<<
<< Elledan's self-worship is plain to see. If you talk to him long enough, you'll get him to say really spectacular quotes about himself. >>
Explain yourself. That is, if you aren't just trolling. >>
What's to explain?
<<
<< Elledan's self-worship is plain to see. If you talk to him long enough, you'll get him to say really spectacular quotes about himself. >>
Explain yourself. That is, if you aren't just trolling. >>
What's to explain?
"Ditto for the Koran."
Engine, your suggestion here again is unrealistic and invalid. However, as I said before in order to know why such a statement is invalid you have to personally research the issue, as even a little knowledge and a little thought will quickly make you realize why such a statement is completely invalid.
"But you're aware of these facts, right? Where's the faith? You sound like you have everything figured out."
If I had everything figured out I would be God, and I am not. What I do know is that when one earnestly seeks to know the truth, regardless of where that search leads (ie: one does not exclude certain possibilities prior to one's search) one will inevitably wind up with the Bible in hand. This is where faith comes in. For even though I can't see God, the evidence clearly indicates that He exists, and that the Bible is His word. So in order to bridge that gap between what I can see with my own two eyes (the evidence that exists in the world that establishes that what the Bible says is true and factual) and what I can't (God) I need faith.
True faith goes in the direction of the evidence, blind faith completely ignores the evidence and goes in the direction that one thinks is best, or the funnest, or the easiest, etc, way to live.
I will say again if you want to know the facts/truth you will need to do the research yourself, there is NO substitute for personal research.
Here's a little analogy:
If I gave you a five spot canadian and told you it was a 20 american would you believe me? probably not. If I gave you a photocopy of a 20 american would you believe me? unlikely. If I gave you a well done photocopy on the same kind of paper as the original? chances are better that you would accept it, especially if you had something else on your mind at the time. Now if I gave you a real forgery would you tell the difference? Not likely, unless you had personally looked into the difference yourself and knew exactly what to look for.
I would not know the difference between a real and a fake american bill. Like, when me and some buddies were in Switzerland and each bought a stack of american 1 bills for use in Eastern Europe. When we first looked at them we thought they were fake, the way the ink bled on the bills. We just laughed, "no wonder so many people can get away with faking american bills, even the real ones look fake."
Later...
Dave
Engine, your suggestion here again is unrealistic and invalid. However, as I said before in order to know why such a statement is invalid you have to personally research the issue, as even a little knowledge and a little thought will quickly make you realize why such a statement is completely invalid.
"But you're aware of these facts, right? Where's the faith? You sound like you have everything figured out."
If I had everything figured out I would be God, and I am not. What I do know is that when one earnestly seeks to know the truth, regardless of where that search leads (ie: one does not exclude certain possibilities prior to one's search) one will inevitably wind up with the Bible in hand. This is where faith comes in. For even though I can't see God, the evidence clearly indicates that He exists, and that the Bible is His word. So in order to bridge that gap between what I can see with my own two eyes (the evidence that exists in the world that establishes that what the Bible says is true and factual) and what I can't (God) I need faith.
True faith goes in the direction of the evidence, blind faith completely ignores the evidence and goes in the direction that one thinks is best, or the funnest, or the easiest, etc, way to live.
I will say again if you want to know the facts/truth you will need to do the research yourself, there is NO substitute for personal research.
Here's a little analogy:
If I gave you a five spot canadian and told you it was a 20 american would you believe me? probably not. If I gave you a photocopy of a 20 american would you believe me? unlikely. If I gave you a well done photocopy on the same kind of paper as the original? chances are better that you would accept it, especially if you had something else on your mind at the time. Now if I gave you a real forgery would you tell the difference? Not likely, unless you had personally looked into the difference yourself and knew exactly what to look for.
I would not know the difference between a real and a fake american bill. Like, when me and some buddies were in Switzerland and each bought a stack of american 1 bills for use in Eastern Europe. When we first looked at them we thought they were fake, the way the ink bled on the bills. We just laughed, "no wonder so many people can get away with faking american bills, even the real ones look fake."
Later...
Dave
What I do know is that when one earnestly seeks to know the truth, regardless of where that search leads (ie: one does not exclude certain possibilities prior to one's search) one will inevitably wind up with the Bible in hand.
That is you. You are giving your own experience universal credence. This is called an inability to see beyond one's self.
It would be arrogant of me to think that I could "examine the evidence" and find the end all be all of truths. I would ask you if you have read the Koran and the Torah in their entirities. Hindu scriptures? Hindu is the oldest recorded religion after all. You're the one claiming absolute truth after all.
I've already looked at/experienced enough sociological evidence such that a specific literal religious interpretation would be have no value, other than to better understand the followers.
That is you. You are giving your own experience universal credence. This is called an inability to see beyond one's self.
It would be arrogant of me to think that I could "examine the evidence" and find the end all be all of truths. I would ask you if you have read the Koran and the Torah in their entirities. Hindu scriptures? Hindu is the oldest recorded religion after all. You're the one claiming absolute truth after all.
I've already looked at/experienced enough sociological evidence such that a specific literal religious interpretation would be have no value, other than to better understand the followers.
"It would be arrogant of me to think that I could "examine the evidence" and find the end all be all of truths."
"one does not exclude certain possibilities prior to one's search"
It would be ignorant of you to think that if God does exist He would leave man without evidence of His existance.
"Koran", what year was it created, and what did Mohammed base his new religion on?
"Torah", what's that?
"Hindu scriptures? Hindu is the oldest recorded religion after all." Based on what sources?
"I've already looked at/experienced enough sociological evidence such that a specific literal religious interpretation would be have no value, other than to better understand the followers"
If such is truly the case than why are you posting?
Later...
Dave
"one does not exclude certain possibilities prior to one's search"
It would be ignorant of you to think that if God does exist He would leave man without evidence of His existance.
"Koran", what year was it created, and what did Mohammed base his new religion on?
"Torah", what's that?
"Hindu scriptures? Hindu is the oldest recorded religion after all." Based on what sources?
"I've already looked at/experienced enough sociological evidence such that a specific literal religious interpretation would be have no value, other than to better understand the followers"
If such is truly the case than why are you posting?
Later...
Dave
Well, I know I promised not to post again, but I just think it's interesting that, in reality, this conversation itself (among millions of others around the world) is actually fulfilling Bible prophecy.
Those heeding the empty deception of the world, of 'higher knowledge' will not be able to understand. I don't have a Bible in front of me, but I beleive there is a passage about those being intellectuals or having a lot of knowledge not being able to find out the truth.
I dunno, thought it was interesting.
oh, and sorry to interrupt.
Those heeding the empty deception of the world, of 'higher knowledge' will not be able to understand. I don't have a Bible in front of me, but I beleive there is a passage about those being intellectuals or having a lot of knowledge not being able to find out the truth.
I dunno, thought it was interesting.
oh, and sorry to interrupt.
a passage about those being intellectuals or having a lot of knowledge not being able to find out the truth
You know what that call? A scare tactic to keep the masses in place. Don't limite your vision to religions, look back at world events on how authority try to suppress radical ideas by limite the spread of information.
You know what that call? A scare tactic to keep the masses in place. Don't limite your vision to religions, look back at world events on how authority try to suppress radical ideas by limite the spread of information.
I don't know what crystal is talking about, I'm just pointing out that the Bible itself prophesied that there would be people that just wouldn't get it, and they would happen to be people highly educated and very knowledgable about other things.
You know what that call? A scare tactic to keep the masses in place. Don't limite your vision to religions, look back at world events on how authority try to suppress radical ideas by limite the spread of information.
And you know what that's called? A scare tactic to keep the masses moving. Don't limit your vision to a lack of religions, look back at world events and examine everything until you're quite certain that you have it just right and that you, of all people, know just how authority suppresses radical ideas in an effort to reduce the amount of chaos and limit the amount of information that should be freely available to all.
When we take a position that is anti-something, we think we have a good grasp on that which we perceive most people to lack: common sense, reason, and truth. And so we search endlessly for it and finally have it and say AHA !, you are all wrong and I finally have proof, hear that universe, PROOF that I know what REALLY happened. And so of course when we hear all the ignorants speweing forth that which we KNOW is false, we are obligated, by virtue of our superiority to correct them in their hebetude and so they too may know the true way and realize that all religion is nothing but a bunch of superstition. And of course, we need to keep moving and digging back and back until we're quite certain that our method is great and that it will finally lead us to know something about ourselves and the world around us.
And so we take the anti-something position and pursue this path. We divide and conquer. And in the process, we usually forget that dividing and conquering is more of the same stuff. it's just a rearrangement of prejudices to finally be able to claim certainty and obtain the relevant security associated with this monumental achievement of human progress. That's what we're after, right?
And so we separate and dig and inform ourselves and in the process miss the point altogether. Forgetting the redeeming source that serves as the foundation of ourselves, we wnader and die and are forgotten. But at least we knew the real answers, right? And so did our fathers, before they were proven wrong. And so did our fathers' fathers, oh but before they were shown to be inadequate as well by our fathers. And so will we die too, taking our certainty with us and feeding it to the uncaring worms and continuing to divide and conquer.
But don't mind me, this is just a scare tactic, nothing more and most certainly nothing less.
Cheers !
And you know what that's called? A scare tactic to keep the masses moving. Don't limit your vision to a lack of religions, look back at world events and examine everything until you're quite certain that you have it just right and that you, of all people, know just how authority suppresses radical ideas in an effort to reduce the amount of chaos and limit the amount of information that should be freely available to all.
When we take a position that is anti-something, we think we have a good grasp on that which we perceive most people to lack: common sense, reason, and truth. And so we search endlessly for it and finally have it and say AHA !, you are all wrong and I finally have proof, hear that universe, PROOF that I know what REALLY happened. And so of course when we hear all the ignorants speweing forth that which we KNOW is false, we are obligated, by virtue of our superiority to correct them in their hebetude and so they too may know the true way and realize that all religion is nothing but a bunch of superstition. And of course, we need to keep moving and digging back and back until we're quite certain that our method is great and that it will finally lead us to know something about ourselves and the world around us.
And so we take the anti-something position and pursue this path. We divide and conquer. And in the process, we usually forget that dividing and conquering is more of the same stuff. it's just a rearrangement of prejudices to finally be able to claim certainty and obtain the relevant security associated with this monumental achievement of human progress. That's what we're after, right?
And so we separate and dig and inform ourselves and in the process miss the point altogether. Forgetting the redeeming source that serves as the foundation of ourselves, we wnader and die and are forgotten. But at least we knew the real answers, right? And so did our fathers, before they were proven wrong. And so did our fathers' fathers, oh but before they were shown to be inadequate as well by our fathers. And so will we die too, taking our certainty with us and feeding it to the uncaring worms and continuing to divide and conquer.
But don't mind me, this is just a scare tactic, nothing more and most certainly nothing less.
Cheers !
It would be ignorant of you to think that if God does exist He would leave man without evidence of His existance.
What is the basis/reasoning behind the idea that a god would leave evidence? Aren't you attributing humanoid characteristics to it? Projecting your face onto the moon, so to speak. It's a pre-concieved notion that originates from the Bible, so it really can't be applied to any kind of objective examination of alternate religions.
The Torah is Jewish scripture(you should know that, or did I misunderstand), and regarding the Koran being based on the Bible, I don't see how that would detract from it's equally possibly validity.
.I'm not sure the exact dates, but the origin of Hindu goes back to the Indus valley (or maybe pre-Indus valley, again not sure) civilization, Harappa, a few thousand years BC. There's lots of info out there, a google search will yield more a more accurate timeline.
I post because I don't think we can ever learn enough.
What is the basis/reasoning behind the idea that a god would leave evidence? Aren't you attributing humanoid characteristics to it? Projecting your face onto the moon, so to speak. It's a pre-concieved notion that originates from the Bible, so it really can't be applied to any kind of objective examination of alternate religions.
The Torah is Jewish scripture(you should know that, or did I misunderstand), and regarding the Koran being based on the Bible, I don't see how that would detract from it's equally possibly validity.
.I'm not sure the exact dates, but the origin of Hindu goes back to the Indus valley (or maybe pre-Indus valley, again not sure) civilization, Harappa, a few thousand years BC. There's lots of info out there, a google search will yield more a more accurate timeline.
I post because I don't think we can ever learn enough.
Belief in GOD and religion are not one in the same. Religion is a doctrine that is used to manipulate its followers, whilst belief in GOD is absolute and evident. GOD would not allow hypocrites to represent him. "Yes, I am a man/woman of the cloth but I mo*est little boys, take drugs, and sleep with others beside my spouse, but the Bible says that the flesh is weak." I say this is a hypocrite who is going to beat me to h#ll.
Wow, linuxboy, you just scared the hell out of me. I read your post and figure I understood most of it without my brain starting to smoke. What the hell happened? I don't think I'm getting any smarter.
Thanks for the reminder. I easily forget that what I know is that I don't.
I don't think I'm getting any smarter. Thanks for the reminder. I easily forget that what I know is that I don't.
Engine, yes the Torah is the Old Testement, thus the word of God, and thus I've read it.
"regarding the Koran being based on the Bible, I don't see how that would detract from it's equally possibly validity."
You obviously haven't really thought it through then.
"I'm not sure the exact dates, but the origin of Hindu goes back to the Indus valley (or maybe pre-Indus valley, again not sure) civilization, Harappa, a few thousand years BC. There's lots of info out there, a google search will yield more a more accurate timeline."
Acually I did a quick refresher course through google, and 3 sites claimed it was the oldest religion without any basis for the claim, basically the same thing you did. I'm not amused.
"I post because I don't think we can ever learn enough."
In order to learn you have to spend time studying.
Later...
Dave
PS All the arguments you've given are basic philosophical and theological arguments and as such are thoughts I've dealt with numerous times ever since I was a kid. Long before I became a Christian I was thinking through the same arguments that get replayed over and over again by individuals who are just discovering the ideas. And unlike mooner who was scared by linux's post, I found it easy reading. Cheers Linuxboy
"regarding the Koran being based on the Bible, I don't see how that would detract from it's equally possibly validity."
You obviously haven't really thought it through then.
"I'm not sure the exact dates, but the origin of Hindu goes back to the Indus valley (or maybe pre-Indus valley, again not sure) civilization, Harappa, a few thousand years BC. There's lots of info out there, a google search will yield more a more accurate timeline."
Acually I did a quick refresher course through google, and 3 sites claimed it was the oldest religion without any basis for the claim, basically the same thing you did. I'm not amused.
"I post because I don't think we can ever learn enough."
In order to learn you have to spend time studying.
Later...
Dave
PS All the arguments you've given are basic philosophical and theological arguments and as such are thoughts I've dealt with numerous times ever since I was a kid. Long before I became a Christian I was thinking through the same arguments that get replayed over and over again by individuals who are just discovering the ideas. And unlike mooner who was scared by linux's post, I found it easy reading. Cheers Linuxboy
Engine, yes the Torah is the Old Testement, <censored>, and thus I've read it
Apologies, didn't realize that they were exactly one and the same. Interesting though, the differences between Roman Catholics and Jews, you'd think that from the same book, there could only be one true interpretation.
As for the Koran, why don't you explain why the fact that it's an "updated version" of the Bible excludes it from possibly being the real truth. Looks more underlying assumptions.
I wonder what kind of evidential source you'd deem accetable for information regarding the Hindu religion. Seems to me that everything just bounces off your shield of circular reasoning. I should also clarify, what I meant to say was that it's the oldest of all recorded religions still being widely practiced today. Not to oversimplify, because certainly there existed religious mythology before it, but nothing has survived as long as Hindi(sp?)
Apologies, didn't realize that they were exactly one and the same. Interesting though, the differences between Roman Catholics and Jews, you'd think that from the same book, there could only be one true interpretation.
As for the Koran, why don't you explain why the fact that it's an "updated version" of the Bible excludes it from possibly being the real truth. Looks more underlying assumptions.
I wonder what kind of evidential source you'd deem accetable for information regarding the Hindu religion. Seems to me that everything just bounces off your shield of circular reasoning. I should also clarify, what I meant to say was that it's the oldest of all recorded religions still being widely practiced today. Not to oversimplify, because certainly there existed religious mythology before it, but nothing has survived as long as Hindi(sp?)
Apologies, didn't realize that they were exactly one and the same. Interesting though, the differences between Roman Catholics and Jews, you'd think that from the same book, there could only be one true interpretation.
Just wanted to bring up a couple of points. The Torah is the Pentateuch, the "five-fold scroll" attributed to Moses, i.e. the first five books of the Old Testament.
The Hebrew Scripture is the Tanakh, which consist of the Torah (Law), Nevi'im (Prophets), and the Ketuvim (Writings). The name Tanakh is a composite of these three names. The Tanakh is the Old Testament in the Protestant Bible.
Catholic Bibles have expanded versions of several of these books (Ester, Ezra, Daniel, Jeremiah and Chronicles) including extra material that is not accepted as canonical in Judaism. This extra material was part of the ancient Greek translation of the Tanakh, but was never a part of the official Hebrew Tanakh. Jews regard the additional material as apocryphal, as do Protestants.
Your premise that there should be only one interpretation is flawed. As a contemporary example, look at the legitimate disagreement as to the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution. Obviously much simpler to interpret. Fact is, many people see what they want to see rather than what is said. Conservative Christians tend to be "Strict Constructionist".
There exist Aramaic translations of the Tanakh that give us some insight as to Jewish thought through the ages. These are called Targums. Targums were not literally translations, so much as they are commentaries. Prior to the Christian era, Aramaic had replaced Hebrew as the spoken language of the Jews, and as such the Targums were read aloud, along with the Hebrew, in Synagogue.
The interesting thing is that the Targums were much more "Christian" than more modern Jewish thought. For example, consider the opening of Genesis.
From the beginning with wisdom the Son of the Lord created and perfected the heavens and the earth. And the earth was waste and unformed, desolate of man and beast, empty of plant cultivation and of trees, and darkness was spread over the face of the abyss; and the spirit of mercy from before the Lord was blowing over the surface of the waters. - Genesis 1:1,2
The word translated "Son" is memra. Which can also mean "word". Certainly this is imagery compatible with the Gospel of John.
Just wanted to bring up a couple of points. The Torah is the Pentateuch, the "five-fold scroll" attributed to Moses, i.e. the first five books of the Old Testament.
The Hebrew Scripture is the Tanakh, which consist of the Torah (Law), Nevi'im (Prophets), and the Ketuvim (Writings). The name Tanakh is a composite of these three names. The Tanakh is the Old Testament in the Protestant Bible.
Catholic Bibles have expanded versions of several of these books (Ester, Ezra, Daniel, Jeremiah and Chronicles) including extra material that is not accepted as canonical in Judaism. This extra material was part of the ancient Greek translation of the Tanakh, but was never a part of the official Hebrew Tanakh. Jews regard the additional material as apocryphal, as do Protestants.
Your premise that there should be only one interpretation is flawed. As a contemporary example, look at the legitimate disagreement as to the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution. Obviously much simpler to interpret. Fact is, many people see what they want to see rather than what is said. Conservative Christians tend to be "Strict Constructionist".
There exist Aramaic translations of the Tanakh that give us some insight as to Jewish thought through the ages. These are called Targums. Targums were not literally translations, so much as they are commentaries. Prior to the Christian era, Aramaic had replaced Hebrew as the spoken language of the Jews, and as such the Targums were read aloud, along with the Hebrew, in Synagogue.
The interesting thing is that the Targums were much more "Christian" than more modern Jewish thought. For example, consider the opening of Genesis.
From the beginning with wisdom the Son of the Lord created and perfected the heavens and the earth. And the earth was waste and unformed, desolate of man and beast, empty of plant cultivation and of trees, and darkness was spread over the face of the abyss; and the spirit of mercy from before the Lord was blowing over the surface of the waters. - Genesis 1:1,2
The word translated "Son" is memra. Which can also mean "word". Certainly this is imagery compatible with the Gospel of John.
Thanks for the clarification.
I don't really think there should only be one "right" interpretation. That was more of a rhetorical adjection.
How can we discern who is seeing what they want to see, and who is seeing what is actually said (if anything was even said to begin with?). I know I can't tell, and I wouldn't be able to nominate myself as a truth holder, due to a conflict of interests. As such I'm reluctant to accept absolute claims made by those who are but fellow man.
The reasoning I make is not supposed to lead anywhere, other than (hopefully) away from conventional absolutism.
I don't really think there should only be one "right" interpretation. That was more of a rhetorical adjection.
How can we discern who is seeing what they want to see, and who is seeing what is actually said (if anything was even said to begin with?). I know I can't tell, and I wouldn't be able to nominate myself as a truth holder, due to a conflict of interests. As such I'm reluctant to accept absolute claims made by those who are but fellow man.
The reasoning I make is not supposed to lead anywhere, other than (hopefully) away from conventional absolutism.
"As for the Koran, why don't you explain why the fact that it's an "updated version" of the Bible excludes it from possibly being the real truth. Looks more underlying assumptions."
It can only work logistically if one is to take what the Bible says literally (because the Bible claims to be the word of God Almighty and that nothing can be added to or taken away from what is written, and if someone does add to or take away from what is written in the Bible than they are an antichrist and a deciever. The Koran, the Catholic Church, the Mormans, etc, etc, all take away and add to what is written). Now if one does not take what is written in the Bible to be the literal word of God, then realistically neither the Bible nor any other religious texts have any worth other than what ever comfort one might gain or enjoy through blind faith. A recent discussion with a friend of mine went like this:
him: "I'm thinking about converting to either Judaism or Islam"
me: "why would you do that as it's quite obvious that both are based on blind faith"
him: "yah, but.."
me: "but what"
him: "but, there's a certain appealing comfort to blind faith, it has it's benefits"
Now of course such a decision lacks logic, but there is a certain amount of truth to it, especially when you consider that most people just want to eat, sleep, and be merry, something that blind faith readily affords.
"I wonder what kind of evidential source you'd deem accetable for information regarding the Hindu religion. Seems to me that everything just bounces off your shield of circular reasoning. I should also clarify, what I meant to say was that it's the oldest of all recorded religions still being widely practiced today. Not to oversimplify, because certainly there existed religious mythology before it, but nothing has survived as long as Hindi(sp?)"
I guess were I have a problem is that I went to about 10 different sites by Hindu's or Hindu apologists and the dates ranged from 1,000 BC to time imemorial. So the question that gets begged to be answered is who is being honest and who is trying to decieve? As far as acceptable sources, a noted historian.
Let me ask a question as it relates to Catholicism. If you were to take money from a till at work, would you consider that stealing?
Later...
Dave
It can only work logistically if one is to take what the Bible says literally (because the Bible claims to be the word of God Almighty and that nothing can be added to or taken away from what is written, and if someone does add to or take away from what is written in the Bible than they are an antichrist and a deciever. The Koran, the Catholic Church, the Mormans, etc, etc, all take away and add to what is written). Now if one does not take what is written in the Bible to be the literal word of God, then realistically neither the Bible nor any other religious texts have any worth other than what ever comfort one might gain or enjoy through blind faith. A recent discussion with a friend of mine went like this:
him: "I'm thinking about converting to either Judaism or Islam"
me: "why would you do that as it's quite obvious that both are based on blind faith"
him: "yah, but.."
me: "but what"
him: "but, there's a certain appealing comfort to blind faith, it has it's benefits"
Now of course such a decision lacks logic, but there is a certain amount of truth to it, especially when you consider that most people just want to eat, sleep, and be merry, something that blind faith readily affords.
"I wonder what kind of evidential source you'd deem accetable for information regarding the Hindu religion. Seems to me that everything just bounces off your shield of circular reasoning. I should also clarify, what I meant to say was that it's the oldest of all recorded religions still being widely practiced today. Not to oversimplify, because certainly there existed religious mythology before it, but nothing has survived as long as Hindi(sp?)"
I guess were I have a problem is that I went to about 10 different sites by Hindu's or Hindu apologists and the dates ranged from 1,000 BC to time imemorial. So the question that gets begged to be answered is who is being honest and who is trying to decieve? As far as acceptable sources, a noted historian.
Let me ask a question as it relates to Catholicism. If you were to take money from a till at work, would you consider that stealing?
Later...
Dave
Interestingly, looking at a Hindu timeline, there was a great flood which shall sway all creatures which carried Manu to the Himalayas at or around 7000 BC.
Interestingly, looking at a Hindu timeline, there was a great flood which shall sway all creatures which carried Manu to the Himalayas at or around 7000 BC.
So then, does the Bible support Hindi, or does Hindi support the Bible?
So then, does the Bible support Hindi, or does Hindi support the Bible?
So then, does the Bible support Hindi, or does Hindi support the Bible?
I'd say they both recount a common event in the past.
I'd say they both recount a common event in the past.
Only Christians are going to heaven, so I'll see most of ya in hell if it even exists, if there is an afterlife, if we even have souls. Now I know I exist now and I want to believe there is some part of me that will survive after I leave this world, but I really have no real reason to expect it. What I wonder is why humans (especially christians) think we're so f**king special! We are supposed to be 'god's creatures,' the greatest thing ever, the most special, the only ones with souls. Dinosaurs ruled the earth for millions of years. We have been around for 500,000 max, 'civilized' for only about 10,000 (give or take). So i suppose the 4.5 billion years of earth before us, god was just dicking around? 'practicing'?? To make humans??? No offense to anyone, but I don't think this species is going to make it. The way we are destroying are planet, if we do survive as a species, we will probably be the worst plague ever to hit the universe.
sooo...... RECYCLE! Happy Valentine's day, btw.
It can only work logistically if one is to take what the Bible says literally
And the point was, taking any religious scripture literally precludes all others. If one were to take the Koran literall, than the Bible is false/incomplete.
I don't know what you mean by "Hindu apologists", being that they have nothing to apologize for.
There seem to be conflicting theories on how the religion came about, one being that it was a combination of the religions of the natives to the Indus valley and the Aryan invaders. There's more specific information of the history of the region at Friesian. But even Buddhism has it's origins in the 6th century BC, and it is an offshoot of the Hindu religion, so regardless of the specific date, it is still from well before the J man supposedly showed up.
And the point was, taking any religious scripture literally precludes all others. If one were to take the Koran literall, than the Bible is false/incomplete.
I don't know what you mean by "Hindu apologists", being that they have nothing to apologize for.
There seem to be conflicting theories on how the religion came about, one being that it was a combination of the religions of the natives to the Indus valley and the Aryan invaders. There's more specific information of the history of the region at Friesian. But even Buddhism has it's origins in the 6th century BC, and it is an offshoot of the Hindu religion, so regardless of the specific date, it is still from well before the J man supposedly showed up.
datalink7
Lifer
- Jan 23, 2001
- 16,765
- 6
- 81
After seven days
He was quite tired, so god said:
"Let there be a day
Just for picnics, with wine and bread"
He gathered up some people he had made
Created blankets and laid back in the shade
The people sipped their wine
And what with God there, they asked him questions
Like: do you have to eat
Or get your hair cut in heaven?
