May 11th, 2007, 03:33 PM
what do you expect god will be-or done-should he interrupt?or shouldnt he interrupt people life??????
i say that because-alot of people are expecting-are they realy expecting??
that god will will change they life????
**************************************************
cohen avshalom charly
isreal/haifa
www.icarus5.com
could the universe began with complete zero!
*************************************************
God has already changed our lives. When we look at our evolution, increases in knowledge and understanding are evident. So now what do we do? Or expect to be done for us? Wisdom is imparted to everyone of us. We in turn have to determine how we can make good use of it. God's plan has always been assured. We as people disobeyed his early commandments, and in turn we are now repsonsible for ourselves. New inventions and discoveries earmark the understanding of our errors. We must seek and then find. God's intervention is already founded on our destiny. As people, we must continue with all of our faith and hope, that God will utimately preserve us in our days of troubles.
Just a Thought
____________
Everlasting
Futuristic Sciene Fiction Novel
Moon Over Key Biscayne
http://www.booksandmore.4t.com
ISBN# 1-4241-6884-8
Everlasting wrote:No evidence.God has already changed our lives.
No evidence.God's plan has always been assured.
We are always responsible for ourselves. All lives are responsible for themselves.We as people disobeyed his early commandments, and in turn we are now repsonsible for ourselves.
Not errors. Of nature.New inventions and discoveries earmark the understanding of our errors.
No evidence.God's intervention is already founded on our destiny.
Just wishful thinking. No evidence.As people, we must continue with all of our faith and hope, that God will utimately preserve us in our days of troubles.
that seemed a bit harsh. (not saying it was, just saying it could be percieved as..political correctness etc, etc.) anyways i agree.
yet the answer was spot on in the sense that if you believe, then your faith will follow through and it will surely intervine in your life.
Some say that the truth hurts.Originally Posted by Mr.Pipin
Should we sit calmly and quitely by while individuals promote superstitious, unfounded nonsense as though it were the absolute truth?
As the other saying goes 'if you can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kithcen'.
When we endeavor to study any topic, we look to the past. As people who have studied, and become learned about things. How can we have a future without a past? We rely on the things that we have learned to enable progress. Refusing a part of history and it's documentation is flagrant disregard. Take any theory that you believe is valid, and ask yourself why you do? The answer is: The information is a documented form of communiction, handed down from generation to generation. So goes the story of Jesus Christ, and the Bible.
Just a Thought
______________
Everlasting
Futuristic Science Fiction Novel
Moon Over Key Biscayne
ISBN # 1-4241-6684-8
:wink:
who's disregarding it we are just taking for what it is a book of fiction, as we would easops fables, homers iliad, beowulf, etc..yes however the bible is a book of fiction, not a theory.yes stories handed down by word of mouth until a scribe but them together. just like a thousand and one nights.
but neither book should be thought of as truth, stories handed down tend to have to many error and exaggerations in them. (chinese whispers and all that)
The death of Jesus Christ, and the events that followed are documentedwho's disregarding it we are just taking for what it is a book of fiction, as we would easops fables, homers iliad, beowulf, etc..yes however the bible is a book of fiction, not a theory.yes stories handed down by word of mouth until a scribe but them together. just like a thousand and one nights.
but neither book should be thought of as truth, stories handed down tend to have to many error and exaggerations in them. (chinese whispers and all that)
in history. Is it easier to defend Christopher Columbus?
By the way, I love your quote.......
Just a Thought
____________
Evelasting
Futuristic Science Fiction Novel
Moon Over Key Biscayne
http://www.booksandmore.4t.com
ISBN # 14241-6884-8
Everlasting wrote:The death of Dumbledore is also documented. The sighting of the abominable snowman is documented. The worship of Kali the Goddess is still practised. Roswell exists.The death of Jesus Christ, and the events that followed are documented
in history. Is it easier to defend Christopher Columbus?
1. The existence of a record does not always mean what it recorded is real.
2. That a man died for what he believed does not mean that what he believed is true.
where, what extrabiblical historical document, do you have, they've all been refuted, there is no evidence for a jesus person, it been done to death here.The death of Jesus Christ, and the events that followed are documentedwho's disregarding it we are just taking for what it is a book of fiction, as we would easops fables, homers iliad, beowulf, etc..yes however the bible is a book of fiction, not a theory.yes stories handed down by word of mouth until a scribe but them together. just like a thousand and one nights.
but neither book should be thought of as truth, stories handed down tend to have to many error and exaggerations in them. (chinese whispers and all that)
in history.
http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...ghlight=#55966yes he existed
thanks, I got it from a forum called the stupid things theist say.
And here I always thought that I believed a theory to be true because it had been throughly tested by experiments.
Actually, you are disregarding it in the respect that he's talking about.who's disregarding it we are just taking for what it is a book of fiction, as we would easops fables, homers iliad, beowulf, etc..No evidence.yes however the bible is a book of fictionNo evidence.yes stories handed down by word of mouth until a scribe but them together.
lol.No evidence.yes however the bible is a book of fiction
the thousand and one nights,( Arab mythology ) jason and the argonauts,( Greek mythology ) the trilogy of the rings, (modern day fiction ) harry potter, (modern day fiction) and the bible, ( hebrew mythology ) all the above contain either one two or several, of these creatures/effects dragons, unicorns, cockatrices, satyrs, talking animals like donkeys and serpents, magical special effects, zombies. etc etc etc...which one/ones are not fiction.
Do you know the definition of fiction? Look it up in a dictionary, then give me some real proof--not merely your opinion--that the Bible is fiction.lol.No evidence.yes however the bible is a book of fiction
the thousand and one nights,( Arab mythology ) jason and the argonauts,( Greek mythology ) the trilogy of the rings, (modern day fiction ) harry potter, (modern day fiction) and the bible, ( hebrew mythology ) all the above contain either one two or several, of these creatures/effects dragons, unicorns, cockatrices, satyrs, talking animals like donkeys and serpents, magical special effects, zombies. etc etc etc...which one/ones are not fiction.
spt wrote:standard defense: when asked to give proof that God exists, the standard reply is -prove to me that He doesn't.Do you know the definition of fiction? Look it up in a dictionary, then give me some real proof--not merely your opinion--that the Bible is fiction.
You are correct; however, I simply want geezer to prove to me that the Bible is fiction, since he seems so sure. Is it not natural to want proof when someone seems extra certain of something you disagree with?
Jesus Christ was put do death by the Roman Empire.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/law...sus_christ.htm
I believe the Roman Empire didn't keep sound records, but the fall
of the Roman Empire brought about Christianity in Rome.
Everlasting
Futuristic Science Fiction Novel
Moon Over Key Biscayne
booksandmore.4t.com
ISBN#1-4241-6884-8
Your link does not prove anything. It just gives another link, which is just a debate forum.
Have you read it before giving the reference?The Historical Jesus: Who was Jesus? Did he exist? Can the Gospel accounts of his trial and execution be trusted? I'm not interested in answering any of these questions in this short article, but there are places on About.com where debate regarding the nature of the historical Jesus is very much on-topic.
* Join the discussion: About.com: Christianity - Debate Forum
ok looked, myth and fiction are very simular, (myth:any invented story, idea, or concept, fiction:something feigned, invented, or imagined, a made-up story) so whats you point.Do you know the definition of fiction? Look it up in a dictionary, then give me some real proof--not merely your opinion--that the Bible is fiction.lol.No evidence.yes however the bible is a book of fiction
the thousand and one nights,( Arab mythology ) jason and the argonauts,( Greek mythology ) the trilogy of the rings, (modern day fiction ) harry potter, (modern day fiction) and the bible, ( hebrew mythology ) all the above contain either one two or several, of these creatures/effects dragons, unicorns, cockatrices, satyrs, talking animals like donkeys and serpents, magical special effects, zombies. etc etc etc...which one/ones are not fiction.
if it's to say the bibles not myth/fiction.
well even if that were the case it would be pretty infantile to believe in a book with such a fairy tale, look about it.
anybody with an ounce of intelligence, should be able to tell the difference, with it's wizards and witches, dragons and unicorns, satyrs and cockatrices, zombies, talking animals and reptiles, etc etc...
to hold the bible up as truth/fact and all the others as fiction, is just plain silly.
did you read the my link, the romans kept the most meticulous records, the most meticulous of all the ancient civilizations, it is pretty infantile of you to say overwise.
the romans as you said killed this fictional jesus person, if he existed how come they dont have any records of it.
so here they are my link posted
JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)
Yes,
The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origin when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* The other tiny passage in Josephus refer to Jesis, son of Damneus.
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm
In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
TACITUS (c.112CE)
Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.
This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php
PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)
About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html
SUETONIUS (c.115CE)
Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html
IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)
The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So,
Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html
THALLUS (date unknown)
We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)
Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/thallus.html
So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.
PHLEGON (c.140)
Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.
VALENTINUS (c.140CE)
In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
So,
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/valentinus.html
POLYCARP (c.155CE)
Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So,
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html
LUCIAN (c.170CE)
Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.
GALEN (late 2nd C.)
Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.
TALMUD (3rd C. and later)
There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.
http://www.heartofisrael.org/chazak...es/intalmud.htm
MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)
A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.
It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.
Miracles?
The early Christians knew of NO miracles -
Paul - no miracles mentioned
Peter - no miracles mentioned
Hebrews - no miracles mentioned
John - no miracles mentioned
Jude - no miracles mentioned
James - no miracles mentioned
Clement - no miracles mentioned
Pastorals - no miracles mentioned
The first mention of any "miracles" is over a CENTURY after they allegedly occured.
Jesus is not mentioned in history.
Jesus' miracles are not mentioned in history.
Jesus' miracles are not even mentioned in CHRISTIAN writings until mid 2nd century.
http://qdj.50megs.com/Table.html
The Gospels
are dated by scholars to 65-120 or so - and none of them were written by the person whose name they bear - they were originally ANONYMOUS and only named in the 1800s.
But no CHRISTIAN writer mentions the Gospels or their contents until early-mid 2nd century.
NOT ONE of the NT books was written by anyone who met any historical Jesus
* Celsus calling the Gospels FICTION based on MYTH.
* Porphyry calling the evangelists INVENTORS.
* Julian saying the Gospels were FABRICATED.
Clear evidence it's all myth.
with many thanks to Iasion
and what of this CRUCIFIXION
The crucifixion
The crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus is probably the single most important event in the xian religion. The crucifix itself, an instrument of torture and death, is the most common symbol associated with xians. It is found in their churches, in their houses and often hanging around their necks.
The inconsistencies and contradictions surrounding the Easter story are well known.
The problem I have is with the whole point of the crucifixion (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it actually happened). What was it all for? What good did it do?
The Death
How does crucifixion kill you? According to the Bible, it seems you can just hang there indefinitely until you feel like "giving up the ghost". In actual fact (correct me if I'm wrong) you die of asphyxiation. Hanging by your arms makes it more and more difficult to expand your chest until you can no longer draw air into your lungs. One of the reasons that the Romans would break the legs of the crucified was to speed up their death - they could not take any weight on their legs and the whole body was hanging by the arms.
( As an aside, it should also be noted that the Romans probably tied the wrists to the cross, and nailed the hands on to make sure the victim could not pull his hands free. If nails were used with no rope, the weight of the body would simply rip the nails through the hands. It has been mentioned that the nails were usually placed between the Radius and Ulna bones in the forearm, as they could support the weight. Presumably it was both the combination of the ropes and nails that held the victim in place. Interesting that you never see xian stigmatics showing rope marks on the wrist and nail marks on the fore-arms, and most images of jesus show him supported only by nails through the hand... )
The four gospels all give different accounts of (among many other things) Jesus' final words. Seems to me that he would hardly have been able to suck in a lungful of air, let alone make any sort of grand speeches.
The Sacrifice
I've read "The Lord sent his only son to die for me! How much more personal can you get?" ; also, I'm sure you've all heard "He died for our sins" and so on. It seems that some people almost celebrate the awful death of Jesus. Was it really some great selfless sacrifice, for the benefit of a world of sinners?
So the story goes, Jesus died and this somehow absolved all of humanity's sins, past, present and future. He then spent three days dead (some say He went to the underworld or Hell), came back to his physical body and then floated up to Heaven.
1. How was this a selfless sacrifice? He was marched up the hill by a bunch of heavily armed centurions. Was he really saying things like "No, it's okay, I want to do this. It's part of The Plan, you see."? (It has to be said that many human sacrifices do willingly go to their deaths, sure in the belief that they are doing it for the good of their people, and that their deity actually exists. They don't usually magically manipulate events to ensure that it happens, however...)
2. Maybe it somehow was a selfless sacrifice. In this case, why was it necessary for Jesus to be killed by the state? Why not just say to his disciples "Well guys, it's time to say Goodbye." and throw himself under the nearest chariot? Death is death. Did the manner in which jesus died actually make any difference?
