Spirituality
03 Dec 09
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by Proper KnobAgain knob..just because the Bible does not give us all the answers it does not mean it could not have been the size needed to bring thru the flood all the very basic species needed to repopulate the earth with the diversity we now have.
Granted it's a big boat Rob. But the maths just don't add up.
I believe insects are included.
As in the case of all the canine species we have now, all it would take is one pair of that species to make it work. And still your missing the most important point...God was in control of this and thru his power and wisdom he can make any species do anything he needs it do to repopulate the earth. Unless you ever grasp that you'll never see that as being possibility.
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOops, my bad. I thought I might be able to turn off the crap detector for a while and actually have an interesting conversation.
oh really? the perhaps you shall point out how archaeology supports the book of Mormon? perhaps you shall point out prophecy's of the Koran which have come true? perhaps you shall point out the scientific accuracy of the Hindu creation account? perhaps you would like to cite the application of the principles and wisdom of the Egyptian book of the ...[text shortened]... al? and so it goes on and on, Bible is unique my friend, without parallel and inspired of God.
Oh well, back to the mumbo jumbo for you I guess ...
04 Dec 09
3 edits
Originally posted by amannioni see devoid of any reasoning, you resort to the desperate and intellectually inept stance of issuing personal insults, how vewy vewy interesting, and completely unoriginal. you stated, and i quote,
Oops, my bad. I thought I might be able to turn off the crap detector for a while and actually have an interesting conversation.
Oh well, back to the mumbo jumbo for you I guess ...
'Nothing much here - apart from the JC-specific stuff - is particular to Christianity',
i am calling you out, i have even provided references for you to show, how there is nothing peculiar to Christianity, either answer the questions, or stop being phoney!
If you cannot or will not, the statement stands, the Bible is unique and these avenues of reasoning show that it is inspired of God and you can go back to issuing your personal insults, or whatever else rocks your socks!
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat references?
i see devoid of any reasoning, you resort to the desperate and intellectually inept stance of issuing personal insults, how vewy vewy interesting, and completely unoriginal. you stated, and i quote,
'Nothing much here - apart from the JC-specific stuff - is particular to Christianity',
i am calling you out, i have even provided references for ...[text shortened]... red of God and you can go back to issuing your personal insults, or whatever rocks your socks!
That the bible is supported archaeologically? Well duh, part of it is a historical document. No one disputes that.
That biblical prophecies have come true? Yeah, let's really shake that one out a bit and see it hold some water, shall we? To demonstrate that a prophecy has come true you're going to need to demonstrate that a statement prophesizing some future event clearly links to that event. Show me, without a bit of fancy theological footwork one single case of this occuring, and I will instantly convert to christianity.
That the bible is scientifically accurate? Ditto my comment about archaeology to begin with - we're talking about a document written by people. I'm sure they got some of it right, based on the science of their time. But then let's really start to scientifically analyse the creation, the flood, the virgin birth, the resurrection, or any one of a number of fantastical and clearly allegorical stories, shall we?
The application of the principles and wisdom? And what principles shall we be applying today? (And what shall be ignoring quietly?) The golden rule perhaps? Sure, that's a good one, although nothing specifically biblical about it. What about genocide, rape, murder, torture? Oh no, we'll ignore those ones
The historicity of the bible? And the Budhha is not historical? Nor Mohammed?
04 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by amannioni am sorry, your tone leaves much to be desired, i can answer each and every one of these questions, as any Christian probably could, but you have evaded the issue, you stated that other religions can also produce these, i want to know how and where, therefore if you please where is the references...., in fact dont bother, i have heard quite enough already. talk to someone else, im good and im gone!
What references?
That the bible is supported archaeologically? Well duh, part of it is a historical document. No one disputes that.
That biblical prophecies have come true? Yeah, let's really shake that one out a bit and see it hold some water, shall we? To demonstrate that a prophecy has come true you're going to need to demonstrate that a statement ose ones
The historicity of the bible? And the Budhha is not historical? Nor Mohammed?
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy tone leaves much to be desired? That's got to be the best example of the 'pot calling the kettle grimy arse' that I've heard in a long time, thanks for that.
i am sorry, your tone leaves much to be desired, i can answer each and every one of these questions, as any Christian probably could, but you have evaded the issue, you stated that other religions can also produce these, i want to know how and where, therefore if you please where is the references...., in fact dont bother, i have heard quite enough already. talk to someone else, im done.
Why is it that you can hurl as much abuse as you like and hide behind your dodgy (air quotes) sacred scripture, but if I so much as suggest that the intricate foundation of your belief might be a little rickety, then I'm being nasty and you'll move on, thank you very much?
Oh wait, you're having a sook in the corner and won't come out to play again ...
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut all those are only 'true' if you first take as fact that the Bible is the word of God. If any of us atheists try to check those claims we come up empty ie the prophesy int he Bible is shady at best, there is no 'internal harmony', there are no eye witness accounts (of Jesus), some of the major events of the Bible contradict archaeological finds, the Bible contradicts science big time, the historical portrayal is decidedly inaccurate, and the miracles of Christ are decidedly unbelievable.
Hi, through the application of its principles and wisdom, through a study of prophecy, through its internal harmony, through the testimony of Jesus Christ and other eye witness accounts, through archaeological finds, through its harmony with science, through accurate historical portrayal, through an accurate examination of the accounts surrounding the miracles of Christ etc etc
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by amannionI just don't know why different faiths can't exist side by side.
My tone leaves much to be desired? That's got to be the best example of the 'pot calling the kettle grimy arse' that I've heard in a long time, thanks for that.
Why is it that you can hurl as much abuse as you like and hide behind your dodgy (air quotes) sacred scripture, but if I so much as suggest that the intricate foundation of your belief might be a l ...[text shortened]... much?
Oh wait, you're having a sook in the corner and won't come out to play again ...
When the bhudda came along in a hindu setting, Hinduism made the bhudda its sixteenth avatar. No problem. thats because Bhuddism and Hinduism are open-minded faiths. Open-mindeness being the cornerstone of any faith truly wanting to know God.
Seems that some christians are too insecure about their own faiths to accept other versions of the truth.
If you are really onto the truth then you would not have to defend it tooth and nail because it is the truth and therefore should be self-evident to everyone .
Zen Bhuddists dont need to goto peoples houses to spread the word. Thet wait for people to come to them in their own good time.
Then of course I could become a JW only to find out that I'm no.144001, and just miss the boat. I mean , surley those limited positions are already taken up. So what would be the point,(or incentive), to join such a faith? (sorry,amannion dude. I should be directing this at the JWs.)
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadThats why I like Osho,(aka the Baghwan). He has been witnessed by many people who are alive today and has numerous tape-recordings of his sermons. Furthurmore he lived in the 20th century so his words are more relevant to modern day people. It is interesting to see which 'truths' are seemingly universal,(love each other,etc.), and which are transient and subject to change from generation to generation, (like gay rights for example).
But all those are only 'true' if you first take as fact that the Bible is the word of God. If any of us atheists try to check those claims we come up empty ie the prophesy int he Bible is shady at best, there is no 'internal harmony', there are no eye witness accounts (of Jesus), some of the major events of the Bible contradict archaeological finds, the B ...[text shortened]... al portrayal is decidedly inaccurate, and the miracles of Christ are decidedly unbelievable.
I dont believe you will ever get a 'yellow person',(follower of Osho), to come to your doorstep and hence you may think that they are insignificant. Trust me , that man was truly an inspired and unique individual , who brought age-old hindu wisdoms to america. I'm not saying believe every word he says, I would just say listen to the man with an open mind and judge for yourself. I did and was not dissapointed.
Long live the Bhagwan!!
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
04 Dec 09
The Noah story is one that is not unique to Judaism, so whether any believers like it or not that has an impact on the story.
The story has some implications theologically, if one wishes to take the story literally. I'll just say now that it cannot be taken literally, so if one takes it theologically, then what? Ugly, that's what. Untenable given modern knowledge, that's what.
I've already said what the point of this story is. Don't make me say it again.
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelBecause the religions that survive best are the ones that teach otherwise.
I just don't know why different faiths can't exist side by side.
When the bhudda came along in a hindu setting, Hinduism made the bhudda its sixteenth avatar. No problem.
No problem for wishy washy believers who don't really care what they believe, but just want the 'feel good' idea of religion.
Open-mindeness being the cornerstone of any faith truly wanting to know God.
Why? Who gets to make that decision?
Seems that some christians are too insecure about their own faiths to accept other versions of the truth.
Or they recognize that truth cannot have 'versions'.
If you are really onto the truth then you would not have to defend it tooth and nail because it is the truth and therefore should be self-evident to everyone .
The variety of religions makes it painfully obvious that the truth is not self-evident to everyone.
Zen Bhuddists dont need to goto peoples houses to spread the word. Thet wait for people to come to them in their own good time.
Which is why there are more Muslims than Zen Bhuddists.
Then of course I could become a JW only to find out that I'm no.144001, and just miss the boat. I mean , surley those limited positions are already taken up. So what would be the point,(or incentive), to join such a faith? (sorry,amannion dude. I should be directing this at the JWs.)
The concept that one should believe something because there is a reward if it turns out to be true is fundamentally flawed - yet surprisingly common. I prefer to believe something because I think it is true, not because of some sort of incentive. How much would I have to pay you for you to believe in the spaghetti monster? If I guaranteed you a place in spaghetti heaven would you join the faith?
04 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadok, I know my comments were off topic and given my acknoledgment to the previous 3 posters I will just answer your post once here. Not avoiding.MMMkay?
Because the religions that survive best are the ones that teach otherwise.
[b]When the bhudda came along in a hindu setting, Hinduism made the bhudda its sixteenth avatar. No problem.
No problem for wishy washy believers who don't really care what they believe, but just want the 'feel good' idea of religion.
Open-mindeness being the cornerst aghetti monster? If I guaranteed you a place in spaghetti heaven would you join the faith?
1.So why didn't they make Jesus and mother Tereasa,etc. an avatar? If they are so wishy-washy.I suspect you'll find more to that story, however it is perfectly reasonable for you to poo-poo the Hindu faith. I did for years,however lately I've come to gleen a deeper understanding. I like it and will leave it at that.
2.I make that decision,(amongst others). If we do not see the whole truth, which clearly humanity doesn't, does it not make sense to be open-minded. I would've thought that was pretty obvious.
3.I think there was an example of a line being percieved as a circle and a line in another thread. Y'know,(as another poster said), it all depends on perspective. Or do you think one of the observers is wrong? (of course I could call it a 'truism' instead of 'truth' but for simplicity sake I will just call a truth,ie. it is both a line (true), and a circle(also true). Any problems with that?)
4.Truth is not self-evident to everyone-I totally agree on this point,however I would contend that truth is universal and therefore will be recognized by everyone- given enough life information. Seems to take longer with some...
5.More muslims than Zen bhuddists. Sure. How about Hindus? Anyway I would not like to analylize this point from a historical perspective. Bhuddism is the fastest growing religon in the world, so I would like to think about where we will be in the future rather than dragging out statistics from our past,(on this issue anyway!).
6.Totally agree with that point!
Thnx again for engaging me Twitehead. You have made me think hard as always🙂
edit:actually I will answer any other queries, after all this wouldn't be the first thread to be highjacked.
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadthen perhaps you would like to try and show which prophecy is shady at best? after all i am still waiting of your interpretation of both Pauls, Peters and Jesus words with regard to Noah as not being literal, also claims that there is no internal harmony if you please, that there are no eye witness accounts is equally ludicrous, perhaps you we're there, and that the Bible contradicts science is not even worthy of consideration, given that even though it is not a scientific text book, in those areas of science upon what it touches, it is wholly accurate. in fact this is the obvious type of rhetoric than one expects from those who have neither studied it and make baseless assertions upon their own ignorance, thankyou Whitey for demonstrating what is obvious.
But all those are only 'true' if you first take as fact that the Bible is the word of God. If any of us atheists try to check those claims we come up empty ie the prophesy int he Bible is shady at best, there is no 'internal harmony', there are no eye witness accounts (of Jesus), some of the major events of the Bible contradict archaeological finds, the B ...[text shortened]... al portrayal is decidedly inaccurate, and the miracles of Christ are decidedly unbelievable.