Religions Talk:Miscellaneous Contradictions Volume 2

page 1 of 2 1 2 Next » 33 total items

Mnemeth

Mnemeth

Rider of the Currents

Cancel

OK since Kingray100 closed out the original thread and it looked as if at least a couple of people wanted to continue discussion I've opened a supplemental thread. Although I have modified the subject a little

This thread is a place to talk about Christianity (which is what it started with) as well as other religions.....I welcome all to explain their views and opinions and ask questions that will be answered and/or countered by myself and probably countless others (the more the merrier). A couple of rules though
1. No throwing things
2. No throwing people
3. No I am right so you are wrong BS
4. OK thats it, I'll kick off with responses to a couple a things in the last thread.

Quote by RoyalDarknessIt's all right, I understand. The thing is we can't really tell which is true and which is not unless there's actual proof. I'm not really looking for answers, if you can prove to me that it is actually true I'll believe you, but if you say that I only need faith to believe it, then I'll leave my options open. It may or may not be true, and I'm content with just thinking that, without an actual answer. Like you said, just being open minded. However, since after so many years of research, there's no actual proof for it, so it's more likely for it to be false. Until of course it's proven otherwise.

Well I can't say I agree with the last statement since no proof does not indicate untruth (unless used in a legal setting) or otherwise because if that was the case we would have a contradiction in that no one has proven God does not exist either.

Quote by RoyalDarknessCorrect me if I'm wrong, but don't Christians consider events or things that are unexplainable as miracles? To me, miracles aren't exactly explanations, it is because there is no explanation for it then would it be considered a miracle. Something supernatural at work. The work of the Christian god. But can you prove that? I admit right now you can't prove otherwise either, so like I said before, maybe in a few years time we'll be able to do that.

You are correct in the commonly used religious sense of the word but the literal definition does not necessarily require the event to be unexplainable its just an felicitous event that probably should not have happened. As for proof I offer none, you probably accept that I believe in it (cause I've told you that I do) but you are right that you do not have to accept that it is true.

Do not interfere in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

  • Sep 05, 2007

royaldarkness

royaldarkness

Restless Soul

Cancel

Quote: Well I can't say I agree with the last statement since no proof does not indicate untruth (unless used in a legal setting) or otherwise because if that was the case we would have a contradiction in that no one has proven God does not exist either.

Quote: You are correct in the commonly used religious sense of the word but the literal definition does not necessarily require the event to be unexplainable its just an felicitous event that probably should not have happened. As for proof I offer none, you probably accept that I believe in it (cause I've told you that I do) but you are right that you do not have to accept that it is true.

Well, you're right, it can't be proven either way so I'll just leave it at that until someone, someday can prove that either view is correct. Until then I'll keep an open mind about it :)

Cancel

Quote: 3. No I am right so you are wrong BS


Very very very very (...) good rule.

Miracle is more used as a religious term (or more commonly used) and if given terms of religion, it is supposed to be the act of god. The only problem is, it has to be something that is totally unexplainable by any means. That means it can't be explained in the past, now, or in the future. If we can find out how to explain it, then it rules out divine intervention. Now, if we're talking about everyday sort of thing, it's just the right thing happening at the right time... which is I prefer that definition, but oh well...

?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????

  • Sep 05, 2007

Sulibres

Sulibres

Avert your eyes from the truth.

Cancel

Speaking of miracles, my religious education teacher once jokingly had this to say about Jesus' turning of water into wine:

"Well consider this, the wedding that Jesus attended obviously belonged to a rich man considering the huge amount of guests that were present, and there must have been a lot of wine to go around. Now I'm guessing that everybody was so infernally drunk, they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between wine and donkey piss." - Mr. Fontorn, My religious education teacher.

  • Sep 05, 2007
Cancel

In the actual story there were barrels of both wine and water. If we give a rational way to explain it, many people will say that Jesus just mixed the two barrels with proportions of water greater than that of the wine resulting into a sufficient quantity of drinks for the guests.

Many people think that miracles can only come from God or of divine intervention which I strongly contradict. I believe that true miracles come from simple lives performing unexplainable or unlikely, relevant acts. By this I mean a cancer patient out-living the given limit determined by tests without the use of many medicine. Or a man lost at sea and return unharmed after 40 days or so. These are true miracles.

samu02

Back to Basics

Cancel

Yes, that is so true. Everyday miracles are the best. It doesn't have to be "rising-from-the-dead" flashy to be a miracle. But I still believe that in some way... and I share this view with those who've actually experienced surviving cancer, and other ordeals, that they drew strength from something "beyond" them. Most attribute it to God.

"If faced with a life or death situation, an average person would choose life; a hero also chooses life, just not for himself"
"Knowledge is Power. But Power unused accomplishes nothing"
[CENTER][IMG]http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/11.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

  • Sep 05, 2007

priincess

priincess

?doing fun

Cancel

oOw o. 0
it doesnt means that if sumthing strength happen, we the christians claim it as God's job.
we just tell stories n evrything based on da bible

Signature
	Image

royaldarkness

royaldarkness

Restless Soul

Cancel

Quote by aexielMany people think that miracles can only come from God or of divine intervention which I strongly contradict. I believe that true miracles come from simple lives performing unexplainable or unlikely, relevant acts. By this I mean a cancer patient out-living the given limit determined by tests without the use of many medicine. Or a man lost at sea and return unharmed after 40 days or so. These are true miracles.


I'll have to agree to that, even if it may or may not be God's doing.

Mnemeth

Mnemeth

Rider of the Currents

Cancel

Well thats true for most Christians but for a few they think that everything is God's will but they forget that he gave us free will, the ability to choose our own path and our own beliefs. Its one of the reasons I do not like religious institutions that much. They are just too impersonal and IMO your relationship with God should be very personal. I don't mean that you should keep it bottled up but also there is no need to hammer other people with your own beliefs as merely expressing them usually gets their attention much faster.

As for miracles well it all depends on what definition you use to describe them. Many theists would indeed describe them as works of God or a god/supernatural being but what do you call it when its something that you know what caused it but the result is way far out of the realm of possibility. In mathematics they are usually called outliers and they are indicative of bad data or of unforseen results. Also when you get right back to root causes isn't everything happening because God created this world (for believers).

Another thing I have problems with would be interpretations. I have yt to read them but I know that there are explanatory texts written by authors of the books of the Bible. I am curious to see if their explanations jive with current doctrine or if they differ. I know the Gnostic Gospels differ quite a bit since they show Jesus as very very human and subject to all the things we poor humans are subject to. It blows my mind that so many churches want to keep this pristine image of Jesus when in the end he was human and at the same time the son of God. I think it actually brings him closer to people. Its too bad that the orginal church eliminated those texts out of fear that people would see Jesus as human.

Do not interfere in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

  • Sep 05, 2007
Cancel

There was an National Geographic Magazine issue (May 2006) that covered the Gospel of Judas. In the article, there was mention of there being many Bible versions with each of its own interpretation of Jesus' teachings in the past. One part that was rather interesting was that back then, all these versions were competing against each other for influence until the arrival of the 1611 King James Version.

So, how are we to know which Bible was more accurate and true but lost out to versions which could have been "souped up" or dramatized just to gain mass appeal?

  • Sep 05, 2007

EternalParadox

Retired Moderator

EternalParadox

.:Enigma Mod:.

Cancel

Quote by kiopiThere was an National Geographic Magazine issue (May 2006) that covered the Gospel of Judas. In the article, there was mention of there being many Bible versions with each of its own interpretation of Jesus' teachings in the past. One part that was rather interesting was that back then, all these versions were competing against each other for influence until the arrival of the 1611 King James Version.

So, how are we to know which Bible was more accurate and true but lost out to versions which could have been "souped up" or dramatized just to gain mass appeal?

It's not so much competing "versions" of the Bible but rather what is considered the canonical books of the Bible was not finally settled until the Council of Trent in the 1500s for the Catholic version. Remember that there are many writings dating back to the same time period, and perhaps the same authorship, as the currently canonical books in the Bible. For Christians, it took about 1400 years before they finally decided which are actually cannon books and which are apocryphal books. Even today there actually is still disagreement between Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians.

Also remember that because the Bible must be translated, the editors inherently will inject his own personal theological views into his translation. The original Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, and the New Testament in Ancient Greek, so as the Bible was translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to Old English to modern English, there inevitably will be different translations and therefore different readings.

To answer your last question, the current New Revised Standard Version of the Bible is theologian's best effort to produce a Bible that is as close to the original ancient texts as possible. They did this by comparing different translations with ancient manuscripts and exploring the linguistic discrepancies until they can find the "best possible effort" translation. So we can reasonably rest assured that at least the NRSV is not a unrealistic rewriting of the ancient Biblical texts.

EternalParadox
Previously the Forum, Vector Art, and Policy Moderator

  • Sep 06, 2007

Mnemeth

Mnemeth

Rider of the Currents

Cancel

Quote by EternalParadoxIt's not so much competing "versions" of the Bible but rather what is considered the canonical books of the Bible was not finally settled until the Council of Trent in the 1500s for the Catholic version. Remember that there are many writings dating back to the same time period, and perhaps the same authorship, as the currently canonical books in the Bible. For Christians, it took about 1400 years before they finally decided which are actually cannon books and which are apocryphal books. Even today there actually is still disagreement between Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians.

Also to add to the above answer the oldest known versions of the Old Testament Scriptures are the Dead Sea Scrolls (I believe this is still the case since I have not heard of anything older being discovered). These would represent your best bet for the earliest and probably most uncontaminated version of the Old Testament. Also, some of the scrolls are not actually old versions of the scriptures but the authors interpretations of their own writings. Its very rare to find an author's interpretation of their own writings. I do not know what the oldest versions of the New Testament are off the top of my head so I won't go into that part right now. As for the disagreements don't forget that those disagreements extend to with those sects as well.

Quote by EternalParadox Also remember that because the Bible must be translated, the editors inherently will inject his own personal theological views into his translation. The original Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, and the New Testament in Ancient Greek, so as the Bible was translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to Old English to modern English, there inevitably will be different translations and therefore different readings.

To answer your last question, the current New Revised Standard Version of the Bible is theologian's best effort to produce a Bible that is as close to the original ancient texts as possible. They did this by comparing different translations with ancient manuscripts and exploring the linguistic discrepancies until they can find the "best possible effort" translation. So we can reasonably rest assured that at least the NRSV is not a unrealistic rewriting of the ancient Biblical texts.

Its true that the texts did suffer somewhat in translation however the versions that sprung from the Latin Vulgate are pretty similar since Jerome (the author of the Bible compilation called the Latin Vulgate) had a pretty good handle on translation since he spoke and understood several of those languages. The major differences in translation would have occurred in the time between Jerome's work and the oldest manuscripts he had to work with. The best modern English version I have seen is the Harper Collins Study Bible because it actually points out where discrepancies in the translation may have occurred.

Do not interfere in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

  • Sep 07, 2007

royaldarkness

royaldarkness

Restless Soul

Cancel

Here's a question: since we humans are so fond of believing in God, and that we'll get to meet God after death, and we have a set notion of what God is, what will you do if God (or gods) turns out to be something else completely? Heck we expect him to be like human in appearance, or at least I think we do. Or what if after you die, you discover that there's no such thing as God. How would you react?

Mnemeth

Mnemeth

Rider of the Currents

Cancel

I can say that after some thought I don't expect God to look like anything in particular. Although, I do admit that on first thinking about it the whole "created in his image" thing does take hold but then I kinda doubt that would mean his physical image since a physical body would not be permanent. As for meeting him, well other that the billion or so questions I would have I think it would be kinda neat to find out if I was on the right path in trying to understand him. (NOTE I use him generically)

Do not interfere in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

  • Sep 07, 2007

EternalParadox

Retired Moderator

EternalParadox

.:Enigma Mod:.

Cancel

Quote: Its true that the texts did suffer somewhat in translation however the versions that sprung from the Latin Vulgate are pretty similar since Jerome (the author of the Bible compilation called the Latin Vulgate) had a pretty good handle on translation since he spoke and understood several of those languages.

The Vulgate was translated primarily from the Greek Septuagint, which itself already had deviations from the original Hebrew and Aramaic. In addition, many errors in our Bible also comes from the process of hand transcription. All the versions before Gutenberg's were hand written by monks, and the problems with bad handwriting, skipped or double-copied lines, etc, makes subsequent versions different in unintentional ways.

EternalParadox
Previously the Forum, Vector Art, and Policy Moderator

  • Sep 07, 2007
Cancel

A good view on religion:

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; Or he can, but does not want to; Or he cannot and does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. But, if God both can and wants to abolish evil, Then how come evil in the world?"

-Epicurus, 350-?270 BC

Oh also, I also think that one reason why God would not annihalate all evil in the world and universe is because he needs evil so he can continue to be good
But that would also make him wicked so my statement - and Epicurus' - still stands

But I still hope there is something in the next life but there is no worrying about it now
There isn't much I can really do to affect that

The day there is nothing left to laugh at is the day life is no longer worth living

Cancel

If God is as powerful as we believe he is, if any of us were to meet him, we would never know as he can take any form. When he said that he created us in his likeness, it was not solely about appearance but more likely of nature or personality.

There is a common misconception about God. If he is indeed omnipotent, then he can neither be good nor evil. To abolish evil is to abolish good as one cannot exist without the other. In such a way that there is light to every darkness and a death to every life.

God is not wicked, he is just and fair. Thusly he is always in between never to take side. To question why evil exists in this world is to question one's existence. There would be no point. The world was created in balance of good and evil, light and dark and in such a way was man made. The human soul as to remain on earth from the time of his birth is composed of two sides kept in balance until he is capable of choosing his path. This is the probable likeness. As the Buddhists say, the path to enlightenment is the middle way.

kingray100

kingray100

Ryu,the half demon

Cancel

Quote by royaldarknessHere's a question: since we humans are so fond of believing in God, and that we'll get to meet God after death, and we have a set notion of what God is, what will you do if God (or gods) turns out to be something else completely? Heck we expect him to be like human in appearance, or at least I think we do. Or what if after you die, you discover that there's no such thing as God. How would you react?

well actually the bible describes God as a spirit so who knows what he really looks like....we can only guess at Jesus' appearances....which is still really unknown in a weird sense...and if there was no such thing as a god,we wouldnt be able to react....and would also mean that there is officially no purpose in life....unless someone wants to say "the purpose of life is money,or food,or reproducing just to keep us alive,ect...."


its a strange question that is very well unknown to most people....

merged: 09-08-2007 ~ 10:00pm

Quote by il33tXlA good view on religion:

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; Or he can, but does not want to; Or he cannot and does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. But, if God both can and wants to abolish evil, Then how come evil in the world?"

-Epicurus, 350-?270 BC

Oh also, I also think that one reason why God would not annihalate all evil in the world and universe is because he needs evil so he can continue to be good
But that would also make him wicked so my statement - and Epicurus' - still stands

But I still hope there is something in the next life but there is no worrying about it now
There isn't much I can really do to affect that

i dont have much to say to this other than........God didnt make evil.....we,as humans,do evil things everyday.....its like asking,God,the janitor,to clean our mess....

  • Sep 08, 2007
Cancel

Quote: i dont have much to say to this other than........God didnt make evil.....we,as humans,do evil things everyday.....its like asking,God,the janitor,to clean our mess....


You do realize... that we can literally just repeat everything saying that god created everything so therefore it created evil...

Quote: well actually the bible describes God as a spirit so who knows what he really looks like....we can only guess at Jesus' appearances....which is still really unknown in a weird sense...and if there was no such thing as a god,we wouldnt be able to react....and would also mean that there is officially no purpose in life....unless someone wants to say "the purpose of life is money,or food,or reproducing just to keep us alive,ect...."


I don't get what you mean... we wouldn't react? Also, how is the meaning of life have anything to do with god?

?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????

  • Sep 08, 2007

royaldarkness

royaldarkness

Restless Soul

Cancel

Quote: well actually the bible describes God as a spirit so who knows what he really looks like....we can only guess at Jesus' appearances....which is still really unknown in a weird sense...and if there was no such thing as a god,we wouldnt be able to react....and would also mean that there is officially no purpose in life....unless someone wants to say "the purpose of life is money,or food,or reproducing just to keep us alive,ect...."


Like it or not, those are actually just our assumptions. Why wouldn't we be able to react? Just because God may not turn out to be what we expect doesn't mean that we can't react, or there's no purpose in life, or anything along those lines. And yes it is a strange question that is not often asked, which is why I decided to ask it.

ProgramZERO

ProgramZERO

The Lost Generation

Cancel

Are swords allowed? LOL!

Quote by royaldarknessHere's a question: since we humans are so fond of believing in God, and that we'll get to meet God after death, and we have a set notion of what God is, what will you do if God (or gods) turns out to be something else completely?

I personally like South Park's definition of God... A furry hippo with a snakes tongue that eats flies. LOL!

Sleeping peacefully on the edges of No Man's Land... Not all good is rewarded, not all evil is punished.

kingray100

kingray100

Ryu,the half demon

Cancel

Quote by royaldarkness

Quote: well actually the bible describes God as a spirit so who knows what he really looks like....we can only guess at Jesus' appearances....which is still really unknown in a weird sense...and if there was no such thing as a god,we wouldnt be able to react....and would also mean that there is officially no purpose in life....unless someone wants to say "the purpose of life is money,or food,or reproducing just to keep us alive,ect...."


Like it or not, those are actually just our assumptions. Why wouldn't we be able to react? Just because God may not turn out to be what we expect doesn't mean that we can't react, or there's no purpose in life, or anything along those lines. And yes it is a strange question that is not often asked, which is why I decided to ask it.

when i said we wouldnt be able to react,we wouldnt since there would be no afterlife since there is no God in your question....meaning that we stay buried in that dirt without anything else taking place.....thats what i meant when we wouldnt be able to react....

and why are you telling me like it or not?I know that money and ect. are assumptions by people....thats why i said it as an example....

merged: 09-09-2007 ~ 09:00am

Quote by DarkRoseofHell

Quote: i dont have much to say to this other than........God didnt make evil.....we,as humans,do evil things everyday.....its like asking,God,the janitor,to clean our mess....


You do realize... that we can literally just repeat everything saying that god created everything so therefore it created evil...

Quote: well actually the bible describes God as a spirit so who knows what he really looks like....we can only guess at Jesus' appearances....which is still really unknown in a weird sense...and if there was no such thing as a god,we wouldnt be able to react....and would also mean that there is officially no purpose in life....unless someone wants to say "the purpose of life is money,or food,or reproducing just to keep us alive,ect...."


I don't get what you mean... we wouldn't react? Also, how is the meaning of life have anything to do with god?

yes but we had the free will to do evil or not....adam and eve could have stayed sinless if they didnt disobey God.
either way,the blame cant be shifted to God.....

  • Sep 09, 2007
Cancel

If there was no after life, then the more is life worth living because nothing awaits you in the end. This would most likely prevent suicides knowing that after they die that's it. You cease to exist. It seems no one was able to read my statement before. God can take any form. If he is pure good he would not let us down and let us see what we want of him. Otherwise he'll just take an immaterial for. i.e. light.

Cancel

Quote: yes but we had the free will to do evil or not....adam and eve could have stayed sinless if they didnt disobey God.
either way,the blame cant be shifted to God.....


And yet again if you want us to put again, we can say god's ability of omniscient and omnipotency... do you really want to repeat everything? It gets annoyings...

Quote: I personally like South Park's definition of God... A furry hippo with a snakes tongue that eats flies. LOL!


If god exists, I want it to be a cute cuddly panda. XD

merged: 09-09-2007 ~ 11:06am

Quote: when i said we wouldnt be able to react,we wouldnt since there would be no afterlife since there is no God in your question....meaning that we stay buried in that dirt without anything else taking place.....thats what i meant when we wouldnt be able to react....

and why are you telling me like it or not?I know that money and ect. are assumptions by people....thats why i said it as an example....


Wait, since when is money an assumption?

?(/??)?
?? ???
????????
????????

  • Sep 09, 2007

page 1 of 2 1 2 Next » 33 total items

Back to Religion & Science | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.