Jump to content
L2Ski

religion

Recommended Posts

Personally, I have a different view of God. I'm not really religious, but I think of God more as something that's not really made of matter, that can't, at this point at least, be defined by science. It probably sounds [developmentally delayed]ed, but that's kind of the vision I've gained recently, while thinking of the beginning of the Universe. Just some force, at lack of a better word, the unmoved mover, that set in motion the expansion of the Universe and thus life. Perhaps it's not even a God in the normal sense of the word after all, I don't know, it's just, something that goes above the mental capabilities of mankind to fully comprehend at this point.

 

But then again, there could be no such thing, but there'd still need to be an answer to what happened at first. I don't think science at this time is capable of finding that answer.

 

But that's the thing with religious debates, there's no definitive answer, at least not yet.

 

In response to Mywepons, no, I don't think we can.

I doubt a scientist will one day come out with a discovery saying "God is real and I have this scientific data to confirm it." And even IF something like that would ever happen, society would never accept it as real, just dismissing the scientist as a nut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I have a different view of God. I'm not really religious, but I think of God more as something that's not really made of matter, that can't, at this point at least, be defined by science. It probably sounds [developmentally delayed]ed, but that's kind of the vision I've gained recently, while thinking of the beginning of the Universe. Just some force, at lack of a better word, the unmoved mover, that set in motion the expansion of the Universe and thus life. Perhaps it's not even a God in the normal sense of the word after all, I don't know, it's just, something that goes above the mental capabilities of mankind to fully comprehend at this point.

 

But then again, there could be no such thing, but there'd still need to be an answer to what happened at first. I don't think science at this time is capable of finding that answer.

 

But that's the thing with religious debates, there's no definitive answer, at least not yet.

 

What you're saying is that the beginning of the universe needs an explanation.

 

What is the explanation for your explanation? How does the unmoved mover exist?

 

In response to Mywepons, no, I don't think we can.

I doubt a scientist will one day come out with a discovery saying "God is real and I have this scientific data to confirm it." And even IF something like that would ever happen, society would never accept it as real, just dismissing the scientist as a nut.

 

If a giant man came to Earth and started floating around and taking us to solar systems that are many lightyears away, curing diseases, and doing all kinds of other Godly stuff, you don't think that would be scientific proof of God?


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I have a different view of God. I'm not really religious, but I think of God more as something that's not really made of matter, that can't, at this point at least, be defined by science. It probably sounds [developmentally delayed]ed, but that's kind of the vision I've gained recently, while thinking of the beginning of the Universe. Just some force, at lack of a better word, the unmoved mover, that set in motion the expansion of the Universe and thus life. Perhaps it's not even a God in the normal sense of the word after all, I don't know, it's just, something that goes above the mental capabilities of mankind to fully comprehend at this point.

 

But then again, there could be no such thing, but there'd still need to be an answer to what happened at first. I don't think science at this time is capable of finding that answer.

 

But that's the thing with religious debates, there's no definitive answer, at least not yet.

 

What you're saying is that the beginning of the universe needs an explanation.

 

What is the explanation for your explanation? How does the unmoved mover exist?

Every action has a reaction, and every action itself is a reaction to another action. In other words, something can't just start moving by itself, it needs to be triggered by something else. This action-reaction pattern can't be traced back forever, there has to be something in the beginning that just somehow moved by itself, the unmoved mover, that would set in motion the rest of the reactions that would form the Universe.

 

Of course, finding this unmoved mover is near impossible, and I have no idea how it would exist, but what's the alternative?

In response to Mywepons, no, I don't think we can.

I doubt a scientist will one day come out with a discovery saying "God is real and I have this scientific data to confirm it." And even IF something like that would ever happen, society would never accept it as real, just dismissing the scientist as a nut.

 

If a giant man came to Earth and started floating around and taking us to solar systems that are many lightyears away, curing diseases, and doing all kinds of other Godly stuff, you don't think that would be scientific proof of God?

 

Well yes, but that's not something that's controlled by humans. You asked if "we could find any evidence to convince us that God definitely does exist", which suggests that humans themselves would find the evidence. If God comes over here and shows himself, it's God that showed us the evidence and not human beings.

 

So yeah, to go back to your example, I think most people would be convinced and a minority would stubbornly decline to accept.

 

Also, on a side note, by that logic everyone should be a christian now, since 2000 years ago there was a man walking the earth that came back from the dead and told of the word of God. Who's to say that if that would happen again, people living 2000 years from now wouldn't look at the writings and such from this encounter the same way we view the bible today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every action has a reaction, and every action itself is a reaction to another action. In other words, something can't just start moving by itself, it needs to be triggered by something else. This action-reaction pattern can't be traced back forever, there has to be something in the beginning that just somehow moved by itself, the unmoved mover, that would set in motion the rest of the reactions that would form the Universe.

