100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
"Missing link" found
|
|
Its rare that a field of science has as much evidence to support the field. Evolution is the unifying theory of biology, and has more evidence to support it then does our current theory of gravity. Evidence? Explain how this is since all of the conclusions of what is observed is subjective. Evidence in science is a repeatable, observable fact. Not psuedo-educated guesses. There is infinitely more proof of gravity than ANY conjecture that "evolution science" presumes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Do you live for Christ?
|
|
Beautyfrompain...how do you know I don't walk a path of love and light.Just because you believe what you do...does not make you right and others wrong.I see it this way...thoes who don't understand God should not speak of HER! My tem-ple is in my heart..I have just as much of a relationship with God as you do...Jesus would be ashamed to hear what you just said to a person who fills his heart with LOVE. Jesus told me that you do not need him in order to find GOD!God is available to all who listens in the silence! Jesus is just there for thoes who have trouble finding God on there own..which is beautiful. What "Jesus" are you talking about? Please expound on this: "Jesus told me that you do not need him in order to find GOD!" Where did you find that in the bible? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could a scientist or a group of scientists ever prove one day that there is no such thing as a God or Goddess, or what have you? I mean perhaps a combination of mathematics, chemistry, and physics, and other rich knowledgeable subjects thrown together may come to a conclusion that seems reasonable to believe. Yes we have the big bang and all that, but people will ask, "Well what was before the big bang?" This is where most scientists would itch their head. So I could imagine that this thread will die off fast, because it is a question I think many won't be able to answer, but perhaps you can come up with a defense for scientists or if you are religious a defense for your faith system that provides (logical answers). If that is possible of course.  I think your question is easy to respond to. Scientists will never be able to prove anything doesn't exist. In order to do that - one would need to be omnipotent, and omnipresent. One could easily convince oneself that God (or Godesses) doesn't exist - but they won't be doing it with proof or evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You may be surprised at how many of the founding fathers were deists only... not Christians. There were 2. What's the surprise? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You hit the nail on the head Abra. The religious follow a simple rule that makes there lives easy. Ignorance is bliss. That's a pretty ignorant statement. How do you know what rules religious people follow - not being one yourself? Because. It's in a freaking book. Aside from the fact that the question was not adressed to the masses - what are you talking about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You hit the nail on the head Abra. The religious follow a simple rule that makes there lives easy. Ignorance is bliss. That's a pretty ignorant statement. How do you know what rules religious people follow - not being one yourself? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However - since you were not around at the time of creation, I'm not sure how you can suport your argument. You're viewpoint is merely an expression of extrapolating your present observation back in time with the presumptio that what occurs today in the creation - has always occured, exactly the way you see it. It can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this is in fact not the case - so your conclusion is built on a sand foundation of unacceptable premises. Oh please. Talk about something being built on sand. The entire biblical doctine is nothing but quicksand. You claim that I wasn't there at the beginning so my view doesn't hold. Yet neither were you there at the beginning so your view doesn't hold either. That's a moot arguement. We know for a fact from science that nature was a dog-eat-dog world long before mankind came onto the scene. Unless you want to deny the evidence of the physical world. But that would require that you claim that God planted false evidence. But then you have a God who purposefully deceives. What it comes down to is whether we should believe an extremely conflicting book that we know to have been written by a very barbaric male-chuavinistic society. Or whether we should beleive our own experience. Personally I would rather believe our own experience than to believe a bunch of male-chauvinists who demand that we have all fallen from grace from a God who is appeased by blood sacrifices. I personally feel that the scientific approach to understanding reality is on far more solid ground than believing an ancient mythology that has more hole than Swiss Cheese. Do you realize that the same people who wrote the Bible are the same people who had Jesus nailed to a pole? Do you realize that even Jesus himself denounced the ways of the Old Testament? Where's the solid ground in any of that? I wasn't discussing the bible - I was discussion YOUR argument, which is merely subjective, unprovable, and unlikely since you have no premises that are remotely acceptable. Don't attempt to prove yourself right by pointing to an unrelated topic and attepting to tear that down. That does nothing to legitimize your point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Tue 05/12/09 08:36 AM
|
|
Eljay... The issue comes in the fallacy of attempting to quantify evil. The question centers on defining evil. Evil - like darkness, is unquantifyable - for it is often viewed as the antithesis of good - when in reality, it is the falling short of it. Not the opposite - but the lack of. As with Darkness - which is not the opposite of light, but the absense of it. Therefore - Epicurous falls short in his analysis of God's dealing with evil - as he indicates a lack of understanding of what evil is - or rather, he premises that it is a mesurable entity which stands on it's own. We ony understand evil in the light of knowing what the good is that it has fallen short of. That is the logical analysis of your question. It centers around accepting a false premise introduced by Epicurous. Though his argument may seem to make sense - it only makes sense if one presumes that evil is something that can be defined independent of the good it falls short of. Does this deny the existence of evil? I have to say that this is indeed a Rembrant of deception. Especially in view of the fact that it totally ignores the fact that this would demand that nature herself falls short of goodness. Creation itself falls short of goodness. But this flies in the face of the fact that the Biblical God said of his creation: "God saw that it was good".  