Leveller March 14, 2008 Share Leveller Member March 14, 2008 Sorry I keep making additions...or should I say disclaimers, but I am trying not to be offensive to the many that hold strong faith in the bible. I am not saying that the bible doesnt have a good message, it does, and the teachings in it are certainly worthy of patterning a way of life after, but the debate here is not whether or not it is a good book, because it is, but rather to discuss its value as historical fact. A good message does not have to be true to be good. Ok...setting sv_disclaimers to 0 now I echo this entirely, I think this is a valuable conversation for a lot of us, but it's so very difficult to hold it through a forum where it's often difficult to convey your true intent. I don't think any of us want to upset each other, challenge anyone's faith etc. and however possible it should be an exchanging of opinion and viewpoint, by no means an "I'm right, you're wrong" approach, which I hope it has been so far.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly March 14, 2008 Share dragonfly Member March 14, 2008 Hey Clueless, why don't you start a second thread about Mithraism? I wouldnt mind knowing more about it after all. That way this thread will only contain 5 hijackings instead of 6 Jesus was an unknown son of a carpenter, hated by the elites and those in power in the Jewish nation, recruiting tax collectors, prostitutes, and even gentiles to his cause, teaching that He was the very Son of God and the promised Messiah. All the elite were waiting for someone to overthrow the Romans and restore Israel to its previous glory that it had under Solomon and David, so I'm not very surprised at all that there aren't a tonne of stories written about Jesus from sources outside of those who knew him personally. However, if you want to talk about documentation, Luke interviews witnesses (probably Mary, Jesus' brothers, Joseph, Elizabeth, etc), and records the first steps of the early church in his second volume of Acts. Both of these books were written to Theopholus (probably butchered the spelling!) who I believe was a Roman officer or governor... can't remember off the top of my head, sorry. I think this discussion about the Bible extends far beyond its value as a historical text, since I have yet to come across something that disproves its historical accuracy. I'm sure Preacher knows much more about all of that than I do, so I'll let him talk about that. The Bible gets scrutinized more than other ancient texts. The message it contains is offensive, because it demands change in our world, and shows how we're the problem - the ones needing change. If you can disprove even part of the Bible, you can throw it all out, since it claims to be the Word of God. It's not just a book with nice morals (though it does contain that). It's like the "who is Jesus" argument. We only have 3 options: 1. Lunatic - He was crazy, thinking He was the Son of God, obviously had mental problems. 2. Liar - He tricked everyone with some fancy magic tricks and then left to die somewhere like everyone else. 3. He was who He said He was. If it's 1 or 2, I wouldn't trust Him at all, and would not consider His teachings. If it's 3, yikes, I'd better listen. So what is the Bible? If it is what it claims to be, then we should pay close attention. If it's not, then please don't trust it, because it would be far too dangerous! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly March 14, 2008 Share dragonfly Member March 14, 2008 Hey Leveller, Clueless and everyone else: I am really not offended by you guys! I think you state your points with much dignity and respect and I honestly look forward to reading what you post. I mean, you're entitled to your own opinions, no matter how wrong they may be! Sorry, I couldn't resist! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Preacher March 14, 2008 Share Preacher Member March 14, 2008 Plus the area Jesus covered was on foot and smaller than our smallest state so the word that did get out about Him was by word of mouth. The didn't have the Obama girls on You Tube to get his message out lol I have never heard of Mithraism so I'll go with Dark and ask you form a separate thread and inform us all, mainly so I can play it lazy and not research it myself lol Ty is right about one thing and that is that one cannot help feeling attacked when you question our core beliefs. It would be like someone telling you your mom was really a man and the whole world was in on the conspiracy. I'm a little more open minded to discussion since I realize that there was a time before I knew the truth and I have never been opposed to questioning why I believe something. It's how I am wired. As long as there is no personal attacks on me I will stay civil Thought you guys would find it interesting that this thread was what I taught on tonight in Bible study. My topic was "Do you know what you believe and why you believe it?" I do not blindly follow anyone or any teaching. I have always been a prove me right or