ShadowTemplar Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 Originally posted by Rogue_Ace I dont think that the Old Testament is horrible at all, have you ever read Psalms. Psalms contains some of the most beautify poetry ever written. Have you ever heard about the Sirens? Beauty and savage cruelty may well go hand in hand. Originally posted by Rogue_Ace You say that it (OT) is cruel and barbaric, [...] but when they came back to Him and asked his forgivness. Have you ever played Black & White? Do you know what alignment a god like that would get? Originally posted by Rogue_Ace Yes New Testament Law supersedes that of the OT but that does not mean that we should throw all of its teachings out the window. It is still the Bible, the Word of God and it should be followed. The reason that we are not "struck down by a bolt of lightening:)" is because we now have Christ intervening on our behalf. Then why shouldn't we throw the Bible out of the window? I've done that, and I've lead a fine life up to this point. If God's fury is kept at bay by JC, then why should we worry about God? Unless JC is a racist kind of guy? Originally posted by Rogue_Ace Very true. But those communities do not represent the Christian Community, in fact they are the exact opposite. A commonly held misconception amongst Christians. Christianity was just as barbaric (and still is, only now it can't do as much damage) before the Age of Enlightenment, where Northern Europe threw down the shackles of Christianity, and gave that same oppressive regime a good kick in the arse, from which they thankfully never recovered. The best thing that can happen to a religion is a good, long oppression. Originally posted by Rogue_Ace I know what you are going to say, to just look at the Jews and all the crap that is happening over in Israel at this time. No, actually I would suggest looking at Northern Ireland for a start. And then to the Bible Belt second... And the Crusades and the Inquisition for some historical depth. Originally posted by Rogue_Ace I dont even consider most Catholics to be Christians, An acedemic debate. Originally posted by Rogue_Ace Yes is does and that still stands for today, and not just in the OT. What planet did you just drop down from? I'll **** anyone I damn well please (assuming that they want to, of course, along the guidelines that Luc posted), and no pious nonsense is gonna prevent me from doing it. Originally posted by Rogue_Ace When you start to take the Bible as partially true then you are destroying the whole concept of it. More power, then, to those who critically interpret the Bible. Better yet, more power to those who try to counter its bad influence. Originally posted by Rogue_Ace You start to take only the parts that are fun and lovey and get rid of the rest. Whats the point of believing only certian parts that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. There is a point to promoting your faith that way. If, God forbid (so to speak), Christianity ever returned to power, we would see a quite different picture. Or rather, we would be shown a quite different picture, because seeing for ourselves might make us think for ourselves... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obi Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 From the Link From science, we know the true order of events was just the opposite. How do "we" know the true order? How do "we" know that Carbon dating, and other methods are true?We do not. I find this an invalid and pompous remark. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program Maybe, in fact, most likely, this part is referring to a spritual nature. Science cannot penetrate a spirit, or anything spiritual. And do not use an example of ghost hunting as a counter-debate, because that is just silly. The use of the plural (us, our) implies that there is more than one god, contrary to many monotheistic biblical statements. This was in response to the Bible verse: "Let us make man in our own image." There is only one God of Israel, One God of Earth. God was talking to The other members of the Trinity; Jesus his son, and The Holy Spirit. I could go through that site you linked me to, and provide an explanation to their interpretation of the Bible, but that would take many many days, probably months because they do this to the entire Bible. I could argue against them, and have valid arguements, but it would take too much time. I believe what I have covered thus far is good enough for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast This is from that website: [...] Thats not facts or contradictions, its just someone trying to be smart. Point. Still, the site as a whole is very interesting, it does have some shortcomings, of course, I'll be the first to admit that... But if you want some obvious nonsense taken right from the pages of the Bible, look at The Whole Silly Flood Story, from Creationism Revisited, or Things Creationists Hate (link in my post). Of course this is not a contradiction in the Bible, but rather a contradiction between the Bible and common sense... How do "we" know the true order? How do "we" know that Carbon dating, and other methods are true?We do not. I find this an invalid and pompous remark. Aah. Apart from the "know", we actually do. We don't "know" anything. But our senses (science) tell us that it is so. If you want to see the full, scary perspectives of refusing our senses I suggest that you read 1984, in which it is brilliantly explained. Maybe, in fact, most likely, this part is referring to a spritual nature. Science cannot penetrate a spirit, or anything spiritual. And do not use an example of ghost hunting as a counter-debate, because that is just silly. If it cannot be penetrated by science, then it cannot exist, because science can penetrate all that exists. The "spirit", apart form being a comic strip (but then it has a capital S), cannot possibly exist, as all the things normally associated with the "spirit" (emotion, thought, ect.) are biochemical functions in our brains. They have even, to a great degree, been located. Kill the