[quote]Oleena wrote:
Brother Chris- How does the trilemma [/quote]
No, it’s just something I vaguely came to a conclusion about and I was talking to my dear friend about it, and she asked me if I had read C.S. Lewis (I had no clue who he was at the time) and I said no, and she told me that it was an author she read all the time as a kid before she became an atheist.
Jesus could have been three things as I see it (I had a few others because I wasn’t entirely sure if I had processed everything correctly): lunatic, liar, or lord. You have those three options, based on the historical account. I choose the third option. I could be wrong, but I can’t see it.
And, if he was lord than his Traditions would be valid. I don’t much care if someone doesn’t believe Jesus is lord, I wish they would, but they have free will and reason for a reason. And, as long as they follow Natural Law, I’m not much to interfere with other people’s business when it comes to religion as I respect people’s freedom of conscience. They can figure it out if they want to, I’ll stand here patiently if anyone wants me to instruct them.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
So if women are made in man’s image, and men are made in god’s image, who are those born with both sexes made in the image of? What about those without sex and hermaphrodites? Where do they come from?
God has roles for men and women but he doesnt mention those with both sexes and no sex in the bible. How should those people act? Why didnt god mention them?[/quote]
All men (this includes women) are made in the image G-d, this includes ALL people. Even cloned people, or whatever. As a Vatican scientist said, ‘if they have arms and legs I’ll be first to baptize them (referring to aliens).’
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Are you fucking high? You wrote all that, most of which is some permutation or the other of a first cause? In an eternal universe, there is no first cause. Now what?[/quote]
Actually, I didn’t Thomas Aquinas did. As is evident to me, in the real world there is no eternal universe, and there is a first cause. Now what?
And, eternal universe begs the question.[/quote]
“Az is evident to you” is quite irrelevant until such time you experience other dimensions, quantum fluctuations and all the other physical strangeness of the universe you cannot grok. Eternal begs no question - it just “is”…as it is beyond your ability to grok b/c you fall right back into the paradox of your experience with time.[/quote]
Have you experienced these other dimensions and such?
So what you are saying (correct me if I am wrong) science says the Universe is 13.5 billion years old…and you say it is eternal?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The Holy Ghost was such a kidder right?
[/quote]
No, women are not to be in the priesthood and women are to wear veils to Mass or Divine Liturgy.[/quote]
Being generous, we can defend the Bible and say it (suppressing women) was the culture at the time. Or, we can develop the view (similar to some Muslims) that women are so cherished, the suppression is for their own protection.
But to hold to this view in this day and age is very sad indeed. Might as well be the Taliban.
Honestly, some of the best spiritual teachings I’ve ever received have been from women.
[quote]Mackk wrote:
ZEB: You claim I speak as if I don’t understand the bible,[/quote]
Judging only from the few posts that we’ve had I don’t feel that you have a very good understanding of the Bible. I am not claiming that you have not read it. The first few times that I read the Bible I can honestly tell you that I didn’t understand quite a lot of what I read. And even though I have been reading it for years now there are still many things that I have a difficult time grasping. But once a point is grasped I look back and shake my head and wonder why I didn’t get it sooner. It’s a very deep rich book. For example the coming of Jesus Christ is predicted in the Old Testament over 300 Times! The first time around I didn’t even see one of them. That of course is only one example of what I’m talking about.
The problem with this forum is that it gives atheists/agnostics a chance to tear down what they don’t really understand, and never took the time to understand. You have frauds who prowl the forum and copy and paste a few lines from something they read on an anti-Christian site and they want to be taken seriously. When in reality all they’re doing is cruising for attention and an Internet fight. And that gets under my skin as you can probably tell. Sort of like a guy looking through the glass of a mixed martial arts studio and saying, “I could kick his ass” without ever fully understanding exactly what an mma fighter does, or could do to him.
First you really have to understand what you are reading in its full breadth and depth and within context. I am not claiming that all atheists have never read the Bible. But what I’ve found is that most atheists/agnostics are young males who have not even read the book (or very little of it). And how much respect do they deserve when they come out swinging? Again, I am not saying that this is you.
That is a very valid point that you raise and I agree with it. However, if someone is making a claim that they have read and understand the Bible then there would be certain key comments that they would not make. And well, you’ve made a few of them.