This is just an empty loophole, and as far as I'm concerned it doesn't address the concerns of Epicuras at all. Like CreativeSoul suggests, it just attempts to deny evil whilst simultaneously pretending to perserve it in a very poetic but totally false way. However - since you were not around at the time of creation, I'm not sure how you can support your argument. You're viewpoint is merely an expression of extrapolating your present observation back in time with the presumption that what occurs today in the creation - has always occured, exactly the way you see it. It can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this is in fact not the case - so your conclusion is built on a sand foundation of unacceptable premises. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay... The issue comes in the fallacy of attempting to quantify evil. The question centers on defining evil. Evil - like darkness, is unquantifyable - for it is often viewed as the antithesis of good - when in reality, it is the falling short of it. Not the opposite - but the lack of. As with Darkness - which is not the opposite of light, but the absense of it. Therefore - Epicurous falls short in his analysis of God's dealing with evil - as he indicates a lack of understanding of what evil is - or rather, he premises that it is a mesurable entity which stands on it's own. We ony understand evil in the light of knowing what the good is that it has fallen short of. That is the logical analysis of your question. It centers around accepting a false premise introduced by Epicurous. Though his argument may seem to make sense - it only makes sense if one presumes that evil is something that can be defined independent of the good it falls short of. Does this deny the existence of evil? Not necessarily. We have a number of "concepts" which we know to exist - as it were - but they do so through the absence of something else. For instance - we measure heat. We define "cold" as the variance of a lack of heat, however - "cold", by "definition" (as it were) does not exist. Black is tha absence of color. White is the combiniation of all color. We can "come close" to black, but we cannot prove it's existance through tangable means. Darkness, too - is the absence of light. We know what these terms refer to - but they are defined by the quantifable absence of their "opposites". They essentially "exist" through the non-existance of another "object". (For lack of a better word) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No matter what faith you subscribe to, if you believe in one all mighty power that be, answer me this: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god? - Epicurus. I'm sure some of you have seen this quote before, and I'm not posting it to be a smart alec or rub you up the wrong way or anything of such nature. I am having a lapse in what was once a strong personal belief in god, for personal reasons I would rather not go into. However, this quote really struck something in me, and has made me question faith in general (not just my own), as I really cannot find an answer to the questions posed in this verse. Anyone willing to clarify how it can be disproven using logic are welcome to reply. I would welcome anyone to try and help out, because I'm pretty much lost for an answer... The issue comes in the fallacy of attempting to quantify evil. The question centers on defining evil. Evil - like darkness, is unquantifyable - for it is often viewed as the antithesis of good - when in reality, it is the falling short of it. Not the opposite - but the lack of. As with Darkness - which is not the opposite of light, but the absense of it. Therefore - Epicurous falls short in his analysis of God's dealing with evil - as he indicates a lack of understanding of what evil is - or rather, he premises that it is a mesurable entity which stands on it's own. We ony understand evil in the light of knowing what the good is that it has fallen short of. That is the logical analysis of your question. It centers around accepting a false premise introduced by Epicurous. Though his argument may seem to make sense - it only makes sense if one presumes that evil is something that can be defined independent of the good it falls short of. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
proof
|
|
As to making up one's "own religion"... I've read enough of your posts on Pantheism to know that you speak from experience. Not only do you make up religions - you give a whole new meaning to those that have existed for millenia. I'm in total agreement with you on this Eljay. Pantheism is a very loosely defined abstract yet divinely powerful concept. This is one of the reasons I find it so attractive. It's not divisive at all, on the contrary it view all of nature as one. This allows a person to embrace many spiritualities as all having some relavence to the divine. Buddhism has many different forms. Then there's Taoism, which also has many other forms. In fact, even Wicca allows for pantheistic forms in their traditions as well. That's what I love about pantheism, it allows you to commune with God in a way that embraces many concepts and ideas. It's not a rigid dogma carved in stone at all. Don't let anyone tell you that it is.  I also don't proselytize pantheism as the "only authorative word of God". So it doesn't matter that it's abstract and unique to the individual. It's a spiritual experience, not a religious dogma. The Jews wrote a very authorative dogamatic book based on the idea of a jealous vengeful God that can be appeased by blood sacrifices. They demand that anyone who doesn't believe them is rejecting this egotistical jealous God and will make him angry and have to face his wrath. Then some guy came along and said that God proabably isn't like that. They nailed him to a pole and then the Christians used that to keep the dogma going. They still claim that the Jews speak for God, but that Jesus trumps the Jews in certain situations, unless of course they want to be bigoted about something, then the flip back to the OT. They can use Jesus to support the OT or not at their whim. In fact, they are extremely whimsical about it. They use the OT to denounce same-gender love. Yet they totally ignore the OT when it comes to matter of women speaking out on religoius matters.  It's an authoritarian religion that has become a whimsical crutch to use "God's Word" to beat people over the head with whenever it's profitable to someone's lust for bigotry. Yes panthesism is abstract and thus it has many forms. But the Bible is SUPPOSED to be the authoritative word of God! Yet look at the religions that are based on it! They are as diverse as the pantheistic ones! We have the Jews, the Muslims, the Catholics, and a myriad of confused and protesting protestants that protest against everything including each other. All in the name of a book that is supposed to be the ULTIMATE FINAL AUTHORITATIVE WORD OF GOD! Do you see something wrong with that picture?  