|
The Vatican is a joke.
'nuf sed andi |
What I really despise about Christian "charity" groups, and why I never give my money to any of them, is that they spread religion first, then aid. They make these unbelievably unfortunate people learn their religious ideologies in order to get their aid. Its sick and it's despicable and it's dangerous too as is all too clear to see in AIDS ridden Africa.
|
I’ve always found topics like these interesting in some extent. These debates and discussion are very similar to the political ones. And just as those, in this context (or more precisely on this forum!), is totally pointless.
I personally admire and respect those who believe. I would like to be able to that as well, but somehow it doesn’t work that easy for me. |
Quote:
catholic teaching is no sex before marriage, so they dont aids to any people except the person they marry. i also believe the use of condom will be allowed by the catholic church for couples with aids in the near future. again im no expert on chrisitan laws or aids so i may be wrong on that account |
Quote:
Vatican, I saw figures ..... |
Quote:
Vatican, I saw figures ..... Vatican was also responsible for more deaths and more horror then Hitler + Saddam + Bush... |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Whatever you have in faith requires one thing understanding love. To have faith in yourself or something else would require you to know and love yourself. Love breeds faith.... without Love you have no faith... Dawn |
Quote:
I find it interesting where are faith comes from. This is how I think God shows us unconditional love , he never gives up on us, even if we or others try and give up on ourselves, God can always pick us up and carry us through via the faith he has in us, his children. Faith to me is unconditional love from God. Dawn |
Quote:
In that case I would say you would have psychotical problem. Not personal at all, but read it, I adjusted God for you... (Sam being someone no-one ever saw or accounted for) |
Go on about it all you want Dawn, I don't believe in such a thing as 'faith' for myself, just like you do, we are entitled to our own opinions right? If I fail something I try again, and try harder. I don't put some word on it and say 'Oh I have faith I can do it this time' because I don't know if I can, I just try, and try, and try. I don't need to have some magical hope to propel myself, the reward at the end of it all is enough for me. If you need that, then believe in it, but not all of us need to believe in these magical forces in order to have a happy life.
|
You might find this interesting
Gene Roddenberry, the legendary creator of Star Trek, was born in El Paso, Texas, in 1921. He studied law, then switched to aeronautical engineering and trained as a pilot. In 1941 he volunteered for the US Army Air Corps, and won medals for bombing missions from Guadalcanal. After the war he became a pilot for Pan Am. After seeing television for the first time, he decided to become a TV writer, but when he found no openings, he joined the Los Angeles Police Department and rose to sergeant. He wrote TV scripts in his spare time, then went freelance. He was the chief writer for several TV series before launching Star Trek in 1966. Roddenberry became anti-religious at an early age. As a youth he attended Baptist church, but it was not till he was sixteen that he began to pay any real attention to what the sermons were saying: I remember complete astonishment because what they were talking about were things that were just crazy. It was Communion time where you eat this wafer and you are eating the body of Christ and drinking His blood. My first impression was "Jesus Christ, this is a bunch of cannibals they've put me down among . . . I guess from that time it was clear to me that religion as largely nonsense, was largely magical, superstitious things. [Alexander pp 36- 37.] Roddenberry might not have accepted the label pantheist readily. He thought of himself as a humanist. In 1986 joined the American Humanist Association, and in 1991 he was awarded the AHA's Humanist Arts Award. Certainly Star Trek shows no signs of pantheism. The religious message Roddenberry puts across in the series is a humanist one. It is almost always critical of alien religions, which are usually disguised Earth faiths. In Who mourns for Adonais, the Enterprise picks up signals of an unknown life form near the planet Pollux IV of Beta Geminorum system. This turns out to be the God Apollo - a man-shaped entity with an extra organ in his chest, through which he could channel extraordinary energies. After retiring here from Earth, Apollo missed the adoration he had from the Greeks. He tries to force the Enterprise crew to worship him as a God. When they refuse, he dissolves himself into the wind. The film Star Trek: Final Frontier tackles a similar theme. In revolt against Vulcan rationalism, Spock's brother Sybok hijacks the Enterprise and heads for the planet Sha Ka Ree near the galactic centre, where he believes the