Christianity demands nothing except that you believe certain things, follow god's law, and beg forgiveness when you don't. You and I both might think those to be quite reasonable terms, but it is not nothing. Buddhism on the other hand, while actually achieving the ultimate goal is extremely demanding, an individual has an effectively infinite number of chances to achieve said goal. In fact, one of the central tenets is that everyone will eventually achieve nirvanna, patient or not, dedicated or not. It just might take a few million reincarnations, and in the meantime, there are no punishments aside from that which life itself can mete out.
Buddhism is a selfish religion. Christianity is not. Do you understand that's why we will never ever see world peace? Is because of selfishness? Of course people don't want to be punished for their actions. So it's fair to be two faced all your life and stab friends and co-workers in the back so you can progress? Geez, everyone needs to be held accountable for their actions. I feel like when I discuss this I am talking to people in the 3rd grade. Now, obviously if you do or ever have a kid, you punish him when he does wrong? God, works just like a father. We have examples of his existence and how he works all over the place. The illuminated ones have blinded peoples sight so they can not see it.
There is a reason you feel that way, it is because that we feel that some of those fundamental concepts you take for granted are inherently flawed. So yes, we have issues with concepts you may have followed since the 3rd grade. It is not however due to a misunderstanding of said issues.
P.S. Selfishness in all forms is one of the very things one must give up in Buddhism, I would suggest you study its concepts before making an argument about it.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
In scripture the word for faith is "pistis" That word, in greek, means, "to believe in," as in "to be convinced by evidence." There's nothing irrational about faith. In fact, faith is required for all inquiry and all science. This reason/faith dichotomy is what is totally make believe. It comes from people on both sides of the divide being ignorant about what these words mean.
That is truly a tired old argument, and one that is largely irrelevant. The original meaning of the term is obsolete. What matters is how people use it in the modern sense. I see people believing in religion for no better reason or argument or evidence than the fact that their parents did, and they were brought up to do so. That is what I and others mean by blind faith.
That's massively hypercritical. It's like saying using a pully and levar system is obsolete because it's old. It doesn't matter if its old or not right? I mean, evolutionists believe dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago, or is that like 85 now? Well that's old too and you all still believe that.
Dude, I think you're in need of a system reboot here. My argument was that the meaning of the term has changed, as often occurs with any language. The principles of leverage and that of a pully system remain the same, and the dinosaur bones are still there with the same test results showing the same age. Somehow you went off on a completely different tangent.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
Yes, but unfortunately that just leaves us with discussing politics, why MMORPGs suck, and "which game is for me" threads. (mumbles something about scraping the bottom of the barrel)
Well.. maybe we could use the interwebz 2 exchange ideas n lrn nu things nstead of just stating our opinions!
... Naw, I'd rather be surfing porn tbh.
How old are you? 12? And you tell me I can't write coherent sentences.
Its scarcasm, his mode of language was a part of the joke.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
Actually, in the Biblical context, faith does require evidence. The evidence was the witnesses to the resurrection itself, combined with personal interaction with a faithful God. Now you can choose to not believe the evidence, but that doesn't mean the evidence is not there and that the people who believe it are not as rational as you. I believe in God, CS Lewis believed in God, and many believers believe in God, after years of atheism or agnostism, because we believe in following the evidence where it leads. Thus, we came to belief, or faith. It had everything to do with the evidence and acceptance of it. Of course this is not every believer, but sam harris, Christiopher Hitchens, and most of the atheist evangelists out there came to their faith that there is no God when they were around twelve. How much evidence could they have evaluated then? To this day, most show a horrible ignorance of simple Christian apologetics, which is why their arguments are so weak. This once again comes to me asking the question: how many serious books on apologetics have you read? How closely have you evaluated the evidence?
I haven't read as many as I would like. For example I haven't read CS Lewis. I don't know if the books I have are as good as yours since I have greek versions of them and analyses by Greek authors (Back from the time that i wasn't trilingual). For example I have read a lot of treatises by Origenis (I hope that is the correct name in engish).
I do however studied the bible with a bit of help from the theology university libraries and with what help I could find from the people there. And I do believe that many things should come from ones own intellect and experiences ,not simply by what other people wrote.
I never said that faith doesn't require evidence though. "Π?στευε και μη, ερε?να" "No matter if you believe or not, study" to quote the original greek phrase. Faith without evidence in my opinion is worthless to begin with.
As to how close I evaluated the evidence. I want to believe that I have at least average intelligence and deduction skills but I am not a fool to believe that I have found everything i need. Simply because for one thing I find, be from an apologetic or other philosophical treatise, another question is born. I have a long way to go yet till I find something definite for sure. The journey is pleasant though.
PS. Because for some reason I have the suspicion I gave the impression I am an atheist, no I am not. I don't have yet strong convictions on either side to put a tag for something.
PS2. I think I saw somewhere in this thread that Buddish is a less demanding religion. I think the person that said it has to check it a bit more. Buddism is even more demanding than most religions.
Ah, sorry I was mistaken about you. With all the viciousness on this site from the atheists it gets tedious, and I lose siight of who believs what.
CS Lewis was not exactly great apologist (although he does present some interseting arguments in is writings), but his spiritual journey, which was similar to mine, was a lifetime of evidence and debate over such things, primarily with Tolkein and Charles Williams. there was nothing "irrational" about what those guys did.
I have nothing against people who are not convinced enough by the evidence to believe -- what I do vehemently disagree with is those who make an a priori claim that faith, and believers in Jesus, are by definition irrational, or have something wrong with them intellectually. That is what Sabian said in this thread and in many others, and what I said was in that context.
That is the attitude that is held by many of the posters around here and its sad, since it destroys the discussion from the outset with its bigoted nature.
As to "demanding," Christianity demands NOTHING. God has done it all. In terms of Buddhism, it is EXTREMELY demanding. Committing oneself to Buddhism is a lifetime of work towards enlightenment.
I find much in Buddhism that is true (although I am more of a Taoism than a Buddhist in tersm of eastern thought), and much that I try and practice that in no way conflicts with my entire spritual worldview, but it is extremely demanding if one chooses to practice.
Christianity demands nothing except that you believe certain things, follow god's law, and beg forgiveness when you don't. You and I both might think those to be quite reasonable terms, but it is not nothing.
Buddhism on the other hand, while actually achieving the ultimate goal is extremely demanding, an individual has an effectively infinite number of chances to achieve said goal. In fact, one of the central tenets is that everyone will eventually achieve nirvanna, patient or not, dedicated or not. It just might take a few million reincarnations, and in the meantime, there are no punishments aside from that which life itself can mete out.
To an extent you are correct...there is a certain aura of simplicity about being saved by grace...but to say that it's not as demanding as Buddhism is misleading I think.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Yes, but unfortunately that just leaves us with discussing politics, why MMORPGs suck, and "which game is for me" threads. (mumbles something about scraping the bottom of the barrel)
Well.. maybe we could use the interwebz 2 exchange ideas n lrn nu things nstead of just stating our opinions!
... Naw, I'd rather be surfing porn tbh.
How old are you? 12? And you tell me I can't write coherent sentences.
Its scarcasm, his mode of language was a part of the joke.
So it's ok for him to slander me because I messed up one sentence? Yes no?
"I don't believe in a god, however, you're welcome to and I won't fight you about it."
The above statement makes a good point. That being....I'm confident enough in my OWN beliefs, that I do not feel a need to "discuss" (which usually means CONVINCE you...regardless of the side) where I feel you are in error.
If you have confidence in your own beliefs, regardless which side of the "fence" they come down on.....what need do you have to "discuss" (see above likely definition of said word) those beliefs with someone who has differing beliefs? Go discuss (regular meaning of the word) with someone who SHARES your beliefs.
One of the reasons people react to this sort of topic, in what is often perceived as a negative way, is because generally these "discussions," aren't discussions at all and weren't intended to be. They were intended to prove why one person is "right" and one is "wrong." This goes for both sides of this issue.
"I don't believe in a god, however, you're welcome to and I won't fight you about it."
The above statement makes a good point. That being....I'm confident enough in my OWN beliefs, that I do not feel a need to "discuss" (which usually means CONVINCE you...regardless of the side) where I feel you are in error.
If you have confidence in your own beliefs, regardless which side of the "fence" they come down on.....what need do you have to "discuss" (see above likely definition of said word) those beliefs with someone who has differing beliefs? Go discuss (regular meaning of the word) with someone who SHARES your beliefs.
One of the reasons people react to this sort of topic, in what is often perceived as a negative way, is because generally these "discussions," aren't discussions at all and weren't intended to be. They were intended to prove why one person is "right" and one is "wrong." This goes for both sides of this issue.
The need to discuss, regular sense, comes from a need to expand on those and refine them. Usually the people that are "confident" in their beliefs are driven by semi ignorance, hence the need to "win" an argument and/or only "discuss" with people that share the same beliefs. I mean really what's the point to discuss with someone that has the same beliefs apart from reaffirmation?
Refinement of a belief comes when it meets an opposition, in a discussion it means that you actually have to THINK why do you believe what you believe and by doing that you can spot inconsistencies and either fix them or abandon the belief all together. Yes in a discussion someone "wins" and someone "loses" but that means little. If you goal is to expand your knowledge then noone is really losing.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Christianity demands nothing except that you believe certain things, follow god's law, and beg forgiveness when you don't. You and I both might think those to be quite reasonable terms, but it is not nothing. Buddhism on the other hand, while actually achieving the ultimate goal is extremely demanding, an individual has an effectively infinite number of chances to achieve said goal. In fact, one of the central tenets is that everyone will eventually achieve nirvanna, patient or not, dedicated or not. It just might take a few million reincarnations, and in the meantime, there are no punishments aside from that which life itself can mete out.
