Religions

Post by **Rob Wilson** » 2002-07-04 11:07pm

you want to discuss religious matters then here's the place for you, if a particular thread gets overrun with Religious fighting, then point them here, where they can play without breaking anyone elses toys.

Enjoy... poor word choice there me thinks.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2002-07-04 11:10pm

cont. from other thread:

That would rather be the point of the Resurrection, wouldn't it? Because how could Jesus be resurrected if he did not die first? And that death could come from any source - an errant pebble, a disease... or perhaps a treacherous disciple.

Resurrection? I don't recall their being any concrete evidence of Jesus actually being resurrected.

This argument depends on a sola Scriptura interpretation of the Bible - i.e. that the only books referred to in scripture are those which we now possess as Scripture. We know this to be false - Jesus and the Apostles refer to books which were known as late as the third and fourth century but have been lost since then.

How can you assume, without them even existing anymore, or reading them, that that they would in anyway back up Jesus's claim that Moses wrote about him?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2002-07-04 11:11pm

Icehawk wrote:Resurrection? I don't recall their being any concrete evidence of Jesus actually being resurrected.

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, Icehawk, if you can't accept the Resurrection for the sake of constructing an argument regarding it, then there's not much point in discussing exegesis with you, is there?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2002-07-04 11:13pm

On Moses:

Moses spoke of the Messiah.

Jesus was the Messiah (or at least he said he was, the Apostles believed that he was so strongly that they went to their deaths rather than deny him, and modern Christians believe that he was).

Therefore, if Moses spoke of the Messiah and Jesus was the Messiah, then Moses spoke of Jesus.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2002-07-04 11:24pm

If somebody asserts that they can sum up a religion in one sentence, or a nice-sounding sound bite, chances are they're trying to feed you some of this. Hold out for the real stuff.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2002-07-04 11:38pm

Moses spoke of the Messiah.
Therefore, if Moses spoke of the Messiah and Jesus was the Messiah, then Moses spoke of Jesus.

Jesus claimed Moses wrote of him. That is the issue at hand the website was dealing with. Where? Where is this writing of Moses referring to Jesus?

Post by **Steve** » 2002-07-05 01:54am

Better move my post in the URL thread here....

Post by **Steve** » 2002-07-05 01:55am

Franc28 wrote:
[John] 6:70 Jesus chose "a devil" for an apostle. Oh well, everyone makes mistakes.
The "devil" Jesus is referring to in this passage is Judas Iscariot. This is just plain an example of failing to read in-context for the sake of nitpicking, since there HAD to be a betrayer (Judas) for the prophesy to be fulfilled.
So he did choose a devil for an apostle. You have failed to point out the mistake, just tried to make it look better.

He was pointing out that it wasn't a mistake in the first place. Jesus was supposed to choose a traitor.

And God could have just changed the "prophecy" so he did not have to choose a devil (Judas). You are committing the common fallacy of limiting your god.

How is it "limiting God"? Why would God change the prophecy? Explain these things, and how it is "limiting" God by saying he didn't change the prophecy when he could have, since an obvious variable is whether he would want to or not.

Iceberg wrote:John wrote his Gospel close to the end of the 1st century, and it would have been useless for him to write down a "chapter and verse" which wouldn't yet exist for three more centuries.

And here I thought the Bible was timeless.

The most common version of the Bible today is the King James version, compiled by order of King James I of England (also King James IV of Scotland, this was in the time before they unified under the banner of the United Kingdom) in the early 17th Century. About, oh, sixteen hundred fucking years after the events that most of the New Testament refers to! Sixteen hundred years for writings to get lost or altered. And, to add more into it, it had been translated from Hebrew to Greek and Latin to other languages and English, and in translation you can lose more meaning in the text as the translators find the proper terms in the output language to relay with the input language material they would be using.

That is, of course, why the fundamentalist idea of "Biblical perfection" is a load of horseshit.

The Onion had a good article that lampooned on that. The Bible was written by desert dwellers, and about all it's good for is tell us what desert dwellers thought was "cool". It's completely valueless scientifically or morally.

Using the Onion to back up your argument shows just how weak and pathetic it is. The Onion is a fucking satire site, not a legitimate source. It'd be like, I dunno, Trekkies using the DITL or Fivers using the B5Tech website in vs. debates. Of course, the Onion doesn't pretend to be legitimate, so it's not as bad as DITL, B5Tech, trueorigins, and other such sites.

Answer my questions.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-07-05 04:23pm

Moses spoke of the Messiah.

Jesus was the Messiah (or at least he said he was, the Apostles believed that he was so strongly that they went to their deaths rather than deny him, and modern Christians believe that he was).

Sorry, but the willingness to die for someone doesn't equate to validity, if that's what you're implying. All it takes is a con artist and a bunch of gullible people, like ... say scientifically uneducated religious zealots back during the beginning of the millennium?

Therefore, if Moses spoke of the Messiah and Jesus was the Messiah, then Moses spoke of Jesus.

I don't see what this proves. There's no evidence that Jesus was the messiah for the Jews, other than the hearsay in the New Testament, which was written by <surprise!> followers of Jesus!

As I understand it, the concept of Jesus being a messiah was borrowed from old Greek religions in order to convert the people of Greece, and it was not originally in Christianity, much like virtually every other element of the religion. It combines human sacrifice, monotheism, polytheism, a vengeful god, a merciful god and old Greek and Roman rituals all into a hodgepodge of contradiction, questionable beliefs open to virtually any interpretation you wish to subscribe to it, making it the most dangerous thing that's ever happened to this planet.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2002-07-05 04:58pm

The irony's so thick you could cut it with a lightsaber...

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2002-07-05 05:15pm

Religion huh?
Don't care for it personally, thats all.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2002-07-05 05:21pm

The irony's so thick you could cut it with a lightsaber...

Concession Accepted.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2002-07-05 05:55pm

That was SO predictable.

Perhaps, Icehawk, you'd like to explain how a person who claims to be "rational" can get so damned irrational when somebody else believes in something different from them. Irrational, confrontational and angry, as if somebody else's beliefs constitute a threat to oneself (hmm, I know I've heard this song and dance somewhere before...). It's not as if there was a problem before somebody brought up the damned SAB. You asked where its exegesis was problematic - I answered the question.

Let's get one thing straight here - exegeting a text does not mean that the text is factually correct. We can exegete ancient Greek myths and discern modern meanings from them just fine, even while knowing that they are myths and not factually correct. So to nitpick exegesis on the Bible (or to exegete the Bible) on the grounds that the events described may not be (or in the case of the SAB, are not) factually correct is a non-starter. You tried to nitpick me on the grounds of questioning the Resurrection - in terms of Biblical exegesis, it is not even an appropriate question to ask, because we are interpreting the Resurrection INTRA-TEXTURALLY! It's like trying to say that Alderaan was never destroyed because it never really existed - in the real world it may be true but in context of Star Wars, it's a ludicrous statement, and only an idiot or somebody with an axe to grind would bring it up.

And all this still doesn't change the fact that you, Franc28 and now Durandal are or have been acting VERY irrationally. This started because I dared to question the interpretation of somebody who obviously had an axe to grind with the text he was interpreting (which is a very sensical thing to do in any context). I would do the same to somebody posting a creationist misinterpretation/hatchet job on the work of the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2002-07-05 07:39pm

For the love of Spam, can we PLEASE drop this "Concession Accepted" crap? There's such a thing as running a joke into the ground, buckaroos.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2002-07-05 07:56pm

SPOOFE wrote:For the love of Spam, can we PLEASE drop this "Concession Accepted" crap? There's such a thing as running a joke into the ground, buckaroos.

Concession accepted

Found it on SB...
I wonder if Lord Wong will find it funny?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-07-05 07:59pm

That picture makes Mike look like a member of the Lump Club.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2002-07-06 01:58am

Durandal wrote:That picture makes Mike look like a member of the Lump Club.

I think that would be putting it lightly, he looks like he's enjoyed a few too many Krusty Burgers fortified with pure fat...no offense Mike but that shot on that picture just doesn't look good.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2002-07-06 04:15am

Augh! Give him a neck!

victorhadin · Post by **victorhadin** » 2002-07-06 08:42pm

In all fairness, the guy does shoot lightning out of his fingertips pretty well. I'd cut him some slack if I were you, out of fear if not anything else.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-07-09 08:20am

Sorry for jumping in late. It seems that this thread is carrying over from another one, correct?

Are people here arguing over the validity of the Bible?

Anyhow, I don't think Christians will necessarily convince non-believers in the validity of the Bible purely by scientific means since believing in God, the Word of God (the Bible) I truly believe is an act of faith. I think that is what is irritating to scientists, since belief in God doesn't appear to be rational.

I hope my comment are generally in line with what is being said here.

XPViking

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-07-11 09:00pm

What i dont get is how a person can put so much faith in a book written hundreds of years ago, that has been changed hundreds of times, and that can be handely disproven by science. Cristian are willing to kill for these beliefs, beliefs that are responsible for millions of deaths.

If you havent noticed the ten commandments most commonly used are no more than a means too control people.

Captain Cyran · Post by **Captain Cyran** » 2002-07-11 09:14pm

Not Christians....Psychos kill people in the name of God.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-07-12 02:02am

True...now. Back in the old days it was the average christians duty to torture/kill heretics, nonbelievers, jews, muslims ect. The catholic church right now with the abstinence campaign is indirectly responsible for millions of deaths in africa because they refuse to provide education about contraception. So in a way killing in the name of god still occures

David · Post by **David** » 2002-07-12 02:11am

The catholic church right now with the abstinence campaign is indirectly responsible for millions of deaths in africa because they refuse to provide education about contraception.

How is it the Catholic church's responsibility to provide education about contraception?

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-07-12 03:51am

What i dont get is how a person can put so much faith in a book written hundreds of years ago, that has been changed hundreds of times, and that can be handely disproven by science. Cristian are willing to kill for these beliefs, beliefs that are responsible for millions of deaths.

Umm...because people aren't logical all the time I suppose.

XPViking