31 posts
I don't think so. Here is my argument that I will post from an thread I started in a debate forum:
1) JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES
What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
The historical fact is that Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies.
Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright, and no concept of a second coming exists.
JESUS DID NOT EMBODY THE PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF MESSIAH
A. MESSIAH AS PROPHET
Jesus was not a prophet. Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry. During the time of Ezra (circa 300 BCE), when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets -- Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.
Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.
B. DESCENDENT OF DAVID
The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David!
C. TORAH OBSERVANCE
The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)
Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. (see John 1:45 and 9:16, Acts 3:22 and 7:37)
MISTRANSLATED VERSES "REFERRING" TO JESUS
Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text -- which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.
A. VIRGIN BIRTH
The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.
B. CRUCIFIXION
The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word "gouged." Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: "They pierced my hands and feet."
C. SUFFERING SERVANT
Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant."
In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. The Torah is filled with examples of the Jewish nation referred to with a singular pronoun.
Ironically, Isaiah's prophecies of persecution refer in part to the 11th century when Jews were tortured and killed by Crusaders who acted in the name of Jesus.
From where did these mistranslations stem? St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nanianzus, wrote: "A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire."
JEWISH BELIEF IS BASED SOLELY ON NATIONAL REVELATION
Of the 15,000 religions in human history, only Judaism bases its belief on national revelation -- i.e. God speaking to the entire nation. If God is going to start a religion, it makes sense He'll tell everyone, not just one person.
Judaism, unique among all of the world's major religions, does not rely on "claims of miracles" as the basis for its religion. In fact, the Bible says that God sometimes grants the power of "miracles" to charlatans, in order to test Jewish loyalty to the Torah (Deut. 13:4).
Maimonides states (Foundations of Torah, ch. 8):
The Jews did not believe in Moses, our teacher, because of the miracles he performed. Whenever anyone's belief is based on seeing miracles, he has lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery. All of the miracles performed by Moses in the desert were because they were necessary, and not as proof of his prophecy.
What then was the basis of belief? The Revelation at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others... as it says, "Face to face, God spoke with you..." The Torah also states: "God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us -- who are all here alive today." (Deut. 5:3)
Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.
CHRISTIANITY CONTRADICTS JEWISH THEOLOGY
The following theological points apply primarily to the Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, and the one most familiar to the Western world.
A. GOD AS THREE?
The Catholic idea of Trinity breaks God into three separate beings: The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19).
Contrast this to the Shema, the basis of Jewish belief: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE" (Deut. 6:4).
B. MAN AS GOD?
Christians believe that God came down to earth in human form, as Jesus said: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).
Maimonides devotes most of the "Guide for the Perplexed" to the fundamental idea that God is incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. God is Eternal, above time. He is Infinite, beyond space. He cannot be born, and cannot die. Saying that God assumes human form makes God small, diminishing both His unity and His divinity. As the Torah says: "God is not a mortal" (Numbers 23:19).
Judaism says that the Messiah will be born of human parents, and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, and will not possess supernatural qualities. In fact, an individual is alive in every generation with the capacity to step into the role of the Messiah. (see Maimonides - Laws of Kings 11:3)
C. INTERMEDIARY FOR PRAYER?
The Catholic belief is that prayer must be directed through an intermediary -- i.e. confessing one's sins to a priest. Jesus himself is an intermediary, as Jesus said: "No man cometh unto the Father but by me."
In Judaism, prayer is a totally private matter, between each individual and God. As the Bible says: "God is near to all who call unto Him" (Psalms 145:18). Further, the Ten Commandments state: "You shall have no other gods BEFORE ME," meaning that it is forbidden to set up a mediator between God and man. (see Maimonides - Laws of Idolatry ch. 1)
And furthermore:
D. INVOLVEMENT IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD
Catholic doctrine often treats the physical world as an evil to be avoided. Mary, the holiest woman, is portrayed as a virgin. Priests and nuns are celibate. And monasteries are in remote, secluded locations.