Well, YOUR view of Christianity demands those things. In my interpretation of scripture, I don't even see those demands. I completely disagree with you that we have to do anything to be "saved." I believe that Christ already did all the work on the cross. You do not. From my view, your outlook means that Christ failed on the Cross and he needs YOU to help Him win. I find that view to be incorrect.
Once again, if we celebrate freedom in Christ, we can see that either Christianity is VERY demanding, or it isn't demanding at all. I choose the latter, you do not. I am fine with that. Are you?
That may be your personal interpretation, and it would be an interpretation I can agree with. But that is not the way it is described/defined by the church or the majority of its officials/advocates. I personally have had the convert or burn speech thrown at me often enough to make me want to puke.
Why should you or I give a damn what a majority thinks about anything. read, learn think, reason, decide, then act. Listen to what others think and mull it through your mind, rinse and repeat. One's spirtuality should not be subject to vote.
My view of scripture wa sthe dominant view for at least the first 500 years of the Church. then Augustine and politics came along, and now the majority position damns 90% of humanity that has ever lived to eternal torture. I believe that is unscriptural, spits in the face of a loving God, and gives people an excuse to hate one another.
I have had the same stuff thrown at me, and rejected it. It wasn't until I actually chased down the evidence myself and took the time to come to my own conclusions that I came to faith.
An infinite being with infinite love forgives finite sin. Done. As He said, It is Finished. He did not say It is finished....but ummm....you gotta do X.
Any exhortations made by others, any threats made, any statements made must be viewed in light of the infinite nature of God's Grace.
In scripture the word for faith is "pistis" That word, in greek, means, "to believe in," as in "to be convinced by evidence." There's nothing irrational about faith. In fact, faith is required for all inquiry and all science. This reason/faith dichotomy is what is totally make believe. It comes from people on both sides of the divide being ignorant about what these words mean.
That is truly a tired old argument, and one that is largely irrelevant. The original meaning of the term is obsolete. What matters is how people use it in the modern sense. I see people believing in religion for no better reason or argument or evidence than the fact that their parents did, and they were brought up to do so. That is what I and others mean by blind faith.
That's massively hypercritical. It's like saying using a pully and levar system is obsolete because it's old. It doesn't matter if its old or not right? I mean, evolutionists believe dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago, or is that like 85 now? Well that's old too and you all still believe that.
Dude, I think you're in need of a system reboot here. My argument was that the meaning of the term has changed, as often occurs with any language. The principles of leverage and that of a pully system remain the same, and the dinosaur bones are still there with the same test results showing the same age. Somehow you went off on a completely different tangent.
I often agree with your sentiment, BUT in this case we are talking about the way people interpret an ancient document. Therefore it is the meaning at the time that is important here. If people today use the term incorrectly, that's certainly interesting and worthy of discussing, but not in the context of Biblical interpretation.
Actually, in the Biblical context, faith does require evidence. The evidence was the witnesses to the resurrection itself, combined with personal interaction with a faithful God. Now you can choose to not believe the evidence, but that doesn't mean the evidence is not there and that the people who believe it are not as rational as you. I believe in God, CS Lewis believed in God, and many believers believe in God, after years of atheism or agnostism, because we believe in following the evidence where it leads. Thus, we came to belief, or faith. It had everything to do with the evidence and acceptance of it. Of course this is not every believer, but sam harris, Christiopher Hitchens, and most of the atheist evangelists out there came to their faith that there is no God when they were around twelve. How much evidence could they have evaluated then? To this day, most show a horrible ignorance of simple Christian apologetics, which is why their arguments are so weak. This once again comes to me asking the question: how many serious books on apologetics have you read? How closely have you evaluated the evidence?
I haven't read as many as I would like. For example I haven't read CS Lewis. I don't know if the books I have are as good as yours since I have greek versions of them and analyses by Greek authors (Back from the time that i wasn't trilingual). For example I have read a lot of treatises by Origenis (I hope that is the correct name in engish).
I do however studied the bible with a bit of help from the theology university libraries and with what help I could find from the people there. And I do believe that many things should come from ones own intellect and experiences ,not simply by what other people wrote.
I never said that faith doesn't require evidence though. "Π?στευε και μη, ερε?να" "No matter if you believe or not, study" to quote the original greek phrase. Faith without evidence in my opinion is worthless to begin with.
As to how close I evaluated the evidence. I want to believe that I have at least average intelligence and deduction skills but I am not a fool to believe that I have found everything i need. Simply because for one thing I find, be from an apologetic or other philosophical treatise, another question is born. I have a long way to go yet till I find something definite for sure. The journey is pleasant though.
PS. Because for some reason I have the suspicion I gave the impression I am an atheist, no I am not. I don't have yet strong convictions on either side to put a tag for something.
PS2. I think I saw somewhere in this thread that Buddish is a less demanding religion. I think the person that said it has to check it a bit more. Buddism is even more demanding than most religions.
Ah, sorry I was mistaken about you. With all the viciousness on this site from the atheists it gets tedious, and I lose siight of who believs what.
CS Lewis was not exactly great apologist (although he does present some interseting arguments in is writings), but his spiritual journey, which was similar to mine, was a lifetime of evidence and debate over such things, primarily with Tolkein and Charles Williams. there was nothing "irrational" about what those guys did.
I have nothing against people who are not convinced enough by the evidence to believe -- what I do vehemently disagree with is those who make an a priori claim that faith, and believers in Jesus, are by definition irrational, or have something wrong with them intellectually. That is what Sabian said in this thread and in many others, and what I said was in that context.
That is the attitude that is held by many of the posters around here and its sad, since it destroys the discussion from the outset with its bigoted nature.
As to "demanding," Christianity demands NOTHING. God has done it all. In terms of Buddhism, it is EXTREMELY demanding. Committing oneself to Buddhism is a lifetime of work towards enlightenment.
I find much in Buddhism that is true (although I am more of a Taoism than a Buddhist in tersm of eastern thought), and much that I try and practice that in no way conflicts with my entire spritual worldview, but it is extremely demanding if one chooses to practice.
Christianity demands nothing except that you believe certain things, follow god's law, and beg forgiveness when you don't. You and I both might think those to be quite reasonable terms, but it is not nothing.
Buddhism on the other hand, while actually achieving the ultimate goal is extremely demanding, an individual has an effectively infinite number of chances to achieve said goal. In fact, one of the central tenets is that everyone will eventually achieve nirvanna, patient or not, dedicated or not. It just might take a few million reincarnations, and in the meantime, there are no punishments aside from that which life itself can mete out.
To an extent you are correct...there is a certain aura of simplicity about being saved by grace...but to say that it's not as demanding as Buddhism is misleading I think.
I respectfully disagree. I see zero demands. All demands were met by Christ on the Cross. Buddhism has some. Some is more than zero.
In scripture the word for faith is "pistis" That word, in greek, means, "to believe in," as in "to be convinced by evidence." There's nothing irrational about faith. In fact, faith is required for all inquiry and all science. This reason/faith dichotomy is what is totally make believe. It comes from people on both sides of the divide being ignorant about what these words mean.
That is truly a tired old argument, and one that is largely irrelevant. The original meaning of the term is obsolete. What matters is how people use it in the modern sense. I see people believing in religion for no better reason or argument or evidence than the fact that their parents did, and they were brought up to do so. That is what I and others mean by blind faith.
That's massively hypercritical. It's like saying using a pully and levar system is obsolete because it's old. It doesn't matter if its old or not right? I mean, evolutionists believe dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago, or is that like 85 now? Well that's old too and you all still believe that.
Dude, I think you're in need of a system reboot here. My argument was that the meaning of the term has changed, as often occurs with any language. The principles of leverage and that of a pully system remain the same, and the dinosaur bones are still there with the same test results showing the same age. Somehow you went off on a completely different tangent.
I often agree with your sentiment, BUT in this case we are talking about the way people interpret an ancient document. Therefore it is the meaning at the time that is important here. If people today use the term incorrectly, that's certainly interesting and worthy of discussing, but not in the context of Biblical interpretation.
Point taken, and in review of the original conversation, I believe I owe you an apology for ignoring the anterior portion of it.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
In scripture the word for faith is "pistis" That word, in greek, means, "to believe in," as in "to be convinced by evidence." There's nothing irrational about faith. In fact, faith is required for all inquiry and all science. This reason/faith dichotomy is what is totally make believe. It comes from people on both sides of the divide being ignorant about what these words mean.
That is truly a tired old argument, and one that is largely irrelevant. The original meaning of the term is obsolete. What matters is how people use it in the modern sense. I see people believing in religion for no better reason or argument or evidence than the fact that their parents did, and they were brought up to do so. That is what I and others mean by blind faith.
That's massively hypercritical. It's like saying using a pully and levar system is obsolete because it's old. It doesn't matter if its old or not right? I mean, evolutionists believe dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago, or is that like 85 now? Well that's old too and you all still believe that.
Dude, I think you're in need of a system reboot here. My argument was that the meaning of the term has changed, as often occurs with any language. The principles of leverage and that of a pully system remain the same, and the dinosaur bones are still there with the same test results showing the same age. Somehow you went off on a completely different tangent.
I often agree with your sentiment, BUT in this case we are talking about the way people interpret an ancient document. Therefore it is the meaning at the time that is important here. If people today use the term incorrectly, that's certainly interesting and worthy of discussing, but not in the context of Biblical interpretation.
Point taken, and in review of the original conversation, I believe I owe you an apology for ignoring the anterior portion of it.
None really needed. Sometimes it's hard following everything that's said in a thread. Either way it's more than accepted.
This is one of the first threads we have had on the subject of religion that hasn't been completely trashed by trolls. Finally.
That may be your personal interpretation, and it would be an interpretation I can agree with. But that is not the way it is described/defined by the church or the majority of its officials/advocates. I personally have had the convert or burn speech thrown at me often enough to make me want to puke.
Why should you or I give a damn what a majority thinks about anything. read, learn think, reason, decide, then act. Listen to what others think and mull it through your mind, rinse and repeat. One's spirtuality should not be subject to vote.
My view of scripture wa sthe dominant view for at least the first 500 years of the Church. then Augustine and politics came along, and now the majority position damns 90% of humanity that has ever lived to eternal torture. I believe that is unscriptural, spits in the face of a loving God, and gives people an excuse to hate one another.
I have had the same stuff thrown at me, and rejected it. It wasn't until I actually chased down the evidence myself and took the time to come to my own conclusions that I came to faith.
An infinite being with infinite love forgives finite sin. Done. As He said, It is Finished. He did not say It is finished....but ummm....you gotta do X.
Any exhortations made by others, any threats made, any statements made must be viewed in light of the infinite nature of God's Grace.
Interesting, it appears that we've had thoughts along the same lines, but came to a different conclusion. I always had been bothered by those same concepts. When I learned about the Nicean council, and thought about what the existance of such actually meant, particularly at that time and place in history, it led me to conclude that the Roman Catholic Church, and subsequently its progeny, was flawed at its roots in one of the worst ways possible. The Church's role in society today gave me no indication that matters had changed, except that they had a little less direct control.
I believe the primary turning point down the path I chose to take was that I could find no rational reason for a benevolent god to abandon his people without an untainted guide.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
I respectfully disagree. I see zero demands. All demands were met by Christ on the Cross. Buddhism has some. Some is more than zero.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting, but how is an atheist that adheres to most of the morals found in your bible any less than a Christian in terms of demands met? How is he/she any less of a being for still being a good person and not believing?
It's easy to conform one's beliefs to the majority out of social convenience and assume something that is widely accepted without proof, so I don't understand what kind of hurdles you people are jumping.
How is it easier for an atheist to be a good person, when he has no incentive to do so? You've got fire, brimstone and an eternal void to compel to you goodness, but there is nothing forcing an atheist to act ethically.
Maybe it's a foreign concept to you, but it is entirely possible for some people to act right without anything compelling them to do so; not everybody is a horse pulled by carrot, so I really think your arrogance is unjustified.
Might want to read a couple posts above, that was exactly the point he was trying to make.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
That may be your personal interpretation, and it would be an interpretation I can agree with. But that is not the way it is described/defined by the church or the majority of its officials/advocates. I personally have had the convert or burn speech thrown at me often enough to make me want to puke.
Why should you or I give a damn what a majority thinks about anything. read, learn think, reason, decide, then act. Listen to what others think and mull it through your mind, rinse and repeat. One's spirtuality should not be subject to vote.
My view of scripture wa sthe dominant view for at least the first 500 years of the Church. then Augustine and politics came along, and now the majority position damns 90% of humanity that has ever lived to eternal torture. I believe that is unscriptural, spits in the face of a loving God, and gives people an excuse to hate one another.
I have had the same stuff thrown at me, and rejected it. It wasn't until I actually chased down the evidence myself and took the time to come to my own conclusions that I came to faith.
An infinite being with infinite love forgives finite sin. Done. As He said, It is Finished. He did not say It is finished....but ummm....you gotta do X.
Any exhortations made by others, any threats made, any statements made must be viewed in light of the infinite nature of God's Grace.
Interesting, it appears that we've had thoughts along the same lines, but came to a different conclusion. I always had been bothered by those same concepts. When I learned about the Nicean council, and thought about what the existance of such actually meant, particularly at that time and place in history, it led me to conclude that the Roman Catholic Church, and subsequently its progeny, was flawed at its roots in one of the worst ways possible. The Church's role in society today gave me no indication that matters had changed, except that they had a little less direct control.
I believe the primary turning point down the path I chose to take was that I could find no rational reason for a benevolent god to abandon his people without an untainted guide.
Hmmm. What is this tainted guide of which you speak?
If you mean the Church, then it is merely sinful human nature asserting itself time and again. If you mean the Bible, well, it is what it is -- it is not really a "guide," as such, but a testimony of God's interaction with a set of humans. It is more than and less than any guide.
But for a moment, let us imagine God leaving us something like a perfect guide. What would that do to Liberty? It would destroy it.
Just as irrevocable proof of God would also destroy freedom. Destroy freedom you destroy love. Destroy love and you destroy the reason why man was created.
That'd just suck.
Now if you do not believe that a good creed was established at Nicea, I would disagree with you. If you do not agree with the Canon of the new testament 9which was actually established by later ecumenical councils I believe), I would also disagree. The Bible we have is that which people could agree to with near unanimity, and the other gospels and epistles while interesting, could not be verified and would have made the Bible much more tainted.
A really GREAT book on this is The Canon of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger. That and his other book, The Text of the New Testament are indispensible if you really want a very well researched history of the Bible.
Either way you do have a guide. It's called the Holy Spirit. You are however free to misuse it, lie about it, fake it, and so on -- again, God will never remove your freedom -- but it's there ready to counsel both of us whenever we ask it to. We just have to listen.
Like Yoda says...you will know, when you are calm, at peace.
I respectfully disagree. I see zero demands. All demands were met by Christ on the Cross. Buddhism has some. Some is more than zero.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting, but how is an atheist that adheres to most of the morals found in your bible any less than a Christian in terms of demands met? How is he/she any less of a being for still being a good person and not believing?
It's easy to conform one's beliefs to the majority out of social convenience and assume something that is widely accepted without proof, so I don't understand what kind of hurdles you people are jumping.
How is it easier for an atheist to be a good person, when he has no incentive to do so? You've got fire, brimstone and an eternal void to compel to you goodness, but there is nothing forcing an atheist to act ethically.
Maybe it's a foreign concept to you, but it is entirely possible for some people to act right without anything compelling them to do so; not everybody is a horse pulled by carrot, so I really think your arrogance is unjustified.
Might want to read a couple posts above, that was exactly the point he was trying to make.
Yup, Christianity has little to do with being good. In fact, Christianity assumes we are flawed, and will do bad. We therefore need forgiveness. God forgives us, and will raise us, and will call us to glory. Why? Because He loves us.
To prove this to us, He took the very essence of Himself (known Biblically as the "Word" of God, meaning his full expression of Himself), clothed it in Human form, had this being live a complete human life, then this being offered Himself up as human sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice one can imagine, to show that we never need to do anything again to "get in good" with God.
No religion says this exactly or completely. Buddhism says you must work your butt off for "enlightenment," which leads to Nirvana, which ends the cycle of life/death/rebirth.
Islam says you must obey God's will. Well, not exactly. The Sufis and many other Muslims have grasped Muhammed's earliest writings, where He also speaks of the infinite mercy of God.
Judaism is definitly unclear on this, but classical Judaism required sacrifice. Many modern Jews lean towards my way of thinking on this -- that God will eventually embrace all. Many orthodox Jews believe you need to atone yearly, although many believe as I do that atonement, like repentance, isn't what "saves you," it just brings you closer to God, and that's a good thing.
I can find a hint of what I am talking about in MANY creeds of many faiths; but nowhere is it so clear where God ponies up and takes the Hits Himself for the sins of man.
It makes sense too, when you think about it. Eden was a set-up, or so it looks like one. God sets man up with a babe, gives Him free will, and says, "don't do this." well.....
famous last words. God gave man the opportunity to Sin, in the name of liberty. Of course, he did. That brought a whole lot of problems, BUT it was us being free.
God in Christ is telling us He knows, it's His creation and ultimately he pays the penalty. That's more than fair. he then raised up that being, showing us we should have hope, eventually, all shall be restored.
Now of course these are my musings on this stuff, but I am far from alone. Lots of folks feel as I do on these things, or at least similarly.
Should you sin? Of course not. Should you live by what God wants you to do? Of course -- it means living to your highest potential. It means always love God, yourself and others as God loves YOU, which means in an agape kinda way -- which is like a perfect father loves his son, that overflowing, self-sacrificing, deep, never ending love.
Yes, it's impossible -- but if you and I could actually do that we would have a kick ass life no matter what happened to us. We would know an inner peace that was perfect.
I just thinking of demands,and what God demands or will except.Its not directed at anyone, its what i was thinking.And yes it's nice to see that this thread hasn't turned it flame fest.
Almighty God has the authority and right to demand anything He wants, and further, who can stop Him? (Isaiah 43:13) God does grant freedom of choice. We have the choice to submit to His authority or refuse His demands.speaking of demands.
Genesis 4. God rejected Cain’s offering because Cain rejected God’s demand – God demanded that a lamb be sacrificed, but Cain presented fruit.Now i guess you could put accept their if you want.Even though Jesus knows our innermost thoughts, He does not judge us on the basis of this knowledge. He judges us on the basis of our actions because our actions reflect our choices and our decisions! This is a key point: God does not judge us on the basis of what we believe, but instead judges us on the basis of what we do about our belief.
Faith is a " verb " action is a critical part of Faith.
The atheist has faith to, much like when the space shuttle is on the launch pad the guidence system has not kick in yet,but when it gets of the pad the guidence system kicks in,they have faith that its going to work...
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
"I don't believe in a god, however, you're welcome to and I won't fight you about it."
The above statement makes a good point. That being....I'm confident enough in my OWN beliefs, that I do not feel a need to "discuss" (which usually means CONVINCE you...regardless of the side) where I feel you are in error.
If you have confidence in your own beliefs, regardless which side of the "fence" they come down on.....what need do you have to "discuss" (see above likely definition of said word) those beliefs with someone who has differing beliefs? Go discuss (regular meaning of the word) with someone who SHARES your beliefs.
One of the reasons people react to this sort of topic, in what is often perceived as a negative way, is because generally these "discussions," aren't discussions at all and weren't intended to be. They were intended to prove why one person is "right" and one is "wrong." This goes for both sides of this issue.
The need to discuss, regular sense, comes from a need to expand on those and refine them. Usually the people that are "confident" in their beliefs are driven by semi ignorance, hence the need to "win" an argument and/or only "discuss" with people that share the same beliefs. I mean really what's the point to discuss with someone that has the same beliefs apart from reaffirmation?
Refinement of a belief comes when it meets an opposition, in a discussion it means that you actually have to THINK why do you believe what you believe and by doing that you can spot inconsistencies and either fix them or abandon the belief all together. Yes in a discussion someone "wins" and someone "loses" but that means little. If you goal is to expand your knowledge then noone is really losing.
I have YET to meet an atheist OR a Christian that has the goal of "expanding their knowledge" when entering into one of these so-called "discussions."
Originally posted by girlgeek I have YET to meet an atheist OR a Christian that has the goal of "expanding their knowledge" when entering into one of these so-called "discussions."
I have three co-workers with whom I usually discuss religion (and politics). One is Catholic, one is Muslim, and one is born again. I will refrain from disclosing what I am.
The discussions do not center around religion, but rather around a specific point of a religion. And they do not itterate that point, but are a series of questions regarding that point. Eventually, through that series of questions, inconsistencies occur.
For example, the born again believes that Christ died for our sins, and only thru belief in Jesus Christ is your soul saved. Obviously the Catholic, the Muslim, and myself would take exception to this, all for different reasons. So we talk about this point.
We ask him how someone could believe that Jesus dies for their sins, and accept God, if, by your actions, you continue to sin, and make no effort to live as God would like you to live. Eventually the born again sees the incongruity with saying you believe, but not acting as you believe, and reinforces the belief of the Catholic, the Muslim, and myself that actions do matter. Pror to that he had argued actions did NOT matter. That a murderer could continue to commit murder and as long as he believed that Jesus died for his sins he would ascend to heaven. By the way, the Muslim opposed this view, and asked whether the man that uses a suicide belt to kill on an Israeli bus will go to heaven if he believes in Jesus, rather than being a Muslim. These really can be funny and interesting discussions.
The same is true of creationism and evolution. If God created everything, did he then not create science? And if God created science, did he not create evolution? So, could evolution be part of God's plan?
Same is true for homosexuality. If God created everything, did he create things such as sin? If God created things such as sin, did God also create things such as homosexuality? If Jesus died for our sins, did Jesus die for things like sin and homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin in God's eyes? Or is that man's interpretation?
Is it possible to believe in God, but not believe in Man's interpretation of God?
Explore as questions, debate the questions, and follow the debate through to a conclusion. If you wish to debate whether Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or unbelief are correct, all you will do is engage in the old "my religion is correct and your's is wrong" endless debate.
Actually, in the Biblical context, faith does require evidence. The evidence was the witnesses to the resurrection itself, combined with personal interaction with a faithful God. Now you can choose to not believe the evidence, but that doesn't mean the evidence is not there and that the people who believe it are not as rational as you. I believe in God, CS Lewis believed in God, and many believers believe in God, after years of atheism or agnostism, because we believe in following the evidence where it leads. Thus, we came to belief, or faith. It had everything to do with the evidence and acceptance of it. Of course this is not every believer, but sam harris, Christiopher Hitchens, and most of the atheist evangelists out there came to their faith that there is no God when they were around twelve. How much evidence could they have evaluated then? To this day, most show a horrible ignorance of simple Christian apologetics, which is why their arguments are so weak. This once again comes to me asking the question: how many serious books on apologetics have you read? How closely have you evaluated the evidence?
I haven't read as many as I would like. For example I haven't read CS Lewis. I don't know if the books I have are as good as yours since I have greek versions of them and analyses by Greek authors (Back from the time that i wasn't trilingual). For example I have read a lot of treatises by Origenis (I hope that is the correct name in engish).
I do however studied the bible with a bit of help from the theology university libraries and with what help I could find from the people there. And I do believe that many things should come from ones own intellect and experiences ,not simply by what other people wrote.
I never said that faith doesn't require evidence though. "Π?στευε και μη, ερε?να" "No matter if you believe or not, study" to quote the original greek phrase. Faith without evidence in my opinion is worthless to begin with.
As to how close I evaluated the evidence. I want to believe that I have at least average intelligence and deduction skills but I am not a fool to believe that I have found everything i need. Simply because for one thing I find, be from an apologetic or other philosophical treatise, another question is born. I have a long way to go yet till I find something definite for sure. The journey is pleasant though.
PS. Because for some reason I have the suspicion I gave the impression I am an atheist, no I am not. I don't have yet strong convictions on either side to put a tag for something.
PS2. I think I saw somewhere in this thread that Buddish is a less demanding religion. I think the person that said it has to check it a bit more. Buddism is even more demanding than most religions.
Ah, sorry I was mistaken about you. With all the viciousness on this site from the atheists it gets tedious, and I lose siight of who believs what.
CS Lewis was not exactly great apologist (although he does present some interseting arguments in is writings), but his spiritual journey, which was similar to mine, was a lifetime of evidence and debate over such things, primarily with Tolkein and Charles Williams. there was nothing "irrational" about what those guys did.
I have nothing against people who are not convinced enough by the evidence to believe -- what I do vehemently disagree with is those who make an a priori claim that faith, and believers in Jesus, are by definition irrational, or have something wrong with them intellectually. That is what Sabian said in this thread and in many others, and what I said was in that context.
That is the attitude that is held by many of the posters around here and its sad, since it destroys the discussion from the outset with its bigoted nature.
As to "demanding," Christianity demands NOTHING. God has done it all. In terms of Buddhism, it is EXTREMELY demanding. Committing oneself to Buddhism is a lifetime of work towards enlightenment.
I find much in Buddhism that is true (although I am more of a Taoism than a Buddhist in tersm of eastern thought), and much that I try and practice that in no way conflicts with my entire spritual worldview, but it is extremely demanding if one chooses to practice.
Oh boy, here we go.
"With all the viciousness from the atheists ..."
Fisher, as always, playing the victim. "Everyone who disagrees with me is just mean!"
Remember what I told you some time ago. You are always in my prayers and when you are ready to heal, I'm here for you.
(as Fishermage pushes his "I win" button once again).
(as oldaddy attempts to hijack and trash a thread through trolling once again.)
This WAS a good thread. Pity some folks simply want to destroy conversation and wreck intelligent discussion here through childish personal vendetta.
I guess im going to have to use the old saying.... If you believe in god and when you die there is no god what have you lost? Nothing... If you dont belive in god and you die what have you lost? Everything....
The choice is yours ..... So why take a chance.....
played M59,UO,lineage,EQ,Daoc,Entropia,SWG,Horizons,Lineage2.EQ2,Vangaurd,Irth online, DarkFall,Star Trek and many others that did not make the cut or i just plain forgetting about.
I guess im going to have to use the old saying.... If you believe in god and when you die there is no god what have you lost? Nothing... If you dont belive in god and you die what have you lost? Everything.... The choice is yours ..... So why take a chance.....
Good old pascal's wager. I don't find it very compelling, at least analytically. Threat doesn't bring me to belief in something -- only the evidence does.
I am not saying carbon dating is wrong, I just believe the time frame is way off. Yes there may be scientific methods, however, someone thought of how old that layer or rock is and then the assumption was born for that. How do you know for certian, that layer of rock is 4 million years old? Was there a man, living and recorded it 4 million years ago? No.
This is where I stopped reading this thread. This person obviously does not understand carbon dating and radioactive half life. He'll acknowledge the existence of hydrogen atoms even though he has not actually seen one himself. BUT He will deny the existence of evolution and the fossil record even though he has seen fossils of dinosaurs (Satan placed trilobite fossils everywhere to TEST YOUR FAITH!)
Why can't god have created man through evolution? Why can't the mysteries of science bring us closer to god?
Am I to take the bible literally?
If you want me to believe in your god please explain the fossil record to me. Please explain how Johah survived 3 days and nights in the belly of a fish. If after the great flood, the sons of Noah populated the 3 great continents (Europe, Asia and Africa) where did the Aztecs and the Native Americans come from? Leviticus talks about the rules of slave ownership...
Exodus 21:1-4 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
There are so many crazy stories in a book that was written in a time when people thought the earth was flat and that witches sank.
When ever I get into this discussion people tell me "well... the bible says.." and then it stops there.
Like love, you can't fake faith. I believe in what Jesus stands for but I'm not convinced he was who he says he was no more than I'm convinced David Koresh was who he said he was. Science can provide empirical data to support facts and theories. People of faith provide the bible. That is why it is called "faith".
You either believe or you don't.
This subject is always like two slow rolling trains moving toward each other and it ends up being the proverbial train wreck.
Originally posted by Aelfinn Interesting, it appears that we've had thoughts along the same lines, but came to a different conclusion. I always had been bothered by those same concepts. When I learned about the Nicean council, and thought about what the existance of such actually meant, particularly at that time and place in history, it led me to conclude that the Roman Catholic Church, and subsequently its progeny, was flawed at its roots in one of the worst ways possible. The Church's role in society today gave me no indication that matters had changed, except that they had a little less direct control. I believe the primary turning point down the path I chose to take was that I could find no rational reason for a benevolent god to abandon his people without an untainted guide.
Hmmm. What is this tainted guide of which you speak?
If you mean the Church, then it is merely sinful human nature asserting itself time and again. If you mean the Bible, well, it is what it is -- it is not really a "guide," as such, but a testimony of God's interaction with a set of humans. It is more than and less than any guide.
But for a moment, let us imagine God leaving us something like a perfect guide. What would that do to Liberty? It would destroy it.
Just as irrevocable proof of God would also destroy freedom. Destroy freedom you destroy love. Destroy love and you destroy the reason why man was created.
That'd just suck.
Now if you do not believe that a good creed was established at Nicea, I would disagree with you. If you do not agree with the Canon of the new testament 9which was actually established by later ecumenical councils I believe), I would also disagree. The Bible we have is that which people could agree to with near unanimity, and the other gospels and epistles while interesting, could not be verified and would have made the Bible much more tainted.
A really GREAT book on this is The Canon of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger. That and his other book, The Text of the New Testament are indispensible if you really want a very well researched history of the Bible.
Either way you do have a guide. It's called the Holy Spirit. You are however free to misuse it, lie about it, fake it, and so on -- again, God will never remove your freedom -- but it's there ready to counsel both of us whenever we ask it to. We just have to listen.
Like Yoda says...you will know, when you are calm, at peace.
Both really. The Church in my view is particularly unreliable because it was founded on the principle of giving men power, and still continues to serve that purpose.
The Bible itself is less clear cut, it was written by mankind, the first portion by and for a crude, nearly barbaric nomadic race like thousands of others, then the following books by dozens of individuals whose motives remain unclear and contradictory in nature. Finally both parts were heavily edited by men who wanted a new means to solidify control of a rapidly destabilizing empire. With any other text, any of those three would have been enough to make me chuck it in the trash if it failed to be entertaining as pure fiction. The one thing that makes me hesitate in that regard is the fact that it continues to hold a few good lessons on living life well.
P.S. I still wonder why the Nicean councils threw out the story of Lillith. I'm debating between a few wives twisting ears, and them deciding to be a little less obvious with the chauvinistic principles.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
Comments
Buddhism is a selfish religion. Christianity is not. Do you understand that's why we will never ever see world peace? Is because of selfishness? Of course people don't want to be punished for their actions. So it's fair to be two faced all your life and stab friends and co-workers in the back so you can progress? Geez, everyone needs to be held accountable for their actions. I feel like when I discuss this I am talking to people in the 3rd grade. Now, obviously if you do or ever have a kid, you punish him when he does wrong? God, works just like a father. We have examples of his existence and how he works all over the place. The illuminated ones have blinded peoples sight so they can not see it.
There is a reason you feel that way, it is because that we feel that some of those fundamental concepts you take for granted are inherently flawed. So yes, we have issues with concepts you may have followed since the 3rd grade. It is not however due to a misunderstanding of said issues.
P.S. Selfishness in all forms is one of the very things one must give up in Buddhism, I would suggest you study its concepts before making an argument about it.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
That is truly a tired old argument, and one that is largely irrelevant. The original meaning of the term is obsolete. What matters is how people use it in the modern sense. I see people believing in religion for no better reason or argument or evidence than the fact that their parents did, and they were brought up to do so. That is what I and others mean by blind faith.
That's massively hypercritical. It's like saying using a pully and levar system is obsolete because it's old. It doesn't matter if its old or not right? I mean, evolutionists believe dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago, or is that like 85 now? Well that's old too and you all still believe that.
Dude, I think you're in need of a system reboot here. My argument was that the meaning of the term has changed, as often occurs with any language. The principles of leverage and that of a pully system remain the same, and the dinosaur bones are still there with the same test results showing the same age. Somehow you went off on a completely different tangent.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
Well.. maybe we could use the interwebz 2 exchange ideas n lrn nu things nstead of just stating our opinions!
... Naw, I'd rather be surfing porn tbh.
How old are you? 12? And you tell me I can't write coherent sentences.
Its scarcasm, his mode of language was a part of the joke.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
I haven't read as many as I would like. For example I haven't read CS Lewis. I don't know if the books I have are as good as yours since I have greek versions of them and analyses by Greek authors
(Back from the time that i wasn't trilingual). For example I have read a lot of treatises by Origenis (I hope that is the correct name in engish).
I do however studied the bible with a bit of help from the theology university libraries and with what help I could find from the people there. And I do believe that many things should come from ones own intellect and experiences ,not simply by what other people wrote.
I never said that faith doesn't require evidence though. "Π?στευε και μη, ερε?να" "No matter if you believe or not, study" to quote the original greek phrase. Faith without evidence in my opinion is worthless to begin with.
As to how close I evaluated the evidence. I want to believe that I have at least average intelligence and deduction skills but I am not a fool to believe that I have found everything i need. Simply because for one thing I find, be from an apologetic or other philosophical treatise, another question is born. I have a long way to go yet till I find something definite for sure. The journey is pleasant though.
PS. Because for some reason I have the suspicion I gave the impression I am an atheist, no I am not. I don't have yet strong convictions on either side to put a tag for something.
PS2. I think I saw somewhere in this thread that Buddish is a less demanding religion. I think the person that said it has to check it a bit more. Buddism is even more demanding than most religions.
Ah, sorry I was mistaken about you. With all the viciousness on this site from the atheists it gets tedious, and I lose siight of who believs what.
CS Lewis was not exactly great apologist (although he does present some interseting arguments in is writings), but his spiritual journey, which was similar to mine, was a lifetime of evidence and debate over such things, primarily with Tolkein and Charles Williams. there was nothing "irrational" about what those guys did.
I have nothing against people who are not convinced enough by the evidence to believe -- what I do vehemently disagree with is those who make an a priori claim that faith, and believers in Jesus, are by definition irrational, or have something wrong with them intellectually. That is what Sabian said in this thread and in many others, and what I said was in that context.
That is the attitude that is held by many of the posters around here and its sad, since it destroys the discussion from the outset with its bigoted nature.
As to "demanding," Christianity demands NOTHING. God has done it all. In terms of Buddhism, it is EXTREMELY demanding. Committing oneself to Buddhism is a lifetime of work towards enlightenment.
I find much in Buddhism that is true (although I am more of a Taoism than a Buddhist in tersm of eastern thought), and much that I try and practice that in no way conflicts with my entire spritual worldview, but it is extremely demanding if one chooses to practice.
Christianity demands nothing except that you believe certain things, follow god's law, and beg forgiveness when you don't. You and I both might think those to be quite reasonable terms, but it is not nothing.
Buddhism on the other hand, while actually achieving the ultimate goal is extremely demanding, an individual has an effectively infinite number of chances to achieve said goal. In fact, one of the central tenets is that everyone will eventually achieve nirvanna, patient or not, dedicated or not. It just might take a few million reincarnations, and in the meantime, there are no punishments aside from that which life itself can mete out.
To an extent you are correct...there is a certain aura of simplicity about being saved by grace...but to say that it's not as demanding as Buddhism is misleading I think.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Well.. maybe we could use the interwebz 2 exchange ideas n lrn nu things nstead of just stating our opinions!
... Naw, I'd rather be surfing porn tbh.
How old are you? 12? And you tell me I can't write coherent sentences.
Its scarcasm, his mode of language was a part of the joke.
So it's ok for him to slander me because I messed up one sentence? Yes no?
The above statement makes a good point. That being....I'm confident enough in my OWN beliefs, that I do not feel a need to "discuss" (which usually means CONVINCE you...regardless of the side) where I feel you are in error.
If you have confidence in your own beliefs, regardless which side of the "fence" they come down on.....what need do you have to "discuss" (see above likely definition of said word) those beliefs with someone who has differing beliefs? Go discuss (regular meaning of the word) with someone who SHARES your beliefs.
One of the reasons people react to this sort of topic, in what is often perceived as a negative way, is because generally these "discussions," aren't discussions at all and weren't intended to be. They were intended to prove why one person is "right" and one is "wrong." This goes for both sides of this issue.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
The above statement makes a good point. That being....I'm confident enough in my OWN beliefs, that I do not feel a need to "discuss" (which usually means CONVINCE you...regardless of the side) where I feel you are in error.
If you have confidence in your own beliefs, regardless which side of the "fence" they come down on.....what need do you have to "discuss" (see above likely definition of said word) those beliefs with someone who has differing beliefs? Go discuss (regular meaning of the word) with someone who SHARES your beliefs.
One of the reasons people react to this sort of topic, in what is often perceived as a negative way, is because generally these "discussions," aren't discussions at all and weren't intended to be. They were intended to prove why one person is "right" and one is "wrong." This goes for both sides of this issue.
The need to discuss, regular sense, comes from a need to expand on those and refine them. Usually the people that are "confident" in their beliefs are driven by semi ignorance, hence the need to "win" an argument and/or only "discuss" with people that share the same beliefs. I mean really what's the point to discuss with someone that has the same beliefs apart from reaffirmation?
Refinement of a belief comes when it meets an opposition, in a discussion it means that you actually have to THINK why do you believe what you believe and by doing that you can spot inconsistencies and either fix them or abandon the belief all together. Yes in a discussion someone "wins" and someone "loses" but that means little. If you goal is to expand your knowledge then noone is really losing.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Well, YOUR view of Christianity demands those things. In my interpretation of scripture, I don't even see those demands. I completely disagree with you that we have to do anything to be "saved." I believe that Christ already did all the work on the cross. You do not. From my view, your outlook means that Christ failed on the Cross and he needs YOU to help Him win. I find that view to be incorrect.
Once again, if we celebrate freedom in Christ, we can see that either Christianity is VERY demanding, or it isn't demanding at all. I choose the latter, you do not. I am fine with that. Are you?
That may be your personal interpretation, and it would be an interpretation I can agree with. But that is not the way it is described/defined by the church or the majority of its officials/advocates. I personally have had the convert or burn speech thrown at me often enough to make me want to puke.
Why should you or I give a damn what a majority thinks about anything. read, learn think, reason, decide, then act. Listen to what others think and mull it through your mind, rinse and repeat. One's spirtuality should not be subject to vote.
My view of scripture wa sthe dominant view for at least the first 500 years of the Church. then Augustine and politics came along, and now the majority position damns 90% of humanity that has ever lived to eternal torture. I believe that is unscriptural, spits in the face of a loving God, and gives people an excuse to hate one another.
I have had the same stuff thrown at me, and rejected it. It wasn't until I actually chased down the evidence myself and took the time to come to my own conclusions that I came to faith.
An infinite being with infinite love forgives finite sin. Done. As He said, It is Finished. He did not say It is finished....but ummm....you gotta do X.
Any exhortations made by others, any threats made, any statements made must be viewed in light of the infinite nature of God's Grace.
fishermage.blogspot.com
That is truly a tired old argument, and one that is largely irrelevant. The original meaning of the term is obsolete. What matters is how people use it in the modern sense. I see people believing in religion for no better reason or argument or evidence than the fact that their parents did, and they were brought up to do so. That is what I and others mean by blind faith.
That's massively hypercritical. It's like saying using a pully and levar system is obsolete because it's old. It doesn't matter if its old or not right? I mean, evolutionists believe dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago, or is that like 85 now? Well that's old too and you all still believe that.
Dude, I think you're in need of a system reboot here. My argument was that the meaning of the term has changed, as often occurs with any language. The principles of leverage and that of a pully system remain the same, and the dinosaur bones are still there with the same test results showing the same age. Somehow you went off on a completely different tangent.
I often agree with your sentiment, BUT in this case we are talking about the way people interpret an ancient document. Therefore it is the meaning at the time that is important here. If people today use the term incorrectly, that's certainly interesting and worthy of discussing, but not in the context of Biblical interpretation.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I haven't read as many as I would like. For example I haven't read CS Lewis. I don't know if the books I have are as good as yours since I have greek versions of them and analyses by Greek authors
(Back from the time that i wasn't trilingual). For example I have read a lot of treatises by Origenis (I hope that is the correct name in engish).
I do however studied the bible with a bit of help from the theology university libraries and with what help I could find from the people there. And I do believe that many things should come from ones own intellect and experiences ,not simply by what other people wrote.
I never said that faith doesn't require evidence though. "Π?στευε και μη, ερε?να" "No matter if you believe or not, study" to quote the original greek phrase. Faith without evidence in my opinion is worthless to begin with.
As to how close I evaluated the evidence. I want to believe that I have at least average intelligence and deduction skills but I am not a fool to believe that I have found everything i need. Simply because for one thing I find, be from an apologetic or other philosophical treatise, another question is born. I have a long way to go yet till I find something definite for sure. The journey is pleasant though.
PS. Because for some reason I have the suspicion I gave the impression I am an atheist, no I am not. I don't have yet strong convictions on either side to put a tag for something.
PS2. I think I saw somewhere in this thread that Buddish is a less demanding religion. I think the person that said it has to check it a bit more. Buddism is even more demanding than most religions.
Ah, sorry I was mistaken about you. With all the viciousness on this site from the atheists it gets tedious, and I lose siight of who believs what.
CS Lewis was not exactly great apologist (although he does present some interseting arguments in is writings), but his spiritual journey, which was similar to mine, was a lifetime of evidence and debate over such things, primarily with Tolkein and Charles Williams. there was nothing "irrational" about what those guys did.
I have nothing against people who are not convinced enough by the evidence to believe -- what I do vehemently disagree with is those who make an a priori claim that faith, and believers in Jesus, are by definition irrational, or have something wrong with them intellectually. That is what Sabian said in this thread and in many others, and what I said was in that context.
That is the attitude that is held by many of the posters around here and its sad, since it destroys the discussion from the outset with its bigoted nature.
As to "demanding," Christianity demands NOTHING. God has done it all. In terms of Buddhism, it is EXTREMELY demanding. Committing oneself to Buddhism is a lifetime of work towards enlightenment.
I find much in Buddhism that is true (although I am more of a Taoism than a Buddhist in tersm of eastern thought), and much that I try and practice that in no way conflicts with my entire spritual worldview, but it is extremely demanding if one chooses to practice.
Christianity demands nothing except that you believe certain things, follow god's law, and beg forgiveness when you don't. You and I both might think those to be quite reasonable terms, but it is not nothing.
Buddhism on the other hand, while actually achieving the ultimate goal is extremely demanding, an individual has an effectively infinite number of chances to achieve said goal. In fact, one of the central tenets is that everyone will eventually achieve nirvanna, patient or not, dedicated or not. It just might take a few million reincarnations, and in the meantime, there are no punishments aside from that which life itself can mete out.
To an extent you are correct...there is a certain aura of simplicity about being saved by grace...but to say that it's not as demanding as Buddhism is misleading I think.
I respectfully disagree. I see zero demands. All demands were met by Christ on the Cross. Buddhism has some. Some is more than zero.
fishermage.blogspot.com
That is truly a tired old argument, and one that is largely irrelevant. The original meaning of the term is obsolete. What matters is how people use it in the modern sense. I see people believing in religion for no better reason or argument or evidence than the fact that their parents did, and they were brought up to do so. That is what I and others mean by blind faith.
That's massively hypercritical. It's like saying using a pully and levar system is obsolete because it's old. It doesn't matter if its old or not right? I mean, evolutionists believe dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago, or is that like 85 now? Well that's old too and you all still believe that.
Dude, I think you're in need of a system reboot here. My argument was that the meaning of the term has changed, as often occurs with any language. The principles of leverage and that of a pully system remain the same, and the dinosaur bones are still there with the same test results showing the same age. Somehow you went off on a completely different tangent.
I often agree with your sentiment, BUT in this case we are talking about the way people interpret an ancient document. Therefore it is the meaning at the time that is important here. If people today use the term incorrectly, that's certainly interesting and worthy of discussing, but not in the context of Biblical interpretation.
Point taken, and in review of the original conversation, I believe I owe you an apology for ignoring the anterior portion of it.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
That is truly a tired old argument, and one that is largely irrelevant. The original meaning of the term is obsolete. What matters is how people use it in the modern sense. I see people believing in religion for no better reason or argument or evidence than the fact that their parents did, and they were brought up to do so. That is what I and others mean by blind faith.
That's massively hypercritical. It's like saying using a pully and levar system is obsolete because it's old. It doesn't matter if its old or not right? I mean, evolutionists believe dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago, or is that like 85 now? Well that's old too and you all still believe that.
Dude, I think you're in need of a system reboot here. My argument was that the meaning of the term has changed, as often occurs with any language. The principles of leverage and that of a pully system remain the same, and the dinosaur bones are still there with the same test results showing the same age. Somehow you went off on a completely different tangent.
I often agree with your sentiment, BUT in this case we are talking about the way people interpret an ancient document. Therefore it is the meaning at the time that is important here. If people today use the term incorrectly, that's certainly interesting and worthy of discussing, but not in the context of Biblical interpretation.
Point taken, and in review of the original conversation, I believe I owe you an apology for ignoring the anterior portion of it.
None really needed. Sometimes it's hard following everything that's said in a thread. Either way it's more than accepted.
This is one of the first threads we have had on the subject of religion that hasn't been completely trashed by trolls. Finally.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Why should you or I give a damn what a majority thinks about anything. read, learn think, reason, decide, then act. Listen to what others think and mull it through your mind, rinse and repeat. One's spirtuality should not be subject to vote.
My view of scripture wa sthe dominant view for at least the first 500 years of the Church. then Augustine and politics came along, and now the majority position damns 90% of humanity that has ever lived to eternal torture. I believe that is unscriptural, spits in the face of a loving God, and gives people an excuse to hate one another.
I have had the same stuff thrown at me, and rejected it. It wasn't until I actually chased down the evidence myself and took the time to come to my own conclusions that I came to faith.
An infinite being with infinite love forgives finite sin. Done. As He said, It is Finished. He did not say It is finished....but ummm....you gotta do X.
Any exhortations made by others, any threats made, any statements made must be viewed in light of the infinite nature of God's Grace.
Interesting, it appears that we've had thoughts along the same lines, but came to a different conclusion. I always had been bothered by those same concepts. When I learned about the Nicean council, and thought about what the existance of such actually meant, particularly at that time and place in history, it led me to conclude that the Roman Catholic Church, and subsequently its progeny, was flawed at its roots in one of the worst ways possible. The Church's role in society today gave me no indication that matters had changed, except that they had a little less direct control.
I believe the primary turning point down the path I chose to take was that I could find no rational reason for a benevolent god to abandon his people without an untainted guide.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
I respectfully disagree. I see zero demands. All demands were met by Christ on the Cross. Buddhism has some. Some is more than zero.
I misinterpreted, but I do remember that somebody had made that claim somewhere; I was just too lazy to go through all of the walls.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
I respectfully disagree. I see zero demands. All demands were met by Christ on the Cross. Buddhism has some. Some is more than zero.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting, but how is an atheist that adheres to most of the morals found in your bible any less than a Christian in terms of demands met? How is he/she any less of a being for still being a good person and not believing?
It's easy to conform one's beliefs to the majority out of social convenience and assume something that is widely accepted without proof, so I don't understand what kind of hurdles you people are jumping.
How is it easier for an atheist to be a good person, when he has no incentive to do so? You've got fire, brimstone and an eternal void to compel to you goodness, but there is nothing forcing an atheist to act ethically.
Maybe it's a foreign concept to you, but it is entirely possible for some people to act right without anything compelling them to do so; not everybody is a horse pulled by carrot, so I really think your arrogance is unjustified.
Might want to read a couple posts above, that was exactly the point he was trying to make.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
Why should you or I give a damn what a majority thinks about anything. read, learn think, reason, decide, then act. Listen to what others think and mull it through your mind, rinse and repeat. One's spirtuality should not be subject to vote.
My view of scripture wa sthe dominant view for at least the first 500 years of the Church. then Augustine and politics came along, and now the majority position damns 90% of humanity that has ever lived to eternal torture. I believe that is unscriptural, spits in the face of a loving God, and gives people an excuse to hate one another.
I have had the same stuff thrown at me, and rejected it. It wasn't until I actually chased down the evidence myself and took the time to come to my own conclusions that I came to faith.
An infinite being with infinite love forgives finite sin. Done. As He said, It is Finished. He did not say It is finished....but ummm....you gotta do X.
Any exhortations made by others, any threats made, any statements made must be viewed in light of the infinite nature of God's Grace.
Interesting, it appears that we've had thoughts along the same lines, but came to a different conclusion. I always had been bothered by those same concepts. When I learned about the Nicean council, and thought about what the existance of such actually meant, particularly at that time and place in history, it led me to conclude that the Roman Catholic Church, and subsequently its progeny, was flawed at its roots in one of the worst ways possible. The Church's role in society today gave me no indication that matters had changed, except that they had a little less direct control.
I believe the primary turning point down the path I chose to take was that I could find no rational reason for a benevolent god to abandon his people without an untainted guide.
Hmmm. What is this tainted guide of which you speak?
If you mean the Church, then it is merely sinful human nature asserting itself time and again. If you mean the Bible, well, it is what it is -- it is not really a "guide," as such, but a testimony of God's interaction with a set of humans. It is more than and less than any guide.
But for a moment, let us imagine God leaving us something like a perfect guide. What would that do to Liberty? It would destroy it.
Just as irrevocable proof of God would also destroy freedom. Destroy freedom you destroy love. Destroy love and you destroy the reason why man was created.
That'd just suck.
Now if you do not believe that a good creed was established at Nicea, I would disagree with you. If you do not agree with the Canon of the new testament 9which was actually established by later ecumenical councils I believe), I would also disagree. The Bible we have is that which people could agree to with near unanimity, and the other gospels and epistles while interesting, could not be verified and would have made the Bible much more tainted.
A really GREAT book on this is The Canon of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger. That and his other book, The Text of the New Testament are indispensible if you really want a very well researched history of the Bible.
Either way you do have a guide. It's called the Holy Spirit. You are however free to misuse it, lie about it, fake it, and so on -- again, God will never remove your freedom -- but it's there ready to counsel both of us whenever we ask it to. We just have to listen.
Like Yoda says...you will know, when you are calm, at peace.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I respectfully disagree. I see zero demands. All demands were met by Christ on the Cross. Buddhism has some. Some is more than zero.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting, but how is an atheist that adheres to most of the morals found in your bible any less than a Christian in terms of demands met? How is he/she any less of a being for still being a good person and not believing?
It's easy to conform one's beliefs to the majority out of social convenience and assume something that is widely accepted without proof, so I don't understand what kind of hurdles you people are jumping.
How is it easier for an atheist to be a good person, when he has no incentive to do so? You've got fire, brimstone and an eternal void to compel to you goodness, but there is nothing forcing an atheist to act ethically.
Maybe it's a foreign concept to you, but it is entirely possible for some people to act right without anything compelling them to do so; not everybody is a horse pulled by carrot, so I really think your arrogance is unjustified.
Might want to read a couple posts above, that was exactly the point he was trying to make.
Yup, Christianity has little to do with being good. In fact, Christianity assumes we are flawed, and will do bad. We therefore need forgiveness. God forgives us, and will raise us, and will call us to glory. Why? Because He loves us.
To prove this to us, He took the very essence of Himself (known Biblically as the "Word" of God, meaning his full expression of Himself), clothed it in Human form, had this being live a complete human life, then this being offered Himself up as human sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice one can imagine, to show that we never need to do anything again to "get in good" with God.
No religion says this exactly or completely. Buddhism says you must work your butt off for "enlightenment," which leads to Nirvana, which ends the cycle of life/death/rebirth.
Islam says you must obey God's will. Well, not exactly. The Sufis and many other Muslims have grasped Muhammed's earliest writings, where He also speaks of the infinite mercy of God.
Judaism is definitly unclear on this, but classical Judaism required sacrifice. Many modern Jews lean towards my way of thinking on this -- that God will eventually embrace all. Many orthodox Jews believe you need to atone yearly, although many believe as I do that atonement, like repentance, isn't what "saves you," it just brings you closer to God, and that's a good thing.
I can find a hint of what I am talking about in MANY creeds of many faiths; but nowhere is it so clear where God ponies up and takes the Hits Himself for the sins of man.
It makes sense too, when you think about it. Eden was a set-up, or so it looks like one. God sets man up with a babe, gives Him free will, and says, "don't do this." well.....
famous last words. God gave man the opportunity to Sin, in the name of liberty. Of course, he did. That brought a whole lot of problems, BUT it was us being free.
God in Christ is telling us He knows, it's His creation and ultimately he pays the penalty. That's more than fair. he then raised up that being, showing us we should have hope, eventually, all shall be restored.
Now of course these are my musings on this stuff, but I am far from alone. Lots of folks feel as I do on these things, or at least similarly.
Should you sin? Of course not. Should you live by what God wants you to do? Of course -- it means living to your highest potential. It means always love God, yourself and others as God loves YOU, which means in an agape kinda way -- which is like a perfect father loves his son, that overflowing, self-sacrificing, deep, never ending love.
Yes, it's impossible -- but if you and I could actually do that we would have a kick ass life no matter what happened to us. We would know an inner peace that was perfect.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I just thinking of demands,and what God demands or will except.Its not directed at anyone, its what i was thinking.And yes it's nice to see that this thread hasn't turned it flame fest.
Almighty God has the authority and right to demand anything He wants, and further, who can stop Him? (Isaiah 43:13) God does grant freedom of choice. We have the choice to submit to His authority or refuse His demands.speaking of demands.
Genesis 4. God rejected Cain’s offering because Cain rejected God’s demand – God demanded that a lamb be sacrificed, but Cain presented fruit.Now i guess you could put accept their if you want.Even though Jesus knows our innermost thoughts, He does not judge us on the basis of this knowledge. He judges us on the basis of our actions because our actions reflect our choices and our decisions! This is a key point: God does not judge us on the basis of what we believe, but instead judges us on the basis of what we do about our belief.
Faith is a " verb " action is a critical part of Faith.
The atheist has faith to, much like when the space shuttle is on the launch pad the guidence system has not kick in yet,but when it gets of the pad the guidence system kicks in,they have faith that its going to work...
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
The above statement makes a good point. That being....I'm confident enough in my OWN beliefs, that I do not feel a need to "discuss" (which usually means CONVINCE you...regardless of the side) where I feel you are in error.
If you have confidence in your own beliefs, regardless which side of the "fence" they come down on.....what need do you have to "discuss" (see above likely definition of said word) those beliefs with someone who has differing beliefs? Go discuss (regular meaning of the word) with someone who SHARES your beliefs.
One of the reasons people react to this sort of topic, in what is often perceived as a negative way, is because generally these "discussions," aren't discussions at all and weren't intended to be. They were intended to prove why one person is "right" and one is "wrong." This goes for both sides of this issue.
The need to discuss, regular sense, comes from a need to expand on those and refine them. Usually the people that are "confident" in their beliefs are driven by semi ignorance, hence the need to "win" an argument and/or only "discuss" with people that share the same beliefs. I mean really what's the point to discuss with someone that has the same beliefs apart from reaffirmation?
Refinement of a belief comes when it meets an opposition, in a discussion it means that you actually have to THINK why do you believe what you believe and by doing that you can spot inconsistencies and either fix them or abandon the belief all together. Yes in a discussion someone "wins" and someone "loses" but that means little. If you goal is to expand your knowledge then noone is really losing.
I have YET to meet an atheist OR a Christian that has the goal of "expanding their knowledge" when entering into one of these so-called "discussions."
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
I have three co-workers with whom I usually discuss religion (and politics). One is Catholic, one is Muslim, and one is born again. I will refrain from disclosing what I am.
The discussions do not center around religion, but rather around a specific point of a religion. And they do not itterate that point, but are a series of questions regarding that point. Eventually, through that series of questions, inconsistencies occur.
For example, the born again believes that Christ died for our sins, and only thru belief in Jesus Christ is your soul saved. Obviously the Catholic, the Muslim, and myself would take exception to this, all for different reasons. So we talk about this point.
We ask him how someone could believe that Jesus dies for their sins, and accept God, if, by your actions, you continue to sin, and make no effort to live as God would like you to live. Eventually the born again sees the incongruity with saying you believe, but not acting as you believe, and reinforces the belief of the Catholic, the Muslim, and myself that actions do matter. Pror to that he had argued actions did NOT matter. That a murderer could continue to commit murder and as long as he believed that Jesus died for his sins he would ascend to heaven. By the way, the Muslim opposed this view, and asked whether the man that uses a suicide belt to kill on an Israeli bus will go to heaven if he believes in Jesus, rather than being a Muslim. These really can be funny and interesting discussions.
The same is true of creationism and evolution. If God created everything, did he then not create science? And if God created science, did he not create evolution? So, could evolution be part of God's plan?
Same is true for homosexuality. If God created everything, did he create things such as sin? If God created things such as sin, did God also create things such as homosexuality? If Jesus died for our sins, did Jesus die for things like sin and homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin in God's eyes? Or is that man's interpretation?
Is it possible to believe in God, but not believe in Man's interpretation of God?
Explore as questions, debate the questions, and follow the debate through to a conclusion. If you wish to debate whether Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or unbelief are correct, all you will do is engage in the old "my religion is correct and your's is wrong" endless debate.
I haven't read as many as I would like. For example I haven't read CS Lewis. I don't know if the books I have are as good as yours since I have greek versions of them and analyses by Greek authors
(Back from the time that i wasn't trilingual). For example I have read a lot of treatises by Origenis (I hope that is the correct name in engish).
I do however studied the bible with a bit of help from the theology university libraries and with what help I could find from the people there. And I do believe that many things should come from ones own intellect and experiences ,not simply by what other people wrote.
I never said that faith doesn't require evidence though. "Π?στευε και μη, ερε?να" "No matter if you believe or not, study" to quote the original greek phrase. Faith without evidence in my opinion is worthless to begin with.
As to how close I evaluated the evidence. I want to believe that I have at least average intelligence and deduction skills but I am not a fool to believe that I have found everything i need. Simply because for one thing I find, be from an apologetic or other philosophical treatise, another question is born. I have a long way to go yet till I find something definite for sure. The journey is pleasant though.
PS. Because for some reason I have the suspicion I gave the impression I am an atheist, no I am not. I don't have yet strong convictions on either side to put a tag for something.
PS2. I think I saw somewhere in this thread that Buddish is a less demanding religion. I think the person that said it has to check it a bit more. Buddism is even more demanding than most religions.
Ah, sorry I was mistaken about you. With all the viciousness on this site from the atheists it gets tedious, and I lose siight of who believs what.
CS Lewis was not exactly great apologist (although he does present some interseting arguments in is writings), but his spiritual journey, which was similar to mine, was a lifetime of evidence and debate over such things, primarily with Tolkein and Charles Williams. there was nothing "irrational" about what those guys did.
I have nothing against people who are not convinced enough by the evidence to believe -- what I do vehemently disagree with is those who make an a priori claim that faith, and believers in Jesus, are by definition irrational, or have something wrong with them intellectually. That is what Sabian said in this thread and in many others, and what I said was in that context.
That is the attitude that is held by many of the posters around here and its sad, since it destroys the discussion from the outset with its bigoted nature.
As to "demanding," Christianity demands NOTHING. God has done it all. In terms of Buddhism, it is EXTREMELY demanding. Committing oneself to Buddhism is a lifetime of work towards enlightenment.
I find much in Buddhism that is true (although I am more of a Taoism than a Buddhist in tersm of eastern thought), and much that I try and practice that in no way conflicts with my entire spritual worldview, but it is extremely demanding if one chooses to practice.
Oh boy, here we go.
"With all the viciousness from the atheists ..."
Fisher, as always, playing the victim. "Everyone who disagrees with me is just mean!"
Remember what I told you some time ago. You are always in my prayers and when you are ready to heal, I'm here for you.
(as Fishermage pushes his "I win" button once again).
(as oldaddy attempts to hijack and trash a thread through trolling once again.)
This WAS a good thread. Pity some folks simply want to destroy conversation and wreck intelligent discussion here through childish personal vendetta.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I guess im going to have to use the old saying.... If you believe in god and when you die there is no god what have you lost? Nothing... If you dont belive in god and you die what have you lost? Everything....
The choice is yours ..... So why take a chance.....
played M59,UO,lineage,EQ,Daoc,Entropia,SWG,Horizons,Lineage2.EQ2,Vangaurd,Irth online, DarkFall,Star Trek
and many others that did not make the cut or i just plain forgetting about.
Good old pascal's wager. I don't find it very compelling, at least analytically. Threat doesn't bring me to belief in something -- only the evidence does.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I am not saying carbon dating is wrong, I just believe the time frame is way off. Yes there may be scientific methods, however, someone thought of how old that layer or rock is and then the assumption was born for that. How do you know for certian, that layer of rock is 4 million years old? Was there a man, living and recorded it 4 million years ago? No.
This is where I stopped reading this thread. This person obviously does not understand carbon dating and radioactive half life. He'll acknowledge the existence of hydrogen atoms even though he has not actually seen one himself. BUT He will deny the existence of evolution and the fossil record even though he has seen fossils of dinosaurs (Satan placed trilobite fossils everywhere to TEST YOUR FAITH!)
Why can't god have created man through evolution? Why can't the mysteries of science bring us closer to god?
Am I to take the bible literally?
If you want me to believe in your god please explain the fossil record to me. Please explain how Johah survived 3 days and nights in the belly of a fish. If after the great flood, the sons of Noah populated the 3 great continents (Europe, Asia and Africa) where did the Aztecs and the Native Americans come from? Leviticus talks about the rules of slave ownership...
Exodus 21:1-4 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
There are so many crazy stories in a book that was written in a time when people thought the earth was flat and that witches sank.
When ever I get into this discussion people tell me "well... the bible says.." and then it stops there.
Like love, you can't fake faith. I believe in what Jesus stands for but I'm not convinced he was who he says he was no more than I'm convinced David Koresh was who he said he was. Science can provide empirical data to support facts and theories. People of faith provide the bible. That is why it is called "faith".
You either believe or you don't.
This subject is always like two slow rolling trains moving toward each other and it ends up being the proverbial train wreck.
Hmmm. What is this tainted guide of which you speak?
If you mean the Church, then it is merely sinful human nature asserting itself time and again. If you mean the Bible, well, it is what it is -- it is not really a "guide," as such, but a testimony of God's interaction with a set of humans. It is more than and less than any guide.
But for a moment, let us imagine God leaving us something like a perfect guide. What would that do to Liberty? It would destroy it.
Just as irrevocable proof of God would also destroy freedom. Destroy freedom you destroy love. Destroy love and you destroy the reason why man was created.
That'd just suck.
Now if you do not believe that a good creed was established at Nicea, I would disagree with you. If you do not agree with the Canon of the new testament 9which was actually established by later ecumenical councils I believe), I would also disagree. The Bible we have is that which people could agree to with near unanimity, and the other gospels and epistles while interesting, could not be verified and would have made the Bible much more tainted.
A really GREAT book on this is The Canon of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger. That and his other book, The Text of the New Testament are indispensible if you really want a very well researched history of the Bible.
Either way you do have a guide. It's called the Holy Spirit. You are however free to misuse it, lie about it, fake it, and so on -- again, God will never remove your freedom -- but it's there ready to counsel both of us whenever we ask it to. We just have to listen.
Like Yoda says...you will know, when you are calm, at peace.
Both really. The Church in my view is particularly unreliable because it was founded on the principle of giving men power, and still continues to serve that purpose.
The Bible itself is less clear cut, it was written by mankind, the first portion by and for a crude, nearly barbaric nomadic race like thousands of others, then the following books by dozens of individuals whose motives remain unclear and contradictory in nature. Finally both parts were heavily edited by men who wanted a new means to solidify control of a rapidly destabilizing empire. With any other text, any of those three would have been enough to make me chuck it in the trash if it failed to be entertaining as pure fiction. The one thing that makes me hesitate in that regard is the fact that it continues to hold a few good lessons on living life well.
P.S. I still wonder why the Nicean councils threw out the story of Lillith. I'm debating between a few wives twisting ears, and them deciding to be a little less obvious with the chauvinistic principles.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway