Forums > Social Chat > Exploring christainity
Login/Join to Participatemember
244 posts
Location: NZ
244 posts
Location: NZ
Posted:
what are the chances of discussing the philosphy of christainity here on hop. it would be nice if those who respond have actually read portions of the new testemant at least. please resist the temptation to write something against the mainstream churches of today or what terrible things have been done in the name of christainity. please only comment on the philosophy written in the good book.
i want to start this thread because about 4 months ago i began reading the N.T. (new testament) and was surprised at the concepts and ideas i discovered. it remindered me of the eastern religions like hinduism and buddism. comfort can't be found in the material world, i'll have to find this scpriture later. their is one force/element which is behind the existence of all things Col 1:15-17. that the turth can be found within you Luke 17:21 John 7:38 John 14:17 Galations 4:6. and the spirit will teach you all wisdom Eph 1:17 Col 2:2
tell me what your veiw of these scpriture is and others. i am not a christain, jesus isn't my guru but the world veiw is very similar to what i beleive or at least i can eaily see it in the n.t.
what are the chances of discussing the philosphy of christainity here on hop. it would be nice if those who respond have actually read portions of the new testemant at least. please resist the temptation to write something against the mainstream churches of today or what terrible things have been done in the name of christainity. please only comment on the philosophy written in the good book.
i want to start this thread because about 4 months ago i began reading the N.T. (new testament) and was surprised at the concepts and ideas i discovered. it remindered me of the eastern religions like hinduism and buddism. comfort can't be found in the material world, i'll have to find this scpriture later. their is one force/element which is behind the existence of all things Col 1:15-17. that the turth can be found within you Luke 17:21 John 7:38 John 14:17 Galations 4:6. and the spirit will teach you all wisdom Eph 1:17 Col 2:2
tell me what your veiw of these scpriture is and others. i am not a christain, jesus isn't my guru but the world veiw is very similar to what i beleive or at least i can eaily see it in the n.t.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Whereas a lot of the posts here are focusing on casting doubt as to its validity.
I think there's always a balance to be struck between keeping the posts on thread (and risking losing some interesting avenues of discussion) and letting it follow a free course (risking losing the original thread).
In this case, however, itsgottab's original post did specifically ask that the discussion be kept on topic.
He also went to the trouble of specifying consisely what that topic was i.e. discussion of the New Testement and not criticism of it.
I understand that those of you who consider the New Testement to be corrupted, or just plain tosh, feel the need to express their view point; but in this instance I'm with itsgottab- he's the thread starter and he's made his wishes clear.
It's a very easy thing to start off a new thread, such as 'The non-validity of the New Testement' where the subject can be discussed without being disrespectful to itsgottab.
Whilst many of you may see discussing the New Testement in the way that itsgottab wants, as being facile, sunday schoolish nonsense, that doesn't make it right to corrupt his thread; like he says, if you don't like the thread then don't post on it.
HOP forum is made up of a diverse variety of people, if some of them want to create focused threads, and they go to the trouble of concisley setting down their wishes, then, in my opinion, we should respect their right to do that.
There's plenty of unfocused threads here, and, as I've said before, anyone can easily start up their own.
quote:I get the impression that you want the discussion to be based on the New testament as it exists today?
Originally posted by Itsgottab:
it seems you and want to express your own veiws about the bible.....
....So if you don't want to join the conversation from this perspective it would be much better if you did stay out of this conversation and thank you for doing so.
Whereas a lot of the posts here are focusing on casting doubt as to its validity.
I think there's always a balance to be struck between keeping the posts on thread (and risking losing some interesting avenues of discussion) and letting it follow a free course (risking losing the original thread).
In this case, however, itsgottab's original post did specifically ask that the discussion be kept on topic.
He also went to the trouble of specifying consisely what that topic was i.e. discussion of the New Testement and not criticism of it.
I understand that those of you who consider the New Testement to be corrupted, or just plain tosh, feel the need to express their view point; but in this instance I'm with itsgottab- he's the thread starter and he's made his wishes clear.
It's a very easy thing to start off a new thread, such as 'The non-validity of the New Testement' where the subject can be discussed without being disrespectful to itsgottab.
Whilst many of you may see discussing the New Testement in the way that itsgottab wants, as being facile, sunday schoolish nonsense, that doesn't make it right to corrupt his thread; like he says, if you don't like the thread then don't post on it.
HOP forum is made up of a diverse variety of people, if some of them want to create focused threads, and they go to the trouble of concisley setting down their wishes, then, in my opinion, we should respect their right to do that.
There's plenty of unfocused threads here, and, as I've said before, anyone can easily start up their own.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
Hehe its been a while but lets take things a step at a time.
Stone,
How about when you get into a car accident, say you were doing everything right, you hit a patch of ice, lost controle and hit another car killing the driver. The cops came and do their investigation, and find out that you did everything right, it was just an accident. You killed someone, did you break the commandment? No it wasnt your fault, there was just nothing you could do, you did not violate God's law in the least bit.
I am sorry but that just doesnt make sence to me!
You're looking at minute details, staring at the Mona Lisa's lips when you are actually missing the real beauty of the whole painting.
I8beefy2, ever notice the comparison of Jesus and Budah in Dogma (The View Askew Movie)? Amazing what you can compare similer teachings too.
onewheeldave:
i8beefy2:
Secondly, Genisis 1:1 In the begining God created the Heavens and the Earth. Hrm second chapter... not quite but close
Also how would you know what the original Hebrew text said anyway? You dont speak it, nobody does, it is a dead language. Also have you personally seen this text? The dead sea scrolls arnt the original text, bet you have seen a copy of em but have you seen and read the original, doubtfull. Please keep your lies behind your teath.
Frosty:
The New Testiment, starts out with the life of Jesus Christ, in the middle you see the birth of the Church, or the Bride of Christ, in the last book you see the Revilation of John and the end of the world.
You must be very carefull with the book of Revilation, it is a book of proficy, anything can happen. Are we in the end times? I dont know but man it would be very interesting if we were.
Pele:
The stories of Lot and his daughters have not been removed.
Actually it says let us make man in our likness. Does that mean that God can only speek to another god? Man was often and still is often used to speak of all mankind. IE men, women, children and what not.
Pele, the idea that God is not perfect is well... to me rediculous.
We are not perfect because of our choices in life. Jesus, however, was perfect because well... not only was he God but because of his choices. God allows us to choose our own path in life. That is why there is sin in the world. If he had made us into puppets then there would be no sin. He gave us free will... something that we tend to abuse.
Raph, how would you conduct a debate without refering to the object of debate? I dont know how to do it if you do please let us know.
Pele I am not condeming your views, I dont agree with them and I will never give you support in your views, but I will not treat you differntly from what I have in the past. You are free to view the world as you will... it doesnt matter if I think you are wrong.
The New Testiment is primarily the Teachings of Christ, if you truly wish to stay on topic discuss those.
Hehe its been a while but lets take things a step at a time.
Stone,
quote:So when David killed Goliath, he was breaking the Ten Commandments? Or how about when God brought down the walls of Jerrico, or what about Giddion, chosen to battle the Amerytes. Chosen by an Angel sent from God, not only that he was the weakest member of his family but was also from the weakest tribe of the Isrialites. Was he going against Gods Commandments when he led his men down into the Ameryte camp and killed all of them? No, sorry bud, there is a difference between murder and killing.
Ooooo, we don't like that bit, so lets toss it out. OR, this "thou shalt not kill or was it thou shalt not murder" confusion. Clearly, what was meant was "not to take the life of another human being".
How about when you get into a car accident, say you were doing everything right, you hit a patch of ice, lost controle and hit another car killing the driver. The cops came and do their investigation, and find out that you did everything right, it was just an accident. You killed someone, did you break the commandment? No it wasnt your fault, there was just nothing you could do, you did not violate God's law in the least bit.
quote:So you are saying that the almighty God, who created the whole universe, is not powerfull enought to do it in 7 days?
It also amazes me that people can quibble about the fine distinction b/t killing and murder, yet rigidly insist that the world was created in 7-calender days, which is clearly wasn't, or that life does not evolve, which it clearly does.
I am sorry but that just doesnt make sence to me!
quote:Well... I for one think that things are explained in a way that the simple brains of man can understand. How do you explain God, to begin with, the word god can be asexual. Some add -ess when specifically talking about a female god, however you can use god as both male and female, kinda like Sam. However look at the times, women (though they do play a major role in the Bible) were not the controling factor in the not only religious but political world.
The question I would like to ask of knowledgeable biblical scholars is WHY is there no female deity in these Christian religions? And I don't mean Mary, who is obviously a saint, but not a deity ??? Was the female deity written out of the bible? Because for me, this is a missing link in this whole religious thingy.
You're looking at minute details, staring at the Mona Lisa's lips when you are actually missing the real beauty of the whole painting.
I8beefy2, ever notice the comparison of Jesus and Budah in Dogma (The View Askew Movie)? Amazing what you can compare similer teachings too.
onewheeldave:
quote:I am sure that if God wants to look a like a man, God can, and visa versa for looking like a woman. I am sure that if one has the power to create the world then they have the power to embody anything they wish. Even a giraff.
In my opinion there is no female deity.
In the same way as there is no male deity.
Deity is not something that can possess gender.
Gender is determined by certain characteristics, such as the possession of male genitalia; I think it's safe to say that God doesn't have those
i8beefy2:
quote:Well, the fact that women have one more rib than men, I would wager that God took a rib, but in the infanite power of God, he could have taken anything froma hair to a whole side, or even just made eve from thin air.
Stone: Actually I believe God is genderless. And "Adam" kind of resembles the Hindu god Shiva (Half male, half female split down the middle), as the Hebrew word which is translated as "rib" actually was "side", thus you get a picture of Adam being split in half, not just having a rib taken. Interesting.
Also interesting is that "God" is not used until the second chapter or something like that. The original Hebrew actually uses "In the beginning the gods..." and "gods" is used up until the next section, so it appears that the original translation is fudged right from the first five words... So the "literal translation" idea doesn't exactly hold... Not to mention that Hebrew has a large amount of hidden meaning and numerology behind it as well, and that every word and letter has its own meaning and interpetation. The literal words are not always the main meaing
Secondly, Genisis 1:1 In the begining God created the Heavens and the Earth. Hrm second chapter... not quite but close
Also how would you know what the original Hebrew text said anyway? You dont speak it, nobody does, it is a dead language. Also have you personally seen this text? The dead sea scrolls arnt the original text, bet you have seen a copy of em but have you seen and read the original, doubtfull. Please keep your lies behind your teath.
Frosty:
quote:Actually there is a differance between the OT and NT. You are quite right there. However, the OT had alot of history in it, alot of it proven through *gasps* science! Though if you were to sum up the meaning of the OT in one scentance, I would say it was more like "The Old Testiment, was written so that we may know where we came from and so that we may know why we should worship the God of the Isrialites, the One true God."
Do you know the difference between the Old and New Testament?
They're quite different
One's all about worshipping god, the other is all about other people and how to live your life well. Quite different focus, but it does vary from translation to translation how "WORSHIP GOD OR DIE" the NT is... which is where i wish i was still at my parents with access to my books
i8beefy mentioned the blind men and the elephant concept, that's pretty much what I think too - hell if people can believe the world is flat for how many hundreds of thousands of years, and that was a matter of faith as noone could travel around it then, then who's to say our whole concept of god isn't as crazed?
The New Testiment, starts out with the life of Jesus Christ, in the middle you see the birth of the Church, or the Bride of Christ, in the last book you see the Revilation of John and the end of the world.
You must be very carefull with the book of Revilation, it is a book of proficy, anything can happen. Are we in the end times? I dont know but man it would be very interesting if we were.
Pele:
The stories of Lot and his daughters have not been removed.
Actually it says let us make man in our likness. Does that mean that God can only speek to another god? Man was often and still is often used to speak of all mankind. IE men, women, children and what not.
Pele, the idea that God is not perfect is well... to me rediculous.
We are not perfect because of our choices in life. Jesus, however, was perfect because well... not only was he God but because of his choices. God allows us to choose our own path in life. That is why there is sin in the world. If he had made us into puppets then there would be no sin. He gave us free will... something that we tend to abuse.
Raph, how would you conduct a debate without refering to the object of debate? I dont know how to do it if you do please let us know.
Pele I am not condeming your views, I dont agree with them and I will never give you support in your views, but I will not treat you differntly from what I have in the past. You are free to view the world as you will... it doesnt matter if I think you are wrong.
The New Testiment is primarily the Teachings of Christ, if you truly wish to stay on topic discuss those.
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Ah Raymond, I must say you are by far my favorite person to discuss things with on this board. Although calling me a liar for sharing some of the things that I have learned and come across I think is a bit mean, I will try and clarify.
I am non-Dogmatic in entirity. A wise man once said "If you should meet the Buddha in the road, kill him!" essentially the gist is to not get tied up in Dogma when searching for your PERSONAL enlightenment. He can show a way, but to follow it Dogmatically will get you no where as you have missed his point. I take the same view of Christianity.
Now if you really want me to start citing sources, I will begin here, only to clarify that I am not making this up as I go along. The statement that "God" in the singular is not used until the second chapter in the original Hebrew is from two of my Philosophy courses. Two seperate courses, thus two knowledgeable sources on comparitive religions in a university setting which support each other. And one of those professors is a born again Christian. And I was only pointing that out as an interesting point when going on about translations, and loss of meaning.
As for not being able to "speak" Hebrew, you are correct, I can't, and neither can anyone else. Reading Hebrew is a different story of course, but as you point out, I am not that well versed in the language, although my friends mother and his father, who was a reverand, are still very religious and DO have backgrounds in Hebrew, and I have discussed such things with them at length. Comparitive religion is a hobby of mine, so my statements come from my own insights and interpetations based on what I've been told, and on what I have found in my own research. There was no lying involved.
As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, you are right there too, though I do have photographed copies of many of the scrolls which have been released for translation (As are available through several sources). Some of those scrolls are still kept under lock by certain religious factions that claim they want to consolidate translation, whereas some speculate they are hiding valuable parts of the texts. I have three translations of the scrolls, two of which I have read, along with their summaries and commentaries, the other being too big to read along with my current course load at the moment.
I wasn't going to take part in this thread anymore after the call for it to stay on topic, but I take great offense at being called a liar. I am only trying to share useful pieces of information for the conversation, not attack your belief structure. Besides, you obviously believe in what you believe in strong enough to not be swayed by anything anyone can bring forth here, so I feel your comment was a little harsh for a "defense". I apologize for my part in this misunderstanding, and I retract my participation from this thread.
Peace to you all.
Ah Raymond, I must say you are by far my favorite person to discuss things with on this board. Although calling me a liar for sharing some of the things that I have learned and come across I think is a bit mean, I will try and clarify.
I am non-Dogmatic in entirity. A wise man once said "If you should meet the Buddha in the road, kill him!" essentially the gist is to not get tied up in Dogma when searching for your PERSONAL enlightenment. He can show a way, but to follow it Dogmatically will get you no where as you have missed his point. I take the same view of Christianity.
Now if you really want me to start citing sources, I will begin here, only to clarify that I am not making this up as I go along. The statement that "God" in the singular is not used until the second chapter in the original Hebrew is from two of my Philosophy courses. Two seperate courses, thus two knowledgeable sources on comparitive religions in a university setting which support each other. And one of those professors is a born again Christian. And I was only pointing that out as an interesting point when going on about translations, and loss of meaning.
As for not being able to "speak" Hebrew, you are correct, I can't, and neither can anyone else. Reading Hebrew is a different story of course, but as you point out, I am not that well versed in the language, although my friends mother and his father, who was a reverand, are still very religious and DO have backgrounds in Hebrew, and I have discussed such things with them at length. Comparitive religion is a hobby of mine, so my statements come from my own insights and interpetations based on what I've been told, and on what I have found in my own research. There was no lying involved.
As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, you are right there too, though I do have photographed copies of many of the scrolls which have been released for translation (As are available through several sources). Some of those scrolls are still kept under lock by certain religious factions that claim they want to consolidate translation, whereas some speculate they are hiding valuable parts of the texts. I have three translations of the scrolls, two of which I have read, along with their summaries and commentaries, the other being too big to read along with my current course load at the moment.
I wasn't going to take part in this thread anymore after the call for it to stay on topic, but I take great offense at being called a liar. I am only trying to share useful pieces of information for the conversation, not attack your belief structure. Besides, you obviously believe in what you believe in strong enough to not be swayed by anything anyone can bring forth here, so I feel your comment was a little harsh for a "defense". I apologize for my part in this misunderstanding, and I retract my participation from this thread.
Peace to you all.
member
244 posts
Location: NZ
244 posts
Location: NZ
Posted:
Sounds like you would make a good missionary i8beefy2, just your last comment about trying to change peoples minds.
tell me this stuff about the singular god thing, when are these texts dated. the stuff i have read (being most likely from christain scholars) suggests the greek translations of the O.T. are more acrutate in term of the original sentiments of the 'word' and the aramaic and modern day hebrew translations are my word for word correct.
the plural in gensis when god makes humans is where christ comes from, so in the beginning there were two, maybe more?
Sounds like you would make a good missionary i8beefy2, just your last comment about trying to change peoples minds.
tell me this stuff about the singular god thing, when are these texts dated. the stuff i have read (being most likely from christain scholars) suggests the greek translations of the O.T. are more acrutate in term of the original sentiments of the 'word' and the aramaic and modern day hebrew translations are my word for word correct.
the plural in gensis when god makes humans is where christ comes from, so in the beginning there were two, maybe more?
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Hafta think about all that Ray, but I'll be back
Hafta think about all that Ray, but I'll be back
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
Two sources, two classes, I can hand you a whole college that says that there is only one God.
Secondly, your sources can not read ancient hebrew, nobody can. Have they seen the original text? No! Sorry man, I can not believe that your sources are truthfull. I am sorry for the offence of me calling you a liar, but if the pot is black there is nothing else that you can call it.
Ancient Hebrew is differnt from what is spoken, read and written today.
Once again I am sorry for offending you, please keep your interest in this post, not too many folk have your knowlege and to tell you the truth, it just aint fun with out folk who can throw a zinger in every now and then, and you are definatly one to do just that
I like the challenge more than the topic
Let us make man in our likeness. Does that mean that there is more than one God? Not nessicarily so, but what you can interpret it as, is that God has created other beings that happen to be similer in looks.
Also, the first commandment, You will not have any other gods above Me.
Will not, not should not, or maybe your shouldnt or anyother tidbit. Meaning that even if there were other lagitimate gods, none are more important that God. So in essence you can take that as "Ignore the others God is the only One that you should worship."
Two sources, two classes, I can hand you a whole college that says that there is only one God.
Secondly, your sources can not read ancient hebrew, nobody can. Have they seen the original text? No! Sorry man, I can not believe that your sources are truthfull. I am sorry for the offence of me calling you a liar, but if the pot is black there is nothing else that you can call it.
Ancient Hebrew is differnt from what is spoken, read and written today.
Once again I am sorry for offending you, please keep your interest in this post, not too many folk have your knowlege and to tell you the truth, it just aint fun with out folk who can throw a zinger in every now and then, and you are definatly one to do just that
I like the challenge more than the topic
Let us make man in our likeness. Does that mean that there is more than one God? Not nessicarily so, but what you can interpret it as, is that God has created other beings that happen to be similer in looks.
Also, the first commandment, You will not have any other gods above Me.
Will not, not should not, or maybe your shouldnt or anyother tidbit. Meaning that even if there were other lagitimate gods, none are more important that God. So in essence you can take that as "Ignore the others God is the only One that you should worship."
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Granted that two sources are not enough to form a universally valid argument. Likewise I could hand you a whole lot of philosophies and religions that claim there is no God at all, but we are still delving into the unknowable there, which we will set aside for now. Translation of word into other languages is not unknowable, however you are dealing with meaning. This is why we have lawers and such today, to base things on strictly defined word deffinitions, etc. and why much of our words are misused today. Language is symbolic, and thus fallable. Even within ONE language there is room for argument, at least I hope so or a lot of constitutional lawers are out of work.
As for Hebrew not being readable, that isn't exactly true. There are plenty of people who can read Hebrew. No one knows what it SOUNDS like, but we do have translations and such, the Bible being one of those, from which we can build the linguistic base much as the Rosetta stone did for Greek, Egyptian text and Hyroglyphs. As I said, my friend's mother CAN read Hebrew, because she wanted to study the Bible in the original (Well, the "original" is actually a culmination of many different printings and versions from between 400 and 800 AD actually, but about as original as it gets). Now as to whether a diffinitive SOURCE Bible exists or ever has is quite debatable, as we have no texts predating 400 AD still in existence, or reliably documented in a scientific manner (IE not based on faith). Indeed there are many expositions by people lamenting the great variety and differences of Biblical texts available in those early days before the call for unification.
EDIT: I didn't see the "ancient Hebrew" qualifier, and as such that may not be valid, sorry.
