Why is religion so persistent?

once humans stop worshipping "imaginary" gods and creating rules to live their lives by, we might pssibly see that most of the todays world's problems will be non-existent.

i was thinking of saying "why the need to have religions?" but then, i thought, some people NEED religion to make sense of their existence...but then people who dont believe in religions can also make sense of their existence in other ways...but what about the moral implications? some people feel religion is a way of life, something that provides them with the moral values that they consider important in their lives.
on the other hand, people who dont follow religions, such as myself, still have a sense of what is wrong and right, but basically supported by our own experiences, etc

so it makes me think......is is a human thing to follow something greater than themselves? ---> would that be the starting point of all religions?
or is it just a whole bunch of lies and manipulation tactics?

oh man, you're making me think too much with this one.

 

If the God of the Bible is imaginary, why are all the Bible prophecies coming true?

 

I know a woman who used to write the horoscope section for a local newspaper. She said that she got feedback all the time about how amazingly accurate her horoscopes were and how she must really be able to read the stars, etc.

She would laugh about it because obviously it was all completely made up. She had no beleif in astrology, let alone any ability to derive truth from the positions of heavenly bodies. She just tried to be as general as possible and write about things that would probably be very universal and apply to lots of people's lives.

e.g. "you will soon have a major opportunity. don't let it pass."

The same phenomena applies to so called prophecies. People can read any prophecy as having been true with the benefit of hindsight and interpretation.

 

Well the Bible is far more detailed than your woman friend. And the Bible does not leave it up to a person as to the prophecies fulfillment. The God of the Bible stated that just before He would return to this earth there would be certain signs to watch for. One of those signs would be the return of the Jews to Israel. God said that when they return they would first take south Israel then latter they would take Jerusalem. South Israel was taken in 1948 Jerusalem was taken in 1967. All of that was fulfilled just as the Bible said it would be. Another sign we were to watch for is that an addition would be added onto Jerusalems old East Gate. The orginal East Gate was buried but hundreds of years later another gate was built on top of that gate. The the Bible stated that the new gate would be sealed up. About 400 years ago the gate was bricked up and has been sealed ever since. Then the Bible stated that the Gate would never be opened until Christ returned to earth and He alone would be the only one who will walk through it. The Bible also stated that not to worry the prophecy of the gate would not fail. When the Moslems found out about the prophecy they decided to break down the gate to stop the prophecy from happening. So in 1917 the Moslems tried to crash through the Gate. Well as things would have it just as they were going to do that the British invaded Jerusalem and the Moslems had to drop their picks and sholves and run for their lives. Well as time passed British rule ended in Jerusalem and the Moslems were back in control again. This time the thought came back to them to tear down the gate again. With picks and sholves assembled they were about to finish the job they started in 1917. However this time it was 1967 and on the very day they were to knock down the gate the Jews entered the city and once again they failed to open the gate just as the Bible said they would. The East gate remains sealed today and it will be opened only when Jesus Christ returns as He passes by it on His way to the temple mount. The Bible states that in the day that the Jews are back in Israel nations will be able to destroy cities in one hours time and the Bible states that at the end of time perlous times shall come. Christ said Himself if it were not for His coming man would surley destroy himself. The Bible is filled with prophecies about the last days here on earth, and they are not vague but very specific.

 

what prophecies?? i'm not aware of that.
I can't believe that the bible is the word of god, since god is supposedly a spiritual entity...so how can you trust human beings saying that what is written on the bible is the word of god?

 

The Bible is the word of God because all the authors for the 66 books were inspired by the holy spirit when they wrote. Read it for yourself and you might understand, otherwise you're going on heresay.

 

any book, by definition, is heresay. ...and if what you say were true, then God or JC or whatever you call him has quite a sense of humor. I mean do you really not believe in evolution? Do you believe the Earth is only 5000 years old? I mean hell, even the Pope has admitted that was bullshit.

as for all that prophecy nonsense, those weak examples given don't sound any better than your typical horoscope to me. Just wishful thinking.

