| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/12/2007 10:02:50 AM · #101 |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 10:04:52 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
If God created the Universe, who created God? |
No one. Scripture indicates that God exists/existed outside of time/space - He is eternal. That means that He always was and always will be.
FWIW, Scripture also indicates that God created time as well as space.
Hard concepts to grasp, I know.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 10:21:40 AM · #103 |
In Genesis "First God made heaven & earth..." he doesnt go into details...
"And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light"
SO he created the heaven and earth IN THE DARK! the first thing I would have done is get some light on the matter so I could see what I was doing.
But I guess the other name for the bible is the gospel, so i guess it must be true! the clue is in the title... |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 10:28:46 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
But I guess the other name for the bible is the gospel, so i guess it must be true! the clue is in the title... |
The gospel is the "good news" message of Christ's death and resurection. The Bible is a collection of writings over many years by many different authors. The Bible contains 4 books in the New Testament titled the 4 Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
edit to add: There are other gospels that are not included in the Bible; such as the Gospel of Thomas. Gospel of Mary, etc.
Message edited by author 2007-11-12 10:39:05.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 11:31:23 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by Flash:
edit to add: There are other gospels that are not included in the Bible; such as the Gospel of Thomas. Gospel of Mary, etc. |
Very conveniently not included, some say, since some of them present even starker contradictions than those which were included. Note that these decisions -- about which stories were to be considered the absolutely true word of God as channeled through a person -- were made by people (committees!), not by God or Jesus. Also remember that the Bible, at least as read by most of the participants here, is at least two translations removed from the original. |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 12:00:57 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
edit to add: There are other gospels that are not included in the Bible; such as the Gospel of Thomas. Gospel of Mary, etc. |
Very conveniently not included, some say, since some of them present even starker contradictions than those which were included. Note that these decisions -- about which stories were to be considered the absolutely true word of God as channeled through a person -- were made by people (committees!), not by God or Jesus. Also remember that the Bible, at least as read by most of the participants here, is at least two translations removed from the original. |
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16 ).
The implication is that Scripture was first inspired, and then preserved by God. If certain writings were chosen to be included in, or excluded from, the Canon, it was done under the influence of the Holy Spirit. |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 12:03:30 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Very conveniently not included, some say, since some of them present even starker contradictions than those which were included. Note that these decisions -- about which stories were to be considered the absolutely true word of God as channeled through a person -- were made by people (committees!), not by God or Jesus. Also remember that the Bible, at least as read by most of the participants here, is at least two translations removed from the original. |
Indeed The King James Version contains almost 2000 different mistranslations, and of those over 500 COMPLETELY alter the meaning of the text itself. ONE of which occured about 6,800 times...
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 12:13:27 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
edit to add: There are other gospels that are not included in the Bible; such as the Gospel of Thomas. Gospel of Mary, etc. |
Very conveniently not included, some say, since some of them present even starker contradictions than those which were included. |
I personally like the story from the Gospel According to Peter wherein the child Jesus makes clay birds and then brings them to life. There is also its version of the resurrection story wherein the characters witness an empty cross, which has come out of the empty tomb, talking to God.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Also remember that the Bible, at least as read by most of the participants here, is at least two translations removed from the original. |
Not to mention translations of edited, flawed copies of edited, flawed copies of the original. (Note: A vast majority of the flaws between all extant, pre-printing press copies are just spelling and copying errors (in the hundreds of thousands), but evidence of doctrinal and story editing is evident.)
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 12:33:48 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
edit to add: There are other gospels that are not included in the Bible; such as the Gospel of Thomas. Gospel of Mary, etc. |
Very conveniently not included, some say, since some of them present even starker contradictions than those which were included. Note that these decisions -- about which stories were to be considered the absolutely true word of God as channeled through a person -- were made by people (committees!), not by God or Jesus. Also remember that the Bible, at least as read by most of the participants here, is at least two translations removed from the original. |
What I think you are arguing here is that since some writings were excluded, then the entire work is called into question.
There have been a couple of Global warming threads wherein the UN's position based upon a "concensus" of scientists was touted as proof positive. Yet writers like Steven Milloy was dismissed as a hired gun and thus his views/writings/data was not worthy for the discussion.
Would you not agree that in any endeaver, not all (on topic) writings will be included, since the "body" of the work will be comprised of those presenting a point of view consistent with each other?
If this is so, then the nature of excluded gospels could be that they did not support the consistent view, presented by the other works. Does this make them uninspired works? No more so than the evidence against global warming alarmism. Yet some very poignant evidence is dismissed as heretical to the alarmists agenda.
edit to add: You can't argue against the Bible's authenticity based upon the exclusion of some Gospels and argue for the Global Warming alarmism and exclude writers like Milloy.