As such you have a book which is a composite of the wide diversity of texts which were written in a similar manner (or edited in a similar manner) and thus are taken to have one divine source beyond the simple minds of mehums (mere humans). Not really that impressive really, I mean just looking at the numerological extravaganzas of the Koran are enough to baffle the mind and give great credit to the validity of Muhommid's claims of divine revelation. The Koran is a much more miraculous book than the Bible in these respects, and yet modern Christianity rejects those teachings. But I'm getting off topic.
Getting back to meaning, I'll take your two examples:
Man is made in God's image. This can be taken in other ways. In Quantum Mechanics we have this concept of symetry. Basically, all forces (gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, etc. etc.) are all reflections of higher order symmetries (In the higher order dimensions). I won't go into great detail, as there are many fine books on the finer aspects of 10-dimensional string theory, but essentially everything manifest in our reality is in the "image" (Or symmetrical representation) of the higher dimensions. As God would be the "ultimate dimension" encompassing all, basically EVERYTHING is in the "image" of God. Quabalistic interpetation goes somewhat along these lines with the 10 seperoth, etc. Again, just another interpetation.
You will have no other God. Very perceptive. You WILL have no other God, essentially saying that it is catagorically impossible to have any other God. Because all other Gods / Forces etc. (going along with my above statement) are just "lesser images" of the greater underlying reality (God). So it IS impossible to have any other God, as even in worshiping a rock you would still be worshiping him. Thus loving ANYTHING is loving God, and there is no possibility of a seperatness from God, as everything loves something else, or depends on something else (causality, the basis for our existence).
Of course I'm just shooting in the dark here at the unknowable. I think the Greek philosophers were full of phooie when they said we can discover anything through reason, and as this whole exercise has been nothing but a logical progression, it is still completely without merit, whether someone TOLD me this, or I THINK that I reasoned it out, or I THINK that I had some sort of revelation into the nature of things.
On a completely unrelated note, I found this site: Is It The Word of God Some who have been following this thread may like to take a gander, but just a warning, they take a very anti-faith based approach.
Granted that two sources are not enough to form a universally valid argument. Likewise I could hand you a whole lot of philosophies and religions that claim there is no God at all, but we are still delving into the unknowable there, which we will set aside for now. Translation of word into other languages is not unknowable, however you are dealing with meaning. This is why we have lawers and such today, to base things on strictly defined word deffinitions, etc. and why much of our words are misused today. Language is symbolic, and thus fallable. Even within ONE language there is room for argument, at least I hope so or a lot of constitutional lawers are out of work.
As for Hebrew not being readable, that isn't exactly true. There are plenty of people who can read Hebrew. No one knows what it SOUNDS like, but we do have translations and such, the Bible being one of those, from which we can build the linguistic base much as the Rosetta stone did for Greek, Egyptian text and Hyroglyphs. As I said, my friend's mother CAN read Hebrew, because she wanted to study the Bible in the original (Well, the "original" is actually a culmination of many different printings and versions from between 400 and 800 AD actually, but about as original as it gets). Now as to whether a diffinitive SOURCE Bible exists or ever has is quite debatable, as we have no texts predating 400 AD still in existence, or reliably documented in a scientific manner (IE not based on faith). Indeed there are many expositions by people lamenting the great variety and differences of Biblical texts available in those early days before the call for unification.
EDIT: I didn't see the "ancient Hebrew" qualifier, and as such that may not be valid, sorry.
As such you have a book which is a composite of the wide diversity of texts which were written in a similar manner (or edited in a similar manner) and thus are taken to have one divine source beyond the simple minds of mehums (mere humans). Not really that impressive really, I mean just looking at the numerological extravaganzas of the Koran are enough to baffle the mind and give great credit to the validity of Muhommid's claims of divine revelation. The Koran is a much more miraculous book than the Bible in these respects, and yet modern Christianity rejects those teachings. But I'm getting off topic.
Getting back to meaning, I'll take your two examples:
Man is made in God's image. This can be taken in other ways. In Quantum Mechanics we have this concept of symetry. Basically, all forces (gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, etc. etc.) are all reflections of higher order symmetries (In the higher order dimensions). I won't go into great detail, as there are many fine books on the finer aspects of 10-dimensional string theory, but essentially everything manifest in our reality is in the "image" (Or symmetrical representation) of the higher dimensions. As God would be the "ultimate dimension" encompassing all, basically EVERYTHING is in the "image" of God. Quabalistic interpetation goes somewhat along these lines with the 10 seperoth, etc. Again, just another interpetation.
You will have no other God. Very perceptive. You WILL have no other God, essentially saying that it is catagorically impossible to have any other God. Because all other Gods / Forces etc. (going along with my above statement) are just "lesser images" of the greater underlying reality (God). So it IS impossible to have any other God, as even in worshiping a rock you would still be worshiping him. Thus loving ANYTHING is loving God, and there is no possibility of a seperatness from God, as everything loves something else, or depends on something else (causality, the basis for our existence).
Of course I'm just shooting in the dark here at the unknowable. I think the Greek philosophers were full of phooie when they said we can discover anything through reason, and as this whole exercise has been nothing but a logical progression, it is still completely without merit, whether someone TOLD me this, or I THINK that I reasoned it out, or I THINK that I had some sort of revelation into the nature of things.
On a completely unrelated note, I found this site: Is It The Word of God Some who have been following this thread may like to take a gander, but just a warning, they take a very anti-faith based approach.
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
I can turn the chair I am sitting in now, to a god. I can worship it as the creater of all things, or whatever aspect I wish to give it. Does this make the chair a viable diety?
Granted some will argue that as long as I hold the priciple of the chair god true then it is a viable diety no matter what others would say.
It doesnt matter what god you speek of, if you hold anything in a higher light than God, then by the Christian religion, you are wrong. Thats the bottom line.
I dont understand quantome physics so you really lost me after like the 3rd word sorry, can you bring that paragraph down to Earth for the rest of us?
I do wish I had my computer up and running, it will take far more time to read that site than I have sitting here at the base library. I have no opinion yet, but what I have seen raises one question thus far, Is the auther properly quoting the Bible in context? I have no answer, but then again that is my usual question whenever I see someone who is claiming to quote the Bible.
Since this topic is supposed to be about the New Testiment, why don't we discuss the life of Jesus Christ.
Did he even exist?
Were his "miricles" hoaxes or actual miricles?
Come, lets debate
I can turn the chair I am sitting in now, to a god. I can worship it as the creater of all things, or whatever aspect I wish to give it. Does this make the chair a viable diety?
Granted some will argue that as long as I hold the priciple of the chair god true then it is a viable diety no matter what others would say.
It doesnt matter what god you speek of, if you hold anything in a higher light than God, then by the Christian religion, you are wrong. Thats the bottom line.
I dont understand quantome physics so you really lost me after like the 3rd word sorry, can you bring that paragraph down to Earth for the rest of us?
I do wish I had my computer up and running, it will take far more time to read that site than I have sitting here at the base library. I have no opinion yet, but what I have seen raises one question thus far, Is the auther properly quoting the Bible in context? I have no answer, but then again that is my usual question whenever I see someone who is claiming to quote the Bible.
Since this topic is supposed to be about the New Testiment, why don't we discuss the life of Jesus Christ.
Did he even exist?
Were his "miricles" hoaxes or actual miricles?
Come, lets debate
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
For years the Grand Unified Theory of all science has been the ultimate goal of General Relativity Physics and Quantum Physics. The idea is that every force can be united into different manifestations of the "super-force" if you will. For instance, Einstein took the first step in this direction by uniting Time and Space (into what we now know as 4-dimensional, 3 spacial and 1 time, space-time) and mass-energy (E=mc^2). The idea is that those can be grouped under a larger heirarchy in which the quantum forces, the strong and weak nuclear force, gravity, etc., would unite into one discpiline. The reason being the General Relativity works better at astronomical proportions, and quantum mechaincs works better for the smallest possible scales, so a Grand Unifying Theory would allow us to use one set of equations for all instances of anything in our reality.
Current research revolves around a theory called 10-dimensional String Theory, which is kind of complex, but I'll try to break it down. There are 10 dimensions, 3 of space, one of time, and six others which give rise to the forces that we experience (gravity, nuclear forces, electromagnetism, etc.). 10 is the lowest number of dimensions under which all forces can be united in String Theory (The other possible option being 16 or 26 or something like that, but that is a useless tangent to explain here). To explain how forces arise from extra dimensions, imagine living on a flat piece of paper. Crumple the paper up. As you move across it, it SEEMS flat from your perspective, but at some points (creases) you experience an odd force that makes no sense to your perception (say, gravity). Everything in space-time arises from these higher dimensions then (I believe, not sure of the heirarchy here). As all arises from the one, and theres "10-dimensions" it kind of fits along with Quabalistic study (10 Seperoth which were born forth from God's word, etc. etc.). Anyway, as everything in space-time arises in this way, everything is just a manifestation of God. Thats where I was going with that.
And Jesus said he was the Way, and called himself the Son of Man, implying, at least to me, that what he offered was a Way to live, and he being the culmination of man's search for the unknown. As for whether Jesus lived, I can not say for sure, but I have a pretty good idea. To know for sure would violate my personal outlooks on Dogma and truth. As for his "miracles", I can't say there either. Wasn't there. However, with all the Psychology under my belt now, I recognize peoples' tendancies to exagerate, or to misrepresent something. Something's appearance is not always its reality. Just as new technology appears as "magic" to those who don't understand it, sometimes a simple act can be blown way out of proportion when people "believe". Take Gossip as an example. Not always exactly true, but easily blown out of proportion against the victim's wishes once it has reached a certain multitude.
I once read a quote, but I don't remember where... it said "Faith is good, but blind faith is dangerous." Perhaps the miracles could be examples of this, blind faith making the "normal" appear "supernatural". Buddhism has similar problems with the "powers of a Buddha" which have been thought of in later traditions as more symbolical than realistic. Hmm. Interesting stuff to think about though...
For years the Grand Unified Theory of all science has been the ultimate goal of General Relativity Physics and Quantum Physics. The idea is that every force can be united into different manifestations of the "super-force" if you will. For instance, Einstein took the first step in this direction by uniting Time and Space (into what we now know as 4-dimensional, 3 spacial and 1 time, space-time) and mass-energy (E=mc^2). The idea is that those can be grouped under a larger heirarchy in which the quantum forces, the strong and weak nuclear force, gravity, etc., would unite into one discpiline. The reason being the General Relativity works better at astronomical proportions, and quantum mechaincs works better for the smallest possible scales, so a Grand Unifying Theory would allow us to use one set of equations for all instances of anything in our reality.
