• Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
  • Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex

Funny analysis of Religion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Muscle Gelz Transdermals
IronMag Labs Prohormones
Science is meant to gain knowledge. To rationally explain things. That is how we evolve. Not in speculation..not in supersition or "hope" and "faith"...you can prove a law..you can't prove a theory, because when you do, it becomes a law....you can't prove "hope" or "faith"...and we only have "theories" as to how the sun was created...we cannot "prove" without a shadow of a doubt how it was created....so, your argument in that respect is flawed IMO..that's my theory anyways :D
 
Originally posted by Jodi
:haha:

Freeman I can't say that would have been my choice of analogies! :lol:
Click to expand...
Yep, badd choice
 
Originally posted by freeman1504
Science is meant to gain knowledge. To rationally explain things. That is how we evolve. Not in speculation..not in supersition or "hope" and "faith"...you can prove a law..you can't prove a theory, because when you do, it becomes a law....you can't prove "hope" or "faith"...and we only have "theories" as to how the sun was created...we cannot "prove" without a shadow of a doubt how it was created....so, your argument in that respect is flawed IMO..that's my theory anyways :D
Click to expand...


In the words of the great Mr. T.---"That's a bunch of Jibber Jabber."

Just kidding.:) ;)

You are right when you say that a theory, once proven correct, is a law. Likewise you then you would have to agree that once something is proven false, then it's no longer a theory or law. If you are seeking the truth in science and look at the information objectively. Show me any information, without flaws, that proves that the universe evolved and was not created.

Finally to Princes point.

Christians can not prove that there IS a God. The only thing that can be proven is the authenticity of the Bible, for which there is a mountain. My point is, if we can prove that the bible is correct and authentic. The bible has never lost any doctrinal value as it has been translateed. The bible never contradicted it's self. Then I would have to take the next logical step and assume it was inspired by God, and thus believe that there is a God.

In a later post, I will give a few nuggets that proves my point in respect to the bible. Just interesting facts.
 
Originally posted by freeman1504
eh, well, it was right here in front of me, and I couldn't think of anything better :D
Click to expand...
I think you should not had brought that up...
 
Originally posted by ragingbull
In the words of the great Mr. T.---"That's a bunch of Jibber Jabber."

Just kidding.:) ;)

You are right when you say that a theory, once proven correct, is a law. Likewise you then you would have to agree that once something is proven false, then it's no longer a theory or law. If you are seeking the truth in science and look at the information objectively. Show me any information, without flaws, that proves that the universe evolved and was not created.

Finally to Princes point.

Christians can not prove that there IS a God. The only thing that can be proven is the authenticity of the Bible, for which there is a mountain. My point is, if we can prove that the bible is correct and authentic. The bible has never lost any doctrinal value as it has been translateed. The bible never contradicted it's self. Then I would have to take the next logical step and assume it was inspired by God, and thus believe that there is a God.

In a later post, I will give a few nuggets that proves my point in respect to the bible. Just interesting facts.
Click to expand...

Point is....evolution is a THEORY. the creation, formation, etc. of the universe are ALL THEORIES. so, I cannot prove nor disprove any of them...
 
Freeman,

I agree to a point to what you say. There are so many christian today that have no idea as to why they believe in Christianity. They've been brought up in a church, thought in a church but, have no understanding as to why, factually, they believe. The goal for myself is to know why I believe in christ. I understand that not all people believe in the bible so for me to point to the bible as my only source is inadequate. I feel we all need to have conviction as to our beliefs and point to facts that we can all agree on.
 
science only has theories as to how the Universe was created, there is nothing that can be proven.

you say the bible does not contradict itself? you're serious about that?
you do not think that the bible has lost meaning thru translations?
 
Prince,

Actually, No. I heard it mentioned earlier that someone felt the bible lost it's intended mean because they compared it to circle of people; one person whispering a secret to the next and so on. When the last person says the what the secret is, often times, it's competely wrong.

