If christianity is true than god is a hyprocrit

[Moai]

The way you talk about the Bible make me wonder how the early Christians managed without it. Illiteracy was rampant for a long time.

 

They believed as the priests told them to, like always. Clergy have always been literate. The Bible was decided upon in about 300 AD, so the book was obviously important to somebody, even way back then.

 

How many people were converted with a book? Not many.

 

Try millions. They are being converted to Islam with a book even as we speak.

 

Why do the Gideons leave New Testaments everywhere? Why do the Mormons give The Book of Mormon away for free? Why do those attempting to "win" the souls of others quote the Bible (or the Koran, as the case may be)?

 

Good luck with your efforts to turn them away with it.

 

Thanks. Are you suggesting that Christians don't read, or if they can read dismiss evidence, or logic, or reason? It would seem that you do.

 

I believe God focused on them because they were the least. They were a people with no land (promised land) who would have been forgotten and lost to time.

 

As opposed to the tribes that actually were lost to time, that you have never heard of. The Bedouin have no land now even today--and have never had any--why ignore them, by your criteria?

 

He turned them into a priestly people.

 

By whose definition? I think the Maccabites would disagree with you.

 

Like the native americans of today, they were a conquered people.

Jesus was far from being royalty or wealthy. He humbled himself, and dedicated his life to God's service (not charity). He was tried, humiliated, and crucified as a criminal.

Many of his teachings were in the form of parables. It was farmer talk for the people. Maybe he needed to bring it down a few levels for people like you.

 

"People like me." Right. There is no evidence that Jesus even existed, outside of the Bible. You are claiming as fact something which you cannot. Certainly millions of people believe as you do (even more don't) but that doesn't make your position true.

 

Not only that, I couldn't care less about what Jesus said, frankly, but those who do pay very close attention to the parables and commandments in the Bible, and they do things like have Inquisitions and lie to people in Africa and tell them condoms cause AIDS. People like you are real humanitarians.

 

The war ended a long time ago.

 

How do you know? When were you in Heaven last? Will there be another? WHo won? WHy did they fight? Can it really be Heaven if there are wars there, if if the last one is over? And how do you fight a war when nobody dies--I mean, Heaven is a spiritual place, not a real literal one, right?

 

The fact that you and many other like you have such a big problem with Jesus Christ seems to legitimize Jesus. If there is no truth to it, it should fade away.

 

I don't have a problem with Jesus any more than I have a problem with Allah. I have some big problems with believers, though.

 

I have a big problem with Jeffrey Dahmer. Does that legitimize him, in your eyes? Lots of other people did, too.

 

There is no truth to it, and it is fading away.

[lonelybird]

Dry reasoning and logic seemed pretty weak to me when I see God works in my life, when see faith change reality, when hear testimonies upon testimonies about God's supernatural power, learn from God his tremendous forgiveness, and hear God's whispering into your soul each day, life up your spirit each day, and feel God's presense.....

 

that is faith all about: saved by God's power, love God and be loved by God, have bright hope for future, have right spirit overcome everything here, grow to be like more Jesus, learn from God each day: what God teaches us each day? forgiveness, love, patience, kindness.....

 

I am learning a bit by bit, sometimes I did a detour, but I am thrilled about future, I will have a life full of miracles and God's power and grace

[Geishawhelk]

Dry reasoning and logic seemed pretty weak to me when I see God works in my life......

 

And this is why faith - particularly Blind faith - is so dangerous.

God gave us a mind precisely for Reason and Logic. Without it, we would not be where we are today. Scientists and physicians, Doctors and Mathematicians would be worthy of merely being condemned and inprisoned, just as they were when Galileo stated the earth went round the sun, and when blood circulation and the heart were found to keep the body alive, not an outside force.

 

Lonelybird, I'm not saying you ascribe to Blind faith. But not all is as you think it is, neither is it otherwise.

I have a faith. But it's a faith based on Confidence and evidence of fact, rather than a hope based on an unseen, unfelt unverifyable belief.

 

This is an extract of an interview conducted with Robert Thurman (Uma's father) and the Dalai Lama, on Truth:

 

Thurman: You speak about how the Buddha always emphasized the rational pursuit of truth. "He instructed his disciples to critically judge his words before accepting them. He always advocated reason over blind faith." Coming from a late 20th-century belief that there is no Truth, only contingent truths, how are we to imagine what the Buddha meant by "truth" in contemporary terms?

 

The Dalai Lama Buddha was speaking about reality. Reality may be one, in its deepest essence, but Buddha also stated that all propositions about reality are only contingent. Reality is devoid of any intrinsic identity that can be captured by any one single proposition--that is what Buddha meant by "voidness." Therefore, Buddhism strongly discourages blind faith and fanaticism.

 

Of course, there are different truths on different levels. Things are true relative to other things; "long" and "short" relate to each other, "high" and "low," and so on. But is there any absolute truth? Something self-sufficient, independently true in itself? I don't think so.

 

In Buddhism we have the concept of "interpretable truths," teachings that are reasonable and logical for certain people in certain situations. Buddha himself taught different teachings to different people under different circumstances. For some people, there are beliefs based on a Creator. For others, no Creator. The only "definitive truth" for Buddhism is the absolute negation of any one truth as the Definitive Truth.

 

Thurman: Isn't that because it is dangerous for one religion to consider it has the only truth?

 

Dalai Lama: Yes. I always say there should be pluralism--the concept of many religions, many truths. But we must also be careful not to become nihilistic.

[lonelybird]

And this is why faith - particularly Blind faith - is so dangerous.

God gave us a mind precisely for Reason and Logic. Without it, we would not be where we are today. Scientists and physicians, Doctors and Mathematicians would be worthy of merely being condemned and inprisoned, just as they were when Galileo stated the earth went round the sun, and when blood circulation and the heart were found to keep the body alive, not an outside force.

 

Lonelybird, I'm not saying you ascribe to Blind faith. But not all is as you think it is, neither is it otherwise.

I have a faith. But it's a faith based on Confidence and evidence of fact, rather than a hope based on an unseen, unfelt unverifyable belief.

 

This is an extract of an interview conducted with Robert Thurman (Uma's father) and the Dalai Lama, on Truth:

 

Thurman: You speak about how the Buddha always emphasized the rational pursuit of truth. "He instructed his disciples to critically judge his words before accepting them. He always advocated reason over blind faith." Coming from a late 20th-century belief that there is no Truth, only contingent truths, how are we to imagine what the Buddha meant by "truth" in contemporary terms?

 

The Dalai Lama Buddha was speaking about reality. Reality may be one, in its deepest essence, but Buddha also stated that all propositions about reality are only contingent. Reality is devoid of any intrinsic identity that can be captured by any one single proposition--that is what Buddha meant by "voidness." Therefore, Buddhism strongly discourages blind faith and fanaticism.

 

Of course, there are different truths on different levels. Things are true relative to other things; "long" and "short" relate to each other, "high" and "low," and so on. But is there any absolute truth? Something self-sufficient, independently true in itself? I don't think so.

 

In Buddhism we have the concept of "interpretable truths," teachings that are reasonable and logical for certain people in certain situations. Buddha himself taught different teachings to different people under different circumstances. For some people, there are beliefs based on a Creator. For others, no Creator. The only "definitive truth" for Buddhism is the absolute negation of any one truth as the Definitive Truth.

 

Thurman: Isn't that because it is dangerous for one religion to consider it has the only truth?

 

Dalai Lama: Yes. I always say there should be pluralism--the concept of many religions, many truths. But we must also be careful not to become nihilistic.

Holy Spirit tell us truth, teach us truth on daily basis. He is real, our relationship is real . I know it is truth, he teaches love, light, forgiveness, and secret about God

 

Ask, you will receive; knock, door will be open for you

[Geishawhelk]

That doesn't contribute anything to the thread, though, does it?

It just makes me think that you're turning away from the discussion because you're afraid to face it.

You sound as if you're spouting Blind faith.

Ok, if that's the way you feel, I personally see this as closing yourself to the possibility of expanding your horizon - WITHOUT compromising what you believe.

A pity.

I thought you'd be more constructive and engage in some interesting dialogue.

[lonelybird]

That doesn't contribute anything to the thread, though, does it?

It just makes me think that you're turning away from the discussion because you're afraid to face it.

You sound as if you're spouting Blind faith.

Ok, if that's the way you feel, I personally see this as closing yourself to the possibility of expanding your horizon - WITHOUT compromising what you believe.

A pity.

I thought you'd be more constructive and engage in some interesting dialogue.

really? then I am sorry you are disappointed. I am just happy to tell people about God and what he did and doing in my life and others lives: freedom and love, if they want, they can have too

[Rooster_DAR]

Isn't all faith really blind faith? You are essentially believing something someone told you without any evidence.

[Moai]

Isn't all faith really blind faith? You are essentially believing something someone told you without any evidence.

 

All religious faith is blind, by definition.

 

I find it interesting that one of the main points the religious bring up is "believe as I do and be happy. If it makes you happy, it must be true."

 

First, the truth is value neutral, in the sense of how it may or may not make you feel. The fact that the Holocaust happened makes me angry and sad, and it is also true.

 

Second, there are contradictory beliefs that make people just as happy. Some Christians claim that the Holy SPirit guides their interpretation of Scripture and moral decisions (and they get different answers, oddly), yet Muslims claim that Allah guides them as well.

 

Lonelybird, since Muslims are just as happy as you are, and see Allah working just as much as you see your god work, is Islam true? How do you account for their experience, seeing as how your religions are mutually exclusive?

[NoIDidn't]

Isn't all faith really blind faith? You are essentially believing something someone told you without any evidence.

 

It really depends on what and whom you are putting your faith into.

 

I don't consider Christianity or any other religion to be based on blind faith because all of the adherents rely on the "testimony" of others to validate their faith. The "cloud of witnesses" if you will (Hebrews 12).

 

To me, blind faith doesn't even have witnesses. And, yes, sometimes religious or spiritual people DO have to exercise blind faith. Abraham had to when he was *told* by God to leave his family and go into a land that he didn't know that God would show him and give him and his descendants. King David was anointed to be king when there was absolutely nothing in his life pointing to that ever being a reality. But these are religious figures.

 

What about real people alive now that we know of? Like Bill Gates, the founders of Apple/Macintosh, Oprah Winfrey, and anyone else who has a great story of having a *dream* or *vision* that they could accomplish something big with no proof other than what they felt or believed to be true?

 

Logic can only get you so far. At some point, even the most rational and logical persons will have to accept that all can't be known or scientifically explained. So we all believe in something that we have no proof of, other than our adherence to that belief.

[Brendi_thesnake]

If the biblie were to tell you that a holy spirit can get a girl pregnant (in other words the girl being a virgin forever),

or to say that candies fall from the sky would you buy those stories?

[NoIDidn't]

If the biblie were to tell you that a holy spirit can get a girl pregnant (in other words the girl being a virgin forever),

or to say that candies fall from the sky would you buy those stories?

 

Not only would I "buy" those stories, I'd buy the WHOLE BOOK that they were included in.

[Moai]

It really depends on what and whom you are putting your faith into.

 

I don't consider Christianity or any other religion to be based on blind faith because all of the adherents rely on the "testimony" of others to validate their faith. The "cloud of witnesses" if you will (Hebrews 12).

 

Youhave faith in those witnesses. Based on what criterion do you base your trust in those people?

 

To me, blind faith doesn't even have witnesses.

 

Cool. UFOs, Bigfoot, Chupacabra, poltergiests, and astrology all have witnesses, too.

 

And, yes, sometimes religious or spiritual people DO have to exercise blind faith. Abraham had to when he was *told* by God to leave his family and go into a land that he didn't know that God would show him and give him and his descendants. King David was anointed to be king when there was absolutely nothing in his life pointing to that ever being a reality. But these are religious figures.

 

If any of that is true, which we have no way of knowing.

 

What about real people alive now that we know of? Like Bill Gates, the founders of Apple/Macintosh, Oprah Winfrey, and anyone else who has a great story of having a *dream* or *vision* that they could accomplish something big with no proof other than what they felt or believed to be true?

 

How many people have the same "dream" or "vision" that doesn't come to pass?

 

Logic can only get you so far. At some point, even the most rational and logical persons will have to accept that all can't be known or scientifically explained. So we all believe in something that we have no proof of, other than our adherence to that belief.

 

Everything can be explained scientifically. We may not have all the evidence we need for some things now, but that doesn't mean that we won't. That also doesn't mean that there won't always be things that we are still trying to explain, but that doesn't imply a supernatural being.

 

In the past, it was thought that demons and spirits cause disease. In fact, every major holy book says that is the case. We now know that to be totally wrong.

[Moai]

Not only would I "buy" those stories' date=' I'd buy the WHOLE BOOK that they were included in.[/quote']

 

You realize that the WHOLE BOOK that you believe in was edited by MEN 1700 years ago, right? That means that you have faith in them, and that they were making the right decisions as to which books mattered and which didn't.

 

Also, let's look at the Hebrews enslavement in Egypt. Not only is there no record of this in Egyptian history (meticulous record-keepers), there is no evidence that the Hebrews were in Egypt at all. There is also no evidence of their wandering the desert for 40 years. Not a pottery shard, not a skeleton, not a scrap of fabric, not a cart wheel, not a bracelet...nothing. Nada. Zip.

 

Given that they have the same amount of evidence, why do you reject the Koran over the Old and New Testaments?

[NoIDidn't]

I didn't realize this conversation was going to become all about me and my opinion.

 

Nevertheless, spiritual beliefs vary from person to person even within the same religion so I doubt anything I say will convince you other than fuel for your argument against mine.

 

Yes, I am aware that the "book" was editted. Were you expecting me to say "I didn't know that" as if you were enlightening me in some way?

 

I am not sure that I follow you about your comment about the UFOs and astrology witnesses. What exactly was the point? Did I say that other religions didn't have witnesses? If that is your claim, you are moving the goal post. I was talking about blind faith. It is you who are trying to change the topic to "other beliefs" when I said no such thing.

 

And then you are asking me to speculate about why other peoples dreams don't come true? Very bad question. How would I know why one person's dreams come true versus another person? I can't and won't even try to answer that. But since science can explain "everything" according to you, certainly YOU must know why??!!

[disgracian]

Logic can only get you so far. At some point' date=' even the most rational and logical persons will have to accept that all can't be known or scientifically explained. So we all believe in something that we have no proof of, other than our adherence to that belief.[/quote']

At that point, more rational people are content to simply say "I don't know!" rather than invent fairytale beliefs to make them feel better about their mortality and insignificance.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Yosef]

Now, about textbooks, journals, etc. I'm probably thinking simplistically, but if we know of Plato and Aristotle, newton, etc. then it would be because information about them was recorded. What difference does it make if history was recorded in the bible versus history being recorded in a textbook? The most original copy of the bible is the King Jame's version, so basing it off of that alone, rather than the spoof-offs, both the bible and our own textbooks and documents have been copied many times in the past before reaching today.

[NoIDidn't]

At that point, more rational people are content to simply say "I don't know!" rather than invent fairytale beliefs to make them feel better about their mortality and insignificance.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

I can agree with some of this. But....when folks say "I don't know" here, they are insulted by those who really don't know anymore than they do. Not to mention the claim that anyone that actually has religious beliefs made them up on their own.

 

These religions have been around for a long time. I couldn't have made them up if I tried. And I certainly don't use them to feel better about MY morality or SIGNIFICANCE. (Everyone is significant to someone else)

[NoIDidn't]

Now, about textbooks, journals, etc. I'm probably thinking simplistically, but if we know of Plato and Aristotle, newton, etc. then it would be because information about them was recorded. What difference does it make if history was recorded in the bible versus history being recorded in a textbook? The most original copy of the bible is the King Jame's version, so basing it off of that alone, rather than the spoof-offs, both the bible and our own textbooks and documents have been copied many times in the past before reaching today.

 

But the point of those aiming at disproving the "bible" is because it makes "claims" that they don't feel can be substantiated or just don't like. And the fact that there are actually people who believe the words of the bible to be the "Word of God".

 

Plato never claimed to be God or have the Word of God as his message. I understand the flack given over the bible. What I can't understand is why it matters so much if one chooses not to believe if?

[Storyrider]

Now, about textbooks, journals, etc. I'm probably thinking simplistically, but if we know of Plato and Aristotle, newton, etc. then it would be because information about them was recorded. What difference does it make if history was recorded in the bible versus history being recorded in a textbook? The most original copy of the bible is the King Jame's version, so basing it off of that alone, rather than the spoof-offs, both the bible and our own textbooks and documents have been copied many times in the past before reaching today.

 

The King James version is not the most orginal version of the Bible. Not even in English.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible#Background

[Rooster_DAR]

Logic can only get you so far. At some point, even the most rational and logical persons will have to accept that all can't be known or scientifically explained. So we all believe in something that we have no proof of, other than our adherence to that belief.

 

While this seems to be true in the short term, don't you think it's also possible to know it all in the long run. Tell me why it would not be possible to know it all given an enormous time scale to analyze and interpret. Why is it not plausible for mankind to propagate out through the universe and through millions and perhaps billions of years of an evolved mind, figure everything out (if we're not destroyed by ourselves or some other phenomena). In the short time mankind has been in existence, he has gained an incomprehensible understanding of his world and some understanding of the universe.

 

Maybe it would be good to research just how quickly humans are learning and adapting as the generations pass, last I ready we were learning at an accelerated rate every 1 to 2 generations.

 

Cheers!

[FleshNBones]

But the point of those aiming at disproving the "bible" is because it makes "claims" that they don't feel can be substantiated or just don't like. And the fact that there are actually people who believe the words of the bible to be the "Word of God".

They are swinging at everything. This includes Christian faith, morality, tenants, history, its followers, and God. They like the Bible because it is a lot more solid.

 

I don't think you will find God satisfying the expectations of people anywhere in the Bible. It must be a real downer for the deniers.

 

The deniers don't offering anything because they have nothing to offer. They don't even offer the truth.

Plato never claimed to be God or have the Word of God as his message. I understand the flack given over the bible. What I can't understand is why it matters so much if one chooses not to believe if?

Maybe they are bitter.

[lonelybird]

Tell me why it would not be possible to know it all given an enormous time scale to analyze and interpret. Why is it not plausible for mankind to propagate out through the universe and through millions and perhaps billions of years of an evolved mind, figure everything out

I cannot wait that long to get my freedom. besides, from beginning of human race till now human didn't change selfish nature a little bit, what make you sure we will change in next million years? when human figure out everything, will they become less selfish? will they become all loving toward each other? will they become all forgiving?

 

In the very beginning, Adam and Eve were perfect, were spiritual being, were connected with God, but after they ate the fruit of kowlege of good and evil, they became carnal, they are driven by flesh, and flesh is against God. The first thing Adam and Eve did was to hide themselves from God after they ate the fruit. their felt shame, just like today's us, some of us felt the shame as to want to hide from God because God is light and holy. If God didn't drive them out of the Eden, they would could not bear the shameful feeling and guilt. but God figured out a plan to draw his children back to him through Jesus Christ.

 

so confession to God and repentance is an action that changing from hiding from God to expose self to God, which end up totally freedom. But hiding will cause bondage in own lives, is self cheating.

 

People think that humble equals to insignificance, that isn't true. Self-importance brings pride, is delusional, like Nassicist Personality, but humble really is a confident gesture, confidence comes from knowing he is a child of God, from obeying God.

[disgracian]

Maybe they are bitter.

I like that. We apparently have to be bitter to express our opinions. I'm sure you're hypocritical enough not to ascribe nefarious motives to Christian evangelism, which cares quite a lot about what other people do or don't believe, enough in fact to spend billions every year in an attempt to convert them.

 

Why can't non-Christians evangelise too without having to be angry or some other nonsense?

 

Cheers,

D.

[NoIDidn't]

Why can't non-Christians evangelise too without having to be angry or some other nonsense?

 

Is that what you call it? Evangelism? That's funny. Thanks for the chuckle.

[NocturnalRaids]

Well, I couldn't be convinced of much of anything at the current time.

 

My professor gave me a needed picture. It is agreed and taken that in the Jewish tradition the stories have a meaning or moral to the story a little deeper than the literal level.

 

There are accounts of things in the bible. The adam and eve story (Yahwist source-10 century BC) was written 500 years ealier than the first one. In the beginning...........was written during a priest surge about 550-500BC.

 

The term Yahweh-Elohim (Lord-God) is seen during this Yahwist period I think. Anyway, there are differences to know they are two DIFFERENT yet not unrelated accounts of creation. They seem to compliment each other ok since they are coupled together in the Tanak, the closed cannon of Judeaism.

 

I posted because I didn't get why forgiveness was such a big deal. Jesus according to historians never knew he was the son of Yahweh. He didn't like what he saw around him that some of the jews were doing, and when he entered that city on a white donkey, before he spoke the with high priest guy, he went to the gambling tables and tossed them over on their side and got crazy mad at those people and stuff. This discovery channel program was good.

 

Anyway, the new testament lays out that Jesus, much like buddha, had a vision for several days while out by himself in the desert and was tempted by evil.....yada yada......and then awoke and gave a first sermon. It is a parallel to buddhism in how one religion came out of the other.

 

So he spoke about forgiveness.

 

There are other things that are interesting, it says in the New Testament somewhere that the Kingdom of heaven is inside you. It directly says something to that affect. Different gospels and different accounts according to different people. The gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Mary Magndelane or whatever her last name is says very similar things as the other gospels do.

 

Jewish people just offer up their best, and take whatever Yahweh delivers, theres no cookie, no eternal afterlife to draw them in. They just go with tradition. They don't do it only for salvation. Its a culture things. Just look at how Job shook a stick up in the air and ranted about how God was dumb for letting the wicked prosper. Also in Judeaism God loves everyone, even those who aren't jewish. It is more of culture, and is ok.

 

 

The Idea of original sin was drawn out and developed by the institution of christianity. Directly in the scripture it doesn't really mention any of that bull. Aside from the second creation story theres no direct statement of that so far as I learned in this class.