Reply With Quote
What happened to turambar? He started this thread as if he was going to make a really good point, but then never posted anything.
I believed the story, until I was about five and realized that there are no talking snakes.
What happened to turambar? He started this thread as if he was going to make a really good point, but then never posted anything.
So, do you believe Jesus raised people from the dead, walked on water and lultiplied the bread?
I'm not ashamed to deny it.... albeit I happen to think that GOD compressed the events of millions of years into each day of His 6-Day creation time-table.
That would support many modern 'scientific' claims whilst allowing for the creation of life to have a divine origin. <--- something science will never be able to run experiments on.... unless time travel is unraveled.
I am not sure. I believe that many of the events in the NT did take place. As far as the miracles go, I can't say that I believe in them. I am of the belief that miracles are merely phenomena that cannot be explained by the current state of science. As science progresses, the "miracles" are explained.
The miracles of Jesus, I believe, were embellished to prove up his divinity.
somebody read david hume
As much as I hated the empiricists, I guess they had some influence on me.
you can't be a rationalist, can you?
I'm beginning to see your perspective...
Anyway, miracles don't need embellishment.... they are what they are. If the Bible recounts that Jesus fed 5000 people with 2 loafs of bread and 5 fish... It wouldn't matter if Jesus had only fed 100... it's still a supernatural act nonetheless.
What you're trying to say, then, is that you believe Jesus performed no miracles at all...
yeah. The rationalists were just more interesting to read than the empiricists.
plodding thru Spinoza's dense logic is not my idea of fun
And to clarify a bit...
Miracles alone would not prove anyones Divinity....
satan and his demons, as well as Angels are capable of producing supernatural acts also...
I'm sorry. I should have been more clear. I don't believe that the miracles were embellished to make them seem even more miraculous, I believe that the miracles themselves were embellishments used to make the argument that Jesus was the son of God.
Sorry, I have been busy with school.
Now 2centsworth, you say that a good and powerful god would never allow his word to be tainted, but that is a blatant contrast to the nature of God to begin with. We were given free will, and that free will is all-encompassing. God can not/will not go any lenghts to demand our allegiance, which would not be that difficult, and can not directly dictate our actions. All God can do is give a story to man and allow him to write of it what he will.
The men selected to write this book were Godly men, but they were still men, and thus inherently flawed. The main purpose of the story of God is put out in this text, which is all that God would truly desire or need, and to break the basic guidelines of the religion and life itself and force the hand of the writers and translators makes him a God none of us want to believe in.
As I had mentioned earlier, there are many teachings on God, many bibles, and a lot of them have much in common with our own. Why would this good and powerful God allow these teachings related to "himself" become tainted? What logic enables you to suggest that "he" safeguarded the Christian bible, yet allowed the catholic, 7th day adventist, the koran, and others to become "twisted"? It is part of the egotistical nature of man to believe that he is always right, and that his beliefs are perfect, but why, as peabody asked, must we believe the entire bible is 100% factual, and not just a very good spiritual guideline?
True. The ability to perform miracles is not sufficient in itself to prove divinity, but it is necessary.
And peabody, I have no great points or posts to throw out, sorry to dissapoint. I am just a 20 year old sop re at a community college with no highschool education, so you won't get memorable, brilliant posts from me....only legitimate questions, and an occasional feeble attempt at a response.
Yeah, I just liked the fact that these guys were building these huge philosophical constructs and getting everything they could out of their beliefs.
makes sense to me
Yeah, I realize that that is kind of unusual, but I was homeschooled from 8th grade on. Throughout "highschool" I did 1/2 of 1 semester. So, in essence, I have no h/s education. I b/s'ed my highschool transcript and lucked out in the act to get in.
I hope you realize that lying about your education on a college application is a federal crime. Good luck in prison
Not lying, stretching the truth. If you consider that we bought all of the books that were necessary, and that I did well enough on the ACT, things aren't that big of a deal. In fact, two professors already know of this and found it amusing. So I can save my rectal virginity for a while yet.
Haven't you heard, there is no rape in prison.
Quite right, now let's see if we can get off the subject of rape, and back to religion...despite it's occasional similarities.
God is dead and we killed him
I was not bein sarcastic at all.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions