The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Maybe JC might be reluctant to reveal enough that would personally identify him?

He's reluctant because he's lying or his training was atrociously poor.
Look how easy it would be:
"I have a B.Sc. in (insert degree title), from (University)".

There is no way we could figure out who he is. If he didn't give us his graduating year it would be impossible.

Whatever, I'm puzzled why you are so interested, since you are unwilling to respect the credentials of all the Creationists scientists that are publically listed, eg.,

None of those physicists have a single paper on arxiv, so I'm sceptical about this list.

Pocari Sweat

This bible stuff seems like right shyte.

I have got a copy somewhere and i think i will go and just burn the swine. It just induces self reciprocating and endless circles of bullshyte arguments that have no point.

If some argue that god is not dead, then i say give it a few more years.

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

So why are some plants poisonous? How come some animals can eat these and others can't? Does god has his favourites and will only allow certain animals to eat certain berries? What about insect eating plants? What about viruses? Why would god create something that is "designed" to cause death? According to your bible passage god gave us all the fruit bearing plants for food so are the plants acting against god when I get poisoned by those nice berries that I found in the garden? Also didn't Jesus eat fish? Was he comitting sin by doiing this? Surely he also tucked into some passover lamb?

Poisonous plants, viruses, weeds, death, suffering - all came from the Fall of man and the consequences God sent in judgement. It was not the original order.

Yes. Jesus ate fish, lamb, etc. That too was not our original conditions, but only what God granted as a mercy to us in the inhospitable world our sin had produced. Genesis 9:1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

Christ did not come to us in an Edenic setting, but in our fallen world. So, no, He was not sinning by doing what God had granted permission to do.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

...just to back up this point, the Interacademy Panel, a co-ordinating group for scientific academies worldwide, has just released a joint statement on the validity of evolution.

Interesting development. Thanks. Shows at least the Esthablishment are worried. AiG have an initial report on it: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0624iap-response.asp

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

You are assuming the existence of supernatural beings as are others. I am assuming nothing about supernatural beings only observing the facts we have.

The one fact you fail to observe is the testimony of many people that they have experieced these beings. That is not to say their testimony is necessarily true, just that it is a fact to be 'observed'.

All this says is that if you "come to me" its because of god and then you'll be saved on the last day. I can go into easons and find a book that says that if I follow these 12 steps I'll be a millionare. This is just a carrot on a stick and in no way offers any enlightenment.

You had asked why Christians can be sure about their religion; the text I gave tells you why. Because God reveals Himself to them, in their mind and spirit convincing them of His reality. That it does not persuade you is not the point; it is how they are enlightened. Those who are of God hear His voice in the words of the Bible, in the gospel message that came to them at the time of their conversion.

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

Unfortunately these are this that man can easily make come true or are likely to happen anyway, much like the ramblings of nostrodamus. Predicting the fall of a "great" nation or kingdom is like predicting morning follows night. I'm looking for a prophecy that says something like everyone will sprout wings and fly about picking insects from their teeth (anyone ever have to clean a helicopter in the summer?! ) Can you give an example of something that is outside the influence of people?

So it was Christian conspirators who made the timing of Messiah's appearing co-incide with that of Jesus; the Romans destroy Jerusalem in AD70 and exile the Jewish nation? It is Christian conspirators who have both kept them in exile but also guaranteed their survival over 1900 years? I would have thought that outside the influence of any person.

wolfsbane

bluewolf said:

What do you base that assumption on?

I'm sorry, I just assumed you shared the views of the other anti-Creationists here.

I think Scofflaw or wicknight have given examples of relevant successful experiments that have been re-created in the lab...

Really? fish to mammals, etc.?

Son Goku

Operational science deals with the facts; origins (historical) science uses that knowledge to speculate as to how things came about. Both Creationist and Evolutionist scientists use the same procedure.

You do realise that operational science would have to be wrong for Creationism to be right.
For instance we would have to be completely wrong about the Weak Force for the Dating methods to be incorrect.

wolfsbane

bluewolf said:

The "homosexual offenders" was referring to paedophelia, I'd forgotten about that section.

1 Corinthians 6:9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders New International Version
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,New King James Version

malakos
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) soft, soft to the touch

2) metaph. in a bad sense

a) effeminate

1) of a catamite

2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man

3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness

4) of a male prostitute

arsenokoites
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual

I'll do some reading on that one. Though IIRC it was Paul giving some advice(which doesn't seem to have been echoed by anyone else), not "god says this is wrong".

In Romans 1 Paul is not giving advice, just reporting the history of mankind.

In I Corinthians 6 he is not giving advice, just warning them about the sort of behaviour that leads man to hell.