Creator lives. But this "God" turns out to be a tyrannical old man who kills anyone who doesn't do exactly what he says. It was a bold theme, since "God" was very similar to Moses' idea of Yahweh. This was a film which started up without Roddenberry, and which Roddenberry opposed - but actually it embodies the typical Star Trek humanist theology. In The Way to Eden Spock discovers the planet Eden, which at first sight appears a place of beauty and peace, but on investigation turns out to have vegetation impregnated with deadly acids. In The Apple, the inhabitants of Gamma Trianguli VI worship the God Vaal, which appears as the gigantic face of a snake-like reptile with burning eyes. Vaal provides an idyllic life for the people in exchange for fuel to power its energy systems. Vaal's priest Akuta wears antennae on his head so he can hear commands from the machine. The Enterprise crew discover that Vaal is a computer-controlled machine and destroy it with a blast of phaser fire, thus liberating the locals from their debilitating subservience to a cruel deity (but violating the Prime Directive in a very cavalier manner). The Next Generation Episode Justice presents an almost identical theme. The Edos on the planet Rubicun III live a child-like, hedonistic life, worshipping a "God" which turns out to be a multi-dimensional life form in a transparent spaceship orbiting the planet. Despite the Prime Directive, the Enterprise crew question and then violate Edo law, and show one of their leaders the spaceship which is the visible form of "God." At least they respect the directive enough to leave without liberating the Edos from their superstition - though they have probably done enough to start a dissident faction among the Edos. In Star Trek, religious mythologies and supernatural phenomena almost always have scientific explanations. Alien gods are never really supernatural - their powers are always explained by exo-biology or by mechanical devices. Indeed `gods' are often malevolent or egotistical. When they are benevolent, they usually turn their worshippers into mindless or childlike zombies. Add this message up, and it is amazing that Roddenberry managed to slip so much past the censor. Everything in Roddenberry's universe was not all reason and science, however. Several Star Trek episodes suggest the possibility that souls could live on after the body has died, or might be separated from bodies, or might be capable of telepathy. In What Are Little Girls Made Of Roger Korby transfers his soul into the body of an android, while several episodes involve people swapping souls (Return to Tomorrow, Turnabout Intruder). It is clear that Roddenberry felt a fairly deep hostility to organized religions, to transcendental gods and supernatural powers, though he seems to have acknowledged the civilizing mission of Christianity in Bread and Circuses, where the "Children of the Son" refuse to participate in gladiatorial combats. However, it's equally clear that Roddenberry really was a pantheist, of an unsystematized but intelligence-centred kind verging on the pan-psychic variety (see Varieties of pantheism). It seems a pity that, as far as I am aware, he never made an episode that embodied the pantheistic viewpoint. Ask yourself honestly what kind of religion Starfleet staff would follow in the twenty third and twenty fourth centuries, confronted as they are weekly with the multiplicity of life-forms which the universe spawns. Imagine a real Star Trek in the real future. Ask yourself honestly, and quite independently of Roddenberry's views and of the humanist slant of Star Trek. Would they believe in a God who was supremely concerned only with humans? Would they believe in a God that became human and died to save humans? Would they believe in a last judgement of humans, or a magically transformed earth after the resurrection? Would they be atheists, believing that all the awesome mystery and beauty of the universe was cold and hostile and utterly meaningless? Would they be Buddhists, convinced that it was all an empty illusion? Or would they worship the universe as the only real divinity? Would they be pantheists? Pantheism is the best religion for the age of the Hubble Space Telescope. Find out if you're a pantheist. Check out Scientific Pantheism as soon as you've read this page. Quotations are from David Alexander, Star Trek Creator Roc, New York, 1994; and Terrance Sweeney, God &, Winston Press, Minneapolis, 1985. |
Quote:
God has been accounted for on many occasions, read the bible and see all of the accounts. I account for God's presence in my life every day. Dawn |
Quote:
Dawn |
lol could you just not have summed that up with the last 3 paragraphs?. Any it makes a few good points but the question is who says God is only interested in humans? who says there is intelligent life out there to have a star trek future?
|
Interesting Russ... a lot of programmes are based on religious theories, I think it is because it relates so much to fundamental nature and the good old book.
