|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:48 pm
 |
|
|
 |
NOCTVRNVS 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...
Bite me. Got any backup for why I should discard my source?
Quote: 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.
Sigh...Forgive me for not watching my terminology better. A book, a BOOK are you happy? The BOOK of Genesis was followed by another BOOK that outlined Lilith. Geez.
Quote: 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.
I'm not talking about books written for different bibles, I'm talking about gospels written for the Christian bible that were excluded. If I were talking about such well known books as the Book of Mormon or the Talmud, I would have called them by name.
Quote: 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.
Sigh. By human, I don't mean he was of the same species, I mean he was real. He made mistakes, he lost his temper, he did boring things, ect.
Quote: 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.
I'm not mocking it, I'm telling you why I do not believe in it. I feel these are things to look at when looking into a belief system.
Quote: 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.
I told you, I couldn't remember the exact names at the end. You want me to find the references? Fine. Tomorrow night, I'll have them.
And again, I'm not mocking anything. I don't just listen to things I agree with, why do you think I'm here? I like to hear the other side of things, but right now you're making your whole religion look like a bunch of jerks. And I'm not basing my whole mindset around this point, I just happened to see an interesting show on a CREDIBLE network fairly recently and so wanted to bring it into the discussion.
Quote: 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...
I try to be considerably more up to date than that. You attack me for debating your religion in A DEBATE FORUM and then back it up with stereotypes. Real good job. And no, science will never fully disprove religion, because it can't be. Religion by definition is not science. However, I do not find it to be even logical. Logic in its many shapes and forms is universal and science is intertwined with logic, so that which cannot be tested, or even supported, cannot be even considered to be true. Which is why I'm atheist, which is what started this whole discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 4:07 pm
|
|
|
|
It is in the Book of Isaiah that the only accepted reference to Lilith is made:
Wildcats shall meet with hyenas,
goat-demons shall call to each other;
there too Lilith shall repose,
and find a place to rest.
There shall the owl nest
and lay and hatch and brood in its shadow
~Isaiah 34:14f
Later versions may translate her name as a night owl, night creature, or even vampire.
However, the opening for Lilith to come in is clear in the Christian bible. I won't give a source for it, since I'm looking at it in my own bible (yes I have one, and yes, I've read it) and I can trust that if I'm going to dig out my bible for this discussion, you can do the same.
Anyway, it says:
So God created people (man) in his own image;
God patterned them after himself;
male and female he created them.
~Genesis 27:1
It does add a translation note earlier that people can mean just man, but if it were referring to just man, why does it specifically say "male and female" then in the next line telling them to multiply? Then later going on to create Eve since Adam had "no suitable companion"?
There are also several, albeit contentious passages about her in the Dead Sea scrolls, and a few sources say that they were written in direct response to Isaiah. But it is the Jewish Midrash that gives the aforementioned backstory of Lilith, as is it's purpose is, as far as I've learned, to fill in gaps left by such uncertainties as these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/Lilith/
And yes, wikipedia should not be taken seriously, but the passages with citations are good starting points to find other, more credible sites, such as the second one.
And I do concede my Solomon example, it seems most agree it was written as folklore and therefore perfectly reasonable to have been left out of the bible.
Several other 'banned' books also had found their way into the Ethiopian Bible, if you care to look.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:55 pm
|
|
|
|
Calixti Born of a virgin. Jesus, according to doctrine, was sinless.
Yes, yes I know that Jesus commited no sin, he was still made of human flesh and born of a human mother. That was all I was saying.
Calixti Then please cite your sources, as mine disagree.
The Harlot By The Side Of The Road by Jonathon Kirsch
The Bible King James (Mine is anyway)
The Case For Christ Lee Strobel
Holy Blood Holy Grail Everyone knows this one
Mere Christianity C.S. Lewis
Those are the main ones. My Bible Study teacher, Steve, also has given me a lot of information that would have taken me years to gather.
Calixti It's sexist to keep to the tradition Christ himself established? How is that?
I never said that. Jesus taught men and women equally, evidenced by his close relationships with Mary Magdalene and Paul. It's sexist to depart from the example he set, a tradition that has carried from the earliest days of the church due to Paul's human failing to treat women as equals.
Calixti 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.
I can create an entire case for this if you so request, it'll just take a little while to go back through it. I'm reading the OT right now, so I don't have my usual bookmarks in the NT.
Calixti 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.
This point probably has more to do with our personal views on religion. I think that people should have a personal relationship with their deity, there should be no intermediary other than Jesus himself in the case of Christianity. It's a personal decision whether or not to follow a human rather than relying on prayer.
Now, I'm gonna finish reading this thread. Looks like it gets interesting after that post. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 9:05 pm
|
|
|
|
Silent Comet 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.
I'm sorry, what does this have to do with the actual topic? And you seem to think that I am supposed to be "debating" MY religion with you or something? Strange that not only do I not see how one can debate their own religion, but also that the thread does not at all call for a debate; I quote the original post:
What religion are you?
How long have you been in this religion?
Why do you believe in this faith?
What do you hate about other religions?
If you are agnostic/atheist please tell us why?
I didn't challenge anyone. You just posted a bunch of partial crap that I thought was ridiculous and, being a Christian, thought it might be my place to establish that this information probably isn't accurate. And the fact remains I have yet to hear of any confirmation regarding it. I don't really see where you are going with the subject of the demon Lilith, carbon dating, and evolution all in the same thread and neither having anything to do with the core discussion. I'll also put it out there that you kind of missed a lot of my points above but that's getting irrelevant now...
To answer your closing question, anyway, the "evidence" I have of a Creator is that science does not explain the creation of the universe. Nothing can self-originate according to the laws of preservation of mass and thus, all matter must have always existed -- which is also scientifically impossible. However, all things are possible with God, as they say (or used to), for reasons already mentioned. For a being so powerful that He could invent time, the laws of physics, and all matter, creating Himself would be no problem because He would need not follow the very laws He Himself created. And that's all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 10:09 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 10:26 pm
|
|
|
|
Silent Comet I can't believe you. This is a forum for, read it, master debaters. And also read the first post: Why do you believe in this faith? And not only that: If you are agnostic/atheist please tell us why? And I did. Forgive me if I wanted to go a little more in depth about the reasons I have chosen to disbelieve the existence of a divine creator, which is "where I was going" with the subject of Lilith (an extension of the banned books point), carbon dating (proof of the age of the earth and of the found skeletons proving evolution) and evolution itself. You challenged my evidence, complete with jabs just to get me angry, and so I answered. You think I'm just going to read your rebuttal and not respond? I would answer what you call your proof for God, but I won't. You seem to think your beliefs above debate, even though it was you who questioned mine.
So then first off, how does the concept of the existence of books left out of the Christian Bible lend to your disbelief of a God? Second, why are you acting as if there is only one religion in which there is a "God", while Islam and many other faiths in fact do maintain the existence of God?
Next, you already stated that neither the flawed method of carbon dating nor the doctrine of evolution are proven; so why now do you reference both as "proof"?
And what "evidence"? A TV show you think you saw, with information you don't remember, which seemingly exists nowhere else? Of course I expect you to respond -- angry responses are after all what keep me entertained here
You won't answer the one real question posed -- not surprising. I hold my beliefs above debate? Not sure what that means exactly, although if I did my response would probably be "damn right". Sometimes you just gotta stick to your guns. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 9:23 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 3:17 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 9:59 am
|
|
|
|
Der Freischuetz Gimonavid NOCTVRNVS Next, you already stated that neither the flawed method of carbon dating nor the doctrine of evolution are proven; so why now do you reference both as "proof"? The only reason these haven't been proven is because of religious fanatics who will accept nothing else BUT the IDEA (which can't be proven by scientific evidence) that some divine entity created them and only them. I don't see how this pertains to proving that carbon dating and evolution aren't real or can't be done. They might not accept it, but that doesn't mean it can't be proven.
If it weren't for religious nuts these things would be proven already. But there's just people that absolutely REFUSE to accept it. I know people who think that dinosaurs are a hoax. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:25 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:01 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:43 pm
|
|
|
|
I just have to say it:
When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy s**t!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:36 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:53 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:56 am
|
|
|
|
Gimonavid I just have to say it: When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy s**t!
You have a very valid point. However, I believe you may be confused. The religion that you are alluding to very strongly is not, in fact, the only religion. This may come as a bit of a shock to you, but there are other belief systems, also called "religions", whose followers may be slightly offended that you are accusing them of the things "those Christians" are notorious for. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
