Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Regardless of whether or not we believe the Bible to be of spiritual significance, I think that we can all agree that it is at least relevant in terms of the cultural significance it has. The Old Testament is a sort of running commentary on the thoughts and beliefs of the ancient Hebrews, making it useful for thosse who wish to study their culture. The New Testament has influenced literature and politics throughout the western world for almost two millenia. The veracity of the Bible's claims have been argued for decades, but there's no denying that it has had a substantial effect on the development of western culture and is therefore relevant in a sociological sense, even if its philosophical relevance may never be fully agreed upon.

At 8/1/08 07:03 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 8/1/08 06:06 PM, dark-fox wrote: whose hearts, minds and spirits must we crush to prove our beliefs or lack of are truth? We are all the same and this fighting won't bring us anywhere.

You're a moron. Stop trying to feign intelligence by posting pseudo-intellectual nonsense just because you think it sounds deep.

Im a moron because I see that arguing won't help anything? And why are you trying to disect and analyze what I write? It is what it is buddy, life isn't as complex as you want it to be.

At 8/1/08 07:03 PM, Gunter45 wrote: You're a moron. Stop trying to feign intelligence by posting pseudo-intellectual nonsense just because you think it sounds deep.

Thank you.

Hopefully this is a more heated point.

And again.

At 8/1/08 01:25 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Are you ten years old? Jesus.

no, jackass

always check out the skeptics bible
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.
htm

make sure whoever your discussing religion with isn`t playing the hurt feelings card when you pwn their belief system to the ground.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WiXUargG 1Q

The influence is necessary because of it's history.

You can't really disconnect a race from it's history.

No matter how much you want to.

(concert time)

At 8/1/08 07:45 PM, dySWN wrote: Regardless of whether or not we believe the Bible to be of spiritual significance, I think that we can all agree that it is at least relevant in terms of the cultural significance it has.

Agreed. Although I personally think most of the bible is scientifically junk, culturally it's a goldmine.

At 8/1/08 05:14 PM, poxpower wrote: Where in the bible does it suggest anything about the earth being spherical?
Or round even.

In Isaiah the Earth is referred to as both a circle at one point and a ball at another.

At 8/3/08 01:43 AM, bodom-child wrote: make sure whoever your discussing religion with isn`t playing the hurt feelings card

I have otten wondered if the hurt feelings card,trumps the I don't give a fuck ...card ?

i don't give a fuck = i don't care = I don't have respect for my fellow man

good luck wit that.

i think you were jesting tho

At 7/6/08 04:59 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: The Bible was written way back when it was still believed the sun revolved around the earth, the earth was flat, and all that jazz.

This misconception aside...

Back then, science had not made much progress, so we couldn't answer such questions as "Why does the sun rise?", "Where does lightning come from?", "How does grass grow?", and others without concluding that some greater force was responsible, in this case, God.

The Bible is more than just a creation story, if you bother to read past genesis. To say the whole Bible is irrelevant based on scientific issues in the first book of 66 is kind of silly. I know... the demographic here would demand that if the foundation of the Bible (Genesis) is wrong, then that must invalidate the rest of the book. This would only really make sense if the rest of the Bible was really all that dependant on Genesis.

Whether you take it literally or figuratively, the Bible is allegorical. And the scientific innacuracy of Genesis holds little sway over the human factors presented in the remaining 65 books.

"Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, But he who hates reproof is stupid." Proverbs 12:1.

Oh yeah... I see now. Cause the world couldn't have possibly been created in 7 days, the above proverb can't possibly apply.

the afterlife exist yet we don't know in what form religions are made to suit people to give them leverage and hope to know what happens when they die i believe that thier is other worldly forces and that when we die thier is an afterlife.

however to atheist who belive when you die nothing happens you are very foolish and i do not understand how you can go through life beliving that when you die nothing happens and all youve known and loved is gone and you leave the earth with nothing except dirt on you 6 feet under

however this then raises the question that the Mayans belived that the world shall end in 2012 and the new era of life will start

another thing the bible has in it is that alot of prophecies that i have heard have come true such as 9/11 being in thier and hurricans being predicted in a way yet then again on the scientific view point is that history repeats itself and that the world will start new religions and the old ones will go to a pile of garbage

however then brings another thought the light at the end of the tunnel some claim to see it when pronounced dead and then luckily revived by doctors on the religious view i dont know if it says that when you die thier is a light at the end of the tunnel but if that is true that would make religion true then on the flip side scientifically when you die isnt your brain still working in some way doesnt your brain still work when your heart stops i am not so sure on this matter but i think thats whats true

however scenitst have prooved religion thoughts and ways wrong yet think back to the greeks they used theory of religion to explain why things happen such as lighting and rain and reflections however these were just ways to explain things but then they did belive in an afterlife

