Is anyone here besides me a christian?

[Lorenzo_H]

Since there seems to be a lot of religious discussion floating around, I am going to start a topic about mine.

Had to say it. If anyone has any questions about christianity, Jesus Christ, God, Creation or the Bible then ask me. I will do my best.

Do us all a favour and don't lets turn this into one massive debate, though I guess for some people its like telling them not to drink.

[IrishArmenian]

I'm Christian too.
Armenian Apostlic, Oriental Orthodoxy, Christianity.
I assume you are Catholic, yes?

[Adrian II]

Since there seems to be a lot of religious discussion floating around, I am going to start a topic about mine.We already have a thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=73476)on the topic. I think you should queue like the rest of us.

[Strike For The South]

WASP here Southern Baptist:whip: :2thumbsup:

[Lorenzo_H]

We already have a thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=73476)on the topic. I think you should queue like the rest of us.
I wanted to make one specifically about christianity.

@Irisharmenian; no im not catholic, im evangelical.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I'm Presbyterian.

[Ice]

I'm Catholic.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm Alcoholic. :barrel:

[Strike For The South]

I'm Alcoholic. :barrel:

Hey you and my parents go to the same church!

[King Henry V]

Baptised Catholic with Protestant leanings. I wouldn't mind being Anglican (High Church: they have the prettiest churches) but for the fact that I consider the present Archbishop of Canterbury to be an ass and the whole church just seems to be so wishy-washy on matters: they try to be all things to all be people but instead end up being nothing to anyone.

[IrishArmenian]

I wanted to make one specifically about christianity.

@Irisharmenian; no im not catholic, im evangelical.
I thought you were from Spain, though. Sorry, that was kind of an ingorant thought. I was under the assumption that just about 95% of Spanish Christians were Catholic.

[Samurai Waki]

Catholic, in the Cathar Heretic Sort of Way.

[Lorenzo_H]

I thought you were from Spain, though. Sorry, that was kind of an ingorant thought. I was under the assumption that just about 95% of Spanish Christians were Catholic.
You are actually not far off in your thinking. I used to live in Spain and am very familiar with their culture. And yes, I have never met a Spaniard who is not a self-professed Catholic.
I take no offence at your misunderstanding.

[Incongruous]

Catholic, in the Cathar Heretic Sort of Way.

So you're actually not Catholic?

[Fragony]

At first I was sceptical despite having a protestant background, but then he appeared, in the most unusual of places;

picture removed by Ser Clegane - posting it was hardly appropriate here

[InsaneApache]

Aw.... c'mon you know that a dogs rectum was designed :inquisitive: :laugh4:

[Lorenzo_H]

Fragony you are sick. As if I needed to point it out.

[Ser Clegane]

:stop:

No posting of inappropriate pictures, no personal attacks.

Back on topic, please

[Fragony]

Fragony you are sick. As if I needed to point it out.

Sorry, it was too good an opportunity. I was out of line there. :sorry:

[Husar]

Evangelical/protestant here.

[yesdachi]

I am not a very good one but I fall most easily into the Christian category.

[littlelostboy]

Protestant. Methodist. But recently I have stepped out of the box and became an agnostic.

[Sigurd]

When I just dropped by the Backroom I saw this:

https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y230/asleka/FragonyIsChristian2.jpg?t=1165241388


I thought... what the...

Fragony.. care to explain? :laugh4:

[Fragony]

god knows how that happened :laugh4:

Must be the edit Ser Clegane slapped on my post, no fun at all that one.

[Andres]

Sorry, it was too good an opportunity. I was out of line there. :sorry:

Your heavenly father loves sinners. You are forgiven my son.


Besides, showing attrition is more fun than resisting the temptation :bounce:

I myself am baptised (catholic church) and I consider myself to be a christian, though in my own way. I personnally believe in the message of Jesus Christ (to love other people like you love yourself, do not harm people, in general: be a good guy), but I don't accept the "magic stuff" (walking on water, transformating water in wine and other "miracles").

I believe the Bible is not to be taken litterally, the one thing that matters is the big message written in the New Testament : :knuddel:

[Vuk]

I'm a Christian.

[Quid]

On paper I am Roman Catholic. In reality, I couldn't care less.

I am generally interested in the discussion revolving around religion but find it little comforting (if not useless) to actually be part of one.

I think the large majority knows good from bad and doesn't need to be told. I live my life as I see fit and try to accommodate others in it. Simple as that, really.

Quid

[Vuk]

On paper I am Roman Catholic. In reality, I couldn't care less.

I am generally interested in the discussion revolving around religion but find it little comforting (if not useless) to actually be part of one.

I think the large majority knows good from bad and doesn't need to be told. I live my life as I see fit and try to accommodate others in it. Simple as that, really.

Quid

Why even bother doing good?

[Quid]

Why even bother doing good?

Because doing good and making others happy often results in you yourself feeling better. I enjoy giving presents more than receiving them, for example.

So really, I am just serving my own self-interest.

Quid

[Andres]

Because doing good and making others happy often results in you yourself feeling better. I enjoy giving presents more than receiving them, for example.

So really, I am just serving my own self-interest.

Quid

Can't see anything wrong in serving your own self-interest by not harming and even pleasing others.

:bow:

PS: I volunteer to make you happy by receiving a gift from you. 50.000,00 € will do just fine thank you :whip: . I'm not taking advantage of you, I'm just here to make you happy ~;)

[Quid]

Can't see anything wrong in serving your own self-interest by not harming and even pleasing others.

:bow:

PS: I volunteer to make you happy by receiving a gift from you. 50.000,00 € will do just fine thank you :whip: . I'm not taking advantage of you, I'm just here to make you happy ~;)

I can't think of any feeling right now that is worth €50.000,00. And besides, this definitely would not serve in my best self-interest.

Oh, and I don't do €, am quite content with CHF! :yes:

Quid

[KukriKhan]

Your heavenly father loves sinners. You are forgiven my son.


Besides, showing attrition is more fun than resisting the temptation :bounce:

I myself am baptised (catholic church) and I consider myself to be a christian, though in my own way. I personnally believe in the message of Jesus Christ (to love other people like you love yourself, do not harm people, in general: be a good guy), but I don't accept the "magic stuff" (walking on water, transformating water in wine and other "miracles").

I believe the Bible is not to be taken litterally, the one thing that matters is the big message written in the New Testament : :knuddel:

How about the other "magic stuff"? That somehow the guy from Nazareth (and only he) was simultaneously man and god? And that his death saved your personal immortal soul?

I don't mean to sharpshoot anyone's beliefs. I'm just trying to better understand how so many folks identify themselves as one religion or another so firmly, when it appears that there are so many degrees of belief.

[Vladimir]

How about the other "magic stuff"? That somehow the guy from Nazareth (and only he) was simultaneously man and god? And that his death saved your personal immortal soul?

I don't mean to sharpshoot anyone's beliefs. I'm just trying to better understand how so many folks identify themselves as one religion or another so firmly, when it appears that there are so many degrees of belief.

Do you consider yourself an American?

[Vuk]

How about the other "magic stuff"? That somehow the guy from Nazareth (and only he) was simultaneously man and god? And that his death saved your personal immortal soul?

I don't mean to sharpshoot anyone's beliefs. I'm just trying to better understand how so many folks identify themselves as one religion or another so firmly, when it appears that there are so many degrees of belief.


If the Bible is lying in any part, then it cannot be trusted for anything. The Bible IS the truth (All of it!), and if you except that, then you are a Christian. The name 'Christian' refers to a follower and believer of Christ (You know, that guy from Nazareth). If you do not believe in Christ Jesus, take EVERYTHING he says for fact, then you cannot call youself a Christian. Many people call themselves Christians so they can have a group to identify with, but unless they believe in Jesus Christ, and take the WHOLE Bible as Divinely inspired and wholy true, they cannot actually call themselves Christians. (Yes, the Old Testament is part of the Bible).

[Watchman]

Which Bible, though ?

[KukriKhan]

Do you consider yourself an American?

Uh-oh... pop quiz (gulp).

I live, work & play in the land called "America", so:

Yes.

(Can't wait to see where this goes).

[Redleg]

Uh-oh... pop quiz (gulp).

I live, work & play in the land called "America", so:

Yes.

(Can't wait to see where this goes).

In my best Nixon voice, in a conspiracy whisper....Can we really count anyone living in California as truely American?:clown:

[Samurai Waki]

If the Bible is lying in any part, then it cannot be trusted for anything. The Bible IS the truth (All of it!), and if you except that, then you are a Christian. The name 'Christian' refers to a follower and believer of Christ (You know, that guy from Nazareth). If you do not believe in Christ Jesus, take EVERYTHING he says for fact, then you cannot call youself a Christian. Many people call themselves Christians so they can have a group to identify with, but unless they believe in Jesus Christ, and take the WHOLE Bible as Divinely inspired and wholy true, they cannot actually call themselves Christians. (Yes, the Old Testament is part of the Bible).

uhhhh....what are you smoking?

It's obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. Anyone who Accepts Christ as a personal part of their life is considered a Christian. The Holy Bible... it is a book... yes. A Book. Not all books are true. I could say that the movie Braveheart was Divinely Inspired, but it still doesn't make all the parts of it historically correct.

Just Food For Thought.

[Andres]

How about the other "magic stuff"? That somehow the guy from Nazareth (and only he) was simultaneously man and god? And that his death saved your personal immortal soul?

I don't mean to sharpshoot anyone's beliefs. I'm just trying to better understand how so many folks identify themselves as one religion or another so firmly, when it appears that there are so many degrees of belief.


First of all, I can only speak for myself.

Jesus being the son of God or God himself, God as a Holy Father and being allmighty, well, let's say I'm just a humble human being, too little to understand such things fully, too little to give prove for it. I recognise the limitations of my rational thinking.

The one thing that matters (at least in my very humble opinion) is the most basic lesson Jesus Christ tried to teach us: love one another and do no harm to each other.

So I take what I consider to be the most important message and I try to live like that: being a caring, loving person, trying to help my close ones and, if possible, other people, trying to forgive if somebody hurts me, regretting my own faults and trying to fix what I broke. Living like that just happens to be the way teached to us by Jesus Christ. At least that's the message I get from reading the New Testament, without letting other people's opinions interfere.

Now, if a muslim, a Budhist or any other person practising a different religion would tell me that what I described above as the most important lesson taught by Christ, happens to be the bottomline of their belief, than I would consider myself a muslim, Budhist or any other "religion-ist" too.

So I call myself a Christian because I consider this way of living (the love each other thingy) an ideal one. Not an easy one, maybe not always the "smartest" one or most profitable one, but it's a way of living that brings hapiness, for yourself and others.

Salvation or damnation of my eternal soul? I do not know. Life after dead? Too difficult a question for me. Human lives don't last very long. I'll be dead long enough, plenty of time to figure it out then.

Loving, caring, helping, forgivin? That I understand and I am capable of. So let me try that during my time here on earth.

[KukriKhan]

Thanks for outlining your personal credo, AndresTheCunning... beliefs worthy of admiration and respect. :bow:

I see you also caught on to the gist of my question: why are folks so eager to slap a label on their beliefs? You allow that your personal beliefs may be similar or identical to those of other faiths, and would have little trouble applying the label Muslim, Buddhist, etc to yourself, without a fight.

Switching gears; here's a part that I have a hard time wrapping my head around: those guys on whom a religion is based (Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Gautama, and so on)... there had to be an "Aha!" moment for them, when they realized "I am the one!". What would that be like? If it happened to you, would you think you were crazy?

[Ser Clegane]

If you do not believe in Christ Jesus, take EVERYTHING he says for fact, then you cannot call youself a Christian. Many people call themselves Christians so they can have a group to identify with, but unless they believe in Jesus Christ, and take the WHOLE Bible as Divinely inspired and wholy true, they cannot actually call themselves Christians. (Yes, the Old Testament is part of the Bible).


Why even bother doing good?

If you reduce being a Christian to taking everything your bible says literally and to doing good just because you think you have to, then I have the feeling you are missing the point by quite a wide margin

[Louis VI the Fat]

those guys on whom a religion is based (Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Gautama, and so on)... there had to be an "Aha!" moment for them, when they realized "I am the one!". What would that be like? If it happened to you, would you think you were crazy?Crazy? No. Well yes I did struggle with it for a while, what with the enormous task that lay ahead of me. But somewhere deep down, I..I..I had always known. Looking back, everything fell into place. The miracles, the healings, that wisdom well beyond my age. Also, shortly after the Revelation I started seeing the upside of it all too. You know, the money, the chicks, that cool Louisian Calender thingy...

[InsaneApache]

What points that then? :elephant:

[LeftEyeNine]

Random and harmless and unintentional question:

-I heard that St. Petrus changed the Biblical teachings in his own commented way. How true is that?

-And there were 4 Bibles chosen in Iznik Council (I don't know what you call it), weren't they ?

Regarding these, (if true) how true can a holy book be pure, considering how human-touched it was through ages ?

Forget I'm a Muslim or a believer or something else. I just want to know something. I'm absolutely not intending to drive this to a pee-further race among religions.

[Lorenzo_H]

The Bible is to be taken literally throughout the whole thing. Show me anyone where you have trouble believing. Men might have written it, but God and the Hoy spirit insipred them. God is all-powerful. When he wants a book to be a certain way, he can do it if he so wishes. If hes lying to us then we are doomed, but I'm willing to take the chance that he isnt and that he loves us and wants us to love him. Christians lead a better and more whole life anyway by obeying the teachings of the bible, even if God is hogwash.

Jesus was holy, and the son of God.

[InsaneApache]

The Bible is to be taken literally throughout the whole thing. Show me anyone where you have trouble believing.

Oh my...where to start....:wall:


Christians lead a better and more whole life anyway by obeying the teachings of the bible, even if God is hogwash.

Jesus was holy, and the son of God.

At last a Christian sees the light....

[Samurai Waki]

Well... hmmm let me see. Ummm, pretty much the entire First Testament Contradicts almost all of Revelations... thats a good place to start. Ummm, There were several hundred articles removed from the Bible during the Council of Nicaea, because they were too free thinking, and didn't promote a singular religious Dogma.

Every Pope since Innocent the VI has denounced the bible as a literal translation of history. That you should be good at heart, instead of being told to be good.

I am a Christian, I Love God, and I Love Christ, and I try my hardest every day to Love everyone else, and give what I can, not because the Bible says I should, but because I like to see someone smile, or brighten their day for just a brief second. I don't need Dogma, or whatever other trash is littered throughout the bible.

[Vuk]

uhhhh....what are you smoking?

It's obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. Anyone who Accepts Christ as a personal part of their life is considered a Christian. The Holy Bible... it is a book... yes. A Book. Not all books are true. I could say that the movie Braveheart was Divinely Inspired, but it still doesn't make all the parts of it historically correct.

Just Food For Thought.


The only account we have of God comes from the Bible! If you believe in God, you are believing in something you read (and obviously believed) in the Bible! If you say that the Bible is untrue, then what basis do you have for believing in God? God would just be a lie, or are parts of it tru, and other parts not? i.e. What you want to be true, and what you don't want to not be true.

I will get to you in a minute Ser and rest, but I have to wait a long time in between posts.

[Andres]

Thanks for outlining your personal credo, AndresTheCunning... beliefs worthy of admiration and respect.

Domo arigato Kukri-san :bow:


Switching gears; here's a part that I have a hard time wrapping my head around: those guys on whom a religion is based (Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Gautama, and so on)... there had to be an "Aha!" moment for them, when they realized "I am the one!".

You think so? Did they really think they were "the one" or is it what other people made us belief afterwards? Did they really preach they were "the one" ? Maybe, maybe not. We weren't there when they lived, so you cannot say for 100 % sure they considered themselves to be "the one". But I can understand others were believing that (remember that scene in Monty Python's "The Life of Brian" where everybody claimed he was the Messiah? It didn't matter if Brian denied or confirmed he was the Messiah, people wanted so hard to believe he was, so he was the Messiah. It's a hilarious scene, but maybe there is more truth in it than we think).

Was their inspiration Divine? I don't know.

Were they enlightened? Imho: yes.

The only thing I know for sure is that the essence of their message as preserved and past on to us, contains much truth and wisdom. I don't really care about Jesus Christ or any other person bringing the same message being "the one" or not. It's the message that counts, not the messenger.

And the message is simple enough to understand, in it's shining beauty easy to accept. Practizing it and following the path is the hard part.

[Samurai Waki]

The only account we have of God comes from the Bible! If you believe in God, you are believing in something you read (and obviously believed) in the Bible! If you say that the Bible is untrue, then what basis do you have for believing in God? God would just be a lie, or are parts of it tru, and other parts not? i.e. What you want to be true, and what you don't want to not be true.

I will get to you in a minute Ser and rest, but I have to wait a long time in between posts.

God has been a part of human existence, far before we ever had the capacity to write our own language. Don't be so foolhardy. Only Morons and Cattle are so blind as to trust the word of the Divine. We Must Feel God, Because God is inside of us, if we so choose to it. God cannot be described, humans can be described, and humans can be blind as well. I choose not to be blind. My Basis for believing in God is a much deeper, and fulfilling meaning then you will ever have, and it's because I have suffered. It's because I see suffering, and it's because I long to end suffering. I believe God, and this earth are in no way connected, God is the Reward. Jesus is the message. If we read the message, and take it to heart, what else do we need? Human's have a tendency to over complicate things, this is why we have people killed all over the world in the name of god. Things like the bible for instance... But at the base of every single belief structure in this world, they are essentially the same. Human's desire Peace and Happiness through God(s), God is in us. Not in the pages of a book. I am sorry, I will always retain my beliefs, and you yours. But, I think your side has no idea what the Dark Ages were all about.

