|
|
General religion discussion.
|
Posts:
836
Registered:
1/20/08
|
|
(4345 of 4600)
Aug 26, 2009 12:01 AM
|
> Voyce:
> "And the life of Christ, whether real or not, hasnt
> affected our current lifestyles and vocabulary
> today?"
>
> Right and here is how it has affected many...
>
> This preacher believes the bible is the literal word
> of God, ah Christian values...
>
> Arizona pastor's sermons call for execution of gays,
> Barney Frank and the President
>
> Pastor Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist
> Church in Tempe, Arizona is a bible-quoting hellfire
> and damnation sort of guy. He calls for the execution
> of gays in numerous sermons that you can listen to
> here:
>
> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.p
> hp?
If Jesus taught one thing, and a Pastor is doing another, then clearly they arent following the teachings of Christ. Christ has not influenced these people negatively. What they have done is use the term "Christ" and Christianity and God, etc...to carry out their own selfish desires. This is not uncommon.
|
|
|
Posts:
836
Registered:
1/20/08
|
|
(4344 of 4600)
Aug 25, 2009 11:59 PM
|
> I have seen on the History Channel how books written
> for the bible were edited out. Mainly Mary comes to
> mind.
> If all people present were not allowed to be included
> I would think pieces of the truth are missing.
> Insight missing.
> I have had numerous conversations with people who
> each interpret the bible differently. From God says
> kill the gays to Jesus loves you.
> It can be very confusing for someone trying to
> understand the whole picture.
> My dearest friend is a Christian who lives her life
> aiding others regardless of their beliefs. In Jesus'
> name. She is wonderful and what I feel the world
> could use alot more of.
> My neighbor will qoute the bible to ensure one's
> damnation. Savoring the thought of such damnation.
> They read or study the same book but are two very
> different Christians.
The Bible can be used to prove most anything. Sadly, this is true. I can use the Bible to prove God hates sinners just as easily as i can use it to prove God loves sinners. This is the reason why we should never take single verses out of context to prove anything, but rather take the Bible as a whole in order to properly understand God's message. The reason why so many people can interpret the Bible in different ways(other than the fact that everybody thinks differently) is that most people pick and choose what parts of the Bible to read and/or quote. This is wrong. Let me give you an example.
One part of the NT says that we are saved only by faith. Another part says we are saved only by works. One religion might focus on faith, while another religion might focus on works. One Christian might focus on faith, while another Christian might focus on works. But, if we read the Bible as a WHOLE, the true message becomes clear. Faith without works is dead. In other words, one goes hand in hand with the other. We must not separate the two. Works alone cannot save us, but faith without works is dead. The thing about faith is that when one gains true faith in God, works come naturally. There is no need to force yourself into doing certain things, for if its not in your heart to do them in the first place, then you are either doing it for the wrong reasons, doing it the wrong way, or you will not do it at all.
As for those books that were left out of the Bible, they werent simply left out for no reason. Some books were left out because they were written much too late to have been written either by eye witnesses, or by the people the books themselves claim to have been written by. For example, the book of Mary was written in the 2nd century AD. Mary wasnt even alive at that time, so it clearly wasnt written by her. That right there is reason enough to discard that book as truly inspired by God. There are many other reasons for discarding certain books, but dont ever think they were simply thrown out because someone didnt like them. I know the Constantine thing lends itself for people to believe that, but its not true. There is much proof to support the books that are currently in the Bible for being authentic.
|
|
|
Posts:
361
Registered:
6/7/09
|
|
(4343 of 4600)
Aug 25, 2009 9:52 AM
|
I have seen on the History Channel how books written for the bible were edited out. Mainly Mary comes to mind.
If all people present were not allowed to be included I would think pieces of the truth are missing. Insight missing.
I have had numerous conversations with people who each interpret the bible differently. From God says kill the gays to Jesus loves you.
It can be very confusing for someone trying to understand the whole picture.
My dearest friend is a Christian who lives her life aiding others regardless of their beliefs. In Jesus' name. She is wonderful and what I feel the world could use alot more of.
My neighbor will qoute the bible to ensure one's damnation. Savoring the thought of such damnation.
