@ Freakshow Ya you don't have to go to church its not required or anything.Haven't been in quite some time myself.... @ AugustWest You can read the bible(its really really long) and interpret yourself(have a dictionary) or you can go to a priest/pastor/head church member and ask them,but if the church is corrupt...well then your screwed.Or you can do your own research online and look at what both the critics and the proclaimers say with an open mind. @ XxMELKORXx: dang...you posted right when i posted...didn't see that Genocide? He does love us all equally No, God did not create sin. God is holy and He would not create that which is contrary to His nature. Sinfulness is the opposite of holiness. God is the author of the Law which is a reflection of His holy character (Exodus 20). Therefore, God cannot create that which is in direct violation of the Law any more than a person can wish himself to be bigger than the sun.God created the conditions where free will creatures would be able to make a choice between obedience and disobedience(sin) to God.God does not cause anyone to sin (James 1:13). In the freedom of our own wills, we decide to rebel against God. God simply allowed the condition to exist where sin was possible.It just isn't possible,the point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. what do mean by that second part? "And sure Jesus came to get rid of the old religion..but if thats the case, why do you still include the old testament as apart of your religious doctrine?"
Nobody asked for it. Why would they? You're spewing out more shit than a broken toilet. Scared? I grew up in a Christian school for 8 and a half years before moving to a public High School. I know all about people like you, and I sure as hell know a lot more about the Bible than you can ever fathom. I spent quite awhile reading this whole thread last night, and I've come to this conclusion: You epically fail.
He created evil, if you believe he is the one who created all things. If evil is something not of his design, then is the the maker of all things? was he the original god? probably not. So basically what you are saying, is that god didnt create sin, but created it to allow it to happen. So if he created for the possibility, he must of had the concept of what evil is before he allowed for human beings to choose. Also, evil is not disobidence. Evil is ultimate selfishness. All the ten commandments, they all have roots in fuffiliing the need of self. You seemed to steer clear of my genoicide point. What did god command joshua to do?? Destroy jericho completely. Kill all women, children, and men. They also sold women into jewish households. Where they were slaves. Yea, slavery is condoned in the bible. Moses, Aaron, David, hell even Noah. They all had slaves, multiple wives, conquibines, went to war all the time. And these all the supposed men of god??? sure, you might say, they were human. But god seemed to turn a blind eye to those facts. Hell god wanted to get rid of all the palestinians, who really have the right to israel, not the jews.
Just for you ill use the quote button,i feel like am talking to them personally..you know sitting down at a camp fire,staring at the stars while collecting tin cans... @ reggin Thats frickin awsome lol cool,I would hate to grow up in a christian school theirs not alot of diversity I wouldn't be surprise if I end up killing a few people,btw "YOU DO NOT F*** KNOW ME" PLZ TELL ME HOW I EPICALLY FAILED Another thing that popped up in my mind:Humanity is like a parasite,we multiply take the resources of the earth and give little back to the earth. @ xXMelkorXx dang...you had me there I was like why did he killed them all...The primary reason was punishment for wrongdoing. The populations of that citiy had long histories of grievous bad sins,which often included sacrificing their children to false gods.They were warned,but they didn't listen.If they did and changed their sinful ways they wouldn't have to die.God said if any nation is about to be destroy,but they repent(ask for forgiveness) he'll forgive them and not destroy them.God uses this nation as an example for future nations and whats to come. Their were people who were innocent and they were spared,but the kids had to go.Since Their kids they do not know right from wrong so when they die their going straight to heaven.Their parents goes to hell.Kids are considered morally neutral until they can tell from right and wrong. When they were killing people they killed them as fast as possible,they spared people who were innocent and let them live.Of coarse slavery is wrong and is not liked by God,but again we can do it.He says treat your slaves kindly and with respect.What other war did they go into?
My take on Science: Science can deal with the brain because it's a sensible part of our physiology, the organ that controls all other organs and the mechanics of our bodies. Science has no way to comprehend or to deal with the concept of mind. We, as societies, have accepted that nothing that cannot be proven or at least supported by our senses(taste,touch,smell,hear,see) can be true. Thus we accept what our brain tells us is fact, but ignore or deny what our mind tells us exists even though it cannot be explained. Our brain takes in input from the senses,then processes it.The brain accepts input from the five senses, information that travels along nerves which have specialized for their respective purposes. From this input, according to science, the brain devises its concept of the world around it, even of itself. What we believe we "are" results from the input we receive from others. Thus if others think of us and treat us as stupid or talented, we believe we are stupid or talented. In effect, life and everything in it remains within our brain. We are who we believe we are in our brain and the world is what it is according to what our brain has created as a concept of "what is. Science positions itself as the ultimate authority on "what is," as it dictates that what science can understand and define should be all that we believe is correct and real. Science, through multiple sources, inputs that message of "provable equals real" into our brains to the point where many believe that only those things which we can detect using our senses are real. However, what we "see" is not within our brain, as science suggests. Our mind projects the results of our thought out beyond our eyes so that what we see is not within our brain but a diorama that is outside of ourself, scenery through which we can negotiate and in which we conduct our lives. If science cannot cope with what we know are realities, what our experiences tells us are real, we must accept that these are failings and inadequacies of science. It's not the role of science to make the realities of our lives trivial or inconsequential, but to explain what it can with the limited tools it has developed for itself to work with. Science is not the arbiter of reality in our lives, merely a tool we can use to explain some parts of our experience. We don't use a hammer to drive a screw, nor do we deny the screw exists or claim it's a figment of someone's imagination because we don't have a screwdriver. What science can't do is its own problem, not one to be adopted by all of society. Science should not determine what we believe is real, only explain what it can about why we understand something as being real. We should not accept the labels science applies to what it cannot explain, words such as paranormal and supernatural, even hallucination, as if science is the sole judge of what is normal, what is natural, what is reality and what is truth. If science cannot understand the concepts of God, of nature on a global or universal scale, of unusual perceptions of the human brain or of concepts for which it has little or no evidence, that should not give it the right to claim these things don't exist. We should not give science that power over us and our lives. We have the potential to be much greater than science would allow is possible. Succumbing to the dictates of science makes us followers, as much as the followers of a false religion or an unmanageable political ideology. There are some things about life, truths and realities, that we don't understand. That doesn't mean that they don't exist. It simply means that we can't explain them. This way of thinking, in itself, has made us into less important beings. It denies that thought means anything. It completely ignores consciousness because consciousness requires us to deal with what is outside of our brain. It insists that what we cannot sense or prove (hypothesis has little value until there is sufficient evidence to make it into at least a theory) either does not exist (a fantasy) or is of little value (a pastime). This flies in the face of our experience. Almost every moment of every day we deal with things outside of our brain. Whereas science has us living our whole lives within our brain, our experience tells us that we must deal with things beyond the scope of our body and our brain in order to function. Science says nothing about that because it can't explain consciousness or anything else that cannot be proved or at least theorized. edit: Typo and I wanted to add something to the middle paragraph
I HATE THESE THREADS!!!!!!!!!1111qwrf21f Cristiandude. Stop ignoring intelligent, constructive arguments. Stop. Think. Respond.
ya well you know I try...thxs Hey Jakigi,never did I say these guys were talking about are unintelligent.For the most part it made me rethink a lot and if anything strengthen my faith.Some of the questions coming up are some dam good questions.
Its so painfully obvious that religion is something personal and is held close to the heart, and no matter how much you debunk/insult/argue with someone about their personal religious beliefs, they generally remain the same. Cant everyone just agree to disagree, and respect each others religious beliefs?
But The author isn't changing the context of the quote by only quoting the relevant portion. Like I said, direct reference is irrelevant. The author is attempting to draw analogous situations and expose contradiction and hypocrisy. Right, and if that were the case you could illustrate a false analogy to me, but since it isn't, you can't. Are you asking me for an opinion? Listen, your arguments are turning out to be flimsier than wet balsa wood. I mean you love to quote scripture, and love the sound of your little fingers dancing on the keyboard, but your arguments just does have any substance. Like Zylark said, you're just revert to logical fallacy, and your response here is a great example of it. You're here to evangelize, not to debate.
hmm...i see morphyx found his replacement... one of your greatest flaws you insist upon OP is that you keep claiming that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. this is a misconception largely thanks to the church, but what would you expect? they are a little biased id say... heres a nice article i read shortly after i started questioning my faith in Christianity: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm personally i do think jesus existed, and i think he was one of many "christs". this said i believe anyone can become a "christ" which is essentially the equivelant to one reaching enlightenment and becoming a bodhisattva.
@ auntiesocial regardless on whether or not the book is fiction,am talking about how creditable it is to the way Homer original wrote it. dude...are you talking about Oliver Twist? The guy lives in Minneapolis call him at 612-871-2019 he lives off of 22nd st. their was a trail,its called Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus.Roman historian Tacitus has a record of what happened when Jesus died along with Jewish historian Josephus .Killing people by the cross is very very common in that time period thats why theirs very little records on his crucification.the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate was the guy who asked the crowd "do you wanna let jesus free or let this guy free" this is a barbaric man who killed and raped alot of people the crowds response "kill jesus!" What is mentioned in the New Testament is revealed in the Old Testament either clearly or in types and figures.The stuff in the Old has been fulfilled in the new score Me vs Critics 4 3 It seems like you enjoy walking in circles. Again, The Iliad is a compilation. That means it was written by different people who added different parts during the different printing cycles. So we don't know what Homer wrote and what was written by other people. Therefore there is NO WAY anyone can conclude if it is 95%, or 70%, or 5% "accurate". There is no control; we don't have an 8th century copy from Homer. Admit it, you made up those phony numbers as to each book's accuracy. Roman historian Tacitus has a record of what happened when Jesus died That's impossible. Tacitus wasn't a contemporary. He was born 56 years after the alleged resurrection. The Josephus line has been a known forgery since the 17th century! So that leaves NO contemporary historian or document that even suggests there was a person named Jesus or more importantly, that any person came back from the dead. This isn't a minor controversy. The idea that a person--any person, much less the "son of god"--can be killed by trial and then awaken from death three days later, and NOT A SINGLE PERSON LIVING AT THAT TIME BOTHERED TO DOCUMENT THE EVENT is completely irrational. For me the lack of any evidence IS evidence.
Did you get your information from wikipeida?The Iliad is a collection of poems written by Homer who said so himself in one of his poems that he is blind so their it is only a 1 man job he wrote poems and read them in front of live audiences.Wiki says he lived in the 8th century bc when he lived in the 9th century.The Iliad and the oddyess are way to similar in writng to begin with. The Iliad started in the 9th century bc(also 900 BC) Athenian writers began writing homer about 455 to 400 B.C and thats when books became popular and more people could read. so 900-400 = 500 yr time span "The 643 copies and 95 percent accurate" were taken from the following: A chart from Archeology and History attest to the Reliability of the Bible, The Evidence Bible A Ready Defense I didn't make these numbers up,whats the point of lieing? Your right Tacitus didn't talk about when Jesus died that was someone else,he just mentions the persecutions the followers of Jesus can you provide an example to the Josephus's forgery? their is a trial,Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus.
He's taking scriptures and twisting it into what they want to.He approaches scriptures with this beliefs and then select which scriptures he want to use to support his point and cite only those. Does it matter how the culture was in relation to certain verses of scripture? Of COURSE!!! We can't read the Bible with a 20th century eye,and use our culture's view points to read the text.we must instead, using available evidence for the time period, read the Bible within it's context- cultural, literary and social. When discussing, for example, the practice of marriage in the NT, we need to have knowledge of the Jewish marriage customs so that we understand why the groom and not the bride, is the center of attention. This guy purposely ignores basic rules of literary interpretation in order to 'find' a contradiction.When studying ancient material, or material from ANY time period prior to the one we live in is that we not impose our culture and interpretations upon it. Instead, even in those instances when we believe we understand the meaning of the documents, we need to check them against the cultural and literary writings, culture and customs of the time period in question.Its not the fact that he criticizes the bible,its the fact that its not legit. Ex: In Ex. 20:13 he said thou shalt not kill; yet, in Deut. 32:39 and many other verses he said, "I kill, and I make alive; I wound and I heal...." Thou means you and God isn't even talking in Deut that is someone else.What are "the many verses" In First John 2:15 we are told not to love the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. Yet, John 3:16 says, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life." We are not supposed to love the world, but God sure does. 1st John 2:15 is true,but it doesn't include the fact that by the world they said "what is in the world is greed,lust and pride".John 3:16 is saying God loved his people so much they let the people on earth kill him(free will) In Luke 6:27 God tells us to love our enemies and do good to those who hate you. Yet, in Gen. 19:24 he rained fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah because they had rejected him. Sodom and Gomorrah are cities that reject God after many attempts to save them Issue number 156 "On the whole, Jesus said little that was worthwhile. He introduced nothing new to ethics(except hell) He instituted no social programs. Being "omniscient," he could have shared some useful science or medicine, but he appeared ignorant of such things (as if his character were merely the invention of writers stuck in the first century). Jesus leaving behind a way to live your life,he present ways to treat other people fairly,he healed the sick and visited the poor.Thats just a few. (1 John 3:8) (1 John 5:20) (John 10:10,28) Another Issue: HE CAUSES ADULTERY: "This is what the Lord says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel" (2 Sam. 12:11-12). Not only is that against the ten commandments,but in this context God is saying he is going to tell the world what he did which was cheating on his wife. Edit: Typ In case I didn't clear things up,because God is all loving He can't really "punish" people instead he "simply turns" their backs to them.This only applies if your a christen though or if you have heard of him.This is probably why Jesus screamed "God why have you forsaken me" on the cross because when he was on the cross he took all of mankind's sin's upon himself.So for a brief moment God turned away from Jesus because God is to pure.And about that "who goes to hell" those who do not believe that Jesus is their lord and savior aren't going.You don't have to speak in tongues,get baptize or anything else like that.Once you fully believe and start doing some research you'll find it harder and harder to sin naturally others if you sin without second thought then you weren't really saved in the 1st place.
can you provide an example to the Josephus's forgery? Sure: "Late in the first century Josephus wrote his celebrated work, “The Antiquities of the Jews,” giving a history of his race from the earliest ages down to his own time. Modern versions of this work contain the following passage: “Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day” (Book IXVIII, Chap. iii, sec. 3). For nearly sixteen hundred years Christians have been citing this passage as a testimonial, not merely to the historical existence, but to the divine character of Jesus Christ. And yet a ranker forgery was never penned. Its language is Christian. Every line proclaims it the work of a Christian writer. “If it be lawful to call him a man.” “He was the Christ.” “He appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning, him.” These are the words of a Christian, a believer in the divinity of Christ. Josephus was a Jew, a devout believer in the Jewish faith-- the last man in the world to acknowledge the divinity of Christ. The inconsistency of this evidence was early recognized, and Ambrose, writing in the generation succeeding its first appearance (360 A. D.) offers the following explanation, which only a theologian could frame: “If the Jews do not believe us, let them, at least, believe their own writers. Josephus, whom they esteem a very great man, hath said this, and yet hath he spoken truth after such a manner; and so far was his mind wandered from the right way, that even he was not a believer as to what he himself said; but thus he spake, in order to deliver historical truth, because he thought it not lawful for him to deceive, while yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart, and his perfidious intention.” Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus’ work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines."
This is why theological arguments with people who have no clue how academic discourse occurs is totally pointless, because they attempt to attack the semantics of an arguments, not the actual proposition itself. Furthermore, as we already established, the further context of the verses; while not only making the writing more bulky and obtuse, it is irrelevant because the author is attempting to draw analogies and expose the lack of logical consistency professed in the biblical texts. Your own explanation of the verses' context only further validate their appropriate use. You just can't seem to understand the intention of the author. Yes, that is called a proposition and it is the basic element of an academic debate. The author isn't making a social commentary on biblical-era culture. Stop it with these total non-sequiturs. You have still failed to illustrate where a larger context of the verses are antithetical to the thesis. Instead you just give context that is ultimately irrelevant, because of the contention of the bible as HOLY scripture. That is the price you pay when you deem an entire source somehow validated by magical esoteric properties. Right, but again; the author isn't making a social commentary on biblical-era culture. we must instead, using available evidence for the time period, read the Bible within it's context- cultural, literary and social. When discussing, for example, the practice of marriage in the NT, we need to have knowledge of the Jewish marriage customs so that we understand why the groom and not the bride, is the center of attention. You have still failed to illustrate where a larger context of the verses are antithetical to the thesis. Like we've already established: context is important, but when the context validates what you're trying to illustrate, then there is really no point in including the context. So far you're just criticizing an irrelevant portion of methodology and have failed to illustrate anything of any intellectual merit. Do you read this bullshit before you hit the enter button? Seriously, do you not get it? Am I going to have to explain this one to you. Irony hit you like a brick wall yet? Anyways, the rest of the thread is some extravagantly long non-sequitur and again is totally irrelevant to what we're discussing. Yours Truly, Sam_Spade