|
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Hail... |
|||||||||||||||
|
jeff testament documents are found they have shown exactly the *opposite* of what you assume and propose; that is that they gospels were changed as convenient to support what you call a myth. the oldest documents correspond precisely to today's english tranlations. Christ could not have just passed out from his injuries and then woke back up. He died. Humans do not live after what he experienced. There is no reason to discount the gospels as historically accurate unless you dislike the implications . . . |
|||||||||||||||
|
saintinsanity 29-Sep-06, 21:45 |
Historiciticity There is a reason to discount the gospels as historically accurate apart from the implications (which implications are you referring to, by the way? There are a slew of them). And the reason is the impossibility of the events recorded. How can that be considered historically accurate? It couldn't have happened at all, not then, not now, not in the future. So it seems silly to use the gospels in anyway other than as a general guideline for your moral compass. |
|||||||||||||||
|
The implications I am refering to is if the gospels are accurate, then you have to come to grips with the fact the Chist said he was God. ***It couldn't have happened at all, not then, not now, not in the future.*** I assume you mean that a dead man rose from the dead as well as other miricles? Why couldn't it have happened? What is so "impossible"? ***So it seems silly to use the gospels in anyway other than as a general guideline for your moral compass. *** Unfortunately, the gospels are not a "moral compass" - the gospels describe God's manifestation of Himself to His Creation. The gospels are not about morals, but about God Himself. |
|||||||||||||||
|
alexwilson 30-Sep-06, 05:55 |
Its too bad, but you seem to have missed the point. Jesus said that he performed miracles and cast out demons "so that ye could believe." Its too bad that both you and Jeff find these miracles stumbling blocks to believing. In the lofty name of "critical thinking" you throw out the message which is not about deductive and inductive logic, but about faith and love. If you want to build a "spiritual" religion out of the miracles of rainbows, flowers, puppies and the like, you should start hanging out in the "new age" section of the bookstore. Its already there. Some of you might be disturbed about the Bible's insistance of blood sacrifice to seal God's covenants. Might I suggest that you are imposing your ideas about what religion ought to be about over God's, sometimes a risky proposition. Our religion comes from the Hebrew tradition, which opposed to the Greek tradition of "ideals" requires real sacrifice of lamb, heifers...etc. It requires that Thomas could feel the holes in Jesus's hands and side so that he would believe. Not to bore you with more entimology, but sometimes I find it useful. The root of reincarnation is the latin word "carne" which means meat. This means that on judgment day, we will be raised again in our physical bodies, not as spirits or sprites, but in flesh and blood bodies, just like Jesus was. Its that Hebrew tradition at work again. |
|||||||||||||||
|
leo_london 30-Sep-06, 06:14 |
Himself to His Creation. The gospels are not about morals, but about God Himself.< I cannot see what is wrong about using the alleged teachings of Christ as a " moral compass ", even disragarding whether Jesus Christ himself was responsible for those teachings. Some would argue that those teachings pre-dated Christ and existed/or exist in other religions, so what ?.. they still have value as a moral framework, and you could make a convincing argument for them being " inspired " by a God. Why turn Jesus into part of a Godhead consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ? Left as a man who may have had a unique understanding of God's will, Jesus is as relevant today as he was 2000 years ago and a "Christian " would follow his teachings. Building a religion around Jesus has paradoxically destroyed his message of love for your neighbour and the rest of mankind. I wonder what he would have though of the evil that has been perpetrated in his name ? |
|||||||||||||||
|
leo Jesus said He was God. The gospels are not a "teaching of the wise master," thay are the revelation of God to His Creation. Those who follow Jesus of the gospels have no choice but to recognize this fact. It's not a "fabrication" - took a good, wise, man and turned him into God. Christ said he was God. Religion has not destroyed Christ's message of love - *humans* have destroyed Christ's message of love. The human ability to completely muck up anything they get involved in is not an indictment of religion itself. The crimes perpetrated by "in his name" are men's crimes, not Gods, and in no way tarnishes Christ or His church, and by church I mean "body of believers," not a formal corporate body. |
|||||||||||||||
|
codyj 30-Sep-06, 07:54 |
To: Kem Insects with four feet? "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you." Leviticus 11:21-23 Just for the record, insects have six feet and arachnids have eight. You'd think the ancient Israelites might have picked up on this little detail, what with eating locusts and beetles and all. Bats identified as "birds"? "And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, and the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven after his kind; and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, and the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat." Leviticus 11:13-19 An almost identical passage occurs in Deuteronomy 14:11-18. The bat is of course a flying mammal, not a bird. Rabbits claimed to chew their cud? "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you." Leviticus 11:6 To chew the cud means to eat grasses, swallow, then regurgitate later for further chewing. Rabbits simply do not do this. OK, I've finally got the time to post... The four legged thing. First of all, we do not know if our grsshoppers and locus are the same as their grasshoppers and locus. They might have been refering to something else, since it was written to them (the people in the OT), not us. Also, is it not possible that thousands of years ago grsshoppers and locus had four legs? I take that back. What if there were what they knew as grasshoppers and locus had four legs, but today are extint, which I find very much possible. The bat/bird thing. Once again, thousands of years ago. If it had wings and could fly, it was known as bird. Who changed, God or man? The Bible says that God does not change, he has always been the same and will always be as he is/was. So it is man that has change. Man has came up with bats not being birds. And, rabbits chewing their cud. OK, I must admit to this that I am a little stumped. But, do you really think that this is an error? That this is a mistake that somebody made? I don't. It was put there for some reason, but I guess that it was meant for the OT people and that they understood. But, as for an error, I think not. About the other long post at the top, it was meant for me so I could remember what I was answering. CODYJ |
|||||||||||||||
|
codyj 30-Sep-06, 07:55 |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
leo_london 30-Sep-06, 08:05 |
jdh.. to His Creation. Those who follow Jesus of the gospels have no choice but to recognize this fact. It's not a "fabrication" - took a good, wise, man and turned him into God. Christ said he was God. Religion has not destroyed Christ's message of love - *humans* have destroyed Christ's message of love.< Thats where we differ. I can perfectly accept Christ's teachings as a " wise master " and would totally agree that he was a good and wise man. In my opinion, the rest was a fabrication. I think the virgin birth and resurrection were additions, made to fulfil the prophecy of a Messiah. The teachings of Jesus were at odds with the pomp and ceremony of the " establishment " churches of today . He led a simple life, told simple but profound truths, and turned away from the trappings of the religion of his day. Contrast his simple life with many of the churches ( there are some notable exceptions, it must be said ) established in his name today. On that point I agree with you, it is man that has destroyed the message, not simple believers, but the established church ( in its more conservative sense ) down the ages. Excuse the terrible spelling errors in my previous post, I wish we had a " edit " function. |
|||||||||||||||
|
codyj 30-Sep-06, 08:10 |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
leo ***I can perfectly accept Christ's teachings as a " wise master " and would totally agree that he was a good and wise man.*** Then how do you reconcile the fact that he said he was God? Surely a simply wise human with all manner of beautiful trancendant truth would know he wasn't God. But that was Christ's exact claim. Liar, mad-man, or God . . . which one? (BTW, I appreciate this discussion with you leo. I know you disagree with me, but I can see you're listening to me.) |
|||||||||||||||
|
leo_london 30-Sep-06, 08:18 |
I Dont understand ?...you can reply to anything. |
|||||||||||||||
|
codyj 30-Sep-06, 08:20 |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
jd and alex a prophet is simply a schizophrenic whose community believed them. i see people every day who claim that god talks to them, that they are from another planet, that they are god. these mentally imbalanced people have existed in every culture throughout history. in many cultures they are derided as insane (such as ours). in others they are tolerated with good humor. in still others, they are revered as having insight into the world beyond the earthly life. i believe that most prophets were these folks whose communities thought they were right. with time, embellishment, and creativity on the part of those who stood to gain power, they became more than simple humans, and religions were started. to me, the fact that you believe the bible is the word of god because the bible says it is the word of god is unfathomable...you are simply believing what you have been told because you want it to be true. |
|||||||||||||||
|
rabbits disgestion. however, rabbits also have a second type of poop that gets eaten again. cud chewing is basically the same with partially digested products reguritated back into the mouth. the rabbit does "chew cud" in this sense but the partially digested products are not regurgitated, but rather deficated and re-eaten. The english translation makes a distinction that critics like to jump all over, but one that is not there in the original language. |
|||||||||||||||
|