 

i see your point, but then i totally disagree. I am a former catholic, brought up in a catholic school and was brainwashed with all the bible stuff from an early age. I never understood why we had to believe that the bible was the word of god, even as a young child i questioned the logic...How can god have written the bible? how could men write what god says if it's a spirit or whatever...and the holy spirit, how can men be influenced by the holy spirit...they could've been on drugs and believed that they were actually been influenced by the "holy spirit" but then how can you prove it did or didnt happen, no-ne whos alive today was there as a witness.
i refuse to believe such claims that say in order to reach "goodness" you have to follow "god's word"....on a similar context i've met the nastiest religious people in my life, who lied, cheated and then you saw them in church reading the bible...i find its a really hyprocrite attitude, while i've met the most caring and lovely people, who happened to be atheist or non religious, so why religion? whats its purpose? why believe in something that has no solid evidence...it's like believing in the horoscope as a hipforumer said above.

 

That's all you have?.... "those are weak examples" ....talking about being general

 

Exactly where does it say in the bible that all the authors were God inspired? The argument is merely speculative presumtion.
Right now I'm inspired to write this. Who or what is my inspiration? Given that the kingdom of God is within me, I am God inspired, and so is everyone.

 

Perhaps the most direct statement about the inspiration of the Bible is

2 Timothy 3:16, which says that "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

 

...um way to jump into the discussion with a completely meaningless post.


Yay! someone finally broke the tie in the poll.

I am interested to hear if any of y'all fundies actually disbelieve evolution or do believe that the Earth is only 5000 years old, as the bible suggests.

 

outgrow religion, yes in that religion is a search for god, christianity isn't even technically a religion, in it's right and proper form, not saying that it isn't for many (many many) and the reason for religion is that man needs immortality (all behaviours break down to that)

 

Human beings wrote the Bible but they did not author it. For only God knows the future and in the Old Testament alone there are over 300 prophecies that fortell the coming of Christ hundreds of years before He was even born. Even the 30 peices of silver He was bretrayed for is spoken of in the Old Testament. His birth place, His dieing, for the sins of the world, the rejection of His own people will all be found there, and much more. Also in the Old and New testament it states that before the return of Christ to this world the Jews will return to Israel and retake Jerusalem, and the East Gate of Jerusalem will remain sealed until Christ returns and opens it. There is much about the future in the Bible and only God could known these things.

 

I don't consider 300 prophecies written before the birth of Christ weak, especially when you consider Christ fulfilled everyone of them. As far as evolution it is your own people who are now coming out and stateing that after 150 years of research they have not found one fossil that demonstrates trans-species. The Bible has obseravable evidence for it's claims, evolution in the fossil record does not. The fact is, it requires more blind faith to believe evolution that to believe in the Bible. Some of the greatest evidence which would prove the Bible is being kept from the world by moslem nations because of politics and religion. Yet I believe even this will soon be revealed to the world.

 

Why do so many believe it is necessary to divide truth into opposing sides, to pick one side over the other and then seek to destroy the opposition? This tendency has caused most of the suffering that humanity has faced, individually and collectively.

Is it too difficult to consider the possibility that more than one thing at a time can be true? Can you recognize and respect the fact that science and religion (and art and mythology) are valid searches for truth? Do you really believe that one piece of truth negates all others?

What if both the Bible AND the theory of natural selection are true?

Consider this:

The first two chapters of Genesis and the theory of natural selection both offer an explanation for reality's becoming what it is today. Both describe the period of time before human beings existed. We know that something happened. But, because no one (but God, if you will) was there to know, to experience, directly, exactly what happened, you and I and everyone else are left with only (presumably true) stories and, well, reality itself to tell us about why and how reality became what it is.

Reality exists. I hope everyone can agree on this one truth, at the very least.

The story of Genesis tells us why reality became what it is. God said let there be . . . everything, and everything became what it is. Genesis states that God created all of this, while simultaneously recognizing and loving his creation as good. For what it's worth, I have always loved the idea that the very first expression of God was an act of creativity, awareness and love. In my way of thinking, this suggests that God IS Creativity itself, Consciousness itself, and Love itself (and much more, of course). I can live with that.

Genesis does not tell us a single detail about how God created all of this. Go ahead and read it again, there is not a single recipe, no blueprint, no instructions (not even metaphysical intructions) that dictate the manner in which reality is to become . . . all of this. It is a purely spiritual story.

