Your standing on religion

[terley]

i just dont see the logic in god

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

non of us can provide evidence to prove against it so i guess its a never ending argument

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and godslayer.. this is terleys brother speaking lol

[Godslayer]

It is a never ending arguement your right. No one can prove or disprove God. I guess this is just a little mental stimulation in the end becuase we'll never reach a conclusion. :)

[Guest GhostRanger]

i just dont see the logic in god

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

non of us can provide evidence to prove against it so i guess its a never ending argument

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and godslayer.. this is terleys brother speaking lol

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not everything is about logic.

[terley]

 

i just dont see the logic in god

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

non of us can provide evidence to prove against it so i guess its a never ending argument

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and godslayer.. this is terleys brother speaking lol

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not everything is about logic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

alot of people rely on logic. one day we will know the truth to the universe.. till then. there is no point arguing

[katsuro0]

does God have a religion?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bible can be proven false due to contradictions (i.e. in the O.T., God is seen as an eye for an eye god, but in the N.T., he's portrayed as being the opposite). On the other side of the coin, believers can have different interpretations (all the battles in the O.T. were just written to express different themes than directly shown).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science can be proven wrong because the ideas were made by man. Science does great work at predicting how things work (the periodic table was accurate and complete like 40 years before the solid model of the atom was developed), and does a decent job at explaining how nature works. But like religion, science is not perfect. We seem to know how things work on a large scale, but when it comes to atomic levels, the rules of general relitivity and stuff cannot be applied. Instead, only theories like probability work (we can never know the exact location and velocity of an electron, only the probability of em). And even still, science does not explain EVERYTHING, contrary to what that idiot thats been posting lately believes. No one can explain what happens inside a black hole, because light, the only method we can use to know what happens, cannot even escape the gravitational pull. Likewise, science cannot explain how the atomic level works with the larger scale of the universe. It also just so happens that science cannot explain what happened at the biginning (even though there are some theories, they just aren't solid enough or cannot be proven).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only difference between the two is that science can be constantly worked on and improved whereas religion is nailed to a door and left for us to interpret it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem that we have is that we try to explain what happened in the past. Certain areas of the past can be uncovered through documents, fossils, artifacts, ect, but when it comes to what happened in the past with our universe, it becomes suddenly very difficult. Sure we can look at the redshift of stars to determine the size of the universe, whether or not it's inflating, ect, but right now, the only method of looking into the past is to look out into space, which just so happens to be a very vast place. No matter how technologically advanced we get, we can never see what happened at the very beginning (if there was a biginning).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now if you thought about that question at the top, you will come up with no. The way I put it is that some entity laid down the foundation for nature (albeit a very complicated foundation, far more complicated than we can comprehend) and then that nature played its role, from the creation of the first matter from energy to each piece of DNA inside all our cells. I don't believe however that there can possibly be a god as is portrayed in the Bible. It simply just does not make sense (which is where faith obviously comes in).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

philosophers throughout the ages have tried to answer the question that's being discussed in this topic, and the answer is unachievable. Physics denies us access to the deep past, and humans, lets face it, do not have infinite knowledge, can only use like 10% of their brains, and to put it simply, will most likely never find the answer.

[Guest GhostRanger]

does God have a religion?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bible can be proven false due to contradictions (i.e. in the O.T., God is seen as an eye for an eye god, but in the N.T., he's portrayed as being the opposite). On the other side of the coin, believers can have different interpretations (all the battles in the O.T. were just written to express different themes than directly shown).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you have to understand Christian philosophy - the point of the Savior, and Old Testement laws before you can say they contradict each other. They don't at all. The OT doesn't necessarily follow "an eye for an eye" (but somewhat) and the New Testement story of Jesus follows that somewhat as well. Why do you think Jesus had to DIE to save Christians. Please don't speak of Biblical contradictions unless you understand the philosophy.

[katsuro0]

uhhh, hence the "different interpretations." why do you only respond to the part of the post that you know you can refute in one way or another?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o, and sorry for not reading a 3000 page sleeping pill.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

edit: just reread ur post. Jesus dying isn't an example of an eye for an eye. that's why he suffered even more :roll:

[katsuro0]

and also, in my handy-dandy religion text book for school, it talks about said contradictions. so ya, stuff it.