 

Of course, finding this unmoved mover is near impossible, and I have no idea how it would exist, but what's the alternative?

 

The alternative is that the Big Bang itself is the "unmoved mover". If everything needs to have a creator, then the creator has to have a creator. If the creator doesn't need a creator, then why does the universe need one?

 

Well yes, but that's not something that's controlled by humans. You asked if "we could find any evidence to convince us that God definitely does exist", which suggests that humans themselves would find the evidence. If God comes over here and shows himself, it's God that showed us the evidence and not human beings.

 

So yeah, to go back to your example, I think most people would be convinced and a minority would stubbornly decline to accept.

 

Also, on a side note, by that logic everyone should be a christian now, since 2000 years ago there was a man walking the earth that came back from the dead and told of the word of God. Who's to say that if that would happen again, people living 2000 years from now wouldn't look at the writings and such from this encounter the same way we view the bible today?

 

Theres little historical proof that the stories of the new testament actually occurred. The only evidence we have is the Bible itself.

 

If divine events happened today, and they were unmistakenably caused by divine power, we would presumably be able to document these events well so that future generations could make no mistake about what happened


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every action has a reaction, and every action itself is a reaction to another action. In other words, something can't just start moving by itself, it needs to be triggered by something else. This action-reaction pattern can't be traced back forever, there has to be something in the beginning that just somehow moved by itself, the unmoved mover, that would set in motion the rest of the reactions that would form the Universe.

 

Of course, finding this unmoved mover is near impossible, and I have no idea how it would exist, but what's the alternative?

 

The alternative is that the Big Bang itself is the "unmoved mover". If everything needs to have a creator, then the creator has to have a creator. If the creator doesn't need a creator, then why does the universe need one?

 

I don't know. I honestly don't know. I'm not gonna make up something. I can't claim to know what happened at the beginning of the universe, but you can't claim that either. No one, at the moment, can.

Well yes, but that's not something that's controlled by humans. You asked if "we could find any evidence to convince us that God definitely does exist", which suggests that humans themselves would find the evidence. If God comes over here and shows himself, it's God that showed us the evidence and not human beings.

 

So yeah, to go back to your example, I think most people would be convinced and a minority would stubbornly decline to accept.

 

Also, on a side note, by that logic everyone should be a christian now, since 2000 years ago there was a man walking the earth that came back from the dead and told of the word of God. Who's to say that if that would happen again, people living 2000 years from now wouldn't look at the writings and such from this encounter the same way we view the bible today?

 

Theres little historical proof that the stories of the new testament actually occurred. The only evidence we have is the Bible itself.

 

If divine events happened today, and they were unmistakenably caused by divine power, we would presumably be able to document these events well so that future generations could make no mistake about what happened

 

2000 years ago, writing all these books down is what they considered documenting the events well. Who's to say 2000 years from now, all these well documented facts won't be viewed in the same way? That's if they even all survive it.

 

Also, saying the Bible is the only evidence we have is a bit wrong, there were hundreds of books that never made it into the final canon of the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know. I honestly don't know. I'm not gonna make up something. I can't claim to know what happened at the beginning of the universe, but you can't claim that either. No one, at the moment, can.

 

Correct. Nobody knows. And nobody should pretend that they have the best explanation when we really just don't know. Someone would be a fool if he insisted that an intelligent being created the universe, and someone would be a fool if he insisted that X or Y or Z came before the universe. Because we just don't know.

 

Sure, we can suggest possibilities. I love doing this. I love thinking about things like the multiverse theory. Is it something that is true? I don't know yet. Nobody knows yet. I don't have any beliefs about what came before the universe because we simply don't know at this time.

 

 

 

2000 years ago, writing all these books down is what they considered documenting the events well. Who's to say 2000 years from now, all these well documented facts won't be viewed in the same way? That's if they even all survive it.

 

Not quite. Humans were quite sophisticated in their keeping of historical records. There have been discoveries of historical Asian texts that wrote about stories they heard of the Egyptian empire. Yet somehow, nobody outside of Jesus's circle of followers in one isolated place in the world happened to write about him.

 

Also, saying the Bible is the only evidence we have is a bit wrong, there were hundreds of books that never made it into the final canon of the Bible.

 

Okay fine...holy documents that were written for the Bible are the only evidence. If there were really so many epic divine events occuring in this Jesus character's life, don't you think that at least one Chinese historian would have written it down? I have never seen one non-biblical historical description of this famous guy who supposedly got nailed to a cross and rose from the dead.

 

Hell...why do you think it isn't in history books? Even if they left out all of the stuff about God and spirituality, don't you think that historians would say something about this guy existing? We have established detailed historical records of events occuring in the Qin dynasty (a couple hundred years before Jesus) yet theres not a single historical record of Jesus? Only holy books?


