Satenza Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 People don't base their religion around Lord Of The Rings, and it doesn't declare itself a work of fact or by the hand of God either. Your drawing comparision between the supposed word of God and the word of Man. Even though the Bible is written by men, people still take it as the word of God. This seems like yet another "every Christian is a fundamentalist" statement :-s . At the risk of some Christians coming forawrd and saying "I don't beleive the Bible is word of God". The majority of christians beleive it to be the word of God. #-o There are what, like 3 stories of "genocide" in the Bible, most of which are metaphorical? Other than the flood (which is just a story and a complex metaphor), I'm guessing your thinking of the Hebrews struggels and battles. Not only are those unique documents of their history, but they have deeper meanings as well (even though the use of God in the stories, to an atheist, seems absolutely terrible). Take the exodus for example. Sure, their enemies suffered and were killed by a flood (which is still a metaphor...) the story tells of the liberation of a people, the freedom man can attain through struggles and hardships. This is just one of the examples where stories when taken literally seem bad, but when you actually think for a second it has deeper meanings to help guide the Church in helping and aiding those who are oppressed, like the poor. The Exodus, even though the Egyptians were defeated by "God's power" according to the story, is a story of hope and liberation, not a story of genocide. You see the thing is, I have already said that most people use the Bible for what they beleive to be good (Some of which is good, some of which doesn't fall under my opinion of good). However, a man reads the book. He see's that his God commits genocide and murders those who do not respect his word or his people. As a person of God this man thinks that it's alright to do as God has done and murder those who don't follow God. Just as God did. Thats my point, the main character that is supposed to be all loving and 'good' and something everyone must follow commits such atrocities. I can't see how it would be so hard for someone to try and justify murder with the Bible as a tool for it. It mixes in morals will stories of murder, wouldn't it be better If God through is all loving nature showed the 'bad people' the true way of life and not just execute them? Then maybe i would think "Hey that is a good moral handbook". With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 None, but you have already needlessly tried to humilliate someone in the process. I also remember a lengthy discussion about intolerance, and didn't I admit that my statement was wrong in that? Does it even matter about him correcting the statement when we already have his point and you already corrected what he had said. Theres no need to make him go back and correct that. It's humilliating and you know it. I don't understand what the humiliation would have been if he had corrected himself initially, like I have done before when saying things that are factually incorrect. I do remember that question, but I wonder why when he says something so blatantly incorrect, you try to defend the statement as correct. It seems odd to me that you continue to try and draw the attention away from the mistake and towards this self-caused "humiliation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 I'm not defending the statement as correct, you have already corrected that. I'm saying the way in which you go about trying to get people to correct their own statements is humilliating. Also, when will you answer my question on the other thread? With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 I'm not defending the statement as correct, you have already corrected that. Really? He is still right that not all of the Bible is written by Christians which was his point. Unfortunately, you are not only defending his statement as correct, but you are also changing what he said in order to make it correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 The point he was making was to refute the claim the other person wrote which was all christians wrote the Bible. What he said was wrong in that no christian wrote the Bible. But he was correct in saying that not everything written in the Bible was by a christian. And you have corrected his statement of everything to the majority. Now thats done, it doesn't matter anymore. The only thing you do is attempt too disprove people, why can't you ever show any understanding for anyones beleifs? And when will you answer my question! With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 The only thing you do is attempt too disprove people, why can't you ever show any understanding for anyones beleifs? And when will you answer my question! I understand people's beliefs - I just want to make sure they are logically sound, which they usually aren't. I don't know what question you're speaking of... maybe I missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 This question: I would have thought a christian man could understand this system of rule over following a Bible, as it was the church that made an error in the first place because of this very reason. The church executed the son of God because they beleived their morals where absolute and what he was preaching was wrong. Think if Jesus had lived in this society he would have been free from such absolute morality and could have lived longer and told the world a lot more. If a state which took the morals from the Bible to be absolute was to exist, who's to say another coming of Gods son wouldn't change the New Testements morality? Like Jesus did to the Old Testement? You beleive the Bibles morals to be absolute yet who are you to excercise this judgement that the Bible will not once again change? Truth through persecution always prevails however it has to wait for a society to accept such truth. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 @ Locke, I think you've forced the point about tigra's technicality enough, just let it go before you start sounding like a nazi. @ Satenza, do you really think most christians are so weak minded that they will read the bible and walk away with thoughs of genocide, murdur and rape? That's a tad pessemistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 No, I am saying that the majority take it in a mostly good way. However it's not hard too get out of the Bible that someone can follow God and beleive murdering people who do not beleive in their God is Gods word, because God did it himself. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 No, I am saying that the majority take it in a mostly good way. However it's not hard too get out of the Bible that someone can follow God and beleive murdering people who do not beleive in their God is Gods word, because God did it himself. Well, all can say is thank god (no pun intended) I don't live in that country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 This question: I would have thought a christian man could understand this system of rule over following a Bible, as it was the church that made an error in the first place because of this very reason. The church executed the son of God because they beleived their morals where absolute and what he was preaching was wrong. Think if Jesus had lived in this society he would have been free from such absolute morality and could have lived longer and told the world a lot more. If a state which took the morals from the Bible to be absolute was to exist, who's to say another coming of Gods son wouldn't change the New Testements morality? Like Jesus did to the Old Testement? You beleive the Bibles morals to be absolute yet who are you to excercise this judgement that the Bible will not once again change? Truth through persecution always prevails however it has to wait for a society to accept such truth. If you read the Gospel, you will see that the Pharisee's attempting to get Jesus to say things that contradict the scriptures, yet he avoids their tricks. They didn't execute him because they believed he was preaching against their morals, they executed him because they didn't believe he was the Son of God like he claimed he was. If you look at the contradictions in the Bible and place them in cultural context, you will see that Jesus in fact did not contradict what was said before, he clarified. One major, and often overlooked, difference in culture's between the Old and New Testament is in the majority of places in the Old Testament, the Hebrews were governing themselves. In most of the passages that seem to contradict beliefs thousands of years later, usually found in the laws in Leviticus, the orders given were orders not of morality, but of how to govern the state. Because of this, Jesus' message was not one of, "You are wrong, we are changing it," but instead, "You have interpreted this wrong and gone astray of the Lord." During Jesus' gospel, people were becoming individually self-righteous over those they deemed sinners. God never encouraged this kind of behavior in the Old Testament, but people were interpreting the scriptures that were written for very specific reasons, to assert their own moral superiority, which was wrong. So when Jesus said, "You have heard an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but I tell you do not resist an evil person. Whoever may slap you across the face, turn the other cheek," he is not nullifying the ancient scriptures because the ancient scriptures were never intended to be universal. You ask me how we know it's not going to change? Well according to Christian belief, Jesus came once (as predicted in several Old Testament books) and will come one more time in which the Earth will be destroyed and believers and non-believers will be separated. It's not like everyone was "surprised" that Jesus came down and did what he did...it had been predicted in the Old Testament that it would happen. He was punished not for "changing the rules" but he was punished for claiming he was the Son of God when those didn't believe him. When I made that comment earlier I said to PM me if you wanted to know why, which you never did. There is so much more to it that I just don't have time to type right now. Sorry. No, I am saying that the majority take it in a mostly good way. However it's not hard too get out of the Bible that someone can follow God and beleive murdering people who do not beleive in their God is Gods word, because God did it himself. People != God. It would be foolish to make that assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 We are also told to be loving to one another like God is, so i don't see why a slightly mad person couldn't draw that comparison to be justification for murder. And you told me to PM you if i wanted more infomation on Paradigm Shifts which I do, but i don't have the time to go into all that at the moment. You told me you wouln't answer my question until i stopped contradicting myself. And i have another question, the people back then interpreted Gods word wrong. Who is too say you have not interpreted Jesus' words wrong? With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 No, I am saying that the majority take it in a mostly good way. However it's not hard too get out of the Bible that someone can follow God and beleive murdering people who do not beleive in their God is Gods word, because God did it himself. So we get back to the point of, "The Bible is evil because people are evil?" You say what it says is moral, and you say that people generally interpret it with good intentions. So all of a sudden, because a few people are immoral enough to use and manipulate a well respected book, the book itself is evil. If something is respected by the people, rulers seek to weild it and abuse it for their own personal gain or interests. That's how the cunning rulers manipulate, guide, and control their minions and comrades. That doesn't have any effect on the meaning of the book, or how good of a moral guidebook it is. Sat, I don't get your logic at all. There will always be respected works, and their will always be people who abuse the people's trust in it. Are you saying we get rid of every followed and respected piece of literate known to man, to stop the few who will just find something else to use to manipulate the masses anyways? [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 No, i am saying you don't need to maniplute anything. If you take the opinion that "If God did it, so can I" which isn't a very unatural opinion to take if you follow such a God. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonpost Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I'm going to step up on my soap box here, and I'm probably going to ramble a heck of a lot about things that aren't entirely related to this thread. Read on if you'd like. The bible...and the creation of the Earth. Interesting. How about I start from a practical perspective. I can't prove anyone here wrong who supports the bible. It's simply impossible because it is largely faith based. On the other hand, I couldn't prove anyone wrong who supports modern science (science in favor of old-earth) because science hasn't nearly discovered everything, and hardly anything can be proven "for sure" because we simply don't have environmental records of times long past... If you want to argue about the age of the earth, go ahead. You won't get anywhere. Now for a different view than those two. What if I told you it doesn't matter? The bible doesn't matter, although the wisdom in it is worthwhile (of which there is much, although some is rather archaic and was merely a step in the development of the over-all human system of morality and way of thinking). God is dead. It doesn't matter if he wrote the bible, he's freaking gone. He's asleep somewhere...lost somewhere...forgot about earth...died...never existed in the first place. To be quite frank, God's an asshat. Seriously. What being punishes his own creation for wanting knowledge. Today, we all want knowledge! We want to know! Innocence doesn't last forever. What was wrong with Eve's decision to take the fruit and eat it? Is knowledge a sin? Or could I be wrong...is merely disobeying God's orders a sin...? If so, then God's an idiot. By simply disobeying him, humanity was cast out from the garden and doomed to suffer for all of eternity until the son returned to earth a second time, and even then all of the non-believers will be "separated', whatever that actually means. God's a tyrant; a worthless, lazy, no good tyrant. Quite frankly, humanity doesn't owe him jack other than maybe a thanks for being alive in the first place. And that's assuming there is a God. I honestly don't see why people thank him for everything that happens. Like I said, maybe feel free to thank him for what is, but surely not what happens or occurs. He's dead. He's gone. He doesn't do anything anymore. The bible isn't totally irrelevant; as I said earlier it contains some worthwhile wisdom. However, to believe something purely because it says that it was written by inspired writers for God is quite foolish. I suppose that's faith? Oh, and one last thing. None of you have any right to be horrified or otherwise angry at my disdain towards God. Why is that? Well, God created man to be like himself, and to be free, didn't he? I'm just using my brain to THINK. I'm not even doing anything bad or immoral. I'm thinking. If God doesn't approve of thinking, then I wouldn't want to be with such a horrid creature. Then again, I suppose Eve dared to think and thirst for knowledge...and look where we are now... No offense to any of you who believe in the bible. If it floats your boat, feel free. You know, sometimes I wish that the bible and religion were enough for me. I could be blissfully happy, content in thinking that I know everything worthwhile knowing. I'm sometimes sad that my mind thirsts for more. I am not satisfied with religion, let alone faith. There's also that human factor... It's incredible how people can twist religion so terribly. I'm sorry that all religion is quite corrupted... Corrupted by everyone. My last tid-bit - Some of you may say that you see God everywhere in daily life. Well, I see him too. He's there, faced my way so that I can see him, with eyes glazed over. Runescape Name: "unbug07"Expand your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Interesting views there gonpost. You're quite right in saying that we can't attain proof of something 100%; there will always be uncertainties. Having said that, there is conclusive and compelling evidence that the earth is not 6000 years old, whether you choose to accept it or not is dependant on the person, but it's given to us by nature itself. Radioactive materials, old trees, rock layers, sediment layers et al all suggest an old earth. I could suggest they were clues left by god (to please the theists out there) as it's just as likely becuase god himself (nor anyone in the bible) said 'the earth is 'x' years old or was created in year 'x.' So you are right, we can't prove anything 100%, but we can and are getting closer and closer to that figure every day. Ultimately it all boils down to who/what you trust. The clues left everywhere in nature which suggest the earth is billions of years old or a book written by man which may or may not allude to the earth's exact age depending on the accuracy of the information of the people protrayed and thier ages. Meh, sorry for that, ramblings over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X_Fat4lyfe_X Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 The Jews also don't use the Bible so you couldn't speculate that. The Bible is the combination of both the Old and New Testament. Jews study the Torah, Tanakh, Talmud, responsa, and rabbinic literature, not the Bible. Ouch. rather accurate but a minor detail- Tanach is an acronym for the three sections of the "Old Testament". T"NK- Torah, (Five Books of Moses), Niveem (Prophets), and "Kethuvim"( KI-TOO-VIM). Kiss my axe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warren211 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 You claimed that if X Days was so long, it means the day is long over. Remember, the writers of the bible were in ancient times. The Israelite who wrote the story wrote it based on the Israelites working schedule (6 days, 1 rest day). However, that doesnt mean that the days had a specific set amount of time. Maybe the creation of all the creatures was over 60 million years in the making, and evolution took place during that time. Maybe the creation of the sun and moon was a lot shorter, perhaps a week in our time. Remember though, God was not limited by time and space. He was in eternity. There is no time and space. So, all this evolution and stuff could have appeared to be millions of years in the making, but in eternity its the smallest possible lapse of time existant. [hide=]tip it would pay me $500.00 to keep my clothes ON :( :lol:But then again, you fail to realize that 101% of the people in this universe hate you. Yes, humankind's hatred against you goes beyond mathematical possibilities.That tears it. I'm starting an animal rebellion using my mind powers. Those PETA bastards will never see it coming until the porcupines are half way up their asses.[/hide]Apparently a lot of people say it. I own. http://linkagg.com/ Not my site, but a simple, budding site that links often unheard-of websites that are amazing for usefulness and fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Im going to start saying "The Bible is the biggest load of bull [cabbage] ever." When was the Bible written? Around 100 AD, and YET people believe the 'facts' is says? Come on...they thought the world was flat! Yet some of us comit our lives to follow a book not even written by Jesus nor God phsyically. No sir, written by men who 'heard' stories. These could of been folktales for all we know, or twisted it to suit their needs. Afterall humans are filled with sins! At least get what you're writing correct first, before you flame. Even though he may not have the year historically correct, he makes a good point, unless, of course, you don't take the bibal as literal fact. Exacto. I don't take it as literal fact. So then your belief is that Jesus never came to Earth, and there is no way to repent and therefore no way to heavan? Is that a correct judgment of your comment, considering you don't take it as literal fact (I'm assuming your a christian - correct me if I'm wrong - and I'm sorry if I am ;)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueLancer Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Im going to start saying "The Bible is the biggest load of bull [cabbage] ever." When was the Bible written? Around 100 AD, and YET people believe the 'facts' is says? Come on...they thought the world was flat! Yet some of us comit our lives to follow a book not even written by Jesus nor God phsyically. No sir, written by men who 'heard' stories. These could of been folktales for all we know, or twisted it to suit their needs. Afterall humans are filled with sins! At least get what you're writing correct first, before you flame. Even though he may not have the year historically correct, he makes a good point, unless, of course, you don't take the bibal as literal fact. Exacto. I don't take it as literal fact. So then your belief is that Jesus never came to Earth, and there is no way to repent and therefore no way to heavan? Is that a correct judgment of your comment, considering you don't take it as literal fact (I'm assuming your a christian - correct me if I'm wrong - and I'm sorry if I am ;)) No, it's a historical fact Jesus the person has existed. That's not a belief, there is too much evidence to show he actually existed. You can still believe that and take the less serious magical parts of the Bible with a grain of salt as a piece of literature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warren211 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Jesus WAS a real person. In the roman empire, there was a great writer called Pliny the Younger. He wrote letters to the emperor of rome at the time, Trajan, describing how he planned to deal with these Christians who believe in Jesus, who was alive. Trajan responded praising Pliny for his ideas. So right there, the outside source has told us Jesus did exist. [hide=]tip it would pay me $500.00 to keep my clothes ON :( :lol:But then again, you fail to realize that 101% of the people in this universe hate you. Yes, humankind's hatred against you goes beyond mathematical possibilities.That tears it. I'm starting an animal rebellion using my mind powers. Those PETA bastards will never see it coming until the porcupines are half way up their asses.[/hide]Apparently a lot of people say it. I own. http://linkagg.com/ Not my site, but a simple, budding site that links often unheard-of websites that are amazing for usefulness and fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warren211 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Also remember that the Bible is not to be taken literally. (DON'T panic, I'll explain) In one parable, Jesus said it was easier for a camel to get into the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven. In that case, does it mean rich people can't go to heaven? NO! it's an idiom, an expression. Its just there to show hoe hard it is to get in heaven while being rich. Jesus also said not to call anyone Father except God. In that case, does it mean we have no title to address a priest and we cannot address our own dad's? NO! it's another expression. It was hard to translate the word from greek to english, and it came out as "father." the actual word Jesus used was a respect word reserved only for god which literally meant "father" but only to be used for God himself. [hide=]tip it would pay me $500.00 to keep my clothes ON :( :lol:But then again, you fail to realize that 101% of the people in this universe hate you. Yes, humankind's hatred against you goes beyond mathematical possibilities.That tears it. I'm starting an animal rebellion using my mind powers. Those PETA bastards will never see it coming until the porcupines are half way up their asses.[/hide]Apparently a lot of people say it. I own. http://linkagg.com/ Not my site, but a simple, budding site that links often unheard-of websites that are amazing for usefulness and fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falco513 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Jesus WAS a real person. In the roman empire, there was a great writer called Pliny the Younger. He wrote letters to the emperor of rome at the time, Trajan, describing how he planned to deal with these Christians who believe in Jesus, who was alive. Trajan responded praising Pliny for his ideas. So right there, the outside source has told us Jesus did exist. So if I went and wrote a letter to someone about being abducted by "flying robot monkey alien things", that would be considered proof they exist? :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Jesus WAS a real person. In the roman empire, there was a great writer called Pliny the Younger. He wrote letters to the emperor of rome at the time, Trajan, describing how he planned to deal with these Christians who believe in Jesus, who was alive. Trajan responded praising Pliny for his ideas. So right there, the outside source has told us Jesus did exist. So if I went and wrote a letter to someone about being abducted by "flying robot monkey alien things", that would be considered proof they exist? :roll: 1: No one respects your writing. No offense, I think. 2: Pliny was respected, and he has historical data of Jesus existing. 3: There are dozens (or more?) of historical sources verifying the existence of Jesus. Look up your facts before you even dare to use the " :roll: " emote. Also remember that the Bible is not to be taken literally. (DON'T panic, I'll explain) In one parable, Jesus said it was easier for a camel to get into the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven. In that case, does it mean rich people can't go to heaven? NO! it's an idiom, an expression. Its just there to show hoe hard it is to get in heaven while being rich. Eh, I'd debate that as more of a "life ain't fair, I want karma in the afterlife, so let's pWn the rich dudes who we're jealous of" statement. I respect Jesus' opinions, but that just doesn't sound right. There's nothing wrong with being rich. Poor people just thought that the rich deserved pain for having better lives than them, which is total and complete b.s. Jesus also said not to call anyone Father except God. In that case, does it mean we have no title to address a priest and we cannot address our own dad's? NO! it's another expression. It was hard to translate the word from greek to english, and it came out as "father." the actual word Jesus used was a respect word reserved only for god which literally meant "father" but only to be used for God himself. Oh, and the word Abba is closer to the word "daddy" than "father". It was informal, not "respected". Just making sure you got that. I respect the Bible and all, but that wasn't the greatest defense dude. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLastTemplar Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 I'm telling you, Just let Christianity die down. One of you said, it has been going strong for 2000 years plus. Well, Like I said, it takes time. Yes, I do understand it is the world's leading religion but at the height of the Roman empire the main religion was..an adpatation of greek gods and goddess. In the Babylonian Empire it was the worship of many gods with one chief god, Marduk. Now these religions practically do not exist! Because eventually the truth will come out. And you cannot say" prove the world is 6000 years old with no religious context" because..there is no such thing. No matter what there will always be a belief..even atheist..which is an oxymoron( you say I believe nothing..well that is your belief) So no matter you will always get a religious bias. Even if you believe that science is the best thing to depend on.. Think about it. Religion is inevitable. There is NO SUCH THING as no religion. No matter what to those of us who are Christian, keep up the faith and press onwards. THE TRUTH WILL BE REVEALED. http://siggy.draynor.net/goal/fletching ... cow101.gif[/img][/url] Nova Ordo Secularum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now