Weird [Art] Aroused 'Jesus' statue outrage

Pineapple

Just Smile.
Reaction score
574
Here is some of the many facts of the bible.

Meny of its tales have historical backing.

Jesus did exist. There is evidence of a flood.

It was written by men - not by god as everyone I talk to says.

So what does this mean?

Yea some of the things in the bible do have historic backing. Doesn't mean it is historically accuate.
 

InfectedWithDrew

I used to go here a lot.
Reaction score
95
The Holy Bible is very accurate history wise (and all other wise). Many researchers of our time uses the Holy Bible as a reference to that certain time in history.
This is untrue, in fact, the Bible is very historically inaccurate.

The Bible is not a historical document. It is religious scripture. However some of the things in it are correct. Jesus was a real person (this has been confirmed by non-Christian historians of the time), the Jews really were held in slavery in Egypt, and many other things in the Bible are true. Scientists even think Noah's Ark was real.

However the Bible mostly includes exaggeration, myth, and fiction. These stories were written to illustrate a point and an idea, not to retell a factual occurence.

When it comes to the Bible, I look to it as a huge source of my faith (I'm Catholic) but not as a historical document.

And for the record:
MasterOfABCs said:
"What proof do you have to discredit the historical accuracy of the Bible?"

The lack of an author.
Actually the Bible has a series of authors; theological historians have found that for instance the book of Isaiah was written by three people. If no one had written it, then it wouldn't exist. Just as a side note.

======================

Now, I'd like to lay out some basic things to note about Christians, at least Catholics.

  1. No human can judge your soul. You can't tell anyone they're going to hell, because you can't know. Ask an educated priest - judging is God's job alone.
  2. Homosexuality isn't wrong because it's "unnatural." It's wrong because it lacks the bonding love between a man and a woman that God intended there to be. Sex was created to share love, to make love. When you have sex, we call it "making love", and that comes from the notion that you are making a human being, a creature who is capable of love. Homosexual intercourse can't do this, and so the Church does not wed homosexual couples. In marriage, a man and a woman become one, and make love through the love they share with each other and God. Sex outside of marriage does not include God and does not include a lifetime commitment, and therefore lacks the same substance, the real love that a wholesome, loving marriage gives.
  3. Forcing your religion on someone is wrong. God gave us free will, and we are not to take that away. Instead, Catholics are called to be an example for others, to uphold their faith under any condition, and if asked about their faith, to answer truthfully so that the inquirer might be instilled with faith.
  4. According to the Church, God forgives those who are truly repentant, but this isn't like "Gee, I'm almost dead. Sorry God. I really want to go to heaven." It's a whole conversion and it includes the receiving of the Eucharist, allowing God into your soul. Anyone who is given Anointing of the Sick can be saved, if they truly in their hearts want to be.
 

Father_Yetti

New Member
Reaction score
45
"Please prove to me your point of view"

No.

"What proof do you have to discredit the historical accuracy of the Bible?"

The lack of an author.


"The evidence we have for Christ's life, death, and resurrection is not as great as that for Lincoln, nor as recent But it is better than we have that Plato ever lived, or Homer, or many historical figures that we take for granted."

Good point.
MasterOfABCs, why do you comment on something you have no knowledge of. The Bible is a compilation of works throughout History and it has many authors. These authors and what they wrote are verified to a greater level of Historicity then anything you have ever learned of history in school.

"If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt."

F. F. Bruce
Manchester University
 

Pineapple

Just Smile.
Reaction score
574
Now. The Example I am gonig to talk about doesn't have anything to do wih any Religion any of you people have. Nor is it really a religion. It is about two groups of people at the begining of Civilization in Mesopotamia.

One of these groups were expanding. And in there was was the other group. There was a battle between them. Though they each have records of different things happening at the battle and different endings. So becuase of this we don't know what actually happened, though it is well accepted that the first group lost the battle.

What does this have to do with anything?

Manipulate things, reword them a little, and a few things in here and there. Then poof it is much more effective for your purpose whether that is to build moral or to recruit people to join you.
 

Father_Yetti

New Member
Reaction score
45
This is untrue, in fact, the Bible is very historically inaccurate.

The Bible is not a historical document. It is religious scripture.
While in part I agree with some of the other points you hit on, the Bible is undeniably a historical document it is just refused to be accepted main stream as such because it as well includes scripture. Were it merely a secular account it would be regarded as such. Look at the book of Chronicles or some of the older books where huge portions of them are merely chronicles of families, their names, sons, daughters, etc, of migrations, battles and skirmishes etc. Sure their is possibly a meaning behind every story, but to deny the Bible as a historical document in its entirety is not true.

However some of the things in it are correct. Jesus was a real person (this has been confirmed by non-Christian historians of the time), the Jews really were held in slavery in Egypt, and many other things in the Bible are true. Scientists even think Noah's Ark was real.

However the Bible mostly includes exaggeration, myth, and fiction. These stories were written to illustrate a point and an idea, not to retell a factual occurence.

When it comes to the Bible, I look to it as a huge source of my faith (I'm Catholic) but not as a historical document.

And for the record:
Actually the Bible has a series of authors; theological historians have found that for instance the book of Isaiah was written by three people. If no one had written it, then it wouldn't exist. Just as a side note.
 

Miz

Administrator
Reaction score
424
The bible is many things

1) The holy Book for the Christan Religion
2) A book of stories to example how life was created and what lies beyond
3) These Stories tell you how to live your life

You can follow/believe this book or not, its all up to you...

Really the bible could very well be historical, even though the bible has been changed over many years by the translators and the Bible was actually lost for actually about 100 years or so then edited again once they found one, so really the Bible has been changed, and edited alittle over the 1,977 years its been here...

So many things could have been historical but somethings couldn't we don't know we weren't there
 

Father_Yetti

New Member
Reaction score
45
Manipulate things, reword them a little, and a few things in here and there. Then poof it is much more effective for your purpose whether that is to build moral or to recruit people to join you.
can you elaborate a little here please I don't quite yet follow?
 

Father_Yetti

New Member
Reaction score
45
so really the Bible has been changed, and edited alittle over the 1,977 years its been here...
That would be just the new testament you are referring to. Don't forget that there is the Old Testament before Christ came that foretold of His coming and the things that transpired concerning Him.
 

New_U.S.

ITS OVER 9000!
Reaction score
125
WoW: $50
Baseball game: $80
Having sex with a statue of the son of God: priceless
 

Pineapple

Just Smile.
Reaction score
574
can you elaborate a little here please I don't quite yet follow?
Lets say that the first group had said they lost the battle, etc... Then that would do poorly with their moral and with people gonig their group. Same with a religion. They can take sometihng, change it around a little, and its more appealing to others. Makes the people of the religion feel good, makes other want to join you.

Any Example would be [not historically accurate in any way]: A priest of the church kills another priest.

If they write sometihng like "Priest A killed Priest B." Well, thats not very good. But if they say said "Priest B was gonig agianst the church and conspiring with the Romans, so Priest A had to do sometihng, tried talking to him but Priest B attacked him." Suddenly it sounds like a good, fairly honorable priest.
 

Oninuva

You can change this now in User CP.
Reaction score
221
"Please prove to me your point of view"

"No."

Why not? Cause you know your wrong?


The lack of an author.

"There are authors. If there are no authors, where is the writing coming from? They are written by many people and compiled. Each book is a book itself inside a book.

Ya, so in conclusion, you fail.
 

Father_Yetti

New Member
Reaction score
45
Ah I see your point now Pineapple. However, should you ever get the ankling to do so, please check out This. It deals more specifically with the surrounding variables involving said x or y statement and their ability to hold historically true through time when considering all said variables such as you have mentioned; like motivation and or what can be gained from propagating the story to fit your claims.

Her it is again as well, if someday the urge should strike you, it is actually quite compelling:
Evidence for the Resurrection
by Josh McDowell

For centuries many of the world's distinguished philosophers have assaulted Christianity as being irrational, superstitious and absurd. Many have chosen simply to ignore the central issue of the resurrection. Others have tried to explain it away through various theories. But the historical evidence just can't be discounted.

A student at the University of Uruguay said to me. "Professor McDowell, why can't you refute Christianity?"

"For a very simple reason," I answered. "I am not able to explain away an event in history--the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

How can we explain the empty tomb? Can it possibly be accounted for by any natural cause?


A QUESTION OF HISTORY
After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact of history.

Here are some of the facts relevant to the resurrection: Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Christ prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures, was arrested, was judged a political criminal, and was crucified. Three days after His death and burial, some women who went to His tomb found the body gone. In subsequent weeks, His disciples claimed that God had raised Him from the dead and that He appeared to them various times before ascending into heaven.

From that foundation, Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and has continued to exert great influence down through the centuries.


LIVING WITNESSES
The New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection. Those people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.

The writers of the four Gospels either had themselves been witnesses or else were relating the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events. In advocating their case for the gospel, a word that means "good news," the apostles appealed (even when confronting their most severe opponents) to common knowledge concerning the facts of the resurrection.

F. F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, says concerning the value of the New Testament records as primary sources: "Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective."


IS THE NEW TESTAMENT RELIABLE?
Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents.

By the end of the 19th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.

Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."

Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke's credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "

I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .

E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University


BACKGROUND
The New Testament witnesses were fully aware of the background against which the resurrection took place. The body of Jesus, in accordance with Jewish burial custom, was wrapped in a linen cloth. About 100 pounds of aromatic spices, mixed together to form a gummy substance, were applied to the wrappings of cloth about the body. After the body was placed in a solid rock tomb, an extremely large stone was rolled against the entrance of the tomb. Large stones weighing approximately two tons were normally rolled (by means of levers) against a tomb entrance.

A Roman guard of strictly disciplined fighting men was stationed to guard the tomb. This guard affixed on the tomb the Roman seal, which was meant to "prevent any attempt at vandalizing the sepulcher. Anyone trying to move the stone from the tomb's entrance would have broken the seal and thus incurred the wrath of Roman law.

But three days later the tomb was empty. The followers of Jesus said He had risen from the dead. They reported that He appeared to them during a period of 40 days, showing Himself to them by many "infallible proofs." Paul the apostle recounted that Jesus appeared to more than 500 of His followers at one time, the majority of whom were still alive and who could confirm what Paul wrote. So many security precautions were taken with the trial, crucifixion, burial, entombment, sealing, and guarding of Christ's tomb that it becomes very difficult for critics to defend their position that Christ did not rise from the dead. Consider these facts:

FACT #1: BROKEN ROMAN SEAL
As we have said, the first obvious fact was the breaking of the seal that stood for the power and authority of the Roman Empire. The consequences of breaking the seal were extremely severe. The FBI and CIA of the Roman Empire were called into action to find the man or men who were responsible. If they were apprehended, it meant automatic execution by crucifixion upside down. People feared the breaking of the seal. Jesus' disciples displayed signs of cowardice when they hid themselves. Peter, one of these disciples, went out and denied Christ three times.

FACT #2: EMPTY TOMB
As we have already discussed, another obvious fact after the resurrection was the empty tomb. The disciples of Christ did not go off to Athens or Rome to preach that Christ was raised from the dead. Rather, they went right back to the city of Jerusalem, where, if what they were teaching was false, the falsity would be evident. The empty tomb was "too notorious to be denied." Paul Althaus states that the resurrection "could have not been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned."

Both Jewish and Roman sources and traditions admit an empty tomb. Those resources range from Josephus to a compilation of fifth-century Jewish writings called the "Toledoth Jeshu." Dr. Paul Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source, which is the strongest kind of historical evidence. In essence, this means that if a source admits a fact decidedly not in its favor, then that fact is genuine."

Gamaliel, who was a member of the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin, put forth the suggestion that the rise of the Christian movement was God's doing; he could not have done that if the tomb were still occupied, or if the Sanhedrin knew the whereabouts of Christ's body.

Paul Maier observes that " . . . if all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the sepulcher of Joseph of Arimathea, in which Jesus was buried, was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement."


FACT #3: LARGE STONE MOVED
On that Sunday morning the first thing that impressed the people who approached the tomb was the unusual position of the one and a half to two ton stone that had been lodged in front of the doorway. All the Gospel writers mention it.

There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias.


Clark Pinnock
Mcmaster University

Those who observed the stone after the resurrection describe its position as having been rolled up a slope away not just from the entrance of the tomb, but from the entire massive sepulcher. It was in such a position that it looked as if it had been picked up and carried away. Now, I ask you, if the disciples had wanted to come in, tiptoe around the sleeping guards, and then roll the stone over and steal Jesus' body, how could they have done that without the guards' awareness?


FACT #4: ROMAN GUARD GOES AWOL
The Roman guards fled. They left their place of responsibility. How can their attrition be explained, when Roman military discipline was so exceptional? Justin, in Digest #49, mentions all the offenses that required the death penalty. The fear of their superiors' wrath and the possibility of death meant that they paid close attention to the minutest details of their jobs. One way a guard was put to death was by being stripped of his clothes and then burned alive in a fire started with his garments. If it was not apparent which soldier had failed in his duty, then lots were drawn to see which one would be punished with death for the guard unit's failure. Certainly the entire unit would not have fallen asleep with that kind of threat over their heads. Dr. George Currie, a student of Roman military discipline, wrote that fear of punishment "produced flawless attention to duty, especially in the night watches."


FACT #5: GRAVECLOTHES TELL A TALE
In a literal sense, against all statements to the contrary, the tomb was not totally empty--because of an amazing phenomenon. John, a disciple of Jesus, looked over to the place where the body of Jesus had lain, and there were the grave clothes, in the form of the body, slightly caved in and empty--like the empty chrysalis of a caterpillar's cocoon. That's enough to make a believer out of anybody. John never did get over it. The first thing that stuck in the minds of the disciples was not the empty tomb, but rather the empty grave clothes--undisturbed in form and position.


FACT #6: JESUS' APPEARANCES CONFIRMED
Christ appeared alive on several occasions after the cataclysmic events of that first Easter . When studying an event in history, it is important to know whether enough people who were participants or eyewitnesses to the event were alive when the facts about the event were published. To know this is obviously helpful in ascertaining the accuracy of the published report. If the number of eyewitnesses is substantial, the event can he regarded as fairly well established. For instance, if we all witness a murder, and a later police report turns out to be a fabrication of lies, we as eyewitnesses can refute it.


OVER 500 WITNESSES
Several very important factors are often overlooked when considering Christ's post-resurrection appearances to individuals. The first is the large number of witnesses of Christ after that resurrection morning. One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago." Let's take the more than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after His death and burial, and place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if each of those 500 people were to testify for only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50 hours of firsthand testimony? Add to this the testimony of many other eyewitnesses and you would well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history.


HOSTILE WITNESSES
Another factor crucial to interpreting Christ's appearances is that He also appeared to those who were hostile or unconvinced.

Over and over again, I have read or heard people comment that Jesus was seen alive after His death and burial only by His friends and followers. Using that argument, they attempt to water down the overwhelming impact of the multiple eyewitness accounts. But that line of reasoning is so pathetic it hardly deserves comment. No author or informed individual would regard Saul of Tarsus as being a follower of Christ. The facts show the exact opposite. Saul despised Christ and persecuted Christ's followers. It was a life-shattering experience when Christ appeared to him. Although he was at the time not a disciple, he later became the apostle Paul, one of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the resurrection.

If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.


F. F. Bruce
Manchester University

The argument that Christ's appearances were only to followers is an argument for the most part from silence, and arguments from silence can be dangerous. It is equally possible that all to whom Jesus appeared became followers. No one acquainted with the facts can accurately say that Jesus appeared to just "an insignificant few."

Christians believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected in time and space by the supernatural power of God. The difficulties of belief may be great, but the problems inherent in unbelief present even greater difficulties.

The theories advanced to explain the resurrection by "natural causes" are weak; they actually help to build confidence in the truth of the resurrection.


THE WRONG TOMB?
A theory propounded by Kirsopp Lake assumes that the women who reported that the body was missing had mistakenly gone to the wrong tomb. If so, then the disciples who went to check up on the women's statement must have also gone to the wrong tomb. We may be certain, however, that Jewish authorities, who asked for a Roman guard to be stationed at the tomb to prevent Jesus' body from being stolen, would not have been mistaken about the location. Nor would the Roman guards, for they were there!

If the resurrection-claim was merely because of a geographical mistake, the Jewish authorities would have lost no time in producing the body from the proper tomb, thus effectively quenching for all time any rumor resurrection.


HALLUCINATIONS?
Another attempted explanation claims that the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection were either illusions or hallucinations. Unsupported by the psychological principles governing the appearances of hallucinations, this theory also does not coincide with the historical situation. Again, where was the actual body, and why wasn't it produced?


DID JESUS SWOON?
Another theory, popularized by Venturini several centuries ago, is often quoted today. This is the swoon theory, which says that Jesus didn't die; he merely fainted from exhaustion and loss of blood. Everyone thought Him dead, but later He resuscitated and the disciples thought it to be a resurrection. Skeptic David Friedrich Strauss--certainly no believer in the resurrection--gave the deathblow to any thought that Jesus revived from a swoon: "It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to His sufferings, could have given to the disciples the impression that He was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life, an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which He had made upon them in life and in death, at the most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship."

For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.

A. N. Sherwin-White
Classical Roman Historian

THE BODY STOLEN?
Then consider the theory that the body was stolen by the disciples while the guards slept. The depression and cowardice of the disciples provide a hard-hitting argument against their suddenly becoming so brave and daring as to face a detachment of soldiers at the tomb and steal the body. They were in no mood to attempt anything like that.

The theory that the Jewish or Roman authorities moved Christ's body is no more reasonable an explanation for the empty tomb than theft by the disciples. If the authorities had the body in their possession or knew where it was, why, when the disciples were preaching the resurrection in Jerusalem, didn't they explain: "Wait! We moved the body, see, He didn't rise from the grave"?

And if such a rebuttal failed, why didn't they explain exactly where Jesus' body lay? If this failed, why didn't they recover the corpse, put it on a cart, and wheel it through the center of Jerusalem? Such an action would have destroyed Christianity--not in the cradle, but in the womb!


THE RESURRECTION IS A FACT
Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God bath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar, said: "raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."


REAL PROOF: THE DISCIPLES' LIVES
But the most telling testimony of all must be the lives of those early Christians. We must ask ourselves: What caused them to go everywhere telling the message of the risen Christ?

Had there been any visible benefits accrued to them from their efforts--prestige, wealth, increased social status or material benefits--we might logically attempt to account for their actions, for their whole-hearted and total allegiance to this "risen Christ ."

As a reward for their efforts, however, those early Christians were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified. Every conceivable method was used to stop them from talking.

Yet, they laid down their lives as the ultimate proof of their complete confidence in the truth of their message.


WHERE DO YOU STAND?
How do you evaluate this overwhelming historical evidence? What is your decision about the fact of Christ's empty tomb? What do you think of Christ?

When I was confronted with the overwhelming evidence for Christ's resurrection, I had to ask the logical question: "What difference does all this evidence make to me? What difference does it make whether or not I believe Christ rose again and died on the cross for my sins!' The answer is put best by something Jesus said to a man who doubted--Thomas. Jesus told him: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6).

On the basis of all the evidence for Christ's resurrection, and considering the fact that Jesus offers forgiveness of sin and an eternal relationship with God, who would be so foolhardy as to reject Him? Christ is alive! He is living today.

You can trust God right now by faith through prayer. Prayer is talking with God. God knows your heart and is not so concerned with your words as He is with the attitude of your heart. If you have never trusted Christ, you can do so right now.

The prayer I prayed is: "Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and trust You as my Savior. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be. Thank You that I can trust You."

Josh McDowell, according to a recent survey, is one of the most popular speakers among university students today. He has spoken on more than 650 university and college campuses to more than seven million people in 74 countries during the last 21 years.
 

New_U.S.

ITS OVER 9000!
Reaction score
125
I guess I need a serious post for this whole religious debate thing :D

First of all, let me point out that I am Lutheran.

I'm not going to act like I read all your previous posts because, well, thats a lot of text. However there are 2 main points I'd love to make.

1) Many athiest are literalists. You truely are. You can read the entire Bible, and large parts of it could be a metaphore to you. Many athiests read the book and see only what it says, not what it means. If you do not believe in God, it is hard to see words that ultimatly show his greatness.

Example of non-literal thinking (really important to read)
God made everything in 6 days. Umm... That was fast? However thats really literal. How much was 6 days then compared to now? 1 day then = 1000000 years now? Dont read word for word. From God made everything in 6 days, at the end of it all, just think of it as he made everything, time isnt important. When thinking of God you can't think logically. And when you accept this you can adapt science to God. Its not that hard. I'm Christian, yet I still believe in evolution. Both at the same time! go figure

2) I HATE when people try to force there opinion on others. Every religion trys doing it. However once in a while there a small number of athiests that try to convince you that you are lied to and this is one great joke. They throw logic and science that try to convince you that there is no God. This is a terrible thing to do. Questioning someones faith only leads to 2 things: 1) People just get pissed off or 2) you may actually have someone weak minded question and maybe renounce their faith. Does atheism have a some great benefit that you had to convert them? At death- Christians go to heaven. Muslems go to "paradice" and "get 40 virgin" (I always smirk when I read that). But for athiests..... ur gone. Just... dead. Yay? Really! Trying to make people question their faith is morally wrong. Its just questioning them you may say, however it is still wrong. And in a thread thats supposed to be more funny anything, a religious debate is a bit rediculous. Let people be in peace.
 

esb

Because none of us are as cruel as all of us.
Reaction score
325
>Many athiests read the book and see only what it says, not what it means.

No, I understand most, if not all, the metaphors and parables pretty good, so I guess that doesn't apply to me. As a matter of fact, the reason I turned atheist, was because of the bible and its content. One of my past pastors actually thought I studied the bible o_O

>Does atheism have a some great benefit that you had to convert them?
Yes. I get to live my life without worry, the right and wrong is what I think is right or wrong. For me, religion is something I've never seen (physically), therefor, it's hard for me to believe in. I am able to do things without thinking "OMG (I already said his name in vain) What would god say if he knew I what I was doing? Oh wait! He does! OMG! (again...)" In other words, I don't live in fear of "God", someone I've never seen or experienced.

EDIT: Also, Mesoamerican and Egyptians (greeks too maybe) have left some source of history, hieroglyphics for example, about their gods. Does that mean it happened or that they are real? No.
END EDIT:

The afterlife... should be Afterdeath. No one knows what happens, and that's what I think religion is about, it's like a small hope that whatever it is that's after death, is good and pleasurable, but to get there, you have to be a "good" person and follow god without a doubt, and with all faith possible. So what if after death nothing happens? I could simply say something like "haha! You wasted your lifes and nothing happens after death!" but then again, that would be rude, and I would be dead.

About the Bible being a history source (something like that) I partially agree. Maybe there was a guy named Jesus, walking around through the Middle East. Maybe there was a great flood. But they way it's put, some things might be stretched out, it's human nature to exaggerate, or change things for personal(writer's) benefit. The bible does have good parts, I enjoy reading some of the stories it has, and mainly the new testament.

EDIT: The bible brings up a few questions too. for example, one of the commandments says "Thou shall not murder" but we read stories of biblical characters destroying god's enemies.
END EDIT:

If the way you are, is to expect 40 virgins after you die, or to be able to go to the roads of gold, and seas of diamond (heaven) then by all means, continue. But I don't think other people should decide how OTHER people should be and think.
 

New_U.S.

ITS OVER 9000!
Reaction score
125
>Does atheism have a some great benefit that you had to convert them?
Yes. I get to live my life without worry, the right and wrong is what I think is right or wrong. For me, religion is something I've never seen (physically), therefor, it's hard for me to believe in. I am able to do things without thinking "OMG (I already said his name in vain) What would god say if he knew I what I was doing? Oh wait! He does! OMG! (again...)" In other words, I don't live in fear of "God", someone I've never seen or experienced.
The afterlife... should be Afterdeath. No one knows what happens, and that's what I think religion is about, it's like a small hope that whatever it is that's after death, is good and pleasurable, but to get there, you have to be a "good" person and follow god without a doubt, and with all faith possible.
First off, the Bible states that to get to heaven, you must only believe in God. Second off, I believe you were looking for a concrete image of God. Some old man that gets pissed off when you sin. You say OMG and you will get smited. However another Christian belief is that God forgives all sin. Cut the foreplay, ask, and you will be fine. And if you dont ask? Dont be afraid, he'll forgive you. So what is God? Christianity broke it into 3 different ways of him reveiling himself. Father, son, holy spirit. Father made everything. Son allowed you into heaven. Holy spirit keeps ur faith. Another name for God is your consience. What consiquenses will happen if this happens. Keep faith, you'll get through. After death, the best way to describe it is you will be at peace if you believe in him. I cannot try to explain it any better cause I havent died before. My last main thing that I see God does is, if you ask, he will give you the better way in life Ievents. For example if I pray for help on a test, and I studied, then I could be responded with a clear mind during the test- get an A. However if I ask that and I didnt study, im not getting anything. ultimatly helps you more. Just another perspective. Your views are happily read.
 

esb

Because none of us are as cruel as all of us.
Reaction score
325
Again, I find contradiction.
If all you need to do is believe, what's the point of sins? Or 10 Commandments?
And the conscious part, I've heard others call karma.

>For example if I pray for help on a test, and I studied, then I could be responded with a clear mind during the test- get an A.
In my opinion, the only reason you got an A, would be because you studied. Any other obstacles (headache, distractions, etc.) are merely coincidence. What I've noticed about some people, is they try to relate everything/most to god, such as "God did this for our own good", "God has his purposes" and sometimes when they can't answer why it happened, "God works in mysterious ways"
 

Father_Yetti

New Member
Reaction score
45
Again, I find contradiction.
If all you need to do is believe, what's the point of sins? Or 10 Commandments?
And the conscious part, I've heard others call karma.
esb, if you find contradiction in that then truly you contradict all your prior boast on knowing the Bible and all its parables. Truly you are thinking as New_U.S. said of most atheist and seeing only in a linear dimension. The mystery of God is not easily revealed, it is not something common like loose change or dirty laundry.

EDIT===== Though it is offered to all who would seek it, but they have to truly want it in their hearts. Why would He reveal Himself to be scrutinized by a mere man or to place you in further condemnation if you walked away. Those whom think their soul worthy enough to seek out these answers will find Him. Those who could care less will be left to their own desires and in the end, this is what they would have chosen regardless. You yourself justify your own choices, how less appropriate than for a God to do the same.

EDIT===== My consciousness is driving me to believe that maybe this could be illustrated in such a way that you might be led to a better understanding of it if that is what you are seeking. There are so many things I can think of to try and explain this to you and if I knew you personally it would be a lot easier. I would relate it to you somehow in a way that might hook. This is why Christ was a fisher of men. I agree at surface level it seems weird to me. I value that you are at least interested in the dynamic and giving it what looks like some though. It is really hard to tell over the internet if people are interested or just arguing. If you are truly interested in wanting to know more or related topics I would be more than willing, but I suggest we start a separate thread for that. As well as I am truly tired at the moment, been typing all day now. But would something like that interest you? I am also interesting in hearing your interpretation of the scriptures. Let me know I guess and maybe we can put this thread to rest. Lol, all this from an art piece, gotta love it.
 

The Helper

Necromancy Power over 9000
Staff member
Reaction score
1,540
OK people I think we are going off topic here. This should be about the aroused Jesus statue not whether one religion is true or another, or not or whatever.
 

New_U.S.

ITS OVER 9000!
Reaction score
125
Again, I find contradiction.
If all you need to do is believe, what's the point of sins? Or 10 Commandments?
And the conscious part, I've heard others call karma.
no contradictions- its just the difference between a good and bad person. the bible states God forgives all. and karma? I dont believe in karma. Consience is telling you dont do this. Karma says is kinda like a counterpunch. If someones a gangster, every time they do something the back of their mind might be yelling "NO!" but they still do it. yet they live a long life and die rich. karma didnt happen! thats the difference
 

esb

Because none of us are as cruel as all of us.
Reaction score
325
Then I guess I don't understand the bible's parables and metaphors as well as I could, anyone care to explain then?

but as TheHelper said, I'll just drop it.
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • V-SNES V-SNES:
    Happy Friday Night!
    +1
  • The Helper The Helper:
    Going out of a town for the weekend will be back sunday night! Hope everyone has a great weekend!
    +2
  • The Helper The Helper:
    Happy Monday!
  • Ghan Ghan:
    Monday? Speak for yourself. :p
    +2
  • The Helper The Helper:
    Happy Taco Tuesday!
    +1
  • The Helper The Helper:
    Tacos! :)
  • The Helper The Helper:
    Check out the discord for taco pictures :) You cannot put pictures in this chat
    +1
  • The Helper The Helper:
    Damn here come the bots again - 193 online but they are totally invisible to any stats - bunch of bots!'
  • C cubanismo:
    Re: Taco Tuesday, if there were some way to share edible tacos over the internet, technology would be complete.
    +2
  • The Helper The Helper:
    One can only wish!
  • tom_mai78101 tom_mai78101:
    I'm back from Taiwan
    +1
  • The Helper The Helper:
    I am reorganizing the site I know nobody will notice but I am not done quite yet but the main forums order has been changed and there is a new news category in Other News which is all the remaining headline news stuff not categorized - Headline News is just the stuff that shows on the main page now and the news archive is off the main forums page
  • The Helper The Helper:
    and the real archive lives off of headline news
  • The Helper The Helper:
    Happy Monday!
  • V-SNES V-SNES:
    Happy Saturday!
  • The Helper The Helper:
    Happy Saturday Night!
    +1

    The Helper Discord

    Staff online

    Members online

    Affiliates

    Hive Workshop NUON Dome World Editor Tutorials

    Network Sponsors

    Apex Steel Pipe - Buys and sells Steel Pipe.
    Top