Current research revolves around a theory called 10-dimensional String Theory, which is kind of complex, but I'll try to break it down. There are 10 dimensions, 3 of space, one of time, and six others which give rise to the forces that we experience (gravity, nuclear forces, electromagnetism, etc.). 10 is the lowest number of dimensions under which all forces can be united in String Theory (The other possible option being 16 or 26 or something like that, but that is a useless tangent to explain here). To explain how forces arise from extra dimensions, imagine living on a flat piece of paper. Crumple the paper up. As you move across it, it SEEMS flat from your perspective, but at some points (creases) you experience an odd force that makes no sense to your perception (say, gravity). Everything in space-time arises from these higher dimensions then (I believe, not sure of the heirarchy here). As all arises from the one, and theres "10-dimensions" it kind of fits along with Quabalistic study (10 Seperoth which were born forth from God's word, etc. etc.). Anyway, as everything in space-time arises in this way, everything is just a manifestation of God. Thats where I was going with that.
And Jesus said he was the Way, and called himself the Son of Man, implying, at least to me, that what he offered was a Way to live, and he being the culmination of man's search for the unknown. As for whether Jesus lived, I can not say for sure, but I have a pretty good idea. To know for sure would violate my personal outlooks on Dogma and truth. As for his "miracles", I can't say there either. Wasn't there. However, with all the Psychology under my belt now, I recognize peoples' tendancies to exagerate, or to misrepresent something. Something's appearance is not always its reality. Just as new technology appears as "magic" to those who don't understand it, sometimes a simple act can be blown way out of proportion when people "believe". Take Gossip as an example. Not always exactly true, but easily blown out of proportion against the victim's wishes once it has reached a certain multitude.
I once read a quote, but I don't remember where... it said "Faith is good, but blind faith is dangerous." Perhaps the miracles could be examples of this, blind faith making the "normal" appear "supernatural". Buddhism has similar problems with the "powers of a Buddha" which have been thought of in later traditions as more symbolical than realistic. Hmm. Interesting stuff to think about though...
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
Okay, your err... Quantome Physics for dummys was only somewhat successfull... though it did manage to just get me more lost than before Dont worry, Im just hopless when you try to explain things like that. I guess it would be like me trying to teach yall how to propperly call for fire on a 6 line (with appropriate data for both artilery and air ordinance ya that gets complex)
Anyhoo...
I agree that things can be told with more "panash" than how they really happend. However your dealing with divine power, something that does not apply to the laws of man, nor his science.
To put mud on a blind mans eyes, they wash the mud away and have the man be able to see for the first time in his life, is beyond medical understandings.
Or even how Jesus repeatedly preformd miricles on people whom he never saw. People who were bed ridden far away from where he stood.
Walking on water, water to wine, feeding thousands from little.
These things science cant explain, however someone who who lacks faith will explain away that the people who wrote this were liars.
You said that blind faith is dangerus, I say that blind faith is the only way to go. It is one thing to try to explain something so that you or someone else may understand it better but it is another thing to question and scruitinise every little item.
To say that God is powerfull enough to make the universe but isnt powerfull enough to make it in 7 days is... rediculous.
How in the world can you fathom that God isnt powerfull enough to do it I dont know. Your brain and mine just inst capable of comprehending the power, so we try to rationalise it into something that we can believe easier.
Why couldnt God make the world in 7 days, actually 6... he rested on the 7th?
Why couldnt the world be only 6,000 years old... and change?
If you follow the Bible it lays things out in pretty much a simple mathmatical equation. Follow the generations of man. It was roughly 2000 years from the time the world was created to Noah and the Ark, 2000 from the ark to the birth of Christ and 2000 years from the birth of Christ to the present. (and change) A generation is estimated at what 20 years? So count all the generations listed in the Bible and you will see how this answer is closer than any scientist can come up with.
To say that the world is 500 billion years, or whatever, is just so amazingly out of preportion that it drives me nuts.
Wow sorry a tangent there
Anyhoo...
Yes Jesus said "I am the Way the Truth and the Light, and no man can come to the Father except through me." He also said that he is the son of David. Jesus did come to show the way that we should live.
He didnt come to show the rightious the way he came to show the sinners. A healthy man doesnt need a doctor.
Okay, your err... Quantome Physics for dummys was only somewhat successfull... though it did manage to just get me more lost than before Dont worry, Im just hopless when you try to explain things like that. I guess it would be like me trying to teach yall how to propperly call for fire on a 6 line (with appropriate data for both artilery and air ordinance ya that gets complex)
Anyhoo...
I agree that things can be told with more "panash" than how they really happend. However your dealing with divine power, something that does not apply to the laws of man, nor his science.
To put mud on a blind mans eyes, they wash the mud away and have the man be able to see for the first time in his life, is beyond medical understandings.
Or even how Jesus repeatedly preformd miricles on people whom he never saw. People who were bed ridden far away from where he stood.
Walking on water, water to wine, feeding thousands from little.
These things science cant explain, however someone who who lacks faith will explain away that the people who wrote this were liars.
You said that blind faith is dangerus, I say that blind faith is the only way to go. It is one thing to try to explain something so that you or someone else may understand it better but it is another thing to question and scruitinise every little item.
To say that God is powerfull enough to make the universe but isnt powerfull enough to make it in 7 days is... rediculous.
How in the world can you fathom that God isnt powerfull enough to do it I dont know. Your brain and mine just inst capable of comprehending the power, so we try to rationalise it into something that we can believe easier.
Why couldnt God make the world in 7 days, actually 6... he rested on the 7th?
Why couldnt the world be only 6,000 years old... and change?
If you follow the Bible it lays things out in pretty much a simple mathmatical equation. Follow the generations of man. It was roughly 2000 years from the time the world was created to Noah and the Ark, 2000 from the ark to the birth of Christ and 2000 years from the birth of Christ to the present. (and change) A generation is estimated at what 20 years? So count all the generations listed in the Bible and you will see how this answer is closer than any scientist can come up with.
To say that the world is 500 billion years, or whatever, is just so amazingly out of preportion that it drives me nuts.
Wow sorry a tangent there
Anyhoo...
Yes Jesus said "I am the Way the Truth and the Light, and no man can come to the Father except through me." He also said that he is the son of David. Jesus did come to show the way that we should live.
He didnt come to show the rightious the way he came to show the sinners. A healthy man doesnt need a doctor.
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
How do you explain the fossil record? This alone shows that the planet is around 5 billion years old, not to mention the mountains of other scientific evidence, carbon 14 dating, etc. etc. A "Day" can just as easily be an Eon to a supreme being, so considering the creation of the universe (Which largely follows current models for the beginning of the universe BTW, just measured in thousands of years instead of days), this really doesn't have to be a divergent view from current scientific views. Now of course, you could argue that God "put" everything that way, but I think the "prime mover" theory better fits with the observable universe (God setting things in motion, given a few simple laws of physics, and everthing works out the way it works out). To argue that point I could take it the other way and say that nothing existed prior to this moment, and everything in the "past" was just put in my memory to fool me into thinking otherwise, which is just as plausable. After all, God can do anything, right? So it's just as plausable to say that that is the case, and all this debate about Biblical things is pointless, as ALL religions are then a creation of God to each of his people. Kinda reminds me of that Tower story in the Bible, where Languages diverged into many formats? Perhaps "language" means religious diversity? Eh, just a thought.
I'm not calling anyone a liar, however they were human, and humans make mistakes, or have misconceptions. No one is at fault, but sometimes its easier to explain an unexpected event in miraculous terms than applying a full on rational check... and even then, once a "miraculous" explanation has circulated to a point, it can often become the excepted explanation. Example: I am told that I am dying, but if my faith is strong enough, this man will heal me. If I believe hard enough, certain healing processes gain much more influence and force in the body and I get better, I call it a miracle. Double blind studies in psychology experiments have proven that "mind over matter" really does work in many healing cases, and just imagine the power of the mind when told that the very hand of God will be performing the operation. Thats some powerfull psychological influence.
That said, I can not give a satisfactory answer for all of the "miracles", though I'm sure there is no lack of theories out there. For instance one I think I've heard for the blind man is that they meant a metaphorical "sight".
Islamic Fundamentalists and Terrorists and Jihad members run on blind faith too. Their ideas are just as real as everyone elses. This is why Blind Faith is dangerous. Early American's had the concept of emminent domain, only they called it Manifest Destiny, and blind faith in that decree led to the annihlation of thousands upon thousands of people. Christianity is not without its black marks, nor any other religion. You said earlier something about "God not letting [The Bible/Church] be corrupted", but some of those acts kind point the other way...
As for the Jesus quote "I am the Way, the Truth the light..." etc. This clearly shows the division between "Jesus" and "Jesus Christ", being two different people. One the man who went to the desert, and other the Godhead that returned upon realizing his "Truth". In this way, Christ is speaking of himself as the Ultimate, not in a singular "worship this personage" sense (in my opinion). He is the Way, and the Truth, not the Man. He provided a way to live your life, so that you might experience the union with God which he achieved.
To say that he came only for sinners is a little extreme I would say too. He came to show the Way, to be the Light in the dark tunnel that ALL men are stumbling through. He was to be to man kind as the duck in front of a flying V is to them, a leader, showing the Way out of the chaos. Even the Duck who knows the way flies behind the leader, and even that duck can become lost.
How do you explain the fossil record? This alone shows that the planet is around 5 billion years old, not to mention the mountains of other scientific evidence, carbon 14 dating, etc. etc. A "Day" can just as easily be an Eon to a supreme being, so considering the creation of the universe (Which largely follows current models for the beginning of the universe BTW, just measured in thousands of years instead of days), this really doesn't have to be a divergent view from current scientific views. Now of course, you could argue that God "put" everything that way, but I think the "prime mover" theory better fits with the observable universe (God setting things in motion, given a few simple laws of physics, and everthing works out the way it works out). To argue that point I could take it the other way and say that nothing existed prior to this moment, and everything in the "past" was just put in my memory to fool me into thinking otherwise, which is just as plausable. After all, God can do anything, right? So it's just as plausable to say that that is the case, and all this debate about Biblical things is pointless, as ALL religions are then a creation of God to each of his people. Kinda reminds me of that Tower story in the Bible, where Languages diverged into many formats? Perhaps "language" means religious diversity? Eh, just a thought.
I'm not calling anyone a liar, however they were human, and humans make mistakes, or have misconceptions. No one is at fault, but sometimes its easier to explain an unexpected event in miraculous terms than applying a full on rational check... and even then, once a "miraculous" explanation has circulated to a point, it can often become the excepted explanation. Example: I am told that I am dying, but if my faith is strong enough, this man will heal me. If I believe hard enough, certain healing processes gain much more influence and force in the body and I get better, I call it a miracle. Double blind studies in psychology experiments have proven that "mind over matter" really does work in many healing cases, and just imagine the power of the mind when told that the very hand of God will be performing the operation. Thats some powerfull psychological influence.
