God... Christ... The Bible

FiveB247x

In one hand you ask why someone is only critical of Christianity, yet follow your comment with a comment warranting that kind of response. There's been thousands of religions throughout the history of the world, and if a persons' stance is to believe theirs' is the right way and everyone has that decision to make and think on their own, so be it and leave it at that, but don't be so brazen to say yours is a proven, more right or somehow the only way. For me personally, this is why I hate religion, because it is not kept to thy-self, it's spoken as fact or knowledge when it is nothing of the sort. I can believe pink unicorns walk the earth today and say I wholeheartedly belive this and anyone who doesn't is wrong. If you disagree, you can't 100% disprove my statement, but we both know from science, fact and knowledge, that it is in fact untrue. And that's religion compared to science. I can't sit here and say 100% that a god/creator doesn't exist although we have plenty of fact and science to disprove that one does.. perhaps it's close to proven, but not 100%. But you can't prove any percent that your particular religion or thought is fact other than that it is what you believe things to be.

[/quote]What about Muslims, Hindus and so on? What about about what they teach? Can you stand them?
Some people have no problem bashing Christians or denying Jesus, it's a shame. I feel sorry for you.


There is only one way and thats throught Jesus.[/quote]

ryanevolution

Christianity (as we generally know it) is a myth. An allegorical myth representing the worship of the sun/son.

Watch this film. It really breaks it all down. This is part1 called "The Greatest STory Ever Told"

Part 2 is about 9/11 and Part 3 is about the Fed Reserv

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYSZZk9pIz8&feature=PlayList&p=C7EC93EE5B47F2CE&index=0


It is intense.

Cosmo

FiveB247x wrote:

In one hand you ask why someone is only critical of Christianity, yet follow your comment with a comment warranting that kind of response. There's been thousands of religions throughout the history of the world, and if a persons' stance is to believe theirs' is the right way and everyone has that decision to make and think on their own, so be it and leave it at that, but don't be so brazen to say yours is a proven, more right or somehow the only way. For me personally, this is why I hate religion, because it is not kept to thy-self, it's spoken as fact or knowledge when it is nothing of the sort. I can believe pink unicorns walk the earth today and say I wholeheartedly belive this and anyone who doesn't is wrong. If you disagree, you can't 100% disprove my statement, but we both know from science, fact and knowledge, that it is in fact untrue. And that's religion compared to science. I can't sit here and say 100% that a god/creator doesn't exist although we have plenty of fact and science to disprove that one does.. perhaps it's close to proven, but not 100%. But you can't prove any percent that your particular religion or thought is fact other than that it is what you believe things to be.

TheBeach wrote:

What about Muslims, Hindus and so on? What about about what they teach? Can you stand them?
Some people have no problem bashing Christians or denying Jesus, it's a shame. I feel sorry for you.


There is only one way and thats throught Jesus.

...
I have to agree with FiveB247x... I have heard people claiming to be 'Christians' debate the glory of their religion and chastise the religion of others. I was talking with a group of people who were making fun of Scientology because of that whole aliens in volcanoes and dark lords of evil and space ships and stuff. When i asked how is that any crazier than the belief that Woman was made from a rib and that the downfall of Man is due to a TALKING SNAKE.
I didn't get much of a response.... and I don't expect one here.
...
Personally... I think that religion has a good place in the world, with all of the God is love, Jesus' forgiveness, tolerance and sacrifice... too bad it's lost on the ones who want God only to themselves.

ryanevolution

Here is a link which compares the lives of the Egyptian Sun God Horus and Jesus
http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/comparsison_horus_jesus_chart.htm


Personally I never understood why everyone accepts the wordsound "Jesus" (Jeez-us) as the correct pronunciation. And if you think well "we're Americanizing it" that's plain wrong. Here's something I found a long time ago while researching that "Jeez-us" pronunciation...
http://www.essene.org/Yahowshua_or_Paul.htm

cornnifer

FiveB247x wrote:

If you disagree, you can't 100% disprove my statement, but we both know from science, fact and knowledge, that it is in fact untrue. And that's religion compared to science. I can't sit here and say 100% that a god/creator doesn't exist although we have plenty of fact and science to disprove that one does.. perhaps it's close to proven, but not 100%. But you can't prove any percent that your particular religion or thought is fact other than that it is what you believe things to be.
]

???

Really? That's news to me. What science are you referring to that "close to proves" the non-existence of God? There is no such science. None at all. i'm not being condescending here. i'd really like to know what science your talking about.

keeponrockin

cornnifer wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

If you disagree, you can't 100% disprove my statement, but we both know from science, fact and knowledge, that it is in fact untrue. And that's religion compared to science. I can't sit here and say 100% that a god/creator doesn't exist although we have plenty of fact and science to disprove that one does.. perhaps it's close to proven, but not 100%. But you can't prove any percent that your particular religion or thought is fact other than that it is what you believe things to be.
]

???

Really? That's news to me. What science are you referring to that "close to proves" the non-existence of God? There is no such science. None at all. i'm not being condescending here. i'd really like to know what science your talking about.

The burden of proof falls on the one making a claim.

For instance, you can't prove I didn't sleep with Angelina Jolie last Tuesday. It was a miracle.

cornnifer

keeponrockin wrote:

cornnifer wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

If you disagree, you can't 100% disprove my statement, but we both know from science, fact and knowledge, that it is in fact untrue. And that's religion compared to science. I can't sit here and say 100% that a god/creator doesn't exist although we have plenty of fact and science to disprove that one does.. perhaps it's close to proven, but not 100%. But you can't prove any percent that your particular religion or thought is fact other than that it is what you believe things to be.
]

???

Really? That's news to me. What science are you referring to that "close to proves" the non-existence of God? There is no such science. None at all. i'm not being condescending here. i'd really like to know what science your talking about.

The burden of proof falls on the one making a claim.

For instance, you can't prove I didn't sleep with Angelina Jolie last Tuesday. It was a miracle.

Look, i've been over and over this burden of proof bullshit argument in this forum way to many times. i'll not get into it again now. Someone posited that science nearly proves, almost 100%, that God does not exist. i simply and sincerely asked what science. You're coming at me with some meaningless crap about having a go with Angelina Jolie. i'm confused.

cornnifer

keeponrockin wrote:

The burden of proof falls on the one making a claim.

.

???
Like the CLAIM that God does not exist? Or the CLAIM that science has all but proven that God does not exist? Don't come at me with this "burden of proof" nonsense. Its pure bullshit. A huge steaming pile.

Commy

god fails. if he exists.

skippybrew

cornnifer wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

If you disagree, you can't 100% disprove my statement, but we both know from science, fact and knowledge, that it is in fact untrue. And that's religion compared to science. I can't sit here and say 100% that a god/creator doesn't exist although we have plenty of fact and science to disprove that one does.. perhaps it's close to proven, but not 100%. But you can't prove any percent that your particular religion or thought is fact other than that it is what you believe things to be.
]

???

Really? That's news to me. What science are you referring to that "close to proves" the non-existence of God? There is no such science. None at all. i'm not being condescending here. i'd really like to know what science your talking about.

I don't buy in to Christianity, but I have to go along with cornnifer's question... How do you "disprove" God (without bashing in the opposition's skull)?

There are actually a remarkably few things that science can prove. Even "laws" (gravity, for example) are only considered to be accepted rules that stand until someone can disprove them. That's the scientific method. There are a hell of a lot more things that we don't understand than things that we do.

Quite frankly, it's a miracle that we're even here. Cellular biology, cognition, the wacky (and not fully understood) principles of water - we can basically explain what happens, but not why or sometimes even how. Even the chances that we have a planet with all the proper ingredients to sustain life as we know it are staggeringly infinitesimal. Who's to say a higher power didn't orchestrate it all?

ryanevolution

I'm guessing no one has taken the time to watch this yet. It is a hard to refute argument against what is known as christianity. Take a few minutes, and be blown away. Would love to see one comment about this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYSZZk9pIz8&feature=PlayList&p=C7EC93EE5B47F2CE&index=0


Also, I thought Bill Mahr's movie "Religulous" broke a lot of it down very well.

Pepe Silvia

ryanevolution wrote:

I'm guessing no one has taken the time to watch this yet. It is a hard to refute argument against what is known as christianity. Take a few minutes, and be blown away. Would love to see one comment about this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYSZZk9pIz8&feature=PlayList&p=C7EC93EE5B47F2CE&index=0


Also, I thought Bill Mahr's movie "Religulous" broke a lot of it down very well.

actually Zeitgeist has been debated here a bunch of times since it originally came out like 2 years ago....

Religulous was ok but he seemed a bit biased near the end towards Judaism

Pepe Silvia

Pepe Silvia wrote:

cornnifer wrote:

i think you may be misreading here. In more context Philipians chapter 2 says this:

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

Clearly what is being spoken to here is our need to humble ourselves and be servants of our fellow man putting their needs above our own. Christ, who was God in human flesh, did this and we should strive to be like him. i think thats what this passage is saying.

Jesus claimed to be God incarnate. He claimed to forgive sins, perform miracles, etc. all in Gods name. Rights and abilities reserved for God himself. According to jewish law and tradition, which Jesus was a direct product of and operating within, this would be highly blasphemous. Obviously Jesus was not equating himself with God in some metaphorical sense. He was equating himself with God quite literally. This is what separates Jesus from Buddha, Muhammad etc. They did not make this claim.

i suppose it all depends on which version of the christian bible you are willing to believe to be the one true message, not sure how to explain all the other, later versions, though....like some bibles say 'rape' while others that came after, like the king james version, changed 'rape' to 'lie with' or something like that...i'd say there's a pretty big difference in those 2 terms. who knows, maybe god spoke to king james and told him he had some revisions for him or maybe he told james moses was drunk and took something out of context....if the christian message is the only truth, which of your versions is the one true version? doesn't it get complicated?

anyway, versions like young's literal translation say:

5For, let this mind be in you that [is] also in Christ Jesus,
6who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God,
7but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made,
8and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross,

i'm just sayin, that is the literal translation of the bible. so, if we are to assume this verse shouldn't be taken so literally why should we take him rising from the dead and all the miracles so literally??

FiveB247x

Well without trying to turn this into a ping-pong match where we'll merely be going back and forth, I'll try and explain what I mean.

I can post a million and one scientific facts that dispprove religious text from where we came from and similar. We're discovering things all the time, whether it's fossils, other details about earth's history or things about the big bang and universe. All of these things disprove the origin story from god and similar.

Also, there's two different lines of thought when looking at these issues, does a person take the bible and origin story literally or is it a mere loose interpretation in which things are left out and these texts as a whole are a mere overview of stories, moral codes and philosophies to follow? If it's the literal interpretation, then we can easily dissect the story and all the facts which we now know about the origins of earth, carbon dating, etc to disprove that. Also, if we take it as literal, this leaves out tons of details which don't match up with the facts as we know them now....something as simple as the existence of dinosaurs. On the other hand, if you want to say these religious texts are mere stories for moral code and philosophies, that is fine, but it still doesn't make it based on fact, instead it simply means people wrote down these things centuries ago, but after that, it leaves a vaccum to prove the existence of a god from it. The only proof of god is someone's belief in such, nothing substantial. It's no different from me saying the best color or everyone's favorite color should be blue... why? Because I like it that way and everyone should agree.

cornnifer wrote:

???
Really? That's news to me. What science are you referring to that "close to proves" the non-existence of God? There is no such science. None at all. i'm not being condescending here. i'd really like to know what science your talking about.

ryanevolution

Pepe Silvia wrote:

ryanevolution wrote:

I'm guessing no one has taken the time to watch this yet. It is a hard to refute argument against what is known as christianity. Take a few minutes, and be blown away. Would love to see one comment about this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYSZZk9pIz8&feature=PlayList&p=C7EC93EE5B47F2CE&index=0


Also, I thought Bill Mahr's movie "Religulous" broke a lot of it down very well.

actually Zeitgeist has been debated here a bunch of times since it originally came out like 2 years ago....

Religulous was ok but he seemed a bit biased near the end towards Judaism

So what do you think of what Zeitgeist lays down?

Btw, everyone here spouting off personal opinions as some kind of historical or scientific "proof"...please take the time and watch and THINK about the information presented in this film. IF you watch it, you will learn that christianity AS WE KNOW IT, is a complete myth!! And if Jesus was real, it is a total corruption of what he would have been about.

Pepe Silvia

ryanevolution wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

ryanevolution wrote:

I'm guessing no one has taken the time to watch this yet. It is a hard to refute argument against what is known as christianity. Take a few minutes, and be blown away. Would love to see one comment about this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYSZZk9pIz8&feature=PlayList&p=C7EC93EE5B47F2CE&index=0


Also, I thought Bill Mahr's movie "Religulous" broke a lot of it down very well.

actually Zeitgeist has been debated here a bunch of times since it originally came out like 2 years ago....

Religulous was ok but he seemed a bit biased near the end towards Judaism

So what do you think of what Zeitgeist lays down?

Btw, everyone here spouting off personal opinions as some kind of historical or scientific "proof"...please take the time and watch and THINK about the information presented in this film. IF you watch it, you will learn that christianity AS WE KNOW IT, is a complete myth!! And if Jesus was real, it is a total corruption of what he would have been about.

i think it helped solidify my opinion i had before that religions are basically the same, have the same overall message, but have minor differences due to their culture

BinFrog

TheBeach wrote:

There is only one way and thats throught Jesus.

And therein lies everything that is wrong with modern religion in a nutshell. "I am right and you are wrong". You have no idea and never will.

You have to be open to options in everytihng you do in life. Why is religion any different? That's like saying your way of making grilled cheese or strategizing in Tetris is right. Good luck convincing anyone of that.

Everyone needs to realize this very basic thought: religion and belief in God are exactly that: a belief. It's not an absolute, no matter how much you try and make it one. To a non-believer: Who cares that Jesus was the one to claim a direct link to God? That means NOTHING to someone with similar beliefs to mine. I mean nothing....at all.

cornnifer

FiveB247x wrote:

I can post a million and one scientific facts that dispprove religious text from where we came from and similar. We're discovering things all the time, whether it's fossils, other details about earth's history or things about the big bang and universe. All of these things disprove the origin story from god and similar.

1,000,001? Thats pretty impressive indeed. It should be very simple then to post one. i don't mind which scientific discipline you choose from. i'm still interested in hearing a "scientific fact that disproves God".
You mentioned the fossil record, for example. Is this the same fossil record that Charles Darwin himself said, if his theory on human origin was correct, would produce thousands of transitional species yet, to date hasn't really produced any? The same fossil record that evolutionary paleontologists once used Archaeopteryx as the capstone to prove a Darwinian origin, until fossils of ACTUAL birds that PREDATED Archaeopteryx forced them to reassess? Is it the same fossil record darwinian paleontologists had all mapped out until last year's discovery of Ardipithicus Ramidus once again has them scratching their collective head. "well... um... we... uh... FUCK!"
i believe you also alluded to archeology, astronomy, and cosmology. Again, i'm not being condescending and i don't care which of your "million and one facts" you choose from whichever scientific discipline you choose. i'm just interested in one.

FiveB247x

How's this for a start... where can the Bible, god or Genesis describe in the 7 days how the universe was created. This is actual proof of the Big Bang in action and the universe in its growth. This is actual fact, not a story written by humans or passed along by humans. Care to explain?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100105/ap_on_sc/us_sci_hubble_photo

Also, we've proved the earth is an estimated 5 billion yrs old. This does not match what religion says. But if you would like to talk about one specific issue, how about the dinosaurs? It's the easiest and most blatantly red hering which has zero place in religion, the bible, god or genesis. Do you deny the existence of dinosaurs as a practicing Christian?? And if you do/don't, please give us your specific rational for the existence (or not) of dinosaurs and all the fossils we have from them.

cornnifer wrote:

1,000,001? Thats pretty impressive indeed. It should be very simple then to post one. i don't mind which scientific discipline you choose from. i'm still interested in hearing a "scientific fact that disproves God".
You mentioned the fossil record, for example. Is this the same fossil record that Charles Darwin himself said, if his theory on human origin was correct, would produce thousands of transitional species yet, to date hasn't really produced any? The same fossil record that evolutionary paleontologists once used Archaeopteryx as the capstone to prove a Darwinian origin, until fossils of ACTUAL birds that PREDATED Archaeopteryx forced them to reassess? Is it the same fossil record darwinian paleontologists had all mapped out until last year's discovery of Ardipithicus Ramidus once again has them scratching their collective head. "well... um... we... uh... FUCK!"
i believe you also alluded to archeology, astronomy, and cosmology. Again, i'm not being condescending and i don't care which of your "million and one facts" you choose from whichever scientific discipline you choose. i'm just interested in one.

cornnifer

Pepe Silvia wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

cornnifer wrote:

i think you may be misreading here. In more context Philipians chapter 2 says this:

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

Clearly what is being spoken to here is our need to humble ourselves and be servants of our fellow man putting their needs above our own. Christ, who was God in human flesh, did this and we should strive to be like him. i think thats what this passage is saying.

Jesus claimed to be God incarnate. He claimed to forgive sins, perform miracles, etc. all in Gods name. Rights and abilities reserved for God himself. According to jewish law and tradition, which Jesus was a direct product of and operating within, this would be highly blasphemous. Obviously Jesus was not equating himself with God in some metaphorical sense. He was equating himself with God quite literally. This is what separates Jesus from Buddha, Muhammad etc. They did not make this claim.

i suppose it all depends on which version of the christian bible you are willing to believe to be the one true message, not sure how to explain all the other, later versions, though....like some bibles say 'rape' while others that came after, like the king james version, changed 'rape' to 'lie with' or something like that...i'd say there's a pretty big difference in those 2 terms. who knows, maybe god spoke to king james and told him he had some revisions for him or maybe he told james moses was drunk and took something out of context....if the christian message is the only truth, which of your versions is the one true version? doesn't it get complicated?

anyway, versions like young's literal translation say:

5For, let this mind be in you that [is] also in Christ Jesus,
6who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God,
7but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made,
8and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross,

i'm just sayin, that is the literal translation of the bible. so, if we are to assume this verse shouldn't be taken so literally why should we take him rising from the dead and all the miracles so literally??

The translation of the passage you posted and the translation of the passage i posted (both are quoted above if you wish to go back and reference) upon close examination are not saying anything different. They say the same thing, just in different language. The meaning is the same. Your translation, in a nutshell, still says: "Jesus, though God in human flesh, humbled himself, took the role of obedient servant, and we should be of like mind."

i'll give a concrete example. It may not be the best analogy but i think it works. Have you ever studied a language other than, what i'm assuming, is your native English? If you have then you've probably noticed how translations are sometimes a little loose. For example, there is a phrase in German that says something like "Du hast ein vogel im kopf!" Now, literally translated into english that says " You have a bird in the head!" What!? A bird in my head?! That sounds like it could cause some serious cerebral damage. What it means is "You're crazy!"
Seen? "You have a bird in the head" and "You're crazy", in this case, are making the same statement. Point being, upon examination and assessment, you're version and my version are different only in verbiage. They mean the same thing.