British archaeologists are seeking to authenticate what could be a landmark discovery in the documentation of early Christianity: a trove of 70 lead codices that appear to date from the 1st century CE, which may include key clues to the last days of Jesus' life. As UK Daily Mail reporter Fiona Macrae writes, some researchers are suggesting this could be the most significant find in Christian archeology since the Dead Sea scrolls in 1947.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/2...ristian-history
Assuming it isn't a fake of course....
Arthur
I will be interested once there's consensus that the documents are truly that old.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 30 2011, 08:29 PM)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/2...ristian-history
Assuming it isn't a fake of course....
Arthur
It would make a great jewelry line! More information for the pot, that can be argued, because no matter what they say, I doubt either party from opposing sides will change what they believe.
For synics of christianity, at this stage, I think it would have to take the actual prophecised rapture to empirically happen before them, with the dead rising from the earth for them to change their beliefs.
Either way, I think the more info we obtain, the more info we have. That is what keeps us asking questions.
Assuming it isn't a fake of course....
Arthur
It would make a great jewelry line! More information for the pot, that can be argued, because no matter what they say, I doubt either party from opposing sides will change what they believe.
For synics of christianity, at this stage, I think it would have to take the actual prophecised rapture to empirically happen before them, with the dead rising from the earth for them to change their beliefs.
Either way, I think the more info we obtain, the more info we have. That is what keeps us asking questions.
A bit more info in this article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12888421
Meanwhile an Israeli and a Muslim nation squabble over the ownership of a Christian artifact.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12888421
Meanwhile an Israeli and a Muslim nation squabble over the ownership of a Christian artifact.
QUOTE (soundhertz+Mar 31 2011, 04:55 PM)
Meanwhile an Israeli and a Muslim nation squabble over the ownership of a Christian artifact.
Alleged Christian artifact. I don't think anyone's actually translated it yet.
Alleged Christian artifact. I don't think anyone's actually translated it yet.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Mar 31 2011, 09:58 PM)
Alleged Christian artifact. I don't think anyone's actually translated it yet.
The article has mentioned a few experts who have started deciphering the images. The one has declared that one image depicts a cross before an open "tomb" in front of the city Jerusalem. I am not saying she is correct, but they have started deciphering.
The article has mentioned a few experts who have started deciphering the images. The one has declared that one image depicts a cross before an open "tomb" in front of the city Jerusalem. I am not saying she is correct, but they have started deciphering.
QUOTE
Alleged Christian artifact. I don't think anyone's actually translated it yet.
I buy that, since nothing is actual empirical evidence yet. But the religious archaeologists' leanings are Christian based on several criteria, hence it's not alleged to be Jewish.
QUOTE (soundhertz+Mar 31 2011, 10:35 PM)
I buy that, since nothing is actual empirical evidence yet. But the religious archaeologists' leanings are Christian based on several criteria, hence it's not alleged to be Jewish.
The Jews haven't rushed forward to claim it though....but lets see what happens and who is gonna fight for spiritual control of it.
I just hope, that whoever holds it in the end, will allow critical scholars to study them in detail.
I seriously doubt that even if they are genuine, that it will do anymore than the bible already does. Very few of the experts so far, believe it is of a time of christ, but rather a few decades after his death.
The Jews haven't rushed forward to claim it though....but lets see what happens and who is gonna fight for spiritual control of it.
I just hope, that whoever holds it in the end, will allow critical scholars to study them in detail.
I seriously doubt that even if they are genuine, that it will do anymore than the bible already does. Very few of the experts so far, believe it is of a time of christ, but rather a few decades after his death.
It'd be nice if they found the Q Source.
Or, they could be fake.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
Or, they could be fake.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least. It's bad/sad enough that there are so many charlatans in the world, but it's even sadder how many gullible people there are. Already, at the "Christian forum" (in quotes, deliberately) that I post on (I'm wagering that I'll be permanently banned from there before the weekend passes), there are some who are rejoicing over this "discovery" as if it were the second coming of Christ. My experience tells me that it is primarily (there are exceptions, of course) those who have no genuine relationship with God who get caught up in all of these "discoveries". For those who truly know God, no other evidence in needed. They'll have plenty already and it won't be found in lead codices.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least. It's bad/sad enough that there are so many charlatans in the world, but it's even sadder how many gullible people there are. Already, at the "Christian forum" (in quotes, deliberately) that I post on (I'm wagering that I'll be permanently banned from there before the weekend passes), there are some who are rejoicing over this "discovery" as if it were the second coming of Christ. My experience tells me that it is primarily (there are exceptions, of course) those who have no genuine relationship with God who get caught up in all of these "discoveries". For those who truly know God, no other evidence in needed. They'll have plenty already and it won't be found in lead codices.
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 2 2011, 10:16 AM)
For those who truly know God, no other evidence in needed. They'll have plenty already and it won't be found in lead codices.
You probably would have enjoyed the Dark Ages.
You probably would have enjoyed the Dark Ages.
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 2 2011, 03:16 PM)
For those who truly know God, no other evidence in needed.
How can you know someone you have never physically met, other than having a belief that god exists. If this god exists, there is no knowing him, there is only believeing in his existance. To suggest you know god, is to suggest you are capable of knowing god, but god is all powerful and would presumably have control over everything we know and don't know, so to presume you could even be capable of knowing such a being (if such a being exists) is arrogant in my opinion.
How can you know someone you have never physically met, other than having a belief that god exists. If this god exists, there is no knowing him, there is only believeing in his existance. To suggest you know god, is to suggest you are capable of knowing god, but god is all powerful and would presumably have control over everything we know and don't know, so to presume you could even be capable of knowing such a being (if such a being exists) is arrogant in my opinion.
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant witht the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:31-34)
Under the New Covenant/New Testament, God said that all shall know Him. He also inferred/flat out stated why people don't know Him when He said "FOR I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sin no more." FOR or BECAUSE. In other words, it is your sins and iniquities that keep you from knowing God. Ironically, whereas you accuse me of arrogance, it is your own arrogance that keeps you from knowing God. God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.
Take care.
P.S. Have you never noticed/read my signature?
Under the New Covenant/New Testament, God said that all shall know Him. He also inferred/flat out stated why people don't know Him when He said "FOR I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sin no more." FOR or BECAUSE. In other words, it is your sins and iniquities that keep you from knowing God. Ironically, whereas you accuse me of arrogance, it is your own arrogance that keeps you from knowing God. God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.
Take care.
P.S. Have you never noticed/read my signature?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
You probably would have enjoyed the Dark Ages.
For those who walk with the Light of the world, there are no "Dark Ages".
Take care.
For those who walk with the Light of the world, there are no "Dark Ages".
Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 2 2011, 01:17 PM)
For those who walk with the Light of the world, there are no "Dark Ages".
Whatever makes you feel good about yourself. I know that must be a challenge sometimes.
Whatever makes you feel good about yourself. I know that must be a challenge sometimes.
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 2 2011, 06:14 PM)
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant witht the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:31-34)
And why would god only choose one tribe in Israel, over the entire earth he created to share this covenant with?
A racist god maybe?
QUOTE
I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Wow, I wonder if the entire tribe of Israel was party to this alleged agreement, or just some cranky old bedoiun in the dessert who made the deal without authority on behalf of the tribe.And why would god only choose one tribe in Israel, over the entire earth he created to share this covenant with?
A racist god maybe?
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Apr 2 2011, 09:37 PM)
Wow, I wonder if the entire tribe of Israel was party to this alleged agreement, or just some cranky old bedoiun in the dessert who made the deal without authority on behalf of the tribe.
And why would god only choose one tribe in Israel, over the entire earth he created to share this covenant with?
A racist god maybe?
The amazing thing is that when I read your posts, I realize how much more intelligent newguy is than you. It was individuals like you that drove the sane to religious belief.
And why would god only choose one tribe in Israel, over the entire earth he created to share this covenant with?
A racist god maybe?
The amazing thing is that when I read your posts, I realize how much more intelligent newguy is than you. It was individuals like you that drove the sane to religious belief.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 3 2011, 04:22 AM)
The amazing thing is that when I read your posts, I realize how much more intelligent newguy is than you. It was individuals like you that drove the sane to religious belief.
Life is not a pissing contest to me. Who cares if you think newguy is more intelligent then me? He May be, but it is irrelevant to me.
At least you admit, that religious folk are not sane and that religion is the opposite of sanity.
We have found something we agree on!!!
Life is not a pissing contest to me. Who cares if you think newguy is more intelligent then me? He May be, but it is irrelevant to me.
At least you admit, that religious folk are not sane and that religion is the opposite of sanity.
We have found something we agree on!!!
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Apr 3 2011, 09:02 AM)
Life is not a pissing contest to me. Who cares if you think newguy is more intelligent then me? He May be, but it is irrelevant to me.
At least you admit, that religious folk are not sane and that religion is the opposite of sanity.
We have found something we agree on!!!
The new teaching is that organized religion, just like organized crime, is what shackles people. To be saved (and therefore sane), one has to raise above religion. People no longer have to live under 'the law'. Christ released humanity from the yoke of the law (spiritual prison). He sets the captive free. At least that's how my sister explains it to me.
http://www.thewhyman.jesusanswers.com/about.html
At least you admit, that religious folk are not sane and that religion is the opposite of sanity.
We have found something we agree on!!!
The new teaching is that organized religion, just like organized crime, is what shackles people. To be saved (and therefore sane), one has to raise above religion. People no longer have to live under 'the law'. Christ released humanity from the yoke of the law (spiritual prison). He sets the captive free. At least that's how my sister explains it to me.
http://www.thewhyman.jesusanswers.com/about.html
QUOTE (boit+Apr 3 2011, 06:55 AM)
The new teaching is that organized religion, just like organized crime, is what shackles people. To be saved (and therefore sane), one has to raise above religion. People no longer have to live under 'the law'. Christ released humanity from the yoke of the law (spiritual prison). He sets the captive free. At least that's how my sister explains it to me.
http://www.thewhyman.jesusanswers.com/about.html
I have noticed on this forum, more and more, that when religion is discussed, some people always try distinguish between religion and organised religion.
Religion to me is an organising of different thought into a unified thought. Religion by its own definition is organised.
I believe in a difference between spirituality, which requires no organising and religion which is the organising of spirituality. It is the desire to organise spirituality into a unified concept, that created religion in the first place, and freeing yourself from religion, does not mean you are not spiritual, but only means you are free.
Religion is the distinct creation of rules (law) that must be abided by. Spirituality requires no rules or law. Christinity is filled with rules and law that must be abided by, and to argue that Christ himself set man free from this law , is contradictory to the very fundamental law of christianity, that you must believe Jesus is the son of god, or you are not a christian. This is not true freedom, this is conditional freedom.
http://www.thewhyman.jesusanswers.com/about.html
I have noticed on this forum, more and more, that when religion is discussed, some people always try distinguish between religion and organised religion.
Religion to me is an organising of different thought into a unified thought. Religion by its own definition is organised.
I believe in a difference between spirituality, which requires no organising and religion which is the organising of spirituality. It is the desire to organise spirituality into a unified concept, that created religion in the first place, and freeing yourself from religion, does not mean you are not spiritual, but only means you are free.
Religion is the distinct creation of rules (law) that must be abided by. Spirituality requires no rules or law. Christinity is filled with rules and law that must be abided by, and to argue that Christ himself set man free from this law , is contradictory to the very fundamental law of christianity, that you must believe Jesus is the son of god, or you are not a christian. This is not true freedom, this is conditional freedom.
QUOTE
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:31-34)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:31-34) |
I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
Wow, I wonder if the entire tribe of Israel was party to this alleged agreement, or just some cranky old bedoiun in the dessert who made the deal without authority on behalf of the tribe.
And why would god only choose one tribe in Israel, over the entire earth he created to share this covenant with?
A racist god maybe?
Just as an FYI, "the house of Israel" refers to the ten northern tribes and "the house of Judah" refers to the two southern tribes, so this new covenant was/is available to all twelve tribes and not just one. Additionally, the entire earth can enter into such a new covenant with God through Christ's atoning sacrifice on their behalf, if they but choose to. "A racist God"? Not even close. There will be representatives from every nation and tongue in the kingdom of God before everything is said and done. Incidentally, you avoided my main point of God desiring for individuals to know Him. If you're going to discuss what the Bible has to say about Christianity/God, then you ought to at least know what it actually says in such regards.
Take care.
And why would god only choose one tribe in Israel, over the entire earth he created to share this covenant with?
A racist god maybe?
Just as an FYI, "the house of Israel" refers to the ten northern tribes and "the house of Judah" refers to the two southern tribes, so this new covenant was/is available to all twelve tribes and not just one. Additionally, the entire earth can enter into such a new covenant with God through Christ's atoning sacrifice on their behalf, if they but choose to. "A racist God"? Not even close. There will be representatives from every nation and tongue in the kingdom of God before everything is said and done. Incidentally, you avoided my main point of God desiring for individuals to know Him. If you're going to discuss what the Bible has to say about Christianity/God, then you ought to at least know what it actually says in such regards.
Take care.
QUOTE (boit+)
The new teaching is that organized religion, just like organized crime, is what shackles people. To be saved (and therefore sane), one has to raise above religion. People no longer have to live under 'the law'. Christ released humanity from the yoke of the law (spiritual prison). He sets the captive free. At least that's how my sister explains it to me.
http://www.thewhyman.jesusanswers.com/about.html
boit: I followed your link and read what was contained therein. That link contains some truth, but it also contains some error. If you'd like my Biblical take on it, then I'll be happy to discuss it with you further, whether publicly or privately via PM.
Take care.
http://www.thewhyman.jesusanswers.com/about.html
boit: I followed your link and read what was contained therein. That link contains some truth, but it also contains some error. If you'd like my Biblical take on it, then I'll be happy to discuss it with you further, whether publicly or privately via PM.
Take care.
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
The amazing thing is that when I read your posts, I realize how much more intelligent newguy is than you. It was individuals like you that drove the sane to religious belief.
Actually, it was God's continual strivings with me, via the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, that drew me unto Jesus Christ.
As far as your last sentence is concerned, I'm not sure if you meant (in your usual sacrcastic/humorous way) that the sane are driven to religious belief (I'm opposed to much "religious belief", by the way) due to their sanity or, as fredinjeddah interpreted it, that the sane forfeit their sanity by embracing religious belief. In either case, as we both know (and others as well), I'm quite sane. Jesus Christ is Lord. Every knee shall bow.
Take care.
Actually, it was God's continual strivings with me, via the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, that drew me unto Jesus Christ.
As far as your last sentence is concerned, I'm not sure if you meant (in your usual sacrcastic/humorous way) that the sane are driven to religious belief (I'm opposed to much "religious belief", by the way) due to their sanity or, as fredinjeddah interpreted it, that the sane forfeit their sanity by embracing religious belief. In either case, as we both know (and others as well), I'm quite sane. Jesus Christ is Lord. Every knee shall bow.
Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 3 2011, 09:47 AM)
Incidentally, you avoided my main point of God desiring for individuals to know Him. If you're going to discuss what the Bible has to say about Christianity/God, then you ought to at least know what it actually says in such regards.
Take care.
Of course this god of yours desires individuals to "know" him. It is either a reflection of the fact that god is created in humans image, including their insecurity to be "known" (sometimes liked) by others, or your god is just insecure fullstop.
Thanks for quoting what you felt was poignant to the discussion, and you are right in that aspect, one should know the other side, but your quote did nothing other than tell me what man thinks god wants.
Take care.
Of course this god of yours desires individuals to "know" him. It is either a reflection of the fact that god is created in humans image, including their insecurity to be "known" (sometimes liked) by others, or your god is just insecure fullstop.
Thanks for quoting what you felt was poignant to the discussion, and you are right in that aspect, one should know the other side, but your quote did nothing other than tell me what man thinks god wants.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
Life is not a pissing contest to me.
Nor is it to me. Good for you. Seriously.
Nor is it to me. Good for you. Seriously.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
Who cares if you think newguy is more intelligent then me? He May be, but it is irrelevant to me.
It's irrelevant to me as well, either way.
Take care.
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." (I Corinthians 1:18-31)
It's irrelevant to me as well, either way.
Take care.
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." (I Corinthians 1:18-31)
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
Christinity is filled with rules and law that must be abided by, and to argue that Christ himself set man free from this law , is contradictory to the very fundamental law of christianity, that you must believe Jesus is the son of god, or you are not a christian.
There's a lot of truth in what you said. As I already quoted, under the New Covenant, a covenant that was instituted through Christ's very own blood, God's laws are to be written upon the tables of one's heart and mind as opposed to the original two tablets of stone that were representative of the hard-heartedness of the people to whom they were given. Sad to say, as one who has spent 22+ years dialoguing with professing Christians, hardly anyone believes what I just said. I've never seen a more lawless lot than most professing Christians. Never.
There's a lot of truth in what you said. As I already quoted, under the New Covenant, a covenant that was instituted through Christ's very own blood, God's laws are to be written upon the tables of one's heart and mind as opposed to the original two tablets of stone that were representative of the hard-heartedness of the people to whom they were given. Sad to say, as one who has spent 22+ years dialoguing with professing Christians, hardly anyone believes what I just said. I've never seen a more lawless lot than most professing Christians. Never.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
This is not true freedom, this is conditional freedom.