leo_london 30-Sep-06, 08:29 |
to me.) Thats probably because my brother-in-law is a lay preacher, with his own small evangelical church. We have talked long into the night on many occasions and I dont doubt his sincerity for a second. He has helped 100's of people, he came to my aid at a difficult time in my life, he is living proof that Christ's ministry works. I still cant find that kind of faith, logic and reason get in the way..it doesn't stop me appreciating and admiring those who do follow Christ's ( be he a God or a man ) teachings. |
|||||||||||||||
|
jeff I suppose that is one explanation . . . unfortunately you have no way of knowing that prophets were not actually in contact with God. do you think Jesus was schizophreic? ***to me, the fact that you believe the bible is the word of god because the bible says it is the word of god is unfathomable...you are simply believing what you have been told because you want it to be true.*** Your lack of belief is fine with me, but I do take exception to you telling me, "you are simply believing what you have been told because you want it to be true". That's a pretty bold statement to make when you have no possible way of knowing this about me or anyone else. Would you like me to say, "you dont believe in God because you just a dirty heathen that doesn't want change his pagan ways. you do not believe in God because you do not want it to be true" sounds horrible coming form the other direction, no? |
|||||||||||||||
|
alexwilson 30-Sep-06, 09:14 |
jeffheiman During the time of Jesus, there were many people who had followings, and some of them were, no doubt, schizophrenics. People who lived back then understood that some people were mentally ill... possessed by demons, they called it. The people of that era were perhaps more sophisticated and suspicious of false prophets than they would be if one were to arise today. That is precisely why the Bible takes such pains to recount for us that Jesus the Christ was the messiah that was prophesied in the Book of Isaiah and other portions of the Old Testament. Now if you will continue to say, well part of it is true and part of it isn't, I don't know what to say to that. Jesus said "Those who ears to hear, let them hear." |
|||||||||||||||
|
jd <dirty heathen that doesn't want change his pagan ways. you do not believe in God because you do not want it to be true.> well, take out the dirty part (i am scrupulous about personal hygiene : ) and i cannot disagree too much. i would say that i do not believe in god because i have seen no evidence to support his existence. as far as jesus...you have no way of knowing he WAS actually in contact with god. stalemate! |
|||||||||||||||
|
jeff transcend common sense and logic to believe in something because a book says it is so.*** Seems like a paradoxical contradiction - smart guy, believs in myths. I think I'm hearing your congitive dissonance. Have you ever thought that perhaps a guy like me has not thrown common sense and logic to the wind and still take my position. It's a common assumption from many atheists, and unfortunately probably the biggest obstacle to communication, because you assume I've checked by brain at the door, and therefore need a lesson from one who actually has common sense and logic. Do you really think that I do not have my common sense ad logic in my position? After spending time with me here and seen the way I think through positions and arguments, even though you do not agree, that I have just said, "hell with that logic crap, I duh nee no stinkin' common sense!" I wasn't offended by you comment so much as baffled myself why a guy such as yourself who hates to generalize, loves to points out the exception would paint such a broad stroke on those of faith. I thought it was disengenuous, and also another barrier to communication between the athiest and the theist. You cannot make statements like, "you're weak-minded, irrationale, and in need of crutch who hold onto belief because you cannot deal with reality" and then expect decent dialouge . . . you won't ever hear, "yeah, you know what, you got me pegged. boy didn't realize how much of a loser I was until you told me about my weak mind, irrationality, and need of a crutch" Maybe you're not that interested in dialouge and some athiests are not - they are only interested in being right - but I don't think that is a good description of you buddy. ***as far as jesus...you have no way of knowing he WAS actually in contact with god. stalemate!*** I wish you could see my smile. Jesus, God, prophets . . . still have yet to disappear in the puff of logic. You're right: stalemate |
|||||||||||||||
|
as always the theist cannot fathom why the atheist has a need to have EVERYTHING verified by evidence or science or personal experience and thinks that the atheist is a pathetic fool for their lack of faith. there is no end to this debate. we believe the way we do because that is what we require in our lives at the present time. and that is fine, as long as we are willing to accept that we all believe differently and do feel obligated to kill those who do not agree with us. |
|||||||||||||||
|
jeff kill those who do not agree with us.*** Freudian slip? |
|||||||||||||||
|
hmmm perhaps |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
titanforlife 30-Sep-06, 11:43 |
Who is this Jesus? When dealing with the evidence surrounding the historical reliability of the New Testament and the case for Christ's existence, life, and especially the claims that he made for himself, the historical data and proof is overwhelming in favour of how orthodox Christians have processed and interpreted this information over the past 2000 years. Bill Craig has written some excellent articles in support of the New Testament historical presentation of who Jesus was and claimed to be. www.leaderu.com" target="_blank">-> www.leaderu.com |
|||||||||||||||
|
kementari 30-Sep-06, 12:16 |
Oooh, goodie... Pawnie, your miracles post was brilliant. Bravo. As for the rest of you... (flexes fingers and cracks knuckles...) I have not forgotten you. Your questions will be answered, and I certainly hope you're willing to defend yourselves as articulately as you're willing to issue your challenges. |
|||||||||||||||
|
titanforlife 30-Sep-06, 12:35 |
Pawn... Pawn you claim that the miralces as reported in the NT are impossible. Impossible? You seem to have your mind made up on this issue. The problem is that your presupposing that these recorded miracles are impossible. Are miracles really "impossible" however?? I guess if one is working strictly with a naturalistic framework or worldview they would be, but surely there's even a slight possibility that a God exists; therefore wouldn't there also be a possibility that God could intervene with his own creation if he so choosed? Even the famous Scottish sceptic David Hume admitted that there's even a slight chance that God exists! That said I think that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour that God does exist and that there are no good reasons to believe that Athiesm is true. Again I'd like to point you to Dr. Craig who brillantly argues for the veracity of the NT and tackles the issue of miracles. www.leaderu.com" target="_blank">-> www.leaderu.com |
|||||||||||||||
|
alexwilson 30-Sep-06, 14:12 |
A scientific proof of atheism does not exist No matter how you slice it, science is modeling based on measurement and observation. Nothing more, nothing less. Science, by its definition therefore can not account for events that are unique and that can not be measured. It can not explain the miracle of life, or any other miracle. Miracles are the relm of faith and belief... e.g. religion. To read the statement of some of the skeptics in this forum, you would think that they would deny that unique events have ever happened in the history of the Universe or that they are even possible. You would have to agree with me that is an absurd conclusion. Like my mother used to say: "there is a first time for everything." It reminds me of college, when the guy at the frat house would tell that you can't eat a pizza because of Zeno's paradox. You know, the pizza slice has to get half of the way to your mouth before it can get there, and a fourth and an eighth and so on.... Well we know it does get there, because we ate many of them. There is a problem with looking at the world the way Zeno did. It doesn't fit, even though it is a seductive argument. Likewise, there are unique events that can not be explained by science. It is seductive to think otherwise, but there are unique events in the lives of every one of us. Accordingly, the scientific model many of you have constructed for reality does not apply or fit so well. There is room for religion to explain phenomena in our world, and science will never stamp that out. |
|||||||||||||||
|
kementari 30-Sep-06, 20:45 |
alex Part I <<I never said that 2/3 of the world is wrong.>> The Christian version of God is one that does not allow for any other version of God. "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me," (Exodus 20:5). Only 1/3 of the world's population believes in the Christian God, and there are many different "versions" of God contained within that idea of a Christian God. << Faith and mercy and love can not be explained with test tubes, scales and gieger counters, so there is a place for religion, and there will always be a place for religion.>> Psychology and philosophy are very much sciences of the mind and human behavior. God is not required to explain an appreciation of love and beauty or a fear of known or unknown dangers. <<How ironic that a wicked sinful blasphemer such as I should be called upon to defend the faith.>> How sad that you consider yourself wicked! <<I have no training and have never been to seminary school, yet I have read the Bible 5-6 times cover to cover, and I go to church. >> Not to get into a pissing contest here, but you're not the only one here who can make that claim. I've read the Qu'ran, studied the Qu'ballah, and I go to church, too. (I'm a UU. en.wikipedia.org" target="_blank">-> en.wikipedia.org ) "Faith" doesn't necessarily need to involve a metaphysical construct of reality. << I used to think the Bible was absurd. I used to poke fun at Christianity, even publicly. I am telling you that in your hour of need, it will give you back what you need. Where to begin. >> And I am here to tell you that you take from whatever religious doctrine what you need from yourself. You could have gotten the same benefits from Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, or (dare I say it) secular atheism. Billions of people do. |
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