1 more thing if god created us as said he created us with thought and allows us to choose are own path and allows us to follow are own belives he made the universe as some say and allows us to explore and explain natrual event and 1 thing scientist do not know what is in a black hole, what is in the universe and beyond the stars, how we got here for thier is still much dispute over it bing bang and the moon crumbling and such i believe, and last is what is beyond am atom(i am not sure if its an atom) for we still can look at more and more smaller things to see what makes an atom and what makes the thing that makes an atom

At 8/5/08 05:17 PM, WorkingComedian wrote: however to atheist who belive when you die nothing happens you are very foolish and i do not understand how you can go through life beliving that when you die nothing happens and all youve known and loved is gone and you leave the earth with nothing except dirt on you 6 feet under

Of course! it all makes sense now! The afterlife not existing is simply too terrible to be true, so it simply must exist. It's simply impossible that something that horrible is true, don't you agree?

First off... Working Comedian... use punctuation more often.

At 8/5/08 05:17 PM, WorkingComedian wrote: the afterlife exist yet we don't know in what form

Regardless of whether an afterlife exists or not, people believe there is.

religions are made to suit people to give them leverage and hope to know what happens when they die

Beliefs are "made" to suit people in life. Religion reaches much further than creation and death. To reduce religion to "what people think happens when they die" is painfully narrow.

i believe that thier is other worldly forces and that when we die thier is an afterlife.

however to atheist who belive when you die nothing happens you are very foolish and i do not understand how you can go through life beliving that when you die nothing happens and all youve known and loved is gone and you leave the earth with nothing except dirt on you 6 feet under

This isn't even on topic.

however this then raises the question that the Mayans belived that the world shall end in 2012 and the new era of life will start

another thing the bible has in it is that alot of prophecies that i have heard have come true such as 9/11 being in thier and hurricans being predicted in a way yet then again

And what good is a vague prediction like 'Fire will rain from the sky. A great symbol shall crumble.' You can only apply the prediction after the fact, so exactly what use is it? - other than using it to prove itself.

on the scientific view point is that history repeats itself and that the world will start new religions and the old ones will go to a pile of garbage

Or the old ones will be revamped to maintain a following. Look at born-again christianity or evangelism.

however then brings another thought the light at the end of the tunnel some claim to see it when pronounced dead and then luckily revived by doctors on the religious view i dont know if it says that when you die thier is a light at the end of the tunnel but if that is true that would make religion true

The issue isn't whether religion is true or false. It is whether religion is relevant. If people see a light and attribute it to God, then whatever religion that God belongs to is probably relevant. If people see a light and attribute it to some physiological process, then that scientific theory is probably relevant.

And aside from all that. I just provided you an example where... two people may see the same thing, and make something completely different of it. So, no, seeing a light at the end of a tunnel does not make religion true. If that were the case... the fact that you have a hand is proof that religion is true, because people have hands in the Bible.

then on the flip side scientifically when you die isnt your brain still working in some way doesnt your brain still work when your heart stops i am not so sure on this matter but i think thats whats true

Chemical and thus electrical reactions continue to take place on the residual fuel brought to the cells by the blood. So yes, the brain continues to work. Additionally, you can shock dead bodies in a controlled fashion to make the bodies lift their arms etc.

however scenitst have prooved religion thoughts and ways wrong yet think back to the greeks they used theory of religion to explain why things happen such as lighting and rain and reflections however these were just ways to explain things but then they did belive in an afterlife

But there's more to religion than "this is why things happen".

At 8/1/08 08:14 PM, dark-fox wrote: Im a moron because I see that arguing won't help anything? And why are you trying to disect and analyze what I write? It is what it is buddy, life isn't as complex as you want it to be.

No, because what you said is asinine.

The belief that we should accept what everyone believes is absolutely fucking dangerous. Discourse of ideas and opinions not only allows people to better understand the world around us, but the fact is, some ideas are just plain detrimental.

And I'm "dissecting" and "analyzing" what you write, because that's what this forum is for. If you don't like everyone having differing opinions and debating them and picking other people's arguments apart, then you're in the wrong place. Bubbleheaded pseudo-philosophy isn't going to help anyone.