[LeftEyeNine]

The Bible is to be taken literally throughout the whole thing. Show me anyone where you have trouble believing. Men might have written it, but God and the Hoy spirit insipred them. God is all-powerful. When he wants a book to be a certain way, he can do it if he so wishes. If hes lying to us then we are doomed, but I'm willing to take the chance that he isnt and that he loves us and wants us to love him. Christians lead a better and more whole life anyway by obeying the teachings of the bible, even if God is hogwash.

Jesus was holy, and the son of God.

Um oh, look, what I meant was the Bible was re-written after the inspirational teachings to Jesus had ended (if it isn't so, please enlighten me). There were 4 of them chosen out of all.

Theologically, mankind has the tendency to go "evil" that's why God sends messengers to carry his word and teach the human to the "good" way.

My question simply arises from this point : If humans added/re-wrote the Bible, it may have been somehow corrupted. Because especially after looking how the Church used the religion to its advantage, it simply clouds my mind how many Bibles were there written by ordinary human beings.

I guess you understand my question this time.

[Lorenzo_H]

The council of Nicea is a pile of bulls droppings. It did not discuss the bible.

[Vuk]

Um oh, look, what I meant was the Bible was re-written after the inspirational teachings to Jesus had ended (if it isn't so, please enlighten me). There were 4 of them chosen out of all.

Theologically, mankind has the tendency to go "evil" that's why God sends messengers to carry his word and teach the human to the "good" way.

My question simply arises from this point : If humans added/re-wrote the Bible, it may have been somehow corrupted. Because especially after looking how the Church used the religion to its advantage, it simply clouds my mind how many Bibles were there written by ordinary human beings.

I guess you understand my question this time.

You are correct. The Bible has been changed and interpreted to be used as a control mechanism for many churches and sects (including the Catholic Church). We still have the original Bible however (there was never 'one book', but we have the books that comprised it or copies of them within 50-100 years after they were written), and it remains the same. The Bible is the essence and the Embodiement of God. To paraphrse a part of the Bible, "And God was with the Word, and the Word was God"! You just have to do your research. (Knowing Greek and Hebrew helos too, as there are a host of mistranslated (often delibratelly so, as to fit a current political view) parts and words, that you will never know the true meaning of otherwise.).



Which Bible, though ?

There is only one.


First of all, I can only speak for myself.

Jesus being the son of God or God himself, God as a Holy Father and being allmighty, well, let's say I'm just a humble human being, too little to understand such things fully, too little to give prove for it. I recognise the limitations of my rational thinking.

The one thing that matters (at least in my very humble opinion) is the most basic lesson Jesus Christ tried to teach us: love one another and do no harm to each other.

So I take what I consider to be the most important message and I try to live like that: being a caring, loving person, trying to help my close ones and, if possible, other people, trying to forgive if somebody hurts me, regretting my own faults and trying to fix what I broke. Living like that just happens to be the way teached to us by Jesus Christ. At least that's the message I get from reading the New Testament, without letting other people's opinions interfere.

Now, if a muslim, a Budhist or any other person practising a different religion would tell me that what I described above as the most important lesson taught by Christ, happens to be the bottomline of their belief, than I would consider myself a muslim, Budhist or any other "religion-ist" too.

So I call myself a Christian because I consider this way of living (the love each other thingy) an ideal one. Not an easy one, maybe not always the "smartest" one or most profitable one, but it's a way of living that brings hapiness, for yourself and others.

Salvation or damnation of my eternal soul? I do not know. Life after dead? Too difficult a question for me. Human lives don't last very long. I'll be dead long enough, plenty of time to figure it out then.

Loving, caring, helping, forgivin? That I understand and I am capable of. So let me try that during my time here on earth.


The essence of Christianity is believing in Jesus Christ, and accepting him (and hey, you need to take the Bible at its word i.e. God at His word, to do this.). If you don't, than you are not a Christian. You, I would think, are a wishy-washy atheist :D (no offence meant).



If you reduce being a Christian to taking everything your bible says literally and to doing good just because you think you have to, then I have the feeling you are missing the point by quite a wide margin

The basis of Christianity is in the Bible. To be a Christian, you need to accept Jesus Christ The Almighty as your saviour, but you cannot unless you believe in the Bible. It is not rocket science...



Well... hmmm let me see. Ummm, pretty much the entire First Testament Contradicts almost all of Revelations... thats a good place to start. Ummm, There were several hundred articles removed from the Bible during the Council of Nicaea, because they were too free thinking, and didn't promote a singular religious Dogma.

Every Pope since Innocent the VI has denounced the bible as a literal translation of history. That you should be good at heart, instead of being told to be good.

I am a Christian, I Love God, and I Love Christ, and I try my hardest every day to Love everyone else, and give what I can, not because the Bible says I should, but because I like to see someone smile, or brighten their day for just a brief second. I don't need Dogma, or whatever other trash is littered throughout the bible.

"There were several hundred articles removed from the Bible during the Council of Nicaea, because they were too free thinking, and didn't promote a singular religious Dogma."

I think that perhaps we should go back to our history class Wakizashi. You obviously do not know what you are talking about. The purpose of the council of Nicea was to combat Aryanism. All the Biblical scholars got together and looked at all the books and articles being claimed to be "Divinely Inspired" and found out which were original, which were polluted by Aryan false doctrine, and which were fabricated - much like how archeologists would seek to discover if the artifact they were looking at was genuine or not. One of the ways they could tell if a book was false, was if it contradicted the base Books of the Bible, that had been standard since the beginning of Christianity. And guess what? Modern science confirms just about everything they did. A lot of those Coptic books, etc, we have found to be additions, written by men of the time.
You certainly are not a historian, so lets talk about Christian. How can you claim to love God and Jesus Christ (who are one), when you say that their earthly embodiement is trash? It is obvious that you are not a logician either...


Thank you Kukri-san :bow:



You think so? Did they really think they were "the one" or is it what other people made us belief afterwards? Did they really preach they were "the one" ? Maybe, maybe not. We weren't there when they lived, so you cannot say for 100 % sure they considered themselves to be "the one". But I can understand others were believing that (remember that scene in Monty Python's "The Life of Brian" where everybody claimed he was the Messiah? It didn't matter if Brian denied or confirmed he was the Messiah, people wanted so hard to believe he was, so he was the Messiah. It's a hilarious scene, but maybe there is more truth in it than we think).

Was their inspiration Divine? I don't know.

Were they enlightened? Imho: yes.

The only thing I know for sure is that the essence of their message as preserved and past on to us, contains much truth and wisdom. I don't really care about Jesus Christ or any other person bringing the same message being "the one" or not. It's the message that counts, not the messenger.





And the message is simple enough to understand, in it's shining beauty easy to accept. Practizing it and following the path is the hard part.

Jesus was the message and the messager.


God has been a part of human existence, far before we ever had the capacity to write our own language. Don't be so foolhardy. Only Morons and Cattle are so blind as to trust the word of the Divine. We Must Feel God, Because God is inside of us, if we so choose to it. God cannot be described, humans can be described, and humans can be blind as well. I choose not to be blind. My Basis for believing in God is a much deeper, and fulfilling meaning then you will ever have, and it's because I have suffered. It's because I see suffering, and it's because I long to end suffering. I believe God, and this earth are in no way connected, God is the Reward. Jesus is the message. If we read the message, and take it to heart, what else do we need? Human's have a tendency to over complicate things, this is why we have people killed all over the world in the name of god. Things like the bible for instance... But at the base of every single belief structure in this world, they are essentially the same. Human's desire Peace and Happiness through God(s), God is in us. Not in the pages of a book. I am sorry, I will always retain my beliefs, and you yours. But, I think your side has no idea what the Dark Ages were all about.


First, peole have been able to write since the beginning of time.
Your post is nothing but emotions and nonsense. If thhe basis of the world was a human desire for peace, there would be no war. In fact, humans have quite the opposite desire. People are constantly having to combat their worldly desires to do evil. Humans are as "inherently Good" as a pile of bird doodoo! (me included)

[InsaneApache]

I am a Christian, I Love God, and I Love Christ, and I try my hardest every day to Love everyone else, and give what I can, not because the Bible says I should, but because I like to see someone smile, or brighten their day for just a brief second. I don't need Dogma, or whatever other trash is littered throughout the bible.

I live just like that.....or try too....not easy but very, very rewarding.

There again, as an un-believer, I shouldn't know teh difference between wrong and right.....:whip:

[Andres]

The essence of Christianity is believing in Jesus Christ, and accepting him (and hey, you need to take the Bible at its word i.e. God at His word, to do this.). If you don't, than you are not a Christian. You, I would think, are a wishy-washy atheist :D (no offence meant).

Wishy-washy atheist?

:laugh4:

Well, I think we disagree there.

But I have a question for you then: if I decide to live my life following the path shown by Jesus Christ, but without believing every single word written in the Bible (which was written by man, not by God himself), especially not "the magic stuff", will my soul be damned and burn in hell according to your interpretation of being a Christian?



Jesus was the message and the messager.

Can you explain that to me? What was the essence of his (or should I write His ~;) ) message according to you?

[AntiochusIII]

The council of Nicea is a pile of bulls droppings. It did not discuss the bible.Then which Bible do you read? I don't believe any of the Arian ones survived intact enough to counter the Nicene Creed...

You know the popular King James Bible rely on the old ones that essentially trace their origins back to essentially that "pile of bulls droppings?"

And if it's from your local evangelist, I'd be even more suspicious. It can't possibly be more true than something much older and more authentic; that is, generally...

Moreover, it was generally recognized that all of Jesus' words, much like that of Buddha's, if I may say so, were not recorded while they were alive. The Holy Books of both religion took their time to form: after their Prophets' deaths (or Nirvana, or Return to Heaven, whatever).

-And there were 4 Bibles chosen in Iznik Council (I don't know what you call it), weren't they ?I believe you are referring to the famed "Council of Nicaea," (there's more than one, by the way, but when people say that it usually means the first) which essentially allows for the establishment of the state-tied churches that would later become both Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity (Eastern Roman) in which all the histories and various sects of the religion since follows.

It was called by the Emperor to resolve doctrinal conflicts -- contradictions, if you will -- within the various churches in the empire at the time; its significance really is in that it was the first time that there is any serious attempt to reconcile conflicting teachings of the sprawling and quite regionally different Christianity of the time. While I never heard of that "four Bibles" claim before, what the Nicene Creed did was discarding a lot of differing viewpoints on various issues and claim itself to be the legitimate interpretation of what-has-actually-been-true (true, of course, to Christians...) and all other different sects, henceforth heresies, that disagreed with some of those newly set-in-stone doctrines were simply unquestioningly wrong.

Monotheism reaffirmed, literally by force, if you will.

Now, of course, in short term it actually suffered quite a few setbacks; a few truly powerful Bishops downright opposed the "decision" and used their influences to opposed it accordingly, which varying success. But retrospectively the effects are now clearly enormous.

Most of the issues were either serious theological questions (of which I have no part of -- things like Christ's true nature and all that) or quasi-political decisions (like the Arian heresy, among others -- then again it did tie back to a theological dispute), however, and, in risk of offending some of the more sun-sensitive people in this thread, I'd say that such theological questions were absolutely meaningless to the general masses of believers for thousands of years. Even now. Though there had been much improvement in terms of Book-knowledge, if you will, of most Christians since information in general becomes more readily available.

I mean, if you ask what an average Italian miller of the era just prior to the Inquisition/Reformation, you'd be surprised how he views God, and how it differed from what the Clerics told him.

[Vuk]

Wishy-washy atheist?

:laugh4:

Well, I think we disagree there.

But I have a question for you then: if I decide to live my life following the path shown by Jesus Christ, but without believing every single word written in the Bible (which was written by man, not by God himself), especially not "the magic stuff", will my soul be damned and burn in hell according to your interpretation of being a Christian?




Can you explain that to me? What was the essence of his (or should I write His ~;) ) message according to you?

You know God (Jesus included) only through His Holy Word. If you reject His Word, you reject Him. The Bible says very clearly that unless you put your Faith in Jesus, accept Him, and try to walk by His ways, you will not see the Kingdom.
It is pretty straight forward.

[Watchman]

There is only one.This would be a minor sensation then. Where'd you find it and what language it was written in ? Although I'm guessing you're going to have a hard time getting it universally accepted over those gazillion other versions, nevermind now those sects that pretty much consider the whole book to be good mainly for lighting fires...
Switching gears; here's a part that I have a hard time wrapping my head around: those guys on whom a religion is based (Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Gautama, and so on)... there had to be an "Aha!" moment for them, when they realized "I am the one!". What would that be like? If it happened to you, would you think you were crazy?
You know, I once read that the Prophet Mohammed indeed did initially think he was going crazy when that angel appeared to him, nevermind now that he was prior to that so torn by his religious doubts (what with that merry hodge-podge of Judaism, Christianity, local pagan faiths and God knows what else that was the norm around the place at the time) he was contemplating suicide. I probably a little insensitively asked one imam I met about this, but he seemed to misunderstand my intention because he spent the next half an hour recounting assorted miracles the Prophet apparently pulled off as irrefutable proof of his divine inspiration, which I thought were quite interesting but rather smacked of apocrypha. I think I left him with a rather bad impression, which is really a shame because he was quite a nice man.

[Andres]

You know God (Jesus included) only through His Holy Word. If you reject His Word, you reject Him.

His Holy Word = The Bible or the New Testament?


The Bible says very clearly that unless you put your Faith in Jesus, accept Him, and try to walk by His ways, you will not see the Kingdom.
It is pretty straight forward.

So just trying to walk by his ways isn't sufficient in your opinion?

If I live my life loving, caring, forgiving, helping but without believing e.g. that Jesus turned water into wine or that he walked on the water, I'm not a Christian? ~:confused:

I think you are mistaken my friend. Don't let the details and the stories make you losing the underlying message. The loving, caring, forgiving and helping thing is the most important of all and it's the only thing that truly matters.

But I'm starting to repeat myself and I'm getting under the impression we will never agree about this anyway.

Whatever, as long as there is beer ~:cheers:

:bounce:

[InsaneApache]

:coffeenews:

[Vuk]

His Holy Word = The Bible or the New Testament?



So just trying to walk by his ways isn't sufficient in your opinion?

If I live my life loving, caring, forgiving, helping but without believing e.g. that Jesus turned water into wine or that he walked on the water, I'm not a Christian? ~:confused:

I think you are mistaken my friend. Don't let the details and the stories make you losing the underlying message. The loving, caring, forgiving and helping thing is the most important of all and it's the only thing that truly matters.

But I'm starting to repeat myself and I'm getting under the impression we will never agree about this anyway.

Whatever, as long as there is beer ~:cheers:

:bounce:


The Bible is the Old Testament AND the New Testament.

If God does not have supernatural powers, then He is not God.

[IrishArmenian]

Yes, there were many gospels to be chosen and some were deleted. Personally, I believe that Jesus was born in a cave as per the Gospel of Timothy (who could technically be called the bother of Jesus but he was actually human and had real human parents).
The Nicean Creed defines a Christian. Basically, it is just taking Jesus of Nazareth as saviour.

[Tribesman]

Men might have written it, but God and the Hoy spirit insipred them.
So Diablodelmar, regarding for example the epistles of Paul , those that remain in the modern bible are what was written when God and the Holy Spirit were inspiring him , and those that are absent from the modern bible are those that he wrote when he wasn't being inspired ?
Or was it that those who chose to remove the texts were divinely inspired to the realisation that Paul wasn't consistantly divinely inspired in his writings ?


The council of Nicea is a pile of bulls droppings. It did not discuss the bible.
Wow .....just wow , that has rendered me speechless :dizzy2:

[LeftEyeNine]

Hey hey, all contradiction here:

If Council of Nicaea was to dismiss the conflicts among the interpretions of Bible, doesn't it indicate that Bible was "touched" ?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I happen to be Catholic. My parents didn't baptize me when I was small, I chose my religion for myself.

[AntiochusIII]

Hey hey, all contradiction here:

If Council of Nicaea was to dismiss the conflicts among the interpretions of Bible, doesn't it indicate that Bible was "touched" ?Well, yeah. What makes up the current Bible, or at least the New Testament (the old is the Jewish Torah anyway; much, much older and carries the same kind of characteristics as other old, great myths in the region that "founded civilization") is actually a collection of Gospels whereas there are simply more -- probably much more -- Gospels than in the Book.

Have you ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls or something like that. That's a pretty famous case of what's not in the Bible and might just as well have been. Or the Gospel of Judas, which portrays the infamous "betrayer" who apparently was Satan's favorite snack in Inferno in a far better light than anything in the current Bible.

Moreover, like I said, even the original Gospels themselves weren't written when Jesus still walked our blessed little world.

By the way, for interest's sake: are there any similar historical issue involving the Koran itself? Any serious conflicts of interpretations? Any grand councils gathered to define doctrines a la Nicaea or those Buddhist ones?

So Diablodelmar, regarding for example the epistles of Paul , those that remain in the modern bible are what was written when God and the Holy Spirit were inspiring him , and those that are absent from the modern bible are those that he wrote when he wasn't being inspired ?
Or was it that those who chose to remove the texts were divinely inspired to the realisation that Paul wasn't consistantly divinely inspired in his writings ?Hey, I just realized why Tribesman is such a popular and popularly antagonistic poster at the same time. This constant questioning is way fun to read/watch and incredibly frustrating to be on the receiving end.