By contrast, Judaism believes that God created the physical world not to frustrate us, but for our pleasure.
6) JEWS AND GENTILES
Judaism does not demand that everyone convert to the religion. The Torah of Moses is a truth for all humanity, whether Jewish or not. King Solomon asked God to heed the prayers of non-Jews who come to the Holy Temple (Kings I 8:41-43). The prophet Isaiah refers to the Temple as a "House for all nations."
The Temple service during Sukkot featured 70 bull offerings, corresponding to the 70 nations of the world. The Talmud says that if the Romans would have realized how much benefit they were getting from the Temple, they'd never have destroyed it.
Jews have never actively sought converts to Judaism because the Torah prescribes a righteous path for gentiles to follow, known as the "Seven Laws of Noah." Maimonides explains that any human being who faithfully observes these basic moral laws earns a proper place in heaven.
For further study of the Seven Laws of Noah, see:
Bnei Noah of Fort Worth
http://www.fastlane.net/~bneinoah/
Path of the Righteous Gentile
Noahide Laws, The Seven - Jewish Knowledge Base
Refute....bitches.
The "second coming" is just a bedroom promise to keep the bitch from leaving. ;D
Well, on Jesus.
I was born into Catholicism. Now when I was doing psychedelic drugs I did have some "visions" regarding Jesus and he (as the vision) actually talked to me in passing. So if I believe my visionary experiences, Jesus (or someone or something that portrayed him/itself as Jesus) may in fact exist.
Question is; what relevance to me and my travels does Jesus of twenty centuries ago have? My answer is nothing at all. So whether he was or was not a messiah is rather irrelevant to me personally. We cannot actually know what transpired back in those days, all we can do is believe. Of course we have the books that talk about all of that. But as a Catholic I know that there was very much editing done to those books from the time the books were written to this day, resulting in what we call the Bible. The Catholic church had control of those scriptures long before any protestant religion came into play, consequently all of the Christian Religions are subject to the editing of the good old boyz from Rome for more than 14 centuries.
I come from the school of; Think for yourself, look around, grok the essence of what you see, and then act in accordance with what you yourself realize. Of course this comes from a lifetime study of the religious theologies, not just looking at the books and saying I don't like to follow the rules.
The only thing that I ever found that mimics my experiences are the books written by Carlos Castaneda. The Teachings of a Yaqui Indian Sorcerer he named Don Juan Matus. Sorcerer meaning he who goes to the source, not magician.
Fender
All Christians don't believe God and Jesus are one.
Hookbender — Aug 06, 2008Fender
All Christians don't believe God and Jesus are one.
Doesn't matter. That's not even the point. Did you READ all of that? I don't think you did.
In short.....if you READ the Old Testament prophecies......Jesus didn't fulfill them.
Fenderbender — Aug 06, 2008
In short.....if you READ the Old Testament prophecies......Jesus didn't fulfill them.
Geez I can not believe that anyone would consider 2000 year old texts as anything but superstition. Of course I know a lot of people do "believe", and they have hooked onto the old scriptures as their belief system.
But lets look at it this way, anyone who has done psychedelic drugs, more than likely has had visions. Now back in those days the people used rye as their daily bread. And guess where LSD comes from; "moldy rye grain" is the answer. So because of the fact that there were "seers" in that era, and our scientific knowledge of what comes from rye grain without refrigeration. We can see just why these folks had visions.
It is just a matter of adding 2+2 and coming up with a reasonable answer. The Bible (and all of the old scriptural texts)=Psychedelic hallucinations more than likely.
I am not saying what they saw is not true, I myself always believed that the other worlds that I visited under the influence of psychedelic drugs were real realms of consciousness. But we don't need any old texts to visit those worlds all we need is modern chemistry.
Where did you get all that stufff from Fender?
Hookbender — Aug 10, 2008Where did you get all that stufff from, Fender?
No, from Gibson.