Actually, yes - I do. However, I don't blame the book on the disagreements people have with it. I find a basic consistancy that exists in both the New Testament and the Old, but not one that is understood by a grammer school education - so suffice it to say that interperting the book is not "easy". It isn't an "instruction manuel" - per se, though I often hear it refered to as being one. I guess it's just the way that an individual choses to interpret what thy are reading. Still - everyone can't be right. It's just not concievable that contradictry thought will bring about the same result. Whether it is between a Moslum or Hindu, or a Baptist and a Seventh Day Adventist. Where they disagree comes not in how the book (bible) is written, but how it is read. So if there is wrong to be found - I start looking at interpretation - not the source material. That does not mean I don't examine the source material, just that it is not my first choice. If the interpretation seems logical, yet it presents conflict - then I look to the source. I did this with Buddism, Catholicism, Christainity, New Age - all of the philosophies I've "sampled" over the years. I still say interpretation is more often than not the issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
proof
|
|
The difficulty you are having in trying to support your argument with pretext - is that while you may find a verse in the O.T. that appears to support it - you will find numerous verses in the New Testament which contradict your conclusion. That's called contextual understanding. That's baloney. Contextually there is no way that Jesus could be the son of the God of Abraham. Period. In fact, it's the context of the big picture which shows that this is impossible. Okey - let's examine your claims... The New Testament contradicts iself! Jesus says that not one jot, nor one tittle shall pass from law. Then he proceeds to denounce the law of stoning sinners to death. He denounces the judging of others which was a requirment of the God of Abraham. The God of Abraham commanded people to judge others in order to stone them (how else could they decide they are "sinners"?) He did neither of these - what he did do was declare that those without sin cast the first stone. How was this denouncing what they were about to do? He does not denounce judging - he declares that "As ye judge - so shall ye be judged". That is not denouncing the act of judging - just that one be careful how one judges. so... Clearly the New Testament contradicts itself. It is you who are contradictory - as you are having difficulty discerning context. If Jesus wanted to change the laws why not just say so? Clearly this book was written by unscrupulous men who were attempting to use a dead Jesus as a patsy to support the very doctines that Jesus himself obviously disagreed with. It just makes no sense for a God to come to earth, claim that he's not going to change his laws, and then set about changing them! Where has he changed his Laws? The intent was for people to change the way they were interpreting the Law. For example - you. You interpret Jesus as changing the Law. Cite me a scripture where this is true. Something is drastically wrong with the picture Eljay, and the phrase "That's called contextual understanding" doesn't dismiss anything. The more contextual we get the less the story holds water! Contextually speaking look at it from a bird's eye view! You have a God commanding people to murder heathens, and then he sends his son into that very same crowd to become a heathen! Contextually the book is ABSURD. What I find wrong with the picture Abra - is how you are interpreting it. You establish all of your idea's through pretext. The very thing you rattle on about the Christians of today, and of the past being guilty of. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
proof
Edited by
Eljay
on
Mon 04/20/09 07:30 AM
|
|
Elijay said: Interesting - all quotes from the Old Testament. Perhaps you are unaware that Christainity did not exist at this time. So basically, what I am gathering from this quote is that the OT cannot be taken into account for the beliefs of Christians. Then you say: For one - Christianity is absolutely dependent on the Old Testament. Which flies in the face of almost everything you have said on this forum. Either the OT has nothing to do with Christianity, and it should be removed from the "Buy Bull", or it is dependent on it, and the points that many of us have made against portions of it, are valid arguments. But, I'm sure you will twist the meaning of the words so that your words are all in agreement... Ahh - but now you are talking a completely different argument here. Let's go back to your statement about "Christians" being commanded to stone transgressors. I remain steadfast on my statement that you are wrong in this. That this legalistic interpretation of Old Testament Law is not what Christianity teaches. That being said, this does not equate to my saying that the Old Testament has nothing to do with Christianity. The difficulty you are having in trying to support your argument with pretext - is that while you may find a verse in the O.T. that appears to support it - you will find numerous verses in the New Testament which contradict your conclusion. That's called contextual understanding. So rather than trying to guess what my point is - just make your point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
proof
|
|
Eljay wrote: Did somebody call my name? Ah, Abra - you really are a joy. Rarely do you fail to entertain. I'm often amaised by how you view Christianity, and the train of thought behind it. Though I don't agree with it - I'm impressed by it. Well based on what you have just posted it would seem that you are in far more agreement with me than you realize: The Old Testament and Christianity is not equal in the sense that you are trying to demonstrate it too. I thought you were familiar with Christianity. Surely you are aware of the numerous references in the New Testament that Christians are not to follow the Law, but under the grace of the finished work of Christ - who is the fullfillment of the Law. You claim to be well aware of what a Christian believes, and I have no reason to doubt you - so why this game of twisting what is in the bible to serve your pretext's? The idea of a christian stoning anyone could never be concluded from contextual content of scripture - even for a casual peruser. So, it makes me wonder just how familiar you are with Christianity when you fight for this frivilous argument. I'm afriad that would go over like a lead balloon in most orthodox Christian organizations. According to you even mainstream Christianity has it all wrong. I think you're on a lone war path to be quite honest about it. What you are attempting to call "Christainity" would not pass the test of most mainstream Christian organizations. I've never hesitated to point out where I agree with you Abra. Mainstream Christianity - hmmm... I wonder how close we would agree on just what THAT is. One particular point we've always agreed on, is the fact that there are so few that even agree with each other. There are so many differences between Catholics and Baptists, I often wonder how they can both be considered "Mainstream Christianity" - and therefore the same. It's obvious to anyone that they're not. There are more differences than there are similarities. I think the question really - is how many "Mainstream Christians" actually think the bible is the truthful representation of what they believe? That would be a good place to start. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
proof
|
|
David Wrote: it seems you are only seeking most but to prove one singular definition, YOURS, as the only possible one, which is the exact same thing you hold against the "christian's"??? why do you not respond to any other definition given as possibilities??? seems you only try to refute all possibilities??? anything except what you deem and read as "the only meaning possible"??? This is entirely your perception David. Why do I not respond to other definitions given as possibilities? Actually I do. For example, Eljay is in far more agreement with he than he realizes. Eljay states: Interesting - all quotes from the Old Testament. Perhaps you are unaware that Christainity did not exist at this time. Eljay simply denies that the Old Testament has anything to do with Christianity! That’s how he solves the conflict. He simply rejects the God of Abraham before he even begins! I too might profess to preach Christianity if I could take Jesus down from the Cross of the Old Testament. But I don’t see that as being possible. Jesus is nailed to the Old Testament more firmly than he was ever nailed to the cross. For Eljay to dismiss the Old Testament as not being part of Christianity is ludicrous. To do such a thing would be called heresy by any mainstream orthodox Christian organization. I recognize that Eljay is a designer Christian. But I also recognize that his definitions of “Christianity” don’t fly in the face of the actual recognized mainstream organized Christian religions. He’s just using their label and redefining it for his own purposes! Here’s his stance: I think that you have touched on something quite profound here C.S., as most people have a tendency to judge Christianity by the actions of those who profess it, rather than the testamony of those who witnessed Jesus living it. It is essentially judging the bible by those who's actions contradict it - thereby attempting to claim that the life of Jesus is discredited by those who cannot live up to the standards set by him. Yet - the bible itself states that this will be the case. Jesus himself says that "man does not seek God - not one", and that even those who see themselves as the greatest of the self-rightious will fall. So - while it is Christianity that gets attacked - and not those who abuse it, are there any who can see the forest from the tree's? All Eljay is doing is pretending that Jesus = Christianity. But that’s not true! Jesus can’t = Christianity on his own! It’s impossible! And this is what I’ve been trying to get Eljay to see for over a year now, but he refuses to see it and so I gave up on him. You can’t rip Jesus out of the Bible (i.e. toss out the Old Testament as not being part of “Christianity”). Because Jesus has no feet of his own to stand on! As soon as you toss out the OT you must also toss out the virgin birth, the idea that Jesus is the Son of the God of Abraham, and the idea that he is the Sacrificial Lamb of God sent to die to appease God for our sins! All of that must be tossed out if you want to become a Jesus Freak and toss out the Old Testament as being irrelevant to Christianity. Once you do that you end up with Jesus being nothing more than a mortal man teaching moral values. But Eljay wants to keep BOTH concepts! He want to DENY the Old Testament and pee on the God of Abraham, yet KEEP Jesus as the Sacrificial lamb of salvation! It can’t work that way! It just makes no sense to claim that Jesus is the sacrificial lamb of the God of Abraham whist denying that the Old Testament has anything to do with Christianity! As soon as you cast the Old Testament asunder you’ve taken Jesus off the shoulders of the God of Abraham and placed him on his own mortal feet! He’s no longer a God then. He becomes nothing more (and nothing less) than a mere mortal man with an opinion. So Eljay doesn’t speak of “Christianity”, he simply changed the label to mean something that the orthodox established organized regions would never stand for. Eljay wants to simultaneously dismiss that OT as having nothing to do with Christianity whilst maintaining that Jesus is the sacrificial lamb of the blood-thirsty God of Abraham. In other words, Eljay knows that the actions and behavior of the God of Abraham is indefensible! So he wants to sweep that part of the mythology under the carpet and just worship Jesus as his “Savior”! But without the nasty God of Abraham there is nothing to be ‘Saved’ from! Jesus is supposedly saving us from the wrath of the God of Abraham! Christianity cannot even work without the Old Testament! I would love to start a church of Jesus tossing out the Old Testament as being totally irrelevant! But keep in mind also that at this point we’d also have to toss out the writings of Paul in the New Testament since Paul only serves to dredge up all the crap from the Old Testament! That would reduce the size of the New Testament by about 75%. You’d be left basically with the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But even then you’d need to remove any references in those texts that USE the Old Testament to support the idea that Jesus was the “Christ” (or messiah) sent by the God of Abraham as a sacrificial lamb! But the time you got done removing the Old Testament and every reference to it you’d end up with Jesus sitting all alone reciting the 12 laws of Karma from Buddhism! Modern organized “Christianity” is not about to dismiss the Old Testament as not being foundational to their religion. In fact, it’s the Old Testament where they get all their bigotry from! Jesus never taught bigotry! The bottom line is that the ‘Christianity’ that Eljay has made up has nothing to do with the formally recognized religion. However, I would like to add that there are many people in this world who are indeed Jesus Freaks and somehow