discovery versus jesus

[Rizla]

Just because you can't explain it, doesn't mean it can't be done. I've walked across water several times.

 

 

 

Yeah, and every time i bend over a ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã50 note drops out of my arse - it can't be explained, it just happens.

[Pete_the_Viscous]

Ahem, I can field that one: see, there's this little gnome...

 

 

 

Anyway, I agree -- just because you say* something happens or has happened, doesn't mean it does / has, or that people should believe it.

 

 

 

 

 

*one says, rather -- not getting at anyone in particular here.

[Bubsa]

Yea Peter started to walk on water but then he did'nt fully trust Jesus so he fell.

 

 

 

It would be stupid for people wasting their times trying to work out how I used to be able to fly unaided just as it is Jesus on water. Neither truely happened so its pointless.

 

 

 

Again, I state I'm not religious, but these two points made me think what I believe the Bible is about. It's not necessarily true, but stories, almost like Fables, that teach valuable lessons like trust, friendship, caring etc.

 

 

 

I have a friend who is athiest, but actually reads the Bibles for two reasons. One, because some of the stories are, how he says: "Better than any Harry Potter" and two because it teaches him something which doesn't require him to believe in Christianity.

 

 

 

My bewildering point is, sometimes we shouldn't take The Bible too literally; as that may have been the intention all along.

[jackalope14]

Yea Peter started to walk on water but then he did'nt fully trust Jesus so he fell.

 

 

 

It would be stupid for people wasting their times trying to work out how I used to be able to fly unaided just as it is Jesus on water. Neither truely happened so its pointless.

 

 

 

Again, I state I'm not religious, but these two points made me think what I believe the Bible is about. It's not necessarily true, but stories, almost like Fables, that teach valuable lessons like trust, friendship, caring etc.

 

 

 

I have a friend who is athiest, but actually reads the Bibles for two reasons. One, because some of the stories are, how he says: "Better than any Harry Potter" and two because it teaches him something which doesn't require him to believe in Christianity.

 

 

 

My bewildering point is, sometimes we shouldn't take The Bible too literally; as that may have been the intention all along.

 

 

 

Yes I have thought of that too. Maybe the stories are just told to teach people lessons. But then again if God is who the bible says he is (and I believe he is, other people may not, but I do) then what would stop him from acually doing these things?

[Bubsa]

^ Well, exactly. I guess it's up to people individually what they choose to believe. But the Bible, like holy books in other religions (like Qu'ran) can teach non-believers like myself a thing or two.

[insane]

^ Well, exactly. I guess it's up to people individually what they choose to believe. But the Bible, like holy books in other religions (like Qu'ran) can teach non-believers like myself a thing or two.

 

 

 

For sure - I like your thinking Bubsa, even though I disagree with you. I believe there may be *some* parts of the Bible that aren't to be taken literally (ex. the creation story), but I believe in Christ's miracles.

 

 

 

Neither truely happened so its pointless.

 

 

 

I would appreciate it if you would stop underhandedly insulting Christianity on every thread that makes it remotely possible. It makes you look quite intolerant.

[Bubsa]

^ Well, exactly. I guess it's up to people individually what they choose to believe. But the Bible, like holy books in other religions (like Qu'ran) can teach non-believers like myself a thing or two.

 

 

 

For sure - I like your thinking Bubsa, even though I disagree with you. I believe there may be *some* parts of the Bible that aren't to be taken literally (ex. the creation story), but I believe in Christ's miracles.

 

 

 

Of course and so long as we're allowed to believe what we choose to believe, then it's all gravy, baby! :D

[Anesthesia]

I would appreciate it if you would stop underhandedly insulting Christianity on every thread that makes it remotely possible. It makes you look quite intolerant.

 

 

 

http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?p=285 ... t=#2850272

 

 

 

You post your disbelief about a child dying on a schoolbus in front of someone's eyes and that is okay - but when he posts his disbelief concerning something related to your religion it is intolerant? Sounds like a double standard to me.

 

 

 

As for insulting, how is it? You say it did happen, we say it didn't. We provided analogies to show how it appears to us, to the unindoctrinated it sounds as credible as any childrens' fairy-tale.

 

 

 

From the looks of it you just want no one to be able to disagree with you. And that sounds like intolerance to me.

[jackalope14]

I would appreciate it if you would stop underhandedly insulting Christianity on every thread that makes it remotely possible. It makes you look quite intolerant.

 

 

 

http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?p=285 ... t=#2850272

 

 

 

You post your disbelief about a child dying on a schoolbus in front of someone's eyes and that is okay - but when he posts his disbelief concerning something related to your religion it is intolerant? Sounds like a double standard to me.

 

 

 

As for insulting, how is it? You say it did happen, we say it didn't. We provided analogies to show how it appears to us, to the unindoctrinated it sounds as credible as any childrens' fairy-tale.

 

 

 

From the looks of it you just want no one to be able to disagree with you. And that sounds like intolerance to me.

 

 

 

I think there is a difference between Bubsa's statements and Mercifull's. When you just say "It didnt happen" its more insulting than "I dont share your beliefs"which is what Bubsa was saying and although I disagree with Bubsa I didnt take it as an insult to Christianity. But is it insulting to tell someone "Your wrong it didnt happen".

 

I know Bubsa thinks that it didnt happen, but he was more respecful toward what others believe.

[Anesthesia]

So proponents are allowed to talk about it like it DID happen, yet opponents are only allowed to say they don't believe it happened?

[insane]

I would appreciate it if you would stop underhandedly insulting Christianity on every thread that makes it remotely possible. It makes you look quite intolerant.

 

 

 

http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?p=285 ... t=#2850272

 

 

 

You post your disbelief about a child dying on a schoolbus in front of someone's eyes and that is okay - but when he posts his disbelief concerning something related to your religion it is intolerant? Sounds like a double standard to me.

 

 

 

I gave a valid reason for that belief. Merc often just says "Christians are fools" or "the Bible is a fairy tale", without providing any reason, or respect for that matter.

 

 

 

The analgoy given is also fallacious. Merc isn't Jesus Christ, and he can't go comparing himself to Him saying "I can't do this, so niether can He".

 

 

 

From the looks of it you just want no one to be able to disagree with you. And that sounds like intolerance to me.

 

 

 

That is untrue - you missed the first part of my post where I disagreed with Bubsa but also said that I liked his post, and how he thought.

 

 

 

 

 

Of course and so long as we're allowed to believe what we choose to believe, then it's all gravy, baby! :D

 

 

 

I wouldn't go that far :P some people have some pretty hurtful/hateful beliefs.

[pianofrieak2]

My bewildering point is, sometimes we shouldn't take The Bible too literally; as that may have been the intention all along.

 

 

 

Well, I would disagree with you in saying that most things should be figurative. I believe that everything in the Bible really comes down to this:

 

 

 

Is Jesus who He said He was or is He not? He said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the father except through Me." That's pretty exclusive...but then again, every religion is exclusive.

 

 

 

So is the truth.

[bearofthunder]

 

 

 

The analgoy given is also fallacious. Merc isn't Jesus Christ, and he can't go comparing himself to Him saying "I can't do this, so niether can He".

 

 

 

 

And I'm not Apollo, so I should just accept that he really does drive the sun across the sky every day?

[insane]

 

 

 

The analgoy given is also fallacious. Merc isn't Jesus Christ, and he can't go comparing himself to Him saying "I can't do this, so niether can He".

 

 

 

 

And I'm not Apollo, so I should just accept that he really does drive the sun across the sky every day?

 

 

 

Even atheists accept the fact that Jesus existed. I don't understand what you're trying to say. The difference between Apollo and Christ is that Christ existed and did these "miracles" (whether you believe or not), and Apollo never did exist.

[Anesthesia]

[Even atheists accept the fact that Jesus existed. I don't understand what you're trying to say. The difference between Apollo and Christ is that Christ existed and did these "miracles" (whether you believe or not), and Apollo never did exist.

 

 

 

His analogy is poor but so is yours. Atheists know that Jesus existed, but they don't accept that he performed any miracles. He is suggesting that the notion of him performing miracles is as ludicrous as a guy pushing the sun across the sky, only it is flawed in that he used a guy who didn't exist.

[bearofthunder]

 

Even atheists accept the fact that Jesus existed. I don't understand what you're trying to say. The difference between Apollo and Christ is that Christ existed and did these "miracles" (whether you believe or not), and Apollo never did exist.

 

 

 

You weren't talking about Jesus as a human being, and neither was I. You said Jesus was different from the rest of us, so we should just accept him without question. The same could be said for Apollo.

[PlutoniumCross]

FAITH is about "judge not lest ye be judged", not, the literal book meaning of the the bible.

 

 

 

Ofcourse being the 1st or 2nd century AD, the science used to explain things were not technically speaking, correct, but most importantly, you should note that the LITERAL meaning of the bible is not as near as important as the MORAL and ETHICAL philosophy behind it. Every genuine christian who doesn't believe in god purely so that they don't go to hell would agree with me.

 

 

 

The bible is about MORALS, not a TEXT BOOK for science. Why do extremists (Nazis, KKK, Osama etc) all claim to be killing in the name of god? BECAUSE THEY DON'T GET THAT FAITH IS ABOUT MORALS.

[insane]

 

Even atheists accept the fact that Jesus existed. I don't understand what you're trying to say. The difference between Apollo and Christ is that Christ existed and did these "miracles" (whether you believe or not), and Apollo never did exist.

 

 

 

You weren't talking about Jesus as a human being, and neither was I. You said Jesus was different from the rest of us, so we should just accept him without question. The same could be said for Apollo.

 

 

 

I never said that. I said that just because we can't do things doesn't mean that Jesus can't. I never said anything about accepting faith without question. Either way it's really beside the point - my point was that if He wants to insult our faith he should provide reasoning behind it, and instead it turned into an analogy analyzing debate.

 

 

 

 

 

He is suggesting that the notion of him performing miracles is as ludicrous as a guy pushing the sun across the sky, only it is flawed in that he used a guy who didn't exist.

 

 

 

It's a suggestion :P it only takes a poor analogy to refute an even poorer one. But again, see the above. This wasn't what I intended to do by asking someone to stop baselessly insult Christians.

[Guest]

If God created the Heavens and the Earth and all the incredible creature in our universe like ourselves. Then I hardly doubt they would need a Scientific Reason as to how his Son "Jesus" walked on water.

 

 

 

Geez why does everybody need to know how their creator (if you believe in God) did some miracle. Science can't prove everything. :roll:

[PlutoniumCross]

If God created the Heavens and the Earth and all the incredible creature in our universe like ourselves. Then I hardly doubt they would need a Scientific Reason as to how his Son "Jesus" walked on water.

 

 

 

Geez why does everybody need to know how their creator (if you believe in God) did some miracle. Science can't prove everything. :roll:

 

 

 

On top of that, it is nature for an admirer of another person to talk highly of their mentor, and sometimes that leads to slight exaggeration. I'm not saying that jesus is not the son of god, or he is not capable of walking on water, but this is how legends are created.

 

 

 

Once again with my point, when one hears the story of the legend of jason and the argonauts, or heracles (hercules), or the legend of prometheus, he should concern himself with what the message behind the legend is, rather than whether prometheus really had a vulture attacking his heart everyday, or whether there really is a golden fleece that could heal any disease or sickness

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

Even atheists accept the fact that Jesus existed. I don't understand what you're trying to say. The difference between Apollo and Christ is that Christ existed and did these "miracles" (whether you believe or not), and Apollo never did exist.

 

 

 

You weren't talking about Jesus as a human being, and neither was I. You said Jesus was different from the rest of us, so we should just accept him without question. The same could be said for Apollo.

 

 

 

If that even was what Insane was saying, it's flawed. The same couldn't be said for Apollo because Apollo didn't exist. Jesus did. So Apollo wasn't different from the rest of us, he never existed.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Even atheists accept the fact that Jesus existed. I don't understand what you're trying to say.

 

 

 

I don't know about that, did Socrates exist? He never published anything and only published in PlatoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s works. Much like Jesus, Socrates has very little evidence (If any confirmed evidence) for existence outside of PlatoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s works (Jesus-Christian texts).

 

 

 

2 John 1:7 (New International Version)

 

Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

 

 

 

Scepticism even back then, makes you think. It would be interesting to find out how many people are sceptical of JesusÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ historical existence. I don't quite understand what you mean Jesus existed; do you have his dead body or something? People just take it for granted that he historically existed because it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t validate him as the son of God.

[bearofthunder]

 

 

 

If that even was what Insane was saying, it's flawed. The same couldn't be said for Apollo because Apollo didn't exist. Jesus did. So Apollo wasn't different from the rest of us, he never existed.

 

 

 

Okay, I'll use a real person. This guy:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet_Yahweh

 

 

 

Supposedly, he has the ability to summon ufo's. So, the fact that I can't summon ufo's is not proof that he can't?

[SickTwisted]

I just find it hard to believe that people believe a book over current modern science...

[MyPurpleCrayon]

I don't know about that, did Socrates exist?

 

 

 

Are you serious?