You know, it's confusing on your post KeYYeK321, please use quotes. Okay, I say "do" anything you want, not defy what you want. If you want to fly 200ft into the air using your mind, that's more of defying the laws that constraint you. Majority of the people claim him as omnipotent, correct? If so then god is considerably all knowing, correct? Assuming god knows all, that mean he knows everything in the past, present, and future. If so, we then won't actually be able to do what we want because our future is considerably decided.
page 3 of 4 « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next » 80 total items
-
?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????- Feb 09, 2007
- Gallery
-
Thats exactly what im getting at in terms of Freewill, its what you ought to do in your nature." your nature implies that you are constrained by nature.
Please refer back to my explanation on metaphysics. God is outside of the physical world, because the creator must have been outside of the creation at one point. therefore: he is "metaphysical" and thus not constrained by the laws of physics such as time. With that in mind, Past-present-future are not the same to him, as us.
Now, in terms of the question: " Origional sin and its invalidity" none of my stuff touches base on it, rather just the nature of god. soooo IM A TANGENT! FEAR MEEEEEEEEE lol :P
but my 2 cents: Dont read the bible literally, it causes problems lol, and i answered to the theory of evolution problem. it might be true, but its still not definite.- Feb 10, 2007
- Gallery
-
Assuming that god is actually considerrably out of physical world? Where should he be then, if he's not linked with time, then he's frozen in it, time is not something that can be considerably created. Time goes on even if nothing were to exist.
This is totally off topic now... whatrever. XD
?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????- Feb 10, 2007
- Gallery
-
Quote by DarkRoseofHellAssuming that god is actually considerrably out of physical world? Where should he be then, if he's not linked with time, then he's frozen in it, time is not something that can be considerably created. Time goes on even if nothing were to exist.
This is totally off topic now... whatrever. XD
Well, some might argue that time doesn't really exist. It was created by man to measure existence. At least, that's what I think.
Sleeping peacefully on the edges of No Man's Land... Not all good is rewarded, not all evil is punished.
- Currently watching: Naruto
- Feb 10, 2007
- Gallery
- Anime Watchlist
-
First, for all those who use bible, just think that most writen on it, is not traslated as it should be, second is book of FAITH, not science, not history, sooo... people who thinks blindly on those words, rarely will accept scientific facts telling them that Adan and Eve, original sin, Noahs arc etc are not real, at least not as its written... I dont belive on original sin, starting that moral changes depending on social pattners (ie, slavery was accepted on those days, now is unmoral, and if you read bible youll find that a man can actually sell his daughter as a slave)
- Feb 11, 2007
- Gallery
-
Quote by DarkRoseofHellAssuming that god is actually considerrably out of physical world? Where should he be then, if he's not linked with time, then he's frozen in it, time is not something that can be considerably created. Time goes on even if nothing were to exist.
This is totally off topic now... whatrever. XD
hmm to answer your question: if you understand the concepts of Chronos and Kairos ( both in terms of Theology - study of the Creator/God) the creator is suppose to be in Kairos, which is supposedly within the metaphysical. Now, you may have misunderstood the concept of metaphysical. Metaphysical means outside of the physical realm, meaning that he is not bound by physical laws such as time. Since he is not bound by time, he is either stuck in, or restricted by it.
now: If you understand that he is not bound by time, that means he can see past-present-future at the same 'time' meaning he knows what you will do, what you have done, and what your doing as you do them, not before you do them, or after you do them. Apparently, to him it should work as if everything you do is a moment directed by the actions you are doing.
Tid-bit info! woooo:
Time travel is possible in terms of physics. Go faster than the speed of light, it warps time supposedly. I just heard this in class, and not quite sure about the sources or how reliable that information is.I just want to clarify this before anything else may arise.
- Feb 11, 2007
- Gallery
-
Quote: hmm to answer your question: if you understand the concepts of Chronos and Kairos ( both in terms of Theology - study of the Creator/God) the creator is suppose to be in Kairos, which is supposedly within the metaphysical. Now, you may have misunderstood the concept of metaphysical. Metaphysical means outside of the physical realm, meaning that he is not bound by physical laws such as time. Since he is not bound by time, he is either stuck in, or restricted by it.
now: If you understand that he is not bound by time, that means he can see past-present-future at the same 'time' meaning he knows what you will do, what you have done, and what your doing as you do them, not before you do them, or after you do them. Apparently, to him it should work as if everything you do is a moment directed by the actions you are doing.
Yes, I know what metaphysical means... Okay, no matter where something is at, then there is time. Whether it is in the physical or non physical world. Okay, lets put this as an example, if god was observing one point of time, then he observed another point, there's a time between him observing that one point, than the other.
Just a note on time travel, time travel really doesn't seem like time travel. I prefer calling it a distortion. If you were to go back in time supposedly, lets just say like 10 years into the past the event still happens either way. I also like to prefer calling time travel a sort of, ummm dimensional shift if time travel is possible.
?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????- Feb 12, 2007
- Gallery
-
Quote by KeYYeK321
Quote by DarkRoseofHellAssuming that god is actually considerrably out of physical world? Where should he be then, if he's not linked with time, then he's frozen in it, time is not something that can be considerably created. Time goes on even if nothing were to exist.
This is totally off topic now... whatrever. XD
hmm to answer your question: if you understand the concepts of Chronos and Kairos ( both in terms of Theology - study of the Creator/God) the creator is suppose to be in Kairos, which is supposedly within the metaphysical. Now, you may have misunderstood the concept of metaphysical. Metaphysical means outside of the physical realm, meaning that he is not bound by physical laws such as time. Since he is not bound by time, he is either stuck in, or restricted by it.
now: If you understand that he is not bound by time, that means he can see past-present-future at the same 'time' meaning he knows what you will do, what you have done, and what your doing as you do them, not before you do them, or after you do them. Apparently, to him it should work as if everything you do is a moment directed by the actions you are doing.
If he can see the future, then doesn't that mean he already knows who will go to Heaven and who will go to Hell? Couldn't he have predicted that Satan was going to lure Adam and Eve into temptation and stopped Satan? So many holes.
Quote by KeYYeK321Time travel is possible in terms of physics. Go faster than the speed of light, it warps time supposedly. I just heard this in class, and not quite sure about the sources or how reliable that information is.
LOL! I don't see how by traveling incredibly fast you would travel in time.
Sleeping peacefully on the edges of No Man's Land... Not all good is rewarded, not all evil is punished.
- Currently watching: Naruto
- Feb 12, 2007
- Gallery
- Anime Watchlist
-
Your assuming God has Memory of how satan has/will defied him or w/e. And to 'stop' satan from tempting adam and eve would destroy the entire purpose of giving freewill to humans (assuming that adam and eve is literally taken)
as for knowing what will happen: this applies to chronology from metaphysics to physics.
He'd most likely see it happen, have seen it happen, and will see it happen, all at the same time. ( and if u ask how, i have no clue. the concept of metaphysics requires abstraction of 'laws' Once again, dont take everything literally at face value )Read abit closer to what i said about future/past/present ( if you have any questions on metaphysics just think about everything that applies to humans, because it doesnt apply in metaphysics ). Everything is a moment, things just happen. Whether it is past present or future, its all "present" so to speak in the metaphysical, since there is no sense of time. Or atleast thats what i've been taught/grasped about metaphysics.
as for your comment about "so many holes" try reading up on metaphysics first, and epistemology, and logic. You'll understand the concepts better. (ignorance is a bliss, but that doesnt mean you should ignore everything) and please, I'd like you to indulge me on where the gaps in my argument would be, such that i can clarify. ( Be specific )
as for travelling faster than the speed of light to travel through time, as i said before, iono how reliable it is, but just google it, maybe you'll find something.
- Feb 12, 2007
- Gallery
-
Quote by KeYYeK321Your assuming God has Memory of how satan has/will defied him or w/e. And to 'stop' satan from tempting adam and eve would destroy the entire purpose of giving freewill to humans (assuming that adam and eve is literally taken)
So God wanted us to be fooled by Satan? Some God...
Quote: as for knowing what will happen: this applies to chronology from metaphysics to physics.
He'd most likely see it happen, have seen it happen, and will see it happen, all at the same time. ( and if u ask how, i have no clue. the concept of metaphysics requires abstraction of 'laws' Once again, dont take everything literally at face value )I have to take it literally. Genesis doesn't include an asterisk next to it that states: This book is metaphorical, NOT literal.
Quote: Read abit closer to what i said about future/past/present ( if you have any questions on metaphysics just think about everything that applies to humans, because it doesnt apply in metaphysics ). Everything is a moment, things just happen. Whether it is past present or future, its all "present" so to speak in the metaphysical, since there is no sense of time. Or atleast thats what i've been taught/grasped about metaphysics.
You stated that God could see into the past, the present, and the future.
Quote: as for your comment about "so many holes" try reading up on metaphysics first, and epistemology, and logic. You'll understand the concepts better. (ignorance is a bliss, but that doesnt mean you should ignore everything) and please, I'd like you to indulge me on where the gaps in my argument would be, such that i can clarify. ( Be specific )
I was talking about how Genesis had holes since God, being omni-scient and able to see into the future, could not have foreseen Satan's treachery and how he tricked Adam and Eve into eating the forbidden fruit so as a result he punished Satan AND Adam and Eve who weren't even at fault considering the fact that Adam and Eve couldn't tell right from wrong.
as for travelling faster than the speed of light to travel through time, as i said before, iono how reliable it is, but just google it, maybe you'll find something.
Sleeping peacefully on the edges of No Man's Land... Not all good is rewarded, not all evil is punished.
- Currently watching: Naruto
- Feb 13, 2007
- Gallery
- Anime Watchlist
-
Everything within the bible cant be taken literally, because it leads to fundamentalism. If thats the case, theres nothing thats needed to be argued at all. Literally, everything within the book is just as it says... whether its true or not doesn't matter since you've already committed to analyzing literally. And in that case, Original sin does have far to many invalidities.
I stated god as seeing past/present/future under the impression you were taking the genesis stories with a grain of salt. but apparently i was wrong, and cant do that. So..... If thats the case, God can see everything that happens, at all times. That doesnt mean he'll jump in and stop it. God only told Adam and Eve not to eat the apple, he also told them there would be consequences. He never said " i will stop you if you do"
- Feb 13, 2007
- Gallery
-
Hi again!
Quote by ProgramZERO Yes, but Adam and Eve didn't know that disobeying God was wrong or listening to Lucifer. Remember, it was only after they ate the fruit that they were able to distinguish between right and wrong.
Good point! But remember, that not all is to be taken literally.
The Genesis is a very accurate effort (in the context of its time and culture) to understand human condition. Why the suffering, why life is not as we want it to be, why people can be so evil.
Well, to this all I could answer now (I'm a little asleep) is that if I am ignorant to a law, that doesn't exactly absolve me. Not necesarely, not automatically.
That's how we are educated as children. You break something, you get a little slap in your hand (not that violence should be used). You don't doubt your parents when they tell you not to speak with strangers. It's kind of what happened there. They doubted and listened to the stranger, and consecuenses happened (again, it's not to be read literally).
But there's a counterpart, the other side of the coin, to this story of the Genesis. It's in the New Testament, and it's the story of the Prodigal Son. The forgiving and loving father.
You know, in the Catholic Church, there's a especial mass given in the nigth of the Saturday of Glory (before Resurrection Sunday, I don't know if the traslation is correct). It's called something like "Passover Annoucement". The whole Temple is in darkness, illuminated only by candles. Then the priest sings the anoucement, and there's a especial line, remembering Adam and Eve: "Happy be the sin that deserved such Redemptor".
The sin happened so the Passion of Jesus could happen. "There's not greater love...". At the end it's an act of love. So, interesting as it is to debate, at the end it has to be understood with the heart.
Quote by ProgramZEROAnd where did these "wisemen" get their wisdom from?
Well, the text was written twice, in two different times. That's why it's repetitive in some passages But they were priests (of the israeli religion, of course), and with high authority, to do so and to be acepted by the comunity and aproved by the other priests.
"Wissenes" is a tricky word. It can be confused with "experience" or inteligence", but they are not the same.
MAHATMA GANDHI was wise. Who was he, at the beggining? A simple lawyer. BUDA was wise. And he was a pampered prince who knew nothing of the real world. JESUS WAS A CARPENTER.
In the Bible, there are interesting examples, of how WISSENESS IS A GIFT. Not experiencie, because it's imperfect. Not intelligence, because reasoning could slip once in a while to error.
DANIEL WAS A KID, WHEN HE SAVED SUSANA from TWO OLD, way more experienced men (In the Catholic Bible, some Bibles from sects don't have that part, at the end of the book). Many prophets started while being kids.
