Does God hate Florida?

[Jeffery]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040909/ap_on_re_us/hurricane_ivan_florida&cid=519&ncid=716

Yet another hurricane is heading towards Florida. The third in a month, and expected to be a fierce storm........

WTF? What did Florida do? Mother nature seems to be on a rampage, not just in Florida, but all over the place. Those of you who do believe in God should start praying, for the people of Florida surely need it.

[ArcPaladinZero]

I really do pity those down there. When I was coming back from Hilton Head this weekend. Everyone else was going southbound on 95. I'm guessing it was the Flordia folks heading back to see the damage to their homes. The rest of the traffic was construction and DOT vehicles. I'd hate to live down there.

[T3km4n]

Most deaths cause by a hurricane happen AFTER it is over, such as those people going back to their home get swept by a flood, or something falls on them.

[Jeffery]

Originally posted by T3km4n
Most deaths cause by a hurricane happen AFTER it is over, such as those people going back to their home get swept by a flood, or something falls on them.

Or another hurricane hits them. And it is not most, but definetely a lot who die afterwards. The number is somewhat skewed by those critically injured, and die after the hurricane is over, as well as those reported missing, and either found dead or pronounced dead afterwards.

[ArcPaladinZero]

People dying isn't the problem. People can move out of the way before one hits. The damage that really takes place is the loss of property.

[T3km4n]

Originally posted by ArcPaladinZero
People dying isn't the problem. Terrorist.:cool:

[Jeffery]

Originally posted by ArcPaladinZero
People dying isn't the problem. People can move out of the way before one hits. The damage that really takes place is the loss of property.

Say what??????????????????????????//

Property can be rebuilt, while human life is can not.

Burn down a large building, and it can be rebuilt. Burn down a large person, and they can not.

[Walrus]

whilst im not sure if this really needed a brand new thread, i thought id say this


i went to florida a few years ago, for a month. had a good time, drunk lots of orange juice etc. we left on a saturday morning. now, that very night (in american time) there was a hurricane in florida. and when we heard about it on the news, we actually saw the house we'd been staying in, ripped to shreds. pretty freaky.

but the really weird part, is one august i went to manhatten with my mum for a week. we went sightseeing and did all the new york stuff. then, when we left in late august, about 2 weeks later, it was 9/11. the very buildings we had been standing on a couple of weeks ago, once again destroyed.

i dont like to go to america now ^^

[ArcPaladinZero]

I know people did die. That wasn't my point. My point was not as many lives are lost during a hurricane due to the fact it is easier to avoid if you are either well sheltered or go away while it takes progress. Something like a tornado or earthquake are a little more unpredictable. I was simply stating that lots more building go boom as opposed to people dying. Yes... I am a terrorist. :)

[T3km4n]

Originally posted by Walrus
whilst im not sure if this really needed a brand new thread, i thought id say this


i went to florida a few years ago, for a month. had a good time, drunk lots of orange juice etc. we left on a saturday morning. now, that very night (in american time) there was a hurricane in florida. and when we heard about it on the news, we actually saw the house we'd been staying in, ripped to shreds. pretty freaky.

but the really weird part, is one august i went to manhatten with my mum for a week. we went sightseeing and did all the new york stuff. then, when we left in late august, about 2 weeks later, it was 9/11. the very buildings we had been standing on a couple of weeks ago, once again destroyed.

i dont like to go to america now ^^ Terrorist.:cool:

[ArcPaladinZero]

Hmm... I think I'm going to start walking up to women and saying show me your boobs or the terrorists win.

[Jeffery]

I must agree, we need a NO Walrus billboard outside our border. He's obviously dangerous!!!

And APZ, do you happen to work for Homeland Security? That sounds much like "Buy duct tape and survive."

[Walrus]

but..but..but it wasnt my fault, it was an accident i tells you! an accident!!!

[ArcPaladinZero]

Originally posted by Jeffery
I must agree, we need a NO Walrus billboard outside our border. He's obviously dangerous!!!

And APZ, do you happen to work for Homeland Security? That sounds much like "Buy duct tape and survive."

Oh crap, don't dare put me in the same category as a republican. Yeah, I totally support using scare tactics. "Oh my god the threat level went up again?!?!?!" I must watch Fox News... :rolleyes:

[Jeffery]

"honestly officer, I never thought when I pointed the gun at his head and pulled the trigger that he would die! It was an accident!"

[Walrus]

ah good, jeff sees it from my point of view

[S_K_O_F]

duct tape is the most useful tool around

anyway...I give no explanation for why God allows natural disasters happen
why would he allow an earthquake to devistate california, or why would he allow a valcano to devistate washington state, why would he allow a series of tornados barrel through the midwest???

honestly, i don't believe God actually has his hand on the weather at all times...Florida didn't "do anything" to "deserve" 3 hurricanes in a month...it is just the way of things

blaming God for struggles in life is a copout...sometimes these things just happen...then you either turn around and make yourself a better person for it or you can continue being pissed at God

there is a book in the bible called Job...Job's life was wonderful, until God allowed satan to test him...satan believed he could turn Job away from God by taking away worldly comforts...land, family, health, wealth...etc

Job never one time cursed God, even when his friends told him he should.

cursing God for the misfortunes of the world isn't what i would consider the proper aproach...these are the times that we should turn to God for guidance and help

[Walrus]

in general studies today i was debating the whole concept of god. what i wanna know is this:

does god watch over all the planets of the universe, or just earth? and if just earth, surely by looking at other planets we could find some kinda difference which could be used to find out exactly what god is.
and if he has to watch over all the planets in the universe, its understandable that the poor guy may not always be around to stop earthquakes and crap.

the other thing i was thinking about in general studies was whether infinite would be a prime number or not. i would say that, by definition, it couldnt be a prime number.

[S_K_O_F]

Originally posted by Walrus
and if he has to watch over all the planets in the universe, its understandable that the poor guy may not always be around to stop earthquakes and crap.

If God is my creator...then it is a safe bet to assume that he created everything that I know to be real

this includes all 4 dimensions...the fourth being time
I do not believe that God lives in time, He is not binded by time...when the bible tells us that a day is like a thousands days and a thousands days is like a day...it is trying to explain this

so, really...I believe that he can be anywhere at any "time" because time is meaningless in the existence of God

there are more factors to God "allowing" natural disasters to happen that we will probably ever know

[Twelve]

Originally posted by S_K_O_F
duct tape is the most useful tool around

anyway...I give no explanation for why God allows natural disasters happen
why would he allow an earthquake to devistate california, or why would he allow a valcano to devistate washington state, why would he allow a series of tornados barrel through the midwest???

honestly, i don't believe God actually has his hand on the weather at all times...Florida didn't "do anything" to "deserve" 3 hurricanes in a month...it is just the way of things

blaming God for struggles in life is a copout...sometimes these things just happen...then you either turn around and make yourself a better person for it or you can continue being pissed at God

there is a book in the bible called Job...Job's life was wonderful, until God allowed satan to test him...satan believed he could turn Job away from God by taking away worldly comforts...land, family, health, wealth...etc

Job never one time cursed God, even when his friends told him he should.

cursing God for the misfortunes of the world isn't what i would consider the proper aproach...these are the times that we should turn to God for guidance and help


*highly impressed*

Amen, man!!! I mean, you totally covered every base properly there...couldn't have said it better myself.

Edit:

If God is my creator...then it is a safe bet to assume that he created everything that I know to be real

this includes all 4 dimensions...the fourth being time
I do not believe that God lives in time, He is not binded by time...when the bible tells us that a day is like a thousands days and a thousands days is like a day...it is trying to explain this

so, really...I believe that he can be anywhere at any "time" because time is meaningless in the existence of God

there are more factors to God "allowing" natural disasters to happen that we will probably ever know

OH MY GOSH you think just like me! How the heck is this possible???

12

[Jeffery]

OFFTOPIC POST ALERT

12, you got to change your siggy that says FIRST AND ONLY TAO REVIEW. There are actually others out there. I found some during my contest judging.

But keep the first on there.

*Nopw back to your regularly scheduled thread topic*

[Twelve]

OFFTOPIC POST ALERT

*sad*

I knew that this day would come one day....

I've...

I've....

I've.....CHANGED MY SIGGY!!! Gah!!!


12

[S_K_O_F]

Originally posted by Twelve

OH MY GOSH you think just like me! How the heck is this possible???


Great minds think alike.

:D

[Walrus]

ON TOPIC (ish) ALERT

however, does god only watch over this universe. scientists apparently claim that with string theory and whatnot there are at least 11 dimensions. did god create all of these, along with all the other universes. the concept of time may not exist to god, but one of those dimensions is probably more powerful than even he.

or we could go to the classic garden of eden vs dinosaurs and the big bang :p

[Medemia]

Wow, let's turn this into a theological discussion. Cephas should be here soo.

Does God look over all the planets or just earth? Well, when you believe in an omnipotent, omniscent and omnipresent God, this means he is not only here on earth, but also on the non-planet of Pluto, in the middle of the sun, past Alpha-Centari and on a asteroid heading straight to earth to destroy all human kind in 2 billion years. That is just the omnipresence of God.

And according to Matthew 6, if he cares if a bird falls, then it can be taken that in his omniscence (all-knowingness), he cares when events happen everywhere in the universe. He knows when 2 atoms collide, knows when 3 hurricanes hits Florida, and when Walrus causes accidents all over the US. In fact, he knew these things were going to happen since the beginning of time (of which there is none.)

So then, the question comes up if God is everywhere and cares when bad things happens, why does God allow bad things to happen to good people? Why earthquakes, hurricanes and disaster? When man disobeyed God, God places a curse on the earth, saying man would have to work for their food with the sweat of their brow. Part of this curse was taking a perfect world and subjecting it to the power of sin. The book of Romans says that the earth is crying out, waiting for the day when it will be released from the curse. (Romans 8).

Additionally, because of sin, man has chosen to not be in love with God but with himself. God desires that man be in love with him, but will not force it. Could he? Being all-powerful, I believe he could, but being all-knowing, knows this would not be the best way. If I programmed my computer to say "I love you" everytime I turned it on, my computer would say it, but I know in my heart that it does not mean it. The love of my children is much better than the love of my computer because their love is a choice and done because they want to, not because they were programmed to do so. God is the same way. He would rather have you say I love you because you do and not because he made you. So in order to have people who truely love him, he gives the choice to man to hate him instead. Likewise, because of our decisions and because of the sinfulness of man, circumstances occur which are of sin's making and God does not stop it, to allow that free choice to continue.

Could God stop every earthquake, hurricane and other disaster? Yes he could. Do any of them happen because God is too busy elsewhere to stop them? No. Is it God's will that it happens? Sin is never God's will. The consequences of sin is not what God desires, but he allows it because he is a just God. His will is that all would love him and none would perish.

[Jeffery]

Beautiful.. just beautiful. I don;t think it can be better explained.

One thing though. You left out God has a great sense of humor. Just look at a Platypus.

[S_K_O_F]

wow...you see ...i wasn't prepared to go in to it with as much detail as medemia

basically because i really didnt want to get in to the sin factor...

but medemia...that was excellent...very biblical explanation

and now that I think about it...if you believe in the God of the bible, that is the only explanation

[Walrus]

a little too biblical for me. it all makes sense to be sure, but i dont like to get too deeply involved in religion and the likes.
the thing is, the scientific versions of everything just seem to fit so much better.

ie when did god make all the other planets than the earth? and why are there volcanoes and the likes on these planets, which are (as far as we know) devoid of life hence devoid of sin?

answer me that and i might be impressed

[S_K_O_F]

as you said...these planets are devoid of life

so who cares if they have natural disasters...there is no one there to be affected

[Walrus]

true but as medemia said:

the earth cries out to be released from her curse.


it can be assumed that the other planets feel the same way about their curses. not literally of course, all in context with what med said

[Jeffery]

Thats easy.

God made man to be very inquisitive. And as such, created the rest of the univers muh as he created Earth, knowing man would some day venture forth.
The question is...
Did God make just man, or are there other creations by God just as intelligent, lloking up at their stars asking the same question.

[Walrus]

that didnt really answer my question, unless you missed some posts when typing.

[Medemia]

Good question. Let me quote the verse from Romans.

For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Romans 8:22 (NKJV) (Emphasis mine)

Because of man's sin, all of creation is cursed. So that does include other planets. Is that egocentric that man caused the demise of all creation? Seems that way, but only man is created in the image of God. God created man to bring Himself glory. The universe, creation, man, mosquitoes, everything was created for the glory of God. That God created it all with just a "Let it be" is incredible. Is God egocentric then that he created us only to worship him? Yes. Yes God is egocentric. When you are a perfect, all-powerful God, you are the only one worthy to be egocentric.

[Walrus]

me and med must have posted at EXACTLY the same time, coz when reviewing the thread my post is in front of his (where its meant to be) yet when looking at the thread from here on the post reply thing, his comes before mine. aaaaanyway...


the whole of creation was cursed through mans sins?
so if there is intelligent life anywhere out there in any of the universes, they too have been cursed due to us? i find that hard to believe. are all these other races of aliens going to be absolutely perfect in every way? i doubt that too, and if they are not perfect then they have no doubt sinned too at some point, meaning man isnt solely to blame.

[S_K_O_F]

Originally posted by Jeffery
Did God make just man, or are there other creations by God just as intelligent, lloking up at their stars asking the same question.

this is an interesting question...but let me give another little one to think about along with it

if God did create other beings of equal or greater intelligence than humans, do they also have a soul?

and if so, did God give there planet a Gospel to follow in order to be with him throughout eternity?

[thrdflrmshr]

God doesn't hate anyone. Storms happen. I feel sorry for those people down there, but hurricanes have happened before, and mankind will prevail.

[Medemia]

This is coming from the pre-position that man is not alone in the universe. Like Skof said, if there is other life in the universe, they would have to have their own gospel for salvation. Since, Biblically, the only way to have a relationship with God is through blood sacrifice, first by the sacrificial system and ultimately through the sacrifice of Jesus, God's only son, if other alien species existed and sinned, then Jesus would also have to go to their planets and die there also. But because Jesus died once, rose again, and is now sitting on the right hand of the Father as our mediator, it comes around that he has not gone elsewhere and died, rose again, and played out the situation over and over again. If he has, it becomes trivial and cheapens the whole situation on all the planets.

Because of this, I do not believe in alien species. God created the universe for His glory. We glorify him when we sit under the stars and wonder how many there are. God knows, but just wanted to impress us, making nature even testify that God is God.

[Walrus]

well, it has been proven scientifically there we are almost definitely not alone in the universe.

and to use your own words, these creatures would have their own gospel, probably a different way of worship etc. i doubt the whole jesus thing would be like a "requirement" for a race to have in order to be deemed as worthy or whatever it was.
after all, on our planet, surely jesus only redeemed the species of mankind? there are dogs, and cats, and possibly even walruses who have sinned on this planet, was jesus' sacrifice for them all?

and if that is the case, how would this sacrifice be limited? if it were only for the planet earth, would the birds which fly above it not be affected? if they can, then surely everything else in the universe (in terms of life) was also affected by the sacrifice of jesus christ.


anyway this is getting a bit too confusing for me.

