Christian belief and the value of the study of the shroud of Turin

Always struck me as odd that the all knowing and powerful Oz's.... er, I mean God's..... behavior, suspiciously engenders a whole lot of human traits.

I find the whole judeo/christian/islam, got it from some book and a bunch of storytellers religions thing, as a means for explaining existence kind of like comparing a 2 year old's scribbling to the complexity of the art created by the greatest masters in terms of what's really going on.

Its not a stretch. Rehashed myths + 'wise' men/philosophers trying to civilize an uncivilized world through parables/storytelling + roman empire spreading christianity by sword + small enough world population to get a cult going fast = here we are.

At least it stands to reason, that if we are living in a simulated reality, then an afterlife will also be part of that simulation.  

[Laird]

Well it's in the bible so if they don't beleive it why are they using a book with that stuff in there as moral guidance?

Just a suggestion: perhaps take that question and think about how a Christian might answer it. It doesn't seem to me to be too difficult to come up with an answer.

I'm not arguing that Christianity or the Bible are perfect - I've already put some of my criticisms on record - but, wow, your attitude seems very one-sided. Like I said, I think I have a sense of where you're coming from, but maybe you could try to do the same for Christians?

Just a suggestion: perhaps take that question and think about how a Christian might answer it. It doesn't seem to me to be too difficult to come up with an answer.

I'm not arguing that Christianity or the Bible are perfect - I've already put some of my criticisms on record - but, wow, your attitude seems very one-sided. Like I said, I think I have a sense of where you're coming from, but maybe you could try to do the same for Christians?

Can we have the question clarified?  I didn't understand what the problem was.

Always struck me as odd that the all knowing and powerful Oz's.... er, I mean God's..... behavior, suspiciously engenders a whole lot of human traits.

I find the whole judeo/christian/islam, got it from some book and a bunch of storytellers religions thing, as a means for explaining existence kind of like comparing a 2 year old's scribbling to the complexity of the art created by the greatest masters in terms of what's really going on.

Its not a stretch. Rehashed myths + 'wise' men/philosophers trying to civilize an uncivilized world through parables/storytelling + roman empire spreading christianity by sword + small enough world population to get a cult going fast = here we are.

At least it stands to reason, that if we are living in a simulated reality, then an afterlife will also be part of that simulation.  

Well that's very knowledgeable of you.  Clearly you have an insight into all this that thousands of other intelligent people don't.

No because it wouldn't matter. If those other people cared they wouldn't need the proof. They'd already be loving and etc. It would only prove that the religious people want to feel superior. It's not like the whole love thing is unique to any religion let alone religion at all.

:::EDIT:::

Besides these are the people who consider  rape, torture, murder, paedophilia and more "Loving" from their perspective. So, sorry if I don't give a fuck what their perspective is.

Firstly, Christians - or at least those who believe in the biblical Jesus Christ - believe that Jesus is the only way to God and to eternal life.  Many of them also believe in Hell (I don't - I find it a repugnant doctrine and there is much, both biblical and otherwise, against the doctrine)  It would therefore be very unloving of us not to try to prove what we believe in.  Also, Jesus himself said "he who doesn't gather with me scatters"  I think we should be careful though, not to jump to conclusions about seeming relics because we can end up doing harm to the Gospel when we are constantly being proved wrong about these things.  We end up looking as barmy as Youtube mandela affectation conspiracy theorists!

I don't know who you are referring to with your second point.  These acts are clearly not loving and there is nothing in the Bible to say they are.

Firstly, Christians - or at least those who believe in the biblical Jesus Christ - believe that Jesus is the only way to God and to eternal life.  Many of them also believe in Hell (I don't - I find it a repugnant doctrine and there is much, both biblical and otherwise, against the doctrine)  It would therefore be very unloving of us not to try to prove what we believe in.  Also, Jesus himself said "he who doesn't gather with me scatters"  I think we should be careful though, not to jump to conclusions about seeming relics because we can end up doing harm to the Gospel when we are constantly being proved wrong about these things.  We end up looking as barmy as Youtube mandela affectation conspiracy theorists!

I don't know who you are referring to with your second point.  These acts are clearly not loving and there is nothing in the Bible to say they are.

The point is that the bible calls for and encourages such acts or shows such acts as being okay. Yes technically they are not about "love" but they are certainly considered "good" which is the reason I said it.

For example:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=21

Take your pick.

As an addendum:




One of my favorite videos on the interpretation subject.

Well that's very knowledgeable of you.  Clearly you have an insight into all this that thousands of other intelligent people don't.

I'll be the first person to say that I have near zero knowledge of biblical studies, mainly because I'm not much interested in studying up on things I don't subscribe to. However, I've listened to various debates and arguments available since broadband. 

You imply, "thousands of other intelligent people" in favor of a biblical god. But there's also 'thousands of other intelligent people", that show the bible to be nothing christians believe it to be.

What I do have somewhat of a handle on is how humans behave. And how they behave is needing to believe in something, anything, that will make sense of the world for them. Some structure, some anchor to hold on to. People are also tribal and form groups, cults to belong to.

Until the day comes that pretty much all biblical, historical, anthropological scholars come up with the irrefutable proof that Christ was an actual person and that he was the son of some 'god' who actually exists and actually created this place, then all these judeo christian 'carge cults' are just so much bullshit to keep the punters all in line and scared shitless throughout history.

As the centuries passed and society advanced, I have taken notice of these ad hoc rationalizations and explanations when illogical, contradictory or barbaric bible passages get called out as such. For example...psycho god. "Oh well, god was simply behaving in a way the people in those times behaved in order to teach them and evolve humanity because he loves us so."  Bleeeeech.

Hell, I'm not even atheistic. There's just been so much discovered since those barbaric days of yore, lol, that yes, the cute little story of a christian god, who lives in the sky and created the world blah blah blah, is akin to the plot for a 2 year old's story book

Firstly, Christians - or at least those who believe in the biblical Jesus Christ - believe that Jesus is the only way to God and to eternal life.  Many of them also believe in Hell (I don't - I find it a repugnant doctrine and there is much, both biblical and otherwise, against the doctrine)  

It's...complicated.

Traditionally, there are four broad soteriological ("doctrine of salvation") paradigms in the Christian tradition:

Exclusivism - The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus offers the only path toward liberation of humanity from its bondage to sin and death, and this path can only be trod by those who acknowledge Jesus in this life.

Inclusivism - Salvation through Jesus, as above, except it is possible for those who do not adopt Christian convictions. Variations on this idea are the post-mortem offer of salvation or God's condescension to judge persons insofar as they respond to the "light" they receive. Justin Martyr, 2nd century AD, is the earliest clear case of an inclusivist theologian.

Universalism - All will be saved through Jesus, one way or another, eventually. Explicit support as far back as Origen (2nd-3rd centuries), arguably back to St. Paul. 

Pluralism - A more contemporary approach in our more globalized world; supposes that God has laid out many paths of return and the way of faith in Christ is but one of the paths. Precedent can be found at least as far back as Nicholas of Cusa in the Renaissance period.