View Full Version : New Zealand no longer a christian country
kiwi_2005
05-29-07, 11:32 PM
Our Prime minister Helen Clark is on the road to her last year in parliment, come next election no doubt (hopefully) shes out! :nope:
She refused to say grace before dinner when dining with the Queen but she will cover her head when attending muslim events. She'll respect a religion that is infamous for terrorism, and abuse of it's own "followers" but when it comes to Christians who are generally victims of their actions, she will trample it to the ground.
We are no longer recognise as a christain country we dont have a religeon according to her. Yet we have a large christain following for a small nation.
Nor am i a christain but i would side with them if i had to choose a side.
Last straw for Helen!
Jolly good!
The less organised religion in the world; the better!
SUBMAN1
05-30-07, 12:18 AM
Our Prime minister Helen Clark is on the road to her last year in parliment, come next election no doubt (hopefully) shes out! :nope:
She refused to say grace before dinner when dining with the Queen but she will cover her head when attending muslim events. She'll respect a religion that is infamous for terrorism, and abuse of it's own "followers" but when it comes to Christians who are generally victims of their actions, she will trample it to the ground.
We are no longer recognise as a christain country we dont have a religeon according to her. Yet we have a large christain following for a small nation.
Nor am i a christain but i would side with them if i had to choose a side.
Last straw for Helen!
Nice - what BS. Recognizes the people she is scared of, but won't give dignitary's in visit respect. You elected this person?
-S
darius359au
05-30-07, 12:20 AM
to quote something a journo here said about Helen Clark "She's a great Bloke" :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
The Avon Lady
05-30-07, 12:37 AM
Jolly good!
The less organised religion in the world; the better!
Less is more.
Jolly good!
The less organised religion in the world; the better! Less is more.
And none is all!
I hope to see the day when each person lives life by their own personal, informed philosophy instead of the dogmas of one or another religion passed down via indoctrination, arrogant preaching and cultural exspectations.
:D
The Avon Lady
05-30-07, 12:58 AM
Jolly good!
The less organised religion in the world; the better! Less is more.
And none is all!
I'll just leave you with my little enigma.
I hope to see the day when each person lives life by their own personal, informed philosophy instead of the dogmas of one or another religion passed down via indoctrination, arrogant preaching and cultural exspectations.
That would requiere people to sit down and think as well as asuming the responsability of their actions, instead of doing the easy thing of letting others (Churches) think for them and getting the "officially approved religious" blessing for what they do.
Sad world.:down:
Happy Times
05-30-07, 07:39 AM
We are a fundamentalist country.:lol: We havent separated Church and State, 83.1% are Lutheran.
That would requiere people to sit down and think as well as asuming the responsability of their actions, instead of doing the easy thing of letting others (Churches) think for them and getting the "officially approved religious" blessing for what they do.
Sad world.:down:Why do you assume that Christians don't think for themselves? The atheist rhetoric on this forum in the past few days is getting a little irritating.
Jimbuna
05-30-07, 08:14 AM
A lot of people uphold the belief that religion and politics are a dangerous mix. Hell!!...just look through yor history books :hmm:
Why do you assume that Christians don't think for themselves? The atheist rhetoric on this forum in the past few days is getting a little irritating
I'm no atheist, quite the opposite. I firmly believe in the existance of an almighty God, creator of everything.:yep: Yet I refuse explicitely any of the major existing cults (Jewish, Christian, Muslim) as I can't rationally accept a religion based upon "revelation". I don't say that ALL christians don't think for themselves (Kant was a good example of the opposite), but based on my conversations with a good amount of them, I find that 99% follow their religion basically because they were taught so. Few, if any, have taken the interest of reading (specially philosophy) and trying to make their own conclusions instead of simply choosing to believe what others say.
IMO it is an offence against God to have an intelligence and not use it to draw your own conclussions about you, God and all that implies, but instead believing blindly what others say that God is or wants. It might be easier, but it is not necessarily the best.
That would require people to sit down and think as well as assuming the responsibility of their actions, instead of doing the easy thing of letting others (Churches) think for them and getting the "officially approved religious" blessing for what they do.
Sad world.:down:Why do you assume that Christians don't think for themselves? The atheist rhetoric on this forum in the past few days is getting a little irritating.
Well, firstly I think I should point out that I am very, very far from atheist.
Back to the Question....I think that Christians/Muslims/Hindus/Jews etc, etc have not arrived at their religion due to free thaught because in becoming part of their religion, the sign up to a belief in dogmas that they may have not yet heard of.
For example; Lets say that that Rabbi 'Mike' tells 'Joe' all the basics of Judaism. Joe might go home and spend a few weeks thinking about what he has been told. If, after thinking about it, Joe agrees with what Mike told him about Judaism, then Joe has shown some thought behind his belief in the basics of Judaism. Joe's beliefs are not his own, independent creation, but he has taught about them.
However, lets imagine that Joe decides to convert to Judaism. Joe has signed up to believe in the set of teachings and dogmas that Judaism involves. Joe has now put a end to his free thinking because if Rabbi Mike tells Joe something new about Judaism then Joe is likely to believe it because it is part of his religion; no thought required. Like wise, if Joe is told something by a non-Jew that contradicts Judaism Joe is likely to disregard it with out thought because his religion tells him to.
(I have used Judaism as my example here, but Judaism could be substituted for any religion in the example.)
Many people try to be somewhat free-thinking whilst remaining in a religion. They do this by "bending the rules" of their religion. For example; my mother was a catholic, but she did not believe the pope was infallible amongst other things.
I'm someways her free thinking made her not a catholic and conversely; in someways her catholicism made her not a free thinker for the same reasons that Joe was not. However flexible a religion is, by signing up to be a member of it, you are still signing up to beliefs (and dis-beliefs) you haven't heard of yet and therefore, certainly haven't thought about.
If you think you have heard about every dogma in your religion then I am more than willing to test you. ;)
That would requiere people to sit down and think as well as asuming the responsability of their actions, instead of doing the easy thing of letting others (Churches) think for them and getting the "officially approved religious" blessing for what they do.
Sad world.:down:Why do you assume that Christians don't think for themselves? The atheist rhetoric on this forum in the past few days is getting a little irritating.
Experience.
Whenever I've spoken to Christians and asked them why they believe things they say it's because it's in the bible.
Skybird
05-30-07, 09:29 AM
Jolly good!
The less organised religion in the world; the better! Less is more.
And none is all!
I hope to see the day when each person lives life by their own personal, informed philosophy instead of the dogmas of one or another religion passed down via indoctrination, arrogant preaching and cultural exspectations.
:D
:up:
Or in short: living life by reason.
Skybird
05-30-07, 09:30 AM
That would requiere people to sit down and think as well as asuming the responsability of their actions,
The basic idea of "Karma".
Skybird
05-30-07, 09:33 AM
Why do you assume that Christians don't think for themselves? The atheist rhetoric on this forum in the past few days is getting a little irritating.
What atheistic rethoric? Maybe you are basing too much on this prejudice:
Every border collie is a dog. But not every dog is a border collie. - Every theism is religion. But not every religion must be theistic.
Now, this time I spare me the details. :lol: Just this time.
You opened up a can of worms Kiwi!:lol: I'll throw in my spanner & state that I'm a Christian & proud of it, atleast I was brought up on good morals & ethics!
There that should stir things up a bit!:yep:
You opened up a can of worms Kiwi!:lol: I'll throw in my spanner & state that I'm a Christian & proud of it, atleast I was brought up on good morals & ethics!
There that should stir things up a bit!:yep:
I don't see the connection between you being a christian and being brought up with good morals and ethics. Plenty of people have morals and ethics and aren't christian, also conversley there are as likely to be as many christians with slipshod morals and poor ethics.
OK, sorry for using the word 'atheist' I was posting a spare few minutes I had at work (waiting for Excel to do a matrix inversion...:doh:) and it was the best I could come up with at the time.
A lot of you have made the same point that Christians (I won't speak for religions other than my own) don't think for themselves because they accept either what was taught to them or what's written in the Bible.
The problem with 'thinking for yourself' in that context is that you end up with a man-made philosophy which has nothing to do with the original religion. The Christianity I see put before me in the Bible claims to be the truth. That being so, I cannot take it upon myself to 'think for myself' and decide which bits I want to keep and which bits I don't want to keep. If I did that, I would end up with my own personal belief system which wouldn't be true.
