|
|
Post by Stal on Aug 8, 2004 11:19:15 GMT -5
That'd be my fault. Whups. I'd heard too many people talking about how the book is supposed to disprove Christianity.
But here's something to keep in mind about the book. It's fiction. Written as fiction and published as fiction. Can't take any of that for serious, now can you? Especially since fiction tends to lie and make up things, eh?
|
|
|
|
Post by sollunaestrella on Aug 8, 2004 11:28:12 GMT -5
As I've said many times before, prove it happened. That is the difference between us. You appear to have to see everything in order to believe that it is true - it appears that you don't believe in anything but fact. Except I think you said you were an atheist (correct me if I'm wrong, though, and if I am, I'm really sorry) - prove to me that God doesn't exist. When I look at the world - all I can see is evidence that God DOES exist. Christians have to have faith and trust in God and God's Word. "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1) "And without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:16). I've watched a documentary before about Jesus which stated that there was evidence that hundreds of people saw Jesus the day he rose (this was maybe three, four, five years ago, and I don't remember the actual evidence). Some say it was hallucinating, but it is highly improbable if not downright impossible for hundreds of people to have the same hallucination at the exact same time. And, as others have already said - would the followers of Jesus had died for something they made up out of their own heads? Would they have endured pain for their own hoax? People for other religions have been persecuted too, yes, so I know that suffering doesn't "make them true" - but if they had schemed together to make Jesus more than he was, would they have died for that pointless lie? If they had stolen his body from the tomb like some said, then a) again, had those people been hallucinating? and b) again, would they have suffered? They easily could have renounced their faith, but they didn't. That's why they died. And - Jesus couldn't have been stunned. The idea of crucifixation was suffocation, and they way that soldiers could tell that the victim was dead was to pierce him on the chest. If blood poured out, the victim was still alive. If a clear-water-looking liquid poured out, then the victim was dead. If Jesus had been alive, they would have known. |
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Aug 8, 2004 14:33:34 GMT -5
The other thing I didn't like was how reliant monks are on others for everything. We cannot all be like that. For all the lack of selfishness in Buddhism, it almost sounds selfish - seek your own enlightenment, while others provide your food. Heh, yes, I've always found that funny, especially since that wasn't what the Buddha taught AT ALL. HE didn't find happiness by giving up everything - that just made him even more miserable! Basicly, I feel the same way about Buddhism as I do about Christianity - good teachings, bad interpretations. I love the Buddha and I love Jesus, I just don't agree with how must of their followers interpreted their words. EXACTLY what I believe. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2004 15:55:27 GMT -5
That is the difference between us. You appear to have to see everything in order to believe that it is true - it appears that you don't believe in anything but fact. Except I think you said you were an atheist (correct me if I'm wrong, though, and if I am, I'm really sorry) - prove to me that God doesn't exist. When I look at the world - all I can see is evidence that God DOES exist. Christians have to have faith and trust in God and God's Word. "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1) "And without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:16). I've watched a documentary before about Jesus which stated that there was evidence that hundreds of people saw Jesus the day he rose (this was maybe three, four, five years ago, and I don't remember the actual evidence). Some say it was hallucinating, but it is highly improbable if not downright impossible for hundreds of people to have the same hallucination at the exact same time. And, as others have already said - would the followers of Jesus had died for something they made up out of their own heads? Would they have endured pain for their own hoax? People for other religions have been persecuted too, yes, so I know that suffering doesn't "make them true" - but if they had schemed together to make Jesus more than he was, would they have died for that pointless lie? If they had stolen his body from the tomb like some said, then a) again, had those people been hallucinating? and b) again, would they have suffered? They easily could have renounced their faith, but they didn't. That's why they died. And - Jesus couldn't have been stunned. The idea of crucifixation was suffocation, and they way that soldiers could tell that the victim was dead was to pierce him on the chest. If blood poured out, the victim was still alive. If a clear-water-looking liquid poured out, then the victim was dead. If Jesus had been alive, they would have known. I see lots of proof that he doesn't exist. For one thig, Heaven is supposed to be in the clouds, right? And he's supposed to be in Heaven. Well, we've been in the clouds, and he wasn't there. Nor was Heaven. You know, don't think I'm trying to disprove Christianity. I would love to believe in it, but my logical, scientific mind has told me that's it's wrong. So instead, I have to do everything I can to keep myself from thinking of death, when everything goes black and existence ends, when thinking no longer occurs, when there are no emotions or senses. If I was Christian, I'd believe in Heaven, and I wouldn't be so afraid of death. But I discovered long ago that that didn't make sense. So now I fear the only true inevitable. |
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Aug 8, 2004 16:23:48 GMT -5
