Homuncul Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Okey, that'll do. My point is not actually mine, it was posted many times by Skin. But some people are better at understanding pictures rather than words. This is not a bashing post, just an observation Christians + Religious here: lukeskywalker1 age: 15 Christian (raised... God was mentioned, but not really thought about. You know, the people who say they believe in God, but really dont care about it.... truthfully, i hadnt even heard about christianity!) Master_Keralys Somewhere between childhood and adulthood. Well enough read to know the difference between fantasy and reality, with enough friends who have turned away to see why. Still a Christian. Rainer511 Please edit here if you like Cosmos Jack Age: 24 Belief: Scientific Pantheist Non-religious here: ShockV1.89 Age: 22 Agnostic InsaneSith Age:16 Belief: Agnostic buddhist. (I guess we can interpret it as philosophy instead of religion) weiderudare Age: 15 Position: I don't believe in God. Atheist.(Its something like that right?) [/b]CloseTheBlastDo[/b] Age: 29 Viewpoint: Agnostic (was bought up with 'Christian' beliefs) SkinWalker age: 37!!! ( I wanted to post your true age of 57, but noone would believe it ) Agnostic Tyrion age: probably old Edit here if you like Homuncul age: 241 Not really anything As the topic of this thread is christianity I would not take in consideration whether non-religious people here know what they say;). Many young people don't listen to what more experienced people say to them. There are many reasons for that. One is the psychological state of opposition to everyone followed by conviction in anachronistic thinking of all old guys (and they're probably right somewhere but not everywhere). There isn't much opposition from the other barricade - this is what these "younglings" must understand. Mostly those old guys have good intentions, it's something like your parents not wanting you to do the same mistakes they did. There is axiom of life. People must learn from other people's mistakes, instead of making them themselves. Unfortunately this axiom is never used in practice... There are many experienced people on these forums, who are more than ready to help. They have knowledge and experience in many things inside and outside our topic. Christians here also say quite often that one has to "believe" to be able to understand them. Most of non-religious people I mentioned, including me know what it is to believe, just the way you do. Most of them had walked your way. They understand why you think the way you think. Furthermore they know what to do to fix it (I'm not against belief here, everyone believe: for instance I believe in god). I can give you an example here. You may believe it or do what ever you want with this. Studying a martial art I always incounter a problem of feeling I'm doing the right thing. I do a simple technique and sometimes I can't say whether I'm making it right (mostly I feel I'm doing it wrong). My sensei says to me where I'm wrong and sometimes he says that my movement looks right and that he can't say whether it is wrong. Recently I practiced a simple technique with him. And every time I did it wrong he didn't let me do it. It was 1 of 10 times that I managed to feel I was doing it right and only this only time he let me do it. After doing it right I couldn't do it again for a long time. He also said at the end of practice something that I was ready to hear by that time. He said: " The process of learning a technique is a process of finding those states of mind when you know the technique is right. You 'll find it hard to believe unless you try that path first." His explanations of principles of a martial art never change. But the way words start to have totally different meaning in one's mind was a revelation for me lately. I'm not sure if it's going to work, but I guess no christianity disputing is working anymore. Now review the list of people with whom you're debating and try to be rational. Also try to listen and think on what more experienced people tell you. Maybe you'll be smarter than they were (I hope none of them would offend here, if so I appologize). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul SkinWalker age: 34 ( I wanted to post your true age of 57, but noone would believe it ) Agnostic Actually I'm 37.... And though I'm agnostic, I'm probably more spiritual than most christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul Belief: Scientific Pantheist (accepted as a philosophical doctrine, not religious belief) Hmm I'm not refuting your classification of pantheism. One of the reasons I look to this as a example of how I think is, because of it's more based on facts and tangible knowledge than beliefs. There is nothing in pantheism to belief in. Everything is right there in front of you. What makes a religion a religion? The belief in a god or the path in life it instructs you to follow. Most religions have gods and all ideal systems have a path to follow "a prescribed way to live your life." So if it doesn't have a god is it just philosophical doctrine? The pantheist god would be the universe as a hole. It's not a omnipotent being, it isn't all knowing, and all seeing; however, I would say it is all powerful and deserves our understanding and respect. I would say the same feeling a christian has for god is similar to the feeling I have for the world around me. Except I'm not preying to it, I'm not afraid of it, and when I die I don't believe it's rewording me or punishing me. The only after life I have is how the people around me remember me and what I leave behind. People should spend less time worrying about what will happen to them when they die and more time worrying about the impact they make on other people. "I can't say I have done a good job on here though.":o Originally posted by Homuncul Many young people don't listen to what more experienced people say to them. There is only 2 old people here... well one old person 29 and one elderly person 37 Hm Hmm:p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 And though I'm agnostic, I'm probably more spiritual than most christians. What do you mean? Get in your head Luke - it's not Christianity I'm not willing to discuss, I just don't discuss anything of a vaguely serious nature with irrational people. Rational is to understand. I understand what your saying. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary 1 a : having reason or understanding b : relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : REASONABLE <a rational explanation> <rational behavior> Based on this, i understand what your saying. Agreeable to reason, that depends... reason is: 1 a : a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> b : a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon> c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action> d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : CAUSE <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay -- Graham Greene> True, you have offered "evidence" Ive accepted some, but not all. But then again, the bible is evidence, and rational... it has reasons (maybe not for all things) but thats like saying you know why we are here. I mean, if we evolved from single celled organisms over a period of time, then there is no given reason why we are. So why should the bible give a reason for everything? It also depends whats reasonable for each individual. Whats a reasonable thing to me, may not be for you. Its perspective. err... if that didnt make sense, then... idk. out of time, ill possibly check back with this when i get home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Homuncul, forgetting someone, arent we..? Anyway, back to formally disagreeing(otherwise known as bashing). True, you have offered "evidence" Ive accepted some, but not all. But then again, the bible is evidence, and rational... it has reasons (maybe not for all things) but thats like saying you know why we are here. I mean, if we evolved from single celled organisms over a period of time, then there is no given reason why we are. So why should the bible give a reason for everything? The Bible is not evidence. Well, very poor evidence. All it is, is a book. No matter what is in there, it's just a book. A man-written book. Passed through centuries(and even a few times where it was probably re-written to favor a king or pope). The reason the bible should be giving a reason for everything, is because it's the only thing Christians have to tell about God. You cant see God, you cant hear him, you dont have any other "proof" besides the bible. Which leads to circular reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 I know its not perfect evidence. But then again, no one knows if it was rewritten. I know, back a few hundred years ago, the king of england wanted a divorse, (this was said) but anyways, so he had something to do with this or that in the bible. Now as to if it was rewritten, i dont know, because it still says if you divorce, and remarry its adulatary. If the king did change it, he probably would have had the adultery part removed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 I don't know if this has been mentioned before. Has anyone ever noticed that god was really busy back then. He was always talking to people telling them what to do and demonstrating his power countless times in the bible. Ever since the death of Christ there has been no tangible influence by god. The god in the bible was always stirring up a pot of trouble doing things. The god of today does absolutely nothing tangible. He doesn't do the flood thing, he doesn't talk to anyone, and he stopped turning homosexuals into stone. If he was going to turn a city into stone today for the same sins as Sodom and Gomorrah? Then all of the big cities in the world would be stone.. Why all of a sudden did god stop messing with us did he get board? Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way... Take into account I don't believe Christ had anything to do with any god and I don't think anything was ever done by god that was recorded in the bible... I'm just asking a question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Cosmos Jack: What makes a religion a religion? Optionally anything of this: Faith in supernatural Faith in double-world Rituals World-view The extreme point of pantheism is religious belief in God as a whole universe. Philosophically speaking it's not too far from say recognizing nature as the most important thing in the universe. So if it doesn't have a god is it just philosophical doctrine?(tangibly) Exactly. When we're speaking of god, we mean a supernatural entity that brings sense to our lives. But this is only a simplification of our perfect morals (which were the only way for our society to survive and not fall apart) characterized by such abstractions as: good/evil, purpose, justice, truth/falsehood, loyalty, love. These characteristics are never presented perfectly in practice, like we can't tell some action to be totally bad when someone does a bad thing with good intentions, or lies to save someone's life. The try to find the perfect vision of those things was God. That is my belief. That doesn't spoil it, I'm believer. And that's my philosophy for now, not religion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Get in your head Luke - it's not Christianity I'm not willing to discuss, I just don't discuss anything of a vaguely serious nature with irrational people. That in itself would be an irrational act. I have no interest in trying to convincing you of anything. my only interest is in the truth. I actually think it's best you just stay in your imaginary world, where