Do You Believe In God?

[Yil]

How about we stop thinking about "God" and start thinking about these organized religions. There are an uncountable amount of religions in the world, they all think they know the answers. Whatever you believe, is simply a matter of your geographic area, for the most part. Mormon? Odds are you were born a Mormon. Baptist? Most likely born into it. Muslim? (Good luck converting without getting your head chopped off.)

If any of these religions are correct, only one of them is correct. They all contradict each other. You roll the dice and get... Christianity, lucky you. The decision to pick Christianity was hardly a choice, but you've thought about it well and you believe it is true.

You're now looking at a 32.5% chance that you were lucky enough to have rolled the correct religion. Let's say best case scenario is that God is real, you're still probably not right, and you were born and raised in a phony cult. Odds that God is real * %of the world that follows that religion.

Maybe, just maybe you hit the jackpot, or maybe you just found a cult that exploited all your weaknesses and fullfilled your desires with lies, .

Most of the creation stories are wrong, but that does not mean those gods does not exist. It is just to boost human ego to a new degree and who ever believes in it get to claim themselves superior above all else.

By the way the chart exceed 100%.

Seriously why does everyone think whatever deities that came to us and seek mortal worship is the creator? It (or is it 'them') does not require faith to exist or become more powerful as opposed to most deities seeking those. Quite a number of deities are not to be considered a force of nature (which nature include but goes far beyond the earth or this universe), and just want to mess with our lives, that they either are not interested at all or stop caring at one point and deem themselves superior.

 

[ReigningSemtex]

Yeah I believe in God as much as I do father Christmas, Easter bunny and the tooth fairy

 

[jamieyello]

Pff, not my chart. Rounding errors? That doesn't even take into account the other faiths section. Yeah this is a piss chart. Oh well. It just about looks like any other chart you can find on Google.

 

[osirisjem]

It takes as little as 6 months of The TEMP to remove even the stubbornest of God-fearing ways.
Members having visited > 5 years have an "I believe in God" rate under 1 percent.

And That's a FACT (TM) !

 

[Yil]

Yeah I believe in God as much as I do father Christmas, Easter bunny and the tooth fairy

Funny thing is Christmas is stolen from Paganism. Good time to grab money and gifts from parents. Father Christmas is an actual priest.

 

[Futurdreamz]

I do not consider the bible to be an accurate portrayal of events or to be relevant in this day and age, but I do accept that there's probably something out there.

 

[RevPokemon]

Funny thing is Christmas is stolen from Paganism. Good time to grab money and gifts from parents. Father Christmas is an actual priest.

Most of the things from Christianity are from other ANE religion or are largely taken the wrong way. For example the virgin birth is not really biblical as most scholars and serious theologians agree that "a young girl" is probably a much better translation.

 

[SonicCloud]

I believe in god, but its not like im a die-hard catholic fan.



Neither i go to the church every Sunday / have read the bible entirely. In fact, ever since i was a child we only went to a church when it was a special event like a weeding or baby shower oops

 

[filfat]

If i believe in a God? No, I usually don't believe things at all without evidence, I need real proof (feelings and voices in your head aren't). The idea of a God in itself is just completely absurd since it goes against all and every logic we have evolved to have.

On the subject of what happens after you die, that's easy. It's nothing. Really, nothing. The neurons in your brain stop firing therefore you can't interpret anything which equals nothingness. It's like turning off a computer, only it'll be such degraded after a few minutes that you can't turn it on again. No matter what religious people argue. You won't be a part of an afterlife since you physically won't be there, and neither will your brain which contains you (it's like copying a file from a flash drive to your pc they will still contain the same data bot won't be the same materia and therefore isn't the same).

 

[Yil]

If i believe in a God? No, I usually don't believe things at all without evidence, I need real proof (feelings and voices in your head aren't). The idea of a God in itself is just completely absurd since it goes against all and every logic we have evolved to have.

On the subject of what happens after you die, that's easy. It's nothing. Really, nothing. The neurons in your brain stop firing therefore you can't interpret anything which equals nothingness. It's like turning off a computer, only it'll be such degraded after a few minutes that you can't turn it on again. No matter what religious people argue. You won't be a part of an afterlife since you physically won't be there, and neither will your brain which contains you (it's like copying a file from a flash drive to your pc they will still contain the same data bot won't be the same materia and therefore isn't the same).

There is more illogical to say that just because you cannot perceive that they are not there. But an intelligent person can tell the difference between illusion, mysterious and known source of perception. Holograms, for example, is not an illusion but not tangible either.
Oh but there are more than one part in the body that can process information, and more capable of achieving a more complex form. And no, this is not the quantum cloud.
Edit: brain -> cloud

 

[SonicCloud]

If i believe in a God? No, I usually don't believe things at all without evidence, I need real proof (feelings and voices in your head aren't). The idea of a God in itself is just completely absurd since it goes against all and every logic we have evolved to have.

On the subject of what happens after you die, that's easy. It's nothing. Really, nothing. The neurons in your brain stop firing therefore you can't interpret anything which equals nothingness. It's like turning off a computer, only it'll be such degraded after a few minutes that you can't turn it on again. No matter what religious people argue. You won't be a part of an afterlife since you physically won't be there, and neither will your brain which contains you (it's like copying a file from a flash drive to your pc they will still contain the same data bot won't be the same materia and therefore isn't the same).

So...Do we only see like if we we're closing our eyes?



*not trying to make controversial posts. just saying

 

[Lacius]

So...Do we only see like if we we're closing our eyes?



*not trying to make controversial posts. just saying

Closing our eyes is an experience. Death is the end of experience. It's difficult to conceptualize and is more analogous to the time before your conception and birth.

 

[Foxchild]

Most of the things from Christianity are from other ANE religion or are largely taken the wrong way. For example the virgin birth is not really biblical as most scholars and serious theologians agree that "a young girl" is probably a much better translation.

Just wanted to give the other side to this before I head to bed... You're referring to Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son..."(NIV). In the hebrew, the word for "virgin" there can also be legitimately translated "young woman". I've seen some defend "virgin" by pointing out that a young woman having a kid isn't much of a sign - which is a fair point but doesn't exactly clinch the argument. More convincingly the entire Old Testament (including this passage) was translated from Hebrew to Greek around (too lazy to google exact date right now) 300-400 BC (I wanna say 380). This translation was done by 70 Jewish scholars and is known as the Septuagint or LXX translation. It is well documented that this translation was completed several centuries before Jesus was born. How did they translate this passage? They used the greek "virgo" which can only mean "virgin". So, clearly, these scholars believed that the prophet Isaiah's original intent was a prediction of a virgin birth.

Now, I'll grant you that it can't exactly be proven that Mary gave birth to Jesus while still a virgin, but I think it's pretty clear that the prophecy in question referred to a virgin and not a young woman. Also, while a virgin birth isn't provable, just making the claim of having a virgin mother is of some significance, if only because there can't be too many people in the history of the planet who have even attempted to make the claim. Couple that with the other Old Testament prophecies (again written centuries or more before Christ's birth), that the Messiah's hands and feet would be pierced, that he would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that he would be born in Bethlehem but called a Nazarene, descended from King David, be declared king while riding a donkey into Jerusalem (and that that would occur exactly 173,880 days after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem's walls), etc., with many of those over 300 prophecies being more specific than most people realize, the odds of one man doing all that, even if intentionally trying to fulfill that stuff is pretty much impossible.

 

[RevPokemon]

I've seen some defend "virgin" by pointing out that a young woman having a kid isn't much of a sign - which is a fair point but doesn't exactly clinch the argument. More convincingly the entire Old Testament (including this passage) was translated from Hebrew to Greek around (too lazy to google exact date right now) 300-400 BC (I wanna say 380). This translation was done by 70 Jewish scholars and is known as the Septuagint or LXX translation. It is well documented that this translation was completed several centuries before Jesus was born. How did they translate this passage? They used the greek "virgo" which can only mean "virgin". So, clearly, these scholars believed that the prophet Isaiah's original intent was a prediction of a virgin birth.