The story of how reality is, is what science seeks. Evolution deals with the forms that life takes, how life forms become what they are. The Theory of Natural Selection is contained in four simple, irrefutable statements:

1) All life tends to over-abundantly reproduce. Every pair of parents tends to produce far more than two offspring.
2) Considerable variations exist among individuals of each generation. No two creatures are exactly the same. Nor are they equally healthy, athletic, intelligent, attentive and temperamental.
3) Variations allow some individuals to adapt to their environment more easily than others. The difference of a single adaptive trait, like an ability to smell sugar, may mean the difference between finding food or starving to death.
4) Only those individuals who adapt to their environment tend to live long enough to reproduce. Only those individuals who live long enough to reproduce get to pass the genes responsible for their adaptive traits to the next generation.

5) Survival traits accumulate in successive generations, thereby altering the species. Eventually, most of the surviving members of a population will be descendants of those who have the most adaptive traits for their environment. Given enough time and environmental cause, a population will change enough to become a separate species that is no longer able to breed with its genetic neighbors.

Provided that they are reproductively healthy, any man and any woman can create a child together. But, despite the fact that we are 98.5% genetically identical, Humans and Chimpanzees cannot produce offspring (don't think about it too much, ya perv). Humans and Chimpanzees are separate species.

Evolution is all about the changing forms of life, but it does not answer the deeper question of what life really is. Science does not oppose religion. Science simply places its primary focus on the materials and processes, the simplest understanding of the physical expression of reality. If anything, one's faith should be strengthened by a better understanding of science. When one gets a glimpse of the mysterious workings of the universe, one cannot help but have a sense of humility, wonder and inspiration about the mysterious elegance of even the simplest things.

So in an attempt to reconcile creationism and evolution, I ask a simple question (or two, or three) . . . What if . . .

What if this realization of one's spiritual nature is what actually makes one human? What if Adam simply represents the first man to realize that he was spiritual in nature? This doesn't negate pre-human life (which both science and the Bible say existed) it just means that real humanity began with the spiritual awakening of some unknown human we refer to as Adam.

Is it at least possible that Jesus (and Abraham, Buddha, Mohammed, Lao Tsu, Krishna and company) come to remind us, at any cost, what we human beings had forgotten about God . . . about Love, Consciousness and Creativity?

Have we forgotten all of this once again?

Just a thought . . .

Peace and Love,

 

Evolution and creationism aren't mutually exclusive, just certain forms of each, I'm willing to take a look at anything so long as the bible doesn't directly say it's wron, then I'll tend to put mor weight on the new testament

 

and the protozoa begat the ameoba...
and the ameoba begat the oozeball...
and the oozeball begat the dinosaur...
and then the arabs came and found all the oil and got rich as fuck...
and then financed GW Bush's conquest of the world...
just as it was prophecied in the book of chutzpah.

Wow. This kook is actually disclaiming evolution. "No evidence in the fossil record". That's rich!

 

"When a man sacrifices himself to his religion, the first thing to go is his mind."

It's apparent to all but those in denial of the fallability of their beliefs that bible prophecy is being manipulated so as to conform with belief.

The Bible records numerous prophecies throughout the Old and New Testaments. The Bible also either records their fulfillment, or suggests that they have been fulfilled, or are posited as waiting to be fulfilled beyond the scope of history recorded in its pages. In some cases, some apologists actually believe that some prophecies have a duplicitous nature: that a single prophecy can be interpreted in having two intended events of fulfillment. One such case is the famous Isaiah 7:14 case. This verse is translated in the KJV as follows: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; 'Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." This was a prophecy directed to Ahaz and an upcoming battle (i.e., an event in the near-future). Christians (beginning with the author(s) of Matthew in the New Testament) concede that this verse had a prophetic intention in the near-future of its recording (i.e., the upcoming battle viz. Ahaz - the "first interpretation"), but also argue that this verse had a long-range prophetic projection that was fulfilled in Jesus' 'virgin birth' (the "second interpretation"). However, we see why this cannot be so. Observe Tim Callahan's criticism of this second interpretation (regarding Jesus' virgin birth) and why this view of Isaiah 7:14 is a sham:
The same verse [Is. 7:14], as rendered in the Revised Standard Version, says that a "young woman" will conceive. The confusion came from the fact that the word used in Hebrew, almah, meaning a young woman of marriageable age, was translated into Greek in the Septuagint as parthenos or "virgin." Had the Hebrew meant to say virgin it would have used bethulah, which means specifically a virgin. Thus, Is. 7:14 was not a prophecy of anyone's virgin birth, despite [apologist Josh] McDowell's attempts to reconcile almah with parthenos [here Callahan refers to McDowell's book Evidence That Demands a Verdict, pp. 145-146].

In any case, the child Immanuel was supposed to have been born in the first year of King Ahaz, 742 BCE, over 700 years before Jesus. How could this prophecy possibly refer to Jesus? Fundamentalists justify this through their doctrine of types. As [apologist] Gleason Archer puts it [Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pg. 266]:

From the references that follow, it is quite apparent that there is to be a type of Immanuel who will be born in near future as proof that God is with his people to deliver them. Yet also an antitype will be born in the more remote future who will be both God and man, and He will deliver his people not only from human oppressors but also from sin and guilt.

There is absolutely nothing in Isaiah [chapter] 7 that would lead anyone to conclude that Isaiah was speaking of anything but his own time. This is particularly true when we consider that Isaiah does speak of things which are plainly meant to be future events, such as in chapter 11. Often [the author of Isaiah] prefaces such remarks with phrases such as "In that day." The doctrine of types is simply a way in which fundamentalists get to have their cake and eat it too. [2]
One of the main points I want to emphasize here, though, is the fact that the belief that prophecies have been fulfilled usually rests on belief that the Bible is genuinely true history. Thus, reliance upon the notion of "fulfilled prophecies" to secure belief may well fall under the "yes" answer to my question above. Asserting that the Bible's prophecies were fulfilled can only be backed up by yet more appeals to the Bible, thus the believer still shows himself to be accepting the teachings of the Bible unquestioningly. He accepts the assumption that the events prophesied were actually prophesied before they occurred; he accepts the assumption that the alleged "prophecy" can be shown to be a legitimate prophecy (i.e., instead of a vague forecast whose 'fulfillment' could be ascribed virtually to any future event that seems to fulfill it [e.g., "A star will arise when your fate has been sealed" - well, stars "rise" every evening - too vague, no specifics, the 'prophecy' is fulfilled at dusk every day], or instead of a reasonable guess that requires no supernatural revelation to conclude [e.g., a tribal nation is experiencing unceasing friction from another tribal nation, and the "prophet" predicts that one day there will be a military clash - your donut-baker could predict as much...], etc.).
The believer also assumes that, supposing the 'prophecy' of the event actually did predate the event in question, that some intentional manipulation was not engaged in order to 'fulfill' the prophecy. For instance, I could "prophesy" that on January 1, 2000, I will no longer work for my current employer. That's quite easy to fulfill - I simply resign from my job before that date, and the 'prophecy' turns out to be true. Ascribing such activity as 'evidence' of divine intervention or 'revelation' is as desperate as hoping the tooth fairy heals my cavity before the dentist discovers it and proceeds to drill for fillings!

Does the Bible have any prophecies that resembles the latter? Check it out for yourself. In a section called "That Scripture Might Be Fulfilled" (pg. 129 of Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment?), Callahan writes:

A category of supposed prophecies where faith must be the final arbiter is when such a phrase as, "This was done so that scripture might be fulfilled," occurs, which appears in the fulfillments of three of the prophecies on [Callahan's] list (#25, 27, 52). In these supposed fulfillments either Jesus or the gospel writer refers directly back to the verse [apologist] McDowell claims as the prophecy and says that this or that was done to fulfill it. This smacks of deliberate fulfillment. For example (#25), Psalms 78:2 says, "I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old..." McDowell uses Matthew 13:34, that Jesus spoke to the people only in parables, as fulfillment. But Mt. 13:34 says that Jesus did this to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet and quotes Ps. 78:2. Deliberate fulfillment could be done by the Messiah to tell the people that he was the one, or it could be done by either an imposter or someone who thought, erroneously, that he was the Messiah. Of course all of these possibilities assume that this was not a fictioin added by the author of Matthew. The fulfillment of Zech. 9:9, that the Messiah will come riding on an ass, is seen in the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem on an ass (#27). But Matthew 21:4 says that this was done to fulfill Zech. 9:9, which again smacks of deliberate fulfillment.

