Why people want to believe there is a god.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

It is implied in the scripture reference.

---

I'm sorry, I have read versus 27-33 5 times now and I don't see where it is implied. If anything it sounds as if it is strickly forbidden.In those 7 versus the following are forbidden (in order of appearance):- polyomy
- adultry
- "whoredoms" (could refer to polygomy or prostitution, repeat later)I have nothing against polygomy and a church is free to make up their own rules or use whatever writings they consider holy to determine what the rules are, I just don't see how these versus can be interpreted in any way buy that these actions are forbidden, under any circumstances.That being said, I might be missing something. Could you point out the part where it says that God will let us know when these rules apply and when not?------------------
compmage

Originally posted by blitz77:Questions can be loaded, or have malice in them. Like asking whether a person has had a lobotomy. A question I didn't actually ask of him directly. I had said that it seemed to be a requirement.You make a lot of assumptions, but that is to be expected since that is all a religious belief system actually is, one big assumption. Nothing more.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-08-2002]

Originally posted by blitz77:I don't recall anything in Revelation which contradicts what he taught. Many might have disliked Revelation because it taught of Hell, which isn't a popular concept.As I had stated the early Christians didn't believe in a Hell as we now know the concept. To them it was either heaven or the grave.As for talking about interpretations, they're interpretations and interpretations can be wrong, however that does not necessarily mean the text is wrong.This is contradictory.And as for the conference around 1000 AD, please enlighten me.Sorry, I was thinking of another event. What I had meant was about the conferences which were held to make major chances in the Christian doctrine and the bible itself through out the Churches history.

[QUOTE][B]I have nothing against polygomy and a church is free to make up their own rules or use whatever writings they consider holy to determine what the rules are[/QUOTE][/B]Well I'll tell you what, and this is "The World According to Gene90" and *not* church doctrine...but I think that if people want to practice polygamy, and as long as everyone involved is old enough to make that decision themselves, I think that the State should not interfere (I feel it's a part of the freedom of/from religion). I believe this is partly why authorities in the US and Canada are not enforcing bigamy laws as much as they used to, that and the fact that the laws are almost impossible to enforce (usually the best prosecutors can do is make a case for 'unlawful cohabitation' which is a joke).I do think it is contrary to human nature (whether that nature is planned by God or by purely natural circumstances) to practice polygamy and my religious opinion is, of course, that it is wrong and God doesn't like it. [QUOTE][B]I just don't see how these versus can be interpreted in any way buy that these actions are forbidden, under any circumstances. [/QUOTE][/B]Verse 30 says: [QUOTE][B]For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.[/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

As I had stated the early Christians didn't believe in a Hell as we now know the concept. To them it was either heaven or the grave.

---

So how does that contradict the bible? Jesus taught that hell was real, revelation says that hell is real.

quote:

---

This is contradictory.

---

No, it isn't. You see this in science all the time. People come up with different interpretations of the evidence, I remember that there was 5 versions of superstring theory.

quote:

---

Sorry, I was thinking of another event. What I had meant was about the conferences which were held to make major chances in the Christian doctrine and the bible itself through out the Churches history.

---

What event was it?

quote:

---

You make a lot of assumptions, but that is to be expected since that is all a religious belief system actually is, one big assumption. Nothing more.

---

Science incorporates one big assumption; that the universe is rational and can be comprehended.

Again, you say the bible is true because the bible says so...this does not prove anything...I am not sure how bashing the Quran adds any weight to your argument either. They are both mythological texts. Greek mythology also occassionaly refers to historical events...guess we should all watch out for Zeus. Oh yeah, and John Grisham has been translated into many different languages Praise thee oh Grisham

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

How is this evidence of historical corroboration? After a religion is established and its text are widely translated this just establishes that the new testament was widely read. If a John Grisham novel is translated into 2,000 languages and we come back 10 years from now are the contents of his novel historically corroborated? By your standards yes. That the new testament was written down only corroborates that the new testament was written down...the contents are a myth.

---

​

Mmm? really? I'll give you a few examples.
Biblical Manuscripts |Date written|Earliest Copy|Time Span|

​

Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26)|1st century |50-60 AD |co-existant (?)|

​

John Rylands (John) |90 AD |130 AD |40 years |

​

Bodmer Papyrus II (John) |90 AD |150-200 AD |60-110 years |

​

Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.)|1st century| 200 AD | 150 years |

​

Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels)|1st century| 200 AD |150 years |

​

Codex Vaticanus (Bible) |1st century |325-350 AD| 275-300 years |

​

Codex Sinaiticus (Bible)| 1st century| 350 AD| 300 years |
Codex Alexandrinus (Bible)| 1st century 400 AD| 350 years |

​

And since the John Grisham novel hasn't been translated into that many languages, even with all the printing resources, consider the bible; without printing presses that many manuscripts were produced in many different languages. Please contrast this with the Qu'ran. More than 100 years after Muhammed's death, we still do not have any verifiable Muslim documents. The primary sources to which Islam uses are about 150-300 years after the events they describe. Even if the documents had desintegrated, there should be fragments to which we could refer to. However, there is none. Two of the primary documents that Muslims use are the Samarkand Manuscript and the Topkapi Manuscript. However, these two were written in Kufic, which according to experts did not appear until the late 8th century.

​

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 09-08-2002]

---

Originally posted by blitz77:So how does that contradict the bible? Jesus taught that hell was real, revelation says that hell is real.Depends on what you mean by hell. Most Modern Christians get their idea of what hell is from Dante's Inferno.No, it isn't. You see this in science all the time. People come up with different interpretations of the evidence, I remember that there was 5 versions of superstring theory.Apples and oranges. Plus, you got it backwards. First they put forth the theories then they search for the evidence and the theory which matches is the one which is used, if none match than a new theory is put forth. With Creationists they ignore all of the evidence which doesn't match their "theory".[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-09-2002]

Originally posted by blitz77:Science incorporates one big assumption; that the universe is rational and can be comprehended.The difference is that you assume that your god is the creator and stop at that, science is still looking for the cause."Always trust a man who seeks the truth, never trust one who claims to already have it."

Originally posted by Mammuthus:Again, you say the bible is true because the bible says so...this does not prove anything...I am not sure how bashing the Quran adds any weight to your argument either. They are both mythological texts. Greek mythology also occassionaly refers to historical events...guess we should all watch out for Zeus. Oh yeah, and John Grisham has been translated into many different languages Praise thee oh Grisham Plus, what we call Greek Mythology is far older and more consistant despite having fewer so-called original texts and manuscripts than Christianity has had.

And you assume that life came from random chance, and that the universe was not designed (as you say that there is no God), just is.--
The true test of a man's character is what he would do if he knew nobody would ever find out.

quote:

---

Depends on what you mean by hell. Most Modern Christians get their idea of what hell is from Dante's Inferno.

---

Well, hell is a helluva lot worse than Dante's Inferno, let me tell you that.

quote:

---

Apples and oranges. Plus, you got it backwards. First they put forth the theories then they search for the evidence and the theory which matches is the one which is used, if none match than a new theory is put forth. With Creationists they ignore all of the evidence which doesn't match their "theory".

---

We could say exactly the same thing about evolutionists. They ignore all the evidence which doesn't match their "theory".--An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind[This message has been edited by blitz77, 09-09-2002]

quote:

---

Plus, what we call Greek Mythology is far older and more consistant despite having fewer so-called original texts and manuscripts than Christianity has had.

---

Please give me some inconsistencies in the manuscripts Christianity has. Ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? With only a few copies of Greek Mythology, its easy for it to be consistent. But with thousands of copies, translated into many languages, at different times....--Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 09-09-2002]

Originally posted by blitz77:And you assume that life came from random chance, and that the universe was not designed (as you say that there is no God), just is.You've been here a while and you still don't know what evolution is?Plus, I've always said that with regards to the existence of a creator of the universe that I don't know.

Originally posted by blitz77:Well, hell is a helluva lot worse than Dante's Inferno, let me tell you that.What, you've been there?We could say exactly the same thing about evolutionists. They ignore all the evidence which doesn't match their "theory".Hardly. Like I had said, you still don't (Probably won't) know what evolution is. Maybe you should read what I posted to Matt in "Is It Science" about the difference between science and religion?