A few things to keep in mind
The translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which was completed in the late 2nd century BCE, translated almah into Greek as παρθένος (parthenos), which generally means "virgin". One issie is that you must ask how sufficient was thier knowledge of the greek language? Back then there really was not a word for word system so the translators had to at times make an educated guess. Likewise many jewish leaders were against it sonce they felt Hebrew was the Holy language and they had some other issues with it as well sich as the source Hebrew text. Even most early Christians disagreed over the doctrine and favored adoptionism of Christ.

Likewise you can see that it is interesting it is not verified by Paul amd is seldom evem mentioned. You would think something so wonderful would be discussed more but it is not. I believe that it was probably added to stress the importance of Christ yet also to a degree is under utilised in the Bible, perhaps t is since the other authors did not view it as valid or that it was latter added (keep in mind the true order of the NT is much different.).

Like wise i feel under current scholarship and understanding it is safe to say the correct term is young woman and that Jesus was probably not born of a virgin and that there is a chance Paul and otgers did not believe him to be born of a virgin either.

Now, I'll grant you that it can't exactly be proven that Mary gave birth to Jesus while still a virgin, but I think it's pretty clear that the prophecy in question referred to a virgin and not a young woman. Also, while a virgin birth isn't provable, just making the claim of having a virgin mother is of some significance, if only because there can't be too many people in the history of the planet who have even attempted to make the claim. Couple that with the other Old Testament prophecies (again written centuries or more before Christ's birth),

As stated you have to ask did they really happen? Many of them were most likely things that did not happen in a literal sense but instead to teach morals. In fact a majority of mainstream scholars view the stories of the nature miracles as metaphorical narratives rather than as historical reports. Think of it as Jesus told parables of people amd they told ones of him often to display ideas. To that point i feel it is wrong to take the Bible literally when it was not meant to be so.

 

[filfat]

So...Do we only see like if we we're closing our eyes?
*not trying to make controversial posts. just saying

No, in this context "nothing" is something. When you die, there's no more "you". You can't see, you can't think, you don't exist. we can't comprehend such a scenario which is why weak-minded people turn to religion which lies in some "everybody lived happily ever after" way.

 

[Foxchild]

To that point i feel it is wrong to take the Bible literally when it was not meant to be so.

I agree, and discernment is necessary to know where to take literally and where figuratively. Parables,dreams/visions, metaphors, poetry, etc = not literally. Most anything else, though, the burden of proof ought to be on finding textual evidence that a passage was not meant literally or otherwise it should be regarded at face value. It seems a lot of Christians default to a "just take it figuratively" position because they feel it will be easier to defend. What they don't realize is that the opposite is true. Case-in-point:

Concerning the virgin birth, even if there were only one mention in the canon that would be sufficient for those who take the scripture seriously. For those bothered by the apparent lack of mention, however, it is fortunate that God designed the Bible to be tamper-resistant with key doctrines dispersed throughout so that removing one or two passages from consideration would not detract from the whole. In this instance, those who claim the lack of early church belief in the virgin birth forget that literally every time Jesus is called the Son of God it assumes the virgin birth. If you check Acts, this was the first thing Paul preached about Jesus and he calls Him that throughout his epistles. Now, I realize that we could debate exactly what the term "son of God" means, but you'll find that in scripture it only ever refers to one of two things, and both preclude normal, biological parentage. Either a being without parents at all who is a direct creation of God (Adam in Luke, angels in a couple places, etc.), or as we see in the famous John 3:16, someone who was literally fathered by God, as Jesus makes the claim to be the "only begotten" son of God - the only being to literally be fathered by God. So, really, if someone is going to discount the virgin birth, they would have to exegete their way out of the most famous verse in the Bible. Well, either that or take the easy way out and say "lots of scholars dismiss most of the gospel of John as inaccurate because reasons" then conveniently forget that they have to deal with the rest of the New Testament as well.

 

[DustingtonZDX]

Are you talking about Arceus?

 

[SonicCloud]

No, in this context "nothing" is something. When you die, there's no more "you". You can't see, you can't think, you don't exist. we can't comprehend such a scenario which is why weak-minded people turn to religion which lies in some "everybody lived happily ever after" way.

nvm, to early to ask that ...

 

[jamieyello]

Personally I feel like since I was dead before I was born reincarnation must be a thing in some way. Then if you take the odds that you exist at this exact place in time that you're alive, say you're actually able to witness being dead for eternity in some way, what are the odds that you are not experiencing the void/afterlife right now? Pretty much nothing.

That is my "educated guess", that you can't experience being dead, and if you ever experience anything ever again it would be in another place at another time.

Actually when I was 12 (I was a strange kid) I worried that after you die, at some point the universe will eventually go through all possible combinations of the positions of matter, and eventually it would loop, so I'd have to be extremely careful about how good my life is because I'm going to experience it an infinite amount of times. Of course as a kid I was also taught to be afraid of hell too.

 

[RevPokemon]

Concerning the virgin birth, even if there were only one mention in the canon that would be sufficient for those who take the scripture seriously. For those bothered by the apparent lack of mention, however, it is fortunate that God designed the Bible to be tamper-resistant with key doctrines dispersed throughout so that removing one or two passages from consideration would not detract from the whole

I do not agree here. The issue is that the less it is mentioned the less reliable it is since it was/is not verified by other sources in that time such as the works attributed to Paul. Likewise if you were to remove the virgin birth a little bit it would show that there was less consensus by the true authors. The same goes for other miracles described in the 4 Gospels. Granted you could argue they left it out since they did not feel it was important but i feel if it literally happened then it would be included but if it were a metaphor then not including it would make sense.

. In this instance, those who claim the lack of early church belief in the virgin birth forget that literally every time Jesus is called the Son of God it assumes the virgin birth

Well the issue is that under adoptionism he was the Son of God although not born of the virgin. Like wise other beliefs in the early argued that he could not be born of a littiral virgin (some have argued it means pure as in sinless) in different ways. Regardless it makes sense the Church was divided but we have to realize that they had valid concerns and if we are to better understand Christianity we must understand them.

. Now, I realize that we could debate exactly what the term "son of God" means, but you'll find that in scripture it only ever refers to one of two things, and both preclude normal, biological parentage. Either a being without parents at all who is a direct creation of God (Adam in Luke, angels in a couple places, etc.), or as we see in the famous John 3:16, someone who was literally fathered by God, as Jesus makes the claim to be the "only begotten" son of God - the only being to literally be fathered by God.

First of all we could argue that the term "son of god" as you stated. First he could be the son of god via adoption as adoptionism proclaimed. Too i could be the be in the sense of Romans 8:14 were it says those of us led by the spirit are sons of god. Also in the old testament, Israel is called God's first born and judges of the law are called sons of the most high in Psalm 82. Likewise the book of Wisdom says righteous men are sons of God. So as you stated there are many ways you could take it but even if he is in the sense that you are implying that does not mean thpe virgin birth is real in a literal sense.

f someone is going to discount the virgin birth, they would have to exegete their way out of the most famous verse in the Bible. Well, either that or take the easy way out and say "lots of scholars dismiss most of the gospel of John as inaccurate because reasons" then conveniently forget that they have to deal with the rest of the New Testament as well.

I agree that it would cause some issues but ultimately the goal as Christians is to have the most sound and accurate view and interpretation of the scriptires even if it goes against what was at times considered Orthodox. Scholars care about the bible and try to help us get to the point of getting the "true" understanding even though it is very difficult to do because of a variety of reasons. Ultimately as you ststed, I do not feel the entire NT depends on one verse but nevertheless scholarship of the bible is needed even if it would require a drastically different take on Christianity .

Are you talking about Arceus?

Thats debatable as many fans have also argued it could be mew since he is the anccestor of all Pokémon (which could be taken as a Creator or God) or atleast would give him more power then arceus.