Great! So now we have an insane "god," which is actually an alien race performing nuclear testing on the earth throughout history? Sign me up for *that* religion!!! :swt: *Edit* - I think this argument belongs more under the topic of "Conspiracy Theory"... But that's just my opinion...
(It seems to me the canonicity of the Bible has already been discussed... Not to discredit your statements, but - I thought the point of an argument was to make forward progress toward some generally accepted idea... Not to go in circles.) "One step forward and two steps back" and all that... We've already decided that the source of the text historically is accurate, that the actual translation and continuation of the texts throughout the generations is accurate... I don't understand how it is we can continue to come back to this point? Now, rather than the source of the text or it's trustworthiness as being carried over faithfully, we're talking about the original writers having been drugged out or pscysophrenic? Or following an advanced alien race... (as I understand it, or could it be that they're time traveling Communists?) *Exasperated Sigh* Very creative though! :good:
Sure! Makes more sense than some of the other arguements I've seen! Besides that just a *brief* introduction to my universe, you should see what else I've got.
Just going to further address some issues... First of all - Here are the books are "probably since irretreviably lost." http://www.carm.org/lostbooks.htm As for the proof (physical or otherwise) for Jesus' life as well as biblical claims that people have been wanting... here is ANOTHER link for it http://www.carm.org/evidence.htm Next- As for the http://www.carm.org/evidence/suffering.htm As for God being "just one of the many" - please consider that God is a TRINITY... so that's about as far as your argument goes... please READ - http://www.carm.org/misc/plurality.htm - So you're saying by "existed" that there WAS more than one god? So what happened to them huh? They died? That's a pretty worthless god if you ask me. One that dies! And, for that matter, one that isn't supreme over much of anything. So in other words, there are or were many Gods, and the bible supports that, yes? You mean verses like this "10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." Isaiah 43:10 Or "6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God...8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." Isaiah 44:6,8... yeah, those must've been the verses that you read, right? So I suppose scientists, both christian and secular, as well as all the other professionals trying to argue these points (and get paid to do it) were to look in the places that you have, everything would be solved. Boy, sounds to me like you have a new proffession to get into, since you obviously have been looking in all the right places. No need for these other guys! By the way, once again - if you're going to post, then please read up a bit... and I'm sure these sites will help you quite a bit.. If nothing else, perhaps it'll help you understand the opposing view a little bit. www.carm.org http://www.khouse.org/topical_bible_study/ (A very well respected minister named Chuck Missler's website).
I don't really know what I'm talking about and obviously you do Levity which is cool but all I was getting at with the "garbled scripts" was that I thought that multiple translations would run them into probelms with words that didn't carry over from language to language very well, causing the scripes to substitute with another word that didn't provide the same meaning etc. As for the diciples, I don't really know, I just assumed their accounts of the same events would be different and therefore we wouldn't know which ones were the most accurate you know, guess I was probably wrong. The whole God shouldn't punish us becasue he made us do it thing isn't necessaryily my opinion, I just wanted to throw out the idea, it was more of a question with poor hypothetical phrasing (that obviously didn't come across) that I figured you smart guys would know right off the bat. I don't think that we shouldn't be responsible for our own actions in the least, I just think the all knowing idea presents us with a interesting topic anyway. I personally find it difficult to wrap my mind around the fact that God can be all knowing, all powerful and yet "smites" civilizations when he could simply guide them towards repentence, it's not like he tried and it didn't work, that would be pretty pathetic.
Yeah, that was difficult for me to "wrap my mind around" as well, at first... And then I realized, that yes: -It is *just* like that. Throughout the Bible, if you study the historical background (and it *really* helps if you do a word-for-word study in Ancient Hebrew/Greek) You find that He does, actually, offer forgiveness and redemption if the offending party will repent. However, as we've already certified, we are a people of free will... Just because forgiveness is offered doesn't mean it's going to be accepted. (And yes, I agree, it is pathetic - You'd think people would be smart enough to accept forgiveness when it's offered.) -Isn't this the very idea of Christianity in the first place? Also - to add to what Fred was saying earlier in response to your comment about the apparent contradiction between Jesus and Yahweh* (*=AKA: "Jahovah") (IE: You said something along the lines of Jesus being a pluralistic "trinitarian" God and Yahweh* being a monotheism...) -Throughout the *entire* Bible, the Singularized Yahweh* is referred to in the plural form, and occasionally even in the specific "tri-individual" sense. Even Genesis refers to him in the singular and plural at the same time. Some have confused this to be a contradiction, however, as we look into the text, and see the recurring theme of Three Gods in One Person or "Godhead" we see that these, infact, coincide with the doctrinal statements already mentioned. Hope that helps! (And thanks for the compliment, but I'm really such a layman it's not even funny... There are people younger than me somewhere laughing and saying "What an idiot!" right now, I'm sure) :x:
That come as a big help! Great post dude, that goes for you too AT, Penguin, and Fred, you guys certainly read up in this field.:good: This is pretty deep stuff, most people wouldn't expect this from a computer forum.
Fred, I wasn't really interested in getting too deeply involved into this right now as this is a very big area that could consume a whole life-time and all I was trying to do was point out that there are other ideas besides the two camps of Creationism and Evolutionism but the tone of your post left me with little option but to do some research into this (in spite of the fact that I have to get up for work in three-and-a-half hours time - damn). Ummm.. thanks. So you're trying to say that 2000-year-old manuscripts written on readily-decaying material that were branded as heretical 1700 years ago that could get the bearer of such materials violently and messily executed have survived all of this to arrive in perfect condition with us today? Sorry, I don't but it. Sure some have survived but not all of them and even the ones that have are still not part of the Bible. I have to admit that my memory was in error when I said it was "four hunderd or so", the actual figure quoted in The Templar Revelation was "over fifty", nevertheless I find the idea that both the Old and New Testament have arrived with today in a perfectly preserved form that presents an accurate picture of the original story both absurd and ill-informed. I never questioned the historical evidence of Jesus, unless that comment was in reply to another post. However I do believe that the original story was twisted, one example will suffice for now Mary Magdalene, Harlot or Queen? No, they lost. That's what happens in a power struggle of this magnitude, the victor wins fame, the loser disappears. Er... yes. Let's be honest here, He would say that wouldn't He. Besides, If Jehovah is The One True God, where does that leave Buddha, Krishna, Allah, Zeus, Set, Odin, etc., etc., etc? No, modern scientists do not get paid to look into things, they get paid to maintain the status quo and to "discover" things that agree with what is already held by the establishment. I'm not claiming to know all the answers but as for those people you mentioned here who get paid large sums of money to provide us with the answers (and forgive my bad manners here but this is something that really winds me up): THEY ARE NOT LOOKING. Generally, I am being very general here but I do hold this to be largely true, when a archeologist or a religious scholar or a cosmologist or a chemist or a newspaper reporter for that matter is "investigating" something, they usually "know" in advance what they want to find and reject data that runs contrary to their "beliefs." Everybody else, practically without exception, is tossed into a great big basket labelled "Here be conspiracy theorists", meaning this person is clearly insane and should be treated as such. Let's take one example that treads all over just about everybodys vested interest and dogmas: ancient nuclear warfare. Here a small selection of the available links on the subject: http://galacticconnection.com/nuc_war.htm http://daniken.com/e/index.html http://www.geocities.com/lavlesh/More_About_india/ancient_city_found.htm I have looked into these stories myself and, to a layman, they do seem to make quite a lot of sense. However were the evidence to check out, where does that leave Darwin? If the established scientists were to take a serious look at this one issue (and there are many, many more) then they would be (and are) stepping on an awful lot of well-paid toes. Of course they would probably not "solve" everything but they would start asking the right sort of questions for a change. You could be right. Couldn't agree more. I have little time for Bible-bashing but I reserve my deepest hatreds for the mainstream scientific establishments. Thank you for the links, genuinely, I'm not being sarcastic. This is something I reserve more than a passing interest in but have not gotten involved in for quite some time. However thanks to Waffle (or maybe that should be damn you Waffle!) I have become intrigued in this subject all over again. As for reading up on the subject, feel free to recommend any websites or books you think I will appreciate and I will send you my four-year back-catalogue collection of Nexus Magazine and my collection of 30+ books covering alternate history, alternate Bible interpretations, UFO's, corporate take-overs, US Government corruption, Interpol crimes, psychiatric rape and abuse of patients, communist propaganda conspiracies, etc., etc., etc.
*Sighs* :sick: That's the beauty of Conspiracy Theories :afs: TPC... It doesn't really matter what the argument is, there is some unimaginable rebuttle... I don't mean to sound *offensive* at all... I really don't care much, but it just seems to me to be a bit of a waste of time to argue points like that... I mean, that are just so far *out there* that they hardly seem to enter reality. It just seems that if we were to argue everything in the hypothetical "What if there were aliens who altered history?" "What if..." anything, it would be a waste of time, and we would basically only come to some outlandish conclusion that "In the case that what we deem to be 'god' is really an advanced civilization performing nuclear testing, then we ought to either perform prosterations before them and be their pets of sorts; or else we ought to advance our own sciences and try to overthrow the master, so to speak." --It's just pointless to argue this way, because you'll never come to an applicable solution which will actually be helpful to you. (Unless, of course, that Will Smith movie: Independence Day actually ends up happening, then you're all set, TPC!) :waycool: Until then, I'd say let's *try* to "keep to the topic" or drop it all together. *Edit* There is a general rule to arguing, that states in short, that you ought to try to stick to arguments that #1 Support your idea; #2 Are generally agreed to be factual, or *CAN BE PROVEN TO BE*; and #3 To refrain, at all costs, from the hypothetical.
I'm going to keep this very simple. Basically, it's hard to bother arguing with, as LevitySlickt said, conspiracy theories (they are in my opinion, anways). Not only am I pretty much bored with arguing, but your points (to me) aren't even worth my time. Anyhow, since the subject is becoming boring and downright obsurd, I dont see the point in replying [defensively] to your post, I'm just going to leave it up to AT or LS to reply if they feel the need.
Raises an interesting point: The Argument from Moral Evil (1) If God exists then he is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent. (2) If God were omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent then the world would not contain moral evil. (3) The world contains moral evil. Therefore: (4) It is not the case that God exists. (Copied from some internet resource). Makes sense though. And there is of course the counter attack 'God gave us the right to choose'. In which case, why? Surely being omnipotent/omniscient/benevolent/generally great in general, he would have known the severe consequences of allowing us to choose evil or good - look at the wars, many deaths, holocaust, 9/11..surely that much death and suffering isn't worth giving us the right to choose? So if he did exist, he should be feeling really proud of himself, as the human race is like it is, because of this great 'choice', of doing good, or evil. God can therefore be seen as the cause of the suffering - if he knew it would happen, but then goes on to do it anyway, he is contradicting the very morals of his religion. And whilst this is quite a bold statement, another example is the holocaust. Hitler didn't execute the millions of people, but he provided the means to do so - God didn't necessarily want the bad things, but he provided us with the choice to do so. We blame Hitler primarily when we think of the Jews and the horrors of the holocaust, so why not blame god as the cause of evil?
Yeah... So much for that "logic" stuff huh? - I don't think I'm going to bother replying to that. hah:
asked a friend for his input, he replied with: The Devil, aka Satan, aka Lucifer, was an Angel, exiled from heaven? correct? Soo..god punished this angel by giving him a kingdom where he was in charge of all of the worst people - the murders/rapists/etc etc...correct? that's like punishing someone by giving them a gun. quote from website: Some people believe that Satan was the angel Lucifer, who was the first angel to be exiled from heaven for defying God. After he was exiled, he became Satan. [ot]damn...700 pages views already!![/ot]
Fred and LevitySlickt, Thank you for proving my point exactly. Thank you further for following the all-too-common response that people resort to when faced with a reasoned arguement that challenges their dogmatic beliefs: ignore it completely and pretend it never happened. The single biggest block to the advancement of this civilisation, in my opinion, is the sheer apathy that greets those willing to challenge the established order, be it religious or scientific. My "conspiracy theories" as you term them are based on historical documents, scientific evidence and archeological discoveries yet you seem to regard them as crackpot ideas that are unworthy of you. Excuse me? Read my post again, I replied to your condescending post with references to the very book that you hold so dear, yet my arguement is not worthy of your time? Are we reading the same book or are you reading the sanitised, watered-down "modern" version of the Bible that is being passed off on us today? Personally I'm fascinated by the whole Old Testament story, I consider myself free enough of any dogmas or vested interests to be able to see the Bible for what it is, an account of the political, military and religious struggles of various ancient cultures in what was then the main seat of culture in the world. Therefore I am able to read what it actually says, not what some "authority" has told me what he wants me to think it means. For me the whole story of Jehovah is not about some almighy, omni-present, omniscient entity who created the world and everything in it but rather the story of a god of limited power or a god-like human who has His own personality, His own faults, His own way of doing things who is struggling to rise to greater powers by leading his own people to glory. I am much happier with the idea (which is just one of many possibilities) that Jehovah was just your average, ordinary, run-of-the-mill God, trying to make his own way in the world who through His political cunning, or His military brilliance, or His sheer bloody-mindedness managed to establish himself as The One True God while the hundreds of potential rivals (who *are* mentioned in the Bible, should you care to read it) were left behind the dust. Far from these ideas being "so far *out there* that they hardly seem to enter reality", I do not see a genuine conflict between my ideas, which is nothing more than an opinion of someone whose studies are very incomplete, and what is actually written in the Bible. It says what it says, you can choose to ignore the facts if you wish but at least have the courtesy of granting me the right to my own beliefs, especially if you are going to ignore the passages and the links I quoted. As for "applicable solutions", what if there were advanced ancient cultures on this planet, what if Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed my nuclear bombs, what if the pyramids were built by "little green men", don't you think we should know about this? Maybe they left some bits of their technology behind them, maybe we have things to learn from them, maybe they left some clues around as to where to find them and how to get in touch, maybe this whole idea is totally crackpot and we won't find a damn thing but don't you think we should at least look? By the way, where exactly is the conspiracy theory? All I said was that there is more to the Bible than the popular myths would suggest and I backed this up with selected quotes from it, how does that qualify as a conspiracy theory exactly? My only reason for saying what I said is that there have been several posting on this thread asking such questions as "If God is all-knowing, etc, then why is there suffering in the world?" My answer to this is: Read The Bible. The Christian God is not necessarily what he is percieved to be, rather His role is more that of a king who guides His people the way He wants them to go but He does not posess total control over His subjects, rather it is up to the individual himself to decide whether he wants to follow God or not. In this same context, the story of Satan/Lucifer is not one of an angel of God rebelling against Him, but becomes one of a mere rival to God, one powerful enough to warrant a black propaganda campaign that has lasted thousands of years, and is a classic case of just how altered the Bible myths have become over the millenia. Again, study of these kind of stories is quite fascinating, this article makes for very interesting reading. In brief, as this subject sees to be rapidly dying out, I would recommend to anybody to read up on this whole subject. I for one do not suffer from the sort of imponderable questions that Waffle and others have put forward. I regard the "road out" as a path that I myself need to find. I think I have a pretty good idea what Jesus was trying to do and though I believe that His message has been radically altered, I still respect and admire His courage to suffer for His beliefs and the effects that His lifes work has achieved on this planet. However, I am not waiting around for the Deus Ex Machina to come down and rescue me, only I can rescue me. Jesus tried to show us a way out but he was not the only one to have tried. I do not follow any one religion as The One True Faith but can view the respective efforts of all such gods, and can judge the merits of their messages accordingly. I consider myself capable of the ability to look past the efforts of less worthy men to twist the messages of such beings as Jesus to their own selfish ends, if this qualifies me as a "conspiracy theorist" then I'll wear that label with pride. Personally I consider myself capable of making a choice and have chosen to question everything that was taught to me during my Roman Catholic upbringing. If you choose to believe the popular myths then fine, I respect that, that is your choice but, unless you are willing to listen to my arguements and answer my questions, please don't bother to question my beliefs. The Christian faith does not work for me, it has too many holes, too many inconsistencies, too many unanswered questions, therefore I am seeking my own way. Please have the decency to respect that rather than resort to the condescending, dismissive stance you have taken against me.
To put it simply - Lucifer was not sent to some "kingdom." The idea is that he was sent to Hell.. which is described as anything but fun and desirable. It's essentially eternal suffering in one form or another. So, in all reality... he's not quite LEADING a group of murderers, etc. He's suffering just like everyone else. Also, He still has to ask God permission before messing with someone (i.e. - you and I). Though I want to point out- not all hardship is from "satan". So like I said - This topic has (to me - if nothing else) become dry and stretched out. Its not that your arguments can or can't be argued. It's just that I [personally] am not even remotely interested in arguing them. And the honest truth is that, right now, I may not be able to answer some of your questions. Here's a link for you - I think you may find some of his stuff very interesting... I consider him one of the most well studied people I know of as far as "secrets" of the bible go - so to speak http://www.khouse.org/ and here is a little about him, if you're interested http://www.raptureready.com/who/Chuck_Missler.html, Back on subject (more or less), even if I studied and responed, you would likely find another argument on some webpage for me to respond to. That's what LS meant by all the "what if's" ... What if God isn't a god at all, but is a cardboard box?! Or what if we're actually ruled by a Linux penguin!? Oh no! If there is something tangible and not quite god-like (ie can die/be defeated) ruling us - shouldn't we, as the aggressive creatures that we are, try n defeat the wretched beast? Anyways - bleh! So there's my response. Im sure you're not satisfied, but I'm ok with that.