brain, kill the "spirit". Also, if it refers to a "spiritual" thing, then why doesn't it say so? And Ghost Busting is silly, any way you look at it, so no, I will not use that as a riposté... There is only one God of Israel, One God of Earth. God was talking to The other members of the Trinity; Jesus his son, and The Holy Spirit. But OT is a Jewish text... Judaism didn't recognize JC or the "Holy Spirit" last time I checked. Anyway it may just have been a "royal plural", so that part of the site doesn't really count. I could go through that site you linked me to, and provide an explanation to their interpretation of the Bible, but that would take many many days, probably months because they do this to the entire Bible. I am not arguing that you have to check every minor detail, because that would be just plain demagougic, but I have found a hole in one of your counter-arguments, and in the meantime supplied you with more fun (Things Creationists Hate)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 This is from a website that explains why evolution couldn't have occured... for more on this... go tothis website Many mathematicians have looked at probability science for help with evolution. Could it have occurred by chance? Below are some numbers. To illustrate the magnitude of these numbers, for the sake of comparison, be aware that the number of electrons in the universe is believed to be 10 to the 80th power. Mathematician William Dembski calculated that if the probability of something occurring is less than one in 10 to the 150 power, it has no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history. He further estimates that the probability of evolving the first cell is no better than one in 10 to the 4,478,146 power. In regard to the universe occurring by chance, researcher Hugh Ross explains that there are actually two sets of odds that interrelate: first, the unique characteristics that must be fashioned to explain the earth's capacity to support life, and second, that life could arise even on a suitably configured planet by random chance. He calculates the odds for life as remote as 1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000 power Yet some say that, well, given enough time, evolution could occur. But it would be like saying that putting the parts to a computer in a washing machine, and given enough time that they will assemble themselves into a functioning computer. It won't happen—no matter how much time. Mathematician/astronomer Fred Hoyle put it this way. He said that the probability of evolution creating the living world by chance is like believing that "...a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Denton concludes that probability science comes "very close to a formal disproof of the whole Darwinian paradigm of nature. By what strange capacity do living organisms defy the laws of chance which are apparently obeyed by all analogous complex systems?" Evolutionists have been faced with such figures for many years. If they could come up with a number within the realm of possibility, they would be crowing about it. But they have not been able to do so. Life was designed; it did not evolve. The correctness of this conclusion is the inverse of the probability that eliminated evolution, that is, 10 to the 4,478,296 power to one. There is one thing we can say further. Given the probabilities against evolution, if evolution did occur, it would constitute a miracle—convincing proof of God's existence. (NOTE****: These forums don't allow the power symbols to be written such as 2 to the 2nd power as 2 squared... that why I had to write 10 to the ........ power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 Originally posted by Mandolorian54 Yes I am a christian. I am a Baptist to be exact. and I don't beleive you should be baptized as a child because you are supposed to be baptized as a public statment that you have faith and want to be a christian. I actually spoke to a priest about that once (not kidding), and he said that the I-don't-know-what-it-is-called-in-English ceremony around your fourteenth year of age is where you declare yourself a Christian. I am also against Infant baptizing, but I am against it because it, like circumsicion (how in the name of God do you spell that?), is violating the child. Originally posted by Mandolorian54 When your a baby you don't have faith you dont even know you exist yet. A baby knows that it exists, alright, just try to leave it for a few seconds... Originally posted by Mandolorian54 How many of you remember being baptized? You only know your baptized because you were told. And you only know about God because you were told... Interesting... Originally posted by Mandolorian54 I am against abortion, infant baptism,and women preachers. And therapeutic cloning that can save people's lives too, I bet... Originally posted by Mandolorian54 Catholics,and Jehovah witnesses are not christians even though they call themselves christians. Catholicism is just the first major branch of Christianity to rise... Of course they're not Christian... JW: Why are they not Christian? They believe in JC, don't they? They believe in God, don't they? But they give Christianity a bad name, so of course they aren't Christian. Anyway, it's an academic debate: Its a religion, and should therefore be abolished. Originally posted by Mandolorian54 And Christianity is not a religeon its a faith! Check your dictionary. Faith is an act of idiocy. Religion/theocracy is a form of government. Christianity is not an act, though it is, by any standard save its own, idiocy... Originally posted by Mandolorian54 And duh you have to believe in the Bible to be a christian, thats like saying I don't believe in Christ but I'm a Christian. You can believe in JC without believing in the Bible. But I don't want to get into that... I'll let you tear each others' throats out until a MOD steps in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obi Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar 1:If it cannot be penetrated by science, then it cannot exist, because science can penetrate all that exists. The "spirit", apart form being a comic strip (but then it has a capital S), cannot possibly exist, as all the things normally associated with the "spirit" (emotion, thought, ect.) are biochemical functions in our brains. They have even, to a great degree, been located. Kill the brain, kill the "spirit". 