bigwull22 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 The jews (apparently) wrote the old testament while being held by their Babylonian masters around 440 BC. The babylonians had a written language and the jews used this to document their history that had previously been passed down orally. Or these could just be fictional stories like Harry Potter eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 If by 'made up' you mean wrote, it was written by various people, there 66 books written by about 40 different people. It's complicated by the fact that several books were co-authored and there's a couple of books nobody's very sure who the author was. I believe that all those books were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so ultimately God wrote the bible, He just used men to do so. If by 'made up' you mean put together, the particular books were chosen around the 4th century, some made it, others didn't. There was some controversy over what was canon and what wasn't. There were a number of councils sat, several under the authority of St Augustine, where holy men, again led by the Spirit, made the decision of what should be included and what should not. I hope that helps. Having seen some of the utter rubbish that has been printed in the press about people I know (including myself), I have long since learned not to trust what people write. And if that's true today, it's certainly true about people many centuries ago who wrote about events that passed several centuries even before that. Of course you are entitled to believe that God guided the hands of those who wrote the bible, but frankly I don't. I'm no atheist, but I will certainly not put my faith in a series of books that were written by people, gathering together stories after several centuries, many of which had been transmitted orally over generations, and who were undoubtedly influenced by their own beliefs, prejudices and opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Ah we get to the point, its to control the masses, did Moses ever exist? Did Jesus for that matter, and who said so? Or was it these same "people of importance", you don't need religion to decide whats right or wrong. There's more evidence that Jesus existed than Julius Caesar, outside of the New Testament (very good evidence in itself) there's Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and several more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest King Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Ah we get to the point, its to control the masses, did Moses ever exist? Did Jesus for that matter, and who said so? Or was it these same "people of importance", you don't need religion to decide whats right or wrong. I have no idea, and to be honest I dont really think about it. People could argue about this all day, it doesnt matter. If you believe in God and consider yourself religious then the doubters arguments will probably fall on deaf ears. To control the masses, it was quite a good idea if thats why it was written. People need controlling, imagine if there was no Bible and no fear of going to Hell? The place would be a madhouse. When people were fairly stupid and scared, living simple lives, I think it was quite important in teaching whats right and wrong, and the nice idea of Heaven to look forward to. Had it not been for those teachings we may not have ended up like we are today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmarkus1981 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Christian claims about the person of Jesus are not true, his alleged miracles violate the laws of nature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I have no idea, and to be honest I dont really think about it. People could argue about this all day, it doesnt matter. If you believe in God and consider yourself religious then the doubters arguments will probably fall on deaf ears. To control the masses, it was quite a good idea if thats why it was written. People need controlling, imagine if there was no Bible and no fear of going to Hell? The place would be a madhouse. When people were fairly stupid and scared, living simple lives, I think it was quite important in teaching whats right and wrong, and the nice idea of Heaven to look forward to. Had it not been for those teachings we may not have ended up like we are today. That's very interesting. Of course when we talk about religion we tend to think about the large monotheistic religions we have these days and not of the earliest religions, where there were mostly several Gods, religion being a set of beliefs that merely attempted to explain the world around us. That's not surprising, I would imagine that it would have been very difficult for the earliest humans to work out what this world was all about. After a while, when society developed and people got together in larger and larger numbers, there became a need to instill some form of moral code in people, not necessarily as a means of control, but as a means of ensuring that there wasn't chaos, that the society could survive. Naturally religion and these moral codes were entwined, and over time were often used as a means of control to protect the society in question, or certain individuals within it, or even the "religion" itself. It's only in recent times that we've started to try and separate the two, as we should do. However there's no getting away from it, today's moral code (our laws) are based on the religious beliefs that shaped them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I'm not denying that it is, I'm denying that it has to be - religion is man-made - man could have chosen something else - something equally bizzare! Christianity itself was a very minor sect before being embrace by the Romans, who then attempted to impose it on everyone else. Enough with the personal insults, by the way - it's not very Christian - you're supposed to turn the other cheek. You didn't answer the question, and you still haven't. I'll start it for you: God needs to be worshipped because... Well for religious people, god created the earth and every living