Message edited by author 2007-11-12 12:37:37.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 12:35:12 PM · #110 |
| Flash you write far too well and make far too much sense to be participating in the Rant section. Please make an effort to join in the group gonad kicking or kindly leave. |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 12:38:54 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Flash you write far too well and make far too much sense to be participating in the Rant section. Please make an effort to join in the group gonad kicking or kindly leave. |
;-]
Trust me, I've had my gonads handed to me a few times right here on DPC.
Message edited by author 2007-11-12 12:39:10.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 12:41:38 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Would you not agree that in any endeaver, not all (on topic) writings will be included, since the "body" of the work will be comprised of those presenting a point of view consistent with each other? |
That was kind of my point. As RonB points out, all of the Gospels are the "inspired Word of God" and yet people -- perhaps themselves "inspired" or perhaps not (Divine Inspiration would seem to make the voting process used unnecessary) -- made decisions to include some and exclude others, thus presenting an incomplete and biased perspective of God's message to his people. It is clear that the whole truth cannot be revealed in the wake of such censorship. |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 12:45:23 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
Would you not agree that in any endeaver, not all (on topic) writings will be included, since the "body" of the work will be comprised of those presenting a point of view consistent with each other? |
That was kind of my point. As RonB points out, all of the Gospels are the "inspired Word of God" and yet people -- perhaps themselves "inspired" or perhaps not (Divine Inspiration would seem to make the voting process used unnecessary) -- made decisions to include some and exclude others, thus presenting an incomplete and biased perspective of God's message to his people. It is clear that the whole truth cannot be revealed in the wake of such censorship. |
Thus the whole truth on Global Warming is flawed as well?
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 12:46:07 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
But I guess the other name for the bible is the gospel, so i guess it must be true! the clue is in the title... |
The gospel is the "good news" message of Christ's death and resurection. The Bible is a collection of writings over many years by many different authors. The Bible contains 4 books in the New Testament titled the 4 Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
edit to add: There are other gospels that are not included in the Bible; such as the Gospel of Thomas. Gospel of Mary, etc. |
Amd don't forget that the Bible is just one of thousands of holy books that gives an explanation of the universe.
The most amazing thing is that most of them have wholly different explanations for the start of the universe - yet the believers of each can usually find away to interpret the words in a way that reflects what we can see.
The great thing about the scientific approach is that you don't need to believe in it; you can see the evidence for the hypothesis yourself.
There is evidence of the big bang all around you: turn on an analogue radio and tune it to white noise. Some of what you hear is generally understood to be the echo of the big bang.
Rather than simply believe in something undetectable, given time and some equipment, you could redo the experiments that led to this breakthrough in understanding and test for yourself the validity of the theory.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 12:48:11 PM · #115 |
Flash,
Is someone claiming that studies on climate are the perfect word of God? If not, then you’re comparing apple and oranges, aren’t you? (My post includes reference to the Gospels that are included in the New Testament.)
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 12:56:01 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
But I guess the other name for the bible is the gospel, so i guess it must be true! the clue is in the title... |
The gospel is the "good news" message of Christ's death and resurection. The Bible is a collection of writings over many years by many different authors. The Bible contains 4 books in the New Testament titled the 4 Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
edit to add: There are other gospels that are not included in the Bible; such as the Gospel of Thomas. Gospel of Mary, etc. |
Amd don't forget that the Bible is just one of thousands of holy books that gives an explanation of the universe. |
Thera are many holy books. I know of only one that predicts the coming of Jesus, chronicles his life, message, death and resurection.
The great thing I like about Christ's teachings, is that each person has an indivual choice to accept or not. You are free to reject his teachings. If you choose to reject, then one of 2 things is true; either you are right or you are wrong. It is clear to me that you believe you are right. Time will definately proove it out.
It is not my charge to change your mind. Even Christ, in the midst of those recorded miracles, had unbelievers. If Christ himself could not convince all, then what power does a lowly servant like I have. My responsibility is to share the good news. Yours is to choose a path.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 12:57:36 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Flash,
Is someone claiming that studies on climate are the perfect word of God? If not, then you’re comparing apple and oranges, aren’t you? (My post includes reference to the Gospels that are included in the New Testament.) |
This is a science and theology thread. The Bible represents theology and the GW debate is merely one representation of science.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 12:58:05 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by Flash:
What I think you are arguing here is that since some writings were excluded, then the entire work is called into question. |
Quite correct. |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 12:59:33 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The gospel is the "good news" message of Christ's death and resurection...It is not my charge to change your mind...If Christ himself could not convince all, then what power does a lowly servant like I have. My responsibility is to share the good news. Yours is to choose a path. |
I believe this is prosyletizing, and I think it is off topic and doesn't belong here. |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 01:17:50 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Thus the whole truth on Global Warming is flawed as well? |
The two issues have nothing to do with each other -- please stop attempting to create a false link or analogy.