Beam me up Scotty, or in my case God :D Dawn |
I didn't say that I couldn't do it - I said I didn't know, which is very different. I try because I want to do it, I don't know if I can, but I aim for something, to reach something at the end of it. I don't need to tell myself that I can do it because, if I don't know if I can, that is just a waste of time, and that sort of self confidence thing doesn't work for me. I try my hardest regardless, if I kept telling myself "You can do it, you can do it" I'd not only waste my time worrying, but it'd probably put more stress on me anyway.
|
Quote:
And how can you account for God daily without being fictional? Probably never understand though |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sorry that's the only fact I can think of right now, it's friday night, don't have responsibilities at the moment so am in a state wich isn't supported by most religions :) Anyhow where is the proof of some of the essential stuff of the bible, Jesus being son of god & excistence of god? So to answer your question, Yes I'm saying events (at least most essential) didn't happen. I do believe Jesus existed, was hanged on cross etc etc. I do also believe he wasn't known as son of god at that moment and wasn't untill 300 years later.. The latter one I can proof - though the source is probably just as reliable as the bible |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
but ill start on the point of you saying Are you serious? what i get from that is that your right and im wrong. is there a point of me giving evidence of god existence? i would see that as a big arrogant, im sure you dont mean in that way tho. |
Quote:
And it wasn't recorded by 12 people in a book. The New Testament didn't even begin to be written until at least six decades after the time of Jesus by people who never even met Jesus. It continued to be written, edited and altered for centuries after. Watch this documentary, you will learn a lot. Who Wrote The Bible (and it's from a religious point of view too!): |
well can i ask what in the NT is in a clash with historical fact? and even if these historial facts are made then they to would have been writtian down just like the bible was, what makes one true and the other not. as far as i know the NT is more moral teaching than stating facts. i have not made anything to be true, i havnt said that the events in the bible were true, if i had ill edit it lol
as for the 12 who recored the fact that jesus rose from the dead, it is recored in the 4 bibles, mark, matthew, luke and john. they were present when it happened. |
How can you believe a book whose first chapter is all lies? We came about by evolution, not by a magician waving a wand. People used to believe the creation story as true, but since it has been proven wrong it is apparently now meant not to be taken literally but is allogorical, how conveniant :rolleyes:
|
Quote:
i didnt mention the OT i was talking about the NT which is by far a totally different thing and which im far more interested in. dont tackle me on things i havnt mentioned |
History is written with a spin. Do you think any surviving nazi's would look upon WWII the same way as the rest of the world? It is all about perception, all about what you want to tell, and there is much to suggest that the bible was short-listed from many more stories, compiled and re-written endlessly around 300AD by kings, men in power, as a political tool to unite the peoples, get people to become of one religion to stop their bickering amongst each other, to get them in line.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
but another question would be what teachings in the bible would they want to change anyway? is there teaching that help those in power? i know what point your trying to make but do you think think there is a massive jump between writting a book about forgiveness and love and the nazi view of WW2 lol. |
Quote:
it all comes down the fact that you and me cant, faith comes into play here, and no science is going to prove that the event didnt happen, and none will prove that it did. |
Quote:
If I'm claiming my two dogs can actually talk, do I have to prove it or do you have to disprove it? Think it is me who has to prove my statement. The excistence of God, araising from Jesus, curing of blind man, walking over water et etc are just as unbelievable as my two dogs who are talking... at the moment they are discussing next door's cat and how to get the damn thing... |
Quote:
The Nazi reference was just an example of how people can have very different perspectives. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Even here you are cherry picking, albeit very big cherrys. Both OT and NT are in the bible. So now you can dismiss the OT as not historical fact yet still cling to the NT? Its all bollox. Even using it as a ''moral guide'' is useless, theres so many contradictions. And dont make Butters retype everything he's said to that idiot cuclainuh howeverthe**** you spell it, go back and read this entire thread properly - he makes some very good points. Our arguements are based on logical evidence, or the lack of as it may be, and this is what is presented here. I see no evidence for the other side of the arguement. andi |
Quote:
|
Quote:
anyway maybe people will burn in fire for eternity unless they repent, something we can never prove lol |
Quote:
im not claiming anything to be historical fact but as a chrisitian im more interested in the NT were chrisitan moral teachings are taken from, im not all sure what they bible says but can you show me the contradictions in the NT |
NEW TESTAMENT CONTRADICTIONS: Including historical inaccuracies, specially for Malachy.
I. THE BIRTH OF JESUS A. THE GENEALOGIES OF JOSEPH 1. Matthew and Luke disagree Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). They cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was. Church apologists try to eliminate this discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary's, even though Luke says explicitly that it is Joseph's genealogy (Luke 3:23). Christians have had problems reconciling the two genealogies since at least the early fourth century. It was then that Eusebius, a "Church Father," wrote in his The History of the Church, "each believer has been only too eager to dilate at length on these passages." 2. Why genealogies of Joseph? Both the genealogies of Matthew and Luke show that Joseph was a direct descendant of King David. But if Joseph is not Jesus' father, then Joseph's genealogies are meaningless as far as Jesus is concerned, and one has to wonder why Matthew and Luke included them in their gospels. The answer, of course, is that the genealogies originally said that Jesus was the son of Joseph and thus Jesus fulfilled the messianic requirement of being a direct descendant of King David. Long after Matthew and Luke wrote the genealogies the church invented (or more likely borrowed from the mystery religions) the doctrine of the virgin birth. Although the virgin birth could be accommodated by inserting a few words into the genealogies to break the physical link between Joseph and Jesus, those same insertions also broke the physical link between David and Jesus. The church had now created two major problems: 1) to explain away the existence of two genealogies of Joseph, now rendered meaningless, and 2) to explain how Jesus was a descendant of David. The apostle Paul says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3). Here the word "seed" is literally in the Greek "sperma." This same Greek word is translated in other verses as "descendant(s)" or "offspring." The point is that the Messiah had to be a physical descendant of King David through the male line. That Jesus had to be a physical descendant of David means that even if Joseph had legally adopted Jesus (as some apologists have suggested), Jesus would still not qualify as Messiah if he had been born of a virgin - seed from the line of David was required. Women did not count in reckoning descent for the simple reason that it was then believed that the complete human was present in the man's sperm (the woman's egg being discovered in 1827). The woman's womb was just the soil in which the seed was planted. Just as there was barren soil that could not produce crops, so also the Bible speaks of barren wombs that could not produce children. This is the reason that although there are many male genealogies in the Bible, there are no female genealogies. This also eliminates the possibility put forward by some apologists that Jesus could be of the "seed of David" through Mary. 3. Why do only Matthew and Luke know of the virgin birth? Of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth. Had something as miraculous as the virgin birth actually occurred, one would expect that Mark and John would have at least mentioned it in their efforts to convince the world that Jesus was who they were claiming him to be. The apostle Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to Jesus' birth, he says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3) and was "born of a woman," not a virgin (Galatians 4:4). 4. Why did Matthew include four women in Joseph's genealogy? Matthew mentions four women in the Joseph's genealogy. a. Tamar - disguised herself as a harlot to seduce Judah, her father-in-law (Genesis 38:12-19). b. Rahab - was a harlot who lived in the city of Jericho in Canaan (Joshua 2:1). c. Ruth - at her mother-in-law Naomi's request, she came secretly to where Boaz was sleeping and spent the night with him. Later Ruth and Boaz were married (Ruth 3:1-14). d. Bathsheba - became pregnant by King David while she was still married to Uriah (2 Samuel 11:2-5). To have women mentioned in a genealogy is very unusual. That all four of the women mentioned are guilty of some sort of sexual impropriety cannot be a coincidence. Why would Matthew mention these, and only these, women? The only reason that makes any sense is that Joseph, rather than the Holy Spirit, impregnated Mary prior to their getting married, and that this was known by others who argued that because of this Jesus could not be the Messiah. By mentioning these women in the genealogy Matthew is in effect saying, "The Messiah, who must be a descendant of King David, will have at least four "loose women" in his genealogy, so what difference does one more make?" |
Continued:
B. THE ANGEL'S MESSAGE In Matthew, the angel appears to Joseph in a dream and tells him that Mary's child will save his people from their sins. In Luke, the angel tells Mary that her son will be great, he will be called the Son of the Most High and will rule on David's throne forever. A short time later Mary tells Elizabeth that all generations will consider her (Mary) blessed because of the child that will be born to her. If this were true, Mary and Joseph should have had the highest regard for their son. Instead, we read in Mark 3:20-21 that Jesus' family tried to take custody of him because they thought he had lost his mind. And later, in Mark 6:4-6 Jesus complained that he received no honor among his own relatives and his own household. C. THE DATE According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death. Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later. However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor ..." In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death. D. THE PLACE Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Matthew quotes Micah 5:2 to show that this was in fulfillment of prophecy. Actually, Matthew misquotes Micah (compare Micah 5:2 to Matthew 2:6). Although this misquote is rather insignificant, Matthew's poor understanding of Hebrew will have great significance later in his gospel. Luke has Mary and Joseph travelling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea (Matthew 2:21-23). In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where they were born (which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing thousands of people to travel). E. THE PROPHECIES Matthew says that the birth of Jesus and the events following it fulfilled several Old Testament prophecies. These prophecies include: 1. The virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14) This verse is part of a prophecy that Isaiah relates to King Ahaz regarding the fate of the two kings threatening Judah at that time and the fate of Judah itself. In the original Hebrew, the verse says that a "young woman" will give birth, not a "virgin" which is an entirely different Hebrew word. The young woman became a virgin only when the Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek. This passage obviously has nothing to do with Jesus (who, if this prophecy did apply to him, should have been named Immanuel instead of Jesus). 2. The "slaughter of the innocents" (Jeremiah 31:15) Matthew says that Herod, in an attempt to kill the newborn Messiah, had all the male children two years old and under put to death in Bethlehem and its environs, and that this was in fulfillment of prophecy. This is a pure invention on Matthew's part. Herod was guilty of many monstrous crimes, including the murder of several members of his own family. However, ancient historians such as Josephus, who delighted in listing Herod's crimes, do not mention what would have been Herod's greatest crime by far. It simply didn't happen. The context of Jeremiah 31:15 makes it clear that the weeping is for the Israelites about to be taken into exile in Babylon, and has nothing to do with slaughtered children hundreds of years later. 3. Called out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1) Matthew has Mary, Joseph and Jesus fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod, and says that the return of Jesus from Egypt was in fulfillment of prophecy (Matthew 2:15). However, Matthew quotes only the second half of Hosea 11:1. The first half of the verse makes it very clear that the verse refers to God calling the Israelites out of Egypt in the exodus led by Moses, and has nothing to do with Jesus. As further proof that the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt never happened, one need only compare the Matthew and Luke accounts of what happened between the time of Jesus' birth and the family's arrival in Nazareth. According to Luke, forty days (the purification period) after Jesus was born, his parents brought him to the temple, made the prescribed sacrifice, and returned to Nazareth. Into this same time period Matthew somehow manages to squeeze: the visit of the Magi to Herod, the slaughter of the innocents and the flight into Egypt, the sojourn in Egypt, and the return from Egypt. All of this action must occur in the forty day period because Matthew has the Magi visit Jesus in Bethlehem before the slaughter of the innocents. F. THE TRUTH BEHIND THE PROPHECIES - MATTHEW'S BIG BLUNDER Since the prophecies mentioned above do not, in their original context, refer to Jesus, why did Matthew include them in his gospel? There are two possibilities: 1. The church says that the words had a hidden future context as well as the original context, ie, God was keeping very important secrets from His chosen people. 2. Matthew, in his zeal to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, searched the Old Testament for passages (sometimes just phrases) that could be construed as messianic prophecies and then created or modified events in Jesus' life to fulfill those "prophecies." Fortunately for those who really want to know the truth, Matthew made a colossal blunder later in his gospel which leaves no doubt at all as to which of the above possibilities is true. His blunder involves what is known as Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey (if you believe Mark, Luke or John) or riding on two donkeys (if you believe Matthew). In Matthew 21:1-7, two animals are mentioned in three of the verses, so this cannot be explained away as a copying error. And Matthew has Jesus riding on both animals at the same time, for verse 7 literally says, "on them he sat." Why does Matthew have Jesus riding on two donkeys at the same time? Because he misread Zechariah 9:9 which reads in part, "mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey." Anyone familiar with Old Testament Hebrew would know that the word translated "and" in this passage does not indicate another animal but is used in the sense of "even" (which is used in many translations) for emphasis. The Old Testament often uses parallel phrases which refer to the same thing for emphasis, but Matthew was evidently not familiar with this usage. Although the result is rather humorous, it is also very revealing. It demonstrates conclusively that Matthew created events in Jesus' life to fulfill Old Testament prophecies, even if it meant creating an absurd event. Matthew's gospel is full of fulfilled prophecies. Working the way Matthew did, and believing as the church does in "future contexts," any phrase in the Bible could be turned into a fulfilled prophecy! |
| All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11.
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.