Religion/Philosophy Thread
- Thread starter TAFJonathan
- 231 comments
- 5,450 views
- 2,970
There are MANY contradictions.
- 2,970
Paul (if he existed, which the church acknoweledges probably is not the case), wrote the so-called "letters" in the new testament, but the gospels were written by other authors...Mark, John, etc.
- 2,970
Originally posted by Pako
Well, I heard that there arn't any, and you say that there's MANY. So that's atleast one, how about another?
Tommorrow I'll list a few.
, you realize that all contradictions will be subjective? 
- 1,190
you guys are obviously of different faiths from each other ......Stealth is Jewish and i don't think that Jews bother with the New Testament b/c i don't think that the Jewish Bible includes the New Testament ......and Pako is probably from a branch of Christianity (not sure which) and Christian Bibles contain the New Testament ........both sides will have their reasons for following or not following the New Testament .....Stealth will find a bunch of contradictions for you Pako and i bet if you looked, you would find reasons why Christians follow the New Testament to inform Stealth ......you won't prove each other wrong
- 2,970
Yes...but I am not a devout or religious Jew...I think in a lot of ways I am agnostic. Islam, ironically, makes the most sense to me out of all of the religions.
- 2,970
I posted this earlier but I don't think anyone saw it
I thought I would point a few things out and say some things that I believe...
I am currently taking a class about the Qur'an (Koran), and I am finding it very interesting. As it happens, though I consider myself somewhat indecisive when it comes to religion (I would say I go between Judaism and Agnosticism), a lot of Islam makes a WHOLE lot of sense. First, we need to drop our stereotypical Islamic terrorist stereotype...Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaida, and the Taliban all belong to a fringe muslim sect called "Wahabbis", who are considered arrogant blasphemers by many other learned muslims of other sects.
For example, the Qur'an directly addresses science. While Judaeo-Christian religions simply blame everything on some God-given miracle, Islam accepts and restates many or all of the scientific laws as truth. Of course, it takes it a step further, saying that these laws were DESIGNED and CREATED by Allah. This, however, is not terribly hard to imagine (that some greater power designed the laws, not neccesarily Allah). I mean, we can all agree that gravity is an undeniable force...but can we say WHY? I don't mean "gravity is the force of attraction between masses", I mean, WHY THE HELL is that true? Who decided that?
Another thing that amazes me about Islam is how it actually corresponds is a large way to the BIG BANG THEORY! (Of course, it was written hundreds of years before the theory was conceived.) Islam treats Allah as many things, among which could be "the universe" as a whole...EVERYTHING that exists. The Qur'an teaches that basically, originally Allah was alone, it was he alone in a small form that existed. He then decided to expand and show himself to his creation, so he began to expand, limiting his expansion. He will continue to expand at a certain rate until when day he will begin to contract until he is eventually back to his original form and all in the universe is one. Does this not follow the big bang theory?
In any case, I am not a muslim, I just thought that these facts were very interesting. I enjoy asking questions such as these...and I am not sure what my own beliefs are. If I had to choose one, I would choose agnostic, EXCEPT that its just that I DON'T KNOW, but I DO CARE.
I'll write more later.
Keep up the good work.
I thought I would point a few things out and say some things that I believe...
I am currently taking a class about the Qur'an (Koran), and I am finding it very interesting. As it happens, though I consider myself somewhat indecisive when it comes to religion (I would say I go between Judaism and Agnosticism), a lot of Islam makes a WHOLE lot of sense. First, we need to drop our stereotypical Islamic terrorist stereotype...Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaida, and the Taliban all belong to a fringe muslim sect called "Wahabbis", who are considered arrogant blasphemers by many other learned muslims of other sects.
For example, the Qur'an directly addresses science. While Judaeo-Christian religions simply blame everything on some God-given miracle, Islam accepts and restates many or all of the scientific laws as truth. Of course, it takes it a step further, saying that these laws were DESIGNED and CREATED by Allah. This, however, is not terribly hard to imagine (that some greater power designed the laws, not neccesarily Allah). I mean, we can all agree that gravity is an undeniable force...but can we say WHY? I don't mean "gravity is the force of attraction between masses", I mean, WHY THE HELL is that true? Who decided that?
Another thing that amazes me about Islam is how it actually corresponds is a large way to the BIG BANG THEORY! (Of course, it was written hundreds of years before the theory was conceived.) Islam treats Allah as many things, among which could be "the universe" as a whole...EVERYTHING that exists. The Qur'an teaches that basically, originally Allah was alone, it was he alone in a small form that existed. He then decided to expand and show himself to his creation, so he began to expand, limiting his expansion. He will continue to expand at a certain rate until when day he will begin to contract until he is eventually back to his original form and all in the universe is one. Does this not follow the big bang theory?
In any case, I am not a muslim, I just thought that these facts were very interesting. I enjoy asking questions such as these...and I am not sure what my own beliefs are. If I had to choose one, I would choose agnostic, EXCEPT that its just that I DON'T KNOW, but I DO CARE.
I'll write more later.
Keep up the good work.
- 2,058
In regard to Moses.
I can't rmember the serise it was, but on the discovery channel, there was an expedition to find noah's ark.
They looked in the bible to see where it says it was, and then went in search. They found it almost EXACTLY where the bible says it was. The only non exact point... The fact that the ark was at the bottom of the mountain instead of on it.
The government of that area (which I THINK (don't quote me) was muslem) kicked the reserchers out before they could sonagraph the area. Regardless, the reserchers crept back in and illegally took sonar readings of the area where they found the ark to be.
What they found was a ships "ribs" that extended a MASSIVE distance accross and lenght wise.
I will see if I can find anything published on the internet.
I'm sorry I joined this discussion so late!
In case you havn't figured it out I am Luthren..
I can't rmember the serise it was, but on the discovery channel, there was an expedition to find noah's ark.
They looked in the bible to see where it says it was, and then went in search. They found it almost EXACTLY where the bible says it was. The only non exact point... The fact that the ark was at the bottom of the mountain instead of on it.
The government of that area (which I THINK (don't quote me) was muslem) kicked the reserchers out before they could sonagraph the area. Regardless, the reserchers crept back in and illegally took sonar readings of the area where they found the ark to be.
What they found was a ships "ribs" that extended a MASSIVE distance accross and lenght wise.
I will see if I can find anything published on the internet.
I'm sorry I joined this discussion so late!
In case you havn't figured it out I am Luthren..
- 2,058
Both taken from http://arksearch.com/naexped.htm
Unfortunately this refrence is of some doubt as it is not a scientific journal or a well documnted site. However the two examples I have posted have agreed with things I have heard and seen, but others may have a slight bit of fantasy throughout.
I will search for some more...
Also, www.EXN.ca (discovery) had some interesting thing both for and against the actual flood. just search for Noah on the front page...
- 2,058
http://arksearch.com/naevolu.htm
Also has some interesting things on evolution. Especially about the fish in brazill giving birth!
Also has some interesting things on evolution. Especially about the fish in brazill giving birth!
- 268
nice to see that no one even commented on my attempts to pour some cold water on this one :argue:
Mr P tried too, but with equally limited success
I'm not trying to restrict people's freedom of debate - go ahead, I'm just trying to point out that people are trying to argue the reliability of the bible and stuff and there is NO point. Was there a Noah, were there dinosaurs? If you really believe in something then no amount of evidence will sway you. Take evolution for example: For those of us who watch discovery and stuff and think - wow, we came from monkeys and small bacteria and that's amazing. we watch numerous documentaries and read books and to us its all 'proof'. For those guys who believe in the 6 day creation theory then this is all fanciful rubbish. They watch the same programs and read the same books and simply say "not in the bible, sorry buddy, don't believe it". That's up to them, so why not be cool about it and let them be. It's like them trying to convince you of the beauty of faith by explaining what they get from prayer. It never works when you try it so it doens't work for you. no amount of convincing will work.
so, keep the debate going - feel free, but everyone has to understand that this is not like arguing who has the best defensive line in football - add up the sacks / yards etc and get an answer. This is an immensly personal thing which is based on blind faith, not 'proof'.
And a few more thoughts (cos work is boring me to tears):
If you examinre all the main religions around the world - thay have all spent eons bickering and fighting. Millions have died in the name of religion and essentially they are all the same. Okay, I know I'm being very simplistic and I'm going to catch some flak here, but look at the essential commands of the major religions: Respect / worship god (in whatever form that may be) and be groovy to your fellow man. There are various differences and rules I agree, but the MAIN rules are the same. So here's a (disney) thought. Why can't we all get along?