feel that Jesus can stand on his own two feet without the God of Abraham from the Old Testament. In fact, I would venture to say that the vast majority of people on this planet that check the boxed marked “Christianity” on surveys actually think this way. Most Christians are ‘Designer Christianity” that don’t truly understand the connection and dependency that Jesus has on the God of Abraham and the Old Testament. They just accept Jesus as their Savoir. They denounced orthodox Christians like Eljay does: Eljay wrote: So - while it is Christianity that gets attacked - and not those who abuse it, are there any who can see the forest from the tree's? My question to Eljay is this: Why doesn’t HE and the other so-called real Christianity speak out against those who abuse Christianity as he defines it? I’ll tell you why! Because if he dared to speak out against them they would quickly denounce his “Christianity” and point out that he doesn’t even recognize the Old Testament as the “Word of God”! Mainstream Christianity knows better than to try to dismiss the God of Abraham. Because as soon as they do that, this leaves Jesus standing alone on his own to feet as a mere mortal man! You can’t dismiss the God of Abraham and simultaneously claim that Jesus is the sacrificial Son of that God! That’s absurd! To claim that Jesus is the SON of the God of Abraham is to also claim that the God of Abraham is indeed GOD! They go hand-in-hand and cannot be separated. It makes absolutely no sense for Eljay to try to claim that Christianity did not even exist in the days of the Old Testament! Christianity absolutely depends on the Old Testament being TRUE! Christianity depends on the Old Testament being the ‘Word of God’. Christianity can in no way dismiss the OT and continue to claim that Jesus is the Son of the God of Abraham. Eljay just makes no sense at all based on what the biblical picture has painted. Eljay is trying to make up his own little imagined religion and call that “Christianity” He’s a ‘Salad Bar Christian', he just takes what he likes and ignores what he doesn’t. But the religion can’t stand that way. The Biblical picture of God must be taken in its entirety or not at all. Without the OT Jesus is reduced to a mortal man standing on his own peronal opinions. In that sense Eljay is actually agreeing with me! Jesus can not have been the Son of the God of Abraham! This is so obviously true that even Eljay dismisses the Old Testament as not being relevant to Christianity! Hmmm... Ive never been so confused about how I think than I have after reading this post. Is there another Eljay on this site? I'm not going to respond to all of the attempts to define how I think here Abra - but I will attempt to clarify a couple of points where you've truely mis-represented me. For one - Christianity is absolutely dependent on the Old Testament. You cannot have one without the other. But one does not get their "definition" of Christianity from the Old Testament - for the O.T. only forshadows that which was to come. However, I think that contextually, they are not interchangable. For instance - I don't think that God is going to send someone to hell because they decide not to stone their unruley son to death. However - I'm not going to argue for the case that there might not be a consequence for NOT stoning them to death. I can see as easily as you can what is written in Leviticus - I just don't stop my reading there. I examine the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman where he says "Let him without sin cast the first stone". Now he doesn't say "We don't do that any more" - he just qualifies the intent behind the practice, giving it more than just a legalistic understanding. That is not "dismissing" the O.T., as you put it - just wondering how to interpret it. As to making up one's "own religion"... I've read enough of your posts on Pantheism to know that you speak from experience. Not only do you make up religions - you give a whole new meaning to those that have existed for millenia. And you are also quite right when yu claim that you and I agree on more than people may percieve by reading our posts. Over the past two years (My heavens, it's really been that long) we have often been in agreement to how Christianity is abused, and despite your challenging question - I DO go after those who abuse Christainity. I just have not found the need to do it here, as most of the threads center on attacking Christianity - not Christians misrepresenting it. But I have gone after a few posts professing to be representing Christianity, that are nothing more than legalistic interpretation from what wuld be called "false teachers". There just isn't a lot of occasion for it. Anyway... Suffice it to say that I find nothing else you've said in common with the way I think Christianity was either derived - or continues. I would simply say you're reading a little too much into my posts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
proof
|
|
Hell is nothing but a scare tactic devised by satan himself. The ministers of his proclaim it. they are the angels of light he has. You're as bad as Eljay, just making up your own religion and claiming that you got it from the Bible. So just because you do not understand the scriptures does not make them untrue. Just because you make-up stuff doesn't make it true. Besides, this argument that certain humans don't understand the word of God is extremely lame. Do you realize that all you are doing is claiming that for some reason I should be unable to understand my creator, whilst you are privileged to have a perfect understanding. That very argument holds no water. If a supereme creator had intended a text to be for all his creation, then anyone should be able to understand if they truly want to. To suggest that I don't want to understand would be a huge personal insult against me that would be totally uncalled for. I want nothing more than to understand the truth of my existence. I don't see where the Bible even addresses these questions much less does it with any clarity or even in a postive way. The book is FOCUSED ON SIN and REPENTANCE! It's more concerned with condemning heathens than addressing good people! It clearly wasn't written for people like me. Moreover, it's obvious that nobody can make sense of the book! The Jews denied that Jesus was "the Christ". Why would they have done that if they understood that he was? Clearly the book is unclear. The Christians even disagree with each other. The Catholics have their thing going, the Protestants protested against the Catholics interpretations. Then they continued to protest against each other's interpretation until they ended up with more denominations than there are hairs on the head of a monkey. Islam took basically the same mythology and went off on a completely different tangent altogether. ALl of these religions are not at each other's throats in the name of the SAME GOD even though they have given him different NAMES! So your accusation that I don't understand scriptures is silly! Just look around! NOBODY understands the stupid book! It a nonsensicial book! And that's all I'm pointing out. The TRUTH. It's a nonsensical book! Just look around and you can see this FACT as clear as day! Did somebody call my name? Ah, Abra - you really are a joy. Rarely do you fail to entertain. I'm often amaised by how you view Christianity, and the train of thought behind it. Though I don't agree with it - I'm impressed by it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
