Questions about christianity, I have answers.

Ok, I expect this forum to get rather bogged down (could be wishful thinking) but I will try to answer any and all questions you have about christianity. For repeat questions be prepared for a repeat answer. Once you post please give me some time to do a bit of research so that I may best answer your question. I am hoping that this will be a learning experience for me as much as I hope it will be for you. If any christians have answers to questions that I do not have please feel free to jump in.

If I decide to be a Christian, how will I know which parts of the bible to take literally and which not to?

All of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

If I decide to be a Christian, how will I know which parts of the bible to take literally and which not to?

---

Well while we wait for his response I'll share mine. None. None of it can be proven literally. Sure there may be some parts that have actually happened, but thats defeats the purpose of bible. Its not a history book, but a book of wisdom.

If someone says that God spoke to them and told them to write another book that is supposed to be included in the bible, how will we know whether or not he is delusional? Is there a reliable test we can use? And if so, can we apply that test retroactively to the existing books of the bible?

Do Christians believe that all non-Christians go to Hell? Or would they be given a chance to repent after death, in his presence?

Also is it good deeds or believe in Jesus that allows a Christian to enter Heaven? Is it both or is it just believe in Jesus?

One more, many Christians argue that Atheists are less morale as they have no Ultimate consequence for their actions. As in if your a horrible Christian you will go to Hell but an Atheist has no responsibilities. However would you not agree that the reverse is true. Surely Atheists are good people because they respect life and want to be kind and generous, rather then Christians who obey Gods Commandments because they are told to and some because they fear punishment, so they are not doing it because they are good people in themselves, it's more like an Ultimate parent is making them behave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

If I decide to be a Christian, how will I know which parts of the bible to take literally and which not to?

---

I hate to sound crazy but I take all of it literaly and would naturally suggest you do the same. The only part that I think could be slightly figurative is the book of revelation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

Do Christians believe that all non-Christians go to Hell? Or would they be given a chance to repent after death, in his presence?

Also is it good deeds or believe in Jesus that allows a Christian to enter Heaven? Is it both or is it just believe in Jesus?

One more, many Christians argue that Atheists are less morale as they have no Ultimate consequence for their actions. As in if your a horrible Christian you will go to Hell but an Atheist has no responsibilities. However would you not agree that the reverse is true. Surely Atheists are good people because they respect life and want to be kind and generous, rather then Christians who obey Gods Commandments because they are told to and some because they fear punishment, so they are not doing it because they are good people in themselves, it's more like an Ultimate parent is making them behave.

---

Generalization. :roll:
First of all I actually think you and me will have the same fate. Some Christian theologians have 'adopted' alternative beliefs such as conditional immortality and universalism, such I have. I accept the Jewish doctrine of Hell which explains a sort of Purgatory where one is judged based on his or her life's deeds, or rather, where one becomes fully aware of one's own shortcomings and negative actions during one's life. This can be the final moments of death, etc. If you are going to make some assumptions on what "every" Christian believes in do some research. Type in Hell in wiki.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

I hate to sound crazy but I take all of it literaly and would naturally suggest you do the same. The only part that I think could be slightly figurative is the book of revelation.

---

Do you think an Atheist would suddenly literally in the bible? I have been grown up Christian, and take it as a Philosophy which can be linked through science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

If someone says that God spoke to them and told them to write another book that is supposed to be included in the bible, how will we know whether or not he is delusional? Is there a reliable test we can use? And if so, can we apply that test retroactively to the existing books of the bible?

---

I don't think that their is really a test, and no matter what some would find them delusional. I think that the person claiming these things and writing the book would have to have other proof, even then it would just be most likely that a new sect would be formed, similar to the way mormonism was created.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Do you think an Atheist would suddenly literally in the bible? I have been grown up Christian, and take it as a Philosophy which can be linked through science.

---

No, I don't but I was just answering the question.

Can I have anal sex with my brother when I'm a Christian?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

If someone says that God spoke to them and told them to write another book that is supposed to be included in the bible, how will we know whether or not he is delusional? Is there a reliable test we can use? And if so, can we apply that test retroactively to the existing books of the bible?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

I don't think that their is really a test, and no matter what some would find them delusional. I think that the person claiming these things and writing the book would have to have other proof, even then it would just be most likely that a new sect would be formed, similar to the way mormonism was created.

---

So why don't you find all of the existing texts suspect? Shouldn't all of their authors be held up to the same scrutiny? Is there a reason they are more believable than any new person who might come along?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

Do Christians believe that all non-Christians go to Hell? Or would they be given a chance to repent after death, in his presence?

---

It depends on who you ask, I am of the kind that thinks that all people who don't believe in God go to hell. I think the bible pretty much spells that out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korittke

Can I have anal sex with my brother when I'm a Christian?

---

Its your choice, but not recommended.. :shock:
the bible itself said a marriage should be between a guy and a girl, but thats just marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Its your choice, but not recommended.. :shock:

---

What are recommended sex practices?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

Also is it good deeds or believe in Jesus that allows a Christian to enter Heaven? Is it both or is it just believe in Jesus?

---

Once again it depends on who you ask, I think most christians believe that belief in God is enough to get you into heaven although thier are groups who believe that it is through good deeds. As for the last part of your post about morality and wich group has better morals I think that both sides have there own people. Their are some really nice, good christians out there and there are some really good Atheists out there. It is not really a matter of wich group you are in, as both groups have some really bad people in them as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korittke

What are recommended sex practices?

---

A man and women. Its the only way you can produce life. But if you are not producing life go ahead and anal your brother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korittke

What are recommended sex practices?

---

I am pretty sure a man and a woman can do whatever they want together as long as they are married. Animals, threesomes, that sort of thing isn't aloud. This is one of those questions that varys between groups of christians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

I am pretty sure a man and a woman can do whatever they want together as long as they are married. Animals, threesomes, that sort of thing isn't aloud. This is one of those questions that varys between groups of christians.

---

Well its not stated in the bible.

How do you explain, neglect, or nullify the inherent contradictions throughout the Bible and Christianity's Theology.

A few examples:

God being omniscient/omnipotent, yet we have free will.

Jesus being part of God, yet the he and the disciples clearly distinguish themselves from God.

God being omnibenevolent, yet sending people to Hell.

God being omnibenevolent, yet creates the possibility of evil and sin.

Etc.


Also, how does Christianity justify or neglect fear tactics that are used as conversion? Christianity claims to be peaceful and just, yet:

9 Crusades, along with a plethora of other crusades which I don't know the names for.

Fire and brimstone preaching to incite fear among listeners.

The use of Hell as a reason to become Christian. (Join or you'll burn in Hell)


How do you explain the ignorance and uncertainty of representation and interpretations of the Bible and preachings? Such as, some people take the Bible as metaphoric, and some preach that it must be taken completely literally. Whichever way, some passages clearly state out things that must be done, that can not possibly be interpreted as a metaphor. Such as instructing that if a woman has sex before marriage, she must be stoned on her father's doorstep and the approval of slavery.


Can you explain why the Church condones science, without making Christianity seem fake? Science disproves fundamental concepts and beliefs of Christianity and the Church. (The Church says that the Earth is flat, evolutionary evidence, cloning and stem cell research, carbon-dating, etc.) I think that this will be hard, because the obvious answer is to keep the Church in power by neglecting the followers of knowledge that contradicts Christian Theology.


Will I go to Hell for being Agnostic and anti-religious? (I would like both your answer, and the prevalent answer of the Church and Christian community as a whole.)


Will a Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Taoist, or any other person of a religious descent aside from Christianity go to Hell? (Same)


Can morals exist outside of God's command, and is God's word the only source of morality and standard for creation of civilized law?


Did dinosaurs co-exist with humans? If the died because of the flood, why didn't Noah get baby dinosaurs onto the Ark?


Do homosexuals go to Hell?


