Have you ever just "lost it"?

[The Dukester]

More truth

Gee, so many opinions, so many questions, so many....I forget. Man, has this come a long way from the original post! Cool, though! I could talk about this for hours. but I won't tonight...it's been a really long day. I just got in from work. I wish I had time to play on the computer during the work day, but alas; no such fortune.
I detect we have a myriad of folks here, some believers, some agnostics, maybe an athiest or two, some on the fence and some that just plain don't know. Tough to address all the people in one post. I'll try to answer a few directed at me and generalize a little more.
To Ironlung (I think!) I can easily believe in God and not the EB. Santa. etc. They are ficticional characters created by man. God, in turn, is a real being that created all mankind. I know; you ask how I know he is real. As mentioned, I have a personal relationship with him, not with Santa. Once Christ enters you heart and changes you from the inside out, there is never any doubt that he is real.
To those asking about the Bible
Yes, I believe it is the inerant word of God. I also believe He wrote it. I also beleive it is a totlay accurate history book that has been backed up by secular writings time and time again. I'll deal with the translation thing possibly later.
To those asking about the walls of Jericho;
Yep, they came down just as written. It was not the trumpets, the shouts or the marching in particular that did it. It was God doing it because 1) He can and 2) Joshua and the people did exactly what God asked them to do. God cannot lie. If he could, then he would not be God. If he promises to do something, then he, by nature, has to do it. He told Joshua what he would do if he obeyed; he did and God followed through.
To Buckeye;
Heaven is a real place and so is Hell. One that we cannot see, for now, but real none the less. God created it for Himself and his children. Yes, we will recognize the people we know in Heaven. We will not have our bodies as we know it but will recieve glorified perfect (thank God!) new bodies. No more aging, disease, decay, pimples, balding or anything. There will not be any family realatioinships in heaven, such as your wife, etc. The Pharasees tried to trick Jesus on this one day when they asked about a woman that had legally married seven times (her husbands had died, freeing her to remarry...their brothers, actually). They asked which husband she would be married to in heaven. He answered that you will neither marry nor be given in marriage in heaven. It's in Mark12:18-27. Since your mate is the closest tie you have on earth, I would say that no other faimliy ties will be given in heaven, either. In other instances, such as the rich man looking up from Hell and seeing Lazarus in heaven after he stiffed him, he recognized him, so I think you will be able to recognize folks there.
In general (it's late and I'm ruinrt...Southern term) I again want to emphasize that Christianity is about faith, grace and relationship. The Bible teaches you must accept Christ as savior if you want to have a relationship with Him and reach heaven upon death. We were created for relationship. For those of you without purpose, there is your purpose.
One last thing to Ninja, I believe. God does not hate homos. He DOES, however, hate homosexuality. It's that hate the sin and love the sinner thing. Homosexuality is without doubt sin. He completely destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their wickedness. Sexual sins, including being gay, were chief among them. Too many people get hung up on the fact that God is love, and he is; but he is also equally holy. Because he is holy, he must punish sin. Your parents practiced a little of this when you were young. They whooped you when you did not obey, but that certainly did not mean they did not love you. Quite the contrary. They correct you because they do love you. I know that there are cases of child abuse, and that is the exception. For the most part, parents love their kids and correct them out of love.
There is more, but for now, I'm outta here!
Keep the post going!
Duke

PS overlook the typos and for you spell check posters: how did I do on the there, their, to and toos? A chicklet if I done good. Just kidding.

 

[Sheep]

How is Homosexuality a sin? Don't you have to believe in god to be sinning anyway?

My cousin is Gay(male) and I see no reason why it is wrong. Until god is prove to be real(unlikely), things that god believes, cannot be implimented. I think People that think homosexuals are sinners, are naive. They are homophobic, and they can't seem to except that not everyone is the same.


sheep

 

[Audioholics]

7. And finally (for today) if you are of the sect that believes the Bible is the de facto, unwavering, incorruptable word of God, you should be made aware that it has been rewritten and (mis)translated hundreds of times over the last two millenia. Jesus & pals didn't speak english, and most every Bible in the bookstore is very different from a 16th century Guttenberg Bible. You could try learning ancient Greek & Latin, tracking down original manuscripts and decyphering it yourself, only to find any survivng originals are long gone, and some early ones actually contradict "official" modern interpretations (a good example are the Gospels according to Timothy, included among the Gnostic Gospels which teaches against paying or tithing for religion).

I'm trying to stay out of this thread as much as possible, partially because I am so passionate about my beliefs, but this statement is entirely incorrect and is based in a wrong understanding of what the bible is, how it is translated and what they all say. Let' put aside the tangent of the Gnostic Gospels for a moment and consider the Bible 'canon'.

First of all, there is an "autograph" - that is the original writing. That does not exist for any of the 66 books which were written by about 40 authors on 3 different continents over a period of 4000 years (amazingly, as a whole it tells a cohesive story of man's fall and ultimate redemption). I can't get a dozen friends to play whisper down the alley wihtou messing up!

Now, we do not have autographs for any of the writings of Shakespeare, Plato, Homer, Julius Ceasar, or any number of texts which we believe to be factually correct insofar as we can understand their original intent and detail.

With that said, a translation of the Bible (regardless of language - and there are over 1400) is derived from the oldest available manuscripts, while the many paraphrases (The Living Bible, The Message, New Living Translation, etc) are partially derived from other versions and modified for easier understanding or a simpler approach to the English language.

Now, to understand just how accurate the Bible is - realize that the King James Bible - completed in 1611 - was based on the availability of only a few ancient manuscripts. Yet, when later compared to the wealth of "new" ancient manuscripts found in the caves of Qumran in 1947 - the texts matched almost identically... What this means is that throughout the ages, with the exception of some scribal errors (none of which effect change in the biblical story or significant thematic details of any sort) the bible translations have been exceptionally true and accurate to the highest standards and expectations of those who study ancient literature.

Do you believe that when you read Homer's Iliad that what you are reading is accurate? Fine. The earliest manuscript is dated 500 YEARS after it was originally penned (the autograph). Incidentally, to be fair, there are about 643 manuscripts in total - and that's quite a few.

Want to read Plato's writings and believe they are accurate? Fine. There is about 1200 YEARS between the autograph (original) and the EARLIEST manuscript evidence. There are about 7 of those manuscripts - but hey, we can still believe that he wrote it the way we read it today.

Want to believe the Bible is true? We have ancient manuscripts (found in the caves of Qumran) that are ONLY 25-50 YEARS after the originals were penned. Oh, it may also be important to note that there are about 25,000 manuscript copies in existence. Far more than any other historical document in the world.

Do the translations differ in style, thought patterns and syntax? You betcha. And for good reason. Each translation was made for a distinct purpose. For example, the New American Standard was meant to be more of a word-for-word translation, while the NIV was made to include the latest manuscript evidence in a contemporary modern English translation. The King James is an excellent spoken language version (it sounds neat when read aloud - and remember there weren't a lot of literate people in the 1600s) and The Message is a version that is written almost like a modern day book - very easy to read.

So before anyone doubts the accuracy of the Bible or the translations it's important to have at least a basic understanding of what the Bible is, how it came to be and what a translation means. It's also important to note that you must apply the SAME RULES used to determine whether other documents are "historically accurate" as you do to the Bible. For some reason people find it easier to believe lesser documented writings. I suppose it's because Plato and Homer never concerned themselves with your eternal destiny. Hope I'm not intruding, but home theater isn't my only hobby and passion.

 

[nibhaz]

I'm trying to stay out of this thread as much as possible, partially because I am so passionate about my beliefs, but this statement is entirely incorrect and is based in a wrong understanding of what the bible is, how it is translated and what they all say. Let' put aside the tangent of the Gnostic Gospels for a moment and consider the Bible 'canon'.

First of all, there is an "autograph" - that is the original writing. That does not exist for any of the 66 books which were written by about 40 authors on 3 different continents over a period of 4000 years (amazingly, as a whole it tells a cohesive story of man's fall and ultimate redemption). I can't get a dozen friends to play whisper down the alley wihtou messing up!

Now, we do not have autographs for any of the writings of Shakespeare, Plato, Homer, Julius Ceasar, or any number of texts which we believe to be factually correct insofar as we can understand their original intent and detail.