That said, I can not give a satisfactory answer for all of the "miracles", though I'm sure there is no lack of theories out there. For instance one I think I've heard for the blind man is that they meant a metaphorical "sight".
Islamic Fundamentalists and Terrorists and Jihad members run on blind faith too. Their ideas are just as real as everyone elses. This is why Blind Faith is dangerous. Early American's had the concept of emminent domain, only they called it Manifest Destiny, and blind faith in that decree led to the annihlation of thousands upon thousands of people. Christianity is not without its black marks, nor any other religion. You said earlier something about "God not letting [The Bible/Church] be corrupted", but some of those acts kind point the other way...
As for the Jesus quote "I am the Way, the Truth the light..." etc. This clearly shows the division between "Jesus" and "Jesus Christ", being two different people. One the man who went to the desert, and other the Godhead that returned upon realizing his "Truth". In this way, Christ is speaking of himself as the Ultimate, not in a singular "worship this personage" sense (in my opinion). He is the Way, and the Truth, not the Man. He provided a way to live your life, so that you might experience the union with God which he achieved.
To say that he came only for sinners is a little extreme I would say too. He came to show the Way, to be the Light in the dark tunnel that ALL men are stumbling through. He was to be to man kind as the duck in front of a flying V is to them, a leader, showing the Way out of the chaos. Even the Duck who knows the way flies behind the leader, and even that duck can become lost.
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
Sorry Carbon dating is at best, inaccurate. It has disproven itself time and time again, the Bible on the other hand has never been disproven.
A man that was crippled his whole life can suddenly walk nay running and jumping as if he had been doing it his whole life?
God doesnt exist, Jesus was just a farce tale, and the corruptness of the people in the Church spread to the Bible long ago, why then would it have people rebuking corrupt actions within the Church?
Actually if you want to be accurate, the Body of Christ isnt what is corrupt, though it is the people within.
If this "seperation" is so clear why dont you show it to me?
Frosty, quit trying to flame people... namly me. Your post is very unthought and has no factual basis.
It is just a flame attempt and a poor one at that.
Sorry Carbon dating is at best, inaccurate. It has disproven itself time and time again, the Bible on the other hand has never been disproven.
quote:So your saying that a blind man can will himself to see? Even if he doesnt know what sight is?
I'm not calling anyone a liar, however they were human, and humans make mistakes, or have misconceptions. No one is at fault, but sometimes its easier to explain an unexpected event in miraculous terms than applying a full on rational check... and even then, once a "miraculous" explanation has circulated to a point, it can often become the excepted explanation. Example: I am told that I am dying, but if my faith is strong enough, this man will heal me. If I believe hard enough, certain healing processes gain much more influence and force in the body and I get better, I call it a miracle. Double blind studies in psychology experiments have proven that "mind over matter" really does work in many healing cases, and just imagine the power of the mind when told that the very hand of God will be performing the operation. Thats some powerfull psychological influence.
A man that was crippled his whole life can suddenly walk nay running and jumping as if he had been doing it his whole life?
quote:No I said the Bible, not the Church, the Church like any large body of people has been corrupt. I mean you can look at the Bible to see the corruputness of the Church, explain this one...
You said earlier something about "God not letting [The Bible/Church] be corrupted", but some of those acts kind point the other way...
God doesnt exist, Jesus was just a farce tale, and the corruptness of the people in the Church spread to the Bible long ago, why then would it have people rebuking corrupt actions within the Church?
Actually if you want to be accurate, the Body of Christ isnt what is corrupt, though it is the people within.
quote:Sorry mate, Jesus knew who he was from the get go. There was no miraculous turn around, he did not achieve this miraculous union with God. You can not find one passage in the Bible that even remotly supports your claim. What you said in the first sentace of that paragrpah is completly off.
As for the Jesus quote "I am the Way, the Truth the light..." etc. This clearly shows the division between "Jesus" and "Jesus Christ", being two different people. One the man who went to the desert, and other the Godhead that returned upon realizing his "Truth". In this way, Christ is speaking of himself as the Ultimate, not in a singular "worship this personage" sense (in my opinion). He is the Way, and the Truth, not the Man. He provided a way to live your life, so that you might experience the union with God which he achieved.
If this "seperation" is so clear why dont you show it to me?
quote:Umm... it isnt me that is saying that Jesus only came for the sinners, He said it!
To say that he came only for sinners is a little extreme I would say too. He came to show the Way, to be the Light in the dark tunnel that ALL men are stumbling through. He was to be to man kind as the duck in front of a flying V is to them, a leader, showing the Way out of the chaos. Even the Duck who knows the way flies behind the leader, and even that duck can become lost.
Frosty, quit trying to flame people... namly me. Your post is very unthought and has no factual basis.
It is just a flame attempt and a poor one at that.
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
Sponge
883 posts
Location: Stevenage
883 posts
Location: Stevenage
Posted:
I'm gonna throw my own view in, if you don't want to hear it then it's your life, choose not to. I believe in something, not sure what; I have a whole lifetime to figure out what but something, that created the galaxy and is all powerful it has a source within all of us and within everything but since the beginning of time and the construction of humans it hasn't revisited us and that accounts for why humans are so unperfect and events like the holocaust occur and peoples best friends pass away and suicides are commited and an unlimited number of things occur which suck. I don't know wether it will come again but I'm not going to wait around praying for it, if it put me here, it can tap into me to know what I'm thinking and that I believe in it and I do not need to worship or give thanks.
I also believe that the Bible is too old to even try and apply now, humans have changed, none of the basic principles exist any more, people kill for want of blood, people admit adultery for one reason or another, but we're not perfect and the way we have been suggested to live in the bible or wherever is too close to perfect for us to abide by.
Sorry to sound pessimistic or negative but I'm happy with my ideas and opinions and it just makes the hard times easier to cope with because of the beautiful time.
I'm gonna throw my own view in, if you don't want to hear it then it's your life, choose not to. I believe in something, not sure what; I have a whole lifetime to figure out what but something, that created the galaxy and is all powerful it has a source within all of us and within everything but since the beginning of time and the construction of humans it hasn't revisited us and that accounts for why humans are so unperfect and events like the holocaust occur and peoples best friends pass away and suicides are commited and an unlimited number of things occur which suck. I don't know wether it will come again but I'm not going to wait around praying for it, if it put me here, it can tap into me to know what I'm thinking and that I believe in it and I do not need to worship or give thanks.
I also believe that the Bible is too old to even try and apply now, humans have changed, none of the basic principles exist any more, people kill for want of blood, people admit adultery for one reason or another, but we're not perfect and the way we have been suggested to live in the bible or wherever is too close to perfect for us to abide by.
Sorry to sound pessimistic or negative but I'm happy with my ideas and opinions and it just makes the hard times easier to cope with because of the beautiful time.
Monkeys monkeys and bananas
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Posted:
Just want to pick up on one question for Ray. You said: "To say that the world is 500 billion years, or whatever, is just so amazingly out of preportion that it drives me nuts."
Do you believe in the 6 day creation? If so surely the idea that the world is 5 billion years old and shaped through the eons by slow and massive forces is less fantastical then the idea that it was created in an incredibly short space of time 6000 years ago, by much a greater omnipotent force?
To me the latter is much, much more fantastical. Especially when I can do things like point to a meeting of tectonic plates and say "There is a mountain being formed over a very long period of time" and "The genetic evolution of gene A in these 2 species shows that these 2 seperate species branched from an ancestor 15,000 years ago" etc...
Just want to pick up on one question for Ray. You said: "To say that the world is 500 billion years, or whatever, is just so amazingly out of preportion that it drives me nuts."
Do you believe in the 6 day creation? If so surely the idea that the world is 5 billion years old and shaped through the eons by slow and massive forces is less fantastical then the idea that it was created in an incredibly short space of time 6000 years ago, by much a greater omnipotent force?
To me the latter is much, much more fantastical. Especially when I can do things like point to a meeting of tectonic plates and say "There is a mountain being formed over a very long period of time" and "The genetic evolution of gene A in these 2 species shows that these 2 seperate species branched from an ancestor 15,000 years ago" etc...
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Carbon dating is not at best innacurate. Radioactive decay and nuclear half-lifes don't exactly fluctuate. Contamination is possible yes, and in fact has been used by the Church to explain away science finding greivances with their word (Remember the whole "death shroud" thing?), however to claim the process as innacurate is... well innacurate. Further, fossil records and bones, sedementary layering, etc. are all excepted forms of dating things into the past. Archaeology has a lot to say in this arena. But as I said, that still doesn't prove that "God" didn't invent the universe 5 minutes ago and put all that there to fool us into thinking thats the way it is.
The power of the mind in healings of sicknesses (As your example, those who he never touched, miles away, being "miraculously healed"). The hands on miracles, as one explanation puts it, could have been metaphorical... but the metaphorical view has its own problems. Exagerations? Possibly. Gossip exageration? More probable. Hehe, that just reminded me... did you hear that Ozzy bit the head off a cow once? (To use Beavis and Butthead as an example, my god to the level I have sunk, )
The other miraculous part is his birth of course, the Virgin Mary requiring quite a leap of faith. I tend to think this is simply something he was born into, I mean to have sex unmarried in Biblical times would probably result in stoning (As many other small crimes did too). It would make more sense if after his birth and the prophecies of the wise men and the dude outside the church who said "Now I can die for my lord has come", etc. to avoid any problems of this sort for people to just claim him as a devine birth.
As for Jesus knowing who he was, I think that goes against what we know of his life. He was born under astrologically unique circumstances, whereby "Wise men from the East", probably of the Buddhist or some other eastern philosophical persuasion come to find the child (Very reminiscent of how the next Dali Llama is found upon the current Llam's death, this is the Buddhisatva thoery). Then all record of his life ceases around the age of 12 or so, and the next thing we know about him is he comes wandering out of the desert (Or returning from the East) claiming NOT to be the son of God, no, THAT was something that was hefted upon him. He quite addamently refers to himself as the Son of Man as I recall... To call God "Father" isn't all that amazing. I mean the fact that Jesus had the gall to SPEAK Go_ (As it was considered blasphemous to speak or write the lords name in full AT ALL prior to Christ) implies that he was quite wound up in upsetting the clergy with such euphanisms. Further, to have such a view of the Creator as a "Father" figure isn't that hard of a linguistic jump either. And Jesus's fondness of speaking in analogy, to make people "see" for themselves as apposed to delivering upon them a strict code, is well documented. In fact, it saved his bum many times (IE telling people not to stone the whore, when the clergy wanted him to outright protect her, but instead he only showed the way and left the choice to the people).
In many ways, The Buddha and Christ spoke the same words, only in culturally different ways. The Buddha being born into knowledge, to a lesser degree untainted by previous religious experience, spoke directly to all. Christ did the same to his deciples, providing more explicit explanations, while speaking to the masses in analogy and termonology familiar to a Judaic cultural background. If you were trying to teach an entire philosophical system to people, there are three essential ways to do so.
1) To outright tell them they are wrong and provide the new way. (Forceful Conversion)
2) Show them they don't know what they think they know, or how inadequate that knowledge is. (Socratic)
3) Provide them with clues that they can relate to and let them "discover" for themselves what you are teaching them.
One breeds hatred and fear, the other embarassment and anger, and the last self illumination. If I was trying to get people to abide in love, the path would be clear. Anyway, all this has been outlined in a tremendously good book called "Jesus Lived in India", which is a bit expensive, but an awsome scholarly work and theory of those missing 15 years of Jesus's life.
Carbon dating is not at best innacurate. Radioactive decay and nuclear half-lifes don't exactly fluctuate. Contamination is possible yes, and in fact has been used by the Church to explain away science finding greivances with their word (Remember the whole "death shroud" thing?), however to claim the process as innacurate is... well innacurate. Further, fossil records and bones, sedementary layering, etc. are all excepted forms of dating things into the past. Archaeology has a lot to say in this arena. But as I said, that still doesn't prove that "God" didn't invent the universe 5 minutes ago and put all that there to fool us into thinking thats the way it is.
The power of the mind in healings of sicknesses (As your example, those who he never touched, miles away, being "miraculously healed"). The hands on miracles, as one explanation puts it, could have been metaphorical... but the metaphorical view has its own problems. Exagerations? Possibly. Gossip exageration? More probable. Hehe, that just reminded me... did you hear that Ozzy bit the head off a cow once? (To use Beavis and Butthead as an example, my god to the level I have sunk, )
The other miraculous part is his birth of course, the Virgin Mary requiring quite a leap of faith. I tend to think this is simply something he was born into, I mean to have sex unmarried in Biblical times would probably result in stoning (As many other small crimes did too). It would make more sense if after his birth and the prophecies of the wise men and the dude outside the church who said "Now I can die for my lord has come", etc. to avoid any problems of this sort for people to just claim him as a devine birth.
As for Jesus knowing who he was, I think that goes against what we know of his life. He was born under astrologically unique circumstances, whereby "Wise men from the East", probably of the Buddhist or some other eastern philosophical persuasion come to find the child (Very reminiscent of how the next Dali Llama is found upon the current Llam's death, this is the Buddhisatva thoery). Then all record of his life ceases around the age of 12 or so, and the next thing we know about him is he comes wandering out of the desert (Or returning from the East) claiming NOT to be the son of God, no, THAT was something that was hefted upon him. He quite addamently refers to himself as the Son of Man as I recall... To call God "Father" isn't all that amazing. I mean the fact that Jesus had the gall to SPEAK Go_ (As it was considered blasphemous to speak or write the lords name in full AT ALL prior to Christ) implies that he was quite wound up in upsetting the clergy with such euphanisms. Further, to have such a view of the Creator as a "Father" figure isn't that hard of a linguistic jump either. And Jesus's fondness of speaking in analogy, to make people "see" for themselves as apposed to delivering upon them a strict code, is well documented. In fact, it saved his bum many times (IE telling people not to stone the whore, when the clergy wanted him to outright protect her, but instead he only showed the way and left the choice to the people).
In many ways, The Buddha and Christ spoke the same words, only in culturally different ways. The Buddha being born into knowledge, to a lesser degree untainted by previous religious experience, spoke directly to all. Christ did the same to his deciples, providing more explicit explanations, while speaking to the masses in analogy and termonology familiar to a Judaic cultural background. If you were trying to teach an entire philosophical system to people, there are three essential ways to do so.
1) To outright tell them they are wrong and provide the new way. (Forceful Conversion)
2) Show them they don't know what they think they know, or how inadequate that knowledge is. (Socratic)
3) Provide them with clues that they can relate to and let them "discover" for themselves what you are teaching them.
One breeds hatred and fear, the other embarassment and anger, and the last self illumination. If I was trying to get people to abide in love, the path would be clear. Anyway, all this has been outlined in a tremendously good book called "Jesus Lived in India", which is a bit expensive, but an awsome scholarly work and theory of those missing 15 years of Jesus's life.
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
Im sorry you have that outlook on life GottaLoveIt.
But if I may I would like to show you your own contradictions.
How is that differnt from today? Man has changed in technology, but the basic ideals of man have not changed. They never will.
God will not allow a temptation to find you that you can not handle. That my friend is fact.
Dom, are you trying to say that it is beyond the power of God to allow the world to change form? Are you saying that it is beyond the power of God to let a spiecies change slowly?
I tell you the truth that God does have the power to allow change to happen slowly over time and to allow change to happen in the twinkling of the eye.
What made you so great that you can shake your finger at God and say that He is wrong?
Beefy...
Well... granted things can be brought to exageration, I would be foolish to say otherwise. Here is the question you must ask yourself, "Is everything exagerated?" If you see a news story, on whatever channel, did it really happen that way?
Why do you look at the Bible as a story book, but look at a newspaper as fact?
The lovly death shrowd of Christ was a great story, I enjoyed watching it though I had to fight off the temptaition to be angry with it.
It wasnt carbon dating that holds the soul claim to disproving that lie. Just remember that.
His miraculous birth, is something that must be taken on faith. I cant prove it, nor can you disprove it happend. Just because you cant comprhend an action doesnt mean that it didnt happen.
Tell me somthing, do you have a day to day account of what George Washinton did? I am sure that every biography out there on the man knows what he at for breakfast when he was 13 on June 4th.
Just because it isnt listed it doesnt mean that it didnt happen.
Jesus was brought up as the son of a carpenter, I am sure that he spent most of his days learning the trade and playing with friends like any normal child. Though I will be sure to ask, if I still deem the information relivent.
Ohh about the stoning of the prostitute, why was the man who slept with her not brought? Perhaps Jesus also saw a sence of justice there as well? It takes two people to make prostitution what it is, why was only one brought?
It was a trick, nothing more.
Unfortunatly anything anybody finds about the missing years of Jesus' life, can and are purly speculation. It is like saying that the T-rex was bright pink!
Im sorry you have that outlook on life GottaLoveIt.
But if I may I would like to show you your own contradictions.
quote:Well... During the time frame that the Bible was written, men and women were murderd, wars were fought, women were rapped, money stolen, governments sought conquest, slaves taken, homes burnt, animals slaughterd, disease killed without predjudice... etc etc etc...
also believe that the Bible is too old to even try and apply now
How is that differnt from today? Man has changed in technology, but the basic ideals of man have not changed. They never will.
God will not allow a temptation to find you that you can not handle. That my friend is fact.
Dom, are you trying to say that it is beyond the power of God to allow the world to change form? Are you saying that it is beyond the power of God to let a spiecies change slowly?
I tell you the truth that God does have the power to allow change to happen slowly over time and to allow change to happen in the twinkling of the eye.
What made you so great that you can shake your finger at God and say that He is wrong?
Beefy...
Well... granted things can be brought to exageration, I would be foolish to say otherwise. Here is the question you must ask yourself, "Is everything exagerated?" If you see a news story, on whatever channel, did it really happen that way?
Why do you look at the Bible as a story book, but look at a newspaper as fact?
The lovly death shrowd of Christ was a great story, I enjoyed watching it though I had to fight off the temptaition to be angry with it.
It wasnt carbon dating that holds the soul claim to disproving that lie. Just remember that.
His miraculous birth, is something that must be taken on faith. I cant prove it, nor can you disprove it happend. Just because you cant comprhend an action doesnt mean that it didnt happen.
quote:I dont claim to know everything, but this I have know knowlege of? Where did you read this in the Bible?
and the dude outside the church who said "Now I can die for my lord has come
quote:So in all the Psalms of David, he was speaking blastfomy? I think not.
(As it was considered blasphemous to speak or write the lords name in full AT ALL prior to Christ
Tell me somthing, do you have a day to day account of what George Washinton did? I am sure that every biography out there on the man knows what he at for breakfast when he was 13 on June 4th.
Just because it isnt listed it doesnt mean that it didnt happen.
Jesus was brought up as the son of a carpenter, I am sure that he spent most of his days learning the trade and playing with friends like any normal child. Though I will be sure to ask, if I still deem the information relivent.
Ohh about the stoning of the prostitute, why was the man who slept with her not brought? Perhaps Jesus also saw a sence of justice there as well? It takes two people to make prostitution what it is, why was only one brought?
It was a trick, nothing more.
Unfortunatly anything anybody finds about the missing years of Jesus' life, can and are purly speculation. It is like saying that the T-rex was bright pink!
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Posted:
quote:Easy, if God exists then God himself did.
What made you so great that you can shake your finger at God and say that He is wrong?
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
Dom, you are not so great that you can tell God that He is wrong.
Just because you can get away with it for now, doesnt mean a thing.
Frosty... you still have much to learn, especially since you claim to have read the Bible many many times. Though since you cant remember a simple story from the Bible, I find it hard to believe that you know much of anything.
If you are looking for something that is pure white, and what you find has a black spot on it, is it pure white?
If I were to sneek into Dom's house and slice his throat with a knife and you saw, and in your police report, you say that I snuck into his house and stabbed him, though you are close to the truth didnt you lie?
If something is 99.9% true that means that it is .1% false, could it ever be 100% true?
If I can find one example where Carbon dating is false can you honestly believe that the entire system is true?
Show me your proof!
The Jews do not reconise this, that is a part of their belief system, are you judging them for this?
And yes you are out just to flame people.
Dom, you are not so great that you can tell God that He is wrong.
Just because you can get away with it for now, doesnt mean a thing.
Frosty... you still have much to learn, especially since you claim to have read the Bible many many times. Though since you cant remember a simple story from the Bible, I find it hard to believe that you know much of anything.
If you are looking for something that is pure white, and what you find has a black spot on it, is it pure white?
If I were to sneek into Dom's house and slice his throat with a knife and you saw, and in your police report, you say that I snuck into his house and stabbed him, though you are close to the truth didnt you lie?
If something is 99.9% true that means that it is .1% false, could it ever be 100% true?
If I can find one example where Carbon dating is false can you honestly believe that the entire system is true?
quote:Obviusly you dont know what a virgin is, that means that a person has never had sex. So if she never had sex, yet bore a child, is she not a virgin? Is this not a miricle?
