prove it per se, it does lend it creedance. That's also where its historical value comes in - it mentions many things from what would generally be considered pre-history, that basically always come out right. Cities from antiquity have been discovered that bear no records other than the Bible. It's interesting stuff.

 

[Fallofthetyrant]

Now why the bible would be the "truth". I mean, there is so many religions in this world, and many of them converge to the same points. Just because some random guy in the distant past wrote something doesn't means is necessarily true. And the fact our society still believing these ideas shows how primitive it is.
As long as mankind doesn't get rid of these beliefs, we won't be able to evolve more than we already did.

 

[Lene]

So are you saying that atheists are more evolved than everyone else?

 

[Rhazdel]

You're right about the accuracy of the bible - while it doesn't necessarily prove it per se, it does lend it creedance. That's also where its historical value comes in - it mentions many things from what would generally be considered pre-history, that basically always come out right. Cities from antiquity have been discovered that bear no records other than the Bible. It's interesting stuff.

There are a lot of historical errors in the Bible, as well.

I'm not trying to invalidate the Bible's content, but I thought I would note that because it fits well with the (somewhat off-topic) theme at hand of conflicting multi-theistic views.

 

[arcthemonkey]

Please feel free to make specific mention of these historical innacuracies so I can attempt to shoot them down and make you feel inferior.

Or, you know, make a fool of myself.

 

[Rhazdel]

Mankind was created before any other creature, despite fossil evidence showing mankind appearing approximately 200,000 years ago.

Another example is the Jews' exodus from Egypt. There is no mention of this exodus in any Egyptian text from the time period, despite the fact that the Egyptians were meticulous bookkeepers who quite frequently kept record of even the most embarrassing of incidents. There is also no drop off in Egyptian production (which would have come close to a halt, if they lost the majority of their work force suddenly). Granted, the Jews weren't the only slave labor the Egyptian had, but they were a large quantity.

Some interpretations of the text insinuate a geocentric model of the universe.

There is no record or evidence of any massive flood in the middle east as depicted in the story of Noah.

There are discrepancies.