DOS Games Discussion

What do you believe in then? Prove that there is no God, no Jesus... (If your an atheist, you don't believe anything anyway, so don't bother to post)... give fact that God did not speak?

You lost me with those questions. You want me to prove to you that there's no God or Jesus, but if I'm an atheist (which I am, as are most people who don't believe in God, Jesus, or Santa Claus), and prove that God didn't speak? I also said before that I do believe Jesus was real but he was just a man, not the son of God.

Well it's arguable that you can't prove anything in the world, so it's best to just rely on logic. Thes links I provided in my second post in this thread do a better job explaining that Judaism/Christianity/Islam are false than I could.

I can't prove that god didn't talk to everyone involved with the bible, just like you can't prove that I control an army of flying monkies that I'm training to re-animate the corpse of Abraham Lincoln. It's a highly illogical statement that cannot be true without some form of solid proof.

Why is this so confusing to some? Use facts of the group before you bias the snot out of everything. Also, you can't possibly believe He was just a man, yet he saved the world??? It just doesn't fit at all with you... study, sonny... you'll understand. You really are on it *end stealth flame*.

http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/christianity/major.html

You've confused me too much to continue arguing.

It doesn't "peeve me off", it just confuses me. I have no idea what you're saying anymore.

Just follow the links... that surely won't.

radray11 must be a born again christian or something. Personaly I don't care what people believe as long as they don't push it on me. Lots of religions are pushing the only "real" true GOD, so most have to be wrong even if you do believe in a GOD to beging with.

The ancient world believed in many GODS with the same passion as people do today, yet they are looked at as stupid.. which is what humans a 1000 years from now will think of the those who believe today.

sorry for radding anyone with inconsiderate remarks... I was just tired and frustrated. I really am a sincere person. You are who you are... I'm not taking that away from your posts.

~Regards, a sorry meanie

Wow, I'm glad to see such interesting, well mannered discussion going on here! A few comments ...

Without evolution you can't explain many species that existed in the past that are similar yet different to modern species (like that tiny horse thing). Evolution doesn't really go against the bible if you take it metaphorically though.

I don't think many people will debate micro-evolution, that is slow gradual changes within species. That sort of evolution is not against the Bible. However, if by evolution we're talking about uncaused and random occurances that happened to lead to the creation of life and then, eventually, to the creation of today's animals including human beings due totally to chance, then that certainly does go against the Bible, since it entirely removes God from the equation. (At least, the God of the Christian Bible, at any rate.)

Besides the "one day = 1000 years to god" argument doesn't work because the bible was written by humans, not god.

The "Day Age Theory", as it is often referred to, is usually based around the fact that the Hebrew word "yom", which is translated as "day" in Genesis the OT, can also be translated in other ways, and is often used as meaning a "extended period of time". Just quickly checking one of my books here, Hugh Ross claims that "Unlike English ... biblical Hebrew has no word other tham yom to denote a long timespan." And also, "Early scholars [in the first few 100 years after Christ's death] accepted that yom could mean 'a long time period'." So, the 1,000 years view is not necesarily just a metaphor, it may be a different translation. I'm not saying this view is totally right, just that its quite possible.

That brings me to another point; why Christianity instead of Islam or Mormon (both are just Judaism v3.0 like Christianity is v2.0)?

This is an excellent point. I think the answer is that unless someone believes in total relativism (that is, that absolute truths do not exist - I hope none of you strongly believe that no truth really exists), I think the main difference for me between Christianity and (for example) Islam or Mormon is that there is that:

1) The story of Christianity is deeply rooted in historical events that were recorded very close to when they occured, and preached about in the very same places that the events occured.

2) Christianity is (afaik) better validated historically than any other religion.

I cannot comment specifically on Islam, since I do not know enough about its specific history. However, from my study (before becoming Christian and after) it is apparent to me that there is much better historical and philosophical evidence for Christianity than for Mormonism. For an example from Mormon history, Joseph Smith supposedly translated the Mormon "Book of Abraham" from Egyptian hieroglyphics scrolls (before hieroglyphics were decyphered). Unfortunately, when the code of hieroglyphics was figured out years later, it became apparent that Smith had not translated the scrolls, and in fact the scrolls he claimed to translate had nothing to do with Abraham or the Bible. ie, he had faked the whole thing, and there is absolute proof of his fakery ...

Does evidence like this mean that Christianity is (hesitates to type the word) "better" than Mormonism? I'd say that it is more coherent, based on historical and logical evidence. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm of course not saying that Mormons are bad people or any such thing. Mormons that I have met have been very nice people. I'm suggesting however that someone must choose one religion over another because they believe that it is true based on external and internal evidence, not based on which one is the latest & trendy, or "well it doesn't really matter which one you choose just pick one that works for you".

