Neanderthals Wore Makeup, Jewelry

Partner Links

Read the comment policy

Showing 3 of 38 comments

I don't think there is a Christian god because there are too many gods for a safe bet to be made, and they all think they can save me from a painful, or incorrect existence. "All gods were immortal" comes to mind. Who's to say which divinity is correct of the masses? The bible is certainly not a document without contradiction, retcon or incorrectness. It's NOT perfect, and there are plenty of verses that show it. Think about it in a general sense first. God also claimed the old testament was correct. Why a second book (Three-ish in the Koran)? That means there had to be a reason for revision for the first, which begs the question, who goofed? Certainly not the divinity (assuming he's real). So can I fully trust the texts? Not any more than I trust Moby Dick to be a true story. Remember, a god did not write or translate the bible, men did. It has been passed down through translation and oral tradition for less than 2000 years. To be honest, I like philosophy more. It makes me feel like I have more invested in being a good person. I don't need heaven to drive me, or hell to control me. I have my own motivations for excelling. I have a purpose beyond simply appeasing some unseen dungeon-master in this game of life: I'm piecing together the rules. If there is a god, I'm sure he understands why I'm not gambling with my soul on what the natives believe, and living a life that makes sense. If not, (as I suspect) I still live a good life. It's not that I haven't tried (honestly tried) talking to him, and being faithful and all, but all I got when I prayed were crickets. That leads me to believe there isn't anything there but crickets. But we've digressed _________ The difference between someone who considers evolution plausible and a fundamentalist creationist (Because Genesis isn't the only myth out there) isn't a matter of faith. Where the one considers all books with a grain of salt, the other considers a single book undeniable fact with little to no physical or logical evidence to it's validity.

I was sincere in my prayer, which is the thing that bugs me most. Also, I see keeping my "soul" in my hands is the same as keeping my poker chip off the divine roulette (or out of the pantheonic stock market). I remain responsible for my actions, and refuse to pass the buck for any wrongs I have or may do in the face of reality. Regarding the nature of the bible I also defend myself with the existence of apocrypha, the many inconsistencies in the behavior of a divine being said to be perfect, the false (or allegorical) statements it holds about the world, and the negative impacts the fascination over a single, though great, canon of literature has had on history. I want to say I really do appreciate this discussion we've had, your patience, and the respect you've shown me despite our differing opinions. I hope you too can come away with another perspective, though on the nature of science and it's interaction with religion.

I understand. Because your prayer was unanswered that proves your point. But how can you expect anything sincere out of in-sincereity? You also say that you won't wager because there are too many gods to be Certain but is not that a wager in itself. Shortly after that you through up your arms and say " I am a good person (try to be) and god if there is one would understand my efforts" that is illogically defeatist or its passively rejecting the truths of the bible, either way its incoherent. Most unbelievers throw out the argument about the bible being passed down through ages so it must be riddled with mistakes. But then there is no specifics regarding which passages or books are at play. How can we defend an argument like that? but my friend because you have shown me respect I will also with you, and hope your efforts are better than mine at pleasing God. I could not so I gave up trying and let Christ do the work for me. either way you get a thumbs up from me.