"The book of Revelation was a piece of propaganda written with the intent to destroy Rome."
Maybe it's possible that Christians may have at least helped to burn Rome. But I do not think the book of Revelation has anything to do with it. I think those people are reading too far into it. From your perspective, I'm sure you think I'm reading too far into it. Revelation, according to my faith, is the future. Those events haven't all happened yet. If they were merely predictions about what was going to happen in ancient Rome, during the time of the disciples, then the prophecy would obviously be wrong. Revelation is supposed to be it. The end of the world. Or a sign of the peaceful era where nobody goes to war anymore. Scientists have dire predictions that the sun will black out and the universe will slow down and everything will die. If something thousand years passed, like they predicted, and nothing had turned out like they predicted, someone could at least say, "Well, we were wrong. It's actually going to be a lot later than that." But Revelation is like that kind of prediction without the "well we were wrong, it's actually (whatever)." If the event comes and goes and nothing happens, there'd be no point to Christianity. Christians constantly wait for the end of the world. The endtimes. So, no, I can't accept that PBS recording of "Did Christians torch Rome?" True, there were inflamatory tracts talking about burning Rome. But I don't think Paul's vision was talking about that. I think someone IN THE FUTURE, is going to occupy the place where the Roman Empire is, and that's where all that "whore of Babylon" business is going to happen. People might say that Revelation predicts events that already happened in the 1st century, but if that's true, I don't want to live anymore. We're supposed to be taken bodily into heaven sometime. Jesus is supposed to physically rule the earth. The old heaven and earth are supposed to pass away and they're supposed to be replaced by new, better ones. It's what I live for. If that's not going to happen, not even in the distant future, then I'm the sorriest person on the face of the planet. If that's merely an interesting dream, then I don't want to live anymore. That's why I believe it's more than just an angry tract written about the Romans.
"Christianity is only a set of ideals for moral behavior."
I responded to this elsewhere.
"Religions are just a bunch of guesses and wishes. Hundreds of guesses and wishes can't be right or real."
I don't believe my religion has anything to do with guesswork or wishful thinking. If it were mere wishful thinking, the religion would try harder to please people and tell them that anything they do is okay. Wishful thinking is supposed to please people. I don't believe it's guessing either. I believe God wrote the concepts in people's brains. As for your second premise, again, as in other arguments, we see that this is the fallacy of the beard or the fallacy of the hair. Just because one hair is white doesn't mean the whole beard is white, neither can you say with 100% certainty that a randomly selected hair is white, even if picked from a white beard. In other words, if the alleged `guesses' or `wishes' of one religion are incorrect, that doesn't necessarily invalidate all of them.
"Religion is the opiate of the masses."
That makes atheism and agnosticism and opiate, too. No, drugs make us weak and addicted and avoid the problems of life. Christ, on the other hand, gives us the power to confront reality and do righteous acts, even when it seems impossible.
"An atheist says `There is no God, so religion is based on a false premise.' This is not the same as saying there is no point to it. Religion serves a human need. That is why some philosopher said "Man would invent God, if He did not exist". I say that is exactly what man has done."
And I say God gave us the idea. Until you can prove God's nonexistence, you can't prove that man invented God.
"It is just good psychology to make the forces of evil seem beautiful and seductive- and at the same time, portray the Devil as horrible and powerful."
Actually, I don't think the devil LOOKS horrible, he just ACTS horrible. But I say God was doing well to give us that psychology.
"You are a Christian because, when in such a state of fear of death and lost time, faith becomes self - perpetuating because, like an addicting drug, quitting would be far worse. "That will be 5c, Charley Brown.""
That statement presumes that your religion is not an opiate.
"I look at religion like lying. I don't have a good enough mind (imagination and memory) to maintain complex lies."
Lying involves genuine contradictions, not just apparent ones. The only contradictions you've found in the bible so far are apparent contradictions, which can be explained away. Genuine ones cannot be logically explained away (like the fact that no biblical wars happened in Missouri, even though the Mormons say so). And, to quote Josh McDowell's More Than a Carpenter, "Would you die for a lie?"
"Religion is self-delusion/placebo effect."
See above.
"Like acting, religion begins with a search for something that `works', and when you find a likely candidate, you practice it until it becomes a part of you. It gives you a coping method and a community, doesn't it?"
Acting requires an audience, i.e. someone who is not acting. Since you cannot not have a religion (atheism is a religion), then nobody human could be the audience. You can't stop the act if there is no state in which to be `genuine.' Atheism isn't any better than any other religion in that regard. You're assuming that they found `something that works' instead of `something that works' finding them. You're also implying that religion is self delusion. See above. And you assume that I'm trying to impress someone other than God.
"Lots of actors practice by themselves, or with a script. The purpose is to make the act more convincing. Seems the same as prayer."