[Guest GhostRanger]

uhhh, hence the "different interpretations." why do you only respond to the part of the post that you know you can refute in one way or another?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o, and sorry for not reading a 3000 page sleeping pill.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It has nothing to do with interpretations - it has to do with the philosophy of the religion you clearly do not understand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I only responded to the part that didn't make any sense because you don't know what you're talking about. I agree with you when you say science is just as flawed as religion - so why would I even attempt to refute that? :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And thank you for proving my point for me: don't talk about the Bible and what it says if you haven't bothered to read the "3000 page sleeping pill." :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and also, in my handy-dandy religion text book for school, it talks about said contradictions. so ya, stuff it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't even talk about contradictions if you haven't read the Bible. There are thousands of websites devoted to "uncovering" Biblical contradictions - you don't think I or even expert Christian theologians haven't read them and know that they are false? I'm sorry...but I hardly believe your "handy dandy" text book holds much value. Quote it for me please, and then I will "stuff it."

[katsuro0]

so a text book issued by the church for teaching students about their religion holds no value?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i think 10 years worth of religion classes is just as good as reading the bible. i am well aware of the meanings of the bible, you don't know me whatsoever, and stop trying to make it seem as if you're better than everyone else. just because you've read a stupid book from cover to cover x amount of times proves nothing except that you have way too much time on your hands. The Bible and its philosophy can be taught by anyone (and since my religion teacher is a very good marist brother who lectures us on the philosophy of the bible every day, i doubt he's baised in anyway).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--and the book is in my locker: ill quote it some other time.

[Guest GhostRanger]

so a text book issued by the church for teaching students about their religion holds no value?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i think 10 years worth of religion classes is just as good as reading the bible. i am well aware of the meanings of the bible, you don't know me whatsoever, and stop trying to make it seem as if you're better than everyone else. just because you've read a stupid book from cover to cover x amount of times proves nothing except that you have way too much time on your hands. The Bible and its philosophy can be taught by anyone (and since my religion teacher is a very good marist brother who lectures us on the philosophy of the bible every day, i doubt he's baised in anyway).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--and the book is in my locker: ill quote it some other time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have a religion book issued by a church taht POINTS OUT contradictions? I think you are just interpreting it wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And yes...to understand Chrsitian philosophy completely, to talk about contradictions in the Bible, you have to read it. I'm not trying to sound like I'm "better" than you, I'm just pointing out that you don't understand Chrsitian philosophy and shouldn't talk about it. I showed you in my first post that you don't understand it and that your first example of a contradiction was incorrect yet you defend yourself without refuting the point.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

so a text book issued by the church for teaching students about their religion holds no value?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compared to the actual Bible, no it does not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i think 10 years worth of religion classes is just as good as reading the bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know nothing about Christianity so obviously 10 years of relgion classes did nothing for you. I wouldn't be suprised since your "book about the Bible" is sitting in your locker.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i am well aware of the meanings of the bible

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No you are not or else you wouldn't be saying half of the stuff that you are saying!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you don't know me whatsoever, and stop trying to make it seem as if you're better than everyone else. just because you've read a stupid book from cover to cover x amount of times proves nothing except that you have way too much time on your hands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This has nothing to do with either of you. All Ghost is doing is trying to defend his religion. YOU are the one that turned this into a personal attack by saying what you just said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reading the Bible cover to cover 'x amount of times' proves a lot more than your pointless rebuttle. All you are doing is making a fool of yourself and showing your lack of intelligence towards the subject.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

he Bible and its philosophy can be taught by anyone

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teach me, oh mighty teacher.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:roll:

[katsuro0]

it points out the contradictions because the contradictions are in the bible, and obviously the students will ask about those contradictions if they notice the contradictions! obviously the book explains why the contradictions are there. holy crap, did you seriously say that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and instead of telling me that i don't know the philosophy, which is all you've been saying in this topic, how about explaining it. You have no idea what i think or what i know. and to have the audacity to tell someone that they shouldn't talk about it because they don't fully understand it :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

jump off a cliff please.