Jesus came to set people free FROM SIN and not from God's laws.
"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." (John 8:31-36)
Take care.
Jesus came to set people free FROM SIN and not from God's laws.
"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." (John 8:31-36)
Take care.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
Of course this god of yours desires individuals to "know" him. It is either a reflection of the fact that god is created in humans image, including their insecurity to be "known" (sometimes liked) by others, or your god is just insecure fullstop.
God's desired covenant with His people is likened to a marriage covenant all throughout scripture, whether in the Old Covenant/Old Testament or in the New Covenant/New Testament. Even in the portion of scripture that I already cited from Jeremiah chapter 31, God said "although I was an husband unto them". This is the type of "knowing" that God is after. An intimate "knowing" between a Husband and His wife. Unfortunately, in return for all of His efforts, God has mostly sat back and watched a bunch of stiff-necked, rebellious, spiritual "adulterers" and "whores"...those who have run after "other gods". Anyhow, God's not insecure. A "testament", as in the Old Testament or New Testament, is just that.
"For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood." (Hebrews 9:16-18)
In order for one to receive what has been left unto them through someone's "testament" ("will", if you prefer), the testator needs to die first. For this purpose, God had death institute both of His testaments. In the Old Testament, it was the blood of animals that foreshadowed the coming Christ, "the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). Under the New Testament, it was the very blood of Jesus Christ. God has given all things unto His Son and we can be joint-heirs with Him, if we so but desire. It comes at a cost, though. We need to lose our lives to find them and truly submit ourselves unto God through Jesus Christ. We were all as sheep who have gone astray. Now, the Good Shepherd beckons us back unto our Creator. The choice as to whether or not to answer this call is ours to make.
If/since you have a better understanding of what the Bible teaches in this regard, I'm content.
Take care.
What intrigues/concerns/confuses me about you, is why you place such a reliance on the bible?
You seem quite capable of forming your own opinions, yet you always choose to rely on texts from the bible to argue your standpoint.
I understand you are a believer, and respect that, but for me, in order to rely on a collection of documents such as the bible, there has to be consistancy within those document, and I truly find VERY FEW within the intrepretations of the bible I have read.
What does seem to be consistant in the bible though, is that mankind (including christians) always seem to practice their own versions of gods word, and this is always going to lead god to become pissed off with mankind.
If christians cannot unite (and they clearly cannot), then how can they become upset with others who refuse to embrace said flawed philosophy.
He who seeks god, will find god, but god does not exist in the written word of man. The written word of man relating to god, is mans desire to be part of the process. I seek god, only to know if he exists, and if I find god (physically) I will believe he exists. I do not need god in order to exist, I already do exist, the only reason I would need to KNOW god, is to know why I exist.
Your biblical text refers to god as a husband. In effect the creator of man aswell. If our only reason for existing is to give thanks to god for existing, then that is truly the measure of a selfish being. If God wants us to know that life as we experience it, is a rare occurence god created, then I know that already and am greatful for the experience, but I do not believe I HAVE to pray 5 times a day (or at all) or accept Jesus as my saviour.
Likewise, if my existance is as a result purely of random evolution, then I am greatful to random evolution for creating me in this form.
God's desired covenant with His people is likened to a marriage covenant all throughout scripture, whether in the Old Covenant/Old Testament or in the New Covenant/New Testament. Even in the portion of scripture that I already cited from Jeremiah chapter 31, God said "although I was an husband unto them". This is the type of "knowing" that God is after. An intimate "knowing" between a Husband and His wife. Unfortunately, in return for all of His efforts, God has mostly sat back and watched a bunch of stiff-necked, rebellious, spiritual "adulterers" and "whores"...those who have run after "other gods". Anyhow, God's not insecure. A "testament", as in the Old Testament or New Testament, is just that.
"For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood." (Hebrews 9:16-18)
In order for one to receive what has been left unto them through someone's "testament" ("will", if you prefer), the testator needs to die first. For this purpose, God had death institute both of His testaments. In the Old Testament, it was the blood of animals that foreshadowed the coming Christ, "the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). Under the New Testament, it was the very blood of Jesus Christ. God has given all things unto His Son and we can be joint-heirs with Him, if we so but desire. It comes at a cost, though. We need to lose our lives to find them and truly submit ourselves unto God through Jesus Christ. We were all as sheep who have gone astray. Now, the Good Shepherd beckons us back unto our Creator. The choice as to whether or not to answer this call is ours to make.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
Thanks for quoting what you felt was poignant to the discussion, and you are right in that aspect, one should know the other side, but your quote did nothing other than tell me what man thinks god wants.
If/since you have a better understanding of what the Bible teaches in this regard, I'm content.
Take care.
If/since you have a better understanding of what the Bible teaches in this regard, I'm content.
Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 3 2011, 10:44 AM)
If/since you have a better understanding of what the Bible teaches in this regard, I'm content.
Take care.
What intrigues/concerns/confuses me about you, is why you place such a reliance on the bible?
You seem quite capable of forming your own opinions, yet you always choose to rely on texts from the bible to argue your standpoint.
I understand you are a believer, and respect that, but for me, in order to rely on a collection of documents such as the bible, there has to be consistancy within those document, and I truly find VERY FEW within the intrepretations of the bible I have read.
What does seem to be consistant in the bible though, is that mankind (including christians) always seem to practice their own versions of gods word, and this is always going to lead god to become pissed off with mankind.
If christians cannot unite (and they clearly cannot), then how can they become upset with others who refuse to embrace said flawed philosophy.
He who seeks god, will find god, but god does not exist in the written word of man. The written word of man relating to god, is mans desire to be part of the process. I seek god, only to know if he exists, and if I find god (physically) I will believe he exists. I do not need god in order to exist, I already do exist, the only reason I would need to KNOW god, is to know why I exist.
Your biblical text refers to god as a husband. In effect the creator of man aswell. If our only reason for existing is to give thanks to god for existing, then that is truly the measure of a selfish being. If God wants us to know that life as we experience it, is a rare occurence god created, then I know that already and am greatful for the experience, but I do not believe I HAVE to pray 5 times a day (or at all) or accept Jesus as my saviour.
Likewise, if my existance is as a result purely of random evolution, then I am greatful to random evolution for creating me in this form.
QUOTE
What does seem to be consistant in the bible though, is that mankind (including christians) always seem to practice their own versions of gods word, and this is always going to lead god to become pissed off with mankind.
newguy can qualify, but afa what I've read, there are to be many more in hell than not. What you said might be the reason.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What does seem to be consistant in the bible though, is that mankind (including christians) always seem to practice their own versions of gods word, and this is always going to lead god to become pissed off with mankind. |
newguy can qualify, but afa what I've read, there are to be many more in hell than not. What you said might be the reason.I believe in a difference between spirituality, which requires no organising and religion which is the organising of spirituality.
Religious is a man in church thinking about fishing.
Spiritual is a man fishing thinking about God.
Something I read a long time ago, when I was still a theist. It stuck with me.
Religious is a man in church thinking about fishing.
Spiritual is a man fishing thinking about God.
Something I read a long time ago, when I was still a theist. It stuck with me.
here's something interesting that I culled from Sapo's joint:
Bolds mine.
QUOTE
A most interesting passage that may have referred to these books in the "Apocryphal Book of Ezra" is 4 Ezra 14:38-48:
[38] And on the next day, behold, a voice called me, saying, "Ezra, open your mouth and drink what I give you to drink."
[39] Then I opened my mouth, and behold, a full cup was offered to me; it was full of something like water, but its color was like fire.
[40] And I took it and drank; and when I had drunk it, my heart poured forth understanding, and wisdom increased in my breast, for my spirit retained its memory;
[41] and my mouth was opened, and was no longer closed.
[42] And the Most High gave understanding to the five men, and by turns they wrote what was dictated, in characters which they did not know. They sat forty days, and wrote during the daytime, and ate their bread at night.
[43] As for me, I spoke in the daytime and was not silent at night.
[44] So during the forty days ninety-four books were written.
[45] And when the forty days were ended, the Most High spoke to me, saying, "Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first and let the worthy and the unworthy read them;
[46] but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people.
[47] For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the river of knowledge."
[48] And I did so.
[38] And on the next day, behold, a voice called me, saying, "Ezra, open your mouth and drink what I give you to drink."
[39] Then I opened my mouth, and behold, a full cup was offered to me; it was full of something like water, but its color was like fire.
[40] And I took it and drank; and when I had drunk it, my heart poured forth understanding, and wisdom increased in my breast, for my spirit retained its memory;
[41] and my mouth was opened, and was no longer closed.
[42] And the Most High gave understanding to the five men, and by turns they wrote what was dictated, in characters which they did not know. They sat forty days, and wrote during the daytime, and ate their bread at night.
[43] As for me, I spoke in the daytime and was not silent at night.
[44] So during the forty days ninety-four books were written.
[45] And when the forty days were ended, the Most High spoke to me, saying, "Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first and let the worthy and the unworthy read them;
[46] but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people.
[47] For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the river of knowledge."
[48] And I did so.
Bolds mine.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Apr 3 2011, 11:50 AM)
Likewise, if my existance is as a result purely of random evolution, then I am greatful to random evolution for creating me in this form.
That is all there is here. (You might want to consider the use of spell check.)
That is all there is here. (You might want to consider the use of spell check.)
QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 3 2011, 07:45 PM)
That is all there is here. (You might want to consider the use of spell check.)
Why were you so easily confused that you could not understand the gist of what I was saying, BECAUSE it was spelt wrong?
Why were you so easily confused that you could not understand the gist of what I was saying, BECAUSE it was spelt wrong?
QUOTE (soundhertz+Apr 3 2011, 05:57 PM)
Religious is a man in church thinking about fishing.
Spiritual is a man fishing thinking about God.
Something I read a long time ago, when I was still a theist. It stuck with me.
Great saying!
Spiritual is a man fishing thinking about God.
Something I read a long time ago, when I was still a theist. It stuck with me.
Great saying!
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Apr 3 2011, 08:08 PM)
Why were you so easily confused that you could not understand the gist of what I was saying, BECAUSE it was spelt wrong?
I understood what you posted (and agreed with you). But I suggested the use of spell check.
I understood what you posted (and agreed with you). But I suggested the use of spell check.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
What intrigues/concerns/confuses me about you, is why you place such a reliance on the bible?
As I've said before, the main purpose of "the book of the Lord" is to help to bring one in direct contact/fellowship with "the Lord of the book". In other words, in and of itself, the Bible is not the end all. It is like a road map that describes a purported Godhead at the end of a certain pathway. If followed properly, then one will find said Godhead. Once found, the living relationship with God is at least on par with the Bible in areas of guidance. There are many things that are not spelled out specifically in the Bible in regards to one's life. God desires for His children to know Him and to seek Him for guidance.
As I've said before, the main purpose of "the book of the Lord" is to help to bring one in direct contact/fellowship with "the Lord of the book". In other words, in and of itself, the Bible is not the end all. It is like a road map that describes a purported Godhead at the end of a certain pathway. If followed properly, then one will find said Godhead. Once found, the living relationship with God is at least on par with the Bible in areas of guidance. There are many things that are not spelled out specifically in the Bible in regards to one's life. God desires for His children to know Him and to seek Him for guidance.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
You seem quite capable of forming your own opinions, yet you always choose to rely on texts from the bible to argue your standpoint.
I am quite capable of forming my own opinions and I've done just that in relation to both the Bible and God Himself. I can assure you that mine is not a "blind faith". I quote Biblical texts to show that "the opinions" didn't originate with me, but with the Word of God. I share these same "opinions", having proven them time and time and time again.
I am quite capable of forming my own opinions and I've done just that in relation to both the Bible and God Himself. I can assure you that mine is not a "blind faith". I quote Biblical texts to show that "the opinions" didn't originate with me, but with the Word of God. I share these same "opinions", having proven them time and time and time again.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
I understand you are a believer, and respect that, but for me, in order to rely on a collection of documents such as the bible, there has to be consistancy within those document, and I truly find VERY FEW within the intrepretations of the bible I have read.
I'm more than just a "believer". I'm a "knower" and I don't say that to be either funny or antagonistic.
May I ask you a sincere question in regards to "the interpretations of the Bible you have read"? First of all, have you ever honestly considered that "the interpretations" may be wrong? The Bible is loaded with warnings about such things as "false brethren", "false prophets", "false Christs", "wolves in sheep's clothing", "evil men and seducers growing worse and worse" and an overall APOSTASY, to name just a few. In other words, who's to say that your "interpreters" are not numbered among the aforementioned? Look, I've been around the block quite a few times in my 22+ years as a Christian. I haven't heard every argument, but I've heard more than my fair share and refuted plenty of them (I'm not omniscient...I don't know everything). In all honesty, I've encountered very few people who have even read the Bible for themselves. In most cases, it's the same old rehashed garbage from websites such as "skepticsannotedbible" or the like. Anyhow, I have read the Bible many times from cover to cover on my own. Personally, I find perfect harmony in it, from beginning to end. Beyond this, I've had many encounters with both God and demons, so it's more than just a book that I'm dealing with. It's life itself.
I'm more than just a "believer". I'm a "knower" and I don't say that to be either funny or antagonistic.
May I ask you a sincere question in regards to "the interpretations of the Bible you have read"? First of all, have you ever honestly considered that "the interpretations" may be wrong? The Bible is loaded with warnings about such things as "false brethren", "false prophets", "false Christs", "wolves in sheep's clothing", "evil men and seducers growing worse and worse" and an overall APOSTASY, to name just a few. In other words, who's to say that your "interpreters" are not numbered among the aforementioned? Look, I've been around the block quite a few times in my 22+ years as a Christian. I haven't heard every argument, but I've heard more than my fair share and refuted plenty of them (I'm not omniscient...I don't know everything). In all honesty, I've encountered very few people who have even read the Bible for themselves. In most cases, it's the same old rehashed garbage from websites such as "skepticsannotedbible" or the like. Anyhow, I have read the Bible many times from cover to cover on my own. Personally, I find perfect harmony in it, from beginning to end. Beyond this, I've had many encounters with both God and demons, so it's more than just a book that I'm dealing with. It's life itself.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
What does seem to be consistant in the bible though, is that mankind (including christians) always seem to practice their own versions of gods word, and this is always going to lead god to become pissed off with mankind.
Even if this is so, whose fault is that? God's or rebellious man's? I trust (?) that we both know the correct answer to that question.
Even if this is so, whose fault is that? God's or rebellious man's? I trust (?) that we both know the correct answer to that question.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
If christians cannot unite (and they clearly cannot), then how can they become upset with others who refuse to embrace said flawed philosophy.
First of all, Christianity was never meant to be just a "philosophy". Oh, I recognize that in many cases that's all that it is, but that "flaw" falls back on rebellious man and not on God. Secondly, it's unrealistic to say that "Christians cannot unite". Pockets of Christians are united on many issues across the globe. Thirdly, I think (know) that you use the word "Christian" way too loosely. Not all that glitters is gold. There are many charlatans and hypocrites within professing Christendom. Lastly, and possibly most importanty in regards to our own dialogue, I personally do not "become upset" with those who refuse to embrace said flawed philosophy. As far as I'm concerned, the biggest stumblingblocks to Christianity on the face of the earth are many professing Christians. Oh, I know, I know...some are chomping at the bit to insist that I'm one of them. In any case, as I've said before, churches are some of the most dangerous places on the face of the earth...probably the most dangerous, from a strictly eternal standpoint.
No one will "find God" (not the God of the Bible, anyway) unless they come to Him humbly, in repentance, through Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man. As far as the reason for your existence is concerned, I'd much rather that you hear that directly from God Himself.
No one will "find God" (not the God of the Bible, anyway) unless they come to Him humbly, in repentance, through Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man. As far as the reason for your existence is concerned, I'd much rather that you hear that directly from God Himself.
Your biblical text refers to god as a husband. In effect the creator of man as well. If our only reason for existing is to give thanks to god for existing, then that is truly the measure of a selfish being.
"Selfish being"? As I already briefly explained, the New Testament is just that...a testament that required the death of the Testator, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is heir of all things and He's willing to share His inheritance with all those who truly come to Him in order to be reconciled back unto God. Sorry (not really), but that doesn't sound "selfish" to me at all.
First of all, Christianity was never meant to be just a "philosophy". Oh, I recognize that in many cases that's all that it is, but that "flaw" falls back on rebellious man and not on God. Secondly, it's unrealistic to say that "Christians cannot unite". Pockets of Christians are united on many issues across the globe. Thirdly, I think (know) that you use the word "Christian" way too loosely. Not all that glitters is gold. There are many charlatans and hypocrites within professing Christendom. Lastly, and possibly most importanty in regards to our own dialogue, I personally do not "become upset" with those who refuse to embrace said flawed philosophy. As far as I'm concerned, the biggest stumblingblocks to Christianity on the face of the earth are many professing Christians. Oh, I know, I know...some are chomping at the bit to insist that I'm one of them. In any case, as I've said before, churches are some of the most dangerous places on the face of the earth...probably the most dangerous, from a strictly eternal standpoint.