proof
|
|
Why do you even care?What is the point of debating if you are just going to say stupid things?Seriously either debate me with facts backing up what you say or this conversation is pointless. You said millions of people saw him. i asked you how millions of people saw him? Thats a perfectly valid question. Nothing YOU said contained anything which is a fact. OK, some books were written, thats a fact. Books do not prove anything do they? Some historical events, people and places mentioned in the bible as well. And what? Thats not proof of a thing either. If you dont like my questions, or my style of writing, please just ignore me rather than getting all pissy. Jesus walked the earth for 3 years and spoke to millions of people.The bible says many times that so many people were following Jesus that you could not count the numbers.The original intent to kill Jesus was that the Romans saw that Jesus had a army of millions that would do anything he told them to and easily wipe out the Romans.One of his disciples even suggested that they wipe out Rome but Jesus said that is not why he is here. Where is the proof that Jesus did this? In the bible? Do you really think that is proof? Where is the proof that Thomas Jefferson wrote the declaration of Independence? Now don't make the mistake of saying we have the original document - as there is as much validity to that being genuine than there is the dead sea scrolls. And you have no more reason to believe those who witnessed the document, or claimed that Jefferson wrote it - than you do the writers of the gospels, who make the exact same claims. Now - if you can somehow convince me that the Declareation of Independence is not someone's mythical document - or that Thomas Jefferson existed and actually is the author - and provide "proof" of it... Well , maybe you'll get the point. I dont get your point. Maybe i am just not bright enough, but i have absolutely no idea why you have brought this up. The declaration is a real valid, and legal document, whoever it was that actually penned it, jefferson or not, and im pretty sure that there is no doubt that Thomas Jefferson was a real person, which can be proved(but not by me, i dont have this proof to hand or a desire to search for it). He never made claims of being able to walk on water, or being the son of god. You dont need faith to believe in the declaration. Please please, give me something more tangible. Ive already stated that i know next to nothing about religion, so surely you must beable to come out with something to shut me up? All i have is common sense, but all im getting in reply is weak arguments, nonsense and randomness. So why is it that you believe Thomas Jefferson existed and not Jesus? If you apply the same reaoning you use to assess your belief in the existance of Jefferson, to the existance of Jesus - you should arrive to the same conclusion. If you are basing your belief of Jesus on what "He" believed - than nothing tangible is going to convince you - as your approach to the topic is illogical and defies common sense. The question of "proof" lies in the testamonies of eyewitnesses, and in the Archeological finds which corroberate the accounts. This is done for every individual known in history. There is no better "proof" of who Shakespeare was and what he said and believed, than there is for Jesus. Yet, does anyone doubt there was a Shakespeare? So the point is - what denotes "proof"? You are really clutching at straws now. Nobody doubts there was a Shakespeare, because there are countless plays written by him. These plays do not contradict eachother, they are very well written peices of art. I would bet that there are some original pieces still in existence and that it can easily be proved that they were all penned by the same person. Shakespeare isnt asking anyone to live their lives differently, nor does he claim to be the son of God. There is no need for anyone to have made up his existence, whereas for Jesus and Christianity, there are a whole host of reasons why people might have done this. Maybe shakespeare was really a bloke called Bob, it doesnt really matter if we cant prove his entire existence. Someone wrote those plays. Why i am even bothering to respond to such a ridiculous argument is beyond me. I have to whole heartedly agree with your last statement, as you demonstrate a serious ack of having educated yourself on what the bible actually says. There's nothing like holding a stance from pure ignorance of a topic. So please - take your own advice and stop commenting on topics you're uneducated about. Well done Sherlock. I have already stated, plainly, in this thread that i dont know very much about religion. But that doesnt mean either that i have pure ignorance on the topic. Even if i did, that doesnt mean i cant join in the discussion. Just because you think you are so much more highly educated on the subject doesnt intimidate me in the least. I cant believe you are resorting to that tactic so quickly. For all your education on the bible, whatever that may be, all you have offered in reponse to me so far is random clap trap about Jefferson and Shakespeare, and then followed it up by calling ME ignorant. I know so little in terms of facts about the bible, and thats all you have got?? Surely, with all your education, you must beable to put my views to shame? And anyway, why should i educate myself on what the bible actually says, when there is plain proof(to those of us not blinkered to reality) that it is not the word of God. I would consider that a waste of my time. And anyway, you cant use the bible to prove the bible, that is just plain silly. So whatever it is exactly that the bible does say, is irrelavent in this topic. I'm not claiming your ignorance - I'm quoting you on it. You've already demonstrated by your own words that you are not familiar with the bible - so I ask you this. What proof that it is not the word of God? Someone else's opinion? I would suggest that if you want proof that it is not the word of God - then you read it for yourself and make your own decision about it, and not rely on what someone else thinks about it - as you are likely not aware