Christians Banned Muslims Women Headscarf

[Tree]

The Vatican doesn't matter

 

[Meksilon]

Nevermind head scarfs religion should be banned, show me a war it's solved, or a life it's made easier,

I'm not going to talk about anything other then Christianity, however I can assure you if you look into history you will find Christian governments ran better and lasted longer than any other form of government. In England, for example, their government system as seen today developed from Cromwell who made a Christian government - you can say what you want about Cromwell, I'm not here to defend the man - but he made the system directly after two failed attempts at creating a secular government - and that government has lasted from the 1600's through to today - and it will continue to last.

I hate to remind everyone, religion in the last couple of years has been directly responsible for many more deaths than it is ever likely to save.

Knowing a little is a dangerous thing. I have no doubt that other religions and other cults and the occult have disastrously negative effects.

Furthermore, my opinion is not the opiion of someone who is uneducated, its the opinion of a realistic human begin that has no time for nonsense, and that's what religion is, nonsense.

You act as if you're better for some reason. Christianity, in the purest definition, is a way of life - not a "religion". The man-made constructs that come with it are the result of man trying to take it onboard - and there are problems with this, but they're not because of problems with Christianity itself.

Every holy book ever written has been taken out of context by humans

You can't just contradict yourself like that. First you say its nonsense, then you call them Holy books and say they've been taken out of context by humans (which if you've just read my previous paragraph I'm agreeing with you on to an extent). So which is it?

( normally wanting power or money ),

Thankyou for showing your lack of understanding.

these books were not written to rule our lives, they are a way with which to teach our children morals

Rubbish - teach children morals - have you completely lost your mind? The Bible contains the moral code for adults who understand it, not for children. The 10 commandments (Exodus 20:1-17) are an example of the morals, here -

I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

You shall have no other gods before me.

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I Yahweh your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain, for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labour, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to Yahweh your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore Yahweh blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Honour your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that Yahweh your God is giving you.

You shall not murder.

You shall not commit adultery.

You shall not steal.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.

You shall not covet your neighbour's house; you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbour's.

Do you see? It's all moral code, the first 4 are about your relationship to God, the next 6 are about your relationship to each other. How you can you argue against that? The answer is you can't. It's infallible. Human contracts may very well be - but the moral law as expressed throughout the Bible can not be faulted. It goes into far greater detail further on because for the Ancient Jews even the 10 commandments weren't enough to keep them from finding ways of sinning without admitting to it being immoral, - and every one of these moral commandments is still valid today. It's not "outdated", it's not "nonsense", and it's certainly not childish.

It's not children who need to be told not to lie, not to lust, not to curse God's name, not to murder, not to steal, not to make idols... it's us adults.

, and how to be decent human beings. As these books don't seem to do that anymore, why not just abolish it all together ?

"these books" - you have no idea what you're talking about. Abolish what? laws against murder, laws against stealing? laws against fraud?

Christianity promotes such things as:

Unconditional love, rather than hate.

Forgiveness rather than vengeance.

Communities rather than closed societies.

Honesty, rather than deceit.

Giving, rather than taking.

... and the list goes on, and on. You want to abolish this? I can show you right now that secular society is destroying communities and replacing them with non-unified neighbourhoods where people just seem to keep to themselves, it promotes hate, vengeance and intolerance - and taking, exploiting things, being unfaithful to others... I could go on and on.

For those that are thinking, "there are people that live only for their religion", these people need to get a life, and be way more realistic, live for your friends and family, not for something that, in all reality, never actually existed.

Again, you've simply got no idea what you're talking about - and it doesn't look intelligent to see you try to make arguments with such a limited understanding. Christianity is a philosophy, it's a way of life - and the religion it comes with may be flawed - but human constructs are not eternal. For instance - for all intents and purposes divorce is a human construct, whereas Marriage is a divine moral, Holy union. God says in Genesis that when a man leaves his mother and his father and marries his wife they become "one flesh".

By the way, you could ban the cross and I wouldn't mind. I would think society is stupid for doing it - but it really wouldn't bother me. The cross is a symbol - I don't idolize it, it's meaning if it was banned could be replaced by another symbol.

Oh and, in case its not reinforced enough in my post above, in case you missed it: Liberal theology can kiss my rear end, God's Moral Law is eternal. I believe in every moral taught in the Bible. You can call me a fundamentalist, you can call me whatever you like - but God's Law does not need to be changed, "updated" or censored.

:beer:

PS: I'm pleased to report that the Christian faith in Australia continues to grow, not decline.

 

[Richard]

My honest opinion is "so what, who cares"

Nevermind head scarfs religion should be banned, show me a war it's solved, or a life it's made easier, I hate to remind everyone, religion in the last couple of years has been directly responsible for many more deaths than it is ever likely to save.

Furthermore, my opinion is not the opiion of someone who is uneducated, its the opinion of a realistic human begin that has no time for nonsense, and that's what religion is, nonsense.

Every holy book ever written has been taken out of context by humans ( normally wanting power or money ), these books were not written to rule our lives, they are a way with which to teach our children morals, and how to be decent human beings. As these books don't seem to do that anymore, why not just abolish it all together ?

For those that are thinking, "there are people that live only for their religion", these people need to get a life, and be way more realistic, live for your friends and family, not for something that, in all reality, never actually existed.

I agree totally.

There is one thing that links all religions together, at the heart of every religion is war!

 

[krakjoe]

Yeah and how many ppl were killed in the making "christianity" ?

Think a few hundred years back, the only difference is we evolved.....slightly.

The non-sense I refer to is the scientifically impossible happenings documented in these books, ppl dying and coming back to life and such...writing appearing on rocks and what have you.....

It is non-sense...

Like I said, these books have some nice and meaningful stories, with morals, but that's IT.

There's no point arguing about it, it's not a debate, either you believe in fairy tales or you don't, and I firmly do not.

 

[XeonGX]

what???
why would they banned that????


why would you look at womens hair anyways
too intersted??
thats why they made internet

 

[Meksilon]

The non-sense I refer to is the scientifically impossible happenings documented in these books, ppl dying and coming back to life and such...writing appearing on rocks and what have you.....

It is non-sense...

Like I said, these books have some nice and meaningful stories, with morals, but that's IT.

There's no point arguing about it, it's not a debate, either you believe in fairy tales or you don't, and I firmly do not.

LOL. "fairy tales" "scientifically impossible happenings"... I don't really know where to begin. Some of the things - like the parting of the red sea - still have clear archaeological evidence today that you can see which was left over from the actual event. That's scientifically impossible isn't it? And yet there is still very convincing archaeological evidence left there today.

This is not the only example - and I don't have time to take you through many right now, but the point is there is real archaeological evidence left over today which proves many of the documented events. The Bible isn't a "book" - it's a collection of historical documentation and letters. It is provably historically accurate, and so the other parts in it must also be accurate. Did you know that in the Ark of the Covenant it actually contained two copies of the Ten Commandments, not one? I wouldn't expect someone with so little understanding of this to know that, or even to know why (and there was a very good reason too - and it's one of the things that proves God's existence).

:beer:

 

[veggie1232]

Pwn3d.

mmmmmmmonster kill

 

[krakjoe]

I wouldn't expect someone with so little understanding of this to know that, or even to know why (and there was a very good reason too - and it's one of the things that proves God's existence).

:beer:

You assume I don't know a lot, because I do not believe in it.

The Bible is NOT fact, it's FICTION.
It is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for someone to die and come back to life, it's also IMPOSSIBLE to bear a child without first having sex. These are the happenings the Bible and christian faith are based around, and no matter how you dress it up, neither is possible, not at all.
It's clear to anyone with even a little common sense, that Mary Magdalen was quite obviously the town bike, and when she got pregnant, she made up some story to cover it up, and I would have too, since they prolly wudda stoned her to death.

On to the next ridiculous comment....the parting of the red sea.....yes, its scientifically impossible for one person to move the sea, you have accepted this story because it fits in with your beliefs, but for those that aren't fans of fairy tales, it's much more likely that Earth itself did that....please take a look at this.....

Tsunami - Pretty fresh in the minds of everyone...

... now cast your belief aside for one moment, and put yourself back 3000 years, before digital photography, before special movie affects, how would you explain this picture to your children ? A Godly Act maybe, so they could sleep easier at night ? It's certainly nicer than the truth don't you think ? no, it's entirely more likely this was a natural event.

You could come at me with any story in the Bible, and any so called proof, and it's all perfectly explainable with common sense, the only difference is, I don't feel the need to prove it one way or another, it makes no difference to me.

