Let's compare Jesus and Muhammed (and debate homosexuality) (and Tombstone).

#1,276
#1,276
gsvol said:
Since you can't compare persons and insist on
comparing religions, then lapse into an attack
on Christianity, let's speculate on; what
religion teaches it's followers to do this:


lebanon-muslims.jpg
Click to expand...

Right, Christians have never practiced mortification of the flesh...
 
#1,278
#1,278
ridethelightening said:
I know, you are just smarter than me.
Click to expand...

I knew you'd take it like that, no matter the "ours" and "we"'s.

And that's exactly what I'm talking about with the intellectual insecurity. You aren't being logical. You're being faithful. You know that. I know that. So don't try to act like there's a way to rationalize it when it isn't rational. You live in a time where rationality and logic are part of every aspect of our lives. It's value is obvious. Someone telling you that your belief is illogical or irrational is seemingly synonymous with an insult, but it really isn't. It's the truth. I'm sure you made peace with your faith long ago when you first became a believer. So why do you get pissed or perceive slight when others acknowledge your FAITH? If you don't like not having a coherent logical explanation for your beliefs, perhaps you should re-evaluate them?
 
Last edited:
#1,279
#1,279
Below is a list of historic documents written, and the time between them actually being copied from the original.

chart.jpg


So, if so much time passed between the first time they were written, and them being copied, then how can the other documents be considered historical documents, and yet people question the New Testament as a historic document. Seems to me that the New Testament is as much a historic document as the others listed, and is rather accurate.
 
#1,280
#1,280
gsvol said:
Since you can't compare persons and insist on
comparing religions, then lapse into an attack
on Christianity, let's speculate on; what
religion teaches it's followers to do this:


lebanon-muslims.jpg


I've been having trouble multi quoting in this thread.

To 'volatile's note on fondling children:


mullah%2Bkissing%2Bboy.jpg
Click to expand...

And if a limb, eye, or tongue causes you to sin, cut it off?

Also, Christianity has had sects throughout it's history who mutilate their own bodies.

The Koran forbids sodomy with death. The kissing on the lips thing is a cultural difference. But I'm sure you knew it wasn't some sort of priest-like pedophilia, since you are an expert on muslims.
 
#1,281
#1,281
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Below is a list of historic documents written, and the time between them actually being copied from the original.

chart.jpg


So, if so much time passed between the first time they were written, and them being copied, then how can the other documents be considered historical documents, and yet people question the New Testament as a historic document. Seems to me that the New Testament is as much a historic document as the others listed, and is rather accurate.
Click to expand...

Look up "oral history" and get back to us.
 
#1,284
#1,284
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Below is a list of historic documents written, and the time between them actually being copied from the original.

chart.jpg


So, if so much time passed between the first time they were written, and them being copied, then how can the other documents be considered historical documents, and yet people question the New Testament as a historic document. Seems to me that the New Testament is as much a historic document as the others listed, and is rather accurate.
Click to expand...

First, these are authors, not works. Plato did not write a book called "Plato"; Pliny the Elder did not write a book called "Pliny".

Second, these are written. These were not oral histories that were passed down for the amount of time before someone else copied them.

Also, as for the works of Plato and Aristotle, it matters not when or who wrote them; they are philosophical observations and discussions. They do not claim that anyone truly existed. Instead, they lay out metaphysical arguments. If Plato's Republic were written yesterday, it would be just as thought-provoking and compelling.

Presenting that table as evidence to support your argument is ridiculous.
 
#1,285
#1,285
IPorange said:
two atoms don't require any faith. They are there either way. Not making any assumptions on how they got there (scientific hypotheses and theories are not faith-based, rather speculation and unified observations) doesn't require any faith. Contrary to it being "no more provable," atoms HAVE been proven. where they ultimately came from has not. It may be some day. But maybe not. That's irrelevant.

It's a modern religious person's first instinct to try to cast nonbelievers to be on equal footing. I don't know if this is an intellectual insecurity issue since we live in an age of reason and science, or some latent "Pascal's Wager" thing. Not believing in a god doesn't mean I'm believing in a faith sense in something else. There is no dichotomy of "faith." I'm interacting with the world as it is, and as it presents itself. Nothing more.

Don't misunderstand my participation in these conversations as meaning I am intolerant of religion or think less of believers. I think religion and spirituality is a totally natural human institution, as a manifestation of our limitations. I just enjoy discussing these things.
Click to expand...

On a more serious note, then why trace our origin back at all? Only to stop at, "two atoms exploded and formed all that you see"? Really? That's supposed to be believable?

Where did they come from? Why did they explode? If they were combustible, why haven't more exploded? You say it's speculation that oral history passed over 50, 60 years and is accurate. Science deals in the billions of years and treats it as fact. There is no speculation involved? Of course you want off equal footing with a believer...you gain all of your credibility when you do.
 
#1,287
#1,287
ridethelightening said:
On a more serious note, then why trace our origin back at all? Only to stop at, "two atoms exploded and formed all that you see"? Really? That's supposed to be believable?

Where did they come from? Why did they explode? If they were combustible, why haven't more exploded? You say it's speculation that oral history passed over 50, 60 years and is accurate. Science deals in the billions of years and treats it as fact. There is no speculation involved? Of course you want off equal footing with a believer...you gain all of your credibility when you do.
Click to expand...

Something supra and supernatural had to have caused creation; how do you leap from that to a personal god, though?
 
#1,289
#1,289
IPorange said:
That wasn't what we were talking about at all. We were talking about the decades between when it was written and when the events happened.
Click to expand...

I don't think, and a lot of other people agree, that one man can sit down and write any of the gospels in a short amount of time. More than likely, they were probably started shortly after Jesus' death, and not finished till probably 15 or so years after. These guys were constantly moving, just to escape persecution in those days, it's not like they could just write when they felt like it. Also, what if they couldn't afford ink for months on end?? I accept the simple fact that they were finished between 50AD and 90AD, which is between 17-57 years after, and I accept that because of constant conflict in the region at the time, that they could still be accurate, even after the amount of time between Jesus' death and resurrection. John is probably the youngest of all the Gospels, which was finished sometime between 80AD and 90AD. All the others were sometime between 50AD and 65AD.
 
#1,290
#1,290
ridethelightening said:
There is the supernatural, but it aint God? Gotcha. Should have left when I said I was
Click to expand...

God to you, Allah to Muslims, Brahma to Hindus, etc.

this isn't that hard and any one religion claiming to have a better understanding of this supreme being is lying to it's followers.
 
#1,292
#1,292
g8terh8ter_eric said:
I don't think, and a lot of other people agree, that one man can sit down and write any of the gospels in a short amount of time. More than likely, they were probably started shortly after Jesus' death, and not finished till probably 15 or so years after. These guys were constantly moving, just to escape persecution in those days, it's not like they could just write when they felt like it. Also, what if they couldn't afford ink for months on end?? I accept the simple fact that they were finished between 50AD and 90AD, which is between 17-57 years after, and I accept that because of constant conflict in the region at the time, that they could still be accurate, even after the amount of time between Jesus' death and resurrection. John is probably the youngest of all the Gospels, which was finished sometime between 80AD and 90AD. All the others were sometime between 50AD and 65AD.
Click to expand...

I've written two books; both are around 125 pages...neither took me fifteen years. I can and have written twenty to thirty pages in one sitting before.

Tolstoy wrote over four-thousand pages in less than ten years.
 
#1,294
#1,294
ridethelightening said:
On a more serious note, then why trace our origin back at all? Only to stop at, "two atoms exploded and formed all that you see"? Really? That's supposed to be believable?

Where did they come from? Why did they explode? If they were combustible, why haven't more exploded? You say it's speculation that oral history passed over 50, 60 years and is accurate. Science deals in the billions of years and treats it as fact. There is no speculation involved? Of course you want off equal footing with a believer...you gain all of your credibility when you do.
Click to expand...

We track things forward, backward, and outward as far as we can. We don't stop at two atoms exploding or some other arbitrary point, a least not intentionally. You seem to be asking some deeper metaphysical question than what really applies to science at this time. Who knows how far things go or how far we've really gone? I don't. I fail to see what that has to do with believability. Like I said, spirituality is a natural human reaction to our limitations. I said OUR. Emphasizing, lest you take offense. Spirituality creates a bigger context with us conveniently at it's center. Is that supposed to be rational?

When people criticize science in sweeping general terms, it is evidence of their own scientific illiteracy. I know, you think I'm insulting you again. I'm not. You're not a scientist, is all I'm saying. You think it's all a conspiracy, or you think scientists are all a bunch of smug fart-sniffing dopes who are fooling themselves. That's fine, whatever. I can't summarize all of astronomy and physics (as if I even knew it all to begin with) to show you the logical way that scientists have arrived at their current understanding in a single post. No one would read it anyway. But it isn't faith-based. It's funny you mention speculation, when I already said that was a major part of the scientific process already. Words have meaning.

You can study and read and learn exactly how it was all come up with. You can't do that with religion. It "just is."
 
#1,295
#1,295
IPorange said:
The Koran forbids sodomy with death. The kissing on the lips thing is a cultural difference. But I'm sure you knew it wasn't some sort of priest-like pedophilia, since you are an expert on muslims.
Click to expand...

If so then why do the mullahs condone the rape
of political prisoners?
 
#1,296
#1,296
therealUT said:
I've written two books; both are around 125 pages...neither took me fifteen years. I can and have written twenty to thirty pages in one sitting before.

Tolstoy wrote over four-thousand pages in less than ten years.
Click to expand...

So, what exactly are you trying to measure here?? The fact that you and a 19th century Russian writer, can write something faster than a Christian man, who was constantly trying to escape death and persecution?? The Gospel of Matthew was written in 2-3 different languages, so what's your point??
 
#1,297
#1,297
g8terh8ter_eric said:
I don't think, and a lot of other people agree, that one man can sit down and write any of the gospels in a short amount of time. More than likely, they were probably started shortly after Jesus' death, and not finished till probably 15 or so years after. These guys were constantly moving, just to escape persecution in those days, it's not like they could just write when they felt like it. Also, what if they couldn't afford ink for months on end?? I accept the simple fact that they were finished between 50AD and 90AD, which is between 17-57 years after, and I accept that because of constant conflict in the region at the time, that they could still be accurate, even after the amount of time between Jesus' death and resurrection. John is probably the youngest of all the Gospels, which was finished sometime between 80AD and 90AD. All the others were sometime between 50AD and 65AD.
Click to expand...

Absolutely ridiculous claim. One can crank out the whole thing in a day if they are just copying a well-preserved oral account.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top