They read or study the same book but are two very different Christians.
|
|
|
Posts:
283
Registered:
1/12/08
|
|
(4342 of 4600)
Aug 25, 2009 8:49 AM
|
Voyce:
"And the life of Christ, whether real or not, hasnt affected our current lifestyles and vocabulary today?"
Right and here is how it has affected many...
This preacher believes the bible is the literal word of God, ah Christian values...
Arizona pastor's sermons call for execution of gays, Barney Frank and the President
Pastor Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona is a bible-quoting hellfire and damnation sort of guy. He calls for the execution of gays in numerous sermons that you can listen to here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?
|
|
|
Posts:
18
Registered:
8/23/09
|
|
(4341 of 4600)
Aug 25, 2009 5:43 AM
|
what's all this damn hippie talk?
y'all are makin my head hurt.
I believe in God, Lil baby Jesus, America and the NRA!!!
|
|
|
Posts:
3,419
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(4340 of 4600)
Aug 25, 2009 3:56 AM
|
thevoyce,
You are presenting your religion as not merely a statement of your own beliefs but as a persuasive argument. Attempting to show that you have rational reasons for believing. As such it is insufficient to say "you can't prove me wrong." You have the burden of proof. Otherwise we would all be quite right to consider you just another deluded fruitcake and move on.
Second, the main problem I have with christianity is, I repeat:
Only christian fanatics would believe such a questionable text as the gospels is... gospel.
A fanatic, either religious or political, is the subject of strong delusions
Even the jews consider their holy works as largely hyperbole, and here you are claiming the whole bible is the literal truth.
Third, in the future I shall try to make my sarcasm thicker so that you may catch it.
--
Edited by JaredP at 08/25/2009 3:01 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
836
Registered:
1/20/08
|
|
(4339 of 4600)
Aug 25, 2009 1:52 AM
|
> Religion: the act of self-delusion to support the
> idea that one is not mortal.
>
> You are, I am. Get over it.
>
> DaN
Who are "you", and who am "i"? Arent we more than merely our bodies?
|
|
|
Posts:
836
Registered:
1/20/08
|
|
(4338 of 4600)
Aug 25, 2009 1:50 AM
|
> Salutations.
> Iv'e been following along and have a question for
> theVoice.
> What is or how do you clean up each and every one of
> their different views?
> Thanks.
I said "clear" up, not clean up. What i meant by that was not much more than "respond" to the different views that oppose the claims of Christianity and/or the claims/beliefs i bring forth. Although, in many cases, actual clearing up is necessary. For example, just to give you one off the top of my head, "the story of Jonah is a myth because its impossible for a whale to eat a man, and the man survive inside the whale for 3 days". Now, i cannot prove that the story of Jonah is true, but i can clear up a few misunderstandings of that particular story in the Bible that that person clearly has. Like, for one, the fact that it wasnt a whale(though it is translated as such today, just to give us a picture of the size of the fish), but rather a big fish. Now, i know Bill Maher made a bit of a joke of this fact, stating that there's really not much difference between the two, and that stating it to be a big fish instead of a whale doesnt make it any more believable. But, the Bible also goes on to say that God MADE that big fish specifically to carry out the task of swallowing Jonah. In other words, it was not a species that already existed at the time, hence not a whale, and it most likely doesnt even exist today. It was one fish, created for that sole purpose, and nothing more. There's more to it than that, but i just wanted to give you an example.
|
|
|
Posts:
361
Registered:
6/7/09
|
|
(4337 of 4600)
Aug 24, 2009 11:30 PM
|
Salutations.
Iv'e been following along and have a question for theVoice.
What is or how do you clean up each and every one of their different views?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,941
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(4336 of 4600)
Aug 24, 2009 10:58 PM
|
Religion: the act of self-delusion to support the idea that one is not mortal.
You are, I am. Get over it.
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
836
Registered:
1/20/08
|
|
(4335 of 4600)
Aug 24, 2009 10:55 PM
|
> > > 1. The act of deluding; deception; a
> misleading
> > of
> > > the mind. Pope.
> > >
> > > 2. The state of being deluded or misled.
> > >
> > > 3. That which is falsely or delusively
> believed
> Delusion is deception from want of knowledge
Yes, but not all knowledge is of this world, and not all knowledge is knowable, or currently known. And not all knowledge is provable.
>
> A delusion is a false judgment, usually affecting
> the real concerns of life.
First, you'd have to prove it false. Something lacking proof is not necessarily false.
>
> A fanatic, either religious or political, is the
> subject of strong delusions
>
> 2. The state of being deluded or misled.
Again, first you'd have to prove that people who believe in God are being misled...which you cannot.
>
> You have no provable knowledge and are using your
> religious beliefs of pure faith to act on the real
> world.
If only that which is provable is "real", and one should only believe in that which is provable/real, then we are far off from reality.
> So, nothing you can present as proof.
I could, but to be honest, i'd rather not in a public forum. If you really want to get into this discussion seriously, then i could give you my email. But, i have already seen that it is near impossible to have proper discussions on public forums about the existence of God, not because proving God's existence is impossible(which, it probably is anyway), but because i tend to be the only one with my views, and there tends to be many with contrary views, and i end up having to talk to everybody at once, clearing up each and every one of their different views, and it becomes to "messy" for my liking.
> Quite right. We use the words of Aristotle and Plato
> every day in modern science. Good catch on that one.
lol. And the life of Christ, whether real or not, hasnt affected our current lifestyles and vocabulary today?
> They are wild because there is no supporting
> evidence.
So, can an idea be wild at one point, and then suddenly stop being wild, without the idea itself changing?
|
|
|
Posts:
1,941
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
|
Posts:
3,419
Registered:
6/29/09
|
|
(4333 of 4600)
Aug 24, 2009 8:49 PM
|
> > 1. The act of deluding; deception; a misleading
> of
> > the mind. Pope.
> >
> > 2. The state of being deluded or misled.
> >
> > 3. That which is falsely or delusively believed
> or
> > propagated; false belief; error in belief.
>
> In other words, the answer is no. To believe in
> something with lack of evidence is NOT delusion,
> according to these definitions.
Delusion is deception from want of knowledge
A delusion is a false judgment, usually affecting the real concerns of life.
A fanatic, either religious or political, is the subject of strong delusions
2. The state of being deluded or misled.
You have no provable knowledge and are using your religious beliefs of pure faith to act on the real world.
> > Rather not. So what is your basis of belief in
> the
> > magic man in the sky?
>
> MY basis of belief is pure faith and personal
> experience. But, i do recognize there are other, more
> concrete reasons for belief in God.
So, nothing you can present as proof.
> > How is your belief in something unsubstantiated
> a
> > rational argument?
>
> Depends on what you believe makes something
> unsubstantiated. A rational argument is something of
> the mind/logic/reason. It does not necessarily
> require concrete proof.
Very well, I am waiting. This should be good.
> I highly doubt that.
Quite right. We use the words of Aristotle and Plato every day in modern science. Good catch on that one.
> Their
> > words are only useful as studies in the
> evolution of
> > science and have no relevence to actual science
> > today. However, their logic and supporting
> evidence
> > is clearly shown. Unlike Jesus with his
> > unsubstantiated and wild claims.
>
> They are only wild because you dont believe them.
They are wild because there is no supporting evidence.
> But, you do not, and will not, know everything there
> is to know about life, the Universe, and whats beyond
Agreed. That is why I am a big fan of exploration and research. It seems a much more intelligent approach than making shit up or believing unsubstantiated claims.
> it, so to make this claim based on this
> ignorance(lack of knowledge) is...ignorant. When it
> comes to things of God, one must not simply say "this
> is bull. its lies. its crazy. its impossible.
> etc...", for we are in no position of actually
> knowing this. We can only believe or not believe.
I never said that. I only said you have no proof or supporting evidence. There is no more reason I should believe in your god that I should believe there are little leprechauns with pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.
> > I am judging Jesus by the exact same standards I
> am
> > judging Plato and Aristotle. By those standards
> I
> > give him little to no weight.
>
> Yet, there is more evidence to support the actual
> existence of Jesus, as depicted in the Gospels, then
> there is to support the existence of such figures as
> Plato or Aristotle.
I disagree. However, only christian fanatics would believe such a questionable text as the gospels is... gospel.
A fanatic, either religious or political, is the subject of strong delusions
--
Edited by JaredP at 08/24/2009 5:51 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
3,016
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(4332 of 4600)
Aug 24, 2009 8:42 PM
|
> Just because God didnt say it Himself, does not mean
> they made it up. Like i told you, there are MANY
> verses that show God's omnipotence, ranging from
> people talking about God, to God doing things, to God
> saying it Himself. No ONE verse shows anything in the
> Bible.
What you're saying, is that the omnipotence is something the faithful concluded... basing said conclusions on passages written by... their mentors and antecedents? And this is not the same as, collectively, the Church, making it up.
As for Moses, God didnt prohibit Moses from
> entering the promised land because he broke some
> tablets. Where do you get that from? Moses was being
> punished for disobedience, lack of faith/trust in
> God, and taking credit for a miracle as if God had
> nothing to do with the miracle.
>
How can that be the reason? If these are known as the "Five Books Of Moses" for the traditional reason, then it contradicts itself, it's false on its face! Moses didn't tell the Israelites it was God who brought forth water from the rock? Is it not written in the book? Ostensibly by Moses? And if he wrote it... when was that? After he died?
Conclusion... Moses didn't write the books; and/or what it says he did, is false.
> > But even if it comes from the water, the oxygen
> in
> > the water is not in a form in which we can
> breathe
> > it.
>
> I never said it was.
>
Then what was your point about mentioning the source of the oxygen being the water?
> > The people in those days didn't know about gases
> in
> > chemistry, and they didn't actually see this
> > separation occurring, so they would have no
> reason to
> > differentiate. They did know that water comes
> from
> > the dark clouds in the sky, though.
>
> Nobody was around at the beginning of time, so this
> particular story comes from God, not human beings.
Again, you make an assumption without foundation. Just because nobody was around doesn't mean the story didn't come from human beings. In fact, considering that the sequence of events as described couldn't possibly be factual, but fits very nicely with the ignorance of the people at that time... it's pretty well certain that they made it up. Like, I think, they did most of the non-historical bible.
> > No, first you'd have to define what is meant by
> the
> > word. Then it can be decided if it's
> believable, and
> > then whether or not one chooses to believe.
>
> Not everything can be properly defined. What part of
> your natural body makes you "you"?
I suspect it's the unique collection of organic compounds and fluids in the brain that work on the same basic cell structure we all have.
|
|
|
Posts:
836
Registered:
1/20/08
|
|
(4331 of 4600)
Aug 24, 2009 8:20 PM
|
> 1. The act of deluding; deception; a misleading of
> the mind. Pope.
>
> 2. The state of being deluded or misled.
>
> 3. That which is falsely or delusively believed or
> propagated; false belief; error in belief.
In other words, the answer is no. To believe in something with lack of evidence is NOT delusion, according to these definitions.
> Rather not. So what is your basis of belief in the
> magic man in the sky?
MY basis of belief is pure faith and personal experience. But, i do recognize there are other, more concrete reasons for belief in God.
> How is your belief in something unsubstantiated a
> rational argument?
Depends on what you believe makes something unsubstantiated. A rational argument is something of the mind/logic/reason. It does not necessarily require concrete proof.
> 1. Those figures are far better documented by
> contemporary historians than the Jesus myth.
They are not.
> 2. There are widely noted discrepencies and blanks
> about said figures.
As with any other ancient historical figure, which was part of my point.
> 3. Their texts have been studied and discarded.
I highly doubt that.
Their
> words are only useful as studies in the evolution of
> science and have no relevence to actual science
> today. However, their logic and supporting evidence
> is clearly shown. Unlike Jesus with his
> unsubstantiated and wild claims.
They are only wild because you dont believe them. But, you do not, and will not, know everything there is to know about life, the Universe, and whats beyond it, so to make this claim based on this ignorance(lack of knowledge) is...ignorant. When it comes to things of God, one must not simply say "this is bull. its lies. its crazy. its impossible. etc...", for we are in no position of actually knowing this. We can only believe or not believe.
>
> I am judging Jesus by the exact same standards I am
> judging Plato and Aristotle. By those standards I
> give him little to no weight.
Yet, there is more evidence to support the actual existence of Jesus, as depicted in the Gospels, then there is to support the existence of such figures as Plato or Aristotle.
|
|
|
|
|
