EdHieron said:
Player1X3 said: "There is no proof that my God doesnt exist. Until you show the evidence that says so, your argument '#your God doesnt exist'# is useless. The abrahaic God is different than earlier gods in almost every way."
I said: Can you demonstrate that with some kind of scholarly evidence? Just saying so doesn't make it true and if you go back and look at Genesis, for example, you see that Yahweh was very much behaving in the Flood narrative exactly as Ea and Enki were doing in the earlier Sumerian version except for the fact that in the later work contained in Genesis Yahweh is one God displaying the personality characteristics of the two earlier Sumerian Gods which makes sense if one assumes that religion evolves from polytheism to monotheism due to the fact that Monotheism makes it easier to control the people.
And I already said that the symbolics and some of the stories from pagan religions have been added to Christianity by its early schoolars to make the conversion easier. But the personality and the characteristics of the abrahamic God IS NOTHING like the ones of pagan gods. Pagan Gods often appear in human forms, they interact with the human world, they ''controll'' it, they NEED HUMAN PRAYERS AND ANIMAL SACRIFACES TO SURVIVE, they often act arrogant, lustful and heroic in some cases. Abrahamic God DOES NOT appear in human form (Jesus Christ was a son of God sent by God himself), he doesnt interact with the human world (only with humans themselfes, trough faith) and the most important thing, GOD DOESNT NEED ANYTHING FROM HUMANS AT ALL. Abrahaic God also isnt always portrayted as arrogant, lustufl and heroic. Like I said before some symbolics and stories are given to abrahamic religions(like Noah's Ark) but the God himself is very different. Any theologist can tell you that.You are telling me that because Islam recognizes Jesus Christ that its irrelevant and wrong, because it has a figure from other religion??? I hope you know, how dumb that sounds
Player1X3 said:
"When the Founders might not have written what has become inflammatory references about God into the Constitution.
Whatever your opinnion on their writings was, the fact remains that the constitituion says the laws come from the God. And what exaclty did chnage about God so that american constitution must be rewritten? And Bible's (Bible is the New testament) authors were people around Jesus, his followers and apostolles, as its already been confirmed, Jesus Christ is a historiclly proven person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible"
I Said: On The Constitution, even if they wrote about God in The Constitution, there's no reason to think they would have if they had been born a couple of hundred years later and gone to the best schools in the land. Matter of fact being Enlightenment era thinkers they probably would not have done so and seeing as how they left rooms for Ammendments to have been made to the Constitution after their time, then they probably wouldn't have minded too much if someone had removed them following the scientific advances of the 19th Century. As a matter of fact if one reads Founding Father Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason" wherein he states that he believes in God but nothing that humans have ever written about him and Jesus as well for that matter; then one would have expected them to have anticipated such a removal of those types of passages.
You didnt answer my question. What has chnaged so much in people's view of God ? God is still worshipped by huge majority of the people on this planet. Sure, our science has advanced enormously fast, but nothing that disproves God in any way has been shown up and it most likely never will. And most of people during the Age of Enlightment were DESITS, as in believed in god, just not in any specific chrch or religion. Aso, some of the greatest thinkers in science were christians themselves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
Nevertheless The Founding Fathers' writing about God's Laws wouldn't make God any the more when all scientific evidence says he doesn't exist.
And what would this divine evidence might be? Because I sure never heard of it
As for Jesus as a historical person: Most of The New Testament books weren't written until about 30 to 40 years after Jesus died and there's really no way to know if they were historically accurate as to what they had to say about Jesus. A lot of evidence says that some of the Gnostic Gospels that were excluded from The Bible at The Council of Nicea in 315 CE due to Constantine's wanting to co-op the religion as many before him did to create his own system of keeping the people in line that were quite a bit more radical in their thinking than anything contained in The Bible were actually closer in line to what Jesus had to say than were the Synoptic (accepted) Gospels.
Jesus of Nazareth has been prven to exist as a historical figure. Weather or not the deity of Jesus Christ existed is debateable and not proven yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_an_historical_person
Also, take a look at these videos for more information, be sure to wacth all 4 parts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrRQqYGf4O0
As for the council of Nicea look at this here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLtcREw5TJ8
At any rate no outside authority (other than some disputed passages in Josephus) had much to say about whether or not Jesus was a real historical figure. I think the only hard evidence for Jesus' physical existence is his tomb in the Jerusalem Museum which a lot of authorities want to dispute, however, it is really the only hard evidence for Jesus being an actual person. However, The Jerusalem Crypt is certainly not an empty tomb and as there are ashes and bone chips belonging to Jesus in it, it's pretty apparent if you accept the only real evidence for his existence that Jesus didn't do such a good job of raising from the dead after three days.
As if those links above arent enough, look at this one here as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
"So you, like all other atheists I know, like to focus on small minority of fundamentalists and fanatics and totally ignore all the other reasonable normal people who follow Christianity to benefit your own hateful and ignorant thoughts and beliefs of Christianity, because you hate it so much? Isnt this extremly irrational and biased? How about you star being objective for a while and look at the bigger picture. I am fine with you hating on them, in fact, i dont like them either, they give other people bad name, but when you try and judge the group of 2.2 billion people based on actions of a small miniroty of people, thats what pisses me off. And let me tell you, Christianity is the ost liberal abrahamic religion in the world."
If they exist in those numbers yet they're letting the much smaller group of fanatics etc, still do as they please, then they're still towing the party line which doesn't do much to raise my opinion of them.
That argument is pretty stupid, and you know it. What do you suggest, that we go to thier meetings and beat the living ghell out of them? That would be pretty stupid. Also, you are no better than those fanatics you hate so much, like the WBC that persecutes gays and jews, as you do the same thing to Christians, and your arguments for it arent any better either. Also, there is this thing called free speech, that allows people to say anything they want, as long as theydont do any harmful actions against other people.
Player1X3: "Oh please, the reason Middle Ages was as bloody as it was, was the collapse of roman empire and foundation of lots of less civilized kingdoms and tribes that only used Christiany as a tool to make people go to war for them. And I am not defending the church at all, as I dont follow one, I am defending Christian relligion and its innocence during history. I do NOT wish the church to rule over a country, but I would never ever go forbid a religion in any country, like you would"
Yeah 100,000s of thousands of dead folks due to a religion's main scriptures makes it absolutely innocent. Many people died simply because they choice to follow a different God than Yahweh as forbidden in the very first of the Ten Commandments.
So in other words, you havent got a single clue about Christianity nor the Bible and you only ''Know'' the things about it that your heard from the likes of you? In 10 Commandents, it clearly says DO NOT KILL. And many people died because they were fooled by the churhc into going to war with them. This wasnt the case for Christianity only tho. Islam is no different. Dont mix religious institutions with the religion itself.
Player1X3 said: "(and everyone in Cannaan so the Hebrews can have the land).What? God and Jesus Christ comanded no such thing. Again, learn the difference between Christianity (New testament, teachings of Christ) and Judism( Old testament, Book of Levitcus and others) "
I said: According to the Bible Yahweh very much commanded The Israelites that they could have the Holy Land as their possession as long as they would kill all of the people already living there (which has its echoes in the displacement of the American Indians from their land by the American Colonialists and the destruction of the Meso-American Indians by The Spanish Conquistadores) .
Bible doesnt mention Yahweh, it mentiones God, Yahweh is mentioned in Old Testaent and Torah, Bible also doesnt command anyone to kill anything, you are mixing up jewish national texts with Christian New testament (the Bible) And colonisation of America had nothing to do with religion. Please tell me you are smart enough to know that !
|