[Guest GhostRanger]

it points out the contradictions because the contradictions are in the bible, and obviously the students will ask about those contradictions if they notice the contradictions! obviously the book explains why the contradictions are there. holy crap, did you seriously say that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and instead of telling me that i don't know the philosophy, which is all you've been saying in this topic, how about explaining it. You have no idea what i think or what i know. and to have the audacity to tell someone that they shouldn't talk about it because they don't fully understand it :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

jump off a cliff please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please quit making this full of personal attacks by telling me to "jump off a cliff." This is a discussion. I do know what you think and know because you said this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bible can be proven false due to contradictions (i.e. in the O.T., God is seen as an eye for an eye god, but in the N.T., he's portrayed as being the opposite).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I said this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The OT doesn't necessarily follow "an eye for an eye" (but somewhat) and the New Testement story of Jesus follows that somewhat as well. Why do you think Jesus had to DIE to save Christians.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bible says the wages of sin is death and we are all sinners.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Romans 6:23

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is why in the OT it appears to be an 'eye for an eye' philosophy. In reality - humans are just paying for their sins. Then Jesus comes into flesh and by DYING for us (eye for an eye sort of) He saves us eternally. The philosophy doesn't change.

[katsuro0]

 

so a text book issued by the church for teaching students about their religion holds no value?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compared to the actual Bible, no it does not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i think 10 years worth of religion classes is just as good as reading the bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know nothing about Christianity so obviously 10 years of relgion classes did nothing for you. I wouldn't be suprised since your "book about the Bible" is sitting in your locker.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i am well aware of the meanings of the bible

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No you are not or else you wouldn't be saying half of the stuff that you are saying!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you don't know me whatsoever, and stop trying to make it seem as if you're better than everyone else. just because you've read a stupid book from cover to cover x amount of times proves nothing except that you have way too much time on your hands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This has nothing to do with either of you. All Ghost is doing is trying to defend his religion. YOU are the one that turned this into a personal attack by saying what you just said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reading the Bible cover to cover 'x amount of times' proves a lot more than your pointless rebuttle. All you are doing is making a fool of yourself and showing your lack of intelligence towards the subject.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

he Bible and its philosophy can be taught by anyone

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teach me, oh mighty teacher.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the book explains the bible. im pretty sure if a random person picked up the book and read it, they would not understand the message whatsoever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"my book is in my locker" ya, who the hell studies a friggin religion book on the weekends? my god, do you have a life at all?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

point out the things im saying that would warrant me not understanding the bible. i have not at all posted anything that talks about the meaning of the bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no it doesn't prove a lot more. someone could read the thing all their life and not understand it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

am i the guy who devoted his life to learning about the bible? no.

[katsuro0]

 

it points out the contradictions because the contradictions are in the bible, and obviously the students will ask about those contradictions if they notice the contradictions! obviously the book explains why the contradictions are there. holy crap, did you seriously say that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and instead of telling me that i don't know the philosophy, which is all you've been saying in this topic, how about explaining it. You have no idea what i think or what i know. and to have the audacity to tell someone that they shouldn't talk about it because they don't fully understand it :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

jump off a cliff please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please quit making this full of personal attacks by telling me to "jump off a cliff." This is a discussion. I do know what you think and know because you said this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bible can be proven false due to contradictions (i.e. in the O.T., God is seen as an eye for an eye god, but in the N.T., he's portrayed as being the opposite).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I said this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The OT doesn't necessarily follow "an eye for an eye" (but somewhat) and the New Testement story of Jesus follows that somewhat as well. Why do you think Jesus had to DIE to save Christians.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bible says the wages of sin is death and we are all sinners.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Romans 6:23

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is why in the OT it appears to be an 'eye for an eye' philosophy. In reality - humans are just paying for their sins. Then Jesus comes into flesh and by DYING for us (eye for an eye sort of) He saves us eternally. The philosophy doesn't change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

that is exactly why i said that scholars, ect all have their own interpretations! (third time ive said it now). There is no single interpretation for the bible.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

the book explains the bible. im pretty sure if a random person picked up the book and read it, they would not understand the message whatsoever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, maybe an illiterate person.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i have not at all posted anything that talks about the meaning of the bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah I know, all you have posted are a bunch of personal attacks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

am i the guy who devoted his life to learning about the bible? no.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, but at least I don't play Runescape Mr. 85+ Woodcutting. L0lz gratz. :wink:

[Guest GhostRanger]

that is exactly why i said that scholars, ect all have their own interpretations! (third time ive said it now). There is no single interpretation for the bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That has nothing to do with my post. The Bible clearly says the above things I mentioned. Every Christian scholar agrees that the wages of sin is death and that Jesus died to save us from our sins. Its the entire concept of becoming a Christian. How is that interpretation?

