Failed biblical prophecies

[mrveggieman]

I was in another sportsgroup and someone started a religious debate. One of the members on this linked this website. What do you think about it?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies

[shrewsbury]

veggie, I read a little bit. if you take things out of context, claim the translation is incorrect, then yes, you could say they are wrong.

in my opinion, these are just anti religious people who feel the need to justify their beliefs by trying to say things are false. they are no different or better than the crazy Christians who try to say things are true by changing translations and taking things out of context.

I am unsure why people want to destroy the one single thing that has influenced nearly everything in our world since recorded history.

[centrehice]

[QUOTE=shrewsbury;12769048]veggie, I read a little bit. if you take things out of context, claim the translation is incorrect, then yes, you could say they are wrong.

in my opinion, these are just anti religious people who feel the need to justify their beliefs by trying to say things are false. they are no different or better than the crazy Christians who try to say things are true by changing translations and taking things out of context.

I am unsure why people want to destroy the one single thing that has influenced nearly everything in our world since recorded history.[/QUOTE]



You're unsure why people want to destroy stupidity? Christianity is an anchor on moving forward with factual scientific principals that will help the human race, not continue to put them on the back foot.

[habsheaven]

veggie, I read a little bit. if you take things out of context, claim the translation is incorrect, then yes, you could say they are wrong.

in my opinion, these are just anti religious people who feel the need to justify their beliefs by trying to say things are false. they are no different or better than the crazy Christians who try to say things are true by changing translations and taking things out of context.

I am unsure why people want to destroy the one single thing that has influenced nearly everything in our world since recorded history.

I could argue that that one thing is actually CURIOSITY, and religion has been trying to destroy that since it began.

[Wickabee]

I could argue that that one thing is actually CURIOSITY, and religion has been trying to destroy that since it began.

I'd say both. Religion is the result of curiosity towards where we came from, but since it claims to answer all, curiosity is the ultimate enemy of religion. As such, Religion took over and began infuluencing things more than even our natural curiosity.

So religion has influenced us and so has curiosity. As such, both sides are seeking to destroy the other and a lot of babies are going out with bathwater.

[shrewsbury]

I think that just because a religion answers certain questions, it does not mean we automatically or will ever understand the answer. Saying that the Christian God is the creator of all, answers the question of where we all came from, but it hardly explains everything, nor nothing much about God.

I think saying that God made yogurt or a train is no answer at all, just because God made something, does not mean we know how it works, why it was made, or how it has changed and evolved.

God made the sun!! whoopy!!! So, what is the sun, what is it made of, how long will it be there, are there other suns? if so, how many? does this mean God made those and maybe people elsewhere? how does the sun effect the environment, life, atmosphere? How big is it? How hot is it?

I think people have used religion as an excuse to control all knowledge and hold back science, but religion and science go hand and hand. Perhaps if you can show me the origins of the Big Bang, I can then show you where God was at? Or perhaps if you can show me where time and space end, I can show you where God lives?

[ravens_creed]

I am unsure why people want to destroy the one single thing that has influenced nearly everything in our world since recorded history.

I'll give two quoted reasons, both from the same brilliant mind of Professor Richard Dawkins (whose selection as the originator of these quotes is also very intentional here)...


"Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings. It even immunizes them against fear, if they honestly believe that a martyr's death will send them straight to heaven. What a weapon! Religious faith deserves a chapter to itself in the annals of war technology, on an even footing with the longbox, the warhorse, the tank, and the hydrogen bomb."


"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

[Wickabee]

"Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings. It even immunizes them against fear, if they honestly believe that a martyr's death will send them straight to heaven. What a weapon! Religious faith deserves a chapter to itself in the annals of war technology, on an even footing with the longbox, the warhorse, the tank, and the hydrogen bomb."

Okay...

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

Right. Those are good reasons to be against religion, but are those reasons to disbelieve in God?

[ravens_creed]

In fairness to the original topic of the thread and the thread starter, I don't want to get into a lengthy off-topic discussion about my beliefs or non-beliefs in God. For that, I will start my own threads, and I'm starting to enjoy the idea of having dialogue/discussions in this part of the site more regularly.

I also want to acknowledge that I wasn't calling out shrewsbury because I responded to that particular line of his. I simply felt compelled to respond to the idea. I certainly have no issue with anyone with a different viewpoint or set of beliefs than my own.


on the linked website (the original topic)... there are some good observations there, but also some... premature conclusions I will call them. In the spirit of interpreting Holy books and examining their contents from new angles and opinions, whether that is triggered by history or prophecy or what have you, is never a bad thing. I wonder if the calling-out of the supposed failed biblical prophecies in this instance (the website to which we were linked) also failed to take into account the original contexts or meanings of those passages.

[ravens_creed]

Let me try and make better sense of that mess I wrote above... to say that these supposed biblical prophecies didn't come true assumes that those particular passages in the bible were, in their original context, attempting to make prophecy in the first place. The history of the Bible is itself a bit intriguing. It's no secret that certain contributions (books, passages, etc.) were left out (the gospel of St.Thomas, to name one), and it's no secret that it has been subjected to edits, re-writes and things of that nature as well. Heck, even the English versions most of us are familiar with were translated from their original Hebrew to Greek and then to English... to me, that does a lot to damage the context of the original Hebrew writings.

There is also usually no time context provided either. Are these predictions supposed to reflect what will happen next year? 10 years? 100? In however long it takes for something to happen which might be reinterpreted to support said prediction?