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, for any theist interested in starting off on a fresh debate: what is God? And how do you know he exists?

 

My definition of god:

god is omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent but i also believe that this sort of being cannot exist and therefore i do not believe in god.

 

God is not necessarily omniscient, all the evidence for that is in the bible. The bible proclaims a god, but god proclaims a bible, making it a petitio. In that sense, the bible is a fallacy, so I don't think it should be trusted in determining whether or not there is a god. So we really don't know what god is, just that he/she/it could be there, or she/it/he could not be there.

 

i was talking about my personal definition of god omniscient is part of that definition i was in no way referring to the bible.


Dheginsea.png

 

I once met a man named Jesus at a Home Depot. Is this the Messiah returned at last?

 

And i once beat someone named Jesus in a chess game. Does that mean I'm smarter than the messiah?

BOW TO THE NEW MESSIAH

 

 

Maybe a president who didn't believe our soldiers were going to heaven, might be a little less willing to get them killed. ~ Bill Maher

Barrows drops: 2 Karil's Coifs (on double drop day)

92,150th person to 99 defense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is what I think as well

I love how a clear, logical response offended him and made him rage.


GuidesForScapers.png

 

Legalize baby punching. Tax and regulate it. Punch babies erry day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is what I think as well

I love how a clear, logical response offended him and made him rage.

 

 

That seems to happen a lot on that show :???:


Dheginsea.png

 

I once met a man named Jesus at a Home Depot. Is this the Messiah returned at last?

 

And i once beat someone named Jesus in a chess game. Does that mean I'm smarter than the messiah?

BOW TO THE NEW MESSIAH

 

 

Maybe a president who didn't believe our soldiers were going to heaven, might be a little less willing to get them killed. ~ Bill Maher

Barrows drops: 2 Karil's Coifs (on double drop day)

92,150th person to 99 defense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell...why do you think it isn't in history books? Even if they left out all of the stuff about God and spirituality, don't you think that historians would say something about this guy existing? We have established detailed historical records of events occuring in the Qin dynasty (a couple hundred years before Jesus) yet theres not a single historical record of Jesus? Only holy books?

 

Christ, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty (i.e., Crucifixion) during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.

 

Tacitus lived in the second half of the first century AD, around the same time as Nero and was (and still is) a respected historian. That text was talking about the great fire of Rome of 64 AD and Nero's reaction to it. The Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible, would come about 300 years later, and even the gospels were barely written at that time, so you can't claim his source as the Bible.

 

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

 

This is a quote from Josephus, a Jewish historian. To be honest, this is the only direct mention to Jesus in his writings, excluding a part where he mentions Jesus' brother James. The part where he talks about James is almost unanimously thought of as authentic, but debate exists about this passage. Many historians believe that part to be embellished by later Christians, but they believe the core of the passage to be true. One historian attempted to reconstruct the text without the Christian embellishments:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man...For he was one who performed paradoxical deeds and was the teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews [and many Greeks?]. He was [called] the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him...And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

 

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them [the Jews] from Rome.

 

This quote is of a more passing nature, but it clearly states "at the instigation of Chrestus", Chrestus being a considered a misspelling, which also appeared in Tacitus' work. The quote doesn't really go on about Jesus, but it does prove that Christianity didn't just come out of nowhere, they were following a man they believed to be the Messiah. This text deals about Claudius, who was an emperor halfway the first century AD, which would be about 20-30 years after Christ himself died. At this point, Christians weren't really completely separate from the Jews, explaining the use of the word Jews instead of Christians.

 

Also Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ in his works, in his letters to the emperor Trajan, detailing how to deal with this 'nuisance' and stating that instead of worshiping the emperor, they were instead worshiping Christ from Judea.

 

Even the Talmud, a Jewish work, talks about Jesus at some points, talking about his crucifixion and such.

 

Of course debate exists about the authenticity of all these works, which is normal for works written almost 2000 years ago.

 

Also, take in account that we only have a handful of writings left about the eruption of the Vesuvius, that buried Pompeii and took many lives. As far as I know, the most important work about it was written by Pliny the Younger. I read that text and it includes many things he just couldn't know, detailing his uncle's (Pliny the Older) actions, even though he didn't go along with him and his uncle had died. It was also written 20 years after the actual eruption.

 

It is known that Tacitus wrote about the eruption, since that letter Pliny wrote was directed at Tacitus, who had asked Pliny the Younger to tell him about the eruption, as Pliny was an eye-witness. But the text Tacitus wrote has been lost to us.

 

So what we have now is just one notable text about the eruption, written by someone who wanted to make his uncle seem heroic, with a lot of exaggerations. Does that make the eruption less true? No, it doesn't. Yes, I know there is archaeological evidence of the eruption, but I'm talking about writings, not archaeological evidence, since it'd be impossible to find archaeological evidence of Jesus (unless you consider the Shroud of Turin as evidence, which I personally don't).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So i wanted to asked this to anyone who believes the story of Noha and the arc to be comepletly 100% true. So just Noah his wife and his three sons and his wife Nemarz (i think thats her name) were able to repopulate the entire earth? First off if he only sons how could they repopulate the earth without incest (if Nemarz was still fertile). Also Noah supposedly had his kids around the nice old age of 500 :-o and then later died at age 950 :shock:, sounds realistic eh? anyway back to incest, wouldn't the offspring suffer extreme physical deformities? and thus the human race would be very deformed? Same question about deformities would apply to the Adam and Eve story.

 

Month 7, year 600: wind from God moves over the waters, fountains of deep and floodgates of heaven closed, flood stops rising; ark rests on the mountain peaks, flood recedes for the next 5 months.

 

Also considering that the fountains/floodgates of heaven are closed where could the water go it can't fall off the earth.


Dheginsea.png

 

I once met a man named Jesus at a Home Depot. Is this the Messiah returned at last?

 

And i once beat someone named Jesus in a chess game. Does that mean I'm smarter than the messiah?

BOW TO THE NEW MESSIAH

 

 

Maybe a president who didn't believe our soldiers were going to heaven, might be a little less willing to get them killed. ~ Bill Maher

Barrows drops: 2 Karil's Coifs (on double drop day)

92,150th person to 99 defense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So i wanted to asked this to anyone who believes the story of Noha and the arc to be comepletly 100% true. So just Noah his wife and his three sons and his wife Nemarz (i think thats her name) were able to repopulate the entire earth? First off if he only sons how could they repopulate the earth without incest (if Nemarz was still fertile). Also Noah supposedly had his kids around the nice old age of 500 :-o and then later died at age 950 :shock:, sounds realistic eh? anyway back to incest, wouldn't the offspring suffer extreme physical deformities? and thus the human race would be very deformed? Same question about deformities would apply to the Adam and Eve story.

 

Month 7, year 600: wind from God moves over the waters, fountains of deep and floodgates of heaven closed, flood stops rising; ark rests on the mountain peaks, flood recedes for the next 5 months.

 

Also considering that the fountains/floodgates of heaven are closed where could the water go it can't fall off the earth.

 

Dude, seriously? I doubt anyone religious believes the bible stories to be completely 100% true, and if they do, they're nutjobs that give actual religious people a bad name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*shortened for page length courtesy*

So what we have now is just one notable text about the eruption, written by someone who wanted to make his uncle seem heroic, with a lot of exaggerations. Does that make the eruption less true? No, it doesn't. Yes, I know there is archaeological evidence of the eruption, but I'm talking about writings, not archaeological evidence, since it'd be impossible to find archaeological evidence of Jesus (unless you consider the Shroud of Turin as evidence, which I personally don't).

 

To be honest, I don't really know how to make sense of a lot of all this stuff you wrote. It is interesting nonetheless. To me, it just looks like a lot of people who wrote about religous stories that they heard, like if someone from today would write a book about the Bible. It doesn't really look like historical documentation of the life of Jesus.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So i wanted to asked this to anyone who believes the story of Noha and the arc to be comepletly 100% true. So just Noah his wife and his three sons and his wife Nemarz (i think thats her name) were able to repopulate the entire earth? First off if he only sons how could they repopulate the earth without incest (if Nemarz was still fertile). Also Noah supposedly had his kids around the nice old age of 500 :-o and then later died at age 950 :shock:, sounds realistic eh? anyway back to incest, wouldn't the offspring suffer extreme physical deformities? and thus the human race would be very deformed? Same question about deformities would apply to the Adam and Eve story.

 

Month 7, year 600: wind from God moves over the waters, fountains of deep and floodgates of heaven closed, flood stops rising; ark rests on the mountain peaks, flood recedes for the next 5 months.

 

Also considering that the fountains/floodgates of heaven are closed where could the water go it can't fall off the earth.

 

Dude, seriously? I doubt anyone religious believes the bible stories to be completely 100% true, and if they do, they're nutjobs that give actual religious people a bad name.

 

Kid in my class believes this particle story and the adam and eve story to be true, besides that he realizes most is false. So i think this is a legitiment question


Dheginsea.png

 

I once met a man named Jesus at a Home Depot. Is this the Messiah returned at last?

 

And i once beat someone named Jesus in a chess game. Does that mean I'm smarter than the messiah?

