|
Post by ajmizu on Dec 31, 2003 3:50:39 GMT -5
first, joel, when you say people who try and disprove the bible or show its falseness havent gotten far your wrong, all you have to do is read and you'd be amazed at all the fucked up things in that book, and how twisted up some of it is, for example the geneaologies. The text of the Bible does not prove that it is wrong. It claims to be true.... how can a text I don't understand the reasoning there. If you would only read about all the proof that the Bible is true. There are non Christian documents that aid in the case for the validity of the Bible... more than the fact that Homer wrote the Illiad and the Odyssey. As far as the genealogies go, were you there when those people lived? Do you KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are wrong? Why would someone lie about a stupid genealogy? (*ooh, let me think of how many ridiculous sounding names I can put into my book!*) That's illogical, and down right stupid. (Just to clarify, I am not calling you stupid... you're actually quite smart, bring controversies into light.) Its like the followers of Jesus during His time on earth... they wouldn't go to steal His body from the tomb and say He was raised back to life. If it really wasn't true, they would try to lie low and reclaim the 3 years they lost following a liar. But since it was true (which is what I believe) they spread the news. Why would they risk their lives: being killed by the soldiers guarding the tomb, in order to make a false claim to the resurrection of the person of Christ? H-Zence, I'm sorry so many Christians have told you that. Like you said, its okay to doubt, and its good to have solid reasons why you believe what you believe. I'm getting solid reasons from you, so I appreciate that. I would hate to scare anyone into being a Christian. That would be a sad sad day. No kidding... If I "bring someone to Christ," as JohnnyJihadFace put it, its not a good day unless I know for sure that person is really a Christian. I would like to say though, that if I tell someone about Christ, then its a good day. I try to let God do the rest, as He is much better at "converting" people than I am. Scot, if Buddists are right, I really don't believe we have anything to loose... agnostics, athiests, Christians, or anyone who falls inbetween those categories. Pretty much, Christianity is the one "religion" that one looses a great deal if one doesn't believe in it. Not to scare you or anything, really. As far as the "insurance policy" thing, if you believe in it just so you wouldn't burn in the fires of hell, I don't know if God would actually consider you a child of His, being "saved" from your sins by His son through His death on the cross. JohnnyJihadFace, how exactly does "converting to Christianity = getting lost"? I'm confused. H-Zence, what DO you believe about the Bible? What evidence needs to be presented to you, including all others, that could show you that there is a God? Thanks for your time and effort spent trying to help me understand all of you... sorry... I was being really sarcastic in the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by Nostradanus on Dec 31, 2003 14:59:30 GMT -5
I think its my duty to save some of you guys from wasting your time. You can't prove or disprove anything to people like John and me by showing us bible verses. The bible is text, and like any text it can be interpreted by many different people in many different ways, you telling john what you think it says doesn't mean anything to him. Its like trying to potty train a kid while you yourself piss on the floor. Try as you might, talk all you want, but you won't gain an inch on John, you only further his conviction to prove you wrong. And with that conviction comes anger, and annoyance....and with john that means hes going to go off using words like "fucking faggotry" and talk about burning churches. So If you wish to actually prove something to him, you'll have to find an alternate path.
P.S. - Your welcome
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Dec 31, 2003 19:05:38 GMT -5
quote author=Scot link=board=doubt&thread=1072762476&start=53#3 date=1072843604] but if we question him, we get damned. I'm sure God would be laughing at me right now. He must take a lot of pleasure out of what he does.[/quote]
sorry i havnt written in a while so im gonna back track I wasnt able to get into the forum from the computer i was at, although i could get into the other forums, i dont understand...
qustioning god does not equal damnation. Moses(you know the guy who lead all of israel) questioned God the entire way from Egypt to present day Israel. Sorry but i absolutly promis you without doubt that everysingle person who is a christian has questioned God EVERY single person. That does not equal damnation.
As for geneaologies your wrong and we have had this discusion. The language that the bible is writen in(either Aramaic or greek) does not have a word for garandfather or grandson. The only words they use are father and son. My granfather would be called my father. One is also traced through the mothers side instead of the fathers which both end up at the same place on both ends. And honestly lets think about this. The geneologies are a big deal and are very obviouse. People have been trying to disproove the bible for a loooooooong time. This is something that is downright obviouse. Geneaologies are the first thing that would be torn apart. This discussion ahs already acured hundreds of years ago between people who have been studying the bible for their entire lives. And once again it is something so obviouse that the person(or group of people who put it together) would have made sure the line of decent was identicle. Because if they were going to lie to make up the bible then they would have no problem lieing to make up the geneologies. Think about it, why on earth would they make 2 different lines???
