|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted March 10, 2010 08:28 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 20:31, 10 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Based on what we now know, that the univese is not eternal and could not have produced itself out of absolute nothing without a cause, it is irrational to say anything other than the universe was not created by God.
This is exactly how brainwashing in the middle ages worked. Something happened.....you can't explain?...then of course it is GOD's work.
Like they did with solar eclipses that time --> we have been sinners!..So god will show us his power and turn of the light!
Wanna try something new Elodin, or wanna stay on this "middle ages" road?
I don't want to try the ignorance of the "new athesit" disciples of Dawkins, for sure.
The fact is current observations from Hubble and the COBE sattelite make it clear the universe had a beginning. That was the death of atheism as any pretense of a rational religion. All material things need a cause. That is the very basic foundation of science.
Atheists in their quest to establish "religion free" utopias would have brought about a greater darkness than man has ever known. Millions upon millions murdered by Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, Stalin, and other atheist tyrants. Fortunately for the world their kingdoms of ignorance and oppression came crashing down.
I'll stick with the enlightenment my God gives instead of the brainwashing of "new atheism", thank you.
@bixie
Quote:
you fool
Perhaps you could endeavor to restrain yourself from personal insults and converse in a more rational manner. Thanks.
Quote:
but what I love in fanatical evangelical christians is they treat Atheism and science like it's the same thing. I have noticed that Elodin's writing has the same rhetoric and style as Ray comfort or Kent hovind, both of whom think that the earth was created in 6 days and falsified PHD's in order to be taken more seriously. ray comfort even had the nerve to write an essay condemning charles darwin of being a nazi and put it in the updated version of origins of species.
Actually, I don't even know who those people are. And I have posted on a number of occastions why the 6 "days" of creation are "ages" instead of days.
Christianity is responsible for modern science. It is atheists who ignoring the implications of the laws of thermodynamics and the current observatsions that the universe had a beginning.
Lol, and a number of scientists have agendas of their own to push. Just look at the global warming debacle where "scientists" deleted data that proved they were lying.
____________
Revelation
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted March 11, 2010 09:26 AM |
|
Edited by bixie at 14:02, 11 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
but what I love in fanatical evangelical christians is they treat Atheism and science like it's the same thing. I have noticed that Elodin's writing has the same rhetoric and style as Ray comfort or Kent hovind, both of whom think that the earth was created in 6 days and falsified PHD's in order to be taken more seriously. ray comfort even had the nerve to write an essay condemning charles darwin of being a nazi and put it in the updated version of origins of species.
Actually, I don't even know who those people are. And I have posted on a number of occastions why the 6 "days" of creation are "ages" instead of days.
Christianity is responsible for modern science. It is atheists who ignoring the implications of the laws of thermodynamics and the current observatsions that the universe had a beginning.
Lol, and a number of scientists have agendas of their own to push. Just look at the global warming debacle where "scientists" deleted data that proved they were lying.
I would agree that christianity is responsible for alot of modern science... but not how you would see it.
During the middle ages, maps, telescopes, clocks and so on where created as a two fold process 1) for the church to understand god (which was the purpose of science then) 2) for the church to have more power in the everyday lives of the people (clocks being able to dictate times for prayer, work and meals) monks like Roger Bacon can be acredited for this, as they were provided with funding from the church for such proceeds.
law of thermodynamics which you are probably refering to (number 2) states that single celled lifeforms cannot developed within an ENCLOSED space due to limited energy, causing entropy to occure. Earth is not an enclosed space, and we constantly get energy from the sun. 2nd law of thermodynamics is defunct when it comes to discussions about religion.
also, it's a very dangerous stance to take on global warming. it is one of those "Everything to lose" stances if you're wrong.
Again, Also, Data proving global warming has come from Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, and many other high standing universities around the world, who are often at the forefront of research. Do you think that universities of such high standing would have risked their reputation of a theory that was a lie?
at the end of the day, I would much rather take my stance on global warming than the Slick, stupid, salesman sociopath that is the highlight of fox news.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 11, 2010 09:50 AM |
|
|
An addendum for atheism, reasonings and analytics.
German Philosopher Norbert Hoerster spoke in this context of the obligation to give reasons or evidence (comparable to those necessary at court):
"There are not enough rational reasons to believe in the Existance of God... Whoever claims the existance of X, not those who doubt or even deny the existance of X, must provide the prrof for their verdict. This is not only true, for example, for the existance of the yeti, it's true as well for the existance of God: Theists, who think it rational to believe in God, are epistemically obliged to support their believe with rational arguments."
I completely agree with and support this position.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted March 11, 2010 10:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The fact is current observations from Hubble and the COBE sattelite make it clear the universe had a beginning. That was the death of atheism as any pretense of a rational religion.
I have to disagree here. Only because the universe had a beginning (Do atheists really deny that??) doesn't mean the beginning has something to do with God. Same reason as written in my post above: Only because you can't explain something (currently!!), doesn't mean the correct answer is GOD.
Time will show...
Easy example (I may have brought up it once I guess):
Imagine a BOING 747 would have been seen in the air by Christopher Colombus when he landed in America. What would he have thought about this BIG thing? He can hardly keep an apple longer than 3 seconds in the air by throwing it, and such a big heavy monster can fly around no matter what. For sure GOD's work.
