The Bible

[Will_518]

I'm not a very religious person, but i still read the Bible when i'm very bored or want to tell some people on MSN to shut up.

There are many thing one can say about the Bibile, but is it actually a good book to read?

I mean, is it a work of art? why? what are the philosophical ideas behind it? and how do you know that?

What do you guys think about the Bible?

[please do not offend anyone, this is not what this post is trying to do; btw sorry about the spelling mistake in the title, *good not goos]

[Neo 721]

The bible sucks most of it was probably made up to provoke tension amonst religions.

[Will_518]

hey! what do you mean?! Islam and lots of other religions came after the Bible.

[Neo 721]

Maybee but it was aimed at mostly christianity to give advantage to that religion

[Will_518]

hey! do you even know what the Bible is?! It's what Christianity is based on, not "aimed at christians" it's not a chocolate bar.

And there's no maybes in this.

[Neo 721]

Christianity doesnt realy give equal oppertunities all its followers

[Will_518]

What does that have to do with anything?! (and while on the matter, of course they do, Christians anywhere, anyone are all equal, as brothers and sisters)

Stay on the topic, or get out.

[Neo 721]

OK but the fact that millions of people put all this divotion into one book devoted to somthing that probably doesnt exist is somewhat pointless it could do woth replacing.

[Will_518]

To the people who believe in it, it's not pointless. And why does it need replacing? and what with? Is there a better book than the Bible for Christian values?

[Neo 721]

Most of the ideals have long gone.

[Mad Cat]

Its the basis of a Religion. But a biased one.

Who can say that no greedy priest didn't slip a few lines in to trick someone, and this tainted copy might have spread. Bad translations may have occured, making the bible seem something it isn't. There is no 'real' bible, in the sense that there isn't one base copy.

[Inevitable]

There is a God you guys are just confused. I'm a Christian and from my personal experiences I realized that there really is a God. If there wasn't we wouldn't be here.

[Neo 721]

Most of the ideals have long gone.

EDIT: sorry double post

[Will_518]

Of course there is a base copy, a few years back they found the original book of Isiah, and it's only minorly different from the ones we see today. And all the translations try to be as accurate as possible. And it'sso popular no greedy priest can slip in lines.

neo, what do you mean? Is the Bible no longer relevant?

[Mad Cat]

I think it was more of a way of controlling people back in history. There was no real police, and apart from vigilantes, what was to stop rape, stealing, murder etc.

People were intimidated by it, and therefore order was made. It worked too.

The ideals are still here. Its the base of most modern day "morals."

[Mad Cat]

Originally posted by Will_518@4 November 2003 - 20:07
Of course there is a base copy, a few years back they found the original book of Isiah, and it's only minorly different from the ones we see today. And all the translations try to be as accurate as possible. And it'sso popular no greedy priest can slip in lines.

neo, what do you mean? Is the Bible no longer relevant?
I'm sorry but Isiah didn't write the Old and New testaments.

Who can say that is the original?

EDIT: With the greedy priests part, I meant priests in the past. You know when the average man couldn't read? Nowadays there is a standard for the bible, I agree.

[Mad Cat]

Originally posted by Will_518@4 November 2003 - 19:13
What does that have to do with anything?! (and while on the matter, of course they do, Christians anywhere, anyone are all equal, as brothers and sisters)

Stay on the topic, or get out.
Right I'm getting confused from all these posts going at the same time but... here goes.

In response to the quoted ^

Christians everywhere are equal, but what does this have to do with anything? Unless you are a racist or something you should think we are all equal. Which we are.


EDIT: Arrgh, sorry. This is probably spamming on my part. New posts keep popping up. Sorry.

EDIT AGAIN: Don't try forcing your beliefs on people. Telling someone to get out because they have an opinion is bad. Freedom of speech, and all.

[Neo 721]

Thats true but consider how many copies have sold overthe years, there will have been considerable changes in order to attempt to make it appeal to the younger generations.

[Mad Cat]

Originally posted by Neo 721@4 November 2003 - 20:14
Thats true but consider how many copies have sold overthe years, there will have been considerable changes in order to attempt to make it appeal to the younger generations.
Not only this, I am talking about changes throughout history. Back in the Middle Ages, religion was what kept a lot of things in order. Think of all the power the Church had. If by changing lines in a bible they could get more power, who is stopping them?
If you were against it back then, you would probably be executed for blasphemy or something.

[Guillaume]

Originally posted by Neo 721@4 November 2003 - 21:14
Thats true but consider how many copies have sold overthe years, there will have been considerable changes in order to attempt to make it appeal to the younger generations.

There is no 'real' bible, in the sense that there isn't one base copy.

The bible hasn't changed since the work of St Jerome in the fourth century... Well, at least the Bible according to the Roman Church...
I you want the unchanged Old Testament read the jewish Torah. The New Testament is more of a problem, since Jesus didn't write it Himself, but the Apostles did some 30 years after...

edit: link to encyclopedia (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/V/Vulgate.asp)

[Mad Cat]

Originally posted by Gurahl+4 November 2003 - 20:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Gurahl &#064; 4 November 2003 - 20:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Neo 721@4 November 2003 - 21:14
Thats true but consider how many copies have sold overthe years, there will have been considerable changes in order to attempt to make it appeal to the younger generations.

There is no &#39;real&#39; bible, in the sense that there isn&#39;t one base copy.

The bible hasn&#39;t changed since the work of St Jerome in the fourth century... Well, at least the Bible according to the Roman Church...
I you want the unchanged Old Testament read the jewish Torah. The New Testament is more of a problem, since Jesus didn&#39;t write it Himself, but the Apostles did some 30 years after...

edit: link to encyclopedia (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/V/Vulgate.asp) [/b][/quote]
I am more talking about the New Testament, because it is the part more about Christianity, which someone said something about above.

I do, however, agree that the earlier Old Testament remains largely unchanged. Thats the part more about Judaism.

EDIT: I like this, a nice discussion.

[Neo 721]

The old testiment is unlikley ever to change it contains the foundations for most religions, the new testiment and the newer parts of other holly books is realy contain trends and metheds that the religion will use to find god. These particular parts are the most likley to chnage.

[Cheese]

Whatever you actually believe about the bible it is important to recognize the effect the bible has had on the creative world through the ages and how many artists get their inspiration: from Milton&#39;s paradise to the Wachowski brother&#39;s Matrix we are constantly bombarded with references to the text.

I leave the arguments about god and all that to the philosophers but I don&#39;t think anyone can have any doubts that the bible has influenced a lot of people in their creative ideas and even to those who don&#39;t believe in the teachings it is an important book nevertheless.

[Mad Cat]

Originally posted by Withcheese@4 November 2003 - 20:45
Whatever you actually believe about the bible it is important to recognize the effect the bible has had on the creative world through the ages and how many artists get their inspiration: from Milton&#39;s paradise to the Wachowski brother&#39;s Matrix we are constantly bombarded with references to the text.

I leave the arguments about god and all that to the philosophers but I don&#39;t think anyone can have any doubts that the bible has influenced a lot of people in their creative ideas and even to those who don&#39;t believe in the teachings it is an important book nevertheless.
I agree totally. The bible is an influential text.

[MagicNakor]

In response to the original question, yes, it is a good book. It can be very trying though, depending on your grasp of the language.

Most of the stories are written as parables, so that you&#39;ll gain some wisdom or understanding by reading, rather than "having it happen" to you. The basic ideas behind much of it are still very relevant today, if the phrasing is not.

:ninja:

[**GASHA**]

I wonder if the guys over at the Walt Disney studios have any plans to do a movie on it.

They&#39;ve done loads of other fiction/fantasy movies. :)

[bob_the_alien]

Yes, the bible is art,
It’s read in most Universities as on of the major literary works of all time.
I know I spent a month reading both the new and old testaments for World Lit.

All stories are written to teach a lesson, but they are also historical teachings of their time.

Now a as for religious belief, that’s up to the individual, personally, I don&#39;t believe, but you can&#39;t deny the fact that many people seek comfort in the book, and its teachings. You can&#39;t say its not relevant anymore, may not be relevant to you, but it is relevant to many others, some live their lives by it teachings, and that&#39;s ok, to each their own.

[Will_518]

Hey, if you guys wanna discuss this, plz don&#39;t spam, you might do better to just read the posts first.

1. I&#39;m not a racist, the post about christians being equal is in reply to the post above it. (if you can be bothered to read it)

2. Isiah is not a writer of the Bible. It&#39;s a book in the old testament. They know they found the original (or one of the original) because they dated it, and it came out to be roughly the right date.

3. greedy priest can&#39;t squeez in words, &#39;cos that in the middle ages would almost certainly lead to death. Anyway the copy we have wouldn&#39;t be that one. (of course the pope is totally different, butu if he did, we would have a record of that).

Back on the subject.

Hollywood did do a lot of films on the bible, like the "ten commandaments", which was (apparently) a major success. but nowadays noone want to see these films.

One thing i find funny about the Bible is ppl always say it&#39;s difficult to understand. i don&#39;t think so, &#39;cos "lord of the rings" uses a lot more difficult language. As for the stories, it maybe difficult to find the deeper meanings, but things like a guy gets beaten up, then get rescued by his enemy are if anything much easier to understand than some mordern books.

[Mad Cat]

Originally posted by **GASHA**@5 November 2003 - 15:13
I wonder if the guys over at the Walt Disney studios have any plans to do a movie on it.&nbsp;

They&#39;ve done loads of other fiction/fantasy movies. :)
It&#39;d probably be too touchy a subject for them guys.

It is a very good historical document. A nice view into the past. It show a lot of what people thought back then, and helps us learn about ourselves.

[TheDave]

i reckon the bible exists for a good reason - to make the world a beeter place.

but its slowly being phased out, with evolution and contraceptives and stuff.

thats just my HO

[**GASHA**]

Who is GOD ?

I personally think:

Religion = BRAINWASHING

I believe it&#39;s each to their own though, I dont think I&#39;m any better than the next person and have total respect for others who have beliefs(fall for it), so:

Name one miracle apart from the fact that millions of people still believe all the bullshit associated with the bible.

Wheres the evidence ?

If there is a god ? He has an incredible sense of humour.

Anyone heard of EVOLUTION ?

Hope I don&#39;t end up in HELL now :)

[shinzuiski]

i hope this doesnt offend anyone, but i&#39;de just like to admit that i once used the pages of the bible to whipe my ass, i thought maybe if i did that my ass would be holy.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by shinzuiski@6 November 2003 - 15:47
i hope this doesnt offend anyone, but i&#39;de just like to admit that i once used the pages of the bible to whipe my ass, i thought maybe if i did that my ass would be holy.
And the point of that post was? It doesn&#39;t really bring much to the discussion does it?

Are the other 60-odd posts you&#39;ve made in the last 5 days of this stirling quality?

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Mad Cat@4 November 2003 - 21:13

Christians everywhere are equal
Actually the bible says that ALL men are equal. Funny how the spanish were so equal to the inca&#39;s <_< Convert or die.

What about the world wars? people of the same religion from different countries being told that god is with them. You can soon spot the hypocrites from those that really live their lives by bible standards.

Evolution? What crap imo... How many fish crept from the water and died thinking, "Shit, I must evolve lungs next time." Or an animal becoming a bird plummeting to earth thinking, "Shiitttt, I forgot to evolve wings." If men came from apes where&#39;s all the fossils? There claims to be a handful which turn out to be fakes.

[Mad Cat]

Originally posted by Thorin+12 November 2003 - 23:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Thorin &#064; 12 November 2003 - 23:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mad Cat@4 November 2003 - 21:13

Christians everywhere are equal
Actually the bible says that ALL men are equal. Funny how the spanish were so equal to the inca&#39;s <_< Convert or die.

What about the world wars? people of the same religion from different countries being told that god is with them. You can soon spot the hypocrites from those that really live their lives by bible standards.

Evolution? What crap imo... How many fish crept from the water and died thinking, "Shit, I must evolve lungs next time." Or an animal becoming a bird plummeting to earth thinking, "Shiitttt, I forgot to evolve wings." If men came from apes where&#39;s all the fossils? There claims to be a handful which turn out to be fakes. [/b][/quote]
My god, that is so stupid...

What about World Wars. The people weren&#39;t fighting for religious reasons in those Wars, they were fighting because one country thought that they were superior.

And about your evolution crap. Give me some evidence proving the extrememly intelligent scientists wrong. They have worked for years on this, and you bring out the assumption, against all scientific findings, that fish crept out of water and thought, "Shit."

So an animal just started flying, then plummeted to the earth... riight.

I also don&#39;t understand what you are trying to say by this post. Are you for or against Christianity?

[soiD]

Here are my favorite quotes in the bible:

"When men fight with one another, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall have no pity."

Christian god-Deuteronomy 25:11

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Moses-Numbers 31:17

"But if the thing is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then you shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father&#39;s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones..."

Christian god-Deuteronomy 22:20

"David arose and went, along with his men, and killed two hundred of the Philistines; and David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king&#39;s son-in-law."

1 Samuel 18:27

"I will strew your flesh upon the mountains, and fill the valleys with your carcass. I will drench the land even to the mountains with your flowing blood..."

Christian god-Ezekiel 32:5

"I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs, I will tear open their breast, and there I will devour them like a lion, as a wild beast would rend them."

Christian god-Hosea 13:8

"And I will fill your mountains with the slain; on your hills and in your valleys and in all your ravines those slain with the sword shall fall...Then you shall know that I am the Lord."

Christian god-Ezekiel 35:8

"While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day...And the Lord said to Moses, &#39;The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.&#39; And all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses."

Numbers 15:32

"Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in the midst of you and sons shall eat their fathers...I will send famine and wild beasts against you and they shall rob you of your children; pestilence and blood shall pass through you; and I will bring a sword upon you. I, the Lord, have spoken."

Christian god-Ezekiel 5:10, 5:17

"But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.&#39;"

Jesus speaking in a parable
Luke 19:27

"...but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or the age to come."

Jesus-Matthew 12:32

"He who believes and who is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

Jesus-Mark 16:16

"The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth."

Jesus-Matthew 13:49

"...he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

Jesus-John 3:18

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the son shall not see life, but the wrath of god rests upon him."

Jesus-John 3:36

"If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned."

Jesus-John 15:6

"Do you think I have to come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother- in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in- law."

Jesus-Luke 12:51

"If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

Jesus-Luke 14:26

"O, woman, what have you to do with me?"

Jesus talking to his mother
John 1:4

"As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

1 Corinthians 14:34

"Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord."

Ephesians 5:22

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."

Timothy 2:11

"It is well for a man not to touch a woman."

1 Corinthians 7:1

"Samar&#39;ia shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open."

Hosea 13:16


"Now go and smote Am&#39;alek and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

Christian god-1 Sameul 15:3


"Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock&#33;"


Psalms 137:9

I have much more too. I want to see what all the Christians feel about these quotes. And if they are proud to be Christian. B)

[Mobas]

Deuteronomy 25:11

I think I would have her hand cut off too. Privates are not exactly made for squeezing&#33; OUCH&#33; That&#39;s pretty low when a woman can&#39;t allow men to settle their differances mano-a-mano, and she has to go for the family jewels because her
wimpy husband is getting his butt kicked.

--------------------------------------------------
Numbers 31:17

If you read the entire chapter you&#39;ll see that the reason that the people were killed was to prevent the spreading of a plague. Seems that the plague was spread through the male gene side.

--------------------------------------------------
Deuteronomy 22:20

They had very tough laws in those days for sexual immorality. It was very important that a girl was not sleeping around. It would of been pretty bad for a man to leave all his inheritance to another mans child, when he thought it was his own.

--------------------------------------------------
1 Samuel 18:27

Just goes to show you what a man will do for the love of a woman. Hehe

--------------------------------------------------
Ezekiel 32:5, Hosea 13:8, Ezekiel 35:8, Ezekiel 5:10,5:17

Nice to know that God is no wimp, and He is willing to kick some a&#036;&#036; when He needs to.

--------------------------------------------------
Numbers 15:32

That was the law back then for the Jewish people. Just the same way that mankind has the power over the animals of the world to kill them or to let them live (because we are greater then them), God can excercise His right to kill us or let us live because He is greater then us.

--------------------------------------------------
Luke 19:27

Yes, that&#39;s part of a parable Jesus was telling. The quote was the words of the nobleman, not Jesus.

--------------------------------------------------
Matthew 12:32

The "speaking against the Holy Spirit" was a very serious sin which was unpardonable. People that committed it could never be forgiven. The problem was that Jesus was doing all these miracles by the very power that the Holy Spirit gave
him. It was these miracles that proved that he was really from God, for only one from God could perform such amazing things, But the ones that committed this sin were saying that Jesus was doing his miracles by the power of the devil (Matthew 12:22-37). Saying that the devil did those miracles when the Holy Spirit did them through Jesus was unforgivable in God&#39;s eyes.

---------------------------------------------------
Mark 16:16, St. John 3:18,36, 15:6

God makes the rules, so that&#39;s the final word. People might be brave now and talk shit about God, but when death is creeping upon you.... you will be scared to hell of death. I know that feeling. I almost died several times, and I was scared not sure what to expect on the otherside. When your healthy and fine....there is no fear. Things are differant when your time is almost up.

---------------------------------------------------
Matthew 13:49

This will happen at judgement day

---------------------------------------------------
St. Luke 12:51

How true that was&#33; Many of the Jewish families were divided because of differances in beliefs.

---------------------------------------------------
St. Luke 14:26

Jesus was not saying for people to "hate" their parents. The word was misstranslated from the greek. The true meaning is "love less".

---------------------------------------------------
St. John 1:4 (I think you meant 2:4)

Mary was trying to excercise her authority over Jesus as his mom, by getting him to perform a miracle (turning water into wine). Jesus was reminding his mom that it was not yet his time to be demonstrating his powers. He gave-in and did the miracle. It&#39;s because of this that many Catholics pray to Mary for intersession. They figure that just as Mary convinced Jesus to perform that miracle, she can now convince Jesus to answer their prayers.

