Page 34 of 89 FirstFirst ... 2429303132333435363738394484 ... LastLast
Results 661 to 680 of 1780
  1. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #661  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    No, I don't think I missed anything.
    Apparently you're not interested. That's cool. Just thought you might have honestly misunderstood.
  2. Xerlot's Avatar
    Posts
    8 Posts
    Global Posts
    10 Global Posts
    #662  
    Wow you make some mighty large assumptions. Not only that but since when is "some" a majority. 0-200 are the only ones left out of over 500? And in no way does that say that any are sleeping. In the language used in that time the direct wording is the great sleep, meaning death not tired and sleepy.

    I guess I'll go with groovy and assume you don't want to have a thoughtful discussion. You just want to argue
  3.    #663  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Okay. So you have 500 people in a group. Some are dead, some are sleeping. I'm going to say the dead and sleeping folks can't see the rise event. That would mean we have a group of say 200 to 0 people left to see what it is that happened. Also these guys must be sleepy if so many others are already asleep, no? When your that sleepy you tend to see things. Also some people are dead. When people in your group start dying some of the group will find this hard to deal with and go into shock. People in shock don't make good witnesses.

    No, I don't think I missed anything.



    They weren't dead or sleeping when they witnessed his resurrection. The letter is written about 24 years later and some of those 500 witnesses died in the intervening years.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  4. #664  
    So to understand God I have to have a word for word understanding of 2000 year old slang?

    Ya..this is all on the up and up.

    + who lets 24 years go by before publishing a letter/book when they see a guy die and then come back to life and rise to the sky or heaven or whatever place he was going?
  5.    #665  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    So to understand God I have to have a word for word understanding of 2000 year old slang?

    Ya..this is all on the up and up.
    Your first task when reading the Bible is to find a translation that is "understandable" to you. You might want to start with a "Living Bible" (like "The WAY" from Tyndale press). It's like reading a newspaper article. After you get the big picture, you can move to translations that are more faithful to the words in the original language.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  6. #666  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    find a translation that is "understandable" to you.
    So I'm supposed to search for the rewrite that speaks to me in plain english and will convince me God is real? Okay then.

    Why hasn't the church/god developed an new bible for modern times. One with stories that have gone down in the last few hundread years?
  7.    #667  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    + who lets 24 years go by before publishing a letter/book when they see a guy die and then come back to life and rise to the sky or heaven or whatever place he was going?
    The "book" in this case, is a letter written to a group of Christians from Paul when he was in prison. Teaching was normally done orally at the time. Not everyone in those days was literate either. The letter would be read to the Christians in Corinth by those who brought the letter and stayed with the people to address the problems that the letter addresses. You can't read one line from the "end" of the letter and expect to understand the context.

    I'm also beginning to think you may need to start with a childrens Bible. They have shorter summaries of the stories and are more like "cliff's notes" versions but also easy to read.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  8.    #668  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    So I'm supposed to search for the rewrite that speaks to me in plain english and will convince me God is real?
    He has. You just need to go into a bookstore and find one that is geared for your reading level. They exist, but God expects you to at least make it as far as the bookstore on your own!
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Why hasn't the church/god developed an new bible for modern times. One with stories that have gone down in the last few hundread years?
    EDIT: I didn't notice the 2nd part of your question. The Bible tells the story from man's creation through when God came to Earth to die for our sins. Jesus (God) explained the reason He came (as predicted by the Old Testament that the J e w s used) and he explained how the passages from the Old Testament related to why he was here now. His twelve chosen apostles (and Paul, who was "recruited" by Jesus after he died) taught what Jesus taught to his followers. Eventually the message was written down. Christians were persecuted and killed and many "books/manuals" were regularly found and destroyed by the Romans and the J e w s. The writings that you see in the Bible are among the most guarded and valuable writings that survived.
    Last edited by sudoer; 02/22/2010 at 10:24 PM.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  9. #669  
    The link contained a 2 line quote.
  10. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #670  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    The link contained a 2 line quote.
    Since I posted the original link let me put it in context. Just as a matter of record.
  11. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #671  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    No, it's not "basically" true. It is the simple truth. I said "Proving the Bible's events as being historically factual, or proving whether or not certain peoples existed as described, does not prove or disprove the existence of God."

    Rising from the dead doesn't qualify has "historically factual". It's a belief, not based on proven fact.... but on faith. You choose to believe he rose from the dead. That's fine, but it's not historically proven.
    Perhaps you aren't understanding me. You are aware that the Bible includes Resurrection right, and unless you intended to somehow exclude the central event in the entire New Testament from your list of historical accuracy then it wouldn't be based on belief would it? If instead it was a confirmed historical fact, then that's sort of a game changer in my view. So, no, it is anything but "the simple truth" in my view. If one could factually prove all the events in the bible, it would have very significant meaning.

    KAM
  12. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #672  
    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    Yours is a good point. I am an objectivist and need to see the proof/evidence. So when I am presented with tampered evidence, the bible (in my opinion only, of course), I remain skeptical until my common sense is satisfied or I see original, tangible proof. I will never see original proof because all of the fantastic things the bible discusses happened thousands of years ago and conveniently not since. And for me personally religion is the opposite of common sense (walking on water, talking bush, adam and eve lived 900 years, parting the red sea, etc. etc.). So while the idea of whats in the bible is certainly and interesting one, I cannot accept it as accurate in its current presentation.

    Take the book of mormon. That text is only 160 years old and has been revised many times -- several times by Joseph Smith himself. So this is another example of a historic document I cannot accept. But I appreciate your reasoning.
    An Objectivist. I'm always interested in hearing from Objectivists. I understand why you do not believe in these various religious things. Do you believe Alexander the Great existed, or for that matter any historical figure from the distant past?
    Do you literally only believe in things that you've directly experienced and personally proven?

    Also--just to be clear--I'm not trying to press you here--I'm just interested in comparing what you (as an objectivist) thinks in comparison to some other objectivists that I know or have heard from.

    KAM
  13.    #673  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Since I posted the original link let me put it in context. Just as a matter of record.
    Riley, if you look above the gray bar on the web page, you'll notice several icons on the left side. If you hover over the icons with your mouse, you should see word explanations for what each "button" does. The 3rd one from the left expands to the whole chapter of whatever book the quote is from. You also have buttons to select previous and next chapters in the current "book". The Bible is made up of 66 books in the Protestant version and 77 books in the Catholic version. The books before the coming of Christ are called the "Old Testament" and the books describing Christ's life and the early Christian Church are in the "back" half of the Bible. I'm using the word "half" very loosely, and the majority of the Bible is Old Testament writings.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  14. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #674  
    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    "Each reproduction COULD result in erosion of the original meaning, but it doesn't mean that must have occurred."

    On this point I'm agnostic. You can't prove the bible has retained its original content and I cannot prove otherwise. In my opinion, based on the methods of reproduction and translation and the shear weight of the number of times this has happened, I would assume its original, organic meaning/information was lost a thousand years ago.
    Why do you think that assumption is valid?

    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    On a second note, and I realize this might open a giant can of worms, I personally feel the bible is a form of control. If this is true, and I merely think that it is, altering its content would amount to an extremely effective system of control.
    I can't speak to any of the mormon issues.

    I'm not sure I've got anything I can say, except that if you're speculation is correct, it would be the largest most effective conspiracy the world has ever seen. I see no evidence to suggest that any entity had any means available to control the situation the the degree I think would be required. Even the earliest form of the church was a wide-spread entity with very limited communication capabilities, so "controlling the message" which was first passed down verbally, and then written would be very improbable I think.

    Its an interesting idea, but one that I think is next to impossible to have been orchestrated.

    KAM
  15.    #675  
    Just a message to those of us on the "Bible believing" side of this argument. It may help to imagine you are talking to a young child when you consider how to phrase your arguments (on Bible topics only). Think about what it might be like if someone was trying to discuss the Koran with us! Be charitable in your discussions with others trying to learn! Thanks
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  16. #676  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    EDIT: I had written a post here but I accidentally deleted it in edit mode when I thought I was quoting it in another post. I'll write it again

    What do you mean by "disputed"? I think we can't dispute the accuracy of what's written (relative to any other book). We can dispute the claim that it's the inerrant word of God. So far you all have used that to question why homosexuality is not allowed, so far, you have not disputed my answer was that we said Jesus made that decision. You still have to shoot some solid holes in this ship and try to sink it. If it's the inerrant word of God, that should be impossible.

    Let me add that I don't really think our discussion has begun, let alone completed. My point is that so far, one failed attempt at proving us wrong represents a "lost battle" and you guys need to rally the troops again with heavier artillery!
    Are you attempting to tell me that the bible is not disputed? Are you serious? Isn't this the same "I know better" attitude as... Well i'll quote you;
    Just a message to those of us on the "Bible believing" side of this argument. It may help to imagine you are talking to a young child when you consider how to phrase your arguments ......
    Hasn't there been thousands of years of religious wars disputing scripture?
    Didn't your very own bible foretell those scripture-disputing wars?
    And as gsonspre brought up, which i was refraining from mentioning; Did not 3000 innocent people get murdered just 8 years ago while they were eating breakfast at their offices?
    Were they not forced to choose to die by either burning alive or jumping out a broken window 110 floors to the concrete below?
    I was there, people i knew, died a horrible horrible death and i saw with my own eyes, the bible being disputed by "people" that believe otherwise.

    BTW- Almighty loving God was nowhere to be seen that day either, but then again, you guys have prepared statements for such things as tragedies, calamities, the Holocaust, other ethnic cleansing, earthquakes, tsunamis and other destruction when thousands of people of every belief, die innocently.
    Yep.
    This is all because we were born in sin.
    If that's not the easy way out of this discussion for you believers, then i don't know what is.
    Last edited by dbdoinit; 02/23/2010 at 07:26 AM.
  17. #677  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    An Objectivist. I'm always interested in hearing from Objectivists. I understand why you do not believe in these various religious things. Do you believe Alexander the Great existed, or for that matter any historical figure from the distant past?
    Do you literally only believe in things that you've directly experienced and personally proven?

    Also--just to be clear--I'm not trying to press you here--I'm just interested in comparing what you (as an objectivist) thinks in comparison to some other objectivists that I know or have heard from.

    KAM
    "I'm not trying to press you here"

    I've read your posts before and I know you are fair.

    I would never suggest Jesus or Alexander the Great did not exist. Those two people, although I cannot see them with my two eyes, pass my own personal common sense test. Too much evidence exists to suggest otherwise. What I cannot accept, even if I wanted to, is the fantastic and mystical stories that are also in the bible. I agree Alexander the Great existed, but if you then told me he lived for 900 years, breathed fire, and flew around on a magic carpet, I could not accept this -- even if a sacred macedonian text (like a greek bible) and 500 witnesses said it was true.
    Last edited by joshaccount; 02/23/2010 at 07:30 AM.
  18. #678  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Why do you think that assumption is valid?



    I can't speak to any of the mormon issues.

    I'm not sure I've got anything I can say, except that if you're speculation is correct, it would be the largest most effective conspiracy the world has ever seen. I see no evidence to suggest that any entity had any means available to control the situation the the degree I think would be required. Even the earliest form of the church was a wide-spread entity with very limited communication capabilities, so "controlling the message" which was first passed down verbally, and then written would be very improbable I think.

    Its an interesting idea, but one that I think is next to impossible to have been orchestrated.

    KAM
    The mormon thing is kinda funny if you look into it (sorry mormons, just my opinion), and I reference them as a recent example of an equally illogical story. Smith found 2 magic plates that appearantly had 500 pages of text on them which he attempted to transcribe into writing by reading the words to a friend from behind a closed door (nobody else was allowed to see the plates -- gods orders). And when his wife got upset and threw out the plates, he continues transcribing the book of mormon from memory. Later, when things weren't going exactly as planned, he made numerous revisions to the book of mormon based on revelations he received directly from god. When other mormons attempted to have their own revelations, Smith reminded them that god only spoke to him. Really, its an entertaining story if you need to pass some time. Krakauer authored a well-written albeit critical book on the origin of mormon faith, among other issues.

    Regarding my other comment, it's certainly speculation, nothing more. At the time of the bible, governments were local and shaky at best. I can't think of any other way to unify a people, wherever they may be, without violence, without payment, without borders, etc. Organized religion seems like the perfect tool at the time to control vast populations of people non-violently. Now, once the religious institution is established and some people reject the ideology -- thats when the violence begins. I once read a quote (and I certainly don't remember the source) that said, and I paraphrase, "more people have been murdered in the name of organized religion than all other causes for murder combined". And by that I think he/she meant ritual killings (Inca, Phoenicia, China), the crusades, the reconquista, the holocaust, jihad, etc. Anyway, it's all speculation on my part. The objectivist in me cannot claim otherwise .
    Last edited by joshaccount; 02/23/2010 at 07:33 AM.
  19.    #679  
    Quote Originally Posted by dbd View Post
    Please disregard this post.
    I believe this is impossible for me to do. I feel the same pain you do regarding all of the issues you raised and I feel talking though some of it is one of the best forms of "therapy". I want to acknowledge your pain and help first and foremost. This is more important than any "debate" we may want to have.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbd View Post
    Are you attempting to tell me that the bible is not disputed? Are you serious? Isn't this the same "I know better" attitude as... Well i'll quote you;
    I was specifically referring to what I thought was a dispute in this forum regarding whether the Bible is an accurate representation of it's original message, and I was saying since the original message still exists, people can know how one translation may differ from another.

    I was specifically asking for what sort of "disputes: you were talking about. I think you clarified things a bit, but for the purposes of discussion, we may have to go even deeper.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbd View Post
    Hasn't there been thousands of years of religious wars disputing scripture?
    ...
    Didn't your bible even foretell those religious wars?
    For the purposes of discussion, I need to understand what you mean by religious wars. Can you identify some examples of what you want to discuss? (Christians from their earliest days have been persecuted by the J e w s and Romans, the Church has had to defend the Bible against heresies from very early times "AD", often people bring things like the Inquisition and the Crusades, there's are also numerous splits in the body of Christian believers, as well as people who take only some of the Bible as scripture and add their own writings to the mix. Did I miss any possible areas of discussion you were thinking about? Is this what you meant by "dispute"? Do you want to discuss any of these (and if so, where's the best place to start that might be most helpful to you/others)?

    Quote Originally Posted by dbd View Post
    And as gsonspre brought up, which i was refraining from mentioning; Did not 3000 innocent people get murdered 8 years ago while they were eating breakfast at their offices?
    Were they not forced to choose to die by either burning alive or jumping out a broken window 110 floors to the concrete below?
    I was there, people i knew, died a horrible horrible death and i saw with my own eyes, the bible being disputed by "people" that believe otherwise.
    I'm from Boston and also know people who lost their lives that day. I'm fortunate that nobody close to me was killed on 9/11/2001. Numerous people who were close to people close to me perished. I also grew up about an hour away from where the plane went down in Pennsylvania.

    To say that the Bible caused (or even foretold) this specific tragedy is a stretch. To question whether/why a God who might exist allowed such a tragedy to occur is a very legitimate question.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbd View Post
    BTW- Almighty loving God was nowhere to be seen that day either, but then again, you guys have prepared statements for such things as tragedies, calamities, earthquakes, tsunamis and other destruction when thousands of people of every belief, die innocently.
    The two most shaking events in my life were 9/11 and JFK's assassination. Both were instances where 100% of the people I knew were in total shock. I can only give you my perspective on this as I'm a member of one Church (which the Pope speaks for and not me) and I don't even know what other religious groups may have said about such calamities.

    I do need to say that even thinking about 9/11 brings back terrible anguish to me even now. I'm sorry for the extent that I've resurfaced this pain for you or anyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbd View Post
    Oh yeah.
    This is all because we were born in sin.
    You will get a very large range of answers from different people as to why God allows this. Original sin is part of it, but I can also understand how this is not a satisfying answer for you. If that were all I was told, I would not accept it either.

    I believe God placed us on Earth as one step in our development for a preparation for eternal existence. On Earth, I want to live my life in a way that promotes the benefit of me, those I know, my descendants, and the world as a whole. Personally, I suck in my track record of accomplishing any of this. I initiated this thread as a way to learn "first hand" what the issues are with respect to first my relationship with this God I believe in as well as a way to understand how others faced with this same choice think. Many of the posts here have helped me to understand this, but I'm not sure any of them strike deeper to the core than your post. Thank you.

    This all makes me worry a lot less about things like the "WebOS 1.4 update" in relationship to questions like the reasons for our existence. I don't always think this deep either. We all need mental breaks from such tough questions. It helps me to believe a God created me because he loves me and that he gives each of us whatever we need to accomplish on Earth what he wants us to do. It's a form of "brainwashing" and I don't think it should ever be taken too far. People should use a belief in God if they believe this message to be true and helpful to themselves and those around them. I find believing in God to better explain my life than not believing in him, but I see where you are coming from and I appreciate all that you have shared.

    thanks again (and God Bless),
    --
    Bob
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  20. #680  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Just a message to those of us on the "Bible believing" side of this argument. It may help to imagine you are talking to a young child when you consider how to phrase your arguments (on Bible topics only). Think about what it might be like if someone was trying to discuss the Koran with us! Be charitable in your discussions with others trying to learn! Thanks
    Kinda insensitive. Question: have you ever noticed it is immeasurably easier to convert a 5 year old to your chosen religion than a 35 year old? Can't say for sure why, but 35 year olds tend to rely on critical thinking skills, logic, rational thought processes, and common sense, at least more so than a 5 year old. Question #2: if all humans, from this day forward, were forbidden to see, hear, read, think, discuss, etc. any form of any religion until they were, say, 35 years old, and only at that point would any religious person or representative be allowed to approach them with intentions of teaching the gospel, how long would it take for your religion or any other to drastically diminish in ranks or cease to exist?

    In my opinion, religion continues to exist because it is taught to children as soon as they can understand pictures and language and it is explained to adults in a child-like, ritualistic, story-telling format (imagine if we taught math or science in the same fashion!). I would guess that most rational adults, hearing religion for the first time at 35 years old, would consider it an interesting story worthy of a 2-hour movie, or maybe a series, like Lord of the Rings.
    Last edited by joshaccount; 02/23/2010 at 07:51 AM.

Posting Permissions