of their bias' about it - or if in fact they know enough about what they're saying to be even qualified to give evidence of proof that it is NOT the word of God - when that is only something that God himself could do. Again - it's a matter of what the criteria for "proof" is. You did claim my ignorance very blatantly but we can move on from that. Granted, i have not read the book myself. But i have read commentaries from people that back up what they say with evidence and logic. I dont take anyones word as being the gospel truth but rather analyse what i read and THEN make my own decisions on what i think is true. If it is not acceptible to look at other peoples opinions and derive your own from them, then its equally not acceptible for any Christian to seek opinions from their priest/pastor/vicar etc It would also be pointless reading any other book on the subject other than the bible. Nobody has completely made up their own mind on the subject completely independantly of other peoples opinions. One day i do intend to read it. But to study it? Nah. Plenty of far more intelligent people than me have already done that, its far easier and far more worthwhile making sense of what these people have to say about it. I read these threads and read all kinds of opinions from both sides of the argument. I am open to change my current opinions if i am given any information to justify it. But so far, in terms of the topic of this thread, nothing has been offered. All i have been given is that the Bible is true because the bible itself says so. I cant buy that. And you shouldn't buy that. Nor should you formulate your opinion on commentaries about it by people who you really can't access their bias - not knowing the original material yourself. I'm not saying that you should "study" the scriptures, my caution is that if you want to determine the truth of scripture for yourself, I would think reading it for yourself will get you better results than reading someone else's interpretation - especialy if it is one based on Pretext, and not Context. Hard to tell the difference when unfamiliar with the actual document itself. I wouldn't change this caution if you had decided to read a commentary about the bible from Billy Graham, and decided that everything he said about it were the truth as well. You are correct, i really should read the scriptures myself. Like i said before, i do intend to. But its not high on my priority list to do it at any point soon. The best i will allow myself right now is other peoples commentaries. If i did read them, and especially if i 'studied' them a little, i would be in a much better position to argue what i believe. But reading them isn't going to change my opinions of them. I would bet that the more i know, the more i will disbelieve in them. There is no chance that i will become enlightened and start believing in them. I cant ignore things that other people seem ok about ignoring. My only point i am making here, is that even with my limited knowledge on the subject, it is still valid for me to be in this discussion. My limited knowledge should just make it easier for you to put my way of thinking down. Im just here to take part, and to learn. I dont close myself off to anything you put before me, its just what you have put before me hasnt got enough backbone to constitute a proper argument(on the subject of proof). The only thing my ignorant and naive brain can conclude is that there is NO proof. I need SOME. I'm not putting you down Dan - just trying to get a better idea of how you are drawing some of your conclusions - obviously, a few of which I don't agree with. That having been said - I fimely agree with you on the need to have some sort of proof to alter an opinion that I've no doubt you've reasoned out for yourself. I hold the same stance when it comes to the claims of Evolution, I await the answers to the questions I pose about these "obvious proofs" of the age of the earth, common ancestory, etc. So - I read what is available to me, and offer my opinions on those threads as well, and I'm certainly no expert on each of the sciences involved in the threads. And I have no desire to persue Evolutionary idea's, and more than I believe you may have in studying Christianity. So, I'm not attempting to have you not respond to threads on Christianity given whatever level of understanding you have - but I will challenge claims you make about it if it goes contrary to what I've learned through studying it - as that is the nature of posting on the forums. And that's pretty much where I'm coming from. No intention of putting you down is intended - I hope you have not thought this was the case. I may attack an idea you have - but it's not an attack on you. If I thought you weren't even capable of offering anything to the thread - I wouldn't bother to respond. That is the nature of how I post. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
proof
|
|
That is a shifting middle to the argument you are attempting to make. You claim that stoning is part of Christain doctrine - it's not. It might have been part of the mosaic Law - but then your problem is with Judism - not Christianity. And any attempt to equate the two would swiftly be shot down by any inquiry of a Rabbi. So I repeat - Christianity says nothing about stoning anyone. You chose a bad example to attept to support your earlier post. I'll just assume that you spoke prematurely on your claim about my posts. I have little need to post on topics that I have not researched or studied - and your claiming that I have without providing references is only proving my point. You can't sit there and make the claim that Old Testament =/= Christianity, when so many Christians out there use it to infringe upon the rights of others. Like I said before, If the Old Testament truly and nothing to do with the Christian religion, it would not be a part of the bible. The Old Testament and Christianity is not equal in the sense that you are trying to demonstrate it too. I thought you were familiar with Christianity. Surely you are aware of the numerous references in the New Testament that Christians are not to follow the Law, but under the grace of the finished work of Christ - who is the fullfillment of the Law. You claim to be well aware of what a Christian believes, and I have no reason to doubt you - so why this game of twisting what is in the bible to serve your pretext's? The idea of a christian stoning anyone could never be concluded from contextual content of scripture - even for a casual peruser. So, it makes me wonder just how familiar you are with Christianity when you fight for this frivilous argument. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
proof
|
|
ANYTHING IN THE UNNIVERSE CAN BE MADE A WEAPON, AND SO BE THE SAME FOR WORDS!!!??? It seems to me that the authors of the Bible were explictly telling their readers that God wants them to murder heathens and stone sinners to death. I don't see how that can be open to any other interpretations. It's pretty clear what the authors of the Bible were saying. This idea that the reader can make anything they want from the text based on their own perceptions is silly. I mean, if we were to allow for that, then my interpretation of the Bible is as valid as anyone's. And my interpretation is that the Old Testament was clearly written by mortal men who were using the concept of God to brainwash their readers into siding with them in the event of wars or disputes. My intepretation of the New Testament is that Jesus denounced the Old Testament as being grossly violent and nonconducive to productive and constructive life for humanity. He also appears to have coincidentally taught the very same things as Buddha taught 500 hundred years earlier. Jesus most certainly did not agree with the teachings of the Old Testament. That should be obvious to anyone who can read. ~~~ Considering that even the Biblical text has Jesus basically missing from the time he was 12 until he was 30 and India (a Buddhist nation) was basically right next door (for all intents and purposes), it seems reasonble to me that at the very least Jesus learned of the teachings of Buddha, if not having actually traveled to India himself to be mentored for 15 years by actual Buddhist monks. There would be no reason for the Buddhists to have recorded the presence of Jesus since he would have been just one of many students. There would have been no reason to take note of him in India. He was there to learn, not teach. Just the same, you and Creative both seem to keep talking about personal perceptions. My only point is that the religion called "Christianity" doesn't allow for personal perceptions, they have their own claim as to what the Bible is supposed to be saying. In fact, I don't even see how the text supports their conclusions at all. I personally feel that my theory hold far more water. And that's all I really claim. I don't claim that I'm right. I just argue that my theory makes more sense than what the Christian theologians are attempting to claim. I think my theory holds far more water than the Christian interpretations. And that's all I have ever claimed. It's just food for thought for anyone who's interested.  It seems that Christains are often attempting to 'prove' that Jesus was God and that the Bible is the word of God. I'm just responding to their empty claims! Usually their arguments go something like the following: 1. The universe is too complex to be random chance. 2. Therefore God exists. 3. Therefore the Bible is the word of God. Or like the following: 1. No man can be moral without God. 2. Therefore God must exist. 3. Therefore the Bible must be the word of God. Or the following: 1. I don't like atheism! 2. I don't understand patheistic religions! 3. Therefore the Bible must be the word of God! Personally I feel that my arguments against the Bible being the word of God hold far more water than the reasons they give why it must be the word of God. I'm just debating the best I can. Where is this non-sense coming from. I've never seen these arguments from anyone, anywhere, who knows anything about Christianity. If your going to debate - at least don't build strawmen to debate with. They don't have a brain. Or have you never seen the Wizard of Oz? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
proof
|
|
There's nothing like holding a stance from pure ignorance of a topic. So please - take your own advice and stop commenting on topics you're uneducated about. That is hugely ironic coming from you. Care to back up that statement with some sort of example. Example: I started reading all the responses to this great question before I gave up. These Christians avoided the question at all cost, until a few non-believers started voiceing their opinions. Then, quickly, the Christians ran to the defense of Christianity by saying it's not torture, with very little explanation. As an atheist, I would like to point out that Bible calls for a town to stone a child to death if s/he is disobediant. I consider stoning a form of torture, because you die slowly and it hurts. So do take this wonderful question a step further, how do Christians deal with verses that deal with stoning children to death if Christianity doesn't permit torture? Christianity says nothing about stoning anyone. In 3,000 BC Judism this might have been the case - but you won't find it anywhere in Christianity. So, as I Christain - I might suggest to you that you learn about that in which you don't believe if you are going to commet on it, and at least get it right. Directly from your Holy book: Exodus 19:13 There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount. Deuteronomy 13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. Deuteronomy 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. Hebrews 11:37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; Numbers 15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Joshua 7:25 And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. 1 Kings 21:13 And there came in two men, children of Belial, and sat before him: and the men of Belial witnessed against him, even against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying, Naboth did blaspheme God and the king. Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died. need any more? Interesting - all quotes from the Old Testament. Perhaps you are unaware that Christainity did not exist at this time. Aren't you the one who claims to know all about Christainity. I asked you to show me where in the New Testament (The scriptures from which Christianity gets it's name) where stoning was mandated, and you quote me the Law! So you've fallen short of your example of my not knowing about that which I discuss by demonstrating that you do not know about that which you talk. Once again - making my point. It's still part of you holy book is it not? If the Old Testament had nothing to do with Christianity, it wouldn't be a part of the bible. That is a shifting middle to the argument you are attempting to make. You claim that stoning is part of Christain doctrine - it's not. It might have been part of the mosaic Law - but then your problem is with Judism - not Christianity. And any attempt to equate the two would swiftly be shot down by any inquiry of a Rabbi. So I repeat - Christianity says nothing about stoning anyone. You chose a bad example to attept to support your earlier post. I'll just assume that you spoke prematurely on your claim about my posts. I have little need to post on topics that I have not researched or studied - and your claiming that I have without providing references is only proving my point. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
