Moderator: Community Team
warmonger1981 wrote:Having thus established the inferior universe in perfect accord with the esoteric teachings of the Hindu, Egyptian, and Greek Mysteries...
warmonger1981 wrote:BTW most religions viewed a God as having both sexes. Not in the rude sense of physical genetalia but in the spiritual/psychological sense.
jgordon1111 wrote:Hmm Warmonger it seems you do actually know your religion, out of all speaking here you might actually be the only one who has cared enough to seek info beyond what is taught today. Btw do you have change for a quarter?
jgordon1111 wrote:... cared enough to seek info beyond what is taught today. Btw do you have change for a quarter?
jimboston wrote:I'm sure many religious people would have a problem with anything other than "He" or "Father".
jimboston wrote:Catholicism at least has been schizophrenic about the idea of Monotheism... versus the Plurality of "God".
They make a big deal out of the "Holy Trinity"... but then they say there is "One God, Father Almighty".
jgordon1111 wrote:Jim,tzor, again I point out that there is nothing original to Christianity,actual records exist of other religions using a holy trinity, summerian,even Hindu going back 3000+ yrs before Christianity existed.
jgordon1111 wrote:Jim,tzor, again I point out that there is nothing original to Christianity,actual records exist of other religions using a holy trinity, summerian,even Hindu going back 3000+ yrs before Christianity existed.again my point here is learn about the religion you follow, then decide what is right, not just blind faith. Jim,tzor this was not exactly pointed at you at least you seem willing to discuss with clarity rather than just using erroneous dogma to push a agenda that is counter productive to rationality.
Oh please, not going to get into another semantic discussion.jimboston wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote: To contrast, your claim that NONE of it is from witnesses...
I don't believe I ever made that claim.
You have a right to your beliefs. You do not have a right to claim they are facts. That is my entire dispute. You keep claiming things are facts that are actually your beliefs.jimboston wrote:I care about the "miraculous" stuff. I content none of that was written by witnesses.
I am telling you that you cannot prove this. I never said I could prove it was written by witnesses, i said tt is what I and many Christians/Jews believe. Also, I never said "vast majority" see the above semantic discussion. If it makes it easier, I should have said "some".jimboston wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote: and moreover that this is proven fact is just wrong.
What is proven wrong? Are you telling me you have proof the Bible (or vast majority) was written by witnesses?
Nice try. Again, I said parts are believed to be written by witnesses.jimboston wrote:Writing a letter to a distant people, talking about how they should act... is not a statement by a witness.
You've proven nothing, except for the fact that you are an idiot.
Yeah, looks like you cut off part of what I said. You make the claim that these changes invalidate the Bible. I disagree. Tzor has already addressed much of that, I won't repeat it.jimboston wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:YOU and YOU ALONE here in this thread are claiming that every word in the Bible is utterly unchangeable...
Actually I am claiming the opposite of this. I am claiming that it's been changed so many times that we really can't be sure what the original author(s) wrote or intended to write.
PLAYER57832 wrote:... or that if it is not utterly unchangeable, then it cannot be the word of God.
This is incorrect on several points. The church is not the Bible. The church is people who are fully fallible. Even the Roman Catholic Church admits that its Popes can and have sinned. They just say that his religious dictates are "protected"/given by God.jimboston wrote:Like if we took "Though Shall Not Kill"; and turned it into "Though Shall Not Kill good Catholics... but it's OK to burn Heretics at the Stake."
Oh wait... the Church did that.
Either it's God's Word. in which case it's immutable... or it's not.
No, it is not, though you can believe as you wish.jimboston wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:People have changed, as people change our view of the words written varies.
The fact that our idea of "GOD" has evolved is kinda proof that the God of the (Christian) Bible isn't really accurate.
I believe I just said that.jimboston wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:And.. for those of you who are cheering at this display of idiocy and failure to adhere to fact. Well... you show your own ignorance.
No one is cheering you on Player.
mrswdk wrote:PLAYER: you disagree with me and don't respond to my non sequiturs, therefore you are a dishonest liar.
\mrswdk wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:All teachings are ALWAYS able to be questioned, but error in one area does not mean all information is in err. Science is the classic example. That there have been mistakes in Evolutionary theory in no way means that everything to do with Evolution is wrong.
Nor can we disregard the entirety of the Old Testament just because we've decided we prefer Jesus's Confucius-inspired brand of Christianity.
tzor wrote:jimboston wrote:I'm sure many religious people would have a problem with anything other than "He" or "Father".
The question of "He" can get quite complex.
The question of "Father" can actually get maddening.
A lot of the problem has to do with the development of the words before people actually knew the real biology of procreation. The "father" "creates" but does not "carry within" ... (note in many languages "mother" is actually "one who gives birth to" ... as in the case of the term "Mother of God")
tzor wrote:jimboston wrote:Catholicism at least has been schizophrenic about the idea of Monotheism... versus the Plurality of "God".
They make a big deal out of the "Holy Trinity"... but then they say there is "One God, Father Almighty".
This is probably not the best place to discuss complicated notions of unity. But I'm always willing to discuss why God is not the BORG.
Total unity without loss of individuality; one on being; three in persons.
jgordon1111 wrote:Jim,tzor, again I point out that there is nothing original to Christianity,actual records exist of other religions using a holy trinity, summerian,even Hindu going back 3000+ yrs before Christianity existed.again my point here is learn about the religion you follow, then decide what is right, not just blind faith. Jim,tzor this was not exactly pointed at you at least you seem willing to discuss with clarity rather than just using erroneous dogma to push a agenda that is counter productive to rationality.
tzor wrote:jgordon1111 wrote:Jim,tzor, again I point out that there is nothing original to Christianity,actual records exist of other religions using a holy trinity, summerian,even Hindu going back 3000+ yrs before Christianity existed.
But the number is actually the least important part of the trinity. There are a lot of things that on the surface looks like Christian notions; gods having strange bizarre sex with women to have children, gods merging together to form a unified deity, and so forth. There are even attempts of mortals to become god as well (they generally end in failure).
But Christianity only sees this as the details of a much larger and somewhat unique theme. God became one with man so that man can become one with God. The first element of this is through "Jesus," begotten, not made, one in being with the Father, became man. Through his unique high priesthood he returns to the Father to send the spirit of God on the believers, bringing them closer to both himself and the father. We can see this vision through the writings of Paul who was first introduced to Christianity by the vision where he told by Jesus, "why are you persecuting me?" He wasn't, because Jesus had been crucified years ago, but he was persecuting his followers at the time. This is the same argument that John uses in his letters where he says at the end of time we will be like him because we will see him as he is.
I may be wrong but I generally don't see this in other religions; the notion of God coming to us to bring us to Him. There is the notion of God "married" to his people, but this never had the full implication of the Genesis account of the creation of Eve being the model of marriage where the two become "one flesh."
PLAYER57832 wrote:jgordon1111 wrote:Jim,tzor, again I point out that there is nothing original to Christianity,actual records exist of other religions using a holy trinity, summerian,even Hindu going back 3000+ yrs before Christianity existed.again my point here is learn about the religion you follow, then decide what is right, not just blind faith. Jim,tzor this was not exactly pointed at you at least you seem willing to discuss with clarity rather than just using erroneous dogma to push a agenda that is counter productive to rationality.
I see, so its surprising that versions of truth pervade throughout many cultures? This is not proof that any one is either wrong or correct. I could be said to prove that they all hint toward truth or it could be said that they are all just based on basic human ideas and concepts. It is just not an argument either way.
PLAYER57832 wrote:I believe parts of the Bible are witness accounts. You do not.
PLAYER57832 wrote: We believe that the important parts do come through. There are details that have been mistranslated or that even have to be altered to fit understanding in a particular culture.
PLAYER57832 wrote: The church is not the Bible. The church is people who are fully fallible. Even the Roman Catholic Church admits that its Popes can and have sinned.
PLAYER57832 wrote:jimboston wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:People have changed, as people change our view of the words written varies.
The fact that our idea of "GOD" has evolved is kinda proof that the God of the (Christian) Bible isn't really accurate.
No, it is not, though you can believe as you wish.
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:If God is a male, I wonder how he jerks off. Actually, I kinda wonder the same thing if God is a female.
-TG
Users browsing this forum: DirtyDishSoap