2:Also, if it refers to a "spiritual" thing, then why doesn't it say so? 3:But OT is a Jewish text... Judaism didn't recognize JC or the "Holy Spirit" last time I checked. Anyway it may just have been a "royal plural", so that part of the site doesn't really count. 1:Not true. Science cannot penetrate love, and it exists. Science cannot penetrate very deep space(not yet any way), either, but it too exists. 2: It does not say that it is a spiritual thing, because God did not intend Mankind to question him as they have many times, and will continue to do so. He just wanted us to have faith in him, and trust what he said. 3: Some jews back then accepted Jesus as their massiah, and followed him. However, in the end, they turned their back on him. That is in the Bible also. However, it may have just been a sign of respect, the pluralism, meaning God was so powerful, that God was mistaken for more then one. I wasn't around back then, so I cannot vouch for that. Faith is an act of idiocy No, Faith is knowing he will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast This is from a website that explains why evolution couldn't have occured... for more on this... go tothis website Of the four subpages on the site, the first should be easily done away with by a quick search on http://www.sciam.com. Cunduct a search on the words "15 answers", and the search results will come up with an article called "15 answers to creationist nonsense". It answers all the so-called points in aforementioned part of the site, and more. As for the text you copy-pasted into your post, the issue of probability is... well, not too terribly well represented in it. Firstly: He doesn't specify the size of the system that he is looking at or the timespan during which he is looking. That way, I could make the probability of the Bible ever being written lucrediously small... How? Simple: I can say that the probability of the Bible being written by one man in an hour is 10^somehugenumber to one. Then I remove the specifications of time and size of system, and get this net result: The probability of the Bible ever being written is 10^somehugenumber to one. The guy who wrote this is nothing but a simple fraud. One part that I would like to point out in particular is this: "Life was designed; it did not evolve. The correctness of this conclusion is the inverse of the probability that eliminated evolution, that is, 10 to the 4,478,296 power to one." Blatantly false. Life could have existed always. There is exactly the same amount of evidence for creation as for always-been: None. This is a classic example of how statistics can be abused. And it DOESN'T HOLD. Period. In the opening statement the site claims (amongst other nonsense) that: "As evidenced by a wave of recent books on the subject, there is a growing uneasiness in the scientific community about the validity of Darwinian evolution." Sorry, but popular litterature doesn't mean that there is any "growing uneasiness" anywhere. In fact, as 15 Answers states, the facts are exactly opposite. "Many scientists and philosophers are taking a fresh look at evolution, and based on the latest evidence are raising huge questions." Anyone who puts scientists and philosophers in the same little box obviously knows nothing about either. The site is, in other words, totally and utterly useless fraud. In all respects. Only a creationist or a fool could possibly be persuaded by it. Using scientifically-sounding words doesn't make science (as evidenced by the creationists who keep using the 2nd-law-of-thermodynamics-nonsense). Another good example of the limitations of your accounts of probability is illustrated by this example: If you arrange a cubic foot of sand in a cubic foot of space, what is the probability of that sand ending up in a neat cone on a windless day? Not big. At all. Yet is does. Because it is not arranged randomly. As any high school student can probably tell you, some chemical reactions occur more willingly than others. You will not, for example, see aluminiumoxide (Al2O3) will not split up to aluminium an oxygen (Al and O), and hydrogen (H) is far more reactive than helium (He). Some reactions are more willing than others. One major reason why I think that all of these probabilities that are hung out, seemingly at random, are invented, is that it is simply not possible to make that calculation. There are too many unknow variables. And again: The calculations are not complete. Lots of information about the basis for them has been left out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 Originally posted by obi-wan13 Not true. Science cannot penetrate love, and it exists. Science cannot penetrate very deep space(not yet any way), either, but it too exists. Love is a biochemical reaction that ensures reproduction. It has been penetrated. Deep space is also understood, and therefore penetrated. Originally posted by obi-wan13 2: It does not say that it is a spiritual thing, because God did not intend Mankind to question him as they have many times, and will continue to do so. He just wanted us to have faith in him, and trust what he said. "DO WHAT I SAY OR BURN IN HELL!" -God "Sieg Heil" -Hitler Originally posted by obi-wan13 No, Faith is knowing he will. And if I have faith that pigs fly, will that then be less idiotic? There is the same amount of evidence: NONE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obi Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar 1.Love is a biochemical reaction that ensures reproduction. It has been penetrated. 2.Deep space is also understood, and therefore penetrated. 3."DO WHAT I SAY OR BURN IN HELL!" -God "Sieg Heil" -Hitler 4.And if I have faith that pigs fly, will that then be less idiotic? There is the same amount of evidence: NONE. 1.Really? I thought love was a feeling that a person has when he/she encounters another person he/she fels deeply for. 2. Deep space has not been understood, the arrogant minds of scientists just say the understand it. 3.God wants us to be obediant yes, but just by not doing what he says doesn't mean you go to Hell. Not accepting Jesus as your savior gets you there. 4.Who cares if you have faith pigs fly, we are discussing the truthfulness of the Bible, not ol' Mcdonald had a farm. BTW, why are we debating? I am not going to change my mind, and you probably aren't going to change yours, so we sort of cancel each other out, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 Originally posted by obi-wan13 1.Really? I thought love was a feeling that a person has when he/she encounters another person he/she fels deeply for. There is an entire thread about this subject. I suggest that you go there. Originally posted by obi-wan13 2. Deep space has not been understood, the arrogant minds of scientists just say the understand it. And the arrogant minds of the fundamentalist thinks that it has found the truth... The difference is that the scientist has proof, whereas the fundamentalist has only his own folly. Originally posted by obi-wan13 3.God wants us to be obediant yes, but just by not doing what he says doesn't mean you go to Hell. Not accepting Jesus as your savior gets you there. One question: Where is the evidence. Keyword: Evidence. Originally posted by obi-wan13 4.Who cares if you have faith pigs fly, we are discussing the truthfulness of the Bible, not ol' Mcdonald had a farm. You do not answer my question: Would the statement: "Pigs fly" be any less idiotic if I believed in it? Originally posted by obi-wan13 BTW, why are we debating? I am not going to change my mind, and you probably aren't going to change yours, so we sort of cancel each other out, no? I never debate because I want to change the mind of the ones that I debate with. Because, as you say, they aren't gonna change their minds during the debate. I debate for the sake of the listeners, and in order to (hopefully) instill some independent thought into the heads of the more stubborn zealots... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 Originally posted by Maverick Knight If you can't ask questions and get logical answers, it's not worth believing in. Everyone should be able to back up their beliefs with arguments. Otherwise, it's not worth believing in. Which excludes all religion, and, basically, is not belief. Belief is thinking that something is right without having proof. If you have proof, then it's knowledge, not belief. Originally posted by Maverick Knight Now, I have found that Christianity is the only belief system (philosophical, theological, and otherwise) that is able to answer my questions adequately. And yes, there was a time when I doubted the religion, but it was because I was able to get thorough and logical answers that I stayed with it. What questions did you ask it? Originally posted by Maverick Knight The Testaments: The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. This is an interesting piece: JC knew those prophecies, and actively sought to fulfill them, according to the Bible... Which kinda equals having a prophecy that says: "X will kill Y at Z time", that X knows of. If X then wants the prophecy to appear true, then he would just have ot kill Y at the time Z. Originally posted by Maverick Knight And about that 'no sex before marriage' thing: it's still valid. Just because we can do it more safely than in their times doesn't mean that we should. Sex is a precious thing, a sign of commitment to a partner, not just a 'good time.' After sex, what is the most intimate thing a couple can share? Answer: not much. But it is not a law. No governmental agency can punish you for doing it. Nor should any governmental agency be able to punish you for pre-marital sex. Period. Originally posted by Maverick Knight Summary: Don't judge Christianity or any other religion by the people who practise it. Judge it by what it says at its core and how well it applies to the real world. Don't judge Communism on the practitioners. It isn't bad just because it killed one hundred million people. One should look at the core writings... The logical flaw is obvious. An organisation, and a type of government, should be judged based on how it is applied, not what it says. Actions count, not words. Words are free. Actions are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 Originally posted by Rogue_Ace Its a relationship with Christ as a personal Savior. It is a barbaric mode of government that has committed genocide. Nothing more. Imagine a soldier grabbing a little baby by the legs and beating its head against a wall until its skull splits open, and you will have just about the right picture of what Christianity has accomplished. Originally posted by Rogue_Ace I never said that interpreting the scripture was wrong. Yes we can look at the Bible and compare it to modern things. But we cannot twist it around until it makes us happy and says what we want it to say. Strangely, that is what it has always been used for. Originally posted by Rogue_Ace Technically no one is innocent. We all deserve what we get, we are sinners, no one but Christ was perfect. Its only by Christ that we do not get the Wrath of God. Thats not to say bad things never happen to Christians, God lets things happen for a reason and who are we to say any different. In other words: Bow to your rightful king. He has been installed as supreme dictator by God himself. Who are you to question your position. Sorry, but that world-view became obsolote centuries ago. And the Bible was obsolote before it was even written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 Originally posted by Mandolorian54 cjas you have a lot to learn about christianity, only a non christian could think of it that way. In what way? Based on what it has done instead of what it says? But that is the only rational way to look at it. Originally posted by Mandolorian54 unlike other religions you are not a christian