This doesn't mean that I don't question the authority of the Bible or the existence of God. I've considered those things and I have decided that God exists and the Bible is his word. I've not gone into this blindly and without thinking about it.
I would therefore claim that I do think for myself, but not about which bits to believe and which bits not to believe. It's all or nothing. Note that this does not mean that I believe anything a preacher tells me. I consider it very important to check what is said on Sunday against the Bible.
Oh, and before anyone asks about why I feel free to 'ignore' bits of the Old Testament about eating pork or wearing clothing of mixed fibres, I suggest you read the book of Acts!
I don't expect to 'win' this argument. I'm not very good when it comes to philosophical arguments but I do feel I should attempt to explain that Christians aren't all brainwashed zombies who are open for ridicule.
Yahoshua
05-30-07, 05:28 PM
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/popcorn-1.gif
The Christianity I see put before me in the Bible claims to be the truth. That being so, I cannot take it upon myself to 'think for myself'
[This is also a sample from this (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/Quoteing%20from%20you,%20you%20decided%20that%20%2 2God%20exists%20and%20the%20Bible%20is%20his%20wor d%22.%20After%20you%20decided%20that%20you%20agree d%20with%20the%20basics%20you%20stopped%20thinking %20about%20%22which%20bits%20to%20believe%20and%20 which%20bits%20not%20to%20believe%22.) post.]
"The bible is true because it says it is true. If the bible always tells the truth, then when it says it is true it must be so"
This is nice example of a logic loop and there for an example of faulty reasoning. I'm sure you are intelligent enough to see the problems with that quote.
I would therefore claim that I do think for myself, but not about which bits to believe and which bits not to believe. It's all or nothing.
[This is a sample from this (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/Quoteing%20from%20you,%20you%20decided%20that%20%2 2God%20exists%20and%20the%20Bible%20is%20his%20wor d%22.%20After%20you%20decided%20that%20you%20agree d%20with%20the%20basics%20you%20stopped%20thinking %20about%20%22which%20bits%20to%20believe%20and%20 which%20bits%20not%20to%20believe%22.) post.]
Quoting from you, you decided that "God exists and the Bible is his word". After you decided that you agreed with the basics you stopped thinking about "which bits to believe and which bits not to believe".
Referring back to my previous post (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=551823&postcount=13).... You have done the same as the hypothetical Joe did. (only with Christianity instead of Judaism).
Through your own free thought you have decided not to have any free thought about individual bits of the bible.
Do you think it is rational to live your life according to individual details and dogmas in a book without subjecting such dogmas to your own free and critical thought? Even if you believe that book to be written by a god.
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/popcorn-1.gif Bahahaha! We should do a stage version of the GenralTopics forum!
*edit* Correction: Under no circumstances should we ever attempt to do a stage version of the GenralTopics forum!
You opened up a can of worms Kiwi!:lol: I'll throw in my spanner & state that I'm a Christian & proud of it, atleast I was brought up on good morals & ethics!
There that should stir things up a bit!:yep:
He he, I am the first to bite. :)
I was brought up on good morals & ethics, as I brought up my kids.
We are atheists.
OK, sorry for using the word 'atheist' I was posting a spare few minutes I had at work (waiting for Excel to do a matrix inversion...:doh:) and it was the best I could come up with at the time.
A lot of you have made the same point that Christians (I won't speak for religions other than my own) don't think for themselves because they accept either what was taught to them or what's written in the Bible.
The problem with 'thinking for yourself' in that context is that you end up with a man-made philosophy which has nothing to do with the original religion. The Christianity I see put before me in the Bible claims to be the truth. That being so, I cannot take it upon myself to 'think for myself' and decide which bits I want to keep and which bits I don't want to keep. If I did that, I would end up with my own personal belief system which wouldn't be true.
This doesn't mean that I don't question the authority of the Bible or the existence of God. I've considered those things and I have decided that God exists and the Bible is his word. I've not gone into this blindly and without thinking about it.
I would therefore claim that I do think for myself, but not about which bits to believe and which bits not to believe. It's all or nothing. Note that this does not mean that I believe anything a preacher tells me. I consider it very important to check what is said on Sunday against the Bible.
Oh, and before anyone asks about why I feel free to 'ignore' bits of the Old Testament about eating pork or wearing clothing of mixed fibres, I suggest you read the book of Acts!
I don't expect to 'win' this argument. I'm not very good when it comes to philosophical arguments but I do feel I should attempt to explain that Christians aren't all brainwashed zombies who are open for ridicule.
Well, I guess 90 % (or perhaps more) will stick to the religion there parents had, isn't that proof they (most) don't think about there religion? :hmm:
"The bible is true because it says it is true. If the bible always tells the truth, then when it says it is true it must be so"
This is nice example of a logic loop and there for an example of faulty reasoning. I'm sure you are intelligent enough to see the problems with that quote.I realise that there is a problem getting into that loop from the outside, but if God were provable by logic then there would be no atheists. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God by logic alone, so I don't see the 'logic loop', as you put it, as a problem. The way into the loop (as I see it) is to read the Bible and think about what it means. If you find enough evidence that it's true then you're into the loop.
Do you think it is rational to live your life according to individual details and dogmas in a book without subjecting such dogmas to your own free and critical thought? Even if you believe that book to be written by a god.Yes, I do. If God, being infinitely greater than I, wrote the book then who am I to argue? If I find a problem with something in the Bible it is my opinion that must change. I have no right to tell God that he's wrong and carry on as I did before.
Well, I guess 90 % (or perhaps more) will stick to the religion there parents had, isn't that proof they (most) don't think about there religion? :hmm:I agree that the majority of people who profess a particular religion do so without really thinking about it. The comments to which I am objecting are those which label all Christians as unintelligent and unthinking.
kiwi_2005
05-30-07, 07:17 PM
Our Prime minister Helen Clark is on the road to her last year in parliment, come next election no doubt (hopefully) shes out! :nope:
She refused to say grace before dinner when dining with the Queen but she will cover her head when attending muslim events. She'll respect a religion that is infamous for terrorism, and abuse of it's own "followers" but when it comes to Christians who are generally victims of their actions, she will trample it to the ground.
We are no longer recognise as a christain country we dont have a religeon according to her. Yet we have a large christain following for a small nation.
Nor am i a christain but i would side with them if i had to choose a side.
Last straw for Helen!
Nice - what BS. Recognizes the people she is scared of, but won't give dignitary's in visit respect. You elected this person?
-S
Would i vote for a woman to be my leader????:nope: Get real they belong where they should be "In Da Kitchen" ;)
National supporter since i was old enough to vote :rock:
Two main parties
National - Leader John Keys
Labour - Leader Helen 'childless' Clark
Do you think it is rational to live your life according to individual details and dogmas in a book without subjecting such dogmas to your own free and critical thought? Even if you believe that book to be written by a god.Yes, I do. If God, being infinitely greater than I, wrote the book then who am I to argue? If I find a problem with something in the Bible it is my opinion that must change. I have no right to tell God that he's wrong and carry on as I did before.
I could from theologians and philosophers from the 17th century onwards that pick holes in your reasoning, but that's all rather dull and I don't have the energy right now.
So for now...
Ive always been amused in particular by one christian philosopher and high-ranking preacher that said words to the effect of:
"We should try our best to show that religion is totally unreasonable and illogical. That way when we still believe in it; (despite proving it is total nonsense) we show how strong and unbreakable our faith is."
Still totally nuts, but it makes more sense than trying to rationalise the irrational! :doh:
Happy Times
05-30-07, 10:01 PM
Yes, I do. If God, being infinitely greater than I, wrote the book then who am I to argue? If I find a problem with something in the Bible it is my opinion that must change. I have no right to tell God that he's wrong and carry on as I did before.
Men wrote the bible and later canonized it. That is fact and you cant possibly argue against that.
RedMenace
05-30-07, 10:10 PM
Would i vote for a woman to be my leader????:nope: Get real they belong where they should be "In Da Kitchen" ;)
Okay, that seemed like you were serious, if so. You need to grow up. Fast.
Also, religion is a waste. There are so many religions, its stupid to think YOURS is the right one. It's better to develop your own philosophy instead of taking the easy way out and stealing someone else's. Especially when the other's are so constrictive, dogmatic, deadly, and arrogant.
Do you think it is rational to live your life according to individual details and dogmas in a book without subjecting such dogmas to your own free and critical thought? Even if you believe that book to be written by a god.Yes, I do. If God, being infinitely greater than I, wrote the book then who am I to argue? If I find a problem with something in the Bible it is my opinion that must change. I have no right to tell God that he's wrong and carry on as I did before. But the Bible isn't the word of God. If we do assume then that it is God's word as written some thousands of years ago then we can call the Bible "God's word filtered through the translations and re-writings of many hands over centuries". You can say what you will about the need for faith in God, but the bible is altogether different. It is a book which has been routinely used and manipulated by all sorts of power mongers for centuries. How can you have faith in a book which was not personally delivered to you by god, but delivered by a string of mortal, and unlike God, imperfect people who may or may not have erred in their translations, transcriptions, or been malicious in their alterations of it?
I can accept the belief in God without any worldly proof. But the Bible is not a virginal document. It is old and there are many versions of it to choose from. I can't see any absolutism in there since there is more than one source.
Happy Times
05-30-07, 10:29 PM
I can accept the belief in God without any worldly proof. But the Bible is not a virginal document. It is old and there are many versions of it to choose from. I can't see any absolutism in there since there is more than one source.
Exactly.
Why do you assume that Christians don't think for themselves? The atheist rhetoric on this forum in the past few days is getting a little irritating
I'm no atheist, quite the opposite. I firmly believe in the existance of an almighty God, creator of everything.:yep: Yet I refuse explicitely any of the major existing cults (Jewish, Christian, Muslim) as I can't rationally accept a religion based upon "revelation". I don't say that ALL christians don't think for themselves (Kant was a good example of the opposite), but based on my conversations with a good amount of them, I find that 99% follow their religion basically because they were taught so. Few, if any, have taken the interest of reading (specially philosophy) and trying to make their own conclusions instead of simply choosing to believe what others say.
IMO it is an offence against God to have an intelligence and not use it to draw your own conclussions about you, God and all that implies, but instead believing blindly what others say that God is or wants. It might be easier, but it is not necessarily the best.
This is where your at....
Matthew 11
[27] All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
The spirit of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy....until you seek Him in faith you will never find Him and you must enter in by the door.I really think you may not be looking closely enough at those whom you say are Christians or really asked them "How they came to believe" in what they profess.I personally know two individuals who have died on the table and have had experiences that changed them forever...they had God "Revealed" to them...this is the only way one comes to know God or be known by Him.You hear anyone knocking?
Easier to be a Christian?...hum resist eye for an eye...resist every temptation that America offers? hum I think it is easier not to believe but once God reveals His son to one it is nay impossible to forget.
Even demons believe in God,,,believeing is not the same as knowing.
A reminder to those who have life with Jesus Christ....the bible to the man without Christ is like trying to read korean, coded with an enigma machine, written backwards....they have no clue and no starting point, to argue with one who enters not in by the door is futile and if he tries to enter elsewhere he is a thief.Pray for them.
darius359au
05-31-07, 12:29 AM
@Iceman
And there's the standard response -everyone else thats not a "Beleiver" is an idiot:damn: or some sort of lesser person for not understanding the "Big" truth thats revealed in the Bible.
One question - how do you know your gods the real one? , Talmud says the jewish ones the real one , Koran says the muslim ones the real one , every religion in the world says theirs is real and the others are heretical (except possiblyfor Buddism).
The Avon Lady
05-31-07, 12:49 AM
One question - how do you know your gods the real one? , Talmud says the jewish ones the real one
More accurately, the Torah - the "5 Books of Moses". Everything in the Talmud is teachings based on and interpretations of the Torah.
Been here before.
darius359au
05-31-07, 12:54 AM
One question - how do you know your gods the real one? , Talmud says the jewish ones the real one More accurately, the Torah - the "5 Books of Moses". Everything in the Talmud is teachings based on and interpretations of the Torah.
Been here before.
sorry ,my bad
@Iceman
And there's the standard response -everyone else thats not a "Beleiver" is an idiot:damn: or some sort of lesser person for not understanding the "Big" truth thats revealed in the Bible.
One question - how do you know your gods the real one? , Talmud says the jewish ones the real one , Koran says the muslim ones the real one , every religion in the world says theirs is real and the others are heretical (except possiblyfor Buddism).
Was not meant that way...sorry you took it like that but it was really meant for the young in Christ who have trouble understanding why others can't see....the bible was written in code that those who do not have the key can never fully grasp it's deep and profound teachings...it is not by human design it is divine.
It is not that your an idiot or lesser again refer to Matthew 11:27...it is not of any "human" doing, the gift of life eternal is just that a gift....it is not earned so no man may boast.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge not the end.
God chooses to whom he will reveal the Son....from there the "Choice" is yours.
The Avon Lady
05-31-07, 01:43 AM
the bible was written in code that those who do not have the key can never fully grasp it's deep and profound teachings...it is not by human design it is divine.
It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?" Rather,[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.
- Deuteronomy 30:12-14
the bible was written in code that those who do not have the key can never fully grasp it's deep and profound teachings...it is not by human design it is divine.
It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?" Rather,[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.
- Deuteronomy 30:12-14
Amen :)
Proverbs 6
[23] For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:
Happy Times
05-31-07, 07:26 AM
the bible was written in code that those who do not have the key can never fully grasp it's deep and profound teachings...it is not by human design it is divine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_books_of_the_Old_Testament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_books_of_the_New_Testament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_translations_of_the_Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Bible_translations
Theres a code in these links. People can unlock it if they are not fundamentalists.
but if God were provable by logic then there would be no atheists. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God by logic alone
The existance of God can be proved by logic reasoning. There are many philosophical essays about that. And I personally believe it can be prooved by oposition or order and chaos. Order means an intelligence with the power to ordenate, chaos is the opposite. The simple fact of the universe being a perfect system that doesn't tear apart in particles proofs that an intelligence created it as a logical system. Chaos can't be order by definition, they are mutually excluding. And order means always intelligence, i.e. an action taken with a purpose. Thus it is my firm belief that the universus keeps working and tied together because the same intelligence who created it keeps it lile that.
Yet that might not please the churches and cults who pretend to have the monopoly in interpretating God's will and telling all of us about His essence, which is the main reason why so many have been silenced. No greater danger exists for a church than people who think independently :roll:
I really think you may not be looking closely enough at those whom you say are Christians or really asked them "How they came to believe" in what they profess.
Quite the opposite. I have several friends and some relatives who belong to the Opus Dei.:hmm:
they had God "Revealed" to them...this is the only way one comes to know God or be known by Him
That is exactly the problem. I refuse to believe that a God who creates all of us and gives us intelligence as well as natural laws that are present in any society and time will later limit the access to the faith to a few ones whom he revelates everything. IMO the real revelation comes from meditation and study of the nature and all things God created, never from a what a guy who has had a "revelation" tells you. You know two cases of people who had a revelation that changed their lifes. Very well. I know (Due to my real life job) several of cases of people who killed their mother with a knife because God told them so. How can you as third party tell the difference between a divine revelation and an illness if even the ones who experiment it can't?. What God wants from everyone must be available to everyone, not to those who get a "revelation" as if it were a lottery or something like that. Otherwise God is not allowing everyone to be able to choose and distinguish good and wrong, he would just be letting the luck decide where you are born and thus which religious reference your nation has (Moses, Chirst, Muhammad). A universal message is per definition universal, not limited to "chosen ones":down:
Of course that is all my personal point of view and I'm not pretending to convince you. I just want to explain it in the frame of this debate.:up:
But the Bible isn't the word of God. If we do assume then that it is God's word as written some thousands of years ago then we can call the Bible "God's word filtered through the translations and re-writings of many hands over centuries". You can say what you will about the need for faith in God, but the bible is altogether different. It is a book which has been routinely used and manipulated by all sorts of power mongers for centuries. How can you have faith in a book which was not personally delivered to you by god, but delivered by a string of mortal, and unlike God, imperfect people who may or may not have erred in their translations, transcriptions, or been malicious in their alterations of it?
I can accept the belief in God without any worldly proof. But the Bible is not a virginal document. It is old and there are many versions of it to choose from. I can't see any absolutism in there since there is more than one source.
My view also. I would never question the correctness of Iceman's faith in God, I can well concur in that. Yet faith is a relationship with God, not with another man (imperfect) who says what he thinks God wants. Even if you accepted revelation as a source of faith -which I don't- that revelation would be limited to the one who received it, because no human being can per definition transmit to other with words or anything else the experience of having God act directly on you. You can narrate your personal and subjective experience from your limited point of view, and thus you can't transmit the experience in its purity.:yep:
Seek...Hitman I hope you did not misunderstand the post I made up there...true knowledge of God is thru revelation but what person have you ever known in any case where revelation was simply dropped on someones head....it was sought after....whether you know it or not at the time....something was being sought...answers,truth, or whatever....I personally think it is one way God works so after all your seeking he reveals Himself so the seeker in the end will never turn away...because he will have seen that there there is nothing without Him. :)
This is the case with me....I have seen it all, or enough :)...there is nothing without God.
I consider Moses as well...wasn't neccessarily looking for God but kinda worked out that way in the end.
Happy Times
05-31-07, 09:48 PM
Seek...
Deep...
spdklls
05-31-07, 10:10 PM
Yes, I do. If God, being infinitely greater than I, wrote the book then who am I to argue? If I find a problem with something in the Bible it is my opinion that must change. I have no right to tell God that he's wrong and carry on as I did before.
Men wrote the bible and later canonized it. That is fact and you cant possibly argue against that.
Exactly what I was going to say! God positively did not write the Bible!
Letum:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Quote:
Originally Posted by Letum
Jolly good!
The less organised religion in the world; the better!
Less is more.
And none is all!
I hope to see the day when each person lives life by their own personal, informed philosophy instead of the dogmas of one or another religion passed down via indoctrination, arrogant preaching and cultural exspectations.
:D
This may be agnostic to religion, but it is the only way we'll ever see 'Peace on Earth'. As long as men worship dieties they are going to fight with those who differ in belief.
The Avon Lady
05-31-07, 11:04 PM
Yes, I do. If God, being infinitely greater than I, wrote the book then who am I to argue? If I find a problem with something in the Bible it is my opinion that must change. I have no right to tell God that he's wrong and carry on as I did before.
Men wrote the bible and later canonized it. That is fact and you cant possibly argue against that.
Exactly what I was going to say! God positively did not write the Bible!
And you know this because?
Ah, because you believe it's true. :hmm:
Letum:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Quote:
Originally Posted by Letum
Jolly good!
The less organised religion in the world; the better!
Less is more.
And none is all!
I hope to see the day when each person lives life by their own personal, informed philosophy instead of the dogmas of one or another religion passed down via indoctrination, arrogant preaching and cultural exspectations.
:D
This may be agnostic to religion, but it is the only way we'll ever see 'Peace on Earth'. As long as men worship dieties they are going to fight with those who differ in belief.
Most of the major wars and their losses of life (100's of miillions) in the last century were not related to deities of any sort.
Truth (whatever that is) in all sphere's, will bring peace.
EDIT: Here, too, as I hinted earlier, less turns out to be more.
Letum:
I hope to see the day when each person lives life by their own personal, informed philosophy instead of the dogmas of one or another religion passed down via indoctrination, arrogant preaching and cultural exspectations.
:D
This may be agnostic to religion, but it is the only way we'll ever see 'Peace on Earth'. As long as men worship dieties they are going to fight with those who differ in belief.
Nooo! It's not at all agnostic!
It is anti-organised, collective religion, but pro personal phillosophy. That may include dieties or gods.
Tchocky
05-31-07, 11:08 PM
Religion is rarely a reason for war, more often an excuse.
Religion is rarely a reason for war, more often an excuse.
It's often more of a recruitment and mobilisation tool than an 'excuse'.
Happy Times
05-31-07, 11:18 PM
And you know this because?
Ah, because you believe it's true. :hmm:
Lets say there is more proof that it was written by men.. Where is the very first one? How did God deliver it? What about all the different versions of it being used? Who and what is right?
The Avon Lady
05-31-07, 11:25 PM
And you know this because?
Ah, because you believe it's true. :hmm:
Lets say there is more proof that it was written by men.. Where is the very first one? How did God deliver it? What about all the different versions of it being used? Who and what is right?
I obviously do not speak on behalf of non-Jewish texts.
For my purposes right now (packing the kiddies off to school), a link will do:
Origin of the Torah (http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1438).
Happy Times
05-31-07, 11:38 PM
And you know this because?
Ah, because you believe it's true. :hmm:
Lets say there is more proof that it was written by men.. Where is the very first one? How did God deliver it? What about all the different versions of it being used? Who and what is right?
I obviously do not speak on behalf of non-Jewish texts.
For my purposes right now (packing the kiddies off to school), a link will do:
Origin of the Torah (http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1438).
But you have it easy, more logical. Cant question that story, you can just believe.
Interesting link btw.
The Avon Lady
05-31-07, 11:43 PM
And you know this because?
Ah, because you believe it's true. :hmm:
Lets say there is more proof that it was written by men.. Where is the very first one? How did God deliver it? What about all the different versions of it being used? Who and what is right?
I obviously do not speak on behalf of non-Jewish texts.
For my purposes right now (packing the kiddies off to school), a link will do:
Origin of the Torah (http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1438).
But you have it easy, more logical. Cant question that story, you can just believe.
It's much deeper than that. Simply google revelation at Sinai (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22revelation+at+sinai%22) and you'll get a whole score of arguments and counter arguments from both sides of the belief/non-belief system.
Happy Times
05-31-07, 11:52 PM
And you know this because?
Ah, because you believe it's true. :hmm:
Lets say there is more proof that it was written by men.. Where is the very first one? How did God deliver it? What about all the different versions of it being used? Who and what is right?
I obviously do not speak on behalf of non-Jewish texts.
For my purposes right now (packing the kiddies off to school), a link will do:
Origin of the Torah (http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1438).
But you have it easy, more logical. Cant question that story, you can just believe.
It's much deeper than that. Simply google revelation at Sinai (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22revelation+at+sinai%22) and you'll get a whole score of arguments and counter arguments from both sides of the belief/non-belief system.
How similar are Toras, are there different versions?
And you know this because?
Ah, because you believe it's true. :hmm:
Lets say there is more proof that it was written by men.. Where is the very first one? How did God deliver it? What about all the different versions of it being used? Who and what is right?
I obviously do not speak on behalf of non-Jewish texts.
For my purposes right now (packing the kiddies off to school), a link will do:
Origin of the Torah (http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1438).
Quote from the end of that link...
"Our other sacred texts, like the Prophets or Writings, were written either through Divine revelation or Divine inspiration."
Divine revelation or divine inspiration...hum imagine that. :) :up:
The Avon Lady
06-01-07, 12:37 AM
And you know this because?
Ah, because you believe it's true. :hmm:
Lets say there is more proof that it was written by men.. Where is the very first one? How did God deliver it? What about all the different versions of it being used? Who and what is right?
I obviously do not speak on behalf of non-Jewish texts.
For my purposes right now (packing the kiddies off to school), a link will do:
Origin of the Torah (http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1438).
Quote from the end of that link...
"Our other sacred texts, like the Prophets or Writings, were written either through Divine revelation or Divine inspiration."
Divine revelation or divine inspiration...hum imagine that. :) :up:
Don't be too elated. Where do you think Christianity got their unoriginal ideas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism) from?
Furthermore, as you yourself know and believe, there were many a false prophet about.
How similar are Toras, are there different versions?
I'll let you do some self-study. Start with the Aleppo Codex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleppo_Codex). The Torah's in every observant synagogue around the world have exactly the same text and that is how it has been for ages, with Jewish communities scattered and isolated around the world for 2500 years.
Must go shopping. :damn:
And you know this because?
Ah, because you believe it's true. :hmm:
Lets say there is more proof that it was written by men.. Where is the very first one? How did God deliver it? What about all the different versions of it being used? Who and what is right?
I obviously do not speak on behalf of non-Jewish texts.
For my purposes right now (packing the kiddies off to school), a link will do:
Origin of the Torah (http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1438).
Quote from the end of that link...
"Our other sacred texts, like the Prophets or Writings, were written either through Divine revelation or Divine inspiration."
Divine revelation or divine inspiration...hum imagine that. :) :up:
Don't be too elated. Where do you think Christianity got their unoriginal ideas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism) from?
Furthermore, as you yourself know and believe, there were many a false prophet about.
How similar are Toras, are there different versions?
I'll let you do some self-study. Start with the Aleppo Codex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleppo_Codex). The Torah's in every observant synagogue around the world have exactly the same text and that is how it has been for ages, with Jewish communities scattered and isolated around the world for 2500 years.
Must go shopping. :damn:
Dang! Unoriginal Ideas...? I won't even go there lol...please don't reference wiki in an attempt to debunk Christianity that makes me laugh.
The above reference to "Divine Revelation" was not a miff but a Hoorah! or Hallelujah!
Of course I believe in Revelation....
Revelation 13
[18] Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six
Don't be too elated. Where do you think Christianity got their unoriginal ideas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism) from?
Probably they come from the same sources the ancient jews got theirs...Summeria, Babylon, Agypt :roll:
Heibges
06-02-07, 12:46 PM
"There is no God." - Bishop Pickering Caddyshack
Don't be too elated. Where do you think Christianity got their unoriginal ideas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism) from?
Probably they come from the same sources the ancient jews got theirs...Summeria, Babylon, Agypt :roll:
Probably to some extent, however most of the myths of the dying and rebirthing god /goddeses are mediteranean and some even Germanic/Scandinavian such as Balder, Osirs, Persephone. There was also a good deal of borrowing from mithras a popular Roman cult. It's called acult because they came second which meant the christians got to persecute them.
just believe.
But what is wrong with "just" believing? That's what religion is, faith. Need of proof is a sign of the weak of faith.
(That completely contradicts my post about Jonah and the Whale in another thread, but w/e...)
But what is wrong with "just" believing? That's what religion is, faith. Need of proof is a sign of the weak of faith.
"Just believing" means excluding from the decission of believing the only main physical characteristic that God placed in us and distinguishes us from animals: Intelligence.
It is not pure coincidencce that one of the most educated Popes in the last years -the current one- continiously repeats that faith and reason are closely tied together; reasoning conducts to believing in a God, that's for sure, and therefore reasoning is a way to aquire "faith", in the sense of "belief in what you do not see" and "personal bound to God".:hmm:
I am the first one to support completely that view: yet the difference between believing in God and following everything what the different religions say, is obviously enormous.
But what is wrong with "just" believing? That's what religion is, faith. Need of proof is a sign of the weak of faith.
"Just believing" means excluding from the decission of believing the only main physical characteristic that God placed in us and distinguishes us from animals: Intelligence.
It is not pure coincidencce that one of the most educated Popes in the last years -the current one- continiously repeats that faith and reason are closely tied together; reasoning conducts to believing in a God, that's for sure, and therefore reasoning is a way to aquire "faith", in the sense of "belief in what you do not see" and "personal bound to God".:hmm:
I am the first one to support completely that view: yet the difference between believing in God and following everything what the different religions say, is obviously enormous.
I agree with you on that point -- blind faith is what drives most religious fundamentalists today. Using some semblence of reason is definitely a good thing, but a religious person shouldn't need "proof" of God's existence or Jesus' or whomever. But I do agree that a person should know why they believe in what they do, and not blindly follow something.
But what is wrong with "just" believing? That's what religion is, faith. Need of proof is a sign of the weak of faith.
"Just believing" means excluding from the decission of believing the only main physical characteristic that God placed in us and distinguishes us from animals: Intelligence.
It is not pure coincidencce that one of the most educated Popes in the last years -the current one- continiously repeats that faith and reason are closely tied together; reasoning conducts to believing in a God, that's for sure, and therefore reasoning is a way to aquire "faith", in the sense of "belief in what you do not see" and "personal bound to God".:hmm:
I am the first one to support completely that view: yet the difference between believing in God and following everything what the different religions say, is obviously enormous.
I was pleasantly surprised by the pope admitting the Earth went round the Sun recently, will he, I wonder further enter the renaiasance and stop this creationist malarkey?
Faith and reason are polar opposites, faith passing itself of as reason is at best pure sophistry and mostly just verbose idiocy.
Faith and reason are polar opposites, faith passing itself of as reason is at best pure sophistry and mostly just verbose idiocy
I respectfully disagree:down: As I said above, faith is believing in what you can't see or get to by physical means, yet the intelligence and logical reasoning is a way to get the conviction in the existance of God and what He wants from you.
You seem to use only a limited concept of faith, and that's probably were our differences are. Yet AFAIK the christian tradition (I'm refering to it because you mentioned the Pope) does not limit faith to that. Note that I don't consider myself christian or catholic, and I'm very far from being a follower of the Pope, but in this particular matter I happen to agree with him.:hmm:
a religious person shouldn't need "proof" of God's existence or Jesus' or whomever
Not exactly. The religions give you a proof of God's existance and his will by saying that someone was God's prophet and said this and that in the name of God.
Look at this reasoning:
How could you believe in the existance of a God only by faith if someone doesn't tell you previously that there is a God?
If nobody told you, you either had 1) Direct revelation/illumination by God, or 2) You came to the conclusion of God's existance using exclusively your intelligence.
Either way you are starting from a proof of God's existance....direct or indirect.
[quote=HitmanHow could you believe in the existance of a God only by faith if someone doesn't tell you previously that there is a God?
If nobody told you, you either had 1) Direct revelation/illumination by God, or 2) You came to the conclusion of God's existance using exclusively your intelligence.
quote]
Well if people had seperately revelations and all came out with the same God then that may be a tenuous suggestion that there was one. However that has most certainly not happened. What has happened is somebody has a jolly deep think then jumps and says there is a God! and he's angry, but I've got the answer I just need you to do everything I say.
How any of the above could be proof is beyond me.
I was pleasantly surprised by the pope admitting the Earth went round the Sun recently, will he, I wonder further enter the renaiasance and stop this creationist malarkey?
IIRC, the catholic church still officially holds it to be true that rabbits, below a certain age, are a type of fish, and not a mammal. This was decided back in the middle ages when monks decided they wanted to eat rabbits on a Sunday. It has not yet been taken out of the official books.
I was pleasantly surprised by the pope admitting the Earth went round the Sun recently, will he, I wonder further enter the renaiasance and stop this creationist malarkey?
IIRC, the catholic church still officially holds it to be true that rabbits, below a certain age, are a type of fish, and not a mammal. This was decided back in the middle ages when monks decided they wanted to eat rabbits on a Sunday. It has not yet been taken out of the official books.
This is the type of non-sense that Jesus did away with ...there is neither Jew nor Gentile anymore...all are guilty of sin and worthy of Death.The Jew for failure in one miniscule aspect of the law keeping and the Gentile by mere fact of the abundance of sin period.
The pure faith comes in believeing that thru the act of one man...the Son of Man, life may be pased on to all, as was Death passed to all from Adam.When one enters into the new covenant with God thru Jesus all the previous laws are not abolished but fufilled...that thru Faith..one may live,eat,drink whatever and not be condemed in what he allows himself to do...all the while not offending the brother who is weaker in faith and causing a stumbling block by his eating.
Matthew 12
[1] At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
[2] But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
[3] But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
[4] How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
[5] Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
[6] But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
[7] But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
[8] For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
[9] And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
[10] And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
[11] And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
[12] How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
[13] Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.
[14] Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.
[15] But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all;
[16] And charged them that they should not make him known:
[17] That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
[18] Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
[19] He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.
[20] A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.
[21] And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.
This is the Faith that myself and all Christians at this point in time lack else we would be showing the fruit of such pure faith to raise the dead,heal the maimed, and taming the serpents.
Save the sheep ...even on sunday.
The Avon Lady
06-03-07, 01:09 AM
Matthew 12
[1] At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
[2] But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
[3] But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
[4] How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
David at the shewbread to literally keep himself alive and he also was strict in keeping a state of ritual purity to do so. See Samuel 1, 21:3-6.
In such circumstances, David was in order. Jesus' followers could also desecrate the Sabbath to avert starvation, but not to allay casual hunger. Obviously, they were lax.
[18] Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
Let's go to the source to note the intentional deviation in Matthew's shoddy and blatant plagiarization (there are so many!).
Isaiah 42:1-4:
"Behold my servant, whom I uphold, mine elect. in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgement to the gentiles."
"He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street."
"A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgement unto truth."
"He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgement in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law."
Isaiah's words were spoken some 700 or so years previously. If you're not too frightened to jump ahead 4 verses in the same chapter of Isaiah, you will find the following:
"This said G-d the Lord, he that created the heavens and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein. I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house. I am the Lord: that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images."
Oopsey. :roll:
Don't be too elated. Where do you think Christianity got their unoriginal ideas from?
Probably they come from the same sources the ancient jews got theirs...Summeria, Babylon, Agypt
"Probably?" On what do you base your probability? Are you a statistician?
What is the probability of the Revelation at Sinai (refer to my previous links) and the teachings and the history of the Jews being false? 12%? 46.37%? 96.4%
I say the probability of you denying a reality that would turn your world upside down are about 95%. :yep:
Well if people had seperately revelations and all came out with the same God then that may be a tenuous suggestion that there was one. However that has most certainly not happened. What has happened is somebody has a jolly deep think then jumps and says there is a God! and he's angry, but I've got the answer I just need you to do everything I say.
How any of the above could be proof is beyond me.
Not just a jolly deep think, also allucination and mental illness count a lot when having wild ideas.
But still, you either get a proof of God's existance by your own reasoning or by believing what another guy tells you has been revealed to him. The proof in the latter case is a witness, exactly like in a trial. The judge believes something happened because a witness saw it, and that's a proof.
You believe in God either by reasoning, by personal revelation or by taking the revelation done to another as proof. But in all those cases you have a proof, direct (Reasoning, Revelation) or indirect (Witness of revelation). Is the idea more clear now?
What I wanted to highlight is that reasoning can lead to a personal belief in God, and learning the reasoning from another guy also ends up in personal belief of God, because your mind can reproduce exactly the logical steps to understand and accept the existance of God, as well as be critical about it. Yet when the belief in God comes from a transmitted experience of revelation, it is impossible to reproduce it in yourself, and you are also left with the subjective interpretation the transmitter did of the revelation he received.
"Probably?" On what do you base your probability? Are you a statistician?
What is the probability of the Revelation at Sinai (refer to my previous links) and the teachings and the history of the Jews being false? 12%? 46.37%? 96.4%
"Probably" was used by me in linguistic sense, as an irony. Not in stadistical sense. Given that it is well documented in archaeology and history that monotheism and a good part of the Bible are based upon concepts and characters present in civilizations much older than Israel, with whom the jews later interacted, it is more than obvious where they got it from. Want an example? Noah was not an original concept of the Bible, it was the main character of the Epopey of Gilgames, a sumerian narration way more old than any jew record.
History can't be reduced to probabilities in mathematical ways, but when fact upon fact are collected, there is a moment when you must consider that many things taken for granted are not true, or at least not exactly in the way they have been told until now.
I say the probability of you denying a reality that would turn your world upside down are about 95%. :yep:
Turn my world upside down? Or yours? You have nothing to sustain your belief in the truth of that "revelation", except oral tradition transmitted from generation to generation with a very definited interest of keeping the nation of Israel together in the adversity, captiveness and such. Plus such wild contradictions in the historic recordings that are, well...let us say "Suspicious". God using his power to kill the firstborns of Agypt? A chosen nation whose enemies are punished by God? Come on, you don't have to be very intelligent to see that this all was obviously elaborated with a very specific purpose in the years of captiveness, and that it enters in frontal collision with any concept of "universality" of that God's will for men. The God of Israel at the time of revelation in Mount Sinai is a custom-tailored one, and that is pretty obvious. Further jewish elaboration of concepts and religion later are still based on that initial facts, which is good enough to wipe away the accurancy of most results.
I have instead logic and reasoning (Based upon philosophy) to prove both the existance of God and a natural law for all men. I studied two years in university natural laws, from all perspectives, and the main conclusion you can draw is that it existed everywhere, any time, long before the time when God "revealed" them to the people of Israel in mount Sinai. Revelation at Mount Sinai? Yeah, of course you can choose to believe that if you want, against all odds. But the best part of the ten commandments from God have been there in natural law ever since man exists, and that's a fact.
So after all that you suggest that the revelation in Mount Sinai being real would change my world upside down to a 95%? No, I would say it would change at most in the other 5%. Why?: Let us accept that the God in which I believe is the God of Israel, that the chosen nation is Israel and everything word-by-word in the jewish tradition is truth. In what does it change my daily life and my behaviour? In anything. I don't steal, I don't kill, I try to forgive offences done to me by others, I believe in a universal God who loves his sons, I love my parents and sons, and I only have one wife (who I love inmensely). I used the intelligence I was given as best as I could to seek answers and make moral decisions. The only thing that would change is that I would accept a version of an historical fact I had refused based on reason and logics, not in arbitrary or impulsive motives, and that's all. My belief in God and His will is based upon a message so universal that it can reach any man, any time. If the details -Revelation of Mount Sinai- did not reach me correctly because time and distance as well as cultural education prevented me from accepting them critically, I hope the God of Israel would consider it was not my fault and I did the best I could. I can't regret something I did as best as I could, what I sure would regret was not having done my best to understand.
Ask yourself now in what would change in your life if the revelation upon which your nation makes, among other things, territorial claims in the 21st century was false or heavily distorted :hmm:
The Avon Lady
06-03-07, 10:05 AM
"Probably?" On what do you base your probability? Are you a statistician?
What is the probability of the Revelation at Sinai (refer to my previous links) and the teachings and the history of the Jews being false? 12%? 46.37%? 96.4%
"Probably" was used by me in linguistic sense, as an irony. Not in stadistical sense. Given that it is well documented in archaeology and history that monotheism and a good part of the Bible are based upon concepts and characters present in civilizations much older than Israel, with whom the jews later interacted, it is more than obvious where they got it from. Want an example? Noah was not an original concept of the Bible, it was the main character of the Epopey of Gilgames, a sumerian narration way more old than any jew record.
Yet totally different than the Biblical narrative of Noah. See Gilgamesh Flood Myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_myth). There's almost nothing in common here with Noah at all.
Apples.
Oranges.
History can't be reduced to probabilities in mathematical ways, but when fact upon fact are collected, there is a moment when you must consider that many things taken for granted are not true, or at least not exactly in the way they have been told until now.
Shoe.
Other.
Foot.
I say the probability of you denying a reality that would turn your world upside down are about 95%. :yep:
Turn my world upside down? Or yours? You have nothing to sustain your belief in the truth of that "revelation", except oral tradition transmitted from generation to generation with a very definited interest of keeping the nation of Israel together in the adversity, captiveness and such.
In case you haven't noticed, the physical disavantages of the Jewish people throughout history have far outweighed that advantages.
Yet you haven't dealt with how the Nation of Israel could even begin to make such a claim in the first place. Hint: follow my previous links.
Plus such wild contradictions in the historic recordings that are, well...let us say "Suspicious". God using his power to kill the firstborns of Agypt?
And this contradicts what?
A chosen nation whose enemies are punished by God?
And this contradicts what?
Come on, you don't have to be very intelligent to see that this all was obviously elaborated with a very specific purpose in the years of captiveness, and that it enters in frontal collision with any concept of "universality" of that God's will for men. The God of Israel at the time of revelation in Mount Sinai is a custom-tailored one, and that is pretty obvious.
Enlighten us.
Further jewish elaboration of concepts and religion later are still based on that initial facts, which is good enough to wipe away the accurancy of most results.
Lost me here. What does this mean?
I have instead logic and reasoning (Based upon philosophy) to prove both the existance of God and a natural law for all men. I studied two years in university natural laws, from all perspectives, and the main conclusion you can draw is that it existed everywhere, any time, long before the time when God "revealed" them to the people of Israel in mount Sinai.
Judaism also holds that G-d revealed himself in prior history quite a few times.
Revelation at Mount Sinai? Yeah, of course you can choose to believe that if you want, against all odds.
Again, Mr. Statistician, what are the odds?
But the best part of the ten commandments from God have been there in natural law ever since man exists, and that's a fact.
Yet mostly not obeyed. So, what is your point here? What does your claim here prove?
So after all that you suggest that the revelation in Mount Sinai being real would change my world upside down to a 95%? No, I would say it would change at most in the other 5%. Why?: Let us accept that the God in which I believe is the God of Israel, that the chosen nation is Israel and everything word-by-word in the jewish tradition is truth. In what does it change my daily life and my behaviour? In anything. I don't steal, I don't kill, I try to forgive offences done to me by others, I believe in a universal God who loves his sons, I love my parents and sons, and I only have one wife (who I love inmensely). I used the intelligence I was given as best as I could to seek answers and make moral decisions. The only thing that would change is that I would accept a version of an historical fact I had refused based on reason and logics, not in arbitrary or impulsive motives, and that's all. My belief in God and His will is based upon a message so universal that it can reach any man, any time. If the details -Revelation of Mount Sinai- did not reach me correctly because time and distance as well as cultural education prevented me from accepting them critically, I hope the God of Israel would consider it was not my fault and I did the best I could. I can't regret something I did as best as I could, what I sure would regret was not having done my best to understand.
Without my nitpicking, most of what you say is true. Much of what you advocate is within the intuitive capabilities of humankind, which I do not deny. Your attitude if very close to those that adhere to the Noahide laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah) (sounds so much better than the Gilgamesh laws :p ).
Ask yourself now in what would change in your life if the revelation upon which your nation makes, among other things, territorial claims in the 21st century was false or heavily distorted :hmm:
That's obvious. No news to me here.
Matthew 12
[1] At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
[2] But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
[3] But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
[4] How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
David at the shewbread to literally keep himself alive and he also was strict in keeping a state of ritual purity to do so. See Samuel 1, 21:3-6.
In such circumstances, David was in order. Jesus' followers could also desecrate the Sabbath to avert starvation, but not to allay casual hunger. Obviously, they were lax.
[18] Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
Let's go to the source to note the intentional deviation in Matthew's shoddy and blatant plagiarization (there are so many!).
Isaiah 42:1-4:
"Behold my servant, whom I uphold, mine elect. in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgement to the gentiles."
"He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street."
"A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgement unto truth."
"He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgement in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law."Isaiah's words were spoken some 700 or so years previously. If you're not too frightened to jump ahead 4 verses in the same chapter of Isaiah, you will find the following:
"This said G-d the Lord, he that created the heavens and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein. I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house. I am the Lord: that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images."Oopsey. :roll:
Don't be too elated. Where do you think Christianity got their unoriginal ideas from?
Probably they come from the same sources the ancient jews got theirs...Summeria, Babylon, Agypt
"Probably?" On what do you base your probability? Are you a statistician?
What is the probability of the Revelation at Sinai (refer to my previous links) and the teachings and the history of the Jews being false? 12%? 46.37%? 96.4%
I say the probability of you denying a reality that would turn your world upside down are about 95%. :yep:
I won't go at it with you AL...I still love ya..according to the "New Testament" which I choose to follow, Israel is indeed a stiffnecked people which will be so until the time appointed. :) There are no contradictions at all in the testamony of Jesus Christ nor does any part of the bible confliclt with itself or disannul any of the "Old", it is all clear to those who have ears and eyes.
Good Day AL http://www.cyberallies.com/support/nfphpbb/images/smiles/icon_farao.gif
The Avon Lady
06-03-07, 10:59 AM
http://www.cyberallies.com/support/nfphpbb/images/smiles/icon_farao.gif
It was tough to tell if that was an Egyptian or a British wigged judge smiley.
In case you haven't noticed, the physical disavantages of the Jewish people throughout history have far outweighed that advantages.
Yet you haven't dealt with how the Nation of Israel could even begin to make such a claim in the first place. Hint: follow my previous links.
This has no connection to what I said before. I fail to understand where you are going to.
Quote:
Plus such wild contradictions in the historic recordings that are, well...let us say "Suspicious". God using his power to kill the firstborns of Agypt?
And this contradicts what?
Quote:
A chosen nation whose enemies are punished by God?
And this contradicts what?
Quote:
Come on, you don't have to be very intelligent to see that this all was obviously elaborated with a very specific purpose in the years of captiveness, and that it enters in frontal collision with any concept of "universality" of that God's will for men. The God of Israel at the time of revelation in Mount Sinai is a custom-tailored one, and that is pretty obvious.
It all contradicts with an universal God of love and peace for everyone.
Quote:
Come on, you don't have to be very intelligent to see that this all was obviously elaborated with a very specific purpose in the years of captiveness, and that it enters in frontal collision with any concept of "universality" of that God's will for men. The God of Israel at the time of revelation in Mount Sinai is a custom-tailored one, and that is pretty obvious.
Enlighten us.
Obviously there is no worser blind than the one who doesn't want to see. You are just refusing to accept the logic implicit in the argument, not giving other arguments against it.
Quote:
I have instead logic and reasoning (Based upon philosophy) to prove both the existance of God and a natural law for all men. I studied two years in university natural laws, from all perspectives, and the main conclusion you can draw is that it existed everywhere, any time, long before the time when God "revealed" them to the people of Israel in mount Sinai.
Judaism also holds that G-d revealed himself in prior history quite a few times.
So what?
Quote:
Revelation at Mount Sinai? Yeah, of course you can choose to believe that if you want, against all odds.
Again, Mr. Statistician, what are the odds?
I have written a good amount of them already in previous posts, if you insist in not reading them, I am not interested in copying them again here, sorry. Again a good proof of blind faith, while the joke about "Mr Statiscian" shows that you have no real arguments. Ilogical rejection of arguments usually tries to escape the situation by introducing despective humour. Such a simple dialectic trick for someone of your formation and knowledge is very representative of what is going on.
Quote:
But the best part of the ten commandments from God have been there in natural law ever since man exists, and that's a fact.
Yet mostly not obeyed. So, what is your point here? What does your claim here prove?
1.- That nobody (Be it individuals or nations) can claim the monopoly of receiving Gods laws by revelation, because they are already in our nature. Nihil novum sub solem.
2.- That the will of God can be seeked individually without religion and revelation of any kind.
3.- That thus the "Revelation at Mount Sinai" was at best unnecessary, and at worst, a farce.
Without my nitpicking, most of what you say is true. Much of what you advocate is within the intuitive capabilities of humankind, which I do not deny. Your attitude if very close to those that adhere to the Noahide laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah) (sounds so much better than the Gilgamesh laws :p ).
Yes, only that I sustain that on a different basis, pilosophy and natural right (I mean the discipline studied in universities). Much more elaborated and logical than revelation.
Anyway, it is obvious that you can't convince me with logic arguments because you have none, and that I can't convince you with logic arguments because you refuse the logic and stick to the blind faith. But this all started by a ironic reference to the common past of many religions and has gone up to a discussion of some basics of the jewish-christian faith, and that was not my real intention.
What univerities are these? seems like some bizzare theological college, which as far as I can see is the only time logic intrudes upon your ideas.
for instance;
[QUOTE]The existance of God can be proved by logic reasoning. There are many philosophical essays about that. And I personally believe it can be prooved by oposition or order and chaos. Order means an intelligence with the power to ordenate, chaos is the opposite. The simple fact of the universe being a perfect system that doesn't tear apart in particles proofs that an intelligence created it as a logical system. Chaos can't be order by definition, they are mutually excluding. And order means always intelligence, i.e. an action taken with a purpose. Thus it is my firm belief that the universus keeps working and tied together because the same intelligence who created it keeps it lile that.
I've heard this word for word from the doorstep god botherers. Why did you copy this? it means nothing in the 60's we called this word salad. None of the above is proof. Order doesn't always mean intelligence does it? suddenly the whole thing falls apart. By all means trust in gods, but don't try to justify it on an intellectual level, it may be good enough for some second year univeristies but in the real world it doesn't really cut it.
What univerities are these? seems like some bizzare theological college, which as far as I can see is the only time logic intrudes upon your ideas.
Jurist universities. In the spanish universitary studies for lawyer you study in two years "natural right". A part of the authors who advocate for the natural right are of course catholic theologicians, like St. Thomas, St. Augustin and such, though not only christian authors are in favour of the existance of a natural right.
I've heard this word for word from the doorstep god botherers. Why did you copy this? it means nothing in the 60's we called this word salad. None of the above is proof. Order doesn't always mean intelligence does it? suddenly the whole thing falls apart. By all means trust in gods, but don't try to justify it on an intellectual level, it may be good enough for some second year univeristies but in the real world it doesn't really cut it.
I don't "copy" it from god botherers. It is in the philosophy of Plato, Arsitotle, Kant, Dechartes, Schopenhauer, and many more. Order is the result of a will, and a will is an intelligence in motion. Simply negating that order indicates intelligence is no argument.
Here is a brief read for you about the arguments (Seeing that you obviously are not interested in the in-depth read) for and against: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God
Forgot to add (So I spare you even more reading): My personal position is more in line with Deism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
Order is the result of a will, and a will is an intelligence in motion. Simply negating that order indicates intelligence is no argument.
No it is a statement of fact. The statement that order indicates intelligence is a fallacious premise and invalidates the entire argument for the existence of a god
The Avon Lady
08-24-07, 09:28 AM
Order is the result of a will, and a will is an intelligence in motion. Simply negating that order indicates intelligence is no argument.
No it is a statement of fact. The statement that order indicates intelligence is a fallacious premise and invalidates the entire argument for the existence of a god
Why do you assume that's an argument, rather than an indicator. But I must be going. :)
That would requiere people to sit down and think as well as asuming the responsability of their actions, instead of doing the easy thing of letting others (Churches) think for them and getting the "officially approved religious" blessing for what they do.
Sad world.:down:Why do you assume that Christians don't think for themselves? The atheist rhetoric on this forum in the past few days is getting a little irritating.
Jesus camp?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNfL6IVWCE
Skybird
08-24-07, 05:42 PM
Holy scriptures... a waste of time...
Responsebility and reason - or believing and unexamining - you can't have both, and usually "being religious" leads to unknowing believers sticking their nose into other people's business and trying to make them what the first believes the latter should do. Thinking turns into heresy, not believing something unexamined deserves celestial penalty and eternal doom, and it is man-made God's will to use force and violance to deliver penalty not by His but by man's hands, so man does ultimately both: inventing the justification for violance, and carrying it out. That is the morality of those believing in scriptures, bible and quran alike. At the same time they claim that they act in the name of a God of "love" and "peace" and "freedom", while all they bring to man's world is intolerance, arrogance, lecturing, hate and violance, and of course the death penalty. Jesus set many examples why the death penalty is justified, the whole gospels are filled with his preachings on why death penalty and military invasions and being violant to defenders of a woman's principle right to abort is justified, sure the Gospel - 70 years of playing Chinese whispers, as somebody called them - are about all this!? And Muslims run around and use Sharia to justify mutilation, torturing victims of rape to death by stoning, and submit other people by the use of force. So when both obviosuly do not act according to what they preach about peace and love and freedom, at least they should stop the hypocracy and be decent enough to start preaching according to how they act. Because I find it easier to recognize a Goebbels as evil, than to tell a wolf in a sheep's clothing from a distance.
This is by Lin-Chi (Rinzai in Japanese), a man famous for his direct approach towards people, and who surely is not suspicious of wanting to have been seen as holy, or teaching something holy. If Chan ever taught anything, then that there is nothing holy and no "religiosity" worth to be taught (my imperfect translation):
The law of Buddha does not need endeavours. It consists of the ordinary life and has no goal: to sh!t and to p!ss, getting dressed, eating and sleeping when one is tired. The simple-minded may laugh about me – the wise know about it. […] My friends, I tell you: there is no Buddha, no teaching, no training, and no insight. What are you chasing for so bitterly? Do you want to put a second head on top of your own, you blind idiots? Your head is exactly where it should be. What are you missing, then?
Can't say it any more clearly.
Things wont be much better if Helen Clarke goes, her opposition leader John Key is a second generation jewish immigrant.
So an cowardly atheist is better for a christian nation than a decendant of someone who killed christ in the first place?
Happy Times
08-25-07, 12:27 AM
Things wont be much better if Helen Clarke goes, her opposition leader John Key is a second generation jewish immigrant.
So an cowardly atheist is better for a christian nation than a decendant of someone who killed christ in the first place?
You really are a Nazi arent you?
no im not, but the guy who started this thread seemed concerned about this countrys christianity, and i just stated that neither of the two leading politicians will be of benefit to the christians here.
Happy Times
08-25-07, 01:07 AM
no im not, but the guy who started this thread seemed concerned about this countrys christianity, and i just stated that neither of the two leading politicians will be of benefit to the christians here.
So you are not one of those that gather for a circle jerk around Charles XIIs statue every year? Are you a Kiwi or a Swede?
You being (i assume) an estonian in Finland, could never possibly understand why people honour Karl XII. And if youve ever heard of a little thing called finska vinterkriget, then youd know that many swedes voulenteered and fought for Finland.
Happy Times
08-25-07, 01:39 AM
You being (i assume) an estonian in Finland, could never possibly understand why people honour Karl XII. And if youve ever heard of a little thing called finska vinterkriget, then youd know that many swedes voulenteered and fought for Finland.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Im a Finn in Finland. Karl XII was talented but he destroyed what his father Karl XI had build. And Gustavus Adolphus was a greater military leader IMO. My family fought in that little thing that lasted untill 1944 and cost the life of 90.000 Finns. My grandfather has still shrapnel in his ass for it. Yes 10,000 volunteered and honor to them but the fact is that as nation Sweden did very little. Considering Finns fought and died for Sweden over 500 years all over Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_and_the_Winter_War
RedMenace
08-25-07, 01:42 AM
Hey, Swede, with an email adress like masterace1@hotmail.com, we really don't want you hanging around here and giving SubSim a bad name, so either keep crazy opinions out of sight, or take your Nazi rhetoric to someone that gives a damn.
This isn't the first time that I and numerous other forumers have noticed your weird subtle propaganda, and I hope I'm not the only one utterly disgusted by it.
Im not spreading propaganda. And you are worse than me, saying that everyone is welcome as long as they agree with social norms and dont speak of controversial subjects. I dont hurt anyone, all i do is speak my mind. I could complain about your subtle communism, but i belive in people being allowed to speak their oppinions (however stupid they may seem)
Takeda Shingen
08-25-07, 07:18 AM
Im not spreading propaganda. And you are worse than me, saying that everyone is welcome as long as they agree with social norms and dont speak of controversial subjects. I dont hurt anyone, all i do is speak my mind. I could complain about your subtle communism, but i belive in people being allowed to speak their oppinions (however stupid they may seem)
This is a private internet forum; created and funded by Mr. Stevens. Free speech is great, but you, and everyone else, will have to adhere to the policies of this forum. I suggest that you very closely consider that hate speech is strictly forbidden on these forums. If that is an issue for you, then you will either have to go elsewhere, or be shown the door forcably. This will serve as your final warning.
The Management
Least Religious Countries
When you travel to Europe , don't be surprised to find that many Europeans don't believe in God. I have even witnessed some alcohol-infused conversations between Americans and Europeans that almost ended in fist fights over His/Her existence. When you travel to the following countries, you might want to pick a less controversial topic of conversation...umm, maybe George W?
Here is the Top 10 least religious countries in the world:
1. Sweden (up to 85% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)
2. Vietnam
3. Denmark
4. Norway
5. Japan
6. Czech Republic
7. Finland
8. France
9. South Korea
10. Estonia (up to 49% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)
The one that surprised me was Israel, ranking 19th, with up to 37% claiming to be non-believer, atheist, agnostic. Compare that with the US, ranking 44th, with 3-9% non-believers, atheists, agnostics. (I think I have met them all on the streets of New York City , too.)
The survey concluded that "high levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality. Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism. In some societies, particularly Europe , atheism is growing. However, throughout much of the world – particularly nations with high birth rates – atheism is barely discernable."
http://www.gadling.com/2007/08/23/least-religious-countries/ (http://www.gadling.com/2007/08/23/least-religious-countries/)
Skybird
08-26-07, 05:38 AM
That list sounds as if it is not about how religious a country is, but to what degree it is "theistic". Japan for example. There are many different cults, and Shinto, and Animism, and Buddhism and Zen. Younger generations may tend to be less invovled with these things, nevertheless to say that Japan is a non-religious country is nonsens. It is not theistic, but still rests solid on Shinto and Zen. Japanese society without these simply cannot be imagined, currently. '
If anything, that lists seems to indicate a popular prejudice: that religion is only religion if it is theistic a religion and claims a divine entity/personality/character to sit at it's centre. And that prejudice is a no-brainer for me.
For methodical reasons (with regard to the paragraph in bold) one needs to remind everybody that correlations do not say anything about wether factor A is causing factor B, or the other way around, and also does not say anything about possible intermittent variables. A correlations only says something on the probability that two variables show up simultaneously - no matter if there are causal links or not.
Things wont be much better if Helen Clarke goes, her opposition leader John Key is a second generation jewish immigrant.
So an cowardly atheist is better for a christian nation than a decendant of someone who killed christ in the first place?
You really are a Nazi arent you?
Reading his posts.... :roll:
For methodical reasons (with regard to the paragraph in bold) one needs to remind everybody that correlations do not say anything about wether factor A is causing factor B, or the other way around, and also does not say anything about possible intermittent variables. A correlations only says something on the probability that two variables show up simultaneously - no matter if there are causal links or not.
:up:..I think it is because they all eat oat bran instead of cheerios...doh!
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.