And finally, Why are you Christian? No bullshit answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

I am pretty sure a man and a woman can do whatever they want together as long as they are married. Animals, threesomes, that sort of thing isn't aloud.

---

Lame. Sorry, but your religion sucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korittke

Lame. Sorry, but your religion sucks.

---

I agree that it can be lame, it does limit options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

I agree that it can be lame, it does limit options.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korittke

Lame. Sorry, but your religion sucks.

---

There are unlimited options. Nobody should be scared in the bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

I hate to sound crazy but I take all of it literaly and would naturally suggest you do the same. The only part that I think could be slightly figurative is the book of revelation.

---

So you take the whole murdering your neighbor if he does so-and-so as sound advice?

Ugh my religion seems so shitty. If you are going to defend Christianity do it with logic, and if you can't do it with logic, it defeats the purpose of even arguing with an Atheist.

Take the time to answer all of my questions. It's the long post back there. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Ugh my religion seems so shitty. If you are going to defend Christianity do it with logic.

---

1. Especially when idiots define it.

2. It's not easy to defend something illogical with logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephenT

How do you explain, neglect, or nullify the inherent contradictions throughout the Bible and Christianity's Theology.

A few examples:

God being omniscient/omnipotent, yet we have free will.

Jesus being part of God, yet the he and the disciples clearly distinguish themselves from God.

God being omnibenevolent, yet sending people to Hell.

God being omnibenevolent, yet creates the possibility of evil and sin.

Etc.


Also, how does Christianity justify or neglect fear tactics that are used as conversion? Christianity claims to be peaceful and just, yet:

9 Crusades, along with a plethora of other crusades which I don't know the names for.

Fire and brimstone preaching to incite fear among listeners.

The use of Hell as a reason to become Christian. (Join or you'll burn in Hell)


How do you explain the ignorance and uncertainty of representation and interpretations of the Bible and preachings? Such as, some people take the Bible as metaphoric, and some preach that it must be taken completely literally. Whichever way, some passages clearly state out things that must be done, that can not possibly be interpreted as a metaphor. Such as instructing that if a woman has sex before marriage, she must be stoned on her father's doorstep and the approval of slavery.


Can you explain why the Church condones science, without making Christianity seem fake? Science disproves fundamental concepts and beliefs of Christianity and the Church. (The Church says that the Earth is flat, evolutionary evidence, cloning and stem cell research, carbon-dating, etc.) I think that this will be hard, because the obvious answer is to keep the Church in power by neglecting the followers of knowledge that contradicts Christian Theology.


Will I go to Hell for being Agnostic and anti-religious? (I would like both your answer, and the prevalent answer of the Church and Christian community as a whole.)


Will a Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Taoist, or any other person of a religious descent aside from Christianity go to Hell? (Same)


Can morals exist outside of God's command, and is God's word the only source of morality and standard for creation of civilized law?


Did dinosaurs co-exist with humans? If the died because of the flood, why didn't Noah get baby dinosaurs onto the Ark?


Do homosexuals go to Hell?


And finally, Why are you Christian? No bullshit answers.

---

I have to get oof for a bit but I just wanted to let you know that I got your question and that I will answer it, these are important questions and I don't want you to think that I'm ignoring you, as for your final question I am a christian becuase I did alot of reasearch took a look at my feelings and felt that christianity was what made the most sense to me considering all things. I also may have talked myself into it a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephenT

1. Especially when idiots define it.

2. It's not easy to defend something illogical with logic.

---

Hey go easy, you took the easy route and chose atheism. Your belief system has mounds of evidence to support it. Christianity has mounds of evidence but it is evidence that is a little bit more complicated and subtle.

What do Christians believe happened to those Before the coming of Jesus? Did everyone go to hell during that time period?

Many Christians disagree about certain interpretations and how they apply to modern day scenarios. It also seems Christianity is growing softer, claiming God does not punish as much as he used to, basically they are becoming more accepting. For my first question, do you believe God has become more accepting, i believe your not supposed to speak for the Lord and yet many seem to say " Oh the Lord will forgive" etc, for something such as homosexuality, which clearly he states he will not in the Bible.

Also why does God not send another messenger to give us an "updated" Holy book? Many people are confused and troubled because they are not sure how to apply the Bible to modern day life and key issues( stem cell research for example), surely it would help the entire human race if God helped settle confusing teachings? Obviously we would not take the word of one man anymore, however if he really did the miracles Jesus did( water to wine, walk to water, heal sick by touching, even raise the dead etc) i think people would listen. I certainly would if i saw such things, visual proof would be oh so useful.

Finally i assume you agree God would like as many of us to go to Heaven as possible, he feels for those in Hell surely? So, let's take me or someone not of the Christian faith as an example. If God actually came to us and explained we were on the wrong( or none) religious path, we would apologize for it and accept him as our God. So why does he not do this, i understand he wants us to make our own decisions. But i have a more scientific mind and after looking at human social dynamics, i believe religions aren't right. However i would obviously be willing to change my ind if i saw a event which to ME, was clear. God knows me from birth and so knows this, to save me from Hell he could help me on to the right path, does he have no power over mankind's thoughts or does he take pleasure in the fact i will suffer after death?

i would really like answers. especially to the final one, but all would be great.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

Hey go easy, you took the easy route and chose atheism. Your belief system has mounds of evidence to support it. Christianity has mounds of evidence but it is evidence that is a little bit more complicated and subtle.

---

I'm sorry but that is ridiculous.

I mean that's like:

Person 1: 2 + 2 is equal to 1.

Person 2: Um, what? No it isn't. 2 + 2 = 4.

Person 1: Nu - uh!

Person 2: Are you serious? Just look! *raises hands, two fingers each*

*First counting one - two on the first, then the second hand*

Person 2: Now I have two in this hand and two in this. I take the two values *he then puts hands next to each other and counts out four fingers*

Person 1: You're an idiot. Two plus two equals one!

Person 2: But I just showed you evidence!

Person 1: Well... Well you just took the easy route with evidence. I had faith. ...And evidence, too! But mine is more subtle.

Person 2: Good grief... *Face-palms*

Oh and by the way, you do not take the bible literally. I don't even have to know you and I can tell you that you do not really take it literally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

I have to get oof for a bit but I just wanted to let you know that I got your question and that I will answer it, these are important questions and I don't want you to think that I'm ignoring you, as for your final question I am a christian becuase I did alot of reasearch took a look at my feelings and felt that christianity was what made the most sense to me considering all things. I also may have talked myself into it a bit.

---

Sounds good, thanks for not ignoring. :D

As for that answer, it leads me to the conclusion that either you were indoctrinated, or can't think much for yourself or logically. I could be wrong, however, but that's how it seems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

Hey go easy, you took the easy route and chose atheism. Your belief system has mounds of evidence to support it. Christianity has mounds of evidence but it is evidence that is a little bit more complicated and subtle.

---

Atheism is an easy route? First, I'm Agnostic, which means that I don't claim to know whether or not God exists. Many classify this as weak-Atheism, however.

Science isn't my belief system. My beliefs are that religion is enshrouded in lies, hatred, and fear; and that I don't know whether or not God exists, but if he does, he will judge based on morality and logical wisdom rather than blindly following what you had been indoctrinated to believe forever.

I didn't choose Agnosticism or Atheism because it was easy, I chose it because it is logical, and doesn't require me to hinder myself from knowledge and open mindedness. If anything, blindly following a religion is much easier than researching religion and Theology, philosophy and psychology, debating over religion many times, and finally concluding anything. Along with being a minority among a world of 33% Christianity, and 85% religious, and a nation of 90% Christianity and 95% religious. When so many people disagree with you on such personal beliefs, they can be hostile, ignorant, and condoning towards you.