for believing. Then what does make me Christian? Originally posted by Mandolorian54 but do you even care, or would you rather ignorantly believe what you want to? Or would you know the truth? DO NOT DARE TO SPEAK OF TRUTH, when you do not even have facts. Originally posted by Mandolorian54 you say who am I to say who a christian is, I'm only saying what GOD said. What the Bible (read: An obsolote, useless collection of random rants, written to impress fools into following Paulus' lead) said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 Originally posted by Luc Solar I give you this link: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty.html LOL. Good site. Very amusing... Originally posted by Luc Solar (Btw - what the hell does "holy" mean anyways?) Pronounced holy by some other holy person. Who is usually self-appointed. Originally posted by Luc Solar There's some things all religions have in common: None of them can prove $hit, yet they all are 100% sure that only they are right while everyone else is wrong. Seems kinda silly to me. YES! YOU SAID IT MATE! Originally posted by Luc Solar This is one thing I can't understand. This whole story about every new born child being a sinner 'cause..what - Adam bit the apple? God won't judge us by our actions? He thinks we are sinners and should burn in hell because of something that happened thousands of years ago...something that we can in no way correct anymore? Conclusion: God is a sadist. Originally posted by Luc Solar What about the whole basis of Christianity: God sacrificed Jesus. Because Jesus died, we are all forgiven. If you think about that for a moment, it makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER! WHY would he sacrifice his son? Couldn't he have forgiven mankind without doing that? What good did it do? Did God think that he'll lay some sort of guilt trip on humans so that we'd behave? What good did Jesus' death accomplish? He suffered and we got our sins forgiven, which God could have done anyways without horribly torturing his only son. It all sounds great when a charismatic priest says it in a beautiful church with the choir singing in the backround, but... it makes no sense if you think about it. To tough questions all religions have their patented answer, naturally: Who are we, puny humans, to criticize something all-powerful, all-knowing like God? God knows best and if you don't "get it" you're just dumb. Well, I for one have a problem with that. Still.. I do consider myself a Christian. I'm living a good life and if I'll burn in hell, you can count on burning there with me. This is so good. Everyone should read it. Given the last few responses to this thread, I believe that some of you could do with reading it again. BTW: See you in hell, Luc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jed Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 Wowzers....lots of stuff I don't understand going on in here... I'm just here to say my two cents, however petty and insignificant it may be... I was baptized an Episcopal. Albeit, I barely know what my religion is; I've been in a church about twice in my life. I seem to believe what I choose to believe - I've paved myself my own religion in a way. Science and religion will never mix - and can be viewed on either side. But, science viewed by man, is based on what we view as true. What is the truth is not known, also showing that we could be entirely wrong, and meaning we can never prove God to be non-existant. If anything, doing so proves God exists. But I'm starting to make less and less sense.... I digress.... That's just my opinion. Please no painful disections of it - I have no reason to debate with anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 I just have one thing to point out to all you folks whos entire argument is based on science, is that, if i am correct scientists believe that what has happened will continue to happen.... correct? So since life has evolved before it is going to keep evolving etc. etc. Now, 500 years ago what did scientists KNOW to be true? That th earth was flat, and it was the center of the universe, correct? Nearly all things that people back then knew by science have been proven to be wrong then, correct? SO....in 500 years, will people be looking at us and saying....Wow.....those people were so STUPID! How could they POSSIBLY believe in evolution? That's the crappiest theory since the earth being flat. :cool: And perhaps THEY will prove the existance of a God.....and then again they will laugh at us for not believing.......just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 19, 2003 Share Posted January 19, 2003 Originally posted by ET Warrior I just have one thing to point out to all you folks whos entire argument is based on science, is that, if i am correct scientists believe that what has happened will continue to happen.... correct? So since life has evolved before it is going to keep evolving etc. etc. No all right, but not all wrong either... Science predicts that the laws of nature don't just change overnight. That will suffice for now. Originally posted by ET Warrior Now, 500 years ago what did scientists KNOW to be true? That th earth was flat, and it was the center of the universe, correct? False on all counts. First off: There were no scientists 500 years ago. And if there were, they would not have thought that they knew anything to be true. The notion that in the Middle Ages people believed Terra to be flat is, I think, propaganda invented by later times in order to make them look stupid. But nevermind. Originally posted by ET Warrior Nearly all things that people back then knew by science have been proven to be wrong then, correct? No. Many things that they though have been proven wrong. And, again, they didn't have science at that time: It was invented in the mid-19th centuary (and caused the Church a severe pain in the arse, too). Originally posted by ET Warrior SO....in 500 years, will people be looking at us and saying....Wow.....those people were so STUPID! How could they POSSIBLY believe in evolution? That's the crappiest