Imagine showing a torch to the inquisitors and switching it on and off. Do you think you would have survived loneger than 1 more day? For sure not, because this torch would have been declared as devils's work!
Imagine showing an X-Ray photography to George Washington.
All these examples show the same thing: People were just not prepared for those things at that time. And maybe we are not prepared for the answers to the beginning of the universe yet.
But time will show.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
GrayFace
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted March 11, 2010 11:09 AM |
|
Edited by GrayFace at 11:15, 11 Mar 2010.
|
JollyJoker, both those who state and those who deny existence of something are equally responsible for providing a proof or reasonable arguments. In the case of yeti the arguments are so obvious one doesn't even need to sound them - if yeti existed, many people must have seen them. In case of God there's no way to 'see' him.
Proofs aren't the only thing though. My reasoning is different. I have some minimal requirements for the world. If a world doesn't fit in them, the world makes no sense, because there's no hope for me. So, I reject such a case as inconsistent.
I believe in eternity, but disbelieve in eternal hell and god above me that requires obedience.
Quote:
The fact is current observations from Hubble and the COBE sattelite make it clear the universe had a beginning. That was the death of atheism as any pretense of a rational religion. All material things need a cause. That is the very basic foundation of science.
The Big Bang theory also leads to the conclusion that there was a beginning, I'm sure. It isn't a problem for atheistic position.
Quote:
Christianity is responsible for modern science. It is atheists who ignoring the implications of the laws of thermodynamics and the current observatsions that the universe had a beginning.
Not at all. You've been fooled by propaganda.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 11, 2010 11:13 AM |
|
|
All those claims and statements are based on pretty doubtful assumptions anyway.
I mean, consider the supposed obsession of the Bible God with His chosen people. I guess, all this would a lot more believable if the universe wasn't just so darn big. I mean, if it was only about humans and their souls and so on - why have such a big creation? It is reasonable to assume gazillions of other solar systems like ours with billion times billion "souls", some of them having died billions of years before - what's one system more or less, one LIFE more or less?
Why would one grain of sand on a very long beach would be special?
Life doesn't care about the individual, only about the preservation of life itself, does it?
Quote:
JollyJoker, both those who state and those who deny existence of something are equally responsible for providing a proof or reasonable arguments.
I don't see any reasoning for that position - it's illogical as well: it makes no sense to even ACKNOWLEDGE something, when people can give no reason why it should exist.
I try to establish this simple thing over a couple of pages now.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 11, 2010 11:24 AM |
|
|
To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted March 11, 2010 01:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The fact is current observations from Hubble and the COBE sattelite make it clear the universe had a beginning. That was the death of atheism as any pretense of a rational religion. All material things need a cause. That is the very basic foundation of science.
How exactly does the beginning of the universe make atheism lose pretense of being a rational religion?
Quote:
Atheists in their quest to establish "religion free" utopias would have brought about a greater darkness than man has ever known. Millions upon millions murdered by Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, Stalin, and other atheist tyrants. Fortunately for the world their kingdoms of ignorance and oppression came crashing down.
I find that atheism was quite peripheral to the totalitarian ideologies and the policies of said people. It also appears that you are making the incorrect assumption that all atheists advocate the purging of religion, know that this is not the case.
Quote:
Christianity is responsible for modern science.
Would you care to elaborate on that?
Quote:
Lol, and a number of scientists have agendas of their own to push.
Quite so and it doesn't stop at scientists, for many people like to obstruct information in order to push their own agendas. One needs to be careful out there to avoid getting fed with false or one sided information.
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 11, 2010 01:46 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 13:49, 11 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
Christianity is responsible for modern science.
Aren't christians suspected for destroying the great ancient library of ancient? I think we could have known a lot more now if it hadnt been destroyed. Oh well, all good things comes to an end.
Because the Agora trailer says it's a real story and I even read on wikipedia.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 11, 2010 03:04 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 15:10, 11 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
Which for you shouldn't matter. For you - succubi might exist, right? For you the Harry Potter world just behind the next railway station platform might exist as well - after all, who could prove that claim wrong?
So? You can't prove it wrong, can't prove it right.
I don't see what's so mysterious about that. It's called unknown.
And my opinion is, I don't care about it. Others might. 
Quote:
What you overlooking is, that all this imaginings are based on nothing except imagination.
No, a "nothing except imagination" would defy all common sense. Even the fact that these have common sense imbued in them means that they are not "just imagination" but subconscious experience too.
Well nevermind that the human mind itself is not "inventive" without any experiences/basis whatsoever, so it must come from somewhere other than "completely made up arbitrarily". Example: a person who imagines man-eating cars very strongly must have had some trauma with cars or something like that -- it's not "invented" totally arbitrarily. Therefore the distribution is completely unknown.
You seem to have a difficulty accepting that a lot of stuff, in the philosophical sense, is completely unknown. Mathematically/logically it's easy to find many absolute proofs but I think you know very well that there are many impossible things (both negative proofs and positive proofs) to claim as absolute in empirical world -- in fact, dare I say, ALL of them, not just "many".
Quote:
Why would one grain of sand on a very long beach would be special?
This is a perfect example why people should stop acting morally in front of God, claiming what "is loving" and that he is not. Who are you in comparison? Someone who ignores everyone and takes them as "a bunch of random number of sands on a beach". Great loving morality. If this was true, mind you, which I doubt.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted March 11, 2010 04:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Christianity is responsible for modern science.
Aren't christians suspected for destroying the great ancient library of ancient?
Those where the caliphates, IIRC. Well, the one at Alexandria, anyway.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 11, 2010 05:31 PM |
|
|
DG, I suppose you research that again.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 13, 2010 05:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
An addendum for atheism, reasonings and analytics.
German Philosopher Norbert Hoerster spoke in this context of the obligation to give reasons or evidence (comparable to those necessary at court):
"There are not enough rational reasons to believe in the Existance of God... Whoever claims the existance of X, not those who doubt or even deny the existance of X, must provide the prrof for their verdict. This is not only true, for example, for the existance of the yeti, it's true as well for the existance of God: Theists, who think it rational to believe in God, are epistemically obliged to support their believe with rational arguments."
I completely agree with and support this position.
Theists offer evidence, atheists offer none.
The very fact of the universe points to a Creator. Hubble + COBE= atheism is irrational.
Prior to 1992 most atheists argured the universe is eternal. Sadly for them we now know it is not. There is no rational reason to be an atheist. Theism is the only rational position.
Atheists must ignorre current observatinos and the laws of thermodynamics to cling to their irrational position.
Quote:
All those claims and statements are based on pretty doubtful assumptions anyway.
I mean, consider the supposed obsession of the Bible God with His chosen people. I guess, all this would a lot more believable if the universe wasn't just so darn big. I mean, if it was only about humans and their souls and so on - why have such a big creation? It is reasonable to assume gazillions of other solar systems like ours with billion times billion "souls", some of them having died billions of years before - what's one system more or less, one LIFE more or less?
Why would one grain of sand on a very long beach would be special?
Unfortunately you don't realize that the Bible focused on the "chosen people" because it was through them the Christ would be born.
Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
So I suppose that you also object to any recording of human history at all since the universe is so big.
Why would think God would care less about life on earth if he created 50 quadrillion other planets with life also? Your reasonings are unsound.
Quote:
Life doesn't care about the individual, only about the preservation of life itself, does it?
Life is not alive JJ. Life has no intellect to care about anything with. But God does care about people and most people care about other people. Excluding of course atheists like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, ect.
Quote:
Quote:
JollyJoker, both those who state and those who deny existence of something are equally responsible for providing a proof or reasonable arguments.
I don't see any reasoning for that position - it's illogical as well: it makes no sense to even ACKNOWLEDGE something, when people can give no reason why it should exist.
Don't you think that is hypocritical? Others have to prove their position but atheists don't?
Actually, theists have put forward evidence. Atheists have none. Zilch. Nada. Furthur, almost all peopole who have ever lived have been theists. That leaves the atheist position even more in doubt. Sorry, if your belief is the deviant belief in the world you do need to offer proof.
Quote:
How exactly does the beginning of the universe make atheism lose pretense of being a rational religion?
Because prior to the observations that proved the universe had a beginning atheists argued the universe was eternal. We know that all things material need a cause. The universe could not produce itself. The first cause, the uncaused cause, had to be immaterial, timeless, spaceless, self-existant, intelligent, and powerful. God.
Quote:
I find that atheism was quite peripheral to the totalitarian ideologies and the policies of said people. It also appears that you are making the incorrect assumption that all atheists advocate the purging of religion, know that this is not the case.
Sorry, but they banned Bibles, burned down churches, and murdered religious people. Stalin enlisted the aid of the Leauge of Militant Atheists. Stalin's atheism was not at all peripheral to his actions.
No, I have never said all atheists act in such a manner.
Quote:
Quote:
Christianity is responsible for modern science.
Would you care to elaborate on that?
For example, Christianity says the universe is an ordered place. There are not thousands of nature spirits under every rock and tree causing things to happen.
Quote:
Aren't christians suspected for destroying the great ancient library of ancient? I think we could have known a lot more now if it hadnt been destroyed. Oh well, all good things comes to an end.
No, that is just another lie some folks love to tell.
http://jameshannam.com/literature.htm
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted March 13, 2010 07:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
For example, Christianity says the universe is an ordered place. There are not thousands of nature spirits under every rock and tree causing things to happen.
You sure?
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted March 13, 2010 07:36 PM |
|
Edited by bixie at 22:25, 13 Mar 2010.
|
why the hell am I being ignored on that matter?
I have explained why Christianity has helped modern science, Does that post not exist?!
also Elodin
Quote:
For example, Christianity says the universe is an ordered place. There are not thousands of nature spirits under every rock and tree causing things to happen.
Maybe not, but it's no more improbable than an omnipotent super invisible daddy creating things in a week's shift. and personally, the belief in nature spirits is far more interesting that the gary-stew in the sky
Quote:
[qoute]by the way, do you know about the fact that genesis was composed of at least nine different texts, and that the adventures of moses had 4 different authors. If it is divinely inspired, then why so many versions? Why would there exist a sect of christians called the Luciferians during the period 353-371 AD if lucifer was meant to be the force of evil? What about the king of Ugrid? His followers were discredited by those who wrote moses adventure later on by transforming their god, Ba'al Zebul, to Beelzebub due to the fact it was conflicting with moses rising religion. What of the Nicea convenstion in the C4th to discuss what was to be held as christian doctrine, and dismissed 16 other doctrines of the new testiment by popular vote?
Ah, found anothere website, did you?
No, this is from one of my history lecturers, she's done a PHD on historical biblical events.
I like it how you think you're the source of all biblical knowledge and that we are simply conspiracy theorist drumming through websites, very grown up of you.
Quote:
No, Genesis did not have a buch of different authors.
yes they did. Genesis is made up of a number of ancient documents, the Sumerian king list, the epic of gilgamesh, the egyptian book of the dead, the collective legends of Sargon, Mises, Hammurabi and the Pharaoh Seneferu, amongs many others. all compiled by Ezra in 450BCE, who was not the original author, but merely a man who compiled it all. an editor, if you will.
There are four authorships of the 5 books of moses, the Yahwist, the Elohists, the Deuteronomists and the priestly writers, and none of them written by Moses himself
Quote:
Luciferians had nothing to do with Satan (Lucifer.) That is refering to followers of a bishop named Lucifer.
Yes, the bishop of cagliari who, during the meeting of Nicene rejected the idea that jesus was the reincarnation of god, and promoted that he was simply just a good man whom god favoured for his kindness, compassion and willingness to sacrifice himself for god. Bishop Lucifer was cast out, brutally murdered and later discredited by Nicene.
Quote:
You seem to be unaware that lots of local pagan gods had the title Ba'al (henceforth refered to as Baal.) Baal of Tyre, Baal of Zebul, ect. Only the context would determine which god the title was refering to.
but what better way to disway people from worshiping Ba'al of any kind than claiming him to be a devil who will steal souls.
Quote:
Perhaps you could post which of the Nicene decision you think they got wrong and give Bible refernces backing up your claims and we can discuss the merits of their decisions. My doctrine is the Bible, not any cred or dogma that came out of Nicea. I can tell you now that I don't agree with everything attributed to that council.
you don't understand, the bible you have is the dogma of Nicene, it was crafted by the members of that council to fit with what people were reading at the time. I assume you are reading the bible in it's current format, and not the one written pre-391AD?
Quote:
Quote:
If this is the word of god, why so many re-writes and editations. surely, if the bible is the word of god, there would be no need for humans to go back and edit their gods work?
This keeps coming up even though I've debunked it a number of times. We know we haver the words of the original writings to withing 99.9% accuracy due to the many thousands of manuscripts we have and textual criticism.
probably not. you are reading a bible that was translated to english, from latin, from greek, from ancient Yidhish. you do not have an accurate translation, as going through so many languages will mess the messages up. You might have an approved translation due to textual criticism, but that does not nessecarily mean that it's the original text, it's just the one that everyone agreed on.
Quote:
Quote:
and it's pretty sloppy editing, in that they reference books that are not found, like the book of Jasher and the book of the acts of solomon.
Huh? They refer to a historical document that we don't have. So what?
So everything. removal of texts and referencing without sources is a heinous crime amoungst Historians. Hypothetically, if they tried this, then they would be jailed for plagarism, purgery and fraud.
not only that, We do have them, but they are not on display, due to the Vatican Library restoration process. The issue is that if they are all part of the same book, Why not put them in? why not put in the Book of Jasher, unless it countermanded with the Council of Nicenes original doctrine?
This is where I worry, because we have not been given the whole truth for all these years, we have been subjected to a mere fraction of it. maybe it was simply showmanship, and those gospels contained nothing but what Jesus did in his every day existence? or maybe it was for a more sinister purpose.
Quote:
Quote:
I doubt I would want to follow the words of men who thing spousal abuse, child molestation, cannibalism and prejudice on the bases of sex.
The Bible condemns such things, not condones them.
Animal cruelty: Joshua 11:6, 2 Samuel 8:4
incest: Genesis 4, 19:30-38, 2 Samuel 13:1-15
slavery: Numbers 31:31-35, Leviticus 25:44-45, Exodus 21:2-7,
abuse of slaves: Exodus: 21:7, 20-21, Luke 12:47-48
wife beating: number 5:5-31, Deuteronomy 22:13-21, 28-29, 1 Peter 3:17
child abuse: Genesis 22, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, 23:2, Proverbs 13:10, 20:30, 22:15, Psalm 137:9
Child molestation: Numbers 31:17-18
Abortion: Amos 1:13, Numbers 5:5-31
Pillage: Genesis 34:13-29, Numbers 31:7-12
Murder: Exodus 2:12, Judges 9:5, 11:29-39, 14:19, 1kings 2:29-34, 10:7
Cannibalism: Leviticus 26:29, Jeremaiah 19:9, 2kings 6:29
Genocide: Genesis 6:11-17, 7:11-24, Exodus 17:13, Joshua 8:22-25, 10:27-40
Racism: Exodus 23:23, 28, Matthew 15:22-28
Prejudice against other religions: 2Kings 10:19-27
Sexism: Genesis 38:16-24, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, numbers 30:3-16, 31:14-18
Prejudice against sexual orientation: Deuteronomy 22:5, Leviticus 18:22-23
why is all this in there? it's simple, the authors wanted to feel that they're actions where morally justifiable, so they did it under the will of god.
and now, they're your rules to, Elodin.
Please, start Distinguishing between Doctrine from Deity. Maybe the Bible was wrong, that doesn't mean the god you believe in doesn't exist, maybe you were reading the wrong material. instead of focusing on the bible, try reading other religious texts as well, The Qu'ran, the torah, the Vesdas, the various books on Shinto. We as human beings were meant, if nothing else, to find our own meaning, and to do that, we need to know as much as we can. Maybe there is an afterlife, but I'll be damned if I'm going to live this life ignorant of what goes on in it.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted March 13, 2010 09:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Because prior to the observations that proved the universe had a beginning atheists argued the universe was eternal. We know that all things material need a cause. The universe could not produce itself. The first cause, the uncaused cause, had to be immaterial, timeless, spaceless, self-existant, intelligent, and powerful. God.
Prior to the observations that proved the species on earth to have evolved from a single organism theists argued all life to have come to be as they are through the power of god. Did that not make theism irrational a long time before atheism was made irrational?
The discovery that the universe had a beginning did not disprove atheism, it simply disproved the notion that the universe is eternal. Just as the theory of evolution did not disprove theism, it simply disproved the notion that life was born as it is today.
As of the first cause, I see no reason to assume that it necessarily had to be something intelligent. It might as well have been some manner of a chaotic pre-universe state wich then formed the universe we live in.
Quote:
Sorry, but they banned Bibles, burned down churches, and murdered religious people. Stalin enlisted the aid of the Leauge of Militant Atheists. Stalin's atheism was not at all peripheral to his actions.
Well then, how about this hypothetical question: Would a highly religious totalitarian regime have been that much different? With a tyrant leader who would have a system of beliefs in the likes of Fred Phelps (leader of the notorious Westboro Baptist Church), wouldn't the oppression and murdering simply have a different target? In this case it would propably be unbelievers and homosexuals.
What I am trying to get across here is that both atheistic and theistic beliefs are capable of being part of and producing something equally horrible.
Quote:
For example, Christianity says the universe is an ordered place. There are not thousands of nature spirits under every rock and tree causing things to happen.
I would like to point out that it was Aristotle whose natural philosophy is the foundation that since then has been refined to the science we know today. Aristotle predates christianity by over 300 years and - as far as is known - he was not even jewish. It was he and his philosopher buddies who rejected the mythological explanation of nature by wisps and spirits. It is Aristotle who is widely revered as the father of western civilization.
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 13, 2010 11:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
yes they did. Genesis is made up of a number of ancient documents, the Sumerian king list, the epic of gilgamesh, the egyptian book of the dead, the collective legends of Sargon, Mises, Hammurabi and the Pharaoh Seneferu, amongs many others. all compiled by Ezra in 450BCE, who was not the original author, but merely a man who compiled it all. an editor, if you will.
There are four authorships of the 5 books of moses, the Yahwist, the Elohists, the Deuteronomists and the priestly writers, and none of them written by Moses himself
That is quite simply untrue.
http://www.carm.org/when-was-bible-written-and-who-wrote-it
Quote:
you don't understand, the bible you have is the dogma of Nicene, it was crafted by the members of that council to fit with what people were reading at the time. I assume you are reading the bible in it's current format, and not the one written pre-391AD?
Again, not true. From the many thousands of manuscripts and textual criticism we know for a fact that we have the original words of the Bible to 99.9% accuracy.
http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-0701.htm
Quote:
probably not. you are reading a bible that was translated to english, from latin, from greek, from ancient Yidhish. you do not have an accurate translation, as going through so many languages will mess the messages up. You might have an approved translation due to textual criticism, but that does not nessecarily mean that it's the original text, it's just the one that everyone agreed on.
[/quuote]
You seem to be utterly clueless about how a translation is produced. For example,when a New Testament translationis done it is done from the Greek manuscripts (the NT was written in Greek) and goes directly from Greek into English or Russian or German or whatever the desired language is.
[quuote]So everything. removal of texts and referencing without sources is a heinous crime amoungst Historians. Hypothetically, if they tried this, then they would be jailed for plagarism, purgery and fraud.
not only that, We do have them, but they are not on display, due to the Vatican Library restoration process. The issue is that if they are all part of the same book, Why not put them in? why not put in the Book of Jasher, unless it countermanded with the Council of Nicenes original doctrine?
Again, you are clueless about what you are speaking of. The book of Jashur was unknown at the time of the council of Nicea. Whatever it was was lost long before the time of Christ. Obviously it was not an inspired book. Ask any Jew if they have a copy of the book of Jashur. I dare you to produce one Rabbi that can direct you to such a book because no one has a copy of it and no one had a copy of it at the time of Nicea.
Quote:
Animal cruelty: Joshua 11:6, 2 Samuel 8:4
Those deal with destroying the enemies weapons of war (the horses and chariots. Did you really not understand that?
Quote:
incest: Genesis 4, 19:30-38, 2 Samuel 13:1-15
Geee, in Genesis brothers and sisters had to marry each other, huh? Whether you believe in creation or evolution brothers and sisters had to marry to get the human race going.
Genesis 19: Where does it say God said it was ok for Lot's daughters to get him drunk and sleep with him? Sorry, it does not.
2 Samual 13 records Absolum raping his sister. God did not say that was ok.
Sorry, looks like you either lied about the Bible saying incest is ok or you copied from an anti-Christian website that lied. In fact let my quote what it says about incest.
Quote:
Lev 18:9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
Num 5 has nothing to do with beating a wife.
Deut 22 has nothing to do with beating a wife.
IPeter 3:17 has nothing to do with wife beating either. I'll quote that here.
Quote:
1Pe 3:16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
1Pe 3:17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
See, that is talking about suffering because u;nbelievers falsely accuse Chriatians. Happened a lot back then as it does now.
Sorry, that's all the lies I have to time to deal with at the moment. You copied a lot of lies from some website or you yourself are a liar. Either one is not good. At least read the passages you are going to claim show that God approves of incest or murder or beating your wife. Because right now you have posted a lot of false information.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted March 14, 2010 11:00 AM |
|
Edited by bixie at 11:14, 14 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
yes they did. Genesis is made up of a number of ancient documents, the Sumerian king list, the epic of gilgamesh, the egyptian book of the dead, the collective legends of Sargon, Mises, Hammurabi and the Pharaoh Seneferu, amongs many others. all compiled by Ezra in 450BCE, who was not the original author, but merely a man who compiled it all. an editor, if you will.
There are four authorships of the 5 books of moses, the Yahwist, the Elohists, the Deuteronomists and the priestly writers, and none of them written by Moses himself
That is quite simply untrue.
http://www.carm.org/when-was-bible-written-and-who-wrote-it
Oh for F**ks sake
the Christian Apologetics and research ministry is not, and I repeat, NOT a credible source. quite apart from the fact that the guy who wrote the articles' name is Slick, the set up of this website is about bible study, study of the bible and only the bible, and not the creation around it.
Also, if Moses did write all of the original books, then he must have had a pretty big ego to insert himself as the saviour of his people at the end. and why did he talk in the third person? did he have a ceaser complex as well?
The Guy, a Mister Matt J. Slick, who wrote this is not a historian, nor is he a scientist. He is, at best, a sociologist, though he decided to chuck that away in order to research Divinity. I'm not saying that he's not qualified to put that, but it does raise a question mark about his track record and his research methods.
Quote:
Quote:
you don't understand, the bible you have is the dogma of Nicene, it was crafted by the members of that council to fit with what people were reading at the time. I assume you are reading the bible in it's current format, and not the one written pre-391AD?
Again, not true. From the many thousands of manuscripts and textual criticism we know for a fact that we have the original words of the Bible to 99.9% accuracy.
http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-0701.htm
quite apart from the fact that the "Itenretinsg Irfonmoatin" has more typos than the average troll message, I am more than a little disconcerted by the fact that the page you send me too doesn't have an author. an article sent anonimously cannot be taken as an academic peice of literature, simply because there is no name to place it on and thus no way to go back and look at the history of the article, or indeed this website. no academic would stake his reputation on an articule that could turn out to be complete bunkum, as I'm sure this is.
Quote:
Quote:
probably not. you are reading a bible that was translated to english, from latin, from greek, from ancient Yidhish. you do not have an accurate translation, as going through so many languages will mess the messages up. You might have an approved translation due to textual criticism, but that does not nessecarily mean that it's the original text, it's just the one that everyone agreed on.
You seem to be utterly clueless about how a translation is produced. For example,when a New Testament translationis done it is done from the Greek manuscripts (the NT was written in Greek) and goes directly from Greek into English or Russian or German or whatever the desired language is.
are you sure?
so in order to get the new testement in a new language, they need to go back to the original ancient greek manuscripts and translate them all over again into the new language?
I doubt it. Latin became the language of the church when the centre of catholism moved to rome, and thus the translations have always been from latin to the new languages. Similarly, Would it not save time and effort for the translators to translate the bible in their own language to the new one, rather than remembering a dead language (not really dead, the church still uses it, but less and less frequently). If it is, as you so asigned, the 99.9% accuracy rate that the bibles have, each translation, the bible is 00.1% inaccurate for that translation, and since some people believe the bible totally, then the bible must be, in order for it to be the absolute word of god, 100% accurate for all translations.
and if there was a book that was the word of god, then there would be no inaccuracies, no need for translation, as it would be perfect, divinely give, there would be only one religion and one interpretation of it due to the fact that an all powerful perfect being wrote it, it would have no competition and there would be no other language, culture, religion, society or civilisation apart from the one centred around this book.
Why is it then that we are more fractured than ever in terms of oppinion, if the Bible is the word of god? why are there so many thousands of different religions if your holy text is the word of the perfect being?
Quote:
Quote:
So everything. removal of texts and referencing without sources is a heinous crime amoungst Historians. Hypothetically, if they tried this, then they would be jailed for plagarism, purgery and fraud.
not only that, We do have them, but they are not on display, due to the Vatican Library restoration process. The issue is that if they are all part of the same book, Why not put them in? why not put in the Book of Jasher, unless it countermanded with the Council of Nicenes original doctrine?
Again, you are clueless about what you are speaking of. The book of Jashur was unknown at the time of the council of Nicea. Whatever it was was lost long before the time of Christ. Obviously it was not an inspired book. Ask any Jew if they have a copy of the book of Jashur. I dare you to produce one Rabbi that can direct you to such a book because no one has a copy of it and no one had a copy of it at the time of Nicea.
I'm going to ignore that little insult and move along.
and yet there are still mentions of it in the "supposed" inspired books? if the council referenced it in the books, then either they had knowledge of it and decided not to include it in, or they were sloppy editor's, copying and pasting in various books in without forethought. If they had no knowledge of it, as so you claim, why the blazes is it in the bible!
also, in the new testament, books are referenced but not founded. The Epistle of Jude, the Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, the prophecies of Enoch, and so on. that raised even more questions, as there is no possiblity that they could have been lost, as they were written down when the roman empire became christian. Why the hell were they not included? the Council of Nicea more than likely had copies of these manuscripts, as they were written by romans, in latin, ready to be put in.
Quote:
Quote:
Animal cruelty: Joshua 11:6, 2 Samuel 8:4
Those deal with destroying the enemies weapons of war (the horses and chariots. Did you really not understand that?
Hamstringing horses. still sounds like animal cruelty to me. and Yes, I do understand that, It's just that very few civilisations of that time did it. Greeks, egyptians, celts, assyrians, and so on, didn't do it, and thought it heinous to do so. You go for underhanded tactics then?
Quote:
Quote:
incest: Genesis 4, 19:30-38, 2 Samuel 13:1-15
Geee, in Genesis brothers and sisters had to marry each other, huh? Whether you believe in creation or evolution brothers and sisters had to marry to get the human race going.
Genesis 19: Where does it say God said it was ok for Lot's daughters to get him drunk and sleep with him? Sorry, it does not.
2 Samual 13 records Absolum raping his sister. God did not say that was ok.
Sorry, looks like you either lied about the Bible saying incest is ok or you copied from an anti-Christian website that lied. In fact let my quote what it says about incest.
surely if it's in gods holy book, that must make it ok.
Quote:
See, that is talking about suffering because u;nbelievers falsely accuse Chriatians. Happened a lot back then as it does now.
Sorry, that's all the lies I have to time to deal with at the moment. You copied a lot of lies from some website or you yourself are a liar. Either one is not good. At least read the passages you are going to claim show that God approves of incest or murder or beating your wife. Because right now you have posted a lot of false information.
and I like it how you decide instantly that I'm either lying or easily lead when you put on websites that have no credible sources.
pot calling kettle black methinks?
I do also want to point out this is the same book that claims bat's are birds, whales are fish, states that there are witches, wizards, demons, talking animals, the world is flat, the stars are put there by god to light our way at night, that if you pour blood out of a wand that you can cure leperousy, and that if you display stripped patterns to a pregnant cow that she will bare stripped calfs. either this was written by ignorant men, or an even more ignorant god, unless you want to change all of reality in order to suit the bible's inaccurate portray's of life.
Also, if you could really defend all the passages I have mentioned, then you would have, but "Oh no, I don't have the time," raises even bigger questions over whether you can. Post the passages in there entirety rather than simply saying "Nope, nothing here, nope, nothing at all, nope, don't bother looking!" as it's obvious that you don't want us to look, because you know you're wrong!
you have entered an intellectual battlefeild armed with a handfull of questionable websites and a book with so many inaccuracies it would make stephenie meyer look like a f**king genius, and you expect us to simply roll over to you?
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 14, 2010 02:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
the Christian Apologetics and research ministry is not, and I repeat, NOT a credible source. quite apart from the fact that the guy who wrote the articles' name is Slick, the set up of this website is about bible study, study of the bible and only the bible, and not the creation around it.
Sure it is. It was set up to counter the anti-Christian liars who love to lie about the Bible. I already proved the website you copied from was just a bunch of lies.
Quote:
Also, if Moses did write all of the original books, then he must have had a pretty big ego to insert himself as the saviour of his people at the end. and why did he talk in the third person? did he have a ceaser complex as well?
Geee wizzz, you never heard of writing in the third person? Furthur, Moses is not portrayed as a perfect man in those 5 books. We see several instances of his failures.
Quote:
quite apart from the fact that the "Itenretinsg Irfonmoatin" has more typos than the average troll message, I am more than a little disconcerted by the fact that the page you send me too doesn't have an author. an article sent anonimously cannot be taken as an academic peice of literature, simply because there is no name to place it on and thus no way to go back and look at the history of the article, or indeed this website. no academic would stake his reputation on an articule that could turn out to be complete bunkum, as I'm sure this is.
Oh really? Point out the typos in the article. And what they heck are you talking about "Itenretinsg Irfonmoatin?" That is not in the article. You appear to just be lying about a large number of typos because when I ran the article through a spell checker it did not come up with them. Hmmmmmmmm.
Another article
Quote:
The fact that there is outstanding manuscript evidence for the New Testament documents is even admitted by critical scholars.2 John A.T. Robinson succinctly explains, "The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant copies, make it by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in the world."3 Even Helmut Koester summarizes:
Classical authors are often represented by but one surviving manuscript; if there are half a dozen or more, one can speak of a rather advantageous situation for reconstructing the text. But there are nearly five thousand manuscripts of the NT in Greek... The only surviving manuscripts of classical authors often come from the Middle Ages, but the manuscript tradition of the NT begins as early as the end of II CE; it is therefore separated by only a century or so from the time at which the autographs were written. Thus it seems that NT textual criticism possesses a base which is far more advantageous than that for the textual criticism of classical authors.4
The result of all this is an incredibly accurate New Testament text. John Wenham asks why it is that, in spite of the "great diversity" in our copies, the texts are still relativity homogeneous. He responds, "The only satisfactory answer seems to be that its homogeneity stems from an exceedingly early text-virtually, that is, from the autographs."5 The resulting text is 99.99 percent accurate, and the remaining questions do not affect any area of cardinal Christian doctrine.6
Quote:
so in order to get the new testement in a new language, they need to go back to the original ancient greek manuscripts and translate them all over again into the new language?
Yes, I'm sure. You seem to not have done any research at all about Bible translation before you opened your mouth and said false things about how it is translated. It is translated directly from the original language into whatever language the final product is to be. Greek--->English for example.
Bible Translation
Quote:
So when we translate the Bible, we do not translate from a translation of a translation of a translation. We translate from the original language into our language. It is a one-step process and not a series of steps that can lead to corruption. It is one translation step from the original to the English or to whatever language in which a person needs to read.
Quote:
and if there was a book that was the word of god, then there would be no inaccuracies, no need for translation, as it would be perfect, divinely give, there would be only one religion and one interpretation of it due to the fact that an all powerful perfect being wrote it, it would have no competition and there would be no other language, culture, religion, society or civilisation apart from the one centred around this book.
Sorry, copyists made errors from time to time. But by textual criticism we establish the original words in the few instances that such occur.
Lol!!! That is an idiotic statement. People speak different languages, so yes, translation is necessary. God inspired the original authors who wrote in their language.
Oh please. Not everyone wants to know the truth and many people reject things that they know are true. One of the problems is that some folks just don't want to do what is right. Others don't seek the truth. Others don't want to pay the price for obediece to the truth.
It is stupid to say that because there is more than one religion there is no true religion.
Quote:
and yet there are still mentions of it in the "supposed" inspired books? if the council referenced it in the books, then either they had knowledge of it and decided not to include it in, or they were sloppy editor's, copying and pasting in various books in without forethought. If they had no knowledge of it, as so you claim, why the blazes is it in the bible!
Can you provide references for me where the Council of Nicea referenced the book of Jasher? Like I said, there were no know copies in existence at the time and none have been found to this day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Jasher_(Biblical_references)
Quote:
The Book of Jasher is the normal English name (used by, e.g., the King James Bible) of a work known in the original Hebrew as Sefer haYashar, (ספר הישר; also transliterated Sēper haiYāšār). It is the best-known of several "Lost books of the Old Testament", books referenced in the Hebrew Bible of which no copies are known to exist.
It was a historical writing that evidently was not inspired and was not preserved like the inspired writings were.
Quote:
also, in the new testament, books are referenced but not founded. The Epistle of Jude, the Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, the prophecies of Enoch, and so on. that raised even more questions, as there is no possiblity that they could have been lost, as they were written down when the roman empire became christian. Why the hell were they not included? the Council of Nicea more than likely had copies of these manuscripts, as they were written by romans, in latin, ready to be put in.
Errrrrrrrrr....the book of Jude is in the Bible. Look right before Revelation. Another lie by your anti-Christian website source.
Sorry, there are no known copies of Paul's letter to the Laodiceans. However, there is no reason to think Nicea threw it away.
Unfortunately, as always, anti-Christians have nothing in their arsenal but lies to attack Christianity with. Hopefully you will stop relying on the anti-Christian websites you are going to an do better research in the future.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 14, 2010 02:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
surely if it's in gods holy book, that must make it ok.
I already quoted the verse that says incest is not ok. That makes me wonder if you are at all interested in what the Bible acutally says or if you just want to lie about it.
Quote:
Lev 18:9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
Quote:
Hamstringing horses. still sounds like animal cruelty to me. and Yes, I do understand that, It's just that very few civilisations of that time did it. Greeks, egyptians, celts, assyrians, and so on, didn't do it, and thought it heinous to do so. You go for underhanded tactics then?
Sorry, horses and chariots were instruments of war. They would have been idiotic to leave them for the enemy to regroup and use against them.
Quote:
I do also want to point out this is the same book that claims bat's are birds, whales are fish
It is idiotic to think the Hebrews would group animals together like modern Western science does. I guess you complain that they spoke Hebrew words too rather than English.
Quote:
states that there are witches, wizards, demons, talking animals,
Sorry, but there are withces/wizards. They may not be what Disney portrays them as, but do some research and you'll likely find a coven of them not too far from you.
Sorry, there are demons. You don't think so? Prove it.
Hey, you've never heard of a gorilla being taught sighn language? Why would you think it would be impossible for God to mak3 an animal speak?
Again, the Bible does not portray animals speaking as normal. Satan manifested himself as a snake or possessed a snake and spoke. God make a donkey speak. So?
Quote:
the world is flat
That is a lie.
Quote:
the stars are put there by god to light our way at night
Can you quote where the Bible says the only purpose for the stars is to guide man's way around earth? If not, you have lied.
Quote:
that if you pour blood out of a wand that you can cure leperousy
Quote where the Bible says the cure for leprocy is to pour blood out of a wand.
Quote:
and that if you display stripped patterns to a pregnant cow that she will bare stripped calfs
Quote where God says that will always happen or admit you have lied yet again.
Quote:
either this was written by ignorant men, or an even more ignorant god, unless you want to change all of reality in order to suit the bible's inaccurate portray's of life
No, wha tis ignorant is to lie about what it says.
Sorry, looks like most of what you wrote is just lies. Again, I hope you are just ignorantly copying from liar on a website rather than being a liar yourself. But you really should reasearch it youself rather than spread lie.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
