To all the geeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juggalo420

if god is so powerful, why cant he just make himself less radiant. or he could at least inform people to wear some sun glasses before he shows up.

*any way in the burning bush episode i wasnt aware moses went blind.
*adam and eve saw god in the garden all the time before they got evicted.
*also moses was on top of a mountain with god getting the commandments.
*also peter, john, and james supposedly saw god at jesus's transfiguration and didnt go blind, they were just a little shocked by the brightness.
*also in christian dogma jesus is the second member of the trinity and himself in every way god, yet many people supposedly saw him, same goes for the holy spirit who is also suppose to be fully god he/it wasnt blinding when he/it showed up at jesus's baptism or at the pentacost.

^not that i believe in any of it, i use to be christian so i know my stuff.

---

exactly my point

if god was all powerful, then he would make him less less radient and blinding

if he was all powerful, it wouldnt have taken him a week to make the world, and if it take him a week to make the world, how long did it take to make the universe? surely for an all powerful god, he could create itand destroy it with a click of his fingers

if hes all powerful, whats the use in angels?

if hes all powerful, why didnt he go down to earth and prove himself to anyone who doubted him?

if hes all powerful, what would be the need for jesus?

I really dislike debates like this one. I think people who refer to biblical events as if they really happened are in for a big surprise.

Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe the stories told in the Bible were NOT meant to be taken literally? That they are moral lessons, nothing more?

THE BIBLE IS NOT HISTORY. The people who believe it to be such were fooled by the establishment that is the Church (Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, whatever).

(sorry for double post, this just occurred to me)

If any of you so-called Christians out there truly were believers, you could out-debate any skeptic out there who constantly points out inconsistencies with 3 little words:

It doesn't matter.

A true believer easily sees beyond the petty contradictions, beyond the the stories and sees the all-encompassing point. Questions like "if God is so powerful, why does he ______" (fill in the blank) are absolutely meaningless. The Bible was written by HUMANS (don't give me any bullshit about divine inspiration, it doesn't make humans any better...) and therefore it's imperfect.

Does believing evry single word in the bible literally make one a better Christian than one who goes beyond simple words and sees the Bible for what it is, as a guide and a general direction to follow?

But that's just me.... I'm even giving you guys a head start on the next biblical debate, the least you can do is thank me :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F L E S H

I really dislike debates like this one. I think people who refer to biblical events as if they really happened are in for a big surprise.

Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe the stories told in the Bible were NOT meant to be taken literally? That they are moral lessons, nothing more?

THE BIBLE IS NOT HISTORY. The people who believe it to be such were fooled by the establishment that is the Church (Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, whatever).

---

I think Christians more or less have to take the bible literally. Christians have taken the bible literally since it was first comprised, why else would thousands accept death at the hands of the Romans rather than denying their faith in Jesus. Literal interpretation of the bible is practiced by almost every denomination, metaphorical interpretation on large scale is relatively a new phenomenon started with the Unitarians in the 19th century and continued today with other liberal â??Christianâ?? groups but they are still in the minority. Sure there was the Gnostics and other small groups through history that didnâ??t take the bible literally but they never gained much ground.

While you may argue that the literal interpretation was invented by the established churches, I counter by saying the bible created the established churches. I mean in the bible itself it says how Jesus said to Peter you are the rock that I will build my church upon, Jesus also says that those who listen to you (talking to the apostles) listen and obey me and those that deny you deny me. And who put the bible together in the first place, the church did, they did at the council of Nicea, they put it together therefore I hold they have the right to interpret it in the manner they see fit. The arguments you give about how you shouldnâ??t take the bible literally, while legitimate, I wouldnâ??t call Christian, and I would call it more or less new age humanism.

Again I donâ??t believe the bible to be any more than a work of fiction, some of it has good morals, while lots of it doesnâ??t ( I mean read Leviticus death was the punishment for almost every crime in it).

Your right flesh... so to answer you guys questions... it doesn't matter.. I believe you don't... I don't see you as any less of a person... just a person with different views... hell if I wasn't brought up so religious I probably wouldn't beleive it myself... but since I grew up with it.. I believe... I have many life experiences that I feel could not have happened without God... so if their isn't a God then I am the luckiest person on the planet.

These threads are getting old. As I said before Why should God spare people. Really why. He made us have freewill. He made us know what good and bad. Everything we do has an effect. In this life or the next. I am sure he has a lot going on up there with the ever never ending battle between good and evil. Anyways why should he babysit us humans. If he did that, then we would live without consequence. We are ultimately responsible for each other and what goes on in this world. Not him. Think of it like this. Think of your mother or father or whoever as God. Now you (Humans) keeping do bad things like Stealing, robbing etc. Now everytime you did this. Mom would come and bail you out of jail and pay money out her ass to see it that you do not spend anytime in jail or prison. So you (Humans) think well Hell I can do anything I damn wish without any punishiment because mom (God) will ALWAYS be there to fix all my mistakes and make everything happy in my life. Its simple as this people. CAUSALITY No one else or other higer being is Responsible or should even take notice!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juggalo420

While you may argue that the literal interpretation was invented by the established churches, I counter by saying the bible created the established churches. I mean in the bible itself it says how Jesus said to Peter you are the rock that I will build my church upon, Jesus also says that those who listen to you (talking to the apostles) listen and obey me and those that deny you deny me. And who put the bible together in the first place, the church did, they did at the council of Nicea, they put it together therefore I hold they have the right to interpret it in the manner they see fit. The arguments you give about how you shouldnâ??t take the bible literally, while legitimate, I wouldnâ??t call Christian, and I would call it more or less new age humanism.

---

Of course, any one can interpret the Bible any way they want, and they can get together with other people who think along similar lines. My gripe against the first Christian leaders is that they intentionally mislead the people by making what was commonly understood to be myth into historical fact.

Take the gospels for example. I'm sure everyone's familiar with the broad lines of Jesus's life. Now, has anyone read other ancient biographies of mythical heroes? The story of the lives of Horus (Egyptian god), Moses, Hercules, Romulus (legendary founder of Rome) are almost exactly identical, with one major exception: the gospels present Jesus's version as completely historical and factual. Almost all these people had 'virgin births' (Isis was a virgin when Horus was born, so was Romulus's mother, and Hercules's father was Zeus (i.e. a holy spirit)). All were in danger of being killed when they were babies (Horus and Hercules had to fend off serpents when they were toddlers, Moses and Jesus had to be kept away from officials who were under orders to kill all male newborns). The list goes on and on, but you get the point.

The point is this: Jesus's 'life' had been played out so many times before in older religions and mythologies that it cannot be possible that the Gospels are factual. From this comes the reasoning that it's NOT SUPPOSED to be factual, but mythological, legendary. It makes sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F L E S H

Of course, any one can interpret the Bible any way they want, and they can get together with other people who think along similar lines. My gripe against the first Christian leaders is that they intentionally mislead the people by making what was commonly understood to be myth into historical fact.

Take the gospels for example. I'm sure everyone's familiar with the broad lines of Jesus's life. Now, has anyone read other ancient biographies of mythical heroes? The story of the lives of Horus (Egyptian god), Moses, Hercules, Romulus (legendary founder of Rome) are almost exactly identical, with one major exception: the gospels present Jesus's version as completely historical and factual. Almost all these people had 'virgin births' (Isis was a virgin when Horus was born, so was Romulus's mother, and Hercules's father was Zeus (i.e. a holy spirit)). All were in danger of being killed when they were babies (Horus and Hercules had to fend off serpents when they were toddlers, Moses and Jesus had to be kept away from officials who were under orders to kill all male newborns). The list goes on and on, but you get the point.

The point is this: Jesus's 'life' had been played out so many times before in older religions and mythologies that it cannot be possible that the Gospels are factual. From this comes the reasoning that it's NOT SUPPOSED to be factual, but mythological, legendary. It makes sense to me.

---

I have a better idea of what your talking about now thanks for the explanation. But to be honest i really dont believe that the pre-christian religions adhearants viewed their religion as myths not facts. I think they thought there religions where factual, heres some examples of what im talking about.
* pharohs where supposedly gods on earth, i see the follows of ancient egyptian religion as tottally believing that pharoh was in fact god, they built pyramids and other monuments out of not slavery but free will.
* as with the romans they borrowed much from the egyptians and greeks, there populace viewed the emperor as god, and those who didnt worship him were punished with death (as was the case when early christians didnt worship him).
* the jews in the beggining of judaism conquered the land of palestine from the tribes who originally lived there, because they believed god told them to, would they do such in fullfilment of a myth, i doubt it.
* lets travel to pre-columbus america, the aztecs would sacrafice humans in order to please the gods, would they sacrafice to mythology?
* heres a dirty part of christianty, after the emperor constantine made christianity the official religion of the empire christians 'converted' many pagans in germany and other parts of northern europe by the sword, killing untold numbers of pagans unwilling to convert to christianity. Why would the 'pagans' not give up there beliefs and be willing to die from them had they not believed their faith to be true?

Thats just how i see it. I view general similarities between christianity and other near east and mediteranian faiths as them building upon the theologys of other each other, but which each ones adhearants completely believing there faith to be true and unique. heres how i view it = egyptian myth passes to the greeks its then built upon then passed to the romans where it waits for christianity in the form of virgin births and salvation. Judaism is unique unto itself because it is monotheistic and passes that trait unto christanity as well as its history for which christans call the old testament. Also the persian religion of zorosterism passes on its ideas of parralells between good and evil, as well as function and look of angels unto christianity. So i see christianity as a mix of egyptian greek roman jewish and persian religions.
thats just how i see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juggalo420

* pharohs where supposedly gods on earth, i see the follows of ancient egyptian religion as tottally believing that pharoh was in fact god, they built pyramids and other monuments out of not slavery but free will.
* as with the romans they borrowed much from the egyptians and greeks, there populace viewed the emperor as god, and those who didnt worship him were punished with death (as was the case when early christians didnt worship him).

---

As far as Pharaohs were concerned, I think it was a purely political tool to set them apart from the rest of the population, in essence they made themselves gods the same way medieval kings had 'divine right' to rule. As for Rome, living emperors were rarely (only the crazy ones, e.g. Caligula, Commodus, Diocletian, and a few others) considered and worshipped as gods. However, once they died, the good emperors 'became' gods, emperors such Julius Caesar, Augustus, Vespasian, Titus, many others. But this is more political than purely religious, and I don't think any literally thought them to be gods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juggalo420

* the jews in the beggining of judaism conquered the land of palestine from the tribes who originally lived there, because they believed god told them to, would they do such in fullfilment of a myth, i doubt it.

---

That's what it says in the Bible.... and it plays into my point very nicely :D Because the Bible says it, doesn't mean that's the way it happened. You could say the same thing about the Crusades, about the Jihad, about the War in Iraq. In fact, archaeological evidence shows that the Jews did not invade Canaan, they always lived there....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juggalo420

* heres a dirty part of christianty, after the emperor constantine made christianity the official religion of the empire christians 'converted' many pagans in germany and other parts of northern europe by the sword, killing untold numbers of pagans unwilling to convert to christianity. Why would the 'pagans' not give up there beliefs and be willing to die from them had they not believed their faith to be true?

---

It's not even question of which religion is true or not at this point. If Muslims, or Hindus, or Jews, or Buddhists or whoever else came and pointed a gun to your head telling you to convert or die, wouldn't you fight back? Wouldn't all the peoples of the world fight? It's not even a question of religion anymore, it's basic civil rights.

(I'm not gonna comment on the Aztecs because I know next to nothing about them, but point taken :D)

You bring up some valid points, Juggalo, and you know your history, I like that! (I'm a history major lol) By the way, just to clear some things up, Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion, he began by tolerating it and recognizing it as one of the official religions of Rome. I think it was Theodosius, in 385 or around there, who made it the sole official religion of Rome, though paganism managed to hang on until the 500s...

(couldn't edit in time lol)

I think another way of putting it is what I wrote in another thread, the powerful will inevitably claim a monopoly on Knowledge to help control the masses. Of course I'm sure many people believed some of the ancients myths literally, but the educated elite certainly did not, nor the the various priests. That's the difference between them and Christianity. The elite and the bishops and such themselves were telling people that the myths were historical fact, not myth.