The miraculous birth... it was not. Since proven that those phrases meant not married, not not ever slept with. jesus was a bastard son yes.
Show me your proof!
quote:Actually I do believe that God appeared to Peter in a dream and lowerd an assortment of "unclean" animals and told him to kill and eat. Peter refused and this happend three times. When God asked him why, he said it was because the animals were unclean. God replied by saying that if He makes an animal clean is it not clean.
The bible still relevant today - do you eat pork?
The Jews do not reconise this, that is a part of their belief system, are you judging them for this?
quote:You cant have a conversation without bringing up what country I am from can you? Ohh yes I am sure it is so americanised, I am supprised Jesus is still in the Bible instead of GWB!
Don't make me laugh saying it's all still up to date - if it was then you wouldn't be holding the nice americanised cleaned-up version you have in your hands now, but the oldest text available
And yes you are out just to flame people.
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
By the way, you cant challenge my faith, it is rock solid.
You have yet to correct of prove anything, your words are nothing but conjecture and false statments.
Yet God saw something or knew something (I am not going to pretend to know God's mind on this) but He felt that mankind was ready to eat that sort of meat, ohh and it wasnt only pork, it was many types of animals.
Well... God says that you can eat pork, yet you seem to think that the Bible says not to... granted in the Old Testiment it does, but the New Testiment works very much like an Amendment when it comes to the Laws of the Church, the old laws saying not to eat pork have been replaced.
Ohh and why should anyone listen to you, isnt being homosexual considerd a little wacky, in some circles?
quote:Umm you are both right and wrong, yes when Jesus was concived Mary was not married. Yet she was also still a virgin.
That's the whole problem... it said "had not been with man"... it was taken to mean she was a virgin but recent investigations have led people to believe it just meant she wasn't married.
quote:You are the one that brought up the point, so why dont you show me this recent investigation.
You go hunt down the research... it's your faith that's being challenged not mine the point is that this is a translated and altered text which changes all the time - to claim it is infallible when it itself has been corrected many times is an obvious falsitude.
By the way, you cant challenge my faith, it is rock solid.
You have yet to correct of prove anything, your words are nothing but conjecture and false statments.
quote:Umm granted the a micoscope didnt exist back then, I am sure that they did not know what a microscopic organisim is. Yet their religion still said, dont eat it.
no LOL but nice try.
the point is that in their day eating Pork, for example, was a VERY BAD THING due to the microscopic organisms and worms present in the meat which will infect human beings.
nowadays we know how to get rid of the little buggers so it's no longer an issue
but in THEIR day it was important health advice, given out via religion
nowadays we ignore it as we know better.
but if the bible is always and only right... maybe we should all give pork up??
do we trust peter's word over the old testament's word? This is Peter who was known for being a little er... whacky.
Yet God saw something or knew something (I am not going to pretend to know God's mind on this) but He felt that mankind was ready to eat that sort of meat, ohh and it wasnt only pork, it was many types of animals.
Well... God says that you can eat pork, yet you seem to think that the Bible says not to... granted in the Old Testiment it does, but the New Testiment works very much like an Amendment when it comes to the Laws of the Church, the old laws saying not to eat pork have been replaced.
Ohh and why should anyone listen to you, isnt being homosexual considerd a little wacky, in some circles?
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
haha the next update hehehehe
That is truly sad. Is that all you can come up with?
A created object being better than the Creator, hahaha
When will you say something with substance?
haha the next update hehehehe
That is truly sad. Is that all you can come up with?
A created object being better than the Creator, hahaha
When will you say something with substance?
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Chronologically speaking, Islam IS the next update actually. Not only that, but you should go look up the significance of the number 19 in that text, the Koran. In fact, here ya go (https://www.tortuga.com/ur/quran.html), thats a good basic introduction to it. Basically, for any Fallible Man to have been able to write a book with that amount of mathematical "coincidence" in it is catagorically IMPOSSIBLE. It took the aid of a computer to find it at all. I mentioned this earlier, but I think it got skipped over in discussion...
Translation: https://www.submission.org/Q-T.html
A breif comparison of Buddhism, Christianity and Islam: https://www.tortuga.com/ur/UR-Frame-Idea.html
There was another group of people in Biblical times who's faith was rock hard... they ended up crucifying an innocent man because of their beliefs, or maybe fear that their beliefs were being challenged. It was those people who DID have the open mindedness to examine a new doctrine that FOUNDED Christianity (Not that you're closed minded, just referencing)
Religion and science are not divergant. They are just different ways of looking at the same thing. One relies on taking the End and working backwards, the other on beginning with nothing and working up to the End. Both like to speculate. Both like to debate. Both are highly controversial. On centers on belief and feeling, the other on thought and reason. They both have the same goal, and they can both help the other to temper its own findings, and modify interpetations and meanings that may have been lost. Science does not have to be counter to spirituality, nay, it can very much help to CLARIFY spirituality. In the search for truth, nothing should be thrown away.
Chronologically speaking, Islam IS the next update actually. Not only that, but you should go look up the significance of the number 19 in that text, the Koran. In fact, here ya go (https://www.tortuga.com/ur/quran.html), thats a good basic introduction to it. Basically, for any Fallible Man to have been able to write a book with that amount of mathematical "coincidence" in it is catagorically IMPOSSIBLE. It took the aid of a computer to find it at all. I mentioned this earlier, but I think it got skipped over in discussion...
Translation: https://www.submission.org/Q-T.html
A breif comparison of Buddhism, Christianity and Islam: https://www.tortuga.com/ur/UR-Frame-Idea.html
There was another group of people in Biblical times who's faith was rock hard... they ended up crucifying an innocent man because of their beliefs, or maybe fear that their beliefs were being challenged. It was those people who DID have the open mindedness to examine a new doctrine that FOUNDED Christianity (Not that you're closed minded, just referencing)
Religion and science are not divergant. They are just different ways of looking at the same thing. One relies on taking the End and working backwards, the other on beginning with nothing and working up to the End. Both like to speculate. Both like to debate. Both are highly controversial. On centers on belief and feeling, the other on thought and reason. They both have the same goal, and they can both help the other to temper its own findings, and modify interpetations and meanings that may have been lost. Science does not have to be counter to spirituality, nay, it can very much help to CLARIFY spirituality. In the search for truth, nothing should be thrown away.
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
Dont get me wrong, I am not denying their similarities... frankly anybody can come up with a religion that is close to Biblical ideals.
I am not going to sit here and tell you what to believe, that is something that you must decide for on your own. What I will tell you, is that though many religions out there are similer, there is only one true God, there can be no others.
If I offer you a million dollars/pounds whatever... and I tell you that there is only one way to get that million... are you going to sit there and try to figure out another way?
Most would say no, though some would say yes.
A million dollars/pounds whatever is nothing compared to Heaven, yet people through out the ages have sought other ways to get there. Sorry, there is only one way.
Jesus said, I am the Way, the Truth and the Light and no man can get to the Father except through Me.
Spin it anyway you want folks, there is still only one path.
That is what I believe. If you dont, then thats your choice.
Science has done more to proove the Bible than to disprove. Name one theory of evoloution and I garunte you that science will disprove it. Yet science will never be able to disprove Creation. Interesting, isnt it?
Dont get me wrong, I am not denying their similarities... frankly anybody can come up with a religion that is close to Biblical ideals.
I am not going to sit here and tell you what to believe, that is something that you must decide for on your own. What I will tell you, is that though many religions out there are similer, there is only one true God, there can be no others.
If I offer you a million dollars/pounds whatever... and I tell you that there is only one way to get that million... are you going to sit there and try to figure out another way?
Most would say no, though some would say yes.
A million dollars/pounds whatever is nothing compared to Heaven, yet people through out the ages have sought other ways to get there. Sorry, there is only one way.
Jesus said, I am the Way, the Truth and the Light and no man can get to the Father except through Me.
Spin it anyway you want folks, there is still only one path.
That is what I believe. If you dont, then thats your choice.
Science has done more to proove the Bible than to disprove. Name one theory of evoloution and I garunte you that science will disprove it. Yet science will never be able to disprove Creation. Interesting, isnt it?
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
BRONZE Member
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Posted:
i will be honest - i havent read this entire argument, i simply dont have the time but from what i can gather it seems to be a yes/no argument.
i think religion has the right idea. however i think certain people take it too far and use it as an excuse for their own bad actions. they claim that it was all god's plan and therefore the individual has no responsibility for their actions.
basically, religion is ok, but it has been the cause and reason for so many wars, i dont know if its worth it.
i have a friend who is highly religious - he's a great guy, and he never preaches to the rest of my group who are 90% athiests. HE has the right idea. he doesnt discriminate against us. he lets us talk about what we believe and i think that religion should see that more. not want the other to burn in hell, but appreciate the other and accept that they have a different idea of hell.
i dont doubt that jesus lived, there is enough evidence documented to prove that a jesus character lived - however i dont believe he was necessarily the son of god. and i find the bible is out of date. its is *rather* (i would say very but i would get yelled at for that big time - NO! this is MY soap box - VERY!) biased against women. and in today's society that just doesnt apply. it may apply for some who follow the bible, but in reality, among society, if it was anywhere BUT the bible, it would be called discrimination.
i prefer to stay open minded. call me a fence sitter if you like, but the view from up here is much nicer!
i will be honest - i havent read this entire argument, i simply dont have the time but from what i can gather it seems to be a yes/no argument.
i think religion has the right idea. however i think certain people take it too far and use it as an excuse for their own bad actions. they claim that it was all god's plan and therefore the individual has no responsibility for their actions.
basically, religion is ok, but it has been the cause and reason for so many wars, i dont know if its worth it.
i have a friend who is highly religious - he's a great guy, and he never preaches to the rest of my group who are 90% athiests. HE has the right idea. he doesnt discriminate against us. he lets us talk about what we believe and i think that religion should see that more. not want the other to burn in hell, but appreciate the other and accept that they have a different idea of hell.
i dont doubt that jesus lived, there is enough evidence documented to prove that a jesus character lived - however i dont believe he was necessarily the son of god. and i find the bible is out of date. its is *rather* (i would say very but i would get yelled at for that big time - NO! this is MY soap box - VERY!) biased against women. and in today's society that just doesnt apply. it may apply for some who follow the bible, but in reality, among society, if it was anywhere BUT the bible, it would be called discrimination.
i prefer to stay open minded. call me a fence sitter if you like, but the view from up here is much nicer!
i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey
Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...