The bible on the other hand is very accurate. For instance, there are over 25,000 manuscripts of the bible in existance. What this means is that we can look at original manuscripts from around 300 A.D. and compare them to our modern bible. When you compare those manuscripts, there is no doctrinal differences between them, even when we look at different translations. The only differences come in the form of words. For instance, the Greek have three words for Love, the english translation only says "Love". There is nothing that changes doctrinally but, due to english vocabulary, we have only love.
 
See, another problem I have here is this...you say "original manuscripts" from 300 AD...but, when did the stories that all of these manuscripts take place? hundreds and thousands of years earlier, supposedly..if those are the earliest recordings of these stories, then, you don't htink there could be some sort of error with them? I find it hard to believe that adam and eve's existence has been declared to be true because some guy wrote it somewhere, MANY MANY years later.

...so, if I write "and then there was Orthus, the god of Stinky Underwear...and he ate banana and mayo sandwiches and said you are in sin if you do not eat banana and mayo sandwiches!! Then he struck down upon thee with rotten eggs!" and so on...and in 2,000 years, someone finds this and reads it, and adds onto it, then it must be true?

I'm not trying to be an asshole, I just like humor :D
 
Freeman,

I was referring to the New Testiment. The New Testament is a series of letters that were entact somewhere around 300 AD. all of the New testament manuscripts were completed around 40-50 AD with the originals being completed as the author lived and experienced Christ and gave their first hand account. (manuscript meaning a copy of the original) So it wasn't 2000 years but, more like 20-30 years after the death of Christ that the manuscrips were published. Each one of the New Testiment letters was written by someone with first hand knowedge of Christ.

FYI.

Most of the ancient writing that have manuscripts were over 1000 years old before manuscripts became available. This is to point out that there was very little room for misinterepretation of the New Testiment and what it meant.

FYI II.

The bible has less than 6 disputable differences between manuscripts.
Shakespear has over 100 disputable facts.
 
For those that like to read:
"Complete and unabridged Matthew Henry's Commentary on the whole Bible",each chapter is summed up in it's content and
"The KIng James Only Controversy" by James R. White.
Both these books are worth the time to read!!!
 
Let me ask a few questions here...
-How many times has the bible been rewritten,meaning how many person have had THEIR own way of saying the same thing AND can that SAME THING aquiere a new definition each time.
Example,was it really a bush that was burning in front of Moise or was it a camp fire?Ok the example could be a tad off,but I'm sure you can understand what I'm getting at.

So,with this in mind could other stories have changed in the translations?
:confused:
 
Dero,

The Bible has never been rewritten just recopied. Meaning what ever "bush" means in Greek, we have the exact same or similar in english. Noone has taken latitude with the bible. The is proven through the 25,000 manuscripts of the NT. No noticable differences.

The problem comes from other religions. Some take passages from the bible and add their own which can cause some confusion.
 
Originally posted by ragingbull
Dero,

The Bible has never been rewritten just recopied. Meaning what ever "bush" means in Greek, we have the exact same or similar in english. Noone has taken latitude with the bible. The is proven through the 25,000 manuscripts of the NT. No noticable differences.

The problem comes from other religions. Some take passages from the bible and add their own which can cause some confusion.
Click to expand...

you honestly think that we can translate every word from every other language and have an exact translation?

that is a very ignorant statement, no offense.
 
Now Prince, your mixing words. I never said "exact" but as I stated earlier, there has been nothing that changed doctrine. Now, if someone stated a "Blue" sky but the original said "Bluegreen". So be it. So what, the sky was "Bluegreen". Those sorts of things can happen when we don't have a word in the english vocabulary compared to the Greek.

Don't take my word, do the research yourself. It shows that when we look at all the thousands of manuscrips there is no major difference. Why? because we always have a comparative, the early manuscripts. They are the basis for all others.
 
