The bible

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

 

You quoted one part of that article and concluded christians are like that. There are multiple types of christians. I'm a Catholic so of course I'm not welcome here or in a lot of places. In my beliefs and those of others of my faith, we believe that as long as you live a moral life, avoid serious wrongdoings, and feel repentence for your sins, you're just as good in a position to go to heaven as anyone else. Another quote that you seemingly purposely avoided in the article, which was right above your quote, said:

 

 

 

At the end of the age, the bodies of the dead shall be raised. The righteous shall enter into full possession of eternal bliss in the presence of God, and the wicked shall be condemned to eternal death.

 

 

 

as you can see, these people think only the wicked will be sent to hell. Nonbelievers are ok as long as they are willing to accept whatever God is the real God after they see him.

 

That's fine with me. The more variations/contradictions there are, the more foolish you all seem.

[Kenshinjapan]

 

as you can see, these people think only the wicked will be sent to hell. Nonbelievers are ok as long as they are willing to accept whatever God is the real God after they see him.

 

 

 

That contradicts itself. Why would a nonbeliever accept God on the day they die. It doesn't work where you can do whatever you want and just repent for it on the day you die. Once your dead, it's done, and you can't be forgiven for it once it's too late.

[happybappy]

 

You're comparing evolution and what the bible teaches as if they are both moral constructs or ways to live your life. Evolution is a scientific theory which merely explains life on earth. Just be aware that if someone uses evolution as an excuse to act in a certain way, they've taken it way out of the context of science. This would be social darwinism, something which I personally think is a rubbish way to think or base your life's choices on. Survival of the fittest is a consequence of there being disparity in genetic make-up and resource avaliability between members of a population. Humans have risen above this, in many ways.

 

Perhaps the comparison was a bit off. But tell me:

 

Why do you think it's rubbish? (1) Why should we help the sick and poor?

 

 

 

And I'll also quote myself from another thread:

 

Okay, I'm gonna change my mind. I actually do think that some beliefs are bunk. I don't believe that the Bible and Christianity are compatible with the evolution theory. The evolution theory says that humans are no more special than any other species. They might be the most prominent species at the moment, but there is no guarantee that we will always be nor have always been. Why would Jesus die for some random species who currently is at the top of the world? Why would humans be asked to rule all other species? Please enlighten me if I'm wrong.

 

It's like suddenly some christians decided to disregard what the Bible actually says and try to fit it in with the evolution theory. If you're going to react like: "oh but God used that..." every time a new theory comes along, you'll end up losing your credibility.

 

 

 

(1) Why not? All humans seem to have an underlying behaviourally shown attitude of altruism. It's only recently we gained the knowlege to see that the sick and weak can't progress a gene pool like those that aren't sick and weak can. I choose to stick with the altruism and stay away from social darwinism rhetoric. It's the kind of thing Hitler manipulated in trying to get a 'perfect' master race of blue eyed, blonde haired people. I just think the idea of denying or neglecting life to further a gene pool is dangerously subjective, prone to manipulation, and retarded.

 

 

 

Natural selection works whatever the circumstances. You don't need to regulate it.

[Adventurer]

 

That's fine with me. The more variations/contradictions there are, the more foolish you all seem.

 

Dude, that guy's belief is totally different from Christianity. In Christianity, there's only one way to get to heaven:

 

1. God sent Jesus to die for sins

 

2. John 3:18 - Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

 

 

 

So what that warren guy said isn't Christianity. Please learn what you're talking about before you decide to be a critic, otherwise, you fall into the stereotype of the ignorant anti-Christian atheist.

[happybappy]

@underu2000:

 

 

 

http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/beli ... erlife.htm

 

Being a Muslim does not keep one out of Hell, but it is not clear whether Muslims remain in Hell forever. Non-Muslims (kafir), however, will be punished eternally.

 

http://www.religionfacts.com/christiani ... erlife.htm

 

We believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead; of the believer to everlasting blessedness and joy with the Lord; of the unbeliever to judgment and everlasting conscious punishment.

 

 

 

Still think the quran doesn't contradict the bible?

 

 

 

Each religion thinks it is the only true faith. Each religion thinks the others will burn in hell.

 

 

 

Those are interpretations. Give some actual quotes.

 

 

 

People should distinguish the opinions of followers of a religion from the religious texts of that religion.

[venomai]

Those are interpretations. Give some actual quotes.

