Wise up.

That's the thing.  Did Budha go to such a place?  Did he come back?  Did he promise to come back?  Not as a reincarnated cat or something, but in his own temporal body?  Christ was killed in the most gruesome way known to the Romans.  He stayed in His grave for 3 days, and then raised Himself up from the grave, and was seen by hundreds of witnesses to this fact, and He has promised His return.  No I'm sure somewhere on the Indian subcontient, there is a little puddle of dust containing the Budha's mortal remains.  As for 'a place of happines'  That is a mere myth for Budha.  He faces the same punishment as any who did not accept Christ (actually he would probably be judged according to the law as that was in effect during the Budha's lifetime, but that's a different topic). And your good friend the Dalai Lama, no matter how nice and great and peaceful the guy is, unless he accept Christ's offer for eternal life, he is destined to be relegated to the fiery lake.  All his good works, all his actions in this life, because he did not do them for Christ are for naught.  He cannot save himself.  He cannot redeem himself.  All of us can only be saved by Christ.  


But anyways, for the sake of argument, let's say that post death, Budha had fulfilled the Law during his lifetime to the point where he was able to enter Paradise, that has no effect on you today whatsoever.  The law has been fulfilled, and we live within the New Covenant.  We to receive the grace necessary to reach Heaven HAVE to accept Christ as Lord of our life.  The rules of admittance pre and post Christ are different.  Pre-Christ, sin was not removed, merely covered by sacrifices.  The Law saved by works, and condemned by works as well.  Yet now, we are saved by grace.  We are covered in the final and ultimate sacrifice, which washes our sin away, but we have to accept that sacrifice.
 
here is my question... why do you people blindly beleave all this..... budha christ.. all these stories which are man made..... then you preach love and peace and then when you disagree with eachother start shooting eachother.(GIVE OR TAKE NOT EVERYONE BUT BACK like during the crusades and ####). Im sorry but I look at the middle east and I think back 2000 years when there was no U.S of A to tell them to stop screwing around and I have come to this conclusion? you people are idiots for following an outdated 2000 and or longer teaching... like I said before I beleave in god but whatever the original truth is I think was lost.... and god is just ignoring us because of all the disagrements and killings hatred and death... if I was god... and I saw people who wanted to worship me kill eachother over who i was and how to worship me Id completely ignore them.
 
You know, I've been a Christian for years now. While yes, I have been in some interesting discussions, while I've been hit for teaching what the Bible says, while I've even have gotten mad at people over things they have done, I have never killed anyone and said "Christ made me do it." While I have no doubt in my ability to kill someone if they were threatening my wife or child, I could not do so for attacks on my religion, nor could I do so for someone not believing my religion. While yes, would I like to see all the world convert and be saved, that does not mean I would kill to acheive that goal.


And who's to say I blindly believe all this? How do you know what various religion's I've studied, what belief structures I've looked up, what arcane theories I've dabbled in. Now I've looked, I've read, I've studied, and I continue to this day to search and learn the scriptures, and things about the world and other religions and anything else that strikes my fancy. I am many things, but I am neither an idiot nor a blind naive fool, who believes whatever is spoon feed to me.
 
You know, I'd like to think that we've got a pretty diverse sampling of religion here, with our atheists, norse, wiccans, all manner of christians, etc.

Have any of you here ever so much as HIT somebody due to a theological discussion?
 
Sagan I'm confused why you came here, you say you came to learn about God and what we believe, but judging by the topic, it sounds kind of hipocritical. Out of curiousity did you come here to learn, to attack our faith, or did your motive change while you were here?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]here is my question... why do you people blindly beleave all this..... budha christ.. all these stories which are man made..... then you preach love and peace and then when you disagree with eachother start shooting eachother.
Click to expand...

For one, Buddhism does not disagree with anyone, it accepts that all people are equal, no matter what their religeon. Buddhism is one of the only religeons that has never started a war, simply becaue Buddhist's are passive, and totally non-violent.
Buddha himself (if he existed), said for people, not to have blind faith in him, or have blind faith that he existed. If they believe he existed, or not. It dosen't matter, it's the teachings that matter. They are teachings that make us a better person. Something that we earn ourselves.
He never threatened saying "If you don't follow me, you will goto hell". He expected that some people may not believe in him, and accepted that. Him, or any other teachers of Buddhism, state. Not to have blind faith in them, if you can't believe something is true, then don't believe it.
If you experiance it for yourself, then believe it. But if there are teachings of Buddhism that you cannot believe. Then it is pointless to have blind faith in that, so your not expected to believe it, who would?
 
someone said that Christianity could not hold up in court. I beg to differ. Anyone here read Case for Christ where an atheist want to prove Christianity wrong but couldn't given the testimonies, people dying for their beliefs, eye wittnesses, and documentation to back it up? A very good read for anyone skeptical willing to give it a shot.
 
The only thing proven in all the years we've had a legal system is that the one with the most expensive lawyers wins. Given the amount of money that Christianity takes off its adherents I'm betting they could afford a VERY expensive lawyer...