Originally posted by ragingbull
Now Prince, your mixing words. I never said "exact" but as I stated earlier, there has been nothing that changed doctrine. Now, if someone stated a "Blue" sky but the original said "Bluegreen". So be it. So what, the sky was "Bluegreen". Those sorts of things can happen when we don't have a word in the english vocabulary compared to the Greek.

Don't take my word, do the research yourself. It shows that when we look at all the thousands of manuscrips there is no major difference. Why? because we always have a comparative, the early manuscripts. They are the basis for all others.
Click to expand...

See to some people,saying that the sky was "bluegreen" could be misinterpreted as a miracle,you yourself just said"SO WHAT THE SKY WAS BLUEGREEN" To you it does not sound like a major flaw but to others it could be a revelation!!!
:confused:
 
The question then is would a "bluegree" sky instead of a "blue" sky be enough to trash christianity altogether. No. The jest of any miracle stated in the bible would be described as best possible with our venacular. Lets take your example of the burning bush. If Moses described the fire color as Red/Orange and our translation states it as Red. The miracle of the burning bush is still evident just the descriptive wording of the fire is different. Nothing to take way from the miracle itself.
 
Muscle Gelz Transdermals
IronMag Labs Prohormones
This is going nowhere, and nobodys know the answer.
I gave you the greek and hebrew meaning I ref/ where It came from not some search and you still can't read 8 verses to figure out why you should eat and drink for tomorrow you die. I guess you just want to arugue and then change the channel? party on

A debate with you , would be like a debate over the end of a book you never finished. I could tell you the answer but that's to easy, you'll have to find it yourself. :cool:PEACE I"M DONE :cool:
 
Originally posted by tidalwaverus
But that's true and not true.

example: hard to read but the org. King James is the most arcurate translation From greek and hebrew it matches the dead sea scrolls.

Example: the worse being the J W's holy scriptures which is not called a bible anymore becaused they got into a law suit over it and LOST! no offence:shrug:

Depends on how well read you are.
Click to expand...
Not true at all. The KJV is one of the most inaccurate versions. Try the NASV, it is a direct interperetation (in context) of the greek & hebrew.
 
I'm supposed to believe a storery "re-written" by Englishmen hundreds upon hundreds of years after it was re-written by someone else and before that was mere oral history? This would seem to mean that if someone took note and recorded all of the stories about robin hood, that were initially musings and oral tales..that Robin Hood could just as easily be a religious figure....
 
You guys seem to be forgetting all the prophicies (or predictions) that have been fullfilled. Evidence of the "flood".

Why try to dispute all these things. Simply find out for yourselves. When you get a free moment, find a quite place and ask God to help you understand, AKA prayer. pray and see for yourselves. Give it a try. You probably won't get a voice from heaven saying "yes I am God" but you may get an answer in other ways...
 
Originally posted by Tboy
You guys seem to be forgetting all the prophicies (or predictions) that have been fullfilled. Evidence of the "flood".

Why try to dispute all these things. Simply find out for yourselves. When you get a free moment, find a quite place and ask God to help you understand, AKA prayer. pray and see for yourselves. Give it a try. You probably won't get a voice from heaven saying "yes I am God" but you may get an answer in other ways...
Click to expand...

yeah, and you can get advice from a "psychic reader" and it will all be true as well as long as you believe it to be.

ever heard of self fullfilling prophecy?
 
Originally posted by Prince
yeah, and you can get advice from a "pychic reader" and it will all be true as well as long as you believe it to be.
Click to expand...

The same could be said about these professors you've been listening to. What do they have to back it up? Theories?


As far as "self fulfilling prophecy" goes I have yet to make my self a millionaire.:D

What's a py-chic?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

01dragonslayer
Jokes and Funny Stuff.......
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
Boazbay45
Boazbay45
DIAGO57
funny pictures
Replies
1
Views
649
DIAGO57
DIAGO57
Arnold
This video is funny!
Replies
1
Views
635
Ichigo
Ichigo
Back
Top