|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Katie-Kat-the-Indubitable
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 1:45 pm
If Christianity is so sexist, then why are neutral pronouns used for God in the original language? And why is the Church considered female? Or the Holy Spirit, for that matter?
Also, generally in English, masculine pronouns are used as default for singular entities (when one is being grammatically correct), because "they" is ALWAYS plural, and "it" tends to refer to objects. God isn't "He" in English language Bibles because OMG GOD'S MALE, but because it's the default for our language.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 6:17 pm
Katie-Kat-the-Indubitable If Christianity is so sexist, then why are neutral pronouns used for God in the original language? And why is the Church considered female? Or the Holy Spirit, for that matter? Also, generally in English, masculine pronouns are used as default for singular entities (when one is being grammatically correct), because "they" is ALWAYS plural, and "it" tends to refer to objects. God isn't "He" in English language Bibles because OMG GOD'S MALE, but because it's the default for our language. Of course, you can't expect people to actually look into the origins of the thing they dedicate so much time to criticize... Gimonavid NOCTVRNVS You're obviously just bashing Christianity because, like everyone else, you're trying to look "rebellious" or something and it fails. Don't pretend to know the inner workings of the mind of someone you don't know. It's pathetic. Thanks, I appreciate that. But seriously, I'm allowed to make assumptions. Just like you're assuming I don't know the inner workings of the mind of someone I don't know wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Katie-Kat-the-Indubitable
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:31 pm
Another thing. Mary Magdelene was not a prostitute; she is Saint Mary Magdelene the Penitent. She was a sinner, but sincerely repented and served Christ and his apostles; she was also the first to see him after his ressurection. The Church is the Bride of Christ.Just as there was a betrothal period in biblical times during which the bride and groom were separated until the wedding, so is the bride of Christ separate from her bridegroom during the church age. Her responsibility during the betrothal period is to be faithful to Him (2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:24). At the Second Coming of Christ, the church will be united with the Bridegroom, the official "wedding ceremony" will take place and, with it, the eternal union of Christ and his wife will be actualized (Revelation 19:7-9; 21:1-2).
Now, I won't deny that there's parts of the Bible that condone rape, murder, and genocide. Problem? They're in the OLD TESTEMANT. Anyone who knows anything of Christianity is aware that the Old Testemant is null, and the Old Law was fulfilled, nailed to the cross with Christ. Christians are bound by the Law of Agape. Mark 12:28-31, NIV 28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" 29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'[f] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[g]There is no commandment greater than these." I'm sorry, what was that about Christianity being sexist again? And if you're an athiest bashing Christianity, for the love of all things holy, knock it off. You make rational, informed athiests like me look bad. mad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:27 pm
Katie-Kat-the-Indubitable Another thing. Mary Magdelene was not a prostitute; she is Saint Mary Magdelene the Penitent. She was a sinner, but sincerely repented and served Christ and his apostles; she was also the first to see him after his ressurection. The Church is the Bride of Christ.Just as there was a betrothal period in biblical times during which the bride and groom were separated until the wedding, so is the bride of Christ separate from her bridegroom during the church age. Her responsibility during the betrothal period is to be faithful to Him (2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:24). At the Second Coming of Christ, the church will be united with the Bridegroom, the official "wedding ceremony" will take place and, with it, the eternal union of Christ and his wife will be actualized (Revelation 19:7-9; 21:1-2).
