Religion of Forgiveness (Now with 25% More Hypocrisy)

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
But is’nt the Bible “gods word”? it should be full of facts?

Yes. No. Why would God have to present facts that are easily attainable? There are facts in the Bible, but it isn’t a history book. It’s a book to communicate the many facets of God. Study Archeology if you want to dig up dirt on ancient man and societies. The Bible may have some of that info, but it isn’t to provide that info. It uses the facts to tell truths about God. You also must consider the audiences these were written for, to get full understanding of what is being said. If your looking at it as a history book, your screwed. Your facts will be all kinds of fucked up.

Well if the bible was factually correct then I would be a beleiver, but I just cant trust a book that has so much wrong with it, no matter who it was written for.

It’s a book of truth, not a book of fact.

C.S. Lewis a person who tried to disprove the Bible as nothing more than a myth stated. “The Bible reads more like history than a Myth.” He later converted to Christianity and wrote the Chronicles of Narnia. A way to teach Children about the Bible. He wrote a lot of other books. He was a very smart man.

And in the Narnia books Aslan tells the Children that he exists in their world, they just know him by a different name. In this he was referring to the fact that many peoples on earth worship God in their own differing way.

I would like to know what name is he called here? Aslan was killed in the place of Edmond whose blood was called for because of his treachery, by the great magic. Aslan died and was risen from the dead. I dont know about you but there is no other person in religion that has done this.

Well you might try reading 1 kings 17:17-24, 2 Kings 4:32-37 and 2 Kings 13:21 from your own religion.

You could look into Osiris and Baal from Egyptian religions.

Head over to Greece and learn about Asclepius, Achilles, Aristeas of Proconnesus and many others.

Check out Buddhism for the resurrection of Bodhidharma.

Jump the Atlantic and read about Quetzalcoatl.

Resurrection is an extremely common theme in religion as it relates to natural cycles. Every day has a birth and a death of the Sun which is then resurrected the following day. Every year we see plants die back and then become resurrected in the spring (why do you think Easter is celebrated in the Spring time?)

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that these people actually lived and are not myths, but did any of them die for all humanity so that they might live even in the afterlife?[/quote]

Quetzalcoatl for starters and I hope you realise the irony of your comment about the characters I mention being possibly myths given the total lack of evidence for the real existence of Chüy of Nazareth.

302

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
But is’nt the Bible “gods word”? it should be full of facts?

Yes. No. Why would God have to present facts that are easily attainable? There are facts in the Bible, but it isn’t a history book. It’s a book to communicate the many facets of God. Study Archeology if you want to dig up dirt on ancient man and societies. The Bible may have some of that info, but it isn’t to provide that info. It uses the facts to tell truths about God. You also must consider the audiences these were written for, to get full understanding of what is being said. If your looking at it as a history book, your screwed. Your facts will be all kinds of fucked up.

Well if the bible was factually correct then I would be a beleiver, but I just cant trust a book that has so much wrong with it, no matter who it was written for.

It’s a book of truth, not a book of fact.

C.S. Lewis a person who tried to disprove the Bible as nothing more than a myth stated. “The Bible reads more like history than a Myth.” He later converted to Christianity and wrote the Chronicles of Narnia. A way to teach Children about the Bible. He wrote a lot of other books. He was a very smart man.

And in the Narnia books Aslan tells the Children that he exists in their world, they just know him by a different name. In this he was referring to the fact that many peoples on earth worship God in their own differing way.

I would like to know what name is he called here? Aslan was killed in the place of Edmond whose blood was called for because of his treachery, by the great magic. Aslan died and was risen from the dead. I dont know about you but there is no other person in religion that has done this.

Well you might try reading 1 kings 17:17-24, 2 Kings 4:32-37 and 2 Kings 13:21 from your own religion.

You could look into Osiris and Baal from Egyptian religions.

Head over to Greece and learn about Asclepius, Achilles, Aristeas of Proconnesus and many others.

Check out Buddhism for the resurrection of Bodhidharma.

Jump the Atlantic and read about Quetzalcoatl.