You would've been forced to drink poison if you were in Old Athens. :)

[Red Peasant]

So Diablodelmar, regarding for example the epistles of Paul , those that remain in the modern bible are what was written when God and the Holy Spirit were inspiring him , and those that are absent from the modern bible are those that he wrote when he wasn't being inspired ?
Or was it that those who chose to remove the texts were divinely inspired to the realisation that Paul wasn't consistantly divinely inspired in his writings ?



Some of Paul's letters are so inspired that he wrote them over century after he died! What a guy. :laugh4:

[LeftEyeNine]

...
By the way, for interest's sake: are there any similar historical issue involving the Koran itself? Any serious conflicts of interpretations? Any grand councils gathered to define doctrines a la Nicaea or those Buddhist ones?
...


[hanging Muslim identity on the wall]

Well Islam actually criticizes that corruption and praises itself on the counter. Allah says "No human will be ever able to change or corrupt what Koran says".

The writing phase of the Kuran was being held by "vahiy katipleri" (=revelation writers) who were responsible for noting down what Hz. Muhammed said when he was in trance. What he said was used to be noted down on thin leathers, scapula, barks and smooth pieces of stones. Since the ayets (=every sentence revealed to Mohammed during his trances) were not complete yet, the writers used to note them under sures (=meaningful paragraphs and themetically inter-complementary bodies of ayets) that Hz. Muhammed showed.

The writings were compiled in the time of the Caliphet Hz. Ebubekir, and were printed as books during the Caliphet Hz. Osman 's period.

Briefly there were not such arguments or gatherings over what was right or wrong about what Kuran was because a methodical way had been followed to keep it from humanly modifications.

[/hanging Muslim identity on the wall]

[JimBob]

The Bible is the Old Testament AND the New Testament.
Then let me ask you a question, do you keep Kosher? How do you act on the Sabbath? And how do the farmers you buy your food from rotate their crops?

Andres,
Your belief hold much like my own did (and sometimes does). Have you ever read The Jefferson Bible? Jefferson takes out the Old Testament, merges the gospels, and throws out all of the miracles and such. Jesus is presented as a human being with lofty ideals. Interesting read

[Ser Clegane]

To be a Christian, you need to accept Jesus Christ The Almighty as your saviour, but you cannot unless you believe in the Bible. It is not rocket science...

What is the statement I highlighted based upon?

I think the statement that you cannot accept Jesus as saviour without believing each and every part of the bible is quite a bold one as it seems to put means above the end.

[Lorenzo_H]

God is all powerful, which means he can do anything he wants. Why do some people have such trouble believing this? Because they want to be all-powerful themselves.

Therefore, if God is all-powerful, then how much of a problem would he have in sending us a Book. He could have rained down scripture if he wanted, but no, he decided to be more subtle and have one or two of Jesus' Diciples write the New Testament. The Old Testament was written in a similar way, and some of it was given to moses on a stone tablet (which also had the ten commandments which we still obey now - well most of them). We have over 500 original manuscripts for each book of the bible, and they all agree with each other and all agree with our translations. I don't see where the doubt still hangs.

In the end, it's up to yourself to decide if you want eternal life and a good earthly life, but I will pray that God will open your eyes to the Truth.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Hey, I just realized why Tribesman is such a popular and popularly antagonistic poster at the same time. This constant questioning is way fun to read/watch and incredibly frustrating to be on the receiving end.

You would've been forced to drink poison if you were in Old Athens. :)

:2thumbsup:

Tribesy is definitely our local Socrates, and I'm betting just as ugly :tongue:
T: Good to see you still posting - lay off the hemlock already. :grin:

@ all. This has developed into an interesting discussion on the nature of revealed religion, particularly Christianity - thank you. I'd be keen for you to continue in the same vein - what points in time do each sect count as being the moment their Bible was "divine"? If the Old Testament is as inspired as the New, was it considered "complete" by the generations that lived with it, or is the messiah element considered necessary for that completion by both moderns and ancients?

Is it absolutely necessary to your view of the revealed word of God that you understand it in the original languages, or is there a belief in an extension of the concept of "speaking in tongues" applicable to published work? If the latter, do you consider the translators of Bibles to be divinely inspired? What methods are used by ancient and modern theologians in deciding which books and writings are divinely inspired?

Relevant to the thread as a whole, I found this article to be thought-provoking - on the nature of active agnosticism (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6199716.stm). In an earlier thread, agnosticism was dismissed as being an intellectual cop-out - whereas as a scientist, I see it as a defensible position, since evidence either way is missing.

:bow:

[doc_bean]

I used to be, then I grew up.

I follow some sort of 'spiritual christianity' now (not as hippy-esque as it sounds though), I believe the teachings and values taught by Jesus area good guideline. Love thy neighbour and all the rest follows, it works as a sort of meta-morality which guides my other moral principles (okay forgiveness isn't always my strong side). I don't take the Bible literally, especially not the old testament (world in 6 days, incest is great, offer your daughters to avoid homosexual sex, stone the aldultress, no bacon !).

And I know I left out the 'Love God' part, I'm an agnostic there. I don't believe in a 'human-like' God like the Bilbe proposes. If there is such a thing as a God then I believe It will be completely different from anything we know and can imagine. I doubt our idea of sentience would apply either, all knowing pretty much negates the need for thought.
Of course, now I've just reduced (?) God to a creating force, which might seem pretty meaningless in the end. :shrug:

[Watchman]

God is all powerful, which means he can do anything he wants. Why do some people have such trouble believing this? Because they want to be all-powerful themselves.I'd say the existence of an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient being kind of was at odds with the whole Free Will thing for one, you know. That sort of entity kind of becomes functionally responsible for everything pretty much by definition... You don't need human hubris to find the concept uncomfortable and contradictory.

In the end, it's up to yourself to decide if you want eternal life and a good earthly life, but I will pray that God will open your eyes to the Truth.The funny part about the afterlife is that there is a noticeably total lack of witness statements of what it's actually like. Christianity claims one guy did come back, but as he didn't stick around to actually talk about it and it can be questioned if he, as a rather divine entity, was particularly comparable with us regular mortals in the first place the usefulness of this is negligible.

Personally, I figure that's the exact same thing as the way them old maps have Hic Sunt Dracones and imaginary monsters put over the blank spaces. People fear the unknown enough to prefer to invent hypothetical content to fill it.
But then, I do tend towards the cynical in these issues. ~D

[Lorenzo_H]

I used to be, then I grew up.

I don't take the Bible literally, especially not the old testament (world in 6 days, incest is great, offer your daughters to avoid homosexual sex, stone the aldultress, no bacon !).

God is all powerful, and so of course he could create the world in 6 days. Its easier to believe than that it blew up in less than a millionth of a second. And did you know that Bacon makes you 57% more likely to have bladder cancer? Not that I dont eat bacon, I just thought I'd point it out.

[doc_bean]

God is all powerful, and so of course he could create the world in 6 days.



Nothing but the bible seems to indicate he did though. I could say I created the world in six days, and that was yesterday and I'd have a better case than the bible.


Its easier to believe than that it blew up in less than a millionth of a second.


That's theory, and therefor subject to scrutiny when other theories develop or when more evidence emerges, the bible claims to be infallible, big difference.



And did you know that Bacon makes you 57% more likely to have bladder cancer? Not that I dont eat bacon, I just thought I'd point it out.

Sinner :laugh4:

[caravel]

Christianity in all forms is based on some from of the Christian bible which is written by a man, not a god. Thus putting faith in god and adhering to Christian practices is in reality putting faith in man. This would be similar to a modern doctor putting faith in an 1900's medical journal. However much you talk the talk, this is still the inescapable fact.

I can imagine our descendants unearthing JRR Tolkiens books in a few thousand years time after a nuclear war has destroyed the civilised world and reduced it to isolated and barbaric tribes etc etc. The effect would be much the same.

If you read Herodotus, the perception of events, occurances and illnesses was very different a few thousand years ago. What was "magic", "supernatural" or "divine intervention" back then can often be easily explained by science nowadays. Translation is another issue. The translation of the bible has been seen to be very flakey. Some words had dual meanings, others were used in a symbolic sense and were not literal.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The funny part about the afterlife is that there is a noticeably total lack of witness statements of what it's actually like. Christianity claims one guy did come back, but as he didn't stick around to actually talk about it and it can be questioned if he, as a rather divine entity, was particularly comparable with us regular mortals in the first place the usefulness of this is negligible.

That provokes a question that I would be interested in hearing the Christian answer to.

What happened to Lazarus?

After he was raised from the dead, one would have thought he would have had some pretty important insights to share - why didn't he write a gospel (or have it ghost written :tongue: by an evangelist)? Does the Bible record what happened after he came back to life? Did he die again, for example (since belief in Jesus apparently defeats death, why would he need to die again - I assume being brought back to life made him a believer)?

And there was a little girl who was also brought back from the dead IIRC? I bet she had some stories for her grandchildren. Why didn't they bear witness in a more active way?

Honestly, I am interested. Because for me, that experience would provide some serious empirical proof (disregard the tomb-waking thing, which would freak me) and I would be doing serious evangelising stuff from that moment on, if only from gratitude.

[naut]

Yep.

I would join the discussion further, but kaboof.

[Don Corleone]

You know God (Jesus included) only through His Holy Word. If you reject His Word, you reject Him. The Bible says very clearly that unless you put your Faith in Jesus, accept Him, and try to walk by His ways, you will not see the Kingdom.
It is pretty straight forward.

As a practicing Christian myself, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here. Nowhere does Jesus say that you have to adhere to scripture to the letter as literally true. The first gospel wasn't written until 30 years after he died! I treat the bible as THE source, and I agree with you that the Holy Spirit has guided what has found it's way into it over the millenia. But I do not believe God wants the bible to be taken as a literalist lawbook/history book. It's more a theory of law, with several competing implementations offered.

Jesus himself spoke against relying on scripture as a means of salvation (or have you forgotten all those snide digs he made to the pharisees... do you know what a pharisee was?) You did say it correctly at one point, faith in him leads to life everlasting.

But if every word of the bible is literally true and perfect, let me ask you this. St. Paul argues in repeated letters that it is faith in Christ, and faith alone, that is responsible for salvation. Our actions are secondary, only our faith, matters. (For the most coherent argument on this position, see Romans but it also shows up in other places, especially Galatians). St. Peter, St. James and most importantly Jesus himself contradict this assertion. How do you jibe St. Paul's argument that justification is through faith alone:

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

with Jesus's own assertion that each and every detail of the law MUST be upheld
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. . Just in case you missed what Jesus is trying to say here...

27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

In other words, mastrubating, or even looking lustfully at women could cause you to be sent to Hell. Doesn't sound like Jesus hold's St. Paul's view that a belief in Him is all that is required for salvation.

I personally justify this by assigning relative weight to different sources. Anything Jesus says gets top priority. Jesus makes it very clear however, that he is frequently speaking metaphorically (and in fact, I believe he is above... he doesn't want you to literally blind yourself, he wants you to understand NOTHING shall serve as an excuse for continuing sin). His disciples, such as St. Peter & St.Paul... I trust in their words where they do not contradict Jesus. The Old Testament I take as religious tradition of the Jews, the race and belief system into which my savior was born. As they had no hope of salvation, they were given the law, that they might know right from wrong. But Jesus is the fulfillment of that law. We are neither to take the law over Jesus's own words, nor are we to disregard the law because we now have faith in Christ. We are to use the brains God gave us to make rational choices based on what we hear told to us.

The problem with fundamentalist Christianity is that it misses the point. Christ was not trying to lay down a set of rules for you to follow. There are no absolutes in what He was saying, because He was speaking to each and every one of us, and that message will be slightly different for each and every one of us. He was telling you to open your heart and your mind and start trying to figure out for yourself what He wants from you. Listening to a thundering preacher, or a particularly legalistic priest for that matter, is not the path to Heaven. Giving over your whole heart, your whole mind and your whole soul to God is. If you do that, you will seek what He wants for you and from you in this life and by extension, you will naturally follow the law.

There is no magic laundry list of behaviors you can peform or avoid that will make you right with God. Nor is there some magic simple truth such as faith in Christ alone is all that is necessary. God wants each and every part of us, and that includes having dialogues with us about right and wrong. He wants us to be consulting him hourly, asking Him what He wants. He wants to always be at the front of our minds. He doesn't want to be reduced to a list of chores and He doesn't want to be lost in a panacea of believe and you're safe.

[Lorenzo_H]

Don Corleone, if the bible isn't to be taken as the truth, then do we need someone to decipher it for us and seperate truth from false? No, the bible is to be accessed by everyone.

[doc_bean]

Don Corleone, if the bible isn't to be taken as the truth, then do we need someone to decipher it for us and seperate truth from false? No, the bible is to be accessed by everyone.

Ha, that's the deal, you don't get a set of rules to live by, you have free will, enjoy it !


That's what i don't understand about fundamentalists, they always treat their sources like rules set in stone, denying the most human (God-like ?) of qualities, our free will. If you just live according to some clear rules, you might as well be a machine. Humans have the ability to interpret, to find meaning, to extrapolate. Therefor it is the principle that matters, not a set of rules.

*Edit: if it was to be accessed by anyone it would have been imprinted in our minds, in a language we would clearly understand, now people exist, living in the rainforest or somewhere, who have never even heard of the Bible. Are they doomed ? People also exist who speak a language different from the one the Bible was written in, any translation is to some degree 'false' (deliberate or not), then there are probably languages the Bible hasn't been translated into, how should people speaking that language interpret and study it ?

[Don Corleone]

Of course it is true. The question is whether every last word is literally true, or is it true in the whole, the intent and what it says to us. My argument is that by insisting on the first, you're missing the point that what God wants is for you to be thinking about Him, and so it is in reality the second. Now, this leads to the natural question "well, which parts are literally true, and which parts are metaphorical". Did Moses part the Red Sea? (I would actually argue yes, but I could certainly make the argument for no, it's poetic language). Should we literally, truly stone our neighbors that mix dairy and meat in the same dish? (I would say no).

The answer I'm driving towards is: I can't tell you which parts are literally true and which parts are there for symbolism . Neither can your minister. You, as a Christian, are charged with making these decisions for yourself.

[Sigurd]

doc_bean raises some valid questions here... do any of you have any answers to those?

I am enjoying this BTW. :yes:

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

That whole 'the bible has to be true, so whichever bits can't be true literally, must be a metaphor or symbolic' idea has always seemed like a bit of a cop out to me. If you accept it, it means that the bible is totally non-falsifiable-you can explain away anything which can't be correct by saying 'oh, it was just a metaphor'. If I wrote a text book which turned out to be full of errors, but then explained it by saying that if you look really hard I was being symbolic in the bits which are wrong, I don't think I'd sell too many books.

[Slyspy]

The concept of free will is always a tricky one for fundamentalists and this includes those in Christianity. After all, if an omnipotent God controls all then why seek forgiveness for deeds and thoughts which you have no real control over? It renders the whole concept of forgiveness through Christ rather pointless. On the other hand to accept free will is to accept that, for example, man could have fiddled with religious texts for his own purposes thus leaving them open to question. Which is something which fundamentalists hate - discourse, debate, alternate views. The possibility of being wrong, or at least the prospect of not necessarily being correct.

[Ronin]

God is all powerful, and so of course he could create the world in 6 days. Its easier to believe than that it blew up in less than a millionth of a second. And did you know that Bacon makes you 57% more likely to have bladder cancer? Not that I dont eat bacon, I just thought I'd point it out.


regular masturbation also makes prostate cancer less likely in men.
one wonders why that good piece of advice isn´t issued in the bible...

ohhh I forgot....the bottom line is "if it feels good...stop":laugh4:

[Tribesman]

Now this is strange , someone makes a suggestion ........

If anyone has any questions about christianity, Jesus Christ, God, Creation or the Bible then ask me. I will do my best.
.....
I accept the invitation and ask a question , not a very hard question since I thought Paul would be a nice easy starter for Diablo before we moved on to Acts .
But what do I get ? nil nix nada absolutely nothing .

Is this yet another case on this forum where someone has chosen to loudly and proudly declare their knowledge of and faith in scripture when they are severely lacking in knowledge of scripture .

This ....... We have over 500 original manuscripts for each book of the bible, and they all agree with each other and all agree with our translations. I don't see where the doubt still hangs.
....being a perfect example of not having knowledge of scripture .


So if this question is going to be a dead ender Diablo , perhaps you could give me a few pointers on Creation instead .
Chalk might be a nice starting point .

[Lorenzo_H]

Ha, that's the deal, you don't get a set of rules to live by, you have free will, enjoy it !


That's what i don't understand about fundamentalists, they always treat their sources like rules set in stone, denying the most human (God-like ?) of qualities, our free will. If you just live according to some clear rules, you might as well be a machine. Humans have the ability to interpret, to find meaning, to extrapolate. Therefor it is the principle that matters, not a set of rules.

*Edit: if it was to be accessed by anyone it would have been imprinted in our minds, in a language we would clearly understand, now people exist, living in the rainforest or somewhere, who have never even heard of the Bible. Are they doomed ? People also exist who speak a language different from the one the Bible was written in, any translation is to some degree 'false' (deliberate or not), then there are probably languages the Bible hasn't been translated into, how should people speaking that language interpret and study it ?
Doc_Bean, if a person is genuininly searching for God, then God will reveal himself to that person, regardless of whether he/she knows about the bible. God might not even physically do it, but he will find a way.

[Watchman]

I'll say, is it that annoying "gnosis" thing again ?

[Lorenzo_H]

Now this is strange , someone makes a suggestion ........
.....
I accept the invitation and ask a question , not a very hard question since I thought Paul would be a nice easy starter for Diablo before we moved on to Acts .
But what do I get ? nil nix nada absolutely nothing .

Is this yet another case on this forum where someone has chosen to loudly and proudly declare their knowledge of and faith in scripture when they are severely lacking in knowledge of scripture .

This ....... We have over 500 original manuscripts for each book of the bible, and they all agree with each other and all agree with our translations. I don't see where the doubt still hangs.
....being a perfect example of not having knowledge of scripture .


So if this question is going to be a dead ender Diablo , perhaps you could give me a few pointers on Creation instead .
Chalk might be a nice starting point .
I have seen it too many times, that someone ceasing to attack the arguement and starts to attack the person. Shutup about me and focus on the arguement.

Creation vs Evolutionism.
or shall I call it
Optimism vs Pesimism. You can't deny it. Evolutionists are always much or negative and usually unpleasant about life than Creationists do.
Creationists believe "in the beginning God..."
Evolutionists believe "in the beginning dirt..."
hmmm. Is it any wonder?
Plus, there is no way you can prove the big bang or any of the material the evolutionist present.
Similarly, I can't prove to you that God snapped his fingers and created the earth.
They both require faith.

Now, one of the most fundamental questions man can consider is "whether there is a God, or whether there is not." Both possibilities are frightening. If there is a God, then we better get off our seat and find out what he wants from us, and if there isn't a God, then we are flying around the sun at 66,000mph with noone in charge and noone to care for our souls and essentially we are dirt.

Creation cannot be proved, but it cannot be disproved. Evolution cannot be proved but what hard headed evolutionists fail to realise is that there is evidence and common sense which disproves it. I can give you simple evidence which only require a brain and literacy to comprehend, and then some which require a knowledge of science. Both exist.

Think about it. How everything evolve. Think of a bird for example. At what stage did he:
a) Have a half developed eye with which he would be blind.
b) Have half developed feathers (which are strikingly complex) with which he could not fly, yet still have stubby little legs with which he could not run fast enough to catch a plant, let alone a decent meal.
c) Have a half one way lung system, and a half two way lung system (which is your explanation for the occourance of reptiles), with which he could not breathe. Surely according to your own "survival of the fitest" theory, he would die at this stage and become extinct.

Here I am only scratching the surface.

[doc_bean]

Doc_Bean, if a person is genuininly searching for God, then God will reveal himself to that person, regardless of whether he/she knows about the bible. God might not even physically do it, but he will find a way.

Then why have the bible if he gets personally involved anyway ?

[Lorenzo_H]

Then why have the bible if he gets personally involved anyway ?
God left us the bible for us to make up our own minds. God has given us the choice. By leaving us the bible, he is giving us a guidline by which he wants us to live. If you dont accept by listening to his word, then you wont accept if he appears to you. Thats what I think anyway, and you can't disprove me until God appears to you.

[InsaneApache]

So you're not going to answer Tribes question then? :inquisitive:


Creation vs Evolutionism.
or shall I call it
Optimism vs Pesimism. You can't deny it. Evolutionists are always much or negative and usually unpleasant about life than Creationists do.
Creationists believe "in the beginning God..."
Evolutionists believe "in the beginning dirt..."
hmmm. Is it any wonder?
Plus, there is no way you can prove the big bang or any of the material the evolutionist present.
Similarly, I can't prove to you that God snapped his fingers and created the earth.
They both require faith.

No they do not. Religion requires faith, science does not.

What is it with religionistas? The number of times I've read that atheism is a faith or evolution is a faith, they want to try thinking for themselves instead of the spoonfed doctrine enforced on them from birth.

[AntiochusIII]

Doc_Bean, if a person is genuininly searching for God, then God will reveal himself to that person, regardless of whether he/she knows about the bible. God might not even physically do it, but he will find a way.Why would the Divine Player of a gigantic The Sims care if Her created character #985432114654952 believes in Her or not? After all, She's all-powerful and could have, if She choose to, transform the poor Free Will-deprived individual into the super-duper-diviner who believes in Her beyond all doubt at the drop of a hat.

And if She was so cruel that She really did give us Free Will and betray it by imposing some random sadistic pain on us if we choose "the wrong choice" for this little jeopardy question, then She deserves some serious rebellions from us Rebels With A Very Big Cause. ~;)

*"She" because my God is Haruhi Suzumiya and Haruhi Suzumiya is God and High School Girl at the same time. :yes:

[Don Corleone]

So you're not going to answer Tribes question then? :inquisitive:



No they do not. Religion requires faith, science does not.

What is it with religionistas? The number of times I've read that atheism is a faith or evolution is a faith, they want to try thinking for themselves instead of the spoonfed doctrine enforced on them from birth.

Well, as a borderline religionista, I can make this argument. There are some thinking people out there that take the time to understand the arguments for evolution and what the evidence for it is (and many of these folks are actually Christian, believe it or not). But the vast majority of the public believe in evolution simply because they were told to. Not just faith, blind faith. Likewise, people may rationally work through the arguments and come to atheism on their own. But too often, atheists are such because they've let somebody else do their thinking for them.

[Tribesman]

I have seen it too many times, that someone ceasing to attack the arguement and starts to attack the person. Shutup about me and focus on the arguement.

Hey I asked you a question , can you answer it , if not then don't come all stroppy . You wanted to talk about the bible and Christianity .
So come on then , the "official" version for the removal of the offending epistles will do , you won't even have to think about it , just give their version .
Though of course that would raise a damn big question about those letters that remained .
I started with an easy one for you , would you like a harder one ?
How about a compare and contrast of 15 different translations into english of a single chapter of Matthew from the same "primary" source ?
That should be fun since you think ......they all agree with each other and all agree with our translations. I don't see where the doubt still hangs.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
You see Diablodelmar it is quite impossible to shut up about you , when you invited people to question you on a subject , and it appears so far in post after post that there a severe lack of study and understanding on your part concerning scripture and Christianity.

Damn , at least with Navaros (though I find many of his interpretations of Christianity and the Bible highly offensive) you know he has put some serious effort in .:juggle2:


Creation vs Evolutionism.
or shall I call it
Optimism vs Pesimism. You can't deny it. Evolutionists are always much or negative and usually unpleasant about life than Creationists do.
Creationists believe "in the beginning God..."
Evolutionists believe "in the beginning dirt..."
hmmm. Is it any wonder?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Lorenzo_H]

I will put this politely;

I see no need to respond to fools. I just warned you to stop the personal attacks. I would have thought that someone of your maturity would be able to do this. I now doubt whether you are over the age of 10, judging by your behaviour.

I will say one further thing though, that the removal of the offending epistles is a hoax. The epistles in question were written long after the others were, and we only have one badly tattered and unreadable copy of each of them and there are words missing.

They are, in simple terms, fake.

Oh and, you can laugh your head off all you want. Please do, literally.

[InsaneApache]

Well, as a borderline religionista, I can make this argument. There are some thinking people out there that take the time to understand the arguments for evolution and what the evidence for it is (and many of these folks are actually Christian, believe it or not). But the vast majority of the public believe in evolution simply because they were told to. Not just faith, blind faith. Likewise, people may rationally work through the arguments and come to atheism on their own. But too often, atheists are such because they've let somebody else do their thinking for them.

Shouldn't that read theists? Probably a typo. :inquisitive:

[InsaneApache]

I will put this politely;

I see no need to respond to fools. I just warned you to stop the personal attacks. I would have thought that someone of your maturity would be able to do this. I now doubt whether you are over the age of 10, judging by your behaviour.

I will say one further thing though, that the removal of the offending epistles is a hoax. The epistles in question were written long after the others were, and we only have one badly tattered and unreadable copy of each of them and there are words missing.

They are, in simple terms, fake.

I know Tribes is probably the last one who needs defending on these boards but how is questioning your faith and knowledge of the 'good book' a personal attack? From where I'm standing it looks like it's yourself who's being personal.

:2cents:

[Lorenzo_H]

I know Tribes is probably the last one who needs defending on these boards but how is questioning your faith and knowledge of the 'good book' a personal attack? From where I'm standing it looks like it's yourself who's being personal.

:2cents:
Valid point there, however; See how you like it and then tell me::laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


you know insaneapache, its quite immpossible to shut up about you

not the most pleasant thing is it?

[Don Corleone]

Ooops, double post.

[Don Corleone]

Shouldn't that read theists? Probably a typo. :inquisitive:

I agree there's plenty of 'believers' that have no knowledge of that in which they profess their belief. I've known plenty of people who've rattled off the Nicene creed perhaps 10,000 times in their life, only to say something to the affect of "Who's the holy ghost" at 10,001. No argument on that here, I see blind faith and unquestioning adherence on both sides of this particular aisle.

[Red Peasant]

I will put this politely;

I see no need to respond to fools. (Yeah, real polite!) I just warned you to stop the personal attacks. I would have thought that someone of your maturity would be able to do this. I now doubt whether you are over the age of 10, judging by your behaviour.

I will say one further thing though, that the removal of the offending epistles is a hoax. The epistles in question were written long after the others were, and we only have one badly tattered and unreadable copy of each of them and there are words missing.

They are, in simple terms, fake.

Oh and, you can laugh your head off all you want. Please do, literally. (Very Christian of you ~;) )

This whole discussion is a hoot! You're priceless mate. Are you real? :laugh4:

:smash:
:dizzy2:

[Lorenzo_H]

Do you want me to stop being polite?

[Red Peasant]

Do you want me to stop being polite?

No ... Start. ~;)

[Don Corleone]

Do you want me to stop being polite?

I think most folks would prefer it if you start. Ignore Tribesman if you wish, but there's no reason to call him a fool and resort to other name calling. Uhm, to paraphrase a guy I know... 'turn the other cheek'.

Edit: And yes, I am well aware of the hypocricy in the above admonishment, given my behavior at times. What can I say, I'm a work in progress.

[Lorenzo_H]

Ok then. I love you all too. There? Have we made up?

[Don Corleone]

Ok then. I love you all too. There? Have we made up?

Much better. ~:pat:

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

LOL there Tribe back at annoying people again :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :dizzy2:

[InsaneApache]

Valid point there, however; See how you like it and then tell me::laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:



not the most pleasant thing is it?

Actually, I'd be flattered. ~:cool:

[Ser Clegane]

This thread actually started to develop quite nicely - until the usual exchange of niceties started.

This better gets back on track or :dancinglock:

(and whoever makes me lock this might get a "special" prize :mellow:)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I will put this politely;

I see no need to respond to fools. I just warned you to stop the personal attacks. I would have thought that someone of your maturity would be able to do this. I now doubt whether you are over the age of 10, judging by your behaviour.

I will say one further thing though, that the removal of the offending epistles is a hoax. The epistles in question were written long after the others were, and we only have one badly tattered and unreadable copy of each of them and there are words missing.

They are, in simple terms, fake.

Oh and, you can laugh your head off all you want. Please do, literally.

The earliest copies we have of the accepted Gospels post-date the copies we have of other writings.

What LEN was reffering to a few pages back was the four Gospels, not four Bibles btw. It seems to be a culture gap, I had the same confusion with a Turkish student here. Nice chap actually.

Now, divine inspiration.

We have free will in order for us to be able to believe. If God appeared and forced us to follow him we would no longer believe, we would know. At that point there would be no belief and everyone would go to hell, because their adherence to God would be worthless.

The same applies to the Bible. God sent down his Son, that Son died on the cross and it was recorded. Why should God interfere with the process? He's not going to lead us to salvation by the hand. I believe that 1,500 years ago the Bishops, for whatever reason, got it a bit wrong. It should be incumbant on every Christian to read as many texts as they can and find their own way to God. If you just follow an orthodoxy then you are basically letting someone else decide your relationship with God.

[Red Peasant]

DdelM, considering the thrust and tone of your arguments so far, and harking back to your thread's title: do you consider anyone else to be a Christian apart from yourself? Or, many other people? You seem to have extremely exacting standards of what constitutes a Christian, and I doubt if the other 'Christians' on here measure up, or most of my Christian friends or, to hazard a guess, Christians in general. Just interested, because the answer seems to me to be 'no', from your perspective.

BTW, I'm just a non-religious person trying to get along with their life without causing anyone any harm and having fun when I can. Also, I don't really like the term 'Atheist', because it has become 'tainted' by the kind of futile, polemical discourse we are witnessing in this thread. :beam:

[Don Corleone]

The same applies to the Bible. God sent down his Son, that Son died on the cross and it was recorded. Why should God interfere with the process? He's not going to lead us to salvation by the hand. I believe that 1,500 years ago the Bishops, for whatever reason, got it a bit wrong. It should be incumbant on every Christian to read as many texts as they can and find their own way to God. If you just follow an orthodoxy then you are basically letting someone else decide your relationship with God.

Truly, the best post in the thread so far. :2thumbsup:

[Don Corleone]

BTW, I'm just a non-religious person trying to get along with their life without causing anyone any harm and having fun when I can. Also, I don't really like the term 'Atheist', because it has become 'tainted' by the kind of futile, polemical discourse we are witnessing in this thread. :beam:

Would you prefer the term vile heathen? :thumbsup: Just kidding. Labels are a dangerous business. At the end of the day you are you and I am me. No getting around it by mudslinging with labels or hiding behind them.

[Tribesman]

I will put this politely;

Thats nice:2thumbsup:

I see no need to respond to fools.
Oh well thats a bad start , :whip: however since all men are fools then I know you cannot really mean it since you wouldn't respond to anyone ever .~:pat:

I just warned you to stop the personal attacks.
No personal attacks from me so far , I just question your knowledge of scripture based on the content of your posts .


I will say one further thing though, that the removal of the offending epistles is a hoax. The epistles in question were written long after the others were, and we only have one badly tattered and unreadable copy of each of them and there are words missing.

Aha , so while there are , what did you claim ????500 original copies of each of the books still contained in the bible(sorry but I have to :laugh4: at that one , I beg your indulgence) , there are only one remaining unreadable copies of the "fake" texts:inquisitive:
Could you enlighten this fool then , which of the retained texts accredited to Paul is it that was pieced together from three seperate partial fragments ?

But I do notice you finally gave an answer to my question They are, in simple terms, fake. well done , congratulations it wasn't that hard was it , you have given the official version , acting on divine inspiration the powers that be decided that some of the writings attributed to Paul were fake , and also on divine inspiration they decided that the others were genuine .
Now as I said in my initial post , that leads to more questions .
I will keep it easy for you and skip Timothy 1&2 ,which are somewhat contentious , lets try Titus:yes:
Now then young man , why is that book considered to be of very very questionable provenace ?

If you can get your head round that one satisfactorarily we might move onto really interesting stuff . Acts is good , or we could branch off and try what is known as superflous additions or scribal embellishment of text .
Then perhaps play the translations game greek-latin-english , greek-english , english-latin-greek .
That might be fun :beam: though of course strictly in the interests of proving the reliability of accurate translation as opposed to divinely inspired accurate translation which of course would be infallible like the Popes have been .

[Red Peasant]

Would you prefer the term vile heathen? :thumbsup: Just kidding. Labels are a dangerous business. At the end of the day you are you and I am me. No getting around it by mudslinging with labels or hiding behind them.

Whatever turns you on DC. Vile Heathen actually seems kind of groovy.

:viking:
:dizzy2:

However, it implies that you can also have non-vile heathens, 'nice heathens'. :laugh4:

[Watchman]

Think about it. How everything evolve. Think of a bird for example. At what stage did he:
a) Have a half developed eye with which he would be blind.
b) Have half developed feathers (which are strikingly complex) with which he could not fly, yet still have stubby little legs with which he could not run fast enough to catch a plant, let alone a decent meal.
c) Have a half one way lung system, and a half two way lung system (which is your explanation for the occourance of reptiles), with which he could not breathe. Surely according to your own "survival of the fitest" theory, he would die at this stage and become extinct.Early during the hatching period in the egg. ~;p

No offense diablo, but do you actually know what you're talking about here ? Current theory has it birds evolved from certain types of dinosaurs; I understand the setup required to grow reptilian scales doesn't actually differ too much from that which produces heathers instead as far as the biologics go, and feathers have the bonus of being good insulators. Most birds still retain an amount of scales too, mainly on the legs where feathers would in most cases just get in the way but a little sturdier exterior is desirable.

The ability to fly is not related to feathers or lack thereof one bit. Bats don't have feathers. Most of the known flying dinosaurs such as the Pteranodon (almost certainly) didn't. Insects don't.

The eyes were there already long before life crawled out of the oceans. No biggie.

As for the lungs, tell me son, how many millions of years it was the dinos had to try out different setups ? Of virtually any conceivable organ or body part ? There exists a type of fish in the Amazon river system that dates back all the way to the times of the dinosaurs; that odd bugger has actually ceased using its gills for breathing and instead employs its swimming bladder as a lung - which enables it to survive the dry season if it gets trapped in those oxygen-poor puddles that tend to be left behind once the monsoon floods recede. Normal gill-breather fish suffocate in those, but the price this living fossil pays is having to visit the surface every ten minute or so to draw breath all the time.

And before you start scratching the surface any deeper, first explain that one weird bacteria that has developed the ability to secrete an enzyme that takes apart nylon - a singularly synthetic substance that has existed under a hundred years or so. Or the highly inconvenient way bacteria become tolerant to antibiotics...
A funny thing about microbes is that their life-cycle works on such crazy speeds they provide an view at evolution in action. Those banana flies heredity researchers like to mess around with are somewhat similar AFAIK, although not nearly as fast.