theory since the earth being flat. :cool: Again, noone believes in evolution. Keyword: Believes. It does not need to be believed: It can be observed. Originally posted by ET Warrior And perhaps THEY will prove the existance of a God.....and then again they will laugh at us for not believing.......just a thought. Highly improbable: God would just be classified as a suffeiciently advanced ETI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted January 19, 2003 Share Posted January 19, 2003 To all you who says that Catholics aren't really cristians: Either all who thinks of themselves as christians are christians, or none are christians. It's that simple. You can't go on saying "I'm christian, but because the others don't practise it the same way as me, they aren't". Now, 500 years ago what did scientists KNOW to be true? That th earth was flat, and it was the center of the universe, correct? Nearly all things that people back then knew by science have been proven to be wrong then, correct? SO....in 500 years, will people be looking at us and saying....Wow.....those people were so STUPID! How could they POSSIBLY believe in evolution? That's the crappiest theory since the earth being flat. They never knew anything, they just assumed it. Nowadays, scientists get evidence for their theories, there's a huge difference. And BTW, christianity has certainly not helped people gaining facts about the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meadfish Posted January 19, 2003 Share Posted January 19, 2003 I would like to submit my insight regarding some of the questions raised above. First of all, great post Luc!! You opened yourself up to get some answers or at least others opions and that took some guts. Regarding the first line of the post: Christianity differs from other major religions quite a bit. So true. Christianity says that Christ is the ONLY way to get to heaven. Having Him in your heart will help you through this walk of life, and help Him if you let Him work through you to reach others who are lost. Lost are not necessarily those who do not believe in Christianity, but those who do not belive in life after death. Once you believe in life after death, God will lead you to Christ so that you have the choice to accept Him. (read Rev. 3-20) Am I Christian? I suppose so, technically anyway. I'm Evangelical Lutheran (sp?). A person cannot be a christian simply because they were raised by christian parents, or baptized, etc. It is a choice each person will make.....accept Him or don't. So you will always know if you are a christian, because you know if you accepted Him. Do you Christians even believe in the Biblical God? Was Jesus his son? Do you think you must agree with the Bible in order to be a real Christian? Can you be a good person even if you are not a Christian and if so, why would we even need the Bible? I do believe in the biblical God. The same feeling I get when I know God is speaking to my spirit, I get when I read the bible! So I believe it to be his written voice. Of course you can be an awesome person and not even acknowledge that Christ ever lived. But where would you go after life? How could you go to heaven if you never accepted the "invitation"? Here it is in a nut shell: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" -Romans 3:23 (keyword all) "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord." -Romans 6:23 (key words sin = death) So, all have sinned and sin = death therefore all deserve death. But surely God is more forgiving, right? "In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." -Hebrews 9:22 (blood = forgiveness) So God has to shed our blood to forgive us? Blood must be shed, so in the Old Testament times they would do an animal blood sacrifice. When the animal died that sin was forgiven. But this was a temporary fix, only needed because Jesus Christ had not yet been born. Enter Jesus Christ - everything changes. "God made him who had no sin to be sin offering for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." - 2nd Corinthians 5:21 Jesus was the "animal" whose blood was shed to forgive our sins. "Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." -Romans 10:4 At that point exit Old Testament law, enter New Testament salvation. An animal blood sacrifice was no longer needed for every sin, because Jesus was the perfect "Lamb of God" animal for all mankind So why Jesus? Simple, He had no sin..... "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin." -Hebrews 4:15 Btw - I do believe Jesus sinned while hanging on that cross. But I guess it was understandable; I would have been sorta upset too. Impossible. Only because He NEVER sinned could He be the only appropriate sacrifice ALL sin. This is one thing I can't understand. This whole story about every new born child being a sinner 'cause..what - Adam bit the apple? God won't judge us by our actions? He thinks we are sinners and should burn in hell because of something that happened thousands of years ago...something that we can in no way correct anymore? "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" -Romans 5:12 Soooooo..... The first time I sinned I would be unable to stand in God's holy presence because of it. By asking Jesus into my sinned filled heart, his blood has covered the sin. In God's presence He will not see my sinful nature which I inherited from Adam, rather the blood of His Son Jesus which has "washed" the sin away. BTW, Thank you Jesus...... Sorry to be sooo wordy, but these are matters of life and death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 19, 2003 Share Posted January 19, 2003 Originally posted by meadfish So true. Christianity says that Christ is the ONLY way to get to heaven. Having Him in your heart will help you through this walk of life, and help Him if you let Him work through you to reach others who are lost. And if those who are lost do not want to be found? If they don't want a mad mindset forced upon them? What must you do then? Originally posted by meadfish Lost are not necessarily those who do not believe in Christianity, but those who do not belive in