Resurrection is an extremely common theme in religion as it relates to natural cycles. Every day has a birth and a death of the Sun which is then resurrected the following day. Every year we see plants die back and then become resurrected in the spring (why do you think Easter is celebrated in the Spring time?)

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that these people actually lived and are not myths, but did any of them die for all humanity so that they might live even in the afterlife?

Quetzalcoatl for starters and I hope you realise the irony of your comment about the characters I mention being possibly myths given the total lack of evidence for the real existence of Ch�¼y of Nazareth.[/quote]

I would think that the largest religion in the world could not have fooled that many people. There is more evidence than you would like to believe. I stated one being Josephus, historian, I think he was alive during the 2nd century. I will admit that with out a body it will be really hard to proove. If you want proof then Faith is not part of the equation, but it is only by Faith we are all saved. We can argue about all the neuonces of Christianity, but it all boils down to Faith and not Proof.

I can see why people do not get Christianity, and I also understand why people call us Hypocrites. I just wish people would look past the people and see who he really is and study about it. We humans are falible and we make a lot of mistakes. I have made several on this thread and I apologize if I have offended any one.

303

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
But is’nt the Bible “gods word”? it should be full of facts?

Yes. No. Why would God have to present facts that are easily attainable? There are facts in the Bible, but it isn’t a history book. It’s a book to communicate the many facets of God. Study Archeology if you want to dig up dirt on ancient man and societies. The Bible may have some of that info, but it isn’t to provide that info. It uses the facts to tell truths about God. You also must consider the audiences these were written for, to get full understanding of what is being said. If your looking at it as a history book, your screwed. Your facts will be all kinds of fucked up.

Well if the bible was factually correct then I would be a beleiver, but I just cant trust a book that has so much wrong with it, no matter who it was written for.

It’s a book of truth, not a book of fact.

C.S. Lewis a person who tried to disprove the Bible as nothing more than a myth stated. “The Bible reads more like history than a Myth.” He later converted to Christianity and wrote the Chronicles of Narnia. A way to teach Children about the Bible. He wrote a lot of other books. He was a very smart man.

And in the Narnia books Aslan tells the Children that he exists in their world, they just know him by a different name. In this he was referring to the fact that many peoples on earth worship God in their own differing way.

I would like to know what name is he called here? Aslan was killed in the place of Edmond whose blood was called for because of his treachery, by the great magic. Aslan died and was risen from the dead. I dont know about you but there is no other person in religion that has done this.

Well you might try reading 1 kings 17:17-24, 2 Kings 4:32-37 and 2 Kings 13:21 from your own religion.

You could look into Osiris and Baal from Egyptian religions.

Head over to Greece and learn about Asclepius, Achilles, Aristeas of Proconnesus and many others.

Check out Buddhism for the resurrection of Bodhidharma.

Jump the Atlantic and read about Quetzalcoatl.

Resurrection is an extremely common theme in religion as it relates to natural cycles. Every day has a birth and a death of the Sun which is then resurrected the following day. Every year we see plants die back and then become resurrected in the spring (why do you think Easter is celebrated in the Spring time?)

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that these people actually lived and are not myths, but did any of them die for all humanity so that they might live even in the afterlife?

Quetzalcoatl for starters and I hope you realise the irony of your comment about the characters I mention being possibly myths given the total lack of evidence for the real existence of Ch�¼y of Nazareth.[/quote]

I did a little reading in Wiki and noticed it said he was a feathered serpent and not human. Am I reading it correct?

304

[quote]Rza UK wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
I’m still shocked by the amount of people who believe in any type of god, I mean how many things need to be proved wrong to stop people believing this tripe? Its crazy

Oh really?
What things have been proven wrong? And how specifically, do they prove there is no God. This I got to hear.

Loads of things from the bible have been proved wrong, like the universe being created in 7days and that we all came from Adam and Eve. How much more is needed?[/quote]

Oh you mean the inconclusive research where at the end the scientist suppose that this or that might be true. Like I said the Bible is made from Divine tradition. You can’t prove anything to be true or not, is it me or does anyone else think that evidence thousands of years old might be a little difficult to rely on since it is likely tampered with?