BTW, I apologize rolling my eyes at Scientology, that was not particularly graceful on my part. But as someone who has done some reading about the history and practices of Scientology and their adherents, I must say that I do not give much credence to their belief system.

Well it's arguable that you can't prove anything in the world, so it's best to just rely on logic. Thes links I provided in my second post in this thread do a better job explaining that Judaism/Christianity/Islam are false than I could.

Of course, if someone were able to argue conclusively that you can't prove anything in the world, they would have just contradicted themself.

Anyways I would agree that it's very difficult to prove anything in our world conclusively. That doesn't mean that we don't believe that many things are true without 100% conclusive undeniable proof. People proceed on something like inference to the best explanation. The only question is, which explanation is "best"? And what criteria determine what "best" is anyways?

Hmmm ... how about this question: Since God's existance cannot be proved or disproven, hypothetically, would it be better if God existed or did not exist?

OK! first of all if u think science ppl can explain so many thing and disprove the bible,then tell me this.How do they explain when God parted the seas so all of his ppl could be freed. He spoke to Moses and told him, he was gonna free those ppl from rams. God curses Rams, and all he other ppl. Plus how do they explain the great flood? Other ppl in ancient history wrote about a great flood,and it rained for 40 days. Noah built an ark, it hadn't rained for a very long time (infact the ppl didn't even think it was possible for it to rain), but God said build an ark. He told him exacte mesurements and told him his family and 2 of every animale would go on there. Noah being a guy wouldn't have thought of somin like that on his own, plus he didn't just get a feel, or a turn in the winds and decide to build and ark. God who created eveything (yahew)"abba" knew this was gonna happen bcuz he has every bodies life planned even before you do it. I know you think well u don't have prove, well sometimes u gotta throw around the f word.....ya duh FAITH!!!!A lot of things have happend on Earth that yeah we can't explain,but God's timing is perfect and i do have prove of that!!!!There's a reason and season for everything that happens. Plus u can't be a christian and doubt the bible, or adjust it to UR life,doesn't work that way! read the 10 commandments![/quote]

I don't think that those things happened. If you read the links in my previous posts you would see that there is no evidence for anything like "the great flood".

If "u can't be a christian and doubt the bible, or adjust it to UR life" does that mean that you condone slavery, subserviance of women, and killing people who work on Sunday? Wow that's pretty harsh. BTW, you commited blasphamy in your last post by addressing God as Yaweh, that's punishible by stoning too.

Aiya ... "keepin_it_real", I appreciate your zeal, but trying to demonstrate the Bible is true by quoting from it isn't very effective. Non-Christians have little regard for the Bible, and do not believe all/any of the events recorded in it are true, thus quoting it doesn't really help your case.

Dopefish wrote:If "u can't be a christian and doubt the bible, or adjust it to UR life" does that mean that you condone slavery, subserviance of women, and killing people who work on Sunday?

I have never met, and hope that I never do meet, a self-purported "Christian" who condones the things you list in your post. Allow me to clarify some of the popular myths about what Christians are all about:

Slavery?
In the first place, slavery during the early AD's was not much similar to what we think of when we envision slavery today. "... usually [slavery] served an economic function. They didn't have bankruptcy laws, so if you got yourself into terrible hock, you sold yourself and/or your family into slavery. As it was discharging a debt, slavery was also providing work ... I'm not trying to romanticize slavery in any way, but ... there was no association of a particular race with slavery." (D.A Carlson in Case for Christ, p.167) While of course many churches endorsed segregation, slavery, and other immoral principles, we shouldn't confuse the unfortunate past misdeeds of those people as being indicative of how the Bible tells us they should act. Philemon, an entire (short) book of the NT deals entirely with the issue of slavery.

Subservience of Women?
Considering women's low social status and percieved worth (by men) in the 1st century AD, the attitudes towards the equal treatment of women found in the NT are truly astonishing. Women's testimony was thought, at the time, to be worthless to the point that they could not serve as witnesses at trials. The fact that Jesus taught women as well as men, and many women are noted as being disciples or apostles, as well as many statements of gender equality (such as the famous "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.", Gal 3:28) were rather revolutionary at the time given the culture into which they were introduced. The fact that women are still, in some churches, not accepted as pastors or church leaders, is, in my opinion, a terrible travesty which I hope will eventually be discontinued.

Killing People that work on Sunday?:
Clearly we're referring to the Old Testament laws here, because several places in the New Testament, the Sabbath laws are clarified, ex. by Jesus himself in Matthew 7:1-8. The only instance I can remember in the OT (or find, but I may have missed or not know of one/some, the OT is a big book heh) is Numbers 15:32-36, where a man is stoned for working on the sabbath. This records one particular event, the context of which seems to be knowingly and purposefully breaking God's command to rest on the sabbath (in front of children). Note that under OT law only those who desecrate the sabbath, ie knowingly and purposefully, are to be "put to death", as it says here: "Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people." (Exodus 31:14)

And FWIW, addressing God as Father, Yahweh, Lord, etc is of course not frowned upon in any way by any Christians anywhere that I know of. (Yes, okay, besides Jehovah's Witnesses I mean.)

Phew. Now I'm tired I hope that all makes sense, it is true to the best of my knowledge.

Da_Goat wrote: Of course dinosaurs existed. While a few believe to the contrary, most Christian denominations do not take the week-long creation literally. As radray pointed out, 2 Peter 3:8 (one of those letters you found too boring to read) compares a single day to a thousand in God's eyes. This, too, could easily have been used to imply that God's view of time is monumentally broader than any human's.

One could also say that since there was no sun for (I forgot how many days), that one "day" could actually be thousands of years, since a day is defined by the sun. I stole that from Inherit the Wind.

emmzee, you are right that no sensible Christian would believe in those things in this day and age. However to quote "the good book"...

Gen 3:16 wrote:Unto the woman he said, I twill greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Lev 25:44 wrote:Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, whichhou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

If it was just for a debt the bible wouldn't say "buy" them.
Oh, and I will admit that I don't have this stuff memorized or anything. I found those passages mentioned in a newspaper and Googled them.

What is your definition of blasphemy then? I've noticed it seems to vary from person to person (seriously, I'm not trying to be wry or anything). I learned that if you ever talk about God (aside from Quoting the bible), you're commiting it.

Basically, you can't believe everything in the bible literally. For one thing, as you said, the New Testament completly contradicts the old. It doesn't make sense for God to go from some vengeful angry guy to a kindhearted forgiving guy. The bible says that both women should be subserviant and be equal? That doesn't make sense!

Sorry for my brevity, but I don't have much time...

1 Corinthians 14
34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

1 Timothy 2
11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but (25) the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

And it's not a small matter that can be explained away, we are quite clearly instructed that women are NOT to speak in church. Yet the last time I was in church and a women addressed me, I didn't take out my whip and discipline her. Am I in violation of God's law?

It seems quite obvious to me that not all of the bible is meant to be taken literally. In many places there are stories and letters with objects meant to be taken in cultural or literary context, or even an exaggeration to make a point. From that we derive the various biblical principles that applies to various aspects of Christian living (for instance, the concept of ordaining of men only as pastors/priests from the above verses), but these aren't always meant to be enforced literally in the given context. The concept is the most important part of a given story.

I’m sure others could explain it more eloquently.

YOu still didn't answer my question? What do you think when the bible and history both have the same things written down? plus the bible is HIS STORY, don't believe it then God will deal with that.Doesn't that kinda prove, JUSt MAybe that really did happen. 4 ppl in BCE wrote about a flood and it wiping out everything. NOt only that, but 2 of them wrote about a ark being built. Right now i don't have the names and dates, but if u want proof i will be glade to provide it. Plus saying yahweh,Abba father,Daddy is not blashphemy. Ppl call God and jesus that, since u all know ur bible so well u know they are ONE. No offense or anything, but where did slavery and women come in??? i never mentioned slavery or anything to come remotely close to that. This topic is not really debataly, no i'm not saying u have to trust me and have faith. Believe what u want too. Since there are ppl who doubt the bible and believe is just another story to tell ur kids at night, i can't say hey look at this evidence it proves those theories wrong...sorry that's what faith is all about.

But look at the thins that have happend here resently, they repeadted themselves in history. In the bible there were two builings (twin towers) that were destroyed. LIke 9-11.Think about this though.The bible says in the end days your summers will be winters and ur winters will be summers. Florida has had more hurricanes consecutively than usuale this year,God is coming soon! NO, not just bcuz of that. Maybe this is gettin way our of ya'lls league, considering some this topic is about religion or religious!! What about murder and mardeer?
ok! if someone wants to you can help me out with this! Where does war come in? Is it a sin to go to war, and kill ppl?? Yeah they had and will have wars in the old days and coming days(according to the bible). Ur fighting for ur country and saving many other lives, but also in another sense killing as many as ur saving.Which bring the topics about abbortion,divorce, gay ppl, etc,etc. Please don't comment on these last couple of things,bcuz that is just way off topic! Sorry i mentioned it!

keepin_it_real:

Not trying to be disrespectful, but maybe people would treat your opinions more seriously if you used proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation while presenting them.

God cannot be proven. God cannot be disproven.
Belief in Christianity/Judaism/Islam can only be abtained trough faith. I'm sure you all know what faith is (belief without touching, hearing, tasting, etc).

Dopefish- Keep it up. Your doing a good job defending what you believe in. But remember this. Science can not prove how "everything" began, and it has no idea what happens when you die. Only the hope in a God can help you there.

keepin_it_real -
Or bullet your points... You sound like a loony man. Who just ran to the center of town yelling "The sky is going to fall". Tone it down a bit, think about what you want to say. Then write it down.

Everybody (except Dopefish)-
To prove a point, you cannot use your scriptures. Bible/Koren/Torah/etc.

keepin_it_real, history and the bible DON'T match up. They're isn't any proof of the great flood or the Garden of Eden, or the Red Seas being parted or any of that nonsense. The only "proof" is in the bible.
You can't believe anything you read, I'm afraid. By just saying "the *BOOK TITLE* says it so it must be true" you could say that anything is true.

The apocolypse isn't coming anytime soon. Florida is normally hit by hurricanes at this time of year. If anything's going to cause the apocolypse it's either going to be nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons, or pollution causing the melting of the polar ice caps.

Also, when in the bible were "twin towers" destroyed? I think that the Tower of Babel was in their but that was just one. I think there were a few times when God wiped out entire cities but they probably had more than two buildings. That really doesn't prove anything though.

As for why I brought up slavery and stuff; you said that the entire bible has to be taken litteraly as fact and you can't only believe parts of it. I ment to point out that if you did that, not only would you be a hypocrite, you would also have to condone outdated practices that are considered barbaric.

The Bible reminds me of Nostradamas and his predictions, if you are vaige enough every generation will think what is happening to them was seen by Nostrodamas.

keepin_it_real - Use correct grammar, please. It took me forever to read your post, and it didnt make much sense.

Dopefish wrote:I learned that if you ever talk about God (aside from Quoting the bible), you're commiting it.

I'm not sure where you learned this, but I've never heard this idea expressed in any church I've visited, or any Christian writings I've read. Certainly in prior Jewish cultures (and perhaps Jewish culture today, I don't know) people went out of their way to avoid saying God's name. In fact it was considered major blasphemy when Jesus addressed God as "abba" ("father").

Regarding slavery, a brief web search found this quote which I think says it well, "God works within the fallen system to bring about His will. Slavery was permitted by God and rules of treatment of slaves were given so that they would not be mistreated." <a href="http://www.carm.org/diff/Lev_25_44.htm">carm.org</a> and I would also add that further to God's working throughout history slavery of any and all types was abolished in the New Testament permanently, via Luke 4:16-21, more practically in Philemon and in other places as I noted earlier. Also, its worth pointing out that Jewish law (in Old Testament times) was unique since it required the release of all slaves after six years of serving (Deuteronomy 15:12-15) unlike other "slavery law" at the time.

Dogbreath wrote:It seems quite obvious to me that not all of the bible is meant to be taken literally.

Entirely agree. For just one example, Revelation 20:14 says that Hell will be thrown into the "lake of fire". Doesn't make much sense to interpret that literally.

(BTW, I don't have any of these verses memorized ... thankfully <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com">BibleGateway.com</a> exists to help me look up verses ... usually I have a vague idea of what they're about but I need a lot of help to find 'em! )

The question "Do you take the whole Bible literally?" is a dangerous one for a Christian to answer. For if someone answers "Yes", the response will probably be rolling of the eyes, shaking of the head and "Oh, you're one of THOSE people, can't even think for themselves." If someone answers "No", then the response will likely be "Good! Neither do I! In fact I don't take any of it literally!" I think the proper response to that question is something like "I take the parts of the Bible literally that the author meant to be taken literally."

The most important thing to keep in mind is context. Verses should never be read on their own. Gregory Koukl's article called "<a href="http://www.str.org/free/studies/neverrea.htm">Never Read a Bible Verse</a>" which succinctly explains this idea should be read by every Christian, IMHO.

Bobo wrote:Belief in Christianity/Judaism/Islam can only be abtained trough faith.

True. Of course many other things that you and I and everyone else believes is also unprovable, so also must be believed based on faith.

Faith should never be the only basis for religious belief; consideration of reason, history and "best fit" (and not necessarily what is "nice" or "makes me feel best") must always also be taken into consideration.

Bobo wrote:To prove a point, you cannot use your scriptures. Bible/Koren/Torah/etc.

I don't think anyone was doing that. (Besides keepin_it_real.) Quoting the Bible should be used to back up what we're saying the Bible says; of course it should not be used as "proof" for a point. (ie circular reasoning.)

Oh BTW ... when quoting Scripture, can we please not use the King James Version, or any other old english style translation with thee's and thou's? The New International Version, New Living Translation, or almost any other modern translation are generally more accurate and readable.