And if your eye got poked out in this life
Would it be waiting up in heaven with your wife?
God shuffled his feet and glanced around at them;
The people cleared their throats and stared right back at him
So he said: "Once there was a boy
Who woke up with blue hair
To him it was a joy
Until he ran out into warm air -
He thought of how his friends would come to see;
And would they laugh, or had he got some strange disease?"
God shuffled his feet and glanced around at them;
The people cleared their throats and stared right back at him
The people sat waiting
Out on their blankets in the garden
But God said nothing
So someone asked him, "I beg your pardon:
I'm not quite clear about what you just spoke -
Was that a parable, or a very subtle joke?
God shuffled his feet and glanced around at them;
The people cleared their throats and stared right back at him
He was quite tired, so god said:
"Let there be a day
Just for picnics, with wine and bread"
He gathered up some people he had made
Created blankets and laid back in the shade
The people sipped their wine
And what with God there, they asked him questions
Like: do you have to eat
Or get your hair cut in heaven?
And if your eye got poked out in this life
Would it be waiting up in heaven with your wife?
God shuffled his feet and glanced around at them;
The people cleared their throats and stared right back at him
So he said: "Once there was a boy
Who woke up with blue hair
To him it was a joy
Until he ran out into warm air -
He thought of how his friends would come to see;
And would they laugh, or had he got some strange disease?"
God shuffled his feet and glanced around at them;
The people cleared their throats and stared right back at him
The people sat waiting
Out on their blankets in the garden
But God said nothing
So someone asked him, "I beg your pardon:
I'm not quite clear about what you just spoke -
Was that a parable, or a very subtle joke?
God shuffled his feet and glanced around at them;
The people cleared their throats and stared right back at him
Engine, I apologize for my shortsightedness, I assumed you would realize what I was implying. That if you take both the Bible and the Koran literally (and all other religious texts for that matter) you come to a problem. One directly contradicts the other. That being said, if when you consider that the Koran was written 600 years after the Bible and is based on what the Bible says you will recognize that the Koran is logically invalid.
An apologist is someone who defends his faith, not someone who apologizes for it.
"There seem to be conflicting theories on how the religion came about, one being that it was a combination of the religions of the natives to the Indus valley and the Aryan invaders. There's more specific information of the history of the region at Friesian. But even Buddhism has it's origins in the 6th century BC, and it is an offshoot of the Hindu religion, so regardless of the specific date, it is still from well before the J man supposedly showed up."
Remember what we already established? That the written record of the Bible began about 1500 BC.
Later...
Dave
PS If a friend tells me that so and so is pregnant and I believe him, that is blind faith. Simply knowing that it is possible that so and so is pregnant is not blind faith, but if one accepts that what he was told is true without verifying it with other sources than he is blindly believing something he has not verified with further evidence, and thus his faith is blind in that regard.
An apologist is someone who defends his faith, not someone who apologizes for it.
"There seem to be conflicting theories on how the religion came about, one being that it was a combination of the religions of the natives to the Indus valley and the Aryan invaders. There's more specific information of the history of the region at Friesian. But even Buddhism has it's origins in the 6th century BC, and it is an offshoot of the Hindu religion, so regardless of the specific date, it is still from well before the J man supposedly showed up."
Remember what we already established? That the written record of the Bible began about 1500 BC.
Later...
Dave
PS If a friend tells me that so and so is pregnant and I believe him, that is blind faith. Simply knowing that it is possible that so and so is pregnant is not blind faith, but if one accepts that what he was told is true without verifying it with other sources than he is blindly believing something he has not verified with further evidence, and thus his faith is blind in that regard.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 400
Facebook
Twitter