 |
|
|
|
 This time around, there are no RVs or signs carrying the "awesome news" of the end of the world.
October 21st, 2011
06:00 AM ET
The End, again? If it is, we thank you for your timeBy Jessica Ravitz, CNN (CNN) - In case you are reading this, might we suggest you read really fast? The world may end any minute now, if the latest doomsday prediction is on target. We realize October 21 didn’t get the shout-out that May 21 did, so our apologies if this comes as a surprise. But if you had heard the complete message the first time, you would have known. “The warning is out,” Dennis Morrell, 44, of Jacksonville, Florida, reminded us a couple of days ago. “There’s nothing else you can do.” Earlier this year, and with the backing of the Christian broadcasting network Family Radio, billboards touting May 21 as Judgment Day dotted the landscape. RVs plastered with the fateful date crisscrossed the country as believers wearing T-shirt announcements and waving fliers sounded the alarm. That was to be the day when a select 2% to 3% of the world’s population, predetermined by God, would be raptured up to heaven. Everyone else, the story went, would endure months-long judgment amid chaos, destruction and unspeakable suffering. A massive earthquake would ravage the land, bodies would be tossed about and terror would reign for the duration. Five months or exactly 153 days later, it was said, the world would disappear – which brings us to today. This was the schedule laid out by God’s word in the Bible, the faithful said. It was the plan deciphered and shared by Harold Camping, now 90, the founder of Family Radio, based in Oakland, California. Camping, who has an engineering degree, had spent more than 50 years combing through his Bible and crunching numbers embedded in scripture. Sure, he’d made a similar end-of-the-world prediction for September 6, 1994, but who hasn’t been tripped up by biblical verses? With additional studying, calculations and new signs that would be revealed later, he said earlier this year that he had no doubts this time around. “I know it’s absolutely true, because the Bible is always absolutely true,” he told CNN before May 21. “If I were not faithful that would mean that I’m a hypocrite.” Problem is, May 21 came and went, and the world remained the same. Soon the billboards disappeared. The T-shirts and hats worn by believers got tossed. The RVs were quietly parked, tucked away in storage yards, possibly sold. Camping came forth, two days later, with an explanation - and his last news conference. October 21 would still be the end, he said, but a “loving and merciful” God had opted to spare humanity the five months of turmoil. A couple of weeks later, Camping had a stroke. He is said to be recuperating at home after a hospital and rehab stay and has only made a handful of radio addresses in the months since. Family Radio declined our requests to interview him. Fred Store, a 66-year-old retired electrician and longtime Family Radio listener, dedicated seven months of his life to sharing the “awesome news” that was the May 21 message. He led a caravan of believers, five RVs strong, on a tour of the United States for Family Radio. He was in Boston in May when he expected to be raptured up to heaven. When nothing happened, “We were caught by surprise. ... But we realize now that it’s very possible that we misunderstood some of the things we thought were true,” Store said this week from his home in Sacramento, California, where he has put up a number of caravan friends. “I believe that October 21 is the end, and I trust in God. Whatever way he chooses to end things will be perfect.” On the Family Radio website, the May 21 events, or nonevents, have been clarified. “What really happened is that God accomplished exactly what he wanted to happen. That was to warn the whole world that on May 21 God’s salvation program would be finished. ... For the next five months, except for the elect (the true believers), the whole world is under God’s final judgment,” the statement reads. As for that massive, body-flinging earthquake anticipated by believers, well, it turned out to be less literal. “We always look at the word ‘earthquake’ to mean the earth, or ground, is quaking or shaking violently. However, in the Bible the word ‘earth’ can include people as well as ground. ... Therefore we have learned from our experience of last May 21 what actually happened. All of mankind was shaken with fear. Indeed the Earth (or mankind) did quake in a way it had never before been shaken.” No one was raptured on May 21, but that’s just because “universal judgment” will come on the last day. “The elect” or “true believers” are still guaranteed their day of rapture, and everyone else will be “annihilated together with the whole physical world.” For Paul Anatiychuk, 36, of Charlotte, North Carolina, the way this played out has been a relief, a blessing. A husband and father of two children, ages 8 and 9, he wasn’t sure if his own family members would be saved. The thought of leaving them behind on May 21, to suffer what would come over the next five months, troubled him. “God tortures them while we’re hanging in the clouds?” he said this week. “It didn’t completely fit.” Now, Anatiychuk said, he can take solace knowing that when he’s saved, sinners will simply die. “Of course (the world) has to be destroyed and burned up by fire,” he said. “But it’s going to be very quiet.” Finding a way to save faith, and face, is part of the process when a prophecy fails, said Lorenzo DiTommaso, an associate professor of religion at Concordia University in Montreal, who has been studying apocalyptic worldviews for a dozen years. He said those who become disillusioned aren’t quick to talk, and the rest find a new way to spin what has transpired. When nothing happened on May 21, Camping was left with a choice, said DiTommaso, whose book, “The Architecture of Apocalypticism,” is scheduled for publication next spring. Camping could have admitted he was wrong. He could have said the calculations were off and needed further analysis. Or he could have spiritualized the apocalypse, which is exactly what he did, DiTommaso said. That tack, that way of looking at the apocalypse, has a long history, he said, and dates back to early Christian theologians. Tyconius, in the late fourth century, took this approach, as - more notably - did Augustine in the early fifth century. Augustine “preferred to understand the millennium predicted in the Revelation of John in spiritual and metaphoric rather than literal terms,” DiTommaso said. He “sought to diminish the emphasis on hard calculations.” The obvious advantage of this sort of interpretation for a man like Camping, who has prided himself on his numbers, is that he can “divorce himself a little bit from the fact that he was so darn wrong.” What Camping will say - if anything - come Saturday, assuming there is a Saturday, is anyone’s guess. But DiTommaso said a new explanation, perhaps a new doomsday date, may be on the horizon. It would be just another in a long line of end-time predictions across the ages. “I wouldn’t be surprised if we see another attempt” by Camping, he said. “If he were an artist, this is his masterpiece, his life work.” soundoff (2,353 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next »
« Previous entryKagan on faith, the high court and hunting
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
ALL OF YOU NEGATIVE -FOOLISH PEOPLE SAYING ALL THE MEAN THINGS....I PRAY THAT JESUS CHRIST HAS MERCY ON YOU ALL...............ONEDAY WHEN THE RAPTURE TAKES PLACE PLEASE REMEMBER MY WORDS WHEN YOU ARE CONFUSED,CRYING,SAD,REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID BECAUSE YOU ARE DEFINITELY GOING TO BE JUDGED...........AND AFTER THE RAPTURE TAKES PLACE THE WRATH OF GOD IS GOING TO TORMENT YOU UNBELIEVERS.AND YES HE DOES HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO THAT BECAUSE HE MADE THIS WORLD AND EVERYTHING IN IT....INCLUDING YOU UNGRATEFUL,FOOLISH LIARS...............SO NOW YOU COULD REPENT, BE BAPTISED IN JESUS NAME FOR THE REMISSION OF YOUR SINS.OR CARRY ON BEING BLINDED AND COLD HEARTED....................GOD JESUS CHRIST IS COMING BACK FOR HES CHURCH.....................GET IT TOGETHER NOW BEFORE ITS TOO LATE AND YOU ARE WEEPING AND GNASHING YOUR TEETH SAYING I SHOULD HAVE LISTENED...............NOW ITS TOO LATE......................JESUS LOVE YOU ALL VERY MUCH
And it's a shame that the believers who actually become "confused, sad and crying" don't listen to the words of skeptics when the rapture fails to come again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.. .
Hey, your wishful thinking won't make it so. The end of the world is at least 1000 years away, 'cause Christ has to come back for his 2nd visit before the millenium, then comes the end of the world. Get your scripture right instead of blindly repeating stuff you hear from retards.
The following article demonstrates the deep crisis Christianity finds its self in. I do feel sorry for the sincere followers of this group, its leadership needs to assume responsability in confessing before its members and the world its false interpretation of biblical prophecy and its texts. Certainly each day in our lifes can be last, we are admonish to always be aware of our standing before the Almighty.
The Roman Catholic Church and many Prostestants churches have given up on the coming of the Lord. Few are the churches that procliam His second coming. At the rate we are destroying our planet we will destroy ourselves without the help of an apocalypic ending , I am glad God will intervene, but he will only come to a people who want him to come, who are out their to vindicate His name, not becuase of reward or fear of hell, but because they believe that God's government is at stake. When this group is ready to accept completly heaven's culture, then He shall return to claim all those who seek truth according to God's. Unfortunately the leadership if the RC Church and Protestants Church and other world religions are only concerined with "playing church" and when many of its believers understand the truth "in Christ" they will leave to claim HEAVEN'S CULTURE as it shoud be. God is not looking for good people (they are plenty of those), he is looking for those who reflect His character, when they are seen by the public, they see a being displaying heaven's culture, His character.
Duarte,
The Catholic Church believes in the second coming of Christ but she doesn't make pronoucement on when that will be, because as scripture states noone knows the time when jesus will come again. References in CCC are 1001; cf. 668, 673
Wonder whether those get a thank you for your time;
The money: These private prisons have spent over $20 million lobbying state legislators to make sure they get state anti-immigrant laws approved and ensure access to more immigrant inmates.
Be a part of the movement to follow the players, the money and the victims of this money making scheme @ immigrantsforsale.org
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTvoNVtdGuc&feature=youtube_gdata_player)
(Watch Immigrants For Sale Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuGE1VxVsYo)
@ Mirosal, the evidence for a Supernatural God is everything that is. We both know that somehow, somewere there must be something that just is, otherwise we would be going backwards, Ad Infinitum with every cause needing a cause, the only question is, what exactly this original cause of causes is ? I find it hard to believe creatures as sensient and capable as we are, could be created by something less sensient than we are. most Christians see the Trinity as emanations of the Godhead, the Holy spirit pervades and is in all things, nothing exists that does not have its life in God, hence we are all connected to God and eachother, science is only just starting to understand the interconnectivity of all things.You assume I probably ignore the Gods of the ancient world but you could not be more wrong these ancient "Gods" like Apollo, Hermes, Horus, Mithras etc were as important in their time as Jesus is in this age, I know that is not accepted by all Christians, but I don't believe the Bible is the only source of revelation available to modern man, as for "when are the UFO's comming" that is not as absurd a suggestion as you might think, objects in the sky that the Bible calls Chariots of fire, would certainly be called UFO's thesedays and what were called Angels and Demons or fairies, would certainly be called Aliens, hence all these, relatively modern, UFO religions. by the way Applewhite and the Heavens Gate cult was about as typical of their beliefs as David Koresh was of the Seventh Day Adventists !
so your arugement for there being a god is that there is stuff around us?
"the evidence for a Supernatural God is everything that is."
ok, let me play... i believe in the ALMIGHTY SUN... and its because of that that we are as well as everything around us, minus the man made stuff.
to disprove mine is to disprove yours!
also let me add – to prove mine is not to prove yours however as mine can be seen and felt...yours is nothing more then a notion, an idea...a thought, a 3000 year old thought... which has been warpped by us the so called child of god, so how to you know what you believe is the right one...maybe some dude translated it wrong, or just added stuff because it was fun to screw with simple minded folks!
Vizion, while you might think it is "intellectually weak" to admit to what you don't know, the virtuous among us think it's courageous to be honest and open
Grow some courage, you disgusting wimp.You are both intellectually weak and dishonest, you two-time loser.
B-b, what you just said makes no sense. Vizion was simply putting a concept out there, one that's not that obscure. You then proceeded to stick your fingers in your ears and insult him. I'm sorry to say, but if you can't get a passing grade in a junior high debate club with your post, then just sit back and smolder to yourself, okay?
Vizion, while you might think that it is "intellectually weak" to admit to what you don't know, the virtuous among us think it's courageous to be honest and open
Grow some courage, you disgusting wimp.You are both intellectually weak and dishonest, you two-time loser.
@ Hippy Poet, You don't seem to have understood what I wrote at all, I would try to explain further but I suspect you are not capable of understanding and I don't like to "screw with simple minded folk";)
wow i didn't insult you at all... i am sry i misunderstood your post, but could you be more of a child about it? tisk tisk...
Vizion
I think what you were trying to say is that god exists because there's stuff around us and it absolutely needs a cause and since this cause, this creator can't be less complex than humans, it must be more which (somehow?) means god, especially the god of the bible exists. Furthermore, the god of the bible is just an iteration of past gods from ancient greece and rome (but nothing from the east I see......) and then you delve into ancient words that we now have different names for (like chariots of fire could mean space ships and angels/demons could mean aliens). So what exactly are you saying? That there is a god, or what we know as god is actually a highly advanced alien species? I wouldn't be the most shocked person in the world if aliens did indeed land on earth and had humanoid features and so we called them gods because we didn't know any better but wouldn't that refute any evidence of an actual diety that is mentioned anywhere?
It does not seem to me that Vizion is pointing specifically to the God of the Bible. He seems to be proposing something I have proposed in the past, that different cultured developed their own idea of God, angels, etc. I have a question about the big bang theory. From what I understand all the matter and energy was condensed into one small speck right? There was no matter or energy outside of that speck. Wouldn't there have to be some sort of reaction that caused the universe to start expanding? If we believe the only element in existence was hydrogen, could there been a chemical reaction? It seems like an outside force (not saying necessarily the God of the Bible) would have to have sparked the big bang to happen, and there was nothing in existence at that point outside of that matter and energy that eventually made up the universe, condensed in that small speck.
one theory that i prefer is that the universe is one consist growth and collasp... so the big bang was just the last universe before ours that was collasping in on itself... like ours will do in time as well.
@ JW
Maybe I was missing something, Vizion seems to be capitalizing the word "God" which infers he means the god of the bible, but if he did not mean to, then I apologize to him for as.suming as much.
As to your question: That's the million dollar question isn't it? Of course, as of now we have no way (not even a clue) how to see what the universe looked like before "the big bang", the theory is that everything was condensed into a miniscule speck and that at one point it just.....exploded, thus the bang. This is where science, laws and all that stuff we have decided has rules and makes sense is thrown out of the window. Space, time, dimensions, everything was (theorized) warped and twisted, so to think in our terms of "did't there have to be a cause to get a reaction of this magnitude?" might not really apply to this specific situation. I feel this is actually where believers migth excel because they easily accept god wasn't created, but as always existed and not needed a cause, the same thing could be at play here, just without any sentient, thinking creator behind it. My personal theory is that coupled with multiverse theory, I don't think the universe was a small, miniscule speck that for some reason just expanded, but rather our universe is the product of a white hole (the theorized opposite of a black hole, which pushes everything out at extraordinary speeds) and that one universe might have had such a gargantuan black hole that it sucked a whole lot of everything into it and the white hole counterpart opened in our universe and pushed it all out. It has no evidence or anything to back it up, but I like the thought that all blackholes have a corresponding white hole somewhere else (maybe another universe) in which it's pushing everything out that was sucked into the black hole on the other side.
I can see how that makes sense hippy. But at the beginning of our universe we believe that the heavier elements did not exist, like there was not even oxygen. Did the elements break down when the universe collapsed, or did the previous universe just not need them?
@Hippy
one reason I don't ascribe to the continuous universe theory that you talk about is because as we see right now, everything in the universe is speeding up and spreading out to an extent that soon nothing will have a gravitational effect on one another and everything will keep expanding. Unless there is some unknown force out there, at an unseeable boundry (which may be entirely possible) nothing will gather all the energy and mass in the universe back together to collapse it into a tiny speck again. I really like the idea though, so I want to keep the option open.
@J.W... the idea of a consist collasp... all the stars and planets are at the point of the big bang gone due to other cosmic events such as stars dieing creating a black hole, or galaxies colliding ...either way i can't explain it very well but the idea is that all matter has become pure energy like that of a gama wave by being destoryed in a manner of sorts... i am no astro-pysophist.
@ chuckles – black matter is the binder to all things in the cosmos... it is like glue, the stars will spread but the star itself doesn't due to the dark or black matter. it is the negitive to the positive... in all things there must be balance.
@hippy
There is dark matter and dark energy in theory, but we have yet to see the actual effects is has on the universe, most because what we're seeing is the acceleration of stars and galaxies away from one another, not a slow down. So there would have to be something, unseen to the universe that not only can stop the universe but reverse it and we have seen no such thing at the present, although it could entirely exist. There is the idea of balance in nature and a sort of reason within the chaos, we just have to find it.
Maybe he was referring to the God of the Bible. I may be mistaken there. Regarding God, many believe that God has some effect on the world today. There are different thoughts on that. 1. God controls everything that happens in the world. 2. God created the world and set everything into motion, but actually did nothing after that until the afterlife. 3. Kind of a hybrid between the first 2, like God does not affect everyday life but intervenes when he thinks he needs to.
What if the second one was true. We say the idea of a God is scientifically impossible, but if he exists outside our universe, wouldnt the scientific laws that we have in our universe not apply to him? I know that the argument is that everything in this universe already has been or will be explained by science, but God would exist in a realm outside of our universe,before the universe existed and even now that our universe does exist.
JW
I see what you're saying and its part of the reason I will never fully, 100% say god does not exist, because in your second instance where god was the instigator and then only exists on a separate plane and has never intervened on our could be true and if it is true, impossible to prove. Then again, if that were also true, it would certainly prove the bible, koran, torah, upanishads, etc... completely false because their gods intereact with us all the time on a consistant level.
The second thing though that I think makes your senario unlikely is that if there is a "creator" who lives on a separate plane, and he's completely unknowable then should we as.sume his intentions are good (in our sense of the word, not his) and that we would benefit from trying to reach him? If the only way to do so was to die and there is an afterlife, it may be way worse than this one. I'm not saying this counts into why I am an atheist instead of a believer, they're just questions that arise when you start to ask about a god that is separate from any mythology we humans currently have.
@chuckle – dark matter can be measured ... infact it already has – see one way to do this is to measure the mass of a galaxy and then to measure the mass of all the stars and planets and such in the galaxy – what you find is you are going to be missing mass – its the dark matter between everything. like i said the galaxy may move thru space, but space is the only thing expanding... and once it has expanded as far as it can go, like a rubber band – SNAP! this is all theory of course, well execpt the dark matter.
Hippy poet, sorry, but you were implying I was "simple minded folk" and I could have been more childish about it, I could have replied like B-B !! And Chuckles, you seem to have understood, you might want to check out the Urantia Book, it's free online, I am not saying I believe it is definitely True, only that I would not be surprised if it was, it actually fits with earlier channeled works, they are all in differing styles, but pretty much say similar things. I was also impressed by the Christian Spiritualist Zodiac messages. there are times and dates and witnesses for them, also online. The Oahspe Bible is fascinating too, I have not finished reading it yet though, I am sure not everything that claims to be channeled is genuine. Allan Kardec's books are interesting too. I don't know why these works aren't better known.
@Hippy
The dark matter is actually the planets, the asteroids, comets, etc.., stuff we can't see. It's dark energy that you're alluding to and that might work, but that's just within galaxies, not around and between galaxies in long stretches of purely empty space.
You may be right that the universe does have a boundry, or an edge and when we reach it, we'll slam into it and then maybe start turning back, but that probably runs the gammut of guess, upon guess upon guess like my theory. I really like the idea that we are just a continually expanding/contracting, singular universe and that the energy speck then blew not because it needed a spark, but like its opposite of reaching an "outer edge" it was the smallest it could go and then started expanding outwards again. My main issue is discounting the multiverse and string theory and its effect on this universe or rather, our effect on all the others ones. If our universe is universe Prime and other universes come from ours, what happens when ours ceases to exist?
@Vizion – "maybe some dude translated it wrong, or just added stuff because it was fun to screw with simple minded folks!"
that has little to do with you unless you believe everything in the bible. all that means is when the crap was being written it may have been mistranslated or on purpose...or they who did the translation may have added or deleted whatever they wanted.... so i believe we both misunderstood each other – it happens, next time don't be so quick to insult. 🙂 did you know that around the year 180 a.d. a high ranking roman yet sercet catholic wrote a paper damning the gospel of Judus, along with others...it is from this man that we get our so called gospel as they are in the bible... the council at narcene took what this man had to say to heart. the 3 most important gospels to the truth faith of christ is found in the gospel of Judus ,Nicodemus, and Mary....check them out.
@Vizion
You know my comment could have been way worse, I simply was trying to make heads or tails or what you were trying to say in your original post. If you think I got it wrong, please explain to me what it was exactly. I stand by my original post and ask the same questions.
Yeah Chuckles I know the second one does not fit into the common view. Some may say that certain events were attributed to God in the Bible, but perhaps he was not really involved. I personally think that God has been involved in some instances. I know we could argue about where God is involved and what is easily explainable by science, or what will be explained by science one day, like what we say are medical miracles or just misdiagnosis, why one person dies in a wreck but another miraculously survives etc. As far as your questions about trying to reach God, within that second view I guess the only real benefit would be so you would be in good standing in the afterlife. Obviously with the other views it would be beneficial to reach God since he would be affecting things happening in this world. It is hard to tell which viewpoint is correct. Obviously what some say had to be caused by God some will say no God was needed.
@ Hippypoet, I have never heard of the council of narcene that early, do you mean the council of Nicea in 325 ? They created the Nicene creed for Constantine, I have read the so called Gnostic Gospels that are considered apochraphal. And @ Chuckles, when people talk about the God of the Bible they often don't realize they are talking about two or even three different things, first there is God the First/Source and center from which everything emanates, outside of time and space, then there is God the trinity which is the first emanations of Gods Creation, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then there are the myriads of higher beings that are more advanced than us, some of which have had lives on other spheres, ("in my fathers house there are many mansions")when they have come to help raise us up in the distant past, they were also called Gods and sometimes Godesses. Hope this cllears things up for you.
@ Hippypoet, I have never heard of the council of narcene that early, do you mean the council of Nicea in 325 ? They created the Nicene creed for Constantine, I have read the so called Gnostic Gospels that are considered apochraphal. And @ Chuckles, when people talk about the God of the Bible they often don't realize they are talking about two or even three different things, first there is God the First/Source and center from which everything emanates, outside of time and space, then there is God the trinity which is the first emanations of Gods Creation, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then there are the myriads of higher beings that are more advanced than us, some of which have had lives on other spheres, ("in my fathers house there are many mansions")when they have come to help raise us up in the distant past, they were also called Gods and sometimes Godesses. Hope this clears things up for you. 🙂
@Chuckles – "what happens when ours(universe) ceases to exist?"
i don't think that if there is the multi-verse that the collasp of one verse has an effect on the others – as in life, we just become nothing again...our energy is reused in different ways, but we as people cease to be. sry about the late answer.
@Hippy
Personally I think if the multiverse actually does exist and one universe has any sort of affect on the other (the theory holds that by simply flipping a coin you make 2 separate universes, so I think its safe to say by this specific theory, universes affect one another) then when one is completely and utterly destroyed, it has to have some effect on the others, stands to reason right?
@Vizion,
Please cite your sources where you came up with these distinct forms of god, because I can honestly say I've heard of two but not the 3rd so not only am I curious how you found the 3rd one other than by inference, but how you can still count yourself squarely in the "monotheist" category when you acknoledge other gods and goddesses. Keep in mind, I still have issues trying to figure out why monotheism = good and polytheism = bad theologically. Historically it was a way to as.similate polytheistic cultures into monotheism by outlawing and banning polytheism, but thats purely using brute marketing tactics to get people to embrace your religion, it has nothing to do with the religion itself. There's also the small matter about you explaining that god exists outside of time and space. Care to explain how you know this? Did god tell you so? My bible says nothing of the sort so could you point me in the direction where you got yours (that is, if you found this specific passage stating that god exists outside of time and space in the first place).
THanks,
@ chuckles, I realize the God of the Bible is very confusing, God is often refered to as the LORD your God and sounds as if he was a real person talking to people face to face, i have come to believe that this is because the "Lord"was not the First source/god or part of the Trinity, but an advanced being from the higher heavens a better word for him would probably be an Archangel, such a being is not God in the same way as the first source God, to further confuse things the concept of the Trinity didn't really exist till Tertullian and the council of Nicea, so I didn't use to believe in it, I can cite the Urantia Book as the source of an exellent discription of God the First Source,and the Trinity and a vast heirarchy of beings, all the way down to us who are called Ascending beings. It's obviously been written by more than one person and if it was a hoax, why wouid nobody have promoted it and tried to make money out of it ? It was published in 1955, in Chicago. I also am very fond of the Christian Spiritualist, Zodiac messages, which came through the mediumship of Winifred Moyes in England in the 1920's to 1950's,other works that have influenced me are those of Swedenborg, Edgar case, Allan Kardec, madam Blavatsky and the Oahspe Bible. Plus lots of books too numerous to mention.The Bible alone would never have convinced me of anything,
Whether you like it or not, every breath you take is one step closer to the day of reckoning with Almighty God for all mortals alike!
your almost right – every day your closer to death sure but there is no god to reckon with...thank god too because most people sin without even knowing because most are beyond ignorant of the faith they call home.
Root post is Pascal's Wager.
http://arc-t.org/arc-tiquities/debates-pascal.html
Which God is that again?
that Angus, Belenos, Brigid, dana, Lugh, Dagda, Epona, Aphrodite, Apollo, Ares, Artemis, Atehna, Demeter, Dionysus, Eris, Eos, Gaia, Hades, Hekate, Helios, Hephaestus, Hera, hermes, Hestia, Pan, Poseidon, Selene, Uranus, Zeus, Mathilde, Elves, Eostre, Frigg, Hretha, Saxnot, Shef, Thuno, Tir, Weyland, Woden, Alfar, Balder, Beyla, Bil, Bragi, Byggvir, Dagr, Disir, Eir, Forseti, Freya, Freyr, Frigga, Heimdall, Hel, Hoenir, Idunn, Jord, Lofn, Loki, Mon, Njord, Norns, Nott, Odin, Ran, saga, Sif, Siofn, Skadi, Snotra, Sol, Syn, Ull, Thor, Tyr, Var, Vali, Vidar, Vor, Black Shuck, Herne, Jack in the Green, Holda, Nehalennia, Nerthus, endovelicus, Ataegina, Runesocesius, Apollo, Bacchus, Ceres, Cupid, Diana, Janus, Juno, Jupiter, Maia, Mars, Mercury, Minerva, Neptune, Pluto, Plutus, Proserpina, Venus, Vesta, Vulcan, Attis, Cybele, El-Gabal, Isis, Mithras, Sol Invictus, Endovelicus, Anubis, Aten, Atum, Bast, Bes, Geb, Hapi, Hathor, Heget, Horus, Imhotep, Isis, Khepry, Khnum, Maahes, Ma’at, Menhit, Mont, Naunet, Neith, Nephthys, Nut, Osiris, Ptah, ra, Sekhmnet, Sobek, Set, Tefnut, Thoth, An, Anshar, Anu, Apsu, Ashur, Damkina, Ea, Enki, Enlil, Ereshkigal, Nunurta, Hadad, Inanna, Ishtar, Kingu, Kishar, Marduk, Mummu, Nabu, Nammu, Nanna, Nergal, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Nintu, Shamash, Sin, Tiamat, Utu, Mitra, Amaterasu, Susanoo, Tsukiyomi, Inari, Tengu, Izanami, Izanagi, Daikoku, Ebisu, Benzaiten, Bishamonten, Fu.kurokuju, Jurojin, Hotei, Quetzalcoatl, Tlaloc, Inti, Kon, Mama Cocha, Mama Quilla, Manco Capac, Pachacamac, Viracoc.ha, or Zaramama?
Almighty God=God of the Bible
Stop foolling yourself.
Let go, Let GOD!
I feel sorry for those people who are so afraid of death that they blindly follow the first person who promises them immortality, despite the complete lack of proof of any life after death.
"Let go, Let GOD!"
I tried that once with my mortgage payment. The old coot didn't do a thing. And I got a late fee.
Let's see you try it as you jump from a 50-story building.
Living your life according to a bumper sticker slogan is ridiculous.
Doc
I think you make a case that the vast majority of people throuhout history desire God and seek after something greater than themselves. A small minority does not have this natural tendency. If the numbers were reversed and I found myself hanging out on some limb or conspiricy theory since the beginning of recorded history I hope someone would come along and say wake up. Wake up look at the complexity of the entire universe, its width, depth. Wake up and hold a baby in your arms. Then say it is all meaningless, there is no truth, no purpose, and when I die my life has the same purpose as a cuddly puppy or any other living animal.
Fred..Why does there have to be purpose to life..I think there is absolute beauty in the world, how evolution works and how we are totally connected to the universe and every other living thing on earth.. We are human and as such tend to be human centric we value our species above all others, and think we are "special" and have invented gods to perpetuate that myth. Intelligence is both an advantage and curse..we use it to shape our world and have invented science to discover how it works.. but to think we have no control over an inevitable death is hard for us to come to grips with... I think religion is the way that humans have solved that issue.
EvolvedDNA
I suppose you could conclude that historically we have put God in control of those areas we cannot understand. That is just a perspective used to justify not being able to see what believers see. I did not see God in anything until a radical conversion experience that to this day still seems a miracle. To get the proper perspective take note of the first line in the Bible. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ……. That statement in itself sets the perspective God has for His people. It sets the tone. God is infinite and the first proof is obvious in the awe of all we see. No finite being could do this sets perspective on the power behind creation. God is real not an abstract force but a personal being as an imaginary force could not create or cause creation. Divine power through the operation of His word. In the very first chapter of Genesis is contained such beauty and wit of writing style it must be Divine. A close observation lays out the foundation and complete cycle of redemption ….a journey that includes where we are at this point in time. Only the Divine hand of God could construct such a single chapter. When you compare this to mans attempt at god through mythology those ancient writings and ramblings of man remain winded and empty. The foundation of our civilization today is not upon the likes of Zeus but God.
“And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good”
So..did it happen... or?
In my last post I should have made it clearer, I meant that "I don't know, I never will, so I am not even going to look" is intellectually weak, but that is what most Atheists do as regards the possibility of a God, few believers in a God/First Source, have ever been against scientific inquiry, that is a fallacy put about by historians with an anti religion agenda. (Edward Gibbon has a lot to answer for) and It was Francis Bacon who gave us the Scientific Method and he was no Atheist, (a Good book to read is God's philosophers" by James Hannan.) so, well said Uncouth Swain, for helping point this out, not so uncouth after all, unlike B-B, for whom the least said the better !
How does one look for the supernatural, when not a single person has found any evidence of anything supernatural in thousands of years of history? If you can provide any tangible evidence of anything supernatural, talk to James Randi .. he'll pay $1 million if you can. He hasn't paid out yet. This "god" is a carry-over from ancient times when man had not the basic ideas about how his world functioned. It's probaby safe to assume you ignore the gods of the ancient world, and when you ask yourself "why", you'll know why your "god" is ignored as well. .. So when are the UFO's coming to take you away? Oh .. one more thing.. the "Babble" .. oops I mean bible, is NOT considered evidence, and if you think it is, then why is it NEVER admitted as such in court?
Vizion, while you might think it is "intellectually weak" to admit to what you don't know, the virtuous among us think that it's courageous to be honest and open
Grow some courage, you disgusting wimp.You are both intellectually weak and dishonest, you two-time loser.
Vizion, I am open to all evidence, but there is no evidence that any god ever has existed. Why should I chase nothing? Feel free to chase the supernatural, but there is nothing virtuous about it. It's rather like waiting in the garden with your camera, hoping to snap pictures of fairies.
That just made me sick to my stomach a little bit. Saying, "I don't know" is intellectually weak? I guess that worked really well for all those people who decided to stare ignorance in the face and laugh (and then promptly die). No, intellectual weakness comes in two forms friend. One form is saying, "I don't know" and then making 0 effort in trying to figure out the answer and being content with not knowing, which to my knowledge does not include very many atheists. The second form of being intellectually weak is claiming you know all the answers without a shred of rational evidence to back it up and have such strong cognitive dissonance that you refuse to believe that you could be wrong.
"This "god" is a carry-over from ancient times when man had not the basic ideas about how his world functioned."
Factless opinion.
Uncouth Swain
"This "god" is a carry-over from ancient times when man had not the basic ideas about how his world functioned."
"Factless opinion."
Not when you consider all of the other gods we humans have worshipped over time. Were not Horus, Amun, Nut, Anshar, Zeus and Uranus sky gods like Yahweh; primitive attempts to explain the natural world?
"sky gods like Yahweh"
Yahweh wasn't a "sky" god. Yahweh is the God of Israel. Now if you want to compare Yahweh with other gods of Israel...there you go. Otherwise...you are incorrect in your comparisson.
Uncouth Swain
The current archeology suggests that Yahweh was a sky god who originated either always within the local Canaanite pantheon, or was brought north by Edomite desert tribes, which the Moses story tends to support. The evidence suggests that families before the united kingdom worshipped their own "family" or tribal gods. Yahweh was likely the family god of Saul, and he established the cult as the national one for his kingdom when he united the tribes. Yahweh's rise was probably due to political concerns more than anything else.
What you can argue is that the people who came to identify themselves as the Israelites fought a long battle against the worship of what were then other Canaanite gods, such as Ba'a,l to establish Yahweh as their sole god.
Free
Thank you for supporting the Moses account of "God with us" as they came into the promised land. I note many people on this site claim Moses was fairy tale and stories about the chosen ones was made up. Support from a skeptic is a real blessing !
fred
You may want to count your blessings elsewhere because, if you read my post more carefully, you will notice that I was referring to the Moses "story" which does not preclude its being a fictional creation.
"The current archeology suggests that Yahweh was a sky god who originated either always within the local Canaanite pantheon, or was brought north by Edomite desert tribes, which the Moses story tends to support."
Suggests? Tends? Where are the facts?
I'll go with the an ancient manuscript that says that God was the special God of Israel. If you have any counter evidence...plz bring it forth.
US, what evidence do you have that the ancient manuscript was anything but a doodle?
Really, for someone who is so pretentious, you've very little to show in the way of provable evidence.
Wait, no. You don't have anything but the bible. Not sufficient, dearie.
@Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son- "US, what evidence do you have that the ancient manuscript was anything but a doodle?"
No more than you do that it was created by a person to decieve others.
"Really, for someone who is so pretentious, you've very little to show in the way of provable evidence."
What have I stated that you wish for me to prove?
"Wait, no. You don't have anything but the bible. Not sufficient, dearie."
Ignoring your ad hominum...are you one of those types that just dismisses the Bible outright? That's pretty stupid.
Uncouth Swain
Why is dismissing outright, as just a bit of bad fiction, a book with absolutely no evidence for its supernatural claims pretty stupid?
@HotAirAce
"Why is dismissing outright, as just a bit of bad fiction, a book with absolutely no evidence for its supernatural claims pretty stupid?"
"Bad fiction"..your opinion.
What evidence do you want it to provide? It's a collection of books that touch on history and theology.
@Uncouth Swain
There is no question that The Babble is a book of theology. Only believers would claim it is an accurate and fully believable history book. Again, there is absolutely no evidence for the supernatural claims, therefore one can easily dismiss it until independent objective factual and verified evidence is provided. Why is this position pretty stupid.
Uncouth Swain
"The current archeology suggests that Yahweh was a sky god who originated either always within the local Canaanite pantheon, or was brought north by Edomite desert tribes, which the Moses story tends to support."
"Where are the facts?"
What is a "fact"? There is no current archeology supporting anything that the Bible records prior to David's kingdom. That's a reality. There is current archeology, however, that suggests that the Israelites were decedents of local tribes and not refugees fleeing from Egypt. That too is a reality. Those realities may change with new discoveries, but for the time being they still offer the best basis in which to form an opinion.
"I'll go with the an ancient manuscript that says that God was the special God of Israel. If you have any counter evidence...plz bring it forth."
Why just that ancient manuscript when there are so many that feature gods? Why not go with the ancient Egyptian, Greek, or Mesopotamian texts, or the Chinese and Hindu texts? All are equally valid from their antiquity and subject matter. Why do you prefer just that one?
"There is no question that The Babble is a book of theology. Only believers would claim it is an accurate and fully believable history book. Again, there is absolutely no evidence for the supernatural claims, therefore one can easily dismiss it until independent objective factual and verified evidence is provided. Why is this position pretty stupid."
Ignoring your ad hominum...not all believers think the Bible is 100% accurate. That is a misconception by ignorant atheists.
@Free- we are discussing a peticular God here...we aren't worried about the other gods of that region that have no connection to this one. Also, we should keep from the seeming when we are talking about facts. Either it is proven or not proven.
Uncouth Swain
@Free- we are discussing a peticular God here...we aren't worried about the other gods of that region that have no connection to this one. Also, we should keep from the seeming when we are talking about facts. Either it is proven or not proven
You are trying to separate God from the humble roots from which he evolved. It's almost like you wish to think he appeared fully formed as he is understood nowadays. No. God began as just another ordinary ancient tribal deity and grew to his present status through ages of imaginative theology. Just a casual reading of the Bible shows how the character changes from the walker in the Garden in Genesis, to the mountain dwelling god of Exodus, to a tribal god, one of the gods of a whole people, to the sole god of the Israelites, to a universal god, to the loving father of Jesus.
There has even been discussion as to if the deity that Abraham knew was the same one as the deity Moses met, or if the Old Testament god of the Jews is actually also the Christian God that includes Jesus. When you read the Bible they sure don't appear to be the same beings.
What's more, he will continue to evolve with the generations to come. In 50 years other representations of God will take over. Like Robin Hood, Dracula, or (more recently) the Three Musketeers God is a character that every generation re-imagines in a popular, contemporary form.
The final connection to remember is that God really is just one of a few thousand gods in total. There is no logical reason to think that he is any more real than any of the others. His only real distinction is that he is still very popular.
"You are trying to separate God from the humble roots from which he evolved. It's almost like you wish to think he appeared fully formed as he is understood nowadays. No. God began as just another ordinary ancient tribal deity and grew to his present status through ages of imaginative theology. Just a casual reading of the Bible shows how the character changes from the walker in the Garden in Genesis, to the mountain dwelling god of Exodus, to a tribal god, one of the gods of a whole people, to the sole god of the Israelites, to a universal god, to the loving father of Jesus."
Unproven, you have yet to show what "humble roots" God supposably came from. You are good at the guessing and seeming...but you haven't given any facts to support your notion. Also, I never implied that God as we see him right now is exactly like that in the Torah. All I said was that God was not a cave-god. sky god and whatever nonsense others have put up without evidence. I do believe that you will see that God is described as a universal God in Genesis when he made everything. Also..he was not a mountain dweller. Even in Exodus he is identified by his connection to the family of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.
"There has even been discussion as to if the deity that Abraham knew was the same one as the deity Moses met, or if the Old Testament god of the Jews is actually also the Christian God that includes Jesus. When you read the Bible they sure don't appear to be the same beings."
I am sure there have been much discussion without facts. When I have read the Tanakh...I see no distinction between God at the beginning or at the end...or in the NT.
"What's more, he will continue to evolve with the generations to come. In 50 years other representations of God will take over. Like Robin Hood, Dracula, or (more recently) the Three Musketeers God is a character that every generation re-imagines in a popular, contemporary form."
Ppl may take certain aspects of God and focus on them for a time. But they keep God as he is because they do not just expel that which doesn't fit the modern times. God does not change..but man's views of him does.
"The final connection to remember is that God really is just one of a few thousand gods in total. There is no logical reason to think that he is any more real than any of the others. His only real distinction is that he is still very popular."
An atheist has no reason.
US, so you are admitting that your only proof is the Bible?
And why would dismissing the bible outright be "stupid", in your not-so-humble opinion?
Once more, for CNN's sake: by the way, US, it's "ad hominem", not "ad hominum". I'd have thought such a great scholar (cough) would have known that. Or would at least possessed a better spell-check.
"US, so you are admitting that your only proof is the Bible?"
I think we went over this already. No...I am not admitting anything since you have not offered what it is proof of.
"And why would dismissing the bible outright be "stupid", in your not-so-humble opinion?"
No information should ever be dismissed outright. It should especially not be dismissed just because it bothers your point of view.
"Once more, for CNN's sake: by the way, US, it's "ad hominem", not "ad hominum". I'd have thought such a great scholar (cough) would have known that. Or would at least possessed a better spell-check."
Yes spelling gestapo...I hear and will take it under advisement. Thank you for not dispelling any of my points but instead focus on a spelling error 🙂
What "points" have you made, pray tell? I haven't seen any except the one on your head.
I love how you're so open to new information.
I DO love your referring to me as "Gestapo", though. Guess I hit a nerve.
Poor baby.
When have I NOT been open to new information? My gosh, do you even think before writing?
" I DO love your referring to me as "Gestapo", though. Guess I hit a nerve."
Lol, you never heard of the spelling gestapo? How long have you been around comment boards?
Plz..plz continue all this commenting. My gosh, you are making yourself look like such a fool all by yourself.
I wonder, US, when you refer to "factless opinion", are you quite sure you can distinguish such from "factfull opinion"? What's the difference?
Do you think the Bible counts as "factual"? How do you know?
Oh, honey. Are you having a snit? Do you think I'm new to comment boards? Really?
"When have I NOT been open to new information?"
Gee, I guess since your spelling errors were pointed out to you and you reacted like a scalded cat.
"when you refer to "factless opinion", are you quite sure you can distinguish such from "factfull opinion"? What's the difference?"
If you really do not know...there is really no reason to explain it to you. But a hint is that the information can be cited. Most of what you write has no citation and therefor cannot be checked on...see?
"Do you think the Bible counts as "factual"? How do you know?"
Depends on what the discussion is about. You have yet to detail it. All you want is someone to say the Bible is 100% factual so you don't have to think much when responding. I know it's frustrating when ppl don't play the game the way you wish. You'll get over it.
"Oh, honey. Are you having a snit? Do you think I'm new to comment boards? Really?"
Sweetie? Honey? Are you lonely tonight?
When a person seems ignorant of the spelling gestapo...you are not making it seem you are experienced at all.
My gosh this is so much fun tonight. Tom, most ppl on here are here because of the content...not the spelling of arguments. You can write flawlessly and not make a single point...oops, nevermind..that's what you have done all night..lol.
Oh, I'm not at all lonely. After all, I have a husband who's waiting for me. You, apparently, have no one. Poor you.
Have fun lol-ing at the spelling gestapo you encounter, honeybun.
My goodness gracious, US. Two posts in a matter of seconds? You must be desperate for conversation. I guess everyone else has found something better to do than read your bloviating.
So have I.
See ya.
Oh, one last thing: no one but losers still writes "lol".
Come on..don't stop now. As I stated before, watching you destroy your credibility is great entertainment.
You know it's hard to take anyone seriously when all they can do it try and trash another person.
Try citing facts, reference information and think without clouding your arguments with emotional outbursts. It will serve you better on here I believe.
What, are you 15? Why would anyone care about "credibility" on an anonymous message board on an article that's not even on the SECOND page of the blogs any longer? Do you dream that anyone thinks you have any 'credibility'? Especially when you get so wrapped around the axle if someone calls you out on your spelling?
Really, US, get a life, dude.
"What, are you 15? Why would anyone care about "credibility" on an anonymous message board on an article that's not even on the SECOND page of the blogs any longer? Do you dream that anyone thinks you have any 'credibility'? Especially when you get so wrapped around the axle if someone calls you out on your spelling?"
I would think those who would want to be taken seriously would worry a little. I guess you are not among the serious.
But you must care enough to crawl back on here over an hour after you say you are getting off..just to get the last word. Very mature on your part young lady.
As for my credibility...you don't really matter on that. Unlike you...I cite information that can be checked when I argue. You rely on your limited knowledge and insults.
Chad: Your posts seem to have been misinterpreted. It is never fair to assume we know what someone esle's relationship is with the divine. I do not know of your life experience with God or the supernatural so I cannot dispute your viewpoints on the subject. Judgment on the leaps you have made into different areas is just groups who wish to challenge your ideas and those judgments have offered no worldview to support their stance. It isn't necessary anyway for others to agree with you to have an understanding of your viewpoint and even see the possibilities within it. Hold onto what you know to be true and what you understand regardless of who challenges you. It is often hard to explain in words what one knows within.
Philosophy, Religion, & Ideas evolve over time depending on the influence upon them..you choose the influence.
Religious doctrine changes over time, depending on their marketing departments and what the power-holders of the religions think they can get away with foisting on gullible believers.
Sue
It may be more accurate to say that 'religious truth' evolves over time to match the values of believers, just as 'God' evolves over time to reflect what people want him to be. It's come to be called "re-imagining" and people like to do it with everything old and outdated, recreating them for a new audience. What generation wants to worship the same idea of God in the same way as their parents did, after all?
What kind of moron reads "fundamentalists I have met" as "all Christians".
You should pray that god gives you two brain cells to rub together.
Likely he sees fundamentalists as the only people who can rightfully call themselves Christians.
That's exactly what he sees. Lutherans, Episcopalians, and other mainstream denominations whose beliefs are not in line with Chad's fundie thoughts are doomed to hell for eternity.
He and HS are two of a kind.
Tom
And yet, they would likely be totally offended by any Catholics or other Christians claiming the same thing, wouldn't they?
I'd like an agency that provides relief from Christians.
More, seriously, though, many of the major relief organizations are non-religious; no affiliation is specified. And now, one of the best funded charitable organizations, one that is making a big positive difference in Africa after years of Christian missionaries making life more miserable, is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill G is not religious.
Agreed, Less. Chad's assumptions are flawed. Goodness, mercy, and charity are not exclusive to Christianity.
I'm sure alot of Bill's generosity is for:
the camera (to make himself look good), he has too much money and has an urge to spend it and he pays less taxes. Still even it is for selfish reasons he is doing the world good.
@Less: ", seriously, though, many of the major relief organizations are non-religious; no affiliation is specified. And now, one of the best funded charitable organizations, ... is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation."
=>Bill is doing penance for all those crappy operating systems he fostered on us!
Just kidding.. 🙂
completely agree, the Gates have really taken philanthropy to a new level with this "Giving Pledge". Kudos to them for giving back to society.
" after years of Christian missionaries making life more miserable while not fixing anything"
=>absolute utter RUBBISH. In addition to preaching the Gospel, which is the greatest gift that can be given (life), staggering sums of $$$ have gone into education, food, developmental assistance, health care, etc, etc, etc.. utter rubbish, back it up with some data.
chad, you represent our side well and we thank you. You and Rush and others like you provide a real boost to the efforts of our friends in the LRA.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/23/world/africa/uganda-war-survivor/index.html
Voldemort: as humorous and creative as I find your posting name, I find the content of your posts to be pretty disingenuous.
LRA is a cult, a terrorist group. If Rush supports what they do, he's an idiot. No reasonable person would attempt to describe them as a Christian group.
There have been many mainstream Christian groups throughout history that perpetrated unbelievable atrocities, but LRA certainly isnt mainstream, certainly isnt Christian.
From wiki: "The Lord's Resistance Army (also Lord's Resistance Movement or Lakwena Part Two) is a militant group with a syncretic Christian and Traditional African religious ideology. The group operates in northern Uganda,South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Central Africa. The group used to operate mainly in northern Uganda and also in parts of South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The LRA was formed in 1987 and until about 2007 it was engaged in an armed rebellion against the Ugandan government. It is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself the "spokesperson" of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the Holy Spirit, which the group believes can represent itself in many manifestations.
The group is based on a number of different beliefs including local religious rituals, mysticism, traditional religion, Acholi nationalism and Christianity and claims to be establishing a theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments and local Acholi tradition. The LRA is accused of widespread human rights violations, including murder, abduction, mutilation, se xual enslavement of women and children and forcing children to participate in hostilities."
You're correct; I misread your post. I thought you meant that this was founded as a Christian country. It was not.
Just another day. The only one who knows when and if it is going to happen is God.
Ignoring the obvious "no proof of any god" and "which god are you referring to" discussions that naturally arise from your statement, the end of the Earth will come in about 5 billion years when the sun goes into its red giant phase. The end of humans as a species will likely come much sooner, either through evolution, or through some physical event like a meteor strike, major climatic change, or a terminal plague.
Whatever
Believers tend to view the end of humanity as the end of the world as well. Many just can't imagine the planet, and life on it, possibly continuing after we've gone to fossil. Perhaps this explains the lack of concern some Christians have for environmental issues. I appreciate the growing "stewardship" gospel endorsing responsible use of our resources that some have adopted.
@ Hot air ace, (I would have replied sooner but I am About 5 hours ahead of you so was just falling asleep) How on earth could any channeled or Divinely inspired works be 100% or even 50%verifiable, the whole point of them is they're giving us jnformation not available through the scientific method. @ *Frank* I agree with you about the story of Abraham and Issac, it seems absurd to modern day people, but you have to understand, the people of the those times, for whom it was written, were extremely primative in comparison to us and child sacrifice to the god Moloch was not uncommon, the story of Abraham and Issac is "gods" way of saying No! if you feel the need to sacrifice something don't sacrifice your children, sacrifice a lamb instead ! @ Tallulah 13, I most certainly don't believe everything I am told. In fact some of these works contradict eachother on some points, they might not all be genuine, but mostly they are in agreement with eachother. @ John Richardson. How do we know that when a person comes up with a "significant mathamatical Theorem" they are not unknowingly channeling, such things would not be given to people who were not capable of understanding them, they would assume they came up with it all by themselves, like you and your poetry.The Supernatural is just the word we give to something we can't explain as yet, it does not mean it's not real,
"The Supernatural is just the word we give to something we can't explain as yet, it does not mean it's not real,"
Which is something that we've found, time and time again, is just plain dumb to do. It has totally failed as a mechanism to explain: the weather, tides, the rising and setting of the sun, the motion of the stars ... etc, etc. Its an intellectually weak way to make excuses for a lack of knowledge. Instead of saying "god must have done it" why not just say "I don't know".
@ Hellbent. Because saying "I don't know" is "intellectually weak", if there is an answer to be found I think it wise to spend some time in search of it, not just say "I don't know" and I never will. I have no problem with science, but it can only take you so far.
Vizion, regardless of how we become aware of something, we can investigate it and determine its validity. Are you actually saying that information gotten by "channelling" (whatever that is...) is not subject to investigation and verification, that we are expected to take it at face value, no questions asked?
Vizion, saying "I don't know." is intellectually very honest, way more so than making up a myth (god!), and it does not mean that the search for the correct answer is over. The only ones who have stopped searching are those who believe their book of tribal myths (such as The Babble) is the first and let word on everything.
@ Hotairace. Of course I am not saying that, all channeling should be investigated and verified and it has been over the years, it happens, I've witnessed it myself, the only argument is what is talking or writing trough these people, is it who they say they are ? I would never say any one book has all the answers, but I would say they should not be dismissed either.
@Vizion
You said: Because saying "I don't know" is "intellectually weak", if there is an answer to be found I think it wise to spend some time in search of it, not just say "I don't know" and I never will. I have no problem with science, but it can only take you so far.
Saying "I don't know", is not intellectually week. It is an honest answer. It does not mean the answer won't be discovered in the future. Saying something is supernatural, just because you don't understand it, is idiocy.
Saying something is supernatural is saying: "God Did It". Early man used this for everything. They were wrong. Everything they labeled supernatural, was found to have natural origins. NOT ONE THING has been found to be due to the cause or existence of a god. The gods have been allowed to hide in the gaps that man does not understand. They have fewer and fewer hiding places.
Saying "I don't Know" is the beginning of understanding. To say something is caused by god, ends our ability to learn. If god did it, then that ends the discussion. The answer is known. Knowledge stagnates.
Science can find no use for a god.
The Christian god is very unlikely to exist.
Cheers!
Vizion, while you might think it's "intellectually weak" to admit to what you don't know, the virtuous among us think it's courageous to be honest and open
Grow some courage, you disgusting wimp.You are both intellectually weak and dishonest, you two-time loser.
"To say something is caused by god, ends our ability to learn. If god did it, then that ends the discussion. The answer is known. Knowledge stagnates. "
Not at all. The question should be then..how did God do it. You are as_suming a miracle aspect that doesn't always has to be. Seems that ppl who are non-religious or flat out atheists have the mistaken idea that anything God would do is outside the laws of the universe and is a "miracle". There is nothing that supports that way of thinking.
Vizion
"The Supernatural is just the word we give to something we can't explain as yet, it does not mean it's not real,"
No. "Supernatural" is a word we give to things we don't even have any proof exist in the first place. When we consider something such as ghost sightings, for example, we can scientifically deduce natural and man-made causes for what people take as the image of a deceased person, but we have never found actual proof that real ghosts do in fact exist. You appear to be assuming too much in your definition.
@Uncouth Swain
I said: "To say something is caused by god, ends our ability to learn. If god did it, then that ends the discussion. The answer is known. Knowledge stagnates. "
You Replied: "Not at all. The question should be then..how did God do it. You are as_suming a miracle aspect that doesn't always has to be. Seems that ppl who are non-religious or flat out atheists have the mistaken idea that anything God would do is outside the laws of the universe and is a "miracle". There is nothing that supports that way of thinking."
Ahh..., dude. Why do you argue with me?
Argue? I already gave my rebuttal and the debate is done. Unless you have some more cloaked ad hominums to bring up.
@Uncouth Swain
I said: "To say something is caused by god, ends our ability to learn. If god did it, then that ends the discussion. The answer is known. Knowledge stagnates. "
You Replied: "Not at all. The question should be then..how did God do it. You are as_suming a miracle aspect that doesn't always has to be. Seems that ppl who are non-religious or flat out atheists have the mistaken idea that anything God would do is outside the laws of the universe and is a "miracle". There is nothing that supports that way of thinking."
Like most of the Christians, you want every argument to begin with the assumption that your god is real. And is responsible for the creation of the universe and all its apparent order.
If you have something to say, then you have something to prove. Yes?
If we all did believe that god exists, then of course every question would be: "How did god do that?"
The first question should ACTUALLY be: "Could the universe exist without the existence of a god"
Science says, "Yes!". So far, science has found no need of a god. Someday, maybe. But so far, no god(s).
Alas, there is no more evidence that the Christian god exists, than Santa exists.
“God did it” is not an explanation. It tells no more than saying, “Santa did it.”
To ask: "How did Jesus or Santa do it" is just plain silly, unless you have proof that one of them is the cause. Do you look at your car and wonder how fairies built it? Pfui!
Finding an explanation with science often involves hard work and an_alysis.
Once again, why does anything happen? If we say that a god did it, there is no reason or opportunity to learn how the world really works.
If we had stayed with a god as the cause of all events, our modern culture would have been impossible. We would have no real science, engineering, or medicine. We would still be living in the Dark Ages.
This is the way the Christian Right would like things to be. Science would not be funded (allowed) to work on projects they deemed not scriptural. If god did it, then that would be the end of the story.
The BIGGEST PROBLEM with using a god to explain anything scientifically is that the explanation is not falsifiable, and thus not even testable.
Your argument is p_oor.
Cheers!
"Like most of the Christians, you want every argument to begin with the assumption that your god is real. And is responsible for the creation of the universe and all its apparent order."
~First...quit guessing. I've never stated if I am a Christian or not. Second, I do not need to bring the topic of God into a debate about science. However, and this might shock you, this is a religion comment board and science was brought up. So the concept of God might just get brought up once in awhile. I know..kind of shocking.
As for order to the universe...I never made any such claim. From black wholes to einstien crosses..."order" doesn't exactly exist.
"If you have something to say, then you have something to prove. Yes?"
~Or disprove.
"If we all did believe that god exists, then of course every question would be: "How did god do that?""
~I didn't say you had to ask that. But to imply that knowledge stops because one believes in God is silly. There is no evidence that being religious hinders scienctific thought in a person.
"The first question should ACTUALLY be: "Could the universe exist without the existence of a god"
Science says, "Yes!". So far, science has found no need of a god. Someday, maybe. But so far, no god(s)."
~Science says nothing. All science can do is measure and study what technology allows. Now some ppl may take what science has shown in it's limited ways and make as_sumptions like you have done. It happens and their is nothing wrong with that. But science has yet to show what the universe "needs".
"Alas, there is no more evidence that the Christian god exists, than Santa exists."
~Straw man.
"“God did it” is not an explanation. It tells no more than saying, “Santa did it.”"
~Straw man and no one said that "God did it" is an explanation" as if knowledge stops there.
"To ask: "How did Jesus or Santa do it" is just plain silly, unless you have proof that one of them is the cause. Do you look at your car and wonder how fairies built it? Pfui!"
~Straw man...no asked but you how "Santa did it". Again you are making the as_sumption that God works outside nature. In theological understanding...God's actions do not exist only in grand sweeping ways.
"Finding an explanation with science often involves hard work and an_alysis."
~Agreed. Look at Georges Lemaître who created the Big Bang Theory. Oh..forgive me...I should show the proper respect and call him Monsignor Georges Lemaître. The man who developed the Big Bang Theory was a priest who did work very hard.
"Once again, why does anything happen? If we say that a god did it, there is no reason or opportunity to learn how the world really works."
~That's foolishness. Our very nature makes us curious to figure out how the world works. I don't know a single person that just put their hands in the air and said.."I don't need to learn anything ever again...God is in control." I would doubt you know any either but that's what you are basically claiming here.
"If we had stayed with a god as the cause of all events, our modern culture would have been impossible. We would have no real science, engineering, or medicine. We would still be living in the Dark Ages."
~Conjecture. So how did Rome or Athens develop their engineering? My gosh..how did the Giza Pyramids get built? They worshiped their king as a god..yet they still got built. I think your are quite wrong with this argument.
"This is the way the Christian Right would like things to be. Science would not be funded (allowed) to work on projects they deemed not scriptural. If god did it, then that would be the end of the story."
~Hmmm, who are you against again? Christianity? Religion? Or the Conservatives? Not all are equal to the other. Also you are incorrect. Being a Christian or being conservative does not mean science would not be funded. There was this one guy named Carnegie..now he wasn't exactly a hard core religous man but could fit into the conservative mindset. He funded quite a bit in things like libraries and other scientific endeavors.
"The BIGGEST PROBLEM with using a god to explain anything scientifically is that the explanation is not falsifiable, and thus not even testable."
~If one was saying that something happened because God did it and there is no need to do anything more...I would agree. But no one is saying that. I have already shown that a religous mindset does not stop progress in science. Again..you keep putting the idea that God is outside of the universe and anything God does would be supernatural.
"Your argument is p_oor."
~You have no argument.
"There is nothing that supports that way of thinking." Sure there is, US. It's called reason and science. What you don't have is anything other than the Bible to support YOUR way of thinking.
But I'd sure be interested in where you found a "black whole."
@Uncouth Swain
I read my post to you again, after reading yours. I think mine is the better argument. I have trouble following you. Sorry.
Cheers!
Vizion, I think you have a lack of vision. It is no dishonor to say you don't know. What is dishonorable is choosing to believe something unverifiable and untrue, just to say that you have the answers.
Science is based on the premise of "I don't know". We know much of what we do now because the people of the past didn't know and were courageous enough to admit it.
Uncouth Swain
"Alas, there is no more evidence that the Christian god exists, than Santa exists."
"~Straw man."
Please explain why a comparison between God and Santa is a 'straw man' argument? Santa's character and existence is by no means merely superficially similar to God's. Nor is any comparison between God and any of the other gods that humans have worshipped throughout the ages invalid just because you feel that your's is the only 'real' god. Saying that God cannot be compared to any other character is called 'special pleading', which is a fallacy which actually does seem to fit.
@ David Johnson,4.15pm. I agree, saying "I dont know" is not intellectually weak, I did not say it was, I said "I don't know and I never will" so I am not even going to look, There is a BIG difference and saying something is Supernatural just because you don't understand it IS idiocy, for me nothing is Supernatural, except God the First Source, which is outside of time and space, saying something is explained because it's part of nature, is forgeting even nature needs a First Scource, which has not beem explained.The Christian God is this first Source, so science does need the "Christian God" whether you like it or not, unfortunately the word "God" can also refer to higher beings who have come to this planet in the past to help teach us. Jesus was the most recent and best.
@ Vizion ... read carefully what you said .... You admitted this "god" is supernatural, and not a single person on this planet has found eveidence of ANY super-natural beings or things. You cite this "god" as a First Source ... like this being created everything on a whim? Not hardly. As our technology grows, so will our understanding of our world and the universe it travels through. By saying "I don't know" means just that , you don't know. True intelligence is working to find the answer. By saying "God did it" or "It's god's will" just shows outright ignorance and the incapacity of wanting to learn. You also mentioned that the word "god" can also "refer to higher beings who have come to this planet in the past to help teach us. Jesus was the most recent and best." So .... this jesus is an alien from another world? Did our yellow sun give him powers beyond comprehension? Maybe so .. after all, he did say that his kingdom is not of this world .. so maybe after death we're transported to another planet? Hey... you brought it up, I can't resist making fun of your utter stupidity about this. Go find the nearest trailer park, and wait for the UFO's to come abduct you. You should have been one of the 39 in Marvin Applewhite's little club. You would have fit in great there, and we would have never had to hear from you again.
Tom
Maybe it's one of those "black holes" that Bugs Bunny use to be able to pull out of a pocket and just throw where he needed it?
@Vizion, are you saying this below (from above) is not your post:
"Vizion
@ Hellbent. Because saying "I don't know" is "intellectually weak", if there is an answer to be found I think it wise to spend some time in search of it, not just say "I don't know" and I never will. I have no problem with science, but it can only take you so far.
October 24, 2011 at 2:58 pm | Report abuse "
@TTPS-"Sure there is, US. It's called reason and science. What you don't have is anything other than the Bible to support YOUR way of thinking."
You mean the nation that was founded with a vast majority of Christians...yeah..good argument.
D'oh...hole I meant. Got in a hurry.
@David-"I read my post to you again, after reading yours. I think mine is the better argument. I have trouble following you. Sorry"
You are welcome to believe whatever you wish. If you are having trouble..then the loss is yours.
Shalom!
@Free- it's a straw man because of intent. No one worships Santa now do they? Santa was chosen because no one on here (that I know of) argues for the existense of that man made concept.
Basically put, Santa isn't a religious figure while God is. They don't have much in common except in the eyes of those who want to try and make easy fallacy filled arguments.
Uncouth Swain
"No one worships Santa now do they?"
He may not be "worshipped" as a deity, but how is an all-seeing judge of people's goodness, who receives wish-filled letters such as Santa not like an omniscient God who judges people's righteousness, and is called upon to answer their prayers? Both serve to maintain people's better behavior when nobody else is around to keep them in line, right? Without constant indoctrination from their families, communities, and the media why would anyone believe in either?
Face it, the only reason why people stop believing in Santa is because the belief isn't valued past a certain age. If you made the effort to isolate your children from the skeptical outside world, as many believers do, and keep leaving them gifts in his name as believers label instances of good luck as miracles, then who is to say that you could not carry their belief in Santa well into their adulthood?
I still have a Christmas decoration of Santa with a huge "Believe!" inscription. Just Believe we ask children. Can you tell me how this is any different from Christian faith? The famous letter "Yes Virginia, There Is A Santa Claus" gives a lot of reasons why it's desirable to believe in him, but that is no more proof of his being actually real than all the reasons put forward as to why we need there to be a God. Just because we want them to exist doesn't mean that they actually do.
Still, if you must persist in arguing that Santa and God are as comparable as apples and oranges, is it not appropriate to compare God to other 'oranges', by which I mean any and all other gods whom we humans have indeed worshipped throughout the ages then? By what criteria would you dismiss their actual existence so readily while maintaining that of your preferred deity? How do we know that Thor, for example, is only a myth, while God is not?
Santa's worldwide delivery service puts all the "miracles" in the bible to shame. Water into wine? Walking on water? Feeding 5000 or however many on a few loaves and fish? Amateur stuff compared to spending one night delivery untold millions of tons of stuff to hundreds of millions of homes and still having time – and gastric space – to sample the milk and cookies in every danged house.
Except it wasn't, Uncouth Swill.
@Vizion Stephen Wright had a joke about everything in his house being miraculously replaced one night by an exact replica. Normal people laugh at that joke. You would apparently take that theory seriously.
"He may not be "worshipped" as a deity, but how is an all-seeing judge of people's goodness, who receives wish-filled letters such as Santa not like an omniscient God who judges people's righteousness, and is called upon to answer their prayers? Both serve to maintain people's better behavior when nobody else is around to keep them in line, right? Without constant indoctrination from their families, communities, and the media why would anyone believe in either?"
~Santa's history as a human creation can be traced. So far...no atheist on here has been able to do that in reference to God. That is reason enough why they are not comparable. One has been proven to be a man made concept while the other has not. That is why ppl want to use the straw man Santa....it has already been proven as a man mad creation with a traceable history.
"Face it, the only reason why people stop believing in Santa is because the belief isn't valued past a certain age. If you made the effort to isolate your children from the skeptical outside world, as many believers do, and keep leaving them gifts in his name as believers label instances of good luck as miracles, then who is to say that you could not carry their belief in Santa well into their adulthood?"
The problem with this is that those of faith are not separated by and large and still have their belief system. This goes against the Santa fallacy again. When those get a bigger world view come to the conclusion there is no Santa and again..can see how it is a man made concept. Unlike God.
"I still have a Christmas decoration of Santa with a huge "Believe!" inscription. Just Believe we ask children. Can you tell me how this is any different from Christian faith? The famous letter "Yes Virginia, There Is A Santa Claus" gives a lot of reasons why it's desirable to believe in him, but that is no more proof of his being actually real than all the reasons put forward as to why we need there to be a God. Just because we want them to exist doesn't mean that they actually do."
Are you appealing to their spirituality when you tell them to believe? Or do they even have that ability yet? There are differences between children that believe in Santa and a adult that has a belief system they have studied, reasoned and thought through. To compare a child's belief in Santa to that of an adult and their faith in God is silly and foolish. As to your letter..who was the writer appealing to? The adults that would be reading the letter or to the child?
"Still, if you must persist in arguing that Santa and God are as comparable as apples and oranges, is it not appropriate to compare God to other 'oranges', by which I mean any and all other gods whom we humans have indeed worshipped throughout the ages then? By what criteria would you dismiss their actual existence so readily while maintaining that of your preferred deity? How do we know that Thor, for example, is only a myth, while God is not?"
First..I never used the apple and oranges statement...you did.
As to comparing God to other dieties..at least that is more intellectually reasonable.
For many..it's all about personal experience.
@TTPS- I think you are wrong and should reread exactly what I wrote.
John Richardson
The real miracle wasn't that Jesus turned water into wine. No, it was that he turned water into MORE wine, and finer stuff at that, for a party who had already drunk all the wine they could find. Nowadays he would likely be sued if one of those guests left that party drunk and ran over somebody with their ass. 🙂
Uncouth Swain
"~Santa's history as a human creation can be traced. So far...no atheist on here has been able to do that in reference to God."
Santa has a historical root in St. Nicholas that is more evidenced than that of Jesus. All the legend and myth added to St. Nicholas closely resembles the added bits that aren't mentioned in Josephus and the other historical accounts outside of the Bible. All that we can tell for sure about God himself is that he is a character in the Bible, one of several gods mentioned, and that he is very jealous over worship of these and any other gods. On this basis the Bible supports the existence of these other gods just as much as it supports the existence of God. Why Christians should generally consider these other gods myths is therefore a mystery.
"One has been proven to be a man made concept while the other has not."
But can you really 'prove' that Santa doesn't actually exist? Have you looked for him everywhere, and if you did couldn't he just be hiding? Maybe the familiar Santa red and white suit can be proven to be Coke's invention, but earlier drawing had him in a green suit. Who is to say that this isn't the real Santa, and that he's really out there?
"The problem with this is that those of faith are not separated by and large and still have their belief system."
I have fundamentalist-raised friends who tell me of how they were home-schooled, told what to read and watch on TV, and who basically grew up around people their parents knew from church. I consider that sheltered enough to keep the God idea protected from outside influences.
"There are differences between children that believe in Santa and a adult that has a belief system they have studied, reasoned and thought through."
But have most adult believers really thought through their faith? Have they studied anything outside of the works of Christian apologists? What reasoning have they allowed themselves? I think you greatly overestimate the capacity of most believers to seek out truly opposing views and to test their core beliefs. Most get their weekly reinforcement at church and associate mainly amongst people of similar faith, but haven't bothered to check into what they were taught as children simply because they want God to be real. If they do stumble upon something troublesome, then that desire filters out anything that they may find troublesome, or they readily accept whatever explanation the theologian offers at face value.
And then, how many actually do this when one of the basic teachings is that Jesus criticized 'doubters' and doing so could result in one being punished in hell? How is that unlike the threat parents give their children that Santa will not come if they try to spy him delivering the gifts? Those who do an honest check into their beliefs are likely to become atheists as many here, including myself, will attest. Considering how our society still treats us how many would risk choosing that path?
"For many..it's all about personal experience."
And some people have 'experienced' UFO abductions, leprechauns, and Elvis' ghost while others swear by the accuracy of their horoscope or tea leaf readings, but that doesn't prevent logical people from being much more than simply skeptical about such things, right?
"Santa has a historical root in St. Nicholas that is more evidenced than that of Jesus. All the legend and myth added to St. Nicholas closely resembles the added bits that aren't mentioned in Josephus and the other historical accounts outside of the Bible."
A little dishonest aren't you? You will use such experts as archaeologists when it suits you..but you'll ignore the majority of historians that says Jesus existed.
