What religion are you?

TheGame · 09-08-2004, 07:42 PM

*cough* I could make a long ass post, but I'm not in the mood... Typhoid, mickey pretty much killed your arguement. I don't know why you just said "Exactly."

Just because a miricle happens once, it doesn't mean it has to happen again ever.

As for your faith in science... I just find it to be a bit more likely that somone created us than any other explanation I have heard.

"Translation: No sperm is needed, as he's FRIGGIN' GOD. If you can create the universe in seven days, you can knock up a chick without banging her."

Hehe, that was funny

The Duggler · 09-09-2004, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGame

As for your faith in science...

It's funny how religious people use the term faith when referring to science. We believe in what science has to offer. We don't blindly think it's the truth, we base our judgement on experiences and proofs. And since we deduct it's the most reasonnable explaination, the closest thing to the truth, then we go with it.

It's probably not right on, but it sure seems a lot more logical than anything any religions can come up with.

Crash · 09-09-2004, 03:42 AM

well, couple things... revalations was not the last book in the bible to be written, it just happens to be last in the bible. yes, the books of the new testament were not written until some 60-80 years after the events actually happened. The stories were passed down the generations by word of mouth, so some stuff had to have been outta proportion and exaggerated.

Canyarion · 09-09-2004, 06:27 AM

No no I'm sure there are enough proofs that Mathew and John wrote their own books... they were THERE with Jesus all the time.

And you STILL haven't explained the prophecies.

Crono · 09-09-2004, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canyarion

No no I'm sure there are enough proofs that Mathew and John wrote their own books... they were THERE with Jesus all the time.

And you STILL haven't explained the prophecies.

Uhm.. Matthew and John were not with Jesus. Matthew and John wrote the Bible well after Jesus's death. They were born after Jesus died (they were not one of the 12 disciples if thats what you think). It is obvious that people exaggerated stories. People back then were stupid.

No offense Canyarion, but I was taught this in school, and yes I go to a Catholic school, and last Religous class I had one of the best and smartest teachers I've ever known. I'd take his word over yours any day.

TheGame · 09-09-2004, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nitram

It's funny how religious people use the term faith when referring to science. We believe in what science has to offer. We don't blindly think it's the truth, we base our judgement on experiences and proofs. And since we deduct it's the most reasonnable explaination, the closest thing to the truth, then we go with it.

If you don't know somthing is the truth, you don't know it is the truth, period. What one calls the "Logical closest thing to the truth" could be completly wrong... you chose to believe its the closest thing to the truth because of your faith in science.

The only thing a person knows for a fact is their own feelings and emotions. After that there is no facts. Its all what you chose to believe. If it isn't a fact, and you believe it without constantly questioning it, you have faith...

In my opinion, "based on judgement on experiences and proofs", I think it is more logical that there is a god. In your opinion, you think that it isn't logical... You can't prove me wrong, nor can you prove you are right. Just like I can't prove you are wrong and can't prove that I am right. The only person that matters in this situation is me though... I have proven to myself that it is right. (And if I told you how chances are you wouldn't believe me.)

Dylflon · 09-09-2004, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGame

I have proven to myself that it is right. (And if I told you how chances are you wouldn't believe me.)

I'd like to hear.

Typhoid,why are you getting all bent out of shape? I don't get it.

Blade Runner · 09-09-2004, 02:56 PM

Typhoid, if you're arguing about Jesus, for the sake of argument, we must assume their is a God.

Crono, the Bible is a compilation of books. These books were written all througout history. This includes before, DURING, and after Jesus' death.

SUPER EDIT: Crono I just saw your post about Matthew and John not being alive in Jesus' lifetime or even being his disciples. Where in the world did you get this info??? I dont' know what Bible you've been reading about but this information is extremely incorrect. And where do you get these ideas that the stories were exaggerated and that people back then were a bunch of dummies??

Crono · 09-09-2004, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade Runner

Crono, the Bible is a compilation of books. These books were written all througout history. This includes before, DURING, and after Jesus' death.

I know that. But the Bible has also been through many translations and such since it was officially put together. It was first written in Greek I think, and then on to Latin. It was bound to have been altered from what really happened.

There are just so many possible ways that the Bible events we read about do not tell what really happened.

As far as I know, no one was following Jesus around with a pen and paper. In fact they didn't even have paper back then.

And the books that were written before Jesus' birth are hardly believable at all. Besides, that's old testament, it's mainly Jewish stuff.

TheGame · 09-09-2004, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crono

I know that. But the Bible has also been through many translations and such since it was officially put together. It was first written in Greek I think, and then on to Latin. It was bound to have been altered from what really happened.

I doubt it would be altered all that much. But there is no way to know unless you had a time machine.

Blade Runner · 09-09-2004, 03:08 PM

Er..what. they didn't have paper??? You really need to quit making things up. And the transcribing and translating of the Bible was done with such extreme precision and care that you should really research it sometime.

EDIT: Found a little quote for you.

Quote:

Some express concern that the Bible may have been altered down through the centuries. It is to this matter that Textual Critics address themselves. They have discovered entire manuscripts and parts of others, one portion dating to the beginning of the 2nd Century. The New Testament has far better textual support than do the works of Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus, or Tacitus, whose contents no one seriously questions. In addition, the New Testament documents have always been both public, and widely-disseminated. Thus it would be impossible for any party to have materially changed their contents, just as the Declaration of Independence, for example, as a public document, could not have been privately altered without raising notice and creating public furor. Sir Frederic Kenyon, former Director of the British Museum, comments:

"The interval between the dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence [i.e. our oldest manuscripts] becomes so small as to be negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed."

In conclusion, it is not necessary that the New Testament be treated with "kid gloves" and backed up by special pleading. Simply allow it to be subject to the very same historical-critical standards that Classical historians apply to secular literature. When equal treatment is permitted its course, the Gospels fully pass the test.

Crono · 09-09-2004, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade Runner

SUPER EDIT: Crono I just saw your post about Matthew and John not being alive in Jesus' lifetime or even being his disciples. Where in the world did you get this info??? I dont' know what Bible you've been reading about but this information is extremely incorrect. And where do you get these ideas that the stories were exaggerated and that people back then were a bunch of dummies??

The Gospel writers weren't his disciples. I mean, they didn't write their own books. And I think the author of Luke and Acts was a Roman guy, not a disciple. I am quite sure of this. Seeing as the books weren't even written until 60 years after Jesus' death.

Where do I get these ideas? Do you really think a story would be the same after 2000 years?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade_Runner

Er..what. they didn't have paper??? You really need to quit making things up. And the transcribing and translating of the Bible was done with such extreme precision and care that you should really research it sometime.

Yes, paper was considered a luxury. Did the average Joe have paper? No.

TheGame · 09-09-2004, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylflon

I'd like to hear.

Through life experience and praying. I'd rather not go into details.

The Duggler · 09-14-2004, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGame

If you don't know somthing is the truth, you don't know it is the truth, period. What one calls the "Logical closest thing to the truth" could be completly wrong... you chose to believe its the closest thing to the truth because of your faith in science.

Ok, maybe "believe" wasn't the word I should have used. The only thing that I would believe would have to be the absolute truth, and because we will never have that (anyways not in a close future) then I will have to say that I don't believe anything. Now when I look to science I would have to say that it make a lot of sense but there is always a BUT. But you, you think and say that religion must be it, it's like you have the absolute truth, and that is not right at all.

Quote:

The only thing a person knows for a fact is their own feelings and emotions. After that there is no facts. Its all what you chose to believe. If it isn't a fact, and you believe it without constantly questioning it, you have faith...

Feelings are fact? What about feelings changed by certain drugs? Are they still fact? Or feelings changed by something else like lies or anything else? See? Feelings are as misleading as anything else.

Quote:

In my opinion, "based on judgement on experiences and proofs", I think it is more logical that there is a god. In your opinion, you think that it isn't logical... You can't prove me wrong, nor can you prove you are right. Just like I can't prove you are wrong and can't prove that I am right. The only person that matters in this situation is me though... I have proven to myself that it is right. (And if I told you how chances are you wouldn't believe me.)

Try me. Tell me about those proofs. We'll see.

TheGame · 09-14-2004, 12:39 PM

Quote:

"Feelings are fact? What about feelings changed by certain drugs? Are they still fact? Or feelings changed by something else like lies or anything else? See? Feelings are as misleading as anything else."

Yep, they are a fact. Look back on your past feelings, how you felt at the time is how you felt at the time, period. Nobody can tell you that dog **** tastes good, if you tasted it and hated it. Your personal feelings are your own. Does that mean they can't change? Nope. You can eat dog **** tomorrow and love it, that doesn't mean you didn't hate it before. Feelings can be misleading, but it is still how you felt or feel...

Quote:

Ok, maybe "believe" wasn't the word I should have used. The only thing that I would believe would have to be the absolute truth, and because we will never have that (anyways not in a close future) then I will have to say that I don't believe anything. Now when I look to science I would have to say that it make a lot of sense but there is always a BUT. But you, you think and say that religion must be it, it's like you have the absolute truth, and that is not right at all.

I'll believe that it is the absolute truth until proven otherwise. You would think in this advanced society at least one person could have stepped up with "proof" by now that God doesn't exist... but guess what? Hasn't happend yet.

You still have faith in science, faith in them to find an answer that they won't find. You chose to trust one source, I chose to trust another. You will never have absolute truth if you don't believe in anything. It would take a time machine.

Quote:

Try me. Tell me about those proofs. We'll see.

My proofs are my proofs... you may not see them the same way as me. You'd be like "luck" "coincedence" or maybe simply say I'm insane. There is no need for me to go into any detail on it with you.

I'm off to class now.