You suck at math too, evidently, iconoclast...

Care to elaborate, or are you just being an asshole? I did it two or three times and got the same total every time.

You suck at math too, evidently, iconoclast...

Care to elaborate, or are you just being an asshole? I did it two or three times and got the same total every time.

You suck at math too, evidently, iconoclast...

Care to elaborate, or are you just being an asshole? I did it two or three times and got the same total every time.

Care to elaborate, or are you just being an asshole? I did it two or three times and got the same total every time.

How did you figure it out? The bible's gone through dozens of revisions since anyone even remotely holy put their hands on it. Words changed/substituted, language (and therefore grammar) shifted and then shifted back again - it's not the same book it was at Nicea. So how could any hidden message still be legible after so long? It's like finding secret messages in the newspaper - statistically any suffciently dense text will contain a series of words you could uncover through the right code. That doesn't make it prophecy.

"Care to elaborate, or are you just being an asshole? I did it two or three times and got the same total every time."

No, just pointing out the silliness of trying to turn one of the most debated books in history into a word problem, and then using your failure as yet another snide jab at religion. Don't hyper-intelligent folks like yourself have anything better to do than critique superstitious peons like us?

...oh, wait, critiquing superstitious peons like us is what MAKES you smart. Sorry, I forgot.

It's like finding secret messages in the newspaper

Comparing the bible to a newspaper? Shame, shame.

statistically any suffciently dense text will contain a series of words you could uncover through the right code. That doesn't make it prophecy.

It was intended as prophecy. The prophecy is invalid whatever the reason.

No, just pointing out the silliness of trying to turn one of the most debated books in history into a word problem, and then using your failure as yet another snide jab at religion.

You consider yourself religious and yet you're saying the bible is not to be trusted or taken seriously? Shame, shame.

Don't hyper-intelligent folks like yourself have anything better to do than critique superstitious peons like us? ...oh, wait, critiquing superstitious peons like us is what MAKES you smart. Sorry, I forgot.

Yeah, you really have a short-term memory, don't you.

The bible's gone through dozens of revisions since anyone even remotely holy put their hands on it. Words changed/substituted, language (and therefore grammar) shifted and then shifted back again - it's not the same book it was at Nicea.

I was unaware of that 30 something years ago.

Like one of my favourite authors wrote, you have to believe in the little stuff (god, santa, the easter bunny etc) before you can belief in the big stuff like fairness and liberty and freedom.

Saying God is little stuff and equating him with Santa and the Easter Bunny? Shame, shame.

Comparing the bible to a newspaper? Shame, shame

There's nearly always something admirable in someone who's utterly contrary, but it rarely plays across well online. Even the most rabid of Christians will accept that the bible is the Word of God; a newspaper is simply the Word of Man. I think the similarities are entirely lacking in shame.

The word of God as interpreted and written (and re-written countless times) by man.

Celebrate? Celebrate!? I thought you said "celibate!"

"You consider yourself religious and yet you're saying the bible is not to be trusted or taken seriously? Shame, shame."

No, I'm just pointing out that you seem to believe that you have a handle on something that untold numbers of people have debated for centuries. So much so that you can just make a word problem out of it and hand someone a date of a calender.

Making fun of Christians makes you LOOK smart, but evidently it doesn't do much in terms of real content. I've never called my self religious that I am aware of. For someone who considers himself intellectually superior you seem to need to spend a lot of time trying to prove it.

I've never called my self religious that I am aware of.

Oh. Excuse me. For someone who doesn't consider himself religious, you seem to need to spend a lot of time taking things I say personally.

Don't hyper-intelligent folks like yourself have anything better to do than critique superstitious peons like us?

"Us" includes yourself, right?

Evidently you aren't aware of what the word "religious" means. Espousing a belief does not equal beling "religious". Religious has more to do with "religion" I would think, which is institutionalized service and worship. I'm sure you can tell the difference between people who are "religious" and people who simply espouse a belief in God.

Granted, from your past and current behavior I can see why it would appeal to you to make anyone who espouses a belief in God out to be a "religious" person, since that brand is all you need to devalue people.

I think the whole arguement that GOd will destroy the earth and save only the Chosen from certain Religions is ridiculous and only serves to drum up numbers for Religion in general.

Why would God who supposedly created everyone and everything need to destroy the earth and save certain people on a certain day?

It is laughable when man kind put his/her own spin on things, and this was clearly the case in so many religions that call for a judgement day.

It makes Zero sense why an all supreme being would have a judgement day.
If God is so mighty why wipe everything out?

SushiK: I don't believe in the "end of days" myself, but your statements imply that a perfect God would somehow fall in line with what your mind can find plausible. Parents, to their children, make 'zero sense'. How much more impossible would it be for us to comprehend omnipotence?

I'm not sure you're making your point when you say that it is "clearly the case" judgment day is mankind's spin on things. You've stated you believed that, and that you can't comprehend anything else, but you haven't really offered any real argument. People a few thousand miles away from each other can't comprehend how we can possibly believe and behave as their counterparts do.

I think you are inflating yourself, or deflating God, when you imply that what He is or does has to make sense to you.

Your arguement that a god would have a judgement day has about as much weight as me saying Aliens will destroy the world.

Both are abstract since we can not prove either one exists yet.
Then there is the first question why they / he would want to destroy our world.

I am just starting on the second -why.
Yes I think the earth will have it "end" in the future, that so much is a sure thing.

Since I am not a institutionally religious person I need someone to tell me why is it that a God would need a judgement day. And realize there were the Greeks with all their multitude of Gods that probably thought judgement day was coming for them.

I believe religions incorporated this idea of judgement day simply because it was the zeit geist (spelling) of their times. Eons ago were punishments and death were more common than rewards, this idea of "bad people" being punished and good getting a cookie worked for them.

It saddens me that modern day religious people can not see past this morbid antiquated idea of a judgement day. Religions should morph over time, and this is one idea that needs to be put to rest.

I think you are inflating yourself, or deflating God, when you imply that what He is or does has to make sense to you.

I am not trying to be arrogant BakerStreet, I think it it high time some Religions rethink this idea of doom and gloom. This is a major part of why I hate Christainity (but not Christians) so much.

"Your arguement that a god would have a judgement day has about as much weight as me saying Aliens will destroy the world."

No, your argument that God WOULDN'T destroy the world has as much weight as me saying aliend WOULDN'T destroy the world. It may seem an esoteric difference, but you are the one stating what God wouldn't do when you can't even prove He exists. Our material relating to God, on which we base our belief in God, also relates to us the concept of judgement day.

Arguing whether there's a judgement day is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I can see you claiming that God doesn't exist by refuting the material outright, but in terms of what God would be, you have nothing any more authoritative than anyone else, and frankly the other side has around 2000 years of pondering it behind them.

"Since I am not a institutionally religious person I need someone to tell me why is it that a God would need a judgement day. And realize there were the Greeks with all their multitude of Gods that probably thought judgement day was coming for them. "

Which... again, implies that there is any reason for God to explain to any of us where there needs to be a judgement day. Which implies that we with our teeny brains could fathom why there needs to be a judgement day, when most of us can't grasp high school physics. You might need to understand in order to believe, but that doesn't mean that things you don't understand can't happily exist without your leave.

"I believe religions incorporated this idea of judgement day simply because it was the zeit geist (spelling) of their times. Eons ago were punishments and death were more common than rewards, this idea of "bad people" being punished and good getting a cookie worked for them. It saddens me that modern day religious people can not see past this morbid antiquated idea of a judgement day. Religions should morph over time, and this is one idea that needs to be put to rest."

I'm sure that people in the South pre-civil war couldn't conceive of a God that had a problem with slavery. Ideas change, but will the ones you differ with change, or will we be able to concieve of things tomorrow we can't conceive today?

People couldn't fathom the concepts of gravity, or a round earth, or the sun not revolving around us. Commonly held beliefs can be very hard to overcome, even in the face of proof. You and I can't conceieve of a great apocolyptic day of judgement, but that doesn't mean our inability to conceive it isn't to blame.

"I am not trying to be arrogant BakerStreet, I think it it high time some Religions rethink this idea of doom and gloom. This is a major part of why I hate Christainity (but not Christians) so much."

Heh, that would be easy for you and I to say because our beliefs don't depend on the source material in question. If it was as easy as "rethinking" you could make a religion anything you want. That can be a good thing, or you can end up drinking kool aid with the rest of the followers of silly people.

I applaud you for coming to your own beliefs, but I just take issue with the idea that people who don't come to the same conclusions have "laughable" beliefs. If you could pose some sort of proof of that assertion, great, otherwise they have as much merit as your own.

Since I am not a institutionally religious person I need someone to tell me why is it that a God would need a judgement day

God is going to destroy the earth and all in it for one reason....SIN. It's corrupted and dirtied our world, and God is a holy God and cannot stand sin. He will dwell among his people in a new day with a new heaven and a new earth. All will be new and free from sin.

A picture of sin in the scripture was leaven. Leaven (yeast) ferments the dough bringing it to decay. It spreads throughout the dough corrupting it. Jesus warned the Jews to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. The Israelites were told to eat unleavened bread with their Passover. Sin corrupts as leaven does the bread. Jesus was called the bread of life and he is a picture of this unleavened bread (without sin).

Just as Jesus was laid in a brand new rich man's tomb that was not defiled with leaven (sin) so too will there be a time when the earth will be without sin as God cleanses it by fire and ushers in the new. Just like the Jews of old (and still today) burn the leaven in their homes before the Passover begins, God will also burn all traces of sin up.

That's why.

The bible's gone through dozens of revisions since anyone even remotely holy put their hands on it. Words changed/substituted, language (and therefore grammar) shifted and then shifted back again - it's not the same book it was at Nicea.

This is not true. We have over 5,000 original copies in their original languages more than any other work of antiquity in circulation today. I am absoulutely confident that the bible we hold in our hands today is the same bible that the first century Christians had in theirs (so to speak). Check it out for youself.

"This is not true. We have over 5,000 original copies in their original languages more than any other work of antiquity in circulation today. I am absoulutely confident that the bible we hold in our hands today is the same bible that the first century Christians had in theirs (so to speak). Check it out for youself."

How is that possible when the Bible wasn't even compiled by that time into a single volume? Heck, it is debatable whether or not it was all even written by that time. There were MOST certainly other works that were accepted then that were rejected later.

I understand that you believe that as an inspired work the impossibility of what you describe becomes possible. I don't think, though, you can really make the point that what we have in our hands was what other people used before it was even compiled into the form we have.

Frankly, you can't really even prove to me that they considered those texts inerrant until much later.

We have over 5,000 original copies in their original languages more than any other work of antiquity in circulation today.

Really? I wasn't aware John, Mark and the rest handwrote 5000 identical copies of their manuscripts, and then presumably sent them with Peter to Rome or to their brethren in Byzantium for safekeeping. From my understanding there were only one manuscript written by each of the disciples, and those were copied by later Christians. To the best of my knowledge every single version in existence was copied manually, which by necessity implies a certain degree of scepticism in order to account for human error. The bible was only handled in a particularly reverent way after the Nicean Council decided on the tomes to be included and the monastic system arose to ensure accurate transcription.

Faith isn't enough in my view, particularly when you consider the differences introduced into the King James version. Whos' to say there aren't the same subtle differences in earlier versions?

Frankly, you can't really even prove to me that they considered those texts inerrant until much later.

Bingo! The very heart of the matter! Our modern notion of 'inerrancy' seems to date no earlier than the religious revivals of the nineteenth century, when traditional beliefs appeared to come under fire from new discoveries of science. The rational scientific worldview that occupies centre stage today is a fairly new way of looking at the world - even though it may have spent millenia in gestation. Before that people were happy enough to try to 'understand' the world through myths, symbols and stories.

So powerful however, has been the pull of scientific rationalism that some Christians, primarily in the US, have tried to understand their faith in a 'scientific' fashion also, counterposing science's claims to literal truths with their equally 'literal' reading of the Bible. It seems clear that earlier christians were happy to read it as a mixture of scholarship, myth, symbol, analogy, wisdom, exhortation and inspiration.

Most mainstream European Christian denominations, after an initial scepticism and resistance, have largely taken the new science on board and simply moved on (cf. Pope John Paul II on evolution, for example). In the US, in particular, Fundamentalists have set their faces against the modern world, for the first time putting christian thinking at odds with rationality and contemporary scholarship. (Of course one could also mention Galileo as an earlier example of this, but that was, amongst other things, a genuine dispute about science (as well as theology) that the Church got wrong and eventually conceded that it had, when the evidence made this unavoidable.)

Fundamentalists claim to be returning to the spirit of Christianity's foundation, but they've actually created something brand new and essentially (anti)modern. Actually, I think they simply came to an important fork in the road in the evolution of religious thought and took the wrong turning.