With that said, a translation of the Bible (regardless of language - and there are over 1400) is derived from the oldest available manuscripts, while the many paraphrases (The Living Bible, The Message, New Living Translation, etc) are partially derived from other versions and modified for easier understanding or a simpler approach to the English language.

Now, to understand just how accurate the Bible is - realize that the King James Bible - completed in 1611 - was based on the availability of only a few ancient manuscripts. Yet, when later compared to the wealth of "new" ancient manuscripts found in the caves of Qumran in 1947 - the texts matched almost identically... What this means is that throughout the ages, with the exception of some scribal errors (none of which effect change in the biblical story or significant thematic details of any sort) the bible translations have been exceptionally true and accurate to the highest standards and expectations of those who study ancient literature.

Do you believe that when you read Homer's Iliad that what you are reading is accurate? Fine. The earliest manuscript is dated 500 YEARS after it was originally penned (the autograph). Incidentally, to be fair, there are about 643 manuscripts in total - and that's quite a few.

Want to read Plato's writings and believe they are accurate? Fine. There is about 1200 YEARS between the autograph (original) and the EARLIEST manuscript evidence. There are about 7 of those manuscripts - but hey, we can still believe that he wrote it the way we read it today.

Want to believe the Bible is true? We have ancient manuscripts (found in the caves of Qumran) that are ONLY 25-50 YEARS after the originals were penned. Oh, it may also be important to note that there are about 25,000 manuscript copies in existence. Far more than any other historical document in the world.

Do the translations differ in style, thought patterns and syntax? You betcha. And for good reason. Each translation was made for a distinct purpose. For example, the New American Standard was meant to be more of a word-for-word translation, while the NIV was made to include the latest manuscript evidence in a contemporary modern English translation. The King James is an excellent spoken language version (it sounds neat when read aloud - and remember there weren't a lot of literate people in the 1600s) and The Message is a version that is written almost like a modern day book - very easy to read.

So before anyone doubts the accuracy of the Bible or the translations it's important to have at least a basic understanding of what the Bible is, how it came to be and what a translation means. It's also important to note that you must apply the SAME RULES used to determine whether other documents are "historically accurate" as you do to the Bible. For some reason people find it easier to believe lesser documented writings. I suppose it's because Plato and Homer never concerned themselves with your eternal destiny. Hope I'm not intruding, but home theater isn't my only hobby and passion.

I have also been trying to avoid this thread, but I would like to address Clint’s last post. First, I would like to congratulate Clint on a well thought out, educated, and non-reactionary post. But there is one flaw that needs to be addressed within your argument. In the first paragraph you ask the reader to ignore Gnostic text and simply discard them as a tangent to the “big” picture. However, later you use the text (the Dead Sea scrolls) found at Qumran as supporting evidence for the material found within the Bible. Yes, some of the texts directly support the Bible’s point of view but a large portion of the Dead Sea scrolls have Gnostic themes, many of which are in conflict with today’s Christian doctrine. If you are going to use a body text as evidence you may not pick and choose the pieces that fit your argument and ask us to ignore the rest of the text. You can not simply say that one portion is valid and true because you are in agreement with that point of view and ask us to believe that the rest is invalid and untrue because it does not fit your argument. If one portion of the text is valid and true then we must at least approach the rest of the text as valid and true. So if we are to consider the text found at Qumran as valid and true than we may need to reevaluate today’s doctrine that is in theological opposition to the Gnostic themes found within the Dead Sea scrolls.

Of course, I’ll be more than willing to ignore that this body of text was most likely produced by the Essenes who were super mega ultra orthodox Jews that were in no way tied to the Christian movement.


Yes, audio is not the only hobby

 

[Buckle-meister]

Don't you have to believe in god to be sinning anyway?

No. Until a person accepts Christ as his/her saviour, he/she remains a sinner.

My cousin is Gay(male) and I see no reason why it is wrong. Until god is prove to be real(unlikely), things that god believes, cannot be implimented. I think People that think homosexuals are sinners, are naive. They are homophobic, and they can't seem to except that not everyone is the same.

There is nothing naive nor homophobic about it, and those with faith are arguably more likely to accept the huge diversity of mankind. Even if you have no faith at all, it cannot be disputed that homosexuality is an unnatural act. In evolutionary terms, the definition of a successful human is one which procreates. Clearly this cannot be achieved by gay couples.