They where wise, BY INSPIRATION. From God, if we should say. Well, that's what I believe.
Bye, bye.
merged: 02-13-2007 ~ 03:16pm
Now, Hello to DarkIngramQuote by mireya2Yes, perhaps Adam and Eve really existed, but not as most of us believe. Their place in real History is outweigthed by their simbolic roles in Christian beliefs.
Quote by DarkIngramThey're not symbolic, if you pay more attention on the context of Genesis, you'll realize that Adam & Eve were the first human pair on earth...
Quote by mireya2First, as I pointed out, if they really existed, they weren't the only Humans alone on Earth. The Bible admits that.
Quote by DarkIngramThe Bible does not support your view... if the Bible admits that, what text? If you post only one text, I'll stop in this forum... But if I post 1 to 5 texts in the Bible that Adam & Eve were the first human pair, you'll admit in this forum that your belief is wrong & unscriptural...
Man, don't take it so at heart. I don't want you to stop posting. Well, I'd like you to be a little shorter... but not stop posting, not at all!
Well, here we can have a nice debate:
1.- Gen 4, 13-15. If there weren't other men, who was going to kill Cain? Why he was afraid?2.- Gen 4, 17-23. Where did Cain got a woman?
3.- Gen 5,6. Who married Set? From what woman did he got his child?
That's why I wrote that. It's oral tradition, merged with their culture and religion. THAT DOESN'T DIMINISH ITS VALUE. It enrichens it.
Here's another interesting point: I didn't know, but the story of Cain and Abel came from another oral tradition, and they were added as Adam and Eve sons. I found out not long ago.
Quote by mireya2I know that in your religion Bible is taken literally.
Quote by DarkIngramYoure' wrong, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. We take the balanced, commonsense view, which is indeed the Scriptural view, that, while the Bible has many direct, literal statements, such as the laws it gives to govern the Christian's life, much in that Book is symbolic or figurative....
Oh, yeah? Man, let's first have a look at this, then I'll tell you something...
Quote by mireya2The whole point of Adam being created by God, is that the Israeli then, and now the Jews and all Humanity (well, the three monoteist religions at least) can track their ancestor to a single link (Adam) that is a CREATION OF GOD.
Quote by DarkIngramAll mankind descended from the first human pair, Adam and Eve. After the Flood, earth's new population, including all the races and national groups on earth today, descended from Noah through his three sons and their wives, who were survivors of that global Deluge. Thus, after listing 70 offspring of the sons of Noah, the Genesis account says: "From these the nations were spread about in the earth." (Genesis 10:32)
Well, at least to me, this is taking things literally.
Those 70 offsprings are names of tribes and cultures that lived in the same land. Some are represented by people in some passages, as each of the 12 tribes are represented by a person with the same name.
The whole reason of following a lineage from Adam, it's to state that Human came from God, so King David comes from God, so Jesus comes from God... So, Jesus is son of God, and guess what... Jesus is truly God.
Bye.
merged: 02-14-2007 ~ 12:33am
P.D. Let's say that we could agree, at least, that Abraham is the FIRST HISTORICAL PERSON found in the Bible.- Feb 13, 2007
- Gallery
-
Although I don't take the bible as my main path for religion, there are some interesting things about the book. It is not only the monotheist religions thathave the same origin, also Persian and some eastern religions holy texts have remarkable similarities with the bible. Most religions share the same origin!
So how can people be so sure of their faith?
Ask yourself this: If you were born in Morocco, would you still be a Christian?
If you read the Sumerian holy texts, would you still firmly believe in the Bible?- Feb 13, 2007
- Gallery
-
Quote by mireya2Good point! But remember, that not all is to be taken literally.
You would not take the WORD OF GOD! (allegedly) literally? *gasp*
Quote by mireya2But there's a counterpart, the other side of the coin, to this story of the Genesis. It's in the New Testament, and it's the story of the Prodigal Son. The forgiving and loving father.
A forgiving and loving father would not curse humanity with Original Sin nor would he condemn his children to ETERNAL HELLFIRE!
Quote by KeYYeK321Everything within the bible cant be taken literally, because it leads to fundamentalism. If thats the case, theres nothing thats needed to be argued at all. Literally, everything within the book is just as it says... whether its true or not doesn't matter since you've already committed to analyzing literally. And in that case, Original sin does have far to many invalidities.
I stated god as seeing past/present/future under the impression you were taking the genesis stories with a grain of salt. but apparently i was wrong, and cant do that. So..... If thats the case, God can see everything that happens, at all times. That doesnt mean he'll jump in and stop it. God only told Adam and Eve not to eat the apple, he also told them there would be consequences. He never said " i will stop you if you do"
1. One reason I don't follow the bible. It's just a book and nothing more.
2. So God doesn't care what paths we will take? He wouldn't step in to stop Adam and Eve when he created them both without the ability to see right from wrong and then punish them for their acts? Another reason I don't follow the bible.Sleeping peacefully on the edges of No Man's Land... Not all good is rewarded, not all evil is punished.
- Currently watching: Naruto
- Feb 14, 2007
- Gallery
- Anime Watchlist
-
Uhmmmmm Forgiving doesnt mean that there isnt consequences btw.... i can forgive someone, but i sure as hell wont be the same b4 they did whatever they did.... But then you need to say " but i though u said God doesn't have memory... Keyyyyeeeeek" *shake fist* shush. lol
but any event, we ARE talking about the bible literally, because you deemed it necessary so.... SOoooo If god says: " Dont do something" We do it, he forgives us, but gives us a consequence. ( Cuz he said he would if we did, he wouldnt be a just god if he didnt, and since he's also perfect [says in the bible, and doesnt matter if it contradicts itself, our language is fubar the point is he can do w/e] he has to follow through )And our consequence just happened to be origional sin.... ( The bible is a bunch of fubar text when taken literally... )- Feb 14, 2007
- Gallery
-
Quote by DarkRoseofHell It's the idea behind your words dummy... define foolish, and ignorant, I really don't see how questioning can not be part of a debate.
The word "fool," as used in the Bible, generally refers to an individual who spurns reason and follows a morally insensible course out of harmony with God's righteous standards...
Answering a fool in harmony with or "according to his foolishness" in the sense of resorting to his degrading methods of argument puts the one so doing in agreement with the fool's unsound reasonings or ways. In order not to become like the fool in this respect, I'm counseled by the proverb: "Do not answer anyone stupid according to his foolishness." On the other hand, Proverbs 26:4, 5 shows that answering him "according to his foolishness" in the sense of analyzing his contentions, exposing them as being ridiculous, and showing that his own arguments lead to entirely different conclusions from those he has drawn can be beneficial...
Pride, stubbornness, self-will, and independence are enemies of understanding. (Jeremiah 4:22; Hosea 4:14, 16) The person with true understanding does not think he knows everything; hence Proverbs 19:25 says, "There should be a reproving of the understanding one, that he may discern knowledge." (Job 6:24, 25; Psalm 19:12, 13.) Because he is an understanding person, he is ready to listen, discerns the basis for the reproof, and benefits by it more than a stupid one would from a hundred strokes. (Proverbs 17:10; 29:19)
Quote: Your statement does not in anyway counter my arguement. Furthermore, a religion does not have to be a guide, it's just a belief, if religion is to determine the outcome of something, then that does destroy the free will idea of god.
If you know the defininition of 'Religion', here:
"A form of worship. It includes a system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices; these may be personal, or they may be advocated by an organization. Usually religion involves belief in God or in a number of gods; or it treats humans, objects, desires, or forces as objects of worship. Much religion is based on human study of nature; there is also revealed religion. There is true religion and false."
Some might question, though, whether our religious beliefs have much effect on the kind of people we become--our personal qualities and conduct. They may view beliefs and conduct as two separate and unrelated items, like a jacket and slacks that can be mixed or matched according to the wearer's preference. In the Bible, however, beliefs and conduct are more like a suit that comes only as a matched set...
The Bible reveals a direct connection between what we believe and what kind of persons we become. The self-righteous Pharisees of Jesus' day were an example of misguided beliefs affecting conduct. (Matthew 23:1-33; Luke 18:9-14) On the other hand, Colossians 3:10 admonishes: "Clothe yourselves with the new personality, which through accurate knowledge is being made new according to the image of the One who created it." Notice that the power to lead a godly life is linked to having an accurate knowledge of God...
The Greek term translated "accurate knowledge," which appears 20 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures, refers to exact, accurate, or full knowledge. Greek scholar Nathanael Culverwel describes it as becoming "better acquainted with a thing I knew before; a more exact viewing of an object that I saw before afar off." Thus in the way a jeweler examines a precious gem in order to appraise its qualities and value, a Christian must examine God's Word in order to come to an exact, accurate, and full knowledge of the God he serves. This includes coming to know God's personality, his purposes, his standards, and all the teachings that make up "the pattern of healthful words"--a far cry from merely believing that 'there's Someone up there.' (2 Timothy 1:13)
Quote: Your post is long... it's annoying. Meh... warunez.
You have too much stuff you never thought through, just post and wait...
And you, what can I expect from a 15 yr old boy? Nothing..
_____________________________Quote by ProgramZEROI'd appreciate it if you could summarize your post. I have many things to do and don't have all the time in the world to read it all.
Ok..
Some claim to see good in all religions; hence, they feel no real need to seek out the true religion. Such individuals should heed the warning given by the prophet Isaiah, who wrote: "Woe to those who are saying that good is bad and bad is good, those who are putting darkness for light and light for darkness, those who are putting bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20) False religion has produced what is bad for humanity. It has resulted in spiritual darkness and has left a bitter taste in the mouths of honesthearted people...
The choice, therefore, is not between being an atheist and believing in any religion. It is not as simple as that. Once someone has recognized the need for God, that one must seek out the true religion. As researcher Emile Poulat nicely put it in Le Grand Atlas des Religions (The Large Atlas of Religions): "The things [religions] teach and demand are so greatly varied that it is impossible to believe them all." In agreement with this, the French Encyclopaedia Universalis (Universal Encyclopedia) says: "If the 21st century does return to religion, . . . man will have to decide whether the sacred things he is offered are true or false."
What will guide us in choosing the right religion? The Encyclopaedia Universalis is correct when it highlights the importance of truth. A religion that teaches lies cannot be true. The greatest man that ever walked on earth stated: "God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth." (John 4:24)
That man was Jesus Christ, and he also declared: "Be on your guard against false religious teachers, who come to you dressed up as sheep but are really greedy wolves. You can tell them by their fruits. . . . Every good tree produces sound fruit, but a rotten tree produces bad fruit." (Matthew 7:15-17) Seeing the bad fruit of the world's "great" religions, and even of the sects and cults that have sprung up, many sincere people are coming to view them all as 'rotten trees,' simply not good enough. But how can they find the true religion?
Obviously it would be impossible to study all the thousands of religions inside and outside Christendom before making a choice. However, if--as Jesus said--we use truth and fruitage as touchstones, it is possible to identify true religion...
"Go in through the narrow gate," Jesus said, "because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it." (Matthew 7:13, 14) According to God's Word, there are only two kinds of religion: one true, one false; one right, one wrong; one that leads to life, one that leads to destruction...
Quote: I would ask what Isaiah meant when he said "the circle of the Earth" since he didn't say "the circular Earth". And since Pythagoras also claimed that the Earth was spherical, then can we say that Isaiah's claim that the Earth was circular is truly special?
The Hebrew word chugh, translated "circle," can also mean "sphere," as such reference works as Davidson's Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon show. Other translations, therefore, say "the globe of the earth" (Douay Version), and "the round earth." (Moffatt)
Two centuries before Pythagoras formulated his theory, the prophet Isaiah stated that the earth is a sphere...
Quote: So what does the Bible say about gravity? Or does it say anything about gravity?
At Job 26:7 it says that God is "hanging the earth upon nothing." In the original Hebrew, the word for "nothing" (beli-mah') used here literally means "not any thing," and this is the only time it occurs in the Bible. The picture it presents of an earth surrounded by empty space is recognized by scholars as a "remarkable vision," especially for its time...
The Bible does not say about the word 'gravity'...
The Bible is not a science textbook so don't expect lots of science terms on it. Yet, when it does touch on subjects relating to science--such as the order in which living things appeared on earth, the shape of the earth, or the proper treatment of infectious diseases--the Bible says nothing incorrect. On the contrary, it contains statements that were centuries ahead of their time...
Quote: The people of the bible weren't unique in knowing of ways in preventing the spread of disease. Many other civilizations knew of 'herbs' and disease-preventing measures although they didn't know how it worked exactly, they knew to stay away from diseased people, fear being one reason they stayed away from people who were sick.
What other civilizations? Can you list them?