thing on the planet, even i would choose to worship him if i believed that! Sounds a much more attractive thing to worship than Jade Goody or Jordan. As an aside, Uncle Albert, you seem to not contribute anything noteworthy in any thread I have seen you take part in. You just dismiss other people's views continually. No doubt you will dismiss this too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Having seen some of the utter rubbish that has been printed in the press about people I know (including myself), I have long since learned not to trust what people write. And if that's true today, it's certainly true about people many centuries ago who wrote about events that passed several centuries even before that. Of course you are entitled to believe that God guided the hands of those who wrote the bible, but frankly I don't. I'm no atheist, but I will certainly not put my faith in a series of books that were written by people, gathering together stories after several centuries, many of which had been transmitted orally over generations, and who were undoubtedly influenced by their own beliefs, prejudices and opinions. That's just not true of the New Testament, the NT as we have it today uses ancient texts to translate from, it's extremely accurate, more so than other ancient text known to man. The texts that they use in modern translations are within a few decades of the originals, themselves written less than one lifetime after the events, mostly written by people who were first hand witnesses to the events they wrote about. No Christian wants their faith to be based on a rumour, or worse a lie. Do you not think that maybe some Christians looked into this and checked it out, or did we all just do what our masters told us? It's hilarious that Christians get accused of either being manipulated or of manipulating others. (Which is it anyway? Can it be both?) As if the secular part of society isn't controlled, even subjugated by the media, the government and most of all by big business. Advertisers must be wetting themselves! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 That's just not true of the New Testament, the NT as we have it today uses ancient texts to translate from, it's extremely accurate, more so than other ancient text known to man. The texts that they use in modern translations are within a few decades of the originals, themselves written less than one lifetime after the events, mostly written by people who were first hand witnesses to the events they wrote about. No Christian wants their faith to be based on a rumour, or worse a lie. Do you not think that maybe some Christians looked into this and checked it out, or did we all just do what our masters told us? It's hilarious that Christians get accused of either being manipulated or of manipulating others. (Which is it anyway? Can it be both?) As if the secular part of society isn't controlled, even subjugated by the media, the government and most of all by big business. Advertisers must be wetting themselves! How do you know that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Christian claims about the person of Jesus are not true, his alleged miracles violate the laws of nature That's why they're miracles. mir⋅a⋅cle /ˈmɪrəkəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mir-uh-kuhl] ?noun 1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause. 2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God. 3. a wonder; marvel. Jesus miracles show his authority, his power and his deity. He is Lord! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmarkus1981 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 As i said in a previous thread, neither side of the god divide will give up and say 'fair do's' We will be being told that the earth is only 2000 years old next Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 If by 'made up' you mean wrote, it was written by various people, there 66 books written by about 40 different people. It's complicated by the fact that several books were co-authored and there's a couple of books nobody's very sure who the author was. I believe that all those books were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so ultimately God wrote the bible, He just used men to do so. If by 'made up' you mean put together, the particular books were chosen around the 4th century, some made it, others didn't. There was some controversy over what was canon and what wasn't. There were a number of councils sat, several under the authority of St Augustine, where holy men, again led by the Spirit, made the decision of what should be included and what should not. I hope that helps. I am an atheist, as I have said, but I hold no agression towards anyone believing in something else... As long as it does not hurt anyone, we should be free to believe what we like. As to this post though, how do you feel about the deadsea scrolls? Do you believe that they were supressed and not included in the bible (didn't make the cut, if you like ) because they did not fit the agenda of the guys who compiled it... Things like female equality etc. Without getting into the nonsence that Dan Brown wrote, I saw a very interesting documentery about these scrolls and one of the big theories is that these scrolls along with others that were not recovered would have contributed to a very different message had they been included in the bible. The idea that Jesus was married is an interesting one and the theory goes on to suggest that... (I want to say Peter?) one of the disciples supressed the parts written by important female figures like Mary Magdelane (rumoured to be Jesus' wife and a key disciple) in order to ensure male dominion in a Christian world... To the extent that she was described as a prostitute in order to destroy her credibility. Do you know of these theories and the apparent evidence that the dead sea scrolls are supposed to contain some of Mary Magdelane's scriptures that were supressed? If so where do you stand with this? Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 How do you know that? Because these ancient texts exist. They can be compared with modern translations. Not all are complete, some are fragments of pages, but they exist. The Septuagint, the Vulgate, ancient versions of the bible, but there are many more. Then you have things like the dead sea scrolls, amongst which was a complete scroll of the book of Isaiah. 2,000 years old, unseen in all that time, but exactly the same words on it that we have today. I think that's good evidence that scripture is reliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 That's just not true of the New Testament, the NT as we have it today uses ancient texts to translate from, it's extremely accurate, more so than other ancient text known to man. The texts that they use in modern translations are within a few decades of the originals, themselves written less than one lifetime after the events, mostly written by people who were first hand witnesses to the events they wrote about. No Christian wants their faith to be based on a rumour, or worse a lie. Do you not think that maybe some Christians looked into this and checked it out, or did we all just do what our masters told us? It's hilarious that Christians get accused of either being manipulated or of manipulating others. (Which is it anyway? Can it be both?) As if the secular part of society isn't controlled, even subjugated by the media, the government and most of all by big business. Advertisers must be wetting themselves! If you (or anyone else) could provide reputable electronic sources that i could have a look at, then you might make me less sceptical on Jesus and what christianity is based on. By reputable I dont mean http://www.bornagainchristians.god/theholybible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoaldJensen Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 One historical point and one contemporary point. Google the Canaan Lane riots if you want to know the true nature of sectarianism in Edinburgh in the middle part of the 20th century. Google vanguardbears if you want to be astonished at Rangers fans who would prefer crowds of 10,000 at Ibrox than allow catholics to play for and support their team. It's always just below the surface. Personally I believe in a Grand Architect of the Universe and I really dont care how you want to label him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I am an atheist, as I have said, but I hold no agression towards anyone believing in something else... As long as it does not hurt anyone, we should be free to believe what we like. As to this post though, how do you feel about the deadsea scrolls? Do you believe that they were supressed and not included in the bible (didn't make the cut, if you like ) because they did not fit the agenda of the guys who compiled it... Things like female equality etc. Without getting into the nonsence that Dan Brown wrote, I saw a very interesting documentery about these scrolls and one of the big theories is that these scrolls along with others that were not recovered would have contributed to a very different message had they been included in the bible. The idea that Jesus was married is an interesting one and the theory goes on to suggest that... (I want to say Peter?) one of the disciples supressed the parts written by important female figures like Mary Magdelane (rumoured to be his wife and a key disciple) in order to ensure male dominion in a Christian world... To the extent that she was described as a prostitute in order to destroy her credibility. Do you know of these theories and the apparent evidence that the dead sea scrolls are supposed to contain some of Mary Magdelane's scriptures that were supressed? If so where do you stand with this? Cheers. I don't think the dead sea scrolls were suppressed when it came to putting together the canon, I think they were lost before then and they have certainly been used in newer translations of the bible (New International Version etc.) I don't think Augustine had access to the Qumran Community at all. I think the stuff about Mary Magdalene being the wife of Jesus is Dan Brown style conspiracy, I think there's very little actual evidence for it, beyond theory and imagination. On the role of women in the church, I think the church has always reflected culture, when the NT was written women were second class citizens. In fact Jesus gave them a very high regard, something which confounded his followers sometimes! As the church has reformed (which it must continually do), so women have rightfully gained equality with men, in some churches, as in some societies. (Even some households!) I am of the opinion that there is nothing within the Christian faith that a woman cannot do. (Except pee standing up, but frankly, men shouldn't do in a church service either) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Because these ancient texts exist. They can be compared with modern translations. Not all are complete, some are fragments of pages, but they exist.The Septuagint, the Vulgate, ancient versions of the bible, but there are many more. Then you have things like the dead sea scrolls, amongst which was a complete scroll of the book of Isaiah. 2,000 years old, unseen in all that time, but exactly the same words on it that we have today. I think that's good evidence that scripture is reliable. No, the true test of the accuracy and reliability of an historical document is not how closely it matches another historical document (rubbish can easily be propagated). It is how closely it matches what actually happened i.e. the subject of the document. So, to ask again, how can you claim that the text of the Bible is accurate if you weren't there to experience it for yourself? The truth is that you can't, that it has to be solely a question of belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 One historical point and one contemporary point.Google the Canaan Lane riots if you want to know the true nature of sectarianism in Edinburgh in the middle part of the 20th century. Google vanguardbears if you want to be astonished at Rangers fans who would prefer crowds of 10,000 at Ibrox than allow catholics to play for and support their team. It's always