[Pindar]

Don Corleone, if the bible isn't to be taken as the truth, then do we need someone to decipher it for us and seperate truth from false? No, the bible is to be accessed by everyone.

Hi diablodelmar,

You have your hands full, but I've a question based on the above: which Bible are you referring to? The Bible traditionally found in Protestant Camps is not the same as the Bible of Roman Catholicism, neither is it the same as the Bible of Eastern Orthodoxy or the Bible or Ethiopic Christianity. Just curious. ~:)

[Tribesman]

Just a question Pindar , regarding one of the articles of your Christian faith .
Translations ?
Does your church specify which passages of which bibles it condiders to be incorrect translations ?

[Pindar]

Just a question Pindar , regarding one of the articles of your Christian faith .
Translations ?
Does your church specify which passages of which bibles it condiders to be incorrect translations ?

Yes, quite a few actually. Moreover, we don't hold to any form of inerrancy for any canonical book.

[IrishArmenian]

Most of the interpretations vary ever so slightly. It is like if I saw a shirt and said it was black. Diablo says it is Navy Blue, while Watchman says we are bith wrong, it is both. Then, LEN says no, and goes one step farther than I, saying it is the deepest black one could create and so on. Our differences of opinion are our prejudices (in this case, physical prejudices of our eyes). The kicker is that, one a religious scale, everything is so much more magnified and so, following my example, people have a large conference about the colour of the shirt and certain things that could possibly be more accurate (Say Diablo made the shirt and knew its colour better than all of us) get swept under the rug.
Of course the opinions varied, some were Jews, some were not and thus, they have different prejudices.

[Watchman]

I don't actually care much of what color it is. The divine has thus far left me alone, and I've had no reason to not return the favor. And so long as people keep their gods to themselves and off my face I'm cool with it. :elvis:

But I like to pick on believers who forget that when you're building a house of cards, the bottom layers are pretty important. Doubly so if they openly ask for it. :devil:

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Those banana flies heredity researchers like to mess around with are somewhat similar AFAIK, although not nearly as fast.

Researchers have actually managed to induce speciation in fruit flies by splitting an initial population up, and then feeding each group on a different substance. After a certain number of generations had passed, the groups were unable to interbreed.

It's quite a famous study, I'll see if I can find a link to a write-up.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Religion requires faith, science does not.

What is it with religionistas? The number of times I've read that atheism is a faith or evolution is a faith, they want to try thinking for themselves instead of the spoonfed doctrine enforced on them from birth.Tsk, tsk, InsaneApache. Of course atheism and evolution are a faith.

Just like not collecting stamps is a hobby too. :sweatdrop:

[Don Corleone]

Tsk, tsk, InsaneApache. Of course atheism and evolution are a faith.

Just like not collecting stamps is a hobby too. :sweatdrop:

Grab your average Joe off the street. Ask him if he believes in evolution. Receive the strange look of suspicion and receive "of course!" or in your case "bien sûr". Then, ask them to explain it to you. Get the rudimentary talk of amoebas, amphibians and monkeys. Then ask them where flippers come from.

One in fifty will get it right. 49 will tell you that whales needed flippers to swim, so they grew them, in response to external stimuli (namely, the ocean, and the need to swim). Only one will understand evolution well enough to tell you that long ago, mammals returned to the seas. Occassinally, one of these first water mammals would grow a mutant flipper that allowed them to prosper over their competion, allowing them to pass on their genes to their more successful progeny, who eventually crowded out their flipperless cousins. Natural selection. A fundamental tenet of evolution, and a relatively simple one at that. And yet, most people STILL don't get it right.

And please, make no mistake about this, I'm a pro-evolution guy. But people believing in things they don't understand... blind faith.

[Louis VI the Fat]

But people believing in things they don't understand... blind faith. Gah! It's not important if they understand it or not. What's important is that they adhere to evolutionary doctrine, worship Satan and eat Christian babies on sabbath. :whip:


Sorry Don, your eloquent reply deserves better than this. And yet, I cannot resist the temptation to post it as is. :clown:

[Don Corleone]

Gah! It's not important if they understand it or not. What's important is that they adhere to evolutionary doctrine, worship Satan and eat Christian babies on sabbath. :whip:


Sorry Don, your eloquent reply deserves better than this. And yet, I cannot resist the temptation to post it as is. :clown:

Well, Jillian's pretty sweet, but I can't have you heathens actually trussing her up on a spit for a barbecue next Sunday. Back, back I say: :duel:

No offense taken, mon ami.

[Slyspy]

I would regard that as poor education rather than blind faith. Hey, I have very little idea about the generation of nuclear power, and certainly have never witnessed it, but that doesn't mean I accept it as a matter of faith. Merely that I'm not interested enough to question it. It has no direct importance in my life, and certainly no spiritual value. In a similar was your average Joe doesn't need to believe in evolution in the same way as a devout Christian needs to believe their creed. As I said, it has no spiritual value.

Don I believe you are a Catholic? If I have that right, may I just say that your beliefs do not seem very Catholic. Perhaps you should search for a denomination which better suits your spirituality? If I'm wrong, or out of line, forgive me.

[Don Corleone]

Yes, Sly. And while no, you're not wrong, or out of line, been there, done that, and at the end of the day, all denominations fail to suit me to one degree or another. Came home to Catholicism as I agree with more than disagree with here (and more than other denominations) and at least it's familiar.

As I 1) Do believe in Christ and 2) do not believe that Grace means that we get an automatic pass to heaven (i.e., I do think our sins will be judged and we may not pass muster on getting to heaven), my choices are limited to Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic. Technically, I suppose Latter Day Saints would fulfill my two criteria as well, but I'm afraid from what I've read of the Book of Mormon, I remain unconvinced. No offense intended to anyone.

Just out of curiosity, what in my views do you see as incompatible with what you believe to be true about Roman Catholicism?

And good point about poor education versus blind faith. Perhaps I should be more careful with my semantics, and use the stock phrase 'believing in that which one does not understand'.

[Lorenzo_H]

Thats nice:2thumbsup:

Oh well thats a bad start , :whip: however since all men are fools then I know you cannot really mean it since you wouldn't respond to anyone ever .~:pat:

No personal attacks from me so far , I just question your knowledge of scripture based on the content of your posts .


Aha , so while there are , what did you claim ????500 original copies of each of the books still contained in the bible(sorry but I have to :laugh4: at that one , I beg your indulgence) , there are only one remaining unreadable copies of the "fake" texts:inquisitive:
Could you enlighten this fool then , which of the retained texts accredited to Paul is it that was pieced together from three seperate partial fragments ?

But I do notice you finally gave an answer to my question They are, in simple terms, fake. well done , congratulations it wasn't that hard was it , you have given the official version , acting on divine inspiration the powers that be decided that some of the writings attributed to Paul were fake , and also on divine inspiration they decided that the others were genuine .
Now as I said in my initial post , that leads to more questions .
I will keep it easy for you and skip Timothy 1&2 ,which are somewhat contentious , lets try Titus:yes:
Now then young man , why is that book considered to be of very very questionable provenace ?

If you can get your head round that one satisfactorarily we might move onto really interesting stuff . Acts is good , or we could branch off and try what is known as superflous additions or scribal embellishment of text .
Then perhaps play the translations game greek-latin-english , greek-english , english-latin-greek .
That might be fun :beam: though of course strictly in the interests of proving the reliability of accurate translation as opposed to divinely inspired accurate translation which of course would be infallible like the Popes have been .
When I said there were 500 copies of each book, I didn't mean to imply all of them. Sorry, I was talking about the Gospels vs the Fake Gospels.

[Lorenzo_H]

Hi diablodelmar,

You have your hands full, but I've a question based on the above: which Bible are you referring to? The Bible traditionally found in Protestant Camps is not the same as the Bible of Roman Catholicism, neither is it the same as the Bible of Eastern Orthodoxy or the Bible or Ethiopic Christianity. Just curious. ~:)
My protestant bible. King James translation.

[Lorenzo_H]

Early during the hatching period in the egg. ~;p

No offense diablo, but do you actually know what you're talking about here ? Current theory has it birds evolved from certain types of dinosaurs; I understand the setup required to grow reptilian scales doesn't actually differ too much from that which produces heathers instead as far as the biologics go, and feathers have the bonus of being good insulators. Most birds still retain an amount of scales too, mainly on the legs where feathers would in most cases just get in the way but a little sturdier exterior is desirable.

The ability to fly is not related to feathers or lack thereof one bit. Bats don't have feathers. Most of the known flying dinosaurs such as the Pteranodon (almost certainly) didn't. Insects don't.

The eyes were there already long before life crawled out of the oceans. No biggie.

As for the lungs, tell me son, how many millions of years it was the dinos had to try out different setups ? Of virtually any conceivable organ or body part ? There exists a type of fish in the Amazon river system that dates back all the way to the times of the dinosaurs; that odd bugger has actually ceased using its gills for breathing and instead employs its swimming bladder as a lung - which enables it to survive the dry season if it gets trapped in those oxygen-poor puddles that tend to be left behind once the monsoon floods recede. Normal gill-breather fish suffocate in those, but the price this living fossil pays is having to visit the surface every ten minute or so to draw breath all the time.

And before you start scratching the surface any deeper, first explain that one weird bacteria that has developed the ability to secrete an enzyme that takes apart nylon - a singularly synthetic substance that has existed under a hundred years or so. Or the highly inconvenient way bacteria become tolerant to antibiotics...
A funny thing about microbes is that their life-cycle works on such crazy speeds they provide an view at evolution in action. Those banana flies heredity researchers like to mess around with are somewhat similar AFAIK, although not nearly as fast.
Yeah but, according to you evolutionists, the changes were tiny. Could a dinosaur just laid an egg and poof! Out pops a duck? No, you say that at some point a bird had all those changes which would kill it, which means that all life should be extinct by now.

And as for your fish. What happens to it when it hasn't evolved a bladder? It's buggered.

It doesn't make sense to me at all. I have tried believing this but I can't.

No offense, but do I know my subject? Yes I do know my subject, but you and me will look at the same evidence a different way.

[LeftEyeNine]

Most of the interpretations vary ever so slightly. It is like if I saw a shirt and said it was black. Diablo says it is Navy Blue, while Watchman says we are bith wrong, it is both. Then, LEN says no, and goes one step farther than I, saying it is the deepest black one could create and so on. Our differences of opinion are our prejudices (in this case, physical prejudices of our eyes). The kicker is that, one a religious scale, everything is so much more magnified and so, following my example, people have a large conference about the colour of the shirt and certain things that could possibly be more accurate (Say Diablo made the shirt and knew its colour better than all of us) get swept under the rug.
Of course the opinions varied, some were Jews, some were not and thus, they have different prejudices.

Um I just really want to know about something that Muslims like ranting on. I wanted to know if you somehow confirm if it was modified by humans, 'cause that is something Bible is criticised when it is the subject.

I really wanted to know about something, I did not make claims. I never and ever gave a block of excrement about what others believe. Because arguing over this never makes sense. Whatever you may try to show, one will believe what he wants to believe anyway (It's been around 10 times I've said this on The Org)

[Andres]

Most of the interpretations vary ever so slightly. It is like if I saw a shirt and said it was black. Diablo says it is Navy Blue, while Watchman says we are bith wrong, it is both. Then, LEN says no, and goes one step farther than I, saying it is the deepest black one could create and so on. Our differences of opinion are our prejudices (in this case, physical prejudices of our eyes). The kicker is that, one a religious scale, everything is so much more magnified and so, following my example, people have a large conference about the colour of the shirt and certain things that could possibly be more accurate (Say Diablo made the shirt and knew its colour better than all of us) get swept under the rug.
Of course the opinions varied, some were Jews, some were not and thus, they have different prejudices.

And by debating, arguing and sometimes even fighting about the colour of the shirt, they forget they have alot in common. After all they are all talking about the same shirt...

And that's why I stated this in one of my replies in this thread (nr. 39):


So I take what I consider to be the most important message and I try to live like that: being a caring, loving person, trying to help my close ones and, if possible, other people, trying to forgive if somebody hurts me, regretting my own faults and trying to fix what I broke. Living like that just happens to be the way teached to us by Jesus Christ. At least that's the message I get from reading the New Testament, without letting other people's opinions interfere.

Now, if a muslim, a Budhist or any other person practising a different religion would tell me that what I described above as the most important lesson taught by Christ, happens to be the bottomline of their belief, than I would consider myself a muslim, Budhist or any other "religion-ist" too.

In the light of this, what are all the discussions about? Details. Mere details. And so it comes, people lose the big picture, the core of the message and they start arguing, fighting and in the worst case declare war in the name of religion.

What a pity :no:

[Tribesman]

When I said there were 500 copies of each book, I didn't mean to imply all of them. Sorry, I was talking about the Gospels vs the Fake Gospels.
Oh OK , so for the "fake" Gospels , Thomas for example , while it is true that the Greek version from about 140 is not complete , the Coptic translation of the Greek from about 350 AD is apparently complete .
Woud you like a couple of different English translations of the Coptic , or a couple of different translations of the Greek fragments ?
Not divinely insiped translations mind you , since they differ , quite unlike like the different versions of the divinely inspired translations in the "real" Bibles .

BTW are you avoiding the question I posed about why the letter to Titus is considered "fake" ?~;)

[Louis VI the Fat]

Um I just really want to know about something that Muslims like ranting on. I wanted to know if you somehow confirm if it was modified by humans, 'cause that is something Bible is criticised when it is the subject.The Quran and the Bible are different in this respect. Muslims believe the Quran is the literal word of God, 'dictated' to man through Mohammed, peace be upon him. Christians and Jews do not believe the Bible is the direct word of God. Divinely inspired perhaps, but the work of man nonetheless.

The Bible is not modified by humans, but written by them. Whereas through the Quran, God speaks to man directly, this is not the case with the Old and New Testaments.

Hence philological problems matter less to Christians than they do for Muslims (who BTW simply deny they suffer from any). The relationship with God is for most Christians more spiritual than through direct contact with his words as is the case for Muslims (who consequently, pity be upon them, should really have an intimate knowledge of mediaeval Arabic)

[doc_bean]

Hence philological problems matter less to Christians than they do for Muslims (who BTW simply deny they suffer from any).

Well in the Quo'ran it says: the true believer will be able to tell what is meant literally and what is meant symbolically. (or something like that, long time since I read it, and yes it was just a translation). Only God can judge who is true believer and who isn't. That *should* pretty much resolve religious conflict as we know it in christianity. Unfortunately, they found a way to create some conflict of their own pretty fast (with the whole shiite-sunni thing).


If I *had* to pick any of the three major 'books' to follow literally, I'd probably chose the Quo'ran. It's far less confusing than the Bible and at least a little more up to date than the Torah. Too bad about the alcohol and the pork though (and the praying five times a day). :shrug:

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Yeah but, according to you evolutionists, the changes were tiny. Could a dinosaur just laid an egg and poof! Out pops a duck? No, you say that at some point a bird had all those changes which would kill it, which means that all life should be extinct by now.

And as for your fish. What happens to it when it hasn't evolved a bladder? It's buggered.

It doesn't make sense to me at all. I have tried believing this but I can't.


The key mistake you seem to be making here is believing that structures such as eyes, feathers, swimming bladders, etc, only offer benefits once they are fully adapted. This is simply not the case. Eyes, for example, developed slowly from small patches of light sensitive cells. This offered an initial selective advantage, and further useful mutations increased this, leading to the eyes we have today.

I'm not sure what you mean about the bird having 'all these changes which could kill it'. Could you elaborate, please?

[Lorenzo_H]

BKS, I explained in an earlier post what these changes are.

I am afraid it is simply impossible to live with some of the changes you evolutionist say took place. LUNG SYSTEMS! for example.

[Slyspy]

I don't think he really understands the concept of the theory of evolution. Back to that education thing again!

Don:

There are different levels of belief. I may believe that the theory of evolution seems more likely than Genesis, but it is not an article of faith. As I said, it holds no spiritual value.

As for your own religious beliefs, well it is just things which I have picked up upon. For example, your early reaction to Wigferth Ironwall's post. That post denied the need for any orthodoxy (ie a catholic creed and so a Catholic church). Such a position, historically, is very Protestant. You gave it a thumbs up. People have, in the past, burnt for less.

[Banquo's Ghost]

BKS, I explained in an earlier post what these changes are.

I am afraid it is simply impossible to live with some of the changes you evolutionist say took place. LUNG SYSTEMS! for example.

I find it simply impossible to live without my lung systems.

Diablo, with the greatest respect, you are so far off from reality in your defence of creationism, it is frightening. I suppose your disdain for modern science also extends to other branches, like physics or chemistry?

Do you believe that cars are powered by little demons pedalling furiously inside those pistons? What about the haunted lantern in the corner of your living room?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

BKS, I explained in an earlier post what these changes are.

I am afraid it is simply impossible to live with some of the changes you evolutionist say took place. LUNG SYSTEMS! for example.

Ah yes, I forgot, scientists are well known for ignoring basic physiology when they devise theories. :dizzy2:

I did look at that post, but I explained the eye, Watchman explained the feathers, and I didn't know what you meant by 'Have a half one way lung system, and a half two way lung system'. Are you alluding to the differences between reptilian and bird lung systems?

Edit-
Do you believe that cars are powered by little demons pedalling furiously inside those pistons? What about the haunted lantern in the corner of your living room?

Tehehehe.