[thrdflrmshr]

Other life has most definitely not been scientifically proven. Mathematically, maybe, because odds are that we are not alone. That doesn't mean there is not a chance that we are in fact alone.

[Walrus]

of course theres always a chance. but both mathematically and scientifically it has been shown that it is near certain (like a 99.9% chance) that we are not alone...


to be honest, im not really a religious person at all, so im way into unexplored territory for me in this conversation. i just thought itd be interesting to see peoples views on the points i raised.

[Medemia]

This may be a pretty unpopular view today in the world of animal rights, but when animals die, they die. There is no dog heaven, cat heaven, goldfish heaven or platypus heaven. Animals have no soul. This being the case, they do not sin nor do they need a savior. Animals only live on instinct. Before the flood, lions and sheep used to be able to hang out. God made a covenant with Noah after the flood, saying the world would not be flooded again in it's entirety. But this was also part of that covenant:

Genesis 9:1-2
1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

After the flood, man's relationship with animals changed. It also changed the relationship of animals with each other.

But digressing, animals have no soul and need no savior.

And I will still stand by the fact that there is no intelligent life on other planets which needs a savior.

[Walrus]

then we appear to have a stalemate. i say that aliens exist, you say they dont.

one last thing to try to change your mind. there are probably at least 1000 different species of animal on the planet earth. do you really believe that all these different species were created solely on earth, yet in the infinite of space, there has never been any other form of life?

[Twelve]

Did I ever mention that Medemia is THE MAN!!???

Once again, though I would like to say something, all that I want to say is being said.

12

[Walrus]

sure, med has far more religious knowledge than me. i dont mind that, it is not something i envy. thats nothing against med, its always interesting to hear other peoples views, especially people who believe in different things.

i would also like to say that this was never an argument, merely a conversation. i say that as a pre-emptive reply to anyone who tries to say something like "haaha med owned walrus"
which isnt strictly true anyway, since it just reached a stalemate.

[S_K_O_F]

Originally posted by Walrus
then we appear to have a stalemate. i say that aliens exist, you say they dont.

one last thing to try to change your mind. there are probably at least 1000 different species of animal on the planet earth. do you really believe that all these different species were created solely on earth, yet in the infinite of space, there has never been any other form of life?

is it just at least 1000?

hmmm...with all of your science talk, i would have assumed you knew that there were actually hundreds of thousands of different species of animal life on this planet

i assumed wrong

[Walrus]

yes. you did. i prefer to go with what i know rather than looking things up on the internet.

and i believe that "at least 1000" is a perfectly factual statement anyway, as 100,000 clearly > 1000.

i did think that the actual figure was far more than 1000, but the point is the same. 1000 or 10000000000000 it doesnt make a difference to what i said. please stop trying to annoy me, im in a calm mood, i doubt anything that happens online could annoy me as i am right now, especially since youve already said that you are trying to.

[Medemia]

Originally posted by Medemia
And I will still stand by the fact that there is no intelligent life on other planets which needs a savior.

Having said that animals have no soul and in my book do not constitute "intelligent life", could there be animals on other planets? Sure, why not. Does it really matter? In the long run, nah. God has enough love, wisdom and caring to care for animals on other planets as well as the millions of different species on this planet (there are over 4,000,000 different species of insects alone).

And I never saw this as an arguement. It's a good discussion.

[Walrus]

im sure you didnt, but others may have.


if there were animals on other planets then, would they be affected by mans sin?
if yes, why? since they would never have experienced or be related to man in any way
if no, then why would their planets be cursed with the same curse as earth (which is a result of mans sin). thats assuming that their planet would be like all others and have earthquakes and the likes.

[S_K_O_F]

Originally posted by Walrus
yes. you did. i prefer to go with what i know rather than looking things up on the internet.

and i believe that "at least 1000" is a perfectly factual statement anyway, as 100,000 clearly > 1000.

i did think that the actual figure was far more than 1000, but the point is the same. 1000 or 10000000000000 it doesnt make a difference to what i said. please stop trying to annoy me, im in a calm mood, i doubt anything that happens online could annoy me as i am right now, especially since youve already said that you are trying to.

actually...i had limited my annoyance attempts at you to your thread
i was just pointing out the fact that 1000 was quite a small "estimate"

[Medemia]

Why would the animals on our planet be affected by the consequences of our sin? They don't sin. And yet, they were affected. All of creation was made to give glory to God. When man sinned and desired to take that glory for himself, it tainted the entirety of creation. So this earth, as well as all of creation was cursed.

In the long run, God is going to create a new heaven and a new earth, one no longer tainted by the curse of sin, where it is once again perfect and doing what it was created to do, give glory to God. Until then, sin has corrupted all of creation.

[Glamdring]

Originally posted by Walrus
of course theres always a chance. but both mathematically and scientifically it has been shown that it is near certain (like a 99.9% chance) that we are not alone...


The basis of that conclusion is that it's implausible that the universe was created with humans as the ultimate purpose. If you don't believe that, the scientific "proof" is useless.

On another note, I could be wrong, but I think it's been proven that dolphins are technically more "intelligent" than humans are. Along with a few other animals.

If "intelligent" life exists on other planets, I doubt it needs any more saving than dolphins do.

Other than that, anything I would have said in this thread has already been said.

Medemia, it's your turn to be MY hero. :p

[Walrus]

so is it to be believed that man is the ultimate of gods creations based on what med said, when there is more intelligent life on our very own planet apparently (by what glam said.)?

yet man still treats them as inferior beings, and ultimately, as animals. what has been said here gives the impression that humans have evolved "above" all other animals. did god intend for that?


and my point about animals on another planet was that why would they be tainted by something they have literally nothing to do with?

[Glamdring]

Originally posted by Medemia
In the long run, God is going to create a new heaven and a new earth, one no longer tainted by the curse of sin, where it is once again perfect and doing what it was created to do, give glory to God. Until then, sin has corrupted all of creation.

w00t! This is exactly what my sermon was about on sunday. I love it when that happens. :cool:

Walrus, my point was that intelligence really doesn't have anything to do with it. When He created us, he breathed his own breath into Adam's lungs to give him life.

Animals on other planets? Who knows. Maybe they will only be tainted if/when they come into contact with humans. The corruption of sin spread from us to the rest of creation... There's no way of knowing if life on other planets are affected.

[S_K_O_F]

humans were created in the image of God

no other piece of creation can claim that, so it is a pretty easy bet that all of creation is inferior to us

even the angels of the heavens cannot claim to have been created in God's image

only man

[doubledown]

ahh a theological argument and I'm late (late being still on the same day but on the 4th page jeesh guys)

1) We could all blame "god" for the hurricanes that hit Florida, but then we would have to blame "god" for every house that is destroyed when a volcanoe erupts where people built thier town right on top of it. Or blame "god" for a all the damage done in a flood when the people live in a flood plane, or any other acts of nature where people want to put the blame on something else other than their own lack of intelligence to realize they made a mistake. The fact is, there is nothing directing nature to target Florida other than nature. Whether those people were angels or hellions would not change the way different air currents with different temperatures mix to form a tropical storm.

2) If "god" loves us so much, then why inflict all these disaters on us? You say (and by you I mean those arguing the following) its because we have sinned, but that "god" still loves us and cares for us and wants us to be with him. Well if love means burning down your town (saddam and gomorah) or wiping out the entire race (the flood), I'll take a god who doesnt love me as much.

3) You believe Jesus was the son of "god" and he came down to earth to save us. You believe this because he said he was and then he was written about in a book. David Koresh (of Waco, TX) also proclaimed to be the son of "god." Were I to write a book about him would you also believe he was holy? David Blaine (the street magician) can perform "miracles" were he to say he was the son of "god" are you going to follow his teachings? Jesus radically changed the Christian religion, from "God will kill you if you eat meat on Fridays" to "God loves you no matter what" Why beleive this and not others?

[Walrus]

then how, from gods perfect breath into adam, has man descended into the state we are in now, which you will agree is far from perfect? surely if adam was born of gods breath, and created in the image of god, and eve was made from him, their descendants (us) would also be like this. how were people like Hitler made from the same thing?
also, why do other religions exist then? if god created us out of himself to worship him, where exactly did man suddenly form the impression that there were so many other gods?
one would think that this tainting would become more obvious as man lived, but in much earlier times, the romans and greeks believed there were many gods.
which human was it that was born tainted, as this couldnt have simply developed through evolution, since adam and eve were made from god, if we were created for his glory, would he put in some extra taint into adam or eves molecular structure that caused one of their descendants to become a pagan?

of course there is whole issue of the forbidden fruit, but in gods ultimate plan why would he design the serpent, and why would he make mans mind so easy to bend that he could be persuaded to disobey god?


doubleD man, were far more deep now than people who claim their sons are god :p

[Twelve]

Originally posted by doubledown
ahh a theological argument and I'm late (late being still on the same day but on the 4th page jeesh guys)

1) We could all blame "god" for the hurricanes that hit Florida, but then we would have to blame "god" for every house that is destroyed when a volcanoe erupts where people built thier town right on top of it. Or blame "god" for a all the damage done in a flood when the people live in a flood plane, or any other acts of nature where people want to put the blame on something else other than their own lack of intelligence to realize they made a mistake. The fact is, there is nothing directing nature to target Florida other than nature. Whether those people were angels or hellions would not change the way different air currents with different temperatures mix to form a tropical storm.

2) If "god" loves us so much, then why inflict all these disaters on us? You say (and by you I mean those arguing the following) its because we have sinned, but that "god" still loves us and cares for us and wants us to be with him. Well if love means burning down your town (saddam and gomorah) or wiping out the entire race (the flood), I'll take a god who doesnt love me as much.

3) You believe Jesus was the son of "god" and he came down to earth to save us. You believe this because he said he was and then he was written about in a book. David Koresh (of Waco, TX) also proclaimed to be the son of "god." Were I to write a book about him would you also believe he was holy? David Blaine (the street magician) can perform "miracles" were he to say he was the son of "god" are you going to follow his teachings? Jesus radically changed the Christian religion, from "God will kill you if you eat meat on Fridays" to "God loves you no matter what" Why beleive this and not others?

Finally...time for ME to get down...

1. I agree.

2. There are clear reasons why this took place in the Bible, (gamorrah), and very clear reasons why these kinds of things don't happen now. But these things are written down in a book that you're taking credibility from anyways in part three. Do you believe it or no? If you don't believe the stories of Jesus, then don't suddenly believe in the other stories in the Bible.

3.Your over-generalization of Christianity is extreme and quite off. Besides that, the story of Christ was prophesied long before he came. The book that talks about Jesus is not onyl some book...but a book written by over 100 authors spanning a time period of thousands of years. And they all wrote about the same thing. No other book comes close to claiming this, and it's also true that the Bible is by far the most transcipt supported book in the history of all "old" books.

12

[doubledown]

I'm just saying that the belief that many people have is that they are better or "holier" than myself because they believe what a man in history said we should do. If Jesus was sent to us by "god" to teach us the way, then it obvisouly didnt work as there are still more religions out there than just the Christian faith. Why would you assume that "god" wouldnt send another "son" to preach to us again. Maybe what "god" is saying is that we should all stockpile weapons and overthrow our governments (Koresh). If you were a good Christian then you would have a fully automatic AK-47 ready to kill your elected official.

[Glamdring]

The reasons I believe Jesus was the son of God are far more than "it was written in a book." Please don't claim to know why someone believes something unless you are the one who believes it.

And aside from that, hundreds of people, and not all his followers, saw Jesus after his resurrection. The nature of his birth, life, death, and resurrection, all followed prophecies that were spoken years before he ever came.

As Aro23r (I think it was him) said in a similar discussion a long time ago, there are many things I will discuss regarding my beliefs and Christianity, but I will not argue about whether or not Jesus was the son of God.

I don't by any means believe I'm any better or "holier" than you are. The whole point of Christianity (one that unfortunately is missed entirely by a lot of supposed Christians) is that I'm not any better than you are, and we all need Christ's salvation.

[Walrus]

i had no idea we had so many bible boys (or girls) here.

i dont pretend to know anything about god, or much about religions. 5 or 6 years ago i went to church every sunday (forced to when i was a member of *shudders* the boys brigade) however since quitting that i havent been to church in years. why i felt the need to say all that, i dont know.


i was more interested in the whole astrological side of this debate regarding other planets and stuff, so until med gets back im withdrawing from this thread. (though obviously i wont as i cant stand to not reply to a thread)

[DeadFishGuy]

Originally posted by Glamdring
I will not argue about whether or not Jesus was the son of God.

If you believe Jesus was the son of god, you must have some sort of proof, with which you can prove us wrong.

Don't give me that crap about "faith".

In my oppinion, "faith" in this case is merely demanding acceptance dispite total lack of proof. If that's not it, then what precicely is it?



You say people saw Christ after he rose from the dead. How do you know? Did you use a time machin, go back and askthem yourself? If they passed it down through word of mouth, how do you know they weren't lying? How do you know this guy even died in the first place?

[Cephas]

Okay people. I don't peruse the GD forum as much as I used to, and I only saw this thread now. From now on, if there is something that goes into theology, SOMEONE PM ME!!! :mad: Please? That way my attention can be directed where it needs to be.

I'm glad to see that my man Med and his yes-man Twelve (:D) seem to be doing well with this though. I feel like I'm not needed. :(

Now, doubledown, let me see if I can address your most recent post. First off, I don't know a lot of believers who would claim to be 'holier than thou', I for one realize that there are many people who are not christians who are a whole lot better than me. What counts for me is not how good I am, but how good God is.

As far as other religions are concerned; from the beginning, man has always done things his way, and not God's way. If God as He is does not suit our purpose, why not make 'god' as we want him to be, no? That, to me is the easiest and simplest way to explain the plethora of religions out there. In my view, there only ever was one valid religion: Judaism. All others are false. To follow Christ is a relationship, not a religion.

As far as another Son, there is only One. One of the main themes of the book of Hebrews is that Jesus Christ is IT. In that past, there were prophets, now there is Him. Angels are below Him. The old priesthood was inferior to Him. The old sacrificial system was merely a shadow of what He did. The kings of Israel were flawed, but He is flawless. Why should God do more, then the best that can be offered has already come?

[Walrus]

Originally posted by DeadFishGuy
If you believe Jesus was the son of god, you must have some sort of proof, with which you can prove us wrong.

Don't give me that crap about "faith".

In my oppinion, "faith" in this case is merely demanding acceptance dispite total lack of proof. If that's not it, then what precicely is it?



You say people saw Christ after he rose from the dead. How do you know? Did you use a time machin, go back and askthem yourself? If they passed it down through word of mouth, how do you know they weren't lying? How do you know this guy even died in the first place?


DFG, i might not believe directly in what the bible says. however, if other people believe that there is a god, and that jesus was his son, then you should respect that belief. if you cant be more open minded about religion, this probably isnt the right thread for you. (though ive mad a couple of new units in the CAU forum....). [/subtle advertisement]

[Office_Shredder]

I would just like to start my remark by asking: If Jesus is all powerful, can he microwave a burrito so hot that he cannot eat it?

Putting away Homer theology now, a bit more of a serious point:
1.) If we all need Christ's salvation no matter what we do, then what's the point of avoiding sinning? Doesn't that mean we should all just sin because we don't take the brunt of it either way?
2.) If Adam was made in the image of god, then doesn't that mean women are less holy then men? In fact, I guess that really means women are just like all the other animals, right? I guess that makes sense in a way... I mean, it is a woman's fault we got kicked out of paradise.
3.) I know this is a little bit of a tangent, but I just feel the need to point out that a lot of people who are rescusitated nowadays would have been declared dead 2000 years ago. So it is entirely possible Jesus was declared dead when he was alive (they didn't know all the signs to look for, it's quite feasible) and then was revived through dumb luck. So hundreds of eye witnesses (assuming the number wasn't blown up) seeing him come back to life still isn't the most satisfying evidence.

[Walrus]

guys (OS and DFG) youre gonna be arguing a one sided battle since glam said she wasnt going to debate whether jesus was really the son of god and whatnot.

lets move back to the astrology, i liked that

[Office_Shredder]

You mean like, predicting stuff from the stars? What's the point of discussing that, I thought it died out hundreds of years ago.

And my points weren't part of a debate, I just needed to say something

[Northwind]

OK, I, like Cephas, cannot help but weigh in here. (Good to see you, by the way Ceph!)

I get uncomfortable with the whole “mine is the one true religion.” Isn’t that just more of the same old “my country is better than your country” nationalism. And isn’t it odd that so many of us end up believing the “one true religion” that we just happened to be taught as a youngster. The real kicker for me however, is the idea that “unless you believe what I believe, you are going to be tormented for eternity in Hell (or whatever).” Talk about strong-arm tactics! I can’t see how anything any of us does in our short life-time could possibly warrant an eternity (think about it, an eternity) of torture.

Maybe “religion” is really about the journey rather than the destination. Maybe religion is simply about seeking a path to something bigger than ourselves. Maybe all of our journeys ultimately end up in the same place. Maybe none of us really need to be “saved” from anything. Maybe we are all a part of God and God is part of us. (Check out any website on pantheism for more on this idea.)

Please do not read this as a dismissal of Christianity or any other specific religion. They all seem equally valid to me (OK – except for the “this is the only way to get to heaven, etc.” part). What if we stopped trying to limit God to only one way of perceiving, judging, being?

And, BTW, with this, I am again out of here for a while. Vaya con Dios!

[Walrus]

Originally posted by Office_Shredder
You mean like, predicting stuff from the stars? What's the point of discussing that, I thought it died out hundreds of years ago.

And my points weren't part of a debate, I just needed to say something


nah, read the rest of the thread. i asked if god controls the whole universe or just earth, and they said the whole universe.
they also said earthquakes happen on earth coz of mans sin, so i said why do other planets get earthquakes and crap.

then we started debated aliens. much better and deeper than this crap :P

[Office_Shredder]

I concur.

I think there is intelligent extraterrestial life somewhere in the universe, possibly somewhere in the galaxy. The reason we haven't seen it before? Because it takes time even for light to travel far distances... I mean, we've seen starts that supernovad ten billion years ago. And we haven't even traveled very far out of our solar system yet! What makes you think we'll have made contact with them by now?

[Cephas]

Originally posted by DeadFishGuy
If you believe Jesus was the son of god, you must have some sort of proof, with which you can prove us wrong.

Don't give me that crap about "faith".

In my oppinion, "faith" in this case is merely demanding acceptance dispite total lack of proof. If that's not it, then what precicely is it?



You say people saw Christ after he rose from the dead. How do you know? Did you use a time machin, go back and askthem yourself? If they passed it down through word of mouth, how do you know they weren't lying? How do you know this guy even died in the first place?
The Bible presents itself as a historical document. You're saying that we are accepting it on faith despite a 'total lack of proof'? Tell me how we have a TOTAL lack of proof, and perhaps I'll reconsider.

There are non-Biblical sources that attest to the life of Christ, as well as making mention of His resurrection.

[doubledown]

hear hear Northwind. The logical mind speaks up

[Office_Shredder]

I'm curious as to exactly what objective sources attest to the life of Christ

[Excaliber]

i agre you are all terrorists and should stay away from he usa lol

walrus i was in manhattan at about that time too but just for a day and i want to the statue of liberty and the empire state building but i didnt go to the wtc

walrus stay away for a little while ok lol

i second offices concur and i completely agree with cephas because he is absolutely right

[DeadFishGuy]

Originally posted by Walrus
DFG, i might not believe directly in what the bible says. however, if other people believe that there is a god, and that jesus was his son, then you should respect that belief.

People can believe what they want, I was just making a point. They're the same person, so what does it matter what they believe? I respect them, whatever religion. Here, I'm voicing my own opinions and beliefs. Not trying to deliberately offend anyone.

Originally posted by Cephas
The Bible presents itself as a historical document. You're saying that we are accepting it on faith despite a 'total lack of proof'? Tell me how we have a TOTAL lack of proof, and perhaps I'll reconsider.

There are non-Biblical sources that attest to the life of Christ, as well as making mention of His resurrection.

I would see these sources that you speak of.

If the bible was a historical document it would state proof of what it is telling. It doesn't.

The sources you speak of may report sightings of christ after his supposed death, but is there any proof the guy acually died in the first place?



Originally posted by Excaliber
i completely agree with cephas because he is absolutely right

Now that's just silly. Do you have any proof he's right? Have you seen the evidence yourself?

[Twelve]

Originally posted by Office_Shredder
I would just like to start my remark by asking: If Jesus is all powerful, can he microwave a burrito so hot that he cannot eat it?

Putting away Homer theology now, a bit more of a serious point:
1.) If we all need Christ's salvation no matter what we do, then what's the point of avoiding sinning? Doesn't that mean we should all just sin because we don't take the brunt of it either way?
2.) If Adam was made in the image of god, then doesn't that mean women are less holy then men? In fact, I guess that really means women are just like all the other animals, right? I guess that makes sense in a way... I mean, it is a woman's fault we got kicked out of paradise.
3.) I know this is a little bit of a tangent, but I just feel the need to point out that a lot of people who are rescusitated nowadays would have been declared dead 2000 years ago. So it is entirely possible Jesus was declared dead when he was alive (they didn't know all the signs to look for, it's quite feasible) and then was revived through dumb luck. So hundreds of eye witnesses (assuming the number wasn't blown up) seeing him come back to life still isn't the most satisfying evidence.

Let's see, all of the rest seem to be accurately answered except for this.

1. What's the poing of avoiding sinning? That's like asking what's the point of not setting someone on fire given the chance. You don't sin because it's WRONG.

2.Adam was not physically made in the image of God...this was never said in the Bible. He was made in God's image in the sense that he has a spirit, a mind, free will, compassion, etc. Eve also has these qualities.

3.My man, you doubt the preciseness of the Romans. When they killed somebody, the KILLED somebody. They were professional torturers. Before Christ was taken down that cross, he was most assuredly dead.

12

[DeadFishGuy]

Originally posted by Twelve
3.My man, you doubt the preciseness of the Romans. When they killed somebody, the KILLED somebody. They were professional torturers. Before Christ was taken down that cross, he was most assuredly dead.

12


There are cases of written sources being altered or biased depending on who was in power at the time.

These documents can easily have not said the truth, so the records of Christs death might have been false.

[Excaliber]

yes actually there is proof

go to any christian church and ask the minister


damn twelve is right again

[Medemia]

Wow, have to leave to go to work and all this happens? I have to skip work more often to keep up with this (although I am a pastor now at a church.)

First of all, let me point out a few thing I saw while reading to update.

1) Faith: I have heard the "don't give me that faith crap" before. When it comes to Christianity, that is all that you have. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Without faith it is impossible to please God. We take, by faith, that the Bible is the perfect word of God, without error, divinely inspired and breathed by God, written by 40 men over 1500 years, yet without error or contridiction. We have faith that God is. We have faith that Jesus is the only son of God and through him is the only way to the Father because he said so ("I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6) Faith is the purest defense of Christianity. You cannot have one without the other.

2) Why strive to be perfect and avoid sin?

Rom 6:1-4
6:1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
NIV


3) Christianity vs. Religion
I have heard the arguement that as long as you are sincere in your persuit of God, he will accept you anyway you come. We have to be tolerant of all ways. As quoted above though, Jesus was not tolerant. He said he was the only way. By taking what he says as true, by faith, I must concur with him that God will not accept other ways to Himself.

4) Jesus was still alive in the tomb
What this is saying is that when Jesus was crucified, stabbed in the side with a spear that pierced his heart, wrapped in burial clothes, placed in a tomb with only one exit that was covered with a boulder that was several tons which was guarded by 16 Roman soldiers, that he woke up on Sunday morning, revived, unwrapped himself, moved a several ton stone, defeated the Roman guards by himself without any clothes or weapons and walked away alive. That is more of a miracle to me than if he was resurrected.

5) Jesus appeared to several hundred people after his resurrection:

1 Cor 15:3-8
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
NIV

As Cephas said, we take the Bible as a historical document, as it presents itself, as well as a religious document. It says Jesus resurrected and appeared to over 500 people. I believe it.

To refute a point before it comes up though, could the disciples have stolen the body?

Look at the 11 disciples (Judas was dead). When Jesus was arrested, all of them ran away scared. You are saying that they suddenly developed the courage 2 days after their leader was killed by crucifixion to take on the Roman guard at his tomb? Not only that, but 10 of the 11 were willing to die horrific deaths for something they made up? John, the only to die a natural death, was boiled in oil twice (only to live through it miraculously) and sent to exile on a prision island for something he would have been one of the insiders of, being one of Jesus' closest disciples?

[DeadFishGuy]

Originally posted by Excaliber
yes actually there is proof

go to any christian church and ask the minister


Does he have proof?

[Excaliber]

dfg way back when all people did was worship they read hose documents and lived by them that became there culture thos peoples culture is proof the history of those peoples culture says they taught and lived by those documents that was way back before anyone ever thought of changing the bible and o ther religions document things like the crusifiction there is only too much proof

[Office_Shredder]

1. Who cares if it's wrong? it doesn't hurt me... only Jesus
2. True
3. Crucification is a slow death.... it's not that unlikely someone might have been brought down alive but unconcious

[Twelve]

Originally posted by DeadFishGuy
There are cases of written sources being altered or biased depending on who was in power at the time.

These documents can easily have not said the truth, so the records of Christs death might have been false.

The record of Christ's death and ressurection were written by four different people who wrote about it without being influenced by one another. Some details are in some that are not the other, while sometimes they describe the same thing, like in any eye-witness account.

ALL history could have been altered and biased, friend. You choose to believe what you wish. :)

12

[Excaliber]

but anyway ill just leave this to 12 medemia and those people who can explain it more than ican and who can type faster

[Twelve]

Originally posted by Office_Shredder
1. Who cares if it's wrong? it doesn't hurt me... only Jesus
2. True
3. Crucification is a slow death.... it's not that unlikely someone might have been brought down alive but unconcious

1.Who cares if it's wrong? Don't play that. Even you have morals. Even you believe that some things just aren't right.

3.Once again, you need to really take some time to study something about the Romans. You seem to have the impression that these guys were a bunch of n00bs.


12

[DeadFishGuy]

Originally posted by Excaliber
dfg way back when all people did was worship they read hose documents and lived by them that became there culture thos peoples culture is proof

The Romans worshipped all those gods. That was a culture. Does that mean the Roman Gods exist and they are our rulers?


Originally posted by Twelve
ALL history could have been altered and biased, friend. You choose to believe what you wish.

I do. I choose to believe that all this God stuff is utter rubbish. But I try not to offend people when I express it.

[Office_Shredder]

1. So the only reason I shouldn't sin is because I think it's wrong? And everyone wonders why so many people go around commiting crimes.... I know I have morals, but a lot of people don't.

3. I don't think they're noobs, I think they may have screwed up on one guy. Who knows, maybe they were even sympathetic enough to him (according to some sources, Pilate gave the people a choice as to who would die... maybe he decided Jesus should live?) to let him down early... I don't claim to know what went on, but you have to admit there is reasonable doubt... and besides, maybe one of Jesus' supporters let him down before he died. There are plenty of scenarios that could have happened where Jesus doesn't die on the cross.

[Twelve]

Originally posted by DeadFishGuy

I do. I choose to believe that all this God stuff is utter rubbish. But I try not to offend people when I express it.

You call a religion that is utmost important to millions of people from all cultures and on all continents "God stuff" and "utter rubbish" yet you also claim that you dont' wish to "offend people".

Take a step back.


12

[Office_Shredder]

Yeah, you've got him on that point Twelve.

[Twelve]

Originally posted by Office_Shredder
1. So the only reason I shouldn't sin is because I think it's wrong? And everyone wonders why so many people go around commiting crimes.... I know I have morals, but a lot of people don't.

3. I don't think they're noobs, I think they may have screwed up on one guy. Who knows, maybe they were even sympathetic enough to him (according to some sources, Pilate gave the people a choice as to who would die... maybe he decided Jesus should live?) to let him down early... I don't claim to know what went on, but you have to admit there is reasonable doubt... and besides, maybe one of Jesus' supporters let him down before he died. There are plenty of scenarios that could have happened where Jesus doesn't die on the cross.

1.I'm not sure if you're making a point here or conceding...but I'll see if I can follow you. Once people start to try to convince themselves that there is no right or wrong, they do whatever they please for their own self-pleasure. This leads to chaos and human misery. If you ever want a reason as to why Christ died, it's for that reason. Once you follow the logic of "we should all just sin anyways", then you just head towards the path of destruction. Ask the Romans.

3. a.Dude, we can make up fantasies or we can believe the records. Pilate clearly decided before thousands of people that Jesus should die.
b. To say that the Romans don't know how to kill a man is like saying Kobe Bryant can't make a jumpshot. All day. In other words, it DID happen.
c. There are plenty of "could haves" that you can throw about, but history is history. Not historical fiction.


12

[Glamdring]

crucifixion is a slow death. But Jesus was already 80% dead when he got up there. There have been studies that showed that it was physically impossibly for Christ to have been alive when he was taken off the cross.

When they took the bodies down, they broke the legs of the other two. Most people assume this was to make sure they were dead, but it was actually what killed them. When crucified, you can only breath by standing on the block your feet are nailed to. When the legs are broken, you suffocate.

"But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Insted, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water." John 19:33-34

Other sources are more descriptive about blood, puss, and water flowing from the wound. His body had to have actually been into the process of decomposition in order for that to happen.

Sorry to be graphic, it was only for the purpose of the discussion.

If the bible was a historical document it would state proof of what it is telling. It doesn't.

Technically, your history text-book doesn't offer any "proof" other than its own word. The bible has the backing of hundreds of historical documents.

[Walrus]

pilate himself didnt decide, he gave the choice to the people. it was either jesus or a dude called zach-something.
though i read somewhere that apparently jesuses full name had the zach-something as one of his names. and that the crowd chanting zach-something could have actually meant jesus not the actual zach-something guy. thats pretty doubtable though.

[Twelve]

Originally posted by Walrus
pilate himself didnt decide, he gave the choice to the people. it was either jesus or a dude called zach-something.
though i read somewhere that apparently jesuses full name had the zach-something as one of his names. and that the crowd chanting zach-something could have actually meant jesus not the actual zach-something guy. thats pretty doubtable though.