just below the surface. Personally I believe in a Grand Architect of the Universe and I really dont care how you want to label him. Or her. Or it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 If you (or anyone else) could provide reputable electronic sources that i could have a look at, then you might make me less sceptical on Jesus and what christianity is based on. By reputable I dont mean http://www.bornagainchristians.god/theholybible Briefly, there's some stuff here which is possibly not reputable enough for you. http://www.alphafriends.org/node/1287 I'd have a particular look at chapter 1) Who is Jesus? There's stuff in there about textual criticism. Better though (and I'm sorry but I can't find it electronically) is to have a wee read of the translators' preface at the beginning (hence preface) of any copy of the NIV (New International Version) It explains how it was translated and what sources were used, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Briefly, there's some stuff here which is possibly not reputable enough for you.http://www.alphafriends.org/node/1287 I'd have a particular look at chapter 1) Who is Jesus? There's stuff in there about textual criticism. Better though (and I'm sorry but I can't find it electronically) is to have a wee read of the translators' preface at the beginning (hence preface) of any copy of the NIV (New International Version) It explains how it was translated and what sources were used, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Your right, its not reputable enough for me sadly. An open minded independent historian who analyses the historical credibility of the bible and the historical credibility of independent sources at the same time in history and can provide conclusions that support the bible, that would interest me. Many agnostic/aethiest people have told me before that it is common knowledge amongst historians that Jesus was a real person at least. How do they come to this conclusion?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoaldJensen Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 it possibly, definately not her. But thats another debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 No, the true test of the accuracy and reliability of an historical document is not how closely it matches another historical document (rubbish can easily be propagated). It is how closely it matches what actually happened i.e. the subject of the document. So, to ask again, how can you claim that the text of the Bible is accurate if you weren't there to experience it for yourself? The truth is that you can't, that it has to be solely a question of belief. I've never been to America, but I believe it exists. Why? Because there is good evidence that convinces me. I don't need to have experienced it for myself to know that it's there. Yes, the existence of America is solely a question of belief for me, but I have no doubt because the evidence is overwhelming. So it is with the person of Jesus. For me the evidence is overwhelming. Also, I have a personal experience of a relationship with him. I have never met you, I have no personal evidence that you exist, to me your existence is solely a question of belief. BUT! I have this relationship with you, I write stuff, you write stuff and we communicate. For me that's not even then a matter of faith or personal belief, I have experienced a relationship with you! So it is with Jesus. I talk, he answers, I have a relationship that is just as provable to me as ours is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I've never been to America, but I believe it exists.Because there is good evidence that convinces me. I don't need to have experienced it for myself to know that it's there. There's no such place as America Doc. You've been reading the wrong evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmarkus1981 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 People who believe they claim to hear voices or have 'relationships' with people who are not 'physically' present are sometimes described as 'loonies'. But if you claim to be talking to god/jesus, its ok. Whats with that? @The Doctor, your knowledge of Jesus/God/The Bible is impressive and FWIW i respect your opinions. Even though i dont share them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Briefly, there's some stuff here which is possibly not reputable enough for you.http://www.alphafriends.org/node/1287 I'd have a particular look at chapter 1) Who is Jesus? There's stuff in there about textual criticism. Better though (and I'm sorry but I can't find it electronically) is to have a wee read of the translators' preface at the beginning (hence preface) of any copy of the NIV (New International Version) It explains how it was translated and what sources were used, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. I would also suggest that you do a Google search for "Biblical criticism" - there are many articles available that take the Bible to task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I've never been to America, but I believe it exists.Why? Because there is good evidence that convinces me. I don't need to have experienced it for myself to know that it's there. Yes, the existence of America is solely a question of belief for me, but I have no doubt because the evidence is overwhelming. So it is with the person of Jesus. For me the evidence is overwhelming. Also, I have a personal experience of a relationship with him. I have never met you, I have no personal evidence that you exist, to me your existence is solely a question of belief. BUT! I have this relationship with you, I write stuff, you write stuff and we communicate. For me that's not even then a matter of faith or personal belief, I have experienced a relationship with you! So it is with Jesus. I talk, he answers, I have a relationship that is just as provable to me as ours is! All very interesting, but the question was, how do you know that the N.T. is accurate? You don't, it is just your belief. When it comes to belief, we can't prove anything. What we can do is merely balance probabilities in our head. I've been to the U.S. (or were you meaning the continent?) so I know that in all probability it exists (I can't say 100% because perhaps it was some Truman show ruse ). However the Bible was written by some guys, with all the fallibility and inaccuracy that being human entails, up to and over a century after the fact, in the days when the distinction between fiction and non-fiction was far more blurred than it is today. I can fully appreciate someone grounding their beliefs in the stars over their head, the nature and life that surrounds them, things that they can see and feel with their own senses, but to base the foundation of your life on a series of books written such a long time ago, of which the accuracy must be questionable, seems crazy to me. Each to their own though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside1874 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Christian claims about the person of Jesus are not true, his alleged miracles violate the laws of nature They are stories that have been mixed up in translation. We say about making a silk purse from a pigs ear. They said making water into wine. Bringing someone back from the dead. An unbeliever was thought of as a dead person. To make them believe was bringing them to life.....etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigsmak Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 interesting video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Well for religious people, god created the earth and every living thing on the planet, even i would choose to worship him if i believed that! Sounds a much more attractive thing to worship than Jade Goody or Jordan. As an aside, Uncle Albert, you seem to not contribute anything noteworthy in any thread I have seen you take part in. You just dismiss other people's views continually. No doubt you will dismiss this too. You again? Classic trolling! However, your post is very important to me - if you think that there is anything untoward in my posts, please feel free to report them to the moderators. Nice chatting, though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 You again? Classic trolling! However, your post is very important to me - if you think that there is anything untoward in my posts, please feel free to report them to the moderators. Nice chatting, though! How you can construe this as trolling is beyond me, it is clear you are still hurting from the incontinence website that I directed you to last week. You must be a sensitive soul so I will stop quoting your posts. Happy days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJAC? Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 No, the true test of the accuracy and reliability of an historical document is not how closely it matches another historical document (rubbish can easily be propagated). It is how closely it matches what actually happened i.e. the subject of the document. So, to ask again, how can you claim that the text of the Bible is accurate if you weren't there to experience it for yourself? The truth is that you can't, that it has to be solely a question of belief. Bible aside for the moment, Historians actually do use multiple sources, then compare them before making claims about any subject. It's the only possible way to tell history from bygone eras. So it's a bit unfair to ask someone to provide proof when you know it's impossible. Hell, no one can actually tell you with 100% certainty William Wallace actually did everything that's written about him, we just have to make up our own minds whether it's true or not. It's not unheard of for historians to rewrite specific historical events if/when new documentation comes to light from more reliable sources. Remember during the medieval times fables were all the rage, and that is something a lot of historians have to contend with when writing their history books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Bible aside for the moment, Historians actually do use multiple sources, then compare them before making claims about any subject. It's the only possible way to tell history from bygone eras. So it's a bit unfair to ask someone to provide proof when you know it's impossible. Hell, no one can actually tell you with 100% certainty William Wallace actually did everything that's written about him, we just have to make up our own minds whether it's true or not. It's not unheard of for historians to rewrite specific historical events if/when new documentation comes to light from more reliable sources. Remember during the medieval times fables were all the rage, and that is something a lot of historians have to contend with when writing their history books. But justified, I reckon, if someone states something as a reality when it is simply a belief, in the midst of a discussion on beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 But justified, I reckon, if someone states something as a reality when it is simply a belief, in the midst of a discussion on beliefs. Is gravity a belief or fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 But justified, I reckon, if someone states something as a reality when it is simply a belief, in the midst of a discussion on beliefs. 2nd question: Did the holocaust happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJAC? Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 But justified, I reckon, if someone states something as a reality when it is simply a belief, in the midst of a discussion on beliefs. I'm kinda in your camp of thinking though, as it's pretty obvious the bible has been manipulated by individuals throughout the years and what people are left with now is a lot of ****e that does nothing but protect the interests of a few, at the expense of the majority. Nothing that's been written by man should be taken at face value as everyone will have their own agenda to some extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Is gravity a belief or fact? What do you define as "belief" and "fact"? And, just for the record, what do you define as "gravity"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJAC? Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Is gravity a belief or fact? Well actually it is a belief as you're taking someone else's work and placing your trust in it. Unless you have come up with your own theories through doing your own investigations, then like before, you're placing your beliefs in someone else's work. Or think of it another way, do you believe the theory of gravity? Belief and believe are basically the same word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 What do you define as "belief" and "fact"? And, just for the record, what do you define as "gravity"? That thing that stops you from floatin aboot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Well actually it is a belief as you're taking someone else's work and placing your trust in it. Unless you have come up with your own theories through doing your own investigations, then like before, you're placing your beliefs in someone else's work. Or think of it another way, do you believe the theory of gravity? Belief and believe are basically the same word. Correct, I am putting my belief into someone elses investigations. I accept as fact that the holocause happened. But I wasnt alive when the holocaust took place so can never "prove" it either. So I am also placing belief/faith in external evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I'm kinda in your camp of thinking though, as it's pretty obvious the bible has been manipulated by individuals throughout the years and what people are left with now is a lot of ****e that does nothing but protect the interests of a few, at the expense of the majority. Nothing that's been written by man should be taken at face value as everyone will have their own agenda to some extent. I couldn't have put it better myself. It's slightly off-topic but when I was at school, several moons ago, one of the most memorable lessons I had was in biology where, during the lesson, a fellow science teacher came storming into the classroom and had a huge row with our teacher. We all sat there gobsmacked. The other guy left and our teacher then turned round to us and said "Right, grab some paper and a pencil. Now, what colour was that guy's hair?" and then continued to ask us questions on the scene that had just unfolded. At the end, we compared answers and found that most people were wrong about simple things like what exactly had been said, whether the guy was wearing glasses etc. The teacher then asked us to think about court cases where people give evidence about events that had happened and how we normally expect people to be fairly accurate (or deceitful) about what happened. In reality, we human beings are simply not that good at observation on the whole, and once you throw memory and outside influence into the mix, this leads to even more inaccuracy as time goes by. Now what if we had written down what we had seen? Founded a religion on it? Whose version would have been seen as gospel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 That thing that stops you from floatin aboot. Ah, you mean the hooks on the souls of my shoes. On the balance of the evidence that I've seen, I believe the force of gravity does exist, yes. It certainly explains a lot of what I see around me. I also believe that we will find an easy and inexpensive (in energy terms) way to counter gravity within the next 50 years or so, but that's probably by the by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 2nd question: Did the holocaust happen? From the evidence I've seen (including a visit to Auschwitz this summer), I do believe so, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Ah, you mean the hooks on the souls of my shoes. On the balance of the evidence that I've seen, I believe the force of gravity does exist, yes. It certainly explains a lot of what I see around me. I also believe that we will find an easy and inexpensive (in energy terms) way to counter gravity within the next 50 years or so, but that's probably by the by. Haha, do you mean like jumping up and down!? Gravity is one of the weakest forces in nature. Try it for yourself, pick up a pen. You have now countered gravity! No need to wait 50 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Haha, do you mean like jumping up and down!? Gravity is one of the weakest forces in nature. Try it for yourself, pick up a pen. You have now countered gravity! No need to wait 50 years. What I was thinking more about was the ability to jump up and stay up (without a jet pack on your back or other such aid). Gravity is indeed one of the weakest forces - if it can be called that - but one of the least understood as well. I reckon it will only take us 50 years however to work it out properly and, after developing the GUT, develop the "Theory of Everything". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 How you can construe this as trolling is beyond me, it is clear you are still hurting from the incontinence website that I directed you to last week. You must be a sensitive soul so I will stop quoting your posts. Happy days. You remembered! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Okay, I'll have a bash. Firstly, God does not 'need' anything, nowhere in the bible does God 'need' to be worshipped. Secondly, God is worthy of worship and exultation. He is Almighty, Creator, He is The Supreme Being. Thirdly, God created us to be in relationship with Him. We worship Him (freely, by choice) because we recognise his deity and sovereignty. Worship is a response to God's love. It involves anything we do in response to that, whether that's singing praise, praying, giving, serving, working, offering everything we do as a holy sacrifice to God. This is our spiritual act of worship. So, your question fails to understand the fundamental nature of God (He doesn't need anything), we choose to worship Him (or not) as a response to His greatness and His love. Thank you sincerely for answering the question directly - I don't buy any of your answers, but I do appreciate the reply from an educated gentleman such as yourself. Regarding the last paragraph of your post, you are, of course quite correct - I (maybe not my question, though - I think it's perfectly valid) do fail to understand the fundamental nature of God. In fact, I fail to see how any human could possibly understand such an abstract concept as the fundamental nature of God. And this is not, as is often claimed in many a theological debate, because man is incapable of understanding the fundamental nature of God because man's understanding is limited. (which, of course, it is) Rather because the fundamental nature of God is incomprehensible - that is to say that, in my opinion of course, the fundamental nature of God is not capable of being understood. For the record, I have studied philosophy/theology at an academic level, (clearly not to the level you have, mind ) and am familiar with the standard arguments for and against the existence of God from Aquinas, St Anselm, Augustine, Montaigne, etc, so I'm not completely ignorant - only somewhat! Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 What I don't get is why God would create a universe with billions of stars and billions of planets just so that 15 billion years later (and I appreciate that could be an eyeblink for God) on one of those planets, just one of the many millions of species that he created (either directly or indirectly) would finally evolve and start to worship him? And if God is powerful enough to do all that, why does he not take care of his creations? Why does he make people suffer, and I'm not talking about people missing buses on wet days here, I'm talking generation after generation of poor people living in the 3rd world struggling to get food and having to do awful things to get by? And if worship is optional and unnecessary, why do missionaries try to convert people and imply that you can find yourself in God's favour if you live a life of worship? For me none of this, and a lot more about all religions, make any logical sense whatsoever. Its ridiculously far fetched. I'm am of the belief that either we came about by chance, or that there was a creater who created us by chance (sneezing / mixing the wrong mega chemicals) and hasn't the power to affect anything that goes on, or that the creater is now dead. Either way, I'm as certain as a man can be with no proof that there is no God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_the_Jambo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/ A good watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mac Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Interesting, using the quoted bible passages to back up instructions to the faithfull: http://godisimaginary.com/ The slavery one is no. 13, there are more than 50 quotes here, try it for yourself then please defend the faith, confirming which one of the 50 you disagree with - I'll still be waiting for the "extraordinary proof". I quite like the No. 32 theologian one. Or, you could say, "I think what God meant was..." to justify your belief. I'm just asking, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Interesting, using the quoted bible passages to back up instructions to the faithfull: http://godisimaginary.com/ The slavery one is no. 13, there are more than 50 quotes here, try it for yourself then please defend the faith, confirming which one of the 50 you disagree with - I'll still be waiting for the "extraordinary proof". I quite like the No. 32 theologian one. Or, you could say, "I think what God meant was..." to justify your belief. I'm just asking, that's all. I'll start with #1 then. It says that God doesn't answer prayer and that scripture says that God always answers prayer, but (according to the limits put on the answer by the author's demands) that's untrue. I can tell you that God will heal every faithful believer who asks Him. He will answer their prayer immediately and He will heal them of every illness, ailment or disease they suffer from. More than that, God will restore every faithful believer, fully and completely, in every way imaginable. How can this be? I asked God for ?10,000 to appear in my pocket right now and he didn't answer my prayer. He did. He said no. No is an answer, as is not yet, or wait. God offers eternal life, this life is nothing, but eternity for the faithful, an eternity where there is no suffering, no pain and no disease, that's the promise God makes. Not to dance to the tune of someone who demands things of Him, as if He was some performing monkey. There is a big picture here, the author of that website fails to see it, denies it exists, whatever. It doesn't make him or her right. #13. Slavery is a fact of life, it always has been. Sin is a fact of life, so is death and taxes. The bible says a lot about all these things. It's a relevant book, it has to be relevant so there's a lot of talk about slavery. Talking about slavery is not the same as condoning it, in fact the bible is clear about how slaves are to be treated, the teaching, cultural in context, in a culture where slavery is the norm, is radical in terms of the treatment of slaves. I'm not going to go on, it's a waste of my time. You obviously have a jaundiced view and no amount of arguing on my part will change that. I simply answered these points as an example that all of the points can be answered, it won't make any difference to you, but it might show others that there are real answers in Christianity and that there is real hope there. I haven't tried to knock anybody's views on here, I have had to justify my faith time and again. Why? Why do I need to justify myself against the vitriolic abuse that is aimed at me? I am not making any claim on anyone else's life. I'm not threatening anyone with eternal damnation, or making any judgements, yet I am forced to justify the beliefs of 2 billion people because I share those beliefs. I neither attack nor judge you, I don't put down your atheistic world view, I don't claim superiority or special favour. I have tried to be positive, kind, gracious and gentle, I have tried to be Christlike... Why the need to ridicule? What's so offensive about faith? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.