135 replies to this topic

[Nevermind]

And that there is why I choose not to be part of a church. You see, in any church, there are ranks. Even the non-denominational church has leaders. Basically all I see from that is the attitude that is there to get me in the mindset of "no, I haven't done this, and I haven't done that, so I'm not as worthy in the Lord's eyes as this man or this woman." I honestly believe that if you took a wafer for yourself, and you truly believed what you are meant to believe, that you were taking Christ's body, and that you wanted to take Christ's body, then you would receive just as much blessing as if the priest had done it for you.

The whole idea behind the Pharisees and such wanting to get rid of Jesus was because he was teaching the people that they had a direct link to God themselves. That they did not need to go through the priests, and this was threatening the power of the priests. Now, it's not quite so dramatic nowadays, but the whole idea of us needing them to get to God is still fused into the system of the church. All churches.

And therein lies my problem with denominations and churches. You are welcome to belief in your lack of worth, but it's just not for me. There's nothing standing between the Lord and I. My life, my sins, my deeds, are all between just Him and me, no one else.

[Nevermind]

Well, fair enough, there you go.

*bows*

[Nevermind]

I just had the best idea....


Seriously....




if you care about it that much..........just.....start a new topic....



..man that was good o.o

[arunma]

Can everyone please get back on topic and stop bashing the Catholic Church/Australia/partisan individuals? If you do, I'll have to bust someone.

Oh, and unfortunately, the sort of Christians who speak for other Christians often tend to be the more... Right-wing evangelical variety. The Vatican, for instance.

Just a reminder; not all evangelicals are registered Republicans. I'm an evangelical, and last election, I voted for Kerry as well as for several Republican candidates.

Cept you can label Arunma, cuz he is a nut.

Well I would object, but I am a religious nut.

[Alakhriveion]

Hmm, Oh yeah... I do have some problems I shoulda mentioned. Mostly with the afterlife. The Bible doesn't say a lot of the things people do.

[Hylian Diety]

Steering away from the political debate, WHICH CAN BE HELD IN ANOTHER THREAD INSTEAD, I'd like to say that this is the most assuming thread I've seen in a long, long time. I just spent the last half hour reading all these long posts so I didn't make any assumptions on people when making my point, and yet, I could have skipped a good portion of it because the last page and the end of the first page was all political babble.

Anywho, as a kid I grew up with different denominations. When I was young, before 7 years old, I didn't go to any church; none. Why? Because my mom was Mormon and dad was Pagan. To avoid dispute I didn't go anywhere. When my mom divorced my dad and moved, I went to a Mormon church with neighbors. When I moved from there to the town I live in now, I started going to a Catholic church with my friend. Later, after I found my first girlfriend, I went to a Baptist church. My second girlfriend was Wiccan, and I was open to that and followed those beliefs. And now, I proclaim Christianity as my faith. Sounds fickle, doesn't it? Well, it is a little, but it's not because I'm without faith. Even though I was taught so many things from so many different area, I was left by myself with thousands of questions about God to ask. I know you don't care about my life, but I'm making a point, so stay with me.

What you believe in is yours and yours alone. It doesn't belong to any single demonitation or religion. All this time I was really agnostic and didn't know what to label the one I believed in. I gave him many titles and faces, but it really didn't change who he was at all. Where you live influences what you believe. That's a generalization, but it's almost always the case. I think. If you're raised by Mormons there are two paths to chose from to follow. You can follow the beliefs, and tada! that's what you believe. Or you can be sick of hearing their teachings and find something that accompanies WHAT YOU BELIEVE. That's just the way it is. No one can tell me otherwise. And that right there is the problem. What I believe is what I believe, and no one can change it no matter how much they want. Your faith is yours no matter how badly anyone wants to change it. And some people just can't agree to disagree, so they mob together and bash other's beliefs.

I personally believe in tolerance. Earlier when I said no one can change my views, I meant they can't change them altogether. They can influence them, and yes that's change, but they can't tell me I'm wrong and make me completely shift my faith just because they said so. Change happens, yes, but it's so subtle. Might as well accept changes and difference instead of trying to fight it. To fight change and difference and to call each other wrong just because they disagree, is to fight the very essence of life itself.

(This post said almost nothing that I was going for, but it made my point anyway. Hopefully this thread will last so I can make the points I originally wanted to withough making this post much longer than it already is.)

[arunma]

Hmm, Oh yeah... I do have some problems I shoulda mentioned. Mostly with the afterlife. The Bible doesn't say a lot of the things people do.

When you say "the Bible," do you mean Jewish or Christian? Because the Christian version includes at least a couple of pages worth of info...mostly in the New Testament.

[Alakhriveion]

I mean Christian. A great deal of the things people say about hell is Greek, meaning Greek and not in the Bible, and from Dante. Especially Eternal Damnation.

[Nevermind]

Yes, I agree. Dante has had [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] more influence on the general view of Hell than the Bible has. There is a small mention of fire and sulphur in Revelations...


Otherwise the best you're gonna get is.....Apocrypha.

[arunma]

I mean Christian. A great deal of the things people say about hell is Greek, meaning Greek and not in the Bible, and from Dante. Especially Eternal Damnation.

But Alak, in Jesus' parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, Jesus says that when the rich man pled with Abraham, his only response was that he should have listened to Moses and the Prophets, and that he didn't really have any other chance, due to the chasm between heaven and hades. Also, Saint John says in the Apocalypse (Revelation) that those in the Lake of Fire will be "tormented day and night forever and ever." How can we deny eternal damnation with such evidence?

[Fyxe]

Because it's a book written by mortals, the concept of hell has been around long before all that.

[Nevermind]

And it's been changing ever since. Take Dante's Hell, which is quite similar to [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of what people believe it to be like, except for a few things. Like how many would still put Brutus and Cassius on a par with Judas in regards to betrayal? Plus there's the whole seven layers and such which is not a widespread belief as far as I'm aware.

[arunma]

Because it's a book written by mortals, the concept of hell has been around long before all that.

Yes, but I'm assuming that the Bible accurately describes all theological doctrines.

[Nevermind]

Nah. Yeah, no. It doesn't.

[Korhend]

And it's been changing ever since. Take Dante's Hell, which is quite similar to [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of what people believe it to be like, except for a few things. Like how many would still put Brutus and Cassius on a par with Judas in regards to betrayal? Plus there's the whole seven layers and such which is not a widespread belief as far as I'm aware.

Nine layers actualy. Its funny, before Dante Hell was more like Kolyma then a furnace. In early catholicism hell was depicted as a cold void, created by the seperation from god. Satan was normally painted blue, not red.

[Nevermind]

Isn't the creature tormenting the three named Apollo?

In the apocryphal texts, there is still the void, but it's not Hell, it's Abbadon, and it's a special void for the 200 what angels who took human wives. In the same text, Hell is actually located within Heaven. It's on either the 3rd or the 7th layer of Heaven.

[SOAP]

^ 7th Heaven? Somehow I think Warner Bros. won't be happy to know that.

[Nevermind]

Well it's plausible. I'd go insane living in that family. It would be hell XD

[arunma]

Nah. Yeah, no. It doesn't.

Prove it. Doing so would be quite difficult, and the problem is that you're contesting a statement of faith. Now, if you can give me a good reason to not assume that the Bible accurately states all theological doctrines, then I'm listening.

7th Heaven? Somehow I think Warner Bros. won't be happy to know that.

In the Bible, three heavens are described. Saint Paul described to the Corinthians how God took him to the third heaven and revealed the fullness of the Gospel to him. As it is generally understood, the first heaven is the air, the second heaven is the celestial realm, and the third heaven is the heavenly realm and the home of the "Temple" of God (I put that in quotes, since the church is the true Temple of God).

[Fyxe]

The Bible is and was made by humans, humans with faults. Jesus was meant to be the only 'perfect' human, in that he did not commit sin, or something like that.

However, he didn't write the Bible, and thus we should remember that the Bible was written by normal humans, normal mortals, recounting events and, in some cases (such as the whole thing about the Sodomites) putting their own spin on it. Not only that, but half of the Bible is likely to be second hand tales, and you know what happens to stories when they are told many times over.

The proof to the fact that the Bible is not faultless is that it just, quite frankly, has many contradictions within it's pages.

It's frightening to put too much trust within a book. The Bible is a guide, it's just made up of words, and words change their meanings over time as the world itself changes.

[Dryth]

Prove it...

I hate to burst in here, but doesn't the burden of proof fall on you in this case? Otherwise a double standard may arise given the subject of this thread? Aggrivated by the use of "assuming" previously and now "faith" on your part which, in the same manner that you're using them, could be used to question your own initial post.

I mean, disproving assumptions should be easy; simply prove something incontrovertibly. But an incontrovertible proof cannot, by definition, be based in another assumption. And if we take faith to be an amorphous blob of assumptions that represents core beliefs... doesn't the argument boil down to faith versus faith with a lot of white noise?

[arunma]

I hate to burst in here, but doesn't the burden of proof fall on you in this case?

I see your point, but mind you, I'm not trying to prove that the Bible is true. I'm only trying to prove that it doesn't espouse the doctrines which certain people claim it does. The veracity of the Bible is, in my opinion, beyond the scope of this discussion.

[arunma]

What? My thread just died like that?

[Goose]

Dont worry, most threads are dying. It'll pick up soon. I hope.

[Reflectionist]

Romans 3:1-2 [The Message]--  1So what difference does it make who's a Jew and who isn't, who has been trained in God's ways and who hasn't? 2As it turns out, it makes a lot of difference--but not the difference so many have assumed.
   First, there's the matter of being put in charge of writing down and caring for God's revelation, these Holy Scriptures.

Romans 3:2 [NIV] --Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

Paul writes that it doesn't matter who you are. As long as you remain faithful to God's Word. He insists that these are the words of God himself. There wasn't a big point in putting the first verse there, all that mattered was Romans 3:2, simply because it said "...the very words of God."

2 Peter 1:21 [The Message]-- And why? Because it's not something concocted in the human heart. Prophecy resulted when the Holy Spirit prompted men and women to speak God's Word.

2 Peter 1:21 [NIV] -- For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Yes, the Bible was written by mortal men, but here we have a source from a different writer who says the same thing. God wrote the Bible through men.

Do you want more Scripture references? Or should I delve into archaeology?

:-)

[dcLx]

Well I'm christian and where in the bible did you read that? and I told my teacher that but he didnt say anything

[Fyxe]

Paul writes that it doesn't matter who you are. As long as you remain faithful to God's Word. He insists that these are the words of God himself. There wasn't a big point in putting the first verse there, all that mattered was Romans 3:2, simply because it said "...the very words of God."

  Yes, the Bible was written by mortal men, but here we have a source from a different writer who says the same thing. God wrote the Bible through men.

Do you want more Scripture references? Or should I delve into archaeology?

:-)

Mortal, fallible men are the ones saying that God wrote it. Really now, the very Christians who wrote the Bible believed it was the words of God they were putting down into the scripture? I would never of guessed.

It doesn't mean they're right. I can say that what I'm saying now is the word of the Lord himself working through me, but that doesn't make it true.

You can't use the Bible to prove that the Bible is infallible. I think you SHOULD delve into archaeology, now that you mention it.

Oh, and by the way, it should be pointed out that just because they say it's 'God's Word' doesn't mean they mean it in a literal sense. That's something you've read into those lines. As they said themselves, they were 'prompted'. It doesn't mean they won't make mistakes. Language itself has many meanings.

[Reflectionist]

Okay. Into archaeology we go.

Noah's Ark

In the Bible, and we're only using it as a contextual source, it says that Noah's Ark landed near Mt. Ararat, didn't it? And, it also claims that "The length of the ark shall be 300 cubits, the breadth of it 50 cubits, and the height of it 30 cubits" which, I believe is roughly 450 by 75 by 40 feet.

That being said, in 1960, 20 miles south of Ararat, a geographical landmark was discovered that fit the same demensions as the boat, and was so symmetrical that no force of earth could've possibly made it. I think they did some digs and found more evidence to suggest it was Noah's Ark.

Here, you can read more.

http://www.christcen...-ark-page-1.htm


The Dead Sea scrolls

Okay, long after the New Testament was written, maybe even in the 1900s, I'm not sure about this one as well as I am of the other ones... Some scolls were found Near the Dead Sea. They were in like, greek or latin or something, but when they were translated, they accurately reflected the New Testament we have today. Which means that scripture hasn't been changed to reflect what we want. There's nothing that's been changed that would say otherwise than what Christians have been saying since the first century.



The Diety of Jesus

Okay, this one isn't Archeological, but one more thing to consider. Jesus always claimed he was the Messiah, the Son of God, the Son of Man. The Savior. And, every other religion believes him to be at the very least, a Good Moral Teacher, and a Prophet of God. Mohammad even said this himself, in the beginnings of Islam, which began shortly before Jesus' Crucifixion.

But, If Jesus wasn't God, that would make him a liar. I don't know any one who could possibly believe someone could be a liar, and big lies at that, and still be a good moral teacher. He'd have to be crazy, or some sort of Hell demon. But if that's true, even Islam is wrong in it's beliefs. Either Jesus is the Son of God, who he said he was, or Jesus was a liar, which makes a liar out of every single other religion in the world.