Pilate decided to give the choice to the people. It was his responsibility as leader.

The other man's name was "Barabbas"...not zach nothin'.

Jesus' name would have been pronounced as you say "Joshua"...or "Jeshua".

No confusion there unless you have hearing problems.

12

[Walrus]

i know i heard it somewhere, and by somewhere i mean somewhere that isnt going to tell porky pies.

it may have been that jesus had become nicknamed as zach-something amongst certain groups of people.

but i guarantee to you, i heard it somewhere.


actually i think it was on a documentary of christs life on the TV...not that i watch that sorta stuff

[DeadFishGuy]

Originally posted by Twelve
You call a religion that is utmost important to millions of people from all cultures and on all continents "God stuff" and "utter rubbish" yet you also claim that you dont' wish to "offend people".

Take a step back.


Not quite.

By "God Stuff" I meant the idea of a supreme, omnipotent being controlling every aspect of our lives, the weather, earthquakes and volcanoes and the like (which have been proved to be caused by naturally occuring events) and everything that happens on this planet.

The idea sounds ridiculous to me.

[Office_Shredder]

I won't simply accept the fact that historical sources say Jesus was resurrected. I'm sorry, but the historical sources I've seen referenced here that say Jesus was resurrected all seem to have something in common... they're based around the fact that he is the son of god. So they kind of have a bias in making him resurrected (not that I'm saying the Bible is full of lies, I'm just stating that people do tend to lean one way or the other). The thing about Pilate or some other official changing the decision comes from the fact that in one of the gospels (or more? I'm not sure) it states that Pilate didn't want to make the decision, and let the crowds choose for it. And when I said one of his own followers took him down prematurely, do you think everyone just sat twiddling their thumbs while their god died? Probably not... I can imagine a riot or espionage to free him.... especially if people thought he was dead when he fell unconcious, a riot would seem likely

The point that I'm trying to make about morals is that if Jesus is willing to take the flack for all the sinning, then everyone who doesn't care about hurting other people are able to go willy nilly and blow up the world... so it's kind of a stupid system. *shrug* I'm not really sure if I'm arguing for or against Christ with this one, I'm just saying it really seems weird to me. Especially when people who were given a limited (biased) education are doing what they THINK is the right thing to do when it's really, really, really wrong

[Twelve]

Originally posted by Office_Shredder
I won't simply accept the fact that historical sources say Jesus was resurrected. I'm sorry, but the historical sources I've seen referenced here that say Jesus was resurrected all seem to have something in common... they're based around the fact that he is the son of god. So they kind of have a bias in making him resurrected (not that I'm saying the Bible is full of lies, I'm just stating that people do tend to lean one way or the other). The thing about Pilate or some other official changing the decision comes from the fact that in one of the gospels (or more? I'm not sure) it states that Pilate didn't want to make the decision, and let the crowds choose for it. And when I said one of his own followers took him down prematurely, do you think everyone just sat twiddling their thumbs while their god died? Probably not... I can imagine a riot or espionage to free him.... especially if people thought he was dead when he fell unconcious, a riot would seem likely

The point that I'm trying to make about morals is that if Jesus is willing to take the flack for all the sinning, then everyone who doesn't care about hurting other people are able to go willy nilly and blow up the world... so it's kind of a stupid system. *shrug* I'm not really sure if I'm arguing for or against Christ with this one, I'm just saying it really seems weird to me. Especially when people who were given a limited (biased) education are doing what they THINK is the right thing to do when it's really, really, really wrong

1. Fact is, the ONLY records we have of Christ's death and ressurection time period are from these four writers. Once again, it's a matter of if you believe it or not. I'm not here trying to force you to believe anything...I'm just here saying that it's historical documentation just like any other. The hitch for many is the miraculous aspects of it. It just comes down to a choice.

In these records, there are no stories of riots, espionage, or whatever. Sure, we can make up stuff...and plenty of other things DID happen...but it's not written down.

It's funny...we make up all of these crazy, miraculous ideas to get around the crazy, miraculous things written. Sheesh...just accept one crazy, miraculous story without trying to make up more on your own. ;)

2. Jesus takes the flack for all sins once a person tries his best to stop sinning. That only applies to the repentent, not just any bloke under the sun.

12

Edit: *yawn*, well, that was fun. Time to go play some TAO. Peace!!!

[Office_Shredder]

Ah, didn't know about the 2. part. So I'll just repent right before I die ^_^

Ok, I'll stop arguing about whether there were riots or not... it seems likely to me, and like I said, I view the sources as biased.... but no point in trading snippets over something we're not going to resolve

[Glamdring]

Originally posted by Office_Shredder
1. So the only reason I shouldn't sin is because I think it's wrong? And everyone wonders why so many people go around commiting crimes.... I know I have morals, but a lot of people don't.


Believing in Christ is more than just words. When you accept his sacrifice, you commit your life to building a relationship with him. Part of that relationship is knowing and obeying his commands on your life. That means trying your best not to sin, among other things.

The thing about theological discussions like this is that none of us are ever going to convince the other side that we're right by offering "proof." Either you are willing to believe it or you're not.

I believe it because I've seen things that would make people say "you're making that up."

My mom was speaking in tongues once, and her co-worker, who is fluent in many languages including Latin, walked by and said "I didn't know you spoke Latin too." She doesn't, and never has.

She has prophecied the birth of a boy and a girl to barren couple. When the doctors discovered that he couldn't ever have kids, they adopted a boy. Within a year, they gave birth to a baby boy, and soon afterward a baby girl.

My dad has met people for the first time and known things about them that he had no reason to know. He shook hands with one man and said, "so you're from Indiana too." The man said, "how did you know that?" "God just told me."

Once at a meeting, my dad felt that God might be telling him he should change his name, but was a little skeptical. Then a woman behind him tapped on his shoulder and said, "I'm sorry to bother you, but I think God's telling me you need to change your name."

One day about a year ago, I was having a lot of car trouble, and I barely had enough money to fix it. I spent almost every cent I had on it, and then felt God telling me to give the rest to tithe, and put my faith in him in a tangible way. I almost told him to go shove it, but I didn't. I gave up my own will, and did what I felt he was telling me to do. Within the next 2 days, I got about $1000 from 4 different unexpected sources, more money than I had ever been given at one time.

No, it's not "proof." There will always be an argument against faith for anyone who doesn't want to believe in it. But for me, it's more convincing than anything else. People often say science is the opposite of Christianity, but there is as much ambivalence in science as in anything else. It can be used to support the Christian view as easily as it denies it. Personally, I think science is not yet enough of a science.

[Office_Shredder]

How is science not enough of a science?

[Glamdring]

It's not exact enough. There's too much room for interpretation, and too much of people deciding that this proves that without thinking too hard about what else it could mean.

[Office_Shredder]

It seems pretty rigorous to me... can you give some examples? Obviously there are going to be hitches in the road, but over the long run science seems to have a pretty strong track record

[Walrus]

Originally posted by Glamdring
Believing in Christ is more than just words. When you accept his sacrifice, you commit your life to building a relationship with him. Part of that relationship is knowing and obeying his commands on your life. That means trying your best not to sin, among other things.

The thing about theological discussions like this is that none of us are ever going to convince the other side that we're right by offering "proof." Either you are willing to believe it or you're not.

I believe it because I've seen things that would make people say "you're making that up."

My mom was speaking in tongues once, and her co-worker, who is fluent in many languages including Latin, walked by and said "I didn't know you spoke Latin too." She doesn't, and never has.

She has prophecied the birth of a boy and a girl to barren couple. When the doctors discovered that he couldn't ever have kids, they adopted a boy. Within a year, they gave birth to a baby boy, and soon afterward a baby girl.

My dad has met people for the first time and known things about them that he had no reason to know. He shook hands with one man and said, "so you're from Indiana too." The man said, "how did you know that?" "God just told me."

Once at a meeting, my dad felt that God might be telling him he should change his name, but was a little skeptical. Then a woman behind him tapped on his shoulder and said, "I'm sorry to bother you, but I think God's telling me you need to change your name."

One day about a year ago, I was having a lot of car trouble, and I barely had enough money to fix it. I spent almost every cent I had on it, and then felt God telling me to give the rest to tithe, and put my faith in him in a tangible way. I almost told him to go shove it, but I didn't. I gave up my own will, and did what I felt he was telling me to do. Within the next 2 days, I got about $1000 from 4 different unexpected sources, more money than I had ever been given at one time.

No, it's not "proof." There will always be an argument against faith for anyone who doesn't want to believe in it. But for me, it's more convincing than anything else. People often say science is the opposite of Christianity, but there is as much ambivalence in science as in anything else. It can be used to support the Christian view as easily as it denies it. Personally, I think science is not yet enough of a science.


your making that up :p




damn i wish god would talk to me sometimes. sure id do what he says if he ever talked to me.
hell i might even become a proper christian if something comes of it...

[SlipknotiCX]

I wanted to comment on this whole discussion.....but I simply cannot put it into words what I want to explain LoL. So i'll just say....great discussion!

[Medemia]

Alright, it's time for Bible Stories with Medemia. The part of the thread where Medemia comes out and shares a Bible Story.

If you are squimish, not over 13 or cannot handle blood and guts, please skip this post.

Let me explain some about the death of Jesus and see if it was possible to fake these things.

Jesus was whipped with a cat-of-nine-tails 39 times. The Cat-of-Nine-Tails whip was a leather strap that was torn into 9 sections at the end. Each tip was imbedded with glass, rocks and peices of metal. This usually was enough to kill a man. Each time the whip would hit, it would dig into the victims' back, ripping away flesh and muscles. By the time Jesus was done with the whipping, you would be able to see his ribs and internal organs.

He had a crown of thorns crammed onto his head. They placed a purple robe on his back. What is so bad about this? Have you ever put a piece of cloth on an open wound and let the blood dry on it, then pulled it off? What happened? 1. Emmense pain. 2. the wound reopened. With them putting the purple robe on him and then later ripping it off, they re-opened all the wounds from the whipping.

He had his facial hair pulled out by hand. He was hardly recognizable as human.

He then had to carry his own cross. This was not a bolsa wood cross, but a heavy chunk of wood.

When he finally reached Golgotha with the help of Simone of Cyrene, he had nails driven through his wrists and through his feet and lifted up into the air nailed to a cross. He had been awake now for over 30 hours. As Glam said, you did not bleed to death of a cross, you sufficated. To take a breath on a cross, you had to push yourself up with your legs to allow your lungs to expand enough to take in air. The position the arms were in did not allow them to be used.

During this entire ordeal, Jesus had men, women and children who just 6 days before were ready to crown him the King of the Jews now yelling for him to die. Not only was he physically exhausted, but mentally assaulted.

With a loud yell, Jesus yielded his spirit to God and died. He was so dead, in fact, that when the soldiers came to break his legs (this was a way to quicken the death from suffication since they would no longer be able to push themselves up to breath), they did not bother, instead using a spear to pierce him right below the rib cage on the right hand side. The spear went in and also pierced his heart, as evident through blood and water flowing from the wound.

Pilate, when asked by Joseph of Arimathia to be allowed to take down the body, was surprised at how quickly he had died, but allowed it. Do you believe with the political pressure he had received fromt he Jews about not being loyal to Caesar if he allowed Jesus to live, he would let any chance that Jesus was still alive to pass? Jesus was placed in the tomb, had a huge boulder placed in front of the tomb to seal it, had Pilate's seal chanrging that if anyone opened the tomb they would be punished by death themselves and then placed a Roman guard in front of the tomb.

A Roman guard consisted of 16 men who took 4 shifts during the night so that 4 men were up at all times. They slept with one soldier on each corner of the tomb so no one could sneak by. The punishment of a soldier falling asleep on his watch was death.

Having not slept the last 36 hours of his life, having not eaten at all for the last 38 hours (with his last meal being unleavened bread and wine), again, he must have mustered incredible strength not only to wake up, but then unwrap himself, move the boulder, beat 16 Roman soldiers armed to the teeth wearing only what God graced him with upon his birth when he couldn't even carry his own cross anymore up the hill?

[Office_Shredder]

Of course, if, like I said, he didn't free himself but someone else did, he wouldn't have had to do all that;)

[Walrus]

and his last words were "my god, my god, why have you forsaken me?"


forsaken? hmmmm....


and surely if god was his father, he would be saying father why have you forsaken me?


hmmmmm...

[thrdflrmshr]

There's a lot in this thread, and most of it has moved off topic.

The thing is, I just have trouble applying a totally different set of constraints to religion than to anything else. I tend to analyze everything logically, but when it comes to religion, I am so surprised to see people that normally exhibit similar characteristics throw proof to the wind and accept.

If I had a history book written by four people two thousand years ago, I most definitely would not trust it. Heck, I don't trust current history books!

There is a lot to say on this topic, but the end result will be the same whether I stay quiet or not.

Great discussion, though!

[Office_Shredder]

no, don't be quiet! loud loud loud! loud loud loud!

[doubledown]

Third just hit on it right there, history is written by the victor. In this case the victor being the Christians because they have outlasted the Romans. You dont see a legionare hanging around the mall now do you. The fact is the Romans could have been the nicest people on the earth and everyone is lying about them through the literature. I dont think this is true, I'm sure the Romans were as ruthless as described, but certain facts can be twisted whatever way a person wants if there is no longer any Romans to challege that view. Maybe the Romans did put a man named Jesus on the cross, and maybe that man died and was put in a tomb, but how do you know for sure?

My view is that there was a man named Jesus, and that he did probably did create a cult that preached a radically different version of Christianity than was around in that day. There is a theory that Jesus did have a mother named Mary and that she gave birth in a manger in Bethlaham.....but that the father of the child was a Roman guard that raped her. She being to ashamed to tell her husband, told him that the child had no earthen father and was from "god" From a pure logical perspective, this makes alot more sense.

[Office_Shredder]

a radically different version of Christianity

well, I'm not sure if that's possible... seeing how Christianity wasn't around....;)

[doubledown]

alright, bad phrasing of words. A radically different way of looking at judaism then.

[Glamdring]

Originally posted by Walrus
and his last words were "my god, my god, why have you forsaken me?"


forsaken? hmmmm....


and surely if god was his father, he would be saying father why have you forsaken me?


hmmmmm...

Part of the sacrifice was not just his death, but the fact that he was separated from God at the moment of his death.

[Walrus]

dont quite follow u there

[thrdflrmshr]

I'm just skeptical, and if experience has shown me anything, I can't change anyone's opinion.

[xyxaxyz2]

Lots of stuff in this thread. Reading over it, there is way more I don't like than I have the time to write about. So I'll just say two things.

Walrus- You're asking scientific questions about religion. You can't do that. Science doesn't need religion for it's understanding of the universe. Science doesn't assume God.

Medemia- You can't prove Christianity as true by using the Bible as a history book. Obviously, if the bible is true Christianity is true (though a christianity very different than the ones practiced by most people today). And for a man who supposedly did so many miraculous things, there is remarkably little(0) writing about Jesus from his own time; it is very probably he never existed in any form besides the imagination of the early Christians.

[Walrus]

did u really need experience to know that? now i on the other hand, am capable of changing peoples opinions with the snap of a finger....one of their fingers. as i snap it off when i bite it. yum.

hah, and i bet you were all expecting some false bravado after the whole "i can change peoples opinions" part. tools!

that lot was at thrd, not xyx.



as for xyx, i dont think that many of my questions were too science related other than the idea of life on other planets. and thats no worse than the religious assumption that the bible isnt just made up...or something.
anyway i thought they fitted together quite well

[thrdflrmshr]

Science and religion have never fit together very well. It's hard because they are both trying to account for the same things using totally different methods, if you want to call blindness a method.

[Walrus]

i know, i was just saying that the religious answers and scientific questions in this particular debate didnt seem to cause any major discrepensies (sp?)

[xyxaxyz2]

does god watch over all the planets of the universe, or just earth? and if just earth, surely by looking at other planets we could find some kinda difference which could be used to find out exactly what god is.

This is what I mean. And all your questions on this thread were like this, pretty much. You can't ask this and expect any reasonable answer, since a scientist won't assume god and a theist won't accept scientific methods of analyzing god.

[Walrus]

but i did seem to get fairly reasonable answers is what im saying. i know science and religion are completely different concepts, but most of pages 1-3 of this debate were fueled by scientific questions with religious responses, of course they cant gel perfectly, but i was surprised at how much the bible tried to account for

[Office_Shredder]

Of course, the fact that god can just say "do A" and A is done accounts for a lot also...

[Walrus]

i think if god could "just say" something there would be a lot less confusion as to whether he exists or not :(

[Office_Shredder]

Yeah... that was part of my point...

[Glamdring]

There's nothing wrong with scientific method. Some things just can't be explained with science.

And how are you to know God *can't* "just say" something. Just because he doesn't.

You can kill someone. Just because you don't doesn't mean you can't. You choose not to.

[Walrus]

pish posh, point schmoint.

[Office_Shredder]

There's nothing that won't eventually be explained by science. Religion is just a quick fix for the bigger questions out there

[thrdflrmshr]

Originally posted by Office_Shredder
Of course, the fact that god can just say "do A" and A is done accounts for a lot also...
It doesn't account for anything if you can't prove God said A in the first place.

[Medemia]

Which brings us back to faith.

In my personal experience, God does not prove to you he is real until you already believe that he is real. Once you have the faith that God is at work around you, you begin to see where he is. It's a strange circle. Have faith, God strenthens your faith so you can exercise your faith to which God strenthens it more.

The first step is faith. The rest are God's steps.

[thrdflrmshr]

Originally posted by Glamdring
There's nothing wrong with scientific method. Some things just can't be explained with science.
It'd be great if you could give an example.

[xyxaxyz2]

Originally posted by Walrus
but i did seem to get fairly reasonable answers is what im saying. i know science and religion are completely different concepts, but most of pages 1-3 of this debate were fueled by scientific questions with religious responses, of course they cant gel perfectly, but i was surprised at how much the bible tried to account for

For one thing, the bible doesn't account for it, Christian interperters of the bible do. And its not only that science and religion don't mix; its that your questions assume that both exist truthfully.

[Office_Shredder]

Well, there's the fact that god created man... how does the scientific method explain that? huh? punk.... :D

[xyxaxyz2]

Originally posted by Glamdring
Some things just can't be explained with science..

What?

[thrdflrmshr]

Originally posted by Office_Shredder
Well, there's the fact that god created man... how does the scientific method explain that? huh? punk.... :D
You can't prove it either way, so that's not a valid point, although I see much more evidence of a evolutionary path than a Poof! You're there! sort of creation.

[Office_Shredder]

I think we're all looking for an explanation for that quote glamdring

[Twelve]

*12 comes back from kicking people's behinds in Legends...and lo! There are still arguments to refute!!*

Dang, you guys still here?

Doubledown--Nice story you got there, especially the second part. I get a kick out of seeing folks make up other miracles to deny the ones writzen.

As for your idea of "history being written by the winners"...every book of the New Testament was written during the height of the Roman Empire. As a matter of fact, Christianity was the serious loser during those time periods.

I don't know why you have a problem with Rome...the culture of the Romans is one of the most glorified cultures in history. If anything, we don't see them as BAD as we should.

Walrus--Yep, God forsake his own son. Totally. Nasty, but true. And for a good reason. But don't worry, it's all got a happy ending.

Third--Science and religion don't fit well together? Only in the last century has there ever been a seperation of the two, and even now there are many intelligent scientists who also follow religions.

12

[xyxaxyz2]

Originally posted by Medemia
Which brings us back to faith.

In my personal experience, God does not prove to you he is real until you already believe that he is real. Once you have the faith that God is at work around you, you begin to see where he is. It's a strange circle. Have faith, God strenthens your faith so you can exercise your faith to which God strenthens it more.

The first step is faith. The rest are God's steps.

In other words...if you believe strongly enough in God, you will believe strongly in God.

[Walrus]

damn how quickly are people posting on this thread.


xyx, i agree with you that science and religion dont tend to mix, as a rule. but if you just look over the thread we found quite a reasonable discussion about it, incorperating both of them.

and for that to work, you have to assume both are true...its only then that you begin to see flaws in one concept or the other

[Office_Shredder]

If you assume they're true, then you can't find flaws in them... only by approaching something withe skepticsm will you find the flaws.

[Walrus]

just to be blunt im both tired and bored of this thread now, it was good when there was actually a discussion going on, but now it appears to have become far less deep or significant.

[thrdflrmshr]

Originally posted by Twelve
Third--Science and religion don't fit well together? Only in the last century has there ever been a seperation of the two, and even now there are many intelligent scientists who also follow religions.
I should clarify. I meant that Christianity (especially Catholicism) is not so appreciative of science. Also, this has been happening for a lot more than a century.

Da Vinci, Gallileo, Copernicus?

[Glamdring]

Originally posted by thrdflrmshr
It'd be great if you could give an example.

*points to earlier statements about her parents*

Those are small examples, and only the ones that I have personally witnessed. A friend of my sister's in-laws is a pastor in a church where people's tooth fillings started turning to gold. Each time it happened, they went to the dentist who did the original work so that they could confirm that the original fillings were not gold, and that the new ones were. People watched lead turn to gold with their own eyes.

I was not one of them, so this is just a story as far as you guys are concerned. I believe it, but you have no reason to. I'm just saying, there are a lot of stories out there that science doesn't really have any answer for.

[thrdflrmshr]

If someone's fillings are turning to gold, they would have had a lot more publicity. People have been trying to do that thousands of years, and I find it hard to believe that a solution as simple as using saliva as a catalyst could solve it.

As for the other examples, I'm not sure what to make of them. The state you're from? Name changes? I'm failing to see the connection between God and these things.

[Office_Shredder]

How about instead of personal stories (which could very easily been coincidences, how many times has god talked to you without anything happening? And are there any news articles or anything about the fillings? I would think it would be a bit bigger of a story....) you give us something WE can use as an example?

[Twelve]

Originally posted by thrdflrmshr
I should clarify. I meant that Christianity (especially Catholicism) is not so appreciative of science. Also, this has been happening for a lot more than a century.

Da Vinci, Gallileo, Copernicus?

Well, Catholicism is something else...and I never make the mistake of making that one sect all of Christianity. The Catholic church did indeed do some nasty things in the past...but those they persecuted were mostly always believers of God themselves. There was no contradiction for them.

When it comes to science and religion, I won't go as far as Glamdring is going when she describes the miracles she's apparently seen. She's speaking of a certain kind of direction that I cannot follow, since even I have my doubts in those regards(regarding amazing signs and wonders in today's age) But even Glam and I both don't deny the core truths in the Scriptures.

12

[xyxaxyz2]

Only in the last century has there ever been a seperation of the two

Only since science has been most effective. Though, pre-Christianity there was a lot more seperation as well, when the basics of intellegent Western civilization were being built in Greece, etc. And just because a scientist follows a religion doesn't mean he allows it to influence his work.

Glamdring:

Tthere are a few reasons I'm suspcious of your stories; but in any case, people from most religions have these type of stories. If your stories are evidence of Christianity, then all the similar situations I've heard from Muslims, Jews, and an Eastern religion I forget right now (not to mention UFO's, etc) are equal evidence.

[thrdflrmshr]

Originally posted by Twelve
Well, Catholicism is something else...and I never make the mistake of making that one sect all of Christianity. The Catholic church did indeed do some nasty things in the past...but those they persecuted were mostly always believers of God themselves. There was no contradiction for them.

When it comes to science and religion, I won't go as far as Glamdring is going when she describes the miracles she's apparently seen. She's speaking of a certain kind of direction that I cannot follow, since even I have my doubts in those regards(regarding amazing signs and wonders in today's age) But even Glam and I both don't deny the core truths in the Scriptures.

12
Well, don't forget that Catholicism was all of Christianity for a hefty chunk of time. And yes, they did some very nasty things. So did some early Protestants. I'm not debating the past actions of Christianity. Shit happens you know, and now it's over. What I am saying is that science and religion have never really been intertwined. Actually, they have been intertwined, but not in the sense that they worked together. They were closely related, but not to achieve a common goal.

[Office_Shredder]

I think third floor hit the nail on the head there. Basically, science and religion both try to explain the world around us, but in different ways. Of course, the Catholic Church supported science until it started proving the Church wasn't right.... then things got nasty

[Twelve]

Originally posted by xyxaxyz2
Only since science has been most effective. Though, pre-Christianity there was a lot more seperation as well, when the basics of intellegent Western civilization were being built in Greece, etc. And just because a scientist follows a religion doesn't mean he allows it to influence his work.



"Only since science has been most effective"?? That's an extremely relative thing to say. Science has always been effective for the time in which it was being used. Except for that span of time called the Dark Ages, there has always been an advancement in the world of science, and I would say that greater discoveries have been made in the past then now.

I mean, sheesh, you think in 2000 years people will look at our time and think we were amazing scientifically compared to them? There will be surely be someone in the future who will look back and our time and say "only now has science become effective".

12

[Twelve]

Originally posted by thrdflrmshr
Well, don't forget that Catholicism was all of Christianity for a hefty chunk of time..

Wrong. It was the most powerful and influential church for a very long time, more like a big business actually, but Catholicism was never, is not, and will never be equivolant to Christianity.

12

[Office_Shredder]

Actually, I think that by science being effective we mean that science is capable of rigorously proving that which is hypothesized, or rigorously disproving it. 600 years ago most of science was just theories and teachings of the church. Science basically started with the scientific method, and took off flying from there

[thrdflrmshr]

Originally posted by Twelve
Wrong. It was the most powerful and influential church for a very long time, more like a big business actually, but Catholicism was never, is not, and will never be equivolant to Christianity.

12
I'll admit that I am hazy on the beginnings of the Catholic church, but all the Christendom and papal polity and other mixings of religion and ruling all indicate that it was extremely dominant. Protestants didn't split from the Church until much later.

By the way, I agree that Catholicism is not Christianity. I just think it was considered Christianity for a very long time.

[xyxaxyz2]

Twelve: To oversimplify (but while retaining a strong element of truth), Rome converted to Christianity, fell, science was at a pretty much standstill for a 1000 years, a bunch of intellegent people rejected complete religious authority for pre-christian classical thought, science returned to advance as it hadn't before since Rome fell.

[Twelve]

Office--I don't follow your interpretation of science. We have more mysteries and unknowns now then EVER before, and that's because the more we know, the more we don't know.


Third--Yeah, your information on the Catholic church may be a bit hazy because I don't think you know about the Orthodox church that came long before the Protestant one.

To say that Catholicism WAS Christianity at one time(an idea I find totally false) is like saying that Microsoft IS computer software. It sure might look that way because of the popularity, but look closer and you'll see that there were always other things going on seperate from the "big boy" from the very start.

12

[Office_Shredder]

Twelve, what is there to not know about my interpretation of science? We actually don't have that many mysteries, since all of them are really, really, really small

[Twelve]

Originally posted by xyxaxyz2
Twelve: To oversimplify (but while retaining a strong element of truth), Rome converted to Christianity, fell, science was at a pretty much standstill for a 1000 years, a bunch of intellegent people rejected complete religious authority for pre-christian classical thought, science returned to advance as it hadn't before since Rome fell.

When Rome "converted" to Christianity, it was already on a downward spiral that science didn't cure. To blame the dark ages that happened afterwards while forgetting the barbarian hordes that ransacked the continent seems a bit biased. Whatever science is, it has advanced merely on the shoulders of scientists who kept working, and many of these scientists were Christians. Even now, the idea that science and religion are contrary is disproven over and over...both are quite compatible.

It's the preachers that want to seperate Christianity from Science.

It's the scientists who want to seperate Science from Christianity.

Two extremes sides wanting to be more extreme, when it's possible to have both.

12

[Twelve]

Originally posted by Office_Shredder
Twelve, what is there to not know about my interpretation of science? We actually don't have that many mysteries, since all of them are really, really, really small

Really small? How about HUGE mystery of how matter came out of nothing at the beginning of time?

Did you know that only in the last 10 years we've been able to figure ANYTHING significant out about the sun?

Nobody has been to the middle of the earth...nobody knows what's there.

The idea of evolution is being challenged now more than ever before.

The nature of light is still misunderstood. Is light a wave or a particle? Or both?

Read National Geographic, Office...I think I got those all from one issue. :)

12

[Office_Shredder]

so "scientists" are extremists now? No... they simply want to know the truth through rigorous hypothesizing and testing... it's simply that the truth they find isn't exactly the truth that christianity espouses.

And a lot of scientists are christians, yes. But what did you expect, no christian scientists in a world where it's the dominant faith in most major countries? It doesn't mean they're devoutly religious to the point of believing god created man and all that other biblical stuff

[Twelve]

Originally posted by Office_Shredder
so "scientists" are extremists now? No... they simply want to know the truth through rigorous hypothesizing and testing... it's simply that the truth they find isn't exactly the truth that christianity espouses.

And a lot of scientists are christians, yes. But what did you expect, no christian scientists in a world where it's the dominant faith in most major countries? It doesn't mean they're devoutly religious to the point of believing god created man and all that other biblical stuff

1. Scientists want the truth. Preachers want the truth. One day, they'll realize that the truth is one and the same.

2. You ever hear of the Creationist vs. Evolutionist debate that is currently raging in the rhealm of science? Creationists are those that do believe that God created man, yet are scientists just like any other.

12

[Office_Shredder]

Originally posted by Twelve
Really small? How about HUGE mystery of how matter came out of nothing at the beginning of time?

Did you know that only in the last 10 years we've been able to figure ANYTHING significant out about the sun?

Nobody has been to the middle of the earth...nobody knows what's there.

The idea of evolution is being challenged now more than ever before.

The nature of light is still misunderstood. Is light a wave or a particle? Or both?

Read National Geographic, Office...I think I got those all from one issue. :)

12
Sorry about the double post.... but I need to.
Matter came into the universe at the beginning from the big bang, which scientists now conjecture had an equal amount of antimatter. Why a little bit of matter survived the ensuing collisions and disintegrations is still a mystery, but you can't expect us to have the whole universe wrapped up, can you?

We know what's in the middle of the earth by measuring earthquake waves being refracted.... come on, this is basic geology.

