[ummbikes]

Originally posted by BurlySurly


I just cant seem to let this make any sense man.

If, as you say, Jesus made you ....then it seems the obvious conclusion would be that any flaws you have would be his own fault. Why would you need to be forgiven his initial mistake in making you?

BurSur--It is because we have free will. We are born pure, at some point begin sining, then we need forgivness.

Wierd huh?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ummbikes


BurSur--It is because we have free will. We are born pure, at some point begin sining, then we need forgivness.

Wierd huh?

FAK!

Dude, Im not aiming this at you directly, but it seems you all just talk in these circles like used car salesmen.
How can you even tell if someone is born pure? They're helpless and unable to communicate. By the time they can walk and talk, they already lie and steal.
It just seems that everything is assumed, and if you try to question it...its a sin.
Ive seen alot more to support the idea of there not being a God (ie. the one that exists in the bible) than to support his existence. And Ive talked with alot of christians on this subject, and after you've discounted every argument they have, the just go "You just have to have faith"
Whats faith? Believing for no reason other than that you're afraid of being dead after you die.
Thats what i think this is all about.

 

[ummbikes]

Ya, well, ya, uhh, so, uh, ya.

Bur' Sur' I can't change your mind, nor I am I trying too. I claim what I said to be truthful, but I can see the question of faith is a sticking point for you.

If you are truly seeking answers, any pastor/priest/amman/reverend/sen sei/ will take all the time you require to atempt to answer questions. I wish we were sitting down with a couple of cold beers after a long ride, with a copy of the Bible, and a copy of Mere Christianity. C.S. Lewis was agnostic, and had many of the same arguements you raise. I'm just a lay person, and have not spent the years of religious study that most "pro" religious people have. Even if the Bible and C.S. Lewis' book didn't help out in answering your questions, we would have atleast had a good bike ride, and a couple beers.

Peace

Happy Turkey eating day

Rob

 

[fourgivn1]

Haven't been here in a while and I thought I'd stop in and participate in a controversial topic.

As far as there being 'proof' for the existence of God, well, I have 2 or 3 thoughts on that. One, I've noticed that almost without exception, no matter how much proof there is, or is not, the tendency of a person to believe or not believe depends upon how much of a 'stake' they have in being proven right or wrong.

For instance, anyone who has taken a serious look at historical/archaeological Christianity knows there is a LOT of evidence. Not even atheists argue that. (Or if they do, they do so unsuccessfully.) But I've noticed a huge trend of said atheists (as well as many others....not just atheists) shifting from trying to disprove that Jesus existed, to trying to disprove that Jesus performed the works He said He did. To me that's a copout. There's a LOT of proof that Jesus existed, but not anywhere near as much 'proof' that He did what He said He did.

Two, you're right. In the end, it IS faith that carries the believer. After all, even salvation itself comes by grace through FAITH in Jesus. All I can say is that while the actual decision itself to believe in Jesus is one that must come from blind faith (assisted by evidence), He will prove Himself to you afterwards.

 

[kazonie]

Nicely written, Thank you for your input. It's hard to articulate how I feel and you have summed up some of my thoughts.

 

[fourgivn1]

Glad I could be of assistance.

 

[laura]

Originally posted by fourgivn1
Haven't been here in a while .

i was just thinking that i hadnt seen yo in a while. i missed you.

 

[Rotifer]

For instance, anyone who has taken a serious look at historical/archaeological Christianity knows there is a LOT of evidence.

By this do you mean archaeological evidence pertaining to the existence of Jesus Christ? The first "evidence" crops up decades after his death - that, simply, doesn't fly. The New Testament is quite interesting, but it is a poor source - no copies in the original language exist. As a believe system, I respect it. But, as with most organized religions, it has spawned phenomenal evil. Some of the most unethical people I've met have little crosses dangling from their rear-view mirrors and declare themselves christians.

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by laura
i was just thinking that i hadnt seen yo in a while. i missed you.

Awwww.....I cried when I read this, just like I do when I see sunsets.

Ok, not really. Cool to know SOMEONE thought of me when I was gone though. My existence is justified!!!

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by Rotifer
By this do you mean archaeological evidence pertaining to the existence of Jesus Christ? The first "evidence" crops up decades after his death - that, simply, doesn't fly.

It flies just fine. The first evidence has conclusively been dated no NEWER than about 60 a.d. (20 years or so after His death). I'm not Mr. Perfect Memory but I can easily remember quite a bit of what happened when I was six years old, and even if I was six, if someone I knew died and came back to life, I believe I would remember it 20 years later. The hundreds of people who saw Jesus in the 40 days He was on the earth after His resurrection were adults, not kids. (Although there may have been a few.)

If you want a small sampling of the evidence I speak of, go read Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell. Almost NO ONE today, including the most distinguished SECULAR scholars, dispute that Jesus really existed. There is more evidence, by way of manuscripts (written by both Christian and non-Christian), artifacts, etc., for the existence of Jesus, than for the existence of Shakespeare, and there is more doubt as to the words that SHAKESPEARE actually spoke, than there is to the words that Jesus spoke.

The New Testament is quite interesting, but it is a poor source - no copies in the original language exist.

Plenty of them exist in the Greek and Hebrew language. I don't see what language has to do with the verifiability of the Bible.

As a belief system, I respect it. But, as with most organized religions, it has spawned phenomenal evil. Some of the most unethical people I've met have little crosses dangling from their rear-view mirrors and declare themselves christians.

The key words are RELIGION and PEOPLE. I most definitely do not argue with you on this point. I agree that religion has spawned phenomenal evil. But what upsets me - and I do not believe you are doing this, and I definitely hope not - is when people link religion (here I use that word to describe a manmade institution that, as the Bible says, 'has the form of godliness but denies its power' - in other words, say one thing and do another) with the One the religion represents. I do not look to religion to establish how I will live my life, because religion was/is manmade and is fallible. I look to the only person in history who has ever claimed to be perfect, and that is Jesus.

 

[Skookum]

Plenty of them exist in the Greek and Hebrew language. I don't see what language has to do with the verifiability of the Bible.

It has everything to do it. You cannot have truth survive thru translations of different languages. It will be marred and distorted. Also time has an effect on what lessons were to be handed down. Now you get the challenge of wrestling this point of view to assorted people all with varying points of view. It's flawed horribly. But essentially if what's described here as persons with faith and closeness to Jesus have better lives, whether it's truth or not matters little, for it is for the most part a good way of life (if practiced how it's preached). The bible's a neat book, but it should still be written anew by person's who are in contact with god now. Or perhaps it has been, like the Mormons believe. But that being said i can say with utmost honesty that i will never be 100% certain where we all will wind up in the next life, like many religions and persons of faith claim. All of us will find out though sooner or later.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Skookum
The bible's a neat book, but it should still be written anew by person's who are in contact with god now. Or perhaps it has been, like the Mormons believe.

And that will help with the historical accuracy?

As history is written by the winners why do you think current history is any more accurate than the hostory of Christ?

I don't believe in the existence of the Chrisitian God, but I have no doubt that a man called Jesus Christ existed just as I have no doubt that a man called Mohammed existed.

 

[Skookum]

Originally posted by fluff
And that will help with the historical accuracy?

No it will not haha my grammar is terrible. I really should seperate my posts into proper paragraphs especially in this forum.

 

[Rotifer]

The first evidence has conclusively been dated no NEWER than about 60 a.d. (20 years or so after His death).

That is, simply, not true. Thus, the excitement over the ossuary that was thought to be that of James, Jesus' brother. It would have been the earliest known evidence that a fellow named Jesus, with a brother by the name of James, existed. The ossuary was created 30 years after the death of Christ. It is also a fact that no copies of the New Testament exist in their original form. All modern translations evolved from Greek translations, therefore, one can't assume New Testament events to be fact. I don't question your faith and mean no offense, but I am a stickler for facts. Shakespeare is entertainment, I'd love to dance in gardens, drink wine and have sex with nymphs ... well, uh, maybe we have something here!?

But essentially if what's described here as persons with faith and closeness to Jesus have better lives, whether it's truth or not matters little, for it is for the most part a good way of life (if practiced how it's preached).

Well said Skookum.

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by Rotifer
That is, simply, not true. Thus, the excitement over the ossuary that was thought to be that of James, Jesus' brother. It would have been the earliest known evidence that a fellow named Jesus, with a brother by the name of James, existed. The ossuary was created 30 years after the death of Christ.

I wasn't talking about the ossuary.

It is also a fact that no copies of the New Testament exist in their original form. All modern translations evolved from Greek translations, therefore, one can't assume New Testament events to be fact.

I have no idea where you are getting the idea that because the earliest copies of the New Testament are in Greek, they aren't valid. What if one of the authors of the Bible got a wild hair and decided "You know what? I'm going to write this in PIG LATIN." Doing so would have no effect whatsoever on the validity of the manuscript as long as the scribe ensured he paid attention to what he was doing.

And you can most CERTAINLY have truth survive through translations. Have you ever studied the lives and the techniques, and most importantly, the attention to detail, that the earliest scribes used when writing the manuscripts? You are essentially saying that anytime anyone translates anything into another language, there is NO way it can be translated without losing something, and that is merely an opinion.

And I am, as well, a stickler for facts. A part of Christianity MUST be taken on faith, but there are plenty of facts lying around. Again I refer you to the book I pointed out above...one of MANY you can go to, to look up factual info on Christianity.

 

[Rotifer]

Let me preface this by saying, again, I am not attacking Christianity - I never said I'm not a Christian. However, if you wish to defend your faith, which - it would appear - is important to you, I simply wish to point out that your logic is flawed. Not your thinking, mind you, you simply need to take a solid course in Medieval history. That is, a class that explores the roots of Christianity. I also happen to have a close friend with a Ph.d in theology (New Testament) from Yale with whom I've had endless discussions about the veracity of the New Testament. He personal bible is in Greek, our discussions stemming from this (over the years) is how I know about biblical translation. The ossuary, by the way, was an example meant to prove a point. Anyway, time to ride. Have a nice night.

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by Rotifer
Let me preface this by saying, again, I am not attacking Christianity - I never said I'm not a Christian.

Oh I know that. I just like to defend my faith.

However, if you wish to defend your faith, which - it would appear - is important to you, I simply wish to point out that your logic is flawed. Not your thinking, mind you, you simply need to take a solid course in Medieval history.

I do not know whether you are referring to my argument that which language the earliest manuscripts are in has little to no bearing on the veracity of the NT, or whether you are referring to my argument that the first evidence was dated no newer than about 60 A.D. (give or take a few years). As far as these numbers go, the information I am giving (and I admit that I MAY be wrong, but I do not believe I am) I am getting straight out of the book I quoted, written by a man who has spent more than 30 years researching Christianity - ESPECIALLY those parts that are verifiable by facts.

To make a long story short, sure, the argument can be made that the New Testament MAY not be completely accurate today due to the fact that no manuscripts remain in the original language. However, the argument still comes down to whether the translators devoted not only the time to translate, but the time to ensure the translations were done accurately.

As the book I have quoted you says, "As with other documents of ancient literature (none of which get argued against as vehemently as the Bible ), there are no known extant (currently existing) original manuscripts of the Bible. Fortunately, however, the abundance of manuscript copies makes it possible to reconstruct the original with virtually complete accuracy."

I'm not arguing that mistakes are possible. But other ancient writings have to deal with exactly the same problem, and on top of that fact, the sheer number of the copies of manuscripts in many different languages, plus the comparatively small amount of time between Jesus' life and the time the copies were made (when compared to other ancient writings differential time periods) means that we stand to have MUCH more confidence in the faithful translation of our Bible than almost any other literary work in history. [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[Rotifer]

There are two immediate problems with the author you quoted.

1) He's preaching to the choir. The people reading his book want to believe what he is saying.

2) No one has launched wars, or persecuted their citizens, on the basis of what they have read in the Illiad.


No talking about you fourgivn, but another problem I have is the way fundamentalist christians mix the old and new testament. Jesus clearly abandons old testament tennants, so why can't we masturbate, allow homosexual marriage, etc?

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by Rotifer
There are two immediate problems with the author you quoted.

1) He's preaching to the choir. The people reading his book want to believe what he is saying.

I don't see how this applies to the validity (or lack thereof) of what is contained within the book. People seem to forget that he set out 30 years ago to DISPROVE Christianity because he couldn't stand Christians and didn't WANT to believe, and ended up being converted. If it was necessary I would believe ONLY on blind faith, but it's not.

2) No one has launched wars, or persecuted their citizens, on the basis of what they have read in the Illiad.

Again, I don't see what this has to do with the validity (or lack thereof) of either the vast amount of copies of manuscripts (whatever language they may be in) or with the validity of the book.

No talking about you fourgivn, but another problem I have is the way fundamentalist christians mix the old and new testament. Jesus clearly abandons old testament tennants, so why can't we masturbate, allow homosexual marriage, etc?

I'm not sure exactly how this question arose. As far as that goes, I am guessing (I may be mistaken...correct me if I am) that you ask this question based upon the fact that there's nothing specifically contained within the Bible that says "Thou shalt not masturbate" and/or so on. This is true, but there is plenty in the Bible that speaks of not succumbing to the grip of lust, of the command of God that 'no man shall lie with another man,' and so on. Lack of a 100% specific command in the Bible does not equate to condoning those acts/relationships. (And I'm fairly sure you know this and weren't implying this. I'm just addressing the question in general.)

As far as mixing the old/new testament goes, even Jesus Himself said "I came not to abolish (forget the exact word) the law, but to fulfill it." An example is sacrifices. I don't need to really explain much about this, other than to say that Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. We could get into a big fat huge discussion on Old/New Testament applicability, and I admit that is one of the areas I do not know a huge amount about (and, subsequently, the reason I'm reading up on it). But in short, Jesus never said that He came to get rid of the law. In fact, most of the times He spoke about requirements of Old and of New Testament law, He actually RAISED the bar.

For instance...Old Testament says "Thou shalt not commit adultery." New Testament says "Sorry, but if you've checked out a woman, you've already committed it." Old Testament says "Give 10% of your income." New Testament essentially says to give according to how God has blessed you and how God leads you to give....not just 10%. And so on...you get the point.

 

[Airborne]

jesus was an alien

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by Airborne
jesus was an alien

Well I guess I really can't argue with that one too much.

 

[Eddie420]

There has got to be something......out there. I hope, though am highly sceptical not because of my life, but more because of people in poverty stricken war countries, why would a God do that to people????
I don't think it's a bad thing to believe, after all if you believe you'll either go to heaven or not know at all.
I just can't take it when people preach....nobody knows if it's for real so how can someone preach about something they're unsure of.
More and more I believe that this is it, make the most of it.

 

[Sideways]

Originally posted by Eddie420
There has got to be something......out there. I hope, though am highly sceptical not because of my life, but more because of people in poverty stricken war countries, why would a God do that to people????
I don't think it's a bad thing to believe, after all if you believe you'll either go to heaven or not know at all.
I just can't take it when people preach....nobody knows if it's for real so how can someone preach about something they're unsure of.
More and more I believe that this is it, make the most of it.

The only truths I've experianced are Mathmatics and the Tao.

 

[Eddie420]

I'm very average at maths as for Taoism

 

[Sideways]

Taoism is pretty sweet.
The Tao Te Ching is an easy read, and very applicable to experiencing life.
I’d say check out Stephen Mitchell’s translation.
$10 well spent.


As for Math...that stuff takes a lot of time and practice.....but I think it's one of the most creative forms of communication in existence. I wish I had more energy for pursuing it further.

 

[shocktower]

The Bible is just a bad novel ,that was translated and reconformed to fit the time ,Fear instilled into men to control them,I have died ,and I came back there was not lights no juan jesus ,nor jaime` ( james in spanish ) ,if the biggest church on earth hides child molesters ,and that guy jesus will foregive them ,so if some POS touches my child I can kill him because the Bible sez an eye for an eye :devil: :devil: ,BTW I`am an Adult over 35 and I changed my ways ,I used to think there was this deity ,but it`s just BS ,wake up know your world ,and relize we are just bugs here just like a bunch of others ,and the Darwin stuff has more evedence to it than that of a god ,just look at all the diffrent races Hummm how did that happen if we all can from a stupid horny guy who banged that slut eve ,the same slut created from one of his ribs ,if we are the same why do we have an even numer of ribs ,and not one missing how come we are not all white or Black ,since the original man has been found in Africa ,please prove it to me cause you can`t

 

[Triphop]

You are over 35? From the way you write/spell I wouldn't have thought....

I find it amusing that you bring up Darwin as an argument against Christian religion, yet fail to mention that Darwin believed in God and explained that his research leaves open the possibility for God.

Yes, the bible says "an eye for an eye" in the Old Testament, which does not literaly mean "an eye for an eye", but means an eye's worth for an eye...and lest not forget "Thou shalt not kill." Regardless, Christ preached to turn the other cheek. So, if you want to start throwing out bible verses to devalue Christianity...atleast use verses that are relevant and do some research before you talk out your a$$.

I wrote this, then realized there is another teaching that is very worthwhile here...do not speak to deaf ears, as it is a waste of time.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by shocktower
The Bible is just a bad novel ,that was translated and reconformed to fit the time ,Fear instilled into men to control them,I have died ,and I came back there was not lights no juan jesus ,nor jaime` ( james in spanish ) ,if the biggest church on earth hides child molesters ,and that guy jesus will foregive them ,so if some POS touches my child I can kill him because the Bible sez an eye for an eye :devil: :devil: ,BTW I`am an Adult over 35 and I changed my ways ,I used to think there was this deity ,but it`s just BS ,wake up know your world ,and relize we are just bugs here just like a bunch of others ,and the Darwin stuff has more evedence to it than that of a god ,just look at all the diffrent races Hummm how did that happen if we all can from a stupid horny guy who banged that slut eve ,the same slut created from one of his ribs ,if we are the same why do we have an even numer of ribs ,and not one missing how come we are not all white or Black ,since the original man has been found in Africa ,please prove it to me cause you can`t

Erm, so how did we all evolve into different races?

There're as many holes in Darwinism as there are in creationism.

Nice show of respect for other's beliefs though....

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by shocktower
The Bible is just a bad novel ,that was translated and reconformed to fit the time ,Fear instilled into men to control them,I have died ,and I came back there was not lights no juan jesus ,nor jaime` ( james in spanish ) ,if the biggest church on earth hides child molesters ,and that guy jesus will foregive them ,so if some POS touches my child I can kill him because the Bible sez an eye for an eye :devil: :devil: ,BTW I`am an Adult over 35 and I changed my ways ,I used to think there was this deity ,but it`s just BS ,wake up know your world ,and relize we are just bugs here just like a bunch of others ,and the Darwin stuff has more evedence to it than that of a god ,just look at all the diffrent races Hummm how did that happen if we all can from a stupid horny guy who banged that slut eve ,the same slut created from one of his ribs ,if we are the same why do we have an even numer of ribs ,and not one missing how come we are not all white or Black ,since the original man has been found in Africa ,please prove it to me cause you can`t

I hear punctuation is in vogue.

And yes, thanks for respecting others' beliefs.