Now, I won't deny that there's parts of the Bible that condone rape, murder, and genocide. Problem? They're in the OLD TESTEMANT. Anyone who knows anything of Christianity is aware that the Old Testemant is null, and the Old Law was fulfilled, nailed to the cross with Christ. Christians are bound by the Law of Agape. Mark 12:28-31, NIV 28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" 29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'[f] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[g]There is no commandment greater than these." I'm sorry, what was that about Christianity being sexist again? And if you're an athiest bashing Christianity, for the love of all things holy, knock it off. You make rational, informed athiests like me look bad. mad There isn't even any proof that she was a sinner, much less a prostitute. She was posessed and Jesus cast the demons out, there is even evidence that she was an apostle (not solid evidence, but it's there). Mary of Magdala was not the sinful woman that washed Jesus's feet with her tears and hair, that woman was never named. She was a disciple, she repented just like the apostles and she didn't serve them any more than any of the other apostles. The whole thing about Mary Magdalene even being a sinner at all was invented by some country preacher who needed a good repentence story for a sermon one day. It was not part of the original christian tradition. Period. Now, I never said the NT was sexist (though if you give me a minute to scan through it I'm sure I'll be able to come up with something) Christians, though, are usually extremely sexist, most denominations will not allow woman into positions of power, priest, bishop, etc. I applaud those who do though, they are more in keeping with what we know of the early church. I am defending Christianity, not bashing it. It's everyone who wants to change or interpret what is written, wants to pretend they know what happened better than the Bible and can't be bothered to just ask Jesus, they are the ones tearing it down. Not me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Katie-Kat-the-Indubitable
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:34 pm
Efstathios There isn't even any proof that she was a sinner, much less a prostitute. She was posessed and Jesus cast the demons out, there is even evidence that she was an apostle (not solid evidence, but it's there). Mary of Magdala was not the sinful woman that washed Jesus's feet with her tears and hair, that woman was never named. She was a disciple, she repented just like the apostles and she didn't serve them any more than any of the other apostles. The whole thing about Mary Magdalene even being a sinner at all was invented by some country preacher who needed a good repentence story for a sermon one day. It was not part of the original christian tradition. Period. I'm sorry, what?
Mary Magdalen was well known as a sinner when she first saw Our Lord. She was very beautiful and very proud, but after she met Jesus, she felt great sorrow for her evil life. When Jesus went to supper at the home of a rich man named Simon, Mary came to weep at His feet. Then with her long beautiful hair, she wiped His feet dry and anointed them with expensive perfume. Some people were surprised that Jesus let such a sinner touch Him, but Our Lord could see into Mary's heart, and He said: "Many sins are forgiven her, because she has loved very much." Then to Mary He said kindly, "Your faith has made you safe; go in peace." From then on, with the other holy women, Mary humbly served Jesus and His Apostles. When Our Lord was crucified, she was there at the foot of His cross, unafraid for herself, and thinking only of His sufferings. No wonder Jesus said of her: "She has loved much." After Jesus' body had been placed in the tomb, Mary went to anoint it with spices early Easter Sunday morning. Not finding the Sacred Body, she began to weep, and seeing someone whom she thought was the gardener, she asked him if he knew where the Body of her beloved Master had been taken. But then the person spoke in a voice she knew so well: "Mary!" It was Jesus, risen from the dead! He had chosen to show Himself first to Mary Magdalen, the repentent sinner. From the page I linked on Saint Mary Magdelene the Penitent. According to the commentary on Luke 8 on Biblegateway.com, there's little evidence that the woman who washed Jesus' feet with her tears and hair is Mary Magdelene, but it is still part of Christian dogma that she was a sinner, and has been for centuries. Quote: Now, I never said the NT was sexist (though if you give me a minute to scan through it I'm sure I'll be able to come up with something) Paul's letters. He wasn't too fond of women. But then, it's not Paul's word Christians follow, is it? It's that of Christ. Quote: Christians, though, are usually extremely sexist, most denominations will not allow woman into positions of power, priest, bishop, etc. I applaud those who do though, they are more in keeping with what we know of the early church. That has to do with the Church being the Bride of Christ. Give me a few minutes, and I'm sure I can find the portion of the Cathecism that talks about it. EDIT: From Pope Paul VI: "She [the Church] holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church." SourceAnd from the Catechism: 1577 "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination."66 The Lord Jesus chose men (ver) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.67 The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.68 You can find it online here. And I'd like proof that Christians are "usually" sexist, as I can point to notable Christian Extended Discussion forum regulars, such as linaloki, SinfulGuillotine, Marshal67, ty_ping, Ananel, John Calvin, and Philosophical Paradox, who are far from sexist. Quote: I am defending Christianity, not bashing it. It's everyone who wants to change or interpret what is written, wants to pretend they know what happened better than the Bible and can't be bothered to just ask Jesus, they are the ones tearing it down. Not me. Funny, I'm the one quoting the Bible and Church dogma.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:32 pm
Efstathios Christians, though, are usually extremely sexist, most denominations will not allow woman into positions of power, priest, bishop, etc. I applaud those who do though, they are more in keeping with what we know of the early church. Sexist? Shut up you dumb b***h, who let you out of the kitchen? LOL JUST KIDDING! : D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:52 pm
Response to Katie-Kat:
Not once in the bible does it say that Mary is sinful, aside from original sin, but technically since his mother was human, not even Jesus was exempt from original sin. It has only been part of tradition to put females down, and was fabricated as a repentence story. I have sources for that, my studies of Christianity have been fairly extensive for my age and background.
Next bit, you pointed out the part of the bible that is sexist and went on to prove what I said. That being that some churches are sexist and others aren't. Thanks.
I quoted the Bible plenty earlier in this thread, if you want me to find and type up every passage directly mentioning Mary to prove that she wasn't a sinner, I can do that.
You're the one quoting Dogma.I prefer the Jesus from the Bible and spirit journeys to some bishop's skewed prejudiced patriarchal preachings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:53 pm
NOCTVRNVS Efstathios Christians, though, are usually extremely sexist, most denominations will not allow woman into positions of power, priest, bishop, etc. I applaud those who do though, they are more in keeping with what we know of the early church. Sexist? Shut up you dumb b***h, who let you out of the kitchen? LOL JUST KIDDING! : D Shut up you mere male. You're breeding stock. ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:45 am
Efstathios Response to Katie-Kat: Not once in the bible does it say that Mary is sinful, aside from original sin, but technically since his mother was human, not even Jesus was exempt from original sin. Born of a virgin. Jesus, according to doctrine, was sinless. Quote: It has only been part of tradition to put females down, and was fabricated as a repentence story. I have sources for that, my studies of Christianity have been fairly extensive for my age and background. Then please cite your sources, as mine disagree. Quote: Next bit, you pointed out the part of the bible that is sexist and went on to prove what I said. That being that some churches are sexist and others aren't. Thanks. It's sexist to keep to the tradition Christ himself established? How is that? Quote: I quoted the Bible plenty earlier in this thread, if you want me to find and type up every passage directly mentioning Mary to prove that she wasn't a sinner, I can do that. I'll go back and look, and if I can't find it I'll request you type it again. Or just pull it off Biblegateway.com. Quote: You're the one quoting Dogma.I prefer the Jesus from the Bible and spirit journeys to some bishop's skewed prejudiced patriarchal preachings. I'm quoting the Church because the Bible itself, aside from Paul's letters (and we all know Paul was an equal-opportunity bigot), doesn't really say anything. I fail to see the problem in quoting the Church, as the Tradition is a part of Catholicism and of the Orthodoxies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:25 pm
What religion are you?
Atheist
How long have you been in this religion?
I was raised Catholic, but started questioning in middle school, but didn't know there was a specific name for it until history in 10th grade. So, all in all, 8 years.
Why do you believe in this faith?
I find many details involving the Christian God to be incompatible with modern science, such as evolution, the layout of the universe, ect...
What do you hate about other religions?
I don't hate anyone. I never bother anyone about their religion unless they want to debate it. I think anything that gives you purpose in life, and doesn't disturb anyone else's, is just fine by me.
However, I do have several bones to pick with the Christian/Catholic church (don't really know who's specifically responsible for it) but I will save those for another post.
If you are agnostic/atheist please tell us why?
See above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:51 pm
Wraithgirl Well, I would like to point something out. First of all, the reason they threw out so called "gospels" was not because they had an agenda. Yes they did. They threw out several books because: a. They did not show a side of Jesus/humans/divinity that they wanted to portray. b. They were written long enough after Jesus' death that they were obviously considered false. c. They were written by unpopular sects of Christianity and thrown out for that reason. Quote: What happened was that people were writing stuff that utterly contradicted the original manuscripts, known to have been written by eye witnesss and such, and giving it names like "the gospel of so-and-so" to get people to read it. it was a bunch of scams, most of which began after all witnesses were dead, so no one could say "Hey! That's not tru!" they looked at the evidence, prayed, scrutinized every detail, and finally concluded that a certin number of books were true. Not true. Example: Lilith. I forget the name of the gospel, but it told of Adam's first wife, who was created the same way he was, and thus his equal. However, the equality of a woman, and her expression of her equality (refusing to lay beneath him during sex) was too much for what they wanted to portray, so they left that book out. However, Lilith is mentioned later on, in one of the kept books. If the book containing Lilith was fake, why would the 'genuine' one make reference to it? Another example: Solomon as a demon exorcist. There was a whole book about King Solomon controlling demons, even using them to build a great temple. But it was thrown out as being to mystical with the whole demon controlling thing. But, in a later excepted book, I forget which one, as Jesus is exorcising a demon from a woman, he says to the crowd something to the effect of there being an exorcist here greater than Solomon. The 'genuine' books containing Solomon make no reference to his practices. Quote: There are certin things that are uniqe to what I believe are divinly inspired writings, or if you like, "real" books of the bible: they constantly refer back to the old testament scriptures, they agree with the teachings of Christ, as recorded in the known to be reliable eye witness acounts in the gospels, Just because they agree, doesn't mean they will be accepted. There was a sect in the north that took a very logical approach to the bible, and a few books that come from them did have that particular style to them. However, they were a small unpopular group so their books were left out of the bible because their style didn't flow well enough with the rest. I believe one of them was about the life of Mary. Quote: they don't try to hide anything about themselves (notice that, if most people were to begin a religion, they'd try to portray themselves as perfect, instead, they are human, real, falible, and, frankly, honest) Except they don't. A book showing the early life of Jesus was thrown out because it showed too much of a real little boy than they wanted. He used his power for much more mundane things, such as helping his father bend a large piece of wood. They wanted a divine figure, not a human being. Quote: Altogether, the Bible has been assembled in the way we have it now for good reasons. try really looking into it before you judge. I disagree. Quote: Tell you what, why don't you try to prove your dropped gospels, and disprove the accepted ones? Prove and disprove what? That they were written? Quote: Even if we can't "prove" creation and the flood, we can't prove evolution either. Science can only look at how things are now. It is only retrospective to a point, but whatever you believe, Creation, evolution, athiesim, panthiesim, dualism, or the idea that matter is an illusion, it is all faith. Maybe evolution is a theory right now, but we have a lot more evidence for it than you have for your bible. Quote: Think of this: there are rules. Who made the rules? If you believe there is no God, then you must disbelieve in "Good", for how can there be good without some standard of what is good? There are no rules. Right and wrong, good and evil are relative. If there were absolute rules, everyone would think the same way. Each culture, nation, and person has their own view of right and wrong. Their religions are no more or less supported than yours. Who's to say they're view of right and wrong are less valid than yours? And yes, I know this is a painfully long post, and only dealing with one of my issues with Christianity, but almost all of my information dealing with the 'rejected' books comes from the history channel, primarily a four hour special called Banned from the Bible. However, if you have specific beefs with anything I have said, I will make every effort to bring tangible sources to the table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:17 pm
And now a considerably shorter post involving my other points of interest.
1. The size of the universe.
The bible clearly states that the universe is 6000 years old. Then why can we see light from stars more than 6000 light years away? If all stars were created less than 6000 years ago, then we would only be able to see the ones in a 6000 light year radius.
For those who haven't covered light travel yet: 1 light year is how far light can travel in 1 year. I can't remember the exact number. Therefore if something were 20 light years away, it would take 20 years after its creation for its light to reach earth. So why can we see light from over 6000 light years away if it supposedly only had 6000 years to get here? The furthest definable thing in my 2001 'Universe Atlas' is the galactic cluster Abell 2218, a mindblowing 3 billion light years away.
2. Evolution
As stated in my previous post, it is still a theory. However, it's not some jacked up story some guy made up after a few drinks. Darwin traveled the world, studying for years and years before publishing Origin of Species. If a God just made up all the species of the earth, why have many gone extinct? And not the ones humans killed off, the dinosaurs? Many of the early mammals/reptiles/birds? If they were all just made up, why do we share similar bone structures, such as the two bones in our forearms? Why is our DNA so very similar to the monkeys and apes that are also similar to the ancestors that we unearth all the time? Yes, there are lots of holes in the homo sapiens evolutionary chain, but it's a big a** earth. It's going to take a while to cover all of it.
3. Claims that carbon dating is some big crock (ie: dating a steel truss and getting back 3 million years, an actual example I've had put to me)
I have yet to see any case studies of screwed up dating. Carbon dating isn't even that popular anymore, they use another element that allows scientists to pinpoint more accurately, I forget what it is.
4. The pointing to other evolutionary theories having been proven wrong.
That is the nature of science. A scientist gets great prestige for successfully disproving a respected theory. That's why a book, such as my Universe Atlas is already out of date, according to my Astronomy professor, since theories are changing and evolving all the time. The bible on the other hand, cannot change. You disprove one part and it all comes down like a stack of cards. If one part is wrong, it calls all of it under question.
I probably have more points in the back of my mind, but I have a project to get to, so feel free to break down my arguments. But be logical about it, ad hominims are one of my biggest pet peeves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:59 pm
Silent Comet And now a considerably shorter post involving my other points of interest. 1. The size of the universe. The bible clearly states that the universe is 6000 years old. Then why can we see light from stars more than 6000 light years away? If all stars were created less than 6000 years ago, then we would only be able to see the ones in a 6000 light year radius. For those who haven't covered light travel yet: 1 light year is how far light can travel in 1 year. I can't remember the exact number. Therefore if something were 20 light years away, it would take 20 years after its creation for its light to reach earth. So why can we see light from over 6000 light years away if it supposedly only had 6000 years to get here? The furthest definable thing in my 2001 'Universe Atlas' is the galactic cluster Abell 2218, a mindblowing 3 billion light years away. 2. Evolution As stated in my previous post, it is still a theory. However, it's not some jacked up story some guy made up after a few drinks. Darwin traveled the world, studying for years and years before publishing Origin of Species. If a God just made up all the species of the earth, why have many gone extinct? And not the ones humans killed off, the dinosaurs? Many of the early mammals/reptiles/birds? If they were all just made up, why do we share similar bone structures, such as the two bones in our forearms? Why is our DNA so very similar to the monkeys and apes that are also similar to the ancestors that we unearth all the time? Yes, there are lots of holes in the homo sapiens evolutionary chain, but it's a big a** earth. It's going to take a while to cover all of it. 3. Claims that carbon dating is some big crock (ie: dating a steel truss and getting back 3 million years, an actual example I've had put to me) I have yet to see any case studies of screwed up dating. Carbon dating isn't even that popular anymore, they use another element that allows scientists to pinpoint more accurately, I forget what it is. 4. The pointing to other evolutionary theories having been proven wrong. That is the nature of science. A scientist gets great prestige for successfully disproving a respected theory. That's why a book, such as my Universe Atlas is already out of date, according to my Astronomy professor, since theories are changing and evolving all the time. The bible on the other hand, cannot change. You disprove one part and it all comes down like a stack of cards. If one part is wrong, it calls all of it under question. I probably have more points in the back of my mind, but I have a project to get to, so feel free to break down my arguments. But be logical about it, ad hominims are one of my biggest pet peeves. Well first off nowhere does the Bible, in any of its versions that I've ever read, state that the universe is 6000 years old. Especially considering that it mentions cultures that have existed for longer than that. Most likely you are taking the concept of the Biblical Creation -- that God created all matter and space in 6 days -- and applying the idea that each of these "days" stands for a millenium for some reason, to get six-thousand years. Not exactly sure why one would come to that conclusion based on information in the Bible because it isn't there. Why did the dinosaurs and a bunch of species of animal die out over the years? Well why not? I don't really get your point, species can only die out if the current theory of evolution is "true"? And why WOULDN'T we share similar bone structures with other animals if we were intelligently designed? It works for us, it works for dinosaurs, it works for monkeys (o my) because it's good design. Why is our DNA similar to monkeys? Lol... once again why wouldn't it be? We ARE similar to monkeys. But hey our DNA is also similar to every other living creature's too, so, you know... It's going to take a damn long time to find the "missing links" because they are all hoaxes or flops... they just happen to find a new "missing link" every month but where are they all now? Fallen into obscurity because of the simple fact that they are all just human skeletons with deformations, found in the same areas as other skeletons from their time that look exactly like ours do. Can you imagine how many deformed skeletons there must be lying around for us to discover? I mean ten thousand years from now someone will re-discover the bones of Joseph Merrick and say, "so THIS is what we came from..." As for carbon dating methods, well you can't "prove" something with a theory, anyone knows that. And besides, I'd be willing to bet no-one in here actually understands the process of carbon-dating anyway, so everything we hear about it we are simply taking scientists' word for. Yes, of course scientific theories are proven wrong and redefined, but that says nothing for the accuracy of such theories as they exist now. One day the theories of gravity will be redefined as we further explore space and find that they do not apply universally. The theories related to the properties of light will be modified when other forms and types of light in strange environments are discovered by man. All of this God granted us to cure man's insatiable desire to explore and conquer, infinite voids and unimagineable masses of property unknown are there awaiting the day when man stumbles upon them for the first time... this is incredible and in my opinion shows only that we have a God powerful and gracious enough to give such gifts to man, His creation. To you and many perhaps all it represents is the result of a formation of spontaneously-generated molecular organizations... and I find that a little sad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:26 pm
Silent Comet Wraithgirl Well, I would like to point something out. First of all, the reason they threw out so called "gospels" was not because they had an agenda. Yes they did. They threw out several books because: a. They did not show a side of Jesus/humans/divinity that they wanted to portray. b. They were written long enough after Jesus' death that they were obviously considered false. c. They were written by unpopular sects of Christianity and thrown out for that reason. Quote: What happened was that people were writing stuff that utterly contradicted the original manuscripts, known to have been written by eye witnesss and such, and giving it names like "the gospel of so-and-so" to get people to read it. it was a bunch of scams, most of which began after all witnesses were dead, so no one could say "Hey! That's not tru!" they looked at the evidence, prayed, scrutinized every detail, and finally concluded that a certin number of books were true. Not true. Example: Lilith. I forget the name of the gospel, but it told of Adam's first wife, who was created the same way he was, and thus his equal. However, the equality of a woman, and her expression of her equality (refusing to lay beneath him during sex) was too much for what they wanted to portray, so they left that book out. However, Lilith is mentioned later on, in one of the kept books. If the book containing Lilith was fake, why would the 'genuine' one make reference to it? Another example: Solomon as a demon exorcist. There was a whole book about King Solomon controlling demons, even using them to build a great temple. But it was thrown out as being to mystical with the whole demon controlling thing. But, in a later excepted book, I forget which one, as Jesus is exorcising a demon from a woman, he says to the crowd something to the effect of there being an exorcist here greater than Solomon. The 'genuine' books containing Solomon make no reference to his practices. Quote: There are certin things that are uniqe to what I believe are divinly inspired writings, or if you like, "real" books of the bible: they constantly refer back to the old testament scriptures, they agree with the teachings of Christ, as recorded in the known to be reliable eye witness acounts in the gospels, Just because they agree, doesn't mean they will be accepted. There was a sect in the north that took a very logical approach to the bible, and a few books that come from them did have that particular style to them. However, they were a small unpopular group so their books were left out of the bible because their style didn't flow well enough with the rest. I believe one of them was about the life of Mary. Quote: they don't try to hide anything about themselves (notice that, if most people were to begin a religion, they'd try to portray themselves as perfect, instead, they are human, real, falible, and, frankly, honest) Except they don't. A book showing the early life of Jesus was thrown out because it showed too much of a real little boy than they wanted. He used his power for much more mundane things, such as helping his father bend a large piece of wood. They wanted a divine figure, not a human being. Quote: Altogether, the Bible has been assembled in the way we have it now for good reasons. try really looking into it before you judge. I disagree. Quote: Tell you what, why don't you try to prove your dropped gospels, and disprove the accepted ones? Prove and disprove what? That they were written? Quote: Even if we can't "prove" creation and the flood, we can't prove evolution either. Science can only look at how things are now. It is only retrospective to a point, but whatever you believe, Creation, evolution, athiesim, panthiesim, dualism, or the idea that matter is an illusion, it is all faith. Maybe evolution is a theory right now, but we have a lot more evidence for it than you have for your bible. Quote: Think of this: there are rules. Who made the rules? If you believe there is no God, then you must disbelieve in "Good", for how can there be good without some standard of what is good? There are no rules. Right and wrong, good and evil are relative. If there were absolute rules, everyone would think the same way. Each culture, nation, and person has their own view of right and wrong. Their religions are no more or less supported than yours. Who's to say they're view of right and wrong are less valid than yours? And yes, I know this is a painfully long post, and only dealing with one of my issues with Christianity, but almost all of my information dealing with the 'rejected' books comes from the history channel, primarily a four hour special called Banned from the Bible. However, if you have specific beefs with anything I have said, I will make every effort to bring tangible sources to the table. Well I was going to ask where you got your humourously lame information but you got it from The Hitler Channel, so that explains it... You obviously don't even fundamentally understand the structure of the Bible or the person of Jesus Christ. First of all there can't be a "gospel" discussing Creation (Adam and Eve). A Gospel is an eye-witness account, or retelling, of events; how can someone write a Gospel about Creation thousands of years after it happened? If someone was writing stories about Adam and Eve then thank God they WEREN'T added to the Bible or many people, as we can see, would be direly fooled. What the guy was getting at here is that, yes, there are books that are "left out" of the Bible -- because they are written by sects of Christianity that write such books for their own benefit, such as the Book of Mormon. I am not about to accept the Book of Mormon as a part of the Holy Bible. We cannot just "add" these books to our Holy Scripture, that doesn't make sense. Thousands of years after the Old Testament -- the Jewish books -- Christ inspired the New Testament -- the Christian books. They weren't "added" to the end of the Bible, they exist separately as an epilogue to the Bible to signify the intended shift from Judaism into Christianity; not simply to blend the two series into one book as though they were written together. The New Testament was written by many different men, although of course Divinely inspired and directed, and each book chronicles the life of Jesus Christ. And you know a lot of people fail to understand the New Testament simply because they fail to read the title of each book. The Book of Romans -- actually titled Letters to the Romans -- is, well, a transcript of letters to the Romans. Go figure huh... just as the Gospels were written by men who each experienced the life of Christ and wrote down their story to tell us, each in their own way which is very evident. You said that Christians do not want a "human" Christ? Come on, you DO realize that Christ WAS fully human. And fully divine. Christ did not always use His powers to raise the dead or excorcise demons, I mean He once used them to help his friends catch fish. I don't know why people insist on mocking the basis of Christianity so zealously when clearly they shouldn't be making these judgments and criticisms at all. Like think about it, you're using vague and obscure evidence from a four-hour special on a television network to mock the foundations of the Christian faith, meanwhile you have absolutely no problem accepting everything you hear on TV as long as it conveniently coincides with your desire to help destroy the name of Christ. You believe what you read in a book written in the 80s by men in white coats and wide-frame glasses, and use that speculation to ridicule the idea that Christians believe in a book written by prophets thousands of years ago and that still holds true today. Well science will never "disprove" God's decree, because the only thing science can disprove is itself! You can not apply the rules of Chess to Cribbage; you can not apply the rules of science to the ethereal. But you can try...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:19 pm
NOCTVRNVS Well first off nowhere does the Bible, in any of its versions that I've ever read, state that the universe is 6000 years old. Especially considering that it mentions cultures that have existed for longer than that. Most likely you are taking the concept of the Biblical Creation -- that God created all matter and space in 6 days -- and applying the idea that each of these "days" stands for a millenium for some reason, to get six-thousand years. Not exactly sure why one would come to that conclusion based on information in the Bible because it isn't there. I got that from a man who has been studying the bible all his life. If I recall correctly, if you add up all the years they give you, I know there's a big list somewhere in Genesis or the one after, it may be where he got it from. I had assumed it was what all Christians believed, but it seems I'll be talking to him about it again. Quote: Why did the dinosaurs and a bunch of species of animal die out over the years? Well why not? I don't really get your point, species can only die out if the current theory of evolution is "true"? And why WOULDN'T we share similar bone structures with other animals if we were intelligently designed? It works for us, it works for dinosaurs, it works for monkeys (o my) because it's good design. Why is our DNA similar to monkeys? Lol... once again why wouldn't it be? We ARE similar to monkeys. But hey our DNA is also similar to every other living creature's too, so, you know... I suppose it can go both ways. I would assume if you could create animals out of nothing, you'd make them all special and unique. But I'll give you a point there, it could go either way. Quote: It's going to take a damn long time to find the "missing links" because they are all hoaxes or flops... they just happen to find a new "missing link" every month but where are they all now? Fallen into obscurity because of the simple fact that they are all just human skeletons with deformations, found in the same areas as other skeletons from their time that look exactly like ours do. Can you imagine how many deformed skeletons there must be lying around for us to discover? I mean ten thousand years from now someone will re-discover the bones of Joseph Merrick and say, "so THIS is what we came from..." Where would they go? Not like it's big news anymore. Same with space suttle launches, they happen all the time, but after the first few times it's not big news. And just because you think they're all just hoaxes or flukes doesn't mean that scientists with decades of training will automatically dismiss it like you do. Quote: As for carbon dating methods, well you can't "prove" something with a theory, anyone knows that. And besides, I'd be willing to bet no-one in here actually understands the process of carbon-dating anyway, so everything we hear about it we are simply taking scientists' word for. I never said it "proved" anything. But it does add evidence, something the bible lacks. And yes, carbon dating is rather simple. It deals with the half-life of carbon, (where exactly half a sample deteriorates into another element after a certain amount of time) and by measuring the amount of carbon and comparing it to the amount of the secondary element, you can determine how old the sample is. High school chemistry. Quote: Yes, of course scientific theories are proven wrong and redefined, but that says nothing for the accuracy of such theories as they exist now. One day the theories of gravity will be redefined as we further explore space and find that they do not apply universally. The theories related to the properties of light will be modified when other forms and types of light in strange environments are discovered by man. Just because we learn more about something doesn't automatically negate it. If there is contrary evidence, then the theory changes. If there is enough contrary evidence, a new theory is formed. But not enough contrary evidence has been found to negate the theory of evolution. For example, no matter how much more we learn about gravity, we know that it does work here, on our planet, most likely everywhere in our solar system. However, we have already discovered that the laws of gravity break down at the speed of light. This doesn't mean we'll have to throw out the old law, just incorporate this new data into it. Quote: All of this God granted us to cure man's insatiable desire to explore and conquer, infinite voids and unimagineable masses of property unknown are there awaiting the day when man stumbles upon them for the first time... this is incredible and in my opinion shows only that we have a God powerful and gracious enough to give such gifts to man, His creation. To you and many perhaps all it represents is the result of a formation of spontaneously-generated molecular organizations... and I find that a little sad. Aaaand that's it? The only reason you believe that your God made all this is...just because? I don't care if you find me 'sad' I find people like you sad. All you have is faith and nothing to back it up with when you start challenging people. I love to debate this topic but when all you have to back yourself up is faith, it makes it rather uninteresting. Let me ask you a question. What evidence do you have that it is your creator and not the laws of science that created this universe? I've gotten stuck reading whole books trying to support God, and I have yet to come across an argument that stuck me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