Ummm... learning we go around the sun, not the other way around, is pretty major in my book

Evolution is only being challenged by people who believe it's wrong because their religion says it's wrong... in fact, according to my bio teacher (who is an expert on this kind of stuff, PhD and all that crap... my school is crazy on the PhD teachers), they've been able to replicate minor evolutionary changes in laboratories by altering DNA

Light is both a wave and a particle, Einstein kind of wrapped that up


EDIT: Guess I didn't double post.

[Office_Shredder]

Originally posted by Twelve
1. Scientists want the truth. Preachers want the truth. One day, they'll realize that the truth is one and the same.

2. You ever hear of the Creationist vs. Evolutionist debate that is currently raging in the rhealm of science? Creationists are those that do believe that God created man, yet are scientists just like any other.

12

Ok, here's my double post now. Are you sure creationists are scientists just like any other? Because I see very scarce evidence for creationism, but a lot for evolution...

[xyxaxyz2]

I said it was an oversimplification. The truth is, the fall of Rome cannot be blamed on Christianity. But the lack of scientific advancement (comparable to other times in history) in the next 1000 years or so can be blamed at least partially on religion's effect on society. It can also be blamed on economic system and other factors. Thats not the point, so much as the fact that the seperation of science from religion occured at basically the same time that sceince began to advance quickly again.

Christianity is incompatible with science for a simple reason: Science doesn't believe what there isn't evidence for. Faith requires belief in what there isn't evidence for. Faith is an essential aspect of Christianity.

[Twelve]

Anti-matter? You mean that completely fantasy stuff that nobody has ever seen or looked at but has been created so that math formulas work out? Come on. It's a mystery, dude.


Oh, you know what's in the middle of the earth? If we were so sure and content with what we "know", there wouldn't be the constant studies to find out more. It's a mystery.

Ummm...what did you say about the sun? I don't get it.

According to your bio teacher...look...I'm not going to be able to educate you on this matter just by telling you it's so. I can only ask you to challenge yourself by looking at science from a different point of view. Outside of what your bio teacher says.

Light is both a wave and particle because Einstein says so...right. If only such a statement could satisfy the many scientists who are still trying to figure out how. Saying that a wave and particle are one and the same is like trying to mix oil and water. Einstein only GUESSED that it MUST be so, and nobody has been able to find proof of the matter. It's only a guess at this point and it has never been proven. It's all we have.


12

[xyxaxyz2]

It's all we have.


All we have now.

[Glamdring]

Originally posted by thrdflrmshr
If someone's fillings are turning to gold, they would have had a lot more publicity. People have been trying to do that thousands of years, and I find it hard to believe that a solution as simple as using saliva as a catalyst could solve it.


http://cargo.ship-of-fools.com/Features99/Features/TorontoGoldWalker.html

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/d04.html

http://www.cesnur.org/testi/goXgold_01.htm

http://www.spiritualityhealth.com/newsh/items/article/item_3401.html

I simply googled "fillings turn to gold" and copied some of the links. It's not a story I made up, at the very least.

Originally posted by Office_Shredder
how many times has god talked to you without anything happening?

none.

You can say it's coincidence if that makes you happy. I'm going out on a rather thin limb to say all this anyways. I'm not an idiot, I know as well as anyone else what a crackpot looks like :). I'm simply hoping that some of you know me well enough to at least take me seriously.

[Twelve]

Originally posted by xyxaxyz2
I said it was an oversimplification. The truth is, the fall of Rome cannot be blamed on Christianity. But the lack of scientific advancement (comparable to other times in history) in the next 1000 years or so can be blamed at least partially on religion's effect on society. It can also be blamed on economic system and other factors. Thats not the point, so much as the fact that the seperation of science from religion occured at basically the same time that sceince began to advance quickly again.

Christianity is incompatible with science for a simple reason: Science doesn't believe what there isn't evidence for. Faith requires belief in what there isn't evidence for. Faith is an essential aspect of Christianity.

I didn't think we were debating as to whether the fall of Rome had anything to do with Christianity or not...I thought we were discussing as to if Christianity had anything to do with cutting science off.

I don't deny that the Catholic church held back a lot of progress. My point is that even DURING this time, the progress that was made were made by believers.

Oh, science can believe much of what there isn't evidence for. It's called a "hypothesis" in science...a fancy word for "faith".

Meanwhile, it's faith in God that Christianity demands, not faith in scientific theories. That's why they are indeed compatible.

12

[Office_Shredder]

First off: why are you so distrustful of what other scientists have said (especially with formulae), and then accept Jesus' story because of what four books tell you? Truthfully, I'll take the mathematical evidence any day, it's something I can witness personally

And I don't see any reason to doubt my bio teacher citing a study

[Twelve]

Originally posted by Office_Shredder
First off: why are you so distrustful of what other scientists have said (especially with forumlae), and then accept Jesus' story because of what four books tell you? Truthfully, I'll take the mathematical evidence any day, it's something I can witness personally

And I don't see any reason to doubt my bio teacher citing a study

Man, from the very start I've been trying to give science and Christianty equal credit. Are you feeling me? My problem is for those who try to knock out science AND/OR Christianity. Currently, Christianity is being attacked so I'm defending it, and I'm defending it against those who want to use science to attack it, which makes it seems like I'm fighting science. Not the case.

12

[Office_Shredder]

Glamdring, I wasn't implying you were a crackpot... I was simply inferring (perhaps a bit too vaguely) that you may be subconciously thinking random things, and only really notice it when those random things come true. Sorry about the ambiguity.

So Twelve, can you share with us how you think the universe started and man came about? I'm curious now

[xyxaxyz2]

Originally posted by Twelve

Oh, science can believe much of what there isn't evidence for. It's called a "hypothesis" in science...a fancy word for "faith".


No. Not at all similar. Totally invalid comparison. A hypothesis is based on evidence, not faith. And it isn't accepted as true until it is proven.


Meanwhile, it's faith in God that Christianity demands, not faith in scientific theories. That's why they are indeed compatible.

From the scientific perspective there is no reason to believe in God. It is possible to believe that science applies only to the natural world, and when God doesn't directly intervene, and God to the supernatural.

[Office_Shredder]

Hmmm... I missed those lines that xyx just quoted. Woops

[Twelve]

Originally posted by Office_Shredder


So Twelve, can you share with us how you think the universe started and man came about? I'm curious now

Since you seem to view Einstein as credible, I'll have you know that even he chose to believe in God before he died, even though he was an atheist all his life. He chose to believe this because he realized that everything in the universe is exanding from one place. In other words, all that we see came from nothing. Einstein knew that there must be a God who had the miraculous power to create something from nothing.

When Einstein realized this before his death, he had achieved a level of wisdom that he never came close to before.

As for how man came about...was it not you who used the passage in the Bible how God "CREATED" man in His own image?

12

[Office_Shredder]

I take stock in Einstein's scientific theories, not whether he believed in god.

Why? Because other people have verified Einsten's findings in physics, but I haven't seen anyone come out with a mathematical proof for his belief in god.

[Twelve]

Originally posted by xyxaxyz2
No. Not at all similar. Totally invalid comparison. A hypothesis is based on evidence, not faith. And it isn't accepted as true until it is proven.



From the scientific perspective there is no reason to believe in God. It is possible to believe that science applies only to the natural world, and when God doesn't directly intervene, and God to the supernatural.

A hypothesis is a believed theory that happens to be missing some evidentiary facts. It has SOME evidence, sure, but there still needs to be more for it to be qualified as "theory".

Same with Christianity. What certain scientists want is theoretical proof that God exists. They won't get that...Christianity does indeed REQUIRE faith to make the final step. However, there is plenty of evidence to make a strong hypothesis towards God's existence.

Those who don't like the sound of "faith" won't find any dice in Christianity...this is true and I've no desire to go around that.

When you mention "the scientific perspective"...you're speaking from YOUR scientific perspective that YOU subscribe to. Don't act like all science is one unified group of zombies who all believe the same thing. Science is constantly challenging itself with many, many ideas, constantly disproving itself, constanty re-learning.

12

[Twelve]

Originally posted by Office_Shredder
I take stock in Einstein's scientific theories, not whether he believed in god.

Why? Because other people have verified Einsten's findings in physics, but I haven't seen anyone come out with a mathematical proof for his belief in god.

And so we go back to the very start of my argument...you just gotta believe what you choose to. :)

Thx for the chat, Office.

Edit: Phew, I'm fried. Time to use a different part of my brain and kill people in TAO.

12

[xyxaxyz2]

A hypothesis is a believed theory that happens to be missing some evidentiary facts. It has SOME evidence, sure, but there still needs to be more for it to be qualified as "theory".

Everything correct there except "believed." Hypothesis are not necessarily believed to be correct; they exist to be tested further to determine their validity. A scientist does not believe a hypothesis close to as strongly as a devout Christian trusts his faith.

However, there is plenty of evidence to make a strong hypothesis towards God's existence.

1. No there isn't. What evidence?
2. God isn't the same thing as Christianity. There are thousands of religions; even if you accept the existance of God, there is no reason to believe yours more than any of the others except that our culture today is Christian-based.

Those who don't like the sound of "faith" won't find any dice in Christianity...this is true and I've no desire to go around that.

Fine. Then don't try to find parallels to faith in science. Which is the most objective and least faith-based way of looking at the world.

When you mention "the scientific perspective"...you're speaking from YOUR scientific perspective that YOU subscribe to.

No, I'm not. One of the great things about science is, its not subjective. If you don't accept that there is no scientific reasons to believe in God, tell me a scientific reason. If it makes objective sense I will accept it as scientific.

[Office_Shredder]

Well put xyx.

Twelve, I only believe what Einstein says if it is able to be PROVEN TRUE by other people... I haven't seen anyone prove that god exists yet.

[Excaliber]

Jeff you know what i just noticed the title to this thread is an oxymoron does god hate florida hmm ....i wonder does god hate or does god punish for sins lol not meaning to burts your bubble jeff but i just found that a little funny

[Office_Shredder]

No, that depends on what religion you follow

[Excaliber]

OS what more proof do you need The bible is a completely historic document the bible was writen by four men who were not influenced by one another at all.. and there are other documents from other religions that state something like what the bible says about the crusifiction of jesus

[Excaliber]

but you have the right to believe what you want so no harm done

[Office_Shredder]

Originally posted by Excaliber
OS what more proof do you need The bible is a completely historic document the bible was writen by four men who were not influenced by one another at all.. and there are other documents from other religions that state something like what the bible says about the crusifiction of jesus

wait wait wait wait wait... so the bible was written by four men who didn't feel biased to make Jesus out to look like a god? and how do you know this? Did you talk to them? HELLO! THEY WROTE A BOOK ABOUT A GOD! OF COURSE THEY FEEL BIASED TO MAKE HIM LOOK GOOD! Sorry, but that's just such a... frustrating comment you made there.

What documents from other religions state "something like what the bible says about the crisifiction of jesus"?

[Jeffery]

Ex, http://dictionary.com look up oxy moron. The title is NOT an oxy moron, but more of a retorical question.

And the bible was written by a helluva lot more than 4 guys.....

[theburning]

Excaliber - Please quit double posting!
There is a button called edit...USE IT!

[xyxaxyz2]

the bible was writen by four men who were not influenced by one another at all..

I wouldn't comment on this if it wasn't posted before by someone who deserves to be commented on. But it makes no sense. How were they not influenced by each other? Were not 3 of the 4 supposedly disciples of Jesus?

Also, if they were totally uninfluenced by each other why are so many of the passages nearly identical? Even two people who see the exact same event will write about it in a different style.

[Twelve]

Boys...

It's 2am in the morning in Switzerland...

I'm about to get into my warm bed...

My brain is fried from extensive use today...

But I'll be baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!!!


12

[Glamdring]

Originally posted by xyxaxyz2
I wouldn't comment on this if it wasn't posted before by someone who deserves to be commented on. But it makes no sense. How were they not influenced by each other? Were not 3 of the 4 supposedly disciples of Jesus?

Also, if they were totally uninfluenced by each other why are so many of the passages nearly identical? Even two people who see the exact same event will write about it in a different style.

xyx is correct here.

Edit: actually, I think the nearly identical passages you're referring to were probably originally stories that they told so many times that they eventually were kind of by rote.

and Jeffery is as well:
Originally posted by Jeffery
And the bible was written by a helluva lot more than 4 guys.....

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the books that describe the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Since they are the most well-known records of the events, that's where most of the information in this conversation is coming from.

[theburning]

Am I the only one who's having problems taking Glamdring seriously since she changed her banner? :)

[Cephas]

Was I missed? I haven't posted since page 5. Sorry for the silence on this, I was working then I had to get the kids to bed, then I had to get some documentation, then I had to read through sixty billion posts! Don't you guys have anything else to do?!?

I'll answer some things I saw, but I skimmed through most of it, so if there is something else for me to adress, let me know.

Northwind (p5). Good to see you again as well, I always enjoy the fact that we are on amicable terms, despite being on opposite ends of the battlefield, as it were. The idea that 'my religion is the only true one' while I disagree with your terminology, is where I stand. I would not call it religion, nor would I call it mine. If the All-powerful God who created the universe tells me that there is ONE way to get to heaven, I'm gonna believe him. I won't address pantheism, it falls under one of my earlier posts. One of the big differences between biblical 'christianity' and other religions is that God's way is in fact God's way (real revelation there :rolleyes: ). What I mean is that it is not on the basis of what you do, or how good you are, or anything else, other than God's grace and your trust in him.

O_S and DFG (p5). You both asked for sources attesting to the life of Christ? Here goes (I won't quote in this post, but if you want me to copy out the pages I have and post them, I will), He is mentioned by:

Flavius Josephus
The Rabbinic Sources
Mara Bar Sarapion
Pliny the Younger
Tacitus
Suetonius
Thallus
David Flusser (modern, but his comments are worthy of note)

This is not exhaustive, but its all that I have on hand presently.

DFG (p5). You say that while the Bible presents itself as a historical document, it offers no proof? Are you trying to measure a document of antiquity by today's standards? That's like saying because a Gregorian monk can't write twelve-tone music, he's not qualified to be a musician. Measure it by the standards of its day, and it comes in way ahead of anything else. How many documents offered 'proof' from that time??

O_S (I think). As far as the bit about J-C (Jesus Christ, throwback from having to take notes quickly) being crucified but not really dying; you already heard what Med and Twelve had to say, my two cents will be short. I can try to verify this and get documentation, but at the time, I only have what I have heard. The fact that it was not just blood, but blood and water that poured out of the spear wound in J-C's side is from what I have heard a telling fact. It is obvious that it was not written in recently, but I have heard it tell that modern medicine indicates that the water coming out as well showed that He was in fact dead. Again, I don't have anything on this but what I have heard (I can try to find stuff, but it might take a while). How often have you seen water come gushing out of a wound along with blood?

Twelve (p7). Minor correction. The 4 gospels were not the only records from that time, see above.

Medemia (p7). Again, minor correction. I don't think that the crowd calling for crucifixion was the same as the crowd calling for crowning. The former was the Jerusalem crowd, and the latter, the Galilean crowd IMO.

O_S (p12). You say your prof was citing a study? Get us the details, I'd be interested to see it myself. You asked me for my documentation (I'll type out any of the info I have from the sources I mentioned), now I'm asking for yours.

[xyxaxyz2]

if you want me to copy out the pages I have and post them, I will

I would, or at least links.

[imagination]

havent we already had this discussion? ok im on the bible is flawed side and doesnt think Christianity is a good religion ... rogue where are you ... they need you to help them

[Cephas]

Originally posted by xyxaxyz2
I would, or at least links.
I was sincerely hoping people would only ask for 1 or 2... *sigh*

Josephus
...James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ (Antt. 20, 200)

Around this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who did surprising deed, and a teacher as such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who in the first place came to love him did not give up their affection for him, for on the third day he appeared to them restored to life. The prophets of God had prophesied this and countless other marvelous things about him. And the trive of the Christians, so called after him, have still to this day not died out. (Antt. 18, 63f) **Italicized statements were likely added and not Josephus' remarks**

The Rabbinic Sources are 6th and 7th C AD. I'll skip them for now, unless you really want to see them.

Mara Bar Sarapion
MBS (ca 1st century C.E.) was a Syrian stoic from Samosata. He wrote a letter to his son from prison and commended wisdowm as the only possession and thing of substance in life worth living for. He illustrates this by stating several paradigms:
What good did it do to the Athenians to kill Socrates...or what did id avail the Jews to kill their wise king, since their kingdom was taken away from them from that time on? ...Socrates is not dead, thanks to Plato;...Nor is the wise king, because of the new law which he has given (C.75 C.E).

Pliny the Younger
PY (ca. 61-112 C.E.) Trained in Rome as a lawyer, practiced in the civil courts and held administrative positions. In 110 CE Emperor Trajan sent him to restore order in the province of Bythinia-Pontus. We have the correspondence oand PY informs Trajan that Christianity was spreading quickly. He also noted that the temples were abandoned and sales of sacrificial animals had fallen. As a result Christians were being accused and thus PY presided over some of their court hearings. Those that were accused said that their only guilt was as PY noted:
But they maintaned that their guilt or error had amounted only to this: They had been in the habit of meeting on a fixed day before daylight and singing a hymn antiphonally to Christ as if to a god. (Epistles 10:96:7)

Tacitus
A distinguished historian Cornelius Tacitus (ca 56-140 CE), he authored two major historical works of which about half are extant. He descrived how ten districs of Rome were engulfed in flames and some blamed Nero for the fire, Nero diverted the blame to the Chrisians and Tacitus observed that:
They got their name from Christus, who had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontious Pilate in the reign of Tiverius. (Annals 15.44.3)

Suetonius
Suetonius (ca 69-130 CE) was a Roman polymath who wrote on various fields. In his book The lives of the Caesers, Book 5 writes about the acts of Claudius and S makes this statement:
He [Claudius] expelled the Jews from Rome b ecause of the rioting in which they were constantly engaging at the instigation of Chrestus. (Cluad. 25.4) c. 117-122 CE

I'm skipping Thallus and Flusser for now, my arm is killing me, I don't type a lot on my home PC.

[imagination]

only one of those says he was a messiah and he gives no proff the others were about people loving jesus ... christians today still support heir priest even when they were caught in a scandal ... i should know one of them was at the church i used to attend

[xyxaxyz2]

Notice, Cephas, that none of those are actually written while Jesus was still alive. One would think that one as miractulous as him would have been written about during his life by the Roman writers of the time. But there is nothing until years after. Why?

[imagination]

actually the first bok of the new testement wasnt written until after 20 years after he died ... little tidbit i picked up while in catholic skool for 8 years

[plusminus]

This is a very interesting discussion... I have only a bit to add.

You believe what you believe. This sounds kind of self-evident I'm sure, but consider it it regards to the Christians, atheists, and anyone in between. I do not believe in God. What would change my belief? I don't know. Certainly not a logical argument. Likewise for those that do, it's not necessarily something you consciously choose to do.

I could start going to church, reading the bible, and praying, but to what end? I don't believe right now and so the only reason for me to do that is to attempt to accept religion into my life. And if I gained faith from it, is that not just because of the influence of people around me? To put it another way, if you wanted to stop believing in God you would hang around with people that don't believe in God, practicing scientific experiments and reading about evolution. But why would you in the first place?

Quite a paradox, really...

Originally posted by Twelve
Nobody has been to the middle of the earth...nobody knows what's there.

Nougat. The center of the earth is filled with nougat.

[Twelve]

Originally posted by xyxaxyz2
Everything correct there except "believed." Hypothesis are not necessarily believed to be correct; they exist to be tested further to determine their validity. A scientist does not believe a hypothesis close to as strongly as a devout Christian trusts his faith.



1. No there isn't. What evidence?
2. God isn't the same thing as Christianity. There are thousands of religions; even if you accept the existance of God, there is no reason to believe yours more than any of the others except that our culture today is Christian-based.



Fine. Then don't try to find parallels to faith in science. Which is the most objective and least faith-based way of looking at the world.



No, I'm not. One of the great things about science is, its not subjective. If you don't accept that there is no scientific reasons to believe in God, tell me a scientific reason. If it makes objective sense I will accept it as scientific.

I'm baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacckk!!!

"A scientist does not believe a hypothesis close to as strongly as a devout Christian trusts his faith".

--Well, since I will not allow you to speak for all scientists and since you're not a devout Christian, I'll have to say you're speaking out of place there.

A hypothesis has much belief behind it, belief in it being incorrect or belief in it being correct. If this were not the case people would not spend their time trying to prove it right or wrong. Something without proof IS faith, despite the fancy words we may want to put around it to avoid using the "f" word.

--The "evidence" you speak of that builds for at the very LEAST a very STRONG "hypothesis" for God's existence can be best described by the writer Paul who may have been thinking about the same question. He wrote in Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made."

It would be impossible for me to write ALL of the evidences that this can consist of; I'll go back to just one example regarding the example of the universe that Einstein clearly saw. The ultimate order of the universe can only be backed by an intelligent being.

"God isn't the same as Christianity", you wrote. Nice of you to make that comment, but I don't understand how this has anything to do with our discussion regarding science and religion, and this case, Christianity. Let's stick with one massive subject because it's a bit easier that way. We can debate that some other time.

Now, listen to me closely: I will not shirk away from the wonderful reality that God requires faith. I will not budge from something of which I am extremely proud. I believe that faith is much greater than knowledge.

To me, it's like trying to explain something to somebody using either hard fact or analogy. Hard fact can only go so far, with analogy there is a much more beautiful and fulfilling understanding that goes beyond but does not exclude hard fact, encompassing both emotion and knowledge.

You see, analogy can exist even with hard fact inside of it; hard fact cannot contain beautiful analogy.

For example, take the idea of love. From a scientific standpoint, the feeling of love has to do with merely chemical reactions.

From the standpoint of an analogy, love has often been compared with a red rose for obvious reasons. A red rose is beautiful from it's beginning stages all of the way to its bloom, smelling wonderful to the sense, bringing joy to the heart upon appearance, and only passes away when it dies. Love is like this, and love can be better understood in this sense.

HOWEVER, I can accept this analogy and still realize that love has much to do with chemical reaction along with the other more poetic side. Because of the analogy, my understanding is deeper.

Now, replace analogy with "faith".

God has made it very clear in His Word that he doesn't want people to simply have a scientific, stale, robotic understanding of him, like viewing an amoeba through a microscope.

God WANTS us to have faith in him, a faith that is like an analogy and goes far beyond just intellect. Faith encompasses the heart, the soul, the feelings, the emotions, the sense...AND intellect is not excluded from it.

This is a relationship, not a deal. This is love, not an agreement.

I do not reject science...I love science. But I also love God...and I have faith. I've the best of both worlds and I know it's possible because I live it.

Now that's all I can say about that matter. FAITH: it's what's for dinner. :)

Ok, now I also mentioned that the 4 gospels were written by men who didn't influence upon one another. This was said again by Excalibur without a further clarification that I will give.

When I say that they did not have influence on one another, I thought it was obvious that I meant that these records were written apart from one another. They did not all sit in the same room and write them all at the same time, adding differences to make things more credible.

Read the 4 gospels...they are not identical. Even accounts of the same stories have differences. This is only normal as they are recording what they see, what they remember, and what they thought was important. There are things that overlap, details that are missing in one and not the other, and there are INDEED minor contradictions. :)

Luke was a doctor, and therefore he was very detailed in his writing as it is with an intellectual mind. Since he was in the medical profession, he gave more details regarding Christ's healings: what the ailments were, the nature of the curing, how it looked, etc. He would be our Christian scientist. :)

John, on the other end of the extreme, wrote his account many years after Christ. He was an old man when he wrote it, and he writes with a maturity of one who can look back and see much more the MEANING behind Christ's ministry. That's why his account is very spiritual and analogical, lacking in detail as Luke, but once again giving a more completel understand of Christ that Luke could never give.

Cephas, I know that there are other accounts, and I most certainly know about Josephus. But no account of Jesus is as complete as in the gospels, regarding his birth and ministry, and there is no account that describes Christ's death and ressurection besides those in the Scriptures. That's why I tend to stay with those. :)

12

[Jeffery]

I won;t get into the middle of this, only because I know your all wrong.

But this is quite a nice discussion. Keep it up people, and you might figure out who God is......






















Me

[Cephas]

only one of those says he was a messiah and he gives no proff the others were about people loving jesus ... christians today still support heir priest even when they were caught in a scandal ... i should know one of them was at the church i used to attend
imagination, none of them were intended to prove that He was the messiah. If you look through the posts earlier, I was asked for extra-biblical evidence attesting to the life of J-C, and I provided that. I have no idea why you are posting garbage about priests. As far as I know, that is a Catholic phenomenon. Biblical Christianity has not clergy, why should I care about what a man does who claims to follow Christ but whose actions deny his words? I'll concern myself with the object of my faith: Christ, and leave following men to other people.
Notice, Cephas, that none of those are actually written while Jesus was still alive. One would think that one as miractulous as him would have been written about during his life by the Roman writers of the time. But there is nothing until years after. Why?
xyx, interesting point, and at this point, I can only hypothesize (however, I will look into it). J-C's ministry was limited to about 3 years of His life. The first was spent in relative obscurity, the second in popularity, and the third in a lesser regard (meaning the authorities of the time had come to a decision that He was not what He claimed to be, and sought to tear Him down). So first, we are talking of only two years in the spotlight. Next, His ministry was limited to a very small region, so His geographical reach during his life was relatively small. His disciples, and those who followed after them, ranged far and wide, logically speaking, it makes more sense that more would be written from their time than from His. To get documents from J-C's time would restrict the dating to ~28-29 AD (or CE if you prefer). Documents age and are destroyed, we don't even have originals of any of the New Testament books, why should we have things dating to before that? Regardless, I will see if I can dredge something up. :D

[S_K_O_F]

guys...im not sure if this has been said yet because this thread is way freaking bigger now than when i stopped posting yesterday afternoon

so anyway

www.drdino.com
that guy shows how closely intertwined religion and science are...and gives proof of the miracles in the bible using science

there are videos that you can download and see what he has to say, but you will be preached at a little bit

[Cephas]

Kent Hovind has some interesting things to say, but its better to see the vids than to peruse his site, IMO.

xyx, to continue, my father-in-law did some checking as well. As with me, the earliest extra-biblical doc he could cite was Pliny. There are the 'Letters of Herod', but their authenticity is questionable.

He found a site which delves into the Historicity of J-C (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Historicity_of_Jesus_Christ#Scholarly_Defence_of_J esus) as well as referring to Sources about Jesus (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Sources_about_Jesus). It seems to be a relatively unbiased site (http://www.wordiq.com/about.html) based on the 'about' info that I see...

[S_K_O_F]

Originally posted by Cephas
Kent Hovind has some interesting things to say, but its better to see the vids than to peruse his site, IMO.


you are most definately right

just watch the videos

[Twelve]

Good stuff...

Well, if anyone comes to break down my part of the argument, I'll get back to you on Monday. I love you all, but I ain't givin' up my weekend!!!

PEACE!!!


12

[Northwind]

OK, I said I was going to stop posting, but got pulled in against my will. Is that a sin?

Thanks to Ceph and Medemia for addressed some of my earlier points. I do think, though, that your arguments are lacking something. You both stated (in one form or another) that the idea that there may be more than one path to God as "too tolerant." Yes, both of you are sure that you have found the "one true answer." But doesn't it give you the tiniest moment of pause to think that there are billions of other people in the world who are just as sure as you are that their religion is the one true path to God. And isn't it odd how often our fervent beliefs about the "one true God" so often completely overlap with how we were raised as children. Don't you think that's even a little bit strange?

Here's what I am saying. I fully believe that Christianity is the "one true path" for Medemia, Cephas, 12, Glamdring, SKOF, etc. I also believe that others might have found the "one true path" for them as well, be they Jewish, Muslin, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. (the list is long). As popularly conceived, God is the final source of everything in the universe. Why would such a power require such a narrow trail to follow to him/her/it? Wouldn't the differences among the earth's religions seem trivial and insignificant to such a power? Is God truly so vain and petty as to make people walk such a tightrope to get to him/her/it?

I suppose it is possible that I am "making God in my image." However, please consider the notion that Christians (and all religions) may be doing the same thing. It strikes me as the ultimate in hubris to assume that the path that you were set on at birth (whether raised with a particular religion or having a set of experiences that brings you to a particular religion) just happens to be the one true path to God and all others (literally) be damned!

Let's hear a big shout out for Unitarian Universalism! WOOT! :D

[doubledown]

Unitarians defintely got it going on.

And for those of you who remarked that you are not "holier" than anyone else but claim that unless they believe in "your" god they will spend eternity in hell....well you can see where I'm going with this one.

[S_K_O_F]

I believe that Jesus Christ was the messiah...I believe that he died as the ultimate sacrifice for all sin...and I believe that If you believe that he did this, your way to heaven is payed in full

I believe this because this is what the Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John tell us, along with the rest of the New Testament

I do not believe that I am "holier" than anyone, because I don't believe that anything human is holy

God is holy, His work is holy...

I am just a sinning saint trying to pass on what i have learned

my lifestyle is very often not representing of what I believe(which makes me a hypocrit), but it does not change what I believe

I know I do wrong and I know that God gives me forgiveness if I will ask for it...no matter what I have done, God will forgive me..because no sin is unforgivable

[theburning]

Originally posted by S_K_O_F
because no sin is unforgivable

So you think that everything should be forgiven?
I disagree. There are some things that simply aren't forgivable.

[Jeffery]

Actually, according to christianity, there is ONE crime that can not be forgiven.

Suicide.


All other sins leave time to ask forgiveness for, suicide does not. And this is divine forgiveness, not forgivness of fellow man.

[Cephas]

Originally posted by Jeffery
Actually, according to christianity, there is ONE crime that can not be forgiven.

Suicide.

All other sins leave time to ask forgiveness for, suicide does not. And this is divine forgiveness, not forgivness of fellow man.
Suicide is not unforgivable. That seems to be a common mis-conception (among nominal christians as well). God is beyond time, and as such, when I was forgiven, I was forgiven for past, present and future. How is it that death (suicide) can be greater than Christ, who conquered death?