QUOTE
He who seeks god, will find god, but god does not exist in the written word of man. The written word of man relating to god, is mans desire to be part of the process. I seek god, only to know if he exists, and if I find god (physically) I will believe he exists. I do not need god in order to exist, I already do exist, the only reason I would need to KNOW god, is to know why I exist.
No one will "find God" (not the God of the Bible, anyway) unless they come to Him humbly, in repentance, through Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man. As far as the reason for your existence is concerned, I'd much rather that you hear that directly from God Himself.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| He who seeks god, will find god, but god does not exist in the written word of man. The written word of man relating to god, is mans desire to be part of the process. I seek god, only to know if he exists, and if I find god (physically) I will believe he exists. I do not need god in order to exist, I already do exist, the only reason I would need to KNOW god, is to know why I exist. |
No one will "find God" (not the God of the Bible, anyway) unless they come to Him humbly, in repentance, through Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man. As far as the reason for your existence is concerned, I'd much rather that you hear that directly from God Himself.
Your biblical text refers to god as a husband. In effect the creator of man as well. If our only reason for existing is to give thanks to god for existing, then that is truly the measure of a selfish being.
"Selfish being"? As I already briefly explained, the New Testament is just that...a testament that required the death of the Testator, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is heir of all things and He's willing to share His inheritance with all those who truly come to Him in order to be reconciled back unto God. Sorry (not really), but that doesn't sound "selfish" to me at all.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
If God wants us to know that life as we experience it, is a rare occurence god created, then I know that already and am greatful for the experience, but I do not believe I HAVE to pray 5 times a day (or at all) or accept Jesus as my saviour.
Believe me, if you ever truly become a Christian, then you'll pray a lot more than just a ritualistic 5 times a day. You'll find yourself smack dab in the middle of a spiritual war between two kingdoms and prayer will be more than a necessity for you to overcome. This isn't a game. According to God, the very fact that you will die (I won't bother citing you any of His laws) is evidence of your sin against Him "for the wages of sin is death". Your self-righteousness won't account for anything before God come Judgment Day. God's standard of righteousness is sinless perfection and there's only One Who can/did foot that bill. His name is Jesus Christ. He's willing to be your "scapegoat"...if you'll but let Him.
Believe me, if you ever truly become a Christian, then you'll pray a lot more than just a ritualistic 5 times a day. You'll find yourself smack dab in the middle of a spiritual war between two kingdoms and prayer will be more than a necessity for you to overcome. This isn't a game. According to God, the very fact that you will die (I won't bother citing you any of His laws) is evidence of your sin against Him "for the wages of sin is death". Your self-righteousness won't account for anything before God come Judgment Day. God's standard of righteousness is sinless perfection and there's only One Who can/did foot that bill. His name is Jesus Christ. He's willing to be your "scapegoat"...if you'll but let Him.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
Likewise, if my existance is as a result purely of random evolution, then I am greatful to random evolution for creating me in this form.
It isn't, but you're free to believe otherwise.
Take care.
It isn't, but you're free to believe otherwise.
Take care.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
Religious is a man in church thinking about fishing.
Spiritual is a man fishing thinking about God.
Christian is a man who is a fisher of men.
Spiritual is a man fishing thinking about God.
Christian is a man who is a fisher of men.
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 3 2011, 11:25 PM)
I'm more than just a "believer". I'm a "knower" and I don't say that to be either funny or antagonistic. Beyond this, I've had many encounters with both God and demons, so it's more than just a book that I'm dealing with. It's life itself.
And if somebody said they knew you had sex with farm animals you would say what?
If you truly believe so, it must be true?
And if somebody said they knew you had sex with farm animals you would say what?
If you truly believe so, it must be true?
A travelling salesman stopped at a local farmhouse needing a place to stay for the night.
The farmer welcomed him and told him that he could stay out in the barn if he chose to.
The next morning came and the salesman walked into the farm house.
The farmer greeted him, "How was your night?"
The salesman replied, "Wonderful, I talked to all the animals."
"You talked to all the animals?", the farmer asked.
He said, "Yeah, I spoke to the chickens and they told me that you collect the eggs every morning at a quarter to six."
"That's right!", the farmer exclaimed.
The salesman added, "I talked to the horse and he said that his name is Otis and that you have owned him for 6 years."
"Right again", the farmer added.
"I heard from Elsie the milk-cow and she said that you milk her every morning at exactly 8:30."
"That's amazing!", the farmer said.
The salesman added, "I also spoke to the sheep".....
The farmer interrupted loudly, "Those sheep are LIARS!!
Good night.
The farmer welcomed him and told him that he could stay out in the barn if he chose to.
The next morning came and the salesman walked into the farm house.
The farmer greeted him, "How was your night?"
The salesman replied, "Wonderful, I talked to all the animals."
"You talked to all the animals?", the farmer asked.
He said, "Yeah, I spoke to the chickens and they told me that you collect the eggs every morning at a quarter to six."
"That's right!", the farmer exclaimed.
The salesman added, "I talked to the horse and he said that his name is Otis and that you have owned him for 6 years."
"Right again", the farmer added.
"I heard from Elsie the milk-cow and she said that you milk her every morning at exactly 8:30."
"That's amazing!", the farmer said.
The salesman added, "I also spoke to the sheep".....
The farmer interrupted loudly, "Those sheep are LIARS!!
Good night.
QUOTE (Newguy+)
No one will "find God" (not the God of the Bible, anyway) unless they come to Him humbly, in repentance, through Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.
Christian is a man who is a fisher of men.
If you feel that you are serving God and one of his “elect” fishermen then you obviously feel that you are superior to the nonreligious.
The religious believe that we were created by an all powerful supernatural being and in his image. That he loves us, watches over us, and even grants us wishes. That humans are special and we will be granted immortality and rewards in the afterlife. What is being humble to a Christian, to act like god, but to not think of themselves as a god, unless you’re Mormon, of course?
How can you know there is a god? You only “feel” there is a god. That’s not using deductive rationality. It’s from emotions, gut feelings, intuition, etc. The religious never admit that their human intuition is fallible and yet, they consider themselves modest.
An atheist knows that their perception is only one among many and they seek to learn more. We also have hopes but we know that our hopes entail effort. Atheists know that we can choose to extend love or withhold. One life that’s all you get and just think, the religious want us to love a make believe deity, and a dumb book that distracts us from reality.
Even though we seem insignificant in the vastness of the universe it is cool to think we are a part of it. How cool is it to know that we can see, with our naked eye, light from a galaxy 2.5 million light years away or even to consider the rate of speed in which we are moving through space. You can tell a child about how the elements were cooked in the nuclear furnace of stars, and never see fear in their eyes, only curiosity, but watch them when they are told of the fiery furnace of hell.
Welcome To This World
How can the religious even consider themselves humble when they feel that the entire universe was created for their existence, a mere backdrop for humanity?
Oh, and by the way, great joke!
Christian is a man who is a fisher of men.
If you feel that you are serving God and one of his “elect” fishermen then you obviously feel that you are superior to the nonreligious.
The religious believe that we were created by an all powerful supernatural being and in his image. That he loves us, watches over us, and even grants us wishes. That humans are special and we will be granted immortality and rewards in the afterlife. What is being humble to a Christian, to act like god, but to not think of themselves as a god, unless you’re Mormon, of course?
How can you know there is a god? You only “feel” there is a god. That’s not using deductive rationality. It’s from emotions, gut feelings, intuition, etc. The religious never admit that their human intuition is fallible and yet, they consider themselves modest.
An atheist knows that their perception is only one among many and they seek to learn more. We also have hopes but we know that our hopes entail effort. Atheists know that we can choose to extend love or withhold. One life that’s all you get and just think, the religious want us to love a make believe deity, and a dumb book that distracts us from reality.
Even though we seem insignificant in the vastness of the universe it is cool to think we are a part of it. How cool is it to know that we can see, with our naked eye, light from a galaxy 2.5 million light years away or even to consider the rate of speed in which we are moving through space. You can tell a child about how the elements were cooked in the nuclear furnace of stars, and never see fear in their eyes, only curiosity, but watch them when they are told of the fiery furnace of hell.
Welcome To This World
How can the religious even consider themselves humble when they feel that the entire universe was created for their existence, a mere backdrop for humanity?
Oh, and by the way, great joke!
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Apr 4 2011, 04:15 AM)
QUOTE (Newguy+)
No one will "find God" (not the God of the Bible, anyway) unless they come to Him humbly, in repentance, through Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.
Christian is a man who is a fisher of men.
If you feel that you are serving God and one of his “elect” fishermen then you obviously feel that you are superior to the nonreligious.
The religious believe that we were created by an all powerful supernatural being and in his image. That he loves us, watches over us, and even grants us wishes. That humans are special and we will be granted immortality and rewards in the afterlife. What is being humble to a Christian, to act like god, but to not think of themselves as a god, unless you’re Mormon, of course?
How can you know there is a god? You only “feel” there is a god. That’s not using deductive rationality. It’s from emotions, gut feelings, intuition, etc. The religious never admit that their human intuition is fallible and yet, they consider themselves modest.
An atheist knows that their perception is only one among many and they seek to learn more. We also have hopes but we know that our hopes entail effort. Atheists know that we can choose to extend love or withhold. One life that’s all you get and just think, the religious want us to love a make believe deity, and a dumb book that distracts us from reality.
Even though we seem insignificant in the vastness of the universe it is cool to think we are a part of it. How cool is it to know that we can see, with our naked eye, light from a galaxy 2.5 million light years away or even to consider the rate of speed in which we are moving through space. You can tell a child about how the elements were cooked in the nuclear furnace of stars, and never see fear in their eyes, only curiosity, but watch them when they are told of the fiery furnace of hell.
Welcome To This World
How can the religious even consider themselves humble when they feel that the entire universe was created for their existence, a mere backdrop for humanity?
Oh, and by the way, great joke!
The creation myth 'the universe was put here for man to do with as he pleases'. How counterproductive is that. Ennui because everybody believes that God will eventually fix stuff so man can continue to exist and abuse this tiny part of the universe. I always remember the scene in 'Contact' where Ellie is denied passage because 95% of humans believe in some form or creation myth and she doesn't. 95%, was Sagan exaggerating or are humans collectively this dumb? Your post was great. Especially the stuff about all these humble Christians who can be forgiven for any behavior and still stroll into heaven while all us non believers 'gonna fry in hell'.
Christian is a man who is a fisher of men.
If you feel that you are serving God and one of his “elect” fishermen then you obviously feel that you are superior to the nonreligious.
The religious believe that we were created by an all powerful supernatural being and in his image. That he loves us, watches over us, and even grants us wishes. That humans are special and we will be granted immortality and rewards in the afterlife. What is being humble to a Christian, to act like god, but to not think of themselves as a god, unless you’re Mormon, of course?
How can you know there is a god? You only “feel” there is a god. That’s not using deductive rationality. It’s from emotions, gut feelings, intuition, etc. The religious never admit that their human intuition is fallible and yet, they consider themselves modest.
An atheist knows that their perception is only one among many and they seek to learn more. We also have hopes but we know that our hopes entail effort. Atheists know that we can choose to extend love or withhold. One life that’s all you get and just think, the religious want us to love a make believe deity, and a dumb book that distracts us from reality.
Even though we seem insignificant in the vastness of the universe it is cool to think we are a part of it. How cool is it to know that we can see, with our naked eye, light from a galaxy 2.5 million light years away or even to consider the rate of speed in which we are moving through space. You can tell a child about how the elements were cooked in the nuclear furnace of stars, and never see fear in their eyes, only curiosity, but watch them when they are told of the fiery furnace of hell.
Welcome To This World
How can the religious even consider themselves humble when they feel that the entire universe was created for their existence, a mere backdrop for humanity?
Oh, and by the way, great joke!
The creation myth 'the universe was put here for man to do with as he pleases'. How counterproductive is that. Ennui because everybody believes that God will eventually fix stuff so man can continue to exist and abuse this tiny part of the universe. I always remember the scene in 'Contact' where Ellie is denied passage because 95% of humans believe in some form or creation myth and she doesn't. 95%, was Sagan exaggerating or are humans collectively this dumb? Your post was great. Especially the stuff about all these humble Christians who can be forgiven for any behavior and still stroll into heaven while all us non believers 'gonna fry in hell'.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 3 2011, 09:39 PM)
I understood what you posted (and agreed with you). But I suggested the use of spell check.
Don't sweat the small stuff in life. What is important is the content not the spelling.
Don't sweat the small stuff in life. What is important is the content not the spelling.
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 4 2011, 12:18 AM)
The salesman added, "I also spoke to the sheep".....
The farmer interrupted loudly, "Those sheep are LIARS!!
The farmer interrupted loudly, "Those sheep are LIARS!!
So if somebody claimed to have knowledge of carnal relations between you and a sheep, you'd accuse the sheep of lying? And when asked to prove an encounter with gods and demons you would?
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 3 2011, 11:25 PM)
As I've said before, the main purpose of "the book of the Lord" is to help to bring one in direct contact/fellowship with "the Lord of the book". In other words, in and of itself, the Bible is not the end all
Take care.
Personally I do not believe one requires following the bible in order to find god. To me it is just another book that one can read for guidance, but it is sadly filled with too much contradiction and error to be considered an authority. If it works for you though, thats cool.
Personally I do not believe one requires following the bible in order to find god. To me it is just another book that one can read for guidance, but it is sadly filled with too much contradiction and error to be considered an authority. If it works for you though, thats cool.
I am quite capable of forming my own opinions and I've done just that in relation to both the Bible and God Himself. I can assure you that mine is not a "blind faith". I quote Biblical texts to show that "the opinions" didn't originate with me, but with the Word of God. I share these same "opinions", having proven them time and time and time again.
Have you ever read the Torah, the Quaran and other books on other religions and philosophies, or have you only limited yourself to the christian bible?
All believers believe they know. Our paths are different, but one thing I have come to learn, is that there is no knowing, only believing.
All believers believe they know. Our paths are different, but one thing I have come to learn, is that there is no knowing, only believing.
May I ask you a sincere question in regards to "the interpretations of the Bible you have read"? First of all, have you ever honestly considered that "the interpretations" may be wrong? The Bible is loaded with warnings about such things as "false brethren", "false prophets", "false Christs", "wolves in sheep's clothing", "evil men and seducers growing worse and worse" and an overall APOSTASY, to name just a few. In other words, who's to say that your "interpreters" are not numbered among the aforementioned?
I have studied many modern versions such as St James etc, original greek version translated and judaic versions translated. What do you consider the TRUE version?
The various version I have read, contradict each other, as do the texts within those versions. Well for me anyway. I am yet to have an encounter with a god, that is provable and not just belief in a god existing, and the same can be said for "demons".
The various version I have read, contradict each other, as do the texts within those versions. Well for me anyway. I am yet to have an encounter with a god, that is provable and not just belief in a god existing, and the same can be said for "demons".
Even if this is so, whose fault is that? God's or rebellious man's? I trust (?) that we both know the correct answer to that question.
Or just naive man. It may also be gods fault. You accept this god as perfect, because you are told so. If god created man, then he has to carry a portion of the responsibility for what man does.
Why not god? The lack of physical presence is what has caused so much doubt. If mankind is easily corrupted, why give mankind the responsibilty to disseminate his alleged word?
Why not god? The lack of physical presence is what has caused so much doubt. If mankind is easily corrupted, why give mankind the responsibilty to disseminate his alleged word?
Secondly, it's unrealistic to say that "Christians cannot unite". Pockets of Christians are united on many issues across the globe.
The key word in your reply being "pockets" Proves my point.
And you may be one. How would I know?
And you may be one. How would I know?
Lastly, and possibly most importanty in regards to our own dialogue, I personally do not "become upset" with those who refuse to embrace said flawed philosophy. As far as I'm concerned, the biggest stumblingblocks to Christianity on the face of the earth are many professing Christians. Oh, I know, I know...some are chomping at the bit to insist that I'm one of them. In any case, as I've said before, churches are some of the most dangerous places on the face of the earth...probably the most dangerous, from a strictly eternal standpoint
Then logic dictates to avoid them all? Logic dictates that finding your own path with whatever guidance you choose, is the correct way forward.
Now there is a prime example of the contradictions found throughout the bible. Find god for yourself, but you can only find god through Jesus. You say it, but you don't see it.
Now there is a prime example of the contradictions found throughout the bible. Find god for yourself, but you can only find god through Jesus. You say it, but you don't see it.
"Selfish being"? As I already briefly explained, the New Testament is just that...a testament that required the death of the Testator, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is heir of all things and He's willing to share His inheritance with all those who truly come to Him in order to be reconciled back unto God. Sorry (not really), but that doesn't sound "selfish" to me at all.
So even for Jesus, it is conditional. No matter how you view it, you have to accept their terms, or you get no slice of the pie. This is selfishness. If I were the creator of everything, I would be content for everyone to know it, but I wouldn't punish those that did not. I would punish those that were bad to others, but not becuase they refused to sign all the terms of my contract.
You are assuming I have not been down that path. What makes a true christian? One that belives what you do? I bet that there are chritians out there (on your own account too) that do not believe you are a true christian. True christianity is a concept, not a reality of any kind.
You are assuming I have not been down that path. What makes a true christian? One that belives what you do? I bet that there are chritians out there (on your own account too) that do not believe you are a true christian. True christianity is a concept, not a reality of any kind.
This isn't a game. According to God, the very fact that you will die (I won't bother citing you any of His laws) is evidence of your sin against Him "for the wages of sin is death". Your self-righteousness won't account for anything before God come Judgment Day. God's standard of righteousness is sinless perfection and there's only One Who can/did foot that bill. His name is Jesus Christ. He's willing to be your "scapegoat"...if you'll but let Him.
Not my sin, Adam and Eve's alleged sin for which I am apparently still paying the price. What a bitter god this is. In fact, no matter what I do on earth, I will always be a sinner in the eyes of god. But then god allegedly changed the rules at some point (not from the beginning) to say you are a sinner, but I will send my son, and if you believe and accept him as my son, all is forgiven. What about all the people who existed before Jesus was born. They are doomed. If god gave us free choice from the beginning, and then changed free choice to one choice (accepting Jesus) then this is an unreliable god, fickle, and willing to change his mind when he pleases. If anyone is playing a game, it would be this god you speak of.
Apparently according to your gods word, I am not free to believe this. I MUST accept his way, or the highway...to hell.
Take care.
QUOTE
As I've said before, the main purpose of "the book of the Lord" is to help to bring one in direct contact/fellowship with "the Lord of the book". In other words, in and of itself, the Bible is not the end all. It is like a road map that describes a purported Godhead at the end of a certain pathway. If followed properly, then one will find said Godhead. Once found, the living relationship with God is at least on par with the Bible in areas of guidance. There are many things that are not spelled out specifically in the Bible in regards to one's life. God desires for His children to know Him and to seek Him for guidance.
Personally I do not believe one requires following the bible in order to find god. To me it is just another book that one can read for guidance, but it is sadly filled with too much contradiction and error to be considered an authority. If it works for you though, thats cool.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As I've said before, the main purpose of "the book of the Lord" is to help to bring one in direct contact/fellowship with "the Lord of the book". In other words, in and of itself, the Bible is not the end all. It is like a road map that describes a purported Godhead at the end of a certain pathway. If followed properly, then one will find said Godhead. Once found, the living relationship with God is at least on par with the Bible in areas of guidance. There are many things that are not spelled out specifically in the Bible in regards to one's life. God desires for His children to know Him and to seek Him for guidance. |
Personally I do not believe one requires following the bible in order to find god. To me it is just another book that one can read for guidance, but it is sadly filled with too much contradiction and error to be considered an authority. If it works for you though, thats cool.
I am quite capable of forming my own opinions and I've done just that in relation to both the Bible and God Himself. I can assure you that mine is not a "blind faith". I quote Biblical texts to show that "the opinions" didn't originate with me, but with the Word of God. I share these same "opinions", having proven them time and time and time again.
Have you ever read the Torah, the Quaran and other books on other religions and philosophies, or have you only limited yourself to the christian bible?
QUOTE
I'm more than just a "believer". I'm a "knower" and I don't say that to be either funny or antagonistic.
All believers believe they know. Our paths are different, but one thing I have come to learn, is that there is no knowing, only believing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm more than just a "believer". I'm a "knower" and I don't say that to be either funny or antagonistic. |
All believers believe they know. Our paths are different, but one thing I have come to learn, is that there is no knowing, only believing.
May I ask you a sincere question in regards to "the interpretations of the Bible you have read"? First of all, have you ever honestly considered that "the interpretations" may be wrong? The Bible is loaded with warnings about such things as "false brethren", "false prophets", "false Christs", "wolves in sheep's clothing", "evil men and seducers growing worse and worse" and an overall APOSTASY, to name just a few. In other words, who's to say that your "interpreters" are not numbered among the aforementioned?
I have studied many modern versions such as St James etc, original greek version translated and judaic versions translated. What do you consider the TRUE version?
QUOTE
Anyhow, I have read the Bible many times from cover to cover on my own. Personally, I find perfect harmony in it, from beginning to end. Beyond this, I've had many encounters with both God and demons, so it's more than just a book that I'm dealing with. It's life itself.
The various version I have read, contradict each other, as do the texts within those versions. Well for me anyway. I am yet to have an encounter with a god, that is provable and not just belief in a god existing, and the same can be said for "demons".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Anyhow, I have read the Bible many times from cover to cover on my own. Personally, I find perfect harmony in it, from beginning to end. Beyond this, I've had many encounters with both God and demons, so it's more than just a book that I'm dealing with. It's life itself. |
The various version I have read, contradict each other, as do the texts within those versions. Well for me anyway. I am yet to have an encounter with a god, that is provable and not just belief in a god existing, and the same can be said for "demons".
Even if this is so, whose fault is that? God's or rebellious man's? I trust (?) that we both know the correct answer to that question.
Or just naive man. It may also be gods fault. You accept this god as perfect, because you are told so. If god created man, then he has to carry a portion of the responsibility for what man does.
QUOTE
First of all, Christianity was never meant to be just a "philosophy". Oh, I recognize that in many cases that's all that it is, but that "flaw" falls back on rebellious man and not on God.
Why not god? The lack of physical presence is what has caused so much doubt. If mankind is easily corrupted, why give mankind the responsibilty to disseminate his alleged word?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| First of all, Christianity was never meant to be just a "philosophy". Oh, I recognize that in many cases that's all that it is, but that "flaw" falls back on rebellious man and not on God. |
Why not god? The lack of physical presence is what has caused so much doubt. If mankind is easily corrupted, why give mankind the responsibilty to disseminate his alleged word?
Secondly, it's unrealistic to say that "Christians cannot unite". Pockets of Christians are united on many issues across the globe.
The key word in your reply being "pockets" Proves my point.
QUOTE
Thirdly, I think (know) that you use the word "Christian" way too loosely. Not all that glitters is gold. There are many charlatans and hypocrites within professing Christendom.
And you may be one. How would I know?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Thirdly, I think (know) that you use the word "Christian" way too loosely. Not all that glitters is gold. There are many charlatans and hypocrites within professing Christendom. |
And you may be one. How would I know?
Lastly, and possibly most importanty in regards to our own dialogue, I personally do not "become upset" with those who refuse to embrace said flawed philosophy. As far as I'm concerned, the biggest stumblingblocks to Christianity on the face of the earth are many professing Christians. Oh, I know, I know...some are chomping at the bit to insist that I'm one of them. In any case, as I've said before, churches are some of the most dangerous places on the face of the earth...probably the most dangerous, from a strictly eternal standpoint
Then logic dictates to avoid them all? Logic dictates that finding your own path with whatever guidance you choose, is the correct way forward.
QUOTE
No one will "find God" (not the God of the Bible, anyway) unless they come to Him humbly, in repentance, through Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man. As far as the reason for your existence is concerned, I'd much rather that you hear that directly from God Himself.
Now there is a prime example of the contradictions found throughout the bible. Find god for yourself, but you can only find god through Jesus. You say it, but you don't see it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No one will "find God" (not the God of the Bible, anyway) unless they come to Him humbly, in repentance, through Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man. As far as the reason for your existence is concerned, I'd much rather that you hear that directly from God Himself. |
Now there is a prime example of the contradictions found throughout the bible. Find god for yourself, but you can only find god through Jesus. You say it, but you don't see it.
"Selfish being"? As I already briefly explained, the New Testament is just that...a testament that required the death of the Testator, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is heir of all things and He's willing to share His inheritance with all those who truly come to Him in order to be reconciled back unto God. Sorry (not really), but that doesn't sound "selfish" to me at all.
So even for Jesus, it is conditional. No matter how you view it, you have to accept their terms, or you get no slice of the pie. This is selfishness. If I were the creator of everything, I would be content for everyone to know it, but I wouldn't punish those that did not. I would punish those that were bad to others, but not becuase they refused to sign all the terms of my contract.
QUOTE
Believe me, if you ever truly become a Christian, then you'll pray a lot more than just a ritualistic 5 times a day.
You are assuming I have not been down that path. What makes a true christian? One that belives what you do? I bet that there are chritians out there (on your own account too) that do not believe you are a true christian. True christianity is a concept, not a reality of any kind.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Believe me, if you ever truly become a Christian, then you'll pray a lot more than just a ritualistic 5 times a day. |
You are assuming I have not been down that path. What makes a true christian? One that belives what you do? I bet that there are chritians out there (on your own account too) that do not believe you are a true christian. True christianity is a concept, not a reality of any kind.
This isn't a game. According to God, the very fact that you will die (I won't bother citing you any of His laws) is evidence of your sin against Him "for the wages of sin is death". Your self-righteousness won't account for anything before God come Judgment Day. God's standard of righteousness is sinless perfection and there's only One Who can/did foot that bill. His name is Jesus Christ. He's willing to be your "scapegoat"...if you'll but let Him.
Not my sin, Adam and Eve's alleged sin for which I am apparently still paying the price. What a bitter god this is. In fact, no matter what I do on earth, I will always be a sinner in the eyes of god. But then god allegedly changed the rules at some point (not from the beginning) to say you are a sinner, but I will send my son, and if you believe and accept him as my son, all is forgiven. What about all the people who existed before Jesus was born. They are doomed. If god gave us free choice from the beginning, and then changed free choice to one choice (accepting Jesus) then this is an unreliable god, fickle, and willing to change his mind when he pleases. If anyone is playing a game, it would be this god you speak of.
QUOTE
It isn't, but you're free to believe otherwise.
Apparently according to your gods word, I am not free to believe this. I MUST accept his way, or the highway...to hell.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+)
If you feel that you are serving God and one of his “elect” fishermen then you obviously feel that you are superior to the nonreligious.
It's interesting that you can say something so off-base in a post in which you tell me that I'm not using deductive rationality. While two of His disciples were jockeying for exalted positions in the kingdom to come, much to the indignation of the others (who apparently wanted the same), Jesus replied:
"But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:25-28)
Those who truly belong to God will SERVE OTHERS, even as Jesus Christ set the example. As I've said before, to a large degree, churches (and it's not limited to churches) have a very warped idea of what a "minister" is. In today's mindset, a "minister" is someone who struts around in a suit, wearing a gold watch, surrounded by his bodyguards/henchmen (they're usually called "elders"). Jesus got His hands dirty while SERVING OTHERS. You know, like when He washed His disciples' feet.
As far as the rest of your post is concerned, it just contains more of your opinions that you're certainly entitled to. I'm not here to argue with anyone, but to hopefully answer sincere questions, if they ever arise.
Take care.
It's interesting that you can say something so off-base in a post in which you tell me that I'm not using deductive rationality. While two of His disciples were jockeying for exalted positions in the kingdom to come, much to the indignation of the others (who apparently wanted the same), Jesus replied:
"But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:25-28)
Those who truly belong to God will SERVE OTHERS, even as Jesus Christ set the example. As I've said before, to a large degree, churches (and it's not limited to churches) have a very warped idea of what a "minister" is. In today's mindset, a "minister" is someone who struts around in a suit, wearing a gold watch, surrounded by his bodyguards/henchmen (they're usually called "elders"). Jesus got His hands dirty while SERVING OTHERS. You know, like when He washed His disciples' feet.
As far as the rest of your post is concerned, it just contains more of your opinions that you're certainly entitled to. I'm not here to argue with anyone, but to hopefully answer sincere questions, if they ever arise.
Take care.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Apr 4 2011, 04:15 AM)
An atheist knows that their perception is only one among many and they seek to learn more.
From my experience (limited) this seems to define an agnostic more than an atheist. Atheists I have physically encountered are steadfast in their belief that there is no such thing as a deity fullstop, not that they could be wrong....they KNOW they are right on that specific issue.
Science is the reason I am agnostic. One thing I have learnt about science, is that nothing is assured. As we learn more, we fine tune scientific theory and on a rare occasion, do a total turn around.
From my experience (limited) this seems to define an agnostic more than an atheist. Atheists I have physically encountered are steadfast in their belief that there is no such thing as a deity fullstop, not that they could be wrong....they KNOW they are right on that specific issue.
Science is the reason I am agnostic. One thing I have learnt about science, is that nothing is assured. As we learn more, we fine tune scientific theory and on a rare occasion, do a total turn around.
QUOTE (Capracus+)
And when asked to prove an encounter with gods and demons you would?
That you still don't know my answer to this question, after so many years, is quite sad indeed. I'd seek to give them directions/instructions on how they could know said God THEMSELVES. Why are you so hellbent on the testimony/evidence of others? Have you no genuine interest of your own? It amazes me how hypocritical you all really are. Oh, I've heard countless times how "science" needs to be repeatable and yet none of you seem the least bit interested in conducting your own "experiment" where God is concerned. In fact, I've yet to see one of you who can get past your own self-righteousness and admit your need for a Saviour which is the first necessary step. As I've already quoted, it is God's desire for each of us to know Him personally. I'm not the least bit interested in any of you grabbing a hold of my coattails and believing anything based solely upon my own testimony or any evidence that I could present. By the way, as I've mentioned before, according to the Biblical account (and my own experience along the same lines), many people saw evidence/demonstrations of both the power of God and the real presence/existence of demons in Jesus' time here on earth and yet didn't believe. In other words, non-belief isn't limited to a lack of evidence. It has to do with a lot more things than just that. Settle it in your heart, once and for all, that I'm always going to seek to guide people to find their own evidence as opposed to examining mine. If that's not satisfactory to you, then you're just going to frustrate yourself by demanding otherwise.
Take care.
That you still don't know my answer to this question, after so many years, is quite sad indeed. I'd seek to give them directions/instructions on how they could know said God THEMSELVES. Why are you so hellbent on the testimony/evidence of others? Have you no genuine interest of your own? It amazes me how hypocritical you all really are. Oh, I've heard countless times how "science" needs to be repeatable and yet none of you seem the least bit interested in conducting your own "experiment" where God is concerned. In fact, I've yet to see one of you who can get past your own self-righteousness and admit your need for a Saviour which is the first necessary step. As I've already quoted, it is God's desire for each of us to know Him personally. I'm not the least bit interested in any of you grabbing a hold of my coattails and believing anything based solely upon my own testimony or any evidence that I could present. By the way, as I've mentioned before, according to the Biblical account (and my own experience along the same lines), many people saw evidence/demonstrations of both the power of God and the real presence/existence of demons in Jesus' time here on earth and yet didn't believe. In other words, non-belief isn't limited to a lack of evidence. It has to do with a lot more things than just that. Settle it in your heart, once and for all, that I'm always going to seek to guide people to find their own evidence as opposed to examining mine. If that's not satisfactory to you, then you're just going to frustrate yourself by demanding otherwise.
Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 4 2011, 10:58 AM)
It amazes me how hypocritical you all really are. Oh, I've heard countless times how "science" needs to be repeatable and yet none of you seem the least bit interested in conducting your own "experiment" where God is concerned. In fact, I've yet to see one of you who can get past your own self-righteousness and admit your need for a Saviour which is the first necessary step.
And that, there is the reason noone does your 'experiment'. Your first step is to assume that we need a saviour, which you then use to arrive at the conclusion that there is a saviour. The experiment you propose is to abandon skepticism and use faith, which is a waste of time in terms of learning anything.
And that, there is the reason noone does your 'experiment'. Your first step is to assume that we need a saviour, which you then use to arrive at the conclusion that there is a saviour. The experiment you propose is to abandon skepticism and use faith, which is a waste of time in terms of learning anything.
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 4 2011, 10:58 AM)
By the way, as I've mentioned before, according to the Biblical account (and my own experience along the same lines), many people saw evidence/demonstrations of both the power of God and the real presence/existence of demons in Jesus' time here on earth and yet didn't believe. In other words, non-belief isn't limited to a lack of evidence.
Neither the bible nor you is exactly a disinterested source. I, too, have seen a few things attributed to God. They all looked like people ascribing purpose to dumb luck to me. Have you done any work to show that what you're talking about isn't just you reading meaning into the fall of the cards?
Neither the bible nor you is exactly a disinterested source. I, too, have seen a few things attributed to God. They all looked like people ascribing purpose to dumb luck to me. Have you done any work to show that what you're talking about isn't just you reading meaning into the fall of the cards?
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
Have you ever read the Torah, the Quaran and other books on other religions and philosophies, or have you only limited yourself to the christian bible?
"Torah" simply means "teaching". There is a written Torah and an oral Torah. The written Torah would be the equivalent of the Old Testament (which I've read numerous times) and the oral Torah would seek to explain the writings contained within the written Torah. No, I've never read the Quran, but I'm familiar enough with what is contained therein. "Other religions and philosophies"? I'm certainly familiar enough with several of them, but, as I've sought to explain before, I'm really not into either "religion" or "philosophy". Christianity is, or ought to be, a vital relationship between man (as in mankind) and his Creator. As I've repeatedly said, it is continually likened to a marriage relationship where the two become one. In relation to Christianity, this "oneness" is the direct result of one being born again of the Spirit of God and indwelt with the same. This, my dear friend, is more that just a "religion" or "philosophy".
"Torah" simply means "teaching". There is a written Torah and an oral Torah. The written Torah would be the equivalent of the Old Testament (which I've read numerous times) and the oral Torah would seek to explain the writings contained within the written Torah. No, I've never read the Quran, but I'm familiar enough with what is contained therein. "Other religions and philosophies"? I'm certainly familiar enough with several of them, but, as I've sought to explain before, I'm really not into either "religion" or "philosophy". Christianity is, or ought to be, a vital relationship between man (as in mankind) and his Creator. As I've repeatedly said, it is continually likened to a marriage relationship where the two become one. In relation to Christianity, this "oneness" is the direct result of one being born again of the Spirit of God and indwelt with the same. This, my dear friend, is more that just a "religion" or "philosophy".
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
I have studied many modern versions such as St James etc, original greek version translated and judaic versions translated. What do you consider the TRUE version?
I'm not joking in what I'm about to say...
The TRUE version is Jesus Christ.
As I've already sought to explain, in the volume of the book it is written of HIM. He is the very Word made flesh. Remember? The main purpose of "the book of the Lord" is to help to bring one into direct contact/fellowship with "the Lord of the book". Jesus Christ is Lord. Have you ever "studied" HIM? He is the Lamb of God, without spot or blemish...the perfect sacrifice.
I'm not joking in what I'm about to say...
The TRUE version is Jesus Christ.
As I've already sought to explain, in the volume of the book it is written of HIM. He is the very Word made flesh. Remember? The main purpose of "the book of the Lord" is to help to bring one into direct contact/fellowship with "the Lord of the book". Jesus Christ is Lord. Have you ever "studied" HIM? He is the Lamb of God, without spot or blemish...the perfect sacrifice.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
You accept this god as perfect, because you are told so.
No. I accept this God as perfect because I know Him. Just one moment in His presence will settle the issue of where the imperfections truly lie.
No. I accept this God as perfect because I know Him. Just one moment in His presence will settle the issue of where the imperfections truly lie.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
Why not god? The lack of physical presence is what has caused so much doubt. If mankind is easily corrupted, why give mankind the responsibilty to disseminate his alleged word?
His "physical presence" was called a devil, spat upon, had his beard ripped out, was beaten, whipped and ultimately nailed to a cross...in case you haven't heard. He wasn't suffering for His own sins, but for ours.
His "physical presence" was called a devil, spat upon, had his beard ripped out, was beaten, whipped and ultimately nailed to a cross...in case you haven't heard. He wasn't suffering for His own sins, but for ours.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
And you may be one. How would I know?
You wouldn't...which is precisely why I seek to point people to God/Jesus as opposed to myself.
You wouldn't...which is precisely why I seek to point people to God/Jesus as opposed to myself.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
Now there is a prime example of the contradictions found throughout the bible. Find god for yourself, but you can only find god through Jesus. You say it, but you don't see it.
There's no "contradiction" at all. I've already mentioned that the Bible describes a purported GODHEAD or Trinity. Both the Father and Jesus are part of such. From the very first verse of Genesis, we are introduced to a plurality where "God" is concerned. The Hebrew word that is used is "elohim" which is the plural form of another Hebrew word. Anyhow, in terms of the GODHEAD, the Bible speaks of Three Who are One, as in UNITED.
There's no "contradiction" at all. I've already mentioned that the Bible describes a purported GODHEAD or Trinity. Both the Father and Jesus are part of such. From the very first verse of Genesis, we are introduced to a plurality where "God" is concerned. The Hebrew word that is used is "elohim" which is the plural form of another Hebrew word. Anyhow, in terms of the GODHEAD, the Bible speaks of Three Who are One, as in UNITED.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
Not my sin, Adam and Eve's alleged sin for which I am apparently still paying the price. What a bitter god this is. In fact, no matter what I do on earth, I will always be a sinner in the eyes of god. But then god allegedly changed the rules at some point (not from the beginning) to say you are a sinner, but I will send my son, and if you believe and accept him as my son, all is forgiven. What about all the people who existed before Jesus was born. They are doomed. If god gave us free choice from the beginning, and then changed free choice to one choice (accepting Jesus) then this is an unreliable god, fickle, and willing to change his mind when he pleases. If anyone is playing a game, it would be this god you speak of.
Here is a clear-cut example of one of those erroneous "interpretations" that I inquired about earlier.
"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you..." (I Peter 18-20)
Jesus Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world. Revelation 13:8 refers to Him as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world". Under the Old Testament (Remember, there needs to be a death for a testament to be of force), animals were slain as a "type" or foreshadowing of the Christ Who was to come. Those who put their faith in the coming Christ were accounted as being righteous before God. I'd better pause to mention that "faith without works is dead", lest anyone accuse me of preaching the popular "only believe" so-called "gospel". In other words, those who truly have faith in Christ will have a lifestyle that matches their profession. According to scripture, even the devils/demons "believe".
Well, that's all that I feel the need to address from your post. As I said to another poster, I'm not here to argue, but hopefully to answer any sincere questions that might arise.
Take care.
Here is a clear-cut example of one of those erroneous "interpretations" that I inquired about earlier.
"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you..." (I Peter 18-20)
Jesus Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world. Revelation 13:8 refers to Him as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world". Under the Old Testament (Remember, there needs to be a death for a testament to be of force), animals were slain as a "type" or foreshadowing of the Christ Who was to come. Those who put their faith in the coming Christ were accounted as being righteous before God. I'd better pause to mention that "faith without works is dead", lest anyone accuse me of preaching the popular "only believe" so-called "gospel". In other words, those who truly have faith in Christ will have a lifestyle that matches their profession. According to scripture, even the devils/demons "believe".
Well, that's all that I feel the need to address from your post. As I said to another poster, I'm not here to argue, but hopefully to answer any sincere questions that might arise.
Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 4 2011, 05:58 AM)
It amazes me how hypocritical you all really are. Oh, I've heard countless times how "science" needs to be repeatable and yet none of you seem the least bit interested in conducting your own "experiment" where God is concerned.
I ran that experiment for over 20 years. At the end of the experiment, I discovered that the control case was happier and less miserable without Jesus. You are welcome to run a control case of your own. I'm sure you will find that, without Jesus, you will have a lot more time to socialize with your fellow humans instead of calling them heretics and shunning them.
I ran that experiment for over 20 years. At the end of the experiment, I discovered that the control case was happier and less miserable without Jesus. You are welcome to run a control case of your own. I'm sure you will find that, without Jesus, you will have a lot more time to socialize with your fellow humans instead of calling them heretics and shunning them.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
I ran that experiment for over 20 years.
If my memory serves me correctly, then you're only 24 years old and you embraced atheism about 4 years ago. How then did your "experiment" last over 20 years? What "experiment" did you conduct at age 1? Age 2? Shall I go on? Quite frankly, I doubt that you've conducted any "experiment" at all. Just another dropout of a religious system, I'm afraid.
If my memory serves me correctly, then you're only 24 years old and you embraced atheism about 4 years ago. How then did your "experiment" last over 20 years? What "experiment" did you conduct at age 1? Age 2? Shall I go on? Quite frankly, I doubt that you've conducted any "experiment" at all. Just another dropout of a religious system, I'm afraid.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
At the end of the experiment, I discovered that the control case was happier and less miserable without Jesus.
I'm glad (sincerely) that you said "less miserable" because you strike me as a very miserable person. Foul-mouthed. Looking for trouble. Too much time on his hands.
I'm glad (sincerely) that you said "less miserable" because you strike me as a very miserable person. Foul-mouthed. Looking for trouble. Too much time on his hands.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
You are welcome to run a control case of your own. I'm sure you will find that, without Jesus, you will have a lot more time to socialize with your fellow humans instead of calling them heretics and shunning them.
I encounter, on average, hundreds/usually thousands of people a day. I'm quite "sociable", thanks. Actually, as long as the topic of Jesus doesn't come up, I'm generally well-liked. In other words, it's Christ that people have a problem with and not really me (off of this forum, anyway).
I encounter, on average, hundreds/usually thousands of people a day. I'm quite "sociable", thanks. Actually, as long as the topic of Jesus doesn't come up, I'm generally well-liked. In other words, it's Christ that people have a problem with and not really me (off of this forum, anyway).
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 4 2011, 10:58 AM)
QUOTE (Capracus+)
And when asked to prove an encounter with gods and demons you would?
That you still don't know my answer to this question, after so many years, is quite sad indeed. I'd seek to give them directions/instructions on how they could know said God THEMSELVES.
Newguy, If you're going to use your own experiences as a standard of knowledge, then to be consistent, you must accept that standard in others. For example:
Think it was the same voice you heard?
Of the myriad of accounts of divine contact, which ones, if any, are we to take seriously?
That you still don't know my answer to this question, after so many years, is quite sad indeed. I'd seek to give them directions/instructions on how they could know said God THEMSELVES.
Newguy, If you're going to use your own experiences as a standard of knowledge, then to be consistent, you must accept that standard in others. For example:
QUOTE
"I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."
And "now again", Mr Bush is quoted as telling the two, "I feel God's words coming to me: 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God, I'm gonna do it."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/am...raq-509925.html
And "now again", Mr Bush is quoted as telling the two, "I feel God's words coming to me: 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God, I'm gonna do it."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/am...raq-509925.html
Think it was the same voice you heard?
Of the myriad of accounts of divine contact, which ones, if any, are we to take seriously?
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 4 2011, 07:25 AM)
If my memory serves me correctly, then you're only 24 years old and you embraced atheism about 4 years ago. How then did your "experiment" last over 20 years? What "experiment" did you conduct at age 1? Age 2? Shall I go on? Quite frankly, I doubt that you've conducted any "experiment" at all. Just another dropout of a religious system, I'm afraid.
Your numbers aren't exact, but you're close. Shall I revise my estimate downwards? 15 years? 10 years?
Your impressions of me are entirely inaccurate. I mean "miserable" in the sense that faith in your god brings with it the burden of guilt and inadequacy. Why should I feel guilty for being human? How does profanity contribute to unhappiness? Are you one of those people who think that profanity is evil? What an idiot.
Your impressions of me are entirely inaccurate. I mean "miserable" in the sense that faith in your god brings with it the burden of guilt and inadequacy. Why should I feel guilty for being human? How does profanity contribute to unhappiness? Are you one of those people who think that profanity is evil? What an idiot.
I encounter, on average, hundreds/usually thousands of people a day. I'm quite "sociable", thanks. Actually, as long as the topic of Jesus doesn't come up, I'm generally well-liked. In other words, it's Christ that people have a problem with and not really me (off of this forum, anyway).
Religion is a problem because it satisfies people with pat answers and false hope. People have died because they have relied on prayer instead of modern medicine. The United States is falling behind the rest of the world in science education because of Christians fighting real science with mythology.
Here's a rule of thumb: the more convinced you are of your correctness, the further you are from it.
Your numbers aren't exact, but you're close. Shall I revise my estimate downwards? 15 years? 10 years?
QUOTE
I'm glad (sincerely) that you said "less miserable" because you strike me as a very miserable person. Foul-mouthed. Looking for trouble. Too much time on his hands.
Your impressions of me are entirely inaccurate. I mean "miserable" in the sense that faith in your god brings with it the burden of guilt and inadequacy. Why should I feel guilty for being human? How does profanity contribute to unhappiness? Are you one of those people who think that profanity is evil? What an idiot.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm glad (sincerely) that you said "less miserable" because you strike me as a very miserable person. Foul-mouthed. Looking for trouble. Too much time on his hands. |
Your impressions of me are entirely inaccurate. I mean "miserable" in the sense that faith in your god brings with it the burden of guilt and inadequacy. Why should I feel guilty for being human? How does profanity contribute to unhappiness? Are you one of those people who think that profanity is evil? What an idiot.
I encounter, on average, hundreds/usually thousands of people a day. I'm quite "sociable", thanks. Actually, as long as the topic of Jesus doesn't come up, I'm generally well-liked. In other words, it's Christ that people have a problem with and not really me (off of this forum, anyway).
Religion is a problem because it satisfies people with pat answers and false hope. People have died because they have relied on prayer instead of modern medicine. The United States is falling behind the rest of the world in science education because of Christians fighting real science with mythology.
Here's a rule of thumb: the more convinced you are of your correctness, the further you are from it.
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 4 2011, 10:58 AM)
Oh, I've heard countless times how "science" needs to be repeatable and yet none of you seem the least bit interested in conducting your own "experiment" where God is concerned.
I have been on a deep search for god for more than 20 years. My search is not over, but one thing became clear in the process, the god of the christian bible does (a) Not exists or (
If this god exists as man has defined , I would rather not know that particular god.
I believe in the possibility of a creator being, but this is not the same as what you believe a god to be. For you there is far more to it then just believing a creator may exist.
I have been on a deep search for god for more than 20 years. My search is not over, but one thing became clear in the process, the god of the christian bible does (a) Not exists or (
If this god exists as man has defined , I would rather not know that particular god.I believe in the possibility of a creator being, but this is not the same as what you believe a god to be. For you there is far more to it then just believing a creator may exist.
QUOTE
In fact, I've yet to see one of you who can get past your own self-righteousness and admit your need for a Saviour which is the first necessary step.
There is no evidence of a need for a saviour. I am not saying I am perfect at all, but there is no evidence other than other mens heresay, that we require a saviour. You believe you need a saviour, which is why you believe in one.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In fact, I've yet to see one of you who can get past your own self-righteousness and admit your need for a Saviour which is the first necessary step. |
There is no evidence of a need for a saviour. I am not saying I am perfect at all, but there is no evidence other than other mens heresay, that we require a saviour. You believe you need a saviour, which is why you believe in one.
As I've already quoted, it is God's desire for each of us to know Him personally.
As I've already quoted, it is God's desire for each of us to know Him personally.
This is heresay, there is no direct evidence of god desiring such a thing at all. You choose to believe it, I await evidence of it.
QUOTE
By the way, as I've mentioned before, according to the Biblical account (and my own experience along the same lines), many people saw evidence/demonstrations of both the power of God and the real presence/existence of demons in Jesus' time here on earth and yet didn't believe. In other words, non-belief isn't limited to a lack of evidence.
What experience/evidence have you had in your lifetime that would/may lead me to believe in demons? The biblical accounts are in any event un-verifiable. In most cases, especially miracles, there is only ONE recording of such alleged events, and that is the bible. This is not evidence.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| By the way, as I've mentioned before, according to the Biblical account (and my own experience along the same lines), many people saw evidence/demonstrations of both the power of God and the real presence/existence of demons in Jesus' time here on earth and yet didn't believe. In other words, non-belief isn't limited to a lack of evidence. |
What experience/evidence have you had in your lifetime that would/may lead me to believe in demons? The biblical accounts are in any event un-verifiable. In most cases, especially miracles, there is only ONE recording of such alleged events, and that is the bible. This is not evidence.
It has to do with a lot more things than just that. Settle it in your heart, once and for all, that I'm always going to seek to guide people to find their own evidence as opposed to examining mine.
It has to do with a lot more things than just that. Settle it in your heart, once and for all, that I'm always going to seek to guide people to find their own evidence as opposed to examining mine.
I respect that! BUT respect me if I do not come to the same conclusion as you.
QUOTE (Capracus+)
Think it was the same voice you heard?
No. Not even close. Interestingly enough, as I've mentioned before, I once wrote a letter to then Governor George W. Bush in regards to the planned execution of Karla Faye Tucker (I think that was her name). In my letter, I questioned Mr. Bush as to his real aspirations. In other words, he professed to be a Christian, but I perceived that his real aspirations were for the White House as opposed to truly living for God. In my letter, I reminded Mr. Bush that people like Moses, David and Paul (who authored about 1/2 the New Testament) all had blood on their hands and yet consequently served the Lord. I wasn't seeking for Mr. Bush to release Karla Faye, mind you, only to let her live as her conversion certainly seemed genuine (even to some of the relatives of her victims). What I received for my efforts was a letter that basically said, "I'm gonna kill her and then pray for her". Gee, thanks. Anyhow, I've never seen anything in George Dubya (in all honesty, I couldn't even stand to look at him on TV...he looked as phony to me as most/all televangelists) that would even cause me to consider that he's genuinely a Christian. Quite frankly, as I've stated before, I see the United States of America fulfilling that which is spoken of the false prophet (this false prophet is a nation and not an individual) in the book of Revelation. You know, looks like a lamb (professes to be Christian), but speaks like a dragon (is actually Satanic). Part of this nation's purpose is to work hand in hand with "the beast" (Papal Rome) and "the woman who rides the beast" (Israel will enter into a false peace agreement brokered by Rome) to bring about the short-termed reign of the antichrist in Jerusalem. I fully expect the good ole USA to keep on "calling down fire from heaven" upon Israel's enemies to help pave the way for what I've briefly described.
No. Not even close. Interestingly enough, as I've mentioned before, I once wrote a letter to then Governor George W. Bush in regards to the planned execution of Karla Faye Tucker (I think that was her name). In my letter, I questioned Mr. Bush as to his real aspirations. In other words, he professed to be a Christian, but I perceived that his real aspirations were for the White House as opposed to truly living for God. In my letter, I reminded Mr. Bush that people like Moses, David and Paul (who authored about 1/2 the New Testament) all had blood on their hands and yet consequently served the Lord. I wasn't seeking for Mr. Bush to release Karla Faye, mind you, only to let her live as her conversion certainly seemed genuine (even to some of the relatives of her victims). What I received for my efforts was a letter that basically said, "I'm gonna kill her and then pray for her". Gee, thanks. Anyhow, I've never seen anything in George Dubya (in all honesty, I couldn't even stand to look at him on TV...he looked as phony to me as most/all televangelists) that would even cause me to consider that he's genuinely a Christian. Quite frankly, as I've stated before, I see the United States of America fulfilling that which is spoken of the false prophet (this false prophet is a nation and not an individual) in the book of Revelation. You know, looks like a lamb (professes to be Christian), but speaks like a dragon (is actually Satanic). Part of this nation's purpose is to work hand in hand with "the beast" (Papal Rome) and "the woman who rides the beast" (Israel will enter into a false peace agreement brokered by Rome) to bring about the short-termed reign of the antichrist in Jerusalem. I fully expect the good ole USA to keep on "calling down fire from heaven" upon Israel's enemies to help pave the way for what I've briefly described.
QUOTE (Capracus+)
Of the myriad of accounts of divine contact, which ones, if any, are we to take seriously?
Fair enough question and a genuine problem, indeed. Your own, would be my advice. Look, as we both know, there are multitudes of charlatans out there and not all are confined to "religion". I guess that my counter question to you would be:
"Do you think that these people genuinely know that they're charlatans or are they deceived?"
Personally, I think that both answers are correct in different individuals. All that I can tell you is this...
I've been wrong about many things myself before and by humbling myself before God I've been made aware of such. It ultimately comes down the sincerity/honesty/humility of the individual. That's the best response that I can give you, but I do recognize the potential problem of which you speak.
Take care.
Fair enough question and a genuine problem, indeed. Your own, would be my advice. Look, as we both know, there are multitudes of charlatans out there and not all are confined to "religion". I guess that my counter question to you would be:
"Do you think that these people genuinely know that they're charlatans or are they deceived?"
Personally, I think that both answers are correct in different individuals. All that I can tell you is this...
I've been wrong about many things myself before and by humbling myself before God I've been made aware of such. It ultimately comes down the sincerity/honesty/humility of the individual. That's the best response that I can give you, but I do recognize the potential problem of which you speak.
Take care.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
I mean "miserable" in the sense that faith in your god brings with it the burden of guilt and inadequacy.
That's interesting. "The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" brings the burden of guilt and inadequacy upon those whom He redeems? As I suspected, just another dropout of a religious system and certainly no deconversion from Biblical Christianity.
That's interesting. "The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" brings the burden of guilt and inadequacy upon those whom He redeems? As I suspected, just another dropout of a religious system and certainly no deconversion from Biblical Christianity.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
People have died because they have relied on prayer instead of modern medicine.
True, but people have also died at the hands of these modern-day witch doctors as well, haven't they? Just turn of the TV and watch any one of a myriad of commercials on "medicine". Pay close attention to the end of the ads where they say such things as "Possible side effects might include thoughts of sucide, stroke, heart attacks, death, etc., etc." They've merely traded in their headdresses for white robes.
True, but people have also died at the hands of these modern-day witch doctors as well, haven't they? Just turn of the TV and watch any one of a myriad of commercials on "medicine". Pay close attention to the end of the ads where they say such things as "Possible side effects might include thoughts of sucide, stroke, heart attacks, death, etc., etc." They've merely traded in their headdresses for white robes.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
Here's a rule of thumb: the more convinced you are of your correctness, the further you are from it.
Need I say it? Oh, what the heck...
Oh, the irony!
Take care.
P.S. I certainly understand that those who have either died themselves or allowed someone else to die due to their "religious beliefs" is no laughing matter. Such matters concern me as much as they concern others. At the same time, however, I've had ZERO need for the medical profession in my 22+ years as a Christian. I've experienced the healing power/delivering power of God numerous times throughout my life. Numerous times.
Need I say it? Oh, what the heck...
Oh, the irony!
Take care.
P.S. I certainly understand that those who have either died themselves or allowed someone else to die due to their "religious beliefs" is no laughing matter. Such matters concern me as much as they concern others. At the same time, however, I've had ZERO need for the medical profession in my 22+ years as a Christian. I've experienced the healing power/delivering power of God numerous times throughout my life. Numerous times.
We might as well get to the heart of the matter...
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
If this god exists as man has defined , I would rather not know that particular god.
Because...???
I'm going to be unavailable for a few hours, so don't expect any responses during that timeframe. Thanks.
Because...???
I'm going to be unavailable for a few hours, so don't expect any responses during that timeframe. Thanks.
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 4 2011, 08:46 AM)
That's interesting. "The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" brings the burden of guilt and inadequacy upon those whom He redeems? As I suspected, just another dropout of a religious system and certainly no deconversion from Biblical Christianity.
The whole "personal relationship" thing is not a walk in the park. Are you telling me that you've never felt guilty for not doing enough? Not praying enough, not helping enough, not worshipping enough? You know nothing about what "version" of Christianity I used to follow. I haven't provided you any material for you to make that judgement. All you have is your "No True Scotsman" fallacy, where you argue that since I left Christianity, I must not have been a "True Christian."
Wow, what an idiot. Do you really think that prayer has the same rate of effectiveness as modern medicine? Don't be a luddite.
Wow, what an idiot. Do you really think that prayer has the same rate of effectiveness as modern medicine? Don't be a luddite.
Need I say it? Oh, what the heck...
Oh, the irony!
Again, you don't know me. I am surely not certain in my beliefs. My beliefs are at the whim of the evidence that I am aware of. I am constantly listening for evidence of god's existence, whether logical or material. I just haven't found any. Pro-tip: bible verses don't count as evidence. The bible can't claim its own veracity.
Live long enough and cancer is inevitable.
I'm not joking in what I'm about to say...
The TRUE version is Jesus Christ.
Well, that's all that I feel the need to address from your post. As I said to another poster, I'm not here to argue, but hopefully to answer any sincere questions that might arise.
Take care.
The whole "personal relationship" thing is not a walk in the park. Are you telling me that you've never felt guilty for not doing enough? Not praying enough, not helping enough, not worshipping enough? You know nothing about what "version" of Christianity I used to follow. I haven't provided you any material for you to make that judgement. All you have is your "No True Scotsman" fallacy, where you argue that since I left Christianity, I must not have been a "True Christian."
QUOTE
True, but people have also died at the hands of these modern-day witch doctors as well, haven't they? Just turn of the TV and watch any one of a myriad of commercials on "medicine". Pay close attention to the end of the ads where they say such things as "Possible side effects might include thoughts of sucide, stroke, heart attacks, death, etc., etc." They've merely traded in their headdresses for white robes.
Wow, what an idiot. Do you really think that prayer has the same rate of effectiveness as modern medicine? Don't be a luddite.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| True, but people have also died at the hands of these modern-day witch doctors as well, haven't they? Just turn of the TV and watch any one of a myriad of commercials on "medicine". Pay close attention to the end of the ads where they say such things as "Possible side effects might include thoughts of sucide, stroke, heart attacks, death, etc., etc." They've merely traded in their headdresses for white robes. |
Wow, what an idiot. Do you really think that prayer has the same rate of effectiveness as modern medicine? Don't be a luddite.
Need I say it? Oh, what the heck...
Oh, the irony!
Again, you don't know me. I am surely not certain in my beliefs. My beliefs are at the whim of the evidence that I am aware of. I am constantly listening for evidence of god's existence, whether logical or material. I just haven't found any. Pro-tip: bible verses don't count as evidence. The bible can't claim its own veracity.
QUOTE
P.S. I certainly understand that those who have either died themselves or allowed someone else to die due to their "religious beliefs" is no laughing matter. Such matters concern me as much as they concern others. At the same time, however, I've had ZERO need for the medical profession in my 22+ years as a Christian. I've experienced the healing power/delivering power of God numerous times throughout my life. Numerous times.
Live long enough and cancer is inevitable.
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 4 2011, 11:36 AM)
I'm not joking in what I'm about to say...
The TRUE version is Jesus Christ.
Well, that's all that I feel the need to address from your post. As I said to another poster, I'm not here to argue, but hopefully to answer any sincere questions that might arise.
Take care.
QUOTE
No, I've never read the Quran, but I'm familiar enough with what is contained therein.
If you have not read it, how could you be fammiliar with it, other than accepting other peoples interpretation and beliveing those peoples version. The fact is you ignor it because you do not believe in anything else other than the christian bible. This indicates you have no real desire to learn, only to read what confirms your current belief.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, I've never read the Quran, but I'm familiar enough with what is contained therein. |
If you have not read it, how could you be fammiliar with it, other than accepting other peoples interpretation and beliveing those peoples version. The fact is you ignor it because you do not believe in anything else other than the christian bible. This indicates you have no real desire to learn, only to read what confirms your current belief.
Christianity is, or ought to be, a vital relationship between man (as in mankind) and his Creator.
Christianity is, or ought to be, a vital relationship between man (as in mankind) and his Creator.
If this were truly the case, there would be no need for Jesus to exist.
QUOTE
Have you ever "studied" HIM?
Extensively.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Have you ever "studied" HIM? |
Extensively.
His "physical presence" was called a devil, spat upon, had his beard ripped out, was beaten, whipped and ultimately nailed to a cross...in case you haven't heard. He wasn't suffering for His own sins, but for ours.
His "physical presence" was called a devil, spat upon, had his beard ripped out, was beaten, whipped and ultimately nailed to a cross...in case you haven't heard. He wasn't suffering for His own sins, but for ours.
This argument states Jesus suffered for all sin, then and in the future, for all mankind. Christians go on to say that if you do not accept Jesus as the son of god, then you are a sinner and you will not be "saved" from suffering in the afterlife.
In fact, not believing Jesus is the son of god, is possibly the greatest sin of all.
So if I do not believe Jesus is the son of god (which I don't) I am a sinner, but Jesus died for my sins in any event, so the only way to be forgiven of this sin, is to accept Jesus as the son of god, which I cannot, which still makes me a sinner for which Jesus died on the cross. This argument is flawed and illogical because the premise is flawed and illogical.
In fact what would be more accurate, is that Jesus suffered on the cross, for the sins of his followers. The rest can go to hell. If the bible were written like that I may have more respect for it.
In fact, not believing Jesus is the son of god, is possibly the greatest sin of all.
So if I do not believe Jesus is the son of god (which I don't) I am a sinner, but Jesus died for my sins in any event, so the only way to be forgiven of this sin, is to accept Jesus as the son of god, which I cannot, which still makes me a sinner for which Jesus died on the cross. This argument is flawed and illogical because the premise is flawed and illogical.
In fact what would be more accurate, is that Jesus suffered on the cross, for the sins of his followers. The rest can go to hell. If the bible were written like that I may have more respect for it.
QUOTE
I'd better pause to mention that "faith without works is dead", lest anyone accuse me of preaching the popular "only believe" so-called "gospel". In other words, those who truly have faith in Christ will have a lifestyle that matches their profession. According to scripture, even the devils/demons "believe".
Please explain "faith without works is dead". If I do everything that is required of a good christian (the works) but do not believe Jesus is the son of god, I am doomed to hell. That means, the essential ingredient in this process is acknowledgment of god and Jesus his son, not neccesarily my actions. This to me is one of the fundamental reasons I do not believe in christianity. Only an egotistical bitter being would place that demand on mankind, and I would prefer not being part of such a being.........EVEN if I had empirical evidence of such a beings existance!!!!QUOTE (newguy+Apr 4 2011, 01:46 PM)
At the same time, however, I've had ZERO need for the medical profession in my 22+ years as a Christian. I've experienced the healing power/delivering power of God numerous times throughout my life. Numerous times.
Wow, that is something, no dentist's, no fillings, no inflamed tonsils, no flu, no diaoreah, no nausea, no headaches, no broken bones, no skin irritations, no cuts and bruises in the last 22 years. I am not sure it is a miracle, but that is somewhat remarkable......dare I say a little unbelieveable.
Wow, that is something, no dentist's, no fillings, no inflamed tonsils, no flu, no diaoreah, no nausea, no headaches, no broken bones, no skin irritations, no cuts and bruises in the last 22 years. I am not sure it is a miracle, but that is somewhat remarkable......dare I say a little unbelieveable.
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 4 2011, 01:49 PM)
We might as well get to the heart of the matter...
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+)
If this god exists as man has defined , I would rather not know that particular god.
Because...???
I'm going to be unavailable for a few hours, so don't expect any responses during that timeframe. Thanks.
Because the god man has defined is as flawed as man is, and at the least, I expect this god to be far superior to man on a spiritual level.
Telling good honest, kind, gentle , loving people, that they will go to hell for not believing Jesus is the son of god, is a massive failure of spirituality in my books. If that is who this god is, I want none of it. That is just one example, but is my most fundamental one.
Because...???
I'm going to be unavailable for a few hours, so don't expect any responses during that timeframe. Thanks.
Because the god man has defined is as flawed as man is, and at the least, I expect this god to be far superior to man on a spiritual level.
Telling good honest, kind, gentle , loving people, that they will go to hell for not believing Jesus is the son of god, is a massive failure of spirituality in my books. If that is who this god is, I want none of it. That is just one example, but is my most fundamental one.
I've never heard a rational reason why to punish all of mankind because of the 'sin' of Adam and Eve. I've listened to many versions of the reason, but none of it is rational. If you were to put the salient parts of the story in simple terms, you would have this:
1) Adam and Eve are living in the Garden of Eden. The garden is beautiful. The trees/plants are lovely. The fruit is delicious.
2) God puts the most beautiful tree in a prominent place in the garden. He instructs his children to not eat the fruit, even though he has assured that this is the best cookie jar in the garden.
3) Of prime importance, Adam and Eve comply.
4) Not being satisfied, God forces the issue. He creates the serpent; a creature of guile and deceit, a wolf in sheep's clothing; in short, a villain.
5) This villain apparently has only one purpose: to hoodwink the innocent, naive couple. Like most con artists that prey on the unsuspecting, the serpent eventually wins out.
6) For their first and only act of disobedience, they are banished, made to suffer and die, and most especially,
7) All their innocent progeny, for all time, are similarly condemned.
There are some important issues here if one looks more closely. Firstly, mankind never created the first evil. That was done by God in the creation of the serpent. We do not read of a single virtue that the serpent has. The serpent is purely evil, for it already knows the consequences of what it is perpetrating. In fact, it would have had to eat the fruit itself to have had the knowledge of good and evil in order to commit evil, and yet in Eden it remains, unbanished.
This serpent was very dangerous for Adam and Eve. Rather than protecting His children from danger, God actually created danger, exposed them to it, and then withdrew His presence. Naive people can make mistakes; Adam and Eve did, and God reacted violently, dramatically. Among many other observations, it can be seen that God either has no control of His creations, and therefore His world, and expresses His anger and frustration over it, or God already expected/pre-ordained it, in which case He either could not effect a better solution to His prescience, or He was OK with what he was about to perpetrate. I use the term 'perpetrate' because that term is commonly associated with criminal acts...
If a parent did to their children what God did to Adam and Eve, they would be tried convicted and jailed. Moreover, sane parents wouldn't think of endangering their babies, especially when it means certain death. You go to jail for that. Additionally, if your children have already complied with your request to not touch the cookie jar, would you then bring a dangerous stranger into your home, and then leave them on their own, knowing that if they are successfully hoodwinked, it means their banishment, suffering, and death?
So what exactly was the first sin then?
Who created Danger? God.
Who put their children in that danger? God.
Who was the first murderer? God, not man, invented death.
Where did suffering and pestilence come from? God.
All this, from one act of disobedience. And all the future crimes that man was to commit were but his own rehashings of what God did to them; acts of hatred inconceivable for Adam and Eve to perpetrate. They didn't cheat, lie, or murder. They disobeyed, and admitted it. But through God, they and all their progeny learned crime, as life in a now frightening world caved to it for survival.
When the furtive and successful effort to present the horrid acts that exist in North Korea was done, a particularly atrocious act came to light; one that the world hadn't known: in North Korea, if a person is convicted of a crime, not only that person, but all their family, and even their extended family, all go to jail. This was considered the most reprehensible thing of everything that was discovered there, because it involved imprisoning innocent people, an act that the American Justice System calls "the most unconscionable crime of all".
And this most unconscionable crime is the basis for the mechanic of Christianity.
So we have a Creator who committed the first, and at the time, the only sins there were: 1) creating a villain, 2)endangering the welfare of children, and condemning all who came after to suffering and death - in other words, torture and murder. All this came from God alone.
But if we ask Christian Authority how all this can be justified, basically you get:
1) It's part of the Mystery of God, whose acts we do not have the wisdom to understand, and
2) Using our own ration and reason to make sense of this, is 'of the devil'.
And since none of it makes any sense, we must have faith instead of reason, because faith is of God, which we are not allowed to understand, and reason is of the devil, which is all we have to co-exist in a successfully workable way. We are said to be created "in God's image and likeness", yet the logic and rationality that we inherited is "of the devil".
When was the last time you murdered your children for a single act of disobedience? Yet if you didn't, the reasoning that influenced your decision is of the devil.
"Do as I say, but not as I do". Never has this been truer than when applying it to God.
Most ironically, Jesus teaches us to act nothing like God acted, in order to get back to God.
Is it any wonder that there is such religious maelstrom among the faithful?
Is it any wonder so many people are opting out of this?
There are some new posters here newguy, so I am presenting my view to them as you are. It's available to be refuted.
1) Adam and Eve are living in the Garden of Eden. The garden is beautiful. The trees/plants are lovely. The fruit is delicious.
2) God puts the most beautiful tree in a prominent place in the garden. He instructs his children to not eat the fruit, even though he has assured that this is the best cookie jar in the garden.
3) Of prime importance, Adam and Eve comply.
4) Not being satisfied, God forces the issue. He creates the serpent; a creature of guile and deceit, a wolf in sheep's clothing; in short, a villain.
5) This villain apparently has only one purpose: to hoodwink the innocent, naive couple. Like most con artists that prey on the unsuspecting, the serpent eventually wins out.
6) For their first and only act of disobedience, they are banished, made to suffer and die, and most especially,
7) All their innocent progeny, for all time, are similarly condemned.
There are some important issues here if one looks more closely. Firstly, mankind never created the first evil. That was done by God in the creation of the serpent. We do not read of a single virtue that the serpent has. The serpent is purely evil, for it already knows the consequences of what it is perpetrating. In fact, it would have had to eat the fruit itself to have had the knowledge of good and evil in order to commit evil, and yet in Eden it remains, unbanished.
This serpent was very dangerous for Adam and Eve. Rather than protecting His children from danger, God actually created danger, exposed them to it, and then withdrew His presence. Naive people can make mistakes; Adam and Eve did, and God reacted violently, dramatically. Among many other observations, it can be seen that God either has no control of His creations, and therefore His world, and expresses His anger and frustration over it, or God already expected/pre-ordained it, in which case He either could not effect a better solution to His prescience, or He was OK with what he was about to perpetrate. I use the term 'perpetrate' because that term is commonly associated with criminal acts...
If a parent did to their children what God did to Adam and Eve, they would be tried convicted and jailed. Moreover, sane parents wouldn't think of endangering their babies, especially when it means certain death. You go to jail for that. Additionally, if your children have already complied with your request to not touch the cookie jar, would you then bring a dangerous stranger into your home, and then leave them on their own, knowing that if they are successfully hoodwinked, it means their banishment, suffering, and death?
So what exactly was the first sin then?
Who created Danger? God.
Who put their children in that danger? God.
Who was the first murderer? God, not man, invented death.
Where did suffering and pestilence come from? God.
All this, from one act of disobedience. And all the future crimes that man was to commit were but his own rehashings of what God did to them; acts of hatred inconceivable for Adam and Eve to perpetrate. They didn't cheat, lie, or murder. They disobeyed, and admitted it. But through God, they and all their progeny learned crime, as life in a now frightening world caved to it for survival.
When the furtive and successful effort to present the horrid acts that exist in North Korea was done, a particularly atrocious act came to light; one that the world hadn't known: in North Korea, if a person is convicted of a crime, not only that person, but all their family, and even their extended family, all go to jail. This was considered the most reprehensible thing of everything that was discovered there, because it involved imprisoning innocent people, an act that the American Justice System calls "the most unconscionable crime of all".
And this most unconscionable crime is the basis for the mechanic of Christianity.
So we have a Creator who committed the first, and at the time, the only sins there were: 1) creating a villain, 2)endangering the welfare of children, and condemning all who came after to suffering and death - in other words, torture and murder. All this came from God alone.
But if we ask Christian Authority how all this can be justified, basically you get:
1) It's part of the Mystery of God, whose acts we do not have the wisdom to understand, and
2) Using our own ration and reason to make sense of this, is 'of the devil'.
And since none of it makes any sense, we must have faith instead of reason, because faith is of God, which we are not allowed to understand, and reason is of the devil, which is all we have to co-exist in a successfully workable way. We are said to be created "in God's image and likeness", yet the logic and rationality that we inherited is "of the devil".
When was the last time you murdered your children for a single act of disobedience? Yet if you didn't, the reasoning that influenced your decision is of the devil.
"Do as I say, but not as I do". Never has this been truer than when applying it to God.
Most ironically, Jesus teaches us to act nothing like God acted, in order to get back to God.
Is it any wonder that there is such religious maelstrom among the faithful?
Is it any wonder so many people are opting out of this?
There are some new posters here newguy, so I am presenting my view to them as you are. It's available to be refuted.
It's hilarious that Christians believe in a god that is less moral than they are.
QUOTE (Soundhertz+)
Firstly, mankind never created the first evil. That was done by God in the creation of the serpent.
Good point and he openly admits it.
Isaiah 45:6-7
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Good point and he openly admits it.
Isaiah 45:6-7
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
QUOTE (Newguy+)
Actually, as long as the topic of Jesus doesn't come up, I'm generally well-liked. In other words, it's Christ that people have a problem with and not really me (off of this forum, anyway).
I believe this. Even though most of the time you’re a judgmental jerk, I still like you.
I believe this. Even though most of the time you’re a judgmental jerk, I still like you.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+)
Even though most of the time you’re a judgmental jerk, I still like you.
That actually made me "laugh out loud", due to the inherent irony in it.
As for all of the rest that people have posted, I'll contemplate answering it in the future...if I determine that it's even worth the effort.
Take care.
That actually made me "laugh out loud", due to the inherent irony in it.
As for all of the rest that people have posted, I'll contemplate answering it in the future...if I determine that it's even worth the effort.
Take care.
Edit
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 4 2011, 10:40 AM)
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+)
Even though most of the time you’re a judgmental jerk, I still like you.
That actually made me "laugh out loud", due to the inherent irony in it.
As for all of the rest that people have posted, I'll contemplate answering it in the future...if I determine that it's even worth the effort.
Take care.
Oops! And there you go again. I was being sincere, you know.
That actually made me "laugh out loud", due to the inherent irony in it.
As for all of the rest that people have posted, I'll contemplate answering it in the future...if I determine that it's even worth the effort.
Take care.
Oops! And there you go again. I was being sincere, you know.
QUOTE (soundhertz+Apr 4 2011, 05:21 PM)
I've never heard a rational reason why to punish all of mankind because of the 'sin' of Adam and Eve. I've listened to many versions of the reason, but none of it is rational.
The fault was gods to begin with. Neither Adam or Eve had knowledge of what was good and evil. A snakle comes along , who is apparently evil, and tells them to eat from the tree. Only if you had knowledge of what was good and evil, could you make your own decision on the matter. They did not have that knowledge, so did what the snake said.
I do not understand why god would have had a pre-conceived idea, that having knowledge of what was good and evil, would make Adam or Eve want to turn evil, unless he had designed man that way or was just a very mistrusting god. In fact, this particular god, passed the buck on the creation of man. He said I created man and gave him free will, but man screwed it up, and as a result I can take no responsibility. It wasn't me....it wasn't me!
Clearly by the time the bible was written, man had realised this was an imperfect world, and if a perfect being was responsible for the creation, as they were proposing, then this story of the snake and the tree, had to be created.
As you said, the snake was created by god, and was already evil, so god not wanting man to know the difference between good and evil would have been a disaster for humans, as the snake would have manipulated them their entire lives, had they not acquired that knowledge. The snake who was allegedly evil, had nothing to gain either in telling them to eat from the tree, as by doing so, they would know the snake was evil.
The story is nonsense, and not even good clever nonsense.
Even as symbology (which some modern christains try argue) it fails miserably. It was clearly written to try stop man from questioning religion in order to keep religion in the domain of the religious brotherhood. It was a tool of control and that all it was.
The fault was gods to begin with. Neither Adam or Eve had knowledge of what was good and evil. A snakle comes along , who is apparently evil, and tells them to eat from the tree. Only if you had knowledge of what was good and evil, could you make your own decision on the matter. They did not have that knowledge, so did what the snake said.
I do not understand why god would have had a pre-conceived idea, that having knowledge of what was good and evil, would make Adam or Eve want to turn evil, unless he had designed man that way or was just a very mistrusting god. In fact, this particular god, passed the buck on the creation of man. He said I created man and gave him free will, but man screwed it up, and as a result I can take no responsibility. It wasn't me....it wasn't me!
Clearly by the time the bible was written, man had realised this was an imperfect world, and if a perfect being was responsible for the creation, as they were proposing, then this story of the snake and the tree, had to be created.
As you said, the snake was created by god, and was already evil, so god not wanting man to know the difference between good and evil would have been a disaster for humans, as the snake would have manipulated them their entire lives, had they not acquired that knowledge. The snake who was allegedly evil, had nothing to gain either in telling them to eat from the tree, as by doing so, they would know the snake was evil.
The story is nonsense, and not even good clever nonsense.
Even as symbology (which some modern christains try argue) it fails miserably. It was clearly written to try stop man from questioning religion in order to keep religion in the domain of the religious brotherhood. It was a tool of control and that all it was.
I don't think that flyingbuttressman's profanity indicates that he is evil or unhappy. Perhaps, a little bored like the rest of us. Speaking of profanity, this was funny and entertaining.
Dawkins Reads His Hate Mail
Dawkins Reads His Hate Mail
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Apr 4 2011, 09:43 PM)
I don't think that flyingbuttressman's profanity indicates that he is evil or unhappy. Perhaps, a little bored like the rest of us. Speaking of profanity, this was funny and entertaining.
Dawkins Reads His Hate Mail
That was funny.
Dawkins Reads His Hate Mail
That was funny.
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 4 2011, 06:40 PM)
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+)
Even though most of the time you’re a judgmental jerk, I still like you.
That actually made me "laugh out loud", due to the inherent irony in it.
As for all of the rest that people have posted, I'll contemplate answering it in the future...if I determine that it's even worth the effort.
Take care.
I do have some questions. Will you answer them?
That actually made me "laugh out loud", due to the inherent irony in it.
As for all of the rest that people have posted, I'll contemplate answering it in the future...if I determine that it's even worth the effort.
Take care.
I do have some questions. Will you answer them?
Here is an interesting link. Apparently these lead codices have surfaced a few years ago, and were declared a 50 year old forgery. Then they dissapeared, only to recently re-surface again a few months ago.
Peter Thineman on Lead Codices
Some more detailed photos on this site, and interesting discussion.
Peter Thineman on Lead Codices
Some more detailed photos on this site, and interesting discussion.
Just read another article, and learnt something new. I did not know this, but apparently carbon dating is not possible on metal (well most metal).
Is it possible to carbon date lead? The experts say no.
Speculation is, that this is why lead was used in these codices, and the use of lead for codices in 1AD, was not common at all.
The more I read, the more it seems, that these are forgeries. The media of course jump onto the bandwagon in order to sell newspapers, and what better than smudging clear experts statements that they are forgeries, in order to create debate and controversy where none seems to exist.
The current owners of the codices are apparently trying to verify them as of christian origin, in order to obtain a higher selling price, and the key "expert" Elkington, is using these as a tool for launching his new book.
Money truly is the source of all corruption.
Is it possible to carbon date lead? The experts say no.
Speculation is, that this is why lead was used in these codices, and the use of lead for codices in 1AD, was not common at all.
The more I read, the more it seems, that these are forgeries. The media of course jump onto the bandwagon in order to sell newspapers, and what better than smudging clear experts statements that they are forgeries, in order to create debate and controversy where none seems to exist.
The current owners of the codices are apparently trying to verify them as of christian origin, in order to obtain a higher selling price, and the key "expert" Elkington, is using these as a tool for launching his new book.
Money truly is the source of all corruption.
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
I do have some questions. Will you answer them?
If you have any genuine/serious questions (which, based on past experience, I seriously doubt that you do), then you ought to know by now that it is my nature to attempt to seriously answer them. If, however, it's just going to be more of your dry humor, then the answer is no. I'll be swamped with work straight through this weekend, but I'll check back to see what you have to offer and contemplate answering it then.
Take care.
If you have any genuine/serious questions (which, based on past experience, I seriously doubt that you do), then you ought to know by now that it is my nature to attempt to seriously answer them. If, however, it's just going to be more of your dry humor, then the answer is no. I'll be swamped with work straight through this weekend, but I'll check back to see what you have to offer and contemplate answering it then.
Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 5 2011, 06:54 AM)
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
I do have some questions. Will you answer them?
If you have any genuine/serious questions (which, based on past experience, I seriously doubt that you do), then you ought to know by now that it is my nature to attempt to seriously answer them. If, however, it's just going to be more of your dry humor, then the answer is no. I'll be swamped with work straight through this weekend, but I'll check back to see what you have to offer and contemplate answering it then.
Take care.
Point taken, no questions.
If you have any genuine/serious questions (which, based on past experience, I seriously doubt that you do), then you ought to know by now that it is my nature to attempt to seriously answer them. If, however, it's just going to be more of your dry humor, then the answer is no. I'll be swamped with work straight through this weekend, but I'll check back to see what you have to offer and contemplate answering it then.
Take care.
Point taken, no questions.
QUOTE
Money truly is the source of all corruption.
The lack of money truly is the source of all corruption.
QUOTE (boit+Apr 5 2011, 08:06 PM)
The lack of money truly is the source of all corruption.
The desire for more money than you need is the source of most corruption.
The desire for more money than you need is the source of most corruption.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Apr 5 2011, 02:23 AM)
Here is an interesting link. Apparently these lead codices have surfaced a few years ago, and were declared a 50 year old forgery. Then they dissapeared, only to recently re-surface again a few months ago.
Peter Thineman on Lead Codices
Some more detailed photos on this site, and interesting discussion.
Thanks Fred, good hunting.
Certainly seems like they are fakes.
Arthur
Peter Thineman on Lead Codices
Some more detailed photos on this site, and interesting discussion.
Thanks Fred, good hunting.
Certainly seems like they are fakes.
Arthur
Margaret Barker offered the possibility that additional fake ones could have been made to facilitate business intrigues, of which there seem to be many. Otherwise they likely are fake.
The scavenging and selling of all sorts of artifacts from Biblical regions fake or not seems to be quite a help to many lives in those hard tough lands. A lot more of it than I knew before reading all the articles associated with this. Whoever the people are that are buying them up, well that I haven't read yet.
The scavenging and selling of all sorts of artifacts from Biblical regions fake or not seems to be quite a help to many lives in those hard tough lands. A lot more of it than I knew before reading all the articles associated with this. Whoever the people are that are buying them up, well that I haven't read yet.
QUOTE (soundhertz+Apr 6 2011, 06:25 AM)
Whoever the people are that are buying them up, well that I haven't read yet.
I don't know the people buying those fake lead codices, but as for the fake 'Islamic' photo of holy garden in Germany with trees allegedly twisted to write the declaration of faith in Arabic, well I know a few that bought them. I know longer see them in restaurants walls since a Muslim site admitted that they were fake paintings. I know anecdotal evidence do not count but . . . Got to say it.
I don't know the people buying those fake lead codices, but as for the fake 'Islamic' photo of holy garden in Germany with trees allegedly twisted to write the declaration of faith in Arabic, well I know a few that bought them. I know longer see them in restaurants walls since a Muslim site admitted that they were fake paintings. I know anecdotal evidence do not count but . . . Got to say it.
newguy,
Ignoring the lunatics who post on this forum, I do have a real question for you. Whereas, it is impossible for us both to be right; would you concede the possibility of of us both being wrong? Of a god unlike yours, ruling in an unlike way, seeking homage in an unlike manner from his people.
The bible may be literature which contains humor and parody. And we simply misinterpreted it. (Poe's Law)
Ignoring the lunatics who post on this forum, I do have a real question for you. Whereas, it is impossible for us both to be right; would you concede the possibility of of us both being wrong? Of a god unlike yours, ruling in an unlike way, seeking homage in an unlike manner from his people.
The bible may be literature which contains humor and parody. And we simply misinterpreted it. (Poe's Law)
QUOTE (Derek1148+Apr 6 2011, 07:58 PM)
Whereas, it is impossible for us both to be right; would you concede the possibility of of us both being wrong?
Now we're talking...
Now we're talking...
QUOTE (soundhertz+Apr 4 2011, 05:21 PM)
I've never heard a rational reason why to punish all of mankind because of the 'sin' of Adam and Eve. I've listened to many versions of the reason, but none of it is rational. If you were to put the salient parts of the story in simple terms, you would have this:
1) Adam and Eve are living in the Garden of Eden. The garden is beautiful. The trees/plants are lovely. The fruit is delicious.
2) God puts the most beautiful tree in a prominent place in the garden. He instructs his children to not eat the fruit, even though he has assured that this is the best cookie jar in the garden.
3) Of prime importance, Adam and Eve comply.
4) Not being satisfied, God forces the issue. He creates the serpent; a creature of guile and deceit, a wolf in sheep's clothing; in short, a villain.
5) This villain apparently has only one purpose: to hoodwink the innocent, naive couple. Like most con artists that prey on the unsuspecting, the serpent eventually wins out.
6) For their first and only act of disobedience, they are banished, made to suffer and die, and most especially,
7) All their innocent progeny, for all time, are similarly condemned.
There are some important issues here if one looks more closely. Firstly, mankind never created the first evil. That was done by God in the creation of the serpent. We do not read of a single virtue that the serpent has. The serpent is purely evil, for it already knows the consequences of what it is perpetrating. In fact, it would have had to eat the fruit itself to have had the knowledge of good and evil in order to commit evil, and yet in Eden it remains, unbanished.
This serpent was very dangerous for Adam and Eve. Rather than protecting His children from danger, God actually created danger, exposed them to it, and then withdrew His presence. Naive people can make mistakes; Adam and Eve did, and God reacted violently, dramatically. Among many other observations, it can be seen that God either has no control of His creations, and therefore His world, and expresses His anger and frustration over it, or God already expected/pre-ordained it, in which case He either could not effect a better solution to His prescience, or He was OK with what he was about to perpetrate. I use the term 'perpetrate' because that term is commonly associated with criminal acts...
If a parent did to their children what God did to Adam and Eve, they would be tried convicted and jailed. Moreover, sane parents wouldn't think of endangering their babies, especially when it means certain death. You go to jail for that. Additionally, if your children have already complied with your request to not touch the cookie jar, would you then bring a dangerous stranger into your home, and then leave them on their own, knowing that if they are successfully hoodwinked, it means their banishment, suffering, and death?
So what exactly was the first sin then?
Who created Danger? God.
Who put their children in that danger? God.
Who was the first murderer? God, not man, invented death.
Where did suffering and pestilence come from? God.
All this, from one act of disobedience. And all the future crimes that man was to commit were but his own rehashings of what God did to them; acts of hatred inconceivable for Adam and Eve to perpetrate. They didn't cheat, lie, or murder. They disobeyed, and admitted it. But through God, they and all their progeny learned crime, as life in a now frightening world caved to it for survival.
When the furtive and successful effort to present the horrid acts that exist in North Korea was done, a particularly atrocious act came to light; one that the world hadn't known: in North Korea, if a person is convicted of a crime, not only that person, but all their family, and even their extended family, all go to jail. This was considered the most reprehensible thing of everything that was discovered there, because it involved imprisoning innocent people, an act that the American Justice System calls "the most unconscionable crime of all".
And this most unconscionable crime is the basis for the mechanic of Christianity.
So we have a Creator who committed the first, and at the time, the only sins there were: 1) creating a villain, 2)endangering the welfare of children, and condemning all who came after to suffering and death - in other words, torture and murder. All this came from God alone.
But if we ask Christian Authority how all this can be justified, basically you get:
1) It's part of the Mystery of God, whose acts we do not have the wisdom to understand, and
2) Using our own ration and reason to make sense of this, is 'of the devil'.
And since none of it makes any sense, we must have faith instead of reason, because faith is of God, which we are not allowed to understand, and reason is of the devil, which is all we have to co-exist in a successfully workable way. We are said to be created "in God's image and likeness", yet the logic and rationality that we inherited is "of the devil".
When was the last time you murdered your children for a single act of disobedience? Yet if you didn't, the reasoning that influenced your decision is of the devil.
"Do as I say, but not as I do". Never has this been truer than when applying it to God.
Most ironically, Jesus teaches us to act nothing like God acted, in order to get back to God.
Is it any wonder that there is such religious maelstrom among the faithful?
Is it any wonder so many people are opting out of this?
There are some new posters here newguy, so I am presenting my view to them as you are. It's available to be refuted.
Thanks for writing that down.
1) Adam and Eve are living in the Garden of Eden. The garden is beautiful. The trees/plants are lovely. The fruit is delicious.
2) God puts the most beautiful tree in a prominent place in the garden. He instructs his children to not eat the fruit, even though he has assured that this is the best cookie jar in the garden.
3) Of prime importance, Adam and Eve comply.
4) Not being satisfied, God forces the issue. He creates the serpent; a creature of guile and deceit, a wolf in sheep's clothing; in short, a villain.
5) This villain apparently has only one purpose: to hoodwink the innocent, naive couple. Like most con artists that prey on the unsuspecting, the serpent eventually wins out.
6) For their first and only act of disobedience, they are banished, made to suffer and die, and most especially,
7) All their innocent progeny, for all time, are similarly condemned.
There are some important issues here if one looks more closely. Firstly, mankind never created the first evil. That was done by God in the creation of the serpent. We do not read of a single virtue that the serpent has. The serpent is purely evil, for it already knows the consequences of what it is perpetrating. In fact, it would have had to eat the fruit itself to have had the knowledge of good and evil in order to commit evil, and yet in Eden it remains, unbanished.
This serpent was very dangerous for Adam and Eve. Rather than protecting His children from danger, God actually created danger, exposed them to it, and then withdrew His presence. Naive people can make mistakes; Adam and Eve did, and God reacted violently, dramatically. Among many other observations, it can be seen that God either has no control of His creations, and therefore His world, and expresses His anger and frustration over it, or God already expected/pre-ordained it, in which case He either could not effect a better solution to His prescience, or He was OK with what he was about to perpetrate. I use the term 'perpetrate' because that term is commonly associated with criminal acts...
If a parent did to their children what God did to Adam and Eve, they would be tried convicted and jailed. Moreover, sane parents wouldn't think of endangering their babies, especially when it means certain death. You go to jail for that. Additionally, if your children have already complied with your request to not touch the cookie jar, would you then bring a dangerous stranger into your home, and then leave them on their own, knowing that if they are successfully hoodwinked, it means their banishment, suffering, and death?
So what exactly was the first sin then?
Who created Danger? God.
Who put their children in that danger? God.
Who was the first murderer? God, not man, invented death.
Where did suffering and pestilence come from? God.
All this, from one act of disobedience. And all the future crimes that man was to commit were but his own rehashings of what God did to them; acts of hatred inconceivable for Adam and Eve to perpetrate. They didn't cheat, lie, or murder. They disobeyed, and admitted it. But through God, they and all their progeny learned crime, as life in a now frightening world caved to it for survival.
When the furtive and successful effort to present the horrid acts that exist in North Korea was done, a particularly atrocious act came to light; one that the world hadn't known: in North Korea, if a person is convicted of a crime, not only that person, but all their family, and even their extended family, all go to jail. This was considered the most reprehensible thing of everything that was discovered there, because it involved imprisoning innocent people, an act that the American Justice System calls "the most unconscionable crime of all".
And this most unconscionable crime is the basis for the mechanic of Christianity.
So we have a Creator who committed the first, and at the time, the only sins there were: 1) creating a villain, 2)endangering the welfare of children, and condemning all who came after to suffering and death - in other words, torture and murder. All this came from God alone.
But if we ask Christian Authority how all this can be justified, basically you get:
1) It's part of the Mystery of God, whose acts we do not have the wisdom to understand, and
2) Using our own ration and reason to make sense of this, is 'of the devil'.
And since none of it makes any sense, we must have faith instead of reason, because faith is of God, which we are not allowed to understand, and reason is of the devil, which is all we have to co-exist in a successfully workable way. We are said to be created "in God's image and likeness", yet the logic and rationality that we inherited is "of the devil".
When was the last time you murdered your children for a single act of disobedience? Yet if you didn't, the reasoning that influenced your decision is of the devil.
"Do as I say, but not as I do". Never has this been truer than when applying it to God.
Most ironically, Jesus teaches us to act nothing like God acted, in order to get back to God.
Is it any wonder that there is such religious maelstrom among the faithful?
Is it any wonder so many people are opting out of this?
There are some new posters here newguy, so I am presenting my view to them as you are. It's available to be refuted.
Thanks for writing that down.
QUOTE (brucep+Apr 7 2011, 09:14 AM)
Thanks for writing that down.
It ain't religion yet till it says pretty crazy stuff. Hahaha. Just kidding
It ain't religion yet till it says pretty crazy stuff. Hahaha. Just kidding
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
newguy,
Ignoring the lunatics who post on this forum, I do have a real question for you. Whereas, it is impossible for us both to be right; would you concede the possibility of of us both being wrong? Of a god unlike yours, ruling in an unlike way, seeking homage in an unlike manner from his people.
The bible may be literature which contains humor and parody. And we simply misinterpreted it. (Poe's Law)
Derek1148: No, I would not. If this is a sincere question, then it tells me one of two things:
1. You haven't been paying attention to anything that I've said over the last 5+ years. IOW, as I've said numerous times, I've had plenty of encounters with both God and demons and I'm not just believing a book.
2. You think I'm either crazy or lying.
Quite frankly, I would rather that it were the second than the first, but whatever. I'm too busy to waste any more time here right now.
Take care.
Ignoring the lunatics who post on this forum, I do have a real question for you. Whereas, it is impossible for us both to be right; would you concede the possibility of of us both being wrong? Of a god unlike yours, ruling in an unlike way, seeking homage in an unlike manner from his people.
The bible may be literature which contains humor and parody. And we simply misinterpreted it. (Poe's Law)
Derek1148: No, I would not. If this is a sincere question, then it tells me one of two things:
1. You haven't been paying attention to anything that I've said over the last 5+ years. IOW, as I've said numerous times, I've had plenty of encounters with both God and demons and I'm not just believing a book.
2. You think I'm either crazy or lying.
Quite frankly, I would rather that it were the second than the first, but whatever. I'm too busy to waste any more time here right now.
Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 7 2011, 06:18 PM)
No, I would not. If this is a sincere question, then it tells me one of two things:
1. You haven't been paying attention to anything that I've said over the last 5+ years. IOW, as I've said numerous times, I've had plenty of encounters with both God and demons and I'm not just believing a book.
2. You think I'm either crazy or lying.
I don't think you're crazy or a liar. Every religion on Earth relies on the minority of followers who claim dreams and visions. I don't think your experiences are unique. I believe that you are absolutely convinced that your experiences are real, and it would be next to impossible to convince you otherwise.
If by some miracle you are a curious human being, there is a possible scientific explanation for religious dreams and visions, I give you Dimethyltryptamine.
1. You haven't been paying attention to anything that I've said over the last 5+ years. IOW, as I've said numerous times, I've had plenty of encounters with both God and demons and I'm not just believing a book.
2. You think I'm either crazy or lying.
I don't think you're crazy or a liar. Every religion on Earth relies on the minority of followers who claim dreams and visions. I don't think your experiences are unique. I believe that you are absolutely convinced that your experiences are real, and it would be next to impossible to convince you otherwise.
If by some miracle you are a curious human being, there is a possible scientific explanation for religious dreams and visions, I give you Dimethyltryptamine.
And I, in turn, give you Jesus Christ. He requires genuine repentance and the willingness for you to take up your cross and follow Him. Not interested? Fine. You'll still answer to Him one day, so there's nothing else for us to discuss.
Take care.
Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 7 2011, 11:18 PM)
I've had plenty of encounters with both God and demons and I'm not just believing a book.
Could you give us one example of each you have had. I have had simmilar experiences, but accounted for them differently as I applied an open mind to those experiences, so it would be interesting to hear what your encounters were.
Have you ever considered your experiences as anything other than supernatural?
Could you give us one example of each you have had. I have had simmilar experiences, but accounted for them differently as I applied an open mind to those experiences, so it would be interesting to hear what your encounters were.
Have you ever considered your experiences as anything other than supernatural?
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 8 2011, 06:39 AM)
And I, in turn, give you Jesus Christ. He requires genuine repentance and the willingness for you to take up your cross and follow Him.
Aaaaaah conditional love. I thought the bible said god loved us all unconditionally?
Aaaaaah conditional love. I thought the bible said god loved us all unconditionally?
QUOTE (newguy+Apr 7 2011, 11:18 PM)
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
newguy,
Ignoring the lunatics who post on this forum, I do have a real question for you. Whereas, it is impossible for us both to be right; would you concede the possibility of of us both being wrong? Of a god unlike yours, ruling in an unlike way, seeking homage in an unlike manner from his people.
The bible may be literature which contains humor and parody. And we simply misinterpreted it. (Poe's Law)
Derek1148: No, I would not. If this is a sincere question, then it tells me one of two things:
1. You haven't been paying attention to anything that I've said over the last 5+ years. IOW, as I've said numerous times, I've had plenty of encounters with both God and demons and I'm not just believing a book.
2. You think I'm either crazy or lying.
Quite frankly, I would rather that it were the second than the first, but whatever. I'm too busy to waste any more time here right now.
Take care.
I also have met numerous demons. Haven’t met God yet. But it must be nice, like you, to be so sure of yourself.
Anyway, my point was that evolution only goes so far. A researcher finds a 1/2-inch bone in Montana or the Mojave Desert and determines it came from a terrible 60-foot predator with green eyes. Later, upon further research it is determined that same bone actually belonged to a giant gentle vegetarian who read Shakespeare. But at least it is based on research and evidence. (But no one has a theory on what was going on before the “Beginning.”)
Your theory is based on your own hateful misinterpretations of an old book. Then you’re disdainful of those that disagree with you. My question to you was sincere. Don’t you realize that it highly likely no one has the answer?
Ignoring the lunatics who post on this forum, I do have a real question for you. Whereas, it is impossible for us both to be right; would you concede the possibility of of us both being wrong? Of a god unlike yours, ruling in an unlike way, seeking homage in an unlike manner from his people.
The bible may be literature which contains humor and parody. And we simply misinterpreted it. (Poe's Law)
Derek1148: No, I would not. If this is a sincere question, then it tells me one of two things:
1. You haven't been paying attention to anything that I've said over the last 5+ years. IOW, as I've said numerous times, I've had plenty of encounters with both God and demons and I'm not just believing a book.
2. You think I'm either crazy or lying.
Quite frankly, I would rather that it were the second than the first, but whatever. I'm too busy to waste any more time here right now.
Take care.
I also have met numerous demons. Haven’t met God yet. But it must be nice, like you, to be so sure of yourself.
Anyway, my point was that evolution only goes so far. A researcher finds a 1/2-inch bone in Montana or the Mojave Desert and determines it came from a terrible 60-foot predator with green eyes. Later, upon further research it is determined that same bone actually belonged to a giant gentle vegetarian who read Shakespeare. But at least it is based on research and evidence. (But no one has a theory on what was going on before the “Beginning.”)
Your theory is based on your own hateful misinterpretations of an old book. Then you’re disdainful of those that disagree with you. My question to you was sincere. Don’t you realize that it highly likely no one has the answer?
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Apr 8 2011, 12:51 AM)
Aaaaaah conditional love. I thought the bible said god loved us all unconditionally?
No attempt to insult you here but I'm afraid you may be suffering from some medical condition that makes people transpose, reverse or otherwise mix up letters. It's DOG that loves men unconditionally. Not GOD.
No attempt to insult you here but I'm afraid you may be suffering from some medical condition that makes people transpose, reverse or otherwise mix up letters. It's DOG that loves men unconditionally. Not GOD.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Apr 18 2011, 10:32 PM)
No attempt to insult you here but I'm afraid you may be suffering from some medical condition that makes people transpose, reverse or otherwise mix up letters. It's DOG that loves men unconditionally. Not GOD.
I shall seek medical attention immedietly!
I shall seek medical attention immedietly!
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Apr 2 2011, 09:09 AM)
Or, they could be fake.
Nailed it.
Nailed it.
QUOTE (brucep+)
Thanks for writing that down.
Welcome.
It's my take, but the inspiration for it comes directly from theology expert Marchette Chute, who wrote the book "The Search for God", I believe circa 1945, in which she introduced the "Dual God" concept. This concept theorizes that Genesis, and indeed the Bible itself, is a portrayal of two views of God, the human one and the neutral one. The reaction of her peers to the book were not good - in an earlier day she may have been burned at the stake. The book is a compelling read for both theists and atheists/agnostics alike. It may be hard to come by though.
Welcome.
It's my take, but the inspiration for it comes directly from theology expert Marchette Chute, who wrote the book "The Search for God", I believe circa 1945, in which she introduced the "Dual God" concept. This concept theorizes that Genesis, and indeed the Bible itself, is a portrayal of two views of God, the human one and the neutral one. The reaction of her peers to the book were not good - in an earlier day she may have been burned at the stake. The book is a compelling read for both theists and atheists/agnostics alike. It may be hard to come by though.
http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=36972
A smaller trove of the 70 codices have been obtained from the black market by Jordanian authorities. If they are definitely of the same batch, then we will find out for certain the truth.
The article goes on to cite that the Israeli Bedouin who allegedly illegally possesses the rest of the codices, says that he can prove that they are not Christian at all, but Hebrew.
A smaller trove of the 70 codices have been obtained from the black market by Jordanian authorities. If they are definitely of the same batch, then we will find out for certain the truth.
QUOTE
Authorities are set to send the recently recovered books to three separate labs for further analysis - in Britain, the US and at the Royal Scientific Society in Amman - in order to determine if the texts are indeed “the greatest discovery since the Dead Sea scrolls” or little more than sophisticated forgeries.
According to Saad, it will take experts three weeks to complete the tests on the recently recovered texts.
According to Saad, it will take experts three weeks to complete the tests on the recently recovered texts.
The article goes on to cite that the Israeli Bedouin who allegedly illegally possesses the rest of the codices, says that he can prove that they are not Christian at all, but Hebrew.
It is facinating that after so many centuries we can still find things in the ground. If it was faked, the fakers were very good. I wonder what if anything, will be found about our generation in a few thousand years.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.