As with the additions to Snata...again...that can be proven. The suggestion that something was added to Josephus is just that...a suggestion. It's not been proven yet.
"But can you really 'prove' that Santa doesn't actually exist? Have you looked for him everywhere, and if you did couldn't he just be hiding? Maybe the familiar Santa red and white suit can be proven to be Coke's invention, but earlier drawing had him in a green suit. Who is to say that this isn't the real Santa, and that he's really out there?"
Are you implying that Santa is a real being? If so..then you might want to re-evalulate your position on many thing. If you are just saying it to say it...leaning into the straw man fallacy again.
"I have fundamentalist-raised friends who tell me of how they were home-schooled, told what to read and watch on TV, and who basically grew up around people their parents knew from church. I consider that sheltered enough to keep the God idea protected from outside influences."
Oh..I have no doubt one could find fringes on any type of belief. I am sure there are those that are raised by atheists that are not allowed to watch certain things or do certain activites.
What I am talking about is the majority of ppl. I am sorry if you thought I was implying an absolute.
"But have most adult believers really thought through their faith? Have they studied anything outside of the works of Christian apologists? What reasoning have they allowed themselves? I think you greatly overestimate the capacity of most believers to seek out truly opposing views and to test their core beliefs. Most get their weekly reinforcement at church and associate mainly amongst people of similar faith, but haven't bothered to check into what they were taught as children simply because they want God to be real. If they do stumble upon something troublesome, then that desire filters out anything that they may find troublesome, or they readily accept whatever explanation the theologian offers at face value."
There are more to Chrstian lit than what apologists write. Also...I am talking about a responsible human being. One that believes what they believe because they have examined it. That goes for any belief or even non-belief.
I totally believe there are Christian sheep that just follow the crowd just as much as athiest sheep that does the same.
Also..not all Christians are such because it was taught to them as children.
And your filter thought applies to all humans..not just those of a faith.
"Those who do an honest check into their beliefs are likely to become atheists as many here, including myself, will attest. Considering how our society still treats us how many would risk choosing that path?"
Conjecture. You have no evidence of this beyond your own self.
"And some people have 'experienced' UFO abductions, leprechauns, and Elvis' ghost while others swear by the accuracy of their horoscope or tea leaf readings, but that doesn't prevent logical people from being much more than simply skeptical about such things, right?"
Oh..I am not against being skeptical of anything. What I am against and have always been is when ppl come on here and tell ppl they are wrong and only have their own opinion to back it up. I am against those that do not respect other ppl's beliefs.
Uncouth Swain
Jesus, the man, may well have existed, but there is no historical evidence to support the Christ of faith. These two figures are separate beings no matter how much you believe they are one in the same.
The Testimonium Flavianum is highly suspect for a number of reasons, not just because the text flows better when these passages are cut out, but did you know that he also mentions Hercules as having been a real person? Are you still ready to trust the judgment of Josephus as to who is an actual historical figure?
Uncouth Swain
"Are you implying that Santa is a real being?"
No, that would be silly, but so is the argument put forward by some Christians that science cannot that God isn't real because it cannot search everywhere, that God doesn't want to be found, and he is powerful enough to conceal himself from anyone. Santa can just as easily be imagined to remain hidden for the exact same reasons, yes?
Uncouth Swain
"I am sorry if you thought I was implying an absolute."
In some areas a goodly percentage send their kids to Christian schools, or home-school them themselves, precisely to control (and spin) what information they are exposed to. Are these all just part of the "fringe"?
Most atheists I know actually encourage their children to become free thinkers, but also to be wary of cult movements, like many Christian parents also do.
"Jesus, the man, may well have existed, but there is no historical evidence to support the Christ of faith. These two figures are separate beings no matter how much you believe they are one in the same. "
I am sorry...atheists on here are the ones with the problem of the historical nature of Jesus. They are the ones that like to always put the Jesus of faith with that of the historical Jesus.
And let's be clear...the historcial Jesus and the Jesus of faith are sep_arate only in the realm of that which is historical and that which is theological. That sep_aration does not mean that both as_pects could not be one and the same.
"The Testimonium Flavianum is highly suspect for a number of reasons, not just because the text flows better when these passages are cut out, but did you know that he also mentions Hercules as having been a real person? Are you still ready to trust the judgment of Josephus as to who is an actual historical figure?"
I have heard of that sus_picion...and it's an interesting theory. Too bad there are no real facts to go with it. Now if there was a copy of Josephus that doesn't have any of that text in there and history could point to a specific time and place that the text was supposably added...then you might have something. It's sort of like the long and short endings to the book of Mark. Historians can point to specifics on such a controversy...not so much with Josephus.
Lol...Jesus as a historcial figure does not soley rest on Josephus. Please make note that I never brought up Josephus to begin with.
Curious...do you consider all of Josephus invalid as a historcal doc_u*ment?
"No, that would be silly, but so is the argument put forward by some Christians that science cannot that God isn't real because it cannot search everywhere, that God doesn't want to be found, and he is powerful enough to conceal himself from anyone. Santa can just as easily be imagined to remain hidden for the exact same reasons, yes?"
The problem here is that with the Santa story...a location is given for him. The North Pole and there is nothing that implies him hiding from anyone there. But many things can be imagined...many ppl on both sides of the argument do it all the time.
"In some areas a goodly percentage send their kids to Christian schools, or home-school them themselves, precisely to control (and spin) what information they are exposed to. Are these all just part of the "fringe"? "
Yes...because as a whole..they are still a small minority. You also make control sound like a bad thing. Is it wrong to want to protect your offspring from that which seems wrong? Most parents would be for this...or at least the right to protect their children from that which seems wrong.
"Most atheists I know actually encourage their children to become free thinkers, but also to be wary of cult movements, like many Christian parents also do."
If I used the atheists represented on these boards...you will forgive me if I do not think they would promote free thinking for their children when it comes to theology. I would hope most parents...no matter what they believe...would give their children an opening to figure out what they believe or not believe without too much interference. Of course...children usually take a lot of what they believe from parents, no matter the topic.
Uncouth Swain
"One that believes what they believe because they have examined it."
I've been on this board for a while and it seems abundantly clear to me that not many of the faithful really have examined it. I say this because most of the believers who post here against evolution, for example, haven't the faintest idea what they are actually arguing against. They imagine that it teaches we evolved from monkeys and that it is directly linked to the big bang theory. Where did they get such ridiculous notions but from their religious leaders and home-schooling texts?
If you want to argue that these are the minority than I might be inclined to agree with you because I count fundamentalists as being just a tiny minority of the world's Christians. The rest, the Catholics, Orthodox and other mainstream denominations who aren't afraid to teach actual evolution theory to their kids, usually don't even try to argue against it because they understand how idiotic that would be.
Are there atheist sheep? Sure, but I'd wager that you'll find way more seasoned atheists willing to set another self-proclaimed non-believer straight over making an ungrounded claim than you will amongst believers. If they begin as sheep they usually won't remain as such for long if they bother to discuss their ideas with other atheists. We aren't shy about pointing out errors, even amongst ourselves.
Uncouth Swain
"Conjecture. You have no evidence of this beyond your own self."
I'm going by the number of atheists I know personally, and those who have mentioned here and elsewhere that they were raised in religious homes, actually believed for a while, but lost their faith once their curiosity led them to dig deeper. C.S. Lewis began the same way, if you recall?
Still, we could do a poll, if you wish?
"I've been on this board for a while and it seems abundantly clear to me that not many of the faithful really have examined it. I say this because most of the believers who post here against evolution, for example, haven't the faintest idea what they are actually arguing against. They imagine that it teaches we evolved from monkeys and that it is directly linked to the big bang theory. Where did they get such ridiculous notions but from their religious leaders and home-schooling texts?"
I don't like it when anyone doesn't examine their lives..no matter the belief or lack thereof. I think a Christian that hasn't examined their beliefs are no better than an atheist that hasn't..or a Muslim...etc. The loss is there own.
Lol...not all those ppl that get evolution wrong were homeschooled. I've known quite a few regular public school taught ppl that don't know much on evolution, or social studies, or history....anyway, you get the idea.
"If you want to argue that these are the minority than I might be inclined to agree with you because I count fundamentalists as being just a tiny minority of the world's Christians. The rest, the Catholics, Orthodox and other mainstream denominations who aren't afraid to teach actual evolution theory to their kids, usually don't even try to argue against it because they understand how idiotic that would be."
Too true.
"Are there atheist sheep? Sure, but I'd wager that you'll find way more seasoned atheists willing to set another self-proclaimed non-believer straight over making an ungrounded claim than you will amongst believers. If they begin as sheep they usually won't remain as such for long if they bother to discuss their ideas with other atheists. We aren't shy about pointing out errors, even amongst ourselves."
We can hope they wouldn't be afriad. Being wrong about that which they believe is what atheists do best..and I'm not being funny here...I'm being serious. One can be an athiest and be wrong all the time about all kinds of topics. The only thing that will make them wrong as an atheist is if they start to have a faith.
On a separate note....I want to say you are one of the few on here that provides a good amount of intellectual dialogue that I find interesting. We might not always agree on things, but I can always respect your point of view because of your style of writing and how you put your info forth.
"Still, we could do a poll, if you wish?"
Lol..I doubt anyone could claim it to be scientific.
Uncouth Swain
"What I am against and have always been is when ppl come on here and tell ppl they are wrong and only have their own opinion to back it up. I am against those that do not respect other ppl's beliefs."
And how many believers here are willing to state that God's reality is not actually a proven fact, but just an 'opinion?' I'm personally perfectly happy to coexist with my neighbors of all creeds, and actually willing to argue for their religious rights if I see that they are being treated unfairly, but how many fundamentalists are willing to do the same? I will respect people's right to believe what they want to, but not their claim that criticism of religious beliefs is taboo. If people don't want their religious beliefs criticized then they really should keep them to themselves, right?
Gotta go for now, but thanks for the pleasant and civil discussion. It has bee a rare treat here on the Belief Blog. 😉 TTFN
"And how many believers here are willing to state that God's reality is not actually a proven fact, but just an 'opinion?' I'm personally perfectly happy to coexist with my neighbors of all creeds, and actually willing to argue for their religious rights if I see that they are being treated unfairly, but how many fundamentalists are willing to do the same? I will respect people's right to believe what they want to, but not their claim that criticism of religious beliefs is taboo. If people don't want their religious beliefs criticized then they really should keep them to themselves, right?"
Oh..I agree that ppl should keep to themselves in certain matters. Though I don't think one should hide their beliefs either to make other ppl's lives easier. Also...some atheists need to fess up about being hypocrites about their beliefs. I mean, how many of them will take December 25th off when they will go on and on how there is no Christ. They should admit they love having a religious day off and don't have the backbone to say, "I reject all manner of religions and will work this day". Lol.
"Gotta go for now, but thanks for the pleasant and civil discussion. It has bee a rare treat here on the Belief Blog. TTFN"
Be careful out there. Talk with you later.
Uncouth Swain
"Though I don't think one should hide their beliefs either to make other ppl's lives easier."
My point was that, if you choose to express your opinions and beliefs, be prepared to face criticism. Don't get all angry and call your critics 'haters' and damn them to hell just because they disagree with you. Even your own scriptures teach you that Christian beliefs appear to be foolish, right? Well, they actually do, but what's more is that they still do no matter what lines of reasoning you offer up in their defence. So you end up either choosing to accept the silly ideas on face value in what is called faith, which requires a great, unnatural suspension of a person's reason, or you don't. So why get offended when people do the more natural thing and don't believe?
December 25th was a "day off" long before Christianity. I was raised Catholic and I don't bother with any of the feast days anymore. The rest are statutory holidays which I can't trade for better dates, so your argument really isn't a very practical one.
Uncouth Swain
"One can be an athiest and be wrong all the time about all kinds of topics."
Sure. We might even be wrong about God, or Thor, Zeus or any of the other gods, as anyone might be, but that would mean that all of the evidence was unnaturally pointing in the wrong direction, and we can hardly be blamed for not jumping to such a wild conclusion that wasn't supported by the evidence, can we? In everything outside of religious faith it's considered rather foolish to jump to such unreasonable conclusions, right?
And thank you for respecting my point of view as well.
"December 25th was a "day off" long before Christianity. I was raised Catholic and I don't bother with any of the feast days anymore. The rest are statutory holidays which I can't trade for better dates, so your argument really isn't a very practical one."
But here in the US...it was a holiday because of it's religious connections. But those that say there should be no hint of religion in the nation...they should reject taking off Christmas.
"and we can hardly be blamed for not jumping to such a wild conclusion that wasn't supported by the evidence"
Of course..no one should go off and jump onboard just anything without thinking on it first. Now whether or not it's a wild conclusion would be up to the individual.
Uncouth Swain
"it was a holiday because of it's religious connections."
Emphasis on the WAS here. Christmas is more about being the key consumer engine for our economy and just having a winter holiday for most people nowadays. There is little of the religious associated with Christmas, and this goes back to the Puritans who saw the date for the pagan feast that it still freshly was at the time. The rise and decline of Christmas as a mainly Christian religious holiday can best be seen as a fad then.
That said, people have a right to decorate their own private property with whatever decorations they want, as long as they conform to the usual rules of good taste. I personally bought my house precisely because it had a great tree in the front yard to hang lights on. There was a guy out my way a few years back who had a wonderful light display, but it was accompanied by music that exceeded the municipal noise limit. Some folks wanted to make an issues of it being an attack upon Christian rights, but the guy apparently was just unaware of his misstep. He quickly complied with the ordinance that we all live by.
"Now whether or not it's a wild conclusion would be up to the individual."
"but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles," 1 Corinthians 1:23
See, even Paul realized that the theology appears to be a wild conclusion, right?
"but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles," 1 Corinthians 1:23
See, even Paul realized that the theology appears to be a wild conclusion, right?
~Perhaps wild in appearance but Paul thought it correct.
Uncouth Swain
"Perhaps wild in appearance but Paul thought it correct."
Every crazy theory has at least one advocate championing it, right?
I don't understand how this guy studied the bible, but somehow skipped the part that says no one will know the day or time of Jesus coming not even the angels in heaven know. But, the bible is true to its word because Jesus said many will come and say he is here and there, but do not go to them.
Carlito, that prediction is not really of anything that wouldn't happen whether Christian god exists or not. Basically, it says that some people are going to be dishonest and will exploit certain things. No big surprise, so I don't think you've proven anything there. It could all happen whether or not Jesus was divine.
What do you have to say about the predictions in the bible such as can be found in Isaiah and Ezekiel, re the demise of Damascus and the Nile, and the future of Egypt? Those predictions are pretty clearly wrong. The batting average of the bible for predictions is not quite in the majors, don't you think?
@Carlito Swagger
Jesus predicted He would be back in the 1st century. His disciples believed Him. He was wrong. He, if He ever existed, is dead. Dead for 2000 years and counting.
Hope this helps. The bible is so hard to understand. It takes one who have been anointed by god. Like me.
Cheers!
"Jesus predicted He would be back in the 1st century."
No he didn't.
@Alighieri
I correctly said: "Jesus predicted He would be back in the 1st century."
You incorrectly said: "No he didn't."
So, here we are:
Jesus is not coming back. There will be no rapture.
Matthew 24:36 "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."
Hmm... Jesus may not have known the day or the hour, but He did predict a 1st Century return. How can the Messiah and God incarnate be wrong? Can you think of a reason?
A number of New Testament passages indicate that Christ was supposed to return before his generation had died. This would have been sometime in the first century AD.
First, there is the testimony of Jesus himself, who explicitly stated that some of his disciples would not die until Jesus inst_ituted the Kingdom, and that his generation would not pass away until all his prophecies of the end of the world had been fulfilled:
Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
Jesus' speech in 24 and 25 was given, when He was alone with His disciples.
Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
In this discourse, Jesus makes a number of assertions about the fate of his disciples. One of the signs of the end would be the persecution of his disciples:
Matthew 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
While tradition records that the disciples were persecuted and martyred, this was not followed by the return of Christ, as he promised. Would they die for a lie? Apparently... Or at least for something they were told and believed. LOL.
Jesus instructed his disciples to hurry because the time for preaching before his return was relatively short:
Mathew 10:23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Hmm... Seems like 2000 years and change, would be more than enough time. Even if you slept in and stopped for coffee. Let's see, Liar; Lunatic; or Lord. Or, the one I like, Fictional.
The Apostle Paul, too, seemed to think that Christ would return for his generation:
I Thessalonians 4:15-17 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Note that Paul twice uses the phrase '...we which are alive and remain...'.
This seems to preclude the theory that Paul was speaking of some far future generation. Paul made a similar assertion in First Corinthians:
I Corinthians 15:51,52 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Note that Paul said that '...we shall not all sleep...'. In other words, he expected that at least some of his generation would not see death.
Again, there is nothing in the text to indicate that Paul was speaking about some far future generation.
Paul reiterated his belief in a soon return of Christ in the Book of Romans:
Romans 13:11-12 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.
And John:
1 John 2:18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.
The other New Testament writers had similar thoughts about the iminence of Christ's return:
James 5:8 Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
I John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
I Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.
The Apocalyptic Book of Revelations repeatedly has Christ saying that he would return soon:
Revelation 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly....
By no stretch of the imagination can 2,000 years be considered 'quickly' LOL
And, to say That a thousand years is like a day to the lord, is dumb. A thousand years is not like a day to humans. An almighty god would certainly understand what "quickly" would mean to humans.
Jesus was wrong. Jesus has been really busy being really dead, for the last 2,000 years.
According to historian Charles Freeman, Early Christians expected Jesus to return within a generation of his death. When the second coming did not occur, the early Christian communities were thrown into turmoil." – Wikipedia: Freeman, Charles. The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and Fall of Reason, p. 133. Vintage. 2002.
Cheers!
I know you will want to "spin" this. You must! I will help you by giving you a laundry list of theological gymnastics that believers use:
Believer's Rule of Thumb: If a bible verse furthers the cause, it is to be taken literally. If a bible verse is detrimental to the cause, it is either: taken out of context; is allegorical; refers to another verse somewhere else; is a translation or copyist's error; means something other than what it actually says; Is a mystery of god or not discernable by humans; or is just plain magic.
I'm sure one will work! LOL
But remember, the verses say what they say. It is what it is.
Jesus if He existed at all, was not the Messiah or Son of God.
Cheers!
Interpreting "generation" to mean something other than the natural meaning you're talking about is like taking references to Jesus' brothers as really meaning his "cousins." Both are the products of minds only interested in forcing interpretations out of a troublesome passages that match their own preconceived beliefs. They aren't interested in really discovering the truth.
Oops! I meant to address that TO David (Johnson).
Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Oddly enough, this doesn't say he would be returning at any special time. But it does give a special event...the "coming in his kingdom". What does that mean? The Kingdom of God isn't a place but a theological condition like Luke 11:20 implies. Sorry, but Jesus did not say he would be back in the 1st century.
Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
And? Prophets did come, so did scribes and wise men. Some were killed or crucified. Those things did happen to that generation. Go beyond verses and read the whole of it. Sorry, but Jesus did not say he would be back in the 1st century.
Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Yes..the generation that witnesses those things shall not pass away till all is fulfilled. Oddly enough..no one in the 1st century witnessed the gathering of the elect now did they or the stars falling out of the sky so they are not of the generation Jesus was referring to. Sorry, but Jesus did not say he would be back in the 1st century.
Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
How does a question answer anything really? Jesus gave them quite a description of sorts and there is nothing in that chapter that implies a "right now" mentality. Sorry, but Jesus did not say he would be back in the 1st century.
"Seems like 2000 years and change, would be more than enough time."
What you "feel" is not of importance.
According to historian Charles Freeman, Early Christians expected Jesus to return within a generation of his death. When the second coming did not occur, the early Christian communities were thrown into turmoil." – Wikipedia: Freeman, Charles. The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and Fall of Reason, p. 133. Vintage. 2002.
Argumentum ad verecundiam..unless you have any facts we can look at.
You will understand why I don't exactly trust his authority when he also authors a book: The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason, which pretty much blames Christianity for the ills of the western world. One might think he is a bit biased.
"If a bible verse furthers the cause, it is to be taken literally. If a bible verse is detrimental to the cause, it is either: taken out of context; is allegorical; refers to another verse somewhere else; is a translation or copyist's error; means something other than what it actually says; Is a mystery of god or not discernable by humans; or is just plain magic."
Umm, no. Not all Christians are selective literalists. In fact, most Christians aren't literalists of any kind. But thank you for your opinion...everyone has one.
Cheers!
"But remember, the verses say what they say. It is what it is."
Yes they are,..and so are the verses above those you cherry picked and those below. Read it all if you can...it may help some. And reference Archbishop Stephen Langton and Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro on the history of verese. I swear it's embarrassing when atheists think the Bible was originally put into verses and where one ends...the thought must be over.
"Jesus if He existed at all, was not the Messiah or Son of God."
You are welcome to your opinion...faith and all.
Cheers!
Alighieri
In addition to the places in the gospels where Jesus himself indicates that he will be returning shortly ((Mark 13:30, Matthew 10:23, 16:28, 24:34, Luke 21:32) Paul also teaches this in his letters.
"29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, 30 those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess, 31 and those who use this world as not misusing it. For the form of this world is passing away."
1 Corinthians 7:29-31
"Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord." 1 Thessalonians 4:17
This accounts for Jesus not wanting to start a new religion as the New Testament clearly has it that he believed that he would be returning within that generation's lifetime. Simply repeating "No, he didn't" isn't actually a very compelling argument.
"29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, 30 those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess, 31 and those who use this world as not misusing it. For the form of this world is passing away."
The topic is about marriage..not the end of the world. You are assuming he is referencing the end, he could just as easily be talking about one's life. Maybe he is...maybe not.
"Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord." 1 Thessalonians 4:17
Yeah..those who are alive. It doesn't mean that Paul was giving a guarantee that those reading right then and there would be part of that "we". The key is, we who are "alive".
"This accounts for Jesus not wanting to start a new religion as the New Testament clearly has it that he believed that he would be returning within that generation's lifetime. Simply repeating "No, he didn't" isn't actually a very compelling argument."
It is when the first person didn't exactly give anything except an opinion. You also ignore that what one may think doesn't always go with what is. Paul may have thought Jesus was returning quickly...there is no concrete verses to say that. But even if he did think it...so? Doesn't mean it won't.
Alighieri
"The topic is about marriage"
Yes, and Paul indicates that such long term commitments are unnecessary because the end is coming... soon.
"Yeah..those who are alive. It doesn't mean that Paul was giving a guarantee that those reading right then and there would be part of that "we". The key is, we who are "alive"."
Are you suggesting that Paul wrote that not for the intended people to whom it was addressed in his time, but for a reading audience some 2000 years or so in the future who would then actually still be alive when Jesus returned? Did he get up in the morning and say to himself "I guess I'll write another book today for what will become the Bible in a couple of hundred years"?
"It is when the first person didn't exactly give anything except an opinion."
Yes, and that opinion is that you have nothing to base your opinions upon, so it is completely justifiable to dismiss your opinions, see?
"Paul may have thought Jesus was returning quickly...there is no concrete verses to say that."
Ah, but I and others have demonstrated, there are concrete verses that say just that.
"But even if he did think it...so? Doesn't mean it won't."
If you're saying that Paul's views don't really count then why are they included in a Bible considered infallible?
"Yes, and Paul indicates that such long term commitments are unnecessary because the end is coming... soon. "
That is one possibility.
"Are you suggesting that Paul wrote that not for the intended people to whom it was addressed in his time, but for a reading audience some 2000 years or so in the future who would then actually still be alive when Jesus returned?"
Nope..I am suggesting he is writing to the church as a whole..whether it is the church then, one year, one decade or a thousand years down the road. Time wasn't what was important here...it was the whom..not the when that was of importance.
"Yes, and that opinion is that you have nothing to base your opinions upon, so it is completely justifiable to dismiss your opinions, see?"
Actually you are incorrect and have it backwards. He gave an opinion..I countered with an opinion that was just as sound as his. He never responded but another decided to and we bagan to have a real discussion, see?
"Ah, but I and others have demonstrated, there are concrete verses that say just that."
Yeah..and pretty much everyone of those verses were shown to be wrong in what you and your cohorts were attempting to say. Most put a lot of their own opinion inside those verses...no better than the stereotype ppl paint of Christians in regard to verses.
"If you're saying that Paul's views don't really count then why are they included in a Bible considered infallible?"
Paul himself had stated in some of his letters that he had opinions on certain things. I believe you are mistaken in that Paul was infallible. Also...no one ever said that those who believe that the Bible is infallible is correct. Nothing in the entire collection of books that said it was infallible.
Alighieri
"That is one possibility."
Yes, the best one based on the context of the passage.
"or a thousand years down the road. Time wasn't what was important here.."
Seriously, you think Paul was imaging a thousand years into the future when he was clearly teaching that he expected the end to be coming so soon that marriage was a distraction in his opinion?
"I countered with an opinion that was just as sound as his."
Except his actually accounted for the evidence, while yours flew in the face of it.
"Yeah..and pretty much everyone of those verses were shown to be wrong"
Where did you 'show' this? All you really did is just say that the verses didn't really say what they literally do. That they couldn't have meant that because it didn't come true. Can you offer some scholarly findings to demonstrate that the usual translations are wrong, or something besides just an opinion with nothing to back it up with?
"Paul himself had stated in some of his letters that he had opinions on certain things. I believe you are mistaken in that Paul was infallible."
If Paul is fallible and his ideas only opinion then following his teaching really ought to be optional for Christians, right?
"Also...no one ever said that those who believe that the Bible is infallible is correct. Nothing in the entire collection of books that said it was infallible."
Sure you're not a skeptic? 🙂
@Free- "Yes, the best one based on the context of the passage."
Perhaps.
"Seriously, you think Paul was imaging a thousand years into the future when he was clearly teaching that he expected the end to be coming so soon that marriage was a distraction in his opinion?"
I don't know what Paul was imagining, but neither does anyone else. I don't think the context of time was what was important in the verses cited but to be prepared.
"Except his actually accounted for the evidence, while yours flew in the face of it."
No, he stated that Jesus said he would be back in the 1st century and offered up no facts or citations to back that up. So my response was valid.
"Where did you 'show' this? All you really did is just say that the verses didn't really say what they literally do. That they couldn't have meant that because it didn't come true. Can you offer some scholarly findings to demonstrate that the usual translations are wrong, or something besides just an opinion with nothing to back it up with?"
Sorry...other places than here where the same argument is being done by roughly the same ppl. As for the text...are they to be taken literally or in a theological manner? Turth be told...there is no way to be 100% certain either way.
"If Paul is fallible and his ideas only opinion then following his teaching really ought to be optional for Christians, right?"
First...I did not say that all his writings were opinion. Only that he had said himself that some were. I believe that was in Corinthians but I may be mistaken. As for Christians..they should take all scripture and stuy it and see what mkes sense when applying it to their lives.
"Sure you're not a skeptic?"
Of course I am. One can be a person of faith and still be a skeptic. Kind of hard to call the text infallable when you have such things like the controversy over the short ending to Mark and the long ending.
Alighieri
The New Testament text plainly has Paul and Jesus referring to Jesus' return as coming soon, within the present generation. That people choose to believe that the writers were using cryptic language to really refer to 2000 years later, and they seek out possible interpretative workarounds to make that scheme seem plausible just seems intellectually dishonest to me. I take the more logical assumption that the NT books were written for contemporary audiences, and that if the writers meant to say that the coming would be late then they would have used wording that plainly said just that.
That is the evidence as it stands. Speculating that the writers were alluding to a later date is just reading the reality of how history did play out and convincing yourself that they weren't wrong after all. It's intellectually dishonest. I agree that we can't be 100% sure of things, but that is not to say that the odds favor the encrypted late date idea at all.
Paul says that he has his own opinions and so do modern pastors. Both also claim to be getting information by the Holy Spirit. How can they, or anyone else, determine if the HS stuff isn't really still just their opinion? The NT books were largely written for specific communities with individual struggles, sometimes against each other. Isn't it rather likely that they are riddled with people's personal opinions?
There are believers out there who would question your faith because you consider the Bible fallable. I would be one of them as the story that Christians are asked to base their faith upon is based upon believing the Bible is literally true. It's like knowing that a well has contaminated water in it, but drinking anyway in hopes that you avoid getting sick.
Can we PLEASE stop giving this guy the time of day? He's just some idiot looking for another 15 minutes of fame. Stop indulging him. CNN, this is a non-story. You really should know better by now.
You'd think they would know better. But, look at how often they've written non-stories about $arah Palin? They don't know better.
2000 responses to this story validates their assumption that there is still interest in this guy, wouldn't you say?
Come on, get with the program.
As all TRUE believers know, the world ends EVERY153 days.
It is replaced by an exact, precise, undetectable duplicate,
and life starts anew until the next 153 day cycle completes,
and the universe ends again.
So there.
Amazingly, this idea actually has more internal logical consistency
than ole' Reverend Denny's appocalypse does.
aka Continuously Reforming Last Wednesdayism (know as Last Thursdayism in the UK because they're a few hours ahead of the US time-wise).
@chad: And that makes sense to you....why, exactly?
I'm just thankful that no one like you has any real affect or import in this world. It's the only way I sleep at night.
Oh shit ! ! ! The world ended yesterday and I didn't even notice! I have got to start paying more attention to the news.
I hoped for the End...no better place than heaven. Again, I remain disappointed.
well, hey, no one is stopping you lol ... if you want to go "there" so badly, go for it!! I'm sure there are many pills to help you, you might also want to look for a firearm, and I'm sure ther are a number of buses, trains ,trucks and cars that would be GLAD to run you over. So go for it!! Then there would be one less idiot who would tell us their book is "evidence" about something that doesn't exist in the first place.
You can still make the end happen, buddy. God helps those who help themselves.
now THAT is a very stupid phrase. If we can help ourselves, why do we need a super-natural, mystical, magical invisible sky-fairy to "help" us?
You've never heard that one before? It's right up there with "God will never give you more than you can handle." Got that? He didn't give all those suicides more than they can handle. He did not give all those torture victims more than they could handle. He did not give all those people driven insane by the horrors they have experienced more than they could handle. He did not give those Holocaust victims more than they could handle.
well of course I've heard them ALL before, I am not some sheltered neophyte under a rock. I've always thought that it is a stupid saying, that's all.
I wonder if cm has raptured himself into heaven yet.
cm, while the means suggested above may be effective ways to end your life, I strongly advise against them as they are not likely to be effective as a means to get to a place that likely does not exist.
@Mirosal: you think this moron is intelligent enough to do away with itself? I often wonder why they are wasting this life if they think this heaven is so glorious.
But that's why I'm so mad that this rapture will never take place. I'd love to see them all just float away and let us live in a world that won't hold back science and logic and reason because some silly fairy-king doesn't want us to know that the Earth really does orbit the sun.
cm
Without tangible evidence to back up your claim all you can honestly say is that you cannot imagine a better place than heaven, right?
Still waiting!! "St. Paul" got it wrong 2000 years ago and H. Camping follows in his misguided footsteps.
How did "Paul" get it wrong? Plz..no copy/paste...just say it simply and without 5 paragraphs worth of stuff.
"Paul to the Thessalonian Church 4. The apostle Paul believed that he and the Thessalonians would be alive at the time of Jesus‟ Second Coming. “16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, … 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18Therefore encourage each other with these words. 1 Thess. 3:10, 13 NIV "
Longer review:
"A literal interpretation of Paul's epistles shows that Paul anticipated the second coming of Jesus in his near future, and during his own lifetime. Again, this would have happened during the 1st century CE. He wrote 1 Thessalonians about 50 or 51 CE. Many theologians believe that this is the oldest book in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).
In 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, he wrote: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." Here, Paul seems to be referring to himself and some of the recipients of his letter as being alive when Jesus returns.
In 1 Thessalonians 5:2-11, he wrote: "For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober." Here, Paul urges the recipients of his letter to be on guard at all times, because he expected the second coming to happen within their lifetimes. "
IMPACT OF POLITICS AND SOCIAL REFORM
The 'peace' that prevails today is the peace of fear and the peace of preparation. Ignoring the sincere advice of men of wisdom, the great nations of the world are intent upon demonstrating their destructive strength. That way lies war, not peace.
Self-styled enlightened men started interfering with the customs and manners of people, in an effort to civilize them. The people lost their old moorings, and the reformers could not offer new, sound ones. Masses of people drifted away into chaos. How can blind men lead other blind men ?
""You must first acquire the Supreme Knowledge of the Reality. Then, and then alone, can you lead another in the right path.""
You can elevate others only if you have elevated yourself. This world can be saved only by those who have already saved themselves. A prisoner cannot liberate other prisoners. One realized sage can do more for the promotion of peace than a thousand missionaries preaching and disputing, day in and day out.
http://www.sivanandaonline.org/public_html/?cmd=displayrightsection§ion_id=1342
---–
You are guessing Reality. Nothing in those verses set a date. It never said something along the lines of, "You ppl that I am addressing will live to see the second coming."
It doesn't say that, or anything like it, in any of the verses you cited.
Muneef,
The IMPACT of koranic-driven terror and horror:
A few examples:
The Muslim Conquest of India – 11th to 18th century
■"The likely death toll is somewhere between 2 million and 80 million. The geometric mean of those two limits is 12.7 million. "
and the 19 million killed in the Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C by Muslims.
and more recently
1a) 179 killed in Mumbai/Bombay, 290 injured
1b) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh
2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured
3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US troops killed in action, 3,480 and 928 in non combat roles. 102,522 – 112,049 Iraqi civilians killed as of 9/16/2011/, mostly due to suicide bombers, land mines and bombs of various types, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf
4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]
5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.
6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.
7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.
8. UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.
9) The execution of an eloping couple in Afghanistan on 04/15/2009 by the Taliban.
10) – Afghanistan: US troops 1,385 killed in action, 273 killed in non-combat situations as of 09/15/2011. Over 40,000 Afghan civilians killed due to the dark-age, koranic-driven Taliban acts of horror
11) The killing of 13 citizen soldiers at Ft. Hood by a follower of the koran.
12) 38 Russian citizens killed on March 29, 2010 by Muslim women suicide bombers.
13) The May 28, 2010 attack on a Islamic religious minority in Pakistan, which have left 98 dead,
14) Lockerbie is known internationally as the site where, on 21 December 1988, the wreckage of Pan Am Flight 103 crashed as a result of a terrorist bomb. In the United Kingdom the event is referred to as the Lockerbie disaster, the Lockerbie bombing, or simply Lockerbie. Eleven townspeople were killed in Sherwood Crescent, where the plane's wings and fuel tanks plummeted in a fiery explosion, destroying several houses and leaving a huge crater, with debris causing damage to a number of buildings nearby. The 270 fatalities (259 on the plane, 11 in Lockerbie) were citizens of 21 nations.
15 The daily suicide and/or roadside and/or mosque bombings in the terror world of Islam.
16) Bombs sent from Yemen by followers of the koran which fortunately were discovered before the bombs were detonated.
17) The killing of 58 Christians in a Catholic church in one of the latest acts of horror and terror in Iraq.
18) Moscow airport suicide bombing: 35 dead, 130 injured. January 25, 2011.
19) A Pakistani minister, who had said he was getting death threats because of his stance against the country's controversial blasphemy law, was shot and killed Wednesday, 3/2/2011
20) two American troops killed in Germany by a recently radicalized Muslim, 3/3/2011
21) the kidnapping and apparent killing of a follower of Zoraster in the dark world of Islamic Pakistan.
22) Shariatpur, Bangladesh (CNN 3/30/2011) - Hena Akhter's last words to her mother proclaimed her innocence. But it was too late to save the 14-year-old girl. Her fellow villagers in Bangladesh's Shariatpur district had already passed harsh judgment on her. Guilty, they said, of having an affair with a married man. The imam from the local mosque ordered the fatwa, or religious ruling, and the punishment: 101 lashes delivered swiftly, deliberately in public. Hena dropped after 70 and died a week later.
23) "October 4, 2011, 100 die as a truck loaded with drums of fuel exploded Tuesday at the gate of compound housing several government ministries on a busy Mogadishu street. It was the deadliest single bombing carried out by the al Qaeda-linked al-Shabab group in Somalia since their insurgency began. "
Uncouth,
Reread the comments very slowly. If you still have trouble understanding, ask Google or Bing or Yahoo for added commentary. --------------
"Reread the comments very slowly. If you still have trouble understanding, ask Google or Bing or Yahoo for added commentary"
Ignoring your ad hominum...
"Here, Paul seems to be referring to himself and some of the recipients of his letter as being alive when Jesus returns."
Seems?? You don't know? Oh..you are guessing. No..he was referring to the "we" as the church.
"Here, Paul urges the recipients of his letter to be on guard at all times, because he expected the second coming to happen within their lifetimes. "
Being on guard is good advice. Even Jesus gave that advice. But no..there is nothing in that verse that gives the implication that the second coming was coming soon. You are trying to screw your thinking into that verse.
You know...I am so sorry that there ins't a verse out there that says "I'm coming back in ___ years..be ready." in the Bible. It must really tweak you all off that you can't make an argument work for you without adding your own commentary and opinions or just ignoring whole sections of text to make things work for you all. Heck, you behave like the stereotype you say Christians act like. Very funny 🙂
Uncouth,
"1st century
"According to historian Charles Freeman, Early Christians expected Jesus to return within a generation of his death. When the second coming did not occur, the early Christian communities were thrown into turmoil.[10]
"Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour."
—1 John 2:18"
Freeman, Charles. The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and Fall of Reason, p. 133. Vintage. 2002.
and also http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl16.htm
Reality...performing a argumentum ad verecundiam doesn't prove anything. What factual evidence does this Charlie have that anyone was in turmoil? Actually...with the rapid growth of Christianity in the 2nd century and the Church Fathers organizing the canon...the opposite could be asserted.
As for John...last time for what exactly? It doesn't say. Btw...I John isn't attributed to Paul so you are getting off your original argument a little.
Uncouth,
Obviously, your interpretation differs from that of the referenced historian and like thinkers.
Some added scriptural references to an early apocalypse: (from the previous reference)
In chronological order:
"Ezekiel 12:27 & 28: "Son of man, behold, the house of Israel is saying, 'The vision that he sees is for many years from now, and he prophesies of times far off.' Therefore say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "None of My words will be delayed any longer. Whatever word I speak will be performed",' declares the Lord GOD." God promised the fulfillment of prophecies in their very near future.
Mark 8:39 to 9:1: Jesus is recorded as saying: "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." i.e. Jesus was referring to the "adulterous and sinful generation" who were alive in the early 1st century CE when these words were spoken. Jesus expected that some of his audience would be alive when the "Kingdom of God" came with power.
Mark 13:30-33: Jesus is recorded as saying: "....This generation shall not pass away, until all these things be accomplished....But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is." A "generation" normally refers to a forty year interval. If Jesus spoke those words circa 29 CE, then all of the events predicted in Mark 13:24-27 would have happened on or before 69 CE: the sun and moon would have been darkened, the stars would have fallen from heaven, the Son of Man would have arrived in the clouds with great power and glory, and the angels would have collected "his elect" from around the Earth and taken them to Heaven.
Matthew 16:28: Jesus is recorded as saying: "...there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (KJV) As mentioned above, the early Christian movement assumed that Jesus was referring to the individuals standing in the crowd in front of him. The King James Version, cited above, does permit another alternative interpretation. Jesus might have been referring to a location and not to the crowd. He could have meant "there will be some people standing at this location sometime in the future who will see the Son of Man coming." However, other English translations make this improbable; they generally translate the passage as: "...there are some of those standing here..."
There is a further ambiguity in this passage: it is not clear from the contents whether Jesus was referring here to his own second coming, or to the arrival of another individual called the "Son of Man." This ambiguity is seen elsewhere in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).
Matthew 24:34: Jesus is recorded as saying: "...This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
Luke 9:26-27: Jesus is recorded as saying: "For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels. But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." (all KJV)
Paul's beliefs, according to a literal interpretation of the Epistles:
A literal interpretation of Paul's epistles shows that Paul anticipated the second coming of Jesus in his near future, and during his own lifetime. Again, this would have happened during the 1st century CE. He wrote 1 Thessalonians about 50 or 51 CE. Many theologians believe that this is the oldest book in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).
In 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, he wrote: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." Here, Paul seems to be referring to himself and some of the recipients of his letter as being alive when Jesus returns.
In 1 Thessalonians 5:2-11, he wrote: "For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober." Here, Paul urges the recipients of his letter to be on guard at all times, because he expected the second coming to happen within their lifetimes. "
One should be careful when mixing prophecies from the Tanakh to the New Testament. They are not always speaking of the same thing you know.
Oy..I have danced this dance so many times. What is the Kingdom of God? It is not a place in the theological. Did the Kingdom come yet at the time you are referencing? No..it did not. When it does come..that generation will be the one referenced in the scripture.
As to Mark....you are confused on time. The generation would be those that witnessed the events mentioned prior. So far those events have not happened yet and therefor the generation referred to has not existed yet.
With Matthew...once again you are not thinking theologically. What is the Son of Man coming into his Kingdom mean? Most would say it meant when he was resurrected he has came inot his Kingdom. So yes...some were still living when that happened. It's so funny when ppl want to take things literally when the topic is obviously a theological one.
Last I checked...Paul was human and allowed to have an opinion. He even admitted that some of his writings were opinion. That of course does not mean the concept of the Second Coming is incorrect.
With Thess..he is referring to those of the church that are alive. Sorry..but he doesn't say himself. Maybe you should refrian from seeming into these things so much.
To guard against evil is good advice...not a call to something happening in the now.
So...I suppose we'd best not buy any green bananas?