prove me wrong sort of guy. This is why evolution annoys me so much. They say we come from a monkey and yet every time a chimp has a baby they have another chimp. Talk about blind faith, the never ending search for the missing link? Can I prove evolution wrong? Maybe not but almost every part of evolution is based on observation or bad science. The fundamental basis of evolution "some single celled organism split to eventually make up me" This goes against science because it is something unorganized becoming more organized and eventually becoming greater than it began as. This is in direct contradiction to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I like to have people prove me wrong because then I get the chance to learn. I also like to prove I'm right (plays to my superiority complex lol) I love you guys and don't mean that flippantly. I draw great strength and comfort from many in our community and I also get a lot of laughs. Anyway you don't have to walk on eggshells. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unclean March 14, 2008 Author Share Unclean Member March 14, 2008 You guys are right... let's start making new threads. Thread on Mithra: http://www.gamrs.co/forums/in...showtopic=35554 Thread on The Theory of Evolution: http://www.gamrs.co/forums/in...showtopic=35555 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unclean March 14, 2008 Author Share Unclean Member March 14, 2008 No book predates the Bible. The first five books of the Bible Gen-Deut are called the Pentateuch. They were written down by Moses (and possibly Joshua as well), but the creation story was an oral account of history. In all ancient cultures oral history predates their written history. The Jewish Talmud goes into this in depth. The epic of Gilgamesh is actually considered to be about the same age as the oldest text of Exodus that we have a portion of. Would you mind clarifying this a bit? This information is in direct contradiction to what I've known/heard about the texts, coming from historians, biblical historians, and Christian apologists. I think the easiest way to clarify this for me would be by filling in the following: Epic of Gilgamesh Age: ____________ Where I got this information: _______ Pentateuch Age: ____________ Where I got this information: _______ I'm all for more knowledge though, so I appreciate you answering these for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly March 14, 2008 Share dragonfly Member March 14, 2008 No book predates the Bible. The first five books of the Bible Gen-Deut are called the Pentateuch. They were written down by Moses (and possibly Joshua as well), but the creation story was an oral account of history. In all ancient cultures oral history predates their written history. The Jewish Talmud goes into this in depth. The epic of Gilgamesh is actually considered to be about the same age as the oldest text of Exodus that we have a portion of. Would you mind clarifying this a bit? This information is in direct contradiction to what I've known/heard about the texts, coming from historians, biblical historians, and Christian apologists. I think the easiest way to clarify this for me would be by filling in the following: Epic of Gilgamesh Age: ___really_old_________ Where I got this information: __from_a_friend_____ Pentateuch Age: ___super_old_________ Where I got this information: _my_butt______ I'm all for more knowledge though, so I appreciate you answering these for me. There ya go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leveller March 14, 2008 Share Leveller Member March 14, 2008 To follow on from Unclean's question above, what about Harappan writings which are dated between 3,500 and 2,500BC? Sumerian writings c. 3000BC? I was under the impression that the oldest "Bibilical" texts in existance were the Dead sea scrolls which are within 2-300 years of year 0.... From what I can see it seems most historians agree that the Pentateuch dates to between 1000 and 500BC. The oldest Harappan writing clearly pre-dates the bible and I believe the oldest section translated, reads as: ''Ila surrounds the blessed land.'' I would suggest that this could be defined as a semi religious text with the terminology "blessed land". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly March 14, 2008 Share dragonfly Member March 14, 2008 The Pentateuch should date somewhere around 1400-1300 BC, unless you subscribe to the JEDP theory, which I do not at all. If you do though, the Pentateuch is a little more recent then that, but would have been written more in the time of Solomon(ish) I think, which would be closer to Leveller BC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leveller March 14, 2008 Share Leveller Member March 14, 2008 Indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL March 14, 2008 Share dwEEziL Member March 14, 2008 The age of written history really matters not when for centuries prior, history was passed down through oral tradition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leveller March 14, 2008 Share Leveller Member March 14, 2008 Thought you guys would find it interesting that this thread was what I taught on tonight in Bible study. My topic was "Do you know what you believe and why you believe it?" That definitely is interesting, it's a question I asked myself many years ago, and it's why I find myself today having faith in God but having a differing standpoint on the Bible. I respect those who believe the Bible to be God's word, it's certainly a confirmation of your belief to be in that situation, I was just unable to reconcile it with my understanding of the world and my experiences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOFX March 17, 2008 Share NOFX Member March 17, 2008 (edited) I have never read the book, but I do believe it has something to do with the hebrews(later jews) getting pushed around by the Egyptians? They were a poor race of people that were enslaved by pharaohs?? With most of them being under horrific living conditions and needing some direction in life. They created some text and stories about how humans need to treat one another and how they will be set free one day. Is this Judaism?? The version of Christianity known today was formed when Constantine, the first roman christian Ceaser, started to convert the roman empire into a Christian empire. Since the empire was made of many different religions, he was forced to incorporate pagan beliefs. When this merger took place Christianity v1.0 was born and is why you celebrate christmas. A winter festival was traditionally the most popular festival of the year in many cultures. Reasons included less agricultural work needing to be done during the winter, as well as people expecting longer days and shorter nights after the winter solstice in the Northern Hemisphere.[10] In part, the Christmas celebration was created by the early Church in order to entice pagan Romans to convert to Christianity without losing their own winter celebrations.[11][10] Certain prominent gods and goddesses of other religions in the region had their birthdays celebrated on December 25, including Ishtar, Sol Invictus and Mithras To make a long answer short, No I don't believe the bible is the work of some God or a God's word. I believe it is stories made up by men over the past 2000 years used to help spread good morals. It Probably ended up being far from Jesus's original message... Story tellers have played a key role in passing down information, messages and teaching morals throughout our history. Especially when the majority of people could not read or write. My religion 101 professor was a Southern Baptist preacher. He would refer to himelf as story tellers and I must admit, whether we were talking about Buddhism, Christianity, or your favorite religion. He was the best story teller I have ever met. What people usually fail to see in religion is that the stories don't matter. The messages of the stories is what matters.. It seems like alot of people end up having blind faith in the stories and forgetting the stories message altogether... Edited March 17, 2008 by NOFX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa March 17, 2008 Share Playaa Member March 17, 2008 (edited) If by that you mean "did Jesus ever say: 'Hey guys, I'm the son of God!'?" the answer is no. However, if you read his words you'd be pretty dense to not understand all that he was implying. since I'm lazy I'll just post someone else's efforts: http://www.everystudent.com/wires/whodoyousay.html Edited March 17, 2008 by Playaa/Pselus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOFX March 17, 2008 Share NOFX Member March 17, 2008 (edited) Does anyone have just a slight bit of doubt that john's words may not be accurate? What are the origins of the book of John? How far does it go back? Who is John and what was his relationship to Jesus? What are his interest in spreading the word that Jesus is the son of God? Would he benefit from telling everyone Jesus is the son of God? How educated was this man? I have not read the bible so I don't know any of these answers. If someone could explain it would be helpful for me I do know the book has two parts the old testament and the new testament. The new testament I assume was added way past Jesus's death? I would also assume John wrote the book of John and that it is part of the old testament, since john is quoting Jesus directly? Someone please enlighten me.... If I were to say "Rainbows are magical" aloud. And someone heard this... If they spread the word, passed down generations, translated to different languages, passed down, languages die. Languages are born translate again. On and on for a couple of thousand years, Do you believe the resulting sentence would == original sentance? We played that game in church camp when I was little(I attended every summer for about 6 years). You sit in a circle, whisper something into the ear of the person beside you and pass it along. It never ends up being what it started. Edited March 17, 2008 by NOFX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveForPriscillaChan March 18, 2008 Share LoveForPriscillaChan Member March 18, 2008 (edited) http://xkcd.com/386/ just to let you know, i'm one of those people so please excuse me if i get a little worked up here; also, just as some background info, i am an atheist, chinese, a liberal and i believe religion is pyscho (so yes, i am extremely biased in my arguments) i'll number my arguments with (( number )) so it easier to respond to; i'll try to add spacing between my points also to make it easier on the eyes (( 1 )) No book predates the Bible. wrong Definitions of predate on the Web: * be earlier in time; go back further; "Stone tools precede bronze tools" As an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analects (this is an EXCEPTIONAL read if you guys are ever interested) (( 2 )) I have never met someone who could prove that something in the Bible was not true. If you can I will personally write an apology, resign as a pastor and join you for a doobie and a beer at the local strip club. lol I say this with complete confidence as I have been an amateur apologist for a few years now. Using this as a reference: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...&version=31 it states that moses crossed the red sea but in fact, (if this happened at all) moses crossed the sea of reeds, (or Reed Sea) Due to the Red Sea entry being in the bible, we are left with 2 choices: 1. The story of moses leading the israelites is true BUT the Red Sea Entry is wrong, meaning the bible told something that was not true 2. The story of moses leading the israelites is not true at all (this way, he can cross whatever sea he wants) either way, this passage of the bible is wrong a simpler one would be that creationist claims the earth is only 6000 years old (( 3 )) One of the definitions of true is that it cannot be proven false. So we have established here that the Bible is completely true lol unless you got something else? shaftiel already made a point about this but just to add a philosophical point to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot (( 4 )) Here is a favorite quote i stole from my friend (i can only assume he stole from someone else): "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." "When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." (( 5 )) Another point i want to make for all the *supposed* historical evidence backing up the bible: correlation does not imply causation! MAYBE there was a flood during the such and such time period that is documented in the bible, maybe event X happened at location Y at time splice Z but this does not mean a god or gods had any hand in this; assume this: I write a book today that says that person P was the god re-incarnate into human form (i whole heartedly contend this person to be Priscilla Chan ) and in my book, I write about the katrina hurricane, 9/11 attacks, war in iraq, etc etc.; this book gets passed down from generation to generation in my family; fast forward 2,000 years and some guy runs around claiming that PChanianity is true because there IS historical evidence of the katriana hurricane, 9/11 attacks, war in iraq etc. does this automatically mean PChanible is true, correct, and the word of god? (( 6 )) here's a point to ponder about: Supposing the bible were true, adam and eve were the first humans (and therefor the first generation) and we are all descended from them right? Ok, they have children (cain, abel, seth, etc etc; this is the 2nd generation). so all is fine and well until you get to this part: incest yes, that's right; how else can the 3rd generation be given birth to? there were no other people except those that were descended from adam and eve; now, fast forward 6000 years; this means that every single person that has had sex on this world has committed incest becuase we are all descendants of adam and eve, which means we are all related in some way; talk about 6 degress of separation! (( 7 )) again, the age old test that god cannot be omnipotent: can god make a rock so big he can't lift it? or in a more humorous terms, can god make a burrito so big he can't eat it? now, the responses i have received from this little point is that i am just unable to comprehend the power that is god but i believe that is an unacceptable response; it seems to me that when the people who wrote the bible, they thought: "what kind of god would it be if he has a weakness? ok, let's make him all-powerful! that way, he'll be the best god ever!" but little did they know that philosophers will come and bite them on the butt later on with reason I don't try to prove my faith with the answer faith. so now, without using faith, and explain this to me like i'm a 5 year old: what the answer? can he make a rock so big he can't lift it? (( 8 )) From a conceptual level, I can think of a few ways that would prove the Bible is fundamentally false:1. Another religious text is proven true 2. Supernatural intervention (a higher being comes out and says "knock if off already guys... the Buddhists got it right.") 3. Additional texts/proof are discovered that indicate the bible was a fabricated story, a forgery, or some other fraudulent document Even from a conceptual standpoint, it seems silly to believe like this. I mean this is what it sounds like to me. "I'm not going to accept this as true because I see the possibility of things that could later be shown true that would discredit this." This sounds like the same kind of "devil's advocate", circular reasoning I used to use on my sister to just get her goat. i'll give you a better example of circular reasoning: 1. The bible must be true because god said so. 2. god is true because bible said so Just one thing i want you guys to keep in mind as we progress in this discussion: 1. Winners write history; according to wiki: "As of the early 21st century, it has between 1.5 billion[3][4] and 2.1 billion adherents,[5] more than any other religion, and representing about a quarter of the world's population" note: sorry if you feel i am picking on you preacher but your posts seem the most reasonable in length for reading, most others were just too long so i just scanned and anything involving mithral i just skipped in the end, to give my personal opinion on the bible, religion, etc: 1. yes, it is possibly one of hte greatest pieces of text ever written and one of the most influential as well 2. yes, some things in the bible are true and do have historical evidence to back it up 3. yes, i am sure bible/religion has done good in this world 4. with #3 in mind, i will also say that it has done more harm than good to this world; religion can serve to unite a people to serve a cause but is that cause any good? would these harmful acts have taken place if there were no religious justification? nobody knows for sure but it seems to be heavy driving force EDIT: for those of you that just scrolled down to the bottom to see what this post is all about, this post is actual an optical illusion! it is not as long as it seems; there are a lot of newlines and such also, since i have presented so many points (whether they are valid or not), i am going to be discussing this on multiple fronts with multiple parties so please, for the love of god (yes i love using this saying ), keep your posts organized and re-use my numbers! Edited March 18, 2008 by Undies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unclean March 18, 2008 Author Share Unclean Member March 18, 2008 Ty for posting here, Undies. We're always glad to see new e-faces. I should point out that many of your arguments don't hold a lot of water. I spotted them, and I'm agnostic (which is a form of atheism). One in particular is the "can god create a rock larger than he can lift" argument. Your question violates the law of non contradiction... asking for something to be X and not X at the same time. I could come up with a whole bunch of other illogical questions, but it doesn't get us anywhere. Can god make a circle square? Can god make a bargle schmufpa? The question and answer to those is irrelevant in the context of a logical discussion. So if you want to continue an illogical discussion, that's cool. Just don't expect it to get far with us logical folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOFX March 18, 2008 Share NOFX Member March 18, 2008 (edited) No book predates the Bible. wrong Definitions of predate on the Web: * be earlier in time; go back further; "Stone tools precede bronze tools" Interesting here undies, but a little more information could be helpful. I was unaware that no book predates the bible. With this I have some questions. What version of the bible? The King James Version of the bible was written in 1611 and if your referring to the Gutenberg bible. that was just the first book to be produced on a mass scale. I assume some young entrepenurs knew people would buy the bible and they saw $$$.. Another thought is that Homer wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey around the 8th Century. This was a good 900 years before the bible we know today even existed. I'm still wanting to know some information on John and who he was Edited March 18, 2008 by NOFX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly March 18, 2008 Share dragonfly Member March 18, 2008 (edited) Heya Undies! 1. ((2)) The Bible says "traditionally Red Sea", and they say in the footnote: Sea of Reeds. Yam Suph or something like that. Most likely this was not the Red Sea, but was near that location. I mean, they couldn't have gotten a million people to cross the red sea in one night anyway. The translators admit that the old KJ version (translated from Latin, not Hebrew) says Red Sea due to tradition. 2. ((6)) As for incest, why is incest a problem now? It's a biological problem. If Adam and Eve were the first two humans, incest wouldn't have been a problem. There were few diseases (if any at all) and no mutations, so it would be fine to bow-chicka-bow-wow with your sister. Heck, it leaves the women out of the genealogy, so maybe there were cain, abel, and 12 sisters. Who knows. 