the Bible is unquestionable, and sexual sinners are loonies. Anytime I bring up rational arguments to you, I feel like I'm about to make a 5-year old cry by trying to tell them there isn't a Santa Claus... If it makes you feel better to think I have given up in 'convincing' you, then you can do, because you are right. ...I think I'd have more of a chance of teaching algebra to a chimpanzee. Wow, that's a serius PissedOffBlastDo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul Optionally anything of this: Faith in supernatural Faith in double-world Rituals World-view Any of those 4 things, because pantheism definitely has a world view.. Personally I think your view of religion is one sided and your definition.. I like the 4th one down on here.... http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=religion (4)A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion... Pantheism is just that... Originally posted by Homuncul The extreme point of pantheism is religious belief in God as a whole universe. ? Originally posted by Homuncul Philosophically speaking it's not too far from say recognizing nature as the most important thing in the universe. Not just philosophically speaking. That is pantheism except you have nature separate from the universe. They are one in the same.. Originally posted by Homuncul Exactly. When we're speaking of god, we mean a supernatural entity that brings sense to our lives. Not exactly no, because that is your definition of god. God can be many things other than a omnipotent being.. God to me may be nature, but I don't see nature as a all knowing creator. It doesn't have a mined or intelligence there is no heaven or hell. Nature is; however, a creator of all life and it brings sence to my life. Do I worship it? Not really. Do I respect it? Yes.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Keralys Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 I find it very interesting that on a thread about Christianity, there's only three Christians posting (maybe four). Now, doesn't this seem rather ironic. Perhaps the skewed view of this thread is because it's not balanced. Not making excuses, but it would be nice to have a balanced thread. Anyway... :evil: The Bible has not been rewritten to fit people's ideas. It may have happened in select circumstances, but what we have today is what they had when it was written. Ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls, anyone? Those have been shown to have been written well within 100 years of Christ's death and resurrection. Moreover, we have over five thousand early copies of the Gospels alone, the only differences being in a word or phrase here or there. All written by the end of the first century AD. Another fifteen thousand or so copies of the letters of the New Testament. It has not changed in almost 2000 years . It is the same as it was then. Also, technically speaking, Homuncul's definition of religion qualifies atheism as a religion. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 The Bible has not been rewritten to fit people's ideas. It may have happened in select circumstances, but what we have today is what they had when it was written. Ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls, anyone? Those have been shown to have been written well within 100 years of Christ's death and resurrection. Moreover, we have over five thousand early copies of the Gospels alone, the only differences being in a word or phrase here or there. All written by the end of the first century AD. Another fifteen thousand or so copies of the letters of the New Testament. It has not changed in almost 2000 years . It is the same as it was then. Also, technically speaking, Homuncul's definition of religion qualifies atheism as a religion. Just a thought. I agree. While I'm fairly certain the gospels have been 'altered' at some point, the alterations were made relativly early, and were not 'sweeping'. As you say, the odd word here or there etc. If you look back at my posts, you will find this has been my view from the beginning. And as you rightly point out, the Dead Sea Scrolls are perfectly valid evidence. Although as far as I remember, the Dead Sea Scrolls were all Old Testament documents - right? Or at least from that time period... I don't think they bear any relavence to the authenticity of New Testament documents do they...? (Although it's very possible I'm mistaken about that - haven't looked into them for a while. If you have the information to hand, and I'm mistaken, please feel free to correct me.) In any case, the argument of whether the gospels have been 'altered' is not central to my viewpoint of Christianity in any way, shape or form -as I've made clear before in previous posts. As to the inbalance of christians vs. non-christians, that's not really anybody's fault - that's just the way it's turned out... I agree, it would be a more balanced argument with more Christians to debate against... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Keralys Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 I think you may be right about the DSS. My point remains. I wasn't slamming on your views in particular, either, CTBD. YOu have been fairly rational for most of the debate (except for a couple of hideous slams on Luke ). I was trying to make the point that as far as reliability goes, we've got it. If you go back and look at it, the Bible is far more reliable than the few scattered texts referring to guys like Plato or Aristotle. To me it seems like many people don't go for Chrisitanity because (1) it's a tough life to life and (2) it doesn't always line up with people's preconceived notions of what a loving God ought to be. On that note, I would like to make a point. I'm sure everyone here was disciplined as a small child, probably harshly at some points. Now, did you like that? Probably not. Did it help you to do the right thing (or at least that which your parents required of you)? Yes. So just because something isn't to your pleasure or satisfaction doesn't mean its not good for you. That's a mistaken notion of our postmodern Christian culture. Again, just a thought for consideration... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 I wasn't slamming on your views in particular, either, CTBD. YOu have been fairly rational for most of the debate (except for a couple of hideous slams on Luke ). The slams on Luke are not so much an indicator of my rationality, as much as an indication of my temperment and patience. I admit I can lose patience sometimes. ...but I believe my implication that Luke implicitly and fully self-admittedly has irrational thought processes when it comes to the subject of Christianity are absolutely 100% valid. And that is VERY relavent to the discussions in this thread... If you go back and look at it, the Bible is far more reliable than the few scattered texts referring to guys like Plato or Aristotle. I accept your point. Why right do we have to think our historical 'knowledge' of Aristotle is any more accurate than our historical 'knowledge' of Christ or his 'miracles'? The first point is, in a certain respect, I don't nessesarily trust implicitily our current knowledge of Aristotle. What I mean by this is, if a document was to be discovered which seemed to bring our current knowledge of Aristotle into question, I would not hesitate to examine the new evidence and, if nessesary, REDEFINE my understanding of Aristotle. I can do this because I am not 'emotionally' attached to my ideas about Aristotle. If I have to change my view on him or his 'works' based on new evidence, I will do so without having to rip my belief systems apart in the process. ...maybe you don't see this as a relavent point. And for you in particular, maybe it isn't. But for other, less 'rational' Christians, this is a VERY important point. Second point - Aristotles 'recorded' actions produce no 'contridictions' with other sources of knowledge. For example, let's take a theoretical situation. Let's theorise that Aristotle recorded an incident where he called on the power of Zeus to bring down a lightning bolt - for example. Would that alter my perception of the 'historical' authenticity of that occurence? Let's put it this way - I would need far more historical backing in relation to THAT particular incident. If you have issues with that stance, let me ask a retorical question - WOULDN'T YOU?! The fact is though, is that that was just a theoretical exersise. In truth, Aristotle was a philospoher and performed actions that anybody can relate to - religious, or non-religious. He debated about many issues with others. ...well, I can do that too. In fact, I'm doing it now. He also performed scientific experiments. ...well, I can do that too. I have done in the past, I can do now, and I will do in the future. ...BUT NOW, if Aristotle had said he called a bolt of lightning down using the power of Zeus... ...well, I can't relate to that AT ALL. I can't do it. I haven't seen ANYBODY ELSE do that either... To me it seems like many people don't go for Chrisitanity because (1) it's a tough life to life and (2) it doesn't always line up with people's preconceived notions of what a loving God ought to be. You can't assume that about me - sorry. Before you cry 'well, then you can't assume other people are irrational then', that's a different thing altogether. I can't assume people's 'motives' for believing in Christianity. OK, I have my suspitions, but I can't know for sure, so they have no relavence in a rational debate about the 'fundemental' truth of Christianity... I CAN however make legitamete determinations on a person's rationality on a particular topic from their arguments... I used to believe in Christ and the Bible. But I don't anymore. And it wasn't becuase i was tired of living God's commandments, or anything of the sort. I looked at the evidence and came to the conclusion that the things I had been taught were not actually true. ...it's as simple as that. ...but then again, I could be lying to your face That is why in these circumstances, trying to bring individuals motives into the equation is pointless. On that note, I would like to make a point. I'm sure everyone here was disciplined as a small child, probably harshly at some points. Now, did you like that? Probably not. Did it help you to do the right thing (or at least that which your parents required of you)? Yes. So just because something isn't to your pleasure or satisfaction doesn't mean its not good for you. That's a mistaken notion of our postmodern Christian culture. Again, just a thought for consideration... What is your point? Are you trying to say that an eternity of torment is a 'just punishment' for not believing in the writings of a particular book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Keralys Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 I'm simply trying to say that as far as life goes, just because it doesn't make us happy doesn't mean its not for our good. There are a lot of things I haven't liked about my life. I, however, see them as things that God has allowed to be in my life in order that I might learn and grow from them. Humans will never grow except in the face of difficulty and adversity; it's not in our nature. For proof, all you need to do is look at the people around you. When things aren't going wrong, they're prefectly content to stay the way they are. But when something does go wrong, they quickly began to change, to meet the challenge if you will. Now, that's not proof for God (don't say I didn't clarify that one), but I'm just trying to make the point that many (certainly not all, but many) people who reject Christianity do so because life is tough. This is in part the fault of many Christians themselves, who have espoused a "pink-cloud theology" - that is, everything will be happy and right for you if you become a Christian. In fact, the Bible itself says the opposite, so those people who reject it on those grounds are anything but rational. But as Christians, it is our fault in that we have said that's how it is. In reality, Christ himself said, "In this world you will have trouble." While this may not be the case for you, CTBD, there's a lot of people that it is the case for. There's a lot of people who turn away because something goes wrong in their life and they say "Why would God allow that?" I understand that sentiment, but see what it does to your life. Look at Ted Turner, one of the richest men alive today. He's also one of the bitterest. He turned away from Christianity at a young age because his sister died, and he didn't believe it could be something a loving God would allow. So my point is that just because God loves us doesn't mean that He's going to make everything easy for us. That's what I was getting at with the whole parent example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 ...but I believe my implication that Luke implicitly and fully self-admittedly has irrational thought processes when it comes to the subject of Christianity are absolutely 100% valid. And that is VERY relavent to the discussions in this thread... Only the bible... i use that as my basis for christianity. If thats wrong, then theres nothing about christianity to follow. I dont follow other people's ideas unless its biblical. Now face it, to a christian, the bible is more than a book, its God's word. It says its all 100% God's word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Only the bible... i use that as my basis for christianity. If thats wrong, then theres nothing about christianity to follow. Dam you split that nail into... Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 I dont follow other people's ideas unless its biblical. If you ever go to any church and listen to any preacher you're following another persons Ideas. I have been to church a few times. The guy is always preaching the bible with a slant on it from his point of view. Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Now face it, to a christian, the bible is more than a book, its God's word. It says its all 100% God's word. You're walking along in the woods one day and fined a book on a rock. You pick it up and read it. The book contradicts everything in the bible, but it says it's "100% god's word." Will you believe it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainer511 Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 I don't have the time to read everything right now, nor the time to make a comment on everything. For now I'll just say that if by some chance the New Testament was altered it would be the first time ever in history that it has happened in that amount of time. Just a thought. EDIT: And luke. Cosnider this. During New Testament times people considered the books of the apocrypha to be scripture. When it is said, all scripture is God breathed, that would include the apocrypha if put into context. So your faced with two posibilities, either you believe that the Bible is wrong in that case, or you believe that the apocrypha rightfully belongs in the Bible. I haven't read the apocrypha, I've heard some things, but not read it myself, so I won't go saying that it doesn't belong(not saying it does either)-I made that mistake saying that I didn't believe Mormons should be consider Christians without really looking into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 All the talk about the bible being rewritten and stuff. I might be out of the loop on this, but I thought I would look it up. I found a christian web site that has allot different things to this effect. Personally to think the bible hasn't changed is kind of silly. I don't think there is any doubt the book has been rewritten many times possibly. To reflect the people reading it. If this is true; however, what do the christians stand on if the book they defend is really fake? So naturally they aren't going to agree with it being rewritten; though, if it wasn't that doesn't make it any less fake.. The 1st site is christian; however, and it is pointing to the "king James version" as the only true version... Read the site for yourselves get from it what you want.. I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the subject... The christian site... http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/articles/kingjamesbible.asp Some other site about it.. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/7418/ I stumbled on this site it is a perfect example of christians and muslems and how great their religion is.... Bad bad site. don't read this. no no no bad........ http://www.you-got-mail.com/binladenlog2001.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainer511 Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 I didn't say "I believe the New Testament hasn't changed significantly since its writing", I do, but thats not what I said. The books of the New Testament were written between 50 and 100 A.D. The earliest fragments that we have are from 114 A.D. We have whole books from 200 A.D. By 250 A.D. we have most of the New Testament, and by 325 A.D. we have the complete New Testament. That is 225 years max after its original writing. We have a total of 24,870 manuscripts, which are of 15 differnt languages. We have 5,686 manuscripts in Greek alone. If a myth would evolve out of this extremely short amount of time it would be the very first time in history. The authenticity of the Bible, especially the New Testament, is not a rational grounds on which to attack it. EDIT: I urge you to give me evidence in which you come to the idea that the New Testament has been altered. EDIT 2: Oh yeah, and I do not believe the King James Version is the only 'true' version of the Bible. That's ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Rainer511, There are at least 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts which contain all or part of the New Testament. Plus, there are translations into different languages which date back to within 100 years of the disciples. For example, the P.e.s.h.i.t.t.a is a Syrian translation from the 2nd century. These manuscripts agree with each other about 95% of the time. The problem is, how does one determine what is right in the 5% of the places where the manuscripts do not agree? Is the above quote: a. Untrue and irrelavent b. Untrue, but IF true would be relavent c. True, but irrelavent d. True and relavent To me, this statement, whether true or false (Although I personally see no reason to dismiss it as propaganda, unless you give me a good reason to...) IS relavent. Please refer to one of my earliest comments on gospel alterations in this thread: First of all, I'd be interested in knowing if all the books of the New Testament have as many alternate, uncontradicting sources as 20,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 "CloseTheBlastDo" ..D.. for 2000 Originally posted by Rainer511 The authenticity of the Bible, especially the New Testament, is not a rational grounds on which to attack it. Is there any other rational grounds to attack it...? I personally think if I'm reading something that is telling me how to live my life I would like to see evidence that it is correct. Kind of like reading a book on how to have a better marriage from a guy that has been divorced 15 times and had a sex change... I have set a many of night on a "1 to 1" with a mentally ill patent claming to here god. They right all kinds of notes letters stating what god is telling them. That they are going to heaven and all of us sinners are going to hell. I don't see any difference between them and people righting books like the bible except back then mentally ill people were either possessed by demons or a prophet. I urge you to prove to me that the people who wrote the bible were not schizophrenic. I have met many people that clame to here god or even be god and are telling me I'm going to hell. While I have to hold them down to get a shot after they attacked a so called sinner... Originally posted by Rainer511 EDIT: I urge you to give me evidence in which you come to the idea that the New Testament has been altered. I urge you to prove it isn't.. There are countless web-sites and books out there that say it is and it isn't.. I simply believe the more "RATIONAL" ideal. Like the silly notion some christians have that Man and Dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. They say they have evidence to back that up and they show it. The problem is it is directly contradictory to proven science... Do you think that people could survive with them? Let me know and when they pull a "Jurassic Park." I will buy you a ticket to go on safari. Originally posted by Rainer511 EDIT 2: Oh yeah, and I do not believe the King James Version is the only 'true' version of the Bible. That's ridiculous. I also urge you to prove it isn't the true version of the bible. How can more than one version be true anyway? "That's ridiculous." Better start reading all the true versions so I can get into heaven... For all of you who don't know what a "1 to 1" is. It is when there is a dangerously mentally ill patent in a Psych Hospital. Someone has to be within arms reach of them 24-7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Cosmos Jacky: Any of those 4 things, because pantheism definitely has a world view.. Personally I think your view of religion is one sided and your definition.. Because religion is one-sided. Religion in practice is always a measure of control (and not some guide for those who are lost without god). Look at the structure of the Holy Church! Any religion through out history has always associated with power. And religion for a single person is not possibble, without communicating with that religious world. That's why, pantheism is more a philosophy than a religion. (4)A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion... Pantheism is just that... There is no straight line drawn between religius belief and philosophy. But I think your definition of pantheism still points more on that you're spiritual person, rather than religious. EDIT: look at the list above. Do you like it that way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 I made a double-post and edited it. Oh what a smart-ass:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul Because religion is one-sided. Religion in practice is always a measure of control (and not some guide for those who are lost without god). Look at the structure of the Holy Church! Any religion through out history has always associated with power. And religion for a single person is not possibble, without communicating with that religious world. That's why, pantheism is more a philosophy than a religion. Yes I know all about the holy church and religious power blah blah blah.. Have you read my quote in my signature?.... Originally posted by Homuncul There is no straight line drawn between religius belief and philosophy. But I think your definition of pantheism still points more on that you're spiritual person, rather than religious. No there isn't a straight line.. I would think Pantheism takes god, mysticism, and ignorance out of religion. As it changes the meaning of the word god. I would like for you not to call me spiritual again please. I think that is the worst insult I have ever had on here.... Originally posted by Homuncul EDIT: look at the list above. Do you like it that way? What list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.