BOW TO THE NEW MESSIAH

 

 

Maybe a president who didn't believe our soldiers were going to heaven, might be a little less willing to get them killed. ~ Bill Maher

Barrows drops: 2 Karil's Coifs (on double drop day)

92,150th person to 99 defense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*shortened for page length courtesy*

So what we have now is just one notable text about the eruption, written by someone who wanted to make his uncle seem heroic, with a lot of exaggerations. Does that make the eruption less true? No, it doesn't. Yes, I know there is archaeological evidence of the eruption, but I'm talking about writings, not archaeological evidence, since it'd be impossible to find archaeological evidence of Jesus (unless you consider the Shroud of Turin as evidence, which I personally don't).

 

To be honest, I don't really know how to make sense of a lot of all this stuff you wrote. It is interesting nonetheless. To me, it just looks like a lot of people who wrote about religous stories that they heard, like if someone from today would write a book about the Bible. It doesn't really look like historical documentation of the life of Jesus.

 

I think what it mostly proves is that Jesus was an actual historical figure, it's not like Jews converted to this new Christianity thing for no reason at all. It leaves open the question of the actual deeds of the man. The point I was making with the last part, about the eruption, is that not having multiple elaborate sources for a historical event doesn't necessarily mean the historical event didn't happen, as you would suggest. You're also discounting the fact that, like Tacitus' work, some works regarding Jesus as a historical figure may have been lost during the Middle Ages.

 

So i wanted to asked this to anyone who believes the story of Noha and the arc to be comepletly 100% true. So just Noah his wife and his three sons and his wife Nemarz (i think thats her name) were able to repopulate the entire earth? First off if he only sons how could they repopulate the earth without incest (if Nemarz was still fertile). Also Noah supposedly had his kids around the nice old age of 500 :-o and then later died at age 950 :shock:, sounds realistic eh? anyway back to incest, wouldn't the offspring suffer extreme physical deformities? and thus the human race would be very deformed? Same question about deformities would apply to the Adam and Eve story.

 

Month 7, year 600: wind from God moves over the waters, fountains of deep and floodgates of heaven closed, flood stops rising; ark rests on the mountain peaks, flood recedes for the next 5 months.

 

Also considering that the fountains/floodgates of heaven are closed where could the water go it can't fall off the earth.

 

Dude, seriously? I doubt anyone religious believes the bible stories to be completely 100% true, and if they do, they're nutjobs that give actual religious people a bad name.

 

Kid in my class believes this particle story and the adam and eve story to be true, besides that he realizes most is false. So i think this is a legitiment question

 

Well, to answer one of the questions, yes it would be incest. It's a common thing in creation myths, they have to somehow make few people into a lot of people.

 

I doubt you'll find someone here that actually believes those stories as 100% factual though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what it mostly proves is that Jesus was an actual historical figure, it's not like Jews converted to this new Christianity thing for no reason at all.

 

Of course it wasn't "no reason". They obviously had a reason, but this reason may have been a false reason...I mean, why were they Jewish to begin with? Because someone made up a story about God. It isn't that much of a stretch to think that someone would make up a story about the son of God and people would start to believe it in the same way.

 

It leaves open the question of the actual deeds of the man. The point I was making with the last part, about the eruption, is that not having multiple elaborate sources for a historical event doesn't necessarily mean the historical event didn't happen, as you would suggest. You're also discounting the fact that, like Tacitus' work, some works regarding Jesus as a historical figure may have been lost during the Middle Ages.

 

I just think that there would have to be a LOT of lost documentation. A good comparison is that we have a lot of detailed knowledge of Chinese emporors from the same time period, and Egyptian rulers from even earlier time periods. But this guy comes along who is "king of kings and lord of lords" and there is only religious scripture to prove his existence. It just seems to me that if such a momentous figure really existed, there would be more conclusive evidence to suggest so. I mean and this is even in question of only his existence. We at least have multiple writers of scriptures who write about Jesus existing. If we want to question the validity of any of the stories in the Bible...what do we have? One recording of each story?

 

 

 

Well, to answer one of the questions, yes it would be incest. It's a common thing in creation myths, they have to somehow make few people into a lot of people.

 

I doubt you'll find someone here that actually believes those stories as 100% factual though.

 

Well if they don't believe this...then what DO they believe? How else did God create men?


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what it mostly proves is that Jesus was an actual historical figure, it's not like Jews converted to this new Christianity thing for no reason at all.

 

Of course it wasn't "no reason". They obviously had a reason, but this reason may have been a false reason...I mean, why were they Jewish to begin with? Because someone made up a story about God. It isn't that much of a stretch to think that someone would make up a story about the son of God and people would start to believe it in the same way.

Except there were multiple people in that period writing about Jesus, it wasn't just one person. Besides, if one guy would spread rumors about the Messiah coming to Earth, do you think it would spread over all of Judea like that? No, the logical explanation is lots of people witnessed Jesus (it's always told in the Bible that great crowds followed him) and that some of those wrote down what he did and those writings are what we now call the canonical gospels. I know people probably exaggerated it all, for example, there's no way the gospel writers could've known a lot about his childhood, but the man was there. Like I said, it's not because it was written with an agenda and exaggerated the good deeds of a man, that it didn't happen.

 

It leaves open the question of the actual deeds of the man. The point I was making with the last part, about the eruption, is that not having multiple elaborate sources for a historical event doesn't necessarily mean the historical event didn't happen, as you would suggest. You're also discounting the fact that, like Tacitus' work, some works regarding Jesus as a historical figure may have been lost during the Middle Ages.

I just think that there would have to be a LOT of lost documentation. A good comparison is that we have a lot of detailed knowledge of Chinese emporors from the same time period, and Egyptian rulers from even earlier time periods. But this guy comes along who is "king of kings and lord of lords" and there is only religious scripture to prove his existence. It just seems to me that if such a momentous figure really existed, there would be more conclusive evidence to suggest so. I mean and this is even in question of only his existence. We at least have multiple writers of scriptures who write about Jesus existing. If we want to question the validity of any of the stories in the Bible...what do we have? One recording of each story?

There would be a lot of lost documentation, there's no doubt about that; one of the main things that were written one back then was just parchment or papyrus, things that just can't properly survive the test of time.

 

The Chinese kept records of their empire, there were people that worked at the court and whose only job was to write down the decisions of the emperor. They're called annals, the Romans had them too. The big difference here is that one, it's still one source regarding those things and two, they were especially made so they'd be saved for future generations.

 

We have multiple recordings of each story, there are 4 canonic gospels, and many more gospels and texts that didn't make it into the Bible. You're forgetting the Bible isn't one book, it's a collection of books.

 

 

Well, to answer one of the questions, yes it would be incest. It's a common thing in creation myths, they have to somehow make few people into a lot of people.

 

I doubt you'll find someone here that actually believes those stories as 100% factual though.

 

Well if they don't believe this...then what DO they believe? How else did God create men?

 

I'm not sure what exactly they believe. I know my sister, who's a devout Christian, told me she knows it didn't happen like in the Bible, that the stories are more a demonstration of the power of God and a way of showing God's intentions with mankind (for example, he gave Adam and Eve free will and he allowed them to do whatever they pleased, except for one thing). Anyway, I'm not gonna speak for other people here, so you'll have to ask actual devout Christians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[hide=incest comment]

*shortened for page length courtesy*

So what we have now is just one notable text about the eruption, written by someone who wanted to make his uncle seem heroic, with a lot of exaggerations. Does that make the eruption less true? No, it doesn't. Yes, I know there is archaeological evidence of the eruption, but I'm talking about writings, not archaeological evidence, since it'd be impossible to find archaeological evidence of Jesus (unless you consider the Shroud of Turin as evidence, which I personally don't).

 

To be honest, I don't really know how to make sense of a lot of all this stuff you wrote. It is interesting nonetheless. To me, it just looks like a lot of people who wrote about religous stories that they heard, like if someone from today would write a book about the Bible. It doesn't really look like historical documentation of the life of Jesus.

 

I think what it mostly proves is that Jesus was an actual historical figure, it's not like Jews converted to this new Christianity thing for no reason at all. It leaves open the question of the actual deeds of the man. The point I was making with the last part, about the eruption, is that not having multiple elaborate sources for a historical event doesn't necessarily mean the historical event didn't happen, as you would suggest. You're also discounting the fact that, like Tacitus' work, some works regarding Jesus as a historical figure may have been lost during the Middle Ages.

 

So i wanted to asked this to anyone who believes the story of Noha and the arc to be comepletly 100% true. So just Noah his wife and his three sons and his wife Nemarz (i think thats her name) were able to repopulate the entire earth? First off if he only sons how could they repopulate the earth without incest (if Nemarz was still fertile). Also Noah supposedly had his kids around the nice old age of 500 :-o and then later died at age 950 :shock:, sounds realistic eh? anyway back to incest, wouldn't the offspring suffer extreme physical deformities? and thus the human race would be very deformed? Same question about deformities would apply to the Adam and Eve story.

 

Month 7, year 600: wind from God moves over the waters, fountains of deep and floodgates of heaven closed, flood stops rising; ark rests on the mountain peaks, flood recedes for the next 5 months.

 

Also considering that the fountains/floodgates of heaven are closed where could the water go it can't fall off the earth.

 

Dude, seriously? I doubt anyone religious believes the bible stories to be completely 100% true, and if they do, they're nutjobs that give actual religious people a bad name.

 

Kid in my class believes this particle story and the adam and eve story to be true, besides that he realizes most is false. So i think this is a legitiment question

 

Well, to answer one of the questions, yes it would be incest. It's a common thing in creation myths, they have to somehow make few people into a lot of people.

 

I doubt you'll find someone here that actually believes those stories as 100% factual though.

[/hide]

Interesting scriptural studies observation, which I remember because of the incest comment, if you read Genesis, obviously there's Adam and Eve who have their two sons Cain and Abel. After Cain kills Abels, God punishes him by having him wander the Earth, but so that no one who finds him kills him, he's marked. Now if there were only two other people in the entire rest of the world according to a literal interpretation, why would Cain even have fear of running into them? That's presuming that his parents were still alive and that they would be capable of killing him. Elements like this prove it is a myth not to be taken literally. Genesis is primarily just in address to the theological Problem of Evil, not an accurate discourse of anthropology.


kaisershami.png

He who wears his morality but as his best garment were better naked... Your daily life is your temple and your religion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be a lot of lost documentation, there's no doubt about that; one of the main things that were written one back then was just parchment or papyrus, things that just can't properly survive the test of time.

 

The Chinese kept records of their empire, there were people that worked at the court and whose only job was to write down the decisions of the emperor. They're called annals, the Romans had them too. The big difference here is that one, it's still one source regarding those things and two, they were especially made so they'd be saved for future generations.

 

We have multiple recordings of each story, there are 4 canonic gospels, and many more gospels and texts that didn't make it into the Bible. You're forgetting the Bible isn't one book, it's a collection of books.

 

No, I'm trying to keep that in mind. That's why I said that we sort of have "multiple" sources claiming that Jesus existed. But, what of the individual stories? I thought that the unused books of the Bible all had different stories in them? Are there multiple books that tell of each story in the Bible? For example, is there more than one author that wrote about the resurrection? I was under the impression that there wasn't.

 

 

Interesting scriptural studies observation, which I remember because of the incest comment, if you read Genesis, obviously there's Adam and Eve who have their two sons Cain and Abel. After Cain kills Abels, God punishes him by having him wander the Earth, but so that no one who finds him kills him, he's marked. Now if there were only two other people in the entire rest of the world according to a literal interpretation, why would Cain even have fear of running into them? That's presuming that his parents were still alive and that they would be capable of killing him. Elements like this prove it is a myth not to be taken literally. Genesis is primarily just in address to the theological Problem of Evil, not an accurate discourse of anthropology.

 

And you don't think that it is equally likely that the rest of the stories in the Bible are of the same nature? Mythology created to serve a human purpose?


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be a lot of lost documentation, there's no doubt about that; one of the main things that were written one back then was just parchment or papyrus, things that just can't properly survive the test of time.

 

The Chinese kept records of their empire, there were people that worked at the court and whose only job was to write down the decisions of the emperor. They're called annals, the Romans had them too. The big difference here is that one, it's still one source regarding those things and two, they were especially made so they'd be saved for future generations.

 

We have multiple recordings of each story, there are 4 canonic gospels, and many more gospels and texts that didn't make it into the Bible. You're forgetting the Bible isn't one book, it's a collection of books.

 

No, I'm trying to keep that in mind. That's why I said that we sort of have "multiple" sources claiming that Jesus existed. But, what of the individual stories? I thought that the unused books of the Bible all had different stories in them? Are there multiple books that tell of each story in the Bible? For example, is there more than one author that wrote about the resurrection? I was under the impression that there wasn't.

 

The resurrection, which is the most important story of the new testament, is talked about in all 4 the gospels if I'm not mistaken and there are a few references to it in the letters written to early Christian communities that are also included in the Bible. It's quite possible that other stories, of less importance, are only told by one of the authors, but there are also tales, besides the resurrection, which are told by more than one of the authors of the canonical gospels.

 

I'm no specialist on the non-canonical texts, so I have no idea what they contain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be a lot of lost documentation, there's no doubt about that; one of the main things that were written one back then was just parchment or papyrus, things that just can't properly survive the test of time.

 

The Chinese kept records of their empire, there were people that worked at the court and whose only job was to write down the decisions of the emperor. They're called annals, the Romans had them too. The big difference here is that one, it's still one source regarding those things and two, they were especially made so they'd be saved for future generations.

 

We have multiple recordings of each story, there are 4 canonic gospels, and many more gospels and texts that didn't make it into the Bible. You're forgetting the Bible isn't one book, it's a collection of books.

 

No, I'm trying to keep that in mind. That's why I said that we sort of have "multiple" sources claiming that Jesus existed. But, what of the individual stories? I thought that the unused books of the Bible all had different stories in them? Are there multiple books that tell of each story in the Bible? For example, is there more than one author that wrote about the resurrection? I was under the impression that there wasn't.

 

The resurrection, which is the most important story of the new testament, is talked about in all 4 the gospels if I'm not mistaken and there are a few references to it in the letters written to early Christian communities that are also included in the Bible. It's quite possible that other stories, of less importance, are only told by one of the authors, but there are also tales, besides the resurrection, which are told by more than one of the authors of the canonical gospels.

 

I'm no specialist on the non-canonical texts, so I have no idea what they contain.

 

Well I know that there are other writings that mention the resurrection, but what I am asking is if there are multiple people who actually "recorded" the resurrection. Or whether it is just one author who said "This resurrection thing happened this way" and all of the other guys just mention "Oh, you know that resurrection that other guy talked about? Yeah well heres why it is so great"


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be a lot of lost documentation, there's no doubt about that; one of the main things that were written one back then was just parchment or papyrus, things that just can't properly survive the test of time.

 

The Chinese kept records of their empire, there were people that worked at the court and whose only job was to write down the decisions of the emperor. They're called annals, the Romans had them too. The big difference here is that one, it's still one source regarding those things and two, they were especially made so they'd be saved for future generations.

 

We have multiple recordings of each story, there are 4 canonic gospels, and many more gospels and texts that didn't make it into the Bible. You're forgetting the Bible isn't one book, it's a collection of books.

 

No, I'm trying to keep that in mind. That's why I said that we sort of have "multiple" sources claiming that Jesus existed. But, what of the individual stories? I thought that the unused books of the Bible all had different stories in them? Are there multiple books that tell of each story in the Bible? For example, is there more than one author that wrote about the resurrection? I was under the impression that there wasn't.

 

The resurrection, which is the most important story of the new testament, is talked about in all 4 the gospels if I'm not mistaken and there are a few references to it in the letters written to early Christian communities that are also included in the Bible. It's quite possible that other stories, of less importance, are only told by one of the authors, but there are also tales, besides the resurrection, which are told by more than one of the authors of the canonical gospels.

 

I'm no specialist on the non-canonical texts, so I have no idea what they contain.

 

Well I know that there are other writings that mention the resurrection, but what I am asking is if there are multiple people who actually "recorded" the resurrection. Or whether it is just one author who said "This resurrection thing happened this way" and all of the other guys just mention "Oh, you know that resurrection that other guy talked about? Yeah well heres why it is so great"

 

I think that there are no other documentations besides Oh, you know that resurrection that other guy talked about? Yeah well here's why it is so great but I'm not really positive about that.

 

 

 

Hey i kinda feel like a new topic soo what about gods morality? Here's an example of why I do not think that god (christian god anyways) would be a moral being: infinite punishment/reward for finite deeds. Here's a good analogy lets say your son/daughter kills a person then robs a bank what do you do:

 

A. Call the police

B. Do nothing (he/she your kid right)

C. Make a torture chamber in your basement and torture for all eternity

 

In this situation the Christian god most likely would choose C (if I'm interpreting this right) now would you consider this moral?


Dheginsea.png

 

I once met a man named Jesus at a Home Depot. Is this the Messiah returned at last?

 

And i once beat someone named Jesus in a chess game. Does that mean I'm smarter than the messiah?

BOW TO THE NEW MESSIAH

 

 

Maybe a president who didn't believe our soldiers were going to heaven, might be a little less willing to get them killed. ~ Bill Maher

Barrows drops: 2 Karil's Coifs (on double drop day)

92,150th person to 99 defense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The resurrection, which is the most important story of the new testament, is talked about in all 4 the gospels if I'm not mistaken and there are a few references to it in the letters written to early Christian communities that are also included in the Bible. It's quite possible that other stories, of less importance, are only told by one of the authors, but there are also tales, besides the resurrection, which are told by more than one of the authors of the canonical gospels.

 

I'm no specialist on the non-canonical texts, so I have no idea what they contain.

 

Well I know that there are other writings that mention the resurrection, but what I am asking is if there are multiple people who actually "recorded" the resurrection. Or whether it is just one author who said "This resurrection thing happened this way" and all of the other guys just mention "Oh, you know that resurrection that other guy talked about? Yeah well heres why it is so great"

 

I'm pretty certain they all wrote the story from their own POV. I'm certain that John's version is different from the other 3, but I'm not sure about the 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think that there are no other documentations besides Oh, you know that resurrection that other guy talked about? Yeah well here's why it is so great but I'm not really positive about that.

 

 

 

Hey i kinda feel like a new topic soo what about gods morality? Here's an example of why I do not think that god (christian god anyways) would be a moral being: infinite punishment/reward for finite deeds. Here's a good analogy lets say your son/daughter kills a person then robs a bank what do you do:

 

A. Call the police

B. Do nothing (he/she your kid right)

C. Make a torture chamber in your basement and torture for all eternity

 

In this situation the Christian god most likely would choose C (if I'm interpreting this right) now would you consider this moral?

 

This isn't a good thing to argue about because any Christian will tell you that no mortal man can make a call about whether or not somebody is going to go to hell. The Christian God would not necessarily choose C because no sin guarantees your place in Hell, as long as you "find Jesus" or something like that.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.