Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did Buddha prophecy about Jesus?

13»

Comments

  • FaxxerFaxxer Member Posts: 3,247
    Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

    Originally posted by Fishermage

    Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

    Originally posted by Fishermage

    Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

    Originally posted by Fishermage

    Originally posted by DeserttFoxx


    Religion is a sicknes, a mind warping, crutch. A series of thoughts and ideals clung too by weaker men and exploited by the evil ones.  And while religion has some noble ideas in theory, every great war, tradgedy and massacre can be traced back to some religion, all religions, every one of them have their demons. These arent just my beliefs, they are fact.
    It doesnt even matter if buddha or whatever fat man was being confused for him prophecized the comming of a white man with blonde hair in blue eyes being born in the heart of isreal. Most people dont even know that the story of Jesus is just a spin off of the story of Osiris and the virgin Isis and her son Horus. A black pharroh in egypt,t he story of jesus is the exact same story, word for word with some key substitutions. The story originated 5000 years before the birth of christ.
     
    This doesnt mean jesus was bullshit or that he was blakc, it just goes to show all religions are fairy tales used to govern uncivilized man and the greatest tragedy is that people still use that shit as a crutch in the world today.

     

    What if you are wrong and there is a God, and Jesus was his son, and was crucified and resurrected? Either these things are facts or they are not. What if you are wrong about the facts?

    How do you know you are not?

    I have spent a lifetime studying the myths you are discussing, and find your interpretation 9which mine used to be quite similar by the way) to be lacking. How deeply have you studied the claims you are making and the arguments against them, or different interpretations of what you are saying?

     

    What if i am wrong, im quite certain we are all fucking wrong about god, the after life, heaven and hell and every other uncertainty we claim with aboslute certainty we know all about. You dont know a damn thing about god the same way i dont.

    What i do know is, i am content with not knowing what happens after death, unlike most religions which just choose to make shit up. Heaven and hell is absolute garbage, somethng used to govern man with fear, if you are good in life you go someplace good if you are bad you pay for it, make sense yeah, but living your life in fear doesnt make youa  great person, being religious doesnt make you better then anyone, it just means you would go around killing people, or raping people or whatever because nobody said you would be punished for it.

    That is basically the purpose of it, hell, i can imagine a bunch of noblemen and politicians back in the day scheming around a big stone table with some mead making up the rules and calling it "Quotes from god". It started off great too; If you kill someone, you goto hell, if you steal, you goto hell.... then they started getting a little crazy, if you disrespect your parents you goto hell, if you commit adultary you goto hell, if you create a false idol of your god you goto hell, the one that seems to fly right over christians heads since they all seem to worship their tortured lord on a cross, why the son of god would like to be remembered in his worst hour is beyond me.

    But yes, what if i am wrong, what if jesus did die and was ressurected... but what if you are wrong, what if his name wasnt Jesus, and there was no god.. IN FACT, his name was Kalel. and he could fly.. and he was super strong, and he didnt turn water into wine but he moved so fast that he was able to give people that illusion, and his great stories traversed time and he what we regard as the man of steel today,

    That's right! What if Jesus H. Christ was not Jesus, but just a mix up, but he was actually Kalel from krypton, and it wasnt Lucifer that was cause shit and had to be banished but Lex Luther. I think i am on to soemthing, i mean those old sand text get old and degraded, text get garbled, it could happen, in fact i am quite certain I am right and all other religions are wrong, it was superman who was our saviour and not christ.

     

    You cant really prove me worng the same way i cant prove you wrong, unless god has spoken to you directly. But hey, god is all forgiving, so even if i am wrong, i am in no jepardy of being punished for it, according to the rules god will forgive me if i repend on my death bed, so i got some time to be convinced. Well even if i dont repent chances are i will still get in too whatever VIP after life club that is waiting.

     

    A life time.. geez, i would bash the chruch so much if they just spend a life time cleaning up their shit, their track record for depraved behaviour just keeps growning. I know the catholic church is the oldest Man Boy club but come on, lets at least pretend they dont condone rampant pedophila, instead of just shuffling their rapist.... i mean priests from church to church, while claiming to be the sheppards of men.

     

    So you simply don't care about truth as such?

     

    You are asking me for fact, proof and truth, are we still talking about religion the one and only thing in this world governed 100% on the currancy known as faith, Which is the direct absence of proof, fact and truth?

     

    Correct me if i am wrong.

     

    The only needed truth is, you can througha  dart into an historical book and you can find the chatholic church or whatever diety happens to be in control at the time doing some attrocity in the name of god, and never god him self showing him self too give a pat on teh back to his loyal subjects.

    Had you read the thread, I already corrected you.

    That's not what the word faith means. The word we translate as "faith" in the bible is the Greek word pistis, which means, to be convinced by the evidence. It doesn't mean what you think it does.

    I am convinced, by the evidence, that there is a God, that Jesus  is His Son, that He died on the Cross and was resurrected. I do not know this with 'absolute certainty," but I don't know anything with 'absolute certainty." I do, however, feel the evidence FOR this proposition is better than the evidence against it, after years of study.

    Why do you keep bringing up the Catholic Church? They have nothing to do with this discussion. I am not a Catholic, and I am not about to defend them. That would be like attacking all athiests by attacking communism. It's a straw man.

     

     

     

    1. 1faith (noun)

    2. 2faith (transitive verb)

    3. article of faith

    4. faith healing

    5. good faith



    Main Entry:

    1faith Listen to the pronunciation of 1faith

    Pronunciation:

    ?f?th

    Function:

    noun

    Inflected Form(s):

    plural faiths Listen to the pronunciation of faiths ?f?ths, sometimes ?f?thz

    Etymology:

    Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide

    Date:

    13th century

    1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

    synonyms see belief

    — on faith

    : without question <took everything he said on faith>

    Learn more about "faith" and related topics at Britannica.com

    See a map of "faith" in the Visual Thesaurus

    Find Jobs in Your City

    Pronunciation Symbols



    Share this entry: Share this word with digg Share this word with reddit Share this word with technorati Share this word with del.icio.us Share this word with furl Share this word with stumbleupon Share this word with google Share this word with blinklist Share this word with newsvine Share this word with facebook Share this word with myspace

    Link to this page:



    Cite this page:

    MLA Style

    "faith." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008.

    Merriam-Webster Online. 2 December 2008

    <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith>;

    APA Style

    faith. (2008). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

    Retrieved December 2, 2008, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

     

    There's my dictionary, wheres yours?

     

    I will take evidence however, if you can prove to me Jesus was alive i will at a minimum, apologize for saying he doesnt exist, i will however call him an asshole for not keeping his flock in check. I say catholic church because that happens to be the religon of choice in america, but i pretty much condemned every religion, so dont worry i didnt leave yours out.

     

    Ps.. you corrected me? I am begining to remember why i have you blocked.

    Jesus is in World History books guy, so you can start your apology now.

     

  • SharajatSharajat Member Posts: 926
    Originally posted by MarleVVLL


    Just for fun, the Christian and Jewish faith would both be rendered useless if the first few chapters of Genesis was not literal. That does not mean that the first few chapters were 100% chronological, but if Adam really did not exist then the entire premise of the Abrahamic covenant > Christ is a man made supertistion. The entire Christian faith rests upon the Abrahamic convenant which stemmed from Adam. Jesus has to be a literal decendant of a literal Adam for Christianity to work. There is much to say on such a topic, mainly regarding redemption and the narritive of such an epic drama, but I'll leave it there for now as I am running late for class.
    Blessings and please excuse my spelling errors! :)

    Well the entire section is so obviously metaphorical that I really don't know what to say to this.  Even ignoring the wealth of real world evidence, the first and second chapters of Genesis obviously disagree. 

    There was a common ancestor for all humans at some point in the past, probably 9-12k years ago, so I guess you could call him Adam.  Though he was hardly the 'first' human. 

    In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

    -Thomas Jefferson

  • murdera2k6murdera2k6 Member UncommonPosts: 474

     It's funny,  we muslims believe he was prophesised in there. anyway on the matter of the existent of god:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2s14T6x5AM

    and the buddha one:

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88TvfjBIOpk&feature=related

    "If they can make Penicillin out of mouldy bread, they can sure make something out of you," - Muhammed Ali

  • MarleVVLLMarleVVLL Member UncommonPosts: 905
    Originally posted by Sharajat


    Well the entire section is so obviously metaphorical that I really don't know what to say to this.  Even ignoring the wealth of real world evidence, the first and second chapters of Genesis obviously disagree. 
    There was a common ancestor for all humans at some point in the past, probably 9-12k years ago, so I guess you could call him Adam.  Though he was hardly the 'first' human. 

     

    I don't have time to write a great apologetic since it is past my bedtime, but I'll try to comment accordingly.

    The book of Genesis was written and meant to be understood as a literal narritve. That is basic hermanutics. The reason people have a check about the first and second chapters is because they think that chapter 1 and chapter 2 must be chronologically correct, when that is not the case. The first chapter is an overview of the creation process, and the 2nd chapter is a narrowing in of the start of the narritive of redemptive history; which is why it focuses so much on Adam, Eve and sin, etc.

    And, again, Adam must, no MUST, wait - MUST have been a literal human for Christianity and before then, Judiasm to function properly. Basically, if Adam didn't literally exist, then the punishment for my sins has not been paid for and I will burn in Hell forever. That is how big of an issue this is.

    Blessings,

    i study greek and latin

  • DraenorDraenor Member UncommonPosts: 7,918
    Originally posted by MarleVVLL

    Originally posted by Sharajat


    Well the entire section is so obviously metaphorical that I really don't know what to say to this.  Even ignoring the wealth of real world evidence, the first and second chapters of Genesis obviously disagree. 
    There was a common ancestor for all humans at some point in the past, probably 9-12k years ago, so I guess you could call him Adam.  Though he was hardly the 'first' human. 

     

    I don't have time to write a great apologetic since it is past my bedtime, but I'll try to comment accordingly.

    The book of Genesis was written and meant to be understood as a literal narritve. That is basic hermanutics. The reason people have a check about the first and second chapters is because they think that chapter 1 and chapter 2 must be chronologically correct, when that is not the case. The first chapter is an overview of the creation process, and the 2nd chapter is a narrowing in of the start of the narritive of redemptive history; which is why it focuses so much on Adam, Eve and sin, etc.

    And, again, Adam must, no MUST, wait - MUST have been a literal human for Christianity and before then, Judiasm to function properly. Basically, if Adam didn't literally exist, then the punishment for my sins has not been paid for and I will burn in Hell forever. That is how big of an issue this is.

    Blessings,



     

    This is truth...to say nothing of the Hebrew language...which also further proves this point.

    Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.

  • billiebillie Member UncommonPosts: 400

    Genesis (Bereishith) was the truncated history of the Hebrews told around campfires, concluding with Joseph. Moshe's story does not start till Exodus (Shemoth) about 1200bc.

    ...
    btw MarleVVLL, christianity is NOT about "following Christ" it is about replacing Christ's teachings with saul's dogma, the hijacking of the Jew religion and reliance on a gentile fabricated and largely anonymous nt (new testament)... from the intentional misnaming Christ as jesus to the misrepresenting the dogma of saul as bona fide teachings of Christ.

    Throughout Galatians, I & II Corinthians and Philippians epistles saul tries to defend his "ministry to the gentiles" against the officials Disciple James and the Jerusalem group sent after him condemning saul as misrepresenting Christ's teachings.

    i have specifics i can email you if you would like to research further.

    ...
    ps Sharajat
    The last major ice age was about 19K yrs ago/ Pleistocene epoch, homo sapiens (cro-magnon) go back at least 200K yrs and before them there were HS Neandertal, H. Erectus, H. Ergaster, H. Georgicus, and H. Habilis 2 million years ago into the Pliocene epoch.

    image

  • FishermageFishermage Member Posts: 7,562
    Originally posted by billie


    Genesis (Bereishith) was the truncated history of the Hebrews told around campfires, concluding with Joseph. Moshe's story does not start till Exodus (Shemoth) about 1200bc.
    ...

    btw MarleVVLL, christianity is NOT about "following Christ" it is about replacing Christ's teachings with saul's dogma, the hijacking of the Jew religion and reliance on a gentile fabricated and largely anonymous nt (new testament)... from the intentional misnaming Christ as jesus to the misrepresenting the dogma of saul as bona fide teachings of Christ.
    Throughout Galatians, I & II Corinthians and Philippians epistles saul tries to defend his "ministry to the gentiles" against the officials Disciple James and the Jerusalem group sent after him condemning saul as misrepresenting Christ's teachings.
    i have specifics i can email you if you would like to research further.
    ...

    ps Sharajat

    The last major ice age was about 19K yrs ago/ Pleistocene epoch, homo sapiens (cro-magnon) go back at least 200K yrs and before them there were HS Neandertal, H. Erectus, H. Ergaster, H. Georgicus, and H. Habilis 2 million years ago into the Pliocene epoch.

    Actually, since you said this stuff publicly, I'd like to see a public defense of what you say. Which specific teachings that Paul taught were so very different from that which Christ taught. Please, share those specifics with all of us.

  • MarleVVLLMarleVVLL Member UncommonPosts: 905
    Originally posted by Draenor 
    This is truth...to say nothing of the Hebrew language...which also further proves this point.

     

    A look into Hebrew is not needed for this discussion. Plus, even if we did look at it, it wouldn't solve our problem because the issue being debated isn't what the text says, but how one interprets the text.

    That is where hermanutics comes into play. . . which I already mentioned.

    Blessings,

    i study greek and latin

  • MarleVVLLMarleVVLL Member UncommonPosts: 905
    Originally posted by billie


    Genesis (Bereishith) was the truncated history of the Hebrews told around campfires, concluding with Joseph. Moshe's story does not start till Exodus (Shemoth) about 1200bc
    (((Who is Moshe? Are you referring to Moses? Also, I know that Muslims change names of different Bible characters so if indeed you are a Muslim then that is why we disagree on the origin of the book of Genesis and who wrote it. According to Biblical scholarship, Moses wrote the Penetauch (first five books of the Torah/OT))). 
    ...

    btw MarleVVLL, christianity is NOT about "following Christ" it is about replacing Christ's teachings with saul's dogma, the hijacking of the Jew religion and reliance on a gentile fabricated and largely anonymous nt (new testament)... from the intentional misnaming Christ as jesus to the misrepresenting the dogma of saul as bona fide teachings of Christ.
    (((You're very mistaken. Christianity .. CHRISTianity is indeed following Christ as Paul makes it clear that he POINTS to another, just as John the Baptist did. Jesus is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE - and NOONE comes to Father except through HIM. That is a classic verse but it is true. I could go on and on defending this position but I'll keep it there for now. Also, Peter defends Paul as an apostle in his epistles as well. The gathering in Acts 15 also shows the cooperation of the apostolic leaders of the day and they accepted Paul. )))
    Throughout Galatians, I & II Corinthians and Philippians epistles saul tries to defend his "ministry to the gentiles" against the officials Disciple James and the Jerusalem group sent after him condemning saul as misrepresenting Christ's teachings.
    (((Ah.. what? James and Paul were never in disagreement. If you're referring to the council of Acts 15 as I mentioned above, there is no disagreement. In fact, there is no record of James and Paul engaging in a specific conversation. Paul was not misrepresenting Christ's teachings, other people were (Antiochians). That was the entire context of Acts 15.)))
    i have specifics i can email you if you would like to research further.
    (((Only if you want a long apologetic :))))

     

    i study greek and latin

  • GameloadingGameloading Member UncommonPosts: 14,182
    Originally posted by Fishermage

    Originally posted by Gameloading

    Originally posted by Fishermage

    Originally posted by Gameloading

    Originally posted by Fishermage

    Originally posted by Gameloading

    Originally posted by Fishermage

    Originally posted by sniperg


    Is there a point though in debating religion in the first place?
    For every point a theist can make about his religion there is always a counter point and vice versa. Quoting scriptures won't change that fact in the slightest wether god or jesus is real or not. So unless some dead people come back to life and tell us what is there, everyone can believe whatever deity they so choose including cthulhu if they are feeling kinky.
    I never really get the whole "my religion is better than yours" thing. I mean if you believe it what do you care what the others believe?
     

    But what if someone DID come back to life? If that's true, wouldn't that make what that someone said fairly important and worth considering?

    Christianity is based upon witness testimony of people who saw such an event and shared it with one another, and the world.

    Christianity all comes down to the credibility of those witnesses and that testimony. I find more than sufficient evidence for that.

    That's because you have very low standards to what counts as evidence. In fact, what you consider as "evidence" can barely be considered evidence at all.

     

    Ah, the old ad hominem attack. How novel.

    And how deeply have you looked at the evidence yourself? How many serious books on apologetics have you read? Which ones?



     

    What you and I consider evidence are two very different things. you consider "Well someone wrote a bunch of people said they saw it so it MUST BE true, even though it goes against the laws of physics". I only consider hard, scientific evidence as true evidence, which christianity does not provide especialy when compared to much more plausible theories such as evolution.

     

    I believe in evolution -- so do most Christians, and most theists. That has nothing to do with this discussion -- another typical red herring. In fact, it was the monotheistic worldview that gave rise to the very scientific method itself. It was the idea of a rational universe created by a rational God that directly led to the explosion of science that made the Western World.

    Scientific evidence is the only evidence? Well, that's just false. If it were, our history books would be empty. Observation means nothing? Then there is no astronomy either.

    When assessing historical evidence, one has a whole different set of parameters than when one is assessing scientific evidence.

    One first assesses the quality of the transmission of information. Then one assesses the crdibility of the people. What YOu are doing is illogical -- rejecting evidence outright because of a certain worldview. That is completely irrational.

    I will ask you again -- how many books on the subject have you read and which ones were they? Or are you simply arguing from ignorance?

     

    Evolution is in direct contradiction with Genesis,and yes, it has everything to do with the discussion.

    The problem with your "witness testimony" is that there is absolutely no hard evidence outside of those witness testimony. this is dead important as the claims made by these witnesses break the law physics. 

    Also, you do realise that every single religion in the world claims to have witness testimony, right? 

    Why should yours be true and all the others wrong? They obviously can't all be right.

    Heck, there are still people who claim to have seen the monster of loch ness and Bigfoot, I suppose you believe those as well?

    Ah, so you are a Biblical expert and you know the proper way to interpret genesis? Most Christians interpret Genesis as allegory and find NO contradiction between it and evolution. What makes you so sure the Fundamentalist interoretation of scripture is the correct one.

    What do you mean by "hard evidence?" There is no hard evidence of MOST of what we believe about history.

    Actually, no other religion makes the same or similar claims as Christianity. I will ask you again, how many books have you read on the subject? You seem to be extremely inexperienced in this area.

    I do not know whether or not those people saw bigfoot or the loch ness monster, but we are talking about a lot more people, and I don't know anyone who went to their death and held up under torture over bigfoot or the loch ness monster.

    I also don't know of people who talk about how, after evaluating the evidence for Bigfoot or teh Loch Ness Monster they came to a deep belief in it, and Bigfoot and teh Loch Ness monster then  changed their lives.

    Anyway, how many serious books on apologetics have you read? Still won't answer my basic question?

    I won't answer your basic questions because you're trying to argue the poster, not the point. it's completely irrelevant.

     

    You see thats the fun thing about the bible and christians, you can spin it around untill it fits your own personal needs. Whenever the evidence gets a bit to overwhelming the "It was just a metaphor!" card is pulled.

    There is actually plenty of evidence for many things I believe. There is not a shred of evidence for any law defying events claimed in the bible,none.

    Saying "Well they died for their belief" or "They changed their lives"is not a shred of evidence and again, I point you to the fact that these things happened with ALL religions. There are people daily willing to die for the Islam, just like there are people doing that for christianity and a whole bunch of other religions, so thats a very poor argument. Promises of paradise and threats of hellfire can do that to a person.

  • ThrakkThrakk Member Posts: 1,226

    the bible is okay in that it teaches moral code, but any historic or literal evidence that proves stuff in the bible actually happened should be taken with many grains of salt. It's all hearsay as far as I'm concerned. Anything can so easily be exaggerated.

    the sad thing is wars in the name of religion if the religion(s) involved teaches purely harmless moral principles.

  • FishermageFishermage Member Posts: 7,562
    Originally posted by Gameloading

    Originally posted by Fishermage

    Originally posted by Gameloading

    Originally posted by Fishermage

    Originally posted by Gameloading

    Originally posted by Fishermage

    Originally posted by Gameloading

    Originally posted by Fishermage

    Originally posted by sniperg


    Is there a point though in debating religion in the first place?
    For every point a theist can make about his religion there is always a counter point and vice versa. Quoting scriptures won't change that fact in the slightest wether god or jesus is real or not. So unless some dead people come back to life and tell us what is there, everyone can believe whatever deity they so choose including cthulhu if they are feeling kinky.
    I never really get the whole "my religion is better than yours" thing. I mean if you believe it what do you care what the others believe?
     

    But what if someone DID come back to life? If that's true, wouldn't that make what that someone said fairly important and worth considering?

    Christianity is based upon witness testimony of people who saw such an event and shared it with one another, and the world.

    Christianity all comes down to the credibility of those witnesses and that testimony. I find more than sufficient evidence for that.

    That's because you have very low standards to what counts as evidence. In fact, what you consider as "evidence" can barely be considered evidence at all.

     

    Ah, the old ad hominem attack. How novel.

    And how deeply have you looked at the evidence yourself? How many serious books on apologetics have you read? Which ones?



     

    What you and I consider evidence are two very different things. you consider "Well someone wrote a bunch of people said they saw it so it MUST BE true, even though it goes against the laws of physics". I only consider hard, scientific evidence as true evidence, which christianity does not provide especialy when compared to much more plausible theories such as evolution.

     

    I believe in evolution -- so do most Christians, and most theists. That has nothing to do with this discussion -- another typical red herring. In fact, it was the monotheistic worldview that gave rise to the very scientific method itself. It was the idea of a rational universe created by a rational God that directly led to the explosion of science that made the Western World.

    Scientific evidence is the only evidence? Well, that's just false. If it were, our history books would be empty. Observation means nothing? Then there is no astronomy either.

    When assessing historical evidence, one has a whole different set of parameters than when one is assessing scientific evidence.

    One first assesses the quality of the transmission of information. Then one assesses the crdibility of the people. What YOu are doing is illogical -- rejecting evidence outright because of a certain worldview. That is completely irrational.

    I will ask you again -- how many books on the subject have you read and which ones were they? Or are you simply arguing from ignorance?

     

    Evolution is in direct contradiction with Genesis,and yes, it has everything to do with the discussion.

    The problem with your "witness testimony" is that there is absolutely no hard evidence outside of those witness testimony. this is dead important as the claims made by these witnesses break the law physics. 

    Also, you do realise that every single religion in the world claims to have witness testimony, right? 

    Why should yours be true and all the others wrong? They obviously can't all be right.

    Heck, there are still people who claim to have seen the monster of loch ness and Bigfoot, I suppose you believe those as well?

    Ah, so you are a Biblical expert and you know the proper way to interpret genesis? Most Christians interpret Genesis as allegory and find NO contradiction between it and evolution. What makes you so sure the Fundamentalist interoretation of scripture is the correct one.

    What do you mean by "hard evidence?" There is no hard evidence of MOST of what we believe about history.

    Actually, no other religion makes the same or similar claims as Christianity. I will ask you again, how many books have you read on the subject? You seem to be extremely inexperienced in this area.

    I do not know whether or not those people saw bigfoot or the loch ness monster, but we are talking about a lot more people, and I don't know anyone who went to their death and held up under torture over bigfoot or the loch ness monster.

    I also don't know of people who talk about how, after evaluating the evidence for Bigfoot or teh Loch Ness Monster they came to a deep belief in it, and Bigfoot and teh Loch Ness monster then  changed their lives.

    Anyway, how many serious books on apologetics have you read? Still won't answer my basic question?

    I won't answer your basic questions because you're trying to argue the poster, not the point. it's completely irrelevant.

     

    You see thats the fun thing about the bible and christians, you can spin it around untill it fits your own personal needs. Whenever the evidence gets a bit to overwhelming the "It was just a metaphor!" card is pulled.

    There is actually plenty of evidence for many things I believe. There is not a shred of evidence for any law defying events claimed in the bible,none.

    Saying "Well they died for their belief" or "They changed their lives"is not a shred of evidence and again, I point you to the fact that these things happened with ALL religions. There are people daily willing to die for the Islam, just like there are people doing that for christianity and a whole bunch of other religions, so thats a very poor argument. Promises of paradise and threats of hellfire can do that to a person.

     

    There are more kinds of "evidence" than scentific. There is plenty of historical evidence for the events depicted in the gospels and attested to in the Acts of the Apostles as well. I would suggest you study rules of evidentiary procedure -- because YOUR definitions of what constitutes "evidence" are extremely limited.

    You won't asnwre my basic question because you have not studied what I am talking about at all.

    Now, as to the "metaphor card." it's not card, this is not a game, this is the quest for knowledge and truth --something I decided many years ago was something worth seeking out.

    The book we call the Bible is actually a library, the partial library of a people, and it was written by MANY authors, and the many books in it are just that -- separate people over the course of a VERY long time.

    It is data, nothing more -- historical data, and in order to understand that data you have to look at each piece and evaluate it in context. That which we call Genesis is one set of those writings that give an understanding of the people we are speaking about. Pre-Judaiism Sumerian creation myths changed to reflect a Universal creator.

    It speaks of a God who is willing to speak in the language of the people he is delivering His revelation to -- and if the ancient Sumarian-pre-Canaanite people of God told the Sumerian creation story around the campfire and hearth, then the Universal God who chooses a particular peopleto carry a particular revelation to them, he will do so in the manner of the people He is teaching.

    He will take their creation myth, a creation myth similar to most creation myths, and turn it toward Him. Instead of the Gos and Goddesses bring forth the Creation, but rather ONE God does so. In a sense God is turning to those people and saying hey dudes, *I* made that. get it?

    Similarly, each book in the Bible has its own writer, style, and meaning -- to be discussed and debated by those interested. The jewish teachers referred to this as halacha.

    Therefore, for any person to posit that certain parts are meant metaphorically, and to DEBATE that, and which parts are meant literally (like say the Gospels and Acts, which are witness accounts or collections of accounts of events people wanted recounted in the best way they could), it is a perfectly reasonable argument.

    I say, and many Christians say as well, that genesis is meant as mostly metaphor, although certainly some are obviously literal. Like God made the world (whether through the natural process we both believe in or not is also debated). It's not "playing a card," it is taking a position on something you are interested in.

    It is and that you disdain those who are convinced by evidence that you do not know nor have ever studied that is most sad here.It makes if difficult to actually have a discussion with you, since you continually lump us all together with various stereotypes, many of which are just plain wrong.

    Anyway, if you are ever up to the challenge, I suggest you go check out the sites I listed.

     

  • FishermageFishermage Member Posts: 7,562
    Originally posted by Thrakk


    the bible is okay in that it teaches moral code, but any historic or literal evidence that proves stuff in the bible actually happened should be taken with many grains of salt. It's all hearsay as far as I'm concerned. Anything can so easily be exaggerated.
    the sad thing is wars in the name of religion if the religion(s) involved teaches purely harmless moral principles.

     

    Any ancient document (or collection of documents) must be taken with many grains of salt, maybe some pepper and some lemon. There are criteria for doing such, imperfect criteria that we've developed over the years, and when they are applied to the stuff in the Bible, one sees it all stacks up VERY well vs any other documents from the same time.

    We find also that since it was recopied by so many people, we can cross check all the data, and between and among those, it stands up very well -- versus say, things by Pliny and Jospehus and Tacitus, guys we also read from that era.

    EVERYTHING we read must be ripped apart before we come to any conclusions, and yes that includes religious texts from various cultures, which usually are a mixed bag.

    The problem with religious texts is they are always, in some manner or another, to be "God-breathed" or some such, so people who believe in that faith tend to forget that a God who loves freedom will allow His imperfect prophets to make mistakes here and there. This leads to a false sense of security of knowledge which is downright silly.

    That's the view that does lead to religious war and is a pain in the butt.

     

  • ThrakkThrakk Member Posts: 1,226
    Originally posted by Fishermage

    Originally posted by Thrakk


    the bible is okay in that it teaches moral code, but any historic or literal evidence that proves stuff in the bible actually happened should be taken with many grains of salt. It's all hearsay as far as I'm concerned. Anything can so easily be exaggerated.
    the sad thing is wars in the name of religion if the religion(s) involved teaches purely harmless moral principles.

     

    Any ancient document (or collection of documents) must be taken with many grains of salt, maybe some pepper and some lemon. There are criteria for doing such, imperfect criteria that we've developed over the years, and when they are applied to the stuff in the Bible, one sees it all stacks up VERY well vs any other documents from the same time.

    We find also that since it was recopied by so many people, we can cross check all the data, and between and among those, it stands up very well -- versus say, things by Pliny and Jospehus and Tacitus, guys we also read from that era.

    EVERYTHING we read must be ripped apart before we come to any conclusions, and yes that includes religious texts from various cultures, which usually are a mixed bag.

    The problem with religious texts is they are always, in some manner or another, to be "God-breathed" or some such, so people who believe in that faith tend to forget that a God who loves freedom will allow His imperfect prophets to make mistakes here and there. This leads to a false sense of security of knowledge which is downright silly.

    That's the view that does lead to religious war and is a pain in the butt.

     

    "it all stacks up VERY well"

    -nope I don't believe this at all. and we all know that noah's arc and adam and eve is myth... why should I believe any of it? Why do you believe it stacks up very well and why should I believe that it stacks up very well because you believe it so???

     

    but it is not translation errors i'm talking about. how can anyone know whether the bible stuff is exaggerated when it was first written? i'm talking about the stuff with a little bit of historical evidence, and then people assume the bible's story behind it is exact. theres plenty of fiction in the bible already....

     

  • FishermageFishermage Member Posts: 7,562
    Originally posted by Thrakk

    Originally posted by Fishermage

    Originally posted by Thrakk


    the bible is okay in that it teaches moral code, but any historic or literal evidence that proves stuff in the bible actually happened should be taken with many grains of salt. It's all hearsay as far as I'm concerned. Anything can so easily be exaggerated.
    the sad thing is wars in the name of religion if the religion(s) involved teaches purely harmless moral principles.

     

    Any ancient document (or collection of documents) must be taken with many grains of salt, maybe some pepper and some lemon. There are criteria for doing such, imperfect criteria that we've developed over the years, and when they are applied to the stuff in the Bible, one sees it all stacks up VERY well vs any other documents from the same time.

    We find also that since it was recopied by so many people, we can cross check all the data, and between and among those, it stands up very well -- versus say, things by Pliny and Jospehus and Tacitus, guys we also read from that era.

    EVERYTHING we read must be ripped apart before we come to any conclusions, and yes that includes religious texts from various cultures, which usually are a mixed bag.

    The problem with religious texts is they are always, in some manner or another, to be "God-breathed" or some such, so people who believe in that faith tend to forget that a God who loves freedom will allow His imperfect prophets to make mistakes here and there. This leads to a false sense of security of knowledge which is downright silly.

    That's the view that does lead to religious war and is a pain in the butt.

     

    "it all stacks up VERY well"

    -nope I don't believe this at all. and we all know that noah's arc and adam and eve is myth... why should I believe any of it? Why do you believe it stacks up very well and why should I believe that it stacks up very well because you believe it so???

     

    but it is not translation errors i'm talking about. how can anyone know whether the bible stuff is exaggerated when it was first written? i'm talking about the stuff with a little bit of historical evidence, and then people assume the bible's story behind it is exact. theres plenty of fiction in the bible already....

     

    Sorry i wasn't clear enough. The parts that are meant to be taken as history stack up very well. The Gospels and such. There are parts of the Bible that are metaphor and myth and other parts that are not. That's a discipline in and of itself, as is evaluated all ancient documents.

    I believe it stacks up very well because I have evaluated the evidence, as have a lot of others, and found it stacks up very well. I THEN came to believe. I did not believe until I had spent over ten years studying these things.

    This is why I can understand why someone who isn't convnced by evidence they have not fully checked out yet. These things take time.

    At any rate if you want to see how the Bible, specifically the NT, remembering that the Bible isn't a book, but really a collection of books) stacks up against other ancient documents, there is plenty of information out there for you.

    A good start, if you are serious about it, would be Bruce Metzger's classic, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration ( www.borders.com/online/store/TitleDetail ), which esptablishes good reason to believe in what the documents say as to their authenticity.

    Then move on to the various other books on the subject, many of which can be found on the sites I linked above in an earlier post. This is not a five minute study. If you are scientific minded at all. it ought to take years. that being said could any study be more worthy than the quest for the Creator? Not if He is real.

Sign In or Register to comment.