3. It has never been adequately explained how this death freed us all from sin. If the death freed us from the consequences of sin (hell, or eternal oblivion), it is still unclear as to why it had to happen in this particular way. Why didn't God just sort it all out during Creation?
4. If Jesus is God, then how do we know he really suffered? Is it possible to inflict physical pain on an immortal, omnipotent entity? (see Suffering below) Maybe he was just faking it for the crowd...
5. If Jesus is God, then how was it a sacrifice? He only had to spend a few days "dead", then it was back home to Heaven (and he knew all this beforehand, being omniscient). A few days in the underworld can hardly have been a big deal for an eternal, omnipotent deity, can it? (And of course, being omnipresent as well, he would already have been there all the time anyway.)
6. What was he doing during those three days? (Some people say he was preaching to the lost souls in Hell.) Why three days anyway? Coming back to life after a couple of weeks would have impressed the superstitious locals much more.
7. If Jesus willingly went to the cross, was it then a suicide? Isn't suicide a Big Bad Sin? There seems to be a very fine line between sacrificing yourself and committing suicide... (Of course, in Jesus' case, he sacrificed himself to himself without actually dying, just to confuse matters further).
8. Why didn't he stay dead? Not much of a sacrifice if you spring back to life a few days later, is it (especially if that was your intention right from the start)?
9. If Jesus had it all planned from the start (if you believe in the older prophecies), then it certainly was not a sacrifice. He must have used his God-Magic to manipulate events and ensure that the crucifixion occurred. This would include making Judas betray him.
10. Why is Judas so reviled? If he acted with Jesus' blessing, or even under divine coercion from Jesus, why is he portrayed as a bad person? Either way, he helped the crucifixion take place, so surely christians should admire him. Without Judas they might not have been Saved, or Jesus might have lived a lot longer and they'd have a much less impressive ornament to hang round their necks as a symbol of his death. A runaway horse maybe, or a slippery banana-skin or perhaps a poorly cooked chicken leg.
11. Why didn't Jesus let the disciples in on the big secret beforehand?
12. If Judas had not given Jesus a big ol' smacker, would nobody have known who he was? Had he been preaching, healing and overturning tables with a mask on, so that the only way in which the "great multitude" who came for him could recognise him was through Judas' kiss? Perhaps Jesus had a twin brother, and only Judas could easily tell them apart? Perhaps the other disciples were all wearing "Jesus Masks" to throw the crowd off the scent? Judas' part in all this would seem to be quite redundant if Jesus were at all recognisable to his enemies...
We are told that Jesus died for our sins, and his death on the cross saved us all from Hell (or eternal death). So why do we still get all the sermons about sin, heaven and hell? If we are all going to Heaven anyway, why do priests keep pestering us? If our afterlife still depends on living a good christian life then what difference did Jesus' death make? How did it change anything?
If Jesus has already "paid the price" for our sins, then surely we can now sin as much as we like. If not, why not? Or, if he only paid for Original Sin, that still doesn't explain why God needed a blood sacrifice to sort out something that could easily have been avoided in the first place. (Remember though, that the first murder in the Bible occurred as a result of God preferring a sacrifice of flesh to one of vegetables, for some obscure reason.)
If our getting into Heaven depends solely on accepting jesus as our personal Saviour, what about all those people who died without even hearing about him (for whatever reason)? If they get into heaven anyway, then jesus's death is irrelevant. In which case, why shouldn't the same apply to everyone? If God had never sent jesus to Earth, everyone would get into Heaven and there would be a few less bloody wars in the history books...
The idea of God sacrificing himself to himself, in order to prevent himself sending us all to Hell for commiting sins because of the way he made us, and which he knew we were going to do anyway, is a little hard to swallow...
The Suffering
A big thing is made about how much jesus suffered on the cross. While certainly quite nasty, there are much worse ways to die (and the followers of jesus have been quite inventive in thinking up new ones over the last couple of thousand years). If jesus's suffering was somehow supposed to be for our benefit, wouldn't we benefit more if his suffering had been greater (e.g. he might have been hung, drawn and quartered; or keelhauled; or sent to a Maria Carey concert)? Or, if he had suffered less (maybe quickly stabbed) would it have made any difference? All the other people who were crucified (and there were certainly plenty - the Romans were very big on crucifixions) would have suffered to a similar degree, if not more. How was jesus's suffering any different to theirs?
Crucifixion is obviously a particularly horrific way to die. However, being God, Jesus would have known not only the pain involved in crucifixion, but also the pain involved in every other possible manner of dying. God would be perfectly aware of tortures, diseases and injuries that make crucifixion seem like a picnic on a warm summer day. When people go on about how terrible His death was, how much he suffered, and that it allowed Him to experience human suffering, I think "But if he was God, a few hours on the cross would have been utterly insignificant to Him and He would already know exactly what all possible forms of human suffering are like."
Some people argue that jesus suffered more than just physical pain - he suffered spiritual pain because he was taking all of our sins on himself. Unfortunately, this spiritual suffering didn't seem to make enough of an impression on the writers of the Gospels for them to note it down... This also begs the question - If He suffered "spiritual pain", why was it necessary for Him to also suffer physical pain? Couldn't He have atoned and suffered without being nailed to a stick first? At what point did the spiritual pain begin and end, and why?
Presumably this atonement includes the sins of people in the past and future (including, I guess, all those whom He mercilessly drowned in Noah's Flood), as well as at the time of the crucifixion. In that case, why did God have to come to earth at all and be sacrificed (to himself)? Why not just sort it all out right at the time of Creation? What happened to those who died before Christ did? Were they just sort of floating around in limbo, waiting for the time of the Atonement?
So jesust suffered horribly and died (temporarily) for His beliefs? So what?
How many people suffer far, far worse deaths every single year for no good reason whatsoever? (Ironically, sometimes at the hands of jesus's followers.) People who are brutally murdered because of the colour of their skin, or their sexuality, or their beliefs, or simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Original Sin
If it simply freed us from (or paid the price for) Original Sin (Adam and Eve bringing sin into the world), does that mean that all those people who died before Jesus didn't have a chance? Or did his death retro-actively Save them as well? In which case, why did he have to die at all? Why not just remove Original Sin right at the start?
Or, if God took Original Sin into account when judging people, and Jesus removed it, won't more souls go to Hell as a result? Before, God might have said "Well, you're a sinner but you're tainted by Original Sin, so I'll let you off lightly this time.", whereas now, a person who committed the same sins wouldn't stand a chance! Very fair...
A fatal flaw in the Original Sin argument is this :
There is no such thing as Original Sin.
Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil are mere mythology. The evolutionary origins of all life, including humans, are well understood. We did not magically pop into existence several thousand years ago in a luxurious garden, complete with talking reptiles and magic apples. We have evolved over millions of years to reach our current state. This is scientific fact, in the same way that gravity is. Like it or not, there was no Eve to commit an Original Sin in the first place. It seems a little more likely that after Jesus' death, his followers had to think up some sort of supernatural justification pretty quickly, and Original Sin seemed as good as any. Your Great-great-great..........great-great-grandparents were not called Adam and Eve.
In order to accept that Jesus' death washed away Original Sin (and therefore had any meaning at all), you are forced to subscribe to the young-Earth creationist view that the universe is about 6000 years old, and was created just as described in the Book Of Genesis. This would mean that almost all sciences (including the sciences that allow us to generate the electricity that is letting you read this document) are totally wrong about everything. This is one of the main reasons why creationists object so strongly to evolution. It implies (or demonstrates) that the basic concept behind xianity is simply false.
There was nothing for a jesus person to atone for, so the crucifixion was meaningless.
I could go on if you wish.
I must say...well done.
Just because they refused to call him the Messiah, doesn't mean that he wasn't. For what was his only crime, that now is supported under the constitution. - Freedom of Speech- Catch 22 or man's fatal flaw...geezerof the Roman Empire brought about Christianity in Rome.
The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
As well an intentional omission.....
http://www.allaboutreligion.org/hist...n-rome-faq.htm
What makes this historical information more valid than any other? And mentioning a few things about him, is saying something! The awe of having a miracle in the flesh, and trying to attain it.... John F Kennedy, Martin Luther King.....IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)
The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.So,
Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html
When all is said and done. The Gospel and religion bring a sense of peace to everyone's life. The rules of civil morality are bound by the concept, of recognizing that Jesus Christ was tried and murdered: as an innocent. Compare that to today's world of gang violence, and immorality, and weigh which road that you would like your children and grandchildren to take. The world aforetimes had more of a religous foundation. The world today is chaois and mayham.
I guess the world your children, and children's children will grow up in has alot to offer; without religion and morality. Life imitates fiction. In your own life, I am sure that you have seen a person persecuted; and did not object because everyone else didn't. Jesus lives in our world today.
Just a Thought
_____________
8)
Everlasting
Futuristic Science Fiction Novel
Moon Over Key Biscayne
booksandmore.4t.com
ISBN # 14241-6884-8
LMAO.
No the world has always been that way and always will whether there is religion or not.
My question is this : How is Everyone, who denies the Bible as the true Gospel; dealing with the fact: that signs of the apocalypse previously foretold, are now coming true?LMAO.
No the world has always been that way and always will whether there is religion or not.
Everlasting
Perhaps you would be kind enough to show me a link with details about what the signs are? because i was under the impression that they were subject to how you interpret them. Thank you.
Anything that is up for interpretation, can become agreed upon, and
studied for prudence. The signs are outlined in the Book of Revelation.
Therein lies the debate about nuclear threats and global warming.
They are two of the highly possible determinants of the world's end
and were described many many years ago.
Everlasting
Futuristic Science Fiction Novel
Moon Over Key Biscayne
ISBN: 1-4241-6884-8
Please please please tell me what the bible tells us about global warming and/or nuclear threats.
Again this comes from Biblical interpretation:
With all of the current debates about global warming, and it's implications to world. Some Christian's are referring to the phenomenon as one of the last plaques. Because the Bible is an intricate detailed work of God's creation, I am compelled to believe the following:
2 Pet 3:8
But beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Ps 139:5
Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in which the heaveans shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with feverant heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Rev 15 1:2
And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God. And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.
Therein lies the reason why Christian's understand and relate differently to the concept: It is in accordance with the Word of God.
Everlasting
Moon Over Key Biscayne
ISBN: 1-4241-6884-8
He doesn't mention whether the temperature rises are due to co2 or not does he ? Thats been bugging me for ages. I'm just kidding, thank you for taking the time to post it. But to my eye (non-religious eye) that doesn't seem to have anything to do with global warming, i suppose it simply comes down to how you interpret it from your own view point. Each to their own. I do have one question though, why if this is the word of god didn't he simple come out and say that the apocalypse will be on tuesday 24 july 2015 or during the 20th century and early 21st century there will be a global increase in temperature of .7c this is the sign that the apocalypse is near ? why if it is the word of god is it all spoken in riddles and open to interpretation in the first place ?
Still no evidence. Conclusion: your statement that the Bible is fiction is completely unfounded.ok looked, myth and fiction are very simular, (myth:any invented story, idea, or concept, fiction:something feigned, invented, or imagined, a made-up story) so whats you point.Do you know the definition of fiction? Look it up in a dictionary, then give me some real proof--not merely your opinion--that the Bible is fiction.lol.No evidence.yes however the bible is a book of fiction
the thousand and one nights,( Arab mythology ) jason and the argonauts,( Greek mythology ) the trilogy of the rings, (modern day fiction ) harry potter, (modern day fiction) and the bible, ( hebrew mythology ) all the above contain either one two or several, of these creatures/effects dragons, unicorns, cockatrices, satyrs, talking animals like donkeys and serpents, magical special effects, zombies. etc etc etc...which one/ones are not fiction.
if it's to say the bibles not myth/fiction.
well even if that were the case it would be pretty infantile to believe in a book with such a fairy tale, look about it.
anybody with an ounce of intelligence, should be able to tell the difference, with it's wizards and witches, dragons and unicorns, satyrs and cockatrices, zombies, talking animals and reptiles, etc etc...
to hold the bible up as truth/fact and all the others as fiction, is just plain silly.
Prophecy is a viewpoint into the future. That is what the Bible has to offer. Brace yourself for what's coming, read the signs approach. Everyone at some point has wondered about the future. Religion is the means by which many do so with a pure heart.
Have you heard the there are approximately 8 years before the most serious effects of global warming can be avoided?
http://www.therenewableplanet.com/bl...l-warming.aspx
Everlasting
Futuristic Science Fiction Novel
Moon Over Key Biscayne
ISBN: 1-4241-6884-8
lol, and your evidence for the bible being fact, would be?Still no evidence. Conclusion: your statement that the Bible is fiction is completely unfounded.ok looked, myth and fiction are very simular, (myth:any invented story, idea, or concept, fiction:something feigned, invented, or imagined, a made-up story) so whats you point.Do you know the definition of fiction? Look it up in a dictionary, then give me some real proof--not merely your opinion--that the Bible is fiction.lol.No evidence.yes however the bible is a book of fiction
the thousand and one nights,( Arab mythology ) jason and the argonauts,( Greek mythology ) the trilogy of the rings, (modern day fiction ) harry potter, (modern day fiction) and the bible, ( hebrew mythology ) all the above contain either one two or several, of these creatures/effects dragons, unicorns, cockatrices, satyrs, talking animals like donkeys and serpents, magical special effects, zombies. etc etc etc...which one/ones are not fiction.
if it's to say the bibles not myth/fiction.
well even if that were the case it would be pretty infantile to believe in a book with such a fairy tale, look about it.
anybody with an ounce of intelligence, should be able to tell the difference, with it's wizards and witches, dragons and unicorns, satyrs and cockatrices, zombies, talking animals and reptiles, etc etc...
to hold the bible up as truth/fact and all the others as fiction, is just plain silly.
I didn't say it was fact, now did I? :wink:lol, and your evidence for the bible being fact, would be?Still no evidence. Conclusion: your statement that the Bible is fiction is completely unfounded.ok looked, myth and fiction are very simular, (myth:any invented story, idea, or concept, fiction:something feigned, invented, or imagined, a made-up story) so whats you point.Do you know the definition of fiction? Look it up in a dictionary, then give me some real proof--not merely your opinion--that the Bible is fiction.lol.No evidence.yes however the bible is a book of fiction
the thousand and one nights,( Arab mythology ) jason and the argonauts,( Greek mythology ) the trilogy of the rings, (modern day fiction ) harry potter, (modern day fiction) and the bible, ( hebrew mythology ) all the above contain either one two or several, of these creatures/effects dragons, unicorns, cockatrices, satyrs, talking animals like donkeys and serpents, magical special effects, zombies. etc etc etc...which one/ones are not fiction.
if it's to say the bibles not myth/fiction.
well even if that were the case it would be pretty infantile to believe in a book with such a fairy tale, look about it.
anybody with an ounce of intelligence, should be able to tell the difference, with it's wizards and witches, dragons and unicorns, satyrs and cockatrices, zombies, talking animals and reptiles, etc etc...
to hold the bible up as truth/fact and all the others as fiction, is just plain silly.
I thought it was 15 years but that off topic. So if its been predicted in the bible why should anybody make any effort to try and deal with it ? or better yet what happens if we do change our ways and we do succeed in preventing global warming becoming an life or death issue, won't that prove the predictions wrong ? would that be enough to prove that the bible is not the work of god ? or would it be put down as a mistake, an incorrect interpretation of the bible, in which case would lead to the original question, why didn't he simply say exactly what was/is going to happen.
so, I gather we can safely say that, we both believe it to be fiction, and all the known available evidence points to it being fiction,I didn't say it was fact, now did I? :wink:
mainly because of it's content, however we have no evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is fiction.
Huh....so, I gather we can safely say that, we both believe it to be fiction, and all the known available evidence points to it being fiction,I didn't say it was fact, now did I? :wink:
mainly because of it's content, however we have no evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is fiction.
Everlasting
Moon Over Key Biscayne
Futuristic Science Fiction Novel
http://www.booksandmore.4t.com
http://www.publishamerica.com
Interpretation of the Bible lends to personal experience. After reading your post, I thought about what the root meanings of your questions were in afore times; and tried to make some connections. Some of it is clear, but the detail that the book exposes, goes more into the development reasons, and why it would happen. Hind sight is twenty-twenty. There is a Bible Code. All of the numbers and sequences in the Bible connect in a pretty meaningful way, but I work with numbers everyday, and I haven't exactly tackled the code. It might help with the interpretation that your looking for. One code that I have found myself: Rev 6:9-11. familiar with the World Trade Towers. Not really riddles, parables of right and wrong. The Bible adapts to all situations.
8)
Everlasting
Futuristic Science Fiction Novel
Moon Over Key Biscayne
http://www.booksandmore.4t.com
Ummm...no. That's your problem: either-or reasoning. "Either it's fiction, or it's not". Well, what about "perhaps it's fiction" or "perhaps it's fact" or "no one can say for certain that it's fiction"? I lean more towards saying it's fact, but I wouldn't say "it's definitely fact", with my lack of evidence like how you would say "it's definitely fiction", with your lack of evidence.so, I gather we can safely say that, we both believe it to be fiction, and all the known available evidence points to it being fiction,I didn't say it was fact, now did I? :wink:
mainly because of it's content, however we have no evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is fiction.