So proof in court proves nothing.

Now, could Christianity prove itself scientifically, using Empirical evidence? I believe that no, it couldn't. Aside from the fact that it takes an indefensible "zero-defect" stand that gives it a massive burden of proof, some of the things it says are simply indefensible.

We already know that there WAS no global flood in forty days. We know this because we know where the flood was and why it happened. In the same way, we know that light is a product of the sun - you couldn't create light BEFORE you created the object that produces it. In the same way we know that not all species have been around for the same length of time - some are clearly ancient, some are no longer with us, and some show signs of having come about fairly recently. We can witness evolution in process with Bacteria - or with fruit flies. Gregor Mendel, anyone?


Eon
 
Empirecallly?  Scientifically?  Archeologically, a good portion of the Bible has been proven.

Actually, if my memory of stellar evolution is correct, a proto-star would start giving off light and heat prior to actually condenscing into a star and igniting (though I could be wrong here, it's been quite a few years since I've read anything on astronomical phenomna).

Are we really seeing evolution?  are these bacteria becoming more advanced organisms?  Are those fruit flies becoming more intelligent?  or are they just reacting to the environment, in the case of bacteria, we're just consistently killing those who are suseptible to our anti-bacterial products, and amazingly call the survivors (which are the ones to produce offspring) offspring being more resistent to the anti-bacterial products 'evolution'


That's the same as those silly moths.  It's a pre-existing condition, which human activity has made to be predominant, by making any item that does not contain that condition easy prey.


We know that some species have disappeared, what's that got to do with anything?  Also what proof do we have that some species are more 'recent' than others?  The fossil record doesn't count, due to the fact that it's age is based on the rock layer, and a rock layer's age is based on which fossils are found in it (as well as the interesting fact that quite often you get the strata/fossil layers in the wrong order, or mis-matched (a newer fossil in an older rock strata and vice versa).


[b said:
Quote[/b] ]In the same way we know that not all species have been around for the same length of time - some are clearly ancient, some are no longer with us, and some show signs of having come about fairly recently.
Click to expand...
 You are preaching evolution as a faith. We do not KNOW this for a fact. Numerous people suspect it, numerous people believe it, but we can't truly prove it.  In a epoch, we'll all know, by whether or not our cat's can walk upright, but for now it's just a belief, a theory.  There is no repeatable evidence for evolution (just as there is no repeatable evidence for creationism), and the ability to repeat an item, is essential for it's being proven.
 
Well, we can evolve (through selective breeding admittedly) fruit flies with different patterning. However Mendel also evolved fruit flies without wings, and that is most definitely a species changing into something different. After all, if we evolved humans with wings, I'm sure you'd agree that this was the species changing.

It seems fairly certain that the human race has its home in Kenya, and that this human race was ectomorphic, dark skinned and African in appearance. If humanity can evolve endo and meso morphic morphologies, in addition to little quirks like the epicanthic fold, what makes you think larger changes aren't possible over longer periods?

Regarding the star point - whilst you are right, do any of you believe that Genesis means that God created an accelerated evolution proto-star?

Eon
 
I dont see how Dinosaurs and Human's could have co-existed, Human's would have been sitting ducks for food. And if so, why did he wipe them out? is it because he realised he made a mistake when creating them?

We already see signs of Human evolution, it may only be small things right now, but in many many years to come, Human's will be much different.
An example of evolution, is there are people these day's being born with no wisdom teeth, which used to be used for crushing bones with. Obviously we dont have to do that anymore, so we are slowly evolving not to have them.
The same thing goes with the appendix, Whatever use it had at one stage, it dosen't have anymore. And, once again, there are people being born without them.
 
We're not evolving, we're breeding for certain characteristics.    It's akin to ensuring your prize winning German Sheperd only breeds with OTHER prize winning German Sheperds, because otherwise, it will dilute the bloodline.  anyways, back to Mendel, he crossed fruit flies with normal wings, and fruit flies with degernate (Vestigial ) wings.  You got fruit flies, with normal wings and fruit flies with degenerate wings.  Then you breed those children and you produced fruit flies that had lost the ability to create wings, fruit flies with wings, and fruit flies with degenerate wings (there was also stuff about eye color, and body shape, but that's irrelevant).  The thing is, you pull that poor sick fruit fly without wings chromosome, and it would still be the chromosome of a fruit fly.  The definition of species is this
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.
Click to expand...
 The important thing is the 'interbreeding'  To be classified as a seperate species it has to either a)if breeds with another species produce sterile offspring (see Mules) or b) not be capable of breeding with another species.  You put those poor sick wingless fruit flies in with normal winged fruit flies, and they'll breed producing normal and vestigal winged fruit flies.  Besides the lose of wings in that case is not evolution that's devolution.  It's not would humans get wings, it's if we humans lost our arms.

The only thing Mendel proved here were this:
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]"Unlike evolutionists who speculated about genetics, Gregor Mendell did extensive research and expirementation. He found
1) Variety within kinds result from pre-existing genetic variety.
2) There are fixed limits to biological change.
3) Mutations cause genetic information to be lost, not gained."
Click to expand...

I still believe that the human race had it's home a few hundred miles to the north and east of Kenya.

on the Star, God said let there be light, and there was, then He said, let's form the sun, and He did.  I'm sure He did it however He desired, and if the process is what's described as stellar evolution, then so be it.  I'm just of the opinion it happened a lot quicker than usually assumed.

Sagan - why couldn't they have co-existed?  Humans are prolific hunters, and quite often in the past did not care HOW many species they hunted to extinction.  Plus there's proof of T-Rex's having been alive within the past thousand years (they have found TRex bones with blood still on them (blood last around 1000 years on bones))


The wisdom teeth is a genetic defect http://public.bcm.tmc.edu/pa/missingteeth.htm



And actually the appendix is useful, studies show a link between the appendix and Ulcerative Colitis ( http://www.ccfa.org/weekly/wkly912.htm ) and Frederic H. Martini, Ph.D., Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology, (on p. 916, copyright 1995  ) says
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system
Click to expand...
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Sagan - why couldn't they have co-existed? Humans are prolific hunters, and quite often in the past did not care HOW many species they hunted to extinction. Plus there's proof of T-Rex's having been alive within the past thousand years (they have found TRex bones with blood still on them (blood last around 1000 years on bones)
Click to expand...
That was never proven, and there is still debate about it. What they found in the bones, were what they may have thourght may have been red blood cells. It has not been proven by science that it's exactly what they were.
For a T-Rex to have existed 1000 years ago, when actually blood most commonly lasts for 100,000 years outside the body, and undetermined inside bone structure. There would have had to of been, at least 4-5 other T-Rex's as well. For the species to survive over 65 billion years.

As for Human's co-existing with Dinosaurs.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]JB: If humans and dinosaurs actually coexisted, some of the crucial questions that creationists must answer are: Why are human bones and human artifacts NEVER found buried together with dinosaur remains anywhere on earth?
Click to expand...
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]JB: Why are dinosaur bones NEVER found buried anywhere on earth in upper strata, but only in much deeper strata …
Click to expand...
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]JB: Why are dinosaur bones NEVER found buried anywhere on earth together with large mammals that have lived contemporaneously with man such as elephants, whales, bears, tigers, oxen, hippopotami, rhinoceroses, moose, etc.?
Click to expand...
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]JB: And why, even if for the sake of argument one assumes that Job’s Behemoth was a large dinosaur, would the Bible be virtually silent regarding the enormous variety of beasts that would have had such a profound impact on people’s daily lives?
Click to expand...

The full transcript of the conversation can be found here.
 
Ok even ignoring the TRex bones, does that really change the fundamental question "Why couldn't they have coexisted?" Think of all the mythological creatures that existed The dark ages are loaded with tails of 'dragons and beasts' To this day in secluded lakes there are reports of dinosaurs. Classical (Grecko-Roman)myths have a number of creatures that could easily describe dinosaours

Why would I go and reanswer those questions? Any answer I give you, I assume you would accept as little as the answer the website quoted gives already.
 
They could also easilly be described as Crocodiles.

I dont understand why people never wrote about Dinosaurs if they existed with man, surley something like that would be a big problem for man. The killing of cattle and crops, and people.
Man's technology was not very advanced, killing a Dinosaur would not have been easy, expecially ones with armored plates. For a spear/arrow/sword, that would be a very hard thing to do, to kill of an entire species of animal.
 
You must also remember that pre and post flood environments are incredibly different. It could be something as simple as that most could not adapt to the new environment. But let's really think about this, how often did the German's right about elephants in 2000 bc? How often did the Jew's write about elephants in 2000 bc? Did elephants not exist in 2000 bc? That's the logic you are using.

Also just becuase something is not easy, does not mean man will not accomplish it.
 
Elephants were not native to any of those places, whereas Dinosaurs were a global species.

The Cretaceous Middle-East cosisted of native Dinosaurs such as the Velociraptor and a smaller species of the Tyrannosaurs, not to mention a large range of herbivorous.

For Dinosaurs to have existed not more than 2000 years ago, would be documented like crazy, not just from the middle east, but from all parts of the world. Dinosaurs would have been menaces to man, and caused all kinds of horrific problems.
 
Actually man HAS co-existed with Dinosaurs. Crocodiles, Monitor lizards, Komodo dragons, horseshoe crabs AND the Coecealeanth (pardon the spelling, but when I don't know how to spell it THIS much, it makes looking it up difficult!).

Eon
 
"MaxX, I am not trying to fight at all, but simply try and learn about the belief of Christianity."

If you were, then you'd be quiet and listen to what the christians are saying, instead of attacking and trying to refute everything they say.

"If you can't handle people objecting, or questioning it, then you yourself, are not thinking logically."

Oh, I have handled it. How I've long handled it...


Go back and read the quote I made of you saying that we all know the bible has contradictions, etc.

Sorry, but guess what kiddo...WE don't...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top