Sure, I took the easy cop out, while you are taking the hard, diligent road. Not many are able to do what you do. (Only 90% of people)

Evidence does not make anything easy, and faith does not make anything hard. It just makes the person with more faith than evidence look very stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

If someone says that God spoke to them and told them to write another book that is supposed to be included in the bible, how will we know whether or not he is delusional? Is there a reliable test we can use? And if so, can we apply that test retroactively to the existing books of the bible?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

I don't think that their is really a test, and no matter what some would find them delusional. I think that the person claiming these things and writing the book would have to have other proof, even then it would just be most likely that a new sect would be formed, similar to the way mormonism was created.

---

So why don't you find all of the existing texts suspect? Shouldn't all of their authors be held up to the same scrutiny? Is there a reason they are more believable than any new person who might come along?

I've heard often that "Jews burn in hell" or some variation of this.. Is that actually said in the New Testament?

well the Jews don't believe in Jesus as their Savior... But a lot of Christians like to think that their religion doesn't say that because well... Because the Jews came first.

Jeez Lucid_Boy your getting owned. Reclaim your glory!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Well while we wait for his response I'll share mine. None. None of it can be proven literally. Sure there may be some parts that have actually happened, but thats defeats the purpose of bible. Its not a history book, but a book of wisdom.

---

Sorry, but it IS very much a history book. One of the primary reasons that literal interpretation is off the table is because it is full of narrative history, as well as many other things. The Bible has told of many many historical events that were thought of as myth until modern archaeologists uncovered proof.

However, I do agree that it is also a book of wisdom and to me, this is central.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

well the Jews don't believe in Jesus as their Savior... But a lot of Christians like to think that their religion doesn't say that because well... Because the Jews came first.

---

So if you don't believe in Jesus Christ you'll burn in Hell?

So that's most of the world, right?

A lot of it, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by avalonandon

Sorry, but it IS very much a history book. One of the primary reasons that literal interpretation is off the table is because it is full of narrative history, as well as many other things. The Bible has told of many many historical events that were thought of as myth until modern archaeologists uncovered proof.

However, I do agree that it is also a book of wisdom and to me, this is central.

---

Actually, that's bullshit.

Ask any historian you want-- they'll all tell you the same thing:

That the bible is a literature work, and not a history book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Actually, that's bullshit.

Ask any historian you want-- they'll all tell you the same thing:

That the bible is a literature work, and not a history book.

---

I second.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Actually, that's bullshit.

Ask any historian you want-- they'll all tell you the same thing:

That the bible is a literature work, and not a history book.

---

The Bible is both. And I have indeed asked MANY historians because I have sat in their classes for hundreds of hours and studied my ass off on many sides of the issue. I have had 4 semesters of in depth Old and New Testament studies as well as 3 classes in Greek, 2 in Latin, 2 in theology, a major in philosophy and a minor in history. Have you yourself read the bible? 90 percent of the Old Testament is the history of the Jewish people.

Have you yourself payed attention to ANY of my posts? Of course I have.

And the OT is STILL more Theology and law then history. Have YOU read it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by avalonandon

The Bible is both. And I have indeed asked MANY historians because I have sat in their classes for hundreds of hours and studied my ass off on many sides of the issue. I have had 4 semesters of in depth Old and New Testament studies as well as 3 classes in Greek, 2 in Latin, 2 in theology, a major in philosophy and a minor in history. Have you yourself read the bible? 90 percent of the Old Testament is the history of the Jewish people.

---

Yes but it is not meant to tell history. the history supports the wisdom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Have you yourself payed attention to ANY of my posts? Of course I have.

And the OT is STILL more Theology and law then history. Have YOU read it?

---

Of course I have read it!! And no!! it is not mostly theology!! It is story after story after story of events, the trials and tribulations, glories and successes of the Jewish people. If you had read it yourself we would not be having this discussion. period.

Then you are either a total moron or have not actually read the Tanakh if you think that it is more history than what is is meant to be:

A lawbook
A theological explanation for existence
A source of answers based on the base theologies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Yes but it is not meant to tell history. the history supports the wisdom.

---

It is both dreamworld, absolutely both. The wisdom comes from the history but the books were written as historical narrative, as inspiration for the Jewish people themselves. However, like you, I see the wisdom as primary.

Why is Jesus portrayed as a white man with long flowing hair when the bible says that his hair was like that of a lambs and from Nazareth, which is northern Israel?

How was Jesus born in bethlehem, raised in Eqypt, but from Nazareth, the question remains :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Then you are either a total moron or have not actually read the Tanakh if you think that it is more history than what is is meant to be:

A lawbook
A theological explanation for existence
A source of answers based on the base theologies

---

No, that is not what I said. I said it is not mostly theology. This does not mean that it is mostly history. It means that in addition to theology there is history, poetry, apocalyptic literature, law etc etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

How was Jesus born in bethlehem, raised in Eqypt, but from Nazareth, the question remains :P

---

If you had read it, you wouldnt have these questions. The story is all there.

No, you are completely wrong.

And besides you said that "90% is History of the Jews" -- just in case you flunked mathematics 90/100 is most.

Also, like in any book made to be taken literally for ignorant peasents, history only exists to keep a flow going through it.

You start at creation and work your way up, but you could have done it another way to almost the same effect.

No real significance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by avalonandon

If you had read it, you wouldnt have these questions. The story is all there.

---

I did not read the entire NT. I read parts of it. After all, 90% of it are letters to different churches.

I did however read the Tanakh, or OT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

No, you are completely wrong.

And besides you said that "90% is History of the Jews" -- just in case you flunked mathematics 90/100 is most.

Also, like in any book made to be taken literally for ignorant peasents, history only exists to keep a flow going through it.

You start at creation and work your way up, but you could have done it another way to almost the same effect.

No real significance.

---

Most of the law and theology is contained in Deuteronomy. Most of the rest of the Old Testament is a narrative, historical account of the Jews. I have read it, all of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Why is Jesus portrayed as a white man with long flowing hair when the bible says that his hair was like that of a lambs and from Nazareth, which is northern Israel?

---

The artists who painted pictures featuring Jesus Christ were most likely white, and thus drew him in their image.

In reality he most likely had dark skin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by avalonandon

Most of the law and theology is contained in Deuteronomy. Most of the rest of the Old Testament is a narrative, historical account of the Jews. I have read it, all of it.

---

I give up, clearly you didn't actually read what is said. You say you read it, but I don't think you read what was there. Care to continue the topic?

The bible != Histoical account. Why? Because it contains theology. End of discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

I give up, clearly you didn't actually read what is said. You say you read it, but I don't think you read what was there. Care to continue the topic?

The bible != Histoical account. Why? Because it contains theology. End of discussion.

---

Okay when I say theology, I am speaking of the study of God.


Old Testament Survey

The Old Testament is divided into five sections: the Pentateuch (Genesis through Deuteronomy), the historical books (Joshua through Esther), the poetic books (Job through Song of Solomon), the Major Prophets also history (Isaiah through Daniel), and the Minor Prophets also history(Hosea through Malachi).

The Old Testament deals primarily with the relationship between God and the nation of Israel. The Pentateuch deals with the creation of Israel and God establishing a covenant relationship with Israel. The historical books record Israel's history, its victories and successes along with its defeats and failures. The poetic books give us a more intimate look at God's relationship with Israel and His passion for Israel to worship and obey Him. The prophetic books are God's call to Israel to repent from its idolatry and unfaithfulness and to return to a relationship of obedience and spiritual fidelity.

That has nothing to do with the OP's topic.

So shutup now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

That has nothing to do with the OP's topic.

So shutup now.

---

It is on topic because I am arguing for the historical relevance of the Bible...which is part of the OP's attempt to "prove" the Bible. You say it is not historical. Well, it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grod

The artists who painted pictures featuring Jesus Christ were most likely white, and thus drew him in their image.

In reality he most likely had dark skin.

---

Actually, I know quite a bit about Roman history. Jesus' image is based off of the old image of Zeus, king of the gods. I'm just wondering why he's still portrayed that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by avalonandon

It is on topic because I am arguing for the historical relevance of the Bible...which is part of the OP's attempt to "prove" the Bible. You say it is not historical. Well, it is.

---

The bible is not a history book. It bears little relevence.

That's what I said. I also said most of it is void because of the Theological teachings and exaggerations of the time, not to mention the hundreds of times it has been re-written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Actually, I know quite a bit about Roman history. Jesus' image is based off of the old image of Zeus, king of the gods. I'm just wondering why he's still portrayed that way.

---

Also almost the whole bible is revolved around the Zodiac celestial coordinate systems used in many early religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

The bible is not a history book. It bears little relevence.

That's what I said. I also said most of it is void because of the Theological teachings and exaggerations of the time, not to mention the hundreds of times it has been re-written.

---

Okay...History in the bible... and I can add pages and pages to this:

The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.

The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.

t was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.

Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.

* The existence of Jesus Christ as recorded by historians Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud, and Lucian.
* Campaign into Israel by Pharaoh Shishak (1 Kings 14:25-26), recorded on the walls of the Temple of Amun in Thebes, Egypt.
* Revolt of Moab against Israel (2 Kings 1:1; 3:4-27), recorded on the Mesha Inscription.
* Campaign of the Assyrian king Sennacherib against Judah (2 Kings 18:13-16), as recorded on the Taylor Prism.
* Siege of Lachish by Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:14, 17), as recorded on the Lachish reliefs.
* Assassination of Sennacherib by his own sons (2 Kings 19:37), as recorded in the annals of his son Esarhaddon.
* Fall of Nineveh as predicted by the prophets Nahum and Zephaniah (2:13-15), recorded on the Tablet of Nabopolasar.
* Fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:10-14), as recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles.
* Captivity of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, in Babylon (2 Kings 24:15-16), as recorded on the Babylonian Ration Records.
* Fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians (Daniel 5:30-31), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.
* Freeing of captives in Babylon by Cyrus the Great (Ezra 1:1-4; 6:3-4), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.
* Forcing Jews to leave Rome during the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54) (Acts 18:2), as recorded by Suetonius.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I'm just wondering why he's still portrayed that way.

---

If he had come from the area described in the New Testament, he would have had dark skin, and not lighter skin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grod

If he had come from the area described in the New Testament, he would have had dark skin, and not lighter skin.

---

Or if he came from the planet Kolub, he might have blue...

avalonandon, I'm not going to reply to all of your ridiculous posts, so I'll sum this up.

The Bible, while it may contain some history, also contains Theology and faith based belief systems. It also contains stories which have no evidence at all. Because there is no physical evidence, or written evidence from any source other than the Bible for nearly all of the stories, they can not be revered as actual history. They can be believed to be history if the interpreter chooses to view them as so, but they can not be historically accurate, scientifically proven, or evidentially verified. This causes the Bible to become in a class called non-fiction. While many people believe it not to be, as of now, it can not be verified in any way possible as anything more.

I'm not condemning the Bible, I am only giving this as an official viewpoint. It isn't logic, it is common sense that this is so.

Now for my views...

If somebody chooses to view the Bible as literal, I find them as an idiot. For one, many of the stories defy science and physics, which are things that can be tested time and time again, always achieving the same result.

Also, the reason given above is enough reason to disregard the Bible as a literal source of history. You get much more out of it as a metaphoric guide to morality and lifestyle than as a historical book documenting how people use magic to escape imprisonment (of which there is also no proof of) and wonder in the desert for 40 years, all while using magic. Then a magic man comes along and preaches about God, who is also his Dad, but is really him, but they're not the same because Jesus says so, but they are the same because Christian and Jewish Theology says so, so they completely contradict.

At least if you interpret it as metaphor, you don't look as stupid, if you look stupid at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephenT

avalonandon, I'm not going to reply to all of your ridiculous posts, so I'll sum this up.

The Bible, while it may contain some history, also contains Theology and faith based belief systems. It also contains stories which have no evidence at all. Because there is no physical evidence, or written evidence from any source other than the Bible for nearly all of the stories, they can not be revered as actual history. They can be believed to be history if the interpreter chooses to view them as so, but they can not be historically accurate, scientifically proven, or evidentially verified. This causes the Bible to become in a class called non-fiction. While many people believe it not to be, as of now, it can not be verified in any way possible as anything more.

I'm not condemning the Bible, I am only giving this as an official viewpoint. It isn't logic, it is common sense that this is so.

Now for my views...

If somebody chooses to view the Bible as literal, I find them as an idiot. For one, many of the stories defy science and physics, which are things that can be tested time and time again, always achieving the same result.

Also, the reason given above is enough reason to disregard the Bible as a literal source of history. You get much more out of it as a metaphoric guide to morality and lifestyle than as a historical book documenting how people use magic to escape imprisonment (of which there is also no proof of) and wonder in the desert for 40 years, all while using magic. Then a magic man comes along and preaches about God, who is also his Dad, but is really him, but they're not the same because Jesus says so, but they are the same because Christian and Jewish Theology says so, so they completely contradict.

At least if you interpret it as metaphor, you don't look as stupid, if you look stupid at all.

---

I personally don't take it literally. I do however disagree in that there are ongoing finds involving places and events (several that I listed above - did you read them?) that were thought of as "myth" for centuries...but then were proven through archaeological discoveries. To me, it is incredibly foolish to throw the baby out with the bath water as so many here are doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephenT

How do you explain, neglect, or nullify the inherent contradictions throughout the Bible and Christianity's Theology.

Jesus being part of God, yet the he and the disciples clearly distinguish themselves from God.

---

Ok I sense some confusion here, as far as I know the disciples do not claim that they are part of God at all, just that they are his servants and have been given the ability to preform miracles. Jesus does distinguish himself from God in many ways, you just have to think of it like this, Jesus is God incarnate. Jesus is the loving forgiving side of Gods personality which God deposited in a person and then brought to life through mary the Virgin, in this way Jesus was God but not God, seperate but the same. This is an incredibly confusing topic and I am probably not the best person to answer this question. I guess the thing to do would be to look at the three leaf clover, three seperate parts, one whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephenT

God being omnibenevolent, yet sending people to hell

---

I am going to take a hit here. This is one of the things where I can explain it to myself and wrap my own mind around it but can't put it into words. I guess I would say that it is because God lets us make our own decisions and live with those choices. I know that this is a BAD answer, give me a bit more time to do some research and I promise I will get back to you with a better answer at a latter time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephenT

God being omnibenevolent, yet creates the possibility of evil and sin.

---

This question, unlike your last one, has a simple answer. God permitted the possibility for evil and sin because he wanted to be able to experince real love. When he created man he made them free, he wanted beings to associate with that could make their own decisions and have their own feelings, he didn't want puppets he controled. How can you have free people that experince real love without the possibillity of hate. If I was forced to love you all the time with no alternative would that be true love? Sin and evil is just rebellion against gods love, we are saying screw you God we would rather do it our own way, forget your love. It is choosing to hate him through action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephenT

Also, how does Christianity justify or neglect fear tactics that are used as conversion? Christianity claims to be peaceful and just, yet:

9 Crusades, along with a plethora of other crusades which I don't know the names for.

Fire and brimstone preaching to incite fear among listeners.

The use of Hell as a reason to become Christian. (Join or you'll burn in Hell)

---

These are wrong, it's just that simple. You have to remember that the church and conversion are all human endavours and therefore subject to human flaw, sometimes the wrong tactics get used, just like in a war (not that I'm saying conversion is a war.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephenT

How do you explain the ignorance and uncertainty of representation and interpretations of the Bible and preachings? Such as, some people take the Bible as metaphoric, and some preach that it must be taken completely literally. Whichever way, some passages clearly state out things that must be done, that can not possibly be interpreted as a metaphor. Such as instructing that if a woman has sex before marriage, she must be stoned on her father's doorstep and the approval of slavery.