 

 

 

People should distinguish the opinions of followers of a religion from the religious texts of that religion.

 

 

 

Here are some quotes.

 

Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16)

 

http://www.religionfacts.com/christiani ... igions.htm

 

 

 

3.12: Say to those who disbelieve: You shall be vanquished, and driven together to hell; and evil is the resting-place.

 

 

 

3.85: And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.

 

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer ... ision=div1

 

 

 

However, different interpretations will lead to different opinions.

 

 

 

Most religions have adapted to better suit the ideals of the 21st century. Religious pluralism is becoming increasingly important in all religions.

 

 

 

The Dalai Lama tells us:

 

Religion is important for humanity, but it should evolve with humanity. The first priority is to establish and develop the principle of pluralism in all religious traditions. If we, the religious leaders, cultivate a sincere pluralistic attitude, then everything will be more simple.

[warri0r45]

 

You're comparing evolution and what the bible teaches as if they are both moral constructs or ways to live your life. Evolution is a scientific theory which merely explains life on earth. Just be aware that if someone uses evolution as an excuse to act in a certain way, they've taken it way out of the context of science. This would be social darwinism, something which I personally think is a rubbish way to think or base your life's choices on. Survival of the fittest is a consequence of there being disparity in genetic make-up and resource avaliability between members of a population. Humans have risen above this, in many ways.

 

Perhaps the comparison was a bit off. But tell me:

 

Why do you think it's rubbish? (1) Why should we help the sick and poor?

 

 

 

And I'll also quote myself from another thread:

 

Okay, I'm gonna change my mind. I actually do think that some beliefs are bunk. I don't believe that the Bible and Christianity are compatible with the evolution theory. The evolution theory says that humans are no more special than any other species. They might be the most prominent species at the moment, but there is no guarantee that we will always be nor have always been. Why would Jesus die for some random species who currently is at the top of the world? Why would humans be asked to rule all other species? Please enlighten me if I'm wrong.

 

It's like suddenly some christians decided to disregard what the Bible actually says and try to fit it in with the evolution theory. If you're going to react like: "oh but God used that..." every time a new theory comes along, you'll end up losing your credibility.

 

 

 

(1) Why not? All humans seem to have an underlying behaviourally shown attitude of altruism. It's only recently we gained the knowlege to see that the sick and weak can't progress a gene pool like those that aren't sick and weak can. I choose to stick with the altruism and stay away from social darwinism rhetoric. It's the kind of thing Hitler manipulated in trying to get a 'perfect' master race of blue eyed, blonde haired people. I just think the idea of denying or neglecting life to further a gene pool is dangerously subjective, prone to manipulation, and retarded.

 

 

 

Natural selection works whatever the circumstances. You don't need to regulate it.

 

 

 

True, but I was referring more to artificial selection. In my opinion, any artificial selection done on human populations for cosmetic purposes is subjective and prone to manipulation and discrimination, hence the Hitler example.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

 

So what that warren guy said isn't Christianity.

 

Exactly. It isn't christianity and it contradicts christianity, thus nullifying both religions.

[happybappy]

Those are interpretations. Give some actual quotes.

 

 

 

People should distinguish the opinions of followers of a religion from the religious texts of that religion.

 

 

 

Here are some quotes.

 

Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16)

 

http://www.religionfacts.com/christiani ... igions.htm

 

 

 

3.12: Say to those who disbelieve: You shall be vanquished, and driven together to hell; and evil is the resting-place.

 

 

 

3.85: And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.

 

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer ... ision=div1

 

 

 

However, different interpretations will lead to different opinions.

 

 

 

Most religions have adapted to better suit the ideals of the 21st century. Religious pluralism is becoming increasingly important in all religions.

 

 

 

The Dalai Lama tells us:

 

Religion is important for humanity, but it should evolve with humanity. The first priority is to establish and develop the principle of pluralism in all religious traditions. If we, the religious leaders, cultivate a sincere pluralistic attitude, then everything will be more simple.

 

 

 

Maybe both are true but only relevant for the the time period in which they were written.

[venomai]

Maybe both are true but only relevant for the the time period in which they were written.

 

Yes, like I said in my last post; religion adapts to changes in society.

 

 

 

Although the quotes prove that the Qu'ran does (literally) contradict the Bible, which is what the discussion was about.

[johntm]

You guys want proof God exists. Show me proof He doesn't before you expect me to believe you

[Rebdragon]

You guys want proof God exists. Show me proof He doesn't before you expect me to believe you

 

Not that anyone has even talked about the existence of God in the past 20 pages, but:

 

 

 

Teacup.

 

 

 

Great job asking someone to prove a negative. Genius. I swear, Ra is laughing down at the earth right now from his throne on the Sun after reading that post on the solar-resistant computer Horus gave him last Christmas.

 

 

 

Oh, and before you say that's ludicrous, show me proof that he isn't really reading this post right now from his palace on the Sun. What proof do you have that he isn't?

[Nadril]

You guys want proof God exists. Show me proof He doesn't before you expect me to believe you

 

Not that anyone has even talked about the existence of God in the past 20 pages, but:

 

 

 

Teacup.

 

 

 

Great job asking someone to prove a negative. Genius. I swear, Ra is laughing down at the earth right now from his throne on the Sun after reading that post on the solar-resistant computer Horus gave him last Christmas.

 

 

 

Oh, and before you say that's ludicrous, show me proof that he isn't really reading this post right now from his palace on the Sun. What proof do you have that he isn't?

 

 

 

Thats not how it works, I'm sorry. Just because something can not be proven does not mean it is real. It means there is the possibility of it possibly being real but isn't a garentee. Really, the burden lies on you to be able to prove it.

 

 

 

 

 

Either way I've really lost track of this conversation over the past few pages, I just felt like chiming in a bit.

[Rebdragon]

Thats not how it works, I'm sorry. Just because something can not be proven does not mean it is real. It means there is the possibility of it possibly being real but isn't a garentee. Really, the burden lies on you to be able to prove it.

 

 

 

 

 

Either way I've really lost track of this conversation over the past few pages, I just felt like chiming in a bit.

 

I'm confused... you were talking to him, right o_O?

[heartless619]

ugh....are you guys seriouse....still going on about this..

 

i could have sworn all this jesus talk would hve been over..

[Nadril]

Both of you really. With our current understanding of how the world works there is no way we can prove or disprove the existence of god. The reason I don't believe in god is that we can prove to an extent how life came to be and why things are like they are.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know if I'm being any clearer or not. I'm pretty much just saying that the burden of proof lies on someone trying to prove that god is real, not someone trying to disprove it. Its the same thing as if someone said bigfoot was real -- you'd expect proof. There isn't any sort of way that we can prove bigfoot, in this case, is not real and doesn't exist.

 

 

 

 

 

The biggest thing is with the way your god is laid out to work like you really can't prove it because he doesn't let others know of his presence. I was actually watching a futurama episode where bender was floating through space. He found where 'god' was and when talking to him he said that the best laid plans are those when no one knows you did a thing. What he meant is that a God that knows what it is doing can fix 'problems' by making it so that no one knows he did a thing. In the episode Bender realized that God won't help you with squat and went to get these people out of a closet (that fry and leela locked in there earlier to find him), pretty much proving the point. (Bit off topic there but yeah) Basically with the way god works we can't prove him or disprove him right now, at the least.

[warri0r45]

You guys want proof God exists. Show me proof He doesn't before you expect me to believe you

 

 

 

That's impossible and poor logic.

 

 

 

Let's say I have a friend called Bob who is not detectable by any of our natural senses. Let's say, for instance, that I believe Bob really exists and he is the creator of absolutely everything and he created absolutely everything in his supernatural universe factory. Prove to me that Bob dosen't exist and on top of that, that he didn't create absolutely everything in his supernatural universe factory.

 

 

 

Firstly, the onus of proof is on me to prove to you that Bob is as I claim he is, as I am the one making the claim. It's like me being a prosecutor in a trial up against an alleged murderer and coming up with the line "prove to me he didn't murder so and so." I'd get fired because it's my job to support the allegation, or claim, with evidence. If someone asks me to make a case for biological evolution, I do my best to do so instead of just fruitlessly asking "prove to me it didn't happen."

 

 

 

Not only is the onus of proof on me because I'm making the claim, but what I asked you to prove is impossible. No one knows whether my friend Bob, your god, or anything of that nature, exists or not because we are naturally limited in what we can percieve with our senses.

 

 

 

So you've essentially required of me a logically backwards impossibility. I would ask you for a logically "forwards" impossibility, but that is, at this stage, impossible. So I tend to just forget about it and not ask people to prove thier undetectable gods to me. Unless, of course, you're aware of some facet of reality that I'm not and that I can percieve myself without the need of faith.

 

 

 

So next time you demand someone disprove your unproven notion, remember Bob, your creator. If you don't believe he is your creator, prove to me that he didn't create everything or that he dosen't exist because at the present time he's telling me he's dissapointed that people are worshipping the wrong supernatural being. You don't think a supernatural being can talk to me? Prove he can't. You're probably catching on by now at how meaningless this rhetoric is. Bob can too. Don't think he's smart enough to catch on? Prove he isn't. Repetition is the key to learning. Bob thinks so too. Don't think he thinks this? Prove he dosen't. If I do this enough times I'm sure I'll convince myself what I'm saying is true. Amazing how the mind works.

 

 

 

So to snap out of that little bubble, just because someone can't disprove an idea dosen't automatically make it true or even give it any credibility. It is, as I said, meaningless rhetoric asking someone to prove a negative.

[Rebdragon]

Both of you really. With our current understanding of how the world works there is no way we can prove or disprove the existence of god. The reason I don't believe in god is that we can prove to an extent how life came to be and why things are like they are.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know if I'm being any clearer or not. I'm pretty much just saying that the burden of proof lies on someone trying to prove that god is real, not someone trying to disprove it. Its the same thing as if someone said bigfoot was real -- you'd expect proof. There isn't any sort of way that we can prove bigfoot, in this case, is not real and doesn't exist.

 

 

 

 

 

The biggest thing is with the way your god is laid out to work like you really can't prove it because he doesn't let others know of his presence. I was actually watching a futurama episode where bender was floating through space. He found where 'god' was and when talking to him he said that the best laid plans are those when no one knows you did a thing. What he meant is that a God that knows what it is doing can fix 'problems' by making it so that no one knows he did a thing. In the episode Bender realized that God won't help you with squat and went to get these people out of a closet (that fry and leela locked in there earlier to find him), pretty much proving the point. (Bit off topic there but yeah) Basically with the way god works we can't prove him or disprove him right now, at the least.

 

Well, for one thing, I'm agnostic; I don't believe in God (or any god, for that matter), which is why I was confused. The Ra thing was just rhetorical sarcasm. Though I still don't get it, why were you making your post in response to mine? The only way I see would be if you thought I was being serious when I mentioned Ra :| .

 

 

 

Basically, the point of my post is exactly the same thing you just said- that the burden of proof lies on him, not us. I added Ra into the picture to better explain the fact that just because something can't be disproven doesn't mean it's logically sound (because, obviously... nothing can be 100% disproven -_-").

[venomai]

ugh....are you guys seriouse....still going on about this..

 

i could have sworn all this jesus talk would hve been over..

 

Nope... Religious debates never really end.

[Nadril]

Both of you really. With our current understanding of how the world works there is no way we can prove or disprove the existence of god. The reason I don't believe in god is that we can prove to an extent how life came to be and why things are like they are.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know if I'm being any clearer or not. I'm pretty much just saying that the burden of proof lies on someone trying to prove that god is real, not someone trying to disprove it. Its the same thing as if someone said bigfoot was real -- you'd expect proof. There isn't any sort of way that we can prove bigfoot, in this case, is not real and doesn't exist.

 

 

 

 

 

The biggest thing is with the way your god is laid out to work like you really can't prove it because he doesn't let others know of his presence. I was actually watching a futurama episode where bender was floating through space. He found where 'god' was and when talking to him he said that the best laid plans are those when no one knows you did a thing. What he meant is that a God that knows what it is doing can fix 'problems' by making it so that no one knows he did a thing. In the episode Bender realized that God won't help you with squat and went to get these people out of a closet (that fry and leela locked in there earlier to find him), pretty much proving the point. (Bit off topic there but yeah) Basically with the way god works we can't prove him or disprove him right now, at the least.

 

Well, for one thing, I'm agnostic; I don't believe in God (or any god, for that matter), which is why I was confused. The Ra thing was just rhetorical sarcasm. Though I still don't get it, why were you making your post in response to mine? The only way I see would be if you thought I was being serious when I mentioned Ra :| .

 

 

 

Basically, the point of my post is exactly the same thing you just said- that the burden of proof lies on him, not us. I added Ra into the picture to better explain the fact that just because something can't be disproven doesn't mean it's logically sound (because, obviously... nothing can be 100% disproven -_-").

 

 

 

Yeah I'm sorry. I read his post over again now and realized my mistake. Again in my defense I posted it at 4am. Whoops.

[meol]

1. First, I'd like to say that I believe in a God, as in a higher power that created us, although only based on suppositions (I'm not that faithful). However, I say that since nobody has any kind of real proof that denies or reinforces the existence of such a being, we can't be sure about it, and it doesn't make sense to be so close minded to think that one's belief is the only true one. Also, I consider that following a set of doctrines set ages ago is illogic, as the society and the circumstances change.

 

 

 

2. Secondly, I think that the main point of religions should be to keep people with faith of something better, and that its most important teachings should be about helping and not harming others. (Thou shalt not kill, for example). That means, of course, that religions should be tolerant of the others, and people should abide to this, as a part of their own religion. Take this quotes, for example:

 

 

 

[hide=Various Hinduist, Jewish, Muslim and Christian quotes]

Whatever may be the form [of the deity] a devotee-whosoever he may be-desires to worship with faith, I assume that form which is firm and is according to [his] faith. Endowed with that faith, he seeks to worship that deity and therefrom receives his desired objects that are ordained by none but Me.(Gita: 7:21-22)

 

Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 1 John 4:7

 

Among the people of the Book there are some who have faith in God and in what has been sent down to you and what was sent down to them, and who are humble before God. They do not sell God's Signs for a paltry price. Such people will have their reward with their Lord. And God is swift at reckoning." (Qur'an, Surat Al 'Imran; 3:199)

 

The righteous of all peoples have a place in the World-To-Come (Tos. to Sanhedrin 13:2, Sifra to Leviticus 19:18)

[/hide]

 

 

 

3. The different parts of the Bible (especially this one), the Torah, the Quran, and the other holy books were written at different times, by different people or under different circumstances. Thus, as people aren't perfect, you can't suppose that such a book will have the only the purest truth.

 

 

 

Just some of my opinions on religion.

[happybappy]

Any discussion of whether god exists will get nowhere. Lets instead discuss the beliefs of religions.

[underu2000]

@underu2000:

 

 

 

http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/beli ... erlife.htm

 

Being a Muslim does not keep one out of Hell, but it is not clear whether Muslims remain in Hell forever. Non-Muslims (kafir), however, will be punished eternally.

 

http://www.religionfacts.com/christiani ... erlife.htm

 

We believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead; of the believer to everlasting blessedness and joy with the Lord; of the unbeliever to judgment and everlasting conscious punishment.

 

 

 

Still think the quran doesn't contradict the bible?

 

 

 

Each religion thinks it is the only true faith. Each religion thinks the others will burn in hell.

 

I'm aware that Islam and Christianity are different religions and have different beliefs. I mean, it's obvious that two different things are not the same, because they're different; by definition to be precise. What I meant by "not contradicting" is from what they DO have in similar, which is around 90% (old testament and a lot from the new). A contradiction usually refers to things that refer to the same topics but provide different conclusions. And if it isn't apparent, that remaining 10% are different topics and are obviously going to conflict.

[happybappy]

@underu2000:

 

 

 

http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/beli ... erlife.htm

 

Being a Muslim does not keep one out of Hell, but it is not clear whether Muslims remain in Hell forever. Non-Muslims (kafir), however, will be punished eternally.

 

http://www.religionfacts.com/christiani ... erlife.htm

 

We believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead; of the believer to everlasting blessedness and joy with the Lord; of the unbeliever to judgment and everlasting conscious punishment.

 

 

 

Still think the quran doesn't contradict the bible?

 

 

 

Each religion thinks it is the only true faith. Each religion thinks the others will burn in hell.

 

I'm aware that Islam and Christianity are different religions and have different beliefs. I mean, it's obvious that two different things are not the same, because they're different; by definition to be precise. What I meant by "not contradicting" is from what they DO have in similar, which is around 90% (old testament and a lot from the new). A contradiction usually refers to things that refer to the same topics but provide different conclusions. And if it isn't apparent, that remaining 10% are different topics and are obviously going to conflict.

 

 

 

Since they were written in different times the same principles needed to be applied in different ways. The people also had different cultures.

[johntm]

Some one said a lot of pages ago they didnt know what it means to be made in the likeness of God since he doesnt have physical form. We were originally created to be sinless, but Eve screwed it up by taking the apple from the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Thats what it says in the Bible. You dont have to believe but i chose to.