3. ((the others)) Like unclean said, I'm not going to touch the rock argument. The other ones are very similar. "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - This doesn't really hold. I dismiss the other gods because I KNOW the one true God personally, since He's involved in my everyday life and has changed my heart. Unless your god is you of course, then I guess we just have different gods, since I too only have one. "When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." That's a nice quote I guess. Not really sure how it help the discussion except to call everyone involved in any religion delusional. Edited March 18, 2008 by DarkArchon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly March 18, 2008 Share dragonfly Member March 18, 2008 I assume some young entrepenurs knew people would buy the bible and they saw $$$.. I'm still wanting to know some information on John and who he was Hi NOFX! 1. Actually the church funded the Bible, but in an ironic way. They wanted the Bible only in latin, while gutenberg wanted it in english for the layperson. The church condemned this, and bought ever bible printed in english to burn them. Unfortunately this funded the production of more bibles, and the church of the day perpetuated their own problem. Of course I mean the church leadership of catholicism, not "the church" as in Jesus' followers. 2. Yeah, I saw that and wanted to give you some info. Life's been busy Anyway, please correct me someone in here if I'm wrong but: John was one of the "sons of thunder", a zealot involved in political action against the romans, probably involved in some underground revolts, etc. That's why when you read his account it's very dramatic, "big" sounding, intense, etc. He's also one of the 3 closest disciples with Jesus, often referred to as "the one Jesus loved". This isn't used to describe him as "Jesus loved him best", but instead it's used as a guy who was big and tough involved in overthrowing the world power to say "Jesus loved me". He was basically a terrorist. I read your other post a while ago, and were you asking "what if John misquoted Jesus" in that: Jesus did not claim to be God, OR Jesus did not claim to be the Son of God? I wasn't sure about that part of it, so I wont address that yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveForPriscillaChan March 19, 2008 Share LoveForPriscillaChan Member March 19, 2008 Ty for posting here, Undies. We're always glad to see new e-faces. I should point out that many of your arguments don't hold a lot of water. I spotted them, and I'm agnostic (which is a form of atheism). One in particular is the "can god create a rock larger than he can lift" argument. Your question violates the law of non contradiction... asking for something to be X and not X at the same time. I could come up with a whole bunch of other illogical questions, but it doesn't get us anywhere. Can god make a circle square? Can god make a bargle schmufpa? The question and answer to those is irrelevant in the context of a logical discussion. So if you want to continue an illogical discussion, that's cool. Just don't expect it to get far with us logical folks. i already got 108 posts before that post, and after this, i'll have 110! don't you guys notice i post in other forums? (my first post was, however, to get unbanned ); i guess i have 2800 more to go to catch up to you so i better get cracking as for the law of non-contradiction, i dont accept that as a valid response because if god is omnipotent, he should be able to do anything and everything; i dont care what laws it violates, he should be able to do it; if he can't, he's not omnipotent and therefore the bible is false 2. ((6)) As for incest, why is incest a problem now? It's a biological problem. If Adam and Eve were the first two humans, incest wouldn't have been a problem. There were few diseases (if any at all) and no mutations, so it would be fine to bow-chicka-bow-wow with your sister. Heck, it leaves the women out of the genealogy, so maybe there were cain, abel, and 12 sisters. Who knows. what i'm saying is that if everybody did truly spawn from adam + eve, then we are all blood-related; which means whenever we are having sex, we are committing incest; which means that christians better start accepting incest as a normal everyday perfectly accepted practice because they are doing it; with that in mind, how many christians do you think believe incest is immoral? for those that believe it is immoral and have had sex, then they are hypocrites "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - This doesn't really hold. I dismiss the other gods because I KNOW the one true God personally, since He's involved in my everyday life and has changed my heart. Unless your god is you of course, then I guess we just have different gods, since I too only have one. i dont believe that is true; the religion your god is based on has changed your heart (this can be proven) but not your god itself, because there is no way you can prove that he exists; i dismiss religion because there is nothing that proves that religion is correct Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly March 19, 2008 Share dragonfly Member March 19, 2008 (edited) 1 - i dont believe that is true; the religion your god is based on has changed your heart (this can be proven) ... 