Act of God.
-
Cornelius is running out of bible quotes.
-
So you are not going to explain the contradiction, then...other than by making up some nonsense?
Or any of the others on the lists posted by Marian?
Thought not.
It's you that's working with no data; you have nothing to counter the historical record other than a vivid imagination. We'll call it 1-0 to the rationalists then. -
@unknownuser said:
Alan', if re. Quirinius you have no sufficient historical data, do not despair!
You said there are many contradictions in the Bible, so, come with a new well founded one!
Eventually ‘Marian’ can help you ...Sure he (Marian) can help. Isn't it time for you to open your eyes and to see what is really going on around you in this world? With you it's more or less like putting in a coin into a machine and another quote pops out of the boxes. It's like you never question anything. I can see that the bible is the only thing for you. That would be okay if you didn't try to force it through our throats. Unlike you I like to think for myself, question things, read what others think and evaluate. By now I do know where you stand. Just for once, watch that documentary that Marian linked to. Pay extra attention to (time) 1:22:58 through 1:23:12. *“…and perhaps the reason why so many of these writings have been lost to us altogether is because it is inevitably the winners who write history, The losers of that process drift from our memory into obscurity."*It summarizes what's always going throughout history, people fighting for/holding on to influence and power where the winner, in this case a/your version of the bible is the result, to ensure that influence and power.
Thank’s Marian, I enjoyed watching “The lost gospels”.
-
@wo3dan said:
Thank’s Marian, I enjoyed watching “The lost gospels”.
You're most welcome.
I also found it enjoyable and interesting.To people who might have some qualms and are not sure what that documantary is, the presenter is a Christian, an Anglican priest, also the rest of the scholars seem to be christians also, so it's not "atheistic propaganda".
-
it wouldn't need to be considered as atheistic propaganda.
some people, in this case "muslim" may already know about those things before they've made such video or any other presentation.
for me, when i see the video, i think there's nothing really new on their presentation.
for others, i.e. atheist, that video might still have a crossroads ahead.
for me and any other unitarian people, that video is just another confirmation for what they've known. -
@irwanwr said:
for me and any other unitarian people, that video is just another confirmation for what they've known.
True, but don't feel safe in your faith that that means the quran or other "holy" books are right.
The quran also borrows heavily from christian writings, ones that have not been included in the bible. That only goes to show, that one religion's junk is another's treasure.
The quran is as tainted with blood and atrocities in the same measure as the bible. -
@marian said:
The quran also borrows heavily from christian writings,..
first of all Marian, it might be good if you have adequate knowledge on the matter and your statement. might be even better if you can prove it. since muslim believe that the quran was sent mostly because the rest of earlier scriptures were either vanished or corrupted.who do you think wrote it? and how do you know he/she borrowed anything from earlier scriptures?
@unknownuser said:
The quran is as tainted with blood and atrocities in the same measure as the bible.
so the atheist don't have any kind of issue regarding blood and atrocities?
-
@irwanwr said:
muslim believe that the quran was sent mostly because the rest of earlier scriptures were either vanished or corrupted.
Exactly, it preserves some writings which in the beginning were popular with christians. For example it has a more elaborate and detailed story about the lives of Adam and Eve which most likely was one of the texts abandoned by the christian church.
@irwanwr said:
who do you think wrote it? and how do you know he/she borrowed anything from earlier scriptures?
Probably it is true that it was compiled and edited mostly my Mohammed. I know he barrowed and adapted because Islam is considered one of the 3 Abrahamic religions. It wouldn't have had any relation with Judaism and Christianity if it didn't barrow anything. I seriously doubt Mohammed could have invented all of it and please don't tell me it was dictated by allah.
Also this religion sprung up in the same general geographical area as the previous 2, highly likely and possible that Mohammed made contact with Jews and Christians. It would have been amazing if it had been created in China or Japan in the 6th century. You would have had a serious argument if that were the case.@irwanwr said:
so the atheist don't have any kind of issue regarding blood and atrocities?
What is that suppose to mean? I have an issue with them and that's one of the major reasons why I also have an issue with the "holy" books that contain and prescribe them.
-
@irwanwr said:
it wouldn't need to be considered as atheistic propaganda.
some people, .......I wasn't considering it (the documentary) anything else than interesting plausible historical information. Pieces of the puzzles in life. Information that might even help Cornel to reconsider his view on what is true. I'm not trying to prove anything to him. To quote Cornel (to him): "it's your choice".
I'm not sure what to believe. Going to church or the like, once a week or at christmas (for christians) doesn't mean much to me other than maybe meeting friends and family. To believe in god is so personal and much better expresses itself in how you stand in life. I'm more inclined towards what (for instance) Solo and Rich said earlier, (maybe in the other/parallel thread): Don't do to others what you wouldn't like others to do to you. Live and let live.
To enjoy, see:
Some interesting images of god's work? recorded by Yann Arthus-Bertrand:
http://www.yannarthusbertrand.org/ -
@marian said:
What is that suppose to mean? I have an issue with them and that's one of the major reasons why I also have an issue with the "holy" books that contain and prescribe them.
Pure atheism is only another religion .. it's inverted "theism". -
@starling75 said:
@marian said:
What is that suppose to mean? I have an issue with them and that's one of the major reasons why I also have an issue with the "holy" books that contain and prescribe them.
Pure atheism is only another religion .. it's inverted "theism".What?! really?
That's a really silly thing to say, if you had an idea what atheism is you would never say that.
Let's start with a definition:
a·the·ism/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
Noun:
The theory or belief that God does not exist.Which part of that is religion?
Lets new define religion:
re·li·gion/riˈlijən/
Noun:
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
Details of belief as taught or discussed, traditionsI cannot see how you can possibly call atheism a religion, that's just silly.
-
@starling75 said:
Pure atheism is only another religion .. it's inverted "theism".
No it's not, in the same measure non-Romanians are not a separate ethnic group.
Though I do grant you that some atheists are as obtuse and hardheaded as the bible thumpers. That only shows humans are humans irrespective of ideology, doctrine or philosophy.
-
@marian said:
@starling75 said:
Pure atheism is only another religion .. it's inverted "theism".
No it's not, in the same measure non-Romanians are not a separate ethnic group.
Though I do grant you that some atheists are as obtuse and hardheaded as the bible thumpers. That only shows humans are humans irrespective of ideology, doctrine or philosophy.
non-theist is agnostic = someone who claims: Gd's existence is uknown and probably unknowable ( ...certainly uncertaint
)
a-theist is someone who claims - Gd doesn't exist, because ... Lenin said that, because there is no scientific proof of Gd etcetc -
It's not that simple. Here's a better thought out explanation.http://youtu.be/S-BQVmvulmQ
-
Agnostism - quite simply means 'you don't know for sure...'
Solo, I'm on your side !
BUT your definitions need redefining.
Atheism IS a belief... just like any 'religion' is a belief.
AND it's also based on an UNprovable proposition, because you can't ever prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt.
So the atheists', 'God does NOT exist', is NOT provable, no matter how good your logical arguments.
BUT 'God exists' IS provable - even if the logic of the pro-camp IS flawed and they only prove it to their own satisfaction !
SO, please recast the atheists' position as follows:
'The universe exists without God - both for its initial creation and its continuance.'
Then that is 'provable' by argument.
OR perhaps even better, to partially side-step the very existence of God...
'If God exists, then God totally ignores our universe.'
Again provable by logical argument, and avoids the 'existence' argument...
Logically, if God doesn't existence then God couldn't do anything at all [stop!], but that remains an unprovable proposition... But IF you accept that God might exist, it's immediately followed by a denial of any possible influence that God might have, which is far less problematical. All non-believers aren't concerned with the second part, but any believers must then prove that God does interact with the universe... which is far from easy to do.
Recourse to saying that God's word is the Bible [or other holy book] is simply a circular argument that proves nothing. I know of no direct evidence of a real certified God-made intervention otherwise... it's all unprovable personal opinion, hearsay, allegory etc...
-
@marian said:
Exactly, it preserves some writings which in the beginning were popular with christians. For example it has a more elaborate and detailed story about the lives of Adam and Eve which most likely was one of the texts abandoned by the christian church.
that's also goes to christian. if they're considered did the same thing to jewish sources.
@marian said:
Probably it is true that it was compiled and edited mostly my Mohammed.
ah, a good statement.
well, that proves you have no knowledge at all about what you are talking about. since Muhammad was indeed illiterate. he wasn't well known for his ability to read or write.
let alone compiling and editing stuffs as comprehensively and integrally structured like that.@marian said:
Also this religion sprung up in the same general geographical area as the previous 2, highly likely and possible that Mohammed made contact with Jews and Christians. It would have been amazing if it had been created in China or Japan in the 6th century. You would have had a serious argument if that were the case.
something must start from somewhere. he never did made intended contact regarding the belief with either jewish or christian. his world were only of those old pagans. he traveled only for trading. the first contact happened when he already have some revelation.
@marian said:
What is that suppose to mean? I have an issue with them and that's one of the major reasons why I also have an issue with the "holy" books that contain and prescribe them.
i see. i accept that as your personal point of view.
well, actually my most concerns personally is about how to make myself do best according the teachings.
for your issue with any "holy scriptures", you can always question each of them. one at a time. and i think, you can always test them including quran if you'd like to. scientifically, empirically, or whatever method you'd like to implement on. for Qur'an, it's still there if you want to test it. i do believe it comes from god. so, i'll let you and qur'an to have whatever inquiries you'd want to have.
as for now, i'll go downstairs for more coffeecheers.
-
'Wo3Dan' wrote:
"[I'm more inclined towards what (for instance) Solo and Rich said earlier, (maybe in the other/parallel thread): Don't do to others what you wouldn't like others to do to you. Live and let live.]"OK but this 'philosophy' is taken from the Bible... See Luke6:31:
"Treat others the same way you want them to treat you."
-
Marian wrote: "[No it's not, in the same measure non-Romanians are not a separate ethnic group.]"
How about so-called 'romanian gypsy', aren't they a "separate ethnic group"?!
-
And of course .. one of the core problems of all of us = a,non,para(or whatever else)...theists is : "Who/What exactly is the Gd we are talking about?"
-
@marian said:
It's not that simple. Here's a better thought out explanation.http://youtu.be/S-BQVmvulmQ
You know, I was living for 14 years in Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and so called "scientific atheism" was part of my school education and ideological indoctrination.
It was (para)religion based on twisted facts, poor reasoning and prejudices. It had its priests, prophets and holy scriptures... and of course the other religions were archenemies.
For me - atheist is someone who BELIEVE in nonexistence of Gd ..
.. on the other hand, this word has really broad palette of meanings ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AtheismI am agnostic. ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
Advertisement