Cofty, I see you've chosen not to address any of the examples I listed of Jesus violating sabbath laws, blaspheming that he was as great as God, and associating with sinners. Until you address that, I can't take your out of context scripture seriously for discussion.
d0rkyd00d
JoinedPosts by d0rkyd00d
-
65
Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus
by d0rkyd00d inthere are two videos recently that caught my attention on youtube that i'd like to discuss.
both are posted below.
my next post under this topic will deal with the specifics, but please watch first so as not to be tainted by my commentary.
-
-
-
65
Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus
by d0rkyd00d inthere are two videos recently that caught my attention on youtube that i'd like to discuss.
both are posted below.
my next post under this topic will deal with the specifics, but please watch first so as not to be tainted by my commentary.
-
-
d0rkyd00d
Today's religions, even so called christian ones, fall far short of his vision, which would not have needed a formal religion, or rules and regulations, at all.
I agree. To me it's interesting at how quickly the message has been continuously corrupted throughout the time of its supposed origin. Early on, no doubt the lack of distribution had something to do with it. Today, there's really no excuse. Yet, I think it says something about the underlying psychology of manking when the same hierarchy and church structure continuously keeps appearing, even when the message its based on is contrary to it.
-
65
Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus
by d0rkyd00d inthere are two videos recently that caught my attention on youtube that i'd like to discuss.
both are posted below.
my next post under this topic will deal with the specifics, but please watch first so as not to be tainted by my commentary.
-
-
d0rkyd00d
I'm trying to figure out if you're yanking my chain or not cofty......
Jesus was a religious Jew, the ultimate Jew who cared pasionately for every jot and tittle of the Law. He believed in sabbath keeping - just not in the pedantic interpretation of it. He worshipped as a Jew, kept the festivals and sacrifices and avoided unclean foods etc etc. He never said a single word about any of that passing away - his followers after his death were a Jewish sect.
Yes he opposed the oppressive imposition of the law and the hypocrisy of some religious leaders but never did he encourage anybody to do anything apart from obeying the Law to the very letter
Jesus chose to violate Jewish law and tradition every chance he got. He healed, performed miracles, and walked through fields numerous times on the Sabbath, was strongly opposed to stoning a woman who had committed adultery, regularly associated with those who were "disfellowshipped" from the Jewish church or were otherwised considered sinners, and made it clear that it wasn't what one "ate" them made them unclean.
Have you even heard of the Torah? It seems like you don't understand how far reaching, restrictive, and complex Jewish law was on the life of the everday person....or maybe I'm missing your point. I don't mind providing various verses to prove my point...
-
65
Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus
by d0rkyd00d inthere are two videos recently that caught my attention on youtube that i'd like to discuss.
both are posted below.
my next post under this topic will deal with the specifics, but please watch first so as not to be tainted by my commentary.
-
-
d0rkyd00d
Recently I have taken to reading Thomas Jefferson's Bible, and I'm in the process right now. I think it's fascinating, and it's exactly how I am forced by belief to read the new testament. It casts a light on it that I rarely have an opportunity to discuss with others, seeing as how most believe the Bible to be true, and the other portion believe it to be false and not worth the time or effort.
I agree, there are some glaring contradictions in the original poem, and in the new testament for that matter. For instance, the one criteria for being saved is believing absolutely that Christ was the son of God and was sent to redeem us all of our sins. Well, if that supercedes the heart condition of an individual-- if somebody can get everything else right, but still doesn't believe that--then they won't be saved? I call shenanigans.
However, saying that Christ started his own dogmatic religion in the same sense that the religion exists in the majority of the world today is a little dismissive. Consider this statement:
There are no absolutes.
It's impossible for this statement to be true, because it is itself an absolute. When you consider the philosophy Christ taught, it was essentially to free men from the rigid, bogged down legalism of the church at the time. Although from our cloud of millenia of progress it might seem simple, it musts have been extremely revolutionary to the majority of people at the time. The emphasis was on loving your neighbor as yourself, and loving God. So while it in and of itself is a religious doctrine, it was a religious doctrine demanding that people not get involved and bogged down with religious doctrine. To conflate such a doctrine with those that exist today, requiring absolute obedience to man and the church, with no participation or freedom of thought from its members, is disingenuous.
I won't deny that there are parts of the new testament that also somewhat contradict this overarching theme. But from an atheist standpoint, that's okay, because we're not trying to prove this is the perfect and undisputable word of God; rather, I am simply stating that the majority of church structure today is not only far different from that of the first century, but also from the philosophy of Christ himself. I frankly believe Christ's message started deteriorating even as recently as when Paul started his tour de Europe.