It is not my goal to impress anyone but God, so my religion, as an `act,' is not very useful. Frankly, I don't care what any human being thinks of my religious practices. The reaction of many people is often a detriment, anyway. They call me a fanatic. That doesn't feel good, so it's not good as an `act.' It is good for God, though. See above for more on the `self delusion' angle. So far, you have nothing substantial, only the argument that Christianity is an act "because it is one."
"Other religions have the idea of a war in heaven. Christianity is no better."
This is because God has created the true faith in all people, though they are misguided in other areas about it.
"I press you so hard to `prove it (God's existence)' because without proof, I can't believe it is more than self - delusion/hypnosis."
And what is proof? You never actually pinpoint a single thing that phrase, `proof,' entails. Nothing can be proven or disproven. It can only be supported or refuted. Atheism is also a self delusion/hypnosis, being a religion in itself.
"God is man's creation. A sort of mental mandala or mnemonic device to aid in organizing one's philosophy to make adherence to it rather automatic."
Perhaps it is God who caused the `mandala' of Himself to exist in people's minds, and caused the philosophy about Himself to exist in our minds, instead of the reverse view you are proposing. Instead of `the tail wagging the dog,' my personal opinion is that it is actually `the dog wagging the tail.'
"`NEW REVISED STANDARD VERSION?' Hmmm. An oxymoronic title there, but the big question is why is there any need to `revise' the Word of God? Shouldn't it have been right the first time?"
For your information, the original Septuagint and Greek translation were right the first time. The revisions are on the translations.
"In my latest Whistler conversation, he told me his opinion of how bogus modern Christianity is, because of the Council of Nicea, where the Catholic doctrine was refined and after that, they picked which authors and passages went into the Bible, in order to match the doctrine."
Frankly, this argument is `bogus.'
Satanism is a lot scarier than some atheist guy making a parody of the bible. There was actually a sick nut named Allister Crowley and some other people who, I think, came before the Satanic bible was written, and they took it quite seriously. Sure, some atheists jokingly refer to themselves as Satanists to ward off evangelists, but the people who are speaking the honest truth about being Satanist, don't think it's a bit funny.
"Upright walking apes made up religion for peace of mind."
Old Testament prophets didn't pull any punches. They didn't do that thing where you have to read REALLY FAR into it before you get the major point. I saw a program on Nostradamus and you could interpret that stuff to be almost anything. "The lost thing will be found," supposedly indicates the scientific discovery of bacteria. "Hister" or "Histler" is supposed to be Hitler, or perhaps George W. Bush. But the bible isn't like that. The prophets weren't vague. Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The prophets specifically said Bethelehem. They left Egypt. "Out of Egypt I have called my son." They said a shoot would come out of the rod of Jesse, a descendant of David would be the messiah. Jesse and David are in Jesus' family tree. That's what all those begats are doing in the New Testament. He was said to be God. Jesus claimed to be God. He rode on a donkey. The Old Testament predicted he'd be riding on "an ass's colt." More than half of those little letters and notes next to New Testament bible verses refer back to Old Testament prophecies, to things cited in the Old Testament. Jesus was a walking, talking Old Testament. While Nostradamus plays with vague terms, the Old Testament goes into specifics, and Jesus fulfills all the prophecies about the messiah presented in the Old Testament. To this day, traditional Jews doubt that the prophecies applied to Jesus, but that doesn't mean that the prophecies were wrong, or that Christians are wrong in believing in Jesus. People didn't believe that the earth revolved around the sun. That doesn't mean we live in a geocentric solar system. The prophecies of the Old Testament were primarily promises of God, promises of his actions, not so much things that could or should be prevented. When something dire was predicted, it was to warn people, so that they would stop sinning and follow God instead. The prophecies concerning the first arrival of Jesus on earth were promises from God. "I promise to bring you a savior who will be a sacrifice for your sins." And the New Testament validates that promise. But Jesus rose physically into heaven and did not bring the "world peace" like traditional Jews still expect. I guess they don't agree with the idea that all Jews must believe in Jesus in order for there to be world peace. I mean, Jesus brings peace to the hearts of his followers already, and makes peace between God and his followers. The New Testament's main prophecy is the return of Jesus and the complete destruction of all death and sin/evil in the world. Nostradamus could never make a prediction as close to actual events as the bible did. It's a much smaller margin of error than Nostradamus. Much less options. There was even a prediction about the time when Jesus would be born. 2000 years of desolation(from Adam to Abraham) 2000 years of Torah, and 2000 years of the messiah. Though traditional Jews say that Jesus should have appeared at 200 C.E., that's due to a famous rabbinical error. There was a 180 year miscalculation, as evidenced by their estimation of the duration of the second temple of Jerusalem's existence, from its formation to its destruction. Subtracting 180 puts the messianic era in the time that Jesus was physically on earth. In the book of Deuteronomy, it says that if a prophet speaks a prophecy, but it doesn't come to pass, God has not spoken it, and that prophet will be cursed. Something like that. The New Testament correlates to the Old Testament(The Jewish Torah) according to key prophecies, so that's why I am more certain about the validity of biblical prophecy opposed to Nostradamus. Of course, they have been subject to varying interpretations(post Jesus, of course) by Traditional Jewish rabbis, who constantly try to say that Jesus isn't the true messiah of prophecy. That's why some of the people in post Jesus Jerusalem followed some guy named Bar Kochba. I'm not sure that issue ever came up before Jesus was born.
"The bible is fiction, loaded with ancient history and law for versimilitude."
If so, then you'd also have to disregard the stories of all holocaust survivors who don't want the genocide of Nazi Germany to be repeated. After all, that is `wishful thinking.' Furthermore, no archeological find has yet controverted the bible, despite the amount of non-Christian archaeologists trying to do so. So there are aren't as many errors in it as one might think. Especially when comparing it to the book of mormon. The bible surpasses other books as far as archeological evidence goes. 2 Peter 1:16-"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty." John 1:1-"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-this we proclaim concerning the Word of Life(Jesus)." 2 peter 1:21-"prophecy(or scripture) never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
"Doesn't anyone crucify, stone, or burn infidel any more...when they know the government won't interfere (or encourages it)?"
You put too much faith in government, but I also feel that God is backing good governments up, so it shows how good He is for not letting as many people go on Jihads, etc.
"Proooof!! Of course the Bible story of Thomas anticipates this too - `doubting Thomas' is a phrase that is still occasionally used. Not for a second do I short the guys who wrote the story and set up the religion. They do have all the bases covered, questions anticipated and cleverly side - stepped, etc."
It's not an evasion of anything. Nothing was side stepped. The questions and objections you have are just unimportant, so they were not addressed to your liking.
"It is not better to invent a God, and then all the things God has to do, and for what reasons - and have to keep coming up with more `answers' as more questions are posed."
That's why we didn't invent Him. He invented us, and our belief in Him He created in us. Since we are not the creator, we don't know everything there is to know about Him. We don't have all the answers because we are not God. If we created God, we could just make up something to answer all your questions, but this is a religion, not a novel, so we can't do that. Otherwise we'd be no better than one of the cults. Maybe questions are unavoidable, maybe everything can be questioned. Maybe questions can be asked about everything. But I've said before that God sees certain questions as frivolous, so He doesn't answer them. Take some of your arguments for example. Many times, the logic is faulty. I see no need to address those questions because they are built on faulty premisses. God, being more intelligent than me, likely sees even more illogic in your questions, sees the implied thoughts behind them, and doesn't bother to answer them, due to their fallacious nature. Eventually you'll see that the questions you asked were poorly formulated. God uses his servants, like me, to interpret His word for the answer to many of those questions, or, more importantly, a reason why we don't need to answer those questions. God tells us what we need to know, not what we want to know, unless what we want to know corresponds with what we need. We need to know what happens to the soul, not what happens to the soul of the sacrificial cow or whatever. Whether or not animals have souls does not affect the destination of the human soul, so that challenge doesn't really merit an answer.
"Travel broadens one. You travel to other countries and you think, does my religion really stand up to the test?...You eventually have to say `all religions are wrong except ours,' or you lose followers. Nothing is guranteed. Either that, or you say, `you know you've got it and nothing can take it away from me.' The Israelites back in the bible days met other cultures, were prejudiced against them, and made up laws against them to avoid losing followers."
Actually, the bible condemns the motivations you just stated. Look at Matthew 6:1-16. As for religion being an act, see above.
"Christians got the word and idea of Hell from Odinism's `Hel.'"
Hel is not the source of the Christian concept of Hell. In the Old Testament, you have sheol and gehenom. In the New Testament, you have hades. "Hell" is the english version of that. It wasn't originally "hell."
"Why is it so hard for so many to admit that the placebo-effect is real, and that self-hypnosis can be beneficial? Do that, and there would be no need for religion and religious hate."
That would be like having a tooth with perfect enamel on the outside, but having the interior of it completely rotted out. You can't eat on the thing, so what good is it? See above for more comments.
"I would agree with all that(angels, spirits)- if I believed them to be real (or as real as `spirits' can be to us). But they dont show up, so artists and writers are free to give them all fabulous make-overs. But what is the difference between `creatures' that cant be seen or tested in any way- and total imagination?"
"I think you are very lonely and scared, and have turned to self - delusion to ease your mind."
"Satanism was invented by atheists as a joke."
"Biblical prophets are no better than Nostradamus."
The bible was wishful thinking and therefore fabricated or a distortion of historical fact."
"All religions shamelessly co - opt from their predecessors. Judaism picked up their beliefs from the Mesopotamians, including the epic of Gilgamesh. It also picked up a great deal of Egyptian ideas."
"Religions are designed to convince someone of something."
"Church is a fraud. Those are just superficial and fake ways of seeming to be faithful, for public consumption, public control, and voluntary taxation."