[katsuro0]

 

the book explains the bible. im pretty sure if a random person picked up the book and read it, they would not understand the message whatsoever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, maybe an illiterate person.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i have not at all posted anything that talks about the meaning of the bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah I know, all you have posted are a bunch of personal attacks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

am i the guy who devoted his life to learning about the bible? no.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, but at least I don't play Runescape Mr. 85+ Woodcutting. L0lz gratz. :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

an illiterate person? is that why people have been debating over the bible for centuries?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

personal attacks because both of you are throwing everything out of proportion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rofl. playing rs means nothing. i have a shot of going down state for track, won regionals in cross country this year (want the link?), get decent grades, and umm, don't study the bible? just because i play rs, that does not in any way mean that its the only thing i do. in fact, i bearly play at all (ask anyone in my clan), and got the stats over time. and i think its a bit worse that you hang around these forums if you don't play rs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That has nothing to do with my post. The Bible clearly says the above things I mentioned. Every Christian scholar agrees that the wages of sin is death and that Jesus died to save us from our sins. Its the entire concept of becoming a Christian. How is that interpretation?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

jesus dying for our sins has nothing to do with god telling the israelites to destroy EVERYTHING in each area they conquer. cows, buildings, little children, ect.

[Guest GhostRanger]

jesus dying for our sins has nothing to do with god telling the israelites to destroy EVERYTHING in each area they conquer. cows, buildings, little children, ect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nor does that have much to do with the Old Testement "eye for an eye" philosophy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would you like to discuss a different part of the Old Testement?

[katsuro0]

i didn't say that the old testament had an eye to eye philosophy, i said that god was portrayed as having such.

[Guest GhostRanger]

i didn't say that the old testament had an eye to eye philosophy, i said that god was portrayed as having such.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which is the same thing - since the Old Testement is the basis of god's philosophy. If you want to play word games I can reiterate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"That has nothing to do with god portrayed as having an eye for an eye philosophy in the Old Testement."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There. Now I can say -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Would you like to discuss a different part of the Old Testement?"

[katsuro0]

i swear...ill quote every page of that church issued text book. my opinion on page 24 still stands. you haven't proven me wrong at all. in fact, all you've done is say the same bs that you posted so many other times

[Guest GhostRanger]

i swear...ill quote every page of that church issued text book. my opinion on page 24 still stands. you haven't proven me wrong at all. in fact, all you've done is say the same bs that you posted so many other times

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually you're point was that God wasn't protrayed as the same as he was in the OT and NT ("eye for an eye") but I showed you the same way. Let me do it one more time before I head to bed:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus DIED to save us from our sins. Just as in the OT people made sacrifices or were killed to pay for their sins. Same philosophy. You can pretend like what I say isn't true, but it is plainly written in the Bible and anyone who has read it understands that very simple concept. If I am wrong in what I'm saying - tell me how as I did instead of just saying I am.

[Astralinre]

does God have a religion?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bible can be proven false due to contradictions (i.e. in the O.T., God is seen as an eye for an eye god, but in the N.T., he's portrayed as being the opposite). On the other side of the coin, believers can have different interpretations (all the battles in the O.T. were just written to express different themes than directly shown).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17'If a man takes the life of any human being, he shall surely be put to death.

 

 

 

18'The one who takes the life of an animal shall make it good, life for life.

 

 

 

19'If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him:

 

 

 

20fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him.

 

 

 

38"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'

 

 

 

39"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

 

 

 

40"If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.

 

 

 

41"Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.

 

 

 

42"Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In both the Old Testament and New Testament, God requires that there be payment for sin, the difference is that in the Old Testament, each offender must pay for his own sin, or offer an animal sacrifice. As GR quoted, the wages of sin is death. However, in the New Testament, Christ bears the penalty for human sin on the cross, thus offering us forgiveness, so that we no longer have to pay our own penalty if we accept his grace. No contradiction there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, these two passages are talking about different things. The first is establishing the nation's law and the punishment for crimes. The second is speaking about personal forgiveness and speaking against revenge. Where's the contradiction?