TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Jesus Christs remains will be unveiled
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh come now. that's just bollocks. faith versus evidence. 'nuff said.

The only evidence of the "Big bang" is static that was picked up with an antenna in Holmdel, NJ. What is the other evidence? An expanding universe, yes, but to understand that theory requires an understanding of physics (Fairly advanced physics I might add). You're going to tell me that BLINDLY believing in this evidence (Which most people do) is not the same as believing the pope's claim that he dictates god's wishes?

quote:

Originally posted by Subey That would imply some sort of parallel association, where clearly I was suggesting a hierarchical one... in other words aim higher... way higher!

So, like oatmeal biscuits into hash cookies and powdered milk into amphetamine's?

quote:

Originally posted by prolikewhoa back up the train, buddy. studying theology and "studying" politics? who are you to say which discipline is worthy of standing without quotations? you do know i'm a polisci major, right?

quote:

Originally posted by dj_bas I think he was referring to Bush "studying" politics not intelligent people studying politics

yup

I still say our lives are like Men In Black.

Like those gremlins in the lockers.

Then at the end MIB opens the door and see's they're the same thing.

We're probably just little lab rats to massive orangutans that just have this clear 4x4 box labeled: Universe.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers The only evidence of the "Big bang" is static that was picked up with an antenna in Holmdel, NJ. What is the other evidence? An expanding universe, yes, but to understand that theory requires an understanding of physics (Fairly advanced physics I might add). You're going to tell me that BLINDLY believing in this evidence (Which most people do) is not the same as believing the pope's claim that he dictates god's wishes?

dude...let's not start on this. Religion is based on the book and you are asked to accept the teachings of an authority on no other basis but belief. Science is based on laws and you have the right to think about them yourself and prove them right or wrong. That ordinary folks don't have the aptitude to understand them is another thing. But at least they have been given a choice of learning physics and understanding it and even disproving it if they are smart enough.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M dude...let's not start on this. Religion is based on the book and you are asked to accept the teachings of an authority on no other basis but belief. Science is based on laws and you have the right to think about them yourself and prove them right or wrong.

so....somewhere along the centuries, science was never written in a book?

no group of people ever got together or singularly [and then compiled] their thoughts/ideas/theories of various things of science?

pretty sure somewhere on the road, someone wrote, "the sky is blue" but what if blue really meant red? how can you challenege and prove whether the color blue is REALLY the color blue and not red?

ps, i'm not trying to start a debate here, it was just a random thing that crossed my mind.

quote:

Originally posted by tubularbills so....somewhere along the centuries, science was never written in a book? no group of people ever got together or singularly [and then compiled] their thoughts/ideas/theories of various things of science? pretty sure somewhere on the road, someone wrote, "the sky is blue" but what if blue really meant red? how can you challenege and prove whether the color blue is REALLY the color blue and not red? ps, i'm not trying to start a debate here, it was just a random thing that crossed my mind.

Of course science has been written in books. But the point is, that these books have been modified and updated and improved upon over the centuries, as our understanding of nature has improved, unlike bible.

Blue and Red are just words used to describe specific wavelengths of light. A light wave having a certain wavelength will exhibit a blue color. A certain other wavelength will exhibit a red color ; meaning the specific waves will stimulate particular set of cells in our eyes. Different languages will call these colors by different names but it is the visual perception that matters, not the words.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M Science is based on laws and you have the right to think about them yourself and prove them right or wrong.

You have the right to do that with the Bible or any other text, it's called interpretation. This isn't 16th century Europe...

quote:

But at least they have been given a choice of learning physics and understanding it and even disproving it if they are smart enough.

The majority of people do not do this and just simply accept many aspects of science as fact.

Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About by Kevin Trudeau is a book with claims by whack scientists and testimonials, and is a NEW YORK TIMES BEST FUCKING SELLER. It's nothing but a "Drug company conspiracy" book full of mumbo jumbo.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers You have the right to do that with the Bible or any other text, it's called interpretation. This isn't 16th century Europe... The majority of people do not do this and just simply accept many aspects of science as fact. Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About by Kevin Trudeau is a book with claims by whack scientists and testimonials, and is a NEW YORK TIMES BEST FUCKING SELLER. It's nothing but a "Drug company conspiracy" book full of mumbo jumbo.

Science is based on certain assumptions on which stand the laws, which can be observed and mathematically proved. Of course, the assumptions on which they stand may be false. But the assumptions are a lot more rational and simple than the assumptions made by religious doctrines. Another reason to believe in science is, that these very laws are now responsible for the technological development and our debate over the internet on this topic is a sufficient enough proof of the success of the scientific laws. Now my question is, in what way have the religious laws been formulated, what purpose do they serve and in what way, may we see observe/prove their working ?

Edit : Although I speak about the differences between science and religion, I am making a basic distinction between Science and Christianity. In general terms, I hold quite different views on the relation between religion and science. But the apparent lack of compatibility of Christianity and Hinduism has prevented me from generalizing my comments.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M Now my question is, in what way have the religious laws been formulated, what purpose do they serve and in what way, may we see observe/prove their working ?

That's hard to answer. The greatest set of laws, which is obviously the 10 commandments, aren't original, The one ingenious thing is that Moses used the fear of god as a deterrent. Stealing isn't a big deal if you just receive jail time, but stealing is a huge deal when you go to hell because you broke a commandment. It's a great deterrent.

Eh, quite a few scholars say that the early Jews did not even believe in "hell," or at least not anything like the Christian idea of it.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Eh, quite a few scholars say that the early Jews did not even believe in "hell," or at least not anything like the Christian idea of it.

Uh, technically... there is no such thing as hell in the Jewish religion, past or present.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Eh, quite a few scholars say that the early Jews did not even believe in "hell,"

quote:

or at least not anything like the Christian idea of it.

Well those are two completely different statements altogether.

quote:

Originally posted by Vlad Uh, technically... there is no such thing as hell in the Jewish religion, past or present.

Are you Jewish? Isn't there some sort of purity process the soul goes through before entering the afterlife? Sorry, I'm not too familiar with Jewish beliefs.

Some jewish studies to disaprove of the foundation of christian faith.

If you dont study religion, then its hard to have a conversation about it.

I find this all pretty sketchy anyways.. DNA testing mmmm and whats the reson behind Cameron Diaz to do this film?!?! foundation or experience based on what ?!?!.... its believed that there's absolutely no evidence or remains of Jesus.. this was what how many thousands of years ago already. The only way to get some type of evidence its by obtaining the age of a fossil through carbon-dating... everything else ( DNA ? ) 2000 yrs ago?!?! .. mmmm lol

quote:

Originally posted by Vlad Uh, technically... there is no such thing as hell in the Jewish religion, past or present.

Yeah. There was the "underworld" thing mentioned in OT, but that is not really the same thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Vlad Uh, technically... there is no such thing as hell in the Jewish religion, past or present.

There's no such thing as hell, its more like a state of conscience type of suffering...

I can go back to the Old Testament and find verbs announcing the coming of Jesus and all the signs that Jesus was the one.. some saw the sign some didn't, and after that its where everything just gets divided... basically, way to intepret the bible. The bible its for the wise man, a lot of the words have a different meaning.. going back to the hell idea, its a conscious suffereing of some kind, hence suffering deeply - reflecting the term "hell"

The mere existance of Christianity is complete bullshit. First off, if Christians were to believe in the ideas of Jesus, than Christians would have to abide by the Torah. No matter how 'holy' Jesus was supposed to be, Jesus still prayed to a god (which disapproves the idea that 'Jesus is thy Lord and savior'), and he abided by the Torah and all its laws.

The existence of this debate is bullshit.

No one wins.

Doesn't matter what evidence you bring to the table from either side, it won't make a difference if the other person believes in something else.

quote:

Originally posted by Vlad The mere existance of Christianity is complete bullshit. First off, if Christians were to believe in the ideas of Jesus, than Christians would have to abide by the Torah. No matter how 'holy' Jesus was supposed to be, Jesus still prayed to a god (which disapproves the idea that 'Jesus is thy Lord and savior'), and he abided by the Torah and all its laws.

He had a different interpretation of the Jewish laws, and constantly "corrected" the Pharacies (Which is why he was crucified, coincidentally). He also had many different ideas such as "Love your enemy" and also promoted non-violence, which the Torah does not do.

Christians follow Christ (They should, but don't. They follow the establishment of religion unfortunately) because he was a visionary, filled with fresh ideas that made sense to them. To say that it's "Bullshit" is just not true.

quote:

Originally posted by jupiterone The existence of this debate is bullshit. No one wins. Doesn't matter what evidence you bring to the table from either side, it won't make a difference if the other person believes in something else.

+1

/thread

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers He also had many different ideas such as "Love your enemy" and also promoted non-violence, which the Torah does not do.

"Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt. Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord." (Lev. 19: 17-18)

But then there are, of course, lots of bits about stoning to death adulterers and disobedient children and people who work on the Sabbath and all those other things that the Lord wanted people killed for doing.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers He had a different interpretation of the Jewish laws, and constantly "corrected" the Pharacies (Which is why he was crucified, coincidentally). He also had many different ideas such as "Love your enemy" and also promoted non-violence, which the Torah does not do. Christians follow Christ (They should, but don't. They follow the establishment of religion unfortunately) because he was a visionary, filled with fresh ideas that made sense to them. To say that it's "Bullshit" is just not true.

He might have had ideas but who's to say that he is the final say? Amidst his ideas, he was still a devout Jew... ate Kosher, respected the Sabbath, etc... You could call him the first public "reform" Jew.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles "Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt. Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord." (Lev. 19: 17-18) But then there are, of course, lots of bits about stoning to death adulterers and disobedient children and people who work on the Sabbath and all those other things that the Lord wanted people killed for doing.

I was talking about the non-violence part, I should have put them in separate sentences or something.
We all have to remember that without the Torah, Jesus wouldn't have anything to interpret.

quote:

Originally posted by Vlad He might have had ideas but who's to say that he is the final say? Amidst his ideas, he was still a devout Jew... ate Kosher, respected the Sabbath, etc... You could call him the first public "reform" Jew.

He doesn't have the final say. You do, and I do. But that is my interpretation. Some people DO believe he has the final say.

Inform the masses! The end of the debate is nigh!


The incarnation of both God and Jesus is:


LORD TETSUO!!

Bow to your God!




/thread

jesus, lol.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.