Are These People Christians

Chip Bronson said:
dolfe, with all due respect, those are your words, from just a day ago. see below...

dolfe1
Senior Member



Joined: Dec 2003

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Chip Bronson
i gave a pretty good outline of my beliefs under the thread 'the passions of christ'. sorry, i just don't feel like writing it over again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chip I buy you books, send you to school and put a roof over your head and this is how you repay me! Next thing I know you'll be telling me I'm not your dad! :p

What steps do you take to find a greater meaning? Religion has really sparked my interest in the last two years, maybe I take after my father, I would consider him a religious expert. The reason I ask is you seem inteligent and I like to hear the opinions of people who choose to explore religion. Have you read any good books?

Report Post | IP: Logged

Chip I buy you books, send you to school, and put a roof over your head and this is how you repay me! Next thing I know you'll be telling me I'm not your dad! :p
 
Grizzly said:
Why does there have to be a "greater meaning"? Do deer, buffalo, trees, squirrels, etc. have a higher purpose in their existence? No. Why, then, should we think we're all that fucking special?

I find it humorous that humans believe themselves to be so important. Dust to dust, man. That's all there is to it and to ourselves.
i guess if you believe we spontaneously rose from the dust of the earth, with no rhyme or reason to our creation,other than numerical probability , then perhaps there is no greater meaning....

on the other hand if you believe that we were created by a power greater than ourselves , then it was not left to chance but the entire process was done with purpose...just as we are the only sentient beings with the power of abstract thought on the planet...we were given dominion over the planet, and the animals on it....to use for our needs, this is their greater purpose....ours is to lead a life in harmony with orpleasing to our creator,

i purposely left out any biblical passages ,as one does not have to believe in , Elohim, or Jesus to realize our creation was by no means left to chance
 
Chip Bronson said:
for all we know deer, buffalo, trees, squirrels, etc may very well have a 'greater meaning'. how can you say no? have you ever asked one? have they ever responded to you? i'm not kidding either.

This is true, but asking one would yield the same pompous, self-importnat response that you would get from a human.

One could also argue that their "higher purpose" is to serve man, as he is the chosen king of the beast. But, again, one would have to rely on a text which I deem to be be non-authoritative.
 
Grizzly said:
This is true, but asking one would yield the same pompous, self-importnat response that you would get from a human.

One could also argue that their "higher purpose" is to serve man, as he is the chosen king of the beast. But, again, one would have to rely on a text which I deem to be be non-authoritative.
What are your arguements against the accuracy or authoritativeness of the Bible?
 
also i would just like to add,i grew up in a southern , pretty much rural area....grew up in church as well as all my friends......i couldnt understand then and still have difficlulty now with the concept of people that dont believe in God..its just a foreign concept to me, with all the evidence to the contrary
 
The closest I'll come to accepting a deity is deism. To me, that one makes some sense. However, accepting deism still does not mean we have a higher purpose(the glorification of god).

According to deist prinicples, a god created the earth, set shit in motion and take a vacation. Following that line of thought, there still is no higher purpose. The purpose of human life is the same as any other creature's lift. Preserve life at all costs and propogate the species.
 
Grizzly said:
This is true, but asking one would yield the same pompous, self-importnat response that you would get from a human.

One could also argue that their "higher purpose" is to serve man, as he is the chosen king of the beast. But, again, one would have to rely on a text which I deem to be be non-authoritative.

The bible is interesting and unique in that it is an ancient text that makes statements which we hold to be scientifically accurate today. For example Job 26:7 refers to the earth as hanging upon nothing. Isaiah 40:22 describes the earth as circular even spherical depending on your translation.
 
CyniQ said:
The bible is interesting and unique in that it is an ancient text that makes statements which we hold to be scientifically accurate today. For example Job 26:7 refers to the earth as hanging upon nothing. Isaiah 40:22 describes the earth as circular even spherical depending on your translation.

the bible is a loosely-written document describing, more or less, a code of conduct. as such, its nature is one of control. it is loosely-written so that it may be adaptable to future times. think of the u.s. constitution. both are loosely-written in order to provide flexibility of interpretation for future generations.

the bible is a great collection of moral stories. if you can live your life by it, that's wonderful. if you can live a good, moral life without, imho, that is just as wonderful. in both cases, you will be a positive contribution to this world.
 