The commentators who say otherwise are not being honest with the text. They want to have the name of Christian but not the beliefs. Honest unbelievers will say the text condems homosexuality.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Did they find out the answers to these questions from the convicted criminals? I live in a relatively religious community. But the crime is not commited evenly by the religious and non-religious elements. It is almost exclusively by the non-religious. I suspect that is true throughout the world.

Well, the figures I quote simply compare "negative social indicators" against levels of professed and public belief - which are treated separately (one requires a statement of faith from the respondent, the other is based on attendance etc). That gives you a comparison between the number of non-religious in a society and the levels of various indicators (homicide, teen pregnancy, STDs etc) per 10000 population. If you were correct, then we should see that societies where fewer people claim to be religious (ie more are irreligious) should have higher levels of these social ills - the opposite is in fact the case.

wolfsbane wrote:

What then can account for the figures you quote? Maybe they are skewed by the good socio-economic conditions of modern secular societies as compared to the poorer ones of the rest of the world, which includes many of the religious societies? Even in one nation, the crime is mostly located in the poorer sections. America is a prime example. So if Sweden we a lot poorer, or the economic make-up were very unbalanced, there would be a greater incidence of crime.

No - the figures are limited to prosperous democracies for exactly the reasons you quote.

wolfsbane wrote:

I can't see how you think I was saying that. Unprotected sex is no problem within faithful marriage - unless one is family-planning. God is pleased with protected or unprotected sex within marriage.

Well, if the harm done by, for example, anal sex is evidence of how it goes against the "maker's instructions" for our bodies, then presumably it was less harmful before AIDS? Are condoms sinful, or is protected sex (which reduces disease) less sinful? Is oral sex (which is not such a transmission route) less sinful?

wolfsbane wrote:

Not at all. The abuse of our bodies is what counts. It is God who determines our days.

See above - if living past fifty is what generally lines you up for cancer, then it's clear by your logic that this is somehow "against the maker's instructions".

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, that is a logical position for an atheist. It does not claim its morality is anything other than instinctive behavioural traits. It does validate the moralities of everyone, however, no matter how evil others find them to be. One cannot then say, for example, that rape is morally wrong, only that it is morally wrong for some.

No, one can say that rape is morally wrong full stop, based on morality as a social contract or based on the assumption of individual rights. There is no need to invoke God to make morality absolute. The rapist is a danger to others who do not subscribe to his morality or accept his assertion of "rights" - and if they do, it's difficult to see how it can be classed as rape, unless the 'victim' was mentally/morally incapable, or deceived in some way.

What it is more or less impossible to condemn is behaviour that does not harm another, no matter how repugnant it may be. It is sometimes possible to make a case that it such behaviour is correlated with some activity that is harmful, but this does not prove causality, merely association - the repugnant but harmless behaviour may be symptomatic of a moral framework or a perturbation that also causes dangerous behaviour.

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm glad once again for your honesty in admitting this. Many in your position hold on to right and wrong being universal standards, outside of what an individual believes.

That is because it is possible to make them so by stating them as being so - this has as much force as claiming that they are backed by God (in the absence of universally acceptable demonstration by God). Where they err is in believing that one statement of absolute morality is somehow more "logical" than the other - but then, you also suffer from that error, my friend!

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote:

The commentators who say otherwise are not being honest with the text. They want to have the name of Christian but not the beliefs. Honest unbelievers will say the text condems homosexuality.

The homosexual offenders part or the bible in general?
Because if you mean the former, that's simply not true.

I'm sorry, I just assumed you shared the views of the other anti-Creationists here.

If the creation scientist publishings are biology only, then I'm not interested since I know nothing about it and can't personally comment.
I'll leave that for others to work on.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Maybe JC might be reluctant to reveal enough that would personally identify him?

Whatever, I'm puzzled why you are so interested, since you are unwilling to respect the credentials of all the Creationists scientists that are publically listed, eg.,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp

I think not. JC has yet to offer even a particular qualification, which would not identify him personally. Mine, for example, are BSc Hons Geology (minor Botany) and MSc Resource Management - you could try and track me down from that, but that is not necessary (after all, you can always PM me!).

No, the problem is that JC has made a set of claims to scientific training so large and all-encompassing that to state a particular degree would actually destroy much of his claim by limitation.

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

On the other hand, the difference between science and dinner-table theorising is large. I can come up with postulated mechanisms for solar system formation sitting here, but unless they offer a testable prediction, and that prediction is tested, it isn't science

Sure. But are not the various theories concerning evolution in the same boat as the creationist ones - a patch-work of theories that we try to fit the observable and testable facts into?

Not really. Evolution is a framework into which several theories, sub-theories, and hypotheses fit - they fit the framework, and they fit each other. To suggest that they are a "patch-work" gives the impression that they do not really fit with each other, which is false.

wolfsbane wrote:

We cannot re-run the whole thing, so it is not repeatable in the lab. We look at various layers of rock, and we speculate as to how they got there, by catastrophe or long-term deposition. We suggest what mechanism might account for the real features we see before us.

That's right. If we suggest a mechanism that, however plausible, fails to account for the features we see, that mechanism must be incorrect. Similarly, if we suggest a mechanism that explains all the features, but is either impossible or invokes the supernatural, that mechanism is discounted. Two competing theories can usually be discriminated on the basis of their different predictions.

Creationist science, in general, does not make testable predictions, and relies on mechanisms that are physically impossible, and which require the invocation of the supernatural.

Consider the Scientologists, for example - they have an explanatory framework which looks surprisingly like it was made up by a second-grade science fiction author, and involving some startling and untestable assertions about the history of Earth. They consider this scientific, but it suffers from exactly the same problems as Creationist "science" - untestable, impossible, and invoking the supernatural, although in their case it's a galactic dictator.

wolfsbane wrote:

Operational science deals with the facts; origins (historical) science uses that knowledge to speculate as to how things came about. Both Creationist and Evolutionist scientists use the same procedure.

Haha! No, that's a false dichotomy. All science is historical, or forensic, or observational, if you like, although some more obviously than others (geology perhaps most of all). Forensic science is still science, but more variables are uncontrolled, that's all.

I am aware that this is a commonly believed fallacy amongst Creationists and the like, but it has no basis in fact.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

malakos
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) soft, soft to the touch

2) metaph. in a bad sense

a) effeminate

1) of a catamite

2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man

3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness

4) of a male prostitute

arsenokoites
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual

The commentators who say otherwise are not being honest with the text. They want to have the name of Christian but not the beliefs. Honest unbelievers will say the text condems homosexuality.

Others, including honest unbelievers, may be unsurprised to learn that the "Biblical usage" above is not undisputed. Indeed, it would be strange if it were not, given that we are unable at this time to contact the original authors...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Really? fish to mammals, etc.?

Well, no, indeed not. All that's been "experimentally proven" is speciation, natural selection operating on beneficial mutations, and a load of other things that JC vehemently claims don't exist. We are also getting to the point where we may shortly be able to create artificial cells.

These are all parts of the mechanisms of evolutionary theory - the evidence is the fossil record and the inter-related diversity of existing life.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Mine, for example, are BSc Hons Geology (minor Botany) and MSc Resource Management - you could try and track me down from that, but that is not necessary (after all, you can always PM me!).

I suppose it's only fair to 'fess up - I'm BSc Theoretical Physics, halfway through an MSc theoretical physics and maths.
I am untraceable

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Acts11: 1 Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. 2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!”
4 But Peter explained it to them in order from the beginning, saying: ......18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”

I stand corrected (about Paul).

wolfsbane wrote:

Nope. The disciples did have to be shown that the gospel was for all, but that was not a victory for Paul over Peter. In fact, it was Peter who first brought the gospel to the Gentiles.
John 4:21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.

Too flimsy, particularly given Jesus' failure to preach to the Gentiles who were available to him - the Romans, for example. As to the other - history is written by the winners...caveat lector.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> [wolfsbane] Nah, I was only pulling Wicknight's chain, to show him how ridiculous it was
> to demand a mathematic formula from an historical record.

Does it not strike you as ironic that you, in turn, are demanding a biological formula from a historical record? Or does intellectual honesty have to apply only to your adverseries and not to you?

robindch

> [wolfsbane] Interesting development. Thanks. Shows at least
> the Esthablishment are worried.

Can you not come up with a better response than that? Why not try producing some evidence, or a line of reasoning, or a fact, or why not anything at all, rather than just slagging them off?

Also, I notice that the geniuses in AiG, while comfortable to condemn the world's collected scientific academies for not being able to "include the evidence" for evolution in a two-page pamphlet, nonetheless inexplicably fail to produce any evidence at all for their own position.

Does the irony of this too, strike you? Can you spot irony at all?

Pocari Sweat

Point in case.

ISAW

wolfsbane wrote:

bluewolf said:

1 Corinthians 6:9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders New International Version
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,New King James Version

malakos

Fornicators are not by necissity homosexuals! they can also be heterosexuals! does this mean the Bible condems heterosesuals? No it does not! It mentions offences whether homosexual or heterosexual. Homosexuality is NOT condemned!

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual

Where in the Bible is this?

The commentators who say otherwise are not being honest with the text. They want to have the name of Christian but not the beliefs. Honest unbelievers will say the text condems homosexuality.

where does any quote above condemn homosexuality?

The Bible also mentions acts of hetrosexuals which are not accepable. But does that mean it condems hetrosexuality?

ISAW

Pocari Sweat wrote:

This bible stuff seems like right shyte.

I have got a copy somewhere and i think i will go and just burn the swine. It just induces self reciprocating and endless circles of bullshyte arguments that have no point.

If some argue that god is not dead, then i say give it a few more years.

People have said that for centuries.

What "****e" is ther in the Bible?
and what better historic record do you advise we follow?

Son Goku

ISAW wrote:

People have said that for centuries.

What "****e" is ther in the Bible?
and what better historic record do you advise we follow?

God sending a bear to eat forty two children for calling a man bald.
God saying he will force feed people until they hate the food.
God occasionally loses his omnipotence.
God rewarding women with husbands who were well endowed.
.....e.t.c.

There is a lot of ridiculous stuff in the Bible, before you even touch the morality aspect. There is so much randomness in it already.

And what do you mean by historical record. Most Historians agree it's a fairly bad text in terms of reference for historical events.

5uspect

wolfsbane wrote:

The one fact you fail to observe is the testimony of many people that they have experieced these beings. That is not to say their testimony is necessarily true, just that it is a fact to be 'observed'.

Anecdotal evidence is not proof of supernatural beings. If you want cold hard science where a supposed supernatural event was observed and subsequently shown to be nothing other that a result of purely natural pheonema see this paper: (PDF)
http://www.ghostexperiment.co.uk/ghost-in-machine.pdf

wolfsbane wrote:

You had asked why Christians can be sure about their religion; the text I gave tells you why. Because God reveals Himself to them, in their mind and spirit convincing them of His reality. That it does not persuade you is not the point; it is how they are enlightened. Those who are of God hear His voice in the words of the Bible, in the gospel message that came to them at the time of their conversion.

That is does not persuade me is exactly the point. I can read any work of fiction and be convinced that it is true. That doesn't make it true. Millions have read the Da Vinci Code and believe that it is based on historical truths. Just because a book gives me the warm fuzzy feeling inside doesn't make it true. If the book prophesied that gravity would suddenly be reduced by half I wouldn't believe it until such an event actually happened.

wolfsbane wrote:

So it was Christian conspirators who made the timing of Messiah's appearing co-incide with that of Jesus; the Romans destroy Jerusalem in AD70 and exile the Jewish nation? It is Christian conspirators who have both kept them in exile but also guaranteed their survival over 1900 years? I would have thought that outside the influence of any person.

No, just wishful thinking. All these are under the influence of people. Their knowledge of the prophecy is irrevalent. All prophecies are vague and open to wide interpretation with plenty of talk about the end of the world or a a great war or some natural disaster that will happen but little in the way of exact details. These are things that are likely to happen regardless. They may even make a great psycholigical weapon for the benefactor in the prophecy. Has anyone actually prophesied an event outside the influence of people or something outside the laws of probability (unlike that it is highly likely that there will be a big earthquake around the pacific ring of fire sometime soon) that has actually come true?

Scofflaw

All this talk of morality being logical leads me to propose the following test:

Suppose some dark night a policeman walks down a street, apparently deserted; but suddenly he hears a burglar alarm, looks across the street, and sees a jewelry store with a broken window. Then a gentleman wearing a mask comes crawling out through the broken window, carrying a bag which turns out to be full of expensive jewelry. The policeman doesn't hesitate at all in deciding that this gentleman is dishonest.

By what logical process can you arrive at the idea that this man is dishonest? How many assumptions do you have to make, and what are they?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pocari Sweat

Son Goku wrote:

God sending a bear to eat forty two children for calling a man bald.
God saying he will force feed people until they hate the food.
God occasionally loses his omnipotence.
God rewarding women with husbands who were well endowed.
.....e.t.c.

There is a lot of ridiculous stuff in the Bible, before you even touch the morality aspect. There is so much randomness in it already.

And what do you mean by historical record. Most Historians agree it's a fairly bad text in terms of reference for historical events.

In reply to ISAW, I was going to mention the usual things like Eve allowing her sons Kane and Abel to give her an incestuous paedo knobbing to illustrate that an antiquated God's vision of a hill billy bible is not what society would currently approve of.

Also the cock ups the writers of the bible made when missing out the dinosaurs and trying to say that Noah managed to live for over 900 years.

Stuff like that really.

But I am not surprised if you have a good flip through this dandy/beano immaturish joke book you also get written text that says god is ordering bears to eat loads of kids.

In a different thread I mentioned any good god would not be depicted as a mass murdering child killer when he went after the first born of the egyptians, and slaughtered wholesale all the babies and youths that were the first born of some older egyptian blokes that had crossed the line with upsetting moses or some usual kerfuffle they had in them days. Why did this god nutter not go after the older bloke offenders, why mass murder all the kids, and then give out commandments saying ye shall not kill.

Were the tablets never found after moses broke them. And why did moses break te tablets, was there a load of auld shyte written on them?

And ye shall set the bears loose on all ye kids.
And ye shall climb inside a whale for forty days.
And ye shall not mention the dinosaurs.
And ye shall all be hill billys or paedo priests.
And ye shall walk on water and magic fish and bread out of a hat.
And ye shall not wear condoms and have 20 kids.
And some of ye may not eat pork and others stuff on a friday.
Once we sort out the calendar properly and know what day friday is.

etc.

Son Goku

Son Goku wrote:

God sending a bear to eat forty two children for calling a man bald.
God saying he will force feed people until they hate the food.
God occasionally loses his omnipotence.
God rewarding women with husbands who were well endowed.
.....e.t.c.

I should probably emphasize that I am not joking with this.
If you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible you have to accept the fact that the omnipotent creator of the universe has rewarded women in the past with husbands who have big penises.

Yes that sounds ridiculous, but you can't ignore it. It is in the Bible and that is only the tip of the Iceberg.
The questionable morality of the Bible is one thing, but cartoonish absurdities as literal truth is quite another.

I would actual like to hear a defence of this stuff. People dismiss very often because it sounds so silly, but this is part of the main text of the world's largest faith.

5uspect

Son Goku wrote:

I should probably emphasize that I am not joking with this.
If you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible you have to accept the fact that the omnipotent creator of the universe has rewarded women in the past with husbands who have big penises.

Yes that sounds ridiculous, but you can't ignore it. It is in the Bible and that is only the tip of the Iceberg.
The questionable morality of the Bible is one thing, but cartoonist absurdities as literal truth is quite another.

I would actual like to hear a defence of this stuff. People dismiss very often because it sounds so silly, but this is part of the main text of the world's largest faith.

Your're right. I'm very interested in the responses to this also. For a "true" believer to fully accept Jesus he must accept that he died for all our sins. That includes the sins of adam and eve. So once you've bought into Jesus as saviour you have to buy into the literal nonsense also.

Pocari Sweat

5uspect wrote:

Your're right. I'm very interested in the responses to this also. For a "true" believer to fully accept Jesus he must accept that he died for all our sins. That includes the sins of adam and eve. So once you've bought into Jesus as saviour you have to buy into the literal nonsense also.

I reckon Jesus was a top bloke, but what if I was to go ahead and say right I gonna make a change with my life and get down some church and start talking up this Jesus, and get into terms like Christ Lord is Saviour and stuff like that until it all seems normal and then I am asked to atone for the sins of adam and eve from the vicar or priest.

What is the priest going to say when a new member of his flock, devout on Jesus and speaking all the Christ is Lord terminology etc, then says that Eve got knobbed by Kane and Abel, they were all a bunch of hill billys, that aint right. The priest is just going to toss me out on me ear for speaking me mind.

Paulw0t

Pocari Sweat wrote:

I reckon Jesus was a top bloke, but what if I was to go ahead and say right I gonna make a change with my life and get down some church and start talking up this Jesus, and get into terms like Christ Lord is Saviour and stuff like that until it all seems normal and then I am asked to atone for the sins of adam and eve from the vicar or priest.

Well the priest might agree with you some strange stuff in the O.T... However touching on the point you think Jesus was a top bloke. Do you think he was the Son of God and God himself? Cause if you don't belive that then surely you would have to write him off as a lunny like anyone else claiming to be God? Just a thought.

Pocari Sweat

No, regardless, I wouldn't write him off as nutter, because he clearly did some proper stuff.

The point is you don't need to be the son of a god, or follow some god, to do good things and be a decent person.

Religious people may think you have to be a nutter if you are trying to lead a proper decent life, unless there is some supernatural thing backing up what you believe.

I know, so, so, so many people that go to church every sunday, and many lie like fecking troopers, deceive and act like scum, others are far far worse and are real pond life.

To me the church offers zero likelyhood in making someone good.

Jesus did not have to have the god that was described in the bible as his dad, and I would like to think god wasn't his dad, because the particular brand of god described in the bible, I can guarantee you with a full list of examples, s a total pratt. No one would want that kinda fecker running the universe.