life after death. Once you believe in life after death, God will lead you to Christ so that you have the choice to accept Him. (read Rev. 3-20) I believe in life before death... So I guess that the boogeyman is coming for me... Originally posted by meadfish A person cannot be a christian simply because they were raised by christian parents, or baptized, etc. It is a choice each person will make.....accept Him or don't. So you will always know if you are a christian, because you know if you accepted Him. I have never made the choice whether to accept JC. I want to see someone back the Bible with something real before I decide whether to follow him or not. Originally posted by meadfish I do believe in the biblical God. The same feeling I get when I know God is speaking to my spirit, I get when I read the bible! So I believe it to be his written voice. When do you feel "God" speaking? When you're on hashish? Originally posted by meadfish Of course you can be an awesome person and not even acknowledge that Christ ever lived. But where would you go after life? How could you go to heaven if you never accepted the "invitation"? Dunno. I guess that I'll burn that bridge when I get to it. Originally posted by meadfish Impossible. Only because He NEVER sinned could He be the only appropriate sacrifice ALL sin. "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?" -JC (at least that's what I heard in Religion class) Questioning the value of God, no? Anyway, this whole sacrifice business leads to one obvious question: Why didn't God just forgive us? If he's omnipotent, and wanted to forgive (or he wouldn't have sent JC, right?), then why all this sacrifice business to begin with? Why not just say: Your sins are forgiven? (I have a reason, but it would imply that religion is merely a social phenomenon, so I suppose that it doesn't really count.) Originally posted by meadfish Soooooo..... The first time I sinned I would be unable to stand in God's holy presence because of it. By asking Jesus into my sinned filled heart, his blood has covered the sin. In God's presence He will not see my sinful nature which I inherited from Adam, rather the blood of His Son Jesus which has "washed" the sin away. Again: Why doesn't God just abolish sin? Surely it would be within the power of an omnipotent god to do so? Originally posted by meadfish BTW, Thank you Jesus...... You may want to know that JC was a terrorist by modern standards... Or you may not want to know that JC was a terrorist by modern standards... Originally posted by meadfish Sorry to be sooo wordy, but these are matters of life and death. Especially the latter. And especially if the Church is ever restored to power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Monk Posted January 19, 2003 Share Posted January 19, 2003 Jedi Monk, if God chose the first Pope (St Peter) who was a married man, why is it forbidden for the Pope then to marry? The celibacy of Priests in the Latin Rite is a discipline, not a dogma; it could be changed. Priests in the Eastern Rite can marry. The discipline is based on the writings of St. Paul, who said, "An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided..." (1Cor, 7: 32b-34a) Also, I was speaking from experience, while I did not personally take part in praying before statues and such because I do not believe we are supposed to. From what was going on, it seemed to contradict the bible. We do not pray to statues--it's an important distinction to make. We have no delusion that that statue is Mary, or that crucifix is Jesus. They're not idols, they're prayer aids, they help us remember these people who really lived and who are still there for us. I'm curious as to why we need Mary to go to her Son for us. Can she change his mind? When you're going through a tough time, do you ask your family and friends to pray for you? That's what this is like; the Catholic Church makes no distinction between the living and dead in this respect, we're all part of one family. And as I said before, "For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears turned to their prayer." BTW Holy- seperated or set-apart, in the sence that God is set apart from us in that he is perfect and w/o flaw, not seperated in the sence of not being able to effect the things in our life. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." And her cousin, Elizabeth, "filled with the holy Spirit" said "Most blessed are you among women." I believe that would indicate that she is set her apart from you or I. We are not talking about traditions in general, we're talking about religious brainwash. If religion was outlawed, we would have a much more free society, after the adaption was completed. And how would you go about outlawing religion? People wouldn't stop worshiping God just because of a law. People, throughout the centuries, have died rather than denounce their faith. They would go underground, and what then? Hunt them down? Imprison them? They wouldn't stop praying. Execute them to rid the world of their traditions? There were no religious groups in 1984, or in Brave New World, besides pseudo religions like the cult of Our Ford. "I go to youth group youth anti sex league after Mass Two Minutes' Hate" (Youth anti sex league and Two Minutes' Hate are Orwellian concepts used for the oppression of the population.) Oh yes, and last week at Mass, the priest held up a picture of so-and-so and we all booed and hissed and screamed obscenities at it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 19, 2003 Share Posted January 19, 2003 Originally posted by Jedi_Monk And how would you go about outlawing religion? People wouldn't stop worshiping God just because of a law. People, throughout the centuries, have died rather than denounce their faith. They would go underground, and what then? Hunt them down? Imprison them? They wouldn't stop praying. Execute them to rid the world of their traditions? No. What every religion throughout all of the ages has feared the most: Educate them. Enlighten them in the ways of the world. Make them see the delusions of their dogma. Originally posted by Jedi_Monk There were no religious groups in 1984, or in Brave New World, besides pseudo religions like the cult of Our Ford. Oh yes, and last week at Mass, the priest held up a picture of so-and-so and we all booed and hissed and screamed obscenities at it You are missing the point. The Cult of Our Ford and The Two Minutes' Hate are means of thought control. They are ways to impress a common cause/goal/unity upon a lot of people. Mass serves the exact same function. The ability to instill mass emotion in a group of people is one of despositm's most used and powerful tools. You see Hussain using it. You see Bush using it. You see the Pope using it... Because if people get all emotional they forget to think rationally and independently. That is the exact purpose of Mass. The form is, for this purpose, irrellevant. But if you wish to see a Mass that openly promotes intolerance, look at the ones done during the Crusades. Also, as you say, Orwell didn't try to depict religion. Which makes the fact that Oceania so closely resembles Dark Age Europe all the more curious... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meadfish Posted January 19, 2003 Share Posted January 19, 2003 My intentions are not to argue with or sway others, but to articulate the basis of christianity (which seems to on trial here.) All responses stem from a biblical point of view so if you do not believe in the bible the responses only fuel your bitterness toward christianity. (again not my intention) And if those who are lost do not want to be found? If they don't want a mad mindset forced upon them? What must you do then? You have freewill and are free to roam to where and with whom you choose. I have never made the choice whether to accept JC. I want to see someone back the Bible with something real before I decide whether to follow him or not. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." -Hebrews 11:1 Remember what Jesus told Thomas... "Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." John 20:29 When do you feel "God" speaking? When you're on hashish? I assume this was rhetorical? "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?" -JC (at least that's what I heard in Religion class) This was not Jesus sinning, however this is the point at which Jesus became our sin. Jesus could see His Father looking down on Him, but God cannot look upon sin ("Your eyes are too pure to look on evil -Habakkuk 1:13) so at that point God turned away. Why didn't God just forgive us? If he's omnipotent, and wanted to forgive (or he wouldn't have sent JC, right?), then why all this sacrifice business to begin with? Why not just say: Your sins are forgiven? Did you read the "nut shell" part? We could never begin to understand the Omnipotent God, so we could never explain his methods. I only offer the christian reasoning behind what we have FAITH in. You may want to know that JC was a terrorist by modern standards... Or you may not want to know that JC was a terrorist by modern standards... I am not sure why you repeated the statement, typo? but.... A terrorist is someone who takes the lives of innocent people for a cause or faith he believes in, Jesus gave his life for sinners who did not believe in Him.... could he be any more opposite? I will never fault a person for their religion, faith, view, or opinion. Some of these replies do just that, so what is the purpose in them? They are not actions of love, and shouldn't love be the root of any faith or belief? Hmmmm..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Monk Posted January 19, 2003 Share Posted January 19, 2003 No. What every religion throughout all of the ages has feared the most: Educate them. Enlighten them in the ways of the world. Make them see the delusions of their dogma. Despite what you might think, not all Christians are uneducated heathens. Christianity is still the single largest religion on earth; we are writers, scientists, doctors, teachers, lawyers and professors. This was not Jesus sinning, however this is the point at which Jesus became our sin. Jesus could see His Father looking down on Him, but God cannot look upon sin ("Your eyes are too pure to look on evil -Habakkuk 1:13) so at that point God turned away. Another interpretation is that Jesus wanted to remind the people around him of the 22nd Psalm: "My God, my God, who have you abandoned me? ...All who see me mock me; they curl their lips and jeer; they shake their heads at me. You relied on the Lord--let him deliver you; if he loves you, let him rescue you... ...They stare at me and gloat; they divide my garments among them; for my clothes they cast lots..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psydan Posted January 19, 2003 Share Posted January 19, 2003 Quote by ShadowTemplar: "quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Maverick Knight If you can't ask questions and get logical answers, it's not worth believing in. Everyone should be able to back up their beliefs with arguments. Otherwise, it's not worth believing in. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Which excludes all religion, and, basically, is not belief. Belief is thinking that something is right without having proof. If you have proof, then it's knowledge, not belief." Well Belief is: v. tr. 1.To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories? 2.To credit with veracity: I believe you. 3.To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly. You don't have to believe something for it to be true, and it doesn't have to be true for you to believe it, but if you do accept it as true, then you are believing in it. You can "know" that something is true, but if you don't believe it, then it doesn't matter.You can have proof,and still believe it. Plus, why are people saying that Jesus was a terrorist? He healed people, and preached love, and preached against killing. What makes him a terrorist? Now I think you're just trying to make people mad. Also, I think I'm going to have to agree with what you said meadfish, I think you said a lot of good things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.