2 - i dismiss religion because there is nothing that proves that religion is correct To stay with the numbering system... 1 - I would love to see you prove that. I know it's a little off topic, but I would love to see your proof for my changed heart being my "religion". (side note: please define religion before you do - do you mean morals, rules, view of god(s), god(s) interaction with the world, my beliefs about the aforementioned, etc) 2 - This statement is very flawed for several reasons. The first being that I'm willing to bet anyone $100 that you agree with SOME theory that is out there, or at least are willing to consider it. For example: evolution. Is it 100% provable? Nope. Do you believe it? What about the wind - where does it come from? Can you 100% prove it comes from (besides other things) gravitational forces? --------------------------------- Here's what I am understanding so far: All of life is experiential. If you really think about it, all of the things you can't experience (walk on the moon, etc) are told to you by someone you trust and you believe them. All of the things that you experience you believe because they are experienced. Now if, when you were a child, you were told about love (romantic type) - you could easily say "it does not exist." You haven't experienced it, and it's impossible to prove it 100% to someone who has not experienced it. You can't prove to me love exists, I can't prove to you God exists. You can say you see the results of love in the world, I can say I see the results of God in the world (grace, my changed heart, this list really is endless). You can explain away God in the world as human society explaining what they can't understand, or a delusion for a crutch to fulfill some inner void - I can explain away love as someone always having a hidden motive to get what they want at a later time down the road. Does love exist? Does God exist? You have (I'm assuming at some point) experienced love. If you are currently in love, for me to say "no you're not, you're delusional" would be a bit of an insult, no? I have experienced God, and He's good. He's my best friend. Your expertise extends only as far as you've been told or you've experienced - same with mine. You admittedly have not experienced God, but have been told He does not exist. I have experienced God, and have been told He does not exist as well. Undies: love does not exist. Do you believe me? This is why I love the Bible so much: through it God speaks to me. Not in an audible voice, telling me to kill people (lol) but very quietly, like a nudge or a whisper. I can read the same 10 verses 100 times over, and all of a sudden I'll see something on the page that I've never seen before (christianese calls this illumination - God revealing something to you in the Bible). God speaks to me in many other ways, but primarily through the Bible. And I love it. Ok, this was longer than I intended Edit: one more question: Undies, have you ever read through the Bible? Edited March 19, 2008 by DarkArchon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clueless March 19, 2008 Share Clueless GC Alumni March 19, 2008 We must remember that even though some of us do not believe, we are not having this discussion to offend those that do. This discussion is supposed to be about the validity of the bible itself, not god. Some of my posts may have seemed to stray from that, but my perspective is more about the people that wrote it and what their motives and inspiration could have been to write it in a way that suits them, and even that borders on the offensive to people of strong faith, so please, we have to show a bit of respect and try to discuss this with a bit more tact....like focusing on the book itself instead of god. But as long as we stay in those lines, all opinions are welcome of course Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly March 19, 2008 Share dragonfly Member March 19, 2008 (edited) I hope I didn't insult anyone and if I did, sorry! I've tried not to! Thanks for the reminder Clueless. It's hard for me to separate the Bible from God, seeing as I think it's God's Word. Alrighty, back on track! Edited March 19, 2008 by DarkArchon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clueless March 19, 2008 Share Clueless GC Alumni March 19, 2008 I hope I didn't insult anyone Thanks for the reminder Clueless. LOL, you were posting at the same time it seems...no, I was actually directing that more towards Undies...who I have no problem with, he just seems to be a bit too blunt I think, might ruffle some feathers in an otherwise civil discussion. Not gettin on ya Undies...just trying to keep us all on course Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.