One has to do with the interpretation of translations of biographies of people to whom God spoke personally. (NOTE: Nowadays, unless you are a registered televangelist or the President, if you claim to hear God speaking to you personally, you will be given medication and placed under involuntary observation for 72 hours)
The other has to do with refining the interpretation of an ever-increasing amount of ever more accurate scientific data.
Theology requires the rejection of evidence where it conflicts with scripture.
Science requires ammending the "scripture" when new evidence requires ... but it should be clear that "amending" something is not the same as saying the original was "wrong" -- only that it was less-accurate than ultimately possible. Finding that some diseases were caused by bits of nucleic acid surrounded by a protein injection mechanism ("filterable viruses" in the parlance of the day) didn't exactly invalidate the "germ theory" of disease even though viruses are not "germs," or bacteria as they are known today.
But then, the whole goal of scientific research is to extend the boundaries of knowledge; almost by definition, there will never be a time when everything is known. In contrast, it seems theology requires that everything which can be known is known now, and has been since the Gospels were written.
BTW: My two favorite stories dealing with the interface between science and theology are by two of the giants of the sci-fi pantheon -- I highly recommend them both for a few moments of thoughtful diversion; both have been frequently anthologized:
The Last Question by Isaac Asimov
The 10 Billion Names of God by Arthur C. Clarke (not 100% sure of the title, but it's close) |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 01:18:52 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
The gospel is the "good news" message of Christ's death and resurection...It is not my charge to change your mind...If Christ himself could not convince all, then what power does a lowly servant like I have. My responsibility is to share the good news. Yours is to choose a path. |
I believe this is prosyletizing, and I think it is off topic and doesn't belong here. |
Originally posted by Louis on 11/10/2007 at 11:32:33 A.M.:
We can definitively eliminate any unsound postulate not supported by the evidence all around us in the universe, and currently, that includes a large bearded man that lives in the sky. I'm sorry if that sounds like ridiculing, but that's the simple fact of the matter.
Perhaps you should consider that what may come off as ridicule is actually a defense mechanism. This culture is positively saturated with belief in gods, and all the irrational behaviour that seems to entail. Further, the problem of prosyletizing, and connecting one's beliefs to politics, in my view exacerbates this into a social issue for atheists. |
Some old maxim about glass houses and stones comes to mind.
The quote above seems to qualify as proselytizing, to me.
Proselytize: 2. To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine; Doctrine: 1. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 01:29:32 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The 10 Billion Names of God by Arthur C. Clarke (not 100% sure of the title, but it's close) |
Nine billion. Wonderful story. |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 01:31:35 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by RonB:
The quote above seems to qualify as proselytizing, to me. |
No. A refutation of prosyletizing does not in itself qualify as prosyletizing. |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 01:53:48 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
Thus the whole truth on Global Warming is flawed as well? |
The two issues have nothing to do with each other -- please stop attempting to create a false link or analogy. |
A couple of points...
Above Louis answers my question to you with "Quite correct". Meaning that it is being argued that because the Bible excludes some Gospels, then the entire work is questionable. If that is an acceptable method of questioning scripture, then it should be applicable to scientific concensus writings as well (like Global Warming). If it is not acceptable as a method to question scientific concensus writings, then it is not acceptable for scripture.
There is no false link or analogy. It is simply an anlysis of the technique you employ to cast doubt. I say that you cannot have it both ways. You can't be both for it and against it at the same time.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 02:01:29 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
The quote above seems to qualify as proselytizing, to me. |
No. A refutation of prosyletizing does not in itself qualify as prosyletizing. |
It does when it, within itself, proselytizes. As in ( I've repeated the quote and highlighted YOUR proselytizing verbiage ):
Originally posted by Louis on 11/10/2007 at 11:32:33 A.M.:
We can definitively eliminate any unsound postulate not supported by the evidence all around us in the universe, and currently, that includes a large bearded man that lives in the sky. I'm sorry if that sounds like ridiculing, but that's the simple fact of the matter.
Perhaps you should consider that what may come off as ridicule is actually a defense mechanism. This culture is positively saturated with belief in gods, and all the irrational behaviour that seems to entail. Further, the problem of prosyletizing, and connecting one's beliefs to politics, in my view exacerbates this into a social issue for atheists. |
Proposing that theology can be definitively eliminated, is unsound, is not supported by evidence, that that is the fact of the matter, and that belief in gods, and all the irrational behaviour that seems to entail are all words/phrases that are a direct attempt to induce your reader to reject theology and adopt the doctrine of science - in other words, it's proselytizing.
Message edited by author 2007-11-12 14:03:32. |
|
