Which religion(s) do you have a problem with?

[sunmoonstars]

Check your translation history for John 10:30 and you'll find the correct term was "I and the Father"... Tricky translations get you every time.

1) There is one God: Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5.

2) The Trinity consists of three Persons: Genesis 1:1; 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; 48:16; 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17; Matt 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14. In the passages in the Old Testament, a knowledge of Hebrew is helpful. In Genesis 1:1, the plural noun "Elohim" is used. In Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for "us" is used. That "Elohim" and "us" refer to more than two is WITHOUT question. In English, you only have two forms, singular and plural. In Hebrew, you have three forms: singular, dual, and plural. Dual is for two ONLY. In Hebrew, the dual form is used for things that come in pairs like eyes, ears, and hands. The word "Elohim" and the pronoun "us" are plural forms - definitely more than two - and must be referring to three or more (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

In Isaiah 48:16 and 61:1, the Son is speaking while making reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Compare Isaiah 61:1 to Luke 4:14-19 to see that it is the Son speaking. Matthew 3:16-17 describes the event of Jesus' baptism. Seen in this is God the Holy Spirit descending on God the Son while God the Father proclaims His pleasure in the Son. Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are examples of 3 distinct persons in the Trinity.

3) The members of the Trinity are distinguished one from another in various passages: In the Old Testament, "LORD" is distinguished from "Lord" (Genesis 19:24; Hosea 1:4). The "LORD" has a "Son" (Psalm 2:7, 12; Proverbs 30:2-4). Spirit is distinguished from the "LORD" (Numbers 27:18) and from "God" (Psalm 51:10-12). God the Son is distinguished from God the Father (Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9). In the New Testament, John 14:16-17 is where Jesus speaks to the Father about sending a Helper, the Holy Spirit. This shows that Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit. Consider also all of the other times in the Gospels where Jesus speaks to the Father. Was He speaking to Himself? No. He spoke to another person in the Trinity - the Father.

I can give you one more..
1 Tim 3:16-And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


Hummmmm

 

[itsbob]

CNN.com - Satellite closes in on Noah's Ark mystery - Mar 13, 2006
it's on CNN..does that make it true?? People seem to think everything else on there is...

and you would believe that raft to be big enough to carry EVERY animal on the planet? Plus the food to feed them.. plus fresh water.. REALLY!??

Read up on your sciences.. and having a ship atop a mountain wouldn't seem to far fetched.. after you consider WHERE the mountains came from.. but even it IS a ship, it in no way shape or form would be big enough to carry what it supposedly carried.

And of COURSE, nobody has been to the ship to prove it's existence.. how handy that NOBODY is allowed to go there to investigate it.

 

[Radiant1]

all of them were ....



let me ask you this then. Why would existence of a god bring morals?

Example: People living in the wilds of Australia love and care for their children and give gifts and aid to friends when they need it and vice versa. They have neither heard nor care about god. For them, there is no god. Yet, they manage as a civilization. Are they immoral?



I teach him to be nice sure, but I don't worship any gods .... so 'god' has nothing to do with it.

Also, a soul made by god is born sinful (I don't believe this at all, but it's been told to me numerous times by the denizens of this forum) so I'd wager that has nothing to do with the price of tea in china.

Yeah so? I don't care.


You are talking about the Aborigines? They have their mythology and rituals Xaquin. Bomp try again.

So, why do you teach your kid to be nice? Did your momma teach you? Or because society says he has to be? Because there are laws? And our laws today are kind of sort of based on like the 10 commandments :gasp:? So, yeah you may not want to admit it but God kind of may have something to do with it. Sorry but it's true and it's just the way it is right now, face it. :shrug:

 

[Snake_Plissken]

Yeah so? I don't care.


You are talking about the Aborigines? They have their mythology and rituals Xaquin. Bomp try again.

So, why do you teach your kid to be nice? Did your momma teach you? Or because society says he has to be? Because there are laws? And our laws today are kind of sort of based on like the 10 commandments :gasp:? So, yeah you may not want to admit it but God kind of may have something to do with it. Sorry but it's true and it's just the way it is right now, face it. :shrug:

...and which came first, rational thought with regards as to morals, or the ten commandments? It's a classic chicken and egg scenario. The commandments were given well after general morality was established.

QED... next please.

 

[sunmoonstars]

and you would believe that raft to be big enough to carry EVERY animal on the planet? Plus the food to feed them.. plus fresh water.. REALLY!??

Read up on your sciences.. and having a ship atop a mountain wouldn't seem to far fetched.. after you consider WHERE the mountains came from.. but even it IS a ship, it in no way shape or form would be big enough to carry what it supposedly carried.

And of COURSE, nobody has been to the ship to prove it's existence.. how handy that NOBODY is allowed to go there to investigate it.

Humm....Its Bob.
I know I haven't seen it. (have you?) It is a mystery just like BOs BC....

However, I can tell that you study the bible for what reason I don't know.
Let me give you an example of God..
If you have parents....you are a son. Right??
If you kids.......you are a father. Right??
If you have a wife...........you are a husband. Right??
But you only have ONE name.
IF I write a check out to you I can't make it out to "The Son" or "The Father" or "The Husband"...I have to put it in your name.
God has many titles...But his name is JESUS...
Simple reasoning for the "one God" idea....
Take it or leave it. I'm not going to shove anything down your throat either way, I'm happy in what I believe in. Just be happy with yours.

 

[Radiant1]

...and which came first, rational thought with regards as to morals, or the ten commandments? It's a classic chicken and egg scenario. The commandments were given well after general morality was established.

QED... next please.

I don't think it's chicken and egg at all, the 10 commandments came later - to the Hebrews.

 

[sunmoonstars]

Who cares? That's not my argument. Go do your schoolwork or something.

 

[Snake_Plissken]

I'm quite interested... what was it then?

You said that our laws are based on the ten commandments and that our laws are based on religion, but obviously the ten commandments came well after there was established law in the land. The Code of Hammurabi, the first written law, came in 2500 BC, and the Ten Commandments came between 1441 and 1533 BC.

The very fact that we have guilt as a basic human emotion is evidence that religion did not create morality.

 

[Radiant1]

Hey!!

1. I edited that!

2. I used the vernacular but I used it properly - somethin'.

 

[sunmoonstars]

Hey!!

1. I edited that!

2. I used the vernacular but I used it properly - somethin'.

 

[Radiant1]

I'm quite interested... what was it then?

You said that our laws are based on the ten commandments and that our laws are based on religion, but obviously the ten commandments came well after there was established law in the land. The Code of Hammurabi, the first written law, came in 2500 BC, and the Ten Commandments came between 1441 and 1533 BC.

The very fact that we have guilt as a basic human emotion is evidence that religion did not create morality.

I just threw in the 10 commandments because that's what a lot of our laws are based on today, but forget about that. I'm not arguing that religion gives us morality. I'm arguing simply that a concept of God (any concept, even the caveman's concept) does and that a true Atheist as they have explained themselves to me cannot have morality unless they want to acknowledge some form of higher power or at least the conditioning from those who believe in one (or them or it or what have you).

I'm not discussing this from a Christian p.o.v. but from a Theistic p.o.v. I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible.

 

[Xaquin44]

And our laws today are kind of sort of based on like the 10 commandments :gasp:?

Which was based on something else which was based on something else etc. etc.

If no one in any given society believed in a higher power, what do you think would happen?

seriously.

Do you think the world would be thrown into chaos, or do you think society would lay down laws and customs similar to those that stand today?

I lay money on the later.

 

[Xaquin44]

a true Atheist as they have explained themselves to me cannot have morality unless they want to acknowledge some form of higher power or at least the conditioning from those who believe in one

why not?

Let's say a higher power exists .... and tells us 'You have to do these things, but not these things.'

How is that different from your parents saying 'Do these things, but not these things.'?

Is it not possible (and face it, it's probable) that in societies formative years, it was said 'hey, lets not kill each other .... it's really becoming a downer and it's not doing us any favors'

Is it that big of a stretch that society came (or would come) to these terms without the fear of some higher power completely boning them in the afterlife?

 

[toppick08]

Which religion(s) have beliefs that make absolutely no sense, make you mad, or just get under your skin for one reason or another?

Damn Methodists.....

 

[Radiant1]

Which was based on something else which was based on something else etc. etc.

If no one in any given society believed in a higher power, what do you think would happen?

seriously.

Do you think the world would be thrown into chaos, or do you think society would lay down laws and customs similar to those that stand today?

I lay money on the later.

I had to really think about this and my first thought was to very early cultures; however, in the vestiges of our very early cultures there is evidence of their worship of something (pantheistic, whatever, it doesn't matter it's something beyond themselves and that's the point). Then my mind went to communism but even so the atheistic state could not stamp out faith in a higher power and even allowed state sanctioned churches (apparently a necessary opiate for the masses, ha!) and even by the time of communism the world was already influenced by theism anyway. So, yeah I'm kind of thinking that without it there would be chaos or close to it.

why not?

Let's say a higher power exists .... and tells us 'You have to do these things, but not these things.'

How is that different from your parents saying 'Do these things, but not these things.'?

Since you're asking me I'm going to tell you because that higher power is from where things such as love exists and I have yet to see that concepts such as love, beauty, goodness and the like evolved. You didn't answer my question earlier about where you believe such a thing as love comes from, you glossed over it.

Is it not possible (and face it, it's probable) that in societies formative years, it was said 'hey, lets not kill each other .... it's really becoming a downer and it's not doing us any favors'

Possible but not probable and that only because it's called survival not morality. Animals do that Xaquin. My cats don't pass up the field mouse for their dinner out of kindness or heck even for the endorphin rush they may get for doing so. They stalk it, mercilessly toy with it, and then brutally bite it's head off and eat it. They don't know jack about God, they don't love me, they just come to me because I feed them and scratch them and don't think they won't crap on the floor if I forget to change the litter box.

I have a feeling in your atheistic dream world you'd be fighting for your survival more than you think because the tribe in the town over just may be fitter than yours and nobody would have a conscience (why should they there is NOBODY to answer to). Xaquin, is it really so hard to admit that even if you don't believe in God that any morals you have are influenced or conditioned by those over the mellinia who have or do believe in a higher power? This whole atheism thing is pretty new in the history of mankind don't ya think?

Is it that big of a stretch that society came (or would come) to these terms without the fear of some higher power completely boning them in the afterlife?

Yes, it's a big stretch. As for "fear" and "boning", uh yeah, I have an answer for that too but I'm gonna let it slide. I'm tired and I don't want mAlice to wig out if I mention a soul.

 

[mAlice]

I don't have a problem with religions at all, I have a problem with religious extremists of all types. Atheists, that means you too.

I also happen to have a problem with drastic misinformation. Allow me to correct a few things:

Atheists do not believe themselves to be and worship themselves as gods - that's LaVey Satanism. The idea behind that is that gods are merely inventions of man, and therefore worship of man is more direct and logical, preferably oneself. They allow personal indulgence so long as it does not hurt others.

Jehovah's Witnesses do drink alcohol, but they do not promote overindulgence, as basically any religion does. The big points for them are that they do not believe in blood transfusions, holidays, religious statues, or voting.

I would also like to point out last of all that lack of evidence does not prove nonexistence - there's really no way to disprove God, but there's no way to prove him either. That aside you really won't change anybody's mind in the long run - that takes a personal revelation. Argument over petty things as such is irrelevant. And have some respect for people - calling one's deep personal belief a "fairy tale" or their sacred book a "work of fiction" is immature, obnoxious and childish.

As for itsbob, it's widely acknowledge by secular scholars EVERYWHERE that there are MANY factual events depicted in the Bible that are corroborated by other period-specific documents. Even those with minimalist views regarding biblical historicity submit that events after a certain date are pretty spot-on. You can't write it off as a work of fiction because you don't necessarily agree with what it says. The major difference as well between Jehovah's Witnesses and other forms of Christianity is that they decided to modernize their translation and cross-reference it with newly-discovered documents rather than continue to use a hundreds-years-old King James translation. Pull your head out of your ass.

Morals also, believe it or not, can be exclusive from one's religion. Atheists have morals too, and there certainly are self-proclaimed Christians that totally lack morals. Perhaps history's most famous example is that of Father Grigori Rasputin, the drunkard, womanizing "holy man" attached to the last Czarina of Russia. Don't judge a religion on the basis of its members.

And for the record I'm deist.

Could you please post more often?

 

[Xaquin44]

for reals

 

[itsbob]

The primary difference, of course, being that Stephen King is one man and that the Bible was written by many people, all of whom somewhat kept to reasonably the same continuity that's also dictated elsewhere. Although we might qualify Stephen King's work as a whole as fiction, if it does indeed contain true events then they themselves are true. The fictional part of it does not unconditionally invalidate the rest of the work - that's absolutely foolish. Don't try to twist my words around.

I stand by what I said before - unless you can ABSOLUTELY PROVE OTHERWISE that anything in the Bible did not happen, you have no case. Period. You can disagree with it all you want and cite implausibility, but the honest truth is that nobody truly knows, so we're all just as right as one another. Get off your high horse.

I might also add that it is entirely plausible that man lived longer years ago, given that genetic impurities that started out as mutations have now spread throughout the entire human race, not to mention that our atmosphere and planetary conditions have certainly changed in the past couple millenia.

So you agree that people lived into their 600's?? I don't care what you say about environment, living conditions.. NOT a chance. Your skin, let alone the rest of your organs, would not survive that long..

Noah fit two of EVERY animal on the Earth into a single ship? With food and fresh water, and an automated waste disposal system?

The earth is only 6000 years old?

And if both those are true, where are the bones of the BILLIONS of people that died in the flood? Where's the 'flood sedimentary level' at?

Dinosaurs and man walked the earth together?

And many MEN wrote the bible?? How many? Where's the list of names?

Does many = 1, >1.. >10?

You say a fictional

And how many years AFTER most of the "facts" was it written? it definitely wasn't a diary or a journal. ANd what difference does it make if it was ONE person or 100 people that wrote a piece of fiction?

Although we might qualify Stephen King's work as a whole as fiction, if it does indeed contain true events then they themselves are true. The fictional part of it does not unconditionally invalidate the rest of the work - that's absolutely foolish.

So you agree with me, we just have to determine where the line is between fact and fiction within the Bible.

I stand by what I said before - unless you can ABSOLUTELY PROVE OTHERWISE that anything in the Bible did not happen, you have no case. Period.

Can you ABSOLUTELY PROVE that EVERYthing in the Bible happened, without referring back to the bible? If not than by your logic you have no case, and the entire book is a sham, a fraud, and the biggest scam ever put upon humanity.

 

[Tilted]

It appears that we have three candidates with a clear lead over the rest of the field, but no convincing winner. I think we need to start another poll with just those three, and only let people vote for one. Hopefully, in that way, we can come to a consensus on whom we need to persecute.

 

[Beelzebaby666]

I still believe, prior to the flood of DaVinci Code conspiracies, that the Bible is bollocks because it's derogatory to women in general and saying that Jesus was a white man(as portrayed by the church) is about as probable as saying that Eve was created from Adam's rib.

It's a nice story with some historical significance. The church is in the business of perpetuating itself, not your spirit. Period.

Why is it that people will so easily defend their faith in something that's just not possible? The Bible has some very good things in it. The Ten Commandments for instance, are a very simple set of rules that I believe everyone should try to live by. The rest, is misleading, convoluted crap. It's a book, with no awe inspiring power as far as I can tell. Wanna be awe-struck?? Bring a living thing in to this world by your own hand, look at the sky, admire the complexity of the human hand. That's powerful.