If you believe that God created earth and mankind, then think about this.
That would make us his responsability right ?
He made us, he put us here, he crafted the earth with his own hands right ?
So then, when will he take responsability, when will he come forward and explain all the death, destruction, abuse, murder, rape ?
Sounds to me, like Gods a bit of a spoilt brat, so he made earth, gave us life, sacrificed his family, and then, when things don't go his way anymore, he does absolutely nothing for what, 2000 years now ? Sulking is he ?
Like a child who has his favourite toy taken away...how dare he, what are we guinea pigs ? testing was he ?

No infact, none of this happened, the earth is here because of purely scientifical reasons, we are part of a universe, we were not created by any being of any kind, nor does anyone have the power to resurrect the dead, nor does anyone have the ability to impregnate another human being without sexual intercourse taking place, nor does any being have the ability to part billions of tonnes of water, nor does writing appear on rocks, nor do angels that come in the night exist, nor was man created from dust, nor woman from man, neither do snakes that talk exist, none of these things exist, none of the things in the Bible are real, and to believe they are, in my eyes makes you a fool.

The world over, the name for this system is Belief, a Faith System, my friend, facts do not require the use of faith or belief, it doesn't work like that.

 

[veggie1232]

My honest opinion is "so what, who cares"

Nevermind head scarfs religion should be banned, show me a war it's solved, or a life it's made easier, I hate to remind everyone, religion in the last couple of years has been directly responsible for many more deaths than it is ever likely to save.

Furthermore, my opinion is not the opiion of someone who is uneducated, its the opinion of a realistic human begin that has no time for nonsense, and that's what religion is, nonsense.

Every holy book ever written has been taken out of context by humans ( normally wanting power or money ), these books were not written to rule our lives, they are a way with which to teach our children morals, and how to be decent human beings. As these books don't seem to do that anymore, why not just abolish it all together ?

For those that are thinking, "there are people that live only for their religion", these people need to get a life, and be way more realistic, live for your friends and family, not for something that, in all reality, never actually existed.

see everyone you see this? now thats what i call awsome

anywho you should right a holy book your self saying do not kill no not be racist or homophobic live life how you want to live it aslong as it doesnt hurt other people in the prosses. folow this and you will have happy life and

THERE WONT BE AS MUCH WAR

ok im gana call it

the vegibible follow it and live a happy life!

LOL

 

[Meksilon]

Okay firstly, again, you're attacking stories rather than beliefs - you know that you can't fault the morals - and so you've not tried. Christianity is a way of life - it's based on morals. The human construct of religion that goes with it is imperfect - and I've already said this. As for the validity of the Bible I'll draw your attention to the Red Sea. It is an inland lake - parting it is all-but impossible due to "natural" forces - yet there is very strong archaeological evidence - from remains left there which we can study today it is clearly evident that this event did take place. Some people have offered the explanation that the Bible was referring to the "Sea of reeds" which could have been another river - but either way it did happen as was recorded in the Bible.

You assume I don't know a lot, because I do not believe in it.

The Bible is NOT fact, it's FICTION.

I assume you have proof then? Because scribes were hard to come by, they were expensive - they copied documents without making errors which were more legible then the most perfect typewriter ever has been - and once spending all this money and time to duplicate a document - you can't sell it anyway as most people can't read and only the leaders can read it - so where is the motivation to write fiction? There is none. The Bible is a collection of historical documents - the earliest of which is most likely the Book of Job. The Torah, the Gospels - Revelations - the letters of Paul - are not fiction. I can go through them with you one by one and prove that they're not fiction. For instance, the Torah is where Moses was instructed to build the Ark of the Covenant, we know for a fact the Ark of the Covenant existed - thus we know it was a factual account.

The Gospels are the most interesting, Matthew, Mark and Luke all share much of their writings in common - and it was suggested that these have been written from a single source. Yet we know that we've not seen this original document - and John - for all it's originality - does confirm some of what's in the other Gospels. The idea that 4 separate people would write "fiction" that is agreeing with the other books is just ludicrous. Don't be fooled - what's in the New Testament is not the only historical documentation of the life of Jesus - there is much more.

The resurrection - which you say is scientifically impossible - was witnessed first hand and written down by dozens of independent witnesses. In fact, an interesting thing is that when people try to disprove the resurrection by proving that either: 1. the disciples stole the body, 2. the Romans stole the body or 3. the body was taken into Heaven - every time the first two possibilities are discredited, no matter what the agenda. Because there was no motivation. For instance, if the Romans took the body, and early Christians were saying they've seen the resurrected body of Christ - then all they had to do was produce the rotting corpse to put that to a stop.

