Does anyone else here believe that the Bible is hilarious?
God smited people for skeeting on the ground, King David **** some guy so he could bone his wife and one guy rapes his sister and desecrates her. You can't get more vile in a book!
THIS BOOK IS AWESOME.
So, this I made this post for religious debates because I am considerably bored and Christianity is the easiest to pick on since it's so broken. Who here studies...and I mean STUDIED...the bible?
Thunder
Hold on missus, I never said how I feel about Christianity. When I analyze stuff, my personal feelings are left at the door. It allows me an unbiased format in which I can properly allocate my knowledge.
Hegel's theory on politics is that, in order to study politics with complete understanding, you must show no emotion. That's all I do in anything I prefer to discuss. Now I do have my biases. If you say Arturo Gatti is no good, I'll probably rant and rave about he would KTFO of every lightweight to ever grace the ring, when clearly it is not true. But I do not PREFER to discuss that.
AfroPoeticSista came with the fire in her post and brought up some hard facts that should be known if you envelop Christianity; and even though MissJazzyAKA percieved me a disrespectful heathen that should be banished into the pits of hell, I still like her.
And as for me attacking Judaism or Hinduism. I have been on that forefront. But does anyone here know the slightest bit abotu Judaism or Hinduism that isn't already mainstream?
Thunder
We are HERE today. I haven't revealed my personal belief either.
Besides, the original post was on "The Bible"; not the "Talmud" or the "Koran" or the "Pentateuch" or the "veda".
My question is. . . if you are so wed to the principles and tenets in the Christiandom, to borrow AfroPoeticSista's phrase; then why can't you convince us that every part of the KJ Bible is true? It would seem that you could do a better job, if you truly were well versed and well researched.
If we counter that, then you should counter. That's debating people! But people don't join the debate teams anymore. That's the geek squad now. :roll:
I don't hear people disrespectng Judiasm or Hinduism as much.
Semantics is something else. . .
Is thunder disrespecting Christianity or is he commenting/criticizing/dissecting it? I don't think anything he's said so far has been disrespecting or insulting.
Once again it was a general comment; while we were on the subject I made a statement. Didn't say Thunder disrespected Christianity.
The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost....
I agree with everything Kish said as well as AfroPoetic and JazzyAKA...
One reason we go to Church is not to me lectured on the wrongs of the earth and the sins we commit, but to have a better understanding and interpretation of the Bible it's self.
The Old Test. and the new Test. differ on many things, but we are told that we are STILL living in the new Test until Jesus Christ makes his return.
I agree, we walk by FAITH not by sight....
I don't want to sound you know silly or nothing but if you've ever seen " Bruce Almighty"...when Bruce asks God why can't he just make us believe...and he replied " I gave you the freedom to choose whether or not to believe in me"...Thats like the greatest most HONEST movie line ever that speaks so much truth...
I can't say I agree with anything other than Christianity...but My God gave me the right to believe in Him...and to make choices that regard him...
That kinda takes me back to my Philosophy class...
Do we choose our own destiny....
or....
Is our destiny already planned for us and we're just going through the motions of life?
*gives daps*
see? SOMEONE gets what I'm tryna say..............
and thunder..............
those are your feelings, whether they are the unbiased ones...........
or the biased ones.............
my point is.............
I'm gonna serve MY God regardless, ecause it is what I believe.......
and coyote boy.............
I don't debate..........
i state what i research and what proves to be true...........
why should I debate when i can just sit back, try to do right, and wait for the return of Jesus?
I don't debate..........
i state what i research and what proves to be true...........
Well in that case, then you should leave religion at the door, because VERY LITTLE proves to be true. Can you honestly prove that God infused you with enough spirit and will to get the momentum to become a good student, as compared to some biological hormone being released into your body which helped you focus on your possible means of getting by in life? I doubt it. For everything you do, there is some biological and naturalistic explanation that can better explain why you did it than a higher power influencing you to do it.
Influence, is what your talking about. Influence, is what I'm trying to stay away from.
PAUSE HOMIE.............
let's not get into this...............
because according to SCIENCE.....
I'm supposed to be ****.............
according to SCIENCE, I'm not supposed to be able to walk, talk, or THINK..............
so YES, there is a higher power that infused me with spirit to have me to be intilligent and graduate at 16
YES a higher power gave me life, and breath, and the ability to make my own decisions and choices.............
SCIENCE can kiss my natural behind...
because from the giddy up science has done nothing but FAIL ME.............
God is TOO good to me............
Science has done nothing for me......
so until science can open up the windows of heaven and pour me out a blessing
keep me in perfect peace
hide me in the safety of it's tabernacle when evil is encamped about me
save me from MYSELF
let someone put a gun to my head and pull the trigger and nothing happens
and give me dominion and authority wherever i place my feet.....
IMMA SERVE GOD..............
*edited a buncha philosophical crap
Anyways, to Midwest, I never assumed. I said this, I could go on and on about Buddhism, but what if you know very little about it, and that presents me almost no room to hypothesize something that you would understand.
After I have repeatedly said I do not assume anything during a debate, you go on to make some ridiculous statement that I assumed something. If your going to come at me like that, then you'd better be damn sure your 100% under every single circumstance. I stated that you MIGHT NOT know very much about it, that's far from saying you DON'T know very much about it.
But since you stated you know a little bit about Buhhdism, let's test what "little bit" means:
What was the Nara belief similiar with amongst the Judaism branch and how did it differ directly from Mahayana, even though their treatises often taught similiar beliefs?
This is not a hard question at all. But...it can't be googled .
Why not make it an open question? If anyone can answer that, then I will go put other religions on blast.
Thunder
Evidence?!?! And if she provided the evidence, would that make you a believer?! Probably not.
I think the problem is that people are reading the bible for the wrong reasons. You read to actually try to make sense of it. To see if things add up according to you. Most messages in the bible will not come across as clear as you would like. A matter of fact, things are interpreted in many different ways. That's why you seek greater guidance whether it be from a church or God.
Trust in The Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
Jazzy, I'm trying to stay awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay from beliefs.
If you are incapable of speaking facts that can be acertained through readings because of where you hold your beliefs, please refrain from posting in the thread.
We could talk science vs. belief all day long and get no where. I started the thread for scientific purposes. Sorry to turn you away, but what's said has to be said.
I am a theologist at heart, and the understanding of multiple religions is impossible. Why? Because each religion says every other is untrue. How can you study a religion if you believe it to be untrue? You can't. Sorry, and although your post has a bearing on me, it does the exact opposite of where this thread should be going.
Thunder
Evidence?!?! And if she provided the evidence, would that make you a believer?! Probably not.
I think the problem is that people are reading the bible for the wrong reasons. You read to actually try to make sense of it. To see if things add up according to you. Most messages in the bible will not come across as clear as you would like. A matter of fact, things are interpreted in many different ways. That's why you seek greater guidance whether it be from a church or God.
Trust in The Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
Isnt it Evidence enough that you wake up every morning...get up and walk around. Have control of all ur limbs...that ur in your right mind??
Thats enough evidence to me to make me believe in a higher power
the original Greek term for Jesus's death instrument is sty-kos, translated "upright pole, tree, stake". nowhere in the original Greek language of the scriptures is the word for a crossbeam used. This was an adaptation also added around the 3rd century a.d. to reconcile Jesus with paganism, as the use of a Cross in religion dates back to Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Mesopotamia, and Olmec nations. the Babylonian god Tam-muz was venerated with a crossbeam, eternal life in Egypt with an Ankh.
The history of the cross is nice. John, probably the most reliable part of the Bible as it has remained totally unchanged, has accomodated for your belief:
Quote:
"The other disciples therefore were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe,"
(John 20:25).
More quotes:
Quote:
"And as they were coming out, they found a man of Cyrene named Simon, whom they pressed into service to bear His cross,"
(Matt. 27:32).
Quote:
"Therefore the soldiers did these things. But there were standing by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene,"
(John 19:25).
If he died on a stake, as you believe, then why on earth would they use TWO nails to nail him down? His hands would have to be over his head, one over the other. It is possible for them to nail him down with 2 nails, but that is ill in logic as compared to that of dying on a cross.
Jesus was a grown working man, a carpenter. Meaning he was prolly kinda cocky-built(read: big niqqa). If you've ever seen a skeleton of the human body, u will notice that the hands are composed of several smaller, somewhat delicate bones. Were a grown man nailed to such a cross, the weight of his body would've ripped through his metecarpals after a few hours.
Conversely, death by impaling on an upright stake, hands over head, one over the other, was a very common death for criminals at that time. Such an impaling involved driving the nails either through or under the wrist bones, and through or under the ankle bones(rather than the feet themselves) and is a very torturous death, in that the one impaled dies of asphyxiation. With the rib bones stretched thus, one has to bear down on one's feet to pull ones self up to breath, making the pain even more intense, and fatiguing the muscles in the abdomen and chest. when these muscles are fatigued to failure, and the pain becomes unbearable, the impalee becomes too tired to breath, and dies.
Once again, you are referring to texts written centuries AFTER jesus's death. The first-century writers of the scripture used the words sty-kos and stau-ros to describe his death.Even the latin word Crux, which we think of as cross, originally meant "a tree, frame, or other wooden instrument of execution, on which criminales were impaled or handged"(Lewis and Short, Latin Dictionary). Interestingly, apostles Peter and Paul also used the classical greek word "xy-lon" to refer to the torture instrument, the same word used in Ezra 6:11, Acts 5:30, and 10:39(check any Greek Concordance bible if u don't believe me) in reference to a beam on which the violater of the Law was to be hanged. the original writers of the bible used the word for upright pole, not cross; that term only came into usage in the 200'sA.D., when all the apostles were **** and chrisitianity started adapting pagan rituals. For further reference, check "The History of Jesus", Vol. 2, Tubingen and Leipzip, 1904, pp.386-394, Pro. at University of Basel)
Quote:
Jesus, in Greek, is I-e-sous. in Hebrew, its Ye-shu-a. This was a common name among Jews at the time of his birth. Krist-os(Christ) is just the Greek translation of the Hebrew word Mes-chi-ah(Messiah), meaning "Savior"
Literal translations mean very little when comparing the two names pheonetically. And as said, it is mere speculation.
Quote:
I'm just saying Yeshua was a common name, we can speculate about George Washington and George Bush being corrupt, but then we wouldn't be separating church and state :lol: .....so anyways...
Quote:
to be the alpha(beginning) and t-he omega(end), he would've had to always have existed. Jesus was God's (YHWH, Jehovah, Yahweh) first creation, meaning he had a beginning. so God, not Jesus, is the alpha and omega.
I raised the same point, and I got this in return.
Quote:
This symbol was suggested by the Apocalypse, where Christ, as well as the Father, is "the First and the Last" (ii, 8]; "the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end" (cf., xxii, 13; i, 8]. Clement of Alexandria speaks of the Word as "the Alpha and the Omega of Whom alone the end becomes beginning, and ends again at the original beginning without any break" (Strom., IV, 25). Tertullian also alludes to Christ as the Alpha and Omega (De Monogamiâ, v), and from Prudentius (Cathemer., ix, 10) we learn that in the fourth century the interpretation of the apocalyptic letters was still the same: "Alpha et Omega cognominatus, ipse fons et clausula, Omnium quae sunt, fuerunt, quaeque post futura sunt." It was, however, in the monuments of early Christianity that the symbolic Alpha and Omega had their greatest vogue.If there is some possible way to disprove that, let me know immediately.
Once again, you are quoting people who wrote AFTER all the original Bible authors were ****(early christianity was the first century a.d., before they all died), and the concept of God being triune had been formulated(the presense of a triune god in history is very prevalent, the romans, greeks, egyptians, hindus, even ATR religions have a triune). The scriptures themselves say that God(Almighty, YHWH, Jehovah, Yahweh) created the Son, and through that Son all other things came into existence, him being God's master worker. So Jesus is A god(small g) in the sense that he created things, he is the beginning in the sense that he was the first of creation, but he is not ALMIGHTY GOD(big G) because he himself was created by someone else
Colossians 1:15,16: "He is the...firstborn of all creation; because by mean sof him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth...no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or govenments or authorities, all other things have been created through him and for him"
Quote:
In addition to those rather simple evidences, prior to third century AD the Aramaic used in the inscription has never before been seen or heard, except in one other instance (in which many believe it is a mere spelling error). The posessive suffix for brother, as seen in "brother of Jesus" is spelled with -uy, instead of the standard -uhy for that time. Not until third century was -uy used, except in that one instance. And the word "of" is actually spelled out which usually happens in Targum, which is exclusively post 2nd century A.D.
if u wanna get on spelling errors lets talk about John 1:1 "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
SCREECH!
Quote:
"Translations other than King James use such words as "a god," "divine or "godlike" because the Greek word [the-os] is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the-os. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was orginally is designated her by the Greek expression [ho the-os`]. This is an articular the-os`. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun point to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb point to a quality about someone. Therefore, John's statement that the Word of Logos was "a god" or "divine" or "godlike" does not mean that he was the God with who he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself."
-NWT of the Holy Scriptures, with References, Appendex 6a.
Quote:
And lets not even touch the **** Sea Scrolls.
you're right. we would need to have that conversation face to face 8)
Quote:
But, with all that said, you know your sh!t . Need more people like you.
today. I haven't revealed my personal belief either.
Besides, the original post was on "The Bible"; not the "Talmud" or the "Koran" or the "Pentateuch" or the "veda".
My question is. . . if you are so wed to the principles and tenets in the Christiandom, to borrow AfroPoeticSista's phrase; then why can't you convince us that every part of the KJ Bible is true? It would seem that you could do a better job, if you truly were well versed and well researched.
If we counter that, then you should counter. That's debating people! But people don't join the debate teams anymore. That's the geek squad now. :roll:
.
Why not make it an open question? If anyone can answer that, then I will go put other religions on blast.
Thunder
. Need more people like you.