Edit: I like how the last part of your sentence contradicts the first part.
everlasting wrote:Exactly. If you can interpret day as eon, burn as global warming, with the large contents of text, with the time span over thousand years, then you can interpret the Bible to prophesize anything. And also any large-size book can do, for that matter.The Bible adapts to all situations.
But note also that none of the scientific findings referred to the Bible as the source of discovery. Only in retrospect that someone will come up with a portion of text in the Bible that 'clearly' shows the fact.
It would be rather interesting if someone made a scientific finding based on the Bible.
Continue your discussion...just throwing that thought out there. :wink:
I wonder why the Bible keeps coming up in this discussion about the intervention of God......
Before you take the words of the Bible as your road-map for life, use that gray matter between yer ears and think about it for a minute. Do you really think that those x-number of pages are the word-for-word outline of life from God?
As a science-minded individual I find myself often caught between the problem proving the existence of God (and heaven, hell, angels, etc) but on the other hand I've seen a lot of stuff I can't explain. I like to believe I am a person of faith, but I am definitely not a person of religion.
Now, don't take me the wrong way, religion has done a lot of good for people (along with a lot of bad). Some people prefer the structured path that texts give them. Personally, I take the Bible and other religious texts with a big grain of salt.
For starters, the texts were written by mortal persons, often many years after the events in them took place, and they are often VERY subjected to the person's interpretations, and the social idealogical customs of the time. So at the very best they are suggestions, and something to think about. Should they be followed letter-for-letter? Heck no. You've got a brain, use it.
The act of going to a building each Sunday, singing some songs and reading some words, does not make me a better person, nor does it give me more faith. Sure, it makes me more "religious"....but religion isn't really faith...it's religion.
If you have faith that there is a God, then that's it. The rest is details.
As for intervention, well, if you believe everything is laid out and done for you, then you might as well give up. On the other hand, you could follow the texts of religion as a way of exploring your faith, and finding ways to deal with the problems of life. Further still, you could believe that God has nothing to do with the events of your life, because this is the world he made and living it is part of the idea.
I think this is the part where a lot of people get hung up between religion, and Darwinism. Take it how you will, personally I've poked at evolution quite a bit, and I can't see ANY indication that evolution means you can't have a God. Got yer Bible? What does it say? "In the beginning, God created the earth and creatures..." etc etc. It doesn't say "God individually created kangaroos, red foxes, gray foxes, hornets, bees, blue ring octopus, blue whales, red ants, etc, etc, etc, etc, listing every single species definitely, etc, etc..." does it? Nor does it hint it, either. In fact, there's just as much evidence that God created evolution...and personally that seems better because with evolution there can always be something new!
But that's just my $0.02 on religion and faith in a nutshell....
Show me a text book that does.....
Everlasting
Nostradamus, for one.
Oh gee, lets us mortals interpret a highly interpretable text and call it fact. That sounds like fun.
that what I said, I've unlined and bolded it for you.Ummm...no. That's your problem: either-or reasoning. "Either it's fiction, or it's not". Well, what about "perhaps it's fiction" or "perhaps it's fact" or "no one can say for certain that it's fiction"?we have no evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is fiction.I didn't say it was fact, now did I? :wink:and I lean towards it being fiction, given the content of this book it looks that way, but I cant and would not say it is absolutely fictional that would be foolish, but I can be 99.9999 recuring it is fiction, purely because of it content it would be irrational to believe it as true.so it's neither black nor white, fiction or fact, so I say again lol, this contradictory part, "we have no evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is fiction" but it's content being full of magic and strange supernatural creature, etc...
and because of the lack of evidence for said creatures etc...
we can be pretty certain it is fiction.
but we have absolutely no evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is fact, so shall we say it's faction, and it's coloured grey, lol.
but it will still remain fictional, due solely to it's content.( in the most part here, I'm being facetious )
it's not an either/or logical fallacy, it is only an either/or if there is a middleground.
where is this middleground.
You have a degree in Nostradamus?
Everlasting
that's all I need to know.
everlasting wrote:What for?You have a degree in Nostradamus?
| « The Hypocrisy of Paul | the voice of god » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