It is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for someone to die and come back to life, it's also IMPOSSIBLE to bear a child without first having sex. These are the happenings the Bible and christian faith are based around, and no matter how you dress it up, neither is possible, not at all.

Well, as I've explained the other possibilities are not even feasible - let alone factual versions - if they were why isn't that written? In today's world many people abuse the meaning of Science. What about Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons' so called "Cold Fusion" experiment? Not only did they have no reason to lie - but they had to go into hiding and they both lost their jobs due to the controversy - yet they didn't actually claim they'd produced cold fusion - and the results of their experiment have been reproduced all around the world. So don't go saying "this isn't scientifically provable" when the very meaning of science is so abused every day in every way.

I don't think their experiment proves cold fusion - far from it - but they had valid results from a valid experiment that has been reproduced. That is FACT.

It's clear to anyone with even a little common sense, that Mary Magdalen was quite obviously the town bike, and when she got pregnant, she made up some story to cover it up, and I would have too, since they prolly wudda stoned her to death.

What's your point?

On to the next ridiculous comment....the parting of the red sea.....yes, its scientifically impossible for one person to move the sea, you have accepted this story because it fits in with your beliefs,

Because it's in a document which is historically accurate, even if you claim it's not "scientifically accurate".

but for those that aren't fans of fairy tales, it's much more likely that Earth itself did that....

Yeah.. the red sea - an inland lake - parted itself naturally. I'd like to see you prove that.

please take a look at this.....

Tsunami - Pretty fresh in the minds of everyone...

... now cast your belief aside for one moment, and put yourself back 3000 years, before digital photography, before special movie affects, how would you explain this picture to your children ? A Godly Act maybe, so they could sleep easier at night ? It's certainly nicer than the truth don't you think ? no, it's entirely more likely this was a natural event.

That.can't.happen.with.the.red.sea.

You could come at me with any story in the Bible, and any so called proof, and it's all perfectly explainable with common sense, the only difference is, I don't feel the need to prove it one way or another, it makes no difference to me.

Okay, let's look at the Gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus then. As you know, John's is completely independent of the other three - so why do they agree on the events? Is it because it's accurate?

If you believe that God created earth and mankind, then think about this.
That would make us his responsability right ?

Except that we're made in the image of God - which give us responsibility.

Sounds to me, like Gods a bit of a spoilt brat, so he made earth, gave us life, sacrificed his family, and then, when things don't go his way anymore, he does absolutely nothing for what, 2000 years now ?

Nothing for 2000 years? I can name a number of things I know He's done over the past 2000 years.

No infact, none of this happened, the earth is here because of purely scientifical reasons,

Here's the part where you share your blind belief - because I'm not uneducated either. I know for a fact that no one has ever shown how a "big bang" (which is a uniform event) could result in large non-uniformities - ie galaxies made up of stars and planets - and I know that no one has ever made life from no life - because that's impossible too.

we are part of a universe, we were not created by any being of any kind, nor does anyone have the power to resurrect the dead, nor does anyone have the ability to impregnate another human being without sexual intercourse taking place, nor does any being have the ability to part billions of tonnes of water, nor does writing appear on rocks, nor do angels that come in the night exist,

I can tell you of several confirmed experiences with Angels in the last 5 years. I can tell you of more than one experience with daemons (not personally of course - but people I personally know) within the last 12 months. In neither case is there another rational explanation - in fact for some of the things I've been informed of I've tried to explain it every other way - including hallucinations.

nor was man created from dust, nor woman from man,

So we were created from a single cell organism? Yeah that makes so much more sense!

none of the things in the Bible are real

Thus morality is not real?

The world over, the name for this system is Belief, a Faith System, my friend, facts do not require the use of faith or belief, it doesn't work like that.

What facts? You couldn't see the TRUTH if it jumped up and said hello. Truth overrides belief. Facts are part of a larger picture - and everyone knows that. Thus the "fact" that people can not come back from the dead means that people who die and come back to life must be fiction? I know of someone who was hit by a dozen box-jellyfish on his naked skin - took at least 2-3 hours to reach the hospital - was pronounced dead - and more then 13 minutes later he recovered from death and to this day is still alive. That is not explainable scientifically - and yet it is a fact that has happened within the last few years. He actually recalls that when he came back, from the dead he scared the living daylights out of a nurse who was moving him. You don't have all the answers - you don't have any answers. You're attacking the stories in the Bible - but you're not attacking the morals - because the morals are infallible. The Bible teaches that Marriage is life-long, and society teaches that you can dissolve marriage and change your mind with "divorce". It can be proven that the way the Bible teaches works better. It can be proven.

I don't have blind faith, I know what I believe in very well - and your idea that it's a fairy tale, is simply not true.

:beer:

 

[krakjoe]

I can see that you're blinded by the stories in this book, even if you claim your faith isn't a blind one, it is, and in less than 4 paragraphs, you proved it.

In the very same way that it is scientifically impossible for a tsunami to take place in the red sea, it's also impossible to die and come back to life, and all the other things I have already mentioned, being created by a higher being, etc.etc.

As for the story of your friend, some days are a whole lot different to some minutes.

I don't think that Christianity alone should be banned, but all religion, it causes more death than good, and no matter how many fools go to church on sundays and mosques on friday, and whatever all the other reliions do, that will never change.

So I'll carry on living a normal life with rational thoughts, I'll know my own mind, and know fact from fiction, I'll instill the same morals in my children that make me a decent friend, a decent father, and a decent partner, without the use of fictional stories of eternal damnation, horsemen of the apocolypse, crucifiction, murder, plagues and other such nonsense.

And you, believe whatever makes your life seem worthy of living.....and have a nice time doing it.

 

[themoose]

I'm not a religious man at all, but I certainly don't agree it should be banned. Only few extremist religious brainwashed people cause a lot of death. Overall, religion does more good than evil. It gives people morals, some people live for religion, it gives people hope and most of all (diciplinary) order.

And just FYI I do believe the bible is fiction, especially the old testament. Some of the new may be true.

 

[GamePhreak]

Has the Vatican gone secular? :angel:

And if you count the Vatican, Latin isn't a dead language either. (It's their official language)

 

[Meksilon]

I can see that you're blinded by the stories in this book, even if you claim your faith isn't a blind one, it is, and in less than 4 paragraphs, you proved it.

I can see that you can only argue about the "scientific impossibilities" - you can't argue with the historical accuracy or the morals taught in the Bible - and the morals are what Christianity is ... the stories, the parables... they're a tool for that - and yes I do believe they're accurate - based on archaeological evidence, based on the fact we know the documents that we have today have very few differences to the original documents, but I would rather someone believe the morals if they can't believe the "stories" anyway.

If you have such a good argument stop hiding behind "science" and start arguing based on historical accuracy. You call the Bible "fiction" - but it's not; it's historically accurate and the idea that historically accurate manuscripts are fiction because of supernatural writings is just silly. Unexplainable miracles, encounters with angles and daemonization still happens today.

In the very same way that it is scientifically impossible for a tsunami to take place in the red sea, it's also impossible to die and come back to life, and all the other things I have already mentioned, being created by a higher being, etc.etc.

As for the story of your friend, some days are a whole lot different to some minutes.

So going back to the ark of the covenant - you've not explained to me yet where there were 2 copies of the 10 commandments carried in it – is it because you don't know? So it's impossible for Jesus to come back to life? Okay - that's an assumption, and let's say you're right - that would make him a fraud. If he was a fraud how come he was willing to die for that - and stand by while his followers live on? How come he was willing to experience being brutally beaten to within an inch of his life before being crucified - crucifixion is still considered the most inhumane form of capital punishment - in fact it was considered such an awful punishment even at the time it was being practised that painting a picture of crucifixion was outlawed. How come Judas went and hanged himself? How come when Peter was crucified he was crucified on an upside-down cross? Surely that is clear evidence that Peter did not feel he was worthy to die the same way as Jesus?

It's a very complicated hoax anyway, because Jesus was foretold to be the Messiah not only to Mary by the angle Gabriel - but in the Old Testament as well. Not only that - but his genealogy - on both sides (Mary, and Joseph) - made him the son of the king of David.

So if it was a hoax, how come the temple split while he was hanging on the cross (just after he died)?

Now I'm not Catholic - and I believe that communion is a symbol - not to be taken literally as if the bread and wine becomes flesh and blood. However, have you heard of the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano? During Catholic Mass, when the priest said the words of consecration (This is my Body...This is my Blood), the bread changed into flesh and the wine into blood. They can still be seen today - they are both human flesh and human blood. All scientific investigation into the matter has concluded that the miracle did take place, and that the flesh and blood is real. Some of the scientific findings are very interesting, for instance one of the conclusions drawn was that the flesh consists of muscular tissue of the human heart, a precise "cut" which would be almost impossible to duplicate. In addition, the unusual cut of the heart actually makes it a "complete" heart in it's own sense in a smaller scale - although it's part of a bigger heart, it would function as a heart for a much smaller body. And even though it's now more then a thousand years old - the blood still appears to be fresh - yet there's no trace of preservatives.

I don't think that Christianity alone should be banned, but all religion, it causes more death than good, and no matter how many fools go to church on sundays and mosques on friday, and whatever all the other reliions do, that will never change.

Christian societies, founded on true Christian morals have always been better then secular societies. John Howard, Kim Beasley, Tony Blair and George Bush all identify as Christian. Einstein was a Christian. In fact, in 2001 (the last Australian census before this years one, who's results are not yet in) in total 68% of the population identified themselves as being Christian - that's the majority.

You're right some people who go to Church on Sundays are FOOLS - but that doesn't mean we all are.

So I'll carry on living a normal life with rational thoughts, I'll know my own mind, and know fact from fiction, I'll instill the same morals in my children that make me a decent friend, a decent father, and a decent partner, without the use of fictional stories of eternal damnation, horsemen of the apocolypse, crucifiction, murder, plagues and other such nonsense.

And you've clearly shown you've missed the point completely.

And you, believe whatever makes your life seem worthy of living.....and have a nice time doing it.

Truth overrides belief.

You'll believe in fantasies like "the lesser of two evils" and other constructs designed to explain life - without God. I have no delusions. What you should be far more concerned with is cults, like scientology, which destroy lives.

 

[Meksilon]

And before you try answering any of my other questions, the one I really want answered is this: How is attacking the scientific validity of Biblical stories attacking Christian morals/teachings?

PS: Have you heard of Halton Arp? He's not a crackpot, he's a serious astronomer who once worked with Edwin Hubble for many years. He contests Hubble's "Law" - and suggests the universe is not as big or as old as mainstream astronomy would have you believe. He had to move to Germany to continue his studies, because he wasn't welcome to research with his alternative theories in the US. [edit]oh - and it should be noted that he developed these theories based on his observations, he didn't start out with them[/edit]

- So I will say firmly that the definition of science is abused every day in every way. In my opinion the Big Bang is a crack-pot theory and isn't real science - because "scientists" will have blind faith in it with no real evidence, and even after every single attempt to recreate a big bang in a computer simulation has returned results incompatible with the characteristics of a real universe. That truly is blind faith in fairy tales.

 

[themoose]

You call the Bible "fiction" - but it's not; it's historically accurate and the idea that historically accurate manuscripts are fiction because of supernatural writings is just silly.

The idea may be silly to you, but not to everybody. And just because I have your word (ok, and millions of other people's) for it being historically accurate does not mean it is.

Unexplainable miracles, encounters with angles and daemonization still happens today.

Which pretty much all can be explained by co-incidence, luck, trickery or porky pies.

I had an encounter with an angle just a few weeks ago. It came to me with a vision: something like this;

is it because you don't know?

Do you know? Or do you assume?

So it's impossible for Jesus to come back to life? Okay - that's an assumption

You're assuming that it is possible.

If he was a fraud how come he was willing to die for that - and stand by while his followers live on? How come he was willing to experience being brutally beaten to within an inch of his life before being crucified - crucifixion is still considered the most inhumane form of capital punishment - in fact it was considered such an awful punishment even at the time it was being practised that painting a picture of crucifixion was outlawed.

You have to remember that the bible wasn't a video camera.. it wasn't even written at the time it was happening. If it was happening.

It's a very complicated hoax anyway, because Jesus was foretold to be the Messiah not only to Mary by the angle Gabriel - but in the Old Testament as well. Not only that - but his genealogy - on both sides (Mary, and Joseph) - made him the son of the king of David.

That doesn't make it complicated at all.

So if it was a hoax, how come the temple split while he was hanging on the cross (just after he died)?

And how come as you're writing this hundreds of children in africa are dying? Huh? IT HAS TO HAVE A MEANING!

Now I'm not Catholic - and I believe that communion is a symbol - not to be taken literally as if the bread and wine becomes flesh and blood. However, have you heard of the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano? During Catholic Mass, when the priest said the words of consecration (This is my Body...This is my Blood), the bread changed into flesh and the wine into blood. They can still be seen today - they are both human flesh and human blood. All scientific investigation into the matter has concluded that the miracle did take place, and that the flesh and blood is real. Some of the scientific findings are very interesting, for instance one of the conclusions drawn was that the flesh consists of muscular tissue of the human heart, a precise "cut" which would be almost impossible to duplicate. In addition, the unusual cut of the heart actually makes it a "complete" heart in it's own sense in a smaller scale - although it's part of a bigger heart, it would function as a heart for a much smaller body. And even though it's now more then a thousand years old - the blood still appears to be fresh - yet there's no trace of preservatives.Christian societies, founded on true Christian morals have always been better then secular societies. John Howard, Kim Beasley, Tony Blair and George Bush all identify as Christian. Einstein was a Christian. In fact, in 2001 (the last Australian census before this years one, who's results are not yet in) in total 68% of the population identified themselves as being Christian - that's the majority.

That's a nice story.

You'll believe in fantasies like "the lesser of two evils" and other constructs designed to explain life - without God. I have no delusions. What you should be far more concerned with is cults, like scientology, which destroy lives.

LOL. Science isn't based on some documents that were written 2000 years old. People SEE it with their eyes; they DEVELOP things with science (even the PC you're typing with). Without science nobody would have healthcare; there would be no technology; we'd be back in the middle ages still. Science isn't a theory. It's a fact that you can't deny.

And before you try answering any of my other questions, the one I really want answered is this: How is attacking the scientific validity of Biblical stories attacking Christian morals/teachings?

Just for the record; I'm not trying to attack anything.

PS: Have you heard of Halton Arp? He's not a crackpot, he's a serious astronomer who once worked with Edwin Hubble for many years.

Who says he isn't a crackpot?

He contests Hubble's "Law" - and suggests the universe is not as big or as old as mainstream astronomy would have you believe. He had to move to Germany to continue his studies, because he wasn't welcome to research with his alternative theories in the US. [edit]oh - and it should be noted that he developed these theories based on his observations, he didn't start out with them[/edit]

And since then; people have been into space to prove hubble's law.

Why was he kicked out of the US when his theory was more compatiable with the bible? That doesn't make any sense. Are you sure you have your facts right?

- So I will say firmly that the definition of science is abused every day in every way. In my opinion the Big Bang is a crack-pot theory and isn't real science - because "scientists" will have blind faith in it with no real evidence, and even after every single attempt to recreate a big bang in a computer simulation has returned results incompatible with the characteristics of a real universe.

It's true; nobody knows how the universe was made. Nobody knows how old it is. It could have been made by some "God", or it could have been made by some "Big Bang". Or it could have been made by something entirely different. But saying it's not true because it hasn't been done on a computer simulation is just plain absurd.


P.S. You do know that the bible was (in some places poorly) translated into English? Just checking.

 

[Meksilon]

Let's get one thing straight - I'm not attacking science.

"Science isn't based on some documents that were written 2000 years old. People SEE it with their eyes;"

But my point is that people deliberately manipulate what they see with their eyes into meaning whatever they want with the name of science.

"Why was he kicked out of the US when his theory was more compatible with the bible? That doesn't make any sense."

He wasn't kicked out of the US. What happened was his privilege to use telescopes and university facilities were taken away - and to get them back he had to move to the US.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050610arptest.htm

In the name of science NASA scientists offer the explanation that it isn't really how it looks and assures us that the quasar really is behind the galaxy.

In the name of science, Arp observes the quasar is in front of the galaxy, and thus concludes it's distance cannot be calculated using Hubble's "Law" - and thus concludes that the premises Hubble's Law is based on (that all galactic redshift is cosmological in origin) is false.

I have no option but to find that Arp's point of view is less biased. And at least he has a real explanation – NASA still haven't offered a real explanation.

Anyway - you've still not answered my question – how come you're attacking stories? That isn't what Christianity is - it's a life philosophy - so if you're going to attack Christianity you have to prove that the morals it promotes are either unethical or invalid.

:beer:

 

[themoose]

Anyway - you've still not answered my question – how come you're attacking stories? That isn't what Christianity is - it's a life philosophy - so if you're going to attack Christianity you have to prove that the morals it promotes are either unethical or invalid.

:beer:

I told you; I'm not trying to attack anything. I do believe christian teachings are moral and good, but I dont believe the bible is true.. and I usually dont like people who cant accept science or other things... for example; I was over to the states recently and there were people who didnt believe in global warming.

The idea of christianity is good, the morals & 10 commandments are great; but the extremists are retards.

 

[krakjoe]

Of course I'm not attacking moral teachings, that would be ridiculous, I just find it laughable that you need a book to tell you how to behave.

It's been said already, but no matter how many times you say the bible is historically accurate, it is most definately NOT.

It claims things worthy of catagory A nutters, it claims that a higher being than us created the earth in 7 days, even though remains can be found on this planet that predate the Exodus my hundreds of millions of years.

The Bible is based on the theory that Human Kind is the be all and end all of existence, but we are not I'm afraid, and neither is this stupid book.

 

[Meksilon]

I told you; I'm not trying to attack anything. I do believe christian teachings are moral and good, but I dont believe the bible is true.. and I usually dont like people who cant accept science or other things... for example; I was over to the states recently and there were people who didnt believe in global warming.

And I hate the definition of science that some people adhere to. Scientific study in many areas is exaggerated - or claims are being made that don't actually acknowledge observable evidence:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050610arptest.htm

Global warming is an example of a theory - it's a very strong theory - but as a theory there are some scientists who contest it. You can't just expect everyone to believe in scientific theories like this, that is flat out ridiculous. I do believe in Global warming - but it doesn't really concern me anywhere near as much as it does atheists.

The idea of christianity is good, the morals & 10 commandments are great; but the extremists are retards.

"extremists" of any religion is a media term. What's it supposed to mean? Someone who had a very very strong faith in their religion?

Of course I'm not attacking moral teachings, that would be ridiculous, I just find it laughable that you need a book to tell you how to behave.

A God, not a book. Do you know what my favourite parable is? It's this one:

(Mark 10:17-22)
And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honour your father and mother.'" And he said to him, "Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth." And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

People are blinded by their own beliefs, and their own moral codes.

It's been said already, but no matter how many times you say the bible is historically accurate, it is most definately NOT.

Based on your claim that it wasn't written at the time it happened? Well you're wrong on that claim anyway - because much of the Bible was written at the time it was happening. Keep in mind back then most people couldn't read or write - and so memory retention was much better as well. And it is historically accurate.

It claims things worthy of catagory A nutters, it claims that a higher being than us created the earth in 7 days, even though remains can be found on this planet that predate the Exodus my hundreds of millions of years.

And as I've said before - you're talking about a scientific slippery-slope... there are various different scientific methods for dating archaeological finds - and they don't agree with each other ... so you're choosing to believe the results from radiometric dating, but you'll disbelieve the other scientific dating theories?

I've had this argument before, anyway. The idea that God created the universe is better then the scientific non-explanation. Scientists don't know how the universe was created - but they think they know that shortly after it was there was a "big bang" that spread everything out into galaxies... but they don't know where the gasses required for the Big Bang came from - or how the space-time continuum came into existence in the first place.

The idea that humans were created by God in His image, is much better then the scientific-non explanation of the genesis of life. Many scientists contend that every form of life evolved from a single-celled organism... more simple then any other living single-cell organism today. You've got to admire their creativity - but as I've pointed out - time and time again - this theory starts AFTER life is created, and does nothing to explain the origin of life. And most atheists who I've talked to say that while they believe in evolution, they admit that abiogenesis is a scientific impossibility (after all, if they thought that was possible then it makes all the supernatural events in the Bible possible - doesn't it?) What good are those two theories when they're based on 1. the universe already being here, and 2. life already being here?

Oh by the way,

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050610arptest.htm

I still say that proves quasars are not as far away as calculated by their redshift values.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050601pleiades-problem.htm

Here's one that flat-out disproves Hubble's "Law". The distance to the galaxy was triangulated... and re-checked in a project that was not setting out to discredit Hubble's "Law" - the redshift value gives a different distance - but Hubble's Law is based on the known fact that all galactic redshift is cosmological in origin - this cannot be true because there is an example, right there ^^ that shows galactic redshift is not always cosmological in origin.

:beer: