Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

God

Does The Big Cheese Exsist?

  • Yeah

    Votes: 2 16.7%

  • No

    Votes: 10 83.3%
  • Total voters
    12
Those quotations are interesting, but it’s easy to take things out of context. This is why I find the Bible so interesting to dissect, because it offers so many meanings.

Many Muslims, partially Sunni, believe that recreating any of God's work in imagery is wrong because you cannot put a soul in it.
Click to expand...

I know why they were angry about it. Sorry, I probably wasn’t clear enough :p

As for Jesus and preaching love, he DID preach hate too. No matter which way you slice it.
Click to expand...

It depends on your interpretation, and how we define love and hate. What you interpret as preaching hate may imply ‘condemning all evil and sin’ to others. You can “slice it many different ways” to favour either side. :lol:

I take your point about believing something for the sake of believing. Who doesn’t fall for the idea of romanticised love, for example? It is naive to believe in something just because it “appeals” or reassures us - we call it wishful thinking. But it’s the corruption of these manmade morals and humanity that don’t appeal. The two choices coexist. It’s a difficult concept to grasp, but it’s deeper than something that simply appeals, depending on our own experiences. True - not all Christians are Christian.

"The Devil is running for president. He is a trickish man."

I still maintain that reason alone is just not enough to understand God or prove his existence, or what we recognise as divine intervention:

Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page.
Click to expand...

I love that. It's an interpretation that is either understood, or just appears totally absurd.

The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those elementary universal laws from which the cosmos can be built up by deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them. Einstein used to speak of this non-logical, intuitive way of reaching knowledge, as "tapping into God's thoughts".

“The deeper one penetrates into nature's secrets, the greater becomes one's respect for God."
Click to expand...

The more I think about this, the more mysterious it seems.

This questioning has strengthened my faith. It's opened my mind more. It's funny though. I've been reading certain verses in the Bible recently, and a prophetic pastor I know refered to them all while we were talking, without knowing what I'd read. It was about Moses facing criticism for his belief in God.

She's amazing. These recent experiences have been amazing. I wish I could explain.
 
As for Jesus and preaching love, he DID preach hate too. No matter which way you slice it.
Click to expand...
It depends on your interpretation, and how we define love and hate. What you interpret as preaching hate may imply ‘condemning all evil and sin’ to others. You can “slice it many different ways” to favour either side.
Click to expand...
#
You think you disagree, then just agreed. :lol:

There is love and hate there. Both sides will "interpret" or just choose to ignore certain aspects.

Even if you argue that the hate was FOR loving reasons, you cannot excuse cruelty - no matter how divine.



Christians often claim that the rules of the old testament don't apply... That what went on in the old testament they do not agree with. I can't understand why...

"Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

And a great majority of the old testament is cruel. Almost every paragraph is death. The entire thing, riddled with blood! God violently expressed anger in the old testament over and over again, he even kills those who simply work on the sabbath. Extreme. So much for free will, too. The great flood was all because the world was too violent. The perfect world God created. Haha, yeah, eye for an eye... eh? (Speaking of the great flood before I forget - It contradicts the idea that God made everything perfect to start with.)

That's why Christians want to ignore the old testament, perhaps? Because Jesus and the new testament are undoubtedly a lot more pleasing to our, like you said, man-made morals?

Whatever the case, Jesus was a Jew... And agreed with everything that the old prophets (and his father) taught. Why Christians think they are exempt from such rules is beyond me.

And even IF you further argue that the old testament is irrelevant, this is an uncomfortable quote...

"10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

And since Jesus condemns all non-followers to hell... I think it's simply sick to follow something like the above passage.

but it’s easy to take things out of context.
Click to expand...
Works both ways.
 
Honestly I throw the Bible right out with my Christian belief.

I do believe it to be a good book full of worthwhile morals, but as a valid basis of Christianity, I do not believe it to be so.

Of course, that is a discussion totally separate from the current.

Yes, a higher power exists.
 
Why people argue with books written thousands of years ago is beyond me.

For all we know, a blind retard with a pet monkey wrote those books.

Hardly something to base a belief on.
 
Because the entire basis of 3 of the largest world religions is on those ancient texts.

A hell of a lot of non-religious people accept them to be important historical texts of some varying degree.

Id on't know enough about history, nor care, to argue their legitimacy... But all 3 major books have something remarkable in them that people couldn't have understood at the time. whether or not we are just relating those things to modern discoveries... Or they actually are about the same thing, is a different matter. The Qur'an mentions Atoms, for example. And even the splitting of.

Hyde's post confuses me.

If you don't follow the Bible, but claim to be Christian, what is the basis for your understanding of God and Christ?

Since much of the New Testament is basically a biography of Jesus' life, you wouldn't even know he existed without that book. Nor know the teachings of God.

You're not a Christian if you don't follow at least some of the Bible.

Do explain.
 
The idea of atoms, not quite as we have it today, and I doubt the Qur'an has the idea that we have today of the nuclear model, has been around for a LONG time. According to Wikipedia; "The earliest references to the concept of atoms date back to ancient India in the 6th century BCE.", which is a long time before the Qur'an. I know the Greeks also had an idea of an "indivisible particle", the smallest anything can go. So no, that's not something they couldn't have known about, and to say that any of the Holy Books contain any information that people back then couldn't have known is balderdash, and a good argument against them.

You'd have thought a book written by God, albeit through man as some say, would contain some kind of mention of electricity, medicines, materials etc. I mean this is a book by the guy that created it all, surely he knows about what he created.
 
Bitter, that's the point. Some people argue that those things are in the Bible.

Think of it this way. People at the time couldn't have understood, It would be like running before you can walk to explain such future discoveries.

Other things, may just be explained so mundane because they were in the stories they feature in. For example, Behemoth.

15 Behold now the behemoth that I have made with you; he eats grass like cattle.
16 Behold now his strength is in his loins and his power is in the navel of his belly.
17 His tail hardens like a cedar; the sinews of his testicles are knit together.
18 His limbs are as strong as copper, his bones as a load of iron.
19 His is the first of God's ways; [only] his Maker can draw His sword [against him].
20 For the mountains bear food for him, and all the beasts of the field play there.
21 Does he lie under the shadows, in the covert of the reeds and the swamp?
22 Do the shadows cover him as his shadow? Do the willows of the brook surround him?
23 Behold, he plunders the river, and [he] does not harden; he trusts that he will draw the Jordan into his mouth.
24 With His eyes He will take him; with snares He will puncture his nostrils.

Young earth creationists claim Behemoth was a dinosaur. Because of the "cedar" reference, they liken the Behemoth to a dinosaur like a Brachiosaur. I think this is idiocy. "His tail hardens like a cedar" is clearly talking about it's cock. :lol:

Regardless, Behemoth is mentioned alongside tonnes of other animals we can identify easily. If it was a dinosaur (or dragon, or other "monster"), it's argued that it and the Leviathan (argued to be a giant marine reptile by young earth creationists) would be described in such a non-specific way because they were "normally". Remember these people refuse to accept millions of years, claiming the great flood caused the mass extinction due to the change of environment after the flood. Wow, t-rex two by two onto the ark. Imagine that! :lol:

But yeaaah, the point is, you interpret how you like. We both know that. But we'd talk about electricity like it was "normal" - we wouldn't go into a great explanation every time we turned the light on how it all worked. I'm not sure I could! So why would God describe something in any other way that suggestively?
 
This discussion keeps growing. Just to reply to some comments, cause I'd feel bad if I ignored them;

You think you disagree, then just agreed.
Click to expand...

Maybe. I’m full of contradictions :p I agree that we can interpret either way, but there’s bound to be a misunderstanding somewhere. Jesus gets annoyed when there’s a market in the Temple or something, but I don’t read into him preaching hate. Preaching. Hate. Sounds powerful. He doesn’t demand he be released either, when he’s crucified. He remains humble and knows that only God can judge him.

You can’t read the Bible like a book, if that makes any sense :lol:

It’s like chess, but more complex. There are countless combinations in the Bible. It’s the most difficult thing to understand - especially if you take everything for face value! It’s easier to destroy than to build, to pick up on contradictions and jump to conclusion. There are people who avoid the Bible for this very reason.

It’s also easy to talk and claim to have faith. Naw, living it is harder mon.

On Tuesday, I decided to fast. I found that as the day went by, I didn’t feel hungry and went out with a friend feeling pretty content and fulfilled. Suffering is a difficult concept to grasp. It’s like redemption from sins.

“He [Christ] was put to death physically, but made alive spiritually.”

The violence is a mystery to me. Maybe it’s supposed to show why we liken ourselves to Christ? I don’t know. It may be a response to our own corruption, to our turning away from God, from love? Perhaps the punishment fits the crime? Perhaps it’s the only way to open their eyes? We do after all have the choice to follow or ignore Christ. Aucune ideé.

(Don’t read too scarcely into that. Read The Book of Job.)

Jesus came to ratify the New Covenant, the basis of a new agreement. The teachings are so simple: love one another, recognise the true from the false prophets, and avoid evil. Have no fear; it’s the Devil targeting the weak.

Don’t listen to the ugly cries of the crows.

I try not to judge others, like categorising people in my mind depending on their religion, moral values, character, education etc. I just try to surround myself with people who have the right attitude, regardless of their faults. We’re only human. (I feel like such a hippie right now, you know that? :p)

Christians don’t ignore the Old Testament - there may be some who do. I don’t believe in ignoring it. It sets the scene and shows us the need for Jesus. The Jews felt he had betrayed their beliefs. No more eye for eye.

“Do not pay back evil with evil or cursing with cursing; instead, pay back with a blessing.” (Peter)

“The Jewish rejection of Jesus is part of God’s plan for bringing the whole human race within the reach of God’s grace in Christ, and he believes that the Jews will not always reject Jesus.” (Romans)

I can’t answer all your questions. It’s like trying to understand the Sahara desert with knowledge relative to the size of a grain of sand.

...I keep mentioning that, for a reason, yes?

(Retards could not have written the Bible. Very few people actually knew how to write :lol:)

But yeaaah, the point is, you interpret how you like. We both know that. But we'd talk about electricity like it was "normal" - we wouldn't go into a great explanation every time we turned the light on how it all worked. I'm not sure I could! So why would God describe something in any other way that suggestively?
Click to expand...

Cool. Nice point!

As much as I respect other opinions and beliefs, I’ve still got a lot of exploring to do myself, and I’m talking too much. Actions speak louder than words. We’ll just go our own ways.

This is pretty cool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f49L5HVqVL0

Peace (Y)
 
Joey said:
I don't know enough about history, nor care, to argue their legitimacy
Click to expand...

Then why even respond to me Joey? Yeah.. they were good texts, never did I say they weren't, simply the fact that their legitimacy is something which you SHOULD question, because why on earth would you blindly believe in something if you didn't know it was real/legitimate?

And I don't want to hear, like I've heard before, that "just because everyone believes it to be true, the books HAVE to be legitimate.." Hell.. everyone once believed the world to be flat didn't they?
 
Joey said:
Hell.. everyone once believed the world to be flat didn't they?
Click to expand...
Some people still do. :lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's like saying that God exists.

We all know that the Earth is round as there's proof, however, some people believe that the Earth is flat like some believe that God exists.

They're wrong but it's what they want to be believe.

I don't want to believe that there is no God but common sense tells me that she doesn't.
 
That isn't true Ian.

It can be proved that the earth is round.

It can't be proved that God doesn't exist.
 
Yes, it also can't be proved that God does exist.

And without any solid proof, it's more likely that she doesn't exisit.

The only proof that God exisits is in a fictional document called the Bible, created by deluded rulers many centuries ago.
 
Sam said:
It can't be proved that God doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Likewise it can't be proven that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (and his noodly appendages) doesn't exist. Yet I'll bet you don't believe in Him?

When there is no proof for something, then there is no onus on the non-believer to provide proof. The lack of proof is evidence and proof in itself.

The burden of proof is purely with the believer...
 
When there is no proof for something, then there is no onus on the non-believer to provide proof. The lack of proof is evidence and proof in itself.
Click to expand...
No it's not. You fallacy!

What I do question when there is lack of evidence is why there is reason to believe in the first place.

And of course, many will claim personal testimony as evidence. Which works both ways nicely.
 
Joey said:
When there is no proof for something, then there is no onus on the non-believer to provide proof. The lack of proof is evidence and proof in itself.
Click to expand...
No it's not. You fallacy!
Click to expand...

Erm, yes :lol:

But I still don't have to provide proof of something not existing. If something does not exist, then the only way to prove it is to fail to prove it exists.

Like astrology, there should be some measurable way of determining God's work and pressure of will on the Earth. Yet there isn't, and all the arguments for it are obscure, obtuse and philosophically vague.
 
You've totally missed the point.

The earth IS round. There are photos of it from space, you can fly around it without falling off.

Of course, as you said, it can't be proven that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (and his noodly appendages) doesn't exist and no, I don't believe in it, but you've just proved my point right with that example.

It's a matter of belief. The shape of the earth is fact, not opinion or belief. The existance of God isn't fact, it's belief which is why, as I've said from the start it's ****ing pointless arguing about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top