---

The uncertainty of intepretation is another human flaw that has harmed religion. You have to remember that the bible was written over 2,000yrs ago and people might have lost track of exactly which parts where literal and which parts metephorical. As for the slavery and the stoning of women both of those things where denounced upon the arival of Jesus as were the food requirements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephenT

Will I go to Hell for being Agnostic and anti-religious? (I would like both your answer, and the prevalent answer of the Church and Christian community as a whole.)


Will a Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Taoist, or any other person of a religious descent aside from Christianity go to Hell? (Same)

---

Both the church/christian community and I believe that both Agnostics/Atheists and people of any other religion will go to hell upon death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephanT

Can morals exist outside of God's command, and is God's word the only source of morality and standard for creation of civilized law?


Did dinosaurs co-exist with humans? If the died because of the flood, why didn't Noah get baby dinosaurs onto the Ark?


Do homosexuals go to Hell?


And finally, Why are you Christian? No bullshit answers.

---

I believe morality can exsist outside of God's command and that it is not the only source of morality.

I believe that evolution carried on normally outside of the Garden and after Adam and eve commited the first sin he sluaghtered the dinosuars, spread the modern vegitation and then threw them out and killed the garden.

Many people believe that a verse in paul's letter to the romans condemns Homosexuals. I think that being Homosexualy oriented is perfectly ok but actually engaging in homosexual acts is the sin. I think that if one seeks forgiveness and then trys to resist acting on their urges they are going to heaven.

As for your final question, I answered it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

So why don't you find all of the existing texts suspect? Shouldn't all of their authors be held up to the same scrutiny? Is there a reason they are more believable than any new person who might come along?

---

I guess the reason I don't hold all the exsisting texts to the same scrutiny is because I wasn't there at the time of their writing and just have to trust that my forefathers held them to some standing. No the newbie is not any less believable than the exsisting text wich is why I would carefully scrutinize what they where saying and after much prayer accept or deny it as truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephenT

Sure, I took the easy cop out, while you are taking the hard, diligent road. Not many are able to do what you do. (Only 90% of people)

---

This made me laugh:D The irony I mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

What do Christians believe happened to those Before the coming of Jesus? Did everyone go to hell during that time period?

Many Christians disagree about certain interpretations and how they apply to modern day scenarios. It also seems Christianity is growing softer, claiming God does not punish as much as he used to, basically they are becoming more accepting. For my first question, do you believe God has become more accepting, i believe your not supposed to speak for the Lord and yet many seem to say " Oh the Lord will forgive" etc, for something such as homosexuality, which clearly he states he will not in the Bible.

Also why does God not send another messenger to give us an "updated" Holy book? Many people are confused and troubled because they are not sure how to apply the Bible to modern day life and key issues( stem cell research for example), surely it would help the entire human race if God helped settle confusing teachings? Obviously we would not take the word of one man anymore, however if he really did the miracles Jesus did( water to wine, walk to water, heal sick by touching, even raise the dead etc) i think people would listen. I certainly would if i saw such things, visual proof would be oh so useful.

Finally i assume you agree God would like as many of us to go to Heaven as possible, he feels for those in Hell surely? So, let's take me or someone not of the Christian faith as an example. If God actually came to us and explained we were on the wrong( or none) religious path, we would apologize for it and accept him as our God. So why does he not do this, i understand he wants us to make our own decisions. But i have a more scientific mind and after looking at human social dynamics, i believe religions aren't right. However i would obviously be willing to change my ind if i saw a event which to ME, was clear. God knows me from birth and so knows this, to save me from Hell he could help me on to the right path, does he have no power over mankind's thoughts or does he take pleasure in the fact i will suffer after death?

i would really like answers. especially to the final one, but all would be great.:)

---

It is really close to twelve thirty in the morning here so I don't think I will get around to answering your question untill tommrow but rest assured that it will be answered in a timely and productive manner.

Lucid_Boy what Christian group are you in? You have a pretty good knowladge on the bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Lucid_Boy what Christian group are you in? You have a pretty good knowladge on the bible.

---

It is not because I am part of a group, it is because I actually read the thing from cover to cover unlike most christians who just get all their teachings from a local pastor. I also had 6yrs of catholic school. I am part of the more modern brand of christianity, rock music, jeans, that kind of stuff. I forget the exact title and I hate the fact that christians create sects and lables for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

So why don't you find all of the existing texts suspect? Shouldn't all of their authors be held up to the same scrutiny? Is there a reason they are more believable than any new person who might come along?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

I guess the reason I don't hold all the exsisting texts to the same scrutiny is because I wasn't there at the time of their writing and just have to trust that my forefathers held them to some standing. No the newbie is not any less believable than the exsisting text wich is why I would carefully scrutinize what they where saying and after much prayer accept or deny it as truth.

---

Thanks for the answer. This brings us to the crux of what concerns me.

Quote:

---

I guess the reason I don't hold all the exsisting texts to the same scrutiny is because I wasn't there at the time of their writing...

---

This strikes me as a backwards approach. Shouldn't you be more willing to trust someone you can actually meet and talk to? Someone you personally can make contact with and judge what they are saying?

I find it strange that people are more willing to put faith in the writings of people whose names are lost, and whose credentials are completely unknown. They were simply people, and not much different than anyone you might meet today who claims to have been directed by God. And since anyone can make such a claim, it seems to me it would be in your best interest to question the authority of every single individual who may have contributed to the Bible. You know what they say about a single bad apple...

Just one person with a personal secular agenda could lead millions astray in this case. Three or four, and the bible is so entangled with hidden motives that you'd be hard-pressed to sort out God's word from someone who just had something personal against the Romans, for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Thanks for the answer. This brings us to the crux of what concerns me.


This strikes me as a backwards approach. Shouldn't you be more willing to trust someone you can actually meet and talk to? Someone you personally can make contact with and judge what they are saying?

I find it strange that people are more willing to put faith in the writings of people whose names are lost, and whose credentials are completely unknown. They were simply people, and not much different than anyone you might meet today who claims to have been directed by God. And since anyone can make such a claim, it seems to me it would be in your best interest to question the authority of every single individual who may have contributed to the Bible. You know what they say about a single bad apple...

Just one person with a personal secular agenda could lead millions astray in this case. Three or four, and the bible is so entangled with hidden motives that you'd be hard-pressed to sort out God's word from someone who just had something personal against the Romans, for example.

---

Yes I guess I should be suspicious of writings done in the past but these writings form the base of the religion. You have to trust someone or you will have no one when you really need them. I guess I believe them because I WANT to believe they are true. I have found nothing to suggest to me that the writers where purposely misleading just as I have found nothing to suggest that they all believed what they were writing. I guess it is really comes down to the fact that I don't have proof either way.

Thanks for answering the questions. I'll get to comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

Ok I sense some confusion here, as far as I know the disciples do not claim that they are part of God at all, just that they are his servants and have been given the ability to preform miracles. Jesus does distinguish himself from God in many ways, you just have to think of it like this, Jesus is God incarnate. Jesus is the loving forgiving side of Gods personality which God deposited in a person and then brought to life through mary the Virgin, in this way Jesus was God but not God, seperate but the same. This is an incredibly confusing topic and I am probably not the best person to answer this question. I guess the thing to do would be to look at the three leaf clover, three seperate parts, one whole.

---

Yeah, it's a kind of confusing topic unless you get my whole story. Here's a thread I made a while back, with the whole concept.


http://www.dreamviews.com/community/showthread.php?t=53674

Quote:

---

I am going to take a hit here. This is one of the things where I can explain it to myself and wrap my own mind around it but can't put it into words. I guess I would say that it is because God lets us make our own decisions and live with those choices. I know that this is a BAD answer, give me a bit more time to do some research and I promise I will get back to you with a better answer at a latter time.

---

I must have forgotten to put "all-forgiving" in the question also. If God always forgives, then there is no need for a hell.

Quote:

---

This question, unlike your last one, has a simple answer. God permitted the possibility for evil and sin because he wanted to be able to experince real love. When he created man he made them free, he wanted beings to associate with that could make their own decisions and have their own feelings, he didn't want puppets he controled. How can you have free people that experince real love without the possibillity of hate. If I was forced to love you all the time with no alternative would that be true love? Sin and evil is just rebellion against gods love, we are saying screw you God we would rather do it our own way, forget your love. It is choosing to hate him through action.

---

Is it sin if we do not know of God's love, yet commit acts that are viewed as sins by Christians, even if they are not very morally wrong? What if somebody knows of God's love, and sins, but not for the sake of sin, but to get by in life?

Quote:

---

These are wrong, it's just that simple. You have to remember that the church and conversion are all human endavours and therefore subject to human flaw, sometimes the wrong tactics get used, just like in a war (not that I'm saying conversion is a war.)

---

So you view them as wrong or mistakes made by the Church and many Christians or you neglect them? I'm confused from your wording a little bit.

If the first, then you agree that Christianity is enshrouded in hypocrisy. (Not necessarily directed at you or bad for you, just for the religion as a whole.) If the latter, then you are obviously ignorant.

Quote:

---

The uncertainty of intepretation is another human flaw that has harmed religion. You have to remember that the bible was written over 2,000yrs ago and people might have lost track of exactly which parts where literal and which parts metephorical. As for the slavery and the stoning of women both of those things where denounced upon the arival of Jesus as were the food requirements.

---

That is exactly my point. Because it was written so long ago and has lost so much meaning and interpretation, as well as how to interpret, it leaves it as a very unreliable source of any historical relevance. When it turns completely metaphoric, it is only a set of morals

I never knew or heard of them being denounced. Is there any scripture showing this? I remember mostly hearing and reading scriptures where Jesus had said something about the lines of the Torah being completely correct.

Quote:

---

Both the church/christian community and I believe that both Agnostics/Atheists and people of any other religion will go to hell upon death.

---

So, is there any chance that you are in the wrong religion, and will consequently go to Hell because the right religion says so?

This is the sad part about Christianity. The arrogance, ignorance, and hypocrisy surpass any other group of people.

Quote:

---

I believe morality can exsist outside of God's command and that it is not the only source of morality.

---

K. :)

Quote:

---

I believe that evolution carried on normally outside of the Garden and after Adam and eve commited the first sin he sluaghtered the dinosuars, spread the modern vegitation and then threw them out and killed the garden.

---

It sounds like a highly distorted form of scripture that keeps getting twisted as science furthers itself.

Quote:

---

Many people believe that a verse in paul's letter to the romans condemns Homosexuals. I think that being Homosexualy oriented is perfectly ok but actually engaging in homosexual acts is the sin. I think that if one seeks forgiveness and then trys to resist acting on their urges they are going to heaven.

---

Homosexuals are humans just as you and I are. It's not a voluntary thing, and although it may not obviously be the normal, it's not controllable. Just as you and I have sexual urges for women and straight girls have sexual urges for men, they have the same urges, but for opposite genders. Acting upon something that seems only natural to your physiology can't be considered morally wrong, because your body makes it chemically right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

Yes I guess I should be suspicious of writings done in the past but these writings form the base of the religion. You have to trust someone or you will have no one when you really need them. I guess I believe them because I WANT to believe they are true. I have found nothing to suggest to me that the writers where purposely misleading just as I have found nothing to suggest that they all believed what they were writing. I guess it is really comes down to the fact that I don't have proof either way.

---

Sounded like you were describing a death cult for a second.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Also almost the whole bible is revolved around the Zodiac celestial coordinate systems used in many early religion.

---

Exactly. Yet astrology is a no-no in the religion? 0.o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by avalonandon

Okay...History in the bible... and I can add pages and pages to this:

The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.

The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.

t was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.

Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.

* The existence of Jesus Christ as recorded by historians Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud, and Lucian.
* Campaign into Israel by Pharaoh Shishak (1 Kings 14:25-26), recorded on the walls of the Temple of Amun in Thebes, Egypt.
* Revolt of Moab against Israel (2 Kings 1:1; 3:4-27), recorded on the Mesha Inscription.
* Campaign of the Assyrian king Sennacherib against Judah (2 Kings 18:13-16), as recorded on the Taylor Prism.
* Siege of Lachish by Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:14, 17), as recorded on the Lachish reliefs.
* Assassination of Sennacherib by his own sons (2 Kings 19:37), as recorded in the annals of his son Esarhaddon.
* Fall of Nineveh as predicted by the prophets Nahum and Zephaniah (2:13-15), recorded on the Tablet of Nabopolasar.
* Fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:10-14), as recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles.
* Captivity of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, in Babylon (2 Kings 24:15-16), as recorded on the Babylonian Ration Records.
* Fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians (Daniel 5:30-31), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.
* Freeing of captives in Babylon by Cyrus the Great (Ezra 1:1-4; 6:3-4), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.
* Forcing Jews to leave Rome during the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54) (Acts 18:2), as recorded by Suetonius.

---

Bears no meaning to anything I said at all. Do try to pay attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

I am going to take a hit here. This is one of the things where I can explain it to myself and wrap my own mind around it but can't put it into words. I guess I would say that it is because God lets us make our own decisions and live with those choices. I know that this is a BAD answer, give me a bit more time to do some research and I promise I will get back to you with a better answer at a latter time.

---

I'm curious about something Lucid Boy, If un-righteous people die and go to hell then why the need for 2 resurrections as indicated the book of Revelations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

This question, unlike your last one, has a simple answer. God permitted the possibility for evil and sin because he wanted to be able to experince real love.

---

I'm a little puzzled by this one as well. If God is "Omnipotent" why would he lack the feeling/knowledge of real love?

God is not omnipotent, omnicient, or omnibenevolent if anything exists that he thinks is "Bad". If God has any kind of preference, he is not Omnipotent, Omnicient, or Omnibenevolent. Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

God is not omnipotent, omnicient, or omnibenevolent if anything exists that he thinks is "Bad". If God has any kind of preference, he is not Omnipotent, Omnicient, or Omnibenevolent. Period.

---

Why? Because it's illogical? If so what you just mentioned has very little merit if any.

Because if god was Omnipotent:

- He dictates what does and what does not exist, what can and cannot happen. Why would he hate what he made if he loved it?

If god was Omnicient:

- He could forsee all problems with everything, and be able to fix them so he is not dissatisfied with his creation.

If god was Omnibenevolent:

- He would not see anything as sinful, there would be no pain or suffering or even a possibility of eternal torture, and Satan would not exist.

And if I am not allowed to be logical then I will leave now, because illogicalities (Bullshit) is what started many of Humans' problems.

^^

ALL BOW TO THE KING OF THE LOUNGE!!!!!:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

This question, unlike your last one, has a simple answer. God permitted the possibility for evil and sin because he wanted to be able to experince real love. When he created man he made them free, he wanted beings to associate with that could make their own decisions and have their own feelings, he didn't want puppets he controled. How can you have free people that experince real love without the possibillity of hate. If I was forced to love you all the time with no alternative would that be true love? Sin and evil is just rebellion against gods love, we are saying screw you God we would rather do it our own way, forget your love. It is choosing to hate him through action.

---

If God is omnipotent, why can't he create us with the experience of real love and free will as well as not having any suffering or evil?

If god needs to permit the possibility of evil and suffering for us to experience true love, then doesn't that make him not omnipotent?

Great job, Seis. :goodjob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

If God is omnipotent, why can't he create us with the experience of real love and free will as well as not having any suffering or evil?

If god needs to permit the possibility of evil and suffering for us to experience true love, then doesn't that make him not omnipotent?

---

That's what I said as well ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

That's what I said as well ;)

---

It's the classic problem of evil.

It's fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

- He dictates what does and what does not exist, what can and cannot happen. Why would he hate what he made if he loved it?

If god was Omnicient:

- He could forsee all problems with everything, and be able to fix them so he is not dissatisfied with his creation.

If god was Omnibenevolent:

- He would not see anything as sinful, there would be no pain or suffering or even a possibility of eternal torture, and Satan would not exist.

And if I am not allowed to be logical then I will leave now, because illogicalities (Bullshit) is what started many of Humans' problems.

---

I’ll take this as your logical argument; let’s consider the statements you’ve posted. If this truly is your logical argument then once again it hold’s no merit. Would it not make sense for logic on an Omnipotent level to supersede this form of low-level logic, considering being Omnipotent would naturally be above logic? Do you agree that an Omnipotent being is above your sense of logic? If not then we have another problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I’ll take this as your logical argument; let’s consider the statements you’ve posted. If this truly is your logical argument then once again it hold’s no merit. Would it not make sense for logic on an Omnipotent level to supersede this form of low-level logic, considering being Omnipotent would naturally be above logic? Do you agree that an Omnipotent being is above your sense of logic? If not then we have another problem.

---

So you're claiming omnipotence is above logic?

Because usually in philosophy of religion the assumption is that omnipotent does not mean above laws of logic. So an omnipotent being can create a 4 sided triangle?

I just want a simply yes/no to what you are arguing for here btw, nothing more yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

So you're claiming omnipotence is above logic?

Because usually in philosophy of religion the assumption is that omnipotent does not mean above laws of logic. So an omnipotent being can create a 4 sided triangle?

I just want a simply yes/no to what you are arguing for here btw, nothing more yet.

---

Omnipotency breaks logic. Take your 4 sided triangle which is absolutely meaningless but's lets use it, since you've presented it.

Answer: An Omnipotent being "can" create a 4 sided traingle while leaving it 3 sided at that same time.

Alright..

So your original argument was the criticism of the impotence of logic to argue about a being which is above logic right?

Again yes/no.

Yes

So from that it makes any argument about the nature of "god" meaningless because we argue via logic, and logic doesn't apply to him?

y/n, last one, i promise.

Hey Lucid Boy, if Jesus denounced some of the ideas in the Old Testament, does that mean that version was wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

So from that it makes any argument about the nature of "god" meaningless because we argue via logic, and logic doesn't apply to him?

y/n, last one, i promise.

---

Sorry but I can do a simple y/n on this one because the argument is truley paradoxal by definition. However I'll give an answer.

God doesn't have to follow our ideas of what is logical and what is illogical because in his omnipotent nature he is the essence of both what is logical and what is illogical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Sorry but I can do a simple y/n on this one because the argument is truley paradoxal by definition. However I'll give an answer.

God doesn't have to follow our ideas of what is logical and what is illogical because in his omnipotent nature he is the essence of both what is logical and what is illogical.

---

Ok, ok, so it does make it silly to argue about his nature using just logic right?


But I'm assuming you came to your belief in God using logic right?

okay before we dig deeper into this, let's make sure we are both on the same page in regards to what is logic.

By definition I assume that Logic: is the study of principles by correct reasoning, do you agree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Answer: An Omnipotent being "can" create a 4 sided traingle while leaving it 3 sided at that same time.

---

"Triangle" is a man-made designation for three-sided objects...when an omnipotent being makes a four sided object, man will define it as a "quadrilateral".

Well logic is a tricky one to define, and I know where you have that definition from, which is a good one, but in the type of logic i'm disputing God being above i'm verging on the most solid, which is mathematical, although not entirely.

For example

"If a then b,

a,

so b"

or 1 and 1 is 2.

I don't want to restrict myself to the definition you suggest but logic of this sort and of the triangle example earlier.


Basically yeah, the study of principles by correct reasoning, but I just wanted to throw these out there as not to get completely bogged in the wording.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

"Triangle" is a man-made designation for three-sided objects...when an omnipotent being makes a four sided object, man will define it as a "quadrilateral".

---

I guess my example was to hard for you understand. Let me put it to you like this. If God makes Fire but he wants you to see fire as Ice then you will see fire as Ice while still seeing fire and Ice

I see, I see...forgive me, I'm pretty slow today, having not had entirely adequate sleep...but yea I see what you're saying now.

Except one more thing I need to clarify, are you just seeing the fire as ice, or is it actually fire and ice at the same time?

Okay we both have our defintion and understanding of Logic.

Now just because it's beyond our comprehension and our ideas of logical reasoning doesn't make it illogical by no means. Exmp: People in the 4th and 5th centuries knew for a fact that the Earth was flat because thinking otherwise was well beyond their comprehension. (i.e., Spherical Earth). Just because something is beyond our current comprehension doesn't make it illogical by definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

I see, I see...forgive me, I'm pretty slow today, having not had entirely adequate sleep...but yea I see what you're saying now.

Except one more thing I need to clarify, are you just seeing the fire as ice, or is it actually fire and ice at the same time?

---

No need for apologies you're fine. Yup you are right. You are seeing fire as ice and fire and ice at the same time.

Ok so this object in question is existing as fire and ice at the same time.

Would you say that the laws of this universe, created by omnipotent God, are perfect as is?

But then how could man know God at all?

Seismosaur, which post is your question directed at? Mine with a question presenting an idea of a universe with perfect laws or the whole fire-being-ice thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Would it not make sense for logic on an Omnipotent level to supersede this form of low-level logic, considering being Omnipotent would naturally be above logic?

---

So you're saying that god made a universe where bad things happen, where we don't like these bad things and your response is that even though he didn't have to do it this way he did because it doesn't have to make sense to us (which he knew it wouldn't)? What kind of point is that? That humans don't like suffering is a plain fact. About as plain as the fact that it happens. Your point is a non-argument. god's creation is causing itself to hurt. Obviously he screwed up somewhere.

Wait, nevermind. That's only obvious on a human level. god has the power to not make sense and so that's a pretty good reason to not make any sense. Even if it wasn't a good reason to not make sense, it wouldn't matter! he's god! he doesn't need a good reason to not make sense!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephenT

Thanks for answering the questions. I'll get to comments.



Yeah, it's a kind of confusing topic unless you get my whole story. Here's a thread I made a while back, with the whole concept.


http://www.dreamviews.com/community/showthread.php?t=53674

---

My answer remains the same though I will further clarify if you so desire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephenT

I must have forgotten to put "all-forgiving" in the question also. If God always forgives, then there is no need for a hell.

---

All forgiving means that he will forgive any sin of course but you must come seek forgiveness, you must truely mean it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephenT

Is it sin if we do not know of God's love, yet commit acts that are viewed as sins by Christians, even if they are not very morally wrong? What if somebody knows of God's love, and sins, but not for the sake of sin, but to get by in life?

---

A sin is a sin and is never acceptable. If the person who sins doesn't know of God it is still a sin. This person who has never heard of God may or may not go to hell depending on who you ask. Even if you commit the sin just to get by it is still a sin and still requires you to seek forgiveness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephenT

So you view them as wrong or mistakes made by the Church and many Christians or you neglect them? I'm confused from your wording a little bit.

If the first, then you agree that Christianity is enshrouded in hypocrisy. (Not necessarily directed at you or bad for you, just for the religion as a whole.) If the latter, then you are obviously ignorant.

---

I believe that the church has some black marks on it's record, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephenT

That is exactly my point. Because it was written so long ago and has lost so much meaning and interpretation, as well as how to interpret, it leaves it as a very unreliable source of any historical relevance. When it turns completely metaphoric, it is only a set of morals

---

Not much I can say to this, it was a long time ago and things get lost in the ebb and flow of time. I agree that it can be confusing at times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephenT

I never knew or heard of them being denounced. Is there any scripture showing this? I remember mostly hearing and reading scriptures where Jesus had said something about the lines of the Torah being completely correct.

---

As far as adultery goes the scribes and pharisees brought a woman to jesus acused of adultery thinking they could trap him in conversation and when they asked him what to do he replied let he who has not sin cast the first stone.The woman was not harmed. For the full story see john8 1-12 in the bible or type it into your favorite search engine.
As far as slavery goes here is a bit from paul's letter to philemon, it is verses 15-16 "Perhaps this is why he was away from you for awhile, that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother, beloeved especially to me but even more so to you, as a man in the lord."
As for Jesus and the Torah he basically said that he was not here to destroy it, just that he was going to fullfill a few prophecies, he meant that he wasn't going to throw out the old law, just make some changes. This is one of the most misinterpreted verses in the bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephenT

So, is there any chance that you are in the wrong religion, and will consequently go to Hell because the right religion says so?

This is the sad part about Christianity. The arrogance, ignorance, and hypocrisy surpass any other group of people.

---

If my religion is incorect, which I don't think it is, and another was right then I could end up going to hell.

Don't forget Islam or even Judaism, most religions have something like this in their doctrine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephenT

K. :)

---

I like the smiley

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephenT

It sounds like a highly distorted form of scripture that keeps getting twisted as science furthers itself.

---

it is, it is what works for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephenT

Homosexuals are humans just as you and I are. It's not a voluntary thing, and although it may not obviously be the normal, it's not controllable. Just as you and I have sexual urges for women and straight girls have sexual urges for men, they have the same urges, but for opposite genders. Acting upon something that seems only natural to your physiology can't be considered morally wrong, because your body makes it chemically right.

---

I don't think that homosexuality should be considered wrong by my religion but it is, Like I said if you truely believe then you will have to try to resist the urge. It's not fair, I don't like it, but thats the way it is. Finally I am done with your comments, I tried to answer like five times but kept getting computer crashes from the old and junky computer I'm working with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

If God is omnipotent, why can't he create us with the experience of real love and free will as well as not having any suffering or evil?

---

because to have free will you have to have the ability to do things that are against what God commands, otherwise you are just a puppet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

If god needs to permit the possibility of evil and suffering for us to experience true love, then doesn't that make him not omnipotent?

---

How can you say that it is True love when the only emotion you can feel is love? You must be able to experience hate or anti-love to truely love someone or else it is forced love. Anti-love leads to bad choices. God wanted us to have free will because he loved us and any creature that has truely free-will has the ability to make bad decisions or else free will doesn't exsist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

So you're saying that god made a universe where bad things happen, where we don't like these bad things and your response is that even though he didn't have to do it this way he did because it doesn't have to make sense to us (which he knew it wouldn't)? What kind of point is that? That humans don't like suffering is a plain fact. About as plain as the fact that it happens. Your point is a non-argument. god's creation is causing itself to hurt. Obviously he screwed up somewhere.

Wait, nevermind. That's only obvious on a human level. god has the power to not make sense and so that's a pretty good reason to not make any sense. Even if it wasn't a good reason to not make sense, it wouldn't matter! he's god! he doesn't need a good reason to not make sense!

---

That point flew right pass you huh Mark75? However Im curious to know something.

What is the fundamental principles of human suffering? and what causes it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

Ok so this object in question is existing as fire and ice at the same time.

Would you say that the laws of this universe, created by omnipotent God, are perfect as is?

---

Perfect is an aesthetic or moral value. It is not a relevant adjective to apply to the laws of the universe. The laws are what they are.

Our theories about the universe may be more or less accurate in their descriptions of the data. Nevertheless, the laws are not subject to our ethical judgments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freeman Dyson

the more we examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence we find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Okay we both have our defintion and understanding of Logic.

Now just because it's beyond our comprehension and our ideas of logical reasoning doesn't make it illogical by no means. Exmp: People in the 4th and 5th centuries knew for a fact that the Earth was flat because thinking otherwise was well beyond their comprehension. (i.e., Spherical Earth). Just because something is beyond our current comprehension doesn't make it illogical by definition.

---

Your missing my point; thats not what I was arguing.


The point is if you criticise Seismosaur for using logic in the problem of evil; then you admit you can never use logic about God; but you must have used logic in order to rationalise your belief in God.

Basically you can't say its ok to use logic to justify the existence of God, but then criticise it when it brings up a fundamental problem with God.

If you stick to what you said about seismosaur's argument then you get trapped in that you have used the veryt hing you tell him he cannot use in order to come up with the idea he is criticising in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

because to have free will you have to have the ability to do things that are against what God commands, otherwise you are just a puppet.


How can you say that it is True love when the only emotion you can feel is love? You must be able to experience hate or anti-love to truely love someone or else it is forced love. Anti-love leads to bad choices. God wanted us to have free will because he loved us and any creature that has truely free-will has the ability to make bad decisions or else free will doesn't exsist.

---

So God isn't omnipotent. OK?


Because an all-powerful all-loving being could give us free will and no possibility for sin and evil, if he truly was all powerful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

Your missing my point; thats not what I was arguing.

---

How is that not what you are arguing? I thought we found some common ground in regards to logic. The whole reason why I posted the definition regarding logic is so that we can get a general understanding that you and I were on the same page. How is the point missed when you mentioned this:

Quote:

---

Basically yeah, the study of principles by correct reasoning, but I just wanted to throw these out there as not to get completely bogged in the wording.

---

Remember Principles by Correct Reasoning?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

The point is if you criticise Seismosaur for using logic in the problem of evil; then you admit you can never use logic about God; but you must have used logic in order to rationalise your belief in God.

---

Speculative, this argument is pointless you're assuming you have knowledge regarding why I believe in God when you don't know anything about me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

Basically you can't say its ok to use logic to justify the existence of God, but then criticise it when it brings up a fundamental problem with God.

---

Refer back to my statement, an Omnipotent Being breaks Logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

If you stick to what you said about seismosaur's argument then you get trapped in that you have used the veryt hing you tell him he cannot use in order to come up with the idea he is criticising in the first place.

---

And what exactly did I use?

Yet your only reason in believeing in this deity is your immediate family and a 10k year old book which some how trumps the hundreds of other religions by default because your parents said so?

But wait-- I can't say that because that argument involves logic!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Yet your only reason in believeing in this deity is your immediate family and a 10k year old book which some how trumps the hundreds of other religions by default because your parents said so?

But wait-- I can't say that because that argument involves logic!

---

Once again "Speculation" Is this really factual in regards to my reason in believeing? What's the basis of your evidence to why and how I believe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

What is the fundamental principles of human suffering? and what causes it?

---

That humans were designed to be receptive to suffering, designed to want to caused suffering to other humans and that they were created in a universe where it is quite convenient for them to cause it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Once again "Speculation" Is this really factual in regards to my reason in believeing? What's the basis of your evidence to why and how I believe?

---

Because only someone severely mad in the head or someone who had been indoctrinated (brainwashed) would believe such asinine garbage and then defend it with Omnipotence > Logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

severely mad .

---

Severely mad? Please elaborate.

Severely not right in the head.

Or brainwashed. Usually the latter but sometimes the first-- See westboro Baptists group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Perfect is an aesthetic or moral value. It is not a relevant adjective to apply to the laws of the universe. The laws are what they are.

Our theories about the universe may be more or less accurate in their descriptions of the data. Nevertheless, the laws are not subject to our ethical judgments.

---

You got me there :P

Ok, I just wonder, God created the universe with the laws of logic that it has, why would he do something above his own laws?

Perfect is flawless.

Creating something flawed on accident is a flaw.

Yes, I neglected to think of that yesterday :oops: I think maybe I shouldn't be posting here until I've gotten some sleep :lol:

Anyway, certainly there is a flaw: evil.

Or Satan, as some like to term it.

Ok Ne-yo.


How did you come to believe in God then?


I hope you aren't gonna be usin' logic, for your sake.