You know, don't think I'm trying to disprove Christianity. I would love to believe in it, but my logical, scientific mind has told me that's it's wrong. So instead, I have to do everything I can to keep myself from thinking of death, when everything goes black and existence ends, when thinking no longer occurs, when there are no emotions or senses. If I was Christian, I'd believe in Heaven, and I wouldn't be so afraid of death. But I discovered long ago that that didn't make sense. So now I fear the only true inevitable. I'm not afraid of death at all. It's so comforting. No matter who you are, what you are, what you do - it makes no difference. It is our one basic right above all else - we all die. No one lives forever. What we do - doesn't matter. Our lives are nothing. It makes me feel peaceful now, rather than scared. Nothing we can do will stop it. I will die; we will all die, and no one will remember us - but we won't be there to mind that. As long as death is not before we've had a chance to live, then death is a joy. It sounds pessimistic, but it's really comforting when you think of it. You are scared of not thinking any more, of being nothing, of being in darkness. I was too, for a while. But then I realised that you won't be conscious of not being conscious. I've never been depressed, which is odd when I hold this supposingly bleak views. But I'm incredibly happy ^^ |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Aug 8, 2004 16:36:08 GMT -5
I see lots of proof that he doesn't exist. For one thig, Heaven is supposed to be in the clouds, right? And he's supposed to be in Heaven. Well, we've been in the clouds, and he wasn't there. Nor was Heaven. You know, don't think I'm trying to disprove Christianity. I would love to believe in it, but my logical, scientific mind has told me that's it's wrong. So instead, I have to do everything I can to keep myself from thinking of death, when everything goes black and existence ends, when thinking no longer occurs, when there are no emotions or senses. If I was Christian, I'd believe in Heaven, and I wouldn't be so afraid of death. But I discovered long ago that that didn't make sense. So now I fear the only true inevitable. no offense, but do you know how incredibly weak that first part sounds? For one thing, Heaven and God, though pictured in the clouds, doesn't necesarrily have to be there. For another, it's called the spirit world. You think they're physical? O.o; No. For the record, though, I don't believe in Heaven or Hell. Also, TC, I know you didn't mean it this way, but be careful how you say things like this from now on: It sounds as if you're saying everyone who does believe in it doesn't have a logical or scientific mind. Something that's really really wrong (example: Louis Pasteur was a devout Christian). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2004 16:57:27 GMT -5
no offense, but do you know how incredibly weak that first part sounds? For one thing, Heaven and God, though pictured in the clouds, doesn't necesarrily have to be there. For another, it's called the spirit world. You think they're physical? O.o; No. For the record, though, I don't believe in Heaven or Hell. Also, TC, I know you didn't mean it this way, but be careful how you say things like this from now on: It sounds as if you're saying everyone who does believe in it doesn't have a logical or scientific mind. Something that's really really wrong (example: Louis Pasteur was a devout Christian). Yes, I know the first part sounds weak, but really people didn't say Heaven was spiritual until people had indeed been in the clouds, because they needed some way to get out of the fact that they were wrong. And I really mean that my mind is scientific and logic, and therefore I deduced that God doesn't exist. I guess other people may use logic to say he does exist, but that seems illogical to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Aug 8, 2004 17:46:33 GMT -5
Yes, I know the first part sounds weak, but really people didn't say Heaven was spiritual until people had indeed been in the clouds, because they needed some way to get out of the fact that they were wrong. And I really mean that my mind is scientific and logic, and therefore I deduced that God doesn't exist. I guess other people may use logic to say he does exist, but that seems illogical to me. *chuckles* Wow. If you're looking to disprove Christianity that much, that you have to come up with something like that.... Heh. By the way, nice way to insult everyone and then say you really meant it that way. Makes me want to respect you all that much more. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2004 17:59:02 GMT -5
*chuckles* Wow. If you're looking to disprove Christianity that much, that you have to come up with something like that.... Heh. By the way, nice way to insult everyone and then say you really meant it that way. Makes me want to respect you all that much more. Huh? I don't understand the first part of that. And for the second part--yet again, I messed up what I was saying. Let me reword this once again: I used my own logic to be able to say that there is no God. Other people use their own logic to say that he does exist. By my logic, that would be illogical, but everyone uses their own version of logic. |
|
|
|
Post by mushroom on Aug 8, 2004 19:44:24 GMT -5
I know I said I'd stay out of this, but there are a couple of things I really want to comment on. I'm definitely going to keep my involvement in this to a minimum. It sounds as if you're saying everyone who does believe in it doesn't have a logical or scientific mind. Something that's really really wrong (example: Louis Pasteur was a devout Christian). I don't think people who lived long ago are good examples. If you haven't been positively exposed to any idea except Christianity, and your area of interest is biology instead of religion or philosophy, you'll probably accept Christianity--even if you are still a reasonable and logical person. I think theism is an illogical and irrational position. I also think that all rational and logical people have the occasional incorrect belief. I think this is what TheComedian means: he considers himself a generally rational person, and the position he has found to be the most rational is atheism--with the qualification that maybe another person with different experiences can rationally come to a different conclusion. You appear to have to see everything in order to believe that it is true - it appears that you don't believe in anything but fact. Except I think you said you were an atheist (correct me if I'm wrong, though, and if I am, I'm really sorry) - prove to me that God doesn't exist. God is, to many atheists, just like Demeter, the classical goddess of the harvest. Because no one has offered any proof that Demeter exists, I do not believe that she does. It doesn't matter whether or not I have evidence against the evidence of Demeter--the simple lack of evidence is why I don't believe that she does, and most likely why you don't believe she does either. If a theist offers an atheist evidence that a god exists, it is the atheist's responsibility to counter that evidence. The atheist is under no obligation to prove that gods do not exist; she must merely show that there is no reason to believe that they do. The burden of proof is always on the person making a positive claim. Maybe there is proof that a god exists and maybe there isn't--but there is no need for proof that he or she doesn't. (By the way, not all atheists are skeptics. Atheism just means a lack of belief in any god, no matter how that lack of belief is arrived at. Plenty of people who don't believe in any god still accept things like astrology and the Roswell conspiracy that are generally considered crazy.) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2004 20:05:57 GMT -5
It was written by Luke. Many things Luke wrote about have been proven by archeological evidence. No archeological evidence has been found to flat-out contradict him, or the bible, for that matter.
A little story...
Sir William Ramsay of Oxford University in England was one of history's greatest archaeologists. He was also an atheist, who spent 25 years trying to disporve the book of Acts, which was written by the historian Luke. Instead of discrediting Luke's account, Ramsay's discoveries kept supporting it. Finally, he concluded that Luke was one of the most accurate historians who had ever written. Influenced by the evidence, Ramsay became a Christian.
Whoa. That's not it at all. Heaven is supposed to be a happy, feel good place. Most people associate with being up in the sky, sitting around on a cloud and stuff. The spiritual part came first, and people added on the cloud deal later.
And on him being a great moral teacher and not God, I don't believe that. If he was a great moral teacher and lied and said he was God, then he wouldn't be a great moral teacher then. But he WAS a great moral teacher.
EDIT: By the way, astrology is a religion. If an atheist believed in it, they wouldn't really be an atheist then.
|
|
|
|
Post by mushroom on Aug 8, 2004 22:03:49 GMT -5
And on him being a great moral teacher and not God, I don't believe that. If he was a great moral teacher and lied and said he was God, then he wouldn't be a great moral teacher then. But he WAS a great moral teacher. EDIT: By the way, astrology is a religion. If an atheist believed in it, they wouldn't really be an atheist then. False dilemma. Jesus could well have believed that he was God without actually being God. Jesus could also have had brilliant teachings about morality that he himself didn't follow. Astrology isn't a religion--it's just studying the stars with the idea that they tell the future. Even if it were a religion, as long as there is no god involved, a member can be an atheist--remember, atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in any god. There is no essential connection between religion and theism--some Buddhists and Unitarian Universalists are atheists, and some theists are irreligious, like Ember, as well as most deists and pantheists. |
|
Ducky not logged in
Guest
|
Post by Ducky not logged in on Aug 8, 2004 22:24:18 GMT -5
False dilemma. Jesus could well have believed that he was God without actually being God. Jesus could also have had brilliant teachings about morality that he himself didn't follow. Believed he was God? Are you saying he was nuts? |
|
|
|
Post by Ducky being lazy on Aug 8, 2004 22:26:24 GMT -5
Believed he was God? Are you saying he was nuts? Hold on: Just to clarify, I'm not saying that I thought you were saying this, let me reword it. Are you saying he may have been nuts? |
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Aug 8, 2004 22:29:09 GMT -5
Astrology isn't a religion--it's just studying the stars with the idea that they tell the future. Even if it were a religion, as long as there is no god involved, a member can be an atheist--remember, atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in any god. There is no essential connection between religion and theism--some Buddhists and Unitarian Universalists are atheists, and some theists are irreligious, like Ember, as well as most deists and pantheists. All the 'eist's are confusing me....  Actually atheism confuses me. You don't believe in a God, you believe in nothing more than what you can see and touch. Then why the interest in astrology? If you think about it there's a possiblity that the stars you're trying to tell the future from might not even exist anymore, light takes time to travel and all that. Agnostic-ism makes a bit more sense, but athiesm - the total lack of belief in any God further than the 5 natural senses, logic and stuff (well, you get what I mean) - makes me wonder how you can still believe in the supernatural. I hope I didn't offend anybody. It's just that I'm sincerely confused, not for the sake of the debate. |
|