[Husar]

Whatever you may try to show, one will believe what he wants to believe anyway (It's been around 10 times I've said this on The Org)
And that is why this is only my second post here.
Apart from that I think I agree with Don Corleone on (almost) everything he said and think he said it very well.:2thumbsup:

[IrishArmenian]

Um I just really want to know about something that Muslims like ranting on. I wanted to know if you somehow confirm if it was modified by humans, 'cause that is something Bible is criticised when it is the subject.

I really wanted to know about something, I did not make claims. I never and ever gave a block of excrement about what others believe. Because arguing over this never makes sense. Whatever you may try to show, one will believe what he wants to believe anyway (It's been around 10 times I've said this on The Org)
Yes, because the Bible is not a dictation, it must have been modified by humans. One thing that could lead to that was it's being written by humans, but because of so many diverse followers, many things were changed. For instance, Peter (Don't take this as Peter bashing, he was a great guy, but everyone has their flaws) would have written everything with a much more pro-Judiasm slant and we would recognize it if there was a Gospel of Peter. We don't and for good measure, it would seem like Jesus only cared about Jews if Peter's bias was in the Bible.
And Andres, that is a very good point. I can't say anything else because that sums it up.

[Lorenzo_H]

I find it simply impossible to live without my lung systems.

Diablo, with the greatest respect, you are so far off from reality in your defence of creationism, it is frightening. I suppose your disdain for modern science also extends to other branches, like physics or chemistry?

Do you believe that cars are powered by little demons pedalling furiously inside those pistons? What about the haunted lantern in the corner of your living room?
Nope. If I believed that, then I would hardly be using a computer, would I?

And also, I was refering to the form of lung system which evolutionists use to explain how reptiles evolved into birds.

That question, by the way, cannot be answered by any evolutionist. They have been asked about this thing, and all they can say is "its one of lifes little mysteries!" So don't try answering it yourself, unless you want to disagree with my Biology teacher, textbook and Richard Dawkins (sacrelige among evolutionists).

[Don Corleone]

I don't think he really understands the concept of the theory of evolution. Back to that education thing again!

Don:

There are different levels of belief. I may believe that the theory of evolution seems more likely than Genesis, but it is not an article of faith. As I said, it holds no spiritual value.

As for your own religious beliefs, well it is just things which I have picked up upon. For example, your early reaction to Wigferth Ironwall's post. That post denied the need for any orthodoxy (ie a catholic creed and so a Catholic church). Such a position, historically, is very Protestant. You gave it a thumbs up. People have, in the past, burnt for less.

I think it would surprise you to hear the definition of a mortal sin, not from me or your average lay Catholic, but the Baltimore Catechism itself:

-Serious in intent

-Full knowledge and understanding that the act is wrong and sinful (this is the important bit here)

-Freely deciding to pursue that course of action absent of duress or coercion.

Translation: YOU have to decide what is a sin and YOU have to decide freely that you're going to do it anyway in order for it to be a sin.

What's more, yes, the Roman Catholic church has a significant amount of orthodoxy. One thing I found in my wanderings is that all Christian denominations do (with the exception of Unitarians, who don't count as Christians in my book). It's a question of WHAT orthodoxy.

Take the United Methodist church. By all accounts, fairly middle of the road, right? Wrong. You MUST accept the idea of prevenient grace, and disregard the teachings of St. Peter. It's an article of faith for them.

All Christian churches are subject to Orthodoxy at some level. It's a question of what orthodoxy you're willing to accept.

[Vladimir]

Uh-oh... pop quiz (gulp).

I live, work & play in the land called "America", so:

Yes.

(Can't wait to see where this goes).

It goes to other toipcs for a while ~;).

"I don't mean to sharpshoot anyone's beliefs. I'm just trying to better understand how so many folks identify themselves as one religion or another so firmly, when it appears that there are so many degrees of belief."

How do you identify yourself with one country or another when it appears that there are so many ways to define that country? Just turning your question back on yourself.

[Pindar]

My protestant bible. King James translation.

Why should this Bible/version be considered thee Bible over other sect's Bibles?

[Don Corleone]

Why should this Bible/version be considered thee Bible over other sects Bibles?

Because God only speaks 4 languages: Aramaic, Greek, classical Latin and King James English! :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I have a Southern Baptist friend of mine who honestly believes that King James English is the language of God's divine revelation for this epoch and that we, and foreginers, should all set about learning King James' English, so that we can understand God properly. Nice guy, but a little out there on that one... :dizzy2:

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

And also, I was refering to the form of lung system which evolutionists use to explain how reptiles evolved into birds.

An important point to bear in mind here-birds didn't evolve from reptiles, reptiles and birds both evolved from dinosaurs. So, we would need to be able to examine the lungs of dinosaurs in order to answer this question correctly, which is obviously impossible.

Nevertheless, this line of reasoning doesn't undercut the theory of evolution in the slightest. It's a fallacy, an argument to ignorance, and it ignores the vast amount of embryological, morphological, anatomical, genetic, behavioural and fossil evidence. I certainly don't understand why you think that our inability to explain exactly how this occurred means we should all break out our bibles.

[Pindar]

Because God only speaks 4 languages: Aramaic, Greek, classical Latin and King James English! :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I have a Southern Baptist friend of mine who honestly believes that King James English is the language of God's divine revelation for this epoch and that we, and foreginers, should all set about learning King James' English, so that we can understand God properly. Nice guy, but a little out there on that one... :dizzy2:

Sounds like Luther is in trouble then. :devil:

Of course the bugger not just the language, but the Bibles themselves are different.

(I wonder how your friend would deal with different versions of the Bible written in Elizabethan/Jamesian English?)

[Lorenzo_H]

An important point to bear in mind here-birds didn't evolve from reptiles, reptiles and birds both evolved from dinosaurs. So, we would need to be able to examine the lungs of dinosaurs in order to answer this question correctly, which is obviously impossible.

Nevertheless, this line of reasoning doesn't undercut the theory of evolution in the slightest. It's a fallacy, an argument to ignorance, and it ignores the vast amount of embryological, morphological, anatomical, genetic, behavioural and fossil evidence. I certainly don't understand why you think that our inability to explain exactly how this occurred means we should all break out our bibles.
well the point is, BKS, that both exist now.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Nope. If I believed that, then I would hardly be using a computer, would I?

So why do you accept the physics that makes your computer possible? Can you see those electrons? Physics uses the same scientific method as biology, so why are it's conclusions acceptable whereas biological science's are not?

Where does the Bible describe computers and electronics in a manner that satisfies you of their reality?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

well the point is, BKS, that both exist now.

Yes. So they must both have functioning lung structures adapted from their common, dinosaur ancestors.

Way to totally not address the rest of my post by the way. Or even address it at all, actually.

[doc_bean]

Fundamentalists: ignoring basic logic since 4000 BC

[Lorenzo_H]

So why do you accept the physics that makes your computer possible? Can you see those electrons? Physics uses the same scientific method as biology, so why are it's conclusions acceptable whereas biological science's are not?

Where does the Bible describe computers and electronics in a manner that satisfies you of their reality?
Read Job. The part where God talks about electricity and telephones.

[Lorenzo_H]

Yes. So they must both have functioning lung structures adapted from their common, dinosaur ancestors.

Way to totally not address the rest of my post by the way. Or even address it at all, actually.
Actually what my point was, that some point in time this animal had to make the transition. There is no concievable way that it could survive this transaction though. You still haven't said anything about that, you have just tried to walk around it by saying that it never took place, which doesn't make sense, since according to you it was once a rock.

[Don Corleone]

Read Job. The part where God talks about electricity and telephones.

Passages please?

I have read Job on at least three separate occassions. Contrary to popular opinion, Job was NOT a man that suffered all, never questioning Yaweh. That only happens in the first couple of chapters. The rest of the book is a long drawn out dialogue in which Job does just that... he questions, takes umbrage and at a couple of points even berates God for the trials he had to endure. As Job had remained faithful in the time of the trial, God allows this, humoring Job and even deigning to answer a few of them (though He does warn Job occassionally not to get too uppity). I competely missed where God explained telephones, electricty and computers, and as an electrical engineer, I sorta find these things, even by indirect reference.

Next time, if you're going to randomly select a book of the bible to serve as cover for you, pick one that folks most likely haven't read. My money would be on Nahum or Habbakuk.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Read Job. The part where God talks about electricity and telephones.

I have read it. Never found that part. Perhaps you could give me chapter and verse?

[InsaneApache]

I see a petard about to hoisted. :idea2:

[Husar]

Read Job. The part where God talks about electricity and telephones.
Now I'm interested as well...

[Lorenzo_H]

rest assured you will all be satisfied.

will edit this as soon as I can find it (my Bible).

EDIT: I think I found the place. Check out Job chapter 38, verse 35. As a matter of fact, read the whole chapter, it will do you all some good.

[Louis VI the Fat]

http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Respect/thanksfortheinfo.jpg



Job 38:35: Can you send forth lightnings that they may go
And say to you, 'Here we are'?

Yes, Diablo, there is indeed no way anybody could not read 'electricity and telephones' in this passage. Even more so if we follow your advice and take the Bible literally, word by word.


Job 38
God Speaks Now to Job
1Then the LORD (A)answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,
2"Who is this that (B)darkens counsel
By words without knowledge?
3"Now (C)gird up your loins like a man,
And (D)I will ask you, and you instruct Me!
4"Where were you (E)when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding,
5Who set its (F)measurements? Since you know.
Or who stretched the line on it?
6"On what (G)were its bases sunk?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7When the morning stars sang together
And all the (H)sons of God shouted for joy?
8"Or who (I)enclosed the sea with doors
When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb;
9When I made a cloud its garment
And thick darkness its swaddling band,
10And I (J)placed boundaries on it
And set a bolt and doors,
11And I said, 'Thus far you shall come, but no farther;
And here shall your proud waves stop'?
God's Mighty Power
12"Have you ever in your life commanded the morning,
And caused the dawn to know its place,
13That it might take hold of (K)the ends of the earth,
And (L)the wicked be shaken out of it?
14"It is changed like clay under the seal;
And they stand forth like a garment.
15"(M)From the wicked their light is withheld,
And the (N)uplifted arm is broken.
16"Have you entered into (O)the springs of the sea
Or walked in the recesses of the deep?
17"Have the gates of death been revealed to you,
Or have you seen the gates of (P)deep darkness?
18"Have you understood the expanse of (Q)the earth?
Tell Me, if you know all this.
19"Where is the way to the dwelling of light?
And darkness, where is its place,
20That you may take it to (R)its territory
And that you may discern the paths to its home?
21"You know, for (S)you were born then,
And the number of your days is great!
22"Have you entered the storehouses (T)of the snow,
Or have you seen the storehouses of the (U)hail,
23Which I have reserved for the time of distress,
For the day of war and battle?
24"Where is the way that (V)the light is divided,
Or the east wind scattered on the earth?
25"Who has cleft a channel for the flood,
Or a way for the thunderbolt,
26To bring (W)rain on a land without people,
On a desert without a man in it,
27To (X)satisfy the waste and desolate land
And to make the seeds of grass to sprout?
28"Has (Y)the rain a father?
Or who has begotten the drops of dew?
29"From whose womb has come the (Z)ice?
And the frost of heaven, who has given it birth?
30"Water becomes hard like stone,
And the surface of the deep is imprisoned.
31"Can you bind the chains of the (AA)Pleiades,
Or loose the cords of Orion?
32"Can you lead forth a constellation in its season,
And guide the Bear with her satellites?
33"Do you know the (AB)ordinances of the heavens,
Or fix their rule over the earth?
34"Can you lift up your voice to the clouds,
So that an (AC)abundance of water will cover you?
35"Can you (AD)send forth lightnings that they may go
And say to you, 'Here we are'?
36"Who has (AE)put wisdom in the innermost being
Or given (AF)understanding to the mind?
37"Who can count the clouds by wisdom,
Or (AG)tip the water jars of the heavens,
38When the dust hardens into a mass
And the clods stick together?
39"Can you hunt the (AH)prey for the lion,
Or satisfy the appetite of the young lions,
40When they (AI)crouch in their dens
And lie in wait in their lair?
41"Who prepares for (AJ)the raven its nourishment
When its young cry to God
And wander about without food?

[Lorenzo_H]

Skillful Copying and pasting there Louis The Fat.

I just presented it as a possibility. What do you think its refering to then, O knower of all things? I suppose you know the answers to all those questions as well? Such as Where were you when the foundations of the earth were laid out?

[Don Corleone]

God referenced lightning and asked Job if he could send out lightning bolts. You claim that as proof positive that that God invented electricity and telephones? :dizzy2: :dizzy2:

Your name wouldn't happen to be Clayton Ballantine, would it? You're not a big history buff are you?

Okay, it's been nice talking with you DiabloDelMar. ~:wave:

[Banquo's Ghost]

rest assured you will all be satisfied.

will edit this as soon as I can find it (my Bible).

EDIT: I think I found the place. Check out Job chapter 38, verse 35. As a matter of fact, read the whole chapter, it will do you all some good.

That's your citation? You have to be kidding. :no:

[Lorenzo_H]

@Don Corleone; Non Monsiuer, I never said that. I responded to someones question about how God explained computers and stuff.

Was nice talking to you as well. You going somewhere?

[Lorenzo_H]

That's your citation? You have to be kidding. :no:
Well I'm just presenting it as a possibilty. God doesn't have to explain everything does he though? It's hardly worth it. Atheism certainly doesn't, so I don't know why you're complaining.

[Ser Clegane]

Skillful Copying and pasting there Louis The Fat.

And perhaps you just "copied" your views from places like this (http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/kjvstuff.html) :thinking:


The Bible always runs a few thousand years ahead of "science". Notice the following facts that were revealed in the Bible long before man discovered them with telescopes, microscope, and scuba divers:

No actual "moon light" Job 25:5
Light travels Job 38:19
Stars cannot be counted Genesis 15:5; 22:17
Cosmic light Gen. 1:3; Psa. 74:16
Empty place in North Job 26:7
Earth suspended in space Job 26:7
Entropy increases Psa. 102:25-27
Sound waves from stars Job 38:7
Pleiades star cluster Job 38:31
Sea mounts Jonah 2:3-6
Sea springs Job 38:16; Pro. 8:28
Submarine canyons II Sam. 22:16
Ocean currents Psalm 8:8
Earth not flat Isaiah 40:22
Running water more sanitary, Leviticus 15:13
Circumcision on 8th day Genesis 17:10-12
Electric telephone & TV Job 38:35

[Don Corleone]

@Don Corleone; Non Monsiuer, I never said that. I responded to someones question about how God explained computers and stuff.

Was nice talking to you as well. You going somewhere?

Nope, you're going on my ignore list. I don't like people jerking my chain. ~:wave:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Skillful Copying and pasting there Louis The Fat.

I just presented it as a possibility. What do you think its refering to then, O knower of all things? I suppose you know the answers to all those questions as well? Such as Where were you when the foundations of the earth were laid out?Huh? Look, if my quote is not the passage you're referring to or is an incorrect quote by all means correct me. I simply googled Job 38:35, then posted it to save everybody some time, and even had the good sense to include the whole chapter of Job so people could read it in full context too.

What it refers to I don't know and I don't really care. You brought it up, you explain us why it's about electricity and telephones...

[Lorenzo_H]

And perhaps you just "copied" your views from places like this (http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/kjvstuff.html) :thinking:
Actually, no I didn't get it from there! Weird coincidence though.

[Lorenzo_H]

Nope, you're going on my ignore list. I don't like people jerking my chain. ~:wave:
Oh God save me!? What have I done worthy of the terrible fate... DON CORLEONE"S...IGNORE LIST???
*climax type drum roll*
*scream*

Seriously, to each his own. You can believe one way, I can believe another. If I want to believe the moon is made of green cheese and that I own it then you and me can still talk like normal humans and not hold it against each other. Until I start to infringe on your freedom. Which I won't do.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Oh God save me!? What have I done worthy of the terrible fate... DON CORLEONE"S...IGNORE LIST???
*climax type drum roll*
*scream*


Actually, no I didn't get it from there! Weird coincidence though.

Quoting you to foil Don :laugh4:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well I'm just presenting it as a possibilty. God doesn't have to explain everything does he though? It's hardly worth it. Atheism certainly doesn't, so I don't know why you're complaining.

How can it be a possibility to any rational mind?

Look, here's proof of sedimentary deposition over geological eons:


Verse 30 "Water becomes hard like stone,
And the surface of the deep is imprisoned.

This one proves the dawn is a sentient being:


Verse 12 "Have you ever in your life commanded the morning,
And caused the dawn to know its place,

and so on.

According to you, God has explained everything in the Bible.

And I wasn't complaining, just trying to find out why you single out biology as different. Now I know that you don't, which at least has the value of consistency.

[Lorenzo_H]

Thankyou all gentlemen and good night. I shall retire for the day.

[Tribesman]

rest assured you will all be satisfied.

Never in this thread has a truer word been spoken . though I suspect that it is not the satisfaction that Diablo intended , rather a very satisfying heartfelt guffaw .

This is just getting funnier and funnier . telephones:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
It's getting even better than the last Cretinist topic .



So Diablo , I know you must be fairly stumped about the existance of non-existing "fake gospels , but any thoughts on the provenance on Titus yet ?
It isn't a hard question , and you did invite questions .

And I do wish you would reasses your position on translations being all the same in the face of insurmountable evidence to the contrary .

[AntiochusIII]

Atheism certainly doesn't, so I don't know why you're complaining.Of course atheism doesn't. It's in the field of physics, more specifically electromagnetism, a very interesting field if one actually bothers to study it, even in basic principles, much like the rest of all the "evolutionist lies" stuff called science.

Besides, once someone say "evolutionist" I have a cause to run.

Ah well. I'm going away now. At least Navaros was fun. :balloon2:

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

On a scale of one to Navaros, I'd say you're almost a 9.5!

[Slyspy]

I think it would surprise you to hear the definition of a mortal sin, not from me or your average lay Catholic, but the Baltimore Catechism itself:

-Serious in intent

-Full knowledge and understanding that the act is wrong and sinful (this is the important bit here)

-Freely deciding to pursue that course of action absent of duress or coercion.

Translation: YOU have to decide what is a sin and YOU have to decide freely that you're going to do it anyway in order for it to be a sin.

What's more, yes, the Roman Catholic church has a significant amount of orthodoxy. One thing I found in my wanderings is that all Christian denominations do (with the exception of Unitarians, who don't count as Christians in my book). It's a question of WHAT orthodoxy.

Take the United Methodist church. By all accounts, fairly middle of the road, right? Wrong. You MUST accept the idea of prevenient grace, and disregard the teachings of St. Peter. It's an article of faith for them.

All Christian churches are subject to Orthodoxy at some level. It's a question of what orthodoxy you're willing to accept.

Yes, of course. That is because the beliefs have become codified over time. It is why I didn't suggest a specific denomination. However, your stance is in many ways very Protestant. By which I mean that it was similar beliefs, and the Catholic church's attitude to those alternate creeds, that led to the birth of Protestantism in the first place. That Protestant churches are now as rigid in many respects is perhaps not surprising considering human nature.

Edit:

If you pick a church you pick an orthodoxy. Do you really need a church to follow Christ? I doubt it.

[Lorenzo_H]

It looks like nobody is doing a great job convincing the other. You atheists and evolutionists haven't convinced me, and i haven't convinced you.

I guess its probably best if we don't waste our time arguing any more, like I originally suggested.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It looks like nobody is doing a great job convincing the other. You atheists and evolutionists haven't convinced me, and i haven't convinced you.

I guess its probably best if we don't waste our time arguing any more, like I originally suggested.

It's rare that anyone convinces the opposition in the Backroom, rarer still in religious threads. But perhaps the debate can provoke at least a little thought beyond one's own convictions, and in itself it is enjoyable.

I would like to commend you, ddm, for your polite and persistent responses during both threads. I find your thought processes unfathomable, as no doubt you find mine, but have at least stayed civil and demonstrated an almost admirable devotion to your world view.

I find myself saddened that a young man with such enthusiasm is so woefully misled, but you probably consider me far worse off, condemned to Hell and such.

:bow:

[Husar]

It's rare that anyone convinces the opposition in the Backroom, rarer still in religious threads. But perhaps the debate can provoke at least a little thought beyond one's own convictions, and in itself it is enjoyable.
Well, I do have doubts and questions but there is a fact that inside my heart I have always believed that Jesus Christ exists. It may sound somewhat weird but even though there are some arguments that hint to parts of the bible being wrong, I cannot believe that there was a bang out of nowhere that created earth and life just by itself.
My dad really dislikes the catholic church because the way they treated him as a kid and was an atheist for a very long time, but now he is a christian again for a similar reason, he says he just cannot believe that the entire world was created by evolution.
There are other reasons for me as well, where I just...felt like God guided me or helped me, I cannot explain this in a way you would all say "oh yeah, right, now I believe" because it's rather personal and also depends on feelings.
To come back to your statements, my parents and I also use to check what a "church" does and whether it fits with the bible as we have it. We have left a church years ago because they introduced some new age stuff that was just...weird, today we go there again because they have changed all that and have developed into a different direction, since that I have also made a lot of friends there, which wasn't the case before, one guy even appologized for being somewhat nasty to me years ago.
Well, we tried several other "churches" in the years between and there was one bigger institution we also left behind because their services were all about sin, not to sin and what you better not do, but there is more to being a christian than not sinning(even the children of one pastor knew that he always preached the same stuff...)

Maybe that is enough about questioning one's own belives and blindly following religious leaders, even the bible itself says you should always check what you are being told.:bow:

[KukriKhan]

It goes to other toipcs for a while ~;).

"I don't mean to sharpshoot anyone's beliefs. I'm just trying to better understand how so many folks identify themselves as one religion or another so firmly, when it appears that there are so many degrees of belief."

How do you identify yourself with one country or another when it appears that there are so many ways to define that country? Just turning your question back on yourself.

I think I understand your premise (change terms (country for religion) to see if the statement still 'works'). But I think that tactic fails this time. But, no harm done.

I did decide to abandon that early line of questioning, for 2 reasons:

1) Some christians get offended by questioning
2) Such questioning often degenerates into a 'more Christian than thou' exchange between christians, derailing the conversation (as almost happened between AndresTheCunning and Vuk on page 2 of this thread).

I must say, for a backroom religion thread, this was one of the better ones - more light than heat, more signal than static.

[doc_bean]

I'd just like to say that I really don't have a problem with (most) religous people. I just have a problem with fundamentalism; the 'literal' interpretation of any Holy text, even when that interpretation defies logic, common sense ,and science. Even then, I still try to respect the people following those beliefs, as long as they don't go around killing/harassing other people (*cough* Phelps *cough*).
I do feel that it's a possibly dangerous meme and will try to make people 'see the ligh' of reason. This doesn't mean I want to turn them into atheist or anything, I'd just want them to loosen up a bit, think a bit for themselves, and be accepting of other peoples beliefs. :bow:

One thing I want to ask the religous people though. The question that definately made me abandon 'tradtional' belief: What happens to all those people in the world that happen to have a different religion ? What happened to the people born before Christ ? Do they all go to hell ?

[Vuk]

I think I understand your premise (change terms (country for religion) to see if the statement still 'works'). But I think that tactic fails this time. But, no harm done.

I did decide to abandon that early line of questioning, for 2 reasons:

1) Some christians get offended by questioning
2) Such questioning often degenerates into a 'more Christian than thou' exchange between christians, derailing the conversation (as almost happened between AndresTheCunning and Vuk on page 2 of this thread).

I must say, for a backroom religion thread, this was one of the better ones - more light than heat, more signal than static.


Andres The Cunning's "Christianity" is not Christianity. No I'll agree with you, demoninations fighting is the dumbest thing possible. But the Bible clearly states what you have to do to be called a Christian. Andresthecunning even said him self that he was not a Christian, but rather religious. That is also a very important distinction, because that trivialized Christianity and Jesus's sacrafice. I intentionally did not make much out of it, but there is a difference between "religiousness" (or spirituallity, whatever), and Christianity.

[Andres]

Andres The Cunning's "Christianity" is not Christianity. No I'll agree with you, demoninations fighting is the dumbest thing possible. But the Bible clearly states what you have to do to be called a Christian. Andresthecunning even said him self that he was not a Christian, but rather religious. That is also a very important distinction, because that trivialized Christianity and Jesus's sacrafice. I intentionally did not make much out of it, but there is a difference between "religiousness" (or spirituallity, whatever), and Christianity.

Have... to ... resist... temptation... to ... start ... again....

Resist... Andres, resist...!

But he called me a wishy-washy atheist ! :inquisitive:

Resist...

[Tribesman]

I guess its probably best if we don't waste our time arguing any more, like I originally suggested.

Still avoiding answering questions on the Bible then diablo , what a surprise .:juggle2:
That was what you originally suggested wasn't it .

Is that because you don't know the answers or because the answers are contradictory to what you have claimed in this topic ?

[Don Corleone]

Seriously, to each his own. You can believe one way, I can believe another. If I want to believe the moon is made of green cheese and that I own it then you and me can still talk like normal humans and not hold it against each other. Until I start to infringe on your freedom. Which I won't do.

Relax there, amigo. I meant for the purposes of this thread. It's clear that even you don't believe what you're posting here, as you keep changing what you say when you get called on it. You proclaimed that God predicted electricty and telephones in Job 38:35. Then you said you never said that. I suspect that you think this some sort of parody and you're humiliating real Christians by claiming to be one, then playing the fool. I don't have time for such duplicity.

Welcome to the Org though, I'm sure we'll chat in other threads.

[Watchman]

You know, one reason I'm essentially an agnostic is the desire to be reasonably fair about the divine. Who am I to say that someone's Scripture, ancestor spirit, or way to pursue "enlightement" is inherently more or less correct than another's ? Or anyone else to claim that for that matter ? I tend to take the view that either all faiths are equally false and there is nothing "up there", or they're all equally correct and whatever's "up there" is either something mind-numbingly complicated or so simple it doesn't really matter how much extraneous stuff different takes on the subject tack onto it.

And that neither I nor anyone else can ever actually know for certain. :shrug:

Which probably makes me some sort of strange combination of diehard atheist and full-spectrum syncretist heretic. :bounce:

[Vuk]

I'd just like to say that I really don't have a problem with (most) religous people. I just have a problem with fundamentalism; the 'literal' interpretation of any Holy text, even when that interpretation defies logic, common sense ,and science. Even then, I still try to respect the people following those beliefs, as long as they don't go around killing/harassing other people (*cough* Phelps *cough*).
I do feel that it's a possibly dangerous meme and will try to make people 'see the ligh' of reason. This doesn't mean I want to turn them into atheist or anything, I'd just want them to loosen up a bit, think a bit for themselves, and be accepting of other peoples beliefs. :bow:

One thing I want to ask the religous people though. The question that definately made me abandon 'tradtional' belief: What happens to all those people in the world that happen to have a different religion ? What happened to the people born before Christ ? Do they all go to hell ?

Jesus died to save his believers during the time of, after, and before his death. God gives people of other Religions plenty of oppurtunities to find Him. If they don't take them, it is their own fault.
As for the discussion, If you don't want to see it, maybe you shouldn't be going to a Christian thread. That would be like me going to the atheist thread and complaining because they had opposing beliefs to mine and shared them with me.
As for the insinuation that Christians kill and harras people, aside from being extremely offensive, it is slanderous as well. There are bad people of every creed and sect everywhere in the world. If Christians didn't sin, God wouldn't have had to send his only Son for us. Christians do do evil things like everyone else, but it is not a "Christian" thing to kill, it is a human thing. (So is harrassing people about evolution like our school systems do ;)). I was going to say that it was no more a Christian thing to kill than to wash ones hands, but it actually is a Christian thing to wash ones hands. Ask Queen Victoria.

[Slyspy]

To be fair, there was no insinuation that Christians go around killing and harassing people. You read that into the Doc's reply yourself.

[Watchman]

Jesus died to save his believers during the time of, after, and before his death. God gives people of other Religions plenty of oppurtunities to find Him. If they don't take them, it is their own fault.So what about the Stone Age hunter-gatherers long before anyone ever heard of the whole thing ?

[AntiochusIII]

So what about the Stone Age hunter-gatherers long before anyone ever heard of the whole thing ?They don't exist, remember?

Slightly more seriously, I think Dante just put them on a nice little corner of Hell. It was supposedly quite green and comfortable, though, if kind of painful to be clearly a second-class citizen of the spirit world. They'd be there alongside some dummies like Virgil and a few mythical Greek heroes, if you know what I mean.

I suspect, however, that Dante's version of mythical Catholicism (does that even make sense?) doesn't get accepted by most American Christians, seeing how dominant Evangelical Christianity is and how it is merely just a slightly (?) more extreme version of the usual European Protestantism. And Vuk, I assume, is American.

he says he just cannot believe that the entire world was created by evolution.He is most likely right. Evolution as a scientific theory only concerns itself with the development of life, not the big hot rock that life inhabits. Of course, it does slightly overlap with the different field of astronomy (add in the mix of all those geologists too) in the theory of the primordial soup which is crucial not to evolution itself but to the current "accepted" theory of the start of life.

The birth of planets is a mystery far harder to break through, but progress has been made and is being made, as is always the case with science. That last mission to Saturn apparently shows a lot of interesting stuff and revelations for the experts involved in the years-long international project. Something like how the gigantic moon Titan has a possibility of being an essentially endless oil well with oceans of gasoline for you SUV lovers to burn through -- once we get in, of course (sorry, peak oil people!) or how a much smaller moon of Saturn actually has a better chance of exhibiting basic forms of life than the famed Titan.

And they sure learned a lot more about the possible pattern in which the Solar System was created. Apparently the journalists call Saturn's own little gravity &moon system "a miniature solar system," but the scientists themselves probably could nitpick that sensational claim if they want to.

Kind of shows how calling all science "evolution" is a crappy practice in the first place.

Oh, and kind of blows those oft-made complaints about how science is "taught like religion" in classrooms too. If you actually have a good teacher and/or in an intelligent, in-depth class, you realize there are a lot of holes out there yet to fill, and the teacher doesn't mind admitting it. Instead of getting all "God filled all those holes," however, I got excited about what might actually be there for us to discover.

[Vuk]

So what about the Stone Age hunter-gatherers long before anyone ever heard of the whole thing ?

What stone age hunters and gatherers?:inquisitive: :inquisitive:

[Watchman]

For example, my supposed ancestors up here circa year 3000 BC. The inhabitants of the South American and African jungles before anything that even looked like a monotheist wandered their way. The Australian Aborgines before the pesky white men came. Those odd little tribes that are still occasionally found deep in the more impassable rainforests of the world, and often aren't too communicative.

Those Stone Age hunter-gatherers. What happens to them in your neat little cosmology after they die(d) ?

[AntiochusIII]

What stone age hunters and gatherers?:inquisitive: :inquisitive:No need to even go that far back. Just Sumer and its neighbors or even China for thousands and thousands of year never heard a bling about Jehovah.

Or just the native Americans; you know, the Toltecs and all that.

[Tribesman]

What stone age hunters and gatherers?
Correct , there were no Stone age peoples , it is a modern invention of the evolutionists , what they refer to are the people who abandoned the advanced agriculture methods and technology god gave them and became primative .

You just gotta love those cretinist websites for having all the answers:laugh4:

[InsaneApache]

If you don't want to see it, maybe you shouldn't be going to a Christian thread. That would be like me going to the atheist thread and complaining because they had opposing beliefs to mine and shared them with me.

For the nth time......:wall: Atheism is not a belief system. :wall:

[Vuk]

For the nth time......:wall: Atheism is not a belief system. :wall:

No, it is a religion...

[KukriKhan]

For the nth time......:wall: Atheism is not a belief system. :wall:

Old buddy, you know I'm with you on most every subject. Atheism ain't no religion, granted - the single best test being that there is no money involved. Or crusades. Or Jihads. Or heresies. Or burning bodies. Or evangelists.

But it might be a belief system. To posit human alone-ness of self-awareness, with no relevant superior omni-awareness, requires IMO if not a leap, then at least a babystep of faith that we are ultimately, profoundly alone, subject to random acts of incomprehensible violence, many of which are not human-caused.

I don't think most atheists go that far. I think most atheists see the various gods presented by their believers and say "Nope. That one doesn't work, because...", and there are always plenty of reasons, for all of them from Allah to Zeus.

Either way - whether constructing a personal universe with no creator, or one with a plethora of unsatisfactory creators/managers, it is a system of beliefs.

Whatcha t'ink, m8?

[InsaneApache]

No, it is a religion...

*sigh*

:coffeenews:

[InsaneApache]

Old buddy, you know I'm with you on most every subject. Atheism ain't no religion, granted - the single best test being that there is no money involved. Or crusades. Or Jihads. Or heresies. Or burning bodies. Or evangelists.

But it might be a belief system. To posit human alone-ness of self-awareness, with no relevant superior omni-awareness, requires IMO if not a leap, then at least a babystep of faith that we are ultimately, profoundly alone, subject to random acts of incomprehensible violence, many of which are not human-caused.

I don't think most atheists go that far. I think most atheists see the various gods presented by their believers and say "Nope. That one doesn't work, because...", and there are always plenty of reasons, for all of them from Allah to Zeus.

Either way - whether constructing a personal universe with no creator, or one with a plethora of unsatisfactory creators/managers, it is a system of beliefs.

Whatcha t'ink, m8?

It's late and I'm getting a headache from :wall: ...mind you, it's nice when I stop ~;)

[Vuk]

Old buddy, you know I'm with you on most every subject. Atheism ain't no religion, granted - the single best test being that there is no money involved. Or crusades. Or Jihads. Or heresies. Or burning bodies. Or evangelists.

But it might be a belief system. To posit human alone-ness of self-awareness, with no relevant superior omni-awareness, requires IMO if not a leap, then at least a babystep of faith that we are ultimately, profoundly alone, subject to random acts of incomprehensible violence, many of which are not human-caused.

I don't think most atheists go that far. I think most atheists see the various gods presented by their believers and say "Nope. That one doesn't work, because...", and there are always plenty of reasons, for all of them from Allah to Zeus.

Either way - whether constructing a personal universe with no creator, or one with a plethora of unsatisfactory creators/managers, it is a system of beliefs.

Whatcha t'ink, m8?

Evil evangelists... oooooooo......:help:

[doc_bean]

Jesus died to save his believers during the time of, after, and before his death. God gives people of other Religions plenty of oppurtunities to find Him. If they don't take them, it is their own fault.


Yeah, I've heard this argument before, but I just don't buy it, for several reasons. But I won't go into that anymore.

EDIT: O well, other people already mentioned the close dof areas of China, you add a whole lot more areas to that list, full of people who have no chance of hearing about JaHWe, I guess they're just out of luck ?



As for the discussion, If you don't want to see it, maybe you shouldn't be going to a Christian thread. That would be like me going to the atheist thread and complaining because they had opposing beliefs to mine and shared them with me.