And, for the record, we're not all the same. That's a fucking retarded thing to say.

Beliefs aren't detrimental.

The beliefs are only dangerous if they concern actions.

Beliefs about these things don't matter.

That's what he means.

Everyone has a right to believe what they want.

That makes perfect sense unless I missed something.

At 8/5/08 05:56 PM, Gunter45 wrote:
And, for the record, we're not all the same.

It depends how you look at it.

But back on topic.

I think the bible is relevant today. Just as cheese is relevant today. It's an option, that can be chosen.

That's all it needs to be.

At 8/6/08 12:42 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: But back on topic.

I think the bible is relevant today. Just as cheese is relevant today. It's an option, that can be chosen.

That's all it needs to be.

Agreed. There's two types of knowledge in this world: spiritual and intellectual. You can excel in one and starve yourself of the other at your own discretion. You have a right to make yourself a religious fanatic, or opt to be more like PoxPower and assume your 5 senses as a human being overrule everything that's not empirical until proven otherwise.

For the most part, it's not even a question about religion. Most people just want the world to run in the candy land fashion they evens ion in their mind, i.e. no one starts bitching until beliefs start affecting laws. Which is always.

The Bible is relavent both spiritually as well as historically. It's among the most relevant piece of existing literature in the world, alongside the Quran, Confuscious, the Origin of Species, etc. etc.

Just remember to keep an open mind. You don't have anything to lose by reading the Bible. Unless you really, really hate religion or theology in general.

At 8/6/08 03:20 AM, Nylo wrote: The Bible is relavent both spiritually as well as historically. It's among the most relevant piece of existing literature in the world, alongside the Quran, Confuscious, the Origin of Species, etc. etc.

How exactly is Confucius' writings even remotely as relevant as Darwin's?

At 8/6/08 12:40 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: It depends how you look at it.

No, it doesn't. Calling something the same means you're looking at it in a comparative sense. By definition, it means that they don't have differences. There's a word for something that's not quite the same; we call it "similar."

Of course, even if you want to apply that word, it's so vague and watered down in context that saying "we're all similar" means absolutely nothing. My point being that it's a vapid thing to say and it brings nothing to the table other than letting me know that I should never take dark-fox seriously.

At 8/6/08 12:39 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Beliefs aren't detrimental.

The beliefs are only dangerous if they concern actions.

Beliefs about these things don't matter.

That's what he means.

Everyone has a right to believe what they want.

That makes perfect sense unless I missed something.

Everyone has a right to believe what they want, of course. However belief does happen to find its way into the realm of action on occasion. The belief that your race is superior and everyone else should die, for instance, is a dangerous belief. People have every right to believe it, of course, but that doesn't mean it's a healthy belief for someone to have, for themselves or society as a whole.

My original point being that it's perfectly valid to challenge someone's beliefs. Some beliefs are dangerous, some are just plain false, and some are just plain stupid. It's everyone's right to believe what they want, sure, but it's also everyone's right to voice their opinion about other people's beliefs. You can't have one without the other.

At any rate, I don't even know why I tried to open this to more discussion. I forgot that people only read the title, briefly scan the first post and then skim through a couple replies. Well, unless of course somebody replies to something the person said, in which case they'll go through that particular reply with a fine-tooth comb.

Either way, I'll just accept the fact that the thread is doomed to people posting their stupid, knee-jerk "lol, of course it's relevant, people still read it, har har" replies.

At 8/6/08 04:00 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: How exactly is Confucius' writings even remotely as relevant as Darwin's?

I guess that all depends on how you view human history. China's status as an empire had profoundly affected and influenced the way other nations began to govern their people. Darwin's writings are to science and reason what Confucious' writings were to government, civility, and stability.

I'm by no means saying that Confucius and Darwin are comparable when compared in one field, but rather for their time and place they put into motion huge strides and new ideas that advanced the way humans lived their lives and viewed the world around them.

seconded on that shaggy im afraid your understanding of biology is obviously from hearsay or intentionaly or unintentionaly garbled second hand accounts genetics DEFINATELY dousnt work like that.