[Medemia]

Originally posted by Jeffery
Actually, according to christianity, there is ONE crime that can not be forgiven.

Suicide.


All other sins leave time to ask forgiveness for, suicide does not. And this is divine forgiveness, not forgivness of fellow man.

This would be the Armenian point of view. Us Calvinist believe that when you become a Christian, your sins, past, present and future have all been forgiven. The only unforgiveable sin in the Bible is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is denying that you need God and the way that he provided through the work of His Son and the ministry of the Holy Spirit and saying that your way is better. Basically, it's telling God "up yours. I'm smarter than you are."

But this does not mean that once you are a Christian that you have a license to sin since it's already forgiven. As Paul said in Romans 6 (which I quoted earlier in this thread), we do not continue to sin if we are dead to sin. Our salvation gives us a license from sin. Not once in my time as a parent have I ever had to teach my son how to sin. I haven't said, "Son, this is how you hit your sister." It comes natural. Sin is the natural state of humanity. What salvation does is saves you from being a natural sinner and gives you the choice not to do what is right. This is different than morals. Why don't you kill people? Because you may be caught and then killed (or have to pay for a huge trial if you're OJ.) When you become a Christian, the motives change. It's not that you could get caught, but because it's what God says is right and it becomes nature to do what God says. (Mind you, as Paul says, there is still the inner-struggle between the flesh, born of sin, and the spirit, born of God that we have to live with for the rest of our natural lives.)

Am I holier than thou? Not but by the grace of God. It is not I who is holy, but the God who lives within me that makes me a saint. Nothing I did. All God's doing.

[S_K_O_F]

actually, the bible tells us that all sin can be forgiven regardless of it...this is God's way, not the human way...in the human mind there is levels of sin

Romans tells us that the wages of sin is death though. so anything categorized as a sin deserves death.

...but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus.
so all sin can be forgiven
Humans are unique in this aspect. We can be forgiven, even for the worst of deeds. but the angels in heaven can not even have 1 sinful thought or they are cast out.

real quick though...the bible tells us that sin is any act that is unglorifying to God...so that is a really broad spectrum of what can be sin



and to address Jeffery

my interpretation of the new testament says that a person can enter heaven, even if they commit suicide


the Old Testament is filled with men who were "Godly" but committed acts of murder, adultery, rape, etc...David himself was a murderer and an adulterer, but was also considered a "man after God's own heart"

EDIT - it is comforting to know that there are some other posters out there that are knowledgable in Christianity...many times I get lonely

[Northwind]

Originally posted by Medemia
Why don't you kill people? Because you may be caught and then killed (or have to pay for a huge trial if you're OJ.) When you become a Christian, the motives change. It's not that you could get caught, but because it's what God says is right and it becomes nature to do what God says.
I can't let this go by. This seems to imply that Christians avoid sin (murder, etc.) because they are being obedient to God and non-Christians avoid doing wrong simply to avoid punishment. This is a HUGE misrepresentation of non-Christians. There are many reasons that we might choose to live "morally" (e.g., an attempt to be a good person, to love one another, to avoid harming others, etc.). Christians have no lock on moral behavior or motivation and to suggest otherwise seems offensive to me.

Also, I can't help but notice that my previous points have been largely unaddressed. That's fine, but one's belief that one's religion is the "one true path to God" does not make it so. Someone believing this has to be wrong. Does this mean all non-Christians are going to hell? Isn't it weird that Muslims believe exactly the same about their religion and are just as certain as Christians? Seems strange to me. I guess you were just lucky enough to be born into a largely Christian society and raised in a Christian household. Thank God for that stroke of luck! Otherwise you might well spent an eternity of torment. *shiver*

[Cephas]

Northwind, I didn't respond to your earlier post because I saw little point, we've gone down that road before, haven't we? As far as 'one religion and only one' is concerned, maybe if I try putting it another way.

If I run a business, and get 50 sales calls per day, I might get irate at the volume of calls. I might implement a system that tells prospecting vendors that if they want to get through to me, they have to meet me on my terms, which are [insert terms here]. What reason would I have to listen to the callers who don't bother following the terms that I have clearly set out? If they can't abide by the rules I have in place, why should I do business with them?

Granted, I can't hope to bring God down to the level of this word picture, but I hope it conveys the idea I'm trying to get through.

Regarding being born into whatever faith you mature into, that is not my case, nor is it the case of many sincere Christians that I know.

[Office_Shredder]

Yes, but if god is all powerful, he should be able to take as many calls as he wants per day... in fact, he should know who is calling him before the call comes in, so he can pre-package his response (if he wants to give one)

[S_K_O_F]

Originally posted by Office_Shredder
Yes, but if god is all powerful, he should be able to take as many calls as he wants per day... in fact, he should know who is calling him before the call comes in, so he can pre-package his response (if he wants to give one)

i believe that you misunderstood what he was trying to say

[Medemia]

O_S has been throwing in sarcastic remarks the entire thread. I don't think he's misunderstood :)

[xyxaxyz2]

Twelve:

Me: A scientist does not believe a hypothesis close to as strongly as a devout Christian trusts his faith

Twelve: Well, since I will not allow you to speak for all scientists and since you're not a devout Christian, I'll have to say you're speaking out of place there.

Science has terms with set definitions. An individual scientist might believe very strongly in his hypothesis, but science itself will not recognize it as true unless and until it is proven. This is why a hypothesis is entirely different from a belief on faith.

Science isn't a person, or even a collection of people, but rather, a system. The scientific system doesn't accept anything on faith.

A hypothesis has much belief behind it, belief in it being incorrect or belief in it being correct. If this were not the case people would not spend their time trying to prove it right or wrong.

A hypothesis needs no belief. It exists merely to be tested for truth.The reason people try to prove a hypothesis right or wrong is to know whether it is right or wrong. (of course, an individual scientist might believe very strongly in his hypothesis without adequate evidence, but it is still merely a hypothesis, requiring proof before being accepted as true.) Faith, on the other hand, is believing something to be true regardless of factual evidence. An honest scientist will abandon his hypothesis if it is proven false.

It would be impossible for me to write ALL of the evidences that this can consist of; I'll go back to just one example regarding the example of the universe that Einstein clearly saw. The ultimate order of the universe can only be backed by an intelligent being.

Why must that be true? And what order of the universe? The universe seems pretty arbitrary to me. Cavemen didn't invision atomic structure because it doesn't conform in the least to human standards of order and beauty. Neither does pretty much anything else in this universe, including the inside of the human body. Things are dirty, messy, irregular, incomprehensible, accidential. As is life itself- some people have a good life and others a horrible one, for absolutely no observable reason at all. Things tend to just sort of happen.

God isn't the same as Christianity", you wrote. Nice of you to make that comment, but I don't understand how this has anything to do with our discussion regarding science and religion, and this case, Christianity.

Because I believe in God, and that there is reason to believe in God. But I have a strong disagreement with Christianity and the concept of faith, which is not present in all religions.

To me, it's like trying to explain something to somebody using either hard fact or analogy. Hard fact can only go so far, with analogy there is a much more beautiful and fulfilling understanding that goes beyond but does not exclude hard fact, encompassing both emotion and knowledge.

I find differently, anologies tend to confuse and also go around things without touching them; since pretty much nothing is exactly equal to anything else.


For example, take the idea of love. From a scientific standpoint, the feeling of love has to do with merely chemical reactions.

You can reduce everything to its smallest parts; that doesn't mean a scientific person has to do that for every aspect of their life. Yeah; love is composed of chemical reactions, but it gains a meaning greater than the sum of all its components when consciousness experiences it. Your analogy doesn't make love easier to understand, at least for me; but beyond that, love doesn't need to be understood to be enjoyed. A scientist can know this just as much as anyone else. If Christians claimed to have faith for reasons of personal improvement and enjoyment rather than for discovery of truth, I would have no disagreement with them.

When I say that they did not have influence on one another, I thought it was obvious that I meant that these records were written apart from one another. They did not all sit in the same room and write them all at the same time, adding differences to make things more credible.

No, but some of them did take the same things from an earlier source. What other explanation is there for the passages which are identical, not to mention identical to passages in the "secret gospel" of Thomas?

[xyxaxyz2]

Cephas:

J-C's ministry was limited to about 3 years of His life. The first was spent in relative obscurity, the second in popularity, and the third in a lesser regard (meaning the authorities of the time had come to a decision that He was not what He claimed to be, and sought to tear Him down). So first, we are talking of only two years in the spotlight.

Still, Jesus is claimed to have accomplished some pretty amazing things, have a bunch of people come to him to get cured, raising the dead, etc. Yet- though both the Jews and Romans were relatively literate people- there are no documents from the time that would attest to this happening. Even if there was only one year of miracles, miracles are still miracles and pretty rare; they get heard about pretty far, as they clearly were according to the gospel if we consider the amount the Jews cared about him and the amount of people who came to him for healing. If Jesus has that much impact, why is there nothing written while he was alive, or for that matter, in the next 2 decades after his death?

Documents age and are destroyed, we don't even have originals of any of the New Testament books, why should we have things dating to before that?

Again, only because this would have been pretty important, the news should have spread somewhat far. We do have a good deal of information from the Roman times because they did leave a good amount of written records.

Also, even if I accept those two points: Other parts of the NT indicate that it wasn't written by people who rememberd Jesus because of its complete historical innacuracies. There is no evidence, for example, that King Herod killed the babies in Bethlehem; even Josephus who you referenced earlier and made frequent mention of Herod, didn't report on this act of his.

[Office_Shredder]

Go xyx! He's much better than I am at this.... I need more experience :(

[Catra]

Finally reached the end of this! Great discussion, as everyone has pretty much already stated.

There is only one thing I want to add to the science vs. religion "arguement". My science teacher freshman year of high school, who is also a devot Christian, explained something that has stuck with me. Science gives us the "how", Religion gives us the "who" & "why".

[xyxaxyz2]

Northwind:

That's fine, but one's belief that one's religion is the "one true path to God" does not make it so. Someone believing this has to be wrong. Does this mean all non-Christians are going to hell? Isn't it weird that Muslims believe exactly the same about their religion and are just as certain as Christians? Seems strange to me.

Very good point. Even if one of the two is true, that means a couple of billion people with complete faith in their own correctness are wrong. Which is pretty good evidence that faith is not a good method of determining truth.

[imagination]

xyx can i just say ... your my new hero

[Jeffery]

Originally posted by xyxaxyz2
Northwind:

That's fine, but one's belief that one's religion is the "one true path to God" does not make it so. Someone believing this has to be wrong. Does this mean all non-Christians are going to hell? Isn't it weird that Muslims believe exactly the same about their religion and are just as certain as Christians? Seems strange to me.

Very good point. Even if one of the two is true, that means a couple of billion people with complete faith in their own correctness are wrong. Which is pretty good evidence that faith is not a good method of determining truth.

Very true.
Did David Koresh, believing his path to God was the only true one, really lead his followers to heaven when they all died in a flaming building in Texas?

[bludhoundz]

Now...I'm don't have a religion and I'm not against 'em, I just don't believe 'em.

I'm just gonna throw this in, I'm not trying to spark any flames or anything, just a quote I've heard. I just want to add more controversy.

Said by somebody
One day God created man. The next day Man returned the favor

Not my opinion, Just like I said earlier, more controversy.

[Serge]

That's actually a good quote, blud.

I don't know if it's been said in this thread, I was gone during most of it and don't feel like reading the whole thing.

You asked if God hates Florida. I say yes. You may ask why, and the word "recount" comes to mind...

EDIT: Shove off, imagination, I love x more than you!

[imagination]

Originally posted by Serge
That's actually a good quote, blud.

I don't know if it's been said in this thread, I was gone during most of it and don't feel like reading the whole thing.

You asked if God hates Florida. I say yes. You may ask why, and the word "recount" comes to mind...

EDIT: Shove off, imagination, I love x more than you!
its been recounted many times ... the majority if not all of the recounts went in bush's favor ... and if you want to bring that up lets bring up the votes from the military that were not counted but 99% of the time are strongly for the republican candidate

[Serge]

That's what the media tells you, but in reality most of the retired people in Florida (Which is to say almost 99% of the population), wrote-in votes for MacGyver. The goverment covered it up and said it was because they were senial, but really, they just new MacGyver would be a kick-ass president.

[imagination]

lol ... funny funny

[Jeffery]

In all seriousness, most of the uncounted votes were from poor black and latino communities that were very strongly Democratic.

Get your information from those other than republican websites.

[theburning]

Originally posted by imagination
xyx can i just say ... your my new hero

Originally posted by imagination
Shove off, imagination, I love x more than you!

Is there some sort of 'I love xyxaxyz2' club beginning here?

[Sub-Zero]

Probably, and wtf is up with all of the Hurricanes?! or Tornados or wtf they're called. lol :D, 3 in a ROW!

[imagination]

Originally posted by Jeffery
In all seriousness, most of the uncounted votes were from poor black and latino communities that were very strongly Democratic.

Get your information from those other than republican websites.

im talking about on the whole it went bush's way and also the entire military vote wasnt in it, can you explain that? plus i dont just find one sorce and spout off. if i only have one source then i say im not sure. and another thing ... you shouldnt just get your information off of democat websites. try watching both cnn(which i have proof is extremly deocrat biased) and fox (which is as everyone knows republican biased)... i do

[Serge]

Originally posted by theburning
Is there some sort of 'I love xyxaxyz2' club beginning here?

Don't worry, I love you more, Julia! :cool:

[imagination]

whoa back of i have rights to both of em ;) j/p

[theburning]

Thanks Wario, I love you much more than I love xyxaxyz2 too !!

[Jeffery]

You take your information from CNN, a biased media???

I take mine from the election boards reports, which BTW, is written by a Republican at the behest of Jed Bush. The numbers were gathered from the totals of votes counted vs votes made throughout Florida. The militaryvotes were roughly 1400, a miniscule number compaired to votes discarded in largely minority based voting precincts.

[xyxaxyz2]

Originally posted by theburning
Thanks Wario, I love you much more than I love xyxaxyz2 too !!

Why???

[theburning]

Why? Isn't the answer obvious?
Wario is simply the best person in existence!

[xyxaxyz2]

He is not!

[theburning]

Yes he is!!
Why don't you think he is?

[xyxaxyz2]

There are at least two people obviously better than him!

[theburning]

At least two?
Who?!?!

[xyxaxyz2]

Well!! You're the first.

[theburning]

There is no way I'm better than anyone! Especially not Wario!

Who's the second?

[xyxaxyz2]

You're way better than S!! And so is #2.

[theburning]

Who is #2?

[xyxaxyz2]

Not "Wario"!

[theburning]

You're so annoying.
I bet you're #2!
It's just the sort of thing you'd decide.

[ArcPaladinZero]

Wow, I love how this thread stays on topic so hardcore style. :rolleyes:

[xyxaxyz2]

Originally posted by theburning
You're so annoying.
I bet you're #2!
It's just the sort of thing you'd decide.

I'm annoying!!

[theburning]

Originally posted by ArcPaladinZero
Wow, I love how this thread stays on topic so hardcore style. :rolleyes:

Just like every other thread stays on topic? :rolleyes: