|
oh my god (pg. 21)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
the bible says the bible is the word of god so i think it should be taken litteraly. i mean you cant say you beleive in the bible and also say that some parts arent true??? :conf:
sorry,i don't like islam.
exactly!!! ppl forget that hitler was an athiest and he is a very good example of what happens to ppl that don't beleive in god. whats stopping ppl that don't beleive in god from killing lots of other ppl??? :( NOTHING!!!
|
A few things. I can most certainly say that I believe in the bible and that some parts aren't true. No matter what the bible says about being the word of God it was writen by men... men are fallen creatures and therefore we are capable of making mistates. It is not inconceivable that there were not errors made in recording the stories or even that people may have altered things to consolidate power or create a state of being that benefited them.
The Vedics are the founding books of the Hindu religion, not islam... Islam's creation story is the same as Christianity's and Judeisms. Further more Islam includes both the old and new testimate amoungst their sacred texteds. The Qu'ran is the only difference and that chronicals the life of Mohammed. You really should take the time to learn about some faiths other then your own, you will find out that there are many similarities and they do support each other in many ways... likelihood is they will strengthen your own beliefs.
Finally, Hitler was not an athiest. Hitler believed in an anchient spirituallity that guided the Arians prior to their adoption of Hinduism upon their arrival in India. This is very very well documented. Try reading. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
A better question would be, in my opinion, where is the action for which the big bang is a reaction? But since I don't agree with the currently popular scientific theories, I can't provide an answer other than to say, I don't believe that the "big bang" was any more of a beginning than it was an end. |
The most probable answer to that question (based on the theory itself) is that the big bang is a reaction to the collapse of a previous universe.... then the question becomes "what started the first universe?".... this is where I turn to faith in God. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by NiteMer
Where is the equal and opposite reaction? |
Can't have it both ways... you cannot use scientific laws to discredit something when those laws are a product of what you are attempting to discredit. Physics tells us that there must be an equal and opposite reaction to every action, however, physics also tells us that the big bang theory is correct up until the moment of plank time. You cannot use physics to disprove the big bang theory. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
The most probable answer to that question (based on the theory itself) is that the big bang is a reaction to the collapse of a previous universe.... then the question becomes "what started the first universe?".... this is where I turn to faith in God. |
But why turn to faith in God rather than simply admitting you do not and can not know? And if you're going to arbitrarily pick a cause for the first universe (assuming a finite number of universes and a totally linear conception of time), why God of all things? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
But why turn to faith in God rather than simply admitting you do not and can not know? And if you're going to arbitrarily pick a cause for the first universe (assuming a finite number of universes and a totally linear conception of time), why God of all things? |
I see the Universe as being part of God. Afterall God is all things. Unlike most I don't see science and religion as being opposed to each other, I view them as being inseperable. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
A few things. I can most certainly say that I believe in the bible and that some parts aren't true. No matter what the bible says about being the word of God it was writen by men... men are fallen creatures and therefore we are capable of making mistates. It is not inconceivable that there were not errors made in recording the stories or even that people may have altered things to consolidate power or create a state of being that benefited them.
|
Wait ... if you believe in the bible ... and that parts of the bible are written by god through man. Than why would God let men not speaking through him write parts of teh bible??? No, the bible was ALL written by God and is all true. Men can make mistakes, but not the apopstles because God was guiding them, and god doesn't make mistakes.
| quote: |
The Vedics are the founding books of the Hindu religion, not islam... Islam's creation story is the same as Christianity's and Judeisms. Further more Islam includes both the old and new testimate amoungst their sacred texteds. The Qu'ran is the only difference and that chronicals the life of Mohammed. You really should take the time to learn about some faiths other then your own, you will find out that there are many similarities and they do support each other in many ways... likelihood is they will strengthen your own beliefs.
|
Those weren't written by God!
| quote: |
Finally, Hitler was not an athiest. Hitler believed in an anchient spirituallity that guided the Arians prior to their adoption of Hinduism upon their arrival in India. This is very very well documented. Try reading. |
Hitler was definetely an atheist. He didn't believe in the Christian God. He just used God to trick the catholic church and the righteous but he didn't really believe in him. Why else would he say:
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."
See ... mroe evolution. |
|
|
| NiteMer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
See, it is the literal interpretation of the bible that I can't get behind. Reason for it is that the science disproves the story. Additionally, if you take everything in the bible as literal there are far too many paradoxes. Most importantly, being as the bible was writen by men and not God it is very likely that there are errors and inconsistancies between what God said to the prophets and what was eventually writen. Plus, let us not forget that there are more books that have been excluded from the bible then are contained in it.... Hell, there are over 30 gospels but somehow only the four that are included are valid (by the way, they often contradict each other as well). I just can't buy that everything God meant to reveal was revealed exactly as it happened and was recorded exactly as it was revealed and those recordings did not get altered through the generations in which they were passed down in verbal form and that there was no change from the verbal stories to the writen stories and that there has been no errors made in the interpretations from language to language to language. It's just too improbable... God may be perfect but we are not. |
ANd I thought I was done. This is a misnomer. The men that wrote the bible were inspired by god, hence he was writing through them. And there aren't paradoxes, when you consider context. On the surface things could appear to contradict each other, but you have to look at the place and time to fully understand the meaning of the writing. As far as the other gospels that haven't been accepted in the bible. These have not past the cannonization process, which is a very in depth process to differentiate writings, inspired by God, and men deciding to describe their thoughts on Christ. This only further validates my point. And with the languages. They still have the original Greek and Hebrew versions of the Bible, which have been translated. Theologians have spent and continue to spend hours upon hours to make sure the translations are correct. That's why I brought up the original Hebrew, earlier. My brother has studied these languages, and their implication to the translation of the Bible. I haven't had him impart too much of that knowledge to me, but he did impart the portion about the word translated to day. I understand your point of view, but it doesn't weaken my beliefs a bit. And it's not as if I just buy it, without knowing background either. |
|
|
| NiteMer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Can't have it both ways... you cannot use scientific laws to discredit something when those laws are a product of what you are attempting to discredit. Physics tells us that there must be an equal and opposite reaction to every action, however, physics also tells us that the big bang theory is correct up until the moment of plank time. You cannot use physics to disprove the big bang theory. |
I'm merely using ideas, commonly accepted by scientists and evolutionists. You're saying I can't use your own reasoning against you, which I think is fallible. I don't see any reason not to use commonly accepted scientific principles to discredit another scientific theory. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Wait ... if you believe in the bible ... and that parts of the bible are written by god through man. Than why would God let men not speaking through him write parts of teh bible??? No, the bible was ALL written by God and is all true. Men can make mistakes, but not the apopstles because God was guiding them, and god doesn't make mistakes.
Those weren't written by God!
Hitler was definetely an atheist. He didn't believe in the Christian God. He just used God to trick the catholic church and the righteous but he didn't really believe in him. Why else would he say:
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."
See ... mroe evolution. |
God does not interfere with free will. God wants us to choose to love him, therefore he gave us free will. If God interferes with that then he has circomvented our entire reason for being created. I would direct you to C.S. Lewis' The Four Loves for a more indepth exploration of this. Anyway, man could have made errors and or purposly altered the bible and God would not stop them because as it would go against free will, this is the same reason why God did not prevent Eve from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Agreed, the Vedics were writen by men at the direction of God.
While you are correct that Hitler did not support organized religion and he was not a christian that does not mean he denied the existance of god, he simply saw god differently then christians. An athiest believes in no god, Hitler believed in a god just not Yahweh. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by NiteMer
ANd I thought I was done. This is a misnomer. The men that wrote the bible were inspired by god, hence he was writing through them. And there aren't paradoxes, when you consider context. On the surface things could appear to contradict each other, but you have to look at the place and time to fully understand the meaning of the writing. As far as the other gospels that haven't been accepted in the bible. These have not past the cannonization process, which is a very in depth process to differentiate writings, inspired by God, and men deciding to describe their thoughts on Christ. This only further validates my point. And with the languages. They still have the original Greek and Hebrew versions of the Bible, which have been translated. Theologians have spent and continue to spend hours upon hours to make sure the translations are correct. That's why I brought up the original Hebrew, earlier. My brother has studied these languages, and their implication to the translation of the Bible. I haven't had him impart too much of that knowledge to me, but he did impart the portion about the word translated to day. I understand your point of view, but it doesn't weaken my beliefs a bit. And it's not as if I just buy it, without knowing background either. |
I don't want to sway you from your beliefs, however, I want you to understand that there is a possibility that what is writen in English in front of you may not be the same as what was writen by the prophet thousands of years ago. Even the Roman Catholic church recognizes that errors have been made.
FYI, most of the books of the bible were writen in Arimeic not Hebrew. |
|
|
| NiteMer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
God does not interfere with free will. God wants us to choose to love him, therefore he gave us free will. If God interferes with that then he has circomvented our entire reason for being created. I would direct you to C.S. Lewis' The Four Loves for a more indepth exploration of this. Anyway, man could have made errors and or purposly altered the bible and God would not stop them because as it would go against free will, this is the same reason why God did not prevent Eve from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Agreed, the Vedics were writen by men at the direction of God.
While you are correct that Hitler did not support organized religion and he was not a christian that does not mean he denied the existance of god, he simply saw god differently then christians. An athiest believes in no god, Hitler believed in a god just not Yahweh. |
That's a terrible argument, being that you are a Christian. The Bible clearly states that it is God's word. He will not interfere with free will, but he certainly would inspire the word in the way he wanted it to be. The writing of the bible doesn't contradict free will in any way. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by NiteMer
I'm merely using ideas, commonly accepted by scientists and evolutionists. You're saying I can't use your own reasoning against you, which I think is fallible. I don't see any reason not to use commonly accepted scientific principles to discredit another scientific theory. |
No, what I'm saying is that the big bang theory is sound in that it conforms to all the laws of physics. If you can disprove it through physics then you have made an error in reasoning because disproving the theory will also disprove the law you used to being with. |
|
|
|
|