---------------------------------------------------

1 Corinthians 14:34

This verse actually meant that there were woman that went to church to gossip or to chat. It was very unpolite. Church was a place of worship, not to find out the gossip of the week.

---------------------------------------------------
Ephesians 5:22

This doesn&#39;t mean that woman should be slaves to their husbands. It means that a woman should be there to support her husband in all things. The husband should be the boss of the household, but should not abuse his power. He should treat his wife as a queen and be aware of her needs also (See verse 5:25).

---------------------------------------------------
Timothy 2:11

This is St. Paul and what his opinion was on woman teaching. Its not a commandment from God for woman not to teach men.

---------------------------------------------------
1 Corinthians 7:1

Yes, sometimes the life of celibacy is better for a man that wants to serve God. This was St. Pauls opinion too. 7:32-35 explains more.

---------------------------------------------------
Hosea 13:16

Just some foretold prophecy.

---------------------------------------------------
1 Samuel 15:3

Just like a cancer that has to be cut out to save the rest of the body. These cities had to be destroyed as to protect the rest of the human race. The children were being raised in a enviroment were adult/child sex, and animal/human sex was the normal. Every living thing had been corrupted by these twisted sexual behaviors. To allow any survivors would just eventually corrupt the rest of mankind. There was also interbreeding problems between angels/humans that also caused judgement from God.

---------------------------------------------------
Psalms 137:9

The words of David (I think) can&#39;t remember. Again, not God&#39;s quote.

---------------------------------------------------



This is what I think about those verses you quoted. I&#39;m sure proud to be a Christian. I have peace of mind, and I don&#39;t worry about death.

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

Originally posted by Gurahl@4 November 2003 - 20:21
The bible hasn&#39;t changed since the work of St Jerome in the fourth century...
than how do you explain the KING JAMES version?

[**GASHA**]

LOL LOL LOL LOL
Well said Mad Cat.......and all the others for their contributions.

[hooked]

religions suxxors big time
bible suxxors big time

BUT

my advice is : read the bible, it teaches you the values of life, but don&#39;t believe in it

kthxbye

[Mad Cat]

The bible is a collection of stories based on the teachings of prophets that lived years ago.

I myself believe that it was employed as a form of control over people in the past, and to some extent is being used today.
In the middle ages nobody, nobody at all, would deface/disbelieve a church/priest. They were simply scared of going to hell. Since there was little or no policing back then, it was an extremely clever and important tool.

We should study the bible as a historical document, and not follow it blindly.

The morales are well taught from the bible, and provide a basis for modern law, and what is deemed "acceptable" by society.

[soiD]

I think I would have her hand cut off too. Privates are not exactly made for squeezing&#33; OUCH&#33; That&#39;s pretty low when a woman can&#39;t allow men to settle their differances mano-a-mano, and she has to go for the family jewels because her wimpy husband is getting his butt kicked.
Yes, let&#39;s cut off all the hands of woman who SIEZED a male genital not squeezed. Wow, that seems very moral. Let&#39;s all go out and go do this&#33; Who&#39;s with me?? :rolleyes:


If you read the entire chapter you&#39;ll see that the reason that the people were killed was to prevent the spreading of a plague. Seems that the plague was spread through the male gene side.
If that seems moral, why not go out and kill every person who has an STD and AIDS? After all, we need to stop this "plague" don&#39;t you think? They have no right to live because they are sick right?


They had very tough laws in those days for sexual immorality. It was very important that a girl was not sleeping around. It would of been pretty bad for a man to leave all his inheritance to another mans child, when he thought it was his own.
Very tough laws? This is a command by your god to STONE a woman who is not a virgin. Who said that just because you had sex before you got married made you "sleeping around"?


Nice to know that God is no wimp, and He is willing to kick some a&#036;&#036; when He needs to.
God is a "he"?


That was the law back then for the Jewish people. Just the same way that mankind has the power over the animals of the world to kill them or to let them live (because we are greater then them), God can excercise His right to kill us or let us live because He is greater then us.
What happened to "Thou shalt not kill" ? So if I feel that I am greater than my little brother I have the right to beat the shit out of him and after that kill him? Hey, maybe I should beat up a Panda at my local zoo, I&#39;m sure they&#39;ll understand the reasons behind what I did. :unsure:


The "speaking against the Holy Spirit" was a very serious sin which was unpardonable. People that committed it could never be forgiven. The problem was that Jesus was doing all these miracles by the very power that the Holy Spirit gave
him. It was these miracles that proved that he was really from God, for only one from God could perform such amazing things, But the ones that committed this sin were saying that Jesus was doing his miracles by the power of the devil (Matthew 12:22-37). Saying that the devil did those miracles when the Holy Spirit did them through Jesus was unforgivable in God&#39;s eyes.
What do you mean "was"?? If you read it, anyone who speaks against the holy spirit would eventually burn in hell or forgiven. So I am going to be punished because I am saying what I want? Sounds like a fairy tale to me. :lol: Can you answer this question please? Do you believe god is omnipotent?


God makes the rules, so that&#39;s the final word. People might be brave now and talk shit about God, but when death is creeping upon you.... you will be scared to hell of death.
You don&#39;t understand. It says "He who believes and who is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." So what about all the caring Muslims in the world? How about the Buddhist monks promoting peace? They will burn in hell simply because they didn&#39;t get baptized? Are you saying the whole purpose in life is to get baptized?


I almost died several times, and I was scared not sure what to expect on the otherside. When your healthy and fine....there is no fear. Things are differant when your time is almost up.
Yes, you have just fed into the fear tactics of Christianity. If you go against god, you will burn in hell. If you follow this being BUT don&#39;t go to church, you will burn in hell. If you happen to watch TV on the sabbath, you will burn in hell. Yes, lets feed fear to all the children.


St. Luke 12:51

How true that was&#33; Many of the Jewish families were divided because of differances in beliefs.
Wait. Let&#39;s take a look at this quote once again.

"Do you think I have to come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother- in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in- law."

Jesus-Luke 12:51

So it&#39;s try that Jesus did not come to give peace on earth, and his whole purpose was to divide everyone? If that&#39;s true, than I can be forgiven for punching my mom in the mouth for being Catholic? After all, he came to bring division. :P


Jesus was not saying for people to "hate" their parents. The word was misstranslated from the greek. The true meaning is "love less".
Why didn&#39;t they fix it then? If you can see that, why didn&#39;t the churches notice this error and change it?


This verse actually meant that there were woman that went to church to gossip or to chat. It was very unpolite. Church was a place of worship, not to find out the gossip of the week.
Actually, wrong, at the time women were seen to be inferior to men, hence the reason people refer god as a "He" instead of "She". It&#39;s not because women chat at church. Seriously, how dumb can you be? :lol:


This doesn&#39;t mean that woman should be slaves to their husbands. It means that a woman should be there to support her husband in all things. The husband should be the boss of the household, but should not abuse his power. He should treat his wife as a queen and be aware of her needs also (See verse 5:25).
"For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does..."

1 Corinthians 7:4

And thanks for clearing that a Saint&#39;s opinion means shit in the Bible. :)


Just some foretold prophecy.
Just like what&#39;s going to happen on Judgement Day?


Just like a cancer that has to be cut out to save the rest of the body. These cities had to be destroyed as to protect the rest of the human race. The children were being raised in a enviroment were adult/child sex, and animal/human sex was the normal. Every living thing had been corrupted by these twisted sexual behaviors. To allow any survivors would just eventually corrupt the rest of mankind. There was also interbreeding problems between angels/humans that also caused judgement from God.
LMAOOO&#33;&#33;&#33; OMFG are you serious?? :lol:


I have peace of mind, and I don&#39;t worry about death.
Really? I guess this is why you said this:

I almost died several times, and I was scared not sure what to expect on the otherside.

HMMM B)

[Mobas]

To soiD:


Cutting off womans hands for that offense may not seem moral to you, but that was the law back then. Much of the Old testament laws no longer apply for now. They were intended for the Jewish people for those days. The New Testiment is
for now. Going around cutting off womans hands is not necessary. Just the same way that many people were stoned back then, Jesus showed that it was no longer required now (St. John 8:1-11).

----------------------------------------------
I never said that the killing of the plagued people was morally right or wrong. Moses was the one that gave the order. Many of the prophets did things back then that are now deemed unnecessary. It is unfair to judge God by the deeds of men. People are not perfect, and they will make mistakes.

----------------------------------------------
Yes, God is a "He". All the descriptions of Him in the Bible are male descriptions. Jesus said "Father" St. Matthew 6:6-9, Hebrews 1:1-3, 10-14).

----------------------------------------------
The "Thou shalt not kill" is a misstranslation from the original hebrew. It really means "Thou shalt do no murder". Killing and murder are two differant things. Murder = taking a human life unlawfully. Killing is ok if its for capital punishment or if your defending your life or war, etc. Animals are not regarded as equals to human beings, so they don&#39;t have the same rights as we do. This doesn&#39;t mean we should go around beating up Pandas at our local zoo. Mankind proves his rulership over the animals by putting them in zoos or making food out of them.

----------------------------------------------
The unpardonable sin was very serious in God&#39;s eyes. Anyone who would go so far as to say that Jesus was doing all his miracles by the power of the devil would never believe in him anyway, and would be condemned just the same. Do I
believe God is Omnipotent? Well, I believe that God can do all things that are possible.

----------------------------------------------
As to the baptized part you mentioned in St. Mark 16:16. The "baptized" your thinking about is not the water baptizing that is done in churches today, but I believe it is referring to the spiritual baptism of the Holy Spirit (St. John
1:29-33). What about the caring Muslims? or the peacefull buddhist monks? Well the Muslim people go by the Koran, and the Koran says that Jesus was from God and it records many of the miracles that he did. Jesus said that "No man comes
to the Father, but by me" (St. John 14:6). The Muslims should not give credibility to Jesus if they&#39;re not going to believe what he said. As for the poor buddhist monks, it doesn&#39;t matter what they believe. God makes the rules on salvation so what man thinks makes no differance.

----------------------------------------------
You don&#39;t have to go to church to go to Heaven. God made salvation very simple and easy. Salvation is a free gift to those that are willing to accept it (St. John 3:16). God is not making the way to Heaven so hard as to be unreachable. Many religions of the world like to put control on peoples lives, to police them into submission. All that God wants people to know is that dispite the fact that we screw-up, and we fall short of His perfect standard, He wants us to know that He is willing to wipe our slates clean, and give us a new start. Make us a child of His by adoption. All that we have to do is believe and accept what He said by faith. God said that Jesus death on the cross was for the purpose of paying for our screwups (our sins). God said that if we are willing to believe that, then he will forgive us without question. Salvation is that simple. Those that choose to call God a liar by saying "no" to Jesus will have to account for their own sins (1 John 5:9-13). Those that accept God&#39;s free gift will be saved. I made my choice.

----------------------------------------------
(St. Luke 12:51-53) The "division" is the same like we have right now. The original word in the greek means "disunion of opinion", like we have right now between you and me. Before Jesus came the families of a household were for the most part agreeing on the matter of God&#39;s Word. But Jesus new that he would cause the families of a household to be divided because of him (some would accept him, and some wouldn&#39;t). He came with the truth. The truth will divide people. He wasn&#39;t talking about about violence like you mentioned about you punching your mom in the mouth. The word that was translated as "peace" in the greek can also mean "quietness". Jesus came not to cause "quietness" on the Earth, but he came to cause "disunion of opinion" is a better translation.

----------------------------------------------
You ask why didn&#39;t the churches fix the error in the translation of St. Luke 14:26 (the "hate" "love less"). This error is well know in the Bible community.

----------------------------------------------
Why do you only quote part of the verse? 1 Corinthians 7:4 reads "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife".

----------------------------------------------
Again you took my words out of context. At the time when I almost died I was scared of death not knowing what to expect on the otherside, but I later accepted God&#39;s salvation, then I had peace of mind when it came to the whole death thing.

----------------------------------------------
Its a real shame you have so much hate for the Bible and God. Seems that your trying your best to trash the Bible. Did some religion do you wrong or something?

[soiD]

Cutting off womans hands for that offense may not seem moral to you, but that was the law back then. Much of the Old testament laws no longer apply for now. They were intended for the Jewish people for those days. The New Testiment is for now. Going around cutting off womans hands is not necessary. Just the same way that many people were stoned back then, Jesus showed that it was no longer required now (St. John 8:1-11).
So what it was the law back than? So are you telling me that this christian god of yours follows the laws of man and not his own? So if the law now is that I have free will to choose any religion I want and express it freely without punishment, would I be forgiven in heaven because that is the law at the time? And can we forgive Hitler for killing so many Jews, because at the time he made the law that they should be exterminated?


I never said that the killing of the plagued people was morally right or wrong. Moses was the one that gave the order. Many of the prophets did things back then that are now deemed unnecessary. It is unfair to judge God by the deeds of men. People are not perfect, and they will make mistakes.
Without man, how would the Bible or your religion exist? If it weren&#39;t for man, you would never have had the faith of Christianity in the first place. Without man writing the Bible, there would be 0 of a Christian gods deeds. It doesn&#39;t matter anyway if Moses commanded it, because in the Bible, god is a fierce and jealous man who slays those who don&#39;t believe in "him". So if man is not perfect, than i guess you can say neither is God, because got is a man, remember?


The "Thou shalt not kill" is a misstranslation from the original hebrew. It really means "Thou shalt do no murder". Killing and murder are two differant things.
kill1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kl)
v. killed, kill·ing, kills
v. tr.

To put to death.
To deprive of life
To put an end to; extinguish
To destroy a vitally essential quality in
To cause to cease operating
To tire out completely; exhaust
To pass (time) in aimless activity
To consume entirely; finish off
To cause extreme pain or discomfort to
To mark for deletion; rule out
To thwart passage of; veto

mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.

v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v. tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
To put an end to; destroy
To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.

Seems like they are the same shit to me&#33; :)


Killing is ok if its for capital punishment or if your defending your life or war
So I guess we can agree that when God commanded Moses to kill all males, females known to sleeping with man, and all little children, it wouldn&#39;t be ok because you are not defending your life, and it is not capital punishment. Also, when God commands people to be stoned or slayed for not having the same faith that would mean he is murdering. Am I right?


The unpardonable sin was very serious in God&#39;s eyes. Anyone who would go so far as to say that Jesus was doing all his miracles by the power of the devil would never believe in him anyway, and would be condemned just the same.
So men have no rights or freedom?


Do I believe God is Omnipotent? Well, I believe that God can do all things that are possible.
Answer the question.


As to the baptized part you mentioned in St. Mark 16:16. The "baptized" your thinking about is not the water baptizing that is done in churches today, but I believe it is referring to the spiritual baptism of the Holy Spirit (St. John
1:29-33). What about the caring Muslims? or the peacefull buddhist monks? Well the Muslim people go by the Koran, and the Koran says that Jesus was from God and it records many of the miracles that he did. Jesus said that "No man comes
to the Father, but by me" (St. John 14:6). The Muslims should not give credibility to Jesus if they&#39;re not going to believe what he said. As for the poor buddhist monks, it doesn&#39;t matter what they believe. God makes the rules on salvation so what man thinks makes no differance.
I&#39;m lost. Are you telling me that no matter how you act on earth, your salvation depends on whatever religion you are from? :unsure:


You don&#39;t have to go to church to go to Heaven. God made salvation very simple and easy. Salvation is a free gift to those that are willing to accept it (St. John 3:16). God is not making the way to Heaven so hard as to be unreachable. Many religions of the world like to put control on peoples lives, to police them into submission. All that God wants people to know is that dispite the fact that we screw-up, and we fall short of His perfect standard, He wants us to know that He is willing to wipe our slates clean, and give us a new start. Make us a child of His by adoption. All that we have to do is believe and accept what He said by faith.
Ok right now you are a FUCKING IDIOT. How can you tell me whats GOING to happen, and what your god wants when your religion is based on faith? Faith is the belief of something without any proof or facts. So how can you tell me I am going to hell if you are simply guessing I am? Isn&#39;t that puerile? How are you positive that I am going to hell through faith? That doesn&#39;t make sense. Maybe you&#39;re thinking of another word there, buddy. I couldn&#39;t read what you said after that simply because you just showed me you have no idea on what the fuck your saying. :lol:


(St. Luke 12:51-53) The "division" is the same like we have right now. The original word in the greek means "disunion of opinion", like we have right now between you and me. Before Jesus came the families of a household were for the most part agreeing on the matter of God&#39;s Word. But Jesus new that he would cause the families of a household to be divided because of him (some would accept him, and some wouldn&#39;t). He came with the truth. The truth will divide people. He wasn&#39;t talking about about violence like you mentioned about you punching your mom in the mouth. The word that was translated as "peace" in the greek can also mean "quietness". Jesus came not to cause "quietness" on the Earth, but he came to cause "disunion of opinion" is a better translation.
The thing is, he didn&#39;t say. "When I come there will be not be peace." Jesus said according to the bible, "I have not come to bring peace on earth, I came to bring division."

Unless "Came" means "Division is inevitable" or some other shit. I see your argument as shit so far. :P


You ask why didn&#39;t the churches fix the error in the translation of St. Luke 14:26 (the "hate" "love less"). This error is well know in the Bible community.

But why had they not fixed the error?


Why do you only quote part of the verse? 1 Corinthians 7:4 reads "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife".
Becuase it pointed out the other quotes against women in the Bible. <_<


Again you took my words out of context. At the time when I almost died I was scared of death not knowing what to expect on the otherside, but I later accepted God&#39;s salvation, then I had peace of mind when it came to the whole death thing.
HAHAAHA. Right, don&#39;t you think fearing little demons on "the otherside" (Whereever that is) is a bit unhealthy?


Its a real shame you have so much hate for the Bible and God. Seems that your trying your best to trash the Bible. Did some religion do you wrong or something?
Huh? Where did I say I hated the Bible? In fact, on the contrary, I think the Bible is a great tool on controlling society back then, but seeing how outdated it is, I can&#39;t believe people still follow it. Also, who said I hated god? I don&#39;t hate god, I just hate your fierce, and wrathful God (Ps 2:11). God on the otherhand, is everything around me, not a fat white man with a beard and naked angels who masturbates to our every move.

