Interesting debate on existance of god, worth a read 2

[Tri-Force]

oh I see why you said that now. I dont mean that Certain religions are Closed Minded in their beliefs and otheres arent. i meant that if you belong to a religion as opposed to gathering your beliefs from different religions you tend to be closed minded about religious topics.

 

[sk8bloke22]

not exactly true. while many religions follow the Bible you have many different beliefs that come from the Bible. For instance. Jewish people read the Bible and so do Cathloics and Jahovas Whitnesses but those are 3 totally differen't practices. within the Christian Community alone there are sever different factions of religion. the Cathloic, the 7th Day Adventists, Jahovas Whitness, and so on.each with their own interpritation of the law. but once you get within them then yah you could argue that they are closed minded. but not based on the Bible but based on how they chose to interpret the Bible.

lol, u dont know ur religions mate, jews dont touch the bible. they read the torah, which came before the bible. the bible is the new testament, the torah is the old testament...totally, totally different. as is the karan, which came after the bible, but again, is separate to the bible. i still dont think u totally understand though, anything ANYTHING that uses a doctrine has to be close-minded to some extent in that those who believe in the doctrine, hav to follow and abide by it, thus assuming that other doctrines are wrong, blah blah etc etc. most politics is close minded, yet by reading lots about other types of thinking u can gain a greater knowledge, and possible open ur mind to other views and alternative lifestyles.

also u contradicted urself a bit there. if someone has an interpretation of the bible, it has to be a view based on the bible. i mean, how on earth is someone gonna make an interpretation of the bible without basing it on the bible or referring to the bible.

 

[Tri-Force]

i know but what i meant was it's not that they base it on what the Bible says but on what they think the Bible means. and i know lots of Jewish people who use the Bible. and many Muslims and Mormans and so on. But i do get your point and you are right. and I do gather my beliefs from a variety of different lifestyles and open my mind to different views. But i guess you cuould call me closed minded since all my views have a religouls base.

 

[sk8bloke22]

u still dont seem to understand. the torah does not use the bibile it came BEFORE the bible ever existed. the bible uses parts of the old testament (the torah) and is about jesus. so why on earth would the a jew or a muslim or a hindu, or any other religion use the bible if their religion is NOTHING to do with it. dunno how u can get this stuff mixed up.

" i meant was it's not that they base it on what the Bible says but on what they think the Bible means"

its nothing to do with wat the bible means, it came out, was written before, existed before the bible. why on earth would a non-christian like a jew or a muslim ever read the bible? this isnt any philosophical talk or anything, this is just basic general knowledge.

 

[Tri-Force]

no its not and tha't what you are missing. i have talked to many people from many religions and THEY READ THE BIBLE AS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION. i swear to you im not making this up. and the Bible Consists of 2 parts. The Old Testement which is before Jesus and the New Testement which is from birth to Revelation. The Jewish pepole i have spoken to say they read the old testement of the Bible because It has nothing to do with Jesus being the Savior. they beileve the Old Testement but not the New Testement. and saying that it is basic general knowledge is a bit off becasue (while not all but several) Jewish people and Muslims that I MYSELF have spoken to use the Bible.

 

[Slougi]

Tri-Force, you are wrong.

 

[sk8bloke22]

no its not and tha't what you are missing. i have talked to many people from many religions and THEY READ THE BIBLE AS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION. i swear to you im not making this up. and the Bible Consists of 2 parts. The Old Testement which is before Jesus and the New Testement which is from birth to Revelation. The Jewish pepole i have spoken to say they read the old testement of the Bible because It has nothing to do with Jesus being the Savior. they beileve the Old Testement but not the New Testement. and saying that it is basic general knowledge is a bit off becasue (while not all but several) Jewish people and Muslims that I MYSELF have spoken to use the Bible.

lol. i can tell u as a jew, and as a member of a jewish school that the old testament consists of the five books of the torah, and the new testament is the bible. and im sure rpglover or any other muslim, can quite happily tell u that they do not use the bible as a source of information, and that the karan is NOT an interpretation of the Bible, or Bible teachings.

 

[Slougi]

Yep i can confirm that. (me be muslim in case someone didn't know)
The Koran contains all the teachings that Mohammed received from God, and is believed by us muslims to be direct citations from God.

 

[Tri-Force]

i never said that the Koran came from the Bible. and the Old Testememt of the Bible way more than five books. it has 39. Where did i say that the Koran was and interpritation of the Bible. I never said that. im just telling you what people from these religions tell me. and lets not forget that there are different types of Jews (is that PC?) and Muslims just as there are many types of Christians.

 

[2fast4u]

i fail to see the relevance of the current discussion, pardon my ignorance.

 

[DuDe]

Tri-Force is right about the number of the books in the old testament, it is something like 39. The torah are only the first 5 books. There are many books that come later, and that`s the old testament. The new testament is in deed the story of good ol` Jesus...
The Bible is the whole compilation of all those together, the old + the new testament.

 

[RPGlover12]

lol. i can tell u as a jew, and as a member of a jewish school that the old testament consists of the five books of the torah, and the new testament is the bible. and im sure rpglover or any other muslim, can quite happily tell u that they do not use the bible as a source of information, and that the karan is NOT an interpretation of the Bible, or Bible teachings.

ur totally 100% right but there is something u forget muslims do use the bible like there are questions in the bible that its impossible to be answered going to tell usome questions
1_ Who are we to believe??


Jesus came to confirm the Torah, not to destroy it (Matthew 23:2-3).


While Paul abolished the teachings of the Torah (Acts 13:39).


What hour was Jesus crucified??
(Mark 15:25) It was the third hour, and they crucified him.


(John 19:14) It was the sixth hour, and he was not yet crucified


Who bore the cross??


(Matthew 27:32) The compelled Simon to bear the cross of Jesus./ also(Luke 23:26)& (Mark 15:21).


(John 19:17) Jesus was bearing his cross himself



Who went to the grave of Jesus??


(John 20:1) Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.


(Mat 28:1) Mary Mag-da-le-ne and another Mary.


(Luke 24:10) Mary Mag-da-le-ne and another Mary and Jo'an-na and some other women.


(Mark 16:1) Mary Mag-da-le-ne and another Mary and Sa-lo'-me.


these are examples of the questions that christianity can't answer these questions are two or maybe four answers which should they believe, muslims use this term to tell them that quran has the answer of this questions and its with just one answer that jesus isn't a god and that finishs the term

 

[sk8bloke22]

lol, they're not questions they cant answer, they're contradictions. the bible is riddled with them. there are soooooooo many more as well.

 

[RPGlover12]

there are millions like telling u that jesus isn't a god


THE BIRTH OF "GOD"



"God" was created from the seed of David: "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the SEED of David according to the flesh." (Romans, 1:3)
"God" was the fruit of the loins of David: "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne." (Acts, 2:30)
The Ancestors of "God": "The generations of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." (Matthew, 1:1)
The Sex of "God": "And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus." (Luke, 2:21)
How Mary Conceived and Delivered "God". Mary conceived Jesus like any other woman: "The days were accomplished that she should be delivered," (Luke, 2:6) which means that she went through all the normal stages of pregnancy. Nor was her delivery any different from other expectant mothers: "And she being with child cried, traveling in birth, and pained to be delivered." (Revelation, 12:2)
"God" Sucked the Paps of a Woman: "And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked." (Luke, 11:27)
The Country of Origin of "God": "Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king. (Matthew, 2:1)
The Occupation of "God": "Jesus was a carpenter by trade." (Mark, 6:3), "and the son of a carpenter." (Matthew, 13:55)
The Transport of "God": "Behold, thy king cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass." (Matthew, 21:5) "And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon." (John, 12:14)
The Wining and Dining of "God": "The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners." (Matthew, 11:9; Luke, 7:34)
The Poverty of "God": "And Jesus saith unto him, the foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." (Matthew, 8:20)
The Meager Possessions of "God": "Shoes of Jesus" (Luke, 3:16), "Garments and coat of Jesus" (John, 19:23)
"God" Was a Devout Jew: "And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed." (Mark, 1:35)
"God" Was a Loyal Subject: Jesus was a good citizen, he was loyal to Caesar. He said: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." (Matthew, 22:21) He paid his tax regularly. (Matthew, 17:24-27)




A "GOD" UNLIKE THE GOD

A Hungry "God": "And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered." (Matthew 4:2), "Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered." (Matthew, 21:18), "and on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry." (Mark, 11:12)
A Thirsty "God": "(He) smith, I thirst." (John, 19:28)
A Sleepy "God": "He was asleep." (Matthew, 8:24), "He fell asleep" (Luke, 8:23), "And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow." (Mark, 4:38)
A Weary "God": Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well." (John, 4:6)
A Groaning "God": "He groaned in the spirit, and was troubled." (John, 11:33), "Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave." (John, 11:38)
A Weeping "God": "Jesus wept." (John, 11:35)
A Sorrowing "God": "And (he) began to be sorrowful and very heavy." (Matthew 26:37). "Then saith he unto them, my soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." (Matthew, 26:38)
A Hysterical "God": "And (he) began to be soreamazed and to be very heavy." (Mark, 14:33)
A Weak "God": "And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him." (Luke, 22:43)


there are millions of stuff that can't be answered
how can be a god like that dunno maybe he isn't a god after all

 

[sk8bloke22]

one thing though, jesus was never deemed a god, but the son of god. theres a difference. he was more like a messenger or messiah according to the bible.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Interesting thread. First let me say that I have read both the bible and the quran to pretty good extents. I have been told a lot from both christian, jewish, and muslim authorities. Of all of them, I can say muslims interest me the most, probably because I had the best experience with them. A muslim priest once told me not to follow what everybody tells you, instead follow the truth. I interpreted that as listen to what is written in the texts, and compare it to how you know things to be in the real world.

Despite that, I do not follow any specific religion, however I have come to my own conclusion (albeit a very cloudy one) as to why we exist. I can't say weather or not I believe there is a unified creator, because that is simply beyond my comprehention.

I strongly believe that evolution is true, and possibly the big bang theory has some merit, even though neither can be fully explained. However, I also believe that its reasonable to say that you can't get something from nothing. In a way, I don't believe there is necessarily a god, but then don't believe that there necessarily is not one. The truth is, I don't know.

If that doesn't make any sense to you, think of it like this: The very object sitting in front of you right now was created by either somebody, multiple people, or by another machine. Does that mean that whoever created it is a god in their own way? That computer performs different tasks, it does what its told to do. Does it know why its doing what its doing? Does it even know what its doing? Does it know why it exists? If it was given hands and tools to do so, could it build a clone of itself? or even comprehend how it was built? Same applies for humans, animals, bacteria, etc. Your intelligence is much greater than that of the computer sitting in front of you. There could, or could not be a form of intelligence which is infinitely times greater than ours, and if so we too would fail to understand its existence.

Here are a few other tangible questions that will burn your mind:

If something can't come from nothing, then who created the creator?

If your computer you just built had the knowledge and ability to clone itself, would it piss you off, and would you damn it for doing so? or would you be happy that you now have two of something you consider useful, and were spared the trouble of building another one yourself? *hint* this ties to a major issue right now*

Evidently all animals (yes that includes humans) generaly get more intelligent with each generation as shown by modern forensics of fossilized tissue. Could we, in time, build machines that have the capability of building machines with an origional design that are more intelligent than their parent machine, without any human intervention?

Based on this (and other phenomina like it):

DNA can hold more information in a cubic centimetre than a trillion CDs. The double helix molecule that contains human genes stores data on four chemical bases -- known by the letters A, T, C and G -- giving it massive memory capability that scientists are only just beginning to tap into.

Created by god, allah, or whoever you follow, are we still just extremely sophistocated computers?

It is hard for us to talk to our computers, because they can't comprehend our language which is much more sophistocated than theirs, what if the creators language is so much more sophistocated than ours that we are misinterpreting what he/she/it is saying?

EDIT: Before somebody tells me that I have been ignorant about many "facts" stated by the major religions, I have probably seen at least 75% of them (who could ever see them all?), and ALL of them I have found flawed logic in, which renders most of them null or void. Most of my own theories I prefer to keep to myself, and all of them only have one flaw, which falls back to just one basic principle: Unexplained origins. Nobody in this plane of existence knows the absolute truth behind it, not even the pope himself. I for one prefer to keep my mind open to anything new, and I don't mind hearing more "facts" from the major religions. Life is a nonstop learning experience. The day you stop learning and trying to seek the truth is the day you are miserable.

If you can honestly tell me that you honestly believe that the bible/quran/torah doesn't contain a single flaw, then you are close minded, ignorant, and have decided on your own to stop learning.

 

[sk8bloke22]

great stuff there. i certainly agree with many aspects of that. personally i agree with many of the situationist thinking, in which the issue of believing in god is a personal choice. situationists see that an individuals life should act upon individual revolutions in ones everyday life, meaning chosing ur own path, ur own life, standing up to wat u believe, defeating authority or wateva u oppose in a personal revolution, rather than anticipating some mass reform. but thats some good stuff there alphawolf. very important point about every religion has a flaw.

 

[6tree]

how can be a god like that dunno maybe he isn't a god after all

You have missed the most important part. Jesus had to become a human to carry out the plan of God to save people. That means he was like human and acted like one as you have proved with credit. But Jesus never committed a sin that's why he could rise from the dead and got back to sit on the right side of Father. It was kind of risk to God to send his Son on the earth as human but we know the result. It's a different thing who believes it, I do.

 

[Tri-Force]

If you can honestly tell me that you honestly believe that the bible/quran/torah doesn't contain a single flaw, then you are close minded, ignorant, and have decided on your own to stop learning.

here is the thing. The Bible was written by humans. and has been translated several times. i dont believe that the Bible I read is a perfect copy of the original text. and i think that that is were some of the misunderstang comes from.and lets not forget that the Bible wasn't written by one person. ofcourse there will be differen't accounts of who was at the grave. if you ask two people who went to a basketball game who was there you would get to totally differen't accounts even if they sat next to eachother. and you know how things are when you try to get a story from two differen't people who saw the same movie. differen't points are brought out by differen't people. but both are right and you know they saw the same movie.

but i dont focus on the flaws like a lot of people do. I focus on the truth behind the word which is way more important. you can find flaws with anything in life.

 

[sk8bloke22]

er...but if the truth is fundamentally flawed, then u aint learning the truth. it means u r learning a morality, a set of principles that aernt necessarily 'the truth'. in nazi germany, all history books were re-written to fit Hitler's conception of Gernany's past, which differs much from how we understand it. the youth who grew up in that time focussed on these text books just as ppl do with history books nowadays, and they therefore grew up with a different understanding of history in comparison to non-germans. therefore, how can u claim that u focus on the truths in a book that could, for all u know, be a pack of lies (im not saying it is, but theres no proof that it isnt). wat i think ur trying to say is that u focus on the deeper, moral issues that the bible is suppose to present, rather than the actual legitamacy of each story.