It isn’t because men are “closer” to God. And by the way that is one of the statements which reveals to me that you really don’t understand what you’ve read, sorry. There is no where in the Bible which states that men are closer to God than women. Not in any of the 66 books does it say such a thing.
Next point, God obviously chose to reveal Himself to us in the masculine.
I assume it’s because God has the traditional masculine qualities of fatherhood, protection, direction, strength, etc. Metaphors used to describe Him in the Bible include: King, Father, Judge, Husband, Master, and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. In fact even the church is referred to as the bride of Christ.
Those referring to God as female are probably not too familiar with the Christian Bible.
[/quote]
I do actually appreciate you actually answering the questions, I have one more though. Are you arguing that there is no preferred sex of god in theory (as per the bible) or in practice (as per organized religion)?[/quote]
There is no preferred sex according to the Bible. But of course you might have a certain interpretation of the word “preferred”. Maybe if you tell me what you are driving at I can give you a more accurate answer.
The link I posted demonstrates the accuracy of the New Testament as compared to other ancient works. As some repeatedly claim that the many interpretations have changed the meaning. As we can see they have not.
Thanks for the return links. And all the best to you in your own search.
The link I posted demonstrates the accuracy of the New Testament as compared to other ancient works. As some repeatedly claim that the many interpretations have changed the meaning. As we can see they have not.
Thanks for the return links. And all the best to you in your own search.
Zeb[/quote]
I just have to say that having accurate manuscripts doesn’t automatically make what the books say true. It still requires faith, and that’s what it comes back to. Do you agree that miracles are evidence? You need faith first, and then there is evidence given for your faith. As Christ said, miracles follow them that believe. The greatest miracles Christ performed were to those who had already confirmed their faith, and he frequently would not do miracles due to unbelief.
You do realize that’s not the trilemma most people are thinking about when they hear the word, right?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Brother Chris- How does the trilemma [/quote]
No, it’s just something I vaguely came to a conclusion about and I was talking to my dear friend about it, and she asked me if I had read C.S. Lewis (I had no clue who he was at the time) and I said no, and she told me that it was an author she read all the time as a kid before she became an atheist.
Jesus could have been three things as I see it (I had a few others because I wasn’t entirely sure if I had processed everything correctly): lunatic, liar, or lord. You have those three options, based on the historical account. I choose the third option. I could be wrong, but I can’t see it.
And, if he was lord than his Traditions would be valid. I don’t much care if someone doesn’t believe Jesus is lord, I wish they would, but they have free will and reason for a reason. And, as long as they follow Natural Law, I’m not much to interfere with other people’s business when it comes to religion as I respect people’s freedom of conscience. They can figure it out if they want to, I’ll stand here patiently if anyone wants me to instruct them.[/quote]
The link I posted demonstrates the accuracy of the New Testament as compared to other ancient works. As some repeatedly claim that the many interpretations have changed the meaning. As we can see they have not.
Thanks for the return links. And all the best to you in your own search.
Zeb[/quote]
I just have to say that having accurate manuscripts doesn’t automatically make what the books say true. It still requires faith, and that’s what it comes back to. Do you agree that miracles are evidence? You need faith first, and then there is evidence given for your faith. As Christ said, miracles follow them that believe. The greatest miracles Christ performed were to those who had already confirmed their faith, and he frequently would not do miracles due to unbelief.[/quote]
I thoroughly responded to this if you go back to the previous page, in addition to posting a link to the oldest book in existence, numerous writings not considered by the links Zeb posted (his only concerned Greek writings). In my second reply the first link goes to a book that outlines the development of religion from that first book to modern day, where ideas originated, were repeated, crossed over, evolved…etc. You may think because I’m posting it that it bashes on religion or Christianity, but it’s actually quite supportive and fair.
The link I posted demonstrates the accuracy of the New Testament as compared to other ancient works. As some repeatedly claim that the many interpretations have changed the meaning. As we can see they have not.
Thanks for the return links. And all the best to you in your own search.
Zeb[/quote]
I just have to say that having accurate manuscripts doesn’t automatically make what the books say true. It still requires faith, and that’s what it comes back to. Do you agree that miracles are evidence? You need faith first, and then there is evidence given for your faith. As Christ said, miracles follow them that believe. The greatest miracles Christ performed were to those who had already confirmed their faith, and he frequently would not do miracles due to unbelief.[/quote]
I thoroughly responded to this if you go back to the previous page, in addition to posting a link to the oldest book in existence, numerous writings not considered by the links Zeb posted (his only concerned Greek writings). In my second reply the first link goes to a book that outlines the development of religion from that first book to modern day, where ideas originated, were repeated, crossed over, evolved…etc. You may think because I’m posting it that it bashes on religion or Christianity, but it’s actually quite supportive and fair.
[/quote]
I think I’ve mentioned before I’m a believer in diffusionist theory- that the stories originate from a common source. I think we’re saying the same thing.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The Holy Ghost was such a kidder right?
[/quote]
No, women are not to be in the priesthood and women are to wear veils to Mass or Divine Liturgy.[/quote]
Being generous, we can defend the Bible and say it (suppressing women) was the culture at the time. Or, we can develop the view (similar to some Muslims) that women are so cherished, the suppression is for their own protection.
But to hold to this view in this day and age is very sad indeed. Might as well be the Taliban.
Honestly, some of the best spiritual teachings I’ve ever received have been from women.[/quote]
I remember reading a Taoist text that told the story of a husband who set his mind to reaching enlightenment and struggled with it for decades. He couldn’t even do the most basic things at the end of all that time. He then realized that while he was trying to force this weird state on himself, the subservience he forced his wife into had created an atmosphere where she had naturally mastered the ability of not trying to control events and simply observing. It turned out that the disservice her position in life granted her allowed her easier access to things he may never reach. The story goes that he found out she was a master.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
So if women are made in man’s image, and men are made in god’s image, who are those born with both sexes made in the image of? What about those without sex and hermaphrodites? Where do they come from?
God has roles for men and women but he doesnt mention those with both sexes and no sex in the bible. How should those people act? Why didnt god mention them?[/quote]
All men (this includes women) are made in the image G-d, this includes ALL people. Even cloned people, or whatever. As a Vatican scientist said, ‘if they have arms and legs I’ll be first to baptize them (referring to aliens).’[/quote]
The link I posted demonstrates the accuracy of the New Testament as compared to other ancient works. As some repeatedly claim that the many interpretations have changed the meaning. As we can see they have not.
Thanks for the return links. And all the best to you in your own search.
Zeb[/quote]
I just have to say that having accurate manuscripts doesn’t automatically make what the books say true. It still requires faith, and that’s what it comes back to. Do you agree that miracles are evidence? You need faith first, and then there is evidence given for your faith. As Christ said, miracles follow them that believe. The greatest miracles Christ performed were to those who had already confirmed their faith, and he frequently would not do miracles due to unbelief.[/quote]
I never once said that having accurate manuscripts make a text automatically true. I was responding to another poster with that particular link.
As to the man whose heart obeyeth his
belly, he causeth disgust in place of love. His heart is wretched (?), his
body is gross (?), he is insolent toward those endowed of the God. He that
The Instruction of Ptah-Hotep and the by Battiscombe G. Gunn 26obeyeth his belly hath an enemy.[9]
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Are you fucking high? You wrote all that, most of which is some permutation or the other of a first cause? In an eternal universe, there is no first cause. Now what?[/quote]
Actually, I didn’t Thomas Aquinas did. As is evident to me, in the real world there is no eternal universe, and there is a first cause. Now what?
And, eternal universe begs the question.[/quote]
“Az is evident to you” is quite irrelevant until such time you experience other dimensions, quantum fluctuations and all the other physical strangeness of the universe you cannot grok. Eternal begs no question - it just “is”…as it is beyond your ability to grok b/c you fall right back into the paradox of your experience with time.[/quote]
Have you experienced these other dimensions and such?
So what you are saying (correct me if I am wrong) science says the Universe is 13.5 billion years old…and you say it is eternal?[/quote]
Logic and science fail for you sir!
I have no experienced any such “dimensions and such” but science is proving they in fact exist. There are many things you do not experience that exist. I believe your bible even refers to such allegorically or directly.