[**GASHA**]

I dont read the bible.
I dont need the bible.
I dont need any beliefs in anything other than me.
I dont need to be taught any morals. (my mother did that)
I dont need to be taught whats right and wrong.
I dont need to be told how to behave and interact with other human beings.
I dont need to be told how to treat others.

I do as I choose to do, we all know the difference between right and wrong ?

So why do people feel the need for any guidance from an old book in this world ?

I accept that the bible is probably a very well written book offering an insight into the past and how people thought etc, but how relevant is any of it today ?

Do all the people who read the bible or have religious beliefs really believe they would have become or would be a bad person had they not found &#39;god&#39;. I dont think so, we all make our own decisions to be &#39;good&#39; or &#39;bad&#39;. bahhh

[Mad Cat]

Originally posted by **GASHA**@15 November 2003 - 09:00
I dont read the bible.
I dont need the bible.
I dont need any beliefs in anything other than me.
I dont need to be taught any morals. (my mother did that)
I dont need to be taught whats right and wrong.
I dont need to be told how to behave and interact with other human beings.
I dont need to be told how to treat others.

I do as I choose to do, we all know the difference between right and wrong ?

So why do people feel the need for any guidance from an old book in this world ?

I accept that the bible is probably a very well written book offering an insight into the past and how people thought etc, but how relevant is any of it today ?

Do all the people who read the bible or have religious beliefs really believe they would have become or would be a bad person had they not found &#39;god&#39;. I dont think so, we all make our own decisions to be &#39;good&#39; or &#39;bad&#39;. bahhh
Well said, we live our own lives.
We don&#39;t need these beliefs pushed down on us.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by **GASHA**@15 November 2003 - 10:00
I dont read the bible.
I dont need the bible.
I dont need any beliefs in anything other than me.
I dont need to be taught any morals. (my mother did that)
I dont need to be taught whats right and wrong.
I dont need to be told how to behave and interact with other human beings.
I dont need to be told how to treat others.

I do as I choose to do, we all know the difference between right and wrong ?

So why do people feel the need for any guidance from an old book in this world ?

I accept that the bible is probably a very well written book offering an insight into the past and how people thought etc, but how relevant is any of it today ?

Do all the people who read the bible or have religious beliefs really believe they would have become or would be a bad person had they not found &#39;god&#39;. I dont think so, we all make our own decisions to be &#39;good&#39; or &#39;bad&#39;. bahhh
You&#39;ve got my vote.

As a species with moved on so far since the "bible" days and this ancient text just has no real relevance to us today. We have our own moral codes that we stick to, we know what is really wrong and what is acceptable.

I can understand that religion and the bible are important to a lot of people, but they should understand that we have made the choice not have religion in our lives. Am I a bad person because I reject the bible?

(God, I hate these religious threads but there&#39;s so little going on in Bookworld these days...)

[Mobas]

To soiD


I never said that God follows the laws of men. God does what He wills. So your statements about freewill to choose any religion you want without punishment or your statements about Hitler are unfounded.

------------------------------------

Mankind is not perfect, but God is perfect. So whats the big deal if God chooses to slay unbelievers? He is ruler of the universe. He can do what He wants to. People that arn&#39;t loyal to God would just make it bad for those that want to do God&#39;s will anyways.

------------------------------------

The laws about taking a persons life apply to human beings, not to God. God has the right to take any life He chooses to. So God is not a murderer.

------------------------------------

I did answer the question about God (the Omnipotent question). I believe that God can do all things that are possible. God cannot do everything. God cannot lie, He cannot deny Himself, He cannot destroy Himself where He no longer exist, He cannot create a rock so large that He can&#39;t lift it. All that really matters is that He is powerful enough to get the job done.

------------------------------------

Salvation according to the God of the Bible cannot be earned. The God of the Bible gave the way of salvation. It is the choice of everyone to either accept it or reject it.

------------------------------------

How can I tell you whats going to happen? The Bible contains prophecies and foretells what will happen in the future.How can I tell what my God wants? Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and the miracles that were recorded in history
were the very evidence that he was from God. He verified the scriptures as being true, and the apostles were taught by him on the will of God. So the Bible is the key to understanding what God wants from us. For those that consider the Bible as a fairy-tale book, then all of this would sound silly to them, but to those that believe... it&#39;s the way to life (1 Corinthians 1:17-21).

[soiD]

I never said that God follows the laws of men.
Than what laws does your god follow? You told me:

Cutting off womans hands for that offense may not seem moral to you, but that was the law back then. and..
Jesus showed that it was no longer required now

Basically, why did your god decide to change laws simply because time passed by? If he is perfect, why does he feel that what he did back than shouldn&#39;t be required now? Shouldn&#39;t there be a reason for this, or are you going to tell me that your god does things without reason simply because he has nothing better to do than punish people?


Mankind is not perfect, but God is perfect.
Wasn&#39;t Jesus a man? So therefore since he was apart of mankind, he was not perfect?


So whats the big deal if God chooses to slay unbelievers?
Man is not perfect remember? So why should god blame man for mistakes they make because after all, they are simply human, and humans aren&#39;t perfect.


People that arn&#39;t loyal to God would just make it bad for those that want to do God&#39;s will anyways.
And people who ARE loyal already made it completely worse to those who don&#39;t do "God&#39;s will anyway".

For example:

On every island he set foot on, Columbus planted a cross, "making the declarations that are required" - the requerimiento - to claim the ownership for his Catholic patrons in Spain. And "nobody objected." If the Indians refused or delayed their acceptance (or understanding), the requerimiento continued:

"I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter in your country and shall make war against you ... and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church ... and shall do you all mischief that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him." [SH66]

17th century: Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader. After murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, "cutting off his head, his hands, and his genitals... and then dumped him into the river [...but] then, deciding that it was not worthy of being food for the fish, they hauled it out again [... and] dragged what was left ... to the gallows of Montfaulcon, &#39;to be meat and carrion for maggots and crows&#39;." [SH191]

The Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote: "It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished." [TG79]

As soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.
Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.
Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis.
Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468]
Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468]
Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings..."
In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.
In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities. [DA466]
The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.
[DO19-25]

And that&#39;s only a brief description on how bad those with "God&#39;s will" were dangered. You, my friend, are just a complete idiot. :rolleyes:


The laws about taking a persons life apply to human beings, not to God. God has the right to take any life He chooses to. So God is not a murderer.
I feel I have the right to take any life I choose to, so I am not a murderer too. Correct?


God cannot do everything.
I thought your god was perfect? And if that&#39;s not true, if he cannot do everything, than he certainly can&#39;t do whatever he wants to like you said.


God cannot lie
God may not lie, but he most definently sends lies upon us.

1 Kg.22:23
"Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."

2 Chr.18:22
"Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets."

Ezek.14:9
"And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet."

Yup, God doesn&#39;t lie.. only to prophets&#33;


He cannot deny Himself
Really? What were the last words of Jesus when he was on the cross? ;)


Salvation according to the God of the Bible cannot be earned. The God of the Bible gave the way of salvation. It is the choice of everyone to either accept it or reject it.
What choice is it if we are subconsciously only have a choice to accept it since according to you, those who reject it deserve to/can be slain.


How can I tell you whats going to happen? The Bible contains prophecies and foretells what will happen in the future.
Other religions have books on how Judgement day will be. What&#39;s the diference between the bible and these other books. Who am I supposed to believe since all claim the same thing? If I wrote a book that the last day will end with lesbians rising from the dead, and Vanilla Ice being popular again, will that make it valid? And why wouldn&#39;t it make it valid since it&#39;s a book that I claim is from God?


Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and the miracles that were recorded in history were the very evidence that he was from God.
You FOOL&#33; There ARE no evidence of Jesus&#39; miracles NOR if he existed or not. The Bible was wrtten up to 70+ years after Jesus&#39; death. Why didn&#39;t anyone keep records of Jesus while he was alive? If these miracles were so great, why didn&#39;t anyone keep written records of it? THERE ARENT any records of Jesus&#39; existence besides the Bible which was proven to be forged many years now. If you don&#39;t know that than you are a fucking idiot&#33; If Jesus&#39; history was a FACT than Christianity woudln&#39;t be much of a FAITH would it???


He verified the scriptures as being true
Than why don&#39;t Jews see him as the son of god?


So the Bible is the key to understanding what God wants from us.
What about the Qu&#39;ran and the thousands of books that claim they are the word of god? How can you show me that the Bible is the way to understand what your god wants from us, and at the same time proving to me that the other books are not the true way.


For those that consider the Bible as a fairy-tale book, then all of this would sound silly to them
Damn right it does. Zombies walking from their grave, bread and fish falling from the sky, a person walking on water, a story of good and bad, demons, a person rising from the dead, yep, this sounds pretty silly to me&#33; :lol:


but to those that believe... it&#39;s the way to life
They are pretty much idiots. Why the hell do you need a book to tell you how to act? It doesn&#39;t take me a book to know how to act around people. Morals existed before the Bible did, homie.

[Mobas]

To soiD:

Your asking me to tell you why God changes in His ways with dealing with people? Only God really knows the full reasons why He does the things He does. Mankind can not fully understand every detail of why God does the things He does. But I can say one thing. God had fortold in the Old Testament that He would change His dealings with human beings (Jeremiah 31:31-33).

----------------------------------------

Yes, Jesus was a man, but according to the Bible he was/is God in the flesh, and perfect in His ways. God is perfectly good. God does not have to do everything to be perfectly good. If God sinned then He would not be perfectly good.

----------------------------------------

God has provided a way of forgiveness to everyone on Earth. God understands that people sin. The only thing that keeps people from receiving that forgiveness is their own stubbornness. God made it easy, man makes it hard.

----------------------------------------

Many people in the past have done many wrong things in the name of God. Jesus taught to love one another (St. Matthew 5:38-46). Not all people that claim to be followers of God are true followers (St. Mattthew 7:15-23). Despite the fact that you continually try to insult me, I really don&#39;t have any hate towards you.

----------------------------------------

Like I said before, God can do what He wants since He doesn&#39;t account to anyone. Human beings have to account to God, so they don&#39;t have the same freedom as God has.

----------------------------------------

As for God sending a lying spirit upon people. We don&#39;t have the right to judge God for what He does. He may send the "lying spirit" as a means to test people. Just like he hardened the heart of pharaoh. God has His reasons for doing the things He does.

----------------------------------------

When I said that God can&#39;t deny Himself, I mean&#39;t that God can&#39;t say that He (God) doesn&#39;t exist.

----------------------------------------

What choice is it to accept or reject God&#39;s way of salvation? Listen, If God says that people have to make a decision about salvation, then thats the way it is. If you have a problem with that, then you take it up with Him. I don&#39;t make the rules, God does.

----------------------------------------

The Bible is differant then all other books that claim to be from God. The fullfilled prophecies, and the historical accuracy of the scriptures give the Bible the credibillity that it is more the just a regular book. My take on the Bible is that it was written by men that were guided by a supreme being (we call Him God), and the purpose of the Bible was to let mankind know how they (mankind) came about, why they were created, and what their future would be. When the original Hebrew was copied down from the manuscripts, the scribes had certain methods to make sure that the copy was as perfect as possible, so as time passed......nothing would be lost in the copying. I remember when it was mentioned that a copy of the book of Isaiah (Old Testament book) was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It turned out that it was almost perfect when compared to a current copy that can be found in a Hebrew Bible. Not bad for a book that was
thousands of years old. So I think that the Bible has not lost any of its content in terms of what God had intended for us to know over time. http://www.reasons.org/

----------------------------------------

The New Testament account of Jesus is accurate. http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm

----------------------------------------

Not all Jewish people reject Jesus. Most of the first Christians were Jewish.

----------------------------------------

I can see that this is going nowhere. we believe differantly. It&#39;s pointless for this to continue.

(2 Timothy 2:23-26, Titus 3:9-11)

[imported_QuietSilence!]

Originally posted by Mad Cat@4 November 2003 - 16:38
I think it was more of a way of controlling people back in history. There was no real police, and apart from vigilantes, what was to stop rape, stealing, murder etc.

People were intimidated by it, and therefore order was made. It worked too.

The ideals are still here. Its the base of most modern day "morals."
our constitution is based on the values of the bible
wether u beleve in god or not ( i dont ) its is a good basis to live ur life by

as he said The ideals are still here. Its the base of most modern day "morals."

[Icey]

Originally posted by TheDave@6 November 2003 - 00:03
i reckon the bible exists for a good reason - to make the world a beeter place.


shame religon makes the world a worse place than it already is :(

[YoRu]

When u look at the history u get a really good idea of evolution....

2000 Years ago 1/8 of the World Population believed in Jupiter , Juno , Mars and other ancient Politemistic Gods..... they are dead now, and it would be really weird to believe in them today....

so and now guess which "god" is "dead" in 2000 years.....

its ok to study the bible for "knowledge" , like readying tales of Homer or maybe philosophic texts, but the "brainwashing parts" really remind me of "Mein Kampf"

so lets see whats ur Fuhrer (opps i ment God) will say about that when i go to heaven....

-sarcasm-

sry someone will be offended for sure....

[soiD]

Originally posted by QuietSilence&#33;@16 November 2003 - 16:42

our constitution is based on the values of the bible
No it&#39;s not. I&#39;ll touch on this later.

[Mad Cat]

Many people back 2000 years ago thought stuff like the world being flat, and the Earth was at the centre of the solar system with the planets attached to it on rod like things.
People 2000 years ago wrote the bible.

[dale!!!]

Originally posted by Mad Cat@20 November 2003 - 16:44
Many people back 2000 years ago thought stuff like the world being flat, and the Earth was at the centre of the solar system with the planets attached to it on rod like things.
People 2000 years ago wrote the bible.
Job 26:7 states that the earth is hanging upon nothing.
Isaiah 40:22 says that the earth is a circle (can also be translated sphere).


It is a fact that if you lived your life completely by the bibles standards, most problems from wars to family breakdowns to AIDs would be avoided.


If evolution was correct, then fossils would be found showing a gradual development of the different species, instead, they are found in a way as if the creatures suddenly appeard on the earth.


What came first; the chicken or the egg?
The chicken was created with a mate, and then produced offspring.

If a spider evolved its ability to spin a web to catch its food, what did it do for food in the meantime to fulfil this need, and if it already had a method, why develop a new one?
The same can be said for a giraffes long neck, and countless other things.


Most religions have somehow customised the bible to suit there own selfish gain. For example, most churches read out the same thing every week, never have any real answers to questions "oh, erm, god wanted that to happen, he wanted him in heaven" and some even blindley read stuff in a different language&#33; What use is that?

Mathew 6:7-8 But when praying, do not say the same things over and over again, just as the people of the nations do, for they imagine they will get a hearing for their use of many words. 8So, do not make yourselves like them, for God YOUR Father knows what things YOU are needing before ever YOU ask him.

The Lords Prayer is against the bible, yes Jesus said when praying they are the ideal things to pray about, but he did not say to blindley chant them, he said the prayers are supposed to come from your heart etc


2 Timothy 3:16,17 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

The bible was not written by humans wanting to control people etc, it was written by god through humans. You say that Mathew, Mark, Luke and John wrote about Jesus&#39; life years after, which is true, so how could they get this correct? The Holy Spirit guided them in what to write, and also notice how those 4 books where written with many years difference, so how come they all give the exact same account?

2 Peter 1:20,21 For YOU know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.


The Bible was written by some 40 different men over a period of 1,600 years, beginning in 1513B.C.E. It is made up of 66 little books. Those who wrote the Bible were inspired by God. They wrote his thoughts, not their own. So God in heaven, not any human on earth, is the Author of the Bible


Soid, many of the things you said are with a closed mind and some taken out of context.

De 25:11
Sex was a thing considered kinda of sacred. There were many laws about it, and it had to be done properly, married etc. This included the sexual organs, this would be doing something unclean.
Also, notice how God gave this law, afterwards, regardless of what it was, people knew what the law was and had to obey it, whatever there personal feelings.
In school, you are told not to cheat in an exam by some one in authority, wether you think this good or bad, you have to obey it otherwise you will suffer the punishment also told.
God gave out the laws and the punishments, so it wasn&#39;t a sudden unfair thing to happen, the people knew what they should and shouldn&#39;t do before hand, and so by this woman doing this, she was breaking a law that would have been already well known to her.
Similar for the killing non virgins. A law had been passed that said you must not have sex before you are married. Fair enough, so when an unmarried person is found not to be a virgin, it is obvious they have had sex and will reap the consequences.


I don&#39;t have time to go through all this long list at the moment, sorry.
But, notice this scripture:


Romans 13:9-10 For the [law code], “You must not commit adultery, You must not murder, You must not steal, You must not covet,” and whatever other commandment there is, is summed up in this word, namely, “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” 10Love does not work evil to one’s neighbor; therefore love is the law’s fulfillment.

Can you see anything wrong with fulfilling that?

[ilw]

i only skimmed large sections so if my point is in anyway covered by someone else then sorry :D
If you look at any religious texts their teachings invariably reflect the feelings, prejudices and situations present at the time they were written. I&#39;m not really interested in what caused this i.e. whether god gave laws and lessons that would help the people at the time, or whether god&#39;s message was pure and passing it through the prophets somehow it got changed, or perhaps even some of the prophets were fulfilling their own agendas, anyway whatever.
My thought is just that perhaps religious texts should be rewritten, to reflect the more educated, knowledgeable and enlightened standpoint of the modern world. Isn&#39;t there a point when you decide that killing people in horrible ways is barbaric and make a conscious decision to do away with it? Ie isn&#39;t there a time when you accept that sections are basically wrong and should be removed.


It is a fact that if you lived your life completely by the bibles standards, most problems from wars to family breakdowns to AIDs would be avoided.
thats not true unless everyone on earth was exactly the same sect of christianity and were all exactly likeminded which is unimaginably unlikely. Plus you only seem to be considering the good side of the bible, there is a lot of contradictory and vague stuff in there and its teachings are pretty barbaric as it reflects the state of human society 2000 years ago.