And another thing. For those of you out there who believe what the scientists tell us (and to a degree we are showing a 'faith' of our own here) then you will love this theory I saw on TV over here: We are children of a star. I can never remember the exact details, but the main things is this. Billions of years ago (way after The Big Bang) there was a dying star that exploded in a supernova of immense magnitude. molten fragments of this star were hurled out into space. One enormous fragment collided with a giant gas cloud which collapsed in the collision. As it collapsed, it too exploded with the force of thousands of nuclear bombs. At the centre of the explosion a new star was formed which was , you guessed it, the sun. The shockwaves from the explosion formed rings of debris and minerals around the new sun. Over millenia, the debris in these rings collided and bound together to form several big lumps of rock orbiting around the sun (yup, that's the planets). So, as time passed and the energy from the sun changed these planets, life developed on earth. All the elements of the planet came from the dying star and the formation of the new one. Everything on earth has come from the dying star and its collision with the gas cloud. We are made from a dying star. We are the children of a star.
So, a bunch of you will think this is rubbish, but some of you (like me) will love it and I think it's pretty groovy. I don't have the faith required to subscribe to a major religion, so I try to live my life in a way that is beneficial to those around me and I respect whatever force it was that brings this universe into existence. PLus, I walk arond thinking I'm made up from a dying star. Suits me. Who's to say I'm wrong?
Someone reply - I'm beginning to think nobody listens any more
Jon
Mr P tried too, but with equally limited success
I'm not trying to restrict people's freedom of debate - go ahead, I'm just trying to point out that people are trying to argue the reliability of the bible and stuff and there is NO point. Was there a Noah, were there dinosaurs? If you really believe in something then no amount of evidence will sway you. Take evolution for example: For those of us who watch discovery and stuff and think - wow, we came from monkeys and small bacteria and that's amazing. we watch numerous documentaries and read books and to us its all 'proof'. For those guys who believe in the 6 day creation theory then this is all fanciful rubbish. They watch the same programs and read the same books and simply say "not in the bible, sorry buddy, don't believe it". That's up to them, so why not be cool about it and let them be. It's like them trying to convince you of the beauty of faith by explaining what they get from prayer. It never works when you try it so it doens't work for you. no amount of convincing will work.
so, keep the debate going - feel free, but everyone has to understand that this is not like arguing who has the best defensive line in football - add up the sacks / yards etc and get an answer. This is an immensly personal thing which is based on blind faith, not 'proof'.
And a few more thoughts (cos work is boring me to tears):
If you examinre all the main religions around the world - thay have all spent eons bickering and fighting. Millions have died in the name of religion and essentially they are all the same. Okay, I know I'm being very simplistic and I'm going to catch some flak here, but look at the essential commands of the major religions: Respect / worship god (in whatever form that may be) and be groovy to your fellow man. There are various differences and rules I agree, but the MAIN rules are the same. So here's a (disney) thought. Why can't we all get along?
And another thing. For those of you out there who believe what the scientists tell us (and to a degree we are showing a 'faith' of our own here) then you will love this theory I saw on TV over here: We are children of a star. I can never remember the exact details, but the main things is this. Billions of years ago (way after The Big Bang) there was a dying star that exploded in a supernova of immense magnitude. molten fragments of this star were hurled out into space. One enormous fragment collided with a giant gas cloud which collapsed in the collision. As it collapsed, it too exploded with the force of thousands of nuclear bombs. At the centre of the explosion a new star was formed which was , you guessed it, the sun. The shockwaves from the explosion formed rings of debris and minerals around the new sun. Over millenia, the debris in these rings collided and bound together to form several big lumps of rock orbiting around the sun (yup, that's the planets). So, as time passed and the energy from the sun changed these planets, life developed on earth. All the elements of the planet came from the dying star and the formation of the new one. Everything on earth has come from the dying star and its collision with the gas cloud. We are made from a dying star. We are the children of a star.
So, a bunch of you will think this is rubbish, but some of you (like me) will love it and I think it's pretty groovy. I don't have the faith required to subscribe to a major religion, so I try to live my life in a way that is beneficial to those around me and I respect whatever force it was that brings this universe into existence. PLus, I walk arond thinking I'm made up from a dying star. Suits me. Who's to say I'm wrong?
Someone reply - I'm beginning to think nobody listens any more
Jon
Originally posted by polyphony 001
So, a bunch of you will think this is rubbish, but some of you (like me) will love it and I think it's pretty groovy. I don't have the faith required to subscribe to a major religion, so I try to live my life in a way that is beneficial to those around me and I respect whatever force it was that brings this universe into existence. PLus, I walk arond thinking I'm made up from a dying star. Suits me. Who's to say I'm wrong?
Someone reply - I'm beginning to think nobody listens any more
Jon
Nice theory.
As described above, I don't buy anyone's version of the whole God thing. Am I just an accident of combinations of atoms? Could be.
That said, if other people have genuine faith, and get a lot out of it - fantastic. Good for you. The life experience is different for everyone.
If, however, you use your faith to hurt and dominate people, then you're an arsehole.
So, I try to keep my personal code of conduct simple - don't be an arsehole, and enjoy my life.
- 1,190
i just can't understand the intense battles between the Catholics and Protestants right now in Belfast, Ireland ....... the two are quite similar .....if i were to go to an Anglican or United mass, i probably wouldn't notice any difference in the ceremonies compared to a Catholic mass .....but this fued has always been a problem in Ireland
- 1,190
i just wanted to say that in addition to my biology class, i just begun a first year Astronomy & Astrophysics course called "Origin & Evolution of the Universe", as well as a first year Geology course called "Exploring the Solar System" ........both are good stuff especially the origin one
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,447
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
Good points everyone, good points! I have a little something I would like to relate to all of you... and I will keep this very short and very simple.
Science... how many of you stating Scientific fact have actually done the experiments, the testing, the field work? How much of the scientific facts that are said are facts read out of a book or from what someone else told you?
Oddly enough, religions are based on the same principle. Someone experienced it, wrote it down....and it is passed on to others through written word.
I will say, that I have experienced God first hand and continue to. And regardless of what else is out there, however we try to define it, there is a force that is there to help, guide and love us unconditionally.....and all it takes is willingness to accept it.
This has been and continues to be a very interesting thread and can't wait for more input!!! I need more data, more data!!!!
Science... how many of you stating Scientific fact have actually done the experiments, the testing, the field work? How much of the scientific facts that are said are facts read out of a book or from what someone else told you?
Oddly enough, religions are based on the same principle. Someone experienced it, wrote it down....and it is passed on to others through written word.
I will say, that I have experienced God first hand and continue to. And regardless of what else is out there, however we try to define it, there is a force that is there to help, guide and love us unconditionally.....and all it takes is willingness to accept it.
This has been and continues to be a very interesting thread and can't wait for more input!!! I need more data, more data!!!!
- 1,190
you're right about the religion part but people who deal with science do it as their career in life, they get paid for what they do, and want to know answers just like we do otherwise they wouldn't be in their fields.... things in science that are of doubt don't make it into the textbooks and nobody wants to learn about bs ..... when scientific findings are unveiled, they are discussed in great detail and carefully verified by numerous other specialists .......remember, scientists just act on our behalf trying to discover the truth about our past .......they aren't trying to get followers like religion tends to do and their goal is certainly not to disprove people's beliefs in various religions .....they're just slowly piecing together a very complex puzzle .......that's the best i can explain it for now .......i'm sure Tom McDonnell could elaborate on things a little
- 3,823
Just when you think you are out, they drag you back in....
Ok, let me get out my mop...
In theory, Schumy, you are essentially right. In theory....
Generally scientists are working toward the greater good, and the betterment toward mankind, but we have to remember that they too are fallible humans. Scientists have thier own set of beliefs, and goals that they are working toward just as any other person would. Add to that scientists that work for political groups and corporations and you have one gigantic mess.
Take the Tobacco industry... you have scientists, and doctors that run tests to discover the harmful side effects of smoking with the ultimate goal of removing tobacco from society forever. (Yeah! Go guys Go!!!) The Tobacco industry has scientists that work for them, trying to figure out new ways to deliver nicotine to the human brain, and apparently how to make it even more addictive. Then you have 'scientists' inside the tobacco industry that refute all claims of smoking related illness with actual facts. Now in this case, we have an obvious set of truths, and lies, but life isn't always so simple....
Take the Shroud of Turin as an example. Long has it been debated whether or not this is truly the shroud that Jesus of Nazareth was wrapped in after he was crucified. Back in 1988 a small sample was taken for carbon-14 dating, and much to the church's dismay, the results were conclusively that the shroud was from a range of years 1260-1390 (Margin of error in effect, but certainly not enough to warrant an extra 1200 years.) Now there are theories that the piece of the shroud that was taken was a portion of the shroud that had been repaired over the centuries. The problem we see here is that we have truth seeking scientists that merely wanted to use technology to unravel another mystery of the human history. Unfortunately there are scientists and theorists, and 100 other 'ists' all vying for thier own 'truths.' You have the devout religeous sect that cannot accept any explanation that disproves that this is the actual Shroud of Jesus, and to disbelieve in it is tantamount to disbelieving in Jesus altogether. Then you have the Athiests, and people that do seek to disprove Jesus and pretty much everything else that others hold sacred. When you hear this type of debate going on, I have found that the person that is most likely to be correct is the guy in the corner thinking... "Just because the piece isn't as old as it should be doesn't mean that the whole isn't, and even if it isn't Jesus of Nazareth's shroud, that doesn't mean that the events chronicled did not take place."
The key to what I am talking about is in keeping an open mind to all possibilities no matter what. Once you make a judgement on a topic, it is that much harder to ever see another side, even if the evidence is great.
If you see an argument always seek out the opposite side, and draw your own conclusions. You will be a much happier and far more reasonable person to talk to
Ok, let me get out my mop...
In theory, Schumy, you are essentially right. In theory....
Generally scientists are working toward the greater good, and the betterment toward mankind, but we have to remember that they too are fallible humans. Scientists have thier own set of beliefs, and goals that they are working toward just as any other person would. Add to that scientists that work for political groups and corporations and you have one gigantic mess.
Take the Tobacco industry... you have scientists, and doctors that run tests to discover the harmful side effects of smoking with the ultimate goal of removing tobacco from society forever. (Yeah! Go guys Go!!!) The Tobacco industry has scientists that work for them, trying to figure out new ways to deliver nicotine to the human brain, and apparently how to make it even more addictive. Then you have 'scientists' inside the tobacco industry that refute all claims of smoking related illness with actual facts. Now in this case, we have an obvious set of truths, and lies, but life isn't always so simple....
Take the Shroud of Turin as an example. Long has it been debated whether or not this is truly the shroud that Jesus of Nazareth was wrapped in after he was crucified. Back in 1988 a small sample was taken for carbon-14 dating, and much to the church's dismay, the results were conclusively that the shroud was from a range of years 1260-1390 (Margin of error in effect, but certainly not enough to warrant an extra 1200 years.) Now there are theories that the piece of the shroud that was taken was a portion of the shroud that had been repaired over the centuries. The problem we see here is that we have truth seeking scientists that merely wanted to use technology to unravel another mystery of the human history. Unfortunately there are scientists and theorists, and 100 other 'ists' all vying for thier own 'truths.' You have the devout religeous sect that cannot accept any explanation that disproves that this is the actual Shroud of Jesus, and to disbelieve in it is tantamount to disbelieving in Jesus altogether. Then you have the Athiests, and people that do seek to disprove Jesus and pretty much everything else that others hold sacred. When you hear this type of debate going on, I have found that the person that is most likely to be correct is the guy in the corner thinking... "Just because the piece isn't as old as it should be doesn't mean that the whole isn't, and even if it isn't Jesus of Nazareth's shroud, that doesn't mean that the events chronicled did not take place."
The key to what I am talking about is in keeping an open mind to all possibilities no matter what. Once you make a judgement on a topic, it is that much harder to ever see another side, even if the evidence is great.
If you see an argument always seek out the opposite side, and draw your own conclusions. You will be a much happier and far more reasonable person to talk to
- 1,190
yeah, i agree with everything you said .......i'm just thinking things in science textbooks are generally accepted by all scientists in the world
i'm Roman Catholic (not diehard though) and i accept the theory of evolution for i believe i am not learning bs and feel scientists are in a much better position to say what is right (or most likely) than your average Joe ......i take it you too accept evolution Tom?
i'm Roman Catholic (not diehard though) and i accept the theory of evolution for i believe i am not learning bs and feel scientists are in a much better position to say what is right (or most likely) than your average Joe ......i take it you too accept evolution Tom?
Similar threads
