vegietto Posted September 26, 2003 Share Posted September 26, 2003 Do u think their is a heaven or hell i don't really think their is i mean i believe in heaven but not hell i don't think that you will burn somewhere for an eternity, i think that is bull to me but i believe their is a heaven and their is a god but i don't think their is a devil, i just don't think it is. Voice me your opinion on this matter cause i have hear alot people don't believe in god or the devil i need to know if you guys agree or don't. I agree about god but not heaven ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted September 26, 2003 Share Posted September 26, 2003 I disagree, how do believe in heaven but no hell? Think about it like this, people go to heaven as a reward, but people go to hell as a punishment. Why would God reward the bad, as well as the good? When you do things agianst God, should God just ignore it? Unless you ask for forgivness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegietto Posted September 26, 2003 Author Share Posted September 26, 2003 no i think if god rewards the good then the bad spirit should stay in their graves and suffer, but i just don't think their is an hell at all, i mean why would their be a place of only flames and a man with a pitchfork and horns, i just don't think their is one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted September 26, 2003 Share Posted September 26, 2003 no i think if god rewards the good then the bad spirit should stay in their graves and suffer, but i just don't think their is an hell at all, i mean why would their be a place of only flames and a man with a pitchfork and horns, i just don't think their is one There is no pitchfork... Why couldnt there be? Your entitled to your opinion. Anyways, being stuck in a grave suffering is pretty much like hell, right? There might be flames, in hell, but theres a lot more than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegietto Posted September 26, 2003 Author Share Posted September 26, 2003 Anyways, being stuck in a grave suffering is pretty much like hell, right? There might be flames, in hell, but theres a lot more than that. ok i think their is a difference between suffering in a grave and suffering in hell with flames but i still don't think their is one, like what luke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted September 26, 2003 Share Posted September 26, 2003 I think that the major failing of humanity is that we refuse to acknowledge that our lives are temporary. We are born and have a lifespan of 75-100 years then die. Afterdeath beliefs abound in nearly every culture and religion of the world, which is likely a manifestation of the denial that we have about ceasing to exist. Life is precious, particularly to humans, since we are the only animals on the planet (that we know of) that are self-aware. Dogs and cats do not mourn their relatives when they die, nor do deer and mice or any other animal (that has been observed). Yet, when humans die, we mourn and become emotional wrecks. This is because their deaths remind us of our precarious position on this planet. We also recognize that this person is NOT returning. But humans enter a state of denial and create mythology to 'ease our grief.' We tell each other that "he/she is in a better place." We create mythologies that give that person "eternal life" and "renewed life" (perhaps as a cow, eagle, buffalo, etc. ... even as new persons). To admit there is a "better place" implies that there must be a "worse place," so we conjure all manner of "hells" in an attempt to guide our behavior here on Earth. Act right, go to good place. Act wrong, go to bad place. The only supporting evidence for any heaven or hell, is mythology. There has never been anyone who was able to document credibly the transition. There has never been anyone who could credibly prove they were once another person. There has never been anything more than mythological reassurance of either. If people would just accept that their live here on this planet are finite, I think the world would be a much better place to live. Little respect or reverance is given to life by humans because we have these misguided beliefs that we get "another chance" somewhere or that we can have "eternal life" by simply "believing" in something. So 70 years or more get wasted. Life is not viewed as unique or the "one of a kind" event that it should be. But if you take comfort in your beliefs and enjoy the bliss of denial... you'll probably have heaven to look forward to. Send me a postcard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted September 26, 2003 Share Posted September 26, 2003 I agree with everything you've said SkinWalker, and very well put, but unfortunately it will do no good... Since your forgetting SkinWalker - there is a perfectly legitimate, tangible proof of life-after-death, heaven and hell - the whole deal... it's called... [big dramatic music] THE BIBLE! Yes sir, with this one book you can prove BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT the existance of all this - and more. Not only this, but it renders all other contradictory proofs from any other sources INVALID! Yes, you heard right folks - absolutely invalid. Ever wondered whether it's right to stone your neighbour to death? Are you puzzled as to why members of all those religions with the funny names and strange head-pieces deserve to go to hell? All these answers and more are in this book. Isn't it a marvel!! ...and yours for only $5 from any good bookstore. Buy one today! (No scientific background required. Pictures are optional.) ...sorry, I won't post in this thread again. Just felt like a bit of Friday humour! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted September 26, 2003 Share Posted September 26, 2003 I could start a little humor about you. Im actually getting a bit mad at your critism closetheblastdo. How much of it have you read CTBD? Is it really that bad, so bad you have to make "humorous flames" about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted September 26, 2003 Share Posted September 26, 2003 If a thread gets started with the title "Christianity," expect the opponents to be at least as vocal as the proponents. Particularly if said thread was started by a proponent. Still, I caution both sides to avoid ad hominem remarks. Just don't think that because one's beliefs being criticized constitutes ad hominem. CTBD's humor was about an inanimate object, and is therefore not ad hominem. Humor about CTBD could be construed as such, however. Though, I think he could probably take it without complaint. Especially if it were funny. Parody is an effective tool when dealing some issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted September 26, 2003 Share Posted September 26, 2003 THE BIBLE! On another note... the bible is pretty much the most complete out of all the religions, it talks about creation (i know you dont believe it) when people started making tools, cities, and lists lots of stuff, even people... by name. It lists ages (ive been thinking, you know how the bible says adam, and many other people lived like 900+ years, maybe if i started adding the numbers up [theres a certain way to do so, because of there sons, and/or daughters] maybe it would come out to 200,000 years [when people supposidly appeared] ) anyways, there is proof (a lot of it) that is overlooked (most of the time) correct? You cant say its not totally incorrect.... a lot of stuff is made up from people who havnt read the bible (or not all of it) they assume something, and then everyone believes (gossip) Dont i have a small point here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted September 26, 2003 Share Posted September 26, 2003 CTBD's humor was about an inanimate object, and is therefore not ad hominem. Who cares, read the stuck thread at the top If you flame for another person's beliefs, you will be lucky if you're warned before you're spanked. The bible represents a lot of christianity, therfore "could" be looked at as an insult, funny or not (also perspective, it was funny the 1st time, but after a while, annoying) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted September 26, 2003 Share Posted September 26, 2003 But CTBD didn't say a lot of things that he could have said about Christian beliefs. He merely used parody to illustrate his own beliefs about the bible. If you took offense, I feel for you. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be "flame" material. As with any discussion on religion, you will be hard pressed to illustrate your point without flaming "another person's beliefs" if his brief parody was to be taken as an example of flame. In fact, I could argue that christianity itself could not be discussed because the very mention of the religion might "flame another person's beliefs" who views it as a cult of infidels. Again: criticism and parody are not the same as flames. Even though "flames" can be critical or parodical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted September 26, 2003 Share Posted September 26, 2003 Ok, ill let it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted September 27, 2003 Share Posted September 27, 2003 Bah - I said I wasnt going to post in this thread again. But - hey -I'm an agnostic - I didn't really know FOR SURE I wasn't going to post again! CTBD's humor was about an inanimate object, and is therefore not ad hominem. Humor about CTBD could be construed as such, however. Though, I think he could probably take it without complaint. Especially if it were funny. Hehe. Your right - that's a good challenge though. Unfortunately people here don't know me from (lol) Adam, so there isn't that much material to work on. Luke, Again, sorry if that offended you, but Skin is absolutely right. Sometimes parody IS the most effective way to get across how illogical the situation is - from my point of view. I would argue that your not just offended because I used humour, your actually more offended because the use of humour helped to expose obvious illogicalities in much of fundemental christian thinking. ...but I won't put words in your mouth... Tell ya what - feel free to take the piss out of any of these books which I consider to be "truth": A brief history of time By Stephen Hawking An introduction to the Philosophy Of Science By Anthony O'Hear Origin Of The Species By Charles Darwin Then we'll be even - OK? And I promise I won't get offended. (Although, maybe I HAVE to get offended for us to actually