Regards

 

[ironlung]

Wow!!

Riddle me this. Is it even slightly possible that that people could use religion to explain things before science could. In greek mythology people thought the sun was a flaming chariot being pulled across the sky. If you believe that we are all doomed.

Perhaps a king ws having trouble keeping his surfs in line. At a point when his knights were spread to thin. He cooked up the all seeing all knowing GOD to put the smack down. The king is choosen by GOD and the king just wants you to do gods work.

People would not lie to control someone else right?

Some people willing to go under the ether of religion for false hope. They work in a sweatshop for 2 cents an hour until they die. But its all worth it because Jebus is going to take them to heaven. Maybe death is heaven at that point. Maybe its just a coincidence that Benny Hinn can sell out multi 100,000 seat stadiums in third world countries. He sells hope to the hopeless.


If you believe in god do you also believe in Santa Claus, Eater Bunny, Tooth Fairy? Why Not!?!?!?!


I don't believe. It's the only logical conclusion.

I've quoted my own post #60.

The believers say none of the above is even slightly possible as the origin of organized religion.

To Dukester: I know what your saying about having a personal dialog with god. I was raised in a christian home and I have an internal dialog that I used to think was god. As I grew up and started thinking on my own(not saying you don't think for yourself) I realised the internal voice was simply my concience and the way I worked out moral and ethical decisions.

As far as the the walls of Jericho. Where is the hand of god theese days?

I can be classified as a golden ruler to the end. I treat people the way I want to be treated. As shokhead said, just honestly try to do the best you can, learn from mistakes when you make them. I just don't need the fear of god to treat the world with respect.

As an atheist when I do somthing wrong the guilt can be unbearable until I try to make it right. Because all responsibility is mine. I can't blame it on the devil and clear my concience by asking god for forgiveness.

As far as what homos do I say it's up to them. If it's natural or not, I don't care. It affects me as much as any freaky stuff a hetero does with their partner. Doo-Dee play anyone ....not for me but whatever floats your boat as long as all involved are willing participants.

After all who am I to judge someone else?


Ironlung the heathen sinner damned to hell for all eternity....seeing how open minded some of the Christians are I think I'm OK with that.

 

[Nick250]

(snip)

Even if you have no faith at all, it cannot be disputed that homosexuality is an unnatural act. In evolutionary terms, the definition of a successful human is one which procreates.
(snip)

That homosexuality is unnatural cannot be disputed? Are you serious? Then masturbation is unnatural, your dog who humps anything (or anyone) is unnatural, monkeys who masturbate are unnatural, dolphins who engage in sex play are unnatural. And speaking of evolution, I thought you folks did not believe in it. One's sexual identity is genetically hard wired from birth, it's not a moral issue or a choice. And what about cave men? A certain number of them were gay and there was no one around to tell them not to do it so are they going to hell? If all of us were born gay, we would not procreate and the human species would die out, that's how evolution works. It happens, that's the natural order of things. Heck, humans may die out in a nuclear Holocaust. Species die out because as they evolve they are unable to deal with change.

I and I thought I was not going to get involved in this thread. Oh well.

 

[shokhead]

No. Until a person accepts Christ as his/her saviour, he/she remains a sinner.



So says you and a book. So its ok that you belive that way but its not ok for some of us to not belive? Sometimes i feel that churchs are out recruiting, you know,the door to door stuff. Time for a bigger,much bigger,fancy church. More members,more money,bigger church. Who really needs these hugh,fancy churchs,the church{God} leaders or God?





There is nothing naive nor homophobic about it, and those with faith are arguably more likely to accept the huge diversity of mankind. Even if you have no faith at all, it cannot be disputed that homosexuality is an unnatural act. In evolutionary terms, the definition of a successful human is one which procreates. Clearly this cannot be achieved by gay couples.

Regards

Yes but they can adopt all the unwanted children so maybe god put them here for a reason. God did put them here with the rest of us,right?

 

[majorloser]

This being the "steam vent", I feel it is more then appropriate for this thread.

Early today, I was working on my resume, cause I was laid off last monday, and I got to thinking about how crappy my week as been. Last friday my car got totaled (although I will be reimbursed, it's still an agrivation) and then my job. I was mad, and my right eyelid started twichting. It calmed down and so did I, or I thought. A stupid annoying crane fly (looks like a giant mosquito) start flying around my face when I was enjoying some television. It had me so frustrated I hit it so hard with my hand downwards it splattered on my floor. I then struck it once, hard, with my shoe. I then stood up and said "What im a doing? It's dead, it didn't need a second shot."

Sometimes the smallest things can get the best (or should I say worst) of you.

Just thought I'd remind everybody what this post was about!

SHEEP- BTW I have this nifty little fly swatter that has a built-in bug zapper. It'll fry them right in flight with that satisfying electric ZAP. No mess on your shoe, wall or floor!

Now can we dump the theology class and move on. You guys have forgot one thing. Christianity is not the only religion. It's not even the largest.

 

[Takeereasy]

Actually majorloser Christianity is the largest religion in the world, followed by Islam, hinduism, etc. Fully a third of the world reports being Christian. Man I love to argue. I have one of those flyswatters as well. Hurt like hell if you get hit with one.

 

[ironlung]

Actually majorloser Christianity is the largest religion in the world, followed by Islam, hinduism, etc. Fully a third of the world reports being Christian. Man I love to argue. I have one of those flyswatters as well. Hurt like hell if you get hit with one.

That many people can't be wrong.

 

[brian32672]

Christianity is not the only religion. It's not even the largest.

Sorry, Dave. That is wrong
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

 

[ironlung]

Just thought I'd remind everybody what this post was about!

SHEEP- BTW I have this nifty little fly swatter that has a built-in bug zapper. It'll fry them right in flight with that satisfying electric ZAP. No mess on your shoe, wall or floor!

Now can we dump the theology class and move on. You guys have forgot one thing. Christianity is not the only religion. It's not even the largest.

Should I start a "Who Believes?" thread?

I have enjoyed most of the discussion.

 

[ironlung]

Sorry, Dave. That is wrong
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

By that chart Christians are the largest single group. But christianity is far from the majority.

Hell must be overflowing!

 

[Mr. Lamb Fries]

If you own or know someone who owns a bose system...can you get into heaven?

 

[majorloser]

Sorry, Dave. That is wrong
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

They just have a bigger advertising account!

 

[Takeereasy]

That many people can't be wrong.

Lol ironlung. I would never say that. I was just pointing out that Christianity is (for now) the largest religion in the world. I can think of a time or two that the vast majority of people were wrong. I am hoping that you were joking ironlung, because that's how I took it. I wasn't even going to post on this thread because there is no point in discussing religion with people most of the time. Yes it makes for a lively debate, and yes that can be fun, but it can also go horribly awry. I respect everyone's right to religious freedom, as long as they don't think that their beliefs have the right to superceed my own or my country's laws. I also don't respect the right to cultural diversity and multilinguism as readily as many Canadians do. I believe in an adapt to the culture you move to mentality, not that everyone else should adapt to make room for you.

As much as many don't like to admit it the laws and morals/belief systems in North America are based entirely around the Christian faith. Christians founded the countries, and ran them for hundreds of years, establishing laws and boundaries along the way. I know things are changing now, and not always for the better IMO, but we still live in a great and relatively free society. We should all thank God/Buddah/Mohamed/insert diety here that we have things so easy.

 

[majorloser]

Should I start a "Who Believes?" thread?

I have enjoyed most of the discussion.

No, I just want to start a new religion. One based on home theaters. This way we can write off our purchases as a tax deductible contribution!

 

[brian32672]

By that chart Christians are the largest single group. But christianity is far from the majority.

Hell must be overflowing!

Yeah, I know....
However, here is a quote straight from that url I listed.

Christianity, if taken as a whole, is unarguably the largest world religion - the largest religion in the world. (Keep in mind that although Christianity is the world's largest religion, it is an umbrella term that comprises many different branches and denominations.)

 

[Takeereasy]

They just have a bigger advertising account!

Come on majorloser. If Christianity had such a big advertising budget don't you think the pie chart Brian posted would have been exploded for dramatic effect?