And for the people that believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, pick up the complete book and read the entire thing.

305

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
Funnily enough there are Hindu’s that would argue that their religion is monotheistic and the different God’s are actually just different aspects of Shiva.

I have heard this, but when I went to India it is hard to understand that they are all part of the same Shiva. They worship the one parts that fits them. If you do not want the entire god, then what is the point?

Well Catholics do the same, they just call them saints instead of Gods. I am travelling over the weekend, best put my St Christopher on etc.[/quote]

I am sorry, but that comment is ignorant. The Catholic Church believes that everyone is ever living (living now and after life). So, if that is what we believe why would it be hard to not expect those people to still see/hear/pray. We do not worship the Saints, that is a fallacy. We simply ask those that are believed to be in favor of God to pray for us. Just like we ask other Christians to pray for us.

Good one, but you might want to learn about what the Catholic Church believes instead talking about what you think you saw or heard.

306

I am not trying to call any one out, because I did it above, but I think we need to tone down the name calling and you need to learn this before you can comment on it. I think this thread is a really good and civilized conversation. We are trying to work through what we all believe and then asking questions about what we all think about it. No ones minds are going to be changed on a T-Nation thread, but it will at least challenge us to think about what we believe and get better at our responses.

307

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

I am not a big fan of asking someone who is dead to pray for me. I understand the need to have someone interceed for you, just not talking to the dead. I would prefer to go to the High Priest in Jesus to go to God. No better place to start than with God’s son. I am ok with talking with a priest or pastor if you would like them to pray for you or to keep you accountable.[/quote]

Jesus is God, so when you pray to Him you are praying to God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Yes, that is why with the Rosary you first start praying to God. You state what you believe (Apostles Creed), and then the prayer Jesus taught us to pray (Our Father). After that you tell Jesus’ mother she is blessed as well as her son (Hail Mary), then you praise God. Pray the Our Father, then a decades worth of Hail Mary’s with one praise to God, etc. Prayer is conversation, and we ask the Saints to pray for us and we pray for ourselves.

Their bodies are, their soul however is not. The best way to describe it is that the soul and spirit is part of you, but when you die that is what is going to Heaven or Hell. However, your physical body is dead, when you are mortally dead.

I really want to understand this and I in no way am looking to get into a fight. I just want knowledge.[/quote]

They are not considered dead (their soul) they

308

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

I am not a big fan of asking someone who is dead to pray for me. I understand the need to have someone interceed for you, just not talking to the dead. I would prefer to go to the High Priest in Jesus to go to God. No better place to start than with God’s son. I am ok with talking with a priest or pastor if you would like them to pray for you or to keep you accountable.[/quote]

Jesus is God, so when you pray to Him you are praying to God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Yes, that is why with the Rosary you first start praying to God. You state what you believe (Apostles Creed), and then the prayer Jesus taught us to pray (Our Father). After that you tell Jesus’ mother she is blessed as well as her son (Hail Mary), then you praise God. Pray the Our Father, then a decades worth of Hail Mary’s with one praise to God, etc. Prayer is conversation, and we ask the Saints to pray for us and we pray for ourselves.

Their bodies are, their spirit however is not. The best way to describe it is that the soul and spirit is part of you (what makes you alive knowledge, intellect, beliefs, etc.), but when you die that is what is going to Heaven or Hell. However, your physical body is dead, when you are mortally dead.

I really want to understand this and I in no way am looking to get into a fight. I just want knowledge.[/quote]

No problem, it is very interesting.

309

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
I’m still shocked by the amount of people who believe in any type of god, I mean how many things need to be proved wrong to stop people believing this tripe? Its crazy

Oh really?
What things have been proven wrong? And how specifically, do they prove there is no God. This I got to hear.

Loads of things from the bible have been proved wrong, like the universe being created in 7days and that we all came from Adam and Eve. How much more is needed?