Job 26:7 states that the earth is hanging upon nothing.
Isaiah 40:22 says that the earth is a circle (can also be translated sphere).
What does the bible say about evolution? And what about alien life?
Is everything in the bible true? Or are even all the major parts true?

[Mad Cat]

We have now cloned certain animals etc, and are on the way to do the same with humans. There are many problems to overcome, but today we are doing what the supposed "Gods" did.

I&#39;d say it was more like aliens that a God...


The Bible was written by some 40 different men over a period of 1,600 years, beginning in 1513 B.C.E. It is made up of 66 little books. Those who wrote the Bible were inspired by God. They wrote his thoughts, not their own. So God in heaven, not any human on earth, is the Author of the Bible

If that is true then what is up with all the contradicting parts.

Plus, its a little convinient that there is no evidence, at all, whatsoever proving that God exists.
Oh and about the "animals just appeared because there are no fossils" etc, ever heard of single celled life, and how hard it might be to find?

[Johnny_B]

As stated out already, one of the major flaws in the Bible is that scientific knowledge is dead wrong or too vague. This can only be because the bible was written by men, and men only, with no divine intervention.
Surely, if an omnipotent entity was to write a book about life and existance, it would have objective answers and explanations for everything.

Where are the answers to the big questions such as: why are there so many lifeless planets? Is the universe infinite? What is the purpose of all the galaxies, stars, black holes, planets, etc.? Is our universe unique? Are there other life forms in the universe (intelligent or not)?
There are no answers to these questions because the Bible was written by men confined to the knowledge of their own time and place.

On the other hand, evolution is a fact.
People usually come up with questions like "Why don&#39;t we see animals evolving as we speak?" or "Why aren&#39;t monkeys evolving into human beings?".

You have to understand that macroevolution takes millions of years and it&#39;s extremely subtle to be noticed. Human civilization is only thousands of years old, which isn&#39;t enough to analyze and understand evolution in real time.

And no, monkeys will never evolve into human beings.
Millions of years ago we were one and the same species. However, somewhere along the road, the species evolved and some became Homo Sapiens and others became monkeys.
Evolution makes species more "specific", it doesn&#39;t turn supposedly inferior animals into superior ones.
Basically, monkeys will always be monkeys and humans will always be humans. Both species will evolve and will become more refined, more specific.

Some undeniable evolution evidences are human vestigial organs like the appendix and the coccyx (tail bone). These vestigial organs are obsolete and yet they still exist in our body.
If we were created by a deity we wouldn&#39;t have these obsolete "imperfections", would we?

Also, micro organisms like bacterias are one of the best evidence of evolution. They evolve, mutate and adapt to the most adverse conditions, being able to survive under almost every circumstances.
We may be on top of the food chain but we don&#39;t rule the world. Micro organisms do.

Is there anything in the Bible about micro organisms? They are responsible for almost every disease and they are living organisms just like us. It&#39;s not some invisible force sent by God to punish us for our sins. Some of them even help us digesting food...

[dale!!!]

What does the bible say about evolution?

Genesis 1:1 In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Genesis 1:24-28 And God went on to say: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.” And it came to be so. 25And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good.
26And God went on to say: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every moving animal that is moving upon the earth.” 27And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. 28Further, God blessed them and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.”

The bible say&#39;s that God created man, therefore logic suggests that he did not evolve from some goo in the ocean.

Notice the opening introduction to Origin Of The Species:
"As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution"

“To suppose that the eye ... could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” - Dawin himself
More than a century has passed since then. Has the problem been solved? No. On the contrary, since Darwin’s time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is even more complex than he understood it to be.
Now think of even more complex stuff like the brain.

Since even a simple machine does not evolve by chance, how can it be a fact that the infinitely more complex brain did?
Astronomer Robert Jastrow - “It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors."



I also notice people allways say the earth etc couldn&#39;t have been created in 6 days.
The Hebrew word yohm, translated “day,” can mean different lengths of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies includes the following: “A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration ... Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.” This last sentence appears to fit the creative “days,” for certainly they were periods when extraordinary events were described as happening. It also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours.

the Genesis creation account emerges as a scientifically sound document. It reveals the larger categories of plants and animals, with their many varieties, reproducing only “according to their kinds.” The fossil record provides confirmation of this. In fact, it indicates that each “kind” appeared suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous “kind,” as required by the evolution theory.

All the knowledge of the wise men of Egypt could not have furnished Moses, the writer of Genesis, any clue to the process of creation. The creation myths of ancient peoples bore no resemblance to what Moses wrote in Genesis. Where, then, did Moses learn all these things? Apparently from someone who was there.

The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1)a beginning; (2)a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3)light; (4)an expanse or atmosphere; (5)large areas of dry land; (6)land plants; (7)sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8)sea monsters and flying creatures; (9)wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10)man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800&#33; So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.


Evolutionary theory presumes that fish became amphibians, some amphibians became reptiles, from the reptiles came both mammals and birds, and eventually some mammals became men.

Fish to amphibians?
It was the backbone that distinguished the fish from the invertebrates. This backbone would have had to undergo major modifications for the fish to become amphibian, that is, a creature that could live both in the water and on land. A pelvis had to be added, but no fossil fish are known that show how the pelvis of amphibians developed. In some amphibians, such as frogs and toads, the entire backbone would have had to change beyond recognition. Also, skull bones are different. In addition, in the forming of amphibians, evolution requires fish fins to become jointed limbs with wrists and toes, accompanied by major alterations in muscles and nerves. Gills must change to lungs. In fish, blood is pumped by a two-chambered heart, but in amphibians by a three-chambered heart.

To bridge the gap between fish and amphibian, the sense of hearing would have had to undergo a radical change. In general, fish receive sound through their bodies, but most toads and frogs have eardrums. Tongues would also have to change. No fish has an extendable tongue, but amphibians such as toads do. Amphibian eyes have the added ability to blink, since they have a membrane they pass over their eyeballs, keeping them clean.

Strenuous efforts have been made to link the amphibians to some fish ancestor, but without success. The lungfish had been a favorite candidate, since, in addition to gills, it has a swim bladder, which can be used for breathing when it is temporarily out of the water. Says the book The Fishes: “It is tempting to think they might have some direct connection with the amphibians which led to the land-living vertebrates. But they do not; they are a separate group entirely.”David Attenborough disqualifies both the lungfish and the coelacanth “because the bones of their skulls are so different from those of the first fossil amphibians that the one cannot be derived from the other.”
However, evolutionary theory does not allow for a Creator who was there, knew the facts and could reveal them to humans. Instead, it attributes the appearance of life on earth to the spontaneous generation of living organisms from inanimate chemicals. But could undirected chemical reactions relying on mere chance create life?

Amphibian to Reptile?
Trying to bridge the gap between amphibian and reptile poses other serious problems. A most difficult one is the origin of the shelled egg. Creatures prior to reptiles laid their soft, jellylike eggs in water, where the eggs were fertilized externally. Reptiles are land based and lay their eggs on land, but the developing embryos inside them must still be in a watery environment. The shelled egg was the answer. But it also required a major change in the process of fertilization: It called for internal fertilization, before the egg is surrounded by a shell. To accomplish this involved new sexual organs, new mating procedures and new instincts—all of which constitute a vast gulf between amphibian and reptile.

Reptiles to Birds?
While it is true that both reptiles and birds lay eggs, only birds must incubate theirs. They are designed for it. Many birds have a brood spot on their breast, an area that does not have any feathers and that contains a network of blood vessels, to give warmth for the eggs. Some birds have no brood patch but they pull out the feathers from their breast. Also, for birds to incubate the eggs would require evolution to provide them with new instincts—for building the nest, for hatching the eggs and for feeding the young—very selfless, altruistic, considerate behaviors involving skill, hard work and deliberate exposure to danger. All of this represents a wide gap between reptiles and birds. But there is much more.
Feathers are unique to birds. Supposedly, reptilian scales just happened to become these amazing structures. Out from the shaft of a feather are rows of barbs. Each barb has many barbules, and each barbule has hundreds of barbicels and hooklets. After a microscopic examination of one pigeon feather, it was revealed that it had “several hundred thousand barbules and millions of barbicels and hooklets.”10 These hooks hold all the parts of a feather together to make flat surfaces or vanes. Nothing excels the feather as an airfoil, and few substances equal it as an insulator. A bird the size of a swan has some 25,000 feathers.
Other features widen the gulf between bird and reptile. Eyesight is one. From eagles to warblers, there are eyes like telescopes and eyes like magnifying glasses. Birds have more sensory cells in their eyes than have any other living things. Also, the feet of birds are different. When they come down to roost, tendons automatically lock their toes around the branch. And they have only four toes instead of the reptile’s five. Additionally, they have no vocal cords, but they have a syrinx out of which come melodious songs like those of the nightingales and mockingbirds. Consider too, that reptiles have a three-chambered heart; a bird’s heart has four chambers. Beaks also set birds apart from reptiles: beaks that serve as nutcrackers, beaks that filter food from muddy water, beaks that hammer out holes in trees, crossbill beaks that open up pinecones—the variety seems endless. And yet the beak, with such specialized design, is said to have evolved by chance from the nose of a reptile&#33; Does such an explanation seem credible to you?


Reptile to Mammel?
Major differences leave a wide gulf between reptiles and mammals. The very name “mammal” points up one big difference: the existence of mammary glands that give milk for the young, which are born alive. Theodosius Dobzhansky suggested that these milk glands “may be modified sweat glands.” But reptiles do not even have sweat glands. Moreover, sweat glands give off waste products, not food. And unlike baby reptiles, the mammalian young have both the instincts and the muscles to suck the milk from their mother.

Mammals have other features, also, that are not found in reptiles. Mammalian mothers have highly complex placentas for the nourishment and development of their unborn young. Reptiles do not. There is no diaphragm in reptiles, but mammals have a diaphragm that separates the thorax from the abdomen. The organ of Corti in the ears of mammals is not found in reptilian ears. This tiny complex organ has 20,000 rods and 30,000 nerve endings. Mammals maintain a constant body temperature, whereas reptiles do not.

Mammals also have three bones in their ears, while reptiles have only one. Where did the two “extras” come from? Evolutionary theory attempts to explain it as follows: Reptiles have at least four bones in the lower jaw, whereas mammals have only one; so, when reptiles became mammals there was supposedly a reshuffling of bones; some from the reptile’s lower jaw moved to the mammal’s middle ear to make the three bones there and, in the process, left only one for the mammal’s lower jaw. However, the problem with this line of reasoning is that there is no fossil evidence whatsoever to support it. It is merely wishful conjecture.

Another problem involving bones: Reptilian legs are anchored at the side of the body so that the belly is on or very near the ground. But in mammals the legs are under the body and raise it off the ground. Regarding this difference, Dobzhansky commented: “This change, minor though it may seem, has necessitated widespread alterations of the skeleton and the musculature.” He then acknowledged another major difference between reptiles and mammals: “Mammals have greatly elaborated their teeth. Instead of the simple peg-like teeth of the reptile, there is a great variety of mammalian teeth adapted for nipping, grasping, piercing, cutting, pounding, or grinding food.”14

One last item: When the amphibian supposedly evolved into a reptile, the wastes eliminated were noted to have changed from urea to uric acid. But when the reptile became a mammal there was a reversal. Mammals went back to the amphibian way, eliminating wastes as urea. In effect, evolution went backward—something that theoretically it is not supposed to do.

Conclusion on Evolution
Physically, man fits the general definition of a mammal. However, one evolutionist stated: “No more tragic mistake could be made than to consider man ‘merely an animal.’ Man is unique; he differs from all other animals in many properties, such as speech, tradition, culture, and an enormously extended period of growth and parental care.”

What sets man apart from all other creatures on earth is his brain. The information stored in some 100 billion neurons of the human brain would fill about 20 million volumes&#33; The power of abstract thought and of speech sets man far apart from any animal, and the ability to record accumulating knowledge is one of man’s most remarkable characteristics. Use of this knowledge has enabled him to surpass all other living kinds on earth—even to the point of going to the moon and back. Truly, as one scientist said, man’s brain “is different and immeasurably more complicated than anything else in the known universe.”

Another feature that makes the gulf between man and animal the greatest one of all is man’s moral and spiritual values, which stem from such qualities as love, justice, wisdom, power, mercy. This is alluded to in Genesis when it says that man is made ‘in the image and likeness of God.’ And it is the gulf between man and animal that is the greatest chasm of all.—Genesis 1:26.

Thus, vast differences exist between the major divisions of life. Many new structures, programmed instincts and qualities separate them. Is it reasonable to think they could have originated by means of undirected chance happenings? As we have seen, the fossil evidence does not support that view. No fossils can be found to bridge the gaps. As Hoyle and Wickramasinghe say: “Intermediate forms are missing from the fossil record. Now we see why, essentially because there were no intermediate forms.”For those whose ears are open to hear, the fossil record is saying: “Special creation.”




I don&#39;t think the bible specifically says where or not alein life in outer space does exist, apart from obviously the heavens and spirit creatures.



I&#39;ve got more evidence that the bible was scientifically acurate in its time compared to other cultures in the same time period.

Throughout the centuries there has been great ignorance on matters of health. A physician even observed: “Many superstitions are still believed by large numbers of people such as, that a buckeye in the pocket will prevent rheumatism; that handling toads will cause warts; that wearing red flannel around the neck will cure a sore throat,” and others. Yet he explained: “No such statements are found in the Bible. This in itself is remarkable.”

It is also remarkable when one compares hazardous medical treatments used in the past with what the Bible says. For example, the Papyrus Ebers, a medical document of the ancient Egyptians, prescribed the use of excrement to treat various conditions. It directed that human excrement mixed with fresh milk be applied as a poultice to lesions that remain after scabs fall off. And a remedy for drawing out splinters reads: “Worms’ blood, cook and crush in oil; mole, kill, cook, and drain in oil; ass’s dung, mix in fresh milk. Apply to the opening.” Such treatment, it is now known, can result in serious infections.

What does the Bible say about excrement? It directed: “When you squat outside, you must also dig a hole with [a digging instrument] and turn and cover your excrement.” (Deuteronomy 23:13) So, far from prescribing excrement in medical treatment, the Bible directed the safe disposal of sewage. Up until the present century the danger of leaving excrement exposed to flies was generally not known. This resulted in the spread of serious fly-borne diseases and the death of many people. Yet the simple remedy was on record in the Bible all the time, and it was followed by the Israelites over 3,000years ago.

During the last century medical personnel would go directly from handling the dead in the dissecting room to conducting examinations in the maternity ward, and they would not even wash their hands. Infection was thus transferred from the dead, and many others died. Even when the value of hand washing was demonstrated, many in the medical community resisted such hygienic measures. Doubtless unknown to them, they were rejecting the wisdom in the Bible, since God’s law to the Israelites decreed that anyone touching a dead person became unclean and must wash himself and his garments.—Numbers 19:11-22.

As a sign of a covenant with Abraham, God said: “Every male of yours eight days old must be circumcised.” Later this requirement was repeated to the nation of Israel. (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:2,3) No explanation was given why the eighth day was specified, but now we understand. Medical research has discovered that the blood-clotting element vitaminK rises to an adequate level only by then. Another essential clotting element, prothrombin, seems to be higher on the eighth day than at any other time during a child’s life. Based on this evidence, Dr.S.I.McMillen concluded: “The perfect day to perform a circumcision is the eighth day.”12 Was this mere coincidence? Not at all. It was knowledge passed on by a God who knew.



So much for you people saying how the bible is badly outdated&#33;


Please name any of these contradictions in the bible and i will be more than willing to investiagate and try and proove you wrong :P
BTW thanks for all reading that, with an open mind I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll appreciate how beneficial and true the bible really is.

[99shassan]

No offence, but don&#39;t you think that the bible has a lot of contradictions? I just don&#39;t believe in it. I don&#39;t believe in Jesus being God&#39;s Son, I believe he was a prophet but that was all. Study the Qu&#39;ran, it has a lot of answers and dosn&#39;t leave you with questions in your head like the bible. It also shows us some scientific proof like plate tectonics, it wasn&#39;t even discovered back then. Other things like the earth not being flat.

[dale!!!]

Originally posted by 99shassan@21 November 2003 - 20:34
No offence, but don&#39;t you think that the bible has a lot of contradictions? I just don&#39;t believe in it. I don&#39;t believe in Jesus being God&#39;s Son, I believe he was a prophet but that was all. Study the Qu&#39;ran, it has a lot of answers and dosn&#39;t leave you with questions in your head like the bible. It also shows us some scientific proof like plate tectonics, it wasn&#39;t even discovered back then. Other things like the earth not being flat.
as does the bible

did u even bother to read all my evidence? :(

[99shassan]

May I ask what evidence you are talking about? What book are you reffering to?

[dale!!!]

Originally posted by 99shassan@21 November 2003 - 23:08
May I ask what evidence you are talking about? What book are you reffering to?
I ment all the information I had posted previous to you.

Resources where the Bible itself, Origin Of The Species and quotes from scientists, doctors and magazines etc.

[Johnny_B]

@dale&#33;&#33;&#33;
The information you posted was obviously copy/pasted but it still didn&#39;t answer my questions directly.


The bible say&#39;s that God created man, therefore logic suggests that he did not evolve from some goo in the ocean.
There is no logic in that because we are discussing whether what is written in the Bible is true or not and if it was written by men or not.
There is no evidence that the Bible was written by a deity (directly or indirectly), thus everything in it may be true or false.


Notice the opening introduction to Origin Of The Species:
"As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution"
The divergence exists in the causes and in the processes of evolution, not between whether Man is a product of evolution or creationism.
Consider evolution as a reel of film. Each frame of the film is an evolutionary state. Some frames were preserved and we can analyze them (fossiles), but the majority was simply destroyed or is yet to be discovered.
The fact is that some frames have already been found and they prove the existance of the reel of film (evolution).
But the problem still stands: How can we see the whole picture and come to a consensus with only some frames available?


The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man
Wrong. Light came before anything else. The Sun was there long before the Earth ever existed. The Earth was never "in darkness".
I can see the Moon, the Sun and other stars with my own eyes and write about them.
Is there no mention of the distant galaxies, black holes or other cosmic objects that you can&#39;t see with your own eyes?
An omnipotent deity would know EVERYTHING to the very last detail, don&#39;t you think?
The descriptions are always too vague, clearly not of someone who knows everything.

I read all the Fish to amphibians?; Amphibian to Reptile?; Reptiles to Birds?; Reptile to Mammal? and it doesn&#39;t say anywhere that those theories are impossible, just highly improbable. It even agrees on some points.
Being highly improbable just shows why life as we know it, can&#39;t easily be found on other parts of the universe.
Just because something is highly unlikely to happen doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s impossible.
Is it that hard to believe that among the billions of planets and similar solar systems, we are one of those (or perhaps the only one&#33;) that beat the odds?

Most people have a hard time understanding what can be achieved in millions of years when we only last mere decades. People also have a problem dealing with infinity.

In the Conclusion on Evolution that you posted, it is stated that Man is unique. It&#39;s true that Man is unique... along with every other species.
Birds can fly, we can&#39;t. Fish can live in the water, we can&#39;t. We can think logically, other animals can&#39;t.
Every animal has its own unique feature that distinguishes them from the others, but we all have the same instincts.
So basically, we are all specific but still share the same basic needs (lust, hunger, the need to sleep...) even though our brain is much more developed. If we were created in God&#39;s image, why do we share basic instincts with supposedly inferior animals?&#33;

The superstition and hygiene parts are merely cultural. The ones who wrote that part of the Bible were influenced by the culture they were identified with, and thus discarded what was considered non-sense to them.

Circumcision just proves my point.
If God is perfect and can do just about anything, why would He create Man with "physical imperfections" and tell him how to fix them later? Why not make Man perfect from the start?
Circumcision is another cultural aspect that had to be explained, somehow, in a divine way, so that everybody would follow it.

dale&#33;&#33;&#33;, if you&#39;re going to post again, please don&#39;t copy/paste other people&#39;s thoughts and theories.
Bring your own ideas forward and mention what you think that should be discussed. If you want to backup your ideas, just post a link. It will suffice and will help making the discussion clearer. :)

[SeK612]

I&#39;ve read bits of the bible as part of religious studies but have had no desire to study it in any detail in my spare time. Being an atheist I don&#39;t believe in any religion am kinda impartial to the whole religion thing (its done alot of damage to people and caused alot of problems but it can also bring out the best in people). Personally I feel if people want to believe in such things then they can and if it helps them deal with the things life throws at them then good but I honestly have seen nothing to convince me that there is a "higher calling" or god like figure watching over me or anyone around me. The bible and all holey books seem to focus on life and knowledge at the time in which it was created and indeed has many flaws which are being poked at by modern views and modern advancing scientific knowledge (most which are counter claimed by people believing in religion). I do feel one day that religion as we know it will stop as a final blow is dealt which reveals that they are indeed works of fiction made by some very clever people and carried on down the generation.

[dale!!!]

@Johnny_B

Hi. First of all: Sorry, I won&#39;t do any more pasting, however I wasn&#39;t pasting entire articles etc, just snippets of information I had compiled together.
However, I would still like to quote directly from the bible, mainly to save time with people looking up scriptures and to benefit those without one to hand.
If nessescary, i may quote a person or magazine in brief.
Thanks



The Sun was there long before the Earth ever existed. The Earth was never "in darkness".
Yes I agree, the Sun was created before the Earth, however, "in darkness" is because of all the dust and gases etc that surrounded the earth.

One important thing to take onboard is that the bible was physically written by men, and aimed for man to read. Although God inspired these men what to write about, he told them to write it from mans viewpoint. As you rightly said, God should know everything about all the universe etc if he created it, but what would be the point in telling us all the advanced information our top scientists of today would stuggle to comprehend, never mind the people alive during and since the time it was written.


2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

That is basically a description of what the bible is. It is not an advanced scientific text book on how every aspect of the universe works, but it gives you all the vital information you need on living your life properly and understanding about the spiritul aspects of things. However, it is allways scientifically acurate.



How can we see the whole picture and come to a consensus with only some frames available?

It is a fact that fossils have been found which proove that the creatures did in fact exist in that time. Period.
As from having just this part of the picture, why insist this proves evolution, when in fact non of the parts found show any signs of it what so ever. However, evolutionists assume that unfound fossils would proove evolution, whereas from the physical unassumed evidence, this fits in perfectly with creation.
Also, fossils found in different places are obviously from different times, but if evolution was a steady process over all these years, then how come fossils found from several years difference dont show this process? The older the fossil, the further back stages of evolution would be found, but they are all the same.


Bible mentioning outer space

Several times in the bible, God used the stars to illustrate a countless number, in comparisan to the grains of sand on earth that there are.

Genesis 22:17 I shall surely bless you and I shall surely multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens and like the grains of sand that are on the seashore; and your seed will take possession of the gate of his enemies.

Think of how many grains of sand there are? Think of how many stars there are? There are 100,000,000,000 approx in our milky way, much more than those that could be seen with the naked eye in those days. We can only see a few thousand. Yet, God says that the number of stars in the heavens are like the number of grains of sand.

Judges 5:20 From heaven did the stars fight,
From their orbits they fought against Sis´e·ra.
A reference to stars orbiting.

Jude 13wild waves of the sea that foam up their own causes for shame; stars with no set course, for which the blackness of darkness stands reserved forever
Could this be refering to stars that have no set course, as in dying, will turn into black holes?

Job 38:31-33
31Can you tie fast the bonds of the Ki´mah constellation,
Or can you loosen the very cords of the Ke´sil constellation?

32Can you bring forth the Maz´za·roth constellation in its appointed time?
And as for the Ash constellation alongside its sons, can you conduct them?

33Have you come to know the statutes of the heavens,
Or could you put its authority in the earth?

This is reffering to some of the different constellations in space; this, along with other scriptures, indicate that the bible assumes a universe which is fully rational and vast in size. Compare this with contempory world view, where the universe was not rational, no bigger than what the unaided human senses could actually see.


1 Corinthians 15:40-41 And there are heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort. 41The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, star differs from star in glory.

How did man know in that time that stars differed in colour, size, light produced, temperature and the relative density?




Just because something is highly unlikely to happen doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s impossible.
Is it that hard to believe that among the billions of planets and similar solar systems, we are one of those (or perhaps the only one&#33;) that beat the odds?

I agree to a certain extent. However, with the incountable amount of perfectly acurate complex combinations of events and atoms etc etc, the chance of it all happening is like 1 in a number that wudn&#39;t fit on this page. Then whats the chance of it happening first time?
Isn&#39;t it more resonable to consider that some form of intelligent creator created all thses things?



It&#39;s true that Man is unique... along with every other species.
Birds can fly, we can&#39;t. Fish can live in the water, we can&#39;t. We can think logically, other animals can&#39;t.

The difference between fish and birds and mammals etc is far less than the difference between our brains. Yes, each animal is unique in its design and complexity (even though they should be similar if evolved from each other), but human intelligence, our memory, all our abilities are far greater, plus they are on top of our physical differences as in the fish can live in water we cant idea.

As I&#39;m sure you would agree, developing a brain such as ours would be a big acheivment and objective for evolution, so why didn&#39;t the other chain of species end up to develop them? They all had just as much time, we all agree on a minmum amount of thousands of years that man has been around as he is now, so why haven&#39;t birds etc changed even with all that extra time?



If we were created in God&#39;s image, why do we share basic instincts with supposedly inferior animals?&#33;

Humans were assigned by God to care for and cultivate the Earth, this is our likeness with God. We have the attributes of love, wisdom, power and justice and to have a desire to do purposeful work and feel achievment. This is the way in which we differ from animals and ponder ultimate questions that no other living creature on the earth does.



The superstition and hygiene parts are merely cultural. The ones who wrote that part of the Bible were influenced by the culture they were identified with, and thus discarded what was considered non-sense to them.

These extreme culteral differences, the bible followers allways happened to get it exactly right, whereas all the other cultuers where way off, not having a clue about anything. All the things that seem sane for us to do today, like wether to apply excrement to an open wound or to burry it underground, we basically would only know this and all the other thousands of things through trial and error.
The bible got it right instantly, wereas its only been literally in the last 100 years that men who chose to figure these things out for himself are just starting to understand.



About the circumsision, you missed the point completely. I was making the point that how did humans then know that the 8th day of a childs life would be the appropriate day to perform this operation? Today, medical research has discovered that the Vitamin K is produced at this time, and is at its greatest then, so an operation such as this would have the bodys best circumstances to be perfomed on this day.
Humans back then didn&#39;t have a clue about vitamins etc, but as God created us, he knew everything there is to know and so lovingly informed them of the day correct day to do this.




If God is perfect and can do just about anything, why would He create Man with "physical imperfections" and tell him how to fix them later? Why not make Man perfect from the start?

This is leaving the evolution subject, but as this forum is about the bible then i don&#39;t see why it also cannot be discussed.


God did create humans perfect at first; Adam and Eve.
However, they dissobeyed God, and so reaped the pregiven consequences, part of which was to loose their perfection.
As "God is love", he then would help people further down in ways such as informing them of the circumsisions ideal day, amongst many, many other things.


I hope this has been a beneficial post for you to read, it took me a while to write completely by myself without ANY copying/pasting (just the bible scriptures).

Thanks for reading

[MadDog-2000]

No animal on this world believes in a higher power or something like god. No animal on this planet can willingly commit suicide or comprehend the concept of it. There are no animals on this planet that wage war, kill for sport or act in revenge&#33; They are not the flawed creation, we are&#33;

The bible tells of miracles and supernatural events but so does The Matrix and The Lord of the Rings. Do you believe that the actions and events depicted in The Matrix and The Lord of the Rings are real? Why then should the bible be any different?

If the bible is the work or word of God and God is the almighty being, why does the original bible (not the modern sanitized version) have so many grammatical errors in it?

Explain this: More than half of the population of this planet do not believe in a religion/God. As years pass, fewer and fewer people believe in a religion/God (this is a fact).

Suppose that the overwhelming majority of people (at least 51%) do not believe in flying purple cows and the minority does believe in flying purple cows. There has never been a true recorded case of a flying purple cow. Honestly, do you believe the overwhelming majority or the minority?

[dale!!!]

MadDog, thats a lot of twisted reasoning.

LOTR and The Matrix are recognised works of fictional entertainment, all conveiving ideas that are not possible with todays scientific knowledge.

The bible is a book of truth and can be backed up by scientific evidence.

No animal can do those things as they do not have the higher intelligence that humans have been given. Basically, they are comparable to mindless robots, despite there bodys still being scientific miracles.

About your statistical ideas.
First of all, 51% is not an overwhelming majority of 49%.

Yes it&#39;s true that there is no record of flying purple cows nore any evidence what so ever to back it up (as with most evolution theories), but everyting in the bible makes sence, fits together perfectly with the other parts that where written with hundreds of years difference, fits in with all related archealogical findings and scientific and medial facts.

You should read my posts carefuly, take on board and actually consider it, before narrowmindley throwing it all away like that.

No one has yet proved them wrong.

BTW what are those gramatical errors you talk about?

“Grammatical peculiarities ... must be preserved, since a text known to be inspired cannot be susceptible to corruption. ... Biblical methods of expression, metaphor, and idiom must be preserved, even if outlandish by Latin standards, as must also the ‘Hebraic’ forms of proper names.”
- Cassiodorus — copied from The Cambridge History of the Bible.

Based on all the amazing things proven to me from the bible, and all the flaws in evolution and other theories, id be with the "minoroty" even if i was the only one.
Unlikely, as its another fact that the more scientists find out, the more it looks like a creator is involved, and more are increasingly believing this&#33;

[SeK612]

Basically, they are comparable to mindless robots, despite there bodys still being scientific miracles.

Thats rubbish. Animals have evolved over millions of years to do what they&#39;re good at (namely survive and reproduce). Just because they cannot communicate on the same level as humans nor do they have a brain that allows them to contemplate suicide or war (which is probably a good thing <_<) does not make them simple or mindless.

And yes you can find almost anything if you look hard enough in the bible (or any religious book or large text for that matter) and quote the right bit. There are probably hundreds of strange predictions and theories in the bible with only a few being highlighted that, by chance, apply to this day and age.

As for a decline in religion it is fairly rapid. Go back a generation or two and lots more people went to church now (due partially to the advance or science a general advance in life and the way we live and a change in culture) very few people attend church regularly and religion as a whole is decreasing.

[[)arkredemption]

Although I am afraid I can probably add little to the debate in regards to what is written in the bible (as I&#39;ve read very, very little of it :rolleyes: ) you have quite an interesting debate going here and I think I may be able to add some information regarding genetics and evolution which may be of interest.


It is a fact that fossils have been found which proove that the creatures did in fact exist in that time. Period.
As from having just this part of the picture, why insist this proves evolution, when in fact non of the parts found show any signs of it what so ever. However, evolutionists assume that unfound fossils would proove evolution, whereas from the physical unassumed evidence, this fits in perfectly with creation.
Also, fossils found in different places are obviously from different times, but if evolution was a steady process over all these years, then how come fossils found from several years difference dont show this process? The older the fossil, the further back stages of evolution would be found, but they are all the same.

Despite its incompleteness, the fossil record shows many patterns which provide strong eveidence of evolution. Firstly, organisms of particular types are found in rocks of specific ages and new organisms appear sequentially in younger rocks. As we move from ancient periods of geological time towards the present fossil species increasingly resemble species living today. Many modern animals also possess relics of their previous evolution in both their physiology and genetics (for example the tiny remnants of hind legs on snakes and whales). The fossil record is not the only source of supporting evidence for evolution. The genetics in the mitochondria and the nuclei of cells in every animal show evidence of its evolutionary history, confirming the divergences in the family tree presented by paleantologists and the family tree of life on earth. Evidence also resides in the gradual changes in proteins and other macromolecules present in living organisms.


The difference between fish and birds and mammals etc is far less than the difference between our brains. Yes, each animal is unique in its design and complexity (even though they should be similar if evolved from each other), but human intelligence, our memory, all our abilities are far greater, plus they are on top of our physical differences as in the fish can live in water we cant idea.

If you are inferring that mental and physical abilities are completely seperate classifications then you are wrong. The concept of dualism (also known as the &#39;Ghost in the Machine&#39;) which entails that the mind and the body are effectively seperate has been effectively disproven by modern science. Mental abilities are merely the product of our minds, and these are in turn properties of the physical structure of our brains. They can therefore be described in exactly the same way in regards to evolution and in general.
Each animal is unique in many key adaptations but there are a vast number of similarities, particularly if you look beyond the obvious features of organs and instead look at the cellular and molecular organisation of organisms (and this clearly supports evolution). Each of the divergences of species towards these adaptations and the similarities between organisms can be clearly followed through the family tree of life with evidence from genetics and physiology. The idea that mental abilities are the far greater and perhaps the ultimate adaptation is purely a matter of subjective opinion, and it is hardly suprising that humans would take this view considering that this is our greatest strength.


I agree to a certain extent. However, with the incountable amount of perfectly acurate complex combinations of events and atoms etc etc, the chance of it all happening is like 1 in a number that wudn&#39;t fit on this page. Then whats the chance of it happening first time?
Isn&#39;t it more resonable to consider that some form of intelligent creator created all thses things?

A suprisingly small number of chance events would have to occur to set off the great momentum of evolution and the origin of what we would regard as life on earth. As soon as some form of molecule (most likely a simple molecule such as a segment of RNA on earth) came into being with the ability to replicate itself, but with slight errors that could occur during this process evolution could begin and natural selection could act upon the molecules formed. Considering the countless number of planets and other places upon which it would be possible for conditions to be created for the forming of the first replicator (as well as the vast timescales over which this would have a chance to occur) I think that far from it being a chance of 1 in a number that wouldn&#39;t fit on this page it would be nearly a certainty that this would occur at least once in the universe (for the exact chances and a more accurate idea of the chances we would have to call upon an expert chemist however).


Humans were assigned by God to care for and cultivate the Earth, this is our likeness with God. We have the attributes of love, wisdom, power and justice and to have a desire to do purposeful work and feel achievment. This is the way in which we differ from animals and ponder ultimate questions that no other living creature on the earth does.

There are very reasonable (and in my view essentially certain) explanations about how similar attributes of behaviour could have come about by evolution, as well as all of what could subjectively be called the more negative attributes of humanity. Unfortunately it would be quite hard for me to explain it in the manner in which i read it, and it would require me to pretty much write a book to do so. :(

I would therefore advise you to read (and it would probably certainly interest you) The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins for information regarding the evolution of behavioural traits as well as a different angle on evolution, The Blind Watchmaker by the same author for arguments against many of your claims against evolution and The Blank Slate by Stephen Pinker for information regarding dualism,and a huge number of fascinating psychological revelations based around modern biology. All of these books are absolutely great, and I thought it fitting to include them as this is after all Bookworld.

Great debate everyone. Its particularly refreshing to see a discussion of matters some people might regard as sensitive not erupting into a flame war. Hope you found some of this interesting and the arguments compelling.:)

[maynoth]

Let me say that I hope the modz do not edit or delete my posts. I will try not to offend anyone, (emphasis on try). I just know how rude, childish and arrogant the modz in here are so I’m sure some X-tian mod will edit or delete my post(s) as usual. Anyway on the topic of The Christian Bible as a book: ITS WORTHLESS (for anyone who can think critically) and full of blatant contradictions. Here are 9 undeniable contradictions that can be found in ANY current copy of the "the Buy-Bull” Also if you wish to check and see these errors are still present in the original Hebrew and Greek lexicons. You can whine all day about copyist errors but it still does not change the fact THESE UNDENIABLE CONTRIDICTIONS EXIST IN ALL THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE BIBLE AS WELL AS THE ORGINAL GREEK AND HEBREW LEXICONS&#33;
Here goes:
These are taken from booklet entitled "101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible."

Contradiction #5
How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
(a) Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26).
(B) Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2).

Contradiction #6
How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
(a) Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8).
(B) Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9).

Contradiction #11
When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture?
(a) One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4).
(B) Seven thousand (1 Chronicles 18:4).

Contradiction #12
How many stalls for horses did Solomon have?
(a) Forty thousand (1 Kings 4:26).
(B) Four thousand (2 Chronicles 9:25).

Contradiction #13
In what year of King Asa’’s reign did Baasha, King of Israel die?
(a) Twenty-sixth year (1 Kings 15:33 - 16:8).
(B) Still alive in the thirty-sixth year (2 Chronicles 16:1).

Contradiction #15
Solomon built a facility containing how many baths?
(a) Two thousand (1 Kings 7:26).
(B) Over three thousand (2 Chronicles 4:5).

Contradiction #22
Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the total number of the whole assembly was 42,360. Yet the numbers do not add up to anything close. The totals obtained from each book is as follows:
(a) 29,818 (Ezra).
(B) 31, 089 (Nehemiah).

Contradiction #23
How many singers accompanied the assembly?
(a) Two hundred (Ezra 2:65).
(B) Two hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:67).

Contradiction #94
Who killed Goliath?
(a) David (1 Samuel 17:23, 50).
(B) Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19).

[ilw]

I would therefore advise you to read (and it would probably certainly interest you) The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins for information regarding the evolution of behavioural traits as well as a different angle on evolution, The Blind Watchmaker by the same author for arguments against many of your claims against evolution
I second that, Richard Dawkins is a good writer and evolutionary biologist, if all you know of evolution is the little that Darwin first hypothesised then you&#39;ll learn a lot.


Just a quick post about your long one on evolution:

The 10 things that are supposedly in order, are lacking numerous other stages and the explanation of how light wasn&#39;t present because of the dust is really, reallly weak.

About the evolution thing, just a couple of things, one is that the human eye is very poorly designed (the connections between optic nerve and the rods and cones that detect light actually run across the front of our retina degrading vision and necessitating a blind spot. In fact eyes have evolved separately multiple times (a process called convergent evolution) and in terms of a good design for an eye an octopus&#39; eye is better as all the rods and cones (or equivalent) are connected from behind.

You&#39;re comparing fish and amphibians (and reptiles and birds etc) that exist today and pointing out the differences, but each of these species have diverged for millions of years. If you go back the similarities far outway the differences and dna testing provides evidence of common ancestry in an analogous way to comparing dna from parent to child. How do you explain that? Comparing todays amphibians with fish is nonsensical. Birds and reptiles is the same story, originally flying reptiles didn&#39;t have feathers just like bats don&#39;t have feathers, the differences between the reptiles that flew and the ones that didn&#39;t naturally grew as time passed and each adapted. Looking at todays different species they look very different, and this will always be the case because they have each adapted to their environment over millions of years of divergent evolution.


Why is the bible right and buddhism, judaism, hinduism etc wrong? Why did you choose christianity? Was it because your parents were christian and if so doesn&#39;t that seem like an odd way to choose which is the correct religion? I don&#39;t know the exact quote or who said it but
"When you understand why you reject other religions, you&#39;ll understand why i reject yours".

[maynoth]

Evolution is a fact. Yea you heard me right it is a fact. A lot of Christians seem to have no clue whatsoever what evolution is. Well first let me tell you what it is not.

1. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It strictly deals with how pre-existing life changes. The theory that life came from non-living matter is called Abiogenesis (NOT EVOLUTION)

2. The theory of evolution does not say we came from apes. It says we shared a common ancestor. That is not the same as coming from apes.

3. Evolution is not purely theoretical. WE HAVE DIRECTLY OBSERVED IT HAPPEN. Having said that evolutionary theory (how evolution happened in the past) is theoretical because we do not no for certain how everything evolved exactly.


Let me reiterate that WE HAVE DIRECTLY OBSERVED EVOLUTION HAPPEN.
Here is the proof:

Microevolution is essentially the same thing as adaptation. The climate changes and the dogs with naturally thicker coats are better suited and eventually a few generations down the line you wind up with all dogs having thicker coats. I have never once met a Christian who denies that microevolution aka adaptation occurs. As a matter of fact most of them come to me and say well microevolution is a fact but macroevolution that’s a farce. So lets examine macroevolution.


Macroevolution: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (such as species formation) taken from Merriam Webster’s college dictionary.

The Christians I speak with claim no new species have ever been directly observed forming only discovered. THIS IS A CROCK. We most certainly have observed macroevolution/speciation occur.

Here is the proof:
Taken from (www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html, www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html)


"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
------------

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

------------


Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)
(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)

Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

------------


Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

------------


Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

[maynoth]

Another Argument I hate from Christians is how they explain how amazing and complex and intricate and perfect the known world and universe are. So therefore a creator who is even more perfect intricate and complex than his creation must exist because who else could have created a system this complex. HUH?

This whole argument is self-contradictory. At its core its saying everything is so complex it must have had a creator it couldn&#39;t just always exist. But yet this creator being inherently more complex and perfect and intricate than his creation CAN "just always exist" with no need for a creator.

So let’s break it down even further:
Complex things can&#39;t just always exist they need a creator more complex than they are to create them. YET things that are inherently more complex than the things they created can just always exist without need for a creator. HUH??? What a bunch of BS&#33; LOL this Christian logic is so bass-ackwards it’s disgusting.

Obviously either every complex thing needs a creator or not every complex thing needs a creator. You cannot logically say: “Well every complex thing needs a creator except my complex thing.” I hate they way they use this logic and apply it to everything but when it’s applied to their God they make an exception. It’s ludicrous.

From a logical standpoint it makes more sense to say that all matter and all energy allways existed in some form or another. And that there was no creator. This is alot more logical than saying Oh well nothing (including matter-energy, the universe etc.) can just allways exist therefore my thing created it&#33; Oh and by the way my thing CAN just allways exist because i said so&#33; BLEH&#33; NEENER NEENER NEENER... Its such a weak and childish explanation.

[ilw]

So do you agree with abiogenesis then? What about evolution from a single celled organism?

[maynoth]

Another thing I hate about faith based religions (e.g. Christianity) is that they require you accept their CORE-BELIEFS (a creator and afterlife) on faith. Accepting ANYTHING I MEAN ANYTHING on faith is intellectual suicide. I can&#39;t think of a more intellectually dishonest and stupid thing to do than accept something as important as your core beliefs for being on FAITH.. Seriously ppl. If you did that for any other belief you would be labeled a Schizophrenic by a psychiatrist. As a matter of fact Faith is the basis of all con-games. If you don’t do your homework and have a good foundation based on objectively verifiable evidence to support your core beliefs then you are a fool and you are asking to be let down or deceived. CMON this is the 21st Century PPL&#33; Get REAL&#33;

[maynoth]

@ ILW

I see abiogenesis as a possible explanation for the origin of life on earth. The probability that a self replicating molecule could form given enough time and a big enough conducive environment is NOT improbable. I am not claiming that is how it happened only that it is a strong possibility. Another possibility includes our world being seeded by extraterrestrial life (not necessarily intelligent). I don’t have definite answers as to life&#39;s origins. I can only speculate. Just as ANY intellectually honest person can. You can&#39;t just believe on faith that your god created everything and that the act of you believing it on faith will make it true. That is absurd.

[[)arkredemption]

The idea that life on earth was started by extraterrestrials (unintentionally or intentionally) suffers from the same problem as the idea of god creating life. It begs the question of how the entity that started life on earth came into being. The key difference between these two situations however is that extraterrestrial life can be potentially explained (probably starting once again from the differential success of slightly varying replicators) whereas god cannot be. I realise though that you are by no means advocating the view that extraterrestrials started life Maynoth.

I&#39;ve also got to completely agree with the flaws of faith. Our beliefs have a dramatic impact on our outlook on life, from our laws to the way you view other peoples actions (often one and the same), as well as potential to do great good or great harm (though I realise these are merely subjective). It is important therefore for your beliefs to be based on an as objective view of life as possible and empirical evidence, allowing you to form your own judgements and ideas as accurately as possible. If you simply rely on faith you will often find yourself denying the truth with no evidence to support yourself. This, I think, is one of the key differences between Science and Religion. Religion says they have all the answers...and is endlessly resistant to the obviousness of logical argument on some of its views. Science says that if we keep asking the right questions we will find the answers, and these are the current models we have based on logical empirical evidence. Whereas Religion will not bow down to evidence and treats what it says as Gospel (sorry but I just had to say that :D ), Science is willing to offer up its discoveries to argument and review.

Admittedly everyone has to treat most things with something approaching faith. It would be impossible for each person to review all scientific findings of history to check for their accuracy in their lifetime and we are therefore forced to &#39;Stand on the Shoulders of Giants&#39; (although that can also of course be a positive thing) and accept a certain amount on trust. After all, as Descartes said, perhaps the only certainty each of us has is &#39;I think therefore I am&#39;. B)

[maynoth]

@ Dark

It’s good to know there still are some rational ppl out there. In regards to extraterrestrials being the origin of life on earth it still does not explain the ultimate origin of life. But given a universe this vast the probability that self replicating molecules would form somewhere in the universe is almost certain. I personally refuse to accept ANYTHING as absolute truth without adequate objective evidence. I just don’t see how 90% of our population can be soooo ignorant.

[maynoth]

Got awful quite in here. lol :) wonder if we ran all the X-tians off? :P

[Scorpion53]

I see the bible as being like our American constitution.....great in it&#39;s concept&#33; And religion like politics....taking that concept and bending it to fit one&#39;s own bias. In other words...Bible=good....Religion=not so good&#33;

[Johnny_B]

Originally posted by dale&#33;&#33;&#33;
That is basically a description of what the bible is. It is not an advanced scientific text book on how every aspect of the universe works, but it gives you all the vital information you need on living your life properly and understanding about the spiritul aspects of things. However, it is allways scientifically acurate.

dale&#33;&#33;&#33;, the Bible isn&#39;t scientifically accurate at all.
It is right on some points, but the majority is whether too vague or too subjective to be accuratetly interpreted.

For instance, how does the Bible explain the fact that so many different races exist, when Adam and Eve were both white?
There is no objective answer to this in the Bible, because it&#39;s completely impossible.

Also how did Adam and Eve&#39;s offspring populated the Earth without recurring to incest?
They didn&#39;t&#33; They actually commited incest&#33;
Does this seem like a "perfect" plan from a perfect God?
And the incest is repeated again in the Flood, when Noah&#39;s family has to re-populate the Earth.
Does this actually make any sense to you?&#33;

The Bible&#39;s partially accurate predictions can easily be explained in many ways.
For instance, Leonardo Da Vinci predicted some of the inventions that are common to us, in our days, like the helicopter, the parachute and the tank.

Many science fiction authors have accurately predicted holograms, fax machines, submarines, satellites, astronauts, space stations, nanotechnology, virtual reality, etc...

Were all these men prophets writing the words of God?
I don&#39;t think so. These were men with similar creativity to the ones who wrote the Bible.

[Wolfmight]

You know how Jesus was "supposed" to have lived during Ancient Rome?
Well, i was wondering if a sword stabbed in the ground was the so called "cross"?
Evil fliped down? Fighting turned off?
I believe something made this, but I also believe people dont know anything about it. God is probably something completely different.

Untill i know everything about Space and Time.. this religion is here to help others (besides me) keep from knowing the "REAL TRUTH".

My life goal is to find out how it&#39;s possible we are here when everything must have a creator.. so the first being is impossible without a creator before it.

..................................................................................... we know nothing yet



btw, i think if jesus was real.. he may have been allmost an alien life form from the race that might have created us. But what created that race?
They may be amoung us as we speak.. hideing.. in they&#39;re deminsion. Those Ghost sightings may have been them...

creepy, no?

http://cnaude.freeshell.org/images/atheist.jpg

Recent studies show that through a series of words shown.. religous words caused people (even the non beilievers) to have the most activity in heart rate..etc.
They even tested people who didnt even know what the words ment (they were from other countrys).. still.. highest heart rate on those words.

[Mad Cat]

My life goal is to find out how it&#39;s possible we are here when everything must have a creator.. so the first being is impossible without a creator before it.

Where&#39;d you get that from?

[imported_kragon doom]

Interesting Topic...here is my 2 Cents:

1. For the Bible to be the absolute "Word of God" and the only Living testament of Gods plan and design for Human beings it is safe to assume that, since he is all knowing supreme being, that this book must be the truth. The complete truth.

God is basing your entire existance upon faith of the "TRUTH" with in those pages.

2. If you find errancy in those pages then there is flaw...and if there is flaw then you have to allow for the fact that it wasnt completely "inspired by God" and if it is not Completly designed by God then who is to say what part is and what part isnt.

Or if it even came from "God"

Seems pretty thin to me.

[maynoth]

Me 2 Kragon.... It’s really odd we haven&#39;t seen more Christians here defending themselves... Maybe it’s because at an unconscious level they know believing things on faith is BS, and that you cannot do stupid things like that now in the 21st Century. Maybe they have to cling to lies in order to feel like there is some purpose to their life. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

[maynoth]

Anyone know why this thread keeps disappearing?

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Johnny_B+23 November 2003 - 02:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Johnny_B @ 23 November 2003 - 02:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-dale&#33;&#33;&#33;
That is basically a description of what the bible is. It is not an advanced scientific text book on how every aspect of the universe works, but it gives you all the vital information you need on living your life properly and understanding about the spiritul aspects of things. However, it is allways scientifically acurate.


For instance, how does the Bible explain the fact that so many different races exist, when Adam and Eve were both white?
[/b][/quote]
Johnny, It doesn&#39;t say in the bible that they were both white. Even so God would have given them the genes for the whole human race.

[maynoth]

BWAHAHAHAH... Yes god made Adam and Eve with genes for the Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid genomes&#33; BWAHAHAHAH.

[imported_kragon doom]

I really want to believe in God. I really do. I personaly think that those that sincerly do are impressive.

When you meet them, the sincere ones, you can tell. Very similar disposition as budhist monks or other devoted people to peace.

However America has stained the pure Ideaology of the beauty of the Christian faith...and the secular world hates it.

I couln&#39;d walk the real walk that that book calls for....it&#39;s difficult at best.


Personally the idea of an advanced species or race that , created....designed and implemented a giant human ant farm on this planet makes just about as much sense to me.

Oh well....I guess we all get to find out soon enough...right?

[UKMan]

Probably my first ever post here..........sorry bout that - it was prompted by a post in the lounge....
anyways, i believe that if you read the Bible or any ancient religious material come to that, with an open mind and with a modern interpretation, then it could hold a lot of answers to many peoples questions. After all, The Bible, which this thread is all about, does give a lot of clues as to what is gonna happen in the (then) future. Whether or not you believe it is up to you, but with an open mind it makes very interesting reading.

UKMan

[[)arkredemption]

@ Thorin

It is absolutely impossible genetically for anyone to have genes for the whole human race (read up on some genetics) in each of their cells and survive and reproduce, and I know of no other way for the variation in humanity to have come about except through natural selection as part of evolution. I can only begin to imagine the mess that having all of those genes would make of any cell containing them. If you say that he would give different genetics to each of their gametes (sex cells) for different races it would be possible genetically, but the gametes would quickly be eradicated by the bodies immune system. Saying god managed to suppress the immune system and put different genetics in each gamete simply begs the question of how he did that. Whereas I realise that one of the ideas about god is that he is said to be capable of doing things that are effectively impossible (performing miracles), things which are impossible are just that: impossible.

@kragon doom


I really want to believe in God. I really do. I personaly think that those that sincerly do are impressive.

When you meet them, the sincere ones, you can tell. Very similar disposition as budhist monks or other devoted people to peace.

If like me you do not believe in god, you can see (and I&#39;m not saying you can&#39;t) that the devotion to peace they have achieved is therefore not due to a god. It is therefore possible for someone to achieve this without reliance on a religion, however impressive it might seem. You can be devoted to peace and other views without religion, just as you can learn morals without religion. This leads me to the conclusion that I really can&#39;t see why you&#39;d want to believe in a god for this reason.

@maynoth

I&#39;ve got to agree that its a little suprising and disappointing that we haven&#39;t had more Christians (and other religious people) defending their beliefs. Its a little hard to have an interesting intellectual debate (which some of this thread has been) without someone arguing from a different point of view. Oh well, with any luck someone will arrive shortly. B)

[dale!!!]

“A race is simply one of the partially isolated gene pools into which the human species came to be divided during and following its early geographical spread. Roughly one race has developed on each of the five major continental areas of the earth. ... Man did indeed diverge genetically during this phase of history and we can measure and study the results of this divergence in what remains today of the old geographical races. As we would expect, divergence appears to be correlated with the degree of isolation. ... When race formation took place on the continents, with the bottlenecking of thousands of populations in isolated gene pools all over the world, the gene-frequency differences we now see were established. ... The paradox which faces us is that each group of humans appears to be externally different yet underneath these differences there is fundamental similarity.” (Heredity and Human Life, New York, 1963, H. L. Carson, pp. 151, 154, 162, 163) (Thus, early in human history, when a group of people were isolated from others and married within the group, certain distinctive combinations of genetic traits were emphasized in their offspring, including skin colour)



It is therefore possible for someone to achieve this without reliance on a religion, however impressive it might seem.

So after all these thousands of years have we not had a single occurance of world peace?
As the bible said at the start of these thousands of years, men can not rule the world all by himself, as wars etc will happen
but as Gods right to rule the earth was questioned, he is allowing man to see if he really can cope all by himself.

look out of the window and ull find he can not&#33;

[[)arkredemption]

@ dale

I agree completely with what you have said in regards in regards to races and gene pools, and if it was intended to argue against my point or to correct me I still do not think that it conflicts with what I have said (unless my wording misled some from what I was meaning, in which case I apologise). I was merely arguing the impossibility of having all of the different variations on human genes that cause the phenotypes we would regard as racial features in a single cell, as well as in gametes. I was saying this as another poster had suggested Adam and Eve had been given the genes for the whole human race.

Your other comments however i feel that I could disagree with...





It is therefore possible for someone to achieve this without reliance on a religion, however impressive it might seem.

So after all these thousands of years have we not had a single occurance of world peace?
As the bible said at the start of these thousands of years, men can not rule the world all by himself, as wars etc will happen
but as Gods right to rule the earth was questioned, he is allowing man to see if he really can cope all by himself.

look out of the window and ull find he can not&#33;

I think that we have had occurances of peace throughout this time, and in fact that occurances of peace have become more common if anything. I am afraid that my poor knowledge of the bible will make it harder for me to argue my point in this answer, as I do not know entirely which bits of what you said were stated in the bible and to which parts of human history they were relevant.

If you are saying that a time occured before conventional human history (ie. before the known beginnings of civilisation with races such as the Sumerians) in which there was peace under the rule of god (which was then questioned before the beginning of conventional human history), I know of no such evidence of a time like this existing. There is however strong evidence of violence throughout the history of life on earth.

If you are saying that &#39;gods right to rule the world&#39; has been questioned recently (perhaps by things such as science) then I would point out that the present is more peaceful than pratically any time in known history and that it is becoming continually more peaceful (currently at least), just as I believe the grip of religion on the world is weakening currently (particularly in Britain, where I live) and the grip of Science is growing. These modern trends would tend to act against what you have said in regards to peace and the rule of god.

The fact remains however that there has been war and violence throughout human history (and beyond that if you consider other species). This may therefore present evidence for the point you have made, however this could have just as easily have come about by coincidence and far from conclusively proves this. I personally think that there has been violence throughout all of history, whether human or not, and that this is simply another method favoured by natural selection for the survival and reproduction of genes.

One of the main problems that I have with the accuracy of the bible in portraying historical events and the truth in general, as well as the existence of god is that absolutely no evidence that I have seen can actually prove these things or even strongly support them. There are merely some small amounts of &#39;evidence&#39; which do not necessarily lead to a conclusion that supports the bible or existence of god at all, and which can be explained by current scientific theory supported by empirical evidence. Therefore instead of religion being able to prove god exists, others are faced with the notoriously difficult situation of trying to prove a negative.

You say that man cannot cope by himself...I say that man will have to, because there&#39;s no-one else to help us. :)

[Aaron_T]

God an jesus and all that shit isnt real so the bible is irrelevant

[**GASHA**]

Uhhh, seems like "Case Closed" here now.

[)arkredemption has said it all :)

Could&#39;nt agree with you more.

[Will_518]

Wow&#33;, 7 pages. Are you guys kidding me?&#33;

I&#39;ll come clean here, i started this topic as a joke/bet with Neo714, to see how many responses i&#39;ll get, and what they&#39;d be. I didn&#39;t think you guys would take this seriously. Well, now you have, it&#39;s not a bad thing.

Ok, about this gene thing, my opinion is DNA, RNA, and Protein didn&#39;t just come about by chance, the possibility of a strand of protein long enough to support life to be produced by chance is something like 10^-23; and the chance of DNA or RNA being created with protein (which are complicated enoough to support life) in the same place is so minute, it&#39;s practically 0. Even if you take into accout, the known universe is about what? 14 billion light years? and there are God knows how many stars and planets; the chance of life happening from non-life on any one of them is still almost 0.

So, do you still not believe in God?

And about the peace thing, it&#39;s true you know, in God knows how many years of human civilization, there isn&#39;t an era of world peace, ever. E.G. the 20th and 21st century:
1900 -- 1914 colonian wars;
1914 -- 1918 WWI;
1918 -- 1939 Civil war in China, Spain;
1939 -- 1945 WWII;
1945 -- 1949 China civil war continued, War in Vietnam (French vs Vietnam people&#39;s army);
1950 -- 1953 Korean war;
1954 -- 1966 Cuba "liberated", war in Middle-east, U2 incident, cuba missile crisis;
1961 -- 1974 Vietnam war (USA vs Vietnam communist), China - Indian war;
1974 -- 1989 Falkland isles, Vietnam war (vietnam vs Combodia; then Vietnam vs China), war in Afganistan (vs USSR);
1990 -- present Congo civil war, Ruwanda conflict, 1st gulf war, 2nd Gulf war, war in Afganistan (vs USA), Mecedonia, Yogoslavia, "war of terror";

Possible future conflicts:
Middle east (Isreal&#39;s already at war);
2nd Korean war (there&#39;s 1million troops on the border);
Iran (part of "war of terror");
Taiwan;
Africa (sorry i can&#39;t spell the names of the countries).

And these are just wars i can name, and know about; not to mention the constant tension in Isreal.

How can you still tell me the world is becoming a more peaceful place? Are you George W Bush?

So, we can&#39;t really rule ourselves, can we? We jsut wanna kill each other. I mean, look at the Holocaust, Stalin&#39;s gulags, purges, Mao&#39;s cultural revolution, Milosevich&#39;s genocide, Suddam&#39;s rule of terror, Bush&#39;s "war of terror"... (the list is endless)

End of the day, we need God.

[ilw]

Theres a widely held evolutionary theory that there was a simpler, but less effective precursor to DNA and RNA, but obviously when RNA and later DNA evolved from it the precursor couldn&#39;t compete and is now long gone.
This greatly shortens the odds on creating life, and there are a number of other factors which also help, but i can&#39;t remember them.

Btw is the 1 in 10^23 value u quoted, the probability of the molecules ordering in the correct way in order to produce a useful protein? Because if thats the case then that value is in no way the probability of life occurring. Theres a rebuttal of creationists calculations of probabilities of life, here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/default.htm), although what he&#39;s written is afaik scientifically accurate I should warn you that the writer seems a wee bit pissed at creationists.

The short list of why creationists quoting probabilities often get it wrong is:

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.



Looking at the inverse, if you accept that life could happen by sheer chance, what are the odds that no life was created anywhere in the universe? if you accept some of the less basic evolutionary theory (if you accept the basics why not the advanced stuff) that probability is likely orders of magnitude smaller than the 1 in 10^23 you quoted.

[[)arkredemption]

@**GASHA**

Thankyou

@Will_518

Firstly, I&#39;m quite happy to say that I&#39;m not Bush :D

Anyway...

You are quite correct that there are still world conflicts, and that there have been many in recent history. I still think that currently there is less war than there has been at many other times, but accept that this is only taking into account the very recent past and this very moment of the present and that I can hardly predict whether this will be true in the future (it is quite possible that there will be much war within the next century associated with dwindling resources for a start).

What I view as the most important part of the argument I was making still stands strong however. The fact that there has been war throughout human history far from proves that what is written in the bible is correct, and the violent aspect that does exist in human nature and the way in which this could come about by evolution (once again, I&#39;d advise reading Richard Dawkins books on evolutionary psychology...Perhaps The Selfish Gene would be a good place to start) can quite easily explain why humans fight wars. We may &#39;just wanna kill each other&#39;, but there is no god to come and pervent us from doing so. I view this as a very negative outlook an human nature however. We all have redeeming qualities and what might be regarded as &#39;good&#39; qualities go along with the &#39;bad&#39; qualities. Opinions on what fits into each category are purely subjective however...There is no Black & White (only a sort of shade of grey). With any luck however we can set aside differences long enough to at least ensure the survival of the human race.

This also still leaves another key point I made in my last post.


One of the main problems that I have with the accuracy of the bible in portraying historical events and the truth in general, as well as the existence of god is that absolutely no evidence that I have seen can actually prove these things or even strongly support them. There are merely some small amounts of &#39;evidence&#39; which do not necessarily lead to a conclusion that supports the bible or existence of god at all, and which can be explained by current scientific theory supported by empirical evidence. Therefore instead of religion being able to prove god exists, others are faced with the notoriously difficult situation of trying to prove a negative.

If you can suggest some evidence that I believe this does not apply to, I would be delighted to hear it.

@ilw

Beautifully put. I don&#39;t think I could have said it better myself. There is however a little something I believe that I could add.

It is believed by many that a compound such as RNA may have been the first form of &#39;life&#39;. RNA is capable of both storing information in a similar way to DNA, as well as playing an part in metabolism, as proteins do. Once an RNA molecule was formed that was capable of self-replication (something not so unlikely as you might think if you consider the vast timescales and amounts of matter in which this could happen), but that made slight errors in doing so, life on earth could develop as natural selection (and therefore evolution) could act upon that molecule. Natural selection would favour molecules that would have a good copying fidelity, durability and fast speed of replication. Development of this molecule, and the phenotypes that it would eventually bring about, could quite easily lead to what we would regard as life.

It is of course quite possible, as ilw suggested, that another molecule could precede RNA, and in fact that any molecule capable of self-replication (but that made slight mistakes in the process) could become increasingly complex and lead to what could be regarded as life.

Its great to see that a joke/bet has turned into a great thread, with all kinds of smaller scientific and religious issues being debated. BTW Will_518, if this was a bet...Did you win?? :D

[kazaaliteuser007]

All I can say on this matter is that jesus is a blackman&#33;

What prrof is there to state otherwise? he lived in a country where most people are black and whats to say he never smoked abit of the wacky baccy, or any of his followers, read the bible properly u&#39;ll see that that someone had to be on drugs&#33;&#33;&#33; :blink:

[Will_518]

Originally posted by kazaaliteuser007@1 December 2003 - 05:46
All I can say on this matter is that jesus is a blackman&#33;

What prrof is there to state otherwise? he lived in a country where most people are black and whats to say he never smoked abit of the wacky baccy, or any of his followers, read the bible properly u&#39;ll see that that someone had to be on drugs&#33;&#33;&#33; :blink:
I totally agree. Take a look at revelations, for example.

About that war thing,
i simply think the world is a better place because of the belief in God. Without a belief in something bigger that sort of governs us, there would be anarchy, for example, a chief reason why a lot of civil war that should have happened but didn&#39;t, is because the monarchy has God given power. Without God, or a sense of god, would we still have the laws we have today? I doubt it.

maybe 90% of the wars were fought in the name of god; but most of the time, there&#39;s other reasons, e.g. the crusades were as much about God as they are about money, land, prestige, and women. but without religion, or God, we would simply be killing for money (if nothing else, that sounds bad).

[ilw]

maybe 90% of the wars were fought in the name of god; but most of the time, there&#39;s other reasons, e.g. the crusades were as much about God as they are about money, land, prestige, and women. but without religion, or God, we would simply be killing for money (if nothing else, that sounds bad).
:blink: good argument for religion i think :huh:

anyway....

While i agree that for good or bad christianity has played a large part in shaping the moral fabric of the west, I completely disagree with the idea that its all thats stopping us from descending into anarchy. Is the only reason you don&#39;t go around killing and raping because of your belief that you&#39;ll be punished in the afterlife? I rather doubt it is, for starters theres a nice system of justice on earth which you would no doubt fear and imo makes punishment after death basically unnecessary. We&#39;ve created a secular society based on the most basic ideals of christianity and millions of agnostics/atheists/people of other religions recognise these ideals as basically good ideas and without needing fear of punishment by a higher power, they (we) choose to live our lives by these same laws. It is also important to note that although some of the basic ideals came from Christianity, other ideals from the Bible have been discarded as unnecessary. Plus many teachings in the bible simply come from the social context at the time of telling/writing.

There was a discussion in the World news & events section that went along the same lines that you mention, the fear among conservative christians that the growing atheism/agnosticism would lead to a decline in morality. This might be true, because imo without a higher power there can be no fundamental good or bad and no morals, however, I believe that even in a completely amoral (not immoral) you can still have a perfectly functional, happy and non-anarchic society. Although there might be no fundamental good or bad there are still consequences to our actions and there are still things which are socially acceptable and unacceptable, the only difference is that we decide the laws and standards consciously and through debate and reason instead of relying on what someone claims is god&#39;s will.

[bujub22]

lot of good points here im not very religious but i do think there is a god just everybody got there own belief on what there god is so
kill them all let god sort them out -bruce willis

[Mad Cat]

Religion is a tool.

I&#39;m not writing 5 pages with a broken arm, so read up on history, without ANY BIAS WHATSOEVER.

[bob_the_alien]

Originally posted by ilw@1 December 2003 - 09:27
There was a discussion in the World news & events section that went along the same lines that you mention, the fear among conservative christians that the growing atheism/agnosticism would lead to a decline in morality. This might be true, because imo without a higher power there can be no fundamental good or bad and no morals, however, I believe that even in a completely amoral (not immoral) you can still have a perfectly functional, happy and non-anarchic society. Although there might be no fundamental good or bad there are still consequences to our actions and there are still things which are socially acceptable and unacceptable, the only difference is that we decide the laws and standards consciously and through debate and reason instead of relying on what someone claims is god&#39;s will.
I agree, I have no religion, nor do I believe in a god, however, I have very high morals, I mean ppl live until they die, what gives me the right to interfere in their lives or take that life away from them. Also, I try to help others when they need it, because sometimes I need help, so how can I expect help, if I don&#39;t give it.

I cannot see how some ppl can believe ppl become less moral when they have no religion.

[slicer]

lord of the rings is bether than the bible at almost all points

[100%]

LOOKING FOR THE BIBLE ON MP3? :huh:

http://www.god.co.uk/

[bootylicious]

Have anyone read the CONVERSATIONS WITH GOD BOOKS? There are 3 books in the volume written by NEALE DONALD WALSCH. Check it out, you won&#39;t be disappointed. It will provide some unique insight on GOD and the UNIVERSE. I am currently reading book 3 in the series and I can&#39;t put it down...im hooked like never before its unlike any other book you have read on this topic. Enjoy and remember that reading increases knowledge&#33;&#33; :)

[**GASHA**]

remember that reading increases knowledge&#33;&#33;

And sometimes (depending on the subject/individual) it brainwashes them. Sounds a good read.....I&#39;ll give it a go when I&#39;m finished reading "Da Bible" by the talented mr Ali-G.

[BullWinkle]

I would read it but I don&#39;t like fiction. Basically it makes a good bedtime stories for children, be good or I will smite you. I learned all about that when I was growing up but it wasn&#39;t from god it was from my parents way back before timeouts in a corner if you were bad.

[bootylicious]

Originally posted by BullWinkle@28 December 2003 - 11:23
I would read it but I don&#39;t like fiction. Basically it makes a good bedtime stories for children, be good or I will smite you. I learned all about that when I was growing up but it wasn&#39;t from god it was from my parents way back before timeouts in a corner if you were bad.
This book is about an uncommon dialogue between the writer (Neale Donald Walsch) and a higher power which he believes to be God. It&#39;s where the writer asks god some very difficult questions about life, death, religion, politics etc...and god responds. So i guess it would be up to the reader to decide based on what they believe if the book is fact or fiction. This god is unlike the god of the bible; trust me...it&#39;s a good read&#33; Peace&#33;&#33; :) :) :)

[Adster]

the bible is a fiction story

[Cheese]

Originally posted by Adster@30 December 2003 - 13:01
the bible is a fiction story
How do you figure that?

[Adster]

Originally posted by Withcheese+31 December 2003 - 01:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Withcheese @ 31 December 2003 - 01:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Adster@30 December 2003 - 13:01
the bible is a fiction story
How do you figure that? [/b][/quote]
coz its there for belief or dis belief personally I think its a brainwashing piece of crap that manipulates us into believing what we want too

[Draconos]

Here is what I have found (while soul searching a few years ago)

The Bible we know today was actualy written in about 1000AD. and rewritten in something like 1500AD, commissioned by King James (hence the new testament)

In Israel Jesus was worshipped alongside of Dionisus (Greek God) archiological evidence found coins with etching Jesus on one side and the God of Wine on the other.

Much of the "Good Book" is actualy plagerized from the Mythologies from around the world, mostly Babilonian(The Arc), Eagyptian ( Moses) and Greek (Take your pick there are so many, but Sodom and Gahmora is one of them ), some Celtic (David and Goliath)

I personaly am Pagan, I find that way to many people put their faith into somthing because they are told that that is right, without even doing a bit of reseach into other beleifs. they do so because their parents are Christians, they were raised that way so on and so forth.

Christianity is on a decline I beleive, because people are finaly opening their eyes.

But thats just me.

D :angel1:

[THE DUDE]

Originally posted by Adster+31 December 2003 - 11:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Adster &#064; 31 December 2003 - 11:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Withcheese@31 December 2003 - 01:21
<!--QuoteBegin-Adster@30 December 2003 - 13:01
the bible is a fiction story
How do you figure that?
coz its there for belief or dis belief personally I think its a brainwashing piece of crap that manipulates us into believing what we want too [/b][/quote]
I agree. the bible has been translated so many times from one language to another the original meaning was lost Generations ago. Each translation not only to loses some meaning due to error but as each culture came in to power they have changed the bible to suit thier own purposes. Not to mention the various Demoninations who omit books as it suits them. The bible as we see it today is missing 30% of it&#39;s original books. One of the Gosples is not included (the Gospel according to Thomas) Scorcese based The Last Temptation of Christ on this missing text.

I just can&#39;t be bothered to listen to some dude in a dress try to explain to me why I&#39;m going to hell for eating meat on Good Friday (when he wolfs down more tube steak than Richard Simmons).

[bootylicious]

Originally posted by Draconos@8 January 2004 - 21:43
Here is what I have found (while soul searching a few years ago)

The Bible we know today was actualy written in about 1000AD. and rewritten in something like 1500AD, commissioned by King James (hence the new testament)

In Israel Jesus was worshipped alongside of Dionisus (Greek God) archiological evidence found coins with etching Jesus on one side and the God of Wine on the other.

Much of the "Good Book" is actualy plagerized from the Mythologies from around the world, mostly Babilonian(The Arc), Eagyptian ( Moses) and Greek (Take your pick there are so many, but Sodom and Gahmora is one of them ), some Celtic (David and Goliath)

I personaly am Pagan, I find that way to many people put their faith into somthing because they are told that that is right, without even doing a bit of reseach into other beleifs. they do so because their parents are Christians, they were raised that way so on and so forth.

Christianity is on a decline I beleive, because people are finaly opening their eyes.

But thats just me.

D :angel1:
I here what ur saying and u might be right in some respect due to the fact that my own research turned up things of this same nature. It seems that much of the bible especially the [Old Testament] is based on Folklore and Mythology. Don&#39;t get me wrong, I was was raised in the christian way so this was very hard for me to accept. I do believe in God but I don&#39;t think the bible is fully accurate when it comes to the nature of god. Just one question though...what do u mean exactly when u say ur Pagan? :huh:

[Draconos]

[QUOTE]what do u mean exactly when u say ur Pagan?

I was raised Christian, but in my early 20&#39;s I had a crisis of Faith, after doing alot of research and soul searching, I realised that I am spiritual, but not Christian. I beleive in balance wheather it be in anture or in the huma condition, and the Gods I worship are the ancient Pre-hristian Gods, of Greece.

D

[THE DUDE]

I think the Buddists and the Hindus are on to something. There is definely something to chi and karma.

[seiya_33]

Ive read the bible , i have to say that i dont believe in any religion , dont believe in jc or any of that crap about him sacrificing himself for our pardon , but i have faith and i have questions , i dont know were we all come from i dont know whats going to happen when everybodys gone , so i believe in the begining and the end , so theres gotta be someone out there , a creator , not jc or his mom or any virgen , those are fairy tales , but someone had to be there in the beginig and some one is going to be there at the end.

[THE DUDE]

Originally posted by Draconos@9 January 2004 - 01:43
In Israel Jesus was worshipped alongside of Dionisus (Greek God) archiological evidence found coins with etching Jesus on one side and the God of Wine on the other.

Much of the "Good Book" is actualy plagerized from the Mythologies from around the world, mostly Babilonian(The Arc), Eagyptian ( Moses) and Greek (Take your pick there are so many, but Sodom and Gahmora is one of them ), some Celtic (David and Goliath)
Draconos

I found you post fasinating is there a web site I can go to find out about the coin story?

I am not disputing u because u seem like u really know what u r talking about but I&#39;ve got to ask have u ever heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh, I heard that this Greek story is the orginal Arc story (is it actually a Babalonian myth). Also I would like to find out more about the Egyptian tale that was the inspiration for Moses.

[Draconos]

Originally posted by THE DUDE@12 January 2004 - 22:26

I found you post fasinating is there a web site I can go to find out about the coin story?

I am not disputing u because u seem like u really know what u r talking about but I&#39;ve got to ask have u ever heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh, I heard that this Greek story is the orginal Arc story (is it actually a Babalonian myth). Also I would like to find out more about the Egyptian tale that was the inspiration for Moses.
The coin story I found last year while I war researching on Yule. I still have it in my old Mac cpu , but unfortunetly, it died and I have no idea how to retreave the files, but I will lokk to see if I cant find it again.

Gilgamesh, I&#39;m a bit rusty on my Babilonian Myth, but he was the Babilonian Noah, the Greek Version in the story of he flood of Ducalion (I might have mispelled his name)

And I will look online about the Egyptian moses, I have it in a book here someplace, but I cant really stick a book in the hard drive of my CPU :lol:

There is one book that you may find interesting its called Parallel Myths by
J. F. Bierlein , My wife bought it for me last year and its all about the myths/stories that are found all around the world that resemble them selve. For example, the story of the great Flood, appears in Greece, Babilon, aegypt, and as far west as the Amiracas, it a truely facinating read.

Anywho, I&#39;ll look for those stories for you tommorow, I have the day off.

D

[THE DUDE]

Thanx brother.
:) :) :)

[Illustrious]

If u really wanna read a book then head the Holy Quran then u will realsie the truth

[Wizard_Mon1]

Originally posted by Illustrious@13 January 2004 - 19:46
If u really wanna read a book then head the Holy Quran then u will realsie the truth
what is the truth then?

i haven&#39;t read the bible but i plan on it one day. many of the fabels are commonly know like king soloman and adam and eve.

i have read a few buddhist and taoist texts plus parts of the quran.

most of all i trust my personal experiences because really that is all we have to go on.

[ForbiddenDNA]

The bible is the word if God, and it is base on real stories. The bible will teaches everything you want to know or need to know. It is difficult to understand the bible. Read it and think hard, and ask God to speak through you while reading his word.

Q. Who wrote the bible? A. God

For those of you who have relationship problems or any other kind of issues, read the bible, it has all the answers.

Any questions?

[Illustrious]

The Bilble is words of God written by men but the bibile was written after u say jesus died is that true.


i beilive its was they word of God but over time it has been chnaged to suit human need therefore its no longer the word of GOD

[Randomblonde]

The bible, Ive found, looking at it from a purely literary point of view, has some very beauitfully written passages and some passages (ie, the whole of Revelations) that read like the rantings of a lunatic.
It makes me think that the bible is a collaboration effort (Yes, I know that John was supposed to have written one bit, and Mark another, but I meant within the chapters) and has been added to over the centuries. If you read it from beginning to end, you&#39;ll get it. It starts off horrific and disgusting, suddenly becomes very sweet and lovely when Jesus appears, then descends back into B grade horror as soon as he dies. It&#39;s a very frustrating book to read. Just because it seems so badly written.


Im an atheist, if you were wondering :rolleyes:

[Justacat]

good book read it alot

[Morpheus Phreak]

Revelation is apocrophyl and was not written by the John that most people think of when they think of John ;)

If you want a fictionalized version of the events of Revelation pick up the Left Behind series by Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye

Also check out the books by Tim LaHaye

If you want a real intellectuals views on Christianity that is.

[kenken]

Earlier on in this topic someone said that the bible was used as something to keep people fearful and from doing crimes and being bad but is no longer relevant. But as i read through this post i realise why a book such as the bible is actually still needed; i mean the sheer ignorance of people in this topic who can&#39;t have a civilised debate without trying to insult other peoples beliefs just shows me that people havn&#39;t really gotten better over thousands of years. It&#39;s disgusting&#33; :angry:

I think that if people want to read something fictional they should read the Torah (now i havn&#39;t read it but i&#39;ll just say that scientific fact has proven that the people who built the pyramids were not slaves; and so Israel is not the homeland of the Jews. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the Egyptian pharaohs buried the workers who built the pyramids in the shadow of the pyramids to show gratitude).

And before you start to judge the answer is NO i&#39;m not at all religious. I follow my own mind although i believe in God and many things written in different religious scripts including Christianity, Islam and Buddhism.

[maynoth]

:< :<

[colt45joe]

Originally posted by maynoth@2 February 2004 - 03:34
It saddens me to a great degree to hear all this illogical hogwash, from what seem to be otherwise moderately intelligent beings..... It shows me how incredibly incapable todays society is of thinking critically. If you believe in a personal god like the one described in the bible then you do so without any objective evidence or proof to back your belief. Doing so is absurd, and frankly it is dangerous to have people this ignorant in democracy. You cannot go around just believing in supernatural beings when you have absolutely ZERO objective evidence or proof to support such a belief. Does anyone else here besides me GET IT? Am I the only SANE person left here in this wonderful soon-to-be theocratic police state of ours? This shows me what a child-like mentality most of our population possess when they cannot demonstrate even the most basic critical thinking skills. Sad is the word i think that best describes it, grown adults that still believe in big men who live in the sky because a book says so or their parents told them so, without any need or regard whatsoever for objective evidence or proof to support said beliefs. It is pure absurdity&#33;, come on people this is the 21st Century we are living in.. We are advanced enough to send beings into outer-space and to the moon but we still believe there is a boogy man under our beds.... Disgusting... absolutely disgusting.
word.

[kenken]

For someone who cricises people that he believes are "moderately intelligent beings" you&#39;re rather ignorant&#33; Now i don&#39;t like to describe people in that way but you have just shown in you&#39;re post that you yourself cannott have a civilised discussion without insulting other peoples beliefs. Don&#39;t use words like absurd and illogical hogwash; because it portrays you as being the fool rather than the people that you&#39;re criticising. If you believe that religions that believe in God are wrong then state why without trying to offend people. And by the way there may not be evidence that God exists but there also isn&#39;t any evidence that God doesn&#39;t so you&#39;re not one to judge about evidence.

[maynoth]

:< :<

[kenken]

The point that i don&#39;t think you understand is that you can&#39;t go around insulting peoples beliefs by calling them hogwash or absurd and attempting to offend them. This is because when you do things like that no matter what else you have said which may or may not be valid in your arguament people will refuse to listen to it because of your attitude to others.
I may disagree with some of your beliefs but that doesn&#39;t give me the right to basically call them crap does it.

[maynoth]

:< :<

[maynoth]

*double post*

[kenken]

i don&#39;t actually have a problem in people expressing their beliefs i just have a problem with people such as yourself who are both rude and enjoy insulting people. I don&#39;t know you but from what i gather from your previous posts you really aren&#39;t a good person, it&#39;s actually quite sad.

[maynoth]

:< :<

[kenken]

What a load of patriotic SH*T (usually heard coming from Americans).
No matter how much you try to convince yourself, you aren&#39;t a nice person. You like to abuse people and frankly i hope this arguament ends soon because it really is pointless. It&#39;s like trying to convince a Dictator or Racist. :frusty:

[maynoth]

:< :<

[maynoth]

:< :<

[justin_9733]

Originally posted by Inevitable@4 November 2003 - 12:04
There is a God you guys are just confused. I&#39;m a Christian and from my personal experiences I realized that there really is a God. If there wasn&#39;t we wouldn&#39;t be here.
evolution

[Draconos]

Maynoth, your whole argument is about proof, how can you proove what you beleive?
Do you beleive in Love? if you go to your wife/girlfriend and tell her you love you her. do you expect her to kick you in then nuts? because you cant possibly prove a feeling to her, somthing you believe&#33;

Why the hell cant some one believe, whle hardedly in something whithout proof, to me that makes it more real that if I could see it. I&#39;m not Christian, I&#39;m pagan, I worship the same Gods they worshiped in the "Dark Ages" as you so put it. I have experianced things that would make an ignorant dweezle like yourself think. Just because you cant find any spirituality or happiness in life, does not meen that you have to try to piss off people who do, and basicly creat Chaos for no good reason.


D

[kenken]

There is no point arguing with this guy coz he has his views and you have yours and neither of you are going to convince one another. Oh and by the way Maynoth; you should read Mein Kamf (Sp) written by Hitler because you ranting sounds just like his. Thats why i compared you to a Dictator or a Racist.

[maynoth]

:< :<

[maynoth]

:< :<

[Draconos]

Originally posted by maynoth@3 February 2004 - 17:39
[QUOTE]
If there were more people like me, we could save the minds of all these sick people.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ok, Now I have to go to work, but I will get back to you asap, Your just too funny :lol:

D

[kenken]

Originally posted by Draconos@3 February 2004 - 21:03

[QUOTE]
If there were more people like me, we could save the minds of all these sick people.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ok, Now I have to go to work, but I will get back to you asap, Your just too funny :lol:

D
Yes, he&#39;s quite the comedian. :lol:

[Draconos]

Alright I&#39;m back,

Now I truely must take offence to somthing you said. you say that this beleif of "this behavior is well documented in Schizophrenics", Now my Grandmother, at this momentis sufering from dementia, which goes hand in hand with Schizophrenia. she somtimes cant even recognize her Daughter. this is an illness of the mind, not a beleif. you wanna know how she got to that demetia? because of science, you see my Grandma is old, and on medication, and doctors, men of science and logic, gave her some meds that clashed with what she already took, and she has never recovered. Is that the "rational thinkinging" that you speak so highly about? :angry:

Your a Hedonist, which in itself is a beleif system, so what your talking about here is pretty much bullshit. I&#39;ve never been clear on what exactly hedonism is though, please educate me, what is it?

You meditate, so do I. Its a practice originating thousands of years ago, its purpose is to comune with he Gods of a long ago time. Made popular in todays age by Bhudism, but it was practiced all over the world before that.

Do I think your a wuss for crying at Nature, no, I do so myself whenever I see the Rockies, Nature is a beautiful thing, where do you think it came from??? a randome accident?

Wealth and health do not make Happiness, I&#39;m not wealthy, hell if I was I wouldnt be Downloading Pirates of the carabian, I&#39;d have bought it. what I do have is a family that love me unconditionaly and I them, friends that I would bend over backwards for and they for me, and my beleif in my Gods, and knowing that they will not ever give me a situation I canot handdle and that they always have my back whenever I need them.

But I guess that happiness is defined differently for the bleak

This discution started out as a nice conversation about Ideas and philosophies, but ended up as crap because you had to come and call people Schizophrenic and saying that we"re all sick. take a good look at yourself buddy. some one who isnt able to look at something with an opened mind or give an opinion without offending others and even after being told he did so, not realize it, is the sick one&#33;

But on a lighter note, :) I would like to thank you, because of you, I feel my faith even deeper, I can feel my Goddess standing next to me right now with a smile on her face.

Thank you so very much for deepening my faith.

If the world were filled with more people like you, it would be total Chaos. Thank the Gods for open minded people.

And P.S.: it Draconos not draconis, Draconos is Greek for Dragon, Draconis is somthing I&#39;m not sure I can define on this board.

Now as for myself, I am truelly sorry if I have offended anyone in this discution, it was not my intent, I am mearly speaking my mind to someone who clearly cannot use his properly.

D :pirate:

[maynoth]

:< :<

[maynoth]

:< :<

[Draconos]

:lol: :lol: :lol:
This is my last post to all this crap.

People I would like to say, I just figured this guy out. He is sooooooo inteligent that it makes him completely stupid.

Dude, pretty much no one needs evidence in a Diety, if they beleive, what they feel is proof enouf. end of story

also this guy has no feelings above his shoulders. I just told yu that My Grandma is dying, and you pretty much laffed at me. Completely uncalled for

and he is very much an "censored"

Have a good day
D

again I think your a brilliant comedian, you shouild take your show to broadway

[leecheskicked]

well I will confess I read the 1st and last 2 pages and missed out most of the intermediate bullshit (I could see where it was heading) i quite like the old testament, It is after all a primary source, historically speaking.) thats me as a historian speaking, as a man I agree whole heartedly with old Testemant style verdicts&#33;

[[)arkredemption]

Its been a while since I&#39;ve visited this thread and I&#39;m both pleased and saddened by it...Pleased that the thread is still going and that there is at least some attempt at logical debate remaining but saddened that it appears to have degenerated into a pointless flame war over the past few pages, besides straying completely from the topic being discussed in this thread (although I realise that the thread itself was started in an intentionally ambiguous manner).

@leecheskicked

Try reading some of the stuff in the intermediate pages...as I believe thats where some of the most interesting debate has been. Its in these pages that a cohesive string of arguament develops and before it degenerates into the flame war.

@Draconos and Kenken

If you ever return to this thread (and I&#39;m not sure whether you will after you last comments and your understandable dislike of the flame war) perhaps we can engage in a more civil and reasonable debate than has been continuing since I stopped posting in this thread (though I am by no means attributing the peace to myself).

I&#39;m afraid I cannot remember who asked this question (lost in the midst of the flame war) but someone asked something along the lines of "How can you completely objectively prove anything?" (and therefore essentially why believe in what science tells you any more than what the bible etc. tells you) and I thought I might answer this.

Whereas it is essentially impossible to completely objectively prove anything as I believe in what Descartes said in that perhaps the only thing you can prove is "I think therefore I am", I still feel there is a clear difference between the way in which you can prove particular things, leading to a continuum between what might be regarded as objective proof and belief purely on faith. Science deals with quantifiable inaccuracies and builds upon a few observations which are assumed to be correct (in an unbiased manner) in a string of logical deductions through which more complex models and theories can be proved to be correct to a high degree of probability. Whereas this leaves the very most initial bricks on which the tower which is science is built slightly unstable (as they cannot be completely proven), science attempts to start with as few assumptions as possible. It also means that it is possible to follow the thread of logical deductions back to its roots and test and review each part of the many threads for each theory.

Through science it is possible to prove that many things, such as genesis and the age of the earth as told in the bible are wrong to a very high degree of probability, and I believe that this kind of logic (scientific) is the best way by which to determine anything.

Religion meanwhile is based on a vast array of assumptions in that was is believed in its particular holy text is true, and therefore any logical deductions drawn from this are on especially shakey ground (despite being of vast influence throughout human history), besides being impossible to review without leading to their collapse. The fact that many things in the bible can be proven wrong by a more objective and stable logic and of course the great philosophical tool Occam&#39;s Razor, lead to the conclusion that religion is a somehwhat unreliable foundation to build your views upon. As this belief is therefore based purely on faith I will quote some comments I made earlier in the thread regarding this (you might also find reading some of the other material on pages 6 and 7 interesting).


I&#39;ve also got to completely agree with the flaws of faith. Our beliefs have a dramatic impact on our outlook on life, from our laws to the way you view other peoples actions (often one and the same), as well as potential to do great good or great harm (though I realise these are merely subjective). It is important therefore for your beliefs to be based on an as objective view of life as possible and empirical evidence, allowing you to form your own judgements and ideas as accurately as possible. If you simply rely on faith you will often find yourself denying the truth with no evidence to support yourself. This, I think, is one of the key differences between Science and Religion. Religion says they have all the answers...and is endlessly resistant to the obviousness of logical argument on some of its views. Science says that if we keep asking the right questions we will find the answers, and these are the current models we have based on logical empirical evidence. Whereas Religion will not bow down to evidence and treats what it says as Gospel (sorry but I just had to say that&nbsp; ), Science is willing to offer up its discoveries to argument and review.

Admittedly everyone has to treat most things with something approaching faith. It would be impossible for each person to review all scientific findings of history to check for their accuracy in their lifetime and we are therefore forced to &#39;Stand on the Shoulders of Giants&#39; (although that can also of course be a positive thing) and accept a certain amount on trust. After all, as Descartes said, perhaps the only certainty each of us has is &#39;I think therefore I am&#39;.

I would also be interested to know if you could suggest some objective evidence in answer to a point I made a while ago in this thread.


One of the main problems that I have with the accuracy of the bible in portraying historical events and the truth in general, as well as the existence of god is that absolutely no evidence that I have seen can actually prove these things or even strongly support them. There are merely some small amounts of &#39;evidence&#39; which do not necessarily lead to a conclusion that supports the bible or existence of god at all, and which can be explained by current scientific theory supported by empirical evidence. Therefore instead of religion being able to prove god exists, others are faced with the notoriously difficult situation of trying to prove a negative.