Who said I didn't want discussion ? I didn't want to offend the 'moderate' christians, that is all.


As for the insinuation that Christians kill and harras people, aside from being extremely offensive, it is slanderous as well.

Fundamentalists, of every and any religion. People like Phelps go around harassing people at soldiers' funerals, plenty of people have killed in the name of Christ. I never claimed this was a majority, these are just the kind of people I do have a problem with.

[Andres]

Fundamentalists, of every and any religion. People like Phelps go around harassing people at soldiers' funerals, plenty of people have killed in the name of Christ. I never claimed this was a majority, these are just the kind of people I do have a problem with.

On a side note: if fundamentalism reaches a degree that the fundamentalists start killing and if they start to justify their murders by their religion, the adjective "christian" or "muslim" or any other religious connotation should be dropped.

Murderers are murderers, period. It's offensive to christians, muslims or any other believers of a certain religion which gets abused by a group of lunatics to create a link between them and murderes by adding the adjective "christian", "muslim" or other.

Not using the adjective "christian" or "muslim" would also prevent christians or muslims to be stigmatised because of the actions of murderers.

[Vuk]

Yeah, I've heard this argument before, but I just don't buy it, for several reasons. But I won't go into that anymore.

EDIT: O well, other people already mentioned the close dof areas of China, you add a whole lot more areas to that list, full of people who have no chance of hearing about JaHWe, I guess they're just out of luck ?




Who said I didn't want discussion ? I didn't want to offend the 'moderate' christians, that is all.

.

Fundamentalists, of every and any religion. People like Phelps go around harassing people at soldiers' funerals, plenty of people have killed in the name of Christ. I never claimed this was a majority, these are just the kind of people I do have a problem with.

As I said before, everyone kills, Christians included. When a Christian murders someone and then says that Christ told them to, they are trying to make excuses to the world for what they did, and most Christian shun them. Christians don't murder; if they did they wouldn't be Christians. That would be like if I killed someone and and said Budda told me too. Would believe Buddists were murderers? If you look at killings in the names of dieties, the most promonent are not by Christians at all (though publisized the most). THE most are actually done by Muslims. I don't know, if I went around saying that Muslims were murderers, I would probably get any Muslims on this board fairly p!$$ed at me, yet you go around saying Christians are murderers saying you mean no offence? While people claiming to be Christians have murdered, Christian are not murderers. (It is almost like claiming that if a carpenter kills someone that carpenters are murderers!)

There is no such thing as a moderate Christian. God said something to the effect of, "Give me Hot, or Cold, but I despise luke warm." (worded very differently...I probably slaughtered that:help: Slaughtering Holy Scripture!:help: ).
Unless you belive in Jesus Christ (which includes sccepting the Bible which is the embodiement of God), and accept Him as your Saviour, you are not a Christian...period.

If you are isolated and without God, seek him and he will show Himself to you. As for people pre-New Testament, if you knew your Bible, you would know that the Old Testament was ONLY a contract between Him and His chosen people. The New Testament was a contract between Him and the whole world.

[doc_bean]

As I said before, everyone kills, Christians included. When a Christian murders someone and then says that Christ told them to, they are trying to make excuses to the world for what they did, and most Christian shun them. Christians don't murder; if they did they wouldn't be Christians. That would be like if I killed someone and and said Budda told me too. Would believe Buddists were murderers? If you look at killings in the names of dieties, the most promonent are not by Christians at all (though publisized the most). THE most are actually done by Muslims. I don't know, if I went around saying that Muslims were murderers, I would probably get any Muslims on this board fairly p!$$ed at me, yet you go around saying Christians are murderers saying you mean no offence? While people claiming to be Christians have murdered, Christian are not murderers. (It is almost like claiming that if a carpenter kills someone that carpenters are murderers!)

Look, I know my English isn't perfect, but come on ! I've stated clearly twice that
1) I was talking about every and any kind of fundamentalist
Grouping them all together and clearly seperating them from the faithful masses as oddities and excentrics. People like Phelps do consider themselves Christian, I say i have a problem with his views, whether he justifies with religion or not but am certainly opposed to him using religion as a vessel of spreading his hateful message.
2) most religious people aren't fundamentalists
and hence, I don't have a problem with them.




There is no such thing as a moderate Christian. God said something to the effect of, "Give me Hot, or Cold, but I despise luke warm." (worded very differently...I probably slaughtered that:help: Slaughtering Holy Scripture!:help: ).
Unless you belive in Jesus Christ (which includes sccepting the Bible which is the embodiement of God), and accept Him as your Saviour, you are not a Christian...period.

That's your interpretation, some people have another interpretation. Deal with it.



If you are isolated and without God, seek him and he will show Himself to you. As for people pre-New Testament, if you knew your Bible, you would know that the Old Testament was ONLY a contract between Him and His chosen people. The New Testament was a contract between Him and the whole world.

:sigh: so did all the non-Jews BC end up in hell then ?

BTW I find the idea of the christian God revealing himself to any person in a random secluded tribal village in the rainforest rather hilarious. You'd think that whole missionary business would have been rather pointless if God just revealed Himself to those who searched wouldn't it ?
We have never discovered a secluded people that just happened to be christian AFAIK.

[Watchman]

Well, recently some bunch of cultists dropped a newsletter in my letterbox that claimed Christianity (surprise surprise, in the Gnostic version they adhere to...:dizzy2: ) had reached this far corner of the world already in the 1st century AD. They claimed it was through the Galatians.

I had much fun with that piece of paper, since that wasn't the only loony thing it claimed. :wacko:

[Tribesman]

As I said before, everyone kills, Christians included. When a Christian murders someone and then says that Christ told them to, they are trying to make excuses to the world for what they did, and most Christian shun them. Christians don't murder; if they did they wouldn't be Christians. That would be like if I killed someone and and said Budda told me too.

Now Vuk that is interesting , you wouldn't happen to be the same Vuk who wrote .....
The Bible is the Old Testament AND the New Testament.

So are you trying to show that you have little knowledge of scripture , or are you trying to say that the god of the old testament who told his followers to kill people is a different god to that of the new testament , which would be strange since I do believe that they ae supposed to be part of the same entity known as god ?
Or perhaps it is only OK for people to kill because they have been told by god to kill if it is truly divinely inspired killing .:yes:
But of course how would you know if it was truly divinely inspired , perhaps there might be voices in your head telling you it is god speaking , "kill them , kill them all , leave no living thing and no stone standing , erase them from the face of the earth" type of thing .

[Prince of the Poodles]

One thing I want to ask the religous people though. The question that definately made me abandon 'tradtional' belief: What happens to all those people in the world that happen to have a different religion ? What happened to the people born before Christ ? Do they all go to hell ?

Indeed.

The two answers I have heard for this are:

1. (From the hardcore believers) They have a chance to hear the word and if they dont take it, its their fault.

2. (the softcore..) All monotheist religions are actually worshipping the same God, they are just expressing themselves in different ways. This leaves out hindus though, doesnt it?

[AntiochusIII]

This leaves out hindus though, doesnt it?No.

The Hindu worships many gods, true, but all these gods -- and the universe itself, in fact, them worshippers included -- are simply aspects of a single, supreme being. Or should I say supreme everything? That being is easily God from a Christian point of view, though of course the Hindus got a cooler version of it where they are actually part of the same infinite spirit instead of Olde Papa and His children.

:2thumbsup:

That does, however, unfairly treats the likes of the Ancient Greeks, Sumerians, Babylonians, Mayans, Celts, among others. The Ancient Greek myth, for example, consider Uranus and Gaia the first founders. Founders, poor 'em worshipping not the Almighty One and Him alone.

[Prince of the Poodles]

Ahh, thanks for clarifying. I dont know hardly anything about Hinduism, except that they have that cool blue god with lots of arms that was in the beatles songs... Krishna or something..

[Vuk]

Now Vuk that is interesting , you wouldn't happen to be the same Vuk who wrote .....
So are you trying to show that you have little knowledge of scripture , or are you trying to say that the god of the old testament who told his followers to kill people is a different god to that of the new testament , which would be strange since I do believe that they ae supposed to be part of the same entity known as god ?
Or perhaps it is only OK for people to kill because they have been told by god to kill if it is truly divinely inspired killing .:yes:
But of course how would you know if it was truly divinely inspired , perhaps there might be voices in your head telling you it is god speaking , "kill them , kill them all , leave no living thing and no stone standing , erase them from the face of the earth" type of thing .

God never contradicts Himself. He said, "Thou shalt not Murder", not, "thou shalt not kill". It is a mistranlation with serious consequences. The New Testament does not say you shouldn't kill. No contradictions that I see.
People who claim to kill in God's name are ussually either loonatics (which you get with all religions), or people trying to justify to the world what they are doing. God does not condone murder. He did how ever give instructions to kill certain criminals of high order.



Indeed.

The two answers I have heard for this are:

1. (From the hardcore believers) They have a chance to hear the word and if they dont take it, its their fault.

2. (the softcore..) All monotheist religions are actually worshipping the same God, they are just expressing themselves in different ways. This leaves out hindus though, doesnt it?

People sinned and God gave up on all of them except the ones who obeyed Him: Noah and his family. All the rest were destroyed. Likewise, people started sinning again and God gave up on them, all the ones who stayed faithfull: Abraham and his descendents. Later, God made a new covenant with all the peoples of the earth (The New Testament), if they choose not to obey him and worship other gods, that is their fault, and not His. He created us, and we owe everything we have - our very existence - to Him. Like it or not, we are His. He is mercifull and forgiving, and gives us many chances even though we just spit back at Him. He gave us our own free will, and if we choose not to come to Him, it is our own fault. He even sent His only Son to die to pay for our sins.

[AntiochusIII]

Ahh, thanks for clarifying. I dont know hardly anything about Hinduism, except that they have that cool blue god with lots of arms that was in the beatles songs... Krishna or something..Lots of blue gods they have, that. Krishna -- as an avatar of Vishnu -- is one of them. Though you probably are talking about Shiva, one of the three mightiest gods of the traditional Hindu pantheon: Brahma, the Creator; Vishnu, the Protector (often born some epic hero in the mortal world, like the legendary Rama of Ramayana fame); and him -- who's the greatest can be very varied, since there are like, thousands of sects, may be. He's one cool guy, that. "The Destroyer" -- destroy the world once it gets too evil, wipe the universe clean, so his colleague Brahma can rebuild it when he wakes up after eons of emptiness. In a certain theology I'm relatively familiar with (I can't possibly claim to be a Hindu expert by any means), most of the gods themselves, as well as the heaven, even got destroyed too! The highest part where Brahma (and possibly Shiva and Vishnu) resides is the only place save from Shiva's fire. How awesome is that!

One thing the Eastern religions vary greatly from the West is that of the viewpoint between a cycle of history versus a straight line history. For the Western religions, as you doubt well know, God is Beginning and God is the End. Eternity is beyond time. For the Hindu, Buddhist, and other religions, there's a cycle of time at work within that course of eternity.

[Tribesman]

People who claim to kill in God's name are ussually either loonatics (which you get with all religions), or people trying to justify to the world what they are doing.
That clears things up almost completely Vuk .
So could you categorise this for me , concerning those that claimed to kill in Gods name in the OT.
Are they ...
Alunatics
Bpeople trying to justify genocide to the world by writing passages of a book saying it was god that told them to do it in the hope that people might believe them many years down the line , because ....well because its written down like that .

You really walked into that one didn't you :oops:

[Scurvy]

God does not condone murder. He did how ever give instructions to kill certain criminals of high order.


That sounds suspiciusly like God is saying "you can kill when its convenient to you, despite the fact that i'm against murder and most violence...."
--> Murder = killing --> they are the same thing!

+ you claim the bible never contradicts itself, i actualy agree with you in the sense that the written text can all be made to work, however how can you claim your interpretaion of the bible is the right one? Even if everything is taken literally there are still wide gaps open to different meanings, the bible never lies, but it tells several different truths..etc etc :2thumbsup:

[Tribesman]

you claim the bible never contradicts itself, i actualy agree with you in the sense that the written text can all be made to work
Sorry scurvy , but how can you possibly agree with such bollox .
For example there was this god who said don't hurt children ,anyone who hurts children is doing a really nasty thing to me myself and I will not be very happy with that .
Which of course cannot possibly be anthing like the god who said batter the babies to death in front on their parents helpess eyes , then rape the mothers , show no mercy to babies and take no pity on kids .
hmmmmm.....Now I don't know about you , but there does seem to be an ever so slight contradiction there .

Since that mentions rape , which is of course a very ungodly thing , so it cannot really have been God telling his followers to rape people , since if it was indeed rape then as Vuk noted .......God does not condone murder. He did how ever give instructions to kill certain criminals of high order.
......
then god gave instructions to his followers who if they followed his instructions would also have to follow his instructions on punishments for rapists , which I am sure Vuk or one of the "expert" biblical scholars from this thread can tell us about .:laugh4:
However while they are looking that up they can also enlighten us on the godly sanctioned punishment to be meted out to the rape victims .
Though of course that might be easily contradicted by that carpenters son saying something about throwing things .

I really do wonder sometimes if those people on this forum who so loudly proclaim their faith have even read the book(s) that they claim their faith is based upon .:inquisitive:

Now actually as a side thought , abortion , which I personally do not agree with .
Leaving aside all the excess baggage about the dedate over when life starts and all that, and for this instance assume the fetus is an alive young baby , completely innocent of any wrongdoing whose deliberate killing would be an act of ungodly murder , how many references in the bible can you find of god killing innocent little babies , or telling his followers to kill innocent little babies ?

[JimBob]

The Destroyer" -- destroy the world once it gets too evil, wipe the universe clean,
And he destroys it by stopping his dance. DDR anyone?


God never contradicts Himself. He said, "Thou shalt not Murder", not, "thou shalt not kill".
Bring me the scholars who make that claim. Until you do that or I learn Ancient Greek I will take what is written in the Bible I see.


God made a new covenant with all the peoples of the earth (The New Testament), if they choose not to obey him and worship other gods, that is their fault, and not His...He gave us our own free will, and if we choose not to come to Him, it is our own fault. He even sent His only Son to die to pay for our sins.
Right but what about Steve on Fiji way back before Jesus. Did a prophet come to him? Was he created when Christians showed up in the neighborhood? Is he just screwed?
I'm pretty sure he was not aware of the New Testament. So he can't be blamed for not knowing about God. The problem is not that Steve didn't go to God, the problem is that God never came to Steve.

[Red Peasant]

Bring me the scholars who make that claim. Until you do that or I learn Ancient Greek I will take what is written in the Bible I see.



The original is in Hebrew and Hebraists will confirm that the word is always used in the context of 'murder'. It's not a claim, just a matter of fact. So, see how translation, and re-translation, blurs meanings?

Control of homicidal tendencies was, and is, crucial to all societies, and the Israelites were no different, but they had no understanding that ALL killing was wrong. They were quite happy to kill if it seemed justifiable or legitimate, just like any other society.

It could be claimed that this semantic slip has had one of the most profound effects of all. All life is now considered sacred by civilized people, at least as an ideal, and it may be the one gift that Christianity has given to the world, even if it has been monstrously abused over the centuries. Lost in translation, eh? ~;)

[screwtype]

Lots of blue gods they have, that. Krishna -- as an avatar of Vishnu -- is one of them. Though you probably are talking about Shiva, one of the three mightiest gods of the traditional Hindu pantheon: Brahma, the Creator; Vishnu, the Protector (often born some epic hero in the mortal world, like the legendary Rama of Ramayana fame); and him -- who's the greatest can be very varied, since there are like, thousands of sects, may be. He's one cool guy, that. "The Destroyer" -- destroy the world once it gets too evil, wipe the universe clean, so his colleague Brahma can rebuild it when he wakes up after eons of emptiness.

Actually, Vishnu is not commonly referred to as the "Protector" God. The three main Gods are - Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Sustainer (or Preserver, which is probably what you meant) and Shiva the Destroyer. Ganesh is the God usually cited as the Protector God in Hinduism. Hindus often carry around little icons of Ganesh in the same way that Catholics will carry icons of St Christopher.

In the Shaivite tradtion, Shiva is worshipped primarily as the destroyer of illusion. That is, by worshipping Shiva one's illusions are dissolved and one comes to see the ultimate truth.

[Ironside]

Unless you belive in Jesus Christ (which includes sccepting the Bible which is the embodiement of God), and accept Him as your Saviour, you are not a Christian...period.



If the Bible is lying in any part, then it cannot be trusted for anything. The Bible IS the truth (All of it!),


He is mercifull and forgiving, and gives us many chances even though we just spit back at Him. He gave us our own free will,


2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"

10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."
13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"
The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

So by your own definintion you're a lier... Because according to the Bible, God never gave us free will.

[IrishArmenian]

As the lone Orthodox here, I am obliged to say: the Creed is not the one component. It is a starting point where one dives in to the mystery of God. The Bible is not always literal and deals in metaphors, just like God. Why try excruciatingly hard to understand how God works, because that is a mystery. Just my opinion, but the west seems to take everything far too simply and literally. God is an enigma and is supposed to have a mysticism shrouding him. One always has to analyze the Bible and the teachings of God. The reason you do not have that as much in the West is because you started ouit with just Latin, which very little could understand when Christianity was truly catholic in Europe (catholic here meaning universal or general) yet the Orthodoxy always spoke the Native tongues. In fact, I find it quite enlightening to have religious debates right after a service, especially if the Priest is involved, in which it becomes a learning experience.

[Samurai Waki]

couldn't have said it better myself. :beam: