Questions about the bible/Christianity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeFang

To die of course.

---

Now, now, not even that. There is no inherent meaning to our existence. What meaning our lives have is what meaning we ascribe to them. If you believe your life has no meaning, then that is how much meaning your life will have to you. You don't need to believe in a higher power, however, to know that your life will make a difference, even if only to those immediately around you. If you live your life in harmony with a melody you believe to be true, even if it's marching to the different drummer of Thoreau (or perhaps especially then, for you stand out all the more), your life will have a meaning of significance to you, and to others. No intrinsic meaning, but you give it meaning through your actions, thoughts, and beliefs.

Oh, and ToolPunk, you should talk to Xena. She also believes strongly in Christianity, and was trying to stand up to us agnostics and atheists (some of whom are a bit reminiscent of true believers, themselves). She'll probably post in here soon enough, though. :)

Actually there was a true meaning in the begining most people ignore it as they do the bible and we don't have to die. So many people think that life just flows through time and life is what you make of it. The bible is real it is not just some book laying around. It was translated from scrolls that were found that date back thousands of years. The funny part about it is Science goes so against the bible in so many ways (evolution) and yet it also proves that the bible is no lie (and did you know that Noah's Ark exists, it was found). There is a plan that was set in motion since the begining of time and no matter what people think, do or say it will run it's course. Only certain people will come out the other side.

Yay, he used a literalist interpretation of the Bible! You know how I'll reply to those. So, did I hit any of the claims of Noah's Ark that you were referring to with those links? There were plenty more Ararat claims, after all. And for that matter, even if the story was completely factual and unaffected by historical exaggeration, there's still the minor fact that it was built from wood, and would have been destroyed in 4.5 millenia. Even if it were frozen in ice, glacial movement would have shredded the ark laterally and dragged to pieces along the ground.

Oh, and regarding Biblical infallibility in general.

"appx. 450 by 75 feet"
Have you taken the measurements from the bible of the ark and compared it to this claim? These are just articles trying to disprove the existence. If the Ark existed mankind (especialy the governmental and false religious groups) would have a big dilema. One huge big piece of evidence that the bible and God truely exist. It would create chaos. Everything that the bible has fortold has come true. Many things that have been fortold, were fortold by several different writers in different time periods seperated by death. They had different writing styles and some had different details on the subject. All of this has been proven over and over again by Science. Most people that believe in Science and against god and the bible ignore when Science states such facts. There have been thousands of scientific publications released that prove the authenticity of the bible and the existence of an Omnipotent being.

Cite some, if there are thousands, that do not have a decidedly creationist agenda behind them (Since creationism is merely the most significant aspect of the modern literalist view in general). At least my links cite their sources. I'd also point out that the existence of Noah's Ark doesn't prove God exists, but merely that Noah's Ark existed, and there is at least some truth behind the Flood story (not even that the entirety would be true, which is not corraborated by studies on the crustal layering that would indicate a planet-wide deluge had such an event occurred). It probably would cause chaos, but only on the part of people who don't think through it rationally, or were already inclined to believe the Bible is gospel truth, pun inadvertent.

I also note you call attention to successful prophesies in the Bible, disregarding the fact that in the early eras of civilization, prophesies were used as warnings or predictions as well as proselytizing. For that matter, what of the failed predictions of Joshua regarding God driving out the tribes of Canaan ("Canaanites, Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Amorites and Jebusites," he listed), Ezekiel regarding the Egyptian wasteland and its plunder by Nebuchadrezzar, or the destruction of Damascus and ascendancy of the Jewish Israelites? For that matter, prophesies can come true in many ways, such as vagueness (which requires interpretation after the fact to match it to the event), inevitability (which only requires common sense...a nation falling is inevitable, for instance, sooner or later), or self-fulfillment (where the prophet then acts to make the prophecy come true). There's also changing the written record of the prophecy after the fact, but we shouldn't use that without proof, especially since you already consider me badly biased against literalist interpretations of the Bible (rightfully, but I consider you just as badly biased in the opposite direction, and I'm sure we both believe it's bias in the same way that Copernicus and Gallileo were "biased" in favour of heliocentrism ;)), and it would be a bit circular (which at least you haven't tried yet, by claiming that the Bible is true because God says so, which is stated specifically in the Bible...that's the most common, at least).

And on the measurements of the Ark that you implied you disagreed with by quoting in particular...
"Genesis 6:15, NIV - This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high."
"Genesis 6:15, KJV - And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits."
A discovered Nippur measurement rod, one cubit long, defines a cubit as 20.36 inches, from 1950 BC, but we'll also use one from Israel roughly around the time of the First Temple (though that is later) at 428 mm (16.85 in). That makes about 509 by 85 by 51 feet by Nippur, or 421.25 by 70 by 42.125 feet by later Israeli standards. I'm sure we wouldn't want to go by period standards by this, since they're so far off (and in the wrong direction, at that, making the Ark even less likely to operate as a watercraft should), but why do we not accept the cubit used in constructing the first Temple as reasonably close to Noah's era?

Oh, and by the way, you never answered when I asked which Noah's Ark claim you were referencing. For that matter, I don't believe you ever specifically refuted any of the general arguments against literalism. You also seem to be quite picky about what science you accept, namely only that which supports your particular worldview. Is this semblance close to reality, and would you apply it to your religion as well?

I am not here to argue. Also, not i did not disagree with the measurements, I simply asked if you had refrenced the bible. Heated disputes on this subject is what turns so many away from religion.

I have several publications not at hand but in a few hours I will.

I will not state my religion because the majority of people default to "judging a book by it's cover" and my religion has a bad rep because of bad seeds, wolfs in sheeps clothing. People say"well if your religion is so perfect why aren't you", no one is perfect I would hope we would all know this by now. Though my religion is still one of the largest in the world.

We do not try to argue with people, convert them or force them to believe our teachings. We just simply try to inform and help people to understand the truth and fully grasp it, hopefully saving thier lifes from the great war.

It is so hard to talk with people that let thier minds get diluted with the teachings of man. "Where is God now why won't he do something", there are so many gods it is not funny (a god can be anything that is worshiped, humans have created many of them). There is only one true god and one false god, the false god is behind all the created false gods. Do you know which god is ruling over this world as of now?? It is part of the great plan and explains why this world is so messed up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToolPunk

I am not here to argue. Also, not i did not disagree with the measurements, I simply asked if you had refrenced the bible. Heated disputes on this subject is what turns so many away from religion.

I have several publications not at hand but in a few hours I will.

I will not state my religion because the majority of people default to "judging a book by it's cover" and my religion has a bad rep because of bad seeds, wolfs in sheeps clothing. People say"well if your religion is so perfect why aren't you", no one is perfect I would hope we would all know this by now. Though my religion is still one of the largest in the world.

We do not try to argue with people, convert them or force them to believe our teachings. We just simply try to inform and help people to understand the truth and fully grasp it, hopefully saving thier lifes from the great war.

It is so hard to talk with people that let thier minds get diluted with the teachings of man. "Where is God now why won't he do something", there are so many gods it is not funny (a god can be anything that is worshiped, humans have created many of them). There is only one true god and one false god, the false god is behind all the created false gods. Do you know which god is ruling over this world as of now?? It is part of the great plan and explains why this world is so messed up.

---

Well said. Rep to you ;)

Ah. So, you weren't disputing the cubit conversion (which I could understand, considering the range I came out with there from just two different sources).

You needn't worry about judgmentalism here...ah...well, you needn't worry about it from me, at least. I suppose that if you do not wish to share your religion and denomination, it is fine, but it is a bit odd to me. After all, I can say I'm a wishy-washy agnostic that neither believes in nor disbelieves in anything perfectly fine, though I usually wouldn't refer to it like that, just as my mother's family can declare themselves Mahayana Buddhists or my father's family can declare themselves Methodist or non-denominational Christians. Well, those are the people I know best, but many people here also did declare themselves as well, so it makes me wonder if you're not Catholic, Mormon, or any Muslim faith, since those seem to be the most maligned of the Abrahamic faiths (You referred to the Bible, after all). I don't think you need to be overly worried, but it's probably best for you to read this thread in its entirety, since it seems to have a relatively decent cross-section of everyone's reactions to denominational standings, as well as interesting religious Q&A and debates.

Catholic, Mormon, or any Muslim these religions all believe in something that the bible does not teach they have added to the bible with man's teachings. Jesus said that his people will be known because by making a strong stand for thier faith they will be rediculed. We are one of the most rediculed religions because of our faith. Little do people know, in the time of Hitler when the jews were thrown into the consentration camps they were not alone because they were not the only ones that were targeted. There command to capture the jews was just as strong to capture those in my religion.
Something that is not in the history books.

One main reason that I have not stated my religion is that because of my own imperfections I have made some bad decisions but still believe soley in my faith and would not want to bring more reproach on God's name. There is just so many people that have the wrong idea of my religion. My religion is actually famously rediculed.

No, the Jews were not the only ones targeted, but neither were they accompanied by merely one other group of "mysterious" religious origins. There were charts documenting proper eye colour and skin tone for staying out of a concentration camp, and if you happened to have brown hair and dark eyes you were just as likely to be sent to one as anybody of differing religious faiths that were on Hitler's shitelist.

It seems to me that you take some sort of pride in being in the world's largest, famously ridiculed religion, and yet despite that, you don't wish to reveal it because you're afraid that decisions you've made as a human being would bring reproach on God's name? Wether or not you reveal it is your choice, and it wouldn't be my place (or anyone else's) to try to force you to reveal the true nature of your affiliation, but basing the truthfulness of your religion on the facts that A) It is the largest in the world, and B) that it is highly ridiculed, seem to be moot points. Surely, simply because something is the largest doesn't necessarily mean it is also correct? Application of that to real life means that the bully is correct for picking on the little kids, that Microsoft should rule the world, and that the country with the most land mass should be highest in priority and command. As for ridicule, many religions are "famously" ridiculed (I'm not too sure about how you mean "famously", but I'm assuming that it means at least that it has been in print). Protestant Christians of many different denominations are ridiculed, Catholics have George Carlin to thank for many jokes about their own religion, Muslims are picked on nation-wide in America (and elsewhere) for the few "bad apples" of their religion. The way you wrote it, it's either that you were proud of these two facts because they somehow applied merely to your religion, or you were dropping hints in a guessing game that isn't being played.

As for Catholics, Mormons, and Muslims believing in something the Bible doesn't teach, well, you can't blame them. Muslims don't follow the Bible, period. They follow the Koran, believe in Allah, and think that Muhammed was a prophet of Allah. Catholics and Mormons both translate the Bible differently than other denominations (and other denominations translate it differently than everybody else, as well). These two religions are not the only ones that have added or altered something in the Bible in some way. When the Bible was translated from Hebrew to English, many of the definitions for words were swapped accidentally, and let's not forget about the friars that embellished certain stories before the aggregate was literate to make the story of God more appealing to listen to. For an example, the story of Jonah being swallowed by a whale should actually have been a sea "serpent". Just looking at the early Christian artwork and speaking with a Hebrew-speaking theologist will affirm this. Christianity in general is, at its root, a division of Judaism, and if you study the artwork and the history of early Christians, you find that early on, Jesus was actually just an architype. That is to say, there was no Jesus, but a Jesus figure, who had not been named, and was sometimes depicted in more than one person (ie. a picture of three shepards herding the same flock, all with the religious symbolism common to early Christian artwork - purple and gold robes, halos of light, etc.). This same thing is common among all religions, as people who are building faith in something have to build that something first. Catholocism did not immediately start with holy water, blessings, confessions, and recitations of "Hail Mary"; Bhuddists did not immediately say to themselves, "hey, let's all chant and shave our heads", and Muslims were not praying to Mecca until they knew that they ought to.

If it is so hard talking to people who have "let their minds become diluted with the teachings of man", what are you hoping to accomplish? Religion is a teaching of Man. Mankind invented religion. Going by the King James Bible (it's the only version I happen to have with me), Adam needed no chapel, no priests, no preachers, holy water, blessings, or books to communicate with God. He spoke with God. That can be interpreted as prayer, so I'll leave that subject up to "make what you will of it", but regardless, we made the buildings, we appointed the priests and preachers, we blessed the water, we wrote the blessings and books, and we instigated our own dogmas upon ourselves.

As for the meaning of life, I fail to see any reference to its meaning stated in the Bible. I also failed to see it in the Koran, the Tao Te Ching, the Papyrus of Ani (an Egyptian Book of the Dead), and several of the other religious doctrines I have collected. What do you expect? Going on the basis that there is a God, we weren't given all the answers, despite what you might think about the Tree of Knowledge's fruit. If we had, we wouldn't be debating wether or not there is a God, higher power, or metaphysical reference point for humanity. For that matter, we wouldn't have blown up so many spacecraft and third-world countries, or had to invent medicines. We would have just known. So, it is possible that maybe, just maybe, the meaning of life is to live. Make your life into what you will, and give meaning to your life, wether it be through faith in God or the creation of a cure for liver disease, or whatever. Going on the basis that their isn't a God, then there wouldn't, as previously stated, be an inherent meaning to life. Since there isn't a profound benevolent being who just happens to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent that created us, and we are an accident of biology, why would we even need a purpose besides fulfilling our basic animal instincts of feeding, reproducing, and eliminating? Atheists and agnostics are also very different things - one has faith in nothingness, one has no faith in anything. Everybody else has faith in something or other, which means no matter what particular group you happen to belong, you still don't have all the answers, you don't have all the power, and you can't get anybody of a differing religion to agree with you. Which is, of course, the purpose behind my decidedly long post. I am neither a believer or a dis-believer, and am perfectly willing to play Devil's Advocate (pardon the pun) with both sides concerning beliefs and "truths". Atheists can't prove God doesn't exist anymore than Religious people can prove he does, which makes most of the posts I've seen rather, for lack of a more polite term, pointless. As far as I'm concerned, believe what you want, do what you want, prepare for death however you want, we're probably ALL wrong.

Your whole post was meaningless because I read the first sentence to every paragraph and new everything you had to say. You don't understand I have talked with so many people about the bible I can tell them all apart. You get to know who is willing to listen and just hope that those who didn't, will some time soon.

I was just stating that if you followed religous history that the Hitler scene focused mostly on the jews and never mentioned the other large religous group that was targeted.

Never did I say that my religion was the largest. The Catholic and Morman religions are actually larger.

I was not trying to act proud to be rediculed just trying to give truthful facts about my religion. If you are able to figure out what religion I am part of then I was able to explain the truth before the assumption. If I were to just come out and say it from the begining then the assumptions would be first.

By famously being rediculed I meant that in many films and shows they poke fun at my religion for something that they take part in.

Your right about not needing preists or holy water or chapels my religion doesn't have that. We do need the bible though. God inspired the wrighters of the bible so that we would have something to direct us in the correct way to tread. 2 Timothy 3:16,17 "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,*that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work. We do gather together in a building looks something like a house but it is not called a church. Donations are a personal decision which are put into a contribution box which is not past around to make you feel uncomfortable that you didn't give anything. We do have people in positions but they are not higher then anyone everyone is equal. They willingly take the position, each position having different meaning, for example we have elders who shepard the congregation. They are there to listen when you are having troubles, to give you advice, to help keep bad seeds from stumbling others and many other things. We also have baptism but that to is a personal decision and is not just some spinkling of water. We do a full water baptism just as directed in the bible. We also welcome anyone to our meetings if they would like to attend.

As for talking to God, we would be able to have that sort of relationship with him to if he were ruling the world right now. As of now all we have is prayer but in the future after the great war we may have that chance. Benounced to many the ruler of this world is none other then Satan the devil (Which for those who don't know, he was once an angel of God. He was over taken by the desire for power. He sought to steal God's honor and cause people to worship him. The bad angel Satan was cast out of the heavens furthering the course of the plan for life).

As for the meaning of life if you don't know that then you have never read the bible or at least the first book of the bible. Maybe you have never had the great oportunity to have things broken down and truely explained to you. Many religions can be proven wrong just by the bible they use. In the begining of there bible it says that the true God's name has been omitted and replaced with god or lord. What kind of religion removes God's name?

Here is some none biblical scientific refrences on the Idea of evolution.
Evolution

Definition: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator. Some persons endeavor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were produced by means of evolution. Not a Bible teaching.

Is evolution really scientific?

The �scientific method� is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: �To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature�s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.��The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: �After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.��The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.

According to New Scientist: �An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists .*.*. argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. .*.*. Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.��June*25, 1981, p. 828.

Physicist H. S. Lipson said: �The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.� (Italics added.)�Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.

Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach?

The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin�s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: �As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.��By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.

�A century after Darwin�s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place�and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. .*.*. A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.��C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April*20, 1982, p. 19.

The scientific magazine Discover said: �Evolution .*.*. is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.��October 1980, p. 88.

What view does the fossil record support?

Darwin acknowledged: �If numerous species .*.*. have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.� (The Origin of Species, New York, 1902, Part Two, p. 83) Does the evidence indicate that �numerous species� came into existence at the same time, or does it point to gradual development, as evolution holds?

Have sufficient fossils been found to draw a sound conclusion?

Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier says: �There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.� (New Scientist, January 15,*1981, p. 129) A Guide to Earth History adds: �By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.��(New York, 1956), Richard Carrington, Mentor edition, p. 48.

What does the fossil record actually show?

The Bulletin of Chicago�s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: �Darwin�s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. .*.*. the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.��January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22,*23.

A View of Life states: �Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.��(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: �Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.��Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: �If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major*forms of life were established fits best.��Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: �The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.��(New York, 1980), p. 29.

Might it be that the evolutionary process took place as a result of mutations, that is, sudden drastic changes in genes?

Science Digest states: �Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires.� However, the magazine also quotes British zoologist Colin Patterson as stating: �Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes.� (February 1982, p. 92) In other words, there is no evidence to support the theory.

The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledges: �The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.��(1977), Vol. 10, p. 742.

What about those �ape-men� depicted in schoolbooks, encyclopedias and museums?

�The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination. .*.*. Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face�of these characters we*know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.��The*Biology*of Race (New York, 1971), James C. King, pp.*135,*151.

�The vast majority of artists� conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. .*.*. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.��Science Digest, April 1981, p. 41.

�Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.��Man, God and Magic (New York, 1961), Ivar Lissner, p.*304.

Do not textbooks present evolution as fact?

�Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, .*.*. over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. .*.*. But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science.��The Guardian, London, England, December 4,*1980, p. 15

Hmph.

Reasoning from the scriputres published by the watchtower bible and tract society of Jehovahs witness.

I'm not sure if you are Jehovahs witness toolpunk... But I see all or at least 90+% of what you posted is word for word from that book. A non Jehovahs witness sould not have access to it...

(Who cares!?)

Are you a Jehovah's Witness??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToolPunk

Are you a Jehovah's Witness??

---

Not fully.... yet.
But I have connections everywere.

Quote:

---

A non Jehovahs witness sould not have access to it

---

I am very aware of this.

Quote:

---

Not fully.... yet.
But I have connections everywere.

---

That is funny, so are you studying then. Maybe I shouldn't be talking with you then because I was DF'd and on my way back to reinstatement. If you are what you say, you should know what that means.