Physicians, practitioners of medicine or various healing arts, were common in ancient Israel and other Biblical lands. In Egypt "the physicians embalmed Israel," deceased Jacob. (Genesis 50:1-3) The disciple Luke is called "the beloved physician." (Colossians 4:14) Mark tells us of a woman who was "subject to a flow of blood twelve years" and who "had been put to many pains by many physicians and had spent all her resources and had not been benefited but, rather, had got worse." (Mark 5:25-29)
Hebrew physicians apparently used some herbs and perhaps certain dietetic remedies. 'Balsam of Gilead,' a scented oil obtained from plants in ancient Gilead, was sometimes applied to wounds, perhaps to serve antiseptic purposes or to produce a soothing effect and lessen pain. (Jeremiah 46:11; 51:8) The use of some leaves for medicinal purposes seems to be indicated. (Ezekiel 47:12; Revelation 22:1, 2) Apparently poultices were used. (2 Kings 20:7; Isaiah 38:21) Oil was sometimes applied to soften wounds and bruises (Isa 1:6), both oil and wine at times being applied to wounds. (Luke 10:34) Moderate drinking of wine was occasionally recommended for its cheering effect and for its medicinal properties. (Proverbs 31:6; 1 Timothy 5:23.
Medicine and surgery were practiced by the ancient Egyptians, about whom the historian Herodotus wrote (II, 84): "The practice of medicine is so divided among them, that each physician is a healer of one disease and no more. All the country is full of physicians, some of the eye, some of the teeth, some of what pertains to the belly, and some of the hidden diseases."
In Egypt surgical techniques included cauterization to control hemorrhage, and elevating a fragment of bone that might be pressing against a person's brain in cases of skull fracture. Splints were used for broken bones, some mummies even having been discovered with splints made of tree bark fastened with bandages. (Ezekiel 30:20, 21.) That early Babylon had some surgeons is indicated in the Code of Hammurabi, which set certain fees of physicians and made references to "a bronze operating knife."
Dentistry was practiced in Phoenicia. One specimen of dental work found involved the use of fine gold wire to bind together six teeth in the lower jaw. In another, a gold wire prosthesis served to "bridge in" teeth taken from another person...
Quote: LOL! Since they can't be proven or disproven, that means that they are irrelevant to humanity. I could tell you that giant leprechauns once floated through the cosmos but that can't be proven or disproven. According to your reasoning, we shouldn't ignore my claim. Personally, I would, knowing that it was all just a bunch of fairy-tale trash.
It's your view, It's not my problem... Can you prove to me that the Bible is just a bunch of fairy-tale trash?
Quote: Daniel Chapter 8 talks about Rams and Goats. Not sure how this applies to anything.
The Bible's prophecies are often symbolic...
The Bible is rich in symbolism, especially in its prophetic parts. Such symbolism quickly conveys information to readers and listeners. Also, vivid pictorial representations can usually be remembered better than a mere listing of facts. Another benefit of symbols is that much information can be set forth in simple terms...
Here Daniel describes a vision of a struggle between a ram with two horns and a hairy he-goat with "a conspicuous horn." The he-goat prevails, but its great horn is broken. In its place four horns come up. What does the vision mean? Daniel's account continues: "The ram that you saw possessing the two horns stands for the kings of Media and Persia. And the hairy he-goat stands for the king of Greece; and as for the great horn that was between its eyes, it stands for the first king. And that one having been broken, so that there were four that finally stood up instead of it, there are four kingdoms from his nation that will stand up, but not with his power." (Daniel 8:3-22)
Was this prophecy fulfilled? The writing of the book of Daniel was completed in about 536 B.C.E. Macedonian King Alexander the Great, who was born 180 years later, in 356 B.C.E., conquered the Persian Empire. He was "the great horn" between the eyes of "the hairy he-goat." According to the Jewish historian Josephus, upon entering Jerusalem before his victory over Persia, Alexander was shown the book of Daniel. He concluded that the words of Daniel's prophecy that were pointed out to him referred to his own military campaign involving Persia. What is more, in textbooks on world history, you can read of the course that Alexander's empire took after his death in 323 B.C.E. Four generals eventually took over his empire, and by 301 B.C.E., the 'four horns' that stood up instead of "the great horn" divided the domain into four sections. Once again, we have every reason to wonder, 'How could a book so vividly and accurately foretell what would take place some 200 years later?'
Quote: This biblical verse doesn't prove anything. I could say people will be greedy and disobedient in the future and that there will be war and whatnot but that's to be expected.
I can understand why you feel that way. We were born into a world where these things are everyday news. But historians explain that there is something drastically different about the 20th century...
How do secular historians view the year 1914?
"Looking back from the vantage point of the present we see clearly today that the outbreak of World War I ushered in a twentieth-century 'Time of Troubles'--in the expressive term of the British historian Arnold Toynbee--from which our civilization has by no means yet emerged. Directly or indirectly all the convulsions of the last half century stem back to 1914."--The Fall of the Dynasties: The Collapse of the Old Order (New York, 1963), Edmond Taylor, p. 16."People of the World War II generation, my generation, will always think of their conflict as the great modern watershed of change. . . . We should be allowed our vanity, our personal rendezvous with history. But we should know that, in social terms, a far more decisive change came with World War I. It was then that political and social systems, centuries in the building, came apart--sometimes in a matter of weeks. And others were permanently transformed. It was in World War I that the age-old certainties were lost. . . . World War II continued, enlarged and affirmed this change. In social terms World War II was the last battle of World War I."--The Age of Uncertainty (Boston, 1977), John K. Galbraith, p. 133.
"Half a century has gone by, yet the mark that the tragedy of the Great War [World War I, which started in 1914] left on the body and soul of the nations has not faded . . . The physical and moral magnitude of this ordeal was such that nothing left was the same as before. Society in its entirety: systems of government, national borders, laws, armed forces, interstate relations, but also ideologies, family life, fortunes, positions, personal relations--everything was changed from top to bottom. . . . Humanity finally lost its balance, never to recover it to this day."--General Charles de Gaulle, speaking in 1968 (Le Monde, Nov. 12, 1968, p. 9).
Quote: Famine is no stranger to the human race. All throughout history, many have been victims of famine and to believe that such predicitions are divine is silly. One would likely envision apocalypse to include famine.
He did not say that any one event by itself would prove that we were in "the last days." But when the entire sign is in evidence, that is significant--and especially when it appears on a global scale and beginning with a year that is fixed by Bible chronology...
Quote: Diseases will always exist, despite the fact that medical science has come very far. We have done much but have a lot more work to do.
Despite the best efforts of medical science, the elimination of death is thus still beyond medicine's reach. Why is this the case? And is the goal of good health for all an impossible dream?
Quote: Yes, Christianity is spreading... and unfortunately causing the destruction of other religions and cultures.
Destruction of false religion, that's for sure...
True Christianity unites nationalities that long have had antipathies toward one another. For Christians "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female." The same also applies to such divisive factors as wealth and culture, not that the two necessarily go together. They heed the counsel of the disciple James: "Let the lowly brother exult over his exaltation, and the rich one over his humiliation," thus the two will come on a common level. (Galatians 3:28; James 1:9, 10)
In true Christianity there is not even a segregation according to age, no religious kindergartens for children or Sunday schools, but all meet together as did the Israelites of old in obedience to the command: "Congregate the people, the men and the women and the little ones . . . in order that they may listen and in order that they may learn." Youth has respect for what maturity and years of experience has to offer, and old age appreciates the eagerness of youth. As some Brazilian Witnesses like to put it, "We have no old folks among us, only some have been young longer than others!" (Deuteronomy 31:12)
Quote: Technology had a lot to do with it. Again, the ambiguity has a lot to do with it.
Without doubt, in one way or another most people living today have benefited from the advancement of science and technology. In developed and developing nations alike, technology has brought numerous material advantages in nearly every aspect of life. "It is obvious that something has gone wrong during the past few decades," observed renowned scientist and environmentalist Rene Dubos. "Increased control over nature is not providing safety and peace of mind; economic prosperity is not making people healthier or happier; technological innovations create problems of their own, which continually necessitate the development of new counter-technologies." He added: "The feeling prevails that scientists have not yet learned how to direct their attention to the distressing aspects of the modern world that have their origin in scientific technology."
Thus, unlike the story about the sorcerer's apprentice, in real life we cannot count on the "master"--scientists and technologists--to come to our rescue. In this case, they also are floundering in the sea of problems created by the shortsighted misuse of technology. Clearly, what is most urgently needed is not more technology but an agency, a government, a superpower that can do away with all the divisive elements in order to come to man's rescue...
The Bible speaks about such a government: "The God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms [in existence today], and it itself will stand to times indefinite." (Daniel 2:44) That Kingdom is none other than God's Messianic Kingdom in the hands of Jesus Christ...
Under the peaceful rule of God's Kingdom, what modern technology can only hope to achieve will be realized. Deserts and parched ground will become productive. There will be worthwhile and interesting work for all to do. The blind, lame, deaf, and mute will be rid of their afflictions. And even death itself will be conquered. (Isaiah 35:1, 5-7; 65:21-23)
Quote: And as of today, things are a lot better than they were back then. Not exactly apocalypse or anything. And again, quite a vague description.
The Bible forewarns: "As for the times and the seasons, . . . you yourselves know quite well that Jehovah's day is coming exactly as a thief in the night." (1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) Would you reasonably expect a thief to send a telegram announcing when he is planning to burglarize your home?
Appropriately, then, Jesus counsels us regarding the exact hour: "Keep looking, keep awake, for you do not know when the appointed time is." (Mark 13:32-37) Even so, we have noted that Jesus described various happenings that pinpoint the 1914 generation. And the Bible describes future events that will signal the imminent apocalypse...
The apostle Paul said: "Whenever it is that they are saying: 'Peace and security!' then sudden destruction is to be instantly upon them just as the pang of distress upon a pregnant woman; and they will by no means escape." (1 Thessalonians 5:3) So as we progress toward the finale of these "last days," we can expect some outstanding attention to be given to "Peace and security!" in fulfillment of Paul's words...
Bible prophecies indicate that world religion, described as "Babylon the Great," will suddenly be attacked by earthly political powers and will come to an abrupt end! (Revelation 17:5, 16; 18:10, 17) This will mark the beginning of a "great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world's beginning until now." (Matthew 24:21) But how will this affect those who have 'kept awake' and on the watch for the apocalypse?
True Christians can be confident that Jehovah will deliver them. (2 Peter 2:9) Yes, as long as they know Jehovah God and unselfishly serve him, they will have no cause for fear when God and Christ come forth to fight the war of Armageddon. (Revelation 11:17, 18; 16:14, 16)
Next, the apocalypse will lead to the isolation of Satan the Devil and his invisible forces from mankind. (Revelation 20:2, 3) Yes, the wrath that is coming will go beyond ridding the earth of people unwilling to serve God. Even wicked spirits who today influence the world around us will be eliminated. (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9) This will mean everlasting blessing for the survivors of the apocalypse...
Quote: Well first you'd have to prove that Jesus actually existed.
"Evidence of Jesus Written in Stone." So proclaimed the cover of Biblical Archaeology Review (November/December 2002). That cover featured a limestone bone box, an ossuary, that was found in Israel. Ossuaries were widely used among the Jews during the brief period between the first century B.C.E. and 70 C.E. What made this one especially significant was an Aramaic inscription on one side. Scholars acknowledged its reading: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."
According to the Bible, Jesus of Nazareth had a brother named James who was considered a son of Joseph, the husband of Mary. When Jesus Christ taught in his hometown, the astounded audience asked: "Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?" (Matthew 13:54-56; Luke 4:22; John 6:42)
Yes, the inscription on the ossuary fits the description of Jesus the Nazarene. If the James mentioned in the inscription was the half brother of Jesus Christ, then it would be "the oldest extrabiblical archaeological evidence of Jesus," asserts Andre Lemaire, an authority on ancient inscriptions and the writer of the aforementioned article in Biblical Archaeology Review. Hershel Shanks, editor of the magazine, notes that the ossuary "is something tactile and visible reaching back to the single most important personage ever to walk the earth."
However, all three names readable on the inscribed ossuary were common in the first century. So it is possible that a family whose members included a James, a Joseph, and a Jesus existed apart from the family of Jesus Christ. Lemaire estimates: "In Jerusalem during the two generations before 70 C.E., there were . . . probably about 20 people who could be called 'James/Jacob son of Joseph brother of Jesus.'" Nevertheless, he feels that there is a 90-percent chance that the James on the ossuary was the half brother of Jesus Christ...
There is another factor that makes some believe that the James in the inscription was Jesus Christ's half brother. Although it was common to mention the father of the deceased in such inscriptions, it was very rare to name a brother. Therefore, some scholars believe that this Jesus must have been somebody important, causing them to think that he was Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity...
What is an ossuary? It is a box, or chest, into which the bones of a deceased person were put after the body had decayed in a burial cave. Many ossuaries were looted from burial places around Jerusalem. The box with the James inscription emerged from the antiquities market, not from an official excavation site. The owner of the artifact is said to have bought it for a few hundred dollars in the 1970's. Thus, the origin of the ossuary is shrouded in mystery. "If you cannot say where an artifact was found and where it has been for nearly 2,000 years, you cannot pretend to draw the lines of connection between the object and the people it might mention," says Professor Bruce Chilton of Bard College, New York...
To offset the lack of archaeological background, Andre Lemaire sent the box to the Geological Survey of Israel. The researchers there verified that the ossuary was made of limestone from the first or second century C.E. They reported that "no sign of the use of a modern tool or instrument was found." Still, Bible scholars interviewed by The New York Times expressed the opinion that "the circumstantial evidence supporting a link to Jesus was possibly strong, but circumstantial nonetheless."
Time magazine commented that "almost no educated person these days doubts that Jesus lived." Still, many feel that there ought to be evidence in addition to the Bible of Jesus' existence..
Testimony of Historians
For instance, consider the testimony of Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian who was a Pharisee. He referred to Jesus Christ in the book Jewish Antiquities. Although some doubt the authenticity of the first reference where Josephus mentioned Jesus as the Messiah, Professor Louis H. Feldman of Yeshiva University says that few have doubted the genuineness of the second reference. There Josephus said: "[Ananus the high priest] convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ." (Jewish Antiquities, XX, 200) Yes, a Pharisee, a member of the sect many of whose adherents were avowed enemies of Jesus, acknowledged the existence of "James, the brother of Jesus."The influence of Jesus' existence was felt through the activities of his followers. When the apostle Paul was imprisoned in Rome about 59 C.E., the principal men of the Jews told him: "As regards this sect it is known to us that everywhere it is spoken against." (Acts 28:17-22) They called Jesus' disciples "this sect." If they were everywhere spoken against, secular historians would likely report about them, would they not?
Tacitus, born about 55 C.E. and considered one of the world's greatest historians, mentioned the Christians in his Annals. In the account about Nero's blaming the great fire of Rome in 64 C.E. on them, he wrote: "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus." The details of this account match the information regarding the Jesus of the Bible...
Another writer who commented on Jesus' followers was Pliny the Younger, the governor of Bithynia. In about the year 111 C.E., Pliny wrote to Emperor Trajan, asking how to handle Christians. People who were falsely accused of being Christians, wrote Pliny, would repeat an invocation to the gods and worship the statue of Trajan, just to prove that they were not Christians. Pliny continued: "There is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians, into any of these compliances." That testifies to the reality of the existence of the Christ, whose followers were prepared to give their lives for their belief in him...
After summarizing the references to Jesus Christ and his followers by the historians of the first two centuries, The Encyclopaedia Britannica (2002 edition) concludes: "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."
Quote: Many civilizations rise and fall in ancient times. It doesn't surprise me that it has actually happened.
It's not what you think..
Nearly three hundred times in the Hebrew Scriptures and twice in the Christian Greek Scriptures, God is given the title "Jehovah of armies." (1 Samuel 1:11) As Sovereign Ruler, Jehovah commands a vast army of angelic forces. (Joshua 5:13-15; 1 Kings 22:19) The destructive potential of this army is awesome. (Isaiah 37:36) The destruction of humans is not pleasant to contemplate. However, we must remember that God's wars are unlike petty human conflicts. Military and political leaders may try to attribute noble motives to their aggression. But human war invariably involves greed and selfishness...
In contrast, Jehovah is not driven by blind emotion. Deuteronomy 32:4 declares: "The Rock, perfect is his activity, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; righteous and upright is he." God's Word condemns unbridled rage, cruelty, and violence. (Genesis 49:7; Psalm 11:5) So Jehovah never acts without reason. He uses his destructive power sparingly and as a last resort. It is as he stated through his prophet Ezekiel: "'Do I take any delight at all in the death of someone wicked,' is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, 'and not in that he should turn back from his ways and actually keep living?'" (Ezekiel 18:23)
Quote: What about the claim that the Earth was created in seven days when it actually occurred a lot longer than that?
There are some religious groups that teach that God created everything in six 24-hour days. But that is not what the Bible says...
Jehovah's witnesses are not led into unreasonable and unscientific conclusions, such as the fundamentalists' belief that the earth was created in six literal twenty-four-hour days. The Witnesses know that the expression "day" basically means a period of time. For example, we might say, 'In our grandfather's day,' which would cover a number of years. The Bible helps us on this point when, after outlining God's acts during the six creative "days," it speaks of them all together as being performed in one "day," saying: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth . . . in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Accordingly, a Biblical "day" may be a period of a thousand or many thousands of years. (Genesis 2:4; 2 Peter 3:8)
The Hebrew word yohm, translated "day," can mean different lengths of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies includes the following: "A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens." This last sentence appears to fit the creative "days," for certainly they were periods when extraordinary events were described as happening. It also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours...
Genesis chapter 1 uses the expressions "evening" and "morning" relative to the creative periods. Does this not indicate that they were 24 hours long? Not necessarily. In some places people often refer to a man's lifetime as his "day." They speak of "my father's day" or "in Shakespeare's day." They may divide up that lifetime "day," saying "in the morning [or dawn] of his life" or "in the evening [or twilight] of his life." So 'evening and morning' in Genesis chapter 1 does not limit the meaning to a literal 24 hours...
Quote: You know, as I looked these up in the bible, I've noticed that they are all quite vague. They aren't very specific so it really slashes the divinity in the passages. Also, many of the historical occurrences aren't easily verified.
By ignoring the context and possible symbolic meanings of scriptures the atheist thinks he finds contradictions, and because he is looking for contradictions he ends his search with his superficial reading, happy, feeling rewarded, thinking he has found what he was seeking...
You does not wish to continue your study to get an understanding that would bring harmony to the passages that your prejudiced mind views as contradictory...
_____________________________________________Quote by mireya2Man, don't take it so at heart. I don't want you to stop posting. Well, I'd like you to be a little shorter... but not stop posting, not at all!
Well, here we can have a nice debate:
1.- Gen 4, 13-15. If there weren't other men, who was going to kill Cain? Why he was afraid?
Why these people [that were not relatives as you think] will kill Cain if they didn't know what happend to Abel? The Bible does not tell Cain afraid to other people [who are not relatives], he's afraid to be a fugitive in a sense that he might die in own hands of his relatives.. since no other families existed except from Adam & Eve..
The Bible will contradict itself if you insists Adam & Eve where symbolic... can you explain these verse:?
"And he made out of one [man] every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth, and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of the dwelling of [men]"--Acts 17:26
"It is even so written: "The first man Adam became a living soul." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit."--1 Corinthians 15:45
"That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned."--Romans 5:12
"Nevertheless, death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression by Adam, who bears a resemblance to him that was to come."--Romans 5:14
"For if by the trespass of the one [man] death ruled as king through that one, much more will those who receive the abundance of the undeserved kindness and of the free gift of righteousness rule as kings in life through the one [person], Jesus Christ."--Romans 5:17
"Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli, son of Matthat, . . . son of David, son of Jesse, . . . son of Abraham, . . . son of Shem, son of Noah, . . . son of Adam, son of God."--Luke 3:23-38
"For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive."--1 Corinthians 15:22
Quote: 2.- Gen 4, 17-23. Where did Cain got a woman?
In framing the question in this way, it is evident that questioners think that Adam and Eve must not have originally been the only humans. So, they reason, Cain evidently obtained his wife from other peoples living on earth. However, this view is not in harmony with the Bible, which says: "Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she had to become the mother of everyone living." (Genesis 3:20)
Professor Ruth Benedict and Dr. Gene Weltfish observe in the publication The Races of Mankind: "The Bible story of Adam and Eve, father and mother of the whole human race, told centuries ago the same truth that science has shown today: that all the peoples of the earth are a single family and have a common origin."
Well, then, since this is the case, Where did Cain get his wife? Is there a logical Bible answer?
Yes, there is. It is pointed to in the very instructions given to Adam and Eve shortly after their creation, namely: "Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it." (Genesis 1:28)
Obedience to this command would require that Adam and Eve have children. Then these children, in turn, would marry and bear children. This process of reproduction by succeeding generations would need to continue in order to fill the earth in harmony with God's purpose...
However, before Eve was pregnant with her first child Cain, both Adam and his wife sinned by disobeying God and were driven outside the garden of Eden. (Genesis 3:1-19) Where would Adam and Eve now live? The Bible tells us: "With that Jehovah God put [Adam] out of the garden of Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. And so he drove the man out and posted at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubs and the flaming blade of a sword that was turning itself continually to guard the way to the tree of life." (Genesis 3:23, 24)
From this it can be seen that Adam apparently went out to the east of the garden of Eden. It was here that, not only Cain and Abel were born, but the Bible also later mentions by name a third son, Seth. However, notice that Adam and Eve had other children as well. For Genesis 5:4 says: "And the days of Adam after his fathering Seth came to be eight hundred years. Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters."
This meant that Cain and Abel had sisters, and possibly other brothers not listed by name. These grew up together as earth's original family...
Time passed. Finally, following the offering of sacrifices to God by two of the sons, Cain became jealous of Abel because God showed favor toward Abel and his sacrifice, but not toward Cain and his sacrifice. Cain allowed hatred to develop toward Abel and he murdered him. (Genesis 4:1-8; 1 John 3:10-12)
For this wicked deed God sentenced Cain to banishment, away from the rest of his relatives. The Bible says: "Cain went away from the face of Jehovah and took up residence in the land of Fugitiveness [called "the land of Nod" in some Bible translations] to the east of Eden." (Genesis 4:9-16)
However, notice here that the Bible does not say that Cain found his wife in the land of Fugitiveness. It simply says: "Afterward Cain had intercourse with his wife and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch." (Genesis 4:17)
Where, then, did Cain get his wife? It was obviously from among his own family. His wife was one of his fleshly sisters, a daughter of Adam and Eve. Cain was likely married at the time he killed Abel, or shortly thereafter took one of his sisters as a wife. They then traveled together to the land of Fugitiveness, where they took up residence and started their own family...
"But such a union is incest!" some may object...
It must be remembered, however, that circumstances were different in earlier times. Adam and Eve were created perfect, and the instruction for them 'to multiply and fill the earth' would necessarily require that their offspring marry one another and reproduce. (Genesis 1:28) But as perfect humans, their children would have been perfect as were their parents...
Even though Adam and Eve sinned and became imperfect, Cain and his brothers and sisters were still so near to physical perfection that the children they produced did not suffer the same adverse effects as do children born of such unions today. Even some 2,000 years afterward, God's faithful servant Abraham married his half-sister Sarah, and God did not disapprove. (Genesis 20:12) It was yet another 450 years or so before God saw fit to provide his nation of Israel a body of laws that forbade incest on penalty of death. (Leviticus 18:8-17) By that time imperfection had apparently developed to such an extent that no longer was it safe for close relatives to marry...
Quote: 3.- Gen 5,6. Who married Set? From what woman did he got his child?
His close relative...
"And Adam lived on for a hundred and thirty years. Then he became father to a son in his likeness, in his image, and called his name Seth. And the days of Adam after his fathering Seth came to be eight hundred years. Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters" (Genesis 5:3-4)
It was obviously from among his own family. His wife was one of his fleshly sisters, a daughter of Adam and Eve...
Quote: That's why I wrote that. It's oral tradition, merged with their culture and religion. THAT DOESN'T DIMINISH ITS VALUE. It enrichens it.
Here's another interesting point: I didn't know, but the story of Cain and Abel came from another oral tradition, and they were added as Adam and Eve sons. I found out not long ago.
Tradition!?
Think of the harm that traditional beliefs caused some of the Jews of Jesus' day. They fervently believed that their traditions were true. When they protested that Jesus' disciples did not keep the traditions, Jesus challenged them with the question: "Why is it you also overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition?" (Matthew 15:1-3) What had gone wrong? Jesus identified the problem when he quoted the words of the prophet Isaiah: "It is in vain that they keep worshiping [God], because they teach commands of men as doctrines." (Matthew 15:9; Isaiah 29:13)
By an investigation of what the apostle Paul and Christ himself said on the subject, we can judge for ourselves whether the Adam and Eve account was symbolic and whether they really existed or not...
The apostle Paul draws a parallel between the part Adam played and that played by Jesus, explaining: "It was through one man [Adam] that sin entered the world, and through sin death . . . For if by the wrongdoing of that one man death established its reign, through a single sinner, much more shall those who receive in far greater measure God's grace, and his gift of righteousness, live and reign through the one man, Jesus Christ." (Romans 5:12, 17) He makes this same point in another of his letters, where he calls Jesus "the last Adam," thereby showing that only Jesus could redeem what Adam had lost. Then, after his resurrection to spirit life in the heavens, Jesus could become "a life-giving spirit" in behalf of all those being saved. (1 Corinthians 15:45) Now, if Adam were just a symbol of humanity, or a "collective being," as a footnote in the French Traduction Ecumenique de la Bible (Ecumenical Translation of the Bible) expresses it, what basis would the apostle Paul's argument have?
However, the most important testimony concerning the authenticity of the Genesis account about Adam and Eve was provided by Christ himself, who referred to it when questioned by the religious leaders of his day. He declared: "'Have you never read [in Genesis] that the Creator made them from the beginning male and female?'; and he added, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and be made one with his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. . . . What God has joined together, man must not separate.'" (Matthew 19:4-6) Can we imagine Jesus basing his teaching about the sacredness of marriage on something that was imaginary or mythological?
Quote: Well, at least to me, this is taking things literally.
Those 70 offsprings are names of tribes and cultures that lived in the same land. Some are represented by people in some passages, as each of the 12 tribes are represented by a person with the same name.
Quote: The whole reason of following a lineage from Adam, it's to state that Human came from God, so King David comes from God, so Jesus comes from God... So, Jesus is son of God, and guess what... Jesus is truly God.
Did Jesus call himself an Almighty God? Jesus' being called the "only-begotten Son" (John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9) Give me a Bible text that Jesus is the Almighty God, & I'll Give you texts that Jehovah is the true Almighty God... :)
- Feb 15, 2007
- Gallery
-
Oh, my god. That is ****ing long.
Quote: The word "fool," as used in the Bible, generally refers to an individual who spurns reason and follows a morally insensible course out of harmony with God's righteous standards...
Answering a fool in harmony with or "according to his foolishness" in the sense of resorting to his degrading methods of argument puts the one so doing in agreement with the fool's unsound reasonings or ways. In order not to become like the fool in this respect, I'm counseled by the proverb: "Do not answer anyone stupid according to his foolishness." On the other hand, Proverbs 26:4, 5 shows that answering him "according to his foolishness" in the sense of analyzing his contentions, exposing them as being ridiculous, and showing that his own arguments lead to entirely different conclusions from those he has drawn can be beneficial...
Okay, then asking something inharmony of god. Can I ask why you posted this? Did god tell you to post this? Seriously, what your saying makes no sense. Also if you want to know how you put it, you just called everyone who considerably "sin" or does not believe in god a fool.Quote: "A form of worship. It includes a system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices; these may be personal, or they may be advocated by an organization. Usually religion involves belief in God or in a number of gods; or it treats humans, objects, desires, or forces as objects of worship. Much religion is based on human study of nature; there is also revealed religion. There is true religion and false."
Some might question, though, whether our religious beliefs have much effect on the kind of people we become--our personal qualities and conduct. They may view beliefs and conduct as two separate and unrelated items, like a jacket and slacks that can be mixed or matched according to the wearer's preference. In the Bible, however, beliefs and conduct are more like a suit that comes only as a matched set...
This is what a dictionary would state.
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
As you see, there is not only on definition of religion. You obviously are thinking of the first one. But for the bible to be considered a religion yet dictate how one should live their own lifestyle, I don't see how it works.
Quote: The Bible reveals a direct connection between what we believe and what kind of persons we become. The self-righteous Pharisees of Jesus' day were an example of misguided beliefs affecting conduct. (Matthew 23:1-33; Luke 18:9-14) On the other hand, Colossians 3:10 admonishes: "Clothe yourselves with the new personality, which through accurate knowledge is being made new according to the image of the One who created it." Notice that the power to lead a godly life is linked to having an accurate knowledge of God...
The Greek term translated "accurate knowledge," which appears 20 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures, refers to exact, accurate, or full knowledge. Greek scholar Nathanael Culverwel describes it as becoming "better acquainted with a thing I knew before; a more exact viewing of an object that I saw before afar off." Thus in the way a jeweler examines a precious gem in order to appraise its qualities and value, a Christian must examine God's Word in order to come to an exact, accurate, and full knowledge of the God he serves. This includes coming to know God's personality, his purposes, his standards, and all the teachings that make up "the pattern of healthful words"--a far cry from merely believing that 'there's Someone up there.' (2 Timothy 1:13)
Okay, I myself isn't considered those "sinners" or evil people. I myself have not bothered with the bible so much that to be assumed a religious person and what not.
Quote: And you, what can I expect from a 15 yr old boy? Nothing..
That's what something stereotypical can be assumed of. For a 15 year old boy, I seem to know more about debate than you.?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????- Feb 16, 2007
- Gallery
-
Quote by DarkIngram
Ok.Some claim to see good in all religions; hence, they feel no real need to seek out the true religion. Such individuals should heed the warning given by the prophet Isaiah, who wrote: "Woe to those who are saying that good is bad and bad is good, those who are putting darkness for light and light for darkness, those who are putting bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20) False religion has produced what is bad for humanity. It has resulted in spiritual darkness and has left a bitter taste in the mouths of honesthearted people...
The choice, therefore, is not between being an atheist and believing in any religion. It is not as simple as that. Once someone has recognized the need for God, that one must seek out the true religion. As researcher Emile Poulat nicely put it in Le Grand Atlas des Religions (The Large Atlas of Religions): "The things [religions] teach and demand are so greatly varied that it is impossible to believe them all." In agreement with this, the French Encyclopaedia Universalis (Universal Encyclopedia) says: "If the 21st century does return to religion, . . . man will have to decide whether the sacred things he is offered are true or false."
What will guide us in choosing the right religion? The Encyclopaedia Universalis is correct when it highlights the importance of truth. A religion that teaches lies cannot be true. The greatest man that ever walked on earth stated: "God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth." (John 4:24)
That man was Jesus Christ, and he also declared: "Be on your guard against false religious teachers, who come to you dressed up as sheep but are really greedy wolves. You can tell them by their fruits. . . . Every good tree produces sound fruit, but a rotten tree produces bad fruit." (Matthew 7:15-17) Seeing the bad fruit of the world's "great" religions, and even of the sects and cults that have sprung up, many sincere people are coming to view them all as 'rotten trees,' simply not good enough. But how can they find the true religion?
Obviously it would be impossible to study all the thousands of religions inside and outside Christendom before making a choice. However, if--as Jesus said--we use truth and fruitage as touchstones, it is possible to identify true religion...
"Go in through the narrow gate," Jesus said, "because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it." (Matthew 7:13, 14) According to God's Word, there are only two kinds of religion: one true, one false; one right, one wrong; one that leads to life, one that leads to destruction...
Thank you for the summary. Anyways, you've still to prove Jesus ever existed. No, a coffiin is insufficient evidence.
Quote: The Hebrew word chugh, translated "circle," can also mean "sphere," as such reference works as Davidson's Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon show. Other translations, therefore, say "the globe of the earth" (Douay Version), and "the round earth." (Moffatt)
Two centuries before Pythagoras formulated his theory, the prophet Isaiah stated that the earth is a sphere...
It is uncertain when Isaiah existed or if he existed. The bible is a foggy text that is hard to date but the fact that the Earth was known to be round by ancient civilizations proves that the bible isn't as divine as claimed.
Quote:
At Job 26:7 it says that God is "hanging the earth upon nothing." In the original Hebrew, the word for "nothing" (beli-mah') used here literally means "not any thing," and this is the only time it occurs in the Bible. The picture it presents of an earth surrounded by empty space is recognized by scholars as a "remarkable vision," especially for its time...
The Bible does not say about the word 'gravity'...
The Bible is not a science textbook so don't expect lots of science terms on it. Yet, when it does touch on subjects relating to science--such as the order in which living things appeared on earth, the shape of the earth, or the proper treatment of infectious diseases--the Bible says nothing incorrect. On the contrary, it contains statements that were centuries ahead of their time...
Uh, it doesn't say anything about evolution. It is wrong when it comes to Adam and Eve.
Quote: What other civilizations? Can you list them?
Plenty like Egyptian remedies, civilizations in China practiced medicine, ancient Greek medical tools resemble the modern tools of today.
Quote:
It's your view, It's not my problem... Can you prove to me that the Bible is just a bunch of fairy-tale trash?What is the difference between God and The Creator of the Universe: The Invisible Green Dragon!?
Quote:
The Bible's prophecies are often symbolic...
The Bible is rich in symbolism, especially in its prophetic parts. Such symbolism quickly conveys information to readers and listeners. Also, vivid pictorial representations can usually be remembered better than a mere listing of facts. Another benefit of symbols is that much information can be set forth in simple terms...
Here Daniel describes a vision of a struggle between a ram with two horns and a hairy he-goat with "a conspicuous horn." The he-goat prevails, but its great horn is broken. In its place four horns come up. What does the vision mean? Daniel's account continues: "The ram that you saw possessing the two horns stands for the kings of Media and Persia. And the hairy he-goat stands for the king of Greece; and as for the great horn that was between its eyes, it stands for the first king. And that one having been broken, so that there were four that finally stood up instead of it, there are four kingdoms from his nation that will stand up, but not with his power." (Daniel 8:3-22)
Was this prophecy fulfilled? The writing of the book of Daniel was completed in about 536 B.C.E. Macedonian King Alexander the Great, who was born 180 years later, in 356 B.C.E., conquered the Persian Empire. He was "the great horn" between the eyes of "the hairy he-goat." According to the Jewish historian Josephus, upon entering Jerusalem before his victory over Persia, Alexander was shown the book of Daniel. He concluded that the words of Daniel's prophecy that were pointed out to him referred to his own military campaign involving Persia. What is more, in textbooks on world history, you can read of the course that Alexander's empire took after his death in 323 B.C.E. Four generals eventually took over his empire, and by 301 B.C.E., the 'four horns' that stood up instead of "the great horn" divided the domain into four sections. Once again, we have every reason to wonder, 'How could a book so vividly and accurately foretell what would take place some 200 years later?'
Easy, it's ambiguous and symbolic. I could say 'the great dragon will reak fire upon the land but will eventually be slain by the three soldiers' and it could apply to a war sometime in history.
Quote:
I can understand why you feel that way. We were born into a world where these things are everyday news. But historians explain that there is something drastically different about the 20th century...How do secular historians view the year 1914?
"Looking back from the vantage point of the present we see clearly today that the outbreak of World War I ushered in a twentieth-century 'Time of Troubles'--in the expressive term of the British historian Arnold Toynbee--from which our civilization has by no means yet emerged. Directly or indirectly all the convulsions of the last half century stem back to 1914."--The Fall of the Dynasties: The Collapse of the Old Order (New York, 1963), Edmond Taylor, p. 16."People of the World War II generation, my generation, will always think of their conflict as the great modern watershed of change. . . . We should be allowed our vanity, our personal rendezvous with history. But we should know that, in social terms, a far more decisive change came with World War I. It was then that political and social systems, centuries in the building, came apart--sometimes in a matter of weeks. And others were permanently transformed. It was in World War I that the age-old certainties were lost. . . . World War II continued, enlarged and affirmed this change. In social terms World War II was the last battle of World War I."--The Age of Uncertainty (Boston, 1977), John K. Galbraith, p. 133.
"Half a century has gone by, yet the mark that the tragedy of the Great War [World War I, which started in 1914] left on the body and soul of the nations has not faded . . . The physical and moral magnitude of this ordeal was such that nothing left was the same as before. Society in its entirety: systems of government, national borders, laws, armed forces, interstate relations, but also ideologies, family life, fortunes, positions, personal relations--everything was changed from top to bottom. . . . Humanity finally lost its balance, never to recover it to this day."--General Charles de Gaulle, speaking in 1968 (Le Monde, Nov. 12, 1968, p. 9).
The impact WWI has made is due to the technological changes of the industrial revolution. Not only that, a war that involved the most powerful nations of the world will definitely have a long-lasting impact.
Quote:
Despite the best efforts of medical science, the elimination of death is thus still beyond medicine's reach. Why is this the case? And is the goal of good health for all an impossible dream?
No, it's just a difficult one. There are many factors that contribute to our inability to come up with cures. The human body is sensitive to drug therapy, bacterias and viruses continue to evolve and often become resistant to treatments already available, money isn't always available for medical research. Also, the human body isn't perfect since it is still vulnerable to things like heart-attacks, cancer, and genetic deficiencies.
Quote:
Destruction of false religion, that's for sure...
True Christianity unites nationalities that long have had antipathies toward one another. For Christians "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female." The same also applies to such divisive factors as wealth and culture, not that the two necessarily go together. They heed the counsel of the disciple James: "Let the lowly brother exult over his exaltation, and the rich one over his humiliation," thus the two will come on a common level. (Galatians 3:28; James 1:9, 10)
In true Christianity there is not even a segregation according to age, no religious kindergartens for children or Sunday schools, but all meet together as did the Israelites of old in obedience to the command: "Congregate the people, the men and the women and the little ones . . . in order that they may listen and in order that they may learn." Youth has respect for what maturity and years of experience has to offer, and old age appreciates the eagerness of youth. As some Brazilian Witnesses like to put it, "We have no old folks among us, only some have been young longer than others!" (Deuteronomy 31:12)
This 'unifying' force isn't unique to Christianity. It happens to democratic nations. They will usually work together rather than apart. Keep in mind that different sects of Christianity have had conflict occur in the past.
Quote:
Without doubt, in one way or another most people living today have benefited from the advancement of science and technology. In developed and developing nations alike, technology has brought numerous material advantages in nearly every aspect of life. "It is obvious that something has gone wrong during the past few decades," observed renowned scientist and environmentalist Rene Dubos. "Increased control over nature is not providing safety and peace of mind; economic prosperity is not making people healthier or happier; technological innovations create problems of their own, which continually necessitate the development of new counter-technologies." He added: "The feeling prevails that scientists have not yet learned how to direct their attention to the distressing aspects of the modern world that have their origin in scientific technology."
Thus, unlike the story about the sorcerer's apprentice, in real life we cannot count on the "master"--scientists and technologists--to come to our rescue. In this case, they also are floundering in the sea of problems created by the shortsighted misuse of technology. Clearly, what is most urgently needed is not more technology but an agency, a government, a superpower that can do away with all the divisive elements in order to come to man's rescue...
The Bible speaks about such a government: "The God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms [in existence today], and it itself will stand to times indefinite." (Daniel 2:44) That Kingdom is none other than God's Messianic Kingdom in the hands of Jesus Christ...
Under the peaceful rule of God's Kingdom, what modern technology can only hope to achieve will be realized. Deserts and parched ground will become productive. There will be worthwhile and interesting work for all to do. The blind, lame, deaf, and mute will be rid of their afflictions. And even death itself will be conquered. (Isaiah 35:1, 5-7; 65:21-23)
Technology has helped more than hurt. The same cannot be said for religion.
Quote:
The Bible forewarns: "As for the times and the seasons, . . . you yourselves know quite well that Jehovah's day is coming exactly as a thief in the night." (1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) Would you reasonably expect a thief to send a telegram announcing when he is planning to burglarize your home?
Appropriately, then, Jesus counsels us regarding the exact hour: "Keep looking, keep awake, for you do not know when the appointed time is." (Mark 13:32-37) Even so, we have noted that Jesus described various happenings that pinpoint the 1914 generation. And the Bible describes future events that will signal the imminent apocalypse...
The apostle Paul said: "Whenever it is that they are saying: 'Peace and security!' then sudden destruction is to be instantly upon them just as the pang of distress upon a pregnant woman; and they will by no means escape." (1 Thessalonians 5:3) So as we progress toward the finale of these "last days," we can expect some outstanding attention to be given to "Peace and security!" in fulfillment of Paul's words...
Bible prophecies indicate that world religion, described as "Babylon the Great," will suddenly be attacked by earthly political powers and will come to an abrupt end! (Revelation 17:5, 16; 18:10, 17) This will mark the beginning of a "great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world's beginning until now." (Matthew 24:21) But how will this affect those who have 'kept awake' and on the watch for the apocalypse?
True Christians can be confident that Jehovah will deliver them. (2 Peter 2:9) Yes, as long as they know Jehovah God and unselfishly serve him, they will have no cause for fear when God and Christ come forth to fight the war of Armageddon. (Revelation 11:17, 18; 16:14, 16)
Next, the apocalypse will lead to the isolation of Satan the Devil and his invisible forces from mankind. (Revelation 20:2, 3) Yes, the wrath that is coming will go beyond ridding the earth of people unwilling to serve God. Even wicked spirits who today influence the world around us will be eliminated. (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9) This will mean everlasting blessing for the survivors of the apocalypse...
The bible is irrelevant in this argument. Remember, I don't follow the bible so please stop quoting it. None of it matters to me.
Quote:
"Evidence of Jesus Written in Stone." So proclaimed the cover of Biblical Archaeology Review (November/December 2002). That cover featured a limestone bone box, an ossuary, that was found in Israel. Ossuaries were widely used among the Jews during the brief period between the first century B.C.E. and 70 C.E. What made this one especially significant was an Aramaic inscription on one side. Scholars acknowledged its reading: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."According to the Bible, Jesus of Nazareth had a brother named James who was considered a son of Joseph, the husband of Mary. When Jesus Christ taught in his hometown, the astounded audience asked: "Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?" (Matthew 13:54-56; Luke 4:22; John 6:42)
Yes, the inscription on the ossuary fits the description of Jesus the Nazarene. If the James mentioned in the inscription was the half brother of Jesus Christ, then it would be "the oldest extrabiblical archaeological evidence of Jesus," asserts Andre Lemaire, an authority on ancient inscriptions and the writer of the aforementioned article in Biblical Archaeology Review. Hershel Shanks, editor of the magazine, notes that the ossuary "is something tactile and visible reaching back to the single most important personage ever to walk the earth."
However, all three names readable on the inscribed ossuary were common in the first century. So it is possible that a family whose members included a James, a Joseph, and a Jesus existed apart from the family of Jesus Christ. Lemaire estimates: "In Jerusalem during the two generations before 70 C.E., there were . . . probably about 20 people who could be called 'James/Jacob son of Joseph brother of Jesus.'" Nevertheless, he feels that there is a 90-percent chance that the James on the ossuary was the half brother of Jesus Christ...
There is another factor that makes some believe that the James in the inscription was Jesus Christ's half brother. Although it was common to mention the father of the deceased in such inscriptions, it was very rare to name a brother. Therefore, some scholars believe that this Jesus must have been somebody important, causing them to think that he was Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity...
What is an ossuary? It is a box, or chest, into which the bones of a deceased person were put after the body had decayed in a burial cave. Many ossuaries were looted from burial places around Jerusalem. The box with the James inscription emerged from the antiquities market, not from an official excavation site. The owner of the artifact is said to have bought it for a few hundred dollars in the 1970's. Thus, the origin of the ossuary is shrouded in mystery. "If you cannot say where an artifact was found and where it has been for nearly 2,000 years, you cannot pretend to draw the lines of connection between the object and the people it might mention," says Professor Bruce Chilton of Bard College, New York...
To offset the lack of archaeological background, Andre Lemaire sent the box to the Geological Survey of Israel. The researchers there verified that the ossuary was made of limestone from the first or second century C.E. They reported that "no sign of the use of a modern tool or instrument was found." Still, Bible scholars interviewed by The New York Times expressed the opinion that "the circumstantial evidence supporting a link to Jesus was possibly strong, but circumstantial nonetheless."
Time magazine commented that "almost no educated person these days doubts that Jesus lived." Still, many feel that there ought to be evidence in addition to the Bible of Jesus' existence..
Testimony of Historians
For instance, consider the testimony of Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian who was a Pharisee. He referred to Jesus Christ in the book Jewish Antiquities. Although some doubt the authenticity of the first reference where Josephus mentioned Jesus as the Messiah, Professor Louis H. Feldman of Yeshiva University says that few have doubted the genuineness of the second reference. There Josephus said: "[Ananus the high priest] convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ." (Jewish Antiquities, XX, 200) Yes, a Pharisee, a member of the sect many of whose adherents were avowed enemies of Jesus, acknowledged the existence of "James, the brother of Jesus."The influence of Jesus' existence was felt through the activities of his followers. When the apostle Paul was imprisoned in Rome about 59 C.E., the principal men of the Jews told him: "As regards this sect it is known to us that everywhere it is spoken against." (Acts 28:17-22) They called Jesus' disciples "this sect." If they were everywhere spoken against, secular historians would likely report about them, would they not?
Tacitus, born about 55 C.E. and considered one of the world's greatest historians, mentioned the Christians in his Annals. In the account about Nero's blaming the great fire of Rome in 64 C.E. on them, he wrote: "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus." The details of this account match the information regarding the Jesus of the Bible...
Another writer who commented on Jesus' followers was Pliny the Younger, the governor of Bithynia. In about the year 111 C.E., Pliny wrote to Emperor Trajan, asking how to handle Christians. People who were falsely accused of being Christians, wrote Pliny, would repeat an invocation to the gods and worship the statue of Trajan, just to prove that they were not Christians. Pliny continued: "There is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians, into any of these compliances." That testifies to the reality of the existence of the Christ, whose followers were prepared to give their lives for their belief in him...
After summarizing the references to Jesus Christ and his followers by the historians of the first two centuries, The Encyclopaedia Britannica (2002 edition) concludes: "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."
Testimony isn't proof nor is a coffin sold in some store during the 70s. Even if there was a Jesus, you can't prove that he healed the sick and walked on water and such.
Quote:
It's not what you think..
Nearly three hundred times in the Hebrew Scriptures and twice in the Christian Greek Scriptures, God is given the title "Jehovah of armies." (1 Samuel 1:11) As Sovereign Ruler, Jehovah commands a vast army of angelic forces. (Joshua 5:13-15; 1 Kings 22:19) The destructive potential of this army is awesome. (Isaiah 37:36) The destruction of humans is not pleasant to contemplate. However, we must remember that God's wars are unlike petty human conflicts. Military and political leaders may try to attribute noble motives to their aggression. But human war invariably involves greed and selfishness...
In contrast, Jehovah is not driven by blind emotion. Deuteronomy 32:4 declares: "The Rock, perfect is his activity, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; righteous and upright is he." God's Word condemns unbridled rage, cruelty, and violence. (Genesis 49:7; Psalm 11:5) So Jehovah never acts without reason. He uses his destructive power sparingly and as a last resort. It is as he stated through his prophet Ezekiel: "'Do I take any delight at all in the death of someone wicked,' is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, 'and not in that he should turn back from his ways and actually keep living?'" (Ezekiel 18:23)
Nations have fallen and risen all the time all throughout history, no one can deny this. I've read your quotes but I find them to be irrelevant.
Quote:
There are some religious groups that teach that God created everything in six 24-hour days. But that is not what the Bible says...Jehovah's witnesses are not led into unreasonable and unscientific conclusions, such as the fundamentalists' belief that the earth was created in six literal twenty-four-hour days. The Witnesses know that the expression "day" basically means a period of time. For example, we might say, 'In our grandfather's day,' which would cover a number of years. The Bible helps us on this point when, after outlining God's acts during the six creative "days," it speaks of them all together as being performed in one "day," saying: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth . . . in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Accordingly, a Biblical "day" may be a period of a thousand or many thousands of years. (Genesis 2:4; 2 Peter 3:8)
The Hebrew word yohm, translated "day," can mean different lengths of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies includes the following: "A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens." This last sentence appears to fit the creative "days," for certainly they were periods when extraordinary events were described as happening. It also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours...
Genesis chapter 1 uses the expressions "evening" and "morning" relative to the creative periods. Does this not indicate that they were 24 hours long? Not necessarily. In some places people often refer to a man's lifetime as his "day." They speak of "my father's day" or "in Shakespeare's day." They may divide up that lifetime "day," saying "in the morning [or dawn] of his life" or "in the evening [or twilight] of his life." So 'evening and morning' in Genesis chapter 1 does not limit the meaning to a literal 24 hours...
I read days, I assume days, not years or centuries. It says days, it means days. If you reduce Genesis to metaphors, you can reduce anything else in the bible to metaphor.
Quote: By ignoring the context and possible symbolic meanings of scriptures the atheist thinks he finds contradictions, and because he is looking for contradictions he ends his search with his superficial reading, happy, feeling rewarded, thinking he has found what he was seeking...
You does not wish to continue your study to get an understanding that would bring harmony to the passages that your prejudiced mind views as contradictory...
Why pay attention to things that are symbolic. Since they are symbolic, it only means it could apply to an infinite amount of things. Alligators could symbolize oppressive governments or human vices. Rats could symbolize diseases or a society full of corruption. By ignoring symbolism, we cut through much of that which can be interpreted in so many ways that it is ultimately irrelevant and an unreliable source of information.
And in the future, please summarize your arguments to about a paragraph or two. I've spent alot of time trying to respond to different posts and it would help me a great deal if you could summarize your posts. Thanks.Sleeping peacefully on the edges of No Man's Land... Not all good is rewarded, not all evil is punished.
- Currently watching: Naruto
- Feb 16, 2007
- Gallery
- Anime Watchlist
-
Just to state something, I forgot to. The longer the text or stated information doesn't necessarily give a strong arguement. If all you do is quote but never support your statement so well, the statement falls and dies. If you quote too much and don't think too much onto what you just quoted, it in the end opens a hole for others to exploit.
?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????- Feb 16, 2007
- Gallery
-
Quote by DarkRoseofHellOkay, then asking something inharmony of god. Can I ask why you posted this? Did god tell you to post this? Seriously, what your saying makes no sense. Also if you want to know how you put it, you just called everyone who considerably "sin" or does not believe in god a fool.
For you to understand the meaning of 'fool' according to the Bible... did I say directly to you that you're fool? The Bible tells it but not me...
"How long will you inexperienced ones keep loving inexperience, and [how long] must you ridiculers desire for yourselves outright ridicule, and [how long] will you stupid ones keep hating knowledge?"--Proverbs 1:22
Quote: This is what a dictionary would state.
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
As you see, there is not only on definition of religion. You obviously are thinking of the first one. But for the bible to be considered a religion yet dictate how one should live their own lifestyle, I don't see how it works.All your statement about religion is correct...but it's important that in choosing the right religion... beliefs & conduct must be related to each other... It's important to have an "accurate knowldege about God & His purpose."
'All religions are good,' many people say. 'They are simply different roads leading to the same place.' If this were true, your religion would not really matter, for it would mean that all religions are acceptable to God. But are they?
When Jesus Christ walked the earth, there was a religious group known as the Pharisees. They had built up a system of worship and believed it had God's approval. Yet, at the same time, the Pharisees were trying to kill Jesus! So Jesus told them: "You do the works of your father." In answer they said: "We have one Father, God." (John 8:41)
Was God really their father? Did God accept their form of religion? Not at all! Even though the Pharisees had the Scriptures and thought they were following them, they had been misled by the Devil. And Jesus told them so, saying: "You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, . . . he is a liar and the father of the lie." (John 8:44)
Clearly, the religion of the Pharisees was false. It served the interests of the Devil, not God. So rather than viewing their religion as good, Jesus condemned it. He said to those religious Pharisees: "You shut up the kingdom of the heavens before men; for you yourselves do not go in, neither do you permit those on their way in to go in." (Matthew 23:13) Because of their false worship, Jesus called those Pharisees hypocrites and poisonous snakes. Because of their bad course, he said that they were on the way to destruction. (Matthew 23:25-33)
So Jesus Christ did not teach that all religions are simply different roads leading to the same place of salvation. In his famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said: "Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it." (Matthew 7:13, 14) Because they fail to worship God in the right way, most persons are on the road to destruction. Only a few are on the road leading to life...
A look at the way God dealt with the nation of Israel makes it clear how important it is to worship God in the way that he approves. God warned the Israelites to keep away from the false religion of the nations round about them. (Deuteronomy 7:25) Those people sacrificed their children to their gods, and they engaged in unclean sex practices, including homosexuality. (Leviticus 18:20-30) God commanded the Israelites to avoid these practices. When they disobeyed and worshiped other gods, he punished them. (Joshua 24:20; Isaiah 63:10) So their religion really did matter...
Quote: Okay, I myself isn't considered those "sinners" or evil people. I myself have not bothered with the bible so much that to be assumed a religious person and what not.
It's your choice, no one is bothering you...
Quote: That's what something stereotypical can be assumed of. For a 15 year old boy, I seem to know more about debate than you.
It's that what you think?
"The way of the foolish one is right in his own eyes, but the one listening to counsel is wise."--Proverbs 12:15
Quote by ProgramZEROThank you for the summary. Anyways, you've still to prove Jesus ever existed. No, a coffiin is insufficient evidence.
The Roman historian Suetonius (c. 69-140 C.E.), in his history The Twelve Caesars, stated regarding the emperor Claudius: "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he expelled them from the city." This occurred about the year 52 C.E. (Compare Acts 18:1, 2) Note that Suetonius expresses no doubt about the existence of Christ. On this factual basis and in spite of life-endangering persecution, early Christians were very active proclaiming their faith. It is hardly likely that they would have risked their lives on the basis of a myth. Jesus' death and resurrection had taken place in their lifetime, and some of them had been eyewitnesses to those events...
Quote: It is uncertain when Isaiah existed or if he existed. The bible is a foggy text that is hard to date but the fact that the Earth was known to be round by ancient civilizations proves that the bible isn't as divine as claimed.
The book of Isaiah was witten in Jerusalem from 778 B.C.E. to 732 B.C.E. Who's writer is earlier than him?
Quote: Uh, it doesn't say anything about evolution. It is wrong when it comes to Adam and Eve.
The Bible teaches that each major group of living things was specially created and reproduces only "according to its kind." Man, it says, was created "out of dust from the ground." (Genesis 1:21; 2:7) Is this a glaring scientific error in the Bible? Before deciding, let us look more closely at what science knows, as opposed to what it theorizes:
The theory of evolution was popularized during the last century by Charles Darwin. When he was on the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific, Darwin was strongly impressed by the different species of finches on the different islands, which, he deduced, must all have descended from just one ancestral species. Partly because of this observation, he promoted the theory that all living things come from one original, simple form. The driving force behind the evolution of higher creatures from lower, he asserted, was natural selection, the survival of the fittest. Thanks to evolution, he claimed, land animals developed from fish, birds from reptiles, and so forth...
As a matter of fact, what Darwin observed in those isolated islands was not out of harmony with the Bible, which allows for variation within a major living kind. All the races of mankind, for example, came from just one original human pair. (Genesis 2:7, 22-24) So it is nothing strange that those different species of finches would spring from a common ancestral species. But they did remain finches. They did not evolve into hawks or eagles...
Neither the various species of finches nor anything else Darwin saw proved that all living things, whether they be sharks or sea gulls, elephants or earthworms, have a common ancestor. Nevertheless, many scientists assert that evolution is no longer just a theory but that it is a fact. Others, while recognizing the theory's problems, say that they believe it anyway. It is popular to do so. We, however, need to know whether evolution has been proved to such an extent that the Bible must be wrong...
How can the theory of evolution be tested? The most obvious way is to examine the fossil record to see if a gradual change from one kind to another really happened. Did it? No, as a number of scientists honestly admit. One, Francis Hitching, writes: "When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there." So obvious is this lack of evidence in the fossil record that evolutionists have come up with alternatives to Darwin's theory of gradual change. The truth is, though, that the sudden appearance of animal kinds in the fossil record supports special creation much more than it does evolution...
Moreover, Hitching shows that living creatures are programmed to reproduce themselves exactly rather than evolve into something else. He says: "Living cells duplicate themselves with near-total fidelity. The degree of error is so tiny that no man-made machine can approach it. There are also built-in constraints. Plants reach a certain size and refuse to grow any larger. Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised." Mutations induced by scientists in fruit flies over many decades failed to force these to evolve into something else...
Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of life--from which we are all supposed to have descended--come into existence? Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, the French chemist Louis Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting life...
So how do evolutionists explain the source of life? According to the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What about the principle that Pasteur proved? The World Book Encyclopedia explains: "Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today. Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions on the earth were far different"
Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing. Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, says: "Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive." The idea that nonliving material could come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be impossible. The Bible's explanation, that 'life came from life' in that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the facts...
Besides, the theory of evolution itself is deeply suspect from a scientific viewpoint. Michael Denton goes on to say: "Being basically a theory of historical reconstruction, [Darwin's theory of evolution] is impossible to verify by experiment or direct observation as is normal in science. . . . Moreover, the theory of evolution deals with a series of unique events, the origin of life, the origin of intelligence and so on. Unique events are unrepeatable and cannot be subjected to any sort of experimental investigation." The truth is that the theory of evolution, despite its popularity, is full of gaps and problems. It gives no good reason to reject the Bible's account of the origin of life. The first chapter of Genesis provides a completely reasonable account of how these "unrepeatable" "unique events" came about during creative 'days' that stretched through millenniums of time...
Quote: Plenty like Egyptian remedies, civilizations in China practiced medicine, ancient Greek medical tools resemble the modern tools of today.
The first book of the Bible was written from 1657 B.C.E. to 1513 B.C.E., I accept your answer about Egyptian remedies since they're part of the Bible events... but what civilization does have higher knowledge in medical science & earlier than 1657 B.C.E.?
The Mosaic Law included sanitary regulations that would be considered reasonable by modern medical science...
Quote: What is the difference between God and The Creator of the Universe: The Invisible Green Dragon!?
Invisible Green Dragon? o_0
Quote: Easy, it's ambiguous and symbolic. I could say 'the great dragon will reak fire upon the land but will eventually be slain by the three soldiers' and it could apply to a war sometime in history.
In using your own symbolic beasts, how could explain detail by detail of future events? In accurate & non-contradicting prophecy, can you give me example of your own?
Quote: The impact WWI has made is due to the technological changes of the industrial revolution. Not only that, a war that involved the most powerful nations of the world will definitely have a long-lasting impact.
In your reasoning, you think that war is normal in this world, in a world that improves in making new deadly arsenals.. but the WWI is too different from other wars...
Jesus spoke of the "seven times," calling them "the appointed times of the nations." He said: "Jerusalem will [continue to] be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled." (Luke 21:24)
How long were the "seven times," or "appointed times of the nations," to last? Plainly, they would extend much longer than 7 literal years of 360 days each (as Biblical years were calculated), which would amount to 2,520 days. Scriptural precedent indicates that we should substitute one year for each day. (See Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6; compare Revelation 12:6, 14.) Such a calculation would mean that the "seven times" lasted 2,520 years. If they began with Jerusalem's destruction in 607 B.C.E., they would end in the year 1914 C.E.
The 1914 generation is indeed a marked one. It is the one involved in the second fulfillment of Jesus' words: "This generation will by no means pass away until all things occur." (Luke 21:32) The "all things" include deliverance from mankind's perplexing problems. Jesus assured his followers: "As these things start to occur, raise yourselves erect and lift your heads up, because your deliverance is getting near. . . . When you see these things occurring, know that the kingdom of God is near." God's Kingdom, a superhuman world government, will transform this earth into a global paradise. Hence, as surely as the sign has come true so deliverance will come too...
Quote: No, it's just a difficult one. There are many factors that contribute to our inability to come up with cures. The human body is sensitive to drug therapy, bacterias and viruses continue to evolve and often become resistant to treatments already available, money isn't always available for medical research. Also, the human body isn't perfect since it is still vulnerable to things like heart-attacks, cancer, and genetic deficiencies.
It's impossible for humans to live forever because of imperfection of body...but we have evidences that we're made to live forever...
In God's due time, it will be no problem for him to keep this miraculous process of self-renewal going indefinitely. Then, at last, "death [will] be brought to nothing." (1 Corinthians 15:26)
Quote: This 'unifying' force isn't unique to Christianity. It happens to democratic nations. They will usually work together rather than apart. Keep in mind that different sects of Christianity have had conflict occur in the past.
Democracies promise that all the people may decide for the benefit of all; the reality is that citizens lack both the knowledge and the pure motives necessary to make consistently right decisions for the common good; democracy was described by Plato as "a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike."
I know that, we're both living in a democratic country, you're in US, me in the Philippines...
Don't blame the true Christians, you must blame the false christian (christendom) because they're the one who is responsble in bloodshed, immorality, political involvement (history testifies it) they're composed of materialistic leaders & hypocrites...promoter of false worship...
"Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens," said Jesus Christ, "but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not . . . perform many powerful works in your name?' And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness."--Matthew 7:21-23
Jesus Christ & Jehovah God will not recognized them...
Quote: Technology has helped more than hurt. The same cannot be said for religion.
False religion doesn't help & technology of humans have limits......
Quote: The bible is irrelevant in this argument. Remember, I don't follow the bible so please stop quoting it. None of it matters to me.
But let me post important text to explain my reply, ok?
Quote: Testimony isn't proof nor is a coffin sold in some store during the 70s. Even if there was a Jesus, you can't prove that he healed the sick and walked on water and such.
Through such miracles, Jesus demonstrated his love for the afflicted. Remember, though, that Jesus performed his miracles in public. Even his opposers, who tried to find fault with him on every occasion, could not deny that he was a miracle worker. (John 9:1-34) Further, his miracles had a purpose. They helped people to identify him as the One sent by God. (John 6:14)
Another characteristic of Bible miracles is that the motive of the individual performing the miracle was not the selfish prominence of the individual or to make anyone wealthy, but was primarily to glorify God. (John 11:1-4, 15, 40) Miracles helped others, sometimes directly in a physical way and always in a spiritual way, turning persons to true worship...
The Scottish philosopher David Hume had the same problem with you. It may be that your reasons for disbelief are similar to his:
Hume's objections to the idea of miracles included three outstanding points. First, he writes: "A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature." Nothing will ever happen that is out of harmony with natural laws. This 'proof,' Hume felt, "is as entire as any argument from experience" against the possibility of miracles...
A second argument he presented was that people are easily fooled. Some want to believe in marvels and miracles, especially when it has to do with religion, and many so-called miracles have turned out to be fakes. A third argument was that miracles are usually reported in times of ignorance. The more educated people become, the fewer miracles are reported. As Hume expressed it, "Such prodigious events never happen in our days." Thus, he felt it proved that they never did happen...
To this day, most arguments against miracles follow these general principles, so let us consider Hume's objections, one by one:
Against the Laws of Nature?
What about the objection that miracles are 'violations of the laws of nature' and therefore cannot be true? On the surface, this might seem persuasive; but analyze what is really being said. Usually, a miracle can be defined as something that occurs outside the normal laws of nature. It is an occurrence so unexpected that onlookers are convinced they have witnessed superhuman intervention. Hence, what the objection really means is: 'Miracles are impossible because they are miraculous!' Why not consider the evidence before jumping to such a conclusion?The truth is, educated people today are less prepared than was David Hume to insist that the familiar laws of nature hold true everywhere and at all times. Scientists are willing to speculate on whether, instead of the familiar three dimensions of length, breadth, and height, there may be many additional dimensions in the universe. They theorize on the existence of black holes, huge stars that collapse in on themselves until their density is virtually infinite. In their vicinity the fabric of space is said to be so distorted that time itself stands still. Scientists have even debated whether, under certain conditions, time would run backward instead of forward!
Stephen W. Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, when discussing how the universe began, said: "In the classical theory of general relativity . . . the beginning of the universe has to be a singularity of infinite density and space-time curvature. Under such conditions, all the known laws of physics would break down." So, modern scientists do not agree that because something is contrary to the normal laws of nature it can never happen. In unusual conditions, unusual things may happen. Surely, if we believe in an almighty God, we should admit that he has the power to cause unusual--miraculous--events to take place when it befits his purpose. (Exodus 15:6-10; Isaiah 40:13, 15)
What About the Fakes?
Do such frauds mean that genuine miracles never happened? Not necessarily. Sometimes we hear of forged bank notes being put into circulation, but that does not mean that all money is forged. Some sick people put a lot of faith in quacks, fraudulent doctors, and give a lot of money to them. But that does not mean that all doctors are fraudulent. Some artists have been skilled at forging "old master" paintings. But that does not mean that all paintings are fakes. Neither does the fact that some claimed miracles are clearly fakes mean that genuine miracles can never happen...'Miracles Do Not Happen Now'
The third objection was summed up in the expression: "Such prodigious events never happen in our days." Hume had never seen a miracle, so he refused to believe that miracles could happen. This kind of reasoning, however, is inconsistent. Any thinking person has to admit that, before the days of the Scottish philosopher, "prodigious events" happened that were not repeated during his lifetime. What events?For one thing, life began on earth. Then, certain forms of life were endowed with consciousness. Eventually, man appeared, endowed with wisdom, imagination, the capacity to love, and the faculty of conscience. No scientist can explain on the basis of the laws of nature that operate today how such extraordinary things happened. Yet we have living evidence that they did happen...
And what about "prodigious events" that have happened since David Hume's day? Suppose we were able to travel back in time and tell him about today's world. Imagine trying to explain that a businessman in Hamburg can speak to someone thousands of miles away in Tokyo without even raising his voice; that a soccer match in Spain can be seen all around the earth even as it is being played; that vessels much larger than the ocean-going ships of Hume's day can rise from the surface of the earth and carry 500 people through the air for thousands of miles in a matter of hours. Can you imagine his response? 'Impossible! Such prodigious events never happen in our days!'
Yet such 'prodigies' do happen in our days. Why? Because man, using scientific principles of which Hume had no concept, has learned to construct telephones, television sets, and airplanes. Is it, then, so difficult to believe that on occasion in the past God could have, in ways that we still do not understand, accomplished things that to us are miraculous?
Imagine a primitive tribesman who has been taken from his jungle home to visit a big city. When he returns, how can he describe to his people the wonders of civilization? He cannot explain how an automobile works or why music comes out of a portable radio. He cannot build a computer to prove that such a thing exists. All he can do is tell what he has seen...
We are in the same situation as that man's fellow tribesmen. If God really has worked miracles, the only way we can learn about them is from eyewitnesses. The eyewitnesses cannot explain how the miracles happened, nor can they duplicate them. They can only tell us what they saw. Obviously, eyewitnesses can be duped. They can also easily exaggerate and misinform. If, then, we are to believe their testimony, we need to know that these eyewitnesses are truthful, are of high quality, and have proved that they have good motives...
Quote: Nations have fallen and risen all the time all throughout history, no one can deny this. I've read your quotes but I find them to be irrelevant.
Yuo've said that because you're not familiar in war during the Bible times, & don't know it's purpose...
Quote: I read days, I assume days, not years or centuries. It says days, it means days. If you reduce Genesis to metaphors, you can reduce anything else in the bible to metaphor.
No, if you change the Bible to metaphor, how could you understand the literal laws?
God's use of metaphors has not been without purpose. The understanding of such metaphors requires diligent study. But many people are unwilling to take the time to understand, because of having no real love for God and truth. Hence, the "sacred secrets of the kingdom" remain hidden to them. (Matthew 13:11-15)
Quote: Why pay attention to things that are symbolic. Since they are symbolic, it only means it could apply to an infinite amount of things. Alligators could symbolize oppressive governments or human vices. Rats could symbolize diseases or a society full of corruption. By ignoring symbolism, we cut through much of that which can be interpreted in so many ways that it is ultimately irrelevant and an unreliable source of information.
So, you're complaining about how the Bible tells its prophecy?
Quote: And in the future, please summarize your arguments to about a paragraph or two. I've spent alot of time trying to respond to different posts and it would help me a great deal if you could summarize your posts. Thanks.
It's better if we focus in one topic only...I've spent alot of time trying to answer lots of questions, pls choose one topic because I'm busy in my office...Thanks.
- Feb 17, 2007
- Gallery
-
Quote: For you to understand the meaning of 'fool' according to the Bible... did I say directly to you that you're fool? The Bible tells it but not me...
"How long will you inexperienced ones keep loving inexperience, and [how long] must you ridiculers desire for yourselves outright ridicule, and [how long] will you stupid ones keep hating knowledge?"--Proverbs 1:22
I don't see how I'm hating knowledge. I take in knowledge doesn't mean I have to accept it.
Quote: All your statement about religion is correct...but it's important that in choosing the right religion... beliefs & conduct must be related to each other... It's important to have an "accurate knowldege about God & His purpose."
'All religions are good,' many people say. 'They are simply different roads leading to the same place.' If this were true, your religion would not really matter, for it would mean that all religions are acceptable to God. But are they?
When Jesus Christ walked the earth, there was a religious group known as the Pharisees. They had built up a system of worship and believed it had God's approval. Yet, at the same time, the Pharisees were trying to kill Jesus! So Jesus told them: "You do the works of your father." In answer they said: "We have one Father, God." (John 8:41)
Was God really their father? Did God accept their form of religion? Not at all! Even though the Pharisees had the Scriptures and thought they were following them, they had been misled by the Devil. And Jesus told them so, saying: "You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, . . . he is a liar and the father of the lie." (John 8:44)
Clearly, the religion of the Pharisees was false. It served the interests of the Devil, not God. So rather than viewing their religion as good, Jesus condemned it. He said to those religious Pharisees: "You shut up the kingdom of the heavens before men; for you yourselves do not go in, neither do you permit those on their way in to go in." (Matthew 23:13) Because of their false worship, Jesus called those Pharisees hypocrites and poisonous snakes. Because of their bad course, he said that they were on the way to destruction. (Matthew 23:25-33)
So Jesus Christ did not teach that all religions are simply different roads leading to the same place of salvation. In his famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said: "Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it." (Matthew 7:13, 14) Because they fail to worship God in the right way, most persons are on the road to destruction. Only a few are on the road leading to life...
A look at the way God dealt with the nation of Israel makes it clear how important it is to worship God in the way that he approves. God warned the Israelites to keep away from the false religion of the nations round about them. (Deuteronomy 7:25) Those people sacrificed their children to their gods, and they engaged in unclean sex practices, including homosexuality. (Leviticus 18:20-30) God commanded the Israelites to avoid these practices. When they disobeyed and worshiped other gods, he punished them. (Joshua 24:20; Isaiah 63:10) So their religion really did matter...
All this stuff all assumes that god was to approve of this. There are religions/beliefs that do not have the involvement of god. They can just be a small sect or what not.
Quote: It's your choice, no one is bothering you...
You are XD
Quote: It's that what you think?
"The way of the foolish one is right in his own eyes, but the one listening to counsel is wise."--Proverbs 12:15
You do realize how much that applies to you and everyone else who has emotions.
To listen but not to give in. It's what makes someone stupid or smart.?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????- Feb 17, 2007
- Gallery
-
Quote by DarkIngramIt's better if we focus in one topic only...I've spent alot of time trying to answer lots of questions, pls choose one topic because I'm busy in my office...Thanks.
Okay, I agree. Let's forget everything we've been talking about and just concentrate on one topic. Hmm, let's see.
You have spoken about false religion before. What is a "false religion" and what is a "true religion"? I'd like to know and please keep your post short so as to prevent long posts in the future.
Sleeping peacefully on the edges of No Man's Land... Not all good is rewarded, not all evil is punished.
- Currently watching: Naruto
- Feb 17, 2007
- Gallery
- Anime Watchlist
-
Quote by DarkIngramThe Roman historian Suetonius (c. 69-140 C.E.), in his history The Twelve Caesars, stated regarding the emperor Claudius: "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he expelled them from the city." This occurred about the year 52 C.E. (Compare Acts 18:1, 2) Note that Suetonius expresses no doubt about the existence of Christ. On this factual basis and in spite of life-endangering persecution, early Christians were very active proclaiming their faith. It is hardly likely that they would have risked their lives on the basis of a myth. Jesus' death and resurrection had taken place in their lifetime, and some of them had been eyewitnesses to those events...
Said Jews probably believed that Christ was real. They probably caused disturbances because they believed wholeheartedly in his message, his religion, and such. But this is in no way proof of Christ's existence. I would point out that you yourself are a firm believer in God despite never having met God, or seen Jesus. And Christians believe that Christ was revived after his death, despite never having witnessed it - they take the word of the Biblical 'witnesses', who could easily have been lying. As you say, the jews would not have risked their lives for a myth, but just because they thought Jesus real does not make it so. By your logic, one can argue Allah is real because Muslim suicide bombers would not throw away their lives for a lie.
Quote: It's impossible for humans to live forever because of imperfection of body...but we have evidences that we're made to live forever...
In God's due time, it will be no problem for him to keep this miraculous process of self-renewal going indefinitely. Then, at last, "death [will] be brought to nothing." (1 Corinthians 15:26)
This isn't evidence. This is a quote from a book that you believe true based purely on faith, thus it is not acceptable as evidence, especially when you are debating primarily with individuals who are non-Christian, or Christians who interpret the Bible differently.
Quote: But let me post important text to explain my reply, ok?
Again, said text is ultimately irrelevant or unacceptable as explanations/proof to many of those who you are debating against. Yes, citing these texts does explain why you hold the opinions that you do, but they will convince no one unless backed by logical/seemingly-logical arguments or hard evidence.Quote by ProgramZEROWhat is a "false religion" and what is a "true religion"?
Perhaps he means that Christianity is the one true religion and that every other faith is either wholly false or supportive of Satan.
- Feb 18, 2007
- Gallery
-
Quote by ProgramZERO
Quote by DarkIngramIt's better if we focus in one topic only...I've spent alot of time trying to answer lots of questions, pls choose one topic because I'm busy in my office...Thanks.
Okay, I agree. Let's forget everything we've been talking about and just concentrate on one topic. Hmm, let's see.
You have spoken about false religion before. What is a "false religion" and what is a "true religion"? I'd like to know and please keep your post short so as to prevent long posts in the future.
Let's compare religions in my thread... thanks!
- Feb 19, 2007
- Gallery
page 3 of 4 « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next » 80 total items
Back to Religion & Science | Active Threads | Forum Index
Only members can post replies, please register.