So while the messenger of the poem on youtube might be plagued by some dogmatic belief himself, when contrasted with the dogmatism and requirements of the church, I find little evidence demonstrating the two are the same or equivalent by any means. We all have dogmatic belief. The objective is to root out those that are repressive and demonstrably false to the greatest degree possible. While Christianity might not have done that, it was a clear and drastic improvement over the system in place in Christ's time.
-
65
Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus
by d0rkyd00d inthere are two videos recently that caught my attention on youtube that i'd like to discuss.
both are posted below.
my next post under this topic will deal with the specifics, but please watch first so as not to be tainted by my commentary.
-
-
d0rkyd00d
Well apparently I figured it out.
I watched both of these videos in one sitting. First off, full disclosure: I'm an atheist agnostic- I don' tknow if there's a God, but I don't believe that there is, at least in terms of most conventional definitions of the word. However, I was extremely disgusted and insulted by the response to the initial video, which I felt was heartfelt and beautiful.
I've recently discovered that arguments over the factuality of the Bible bore me to tears. It's like endless conversations having to deal with whether the works of Shakespeare ever actually happened. Atheists (including myself) have spent so much time and energy trying to disprove the inspired origin of the Bible, we’ve completely missed and neglected what I find to be a fascinatingly complex story of human triumph, hope, aspiration, and an enormous leap forward in our understanding of morality.
On the atheist’s response, I commented that it was like listening to a young earth creationist argue against why evolution is true. I already knew that atheism was no safeguard against ignorance, but it’s still shocking and embarrassing to see the lack of empathy and understanding, the frothing arrogance, and the wild-eyed intolerance, pouring out of the AmazingAtheist. Ironically, it’d do him some good to read his Bible.
I am an atheist of the Dawkins/Hitchens/Dennett generation, and I rabidly devoured all of their books on the subject. I went through my militant atheist phase. I got it, I was proud of it, but now, I’m over it. It’s interesting that one of the natural reactions to discovering the belief that a Christian God doesn’t exist is that suddenly, you feel qualified to talk about Christianity and the Bible. It turns out, nothing is further from the truth. It immediately discourages a deeper understanding of the complex themes of the Bible, the implications of the New Testament and the impact on religion of the character, real or fictional, Jesus Christ. Recently, I mourned the loss of a great champion of reason and eloquence, Christopher Hitchens. As I read through the various eulogies, I was fascinated by several of those written by religious figures as they detailed their close friendships with Hitchens. One had talked about an eleven hour roadtrip in which Hitchens demanded to talk about the book of John for the entire duration. I was floored. For many years, I’ve heard the expression “don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater,” never fully understanding its meaning. Now, sadly, I realize that the new generation of atheism has instilled a deep disdain for anything originating from the Bible, without any appreciation of the detailed development of mankind’s development of the idea of God and morality.
I have been in a relationship with a Jehovahs Witness for over a year now (talk about the odd couple). It’s strange, yet warmly familiar, since I was raised as a Jehovahs Witness until I was about fifteen. At first, I was very opposed to spending any time or mental energy on re-exploring the Bible, but I’m so thankful now that I did. It has shown me just how little I knew about the Bible, but even more alarmingly, how little I’m sure most atheists know about the Bible. And I get it: why spend time discussing or researching something that one considers fictional? Why waste the energy? Well, it turns out that it’s to avoid looking like a complete doofus when trying to discuss the Bible and Christianity. I really wish there was a new trend in atheism, where people actually spent the time and effort thoroughly understanding scripture so they can intelligently engage in Biblical discussions with Christians. At the very least, I propose that atheists should acknowledge that if they don’t have a thorough understanding and knowledge of the Bible’s storyline, themes, and meanings, then they simply aren’t qualified to discuss it further than admitting their disbelief in its inspired origin. However, with the arrogance and false sense of triumph that accompanies the realization of a belief in a world without God, I fear I may be asking too much. -
65
Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus
by d0rkyd00d inthere are two videos recently that caught my attention on youtube that i'd like to discuss.
both are posted below.
my next post under this topic will deal with the specifics, but please watch first so as not to be tainted by my commentary.
-
-
d0rkyd00d
There are two videos recently that caught my attention on youtube that I'd like to discuss. Both are posted below. My next post under this topic will deal with the specifics, but please watch first so as not to be tainted by my commentary. :-) (I have no idea how to embed the videos apparently, if anybody would like to help I'd appreciate it).
-
44
90% of the space within an atom is dark matter
by soft+gentle inthis is what we were told in a recent public talk.
if true then it is very intriguing and may support the point being made in the talk that we know nothing compared to god.
the audience was spell bound and even i had to admit the young man gave an excellent talk.. i thought i'd come here to check the facts first though.
-
-
d0rkyd00d
I actually think maybe this is what I read about...but maybe not. I have a hard time remembering yesterday, much less what I read many moons ago. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
Edit: my apologies, the article I read may have been pertaining to antimatter, not dark matter / energy, and I may have conflated the two.
-
44
90% of the space within an atom is dark matter
by soft+gentle inthis is what we were told in a recent public talk.
if true then it is very intriguing and may support the point being made in the talk that we know nothing compared to god.
the audience was spell bound and even i had to admit the young man gave an excellent talk.. i thought i'd come here to check the facts first though.
-
-
d0rkyd00d
Bohm, I don't think we're in disagreement here necessarily....but I can't make sense of what you're saying. It comes down to two questions:
Are atoms mostly empty space? As far as I can tell, the answer is yes:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/28/why-are-atoms-mostly-empty-space/
Does that empty space have a mass? Again, the answer is yes. So within the empty space of an atom, there is mass. This mass would be caused by dark matter / energy. It's as if you're saying atoms are a closed system where the space within is 100% accounted for. I can't see any evidence of that other than what you're telling me is true.
-
44
90% of the space within an atom is dark matter
by soft+gentle inthis is what we were told in a recent public talk.
if true then it is very intriguing and may support the point being made in the talk that we know nothing compared to god.
the audience was spell bound and even i had to admit the young man gave an excellent talk.. i thought i'd come here to check the facts first though.
-
-
d0rkyd00d
With all due respect bohm, I'll go with the information on Nasa's website, which seems to support what I'm saying...unless I am misunderstanding what is stated on their website?
Most of an atom is empty space. That empty space "weighs" something. According to the several sources I've mentioned, dark matter and dark energy can account for that mass.
-
44
90% of the space within an atom is dark matter
by soft+gentle inthis is what we were told in a recent public talk.
if true then it is very intriguing and may support the point being made in the talk that we know nothing compared to god.
the audience was spell bound and even i had to admit the young man gave an excellent talk.. i thought i'd come here to check the facts first though.
-
-
d0rkyd00d
James, when they add up the mass of all atoms in the universe, it's not even close to what the universe weighs...this is why something massive that we can see or directly measure has to exist, to account for the missing mass we measure. This is hardly controversial. Dark matter and dark energy is simply a placeholder, a gap filler, for the mass and energy that is obviously acting on galaxies and other massive objects for which no other explanation exists.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-are-dark-matter-and
Ultimately, very strong arguments have been made that at most 5 percent of the mass-energy density of the universe, and 20 percent of the mass of clusters, is in the form of atoms.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/dark_matter.html
"Dark matter" refers to matter of an unknown nature that many astronomers and cosmologists think must make up the majority of the mass in the universe. Its presence is revealed by the gravitational effects on objects that we can see. According to the current understanding of how gravity works, the way the visible matter behaves indicates that there should be much more matter than we can detect — and therefore, much more mass exerting a gravitational influence — in objects in space, like stars in galaxies, or galaxies in clusters. The clusters move at speeds that are too high to be attributed just to the visible galaxies.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html
WMAP determined that the universe is flat, from which it follows that the mean energy density in the universe is equal to the critical density (within a 1% margin of error). This is equivalent to a mass density of 9.9 x 10 -30 g/cm 3 , which is equivalent to only 5.9 protons per cubic meter. Of this total density, we now know the breakdown to be:
4.6% Atoms. More than 95% of the energy density in the universe is in a form that has never been directly detected in the laboratory! The actual density of atoms is equivalent to roughly 1 proton per 4 cubic meters.
23% Cold Dark Matter. Dark matter is likely to be composed of one or more species of sub-atomic particles that interact very weakly with ordinary matter. Particle physicists have many plausible candidates for the dark matter, and new particle accelerator experiments are likely to bring new insight in the coming years.
72% Dark Energy. The first observational hints of dark energy in the universe date back to the 1980's when astronomers were trying to understand how clusters of galaxies were formed. Their attempts to explain the observed distribution of galaxies were improved if dark energy was present, but the evidence was highly uncertain. In the 1990's, observations of supernova were used to trace the expansion history of the universe (over relatively recent times) and the big surprise was that the expansion appeared to be speeding up, rather than slowing down! There was some concern that the supernova data were being misinterpreted, but the result has held up to this day. In 2003, the first WMAP results came out indicating that the universe was flat (see above) and that the dark matter made up only ~23% of the density required to produce a flat universe. If 72% of the energy density in the universe is in the form of dark energy, which has a gravitationally repulsive effect, it is just the right amount to explain both the flatness of the universe and the observed accelerated expansion. Thus dark energy explains many cosmological observations at once.