Oh you mean the inconclusive research where at the end the scientist suppose that this or that might be true. Like I said the Bible is made from Divine tradition. You can’t prove anything to be true or not, is it me or does anyone else think that evidence thousands of years old might be a little difficult to rely on since it is likely tampered with?

And for the people that believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, pick up the complete book and read the entire thing.[/quote]

From what I know of Catholicism I thought that the Bible was the inspired word of God given to his people. I also think that the Bible can be prooven, but not all of it because things that are yet to come can not be prooven. I think that since the Catholic Monks that copied the manuscripts from thousands of years ago; a Catholic would believe that they had not been tampered with.

310

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
But is’nt the Bible “gods word”? it should be full of facts?

Yes. No. Why would God have to present facts that are easily attainable? There are facts in the Bible, but it isn’t a history book. It’s a book to communicate the many facets of God. Study Archeology if you want to dig up dirt on ancient man and societies. The Bible may have some of that info, but it isn’t to provide that info. It uses the facts to tell truths about God. You also must consider the audiences these were written for, to get full understanding of what is being said. If your looking at it as a history book, your screwed. Your facts will be all kinds of fucked up.

Well if the bible was factually correct then I would be a beleiver, but I just cant trust a book that has so much wrong with it, no matter who it was written for.

It’s a book of truth, not a book of fact.

C.S. Lewis a person who tried to disprove the Bible as nothing more than a myth stated. “The Bible reads more like history than a Myth.” He later converted to Christianity and wrote the Chronicles of Narnia. A way to teach Children about the Bible. He wrote a lot of other books. He was a very smart man.

And in the Narnia books Aslan tells the Children that he exists in their world, they just know him by a different name. In this he was referring to the fact that many peoples on earth worship God in their own differing way.

I would like to know what name is he called here? Aslan was killed in the place of Edmond whose blood was called for because of his treachery, by the great magic. Aslan died and was risen from the dead. I dont know about you but there is no other person in religion that has done this.

Well you might try reading 1 kings 17:17-24, 2 Kings 4:32-37 and 2 Kings 13:21 from your own religion.

You could look into Osiris and Baal from Egyptian religions.

Head over to Greece and learn about Asclepius, Achilles, Aristeas of Proconnesus and many others.

Check out Buddhism for the resurrection of Bodhidharma.

Jump the Atlantic and read about Quetzalcoatl.

Resurrection is an extremely common theme in religion as it relates to natural cycles. Every day has a birth and a death of the Sun which is then resurrected the following day. Every year we see plants die back and then become resurrected in the spring (why do you think Easter is celebrated in the Spring time?)

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that these people actually lived and are not myths, but did any of them die for all humanity so that they might live even in the afterlife?

Quetzalcoatl for starters and I hope you realise the irony of your comment about the characters I mention being possibly myths given the total lack of evidence for the real existence of Ch�?�¼y of Nazareth.

I would think that the largest religion in the world could not have fooled that many people. There is more evidence than you would like to believe. I stated one being Josephus, historian, I think he was alive during the 2nd century. I will admit that with out a body it will be really hard to proove. If you want proof then Faith is not part of the equation, but it is only by Faith we are all saved. We can argue about all the neuonces of Christianity, but it all boils down to Faith and not Proof.

I can see why people do not get Christianity, and I also understand why people call us Hypocrites. I just wish people would look past the people and see who he really is and study about it. We humans are falible and we make a lot of mistakes. I have made several on this thread and I apologize if I have offended any one. [/quote]

There is no evidence at all. As you have mentioned the first reports date from nearly a century later and Nazareth didn’t even exist at the time.

Christianity wasn’t always the largest religion in the world, does that mean that other religions were right when they were the largest?

311

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
I’m still shocked by the amount of people who believe in any type of god, I mean how many things need to be proved wrong to stop people believing this tripe? Its crazy

Oh really?
What things have been proven wrong? And how specifically, do they prove there is no God. This I got to hear.

Loads of things from the bible have been proved wrong, like the universe being created in 7days and that we all came from Adam and Eve. How much more is needed?

