Moderator: Community Team
Hoff wrote:why is the idea inferior to the reality then?
and i find this interesting... there is actually a religion based on macgyver. Its called MacGyverism and is based mainly in Utah. Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself.
yozapower wrote:
The core dilemma is this. If there is an all powerful, all good god, why does he allow evil to exist? If he were all good, then he would use his power to stop evil--seeing as he does not, he must be either less than all powerful OR less than all good.
The core dilemma is this. If there is an all powerful, all good god, why does he allow evil to exist? If he were all good, then he would use his power to stop evil--seeing as he does not, he must be either less than all powerful OR less than all good.
You have to remember though that the Jewish culture before, at the time of Jesus and after was an oral culture. There were people that had the job of remembering exactly what a person said and they would retell exactly what they said later. Through the years the stories would not change because people knew the story and if the storyteller changed the story the people would know.
To address the miracles of Jesus. You said that should sound an alarm. For a scientifically educated person as you are and we all are, it would sound an alarm. But at the time of Jesus they did not have the field of science as we know today. It was a pre-scientific world. And these miracles were not just preformed in front of the lower uneducated class. Jesus preformed miracles in front of the Jewish religious leaders and the educated people that were skeptical.
It is hard for us to imagine miracles because we don't see people healed from lifetime sickness and crippled ness. But if Jesus was who he said he was (God incarnate) then why couldn't Jesus do something that everybody else couldn't
In an earlier post somebody mentioned that the Gospels were different and the stories came in a different order so there for they couldn't be reliable. If you talk to a police officer about investigating a crash they will tell you that everybody has a different story of what happened. It's because they were at different angles and had a different perspective. But they all describe the same accident. If the Gospels would have said the same exact thing then it is time to worry about some funny business.
You are right about kings wanting their missions to look well. It is a part of critical analysis of any text, looking at motive.
Banana Stomper wrote:Predestination.
There are four forces in the Universe. Strong Nuclear force, weak nuclear force, gravitational force, and electromagnetic force. All of these forces govern the universe, how we move, how everything moves, how particles move. Not a single one of us is apart from these laws. Now, we assume we have free will, but where does this free will force come from. What force is it that moves our arms, that moves our fingers to type. What force is posting this message right now. You can say that i am making the decision to type these words, but that would imply that somehow I altered the course of these particles, that i changed their movement. But I am not a force. I am made of of neutrons, protons, and electrons that all interact in a way governed by the laws of nature. That all must obey those four forces and can not be affected by anything other than those four forces.
What is it then that determines what i type. At some point in the past, every particle was put into motion. As science currently states, the big bang was this begining, and all of the particles that now make up the universe were set in motion. the particles that make up my fingers were set in motion. Those particles have never been affected by any force other than the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and the electromagnetic force. My brain is not free of the laws, nothing is free of these laws. What then makes me hit these keys in this order? What governs my actions, what path were they set on so that they mesh into my conversations, my posts on this forum, my moves in a game of risk?
fishfleas wrote:In regards to the connections between the Bible and Science. My purpose and maybe you missed it was to show how the Bible, which is a center to a number of religions, does directly tie into Science. It has provided answers to alot of scientific questions, that science hasn't even been able to explain. It also has supported science in areas too. This was merely 1 of the angles I was coming from to show the direct connection to science from religion.
Jucdor wrote:
Native Americans had very similar system, yet their belief has changed a lot over the centuries. For instance the idea of the Great Spirit as a the leading god in many tribes was born only when indians needed to be more united against whites & thus they needed someone to symbolise their whole faithsystem. So the fact that indian wizards, shamans (can't remember what word you generally use in english for poppamies) dedicated their lives to remember spells & stories doesn't mean that they weren't changed. Your logic is the same as "Bible can't have errors, because those who wrote them was divinely lead". It doesn't hold water. Human mind is not a copy machine. I for instance have a couple of very emotional moments in my life few years ago and at the time I paid heed to remember those moments as well as possible, paying particular attention to some of the words that were used. But do I remember them now? No I don't. And it's been only 3 years.
Jucdor wrote:Yes, I'm sure that the historical Jesus probably knew a lot more about medicine than average Joe at the time. I do believe that he probably did a lot what people back then called miracles, but would modern people call them such? Well, some of them probably would as some people tend to use word miracle on occasions like doctor saving lives.
Jucdor wrote:Well my input wasn't to question anyone's belief. It's just my historian side that wanted to remind people how history is researched and what are proved & what are matter of faith.
Jucdor wrote:I agree with you on this one. However as I earlier pointed out there were a lot of other Gospels as well and they were in use for 4th century until New Testament was assembled & at least half the Gospels were thrown out because they weren't coherent with the ones that were chosen as holy.
In a way I agree with you. The way Bible explains the birth of the world isn't necessarily contradicting with the reality. It is only written in language that people at Biblical times would be ready to believe. Now if someone was suddenly started going on about species evolving from others & Earth being all volcanoes billions of years ago, the least they would've done was laugh their hearts out. Bible is not a scientific handbook and it shouldn't be used as one, it wasn't the discussion alledged God wanted to have with us. God wanted to talk about different things, but had to explain unrelevant things as well - in words that people would understand.
argyll72 wrote:The Jewish people held the art of remembering stories and what people said in the highest regard. There is no way you can compare the Native American culture to the Jewish one. The Jewish people’s oral culture is head and shoulders above the Native American’s culture in respect to oral traditions.
Jucdor wrote:Yes, I'm sure that the historical Jesus probably knew a lot more about medicine than average Joe at the time. I do believe that he probably did a lot what people back then called miracles, but would modern people call them such? Well, some of them probably would as some people tend to use word miracle on occasions like doctor saving lives.
There were a lot of “gospels” written in the second and third centuries that’s true. But they were Gnostic gospels and were condemned as heresy at the councils of Nicea and Constantinople. Arius was the preacher in Alexandria that was condemned for his Gnostic beliefs. His beliefs were that Jesus was only a spiritual being and not a physical being. The orthodox belief is that Jesus was fully man and fully God.
These Gnostic “gospels” were written by people who were not who they claimed they were. Take the gospel of Judas for example. He hung himself before Christ was crucified so how could he possibly have written it. There is also the gospel of Peter, Mary, and Thomas.
I disagree with you that the Gnostic “gospels” should be canonized. This is because they are not consistent with what the orthodox beliefs of the church are.
Yes, in council of Nicea, 4th century which is my case. Over three hundred years later was, in a nice little gathering, decided that "I think this one is holy, but you can burn that one."
argyll72 wrote:You are way over simplifying the process. It wasn’t that they just went through and picked the ones they thought were holy. There was over three-hundred years of debate on what was orthodox belief. They had to first decide if Jesus was who he said he was, God incarnate, and then they had to decide if the Holy Spirit was going to be deified. The Nicene Creed wasn’t formed until 381 at Constantinople and then affirmed at Chalcedon in 451.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: pmac666