Jump to content
Eternal Lands Official Forums
gilthanas

whats your religon?

whats your religon?  

148 members have voted

  1. 1. whats your religon?

    • christianity
      62
    • muslim
      7
    • jewish
      3
    • shinto
      1
    • budism
      4
    • hinduism
      1
    • pagan
      6
    • other
      13
    • I'm not religous
      51


Recommended Posts

(In General) I do want to point out that, if you don't want to serve a god who has had atrocities committed by their followers in their name, God's off the table.  So's Allah.  I'm also fairly certain that you'd have to throw out all the Greco-Roman, Norse, Celtic, Hindu, and any from the Ancient Middle East.  In fact, even Atheism is off the table in that case.  I think the only one left, though, may be Agnosticism, but then it'd be stupid to kill in the name of a god/gods/no god that may/may not exist.

195641[/snapback]

Very true, anyone who claims that ONLY Christians have done atrocities in the name of ther religion is being clueless.

 

But my point: I can't believe that God made most of the Old Testament laws, or did/sanctioned a lot of the things the Bible claims s/he did. I've finally learned not to throw the whole Bible out the window because of a few dodgy-sounding parts, but I can't accept it all either. I couldn't worship someone who I believed endorsed all that stuff - not just the god described in some parts of the Bible, but ANY religion's god.

 

Yes, I suppose I am a "pick-and-chooser". :glare: But isn't it more logical to say "I believe that God did not do this/command this, so I will ignore that part and focus on the parts of the Bible that I believe are true" rather than say "Oh my, here is a part I don't like at all, so I will toss the whole thing out the window because none of it can possibly be true!" Though it's a different story if you don't agree with the vast majority of it...

 

EDIT: That wasn't directed at people who decide not to follow the Bible, it's directed at people who will accuse me of "picking and choosing" the "feel-good parts of the Bible" because I "don't want to hear the truth".

Edited by Ciara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted not religious of course...

Alot of the stuff in the Bible is very hard to agree with. I won't say anything else that could baffle everyone and cause Christians to riot, but I'll say this.

 

Noah's Ark.

How could the old dude get 2 of every animal from places nowhere near him, animals he hadn't heard of... Elephants and Tigers? Not where they were, sorry Christians.

 

Rapture.

They say that you are just a spirit in heaven. You don't have your body. They also say no time passes. They say during the rapture, all of the dead bodies will rise and you in heaven will have your body. But if there's no time, it would seem like you just go up and have your body instantly, correct? Anyway, the body would be decomposed.

Edited by MindFreak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose, broadly speaking, I would be considered Christian though I personally just consider myself to be moral. Meh - who cares whose altar you pray to providing the way you live your life is one which does not cause (un-necessary) problems to others.

 

Irregardless of the deity the vast majority of people will still agree with a qoute from J.C. - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", my point of view encapsulated nicely in a single line :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meh - who cares whose altar you pray to providing the way you live your life is one which does not cause (un-necessary) problems to others. Irregardless of the deity the vast majority of people will still agree with a qoute from J.C. - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", my point of view encapsulated nicely in a single line :)

195869[/snapback]

 

Exactly ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok here we go with constantine... from what i have gathered some of the time spent in the sessions about determining valid scriptures were about the divinity of christ. that was pretty much their starting point. there was also strikeing women down in the culture. this is illustrated by the bible calling mary a whore. why would they target her? because she was around jesus for a long time near the end of his life. as well jesus was a jew. in that time a young unmarried jew was frowned upon. it is my speculation that jesus was married to mary and quite possibly had a child.

the other problem is that they were trying to decide if christ was devine or not. if a scripture pertaining to him in a mortal light was presented it was rejected. otherwise jesus would be just another prophet. how is it also that such a famous figure (not to mention important) would not have almost his own book beside the bible if all of the scriptures were included?

 

sry i have to end now but football practice is beginning in 20 minutes and ive got to get ready. i will probably continue on a later date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jrritter,

I can't say anything that those before me hasn't already said but it doesn't matter cause you said you won't respond.

 

But I'll leave you with a thought. You said:

some people question god and why he does things but does a pot question the potter?

 

But if the Potter gave the Pot the Ability to Question, won't if be a Failure on the Potter's part if the Pot he designed did not use the very ability the Potter gave it? Even if the Pot used it's given Gift to determined if the Potter was really real, then the Pot would still be fulfilling it's Designed Purpose!

 

I personally believe that we were given our ability to reason to aid in the expansion of our existence. To Not use our God-Given gift to learn Everything for Ourself would, in my eyes, be a Sin against God and God's Design for us.

 

 

Well, there you have it. Take it as you wish, if you do read this.

 

Arnieman,

actually, yes, I'd thought about the source - want to explain to me how Constantine corrupted the copies (and in a few cases (I think, not sure), originals) that date back to the first century, some not 5-10 years after the death of Christ? Also, if he had anything of typical Roman agenda in mind, where's the parts telling Christians to hate Jews? (btw, those parts do NOT exist.)

 

Well, first off Constantine was not actually Roman. He was, I believe ......... Turkish or something around that area (my memory fails me here.) Also, He did not actually commision his translations until After the Holy Roman Church Split apart, with Constantine heading the .... um ..... Other one (again, I can't seam to remember the name but it had Orthadox in it.)

 

Second, little question but when exactly do you believe that the Bible was offically Completed? There is actually a huge gap between the point in which the New Testiment leaves off of actually Historic account and the point in which the Completed Bible started circulation. Added to the fact that the New Testiment Was not "Being" written as history was occuring (meaning that it wasn't written for many, many years after the Death and Return of Jesus.) This means that taking the Death of Jesus as an accurate historical point from which to measure the Age of the Bible is not entirely accurate in itself.

 

Now, taking account that during the time in which the Holy Roman Empire ruled all of Europe and most of the Mid-East for a good 500 years before Constantine's Rule, and the fact that for this time, the complete Bible was never translated into Latin, the Church itself was the only Entity that even had a complete Copy of the Bible. The common citizen could never even read it. They only knew what they were told.

 

It was from the Church that Constantine got any Copies he used. Aside from his own Agenda that he may or may not have had, it cannot be said for certain that the Copies that he used were, in fact, the originals because there were no one to say otherwise. Of course, not counted the Jewish, who had their own copy of the Torah, which contained the Complete Old Testament. But, if the Jewish prejudice really was as strong as you may think, it's unlikely that Christian's would put all that much faith in using the Torah as collaboration of the Bible.

 

So, again, Proof is really up for grabs here. Other then the Dead Sea Scrolls, which was only discovered resently (and, of those we are able to read, are not a complete copy of the whole Bible), there really isn't a true way to determine the Work's authenticity without a Lot of research and many, many years of study. In fact, we may never know. The only thing we have is Faith. Faith that it's still accurate and Faith that it has survived 2000 years of War, Corruption, Prejudice, Fires, Natural Disasters, and basically the Worst of Mankind.

 

I don't know about you but I can't have that much Faith.

 

And Shouja,

Your Contribution is exactly what a True Discussion should be. More Questions instead of more Biased Conclusions.

 

I can't go too much into all you're posted so I'll respond to this. As for the three Choices that explain The truth about Jesus:

 

As Far as I can tell, Jesus wasn't Insane. Of his most basic Teachings, they were entirely correct from a Moral aspect. He actually Knew a little something about what he was talking about. If he was insane, he hid it very well and his Teaching's still hold true even today. So they aren't not Flawed. Even a Madman can have one valid thought as well as a contrabution to make.

 

I too subscribe to the idea that Jesus himself never Claimed to the Son of God but other's just claimed he was.

 

Or, maybe he did (or just let people believe he was) but not as to purposely decieve people. Something that often runs through my head is the idea that, in this day in age, the common people have very little in the princibles of Hope, Honesty,Honor, or Empathy. People no longer Care too much about people around them and for the rest of the world. It could have been much the same 2000 years ago. Maybe he was just trying to give people something to Hope for! By first taking on the role of Hero, then as Martyr. Though, it can be said that if that was true, although he had the best of intentions, he is responcible for the worse Crime in human History. Creating the very thing that swept this world, leaving behind only Corruption, Distruction, Fear, and Dispair.

 

But, that's only a worst case Scenario!

 

Noah's Ark.

How could the old dude get 2 of every animal from places nowhere near him, animals he hadn't heard of... Elephants and Tigers? Not where they were, sorry Christians.

 

Actually, this isn't exactly false. It's just that it's only only Side of the Story that has been told around the world. See, there was Something that happened some 5000 years ago that did cause a great Tidal Wave to wash over 2/5 of the world. Now, I'm not saying that by some Divine introvention couldn't have advised Noah to rescue his family and all of their Live Stock (as in, two of every animal from Miles around) and thus Saving his family and quite posibble becoming a very rich man (because he was the only one left with much of his wealth aboard his ship). But, because there are Tells of the same Flood at the same time in all four corners of the Map and the fact that there is proof that much of Earth's Civializations Still survived the Deluge (although just barely), I'm led to believe that Noah and his Ark is just one of many Tellings of the same story.

 

Rapture.

They say that you are just a spirit in heaven. You don't have your body. They also say no time passes. They say during the rapture, all of the dead bodies will rise and you in heaven will have your body. But if there's no time, it would seem like you just go up and have your body instantly, correct? Anyway, the body would be decomposed.

 

And don't get me started on my theories there. The Afterlife is one of my man reasons for my questioning. There's just way too much that isn't explained in the Bible, much less then just that what is is highly questionable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, excuse me, Arnieman, but did it ever occur to you that maybe, I'm sure this is beyond comprehension, some people don't want to have a religion? They don't want to take any part in religious acts at all? But they're still on Satan's side, according to a good Christian friend of mine, and I'm sure you'll agree with that.

 

You were being perfectly great and debating and supporting what you said for so many pages and comments, and it was awesome, and then you had to denote all religions as having radicals who kill in the name of their God. How is Atheism "off the table"? Atheism is a label given to the lack of a God in a belief system. You can't kill in the name of a spirit if you don't believe in spirits, so how could an Atheist kill in the name of a god, when he or she does not believe in gods?

 

Pardon me, but I really don't care what religions are off the table. As I've said before, I cannot support religious ideas, because, as has been shown on this thread, as well as millions of other forums, every time someone says "God is real/dead/female/pink/a triangle/sparkly/[insert other adjectives here]," a firefight errupts, no matter how careful someone is. In philosophy class last semester, we had a round-table discussion that was going fairly well, until someone put out a pseudo-science idea - then everybody jumped on him and ripped him apart. Needless to say, we didn't have a religious discussion again. From then on, it was existentialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kala, I'll answer your post iquite simply.

You can't kill in the name of a spirit if you don't believe in spirits, so how could an Atheist kill in the name of a god, when he or she does not believe in gods?

196987[/snapback]

Atheists would kill in the name of no gods - and yes, they have done this. Read the history of Russia, particularly through the 20th Century. There were MANY people killed, simply for believing in God (or a god).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pardon me, but I really don't care what religions are off the table. As I've said before, I cannot support religious ideas, because, as has been shown on this thread, as well as millions of other forums, every time someone says "God is real/dead/female/pink/a triangle/sparkly/[insert other adjectives here]," a firefight errupts, no matter how careful someone is. In philosophy class last semester, we had a round-table discussion that was going fairly well, until someone put out a pseudo-science idea - then everybody jumped on him and ripped him apart. Needless to say, we didn't have a religious discussion again. From then on, it was existentialism.

196987[/snapback]

 

I'm going to try and tread as carefully and as gently as I can here. :confused: You're right, and I fully agree with you that firefights do erupt when people discuss the nature of the Higher Power or lack thereof. And I do believe that people have to be careful to check the facts before they use pseudo-science to support any claims they make.

 

However, I think part of, or perhaps even most of, the reason why people get so vocal about this issue is that it could very well be the most important question in life. The question "Does a Higher Power exist in the universe, and what is its nature?" is one question where the consequences of the decision you make could very well be severe - positively or negatively. (And this isn't just from the Christian perspective... this applies across the board.) To put it very bluntly, it's no joking matter. The answer to this question can, should, and will affect the way we live our life, and our viewpoint of the universe.

 

(1) First, would you agree that ignoring the question, or answering flippantly doesn't make the importance of the question any less?

 

If we cannot agree on that, then I do believe it is wise to stay out of the discussion, as those who are serious would be upset by flippant remarks. (This is not aimed at you specifically - don't you find it annoying when people butt in with useless remarks at times? :P) If we can agree on that, then we can move on to the next question:

 

(2) Is there an underlying truth to the universe/reality around us, and can we know it?

 

If there is no underlying truth, then relativism comes into play, and no one is right... but no one is wrong, either. And that, to me, doesn't make much sense. All of science... all of our thoughts, decisions, even our lives, proceed on the assumption that there exists truth in the world around us, and we are to discover what it is. And since some statements are fundamentally opposed to each other (eg. "There is no Higher Power" vs. "There is a Higher Power"), if there is an underlying truth to the universe, one must be right, and the other wrong. We cannot say "Both". If you can agree with me that there exists truth in the universe, and that we can know what it is, we then move on to the next question:

 

(3) Does a Higher Power exist?

 

Atheists, of course, would answer a strong "No. There is no Higher Power." One must realise that that is an equally strong claim as "There IS a Higher Power". However, since we agreed earlier that there exists a truth in the universe, then one must be right, and the other wrong. If the truth is that there is no Higher Power, then all those who have claimed opposite have lived in error. We must then look at the consequences of that error. These include religious crusades, the abolishment of slavery, the sacrifice of millions of unbelievers, the sacrifice of millions of believers, the lowering of moral standards, the raising of moral standards, etc. Overall, I do personally believe that the net consequences of all the religions in the world has had a positive effect on humanity. This, of course, is still open to debate, and we may legitimately have differing opinions which we must both justify.

 

If the truth us that there IS a Higher Power, however, then the people who claim otherwise have gotten it wrong. Then that has very specific consequences for them, depending on what the nature of that Higher Power is. To examine that, we would have to move to the next question:

 

(4) Can we know the nature of that Higher Power?

 

Here is where the Agnostics would say "No." They firmly believe that although a Higher Power may exist in the universe, it is fundamentally impossible to know the nature of that Higher Power. Therefore, it is useless to take part in these discussions, because they are fruitless. (dragburn, you're not really an agnostic. You can be called a seeker, since that's what you're doing) All other established religious systems would say "Yes", of course. A belief that is somewhere in between is known as syncretism, where one mixes and matches parts of each belief system to make up one's own religion/philosophy of life. While this may be interesting, again we come back to the question of whether there an underlying truth to the world, and how we discover it. When one mixes and matches in the way that syncretism does, what that effectively says is that all previous answers have been wrong, and one's particular mixture of beliefs is the correct and true underlying reality of the universe.

 

Provided we have agreed on all the previous questions, the last question is, of course:

 

(5) What is the nature of that Higher Power?

 

This is the final question, where competing belief systems come into play. One must examine the truths claimed by each religion, and test them for both internal consistency, as well as external consistency. What that means is that the religious system must make sense in and of itself (internal consistency), and must make sense of the world around us (external consistency). If it explains the world around us, but has no consistency within itself, then it is nothing more than a collection of unrelated myths. If it is internally consistent with itself, but has no relation to reality, then it is speculative fantasy.

 

Once we have answered the above questions to our satisfaction, we then examine the impact it will have on our viewpoints of our:

- Origin (How did we come to be?)

- Meaning (What is the purpose of our life?)

- Morality (How then should we live?)

- Destiny (What is our final goal and destination?)

 

 

For Christianity, the answers are:

1) Yes, the question is important, regardless of how people view it.

 

2) Yes, there is an underlying truth to the reality around us, and we can know it.

 

3) Yes, a Higher Power exists, whom we call God.

 

4) Yes, we can know the nature of that Higher Power.

 

5) The nature of God is a long subject, but to summarise: God is a Personal Being, Creator and Ultimate Ruler of Heaven and Earth, which exists as Divine Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (everywhere and everywhen), and omnibenevolent (all-good).

 

Origin - God created us and the world around us. Whether that is done through science or divine miracles is something that Christians legitimately debate about, but no one questions the fact that God is the ultimate source of our existence.

 

Meaning - We were created to worship and have a loving relationship with God, for eternity. However, because of our sins, we were divorced from this purpose and God had to rescue us by sending Jesus to die as a ransom, to restore us to a relationship with Him.

 

Morality - Because God has paid the ultimate price for our sins, and because we have been given a new life through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we should then live for His Glory and Honour, both on earth and beyond.

 

Destiny - Our final destination is a wondrous eternity in Heaven and on the new earth with our God of love, for those who choose to accept his sacrifice on our behalf and live for Him. For those who did not, they are given the right to remain far away from Him, in Hell.

 

 

Those are the claims of Christianity. I don't think I've minced the issue, or stepped around the truth, or tried to make excuses for it... that is simply what the Bible says. If you wish to find out the truth, you must test those claims for themselves, and look at the claims of other belief systems (if you so choose). But to simply dismiss or ignore the question is, in my opinion, profitless.

Edited by Shouja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now THAT'S how you perfectly state good reasoning! You can't argue with any of it.

 

.......Which kind of puts me out of work....;D But I'm perfectly fine with leaving this off there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, thanks. :D Now I'd like to direct more specific information towards people:

Ciara:

 

There's a very good book called "The Case for Faith", written by a person called Lee Strobel. He was a journalist, trained in Yale Law School (or was it Harvard?) and who worked for several years as a legal affairs editor for the Chicago Tribune. Hence, he's got a very strong respect for the truth and journalistic and legal integrity in his questions. He wrote this book to address some of the toughest objections to Christianity today, including:

- "If there is a loving God, why does this pain-wracked world groan under so much suffering and evil?"

- "If God is morally pure, how can He sanction the slaughter of innocent children as the Old Testament says He did?"

- "If God is the ultimate overseer of the church, why has it been rife with hypocrisy and brutality throughout the ages?"

- "If I'm still plagued by doubts, then is it still possible to be a Christian?"

 

(There are more issues in the book than just those four, but those are probably the most relevant to your questions at this point.)

 

You can probably find a copy in your local Christian bookstore, or maybe even major retail bookstores. Amazon has it as well. I would really recommend you getting a copy and reading it. The book can probably explain things a lot better than I can. (And after that, you might want to look into the related books: "The Case for Christ" and "The Case for a Creator")

 

 

Kami:

 

I have to question your views. We have agreed that Jesus was not a madman, although if he were, it may not necessarily reflect it in his teachings. ("Even a Madman can have one vaild thought as well as a Contribution to make") You said that you personally subscribe to the notion that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God, or that if He did, it was with the notion of giving his people something to hope for, and dying as a martyr to the cause.

 

However, the main thing that will differentiate a martyr to the cause from the actual Son of God is the following: Martyrs don't claim to be able to rise from the dead, and actually do so. The key miracle that Christianity claims to absolutely validate itself is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. It is the foundation point on which rests the proof of Jesus' Divinity.

 

Therefore, if one were to argue that Jesus wasn't the Son of God (whether he claimed to be or not), one must first disprove the Resurrection. According to Biblical narrative, the following events took place:

 

- Jesus, while performing many miracles during His public ministry as additional proof of His claim, mentioned to His disciples several times that He must die, but will be raised from the dead (albeit the phrasing may have been a little cryptic).

 

- During the Last Supper, Jesus predicted that Judas would betray Him to the religious authorities, who were seeking to arrest Him on grounds of blasphemy. Now, why would they use that as grounds for arrest, instead of political grounds, unless He made some specific claims that violated their sense of the Sacred? (Like claiming to be a Son of God, for instance...)

 

- During and immediately after the arrest, Jesus' disciples all scattered, and were afraid. Peter publically denied Him three times. Jesus was then scourged, made to walk carrying the cross, and finally crucified. At the point of His death, the veil of the temple that separated the Holy of Holies from the common people was torn in two.

 

- He was buried in the grave of Joseph of Arimathea, and a full legion of Roman soldiers was put on guard around it, by order of the Pharisees and scribes. This was specifically to prevent His disciples from stealing the body and then claiming He had risen from the dead.

 

- Nonetheless, three days later, the tomb was empty, the legion was never mentioned again, and people began to report seeing Jesus. He first appeared to two disciples along the road, then to the gathering of disciples and family in a house, then to over 300 people, before finally ascending to Heaven.

 

- Paul, who was a later convert, talked about this specifically, and even mentioned in his epistles (arguably the oldest accounts we have of the church) that many of those people who saw Jesus Christ resurrected were still living, and could have easily rebutted his account of events, if one were to ask them. However, none of them did, because they all believed.

 

Now, more specifically, the following problems apply:

* If the religious or governmental authorities wanted to disprove and stomp out the early Christians' message of a resurrected Jesus, it would have been incredibly easy. All they had to do was to either produce the body, or the Legionnaires guarding the tomb.

No record was ever mentioned of those.

 

* If Jesus did not claim to be the Son of God who would die for the sins of mankind, he should have resisted arrest. If he wanted to be a Hero, he should have led a rebellion into Jerusalem. Instead, he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, specifically chosen by Him. He claimed that His Kingdom was not of this earth. What political or social motivations would have made him do that? If he wanted to be a hero of the people, he would have claimed exactly the opposite.

 

* There had been other "heroes of the people" at that time. Jesus was hardly alone. In fact, the revolutionist Barabbas was set free instead of Jesus at the instructions of Pontius Pilate following the crowd's desires. The people were not without hope in heroes. There would be no motivation for Jesus to start going on a hope-giving crusade to become a hero, since he could have easily thrown his lot in with Barabbas, or even John the Baptist.

 

Therefore, on those notes, I conclude that Jesus was not aiming to be a political or social reform hero of the people, and did not become a martyr for that reason.

 

You must also remember that Jesus butted heads several times with the religious and moral authorities of the Jewish people, the Pharisees and the Sadduccees, calling them "a brood of vipers", among other things. If he came as a moral hero, that's not the way to go about things. :confused: He also pronounced forgiveness for several sinners he met in the course of his ministry, and was promptly challenged by those very same authorities, who said that "Only God can forgive sins." Jesus did not retract his statement, but went on further to heal the sick and make the lame walk. A moral hero would not dare, at that particular age and culture, to claim to be able to forgive sins in lieu of God. That really WAS blasphemy. Unless, of course, He WAS actually God in human form. :D

 

 

So, in order to believe that Jesus Christ was NOT the Son of God, one would have to prove that:

- The Resurrection never happened.

- The miracles he performed never happened.

- The disciples all voluntarily dedicated their lives to the death, to preach something that they knew was a lie.

- He never claimed to be the Son of God, despite the religious authorities who wanted Him to be crucified for blasphemy.

- He was ONLY politically, socially or morally-motivated in his ministry, despite strong factors to the contrary.

 

... Would you care to answer?

Edited by Shouja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite Right that I will. ^_^

 

First, I'll say that I really don't "Deny" the validity of any such claims because, As I've said many times, I don't really know if any of this has really happened or not. Like I've said, I only had a "theory" that Jesus never actually made the claim but, again, this is just a Theory, not a provable fact. I have good reason to doubt it but I do not have any Facts to prove otherwise. If I was to just deny it based on my personal doubts then that wouldn't make me a whole lot different then those I've spoken against.

 

But a Few thoughts. Your Reasoning is sound when you present your facts in such a Context. The only issue I've noticed is that there are many Assumptions in your reasoning, other then the obvious one of whether or not Jesus Rose from the grave. Such facts are only truly valid if you go on the Assumption that they actually happened (or Didn't, as the case may be.)

 

 

Martyrs don't claim to be able to rise from the dead, and actually do so.

 

Assumption #1.

 

The Assumption here being that Jesus really did Make these Claims. Think about it. Only once you assume that Jesus was both Sane and he really did make these claims does this Assumption become valid. But on the Assumption that my Theory is correct and that he either did not make these claims Or others made these claims and he just "allowed" others to believe him, One must question whether he did Rise from the Grave or was this another Story just passed on through the ages.

 

Another Assumption, founded on the first assumption, is that since He Did rise from the Dead, he cannot be just a Martyr who simply allowed himself to die for his own reasons.

 

Also, by all Defination, Jesus is still a Martyr, regardless of the true reasons of why. He died in the name of his cause. What was his Cause and What was his plan though, is up for Debate.

 

Assumption #2.

- Jesus, while performing many miracles during His public ministry as additional proof of His claim, mentioned to His disciples several times that He must die, but will be raised from the dead (albeit the phrasing may have been a little cryptic).

 

Again, founded on the First Assumption. Only by assuming the first to be true does this point become valid.

 

But one must remember that such a Claim has only been "Reported" to have been made by Jesus by another who may or may not have been the one to actually be the one to Write it down in the first place. When Jesus was to have made such a Claim and too Whom he Made them much must be validated first before they can used as a Valid Proof of the Resurrection.

 

- During the Last Supper, Jesus predicted that Judas would betray Him to the religious authorities, who were seeking to arrest Him on grounds of blasphemy. Now, why would they use that as grounds for arrest, instead of political grounds, unless He made some specific claims that violated their sense of the Sacred? (Like claiming to be a Son of God, for instance...)

 

Again, assuming the first to be true....

 

But, on another note, There could have been many reasons, not all of which are all that Noble.

 

Petty Jealousy and Envy on the part of the current Religion Regime who saw their hold slipping away, for example. After all, We all know the Power and Might of the Inquisition and how they held control over the Hearts and Minds of the People using Fear more then actual religion. To Arrest Jesus on Political Grounds wouldn't have suited their needs since they wouldn't have been able to use him as an example of their power. Whether or not he actually Made the Claims really wouldn't have mattered to them. They would have used any excuse.

 

BTW, it was technically the Romans that did the arresting, on the order of the Church. The Roman Government only allowed it to happen for their own Agenda.

 

- During and immediately after the arrest, Jesus' disciples all scattered, and were afraid. Peter publicly denied Him three times. Jesus was then scourged, made to walk carrying the cross, and finally crucified. At the point of His death, the veil of the temple that separated the Holy of Holies from the common people was torn in two.

 

This doesn't actually support your argument.

 

Another Part of the Story. Can you prove this actually happened besides what was reported after the fact. After the Fact being, this story wasn't told as it was happening. It was only reported Long after these events occurred, Possibly Many, Many Years down the road. Can you say for a Fact that the one who wrote this story got it exactly correct? Can you say that the one who wrote this story even lived during these times?

 

- He was buried in the grave of Joseph of Arimathea, and a full legion of Roman soldiers was put on guard around it, by order of the Pharisees and scribes. This was specifically to prevent His disciples from stealing the body and then claiming He had risen from the dead.

 

As it has been reported.

 

On a Side note, The Story of Joseph of Arimathea is one of my Favorite Stories of the Arthurian Myths and Legends. It was he who, after the Crusification, took the Chalice from which Jesus Drank from during the Last Supper and the Spear which the Roman Soldier Thrust into Jesus's Side and Brought them to Britton. (Actually, the true story of Joseph of Arimathea is actually very long and very complecated. Britton was not the first place he went.)

 

 

There are many stories that have grown up around these event over the last 2000 years. Some, I'll admit to be rooted in History as actually happening. Others, I can not say for a fact that they happen exactly as they are reported to have.

 

- Nonetheless, three days later, the tomb was empty, the legion was never mentioned again, and people began to report seeing Jesus. He first appeared to two disciples along the road, then to the gathering of disciples and family in a house, then to over 300 people, before finally ascending to Heaven.

 

That's true. The Legion was never even Heard from again. No one knows what happened to them. It's been speculated that (and told as Fact, in Many Churchs, including mine) that they Ran away in Fear when an Angel opened the Cave.

 

But there are many issues I have with this story.

 

First, an inaccuracy. My Church always tought that an Angel (I forget which one) Rolled the stone away and then entered the cave to resurrect Jesus. When the Remaining disciples and Mary came latter, the Angel was still there and told them that Jesus has Rose.

 

But if he was the Son of God and, by all acounts much more powerful then he was before, why did he need an Angel to help him out?

 

Also, where did he go immedantly after he rose? I was always tought that the first people he met was some beggers on the road and that wasn't until several days later.

 

Also, What did Happen to the Legion? I really think that they, of all people, would of been the first to tell people of what they saw. But they disappeared! No one could ask them what happened.

 

- Paul, who was a later convert, talked about this specifically, and even mentioned in his epistles (arguably the oldest accounts we have of the church) that many of those people who saw Jesus Christ resurrected were still living, and could have easily rebutted his account of events, if one were to ask them. However, none of them did, because they all believed.

 

Belief is not Proof. Like I said, much of this story was told after the fact.

 

Although I will give Paul's Work a good deal of Credit, as is it one of the few, creditable Personized records of the time, I cannot give it total faith as it is still just one man going around, asking other people about what they knew.

 

Have you ever listened to a Group of people who all witnessed an event tell a Reporter their story of what they saw? Well, I have. There's always discrepancies. Often, blantant contridictions between two or more tellings. But that Reporter never tells their readers the Discrepencies! They alway take the Parts of the story that They reason to be most creditable and That's what they reconstruct the events with. People Often must do the same thing. They remove anything they don't personally believe and try to construct the truth by filling in the gaps with their own reasoning.

 

If Paul had many other people who also wrote their own reports of those events that confirmed Paul's telling, then I'd give him much more credit.

 

And that's assuming that what you read today is really an unedited version of Paul's Work.

 

Thus we come Full circle to that Nasty Little Word: Assumption! We, as a people, assume far too much to be true when we really want it to be true. But that's no way to actual discover whether or not there's any truth behind it.

 

Now, more specifically, the following problems apply:

* If the religious or governmental authorities wanted to disprove and stomp out the early Christians' message of a resurrected Jesus, it would have been incredibly easy. All they had to do was to either produce the body, or the Legionnaires guarding the tomb.

No record was ever mentioned of those.

 

No record at all, in fact. The problem here is that, by excluding the Assumption that Jesus did rise from the grave, we don't completely know what actually happened at that cave. For all we know, the Legion place to guard the Cave could have been Christian Sympatizers. Or They could have been so paranoid that the story was true that they high Tailed it out of there the moment the Pharisees' Back was turned!

 

* If Jesus did not claim to be the Son of God who would die for the sins of mankind, he should have resisted arrest. If he wanted to be a Hero, he should have led a rebellion into Jerusalem. Instead, he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, specifically chosen by Him. He claimed that His Kingdom was not of this earth. What political or social motivations would have made him do that? If he wanted to be a hero of the people, he would have claimed exactly the opposite.

 

What's this? More Assumptions?

Who says he would have resisted arrest? How can you know what was going through his mind? Maybe he felt he didn't have any choice. Who says he wasn't planning on being a Martyr the whole time.

 

Led a rebellion?

What do we know about Jesus? At least, What do we understand most about him, dispite what we're told? Jesus was a Pasifist! Could you imagine him picking up a Sword or leading Troops? Sure, he took a whip the Money Changers in the Temple but did he once shead the Blood of another? I mean, he might have been angry and wanted to teach them a Lessen but I doubt very seriously we would have promoted war!

 

And who said he wanted to be a Hero? All we can ever do is Speculate as to his motives; Once we exclude all Assumptions, that is..

 

* There had been other "heroes of the people" at that time. Jesus was hardly alone. In fact, the revolutionist Barabbas was set free instead of Jesus at the instructions of Pontius Pilate following the crowd's desires. The people were not without hope in heroes. There would be no motivation for Jesus to start going on a hope-giving crusade to become a hero, since he could have easily thrown his lot in with Barabbas, or even John the Baptist.

 

How long was Barabbas being held by the Romans? How long was he Fighting? What was he fighting for? How was he cought? And, although I personally know the answer to this, what did he do after he was free?

 

Again, Who said Jesus was trying to be a Revolutiony? Maybe Jesus didn't subscribe to the same moral and Philosophic views of the other Leaders during that day. Maybe he had his own beliefs in how the world should be changed that didn't match the view of others.

 

Again, We don't know. We can only Speculate.

 

You must also remember that Jesus butted heads several times with the religious and moral authorities of the Jewish people, the Pharisees and the Sadduccees, calling them "a brood of vipers", among other things. If he came as a moral hero, that's not the way to go about things. He also pronounced forgiveness for several sinners he met in the course of his ministry, and was promptly challenged by those very same authorities, who said that "Only God can forgive sins." Jesus did not retract his statement, but went on further to heal the sick and make the lame walk. A moral hero would not dare, at that particular age and culture, to claim to be able to forgive sins in lieu of God. That really WAS blasphemy. Unless, of course, He WAS actually God in human form.

 

Maybe he didn't personally agree with the current Laws of the Church. Maybe, much like myself, he didn't agree with the Church's beliefs in what is and is not a Sin. Maybe his over all plan was, in fact, to change how the Church was running things!

 

And again, this is all Assuming that all of these things Actually Happened.

 

Did he Claim to be the Son of God?

Did he openly critize the church?

Did he take it upon himself to try to change the world?

 

Well, did he?

 

So, in order to believe that Jesus Christ was NOT the Son of God, one would have to prove that:

- The Resurrection never happened.

- The miracles he performed never happened.

- The disciples all voluntarily dedicated their lives to the death, to preach something that they knew was a lie.

- He never claimed to be the Son of God, despite the religious authorities who wanted Him to be crucified for blasphemy.

- He was ONLY politically, socially or morally-motivated in his ministry, despite strong factors to the contrary.

 

Not entirely true, my friend.

"in order to believe that Jesus Christ was NOT the Son of God, one would have to prove"

 

This is a Slippy-sloap to walk along here, Where Belief is determined, not on Proving something but rather to disprove something else that, in all rights, cannot be either Proven nor Disproven by normal means. With such a Philosophy, you advocate Belief in something just because you can't prove otherwise.

 

What About the Belief in aliens? Does your reasoning hold true that because we can't prove that they exist, they can't possibly exist?

 

What about a Second Gunman on the Grassy-Knoll? Just because nobody has yet proven it to be false, Must we all assume that it must be true?

 

You can not put before us a Challenge to Disprove something that can not be Proven either. I could (as well as any other interested party) very easily put before you enough doubt as to the validity of these points and you can put before us all the reason you need to believe these points but in the end, there will is be no actual Proof of it eitherway. By trying to Disprove these points, you do not ensure Validity of your Ideas as all you do is close one door of Doubt and leave many more open. Belief comes from, not only proving your beliefs to be true but also from disproving all other beliefs that are contrary to yours. You must prove for yourself whether or not something is true or false, and not take the words of somebody else is they are true or not.

 

So rather, that is why the challenge is not to disprove but rather to Prove!

 

What you of should said is "In order to Believe that Jesus WAS the Sod of God, one would have to prove that:

- The Resurrection had happened.

- The miracles he performed had happened.

- The disciples all voluntarily dedicated their lives to the death, to preach something that they knew was True.

- He had claimed to be the Son of God, despite the religious authorities who wanted Him to be crucified for blasphemy.

- He was politically, socially or morally-motivated in his ministry, In addition to is Divine Motivations.

 

Only until all these point's are proven as fact, beyond reasonable doubt, can one believe that Jesus was be the Son of God and that all the Stories we've been told is true. By Proving these to be Fact, you inevitably Prove all other Contrary Ideas to be false. But to Disprove something is not the same thing as Proving the contrary to be true.

 

P.s. I think my spellins getting better. :)

Edited by Kami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think your spelling's getting better too. :)

 

You're right, I did make the mistake of asking you to try and prove a negative. :( I was actually wondering which was best at the time: to give the above statements, or to ask for your particular view of the multi-verse instead. But first, let me sum up:

 

Very well then. We have agreed that we can neither prove or disprove that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God (historically). What I offered as proof was subject to the assumption that:

- The Gospel accounts of Jesus were accurately written by eyewitnesses to His ministry and life.

- The Bible's acc..

 

... Bah, ran out of time. Need to go for a meeting. Kami, can I ask you to post your view of the world first? I'd get back to you later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to make a small point here - though what I have to say also relies on the Biblical account presumed as true:

 

1.) The soldiers had every reason to stand guard - even if they were Christians, or at the very least sympathizers. Failure to the Roman Legion meant one thing - death. The Biblical account (Matthew 28, I believe) is that they saw what happened - they saw the stone rolled away (there was an earthquake), they saw the body missing. In fear, they ran - the Roman Legion was also trained to be fearless (historical accounts) - and told the Jewish priests what they saw. The priests made up a story - effectively giving the guards a "pass" while trying to explain the issue. These same soldiers probably went on to serve elsewhere in the Roman Legion, from what I'd guess - this is the last mention of these exact soldiers (at least, biblically). Thus, we do know the account of the guards - if we can believe what is said biblically.

 

2.) Jesus made this claim - "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." (John 2:19) This was at the event that he cleared the Temple in Jerusalem. This is also referred to later, when the Jewish High Priest questions him.

 

What temple did he speak of? The very temple in Jerusalem was not destroyed while Jesus was on Earth - it was destroyed some time later, about 70 AD. (This is in several secular (non-Christian) historical sources of the day. (Of course, the dates are different - AD time wasn't started until about the 8th century AD.)) That temple was destroyed, and still is in ruins - the Moslems have built one of their most holy mosques there. So, what temple what he talking about?

 

If we refer to a body as a temple, we could then say he was referring to anyone there - except one thing: the rest are dead and buried. If he referred to himself, then there is the credence that only three possibilities come up:

A: He never said that, the Romans lied, and so did the Jews - giving birth to a false religion which they rejected. Why would you support a belief you reject?

B: He said that, it didn't come true, and his disciples took it literally, and stole his body from the tomb, hiding it elsewhere - why would people too afraid to stand up for themselves while their Rabbi lived take on Roman guards and steal a meaningless body to start a religion they knew was false?

C: He spoke the truth, and it came true - still, it's hard to believe someone can raise themself from the dead - He would have to be more than man to do it - He would have to be God.

 

Again, this assumes the Bible is true (which is what I believe).

Edited by Arnieman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Bah, ran out of time. Need to go for a meeting. Kami, can I ask you to post your view of the world first? I'd get back to you later.

197621[/snapback]

 

Oh, .... Well... Got a Week? One's own Phiosophical Views of the world is literally Like "Explaining The Meaning of Life." If countless Philosophers haven't been able to explain it, you can imagine that one's own views would be equally complex.

 

But, I can Point just a few simple Philosophies by which I live my life:

 

1. Question everything that is commoningly excepted as fact. Usually, when a people simply excepts what they're told unquestioningly, they reside themselves to believe anything as long as it's comfortable. All too often, people will take just what we're giving and never ask for something more!

 

2. Never completely doubt Anything that I can not personally Disprove. I'd be a Fool to Totally discount what someone tells me just because I may not like what they have to tell me or that I have not yet found out the truth of it one way or the other. I'll listen to anybody talk about anything so long as they're wiling to back what they say up with something Substantial.

 

3. I agree with Shakespear on the assursion that "They are more thinks in Heaven and Earth then are deamt of in our Philosophies." We don't know everything. We Can't! So we have no right to make silly claims to the Existance of something (whether Factual nor False) when we don't know. But just because we Don't know doesn't mean that we can't find out for ourselves or die trying. If there's a God, we should have the right to Look for him/Her/It ourselves and we shouldn't be critized (or Worse) for wishing to do so instead of just excepting what we're told (or, in some cases, just what we want to hear.)

 

4. Never be afraid to Challenge your Assumptions and admit you could be wrong. To question Everything means also to question one's self. You never realize the many Lies you've been told and the Missunderstandings you've known until you Know that you aren't always told the whole truth. Even your own Mind will sometimes tell you things or keep things from you because it's believes it's doing it for your own good. That's because we all grow up with people like that, who will Lie to you and Tell you only what they think you need to know. What they don't understand is that this will always end up doing more harm then good.

 

5. The Truth is the Truth And Nothing can stay buried forever, so long as we're willing to dig. To me, the Truth (whatever that may be) regarding Anything is ours for the Learning. There may be those who will Lie to us and hide Truth from us every chance they get in their desire to keep it for themselves. But, to me, If God truley did design us, we are Meant to Question and Search this Vast Universe to solve the many Puzzles that are layed before us. Even if God did intend for it to be so simple by just Telling us the answer to one of the most important Riddles he gave us, I don't see how God could Fault us for saying "Stop. I want to figure this one out for myself." But, if God didn't intent it to be so easy and Does desire us to solve it ourselves, then I really don't want somebody else to come and tell me the Solution to the Riddle, expecially when they can't or won't tell you how they came about answering it. That's like somebody else giving you another Riddle to solve just so you can believe them or not that their answer it correct. And in the Meantime, the original Riddle is left unsolved because we're distracted with another riddle.

 

Don't trust another person when they tell you that you should stop trying because they've done it For you.

 

Basicly, I look at it this way. If God wants us to know the Truth, he will give us every reasonable chance to discover it ourselves. That means any Path you take, so long as it's not Based on Lies, Corruption, Or Malice (or any form of Negitivity that will cause us to become lost) and so Long that we pursue it with a True Passion to Learn the Truth, That path will still Lead you to the same Truth. Just because we don't follow a specific Path that somebody else who came before us followed doesn't mean that we won't find same end. Maybe we won't make it in the same Fashion or the Same condition or even at the say time but the Truth is still the Truth and, in the end, it will always be the same Truth.

 

Well, those are just a few Viewpoints that I live by and even a few reasons as to why. At least, they're one's I've been going by during this thread. This doesn't included my views on Love, Politics, Humanity, Money, Justice, Cooking Recipes, Etc.! On a Good day, I could possibly go on for hours (and a few of my posts have!) about just about anything! If there's any Topic in perticular that you're interested in, just ask.

 

A: He never said that, the Romans lied, and so did the Jews - giving birth to a false religion which they rejected.  Why would you support a belief you reject?

 

Perhaps the Arise of a Religion wasn't what they had in mind. Someone could of got the idea that by crushing a Heretic in the Name of their Religion would strengthen their control over the people but first they need a Scapegoat. How they chose target is debatable. They could have starting the Rumor and Jesus (as a young boy) just happen to have been at the wrong place and the Wrong time OR, as a Young Boy, Jesus could have be an agitator who had his own Beliefs that differed from the Doctrine and they decided that they would make an example of him. Either way, their own Lies and Rumors spread like Wildfire and, although they still got the Pariah they needed, they also got a Movement that took on a life of it's own.

 

Not Saying this is True! Just that this is a possiblity and is plausible.

 

B: He said that, it didn't come true, and his disciples took it literally, and stole his body from the tomb, hiding it elsewhere - why would people too afraid to stand up for themselves while their Rabbi lived take on Roman guards and steal a meaningless body to start a religion they knew was false?

 

Another Worst case Scenario:

 

Jesus was a Cult Leader who managed to convince countless people to follow him and do Anything for him, even after death. We all know that the hold a Person can have over others is very strong and by the Faith that those people can have in that person, they can be so devoted that even a Failed Prophecy wouldn't stand in their way of trying to fulfill it themselves.

 

After all, it would only take a small number of "Devoted" to convince the rest to continue on and even, out of Fear, Belief, or Desperation, attempt to claim the body afterwards in the attempt to regain the Delusion that they devoted their Lives to.

 

Again, not saying it's true but We've all seen this exact Scenario play out again and again countless time and for centuries so we know it's possible.

 

C: He spoke the truth, and it came true - still, it's hard to believe someone can raise themself from the dead - He would have to be more than man to do it - He would have to be God.

 

Again, this assumes the Bible is true (which is what I believe).

197691[/snapback]

 

It's not so much that it "Unbelievable" but rather, not reasonable. There's just so many questions left unanswered; So many contridictions; So much that just doesn't make since to so many. Though the Bible could be true, If it is is true, it would be much more widing accepted if it didn't sound so much like a Story-book. For all the "Miracles" that Christians Praise the Bible as all the "Proof" that they need, Those same Miracles are exactly what Make it sound like a Book of Fables.

 

If those Miracles could be confirmed and the History Told in the Bible was Attenticated, then would it sound believible but until then, that's what the Bible will even be: A Book of Might-of-Beens, Could-of-Beens, and Should-of-Beens. It requires too much Blind Faith in something that isn't Self-evident.

 

If Jesus was God, I don't think he would really Need a book to confirm it. Why would he? God should confirm the Bible, not the other way around. I just believe that, if you pursue God, you should be able to find him Anywhere. Then, if you're still interested in some old book, then should it be given any Credit.

 

But that's just my thoughts on it.

Edited by Kami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Jesus was God, I don't think he would really Need a book to confirm it. Why would he? God should confirm the Bible, not the other way around. I just believe that, if you pursue God, you should be able to find him Anywhere. Then, if you're still interested in some old book, then should it be given any Credit.

 

But that's just my thoughts on it.

198425[/snapback]

well. i voted i'm not religious. i think kami is qute right. if god existed why would we, first of all need a book ?

Also, if god is "almighty" why are ppl fighting for him? lets say, look at muslims, or jews, or christians fighting for THEIR god, THE ONE? why would so many people believe in such different things ? first of all we are HUMAN beings. We don't need a god to say we are all brothers. That is stupid. Why must we think god will always be there for us ? we got a saying in france (i dont know if you have that in other countries) but i ll ty to translate:"nous ne sommes jamais mieux srvis que pas nous memes." we aren't as well served then by ourselves. i Mean, why wait for god to do every thing we expect ? ADULTS are responsible and capable to take themselves in charge. but i believe in one thing: the power of religion to unite people. but it doesn't seem to work xD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Jesus was God, I don't think he would really Need a book to confirm it. Why would he? God should confirm the Bible, not the other way around. I just believe that, if you pursue God, you should be able to find him Anywhere. Then, if you're still interested in some old book, then should it be given any Credit.

 

But that's just my thoughts on it.

198425[/snapback]

Darwin needed not the "Origin of the Species", Nor Newton the "Principia" - neither needed their books to prove their lives' works. Nonetheless, they wrote their books - they chose to pass on their knowledge... Now, I'm noting that the Bible - while claimed as the Word of God - was written by men. Just want to throw out this question - why does anyone need any book to "prove" their life's work?

 

Personally, a few things I do hold myself:

1. Truth is constant - not a relative principle. That is, there is a single truth that holds firm; whether people know what it is or believe it changes nothing.

 

2. Reason is important. I believe that God did make us as reasoning, free-thinking individuals for a reason. If we forgo our ability to reason, then we are failing ourselves.

 

3. "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." (Sherlock Holmes quote) I personally feel that if you can disprove all possibilities except one, then what's left has to be true, even if it doesn't seem like it. Then again, a valid proof is better than validation in disproofs.

 

4. Know what you believe - and believe it for yourself. Anyone can tell you anything, but it's got to be real to you. Stand for something, or fall for anything (yeah, I modified an Abraham Lincoln quote).

 

Personally, I want to ask a couple questions, for anyone still in this-

1.) Where did we come from? I mean, sure, we're born from our parents and they from their parents, and so on to the first people - but where did those come from? Now, an evolutionist might say people came from apes - so where'd the apes come from? Ok, now we go through the whole "evolutionary chain" back to amoebas. Where's they come from? Heck, let's go back as far as the Big Bang - where'd the "supermatter" in there come from?

 

2.) I've said I'm a Christian. Now, if I live my life believing it's true, and I'm kind, compassionate, charitous, and moral as defined by the Bible - what have I lost if I'm wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why does anyone need any book to "prove" their life's work?

answer to ur question: they made a book to be remembered. If god existed, he wouldn't need a book. They do not make a book to prov something, as you said it: its to pass on the knowledge.

Also, point

2/ u said god made us a reasoning. it means only for us, Humans, so u think humans are best in the Universe but we don't know the whole universe, so how could u say ur the best?

 

Now, if I live my life believing it's true, and I'm kind, compassionate, charitous, and moral as defined by the Bible - what have I lost if I'm wrong?

almost nothing exept that your whole life you would have lived in a "lie" (sorry for that word, i don't remember the translation of what i really wanted to say >.< and no offense also.)

I prefer live sad and knowing the truth than being happy in a illusion. Also, what stops you from being kind, compassionate?? Are non-christians bad ? not compassionate? unkind?

i don't think you need to believe in that to be nice.

It's like saying: if you're nice you'll have a candy... ppl are nice to go to haeven, not to be nice, not for others but for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's like saying: if you're nice you'll have a candy... ppl are nice to go to haeven, not to be nice, not for others but for themselves.

 

The bible does not say you have to be nice to go to heaven. Some churches say that, and some people think that, but the Bible says to accept Jesus Christ into your life for who he was and what he did for you as a sinful being and you are assured entry in to Heaven period. There are a bunch of other examples of how you should live and act but in the end you could have only heard the offer of Jesus and accepted it in your heart and you go to Heaven no matter what else you do. So if ppl are good, nice, moral in the name of Jesus it is not to get to heaven it won't work. Some ppl act nice to try and prove something or trick themselves but acts and works don't get you into Heaven only the one thing stated above. You can belive and accept the (imho) truth about Jesus and never read the bible and you will go to heaven.

 

Men and Churches over the ages and currently try to add/modify this but it is what it is. Christianity is a simple gift to accept it is us who make it hard and confusing. Just read all the posts above (and below I am sure :P ) as an example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darwin needed not the "Origin of the Species", Nor Newton the "Principia" - neither needed their books to prove their lives' works.  Nonetheless, they wrote their books - they chose to pass on their knowledge... Now, I'm noting that the Bible - while claimed as the Word of God - was written by men.  Just want to throw out this question - why does anyone need any book to "prove" their life's work?

 

The only problem with your example there is that "Origin of the Species" Isn't needed to Prove Darwin's Existance. Darwin was just a Man who had a "Theory." He wrote his theory down and Published it for all the world to read and then to determine for themselves the Validity of it. His whole Existance is not defined by one book, although that one book is the only thing anybody ever associates the Name Darwin too.

 

See, Darwin Existed. There's really no Question to that. His book doesn't Prove he existed. He wrote a Book Because he existed. But, If he never wrote that book, it doesn't mean that he never existed. If only means that, most likely, we even wouldn't even know he existed. "Origin of the Species" is not Darwin's only Proof of his Existance.

 

I'll ask you a question. If the Bible was never Written all those many years ago, could you know for any certainy that you would even know who Jesus was today?

 

If Jesus was God then yes, you would. All Truth is Absolute. Without the Bible, God would still be God and everything we know from the Bible would still be common Knowledge. If Jesus was not God and just a Man who did good work, then chances are, we'd never even know he existed if not for the Bible.

 

See my Point? In Christanity today, the Bible is the only thing that does confirm Jesus's existance. If he really was God, Then Bible or no Bible, Jesus would still be God and we wouldn't be here having this conversion.

 

Personally, a few things I do hold myself:

1. Truth is constant - not a relative principle.  That is, there is a single truth that holds firm; whether people know what it is or believe it changes nothing.

 

I agree. But discovering what that Truth is is why We are all Here. Not "We" as in those of us on this Thread but "We" as in all Life everywhere.

 

2. Reason is important.  I believe that God did make us as reasoning, free-thinking individuals for a reason.  If we forgo our ability to reason, then we are failing ourselves.

 

Also agree.

 

3. "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." (Sherlock Holmes quote)  I personally feel that if you can disprove all possibilities except one, then what's left has to be true, even if it doesn't seem like it.  Then again, a valid proof is better than validation in disproofs.

 

Assuming, of Course, that we Know all Possible Possibilities. Then, one must ask oneself, "Can I personally Disprove all Impossible Possiblities?" and as well as the Question, "Am I truly looking at each possiblity with complete unbiased and unclouded eyes?"

 

When disproving the Impossible, you must first Prove that the Impossible really is Impossible and that you're not just Deeming it to be Impossible because you personally fail to prove it possible.

 

4. Know what you believe - and believe it for yourself.  Anyone can tell you anything, but it's got to be real to you.  Stand for something, or fall for anything (yeah, I modified an Abraham Lincoln quote).

 

Which is how I have lived my life. But Believing in something and Knowing something is not the same thing. You must make sure that what you are believing is truly real and not a lie disguised as a Truth.

 

There is nothing in this world that can't not be Doubted but there is nothing in this world that can not be Proven to be Real or Fake if only you persue the Truth yourself!

 

Faith may help you carry on but only Reason can give you a Destination!

 

Personally, I want to ask a couple questions, for anyone still in this-

1.) Where did we come from?  I mean, sure, we're born from our parents and they from their parents, and so on to the first people - but where did those come from?  Now, an evolutionist might say people came from apes - so where'd the apes come from?  Ok, now we go through the whole "evolutionary chain" back to amoebas.  Where's they come from?  Heck, let's go back as far as the Big Bang - where'd the "supermatter" in there come from?

 

Very good Questions indeed. But only until we learn more about the Nature of the Universe can we begin to understand the answers to those questions. We could just forgo the the whole Discovery process and just accept what we're told but then we'll never really know for certain, will we?

 

Personally, I question even the Theory of the "Big Bang." I believe that there may be something More that we haven't yet discovered and Jumping on the Band-wagon with those for believe in the Big Bang may be a little premature; Much like those who Thought that Earth was Flat just because it "appeared" that way from the distance.

 

But I won't completely Discount the Idea either. Only Time will Tell.

 

2.) I've said I'm a Christian.  Now, if I live my life believing it's true, and I'm kind, compassionate, charitous, and moral as defined by the Bible - what have I lost if I'm wrong?

 

Nothing. Absolutely Nothing. But, if you're Wrong, What have you Gained? One can live their whole lives in the Shadows and Never know it and Still be perfectly happy. They say "Ignorance is Bliss" and suppose it's right but it's hardly Desirable.

 

One doesn't Need to be Religious to be "kind, compassionate, charitous, and moral" and these Virtues are well worth persuing as long as you do so, not because a Book or other Person tells you to but because you believe that it's best for you.

 

Also, mind you, One doesn't have to be "kind, compassionate, charitous, and moral" to be Religious either.

 

Everyone is entitled to live their own lives however they see fit, as long as they do not Negitively affect the Lives of others; Which Really is the Root of my Point. Let everyone Live there lives how they see fit and, as long as they do not Harm others and as long as they live their Lives to the Fullest, Then they should be allowed to Persue God as they wish, If they wish!

 

But that's a problem with Religion. It doesn't follow that Ideal. No matter why it does it, even if if has the Best of intentions, it can't not stop trying to Intrude on the lives of others and thus, Does more harm them good. People end up Fighting more with another's viewpoints more then they do with the Forces of Good and Evil in their own Soul. To me, Organized Religion is an Instution formed by Human Interest that can not stand the thought of others not following Their Views. And this is how Wars start, not from the wishes of God but from Human nature.

 

I believe that part of Living a Full And Happy life means, not only to persuing Virtues but also to Persue Knowledge and Wisdom. Sometimes this means that Faith comes up as Less important and we have to set it aside temporarily in the persuit of something More.

Edited by Kami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well. i voted i'm not religious. i think kami is qute right. if god existed why would we, first of all need a book ?

Also, if god is "almighty" why are ppl fighting for him? lets say, look at muslims, or jews, or christians fighting for THEIR god, THE ONE? why would so many people believe in such different things ? first of all we are HUMAN beings. We don't need a god to say we are all brothers. That is stupid. Why must we think god will always be there for us ? we got a saying in france (i dont know if you have that in other countries) but i ll ty to translate:"nous ne sommes jamais mieux srvis que pas nous memes." we aren't as well served then by ourselves. i Mean, why wait for god to do every thing we expect ? ADULTS are responsible and capable to take themselves in charge. but i believe in one thing: the power of religion to unite people. but it doesn't seem to work xD.

198641[/snapback]

 

 

read the bible first before you talk crap...

the bible tells us that someday he comes back when the world is in war

so he isn't "fighting" himself cause that would kinda delay his return...

 

Edit: and who made the first human then? you believe in the monkey theory?

who made the monkey? and so on life can't just pop up.

and for the people that believe in that explosion theory- explosions destroy life not create

Edited by Hardcore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Commonly refered to as "Mormon"

And we are Christian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×