Atheism Verses Christianity

[MrsLulu]

Since joining AB I have followed the threads regarding the above. Am I right in thinking there are more non-believing Abers than believers, or do the believers prefer not to get entangled with this subject. I myself believe.

[jomifl]

I too have come to believe in the Power of Co-incidence, His mighty works have baffled the world who have no way of explaining astonishing deeds.
But they don't make a religion out of it...do they ?

[goodlife]

First of all, the Mosaic Law for nearly 2000 years has been abolished (Col. 2:14) This Law that was so important to those Jewish believers had originally been given by Jehovah. Nothing in it was wrong in itself. But that Law had to do with the old covenant, whereas Christians are now under the new covenant, which is the Law of Christ, (Galatians 6:2)

Unlike its predecessor, this new law largely depended, not upon a series of written commands, but upon principle. It did include some direct commands, though. One of these Jesus called “a new commandment.” Jesus taught all his followers to love one another just as he had loved them. (John 13:34, 35) A self-sacrificing love was to be the hallmark of all those who live by, The law of the Christ.

[jomifl]

GL, the only thing that you are sacrificing is your credibility

[LazyGun]

@Theland - But what you offer, with your examples, is just numerology, with some of the "facts" played around with to better fit a narrative that the author wished to convey.

Just to take one of the examples at random ; The Turks handing over Jerusalem to the English in 1917, This could be considered a selective interpretation of the facts, for a start. Whilst it is true that General Allenby entered Jerusalem at the end of 1917, A formal diplomatic recognition and handover did not happen until 1918. So thats a subjective interpretation for a start. Then we have the 1335 days. Why not mention of the 1290 days in the sentence previous to tihis from the verse? Why attribute the handover of Jerusalem to the last sentence of that particular verse and no other? Subjective interpretation again.

Then we have the whole days = years thing - who says so? Why should we take a metaphorical explanation of 1 day =1 year? Where is this relationship definitively established? Then we have the suggestion that Haggai prophecied the 9th of December - but the text to which somebody actually refers actually says the 24th day of the 9th month, and anyway Haggai appears to burbling about when the Lords Temple will be built. Then we have the equating of 1335 days, magically transformed into 1335 years, as being the 1917 in the Islamic calendar - but this does not seem right either. And then the whole business about the Lord defending Jerusalem using birds - but according to the subjective interpretation of that piece of scripture this means airplanes? Why? Who came to that conclusion? And so far at least, god has not done a good job of defending jerusalem has he? Its been destroyed twice and captured and recaptured more times than i can count...

And that just the mangled imaginings of 1 prophecy you have offered.

Numerology, selective interpretation, and twisting a narrative to selectively fit historical fact - Thats all that this is, Theland...

[vetuste_ennemi]

There are some very precise prophecies in Daniel. The late 6th century prophet knew far more about the Ptolemies in the 2nd and 3rd centuries BC than he did about the ruler of Babylon and the person who conquered it at the time he lived..

[vetuste_ennemi]

“It's seemed to me for a while that arguments about the morality of a religion (or usually the perceived lack of it) tend to miss the point. The only real issue… is whether … there is a God who watches over us and will judge …{or not]”. Jim, even if it were proved that the universe requires a God in the sense of designer, creator, first cause or whatever, that wouldn't lead us necessarily to the conclusion that he watches over us and will judge us, would it? What could possibly justify such extraordinary inferences?
Commiserations, by the way.

[jim360]

Well perhaps it's a big step but firstly commiserations for what and secondly I'd argue that having established the existence of a creator God it's not too hard to imagine that he has some vested interest in what goes on inside it. Also having the biggest assertion of religions as factual you've set a precedent. If they are right about that big issue, then maybe they are right about other things e.g. his morality?

Even so it's true that a creator may no longer care about us or watch over us. But it's the biggest and, to me, most important question. While those picking over the morals of the Bible and how modern religious people seem to cherry-pick from their religion's Holy Book deserve some criticism, it doesn't necessarily undermine the religion as a whole - just those who follow it blindly.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Losing to Bangor, Jim.

[jim360]

I thought as much - wasn't sure though! Thanks. We got soundly thrashed and I can only hope that Bangor do well in the semis.

[chakka35]

Where is MrsLulu who started all this and subsequently showed her ignorance of the OT and NT?

[naomi24]

Jim, //Well a couple of examples include some comment about "clinging to cuddly blankies of imaginary god"//

A bit of selective editing there. The whole post actually reads //When you consider that grasping for life's explanations, aka religions, have been around for thousands of years and the acceptance of Evolution barely 160 years, it is not surprising that many still cling to their cuddly blankies of imaginary gods.//

I think that’s a reasonable conclusion.

[jim360]

Selective editing perhaps, but the rest of my post at least was a significant backtrack from my earlier position.

[naomi24]

Jim, do you mean this bit?

//I don't know if the wildwood's point about ABers who are religious knowing less than atheists about the faith holds for me with some of my friends, who have definitely studied their faith in greater detail than I have and will. So they certainly can't be accused of being ignorant about it. What puzzles me, though, is on what they end up basing their faiths. //

If so, I think people of faith who do actually study rather than depend upon others for tuition, seek that which confirms their belief rather than that which illustrates that their religion is flawed. This is why we have well-read atheists here highlighting the inconsistencies and errors in religious texts - and well-read (and not so well-read) religionists ignoring the evidence before them. They don't seek the truth - for their own reasons they simply WANT to believe - so they do.

[jim360]

Was mainly missing this bit:

[i] well actually I can't find another one which really demonstrates the sort of bile and anger/ nastiness I was looking for. By no means an exhaustive search, but suggests that I was being OTT earlier.[i]

I have no idea why my Christian friends and relatives arrive at the faith based on what I regard as a dodgy book and no evidence. Still, their friendship is too important for me to press the issue - much.

[naomi24]

Jim, I think you'll find it very much works both ways - in both respects. ;o)

[jim360]

Yes, that's what scares me. For a long time I was too afraid to talk about it because I feared how they would react.

[mibn2cweus]

It's not always easy confronting the realisation that those you once considered your best friends are actually their own worst enemy.

[naomi24]

Jim, we have friends with whom discussion on religion is not a good idea - so we don't. With others we do. You learn which is which by the velocity at which the hackles rise. ;o)

mibs, I think several of my friends are their own worst enemy - but it's their choice.

[Twilz]

enemy? an enemy would precipitate suffering, yet comfort is the main dish on the menu

[chakka35]

Still nothing from MrsLulu.

Interesting how often it happens that a religionist, when challenged, quietly hides away.