Whoops, y'all wrote a bunch of shit in the time I was typing a post. The "John Kerry I pulled on yo ass" was actually in response to Chris Gordon's post that began "i guess if you believe we spontaneously rose from the dust of the earth, with no rhyme or reason to our creation,other than numerical probability , then perhaps there is no greater meaning..."

My reasoning against the authoritativeness of the bible. We've discussed this, but there are many innacuracies. No mention of dinosaurs, dating the earth as being way too young, etc.

Moreover, it's more of an argument against the authoritativeness of religion in general. As I've said before, the Navajo religion attributed earth quakes to an "earth quake monster." We laugh at this and at all the perceived folly to be found in the polytheistic tradtions of Rome, the Celts, the Norse, etc.

Much of this is because science has proven concepts such as an "earth quake monster" to be false and riddiculous.

What about the other religions of the world. Claiming only the bible or the koran or the mahabahrata to be the "word of the one and only god and the true religion of the world" is what leads to shit like 9/11 and the crap that's going on in the Mid-East today.

If the argument is posed that it could be true(the Bible) then so could any of the other major religions. I haven't found any proof of any of them or of any correctness of one over the other.

I also know that many people don't like the concept of being descended from apes. Personally, I'm much rather be the descendant of an ape than the infinitely inbred descendant of Adam and Eve. :D
 
if we descended from apes, why are there still apes? since they supposedly evolved into us... the so called stronger animal?
 
Grizzly, you and I have already had the whole evolution debate. Primordial ooze, apes, giraffes, whatever. The answer is still the same.
 
Grizzly said:
Whoops, y'all wrote a bunch of shit in the time I was typing a post. The "John Kerry I pulled on yo ass" was actually in response to Chris Gordon's post that began "i guess if you believe we spontaneously rose from the dust of the earth, with no rhyme or reason to our creation,other than numerical probability , then perhaps there is no greater meaning..."

My reasoning against the authoritativeness of the bible. We've discussed this, but there are many innacuracies. No mention of dinosaurs, dating the earth as being way too young, etc.

Moreover, it's more of an argument against the authoritativeness of religion in general. As I've said before, the Navajo religion attributed earth quakes to an "earth quake monster." We laugh at this and at all the perceived folly to be found in the polytheistic tradtions of Rome, the Celts, the Norse, etc.

Much of this is because science has proven concepts such as an "earth quake monster" to be false and riddiculous.

What about the other religions of the world. Claiming only the bible or the koran or the mahabahrata to be the "word of the one and only god and the true religion of the world" is what leads to shit like 9/11 and the crap that's going on in the Mid-East today.

If the argument is posed that it could be true(the Bible) then so could any of the other major religions. I haven't found any proof of any of them or of any correctness of one over the other.

I also know that many people don't like the concept of being descended from apes. Personally, I'm much rather be the descendant of an ape than the infinitely inbred descendant of Adam and Eve. :D

Very Nice.:D
It is generally radical fundementalists who insist that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. This has in fact generated no small amount of ridicule from geologists, physicists, etc. However the bible says Gen 1:1 In the begining God created the heavens and the earth. It doesn't say when. The first creative day isn't even mentioned until verse 3.
 
We are even more inbread because of the flood. If only noah and his family survived, who the heck did he repopulate the earth with?
 
well there was noah , his wife and his 3 sons and their wives...so they still had some 1st cousin stuff goin on
 
chris gordon said:
well there was noah , his wife and his 3 sons and their wives...so they still had some 1st cousin stuff goin on

Hey. Recent studies suggest that children born from 1st cousins have no higher rate of birth defects when compared to the general pop.

On with the inbreedin'!:D
 
Back
Top