Oh you mean the inconclusive research where at the end the scientist suppose that this or that might be true. Like I said the Bible is made from Divine tradition. You can’t prove anything to be true or not, is it me or does anyone else think that evidence thousands of years old might be a little difficult to rely on since it is likely tampered with?

And for the people that believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, pick up the complete book and read the entire thing.

From what I know of Catholicism I thought that the Bible was the inspired word of God given to his people. I also think that the Bible can be prooven, but not all of it because things that are yet to come can not be prooven. I think that since the Catholic Monks that copied the manuscripts from thousands of years ago; a Catholic would believe that they had not been tampered with.[/quote]

Well this is what I have studied (secondary). The Bible is written divinely. However, it comes from tradition (how the events are seen, how they are thought of, etc.), people did not write in the note books as things occurred, it was carried by word of mouth. So, you know how word of mouth works when transferring a direct message. As well once it was written down, people know history is written by the victor. All that aside, things are considered fairly concrete if it lasts for 4-5 generations. Well, it has been more than 4-5 generations since the Bible was completed and the last canon, and the Bible is 1) logical and 2) long lasting.

The thing people have trouble with is the tradition part, you have to understand for example that people in India will not be easily converted to Catholicism because their tradition is not the same (Jewish, and Greek). The reason why tradition is a heavily evolved thing in the Bible is because even if you speak the same language, the culture is different so without proper tradition you might as well be speaking a foreign language.

312

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
But is’nt the Bible “gods word”? it should be full of facts?

Yes. No. Why would God have to present facts that are easily attainable? There are facts in the Bible, but it isn’t a history book. It’s a book to communicate the many facets of God. Study Archeology if you want to dig up dirt on ancient man and societies. The Bible may have some of that info, but it isn’t to provide that info. It uses the facts to tell truths about God. You also must consider the audiences these were written for, to get full understanding of what is being said. If your looking at it as a history book, your screwed. Your facts will be all kinds of fucked up.

Well if the bible was factually correct then I would be a beleiver, but I just cant trust a book that has so much wrong with it, no matter who it was written for.

It’s a book of truth, not a book of fact.

C.S. Lewis a person who tried to disprove the Bible as nothing more than a myth stated. “The Bible reads more like history than a Myth.” He later converted to Christianity and wrote the Chronicles of Narnia. A way to teach Children about the Bible. He wrote a lot of other books. He was a very smart man.

And in the Narnia books Aslan tells the Children that he exists in their world, they just know him by a different name. In this he was referring to the fact that many peoples on earth worship God in their own differing way.

I would like to know what name is he called here? Aslan was killed in the place of Edmond whose blood was called for because of his treachery, by the great magic. Aslan died and was risen from the dead. I dont know about you but there is no other person in religion that has done this.

Well you might try reading 1 kings 17:17-24, 2 Kings 4:32-37 and 2 Kings 13:21 from your own religion.

You could look into Osiris and Baal from Egyptian religions.

Head over to Greece and learn about Asclepius, Achilles, Aristeas of Proconnesus and many others.

Check out Buddhism for the resurrection of Bodhidharma.

Jump the Atlantic and read about Quetzalcoatl.

Resurrection is an extremely common theme in religion as it relates to natural cycles. Every day has a birth and a death of the Sun which is then resurrected the following day. Every year we see plants die back and then become resurrected in the spring (why do you think Easter is celebrated in the Spring time?)

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that these people actually lived and are not myths, but did any of them die for all humanity so that they might live even in the afterlife?

Quetzalcoatl for starters and I hope you realise the irony of your comment about the characters I mention being possibly myths given the total lack of evidence for the real existence of Ch�?�¼y of Nazareth.

I did a little reading in Wiki and noticed it said he was a feathered serpent and not human. Am I reading it correct?[/quote]

Was also supposed to be a human that was going to come again to free the people from their bondage.

313

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
I’m still shocked by the amount of people who believe in any type of god, I mean how many things need to be proved wrong to stop people believing this tripe? Its crazy

Oh really?
What things have been proven wrong? And how specifically, do they prove there is no God. This I got to hear.

Loads of things from the bible have been proved wrong, like the universe being created in 7days and that we all came from Adam and Eve. How much more is needed?

Oh you mean the inconclusive research where at the end the scientist suppose that this or that might be true. Like I said the Bible is made from Divine tradition. You can’t prove anything to be true or not, is it me or does anyone else think that evidence thousands of years old might be a little difficult to rely on since it is likely tampered with?

And for the people that believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, pick up the complete book and read the entire thing.[/quote]

I have, I have also read a number of later works that develop and refine the theory to its current state. I have also read the research papers where they succesfully test predictions put forward by the theory. Still waiting for a similar level of conclusive proof for anything in Christianity.

314

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
Funnily enough there are Hindu’s that would argue that their religion is monotheistic and the different God’s are actually just different aspects of Shiva.

I have heard this, but when I went to India it is hard to understand that they are all part of the same Shiva. They worship the one parts that fits them. If you do not want the entire god, then what is the point?

Well Catholics do the same, they just call them saints instead of Gods. I am travelling over the weekend, best put my St Christopher on etc.

I am sorry, but that comment is ignorant. The Catholic Church believes that everyone is ever living (living now and after life). So, if that is what we believe why would it be hard to not expect those people to still see/hear/pray. We do not worship the Saints, that is a fallacy. We simply ask those that are believed to be in favor of God to pray for us. Just like we ask other Christians to pray for us.

Good one, but you might want to learn about what the Catholic Church believes instead talking about what you think you saw or heard.[/quote]

When you refer to the Catholic Church do you refer to what the Pope and Rome says or what the majority of people who identify themselves as Catholic say and believe? The two are very, very different things.

315

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
When you refer to the Catholic Church do you refer to what the Pope and Rome says or what the majority of people who identify themselves as Catholic say and believe? The two are very, very different things.[/quote]

When we refer to the Church we mean everyone in communion with the Vatican (to put it simply).

316

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
But is’nt the Bible “gods word”? it should be full of facts?

Yes. No. Why would God have to present facts that are easily attainable? There are facts in the Bible, but it isn’t a history book. It’s a book to communicate the many facets of God. Study Archeology if you want to dig up dirt on ancient man and societies. The Bible may have some of that info, but it isn’t to provide that info. It uses the facts to tell truths about God. You also must consider the audiences these were written for, to get full understanding of what is being said. If your looking at it as a history book, your screwed. Your facts will be all kinds of fucked up.

Well if the bible was factually correct then I would be a beleiver, but I just cant trust a book that has so much wrong with it, no matter who it was written for.

It’s a book of truth, not a book of fact.

C.S. Lewis a person who tried to disprove the Bible as nothing more than a myth stated. “The Bible reads more like history than a Myth.” He later converted to Christianity and wrote the Chronicles of Narnia. A way to teach Children about the Bible. He wrote a lot of other books. He was a very smart man.

And in the Narnia books Aslan tells the Children that he exists in their world, they just know him by a different name. In this he was referring to the fact that many peoples on earth worship God in their own differing way.

I would like to know what name is he called here? Aslan was killed in the place of Edmond whose blood was called for because of his treachery, by the great magic. Aslan died and was risen from the dead. I dont know about you but there is no other person in religion that has done this.

Well you might try reading 1 kings 17:17-24, 2 Kings 4:32-37 and 2 Kings 13:21 from your own religion.

You could look into Osiris and Baal from Egyptian religions.

Head over to Greece and learn about Asclepius, Achilles, Aristeas of Proconnesus and many others.

Check out Buddhism for the resurrection of Bodhidharma.

Jump the Atlantic and read about Quetzalcoatl.

Resurrection is an extremely common theme in religion as it relates to natural cycles. Every day has a birth and a death of the Sun which is then resurrected the following day. Every year we see plants die back and then become resurrected in the spring (why do you think Easter is celebrated in the Spring time?)

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that these people actually lived and are not myths, but did any of them die for all humanity so that they might live even in the afterlife?

Quetzalcoatl for starters and I hope you realise the irony of your comment about the characters I mention being possibly myths given the total lack of evidence for the real existence of Ch�??�?�¼y of Nazareth.

I did a little reading in Wiki and noticed it said he was a feathered serpent and not human. Am I reading it correct?

Was also supposed to be a human that was going to come again to free the people from their bondage.[/quote]

I did read that, but I also read that this is possible the person that the Mormons are drawn to as Christ. I found that interesting.

317

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
I’m still shocked by the amount of people who believe in any type of god, I mean how many things need to be proved wrong to stop people believing this tripe? Its crazy

Oh really?
What things have been proven wrong? And how specifically, do they prove there is no God. This I got to hear.

Loads of things from the bible have been proved wrong, like the universe being created in 7days and that we all came from Adam and Eve. How much more is needed?

Oh you mean the inconclusive research where at the end the scientist suppose that this or that might be true. Like I said the Bible is made from Divine tradition. You can’t prove anything to be true or not, is it me or does anyone else think that evidence thousands of years old might be a little difficult to rely on since it is likely tampered with?

And for the people that believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, pick up the complete book and read the entire thing.

From what I know of Catholicism I thought that the Bible was the inspired word of God given to his people. I also think that the Bible can be prooven, but not all of it because things that are yet to come can not be prooven. I think that since the Catholic Monks that copied the manuscripts from thousands of years ago; a Catholic would believe that they had not been tampered with.[/quote]

How can the Bible be proven? Huge chunks of the history in it were just made up and have no relation to actual known history.

318

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
When you refer to the Catholic Church do you refer to what the Pope and Rome says or what the majority of people who identify themselves as Catholic say and believe? The two are very, very different things.

When we refer to the Church we mean everyone in communion with the Vatican (to put it simply).[/quote]

Could I state that when someone says (C)atholic Church with a large C it refers to the communion with the Vatican, and the (c)atholic Church with a small c means the universal church including Protestants.

319

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
When you refer to the Catholic Church do you refer to what the Pope and Rome says or what the majority of people who identify themselves as Catholic say and believe? The two are very, very different things.

When we refer to the Church we mean everyone in communion with the Vatican (to put it simply).

Could I state that when someone says (C)atholic Church with a large C it refers to the communion with the Vatican, and the (c)atholic Church with a small c means the universal church including Protestants.[/quote]

Yes. Small ‘c’ catholic means just that.

320

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
I’m still shocked by the amount of people who believe in any type of god, I mean how many things need to be proved wrong to stop people believing this tripe? Its crazy

Oh really?
What things have been proven wrong? And how specifically, do they prove there is no God. This I got to hear.

Loads of things from the bible have been proved wrong, like the universe being created in 7days and that we all came from Adam and Eve. How much more is needed?

Oh you mean the inconclusive research where at the end the scientist suppose that this or that might be true. Like I said the Bible is made from Divine tradition. You can’t prove anything to be true or not, is it me or does anyone else think that evidence thousands of years old might be a little difficult to rely on since it is likely tampered with?

And for the people that believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, pick up the complete book and read the entire thing.

From what I know of Catholicism I thought that the Bible was the inspired word of God given to his people. I also think that the Bible can be prooven, but not all of it because things that are yet to come can not be prooven. I think that since the Catholic Monks that copied the manuscripts from thousands of years ago; a Catholic would believe that they had not been tampered with.

How can the Bible be proven? Huge chunks of the history in it were just made up and have no relation to actual known history.[/quote]

Which huge chunks are you talking about? Many different scientists confer that the great flood happened. The combined kingdom of Israel was confirmed along with differnt battles of the Old Testament are confirmed by archaeology.

I will say that since Christianity / New Testament is not a historical reference other than the places that were visited by Paul and the Disciples and those places were existent at the time then I think there can be some validity and historical fact to the Bible. Again it is easy for me to say since I think the Bible is the infalible word or God, but there is proof. Watch the Naked Archaologist on TV and you will see what I am talking about.