Is that the message you'd like to convey to about 90% of the inhabitants of the earth, who believe in any religion whatsoever? Well, maybe not the Buddhists, that's not even a religion, really... :-( Seeing as how they don't revolve around a God.

But I could sit here and list off reason after reason after reason of why Christianity is really the only religion that offers hope, a firm eternity, not something shaky like Jehovah's Witnesses, or Mormons or something.

And if you are one of these religions here, I'm sorry if I've offended you. I really deeply am. But you have to see this, I've done my homework. I know what I'm talking about. And, maybe arunma will back me up, but hopefully not in a "Brimstone and Hellfire" manner that I talk about God with others.

arunma shows much more love as a Christian than me, but that's because I deal mostly with theology. I plan on taking a theology major in college. And a Psychology Major, but that's only because I can read people. I know what they want to hear, but there's the other more important part of me that knows what people need to hear.


So... does that help you out, Fyxe?

[SOAP]

Two things:

First of all, that Noah Arc thing they found was proven to be hoax. Even if it did land there, I doubt it would remain in take for so long. Also, some scholars believe the the Great Flood story was borrowed from an earlier Sumerian legend, "the Epic of Gilgamesh." Anyways, a global flood could never have happened for a number of scientific reasons, namely if that much water was to ever cover the earth, there'd be no atmosphere at all.

Secondly, a religion doesn't neccesdarily have to revolve around a god. Just a strong enough idea that a group of people can connect with. Some religions are purely hedonistic. In fact, I'd go as far as to say atheism can sometimes be a religion. There are atheists out there who seem to to treat it as such... Oh yes, I went there.

[Chikara Nadir]

I love that many Native American faiths revolve not around gods, but the spirits of each object and animal, showing respect for the world around them and knowing that if they did not respect everything else...then the rest of the natural world might fail to respect them.

Dead Sea Scrolls- the silly thing that I love about them is that they do NOT include the book of Esthar. Apparently they never actually mention God's name in there, so it was cut outta the scrolls. However, there are still many more scrolls and books out there of gospels and stories that have been...for lack of a better word...kept out of the Bible, despite being as relevant as the content we can openly see. Why? It was probably seen sometimes as repetitive, and other times seen as 'not fitting the definition of God that was meant to be conveyed'. That is to say, there are Old Testament-era stories that don't show the fearsome God who strikes down unbelievers, but the loving God that Jesus was supposed to represent in the New Testament. They probably...didn't want to send mixed messages. The Dead Sea Scrolls, unfortunately, are incomplete, and those that we do have are fragmented (due to natural decay throughout the ages).

BUT an amazing discovery has been made recently of, if memory serves correctly, a 'trash dump' being found somewhere around Europe underneath the mud, with 'litter' from a couple thousand years ago. This 'trash' that had been thrown out and is being reconstructed included greek plays, hopefully some of the lost works of Sappho (beautiful poet whose works were destroyed by early Christians because of their questionable content...i.e. she was a lesbian), and perhaps most startling-
what looks to be some centuries-lost teachings from the Bible.

Noah's Arc, the story that we see in Genesis, is almost EXACTLY like the story of the Flood told in Gilgamesh. Want to know the simplest reason for this? Abraham, before becoming the 'founder of the tribes of Israel' or whatever you will say of him, came from the polytheistic world of the Babylonians, and easily may have known the tale of Gilgamesh, or at least the portion refering to the great Flood.

Although I do not believe that a world-wide flood was likely to have actually occured, there IS strong proof that the Black Sea was flooded thousands of years ago (fitting just about perfectly with the time that Noah would have existed) when a thin wall of rock seperating it from the Aegean broke, and like a dam...it flooded the entire place in no time, destroying all life in the valleys, killing many people, and sending frantic survivors out in all directions through Europe and the Middle East. To them, the entire world that they knew HAD been destroyed, and it explains why the story of the Flood is so widely known in the history of many cultures.

One of the really fun archaeological finds in recent years is that of a stone casket (or ash burial thing..something of the sort) bearing what is believed to be the name of Jesus' brother, James (I think that's the right brother, anyway. Mary didn't stay a virgin forever, after all). Though it isn't too hard to assume that Jesus was a real man anyway, even two-thousand years after the fact. We can acknowledge his existance like we can believe that Caesar Augustus or Cleopatra existed, and even the Koran mentions Jesus as a real individual....it's just a matter of whether he was a mere human teacher and prophet...or whether he was "God's divine son". I suppose we can't REALLY know for sure unless we end up in a good place after death and see him there, hehe.