However to say that the theory of evolution is without holes is also unjustified out current understanding of evolution lais at its foundation the slow genetic drift caused by random mutation and filtered by natural selection however many existing creatures show systems that could not have been developed in such a piecemeal fashion the classic example is the bombardier beetle who mixes volatile chemicals in its rear end to act as a distraction and an intimidation. There is almost no way such a system could develop piecemiel without the first piece being disastrously (and explosively) bad for the subjects mating prospects (not to mention his breathing prospects) and even if such a piece where developed it would not be apparently useful and would be ifnored or discouraged by natural selection once we factor in the chances of a second mutation pling on top of that then a third and fourth and couple in that a system this complex would need at least 100 stages to fully form and be useful and therefore promoted by natural selection your looking at soom pretty damn steep odds and im even being conservative with the figures. And indeed i know this is not the only example of such serendipity when it comes to evolution although i cant actually remember any off hand and cant be arsed to look em up. If anything this suggests the work of a will constructing the parts of a system all at once out of unrelated wholes in other words, a creator.

Its not hard evidence but its certainy compelling and while i firmly believe NO religious text is unbiased or uncorrupted thos doeis not mean that nuggets of wisdom do not lie theirin treat the bible for what it is an interesting philosophical and moral treatise written by a man thousands of years ago and not the "Word of God" cos its not USE your mind filter out the BS and maybe learn something from a dead man who tried to give the world a little peace.

sorry for all the typos somehow the unchecked version got posted .. whups

At 8/6/08 01:02 PM, Gunter45 wrote:
Either way, I'll just accept the fact that the thread is doomed to people posting their stupid, knee-jerk "lol, of course it's relevant, people still read it, har har" replies.

But, I think you just ended it with that nice little concise. You can't have one without the other. ;o

That's pretty much how it works, it begs a good question though. What if some new religion pops up, for instance, that focuses on violence, like extreme islam but instead of just being an offshoot it would be a real calling that millions of people would follow.

That would be a problem. Is this where we're going? I think you'll always have natural checks and balances in a human society, you'll always have the logical halves that will get things done, the religious/traditional side that will oppose these logical/changing forces, and then the lemmings that will do whatever.

How do you even put a real system on that? It's early and that's probably why, but where are you going exactly? Do you think we should control thoughts? Society does that to an extent. I think that's mainly why we're still so religious, but at the same time it's also why we're not.

ok then ill logically contribute. It just bothers me that people like pox and shaggy have to go on a 2 page flame war over something that can't currently be proven or disproven.

however, I believe the bible is still relevent today, since the text is still the same you can only base its relevancy on how you percieve the bibles stories yourself. And since we all percieve things differently the bible can't really be taken out as an outdated fairytale.

The bible could be made up of stories used to help guide peoples lives or it could be made up of actual events. So we could use the bible to some degree to base off of when conducting scientific research.

as einstein said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

I think gunter should again define just what exact sort of relevance we're looking at, since anything can be relevant in some way.

At 7/6/08 04:59 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: Since mankind is much smarter today than they were back in the day, this begs the question: is the Bible still relavent in today's society?

well the bible and christianity isnt about answering those kinds of questions really. bieng smart or dumb has nothing to do with religion. its about believing in a greater force in one way or another and thinking of why were are in existance. even if people were too smart for christianity and the bible they would use it because the church only unifies people in causes to help the homeless, love thy neighbor, ect ect. so i think the bible is a good read if you want to get active and make a difference for yourself and others. i think it is perfectly relevant in todays society

Without getting to deep into a religion dispute (Nobody ever wins in those anyway) I just want to ask, does ANYTHING explain EVERYTHING? You really can't say something is wrong without knowing what is right.

The way I look at it, I believe in your Christ, I just don't believe in your Christianity. Religion isn't all bad, it's just that sometimes people get truly carried away. Fundamentalists and extremists are like this. From a philosophical viewpoint, sure, the bible is still relevant. As has been said several times in this topic, the teachings from the bible are prevalent in any society in which the religion of Christianity has ever been prevalent. In the U.S., much of our constitution was based on the teachings of the bible, and God is referenced several times in it, starting from the beginning with the Preamble. As far as a scientific viewpoint, no, the bible is not going to be relevant in science because the bible is based on faith while science is based on fact. That's a base fact. But when you look at it from the perspective as well of society on the whole, much of society thrives on the fact there is something after death. I wouldn't go so far as to say there would be pure anarchy if there were no eternal consequences of our actions, but you have to agree that it does help to believe that if you are good in life, good will befall you in the next life. The problem is that religion has stopped being a thing where you can rejoice and praise life and whatever deity you follow, but has started to almost become it's own self sustaining government. In fact, for much of our past, the Catholic church WAS a government, look at the Papal States in Italy. As far as the bible goes, it is a tool. As with any tool, it may not serve all purposes, but it still has it's uses for any society.