There was no comma. Therefore that wasn't my quote. ;D
I think it came from an Atheist site called Ibanez. ;D
Hookbender — Aug 11, 2008There was no comma. Therefore that wasn't my quote. ;D
I think it came from an Atheist site called Ibanez. ;D
Guilty as charged!
(But I think Ibanez is actually a Muslim site, or is that Ibinhad? :D )
Hookbender — Aug 10, 2008Where did you get all that stufff from Fender?
I am certain I found parts of it on the net.....but I cut and pasted it from a debate site where I originally posted it. It was MY Opening statement more or less at a Christian site! HAHAHAHAHAa I liked it so much I thought I'd throw it up here and see what you guys think.
So it's a bunch of shit collected from the net and not from you? How can that be "your" argument?
I'd rather see what "your" opinion is. You don't seem willing to play by "your" rules. Where are the links to the sites you got that from?
You know... that's an interesting perspective. Dr. Harold Bloom, in his book "Jesus and Yaweh - Names Divine" argues an incredibly similar, and salient point. He's a devout Jew, a PhD in literature and philosophy and has to touch both the Jewish and Christian sides of this arguement every time he teaches a class. At the end of nearly 200 pages of refutation of the person of Christ - including one you didn't include, in that, aside from the Christian texts on the matter and one other text by Josephus, a known liar, there is no historical evidence of Christ's existence! Bloom concludes, no matter what you read, or what you're taught to believe, in the end you HAVE to choose. He chooses faith and belief NOT because he can unequivocally prove one side, or the other, but because in his heart he knows, and understands, from his culture, training and tradition what is right... to continuously stand in constant refutation gets one no where but angry and contentious.
For me, I thought it both thought provoking and interesting, overall. Eventually, you have to stand for something and your personal philosophy has to be consistent and not a philosophy of convenience... otherwise, it's just living a basic lie...
Dar
Dar — Aug 13, 2008You know... that's an interesting perspective. Dr. Harold Bloom, in his book "Jesus and Yaweh - Names Divine" argues an incredibly similar, and salient point. He's a devout Jew, a PhD in literature and philosophy and has to touch both the Jewish and Christian sides of this arguement every time he teaches a class. At the end of nearly 200 pages of refutation of the person of Christ - including one you didn't include, in that, aside from the Christian texts on the matter and one other text by Josephus, a known liar, there is no historical evidence of Christ's existence! Bloom concludes, no matter what you read, or what you're taught to believe, in the end you HAVE to choose. He chooses faith and belief NOT because he can unequivocally prove one side, or the other, but because in his heart he knows, and understands, from his culture, training and tradition what is right... to continuously stand in constant refutation gets one no where but angry and contentious.
For me, I thought it both thought provoking and interesting, overall. Eventually, you have to stand for something and your personal philosophy has to be consistent and not a philosophy of convenience... otherwise, it's just living a basic lie...
Dar
But I can argue that having believed in Jesus, or religion, also makes one angry....and even act on that anger in a ignorant way. I can give you examples for days of parents, adults that are educated, that have such strong beliefs in religion that it has caused death to their own child....directly related to the religious beliefs.
In reality, it doesn't matter if Jesus was just a man, the son of God or whatever.....it only matters that their is a God to have this son in the first place. Otherwise, he taught some pretty good stuff at times, but had at least some evil thoughts to....which would make him much like an everyday normal person....nothing special.
And, in my opinion, this guy is an idiot.....the Bloom dude. I'm not angry and I don't believe. In fact, I love the discussion. And, you don't have to choose at fucking all. There are no rules that say choose one way or the other or be jailed for life. I, for example, choose to leave the door open for new discoveries to prove there is a God. Everything doesn't have to be black and white. Especially religion.
In the end, you don't have to choose anything. Nor do you have to choose at any other time in life. You don't have to do anything at all. Why should one have to choose?
Who says my personal philosophy has to be consistent? Who defines the consistency? If my personal "thoughts" are different than anyone elses, why are they simply connvience? Why, just because you think or believe a certain way all the time, is someone eles less because they are subject to change? I would think just the opposite.
People need to grasp the fact that religion doesn't have to be anything....nothing, it doesn't have to exist any at all. None. We don't need religion to survive. Period. Jesus is dead, if he ever lived. God is a hope of life after death, nothing more...hope. Why waist your time hoping for something? Why not invest your time making something happen while your alive?
The Bible is incomplete. It was written by men. It is flawed and filled with absolutely horrible wicked shit. Stuff you wouldn't want your kids to see on T.V. or at a movie. But for some reason we open the door to this stuff to our kids. Studies have shown that bad T.V. habbits, as far as what children watch, has bad effects on children. The Bible has much worse written in it and we want the kids to read it and the preacher to excuse it.
Just doesn't matter if Jesus is or did shit, imo. Not until there is a God. And I would question God big time....just before the "loving" creature burned me to death for eternity.
What makes me laugh, Hook, is that because your post is so passionate, it actually kind of sounds a little angry at times.
Reminds me of that scene in "Office Space" when that guy was being asked what he does, and he was like, "I'm a people person, can't you see that? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!?!!!"
I personally think that the discussion is pointless, because far too many people take it as an article of eternal truth that:
1. Christ lived.
2. He was the son of God.
3. He rose from the dead.
4. He is the path to eternal life.
Of course, as we've detailed here, none of this can be substantiated based on what we know of the time, and since there are two types of people - those who look at the evidence, and those who just believe - there's almost no way to reconcile this without concocting some sort of means for enforcing the teaching of critical thinking, which will never happen because an inquisitive and informed populace is not something desired by those who wish to rule.
I was thinking about religion, and it struck me - the religious are not all that different from those who believed in monarchy or dictatorship. The difference lies in whether their "god" is supernatural or natural.
Religious people always make the argument about communist regimes being atheist and that means that atheism is evil, and it's such a pathetic argument, because most of the visible/vocal atheists in existence today are not of that mentality. Most atheists today reject any sort of "personality cult" or deification of men (like Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc.) There was a religion in these situations, and it was the state.
And those who participate in the crass, jingositic brand of nationalism and xenophobia that they call "patriotism" in the US these days are just warming up the same sort of mentality. Thank goodness there are people who reject that notion in this country, or else we'd be in trouble. We'd be a "Democracy"-spreading version of the Axis - who can do no wrong, whose policies are all perfect and divinely inspired. Of course, America getting the way it was in 2003, when situations like what happened to the Dixie Chicks can happen, is the American version of the march to fascism. The government in power now selling off everything to friendly private contractors and the influx of lobbying money (corporations becoming part of government), plus the undying faith in the righteousness of our leaders and their choices (nationalism) - stoked by fear, and added to that those in power concentrating that power and making the illegal legal (all sponsored by the fear campaign) - these are the mechanisms that Hitler used to remake Germany. It's a historical fact - look it up.
The mere fact that the assholes who pulled the Dixie Chicks' records haven't really put them back on shows how pathetic and disgusting the attitude toward our freedom of speech has become. Not much has changed, even if Bush's popularity is in the shitter. None of these assholes will admit that we were right and they were wrong about all of it. I even admit that I was wrong in thinking the war was a good idea when it started. I changed my tune pretty quick when I educated myself on the topic.
But back to the Chicks - think about what they said - it was pretty goddamn tame:
"Just so you know, were on the good side with yall. We do not want this war, this violence, and were ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas."
SO FUCKING WHAT that they did it when they did it or where. Nothing about it was traitorous - the President deserves shame when his actions are shameful.
The mentality that took them off the air is the same one that will ultimately destroy this country if we let it.
But back to religion...the mentality that drove the anti-Dixie Chicks fervor is the narrow-minded mentality of the religious. The difference is their religion is the cult of Republican George Bush and the cult of American perfection.
Sorry for the rambling. I had a lot on my mind.
Tripper
I have no problem with the following:
- Jesus lived
- He was the son of Mary and Joseph who did have sex to create him (nothing in the original Bible text says otherwise)
- His childhood is actually unknown (the two birth stories, which contradict each other, were added much later to promote the "Religion")
- He probably spent time learning Buddhism since he came back from that area before being the great teacher
- Just about all that he taught was grounded in Buddhism
- He was crucified
- His followers poisoned him which is why he "died" so quickly (at least four days faster than average)
- His followers gave him the antedote in the cave (both the poison and the antedote are specified in the Dead Sea Scrolls)
- Therefore he "rose from the dead" as many others did back then since anyone unconcious was considered dead
- He spent the rest of his days in the House of God (which is what they called churches back then)
- He was probably buried in the church's graveyard like everyone else
- His followers added their accounts at least 29 years after his crucifiction to enhance the mystique and create a new religion
- Jesus would probably hate the religion created for him just as Budda didn't want his followers to do things similar
Oh yeah...
- Shouldn't the term "Jesus Christ" actually be "Jesus the Christ" if that's what he was to them?
Hookbender — Aug 12, 2008So it's a bunch of shit collected from the net and not from you? How can that be "your" argument?
I'd rather see what "your" opinion is. You don't seem willing to play by "your" rules. Where are the links to the sites you got that from?
No I said I got SOME of it. Some is a fraction.
Basically my line of thought started 2 years ago at a Wateringholestock. We had a Jewish guy there and he enlightened me to some ways to look at the Olld Testament that as a Christian I would have NEVER been taught to see it that way. So it got me thinking and doing lots of my own research. A couple months ago I started debating at another site. There had been a lot of squabbling about Jesus stuff and so I thought it would be fun to lay down my trumph card that I had spent my own time researching....like a hoobiest really.
At any point....some of the things in there were initially found on the internet but all they did was add to what I already know. I don't have my Bbile here at work but when I get home I can put up specific scripture that supports what I said. But if I'm not mistaken I DID include the versus in my argument up top. If you are too lazy to crack open a Bible..... just let me know and I can cut and paste the scripture for you.
I don't really see it as me breaking my rules....and here is why. Everything I am stating comes straight from the Bible. Even the ideas about a "national understanding" is supported by the Bible. So basically if I am wrong it would be becuase what I have said is not supported by the Bible......but I wouldn't have posted those ideas as such unless they were or I'd just be wasting time.
I have supplied you (I think....pretty sure I did) with direct scripture.....I can supply you wiht NIV versions of it....as that is what I MAINLY use.....though I can grab for you other versus from other translations....but it all works out the same.
Dar — Aug 13, 2008You know... that's an interesting perspective. Dr. Harold Bloom, in his book "Jesus and Yaweh - Names Divine" argues an incredibly similar, and salient point. He's a devout Jew, a PhD in literature and philosophy and has to touch both the Jewish and Christian sides of this arguement every time he teaches a class. At the end of nearly 200 pages of refutation of the person of Christ - including one you didn't include, in that, aside from the Christian texts on the matter and one other text by Josephus, a known liar, there is no historical evidence of Christ's existence! Bloom concludes, no matter what you read, or what you're taught to believe, in the end you HAVE to choose. He chooses faith and belief NOT because he can unequivocally prove one side, or the other, but because in his heart he knows, and understands, from his culture, training and tradition what is right... to continuously stand in constant refutation gets one no where but angry and contentious.
For me, I thought it both thought provoking and interesting, overall. Eventually, you have to stand for something and your personal philosophy has to be consistent and not a philosophy of convenience... otherwise, it's just living a basic lie...
Dar
I'm not familiar with that book but it sounds like stuff I'd be into at this point.
For me...when I was a Christian I had a hard time reconciling the Christian notion of God and the Christian notion of christ. Very different beasts. When my friend Neil started talking about God it was a very different (Jewish) perspective that i had never been hip to.
For example MANY Christians think of God as omnipotent. I would argue that God is in no way omnipotent and that the idea that God is omnipotent is NOTHINg more than a translation issue that hinges on what God is versus the nature of what God does.
But back to choosing faith because it's the "right" thing to do. Like you rightly pointed out. There isn't really squat to suggest that Christ even lived. I for one think the teachings of Christ or noble and just. Excellent stuff. But does that mean I need to catapolt him up to "God" status? Perhaps he was just a compassionate man that was wise beyond his years? Perhaps he is nothing more than a collective of what a lot of smart people thought a perfect person would be like. But does THAT make him God?
CraigBert — Aug 13, 2008- He was the son of Mary and Joseph who did have sex to create him (nothing in the original Bible text says otherwise)
WHAT..... that's NOT what the Bible says. Interestingly enough though, both Matthew and Luke trace teh lineage of JEsus through Joseph....and both do it differently. Which is funny as hell to me.
- His childhood is actually unknown (the two birth stories, which contradict each other, were added much later to promote the "Religion")
Support....I have never stumbled across this in my research and would LOVE to know more about it.
- He probably spent time learning Buddhism since he came back from that area before being the great teacher
- Just about all that he taught was grounded in Buddhism
I've read a lot on this and don't think this is what ACTUALLY happened I think this is something that has been romanticized a lot by people tryign to explain his teaching style. Though I would have to agree that there are striking similiariies having studied Buddism also.....but the difference are pretty important also.
His followers gave him the antedote in the cave (both the poison and the antedote are specified in the Dead Sea Scrolls)
- Therefore he "rose from the dead" as many others did back then since anyone unconcious was considered dead
My research has never led me down this path either. I have spent some time reading things in the Nag Hammadi but I have yet to come across this idea of poison and antedote. Where the fuck did you get this?
- His followers added their accounts at least 29 years after his crucifiction to enhance the mystique and create a new religion
Actually the EARLIEST thing in the Bible was written 50 years AFTER his death from my recollection. I can reference this when I get home qucikly but I am certain of that off the top of my head......which makes it even worse! ?HHAHAHAHAHA
- Jesus would probably hate the religion created for him just as Budda didn't want his followers to do things similar
A-men to that brotha!
I don't need anything Fender, I was just messin with ya. I know you don't just throw some bullshit up without thought. :)
"Bloom concludes, no matter what you read, or what you're taught to believe, in the end you HAVE to choose. He chooses faith and belief NOT because he can unequivocally prove one side, or the other, but because in his heart he knows, and understands, from his culture, training and tradition what is right... to continuously stand in constant refutation gets one no where but angry and contentious. "
Tripper
This just struck a nerve. Not angry at all. This guy just seems like a complete idiot to me. Why would anyone have to choose concerning religion? Religion is not a black and white answer subject. Why would leaving the door open or waiting for science to prove there is a God to start with make a person angry?
I like to cuss. ;D I need to watch that in my post or I can plainly see your point. Writing, or posting, is much different than talking to someone personally. Your right, did sound angry.
Hookbender — Aug 13, 2008I don't need anything Fender, I was just messin with ya. I know you don't just throw some bullshit up without thought. :)
"Bloom concludes, no matter what you read, or what you're taught to believe, in the end you HAVE to choose. He chooses faith and belief NOT because he can unequivocally prove one side, or the other, but because in his heart he knows, and understands, from his culture, training and tradition what is right... to continuously stand in constant refutation gets one no where but angry and contentious. "
Hook on this line of thought....I wouldn't say Bloom is an idiot. I think he's just taking an educated guess and admitting as much! Ultimately you DO choose one way or the other based on whateverit takes for you to make a decision. I can see where he's coming from. The teachings of Christ.....good stuff. I can't argue the teachings of Christ. I don't think anyone really can. For Bloom the teachings are good enough for him to follow. For you and I the issue isn't the teachings aspect either....but rather "Is Christ God?" We can't see why we should elevate him up to such a high level of praise. Smart dude with a good heart? Sure! God? Why?
I do agree that he misinterprets "questioning of faith" with "Constant refutation" It's silly to think that just because I don't chose religion that I am just going through life with no belief in anything.
Bloom yaking an educated guess, like most Christians do at best....even though they won't admit it....is part of the problem imo. We don't need to guess in any way shape or form of the existence of a God being. It's useless to even entertain the thought.
Why, because the guess ends up being exagerated in a huge way. The guess begins to be fact, the people who question the guess become wrong....etc.
More later....duty calls. My 2 year old just shit. :P I can smell it accross the room. ;D ;D ;D
I would agree that it's an educated guess. I think that guess is rooted heavily in the teachings of Christ. Which IS good shit. I think Christians are smart enough to realize the "good message" and all. I think it's FINE that they dig it. MY issue is....and will probably always be the divinity of Christ as there is NOTHING about it that makes any sense at all. Such as WHY would an "all powerful God" need to send Jesus? WHY? It doesn't make sense and all you get from Christians are things like, "because God wanted to save you". great he's all powerful.....just save me then.
Well, I dumb it down a little more than that. Why would a so-called loving God send his only son to go through what he went through? That's not love. And if this God thing would do this to his own son, surely he would do much worse to other humans right?
I think that if there were a God, it would be a far less complex issue. Probably no drama like the Bible is. There would be no secrete or reason to hide and play games.
first, as FB well knows, many of the things he's asking if Jesus done are "written" to not have "come to pass" yet. FB knows this.
Second, I have one question for all of you. In 2000+ years, has anyone yet proved the Bible wrong? Can you, beyond the shadow of a doubt say, that you have PROOF that it is not real or true? History has standards. If I write something, the people around me can eventually prove or disprove it. Where is the REAL proof, that God, or the Bible, is not true, or real? I mean, no matter what statistics you look at, at LEAST 80% of our country still believes it. What proof or magical "enlightenment" do you have that makes you know that the vast majority is wrong, and you are somehow smarter than all the believers? All I've seen so far, is "God won't prove himself in the way I want him too, so I don't believe" type arguments. Got anything better? ;)
Genesis as a literal account of "creation" has been proven false - 100%
Of course it depends on how much leniency in the definition of truth you allow to the Bible.
If it is not to be taken literally - then it is not about facts that can be proved or disproved anymore than a poem by Blake can be disproven.
The bible can only be true if it is not to be taken literally.
That is the catch 22.
I mean, no matter what statistics you look at, at LEAST 80% of our country still believes it. What proof or magical "enlightenment" do you have that makes you know that the vast majority is wrong, and you are somehow smarter than all the believers?
95% of the worlds population believes differently to you - It is you that claims to
have proof or magical "enlightenment" that means you know that the vast majority is wrong, and you are somehow smarter than all the other believers and non believers ?
People who say that Geneisis is false are only pointing out the absurdity of the literal claims it makes in the face of sound scientific evidence ot the contrary.
They are not claiming magical insight, quite the opposite, in fact they are exposing the sham, debunking myths and belief in magical insight.
The fundementalists who believe in the inerrant and literal truth of the bible are claiming magical insight, a belief in the superiority of arbitrary magical and supernatural explanations over scientific naturalistic ones - the Bible is your magic book of mumbo jumbo and your pastor is your witch doctor.
I don't include all believers in this characterisation - non literalists have a more sophisticated system of belief that is not possible to disprove with physical evidence
DreamTheaterRules — Aug 21, 2008first, as FB well knows, many of the things he's asking if Jesus done are "written" to not have "come to pass" yet. FB knows this.
Second, I have one question for all of you. In 2000+ years, has anyone yet proved the Bible wrong? Can you, beyond the shadow of a doubt say, that you have PROOF that it is not real or true? History has standards. If I write something, the people around me can eventually prove or disprove it. Where is the REAL proof, that God, or the Bible, is not true, or real? I mean, no matter what statistics you look at, at LEAST 80% of our country still believes it. What proof or magical "enlightenment" do you have that makes you know that the vast majority is wrong, and you are somehow smarter than all the believers? All I've seen so far, is "God won't prove himself in the way I want him too, so I don't believe" type arguments. Got anything better? ;)
Thanks Howie....you have unwittingly proven my case already.
In short.....the things that were to come to pass....according to the Bible would happen IMMEDIATLEY. Not 2,000+ years from now. It was an instant change brought on by the Messiah.
If you actually READ the Bible and READ the prophecies....it's clear as day that Jesus doesn't fulfill MOST of teh prophesies at ALL. Because Jesus DOESN'T do it like the Bible says it will happen....Jews don't look at Jesus as the Messiah. Muslims don't either, though they do acknowledge him has a great phophet himself.
The only way Jesus meets the criteri for Messiah is if you cherry pick the Bbile and take only certain thing into consideration....which I think is a gross misuse of the Bible.
As for your second question Howie.....it's no that Atheist and Agnostics are smarter than Christians....we just don't have imaginary friends that we think govern our lives for us.
the Bible has been systematically proven in error for a long time. It's not my fault if you refuse to accept the truth. You believe what you believe and you have literally nothing to prove your position. You ask me to prove that there isn't a God.....well.....there is NO evidence that says God is real. It's much like me asking you to prove that the Flying Spaghetti monster doens't exist. You can't do it any more than I can. The fact is that we justu KNOW the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a joke made up to poke fun at believers.....but now that he's been dreamed up can you prove that he's not real? We are consciosly aware that it's known about. Just like we are about God.
The only way to prove anything is if you have something to SUGGEST it might be real. Then you follow through to a conclusion.
You still haven't read the entire OP.....you still don't understand what I'm talking about. I think it might be because you don't wnat to have to face the music with your "maker".
Ooo... This makes me think of a good question so, to not pollute this stinking, fouled up river of a topic any further, I'll start a new one. ;)
DreamTheaterRules — Aug 21, 2008first, as FB well knows, many of the things he's asking if Jesus done are "written" to not have "come to pass" yet. FB knows this.
Second, I have one question for all of you. In 2000+ years, has anyone yet proved the Bible wrong? Can you, beyond the shadow of a doubt say, that you have PROOF that it is not real or true? History has standards. If I write something, the people around me can eventually prove or disprove it. Where is the REAL proof, that God, or the Bible, is not true, or real? I mean, no matter what statistics you look at, at LEAST 80% of our country still believes it. What proof or magical "enlightenment" do you have that makes you know that the vast majority is wrong, and you are somehow smarter than all the believers? All I've seen so far, is "God won't prove himself in the way I want him too, so I don't believe" type arguments. Got anything better? ;)
And you don't understand the fact that if there is a God, it's your responsibility to prove that theory.
It isn't possible to disprove something that doesn't exist.
I can give you quotes all day long that would suggest insanity from the Bible. All the rape, murder, destruction, etc written about in the Bible that a loving creature sometimes ordered or did himself.
I honestly think the Bible was written to be used as a tool. Kinda like therapy. If you ignore all the garbage in the Bible and only study the good, which most church's and preachers do, you can get some good stuff from the Bible, as FB has explained or said.
So, it really doesn't matter if the Bible's true, imo. Whether the Bible is true or not isn't the question, it's whether or not the Bible is useful as a tool, or past it's prime.
It's also not anyone's responsibility to prove it's true anyway. It was written thousands of years ago and it's also a incomplete writing.
The Bible's meaning is also subject to interpretation many different ways. I would think that if this book were inspired by a perfect god thing, it would be very clear and precise. And man is not perfect, as the Bible teaches, so this god thing would have willingly let a imperfect being capable of many mistakes, write a book that is suppose to be flawless and 100% accurate. I don't think that would have happened.
Nonbelievers don't care who's right or wrong. They want to see proof that a God exist. They want questions answered. Most nonbelievers don't give a fuck one way or the other about what anyone thinks or believes until it affects them personally, and even then they really don't care. We want evidence of Gods existence, and we don't simply believe because our mothers told us to and the majoriety believes so I guess we should to. That doesn't cut it for us. But what you believe....believe me....simplt doesn't matter one tiny bit.