(Also, regarding the "ass prophecy" of Zech. 9:9, note that Matthew misinterpreted the OT verse in question (Zech. 9:9) as meaning two asses. Because of this misinterpretation, Matthew has Jesus sitting astride them both (Matt. 21:5-7), while John 12:13-15 has Jesus sitting only on one!! Meanwhile, involved in the same "fulfillment" are two more problems: First, Matthew has Jesus instruct his disciples to steal the ass and her colt (two animals, mind you), for Jesus is recorded to have instructed them thus:

[Jesus said] unto them, "Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. And if any man say aught unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them, and straightway he will send them." [Matt. 21:2-3]

This is nothing short of instructing common horsetheiving! This flies in the face of the commandments that Jesus is reported to have endorsed, which means Jesus was a hypocrite at best. Second, John chapter 12 does not record Jesus' instructions to steal an ass and her colt. Instead, John, probably because he felt his savior was above instructing men to steal for him, simply stumbles upon an ass. Note John 12:14: "And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon..." Note, John's ass is singular as opposed to Matthew's doublet - an ass and her colt.)

But what about prophecies that can allegedly be confirmed by some source outside the Bible? What about them? How are they any different, or any better off? Indeed, they are not, for where they avoid the circularity of pure self-reference in the Bible, they also lack reported history of the prophecy itself. For instance, Ezekiel chapter 26 offers a prophecy involving many specifics, which both apologists Josh McDowell (Evidence That Demands a Verdict, pp. 274-280) and Gleason Archer (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pp. 276-277) claim was fulfilled in whole. And other apologists argue the same, even though Ezekiel 26:21 states of Tyre, "I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet thou shalt never be found again, saith the Lord God," but the city of Tyre still exists to this very day!!! Ezekiel's prophecy is that Tyre will be destroyed (26:7-14) and that Tyre will never be rebuilt (26:14). In other words, the prophecy is such that Tyre should neither exist now nor its ruins and rubble not be found today. (Callahan meticulously dispels the myth of this allegedly "fulfilled" prophecy in his book, pp. 97-99. Other critics of the Bible have also pointed out this Bible failure as well. Do a search at www.infidels.org for the word "Tyre" and see what results come up. You'll be amazed. There are some links below as well that you may find interesting.)

But where is this prophecy recorded outside the Bible? If one seeks a standard outside the Bible to attest to a particular prophecy's fulfillment, why is there no search for verification of the prophecy itself outside the Bible also, in order to prove that the prophecy actually predated the event supposed to fulfill it? Did the citizens of Tyre leave any remaining histories containing the record of such a prophecy against them? What about the Chaldeans? What about the Greeks? What about any other neighbor in the vicinity that could have kept such records?

Thus, appealing outside the Bible to confirm its teachings is, as expected, normally incomplete.

Some believers have attempted to evade giving an answer to the question, "Do you accept the teachings of the Bible unquestioningly?" by arguing that the authority of the Bible is accepted on the authority of the church. But this does not relieve the problem of the original question, it merely postpones the inevitable confession: either the teachings of the Bible are accepted before they are scrutinized, or one has made appeal to some extra-biblical 'authority' to accept these claims. But, to complicate things further, asserting church authority as a means of evading the issue merely creates the obvious question: Do you accept the assertions of the church unquestioningly?

Again, as above, a 'yes' is the confession that the assertions of the church are accepted before they are scrutinized.

Likewise, a 'no' is the confession that some 'authority' outside the church is appealed to judge the assertions of the church.

And arguing that the church finds its authority in the Bible, but that the Bible finds its authority in the church, is no better than any argument that Muslims can give in defense of their god-belief claims. Essentially speaking, they paint themselves into a corner. And, being stuck in that corner, they continue their attempts to convince those who are not stuck in their same predicament to join them in their conceptual captivity. Some are quite clever indeed in making a believable case, but as you can see, a few simple questions are sufficient to prick their otherwise benign little bubble.

Source ~
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/Thorn2.html

​

 

The Bible is not a book about the search for truth, it is the truth. Those who have forgotten God, are the one's who ignore His word. And if Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Lao Tsu, Krishna have come to remind us of what we have forgotten, then they must all be LIARS because they all tell a different story. Yet only one of them fulfilled the 300 plus prophecies of the Old Testament. And that was Jesus Christ. And Jesus stated, "I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but by Me.