BRONZE Member
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Posted:
i will be honest - i havent read this entire argument, i simply dont have the time but from what i can gather it seems to be a yes/no argument.
i think religion has the right idea. however i think certain people take it too far and use it as an excuse for their own bad actions. they claim that it was all god's plan and therefore the individual has no responsibility for their actions.
basically, religion is ok, but it has been the cause and reason for so many wars, i dont know if its worth it.
i have a friend who is highly religious - he's a great guy, and he never preaches to the rest of my group who are 90% athiests. HE has the right idea. he doesnt discriminate against us. he lets us talk about what we believe and i think that religion should see that more. not want the other to burn in hell, but appreciate the other and accept that they have a different idea of hell.
i dont doubt that jesus lived, there is enough evidence documented to prove that a jesus character lived - however i dont believe he was necessarily the son of god. and i find the bible is out of date. its is *rather* (i would say very but i would get yelled at for that big time - NO! this is MY soap box - VERY!) biased against women. and in today's society that just doesnt apply. it may apply for some who follow the bible, but in reality, among society, if it was anywhere BUT the bible, it would be called discrimination.
i prefer to stay open minded. call me a fence sitter if you like, but the view from up here is much nicer!
i will be honest - i havent read this entire argument, i simply dont have the time but from what i can gather it seems to be a yes/no argument.
i think religion has the right idea. however i think certain people take it too far and use it as an excuse for their own bad actions. they claim that it was all god's plan and therefore the individual has no responsibility for their actions.
basically, religion is ok, but it has been the cause and reason for so many wars, i dont know if its worth it.
i have a friend who is highly religious - he's a great guy, and he never preaches to the rest of my group who are 90% athiests. HE has the right idea. he doesnt discriminate against us. he lets us talk about what we believe and i think that religion should see that more. not want the other to burn in hell, but appreciate the other and accept that they have a different idea of hell.
i dont doubt that jesus lived, there is enough evidence documented to prove that a jesus character lived - however i dont believe he was necessarily the son of god. and i find the bible is out of date. its is *rather* (i would say very but i would get yelled at for that big time - NO! this is MY soap box - VERY!) biased against women. and in today's society that just doesnt apply. it may apply for some who follow the bible, but in reality, among society, if it was anywhere BUT the bible, it would be called discrimination.
i prefer to stay open minded. call me a fence sitter if you like, but the view from up here is much nicer!
i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey
Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
It is amazing how many times Jesus has interacted with women. Especially when you look at the society around him.
He lived in the house of a prostitute (Mary Magdaline), spoke to a woman who had many husbands, but currently wasnt living with her current husband... the list does go on. I dont think he was prejudice against women. I can understand where you get this opinion, but I have to ask you, do you honestly know that how He was? Granted you cant write everything he did everyday or else there would just be libraries full of information.
If you read the last verse of the book of John, (I know its the last one but I cant remember if it is 25:29 or 29:25) you will read why you dont see everything about Jesus' life.
You can choose your own path in this world, I feel you are taking the wrong one, but I will say no more to you about this unless you want me to.
It is amazing how many times Jesus has interacted with women. Especially when you look at the society around him.
He lived in the house of a prostitute (Mary Magdaline), spoke to a woman who had many husbands, but currently wasnt living with her current husband... the list does go on. I dont think he was prejudice against women. I can understand where you get this opinion, but I have to ask you, do you honestly know that how He was? Granted you cant write everything he did everyday or else there would just be libraries full of information.
If you read the last verse of the book of John, (I know its the last one but I cant remember if it is 25:29 or 29:25) you will read why you dont see everything about Jesus' life.
You can choose your own path in this world, I feel you are taking the wrong one, but I will say no more to you about this unless you want me to.
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
HoP Mechanical Engineer
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
729 posts
Location: OK, USA
Posted:
Keep in mind that the Bible, as you can find it today, was mostly re-written by a bunch of powerful white males who would use religion as a means to control the masses and enforce their own opinions on the people. There exists a great error in the translation from the original text (and the way it was interpreted), other material has been taken out by people in power who thought it went against their goals. Still other information in the Bible has been added in later.
If you ever played that game in grade school where everyone is in a line and they try to whisper a message in the next person's ear to see how it changes from beginning to end, think of yourself at the end of that line when it comes to Biblical interpretation.
I find an interesting source of information, on all religions, is the website:
https://www.religioustolerance.org/
Keep in mind that the Bible, as you can find it today, was mostly re-written by a bunch of powerful white males who would use religion as a means to control the masses and enforce their own opinions on the people. There exists a great error in the translation from the original text (and the way it was interpreted), other material has been taken out by people in power who thought it went against their goals. Still other information in the Bible has been added in later.
If you ever played that game in grade school where everyone is in a line and they try to whisper a message in the next person's ear to see how it changes from beginning to end, think of yourself at the end of that line when it comes to Biblical interpretation.
I find an interesting source of information, on all religions, is the website:
https://www.religioustolerance.org/
What hits the fan is not evenly distributed.
BRONZE Member
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Posted:
i like the likening to "chinese whispers"!
with the adding on of information later - it is my understanding that there was a theological philosopher who added all the catholic dogmas. they werent in the 'original' bible. original sin is one of these that this guy added.
im not saying that jesus didnt have female friends. i know about mary magdelane (thats not spelt right is it?), however all the stuff about women submitting to men and the whole born from adams rib thing, is more what i was getting at. i went to a wedding the other day and there was far more emphasis and all the things the wife had to do than the husband. SHE submits herself, SHE has to remain faithfl, there was about twice as many rules for her than there was for him!
the movie "dogma" has a lot of my opinions about religion.
i like the likening to "chinese whispers"!
with the adding on of information later - it is my understanding that there was a theological philosopher who added all the catholic dogmas. they werent in the 'original' bible. original sin is one of these that this guy added.
im not saying that jesus didnt have female friends. i know about mary magdelane (thats not spelt right is it?), however all the stuff about women submitting to men and the whole born from adams rib thing, is more what i was getting at. i went to a wedding the other day and there was far more emphasis and all the things the wife had to do than the husband. SHE submits herself, SHE has to remain faithfl, there was about twice as many rules for her than there was for him!
the movie "dogma" has a lot of my opinions about religion.
i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey
Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
Dio, I am sure you can proove that the "white man" has done all this... or are you just pulling something out of somewhere?
How do you know of such an error? Have you seen the original text? What could you possibly have to base this "claim" on?
Honestly I was waiting for someone to come up with the chain game... what possable reason could there be for God to allow His Word to be written wrong?
Original sin, you mean the eating of the fruit from the Tree of Life?? Ya well... Eve may have been the first to eat from it, but nobody made Adam do it, so he is as much at fault as Eve.
Rouge, women have one more rib than men, cant do much about that can you?
You are unfortunatly seeing things out of context. If a woman submits to her husband, in turn the husband must submit to his wife. It is a partnership, not a state of ownership. It was unfortunate that the person conducting the wedding did not tell full circle the implocations of what love truly is.
Love is about submiting yourself to the one you love. It doesnt matter if you are male or female.
Though I like and own the movie Dogma, and all View Askew movies, except for Chasing Amy... just aint bought it yet... it is fictional, its views though humorus are a result of a comical mind. Nothing in that movie was written to be taken seriusly.
I am sure you enjoyed the whole intro to Bartalbe and Loki the Alice in Wonderland deal... anyhoo... it is easy to find something written that will confirm your own fears, try reading something that tells you that your fears are misplaced, perhaps then you will see something in a differnt light.
Dio, I am sure you can proove that the "white man" has done all this... or are you just pulling something out of somewhere?
How do you know of such an error? Have you seen the original text? What could you possibly have to base this "claim" on?
Honestly I was waiting for someone to come up with the chain game... what possable reason could there be for God to allow His Word to be written wrong?
Original sin, you mean the eating of the fruit from the Tree of Life?? Ya well... Eve may have been the first to eat from it, but nobody made Adam do it, so he is as much at fault as Eve.
Rouge, women have one more rib than men, cant do much about that can you?
You are unfortunatly seeing things out of context. If a woman submits to her husband, in turn the husband must submit to his wife. It is a partnership, not a state of ownership. It was unfortunate that the person conducting the wedding did not tell full circle the implocations of what love truly is.
Love is about submiting yourself to the one you love. It doesnt matter if you are male or female.
Though I like and own the movie Dogma, and all View Askew movies, except for Chasing Amy... just aint bought it yet... it is fictional, its views though humorus are a result of a comical mind. Nothing in that movie was written to be taken seriusly.
I am sure you enjoyed the whole intro to Bartalbe and Loki the Alice in Wonderland deal... anyhoo... it is easy to find something written that will confirm your own fears, try reading something that tells you that your fears are misplaced, perhaps then you will see something in a differnt light.
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
BRONZE Member
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Posted:
women dont have an extra set of ribs. its a christian myth. and besides, even if they did it doesnt prove anything! women have (now id love to be vulgar here and say TITS! but ill hold it back....) breasts. explain that! perhaps woman was born out of adams chest and thats why hers is so much bigger???
however u asked what i can do about it......i can have them removed [insert Prince joke here....]
yes, i know dogmas its a movie. yes i know its a fictional script - doesnt mean i cant think it has some good ideas! ever seen the move "pay it forward" THATS fiction, however i think it is a rather nice philosophy - but im guessing because its fiction you wold disagree.
i know adam also ate the fuit. if you re-read my post i was talking about original sin in the case of people after the bible adding dogmas - NOT as you would seem to put into my mouth, women.
please dont put words into my mouth - that also means please dont assume i fear whatever it is you think i fear
quote:my own fears ????? im sorry i wasnt aware that i mentioned fearing anything at all. im not sure where that comes into it.
it is easy to find something written that will confirm your own fears
women dont have an extra set of ribs. its a christian myth. and besides, even if they did it doesnt prove anything! women have (now id love to be vulgar here and say TITS! but ill hold it back....) breasts. explain that! perhaps woman was born out of adams chest and thats why hers is so much bigger???
however u asked what i can do about it......i can have them removed [insert Prince joke here....]
yes, i know dogmas its a movie. yes i know its a fictional script - doesnt mean i cant think it has some good ideas! ever seen the move "pay it forward" THATS fiction, however i think it is a rather nice philosophy - but im guessing because its fiction you wold disagree.
i know adam also ate the fuit. if you re-read my post i was talking about original sin in the case of people after the bible adding dogmas - NOT as you would seem to put into my mouth, women.
please dont put words into my mouth - that also means please dont assume i fear whatever it is you think i fear
i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey
Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...
member
786 posts
Location: The Phire Kru
786 posts
Location: The Phire Kru
Posted:
how about 100 posts just for the hell of it......um, sake of it
how about 100 posts just for the hell of it......um, sake of it
whats up with all the limitations?
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [exploring christainity] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Exploring christainity [171 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com