Science says the “known or visible universe” is 13.5 billion years old. However, there are emerging theories concerning both time and the nature of the universe. Here are a few for arguments sake:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/
“But now we see another answer to the creationists: maybe this isnâ??t the only Universe. There might have been a string of them, reaching back in time, in meta-time beyond time. In those other Universes, maybe the electron had more charge, and stars couldnâ??t form. Or maybe it had less, and every star collapsed into a black hole. But if you get enough Universes, and the constants change in each one, then eventually one will get the mix right. Stars will last for billions of years, planets can form, life can evolve, and on one blue green ball of dust, chemicals can get complicated enough that they could look inside themselves, understand what they see, and marvel at the very fact of their own existence.”
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time
â??The meaning of time has become terribly problematic in contemporary physics,â?? says Simon Saunders, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford. â??The situation is so uncomfortable that by far the best thing to do is declare oneself an agnostic.â??
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The Holy Ghost was such a kidder right?
[/quote]
No, women are not to be in the priesthood and women are to wear veils to Mass or Divine Liturgy.[/quote]
Being generous, we can defend the Bible and say it (suppressing women) was the culture at the time. Or, we can develop the view (similar to some Muslims) that women are so cherished, the suppression is for their own protection.
But to hold to this view in this day and age is very sad indeed. Might as well be the Taliban.
Honestly, some of the best spiritual teachings I’ve ever received have been from women.[/quote]
Well, following “being generous” and, that the bible is the inerrant word of God (because if it is not, everything crumbles), then we can conclude that God was necessarily oppressing women. Amiwrong?
Very interesting, to say the least! I enjoyed how he talks about people who claim to believe in science rather than God. In reality those people are being simply ignorant. Dr. Voddie Baucham Jr. talks about how the Bible never asks for blind faith. People often ask for the Bible to be proven on these boards! but even history can NOT be proven with the scientific method. He is a pastor of the Grace Family Baptist Church, so you all know = ][/quote]
So I finally got around to watching this and there’s a major problem:
Buddhism has been written down by those experiencing miracle/teaching it more recently and by the people actually experiencing it, than Christianity. In addition, Buddhists claim that their lives before they became Buddhist, and after, are like night and day, respectively in terms of going smoothly and wonderfully. Also, we’ve connected people who are meditating up to electrodes and discovered that they are actually altering their brainwaves in a very positive way (google Dalai Lama studies if you want a lot of evidence, including scientific, peer reviewed studies. Buddhism is embracing science because it thinks science will bring about more clear evidence regarding Buddhist practices).
For these reasons, Buddhism presents as much evidence as what’s presented in that video, in addition to more.
BTW, his little rant about Jesus referring to the Psalm while on the cross automatically meaning it was a prophecy could be wrong. For example, they used to kill people publicly by literally letting them be eaten by animals while people tortured them, before Jesus was killed. It could be that someone wrote down what that would be like and Jesus thought it was an apt description of what it felt like to be on the cross, also. Just because you refer back to a description of something else to describe how you’re feeling doesn’t mean that it’s a prophecy.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The Holy Ghost was such a kidder right?
[/quote]
No, women are not to be in the priesthood and women are to wear veils to Mass or Divine Liturgy.[/quote]
Being generous, we can defend the Bible and say it (suppressing women) was the culture at the time. Or, we can develop the view (similar to some Muslims) that women are so cherished, the suppression is for their own protection.
But to hold to this view in this day and age is very sad indeed. Might as well be the Taliban.
Honestly, some of the best spiritual teachings I’ve ever received have been from women.[/quote]
I remember reading a Taoist text that told the story of a husband who set his mind to reaching enlightenment and struggled with it for decades. He couldn’t even do the most basic things at the end of all that time. He then realized that while he was trying to force this weird state on himself, the subservience he forced his wife into had created an atmosphere where she had naturally mastered the ability of not trying to control events and simply observing. It turned out that the disservice her position in life granted her allowed her easier access to things he may never reach. The story goes that he found out she was a master.[/quote]
That’s like in the movie Greek Wedding, I believe. The mother acknowledged that the man was the Head of the House, but the woman was the Neck…and could therefore direct the Head. I thought that was funny as hell.