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Dec 31, 2003 19:07:07 GMT -5
sorry i was typing that last one before i read the last page so ajmizu already said everything i said. gtime for the big birch beer drinking fest, ill be back later tonight... sober
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJihadFace on Jan 1, 2004 2:55:41 GMT -5
quote author=Scot link=board=doubt&thread=1072762476&start=53#3 date=1072843604] but if we question him, we get damned. I'm sure God would be laughing at me right now. He must take a lot of pleasure out of what he does. As for geneaologies your wrong and we have had this discusion. The language that the bible is writen in(either Aramaic or greek) does not have a word for garandfather or grandson. The only words they use are father and son. My granfather would be called my father. One is also traced through the mothers side instead of the fathers which both end up at the same place on both ends. And honestly lets think about this. The geneologies are a big deal and are very obviouse. People have been trying to disproove the bible for a loooooooong time. This is something that is downright obviouse. Geneaologies are the first thing that would be torn apart. This discussion ahs already acured hundreds of years ago between people who have been studying the bible for their entire lives. And once again it is something so obviouse that the person(or group of people who put it together) would have made sure the line of decent was identicle. Because if they were going to lie to make up the bible then they would have no problem lieing to make up the geneologies. Think about it, why on earth would they make 2 different lines??? [/quote] You know why I sometimes have a hard time not flipping out on you joel? First, you state that I am wrong. And THEN, you explain why I am wrong by defending something that you have ASSUMED is my point. and it wasnt my point, you have the wrong attack pal. You wasted a paragraph, told me I was wrong, and then guessed wrong on what I was speaking about. How cool. Grandfather? has nothing to do with it. I can get you the info if you want it. The problems I saw when reading the article were two main things, First, when directly transferred we get jesus the son in law of joseph. which would be odd considering we dont hear about joseph's daughter and learn of jesus marrying her. The second one was EXTREME name and character fuck ups. like I said, if you want them ask. I will also be starting a thread on all of the shit you christians love to call sin and bash when god isnt really against them. like abortion.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Jan 1, 2004 16:47:56 GMT -5
i dont know all all the information about the geneologies but if the bible is fabricated then the people who wrote it would have made sure to change it so the names match up. This is obviouse. They would not have called there book free from error when it doesnt match up. The geneologies were writen down by 2 different people who tarced them 2 different ways, i am not sure about thw hole son in law thing and if you really want me to i can look it up but first the hell thing.
|
|
|
Post by Scot on Jan 5, 2004 23:21:36 GMT -5
No, this thread will not die yet.
Ajmizu:
No, he doesn't. But that's funny because he doesn't go around claiming that what they have said and done is absolute truth. Do YOU know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are absolutely RIGHT? (this is not necissarily directed at you, but at christians in general.)
Ajimizu:
Did you ever consider the fact that maybe Jesus wasn't dead but maybe unconscious or in some sort of coma? Keep in mind this was nearly two thousand years ago. They didn't do an autopsy on him before they put him in the tomb or anything.
I'm not sure how many guards there were guarding the tomb either, but I wouldn't think it would be too many. Jesus definitely would have had enough followers to come attack the guards and maybe even move the rock in front of the tomb. Moving the rock with just people sounds ridiculous at first...but then, the rock had to have been put there some how, and it wasn't by machines.
I don't know much of the story of Jesus's resurrection and where he was buried. Joel or ajimizu, if either of you could give me books or verses regarding this I am interested in knowing more, thanks.
Ajimizu, you said something about the Christianity being the only religion where one 'loses a great deal if one doesn't believe in it'.
Not to jump to conclusions, but I'm assuming you don't have a wealth of knowledge on EVERY other religion that there is, so you can't be fully justified in saying that. Besides, they all know that they are right too.
Again @ ajimizu...you said that using God as an 'insurance policy' (like I said earlier) would probably cause him to not want you in heaven. This is exactly what I think, too. People are scared into religion so badly that they make themselves think that they believe in things they might not actually believe in. It depends on the situation, but often times, whether at a conscious or subconscious level, people do get scared into religion and thus use it as an insurance policy. So for there own sake, and i'm not saying that you have done this, but just don't scare people into religion! Don't even say things like 'if you died right now would you go to heaven or hell'. It SCARES them. I recommend you put using hell as an incentive to become religious on the end of your list of reasons to become Christian.
Ajimizu:
Well, ANY evidence you have would be great. I am unaware of any actual PROOF that there is a God. So by all means, give your examples. (And I would prefer that you not use examples from the bible, if possible.)
That's all I have.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJihadFace on Jan 5, 2004 23:43:11 GMT -5
Did you ever consider the fact that maybe Jesus wasn't dead but maybe unconscious or in some sort of coma? Keep in mind this was nearly two thousand years ago. They didn't do an autopsy on him before they put him in the tomb or anything. yes. that is most definitely a possibility especially when you are dealing with loss of blood. Or atleast thats what I would think. Consider the devout followers of jesus though. Consider the fanatics who absolutely NEEDED and wanted with everything in them for jesus to be the messiah. You could even get rid of those possibilities and think of it as his followers being so offended that they went and took the body. Either way it makes jesus look like a savior, and makes the followers look like they have truth. But when disregarding all of that we are still left with the growing philosophy of the entire jesus character being fabricated.
|
|
|
Post by ShiningLight on Jan 7, 2004 16:22:35 GMT -5
John 19:32-34 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side (where the organs are) with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. Water seperates from blood when you are dead and only when you die..they put that in there to prove that he was dead.
|
|
|
Post by Scot on Jan 7, 2004 16:34:35 GMT -5
--
Sorry, I looked at 1,2 & 3 John. That's all I need to know...
|
|
|
Post by H-Zence on Jan 7, 2004 16:44:54 GMT -5
No, it clearly goes up John 21 Scot...
|
|
|
Post by ajmizu on Jan 7, 2004 22:18:31 GMT -5
No, he doesn't. But that's funny because he doesn't go around claiming that what they have said and done is absolute truth. Do YOU know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are absolutely RIGHT? (this is not necissarily directed at you, but at christians in general.) I don't know that I'm absolutely right. Again, I've asked my father lots about the subjects you broached in this entry. But we do know that the Old Testament (sorry, Biblical reference) was painstakingly copied and handed down by generations. They had to count the letters (or whatever form of writing they used) for each page that they copied. If they were off by even one, they would rip up the entire page and start over again. Again, I really don't see any reason for anyone to fake these genealogies or change them. But I'm sorry, I have no concrete answer for you. Did you ever consider the fact that maybe Jesus wasn't dead but maybe unconscious or in some sort of coma? Keep in mind this was nearly two thousand years ago. They didn't do an autopsy on him before they put him in the tomb or anything. I'm not sure how many guards there were guarding the tomb either, but I wouldn't think it would be too many. Jesus definitely would have had enough followers to come attack the guards and maybe even move the rock in front of the tomb. Moving the rock with just people sounds ridiculous at first...but then, the rock had to have been put there some how, and it wasn't by machines. What you have mentioned is known as the "Swoon Theory." They didn't do an autopsy as we know it medically today. But the people who crucified Him were professionals. They killed for a living, working for the Roman government. People who kill people for a living better know whether or not a person is dead. If they say someone was dead, yet really they weren't, I'm sure that person would get fired really quick, maybe even killed, and the people who killed him would make sure that he was dead. This though, was just the crucifixion. Before the crucifixion, Jesus was flogged - a type of a whip with bone and stones attached to the nine ropes. We don't know how many times He was whipped, but one could die after 40 lashes. The Jews had a mercy law which was 40 lashes minus one, so they wouldn't die. The Romans had no such law, so they could have beaten Jesus as much as they wanted. Jesus was also hit and spit on, and had a "crown" of 3 inch thorns jammed into His head (sorry, Biblical references). The Bible says that He was beaten beyond recognition. Jesus then had to carry His cross, the beam to which His arms would be stretched out on. After Jesus died (assuming this is true) he was wrapped in 90 pounds of spices and wrapped in cloths. Then Jesus was placed in a tomb which was sealed per the Romans and Jewish leaders. The Jewish leaders of that time asked the Roman government to send soldiers to guard it. There could have been anywhere from 4 to 16 top notch guards. (the Romans wanted to please the Jews, and the Jews wanted to please the Romans.... they had a very "give and get" kind of relationship). Jesus had 12 disciples, and an unknown number of followers. His 12 disciples, the closest to Him, were a bunch of fishermen and tax collectors. Simon the Zealot was a revolutionist. But these men would have no stand against the soldiers. Would you go attack the marines with no prior training? Moving the rock wouldn't be the problem, true. The soldiers also were not allowed to fall asleep. They would be beheaded if they did, but yet the completely illogical story circulated that they did and the disciples stole the body. I don't know much of the story of Jesus's resurrection and where he was buried. Joel or ajimizu, if either of you could give me books or verses regarding this I am interested in knowing more, thanks. Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John in the New Testament... Joel could probably point you in the right direction. Ajimizu, you said something about the Christianity being the only religion where one 'loses a great deal if one doesn't believe in it'. Not to jump to conclusions, but I'm assuming you don't have a wealth of knowledge on EVERY other religion that there is, so you can't be fully justified in saying that. Besides, they all know that they are right too. Actually, I'm pretty positive I'm right on this one... now mind you I'm not 100% sure, but almost. Here's a few examples: Hindu's: when we die we get reincarnated to work off our "bad kharma." Buddist: try to cease desiring therefore eliminate suffering, so in a sense, nothingness is the end goal. Islam: get to "Paradise" which you have no guarantee of unless you kill people. (ooh! sign me up for that one!) This is pretty much the closest you can get to "loosing" something... but you don't know if you "loose" unless you die and Allah decides he doesn't like your hair so he condemns you to hell. If you're wondering about any other religions, I could try and look those up for you. Again @ ajimizu...you said that using God as an 'insurance policy' (like I said earlier) would probably cause him to not want you in heaven. This is exactly what I think, too. People are scared into religion so badly that they make themselves think that they believe in things they might not actually believe in. It depends on the situation, but often times, whether at a conscious or subconscious level, people do get scared into religion and thus use it as an insurance policy. So for there own sake, and i'm not saying that you have done this, but just don't scare people into religion! Don't even say things like 'if you died right now would you go to heaven or hell'. It SCARES them. I recommend you put using hell as an incentive to become religious on the end of your list of reasons to become Christian. As I read an earlier entry, I talked to my friend Andrew. Sometimes, he asserts, people become Christians for the wrong reasons, i.e. an insurance policy. But later on, as they understand more fully and become closer to God and understanding His will for them, they won't be believing just for the "insurance policy." ANY evidence you have would be great. I am unaware of any actual PROOF that there is a God. So by all means, give your examples. (And I would prefer that you not use examples from the bible, if possible.) Nature: I'm assuming that you've taken some sort of science. Currently, I'm taking Chemistry. I've learned so much about little atoms and molecules that I really could live my life not knowing. But then I would be ignoring much of the miracle of God's creation. Why would all this happen by accident? One of my mother's friends once used this example. She took apart a watch (just a common wrist watch) and put it in a plastic Zip-lock baggie. She then went on to shake it up for a short while (but she could have done it for days). Anyone there could see that the watch was not going to put itself back together even after many minutes. This is evolutionary belief on a small scale. Science even disagrees with it in the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that things in the universe goes from order to disorder. A big explosion has never created a cool new toy. Look at what the a-bombs did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nothing new and exciting came out of those explosions. I would really like to know why anyone would want to believe they exist now because of some accident of the universe. What would be the point of trying to be the best person you could? Why would you want to obey the laws of the land? Just so you wouldn't get in trouble. But think... where did those guys in Washington D.C. get their ideas of right and wrong? Just think... if that theory could be proved... we would have some REALLY depressed people... I mean, we already have so many people trying to commit suicide. And there would be no point in trying to stop them because there would be no right or wrong... everything is a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Scot on Jan 7, 2004 22:42:02 GMT -5
That's a good point. I really do believe that there must be some sort of higher power above all. But next to that, I consider something else. For all that we solidly know about the universe, what if everything just happened (the creation process; or the coming-to-existance process) by accident, millions upon millions of times. If in any of these times, something that was created had a flaw, nothing would work, and would lead to the collapse of existance. Maybe this could have just kept happening until finally, everything was perfect. This probably sounds crazy (mainly because I'm explaining it badly). Maybe we weren't just perfect the first time, mabye we were perfect the millionth time or something. Sorry, that really doesn't sound solid at all, it's just an idea I had.
Yes, please don't just assume that I believe in evolution or the big bang, because I also don't believe them. About the big bang. There was a tiny dense ball of matter that exploded and random created the universe. Now if you are smart enough to go look out your window your realize that's impossible. But beyond that, where did that little dense ball of material come from? It couldn't have just been there forever, it had to have come from something.
Unfortunately I don't know a lot about evolution, but based on what I know about it, I know I don't believe it. That's all I can really say on that topic.
|
|
|
Post by H-Zence on Jan 7, 2004 22:47:01 GMT -5
Yes...for God's sake, non-believer does not necessarily equal pro-evolutionist.
|
|
jk
Novice
Posts: 84
|
Post by jk on Jan 7, 2004 23:46:51 GMT -5
I've never been fond of the word non-believer. It suggest that the person has no beliefs at all. I believe in many thing although i may not full heartedly believe in christianity. I believe that tomorrow will come regardless of if i am there to witness it. I believe that all things living have souls. I believe that there are many sides to every story. I believe that all sides should be listened to and considered. I believe the sun shines and the grass is green. Some beliefs can be proven while other are more obscure but that does not mean that they are not beliefs in their own right. I think non- Christian is a better word.
Just a general statement as this is my first post. I'm not truely a subscriber to one religion exclusively. I believe Gandhi said that there is as many religions as there are people. Everyone has there own take on what they're being taught. No two christians believe exactly the same things. All the basic are the same Father, son, holy spirit but things break down from there. everyone is entitled to their own opinions, to their own belief system. Hell im up for believing that all major religions are the same, but i have nothing but my opinions to back myself up.
It is nice to see that Lancaster region isnt exclusively made up of religious republicans
|
|