be even?! Hmmm....) How much of it have you read CTBD? I've already told you - cover to cover. Many parts of the Old and New testement MANY times. anyways, there is proof (a lot of it) that is overlooked (most of the time) correct? You cant say its not totally incorrect.... a lot of stuff is made up from people who havnt read the bible (or not all of it) they assume something, and then everyone believes (gossip) Dont i have a small point here? I've never tried to say the whole thing is false. How many times do I have to say this?! Many parts of it are undoubtedly based on actual event. In fact, the bible is actually a really good and thouroughly interesting read. I'd suggest it to anybody. But just because many parts of it are historically accurate, doesn't mean every single word is true. ANd please realise, that above statement isn't just my opinion, it is FACT. Just because some of it may be 'historically accurate', that doesn't make it ALL true - that should be obvious to anybody. Whenever certain evidence is mentioned which seems to contradict your beliefs, one of your standard reply's is: 'Well, certain scientists could be fixing the results, or ignoring evidence' etc. etc. TO a certain extent I apllaud you. You don't believe everything you hear. That's good. It's a worthy attribute... ...the only trouble is that attribute suddenly switches off as soon as you turn your mind to your own beliefs. As soon as you look at the bible, you suddenly believe everything your told - WITHOUT QUESTION!! Why aren't you in any way suspicious of the people who wrote the Bible - in the same way you are so suspicioous of today's scientists? Are you saying they would have NO motive to twist the truth slightly, or even just say things in a more dramatic manner than they actually happenned?! Because they were presecuted for their beliefs perhaps? I hate to burst your bubble, but LOTS of people have been persecuted - yes, even killed - for all kinds of beliefs - not just christianity. And yet you don't seem to take these other 'martyrs' seriously at all. Also, does this mean scientists have to start getting crucified by angry mobs before you will take them seriously?! Also, it is very well known amongst 'serious' biblical scholors that as well as the 'gospels' being written many decades after the actual events, they were significantly ALTERED many times again after that - long after the original 'authors' were long dead. (Of course, that's assuming the original authors were ACTUALLY Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There is no evidence I'm aware of to support this other than the names given. But then again, there is no reason NOT to think they were the authors, so I don't dispute that really...) You don't believe any of this? You don't believe it's even POSSIBLE? Well, I don't expect you to. You don't believe in evolution either. It's a free country - believe whatever you want... NOTE TO SELF: Bashing your head against a brick wall will only lead to a cracked skull!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted September 27, 2003 Share Posted September 27, 2003 You don't believe in evolution either. No, i believe parts of it. Adaptation can be observed right in front of me... people adapt very quickly to changing environments. On a hot day, putting your hand in a really cold bucket of water will feel unconfortable at first, but then you adapt after a few minutes, and you dont notice it as much as before. I dont believe the big bang, nor that we evolved from single celled organisms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted September 27, 2003 Share Posted September 27, 2003 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 No, i believe parts of it. Adaptation can be observed right in front of me... people adapt very quickly to changing environments. On a hot day, putting your hand in a really cold bucket of water will feel unconfortable at first, but then you adapt after a few minutes, and you dont notice it as much as before. I dont believe the big bang, nor that we evolved from single celled organisms. Adaptation is not always evolution. How would you respond to the rest of his post? He made a whole lot of good points. Good post, btw, CTBD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 But just because many parts of it are historically accurate, doesn't mean every single word is true. ANd please realise, that above statement isn't just my opinion, it is FACT. Just because some of it may be 'historically accurate', that doesn't make it ALL true - that should be obvious to anybody. Ive said that... i just said a lot of its true. I know i cant prove God is real... i have no tangable evidence of that, nor can i do any of the miracles listed in the bible, well there is a little... for example, when Moses split the sea, the israelites crossed the sea on dry land. But when the Egyptains came, Moses made the sea go back, and they all drowned. Well (this may just be a false rumor) but i heard that they found egyptain chariots under the (red?) sea. It could have possibly been because of that. Are you saying they would have NO motive to twist the truth slightly, or even just say things in a more dramatic manner than they actually happenned?! Take the new testament, its all a bunch of letters, they wrote them each for different churches. Thats all... somehow they are still around today! They didnt know that i would be reading it... Its possible they had a motive, but what? They knew they would be treated like dirt... and anyways, Paul said if i wanted human praise, i wouldnt be doing this! Something else that ive been thinking about latley is how God said he would make David famous, known forever (something like that, i think) And look... we know about him at least 3,000 years later! I think he said that to numerous people throughout the bible... those people couldnt even imagine the world we live in today, computers, cars, our architecture, food, technology.... everything is different! If it was made up, how could they expect it to last this long (the promise God made) unless something divine was involved! I mean, how many people do we know of (in detail) from about 3,000 years ago? there arent a whole lot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegietto Posted September 29, 2003 Author Share Posted September 29, 2003 Some of the stuff in the bible is sacred but some of it makes no sense to me i have never read all of it but some of it i follow but some i don't like i don't think u can flood the whole world like it is nothin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 Well, it rained a lot... for 40 days straight. All of the water springs started pouring out, so thats a lot of water... Imagine a hurricane rained for 40 days! Plus i think it took months and months for the water to go down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegietto Posted September 29, 2003 Author Share Posted September 29, 2003 i still don't think it happen i mean how i mean it is impossible to do that i don't think it happened like moses parting the waters that is impossible i mean how could u hold water up straight and keep it from falling on peples it makes no sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 Like ive said, its all impossible to prove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegietto Posted September 29, 2003 Author Share Posted September 29, 2003 it is impossible to prove and it is impossible that it happens i mean who know if the persons who wrote the bible didn't lie about it just to make it more exciting u never know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wassup Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Originally posted by vegietto it is impossible to prove and it is impossible that it happens i mean who know if the persons who wrote the bible didn't lie about it just to make it more exciting u never know You are right, we do not know, but that is the basis for all of this. WE REALLY DO NOT KNOW. Sure, there's speculation, there's theories, there's hopes, but nobody in this world has any solid evidence that there is a God, Heave, Hell, etc. The human imagination has a infinite power and possibilities, and I believe so far we have only harnessed a tiny fraction of that power. We have much more to find out and many things that we thought to be 100% true that may prove to be slanted or false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 True, in the long run, it only matters if it IS true, not if it isnt... so, im sticking with it. If it isnt, then theres no big deal, i may just look dumb for believing something, thats not true, but if it is, then i go to heaven. Its worth it, either way, i dont lose. People who dont believe will only win if it isnt true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainer511 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 i still don't think it happen i mean how i mean it is impossible to do that i don't think it happened like moses parting the waters that is impossible i mean how could u hold water up straight and keep it from falling on peples it makes no sense If you base your assumptions denying the supernaturual then yes it is impossible. The only limit to God's powers is self contradiction. Ever hear the joke, "Can God make a rock so heavy even he can't pick it up?" The answer to that is he can't, because that would be contradicting himself. Some of the stuff in the bible is sacred but some of it makes no sense to me i have never read all of it but some of it i follow but some i don't like i don't think u can flood the whole world like it is nothin Genesis 1:6-8 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day. There are people who say that the water above the expanse was some sort of bubble around the earth making a sort of green house effect. It would help account for the large amount of water invovled with the flood if God caused it to fall and would help account for the long lives of the people mentioned before the flood. Genesis 7: 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month-on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. Not only does this mention that the 'floodgates of the heavens were opened up' (possibly this water above the expanse) and it also says that the springs of the great deep burst forth. Again, if you do not deny the supernaturual, these things are possible. anyways, there is proof (a lot of it) that is overlooked (most of the time) correct? You cant say its not totally incorrect.... a lot of stuff is made up from people who havnt read the bible (or not all of it) they assume something, and then everyone believes (gossip) Dont i have a small point here? There is evidence, but nothing that can prove that God exists. You are correct in saying that these evidences are overlooked by both Christians and non-Christians alike. Also, it is very well known amongst 'serious' biblical scholors that as well as the 'gospels' being written many decades after the actual events, they were significantly ALTERED many times again after that - long after the original 'authors' were long dead. Let me guess, Jesus Seminar? There are many 'serious' biblical scholars that would disagree. I don't know about the Old Testament, haven't done much reading there, but the New Testament when compared to other works of antiquity stands up extremely well. First off we have more than 20,000 New Testament manuscripts from differnt geological locations and times in which to test its integrity. The history of Thucydides has about eight manuscripts and we only have ones from about 1,300 years after he wrote it, however this time frame is enough for scholars to say that there is little arguement to its authenticity, so why doesn't that apply to the New Testament? As soon as you look at the bible, you suddenly believe everything your told - WITHOUT QUESTION!! Not entirely true, at least not for all Christians, I'll get back to you on that later. Because they were presecuted for their beliefs perhaps? I hate to burst your bubble, but LOTS of people have been persecuted - yes, even killed - for all kinds of beliefs - not just christianity. And yet you don't seem to take these other 'martyrs' seriously at all. Here is your problem though, if Jesus's diciples had stolen the body from the tomb, which would be a feet in itself, they would know it was a lie. 11 out of the 12 diciples were martryrs, and the 12th died of old age. My question to you is who in their right mind would die for something they knew was a lie? If the women visiting the tomb got the wrong tomb, not only would they be the ones in error but the diciples who went back to check the tomb would also have made the mistake of going to the wrong tomb. Even if this was true, once Christianity started up again wouldn't you think that the Pharises would have produced the body? The same goes for the theory that his body was moved. He also appeared to over 500 of his followers after his ressurection, so somehow somebody fooled 500 people into thinking that he was Jesus. Also, does this mean scientists have to start getting crucified by angry mobs before you will take them seriously?! LOL! Yes, absolutely. You should never listen to a man unless he has been crucified by angry mobs. You shouldn't even consider what they say unless they are crucified-if there is an angry mob, now THATs something... lol... (I'm joking, for anyone who can't tell) You don't believe in evolution either. I don't believe that the our origin is evolution, or that the universe was created via some soft of catostropic event, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in evolution. ---------------------- I'd like to turn this discussion in a differn't direction. There are many people who say that the Bible is the Word of God and inerrant, and they are usually refering to some English translation of the Bible. Your first problem is that the what you are refering to is a translation, not the original text. Words have much deeper meaning in greek, and the word order puts empasis on differnt words-things that can't be translated into English perfectly. So the question becomes, what language is the Bible inerrant in? You could say that it is the language that the book was written in (we are talking about books of the Bible now not the Bible as a whole). The problem here is that we don't have the original manuscripts-we have very early ones by historical standards but not the originals. What about the dead sea scrolls? In them we have versions of Old Testament verses that are slightly differnt than the versions that we have today. There are three versions of the book of Jeremiah, and I don't mean three differnt languages, or three differnt ways that things are said, I mean one of them as a bunch of extra information in it. So which one is the Word of God? I think that rather, the Bible is infallible, which holds a slightly differnt meaning than inerrant. To say that the Bible is infallible is to say that it can't lead you wrong. The message is still there, and it accurately records many historical events, but it may not be in the same way that it was originally written. Who here has heard of HERO? Its a novel, a comic book, and a rock opera that dipicts a story of a world that is still looking for a messiah in the year 2003. A baby is born in Bethlahem, Pennslyvania who is to be the savior of our world. Its purpose to get people talking about the Bible, and compare what is written with the portrayal done by HERO. Now here is my question, what happens if the Bible is somehow lost in the many years to come, and the only thing Christians have to share their faith is this novel? Now I doubt that will hapen but the question remains would it be any less Christianity because of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.