First off, I'm not Christian. And I'm not saying the whole thing is a metaphor (though probably most is, and definitely up till Abraham). Also, it's not "up for interpretation", but more like is written purposely vaguely...understanding Hebrew helps a lot in that.
I think everyone's problem is they only see two sides. Either it is all literal or all figurative. But, this is not the case. I believe that it is the word of God, however it was told to a certain people and therefore is filtered through their language and thoughts. It some times may sound silly, but if you think about it a book written today will probably sound silly to people in 4009.
2. Of course. I agree, God shouldn't be taken literally as well. Neither should Jesus's healings. Gee, didn't realize this was what you were pointing to. 3. Again, WTF? I try to explain this **** to you. What grade are you in, it's very very relavant in order for me to counter your argument. 4. That's fair. I don't go searching in a debate on my Ipod to determine who wrote what. And I'm not willing to read all of that at the moment. Wait until Monday 5. True. This is obvious. However, when considering how a religious person such as erico, turns around and proclaims something was the act of god because in his eyes what he saw was unusual, then it doesn't make a good argument. Everyone is biased at least once in their lives. It part of nature and it naturally strenghens religions hold on people. I can't prove this but it's a mediocre theory that makes reasonable sense. @ Insane- Duh. Well then if the Bible is full of metaphors, which is the truth? I don't want to follow a vague religion, which is why you could lose faith. Anyone can be vague about something. For instance, I could say the wold is going to end. Did I give an exact date? No. But it will happen, not anytime soon anyways because there aren't any facts to suggest this. I also never mentioned how the world is going to end. Now your counter may be, "Well, you were still right either way." but if we knew the details, we could have prevented this from happening. See what I mean when you say, "Purposely vague."?
i think you completely missed his point. the comparison between the charity worker and murderer is frightening because the murderer is considered the moral high ground over the charity worker just because he accepted jesus. you thought that he was overlooking the arguement because he failed to fit it to the christian story. yeah, the bible may say that jesus died for our sins, but you assume that the bible is true fact and all other arguements are moot. im back
Because you were! You said fossils-to-be, not "marine fossils that would have been pushed up to the surface after the initial formation of the mountains." That would have been a correct statement but even then it would have been TOTALLY and COMPLETELY irrelevant! This is a hot spot, the post you replied to was talking about mountains. Imagine we are debating and you say "I believe Jesus is the lord and savior" and then I say, "Well I was reading the Torah this morning and it never mentioned Jesus..." Of course it didn't mention ****ing Jesus and of course hot spots don't preserve fossils! Come on. No it wasn't. The 'point' was a response to a claim that mountains pushed marine fossils to the surface. So how can the 'point' of a response dealing with the formation of mountains be relevant AT ALL to subduction zones? Haha, sink holes cause damage to houses because of the nature of houses. A fossil isn't a single flimsy unit. Most of the time its minerals and its able to fluctuate. Even with these properties, complete fossils are EXTREMELY rare. We always find shards or a single bone and sometimes multiple bones. On a side note, sink holes happen very quickly... at least initially. They can continue to grow even after the initial violent collapse. But there's a difference between saying "there wouldn't be fossils here because of X" to "there wouldn't be fossils here because of Y." You were wrong. Though, there were no fossils you were still wrong in your assumption. Example: There wouldn't be any fossils here because of aliens. -Wrong. There wouldn't be any fossils here because of X (x being the correct answer). -Right. I'm sorry but really? This isn't an R.L. Stien book its God, the creator of the ****ing universe's book. It shouldn't get old, it shouldn't get stale, and it shouldn't be silly. It's the word of literally the most powerful being in the universe and he deemed us worthy of knowledge of him and you are going to sit there and say that is loses power over time? That it can sound silly? What the **** dude. Seriously? I'm not even a Christian or a believer in a higher power and that makes me angry. Maybe its the stupidity or maybe this is the one defense of god I'll ever make but give him some credit if he can form the universe in six days then he can ****ing write a book. Unless god intended it to be silly, stale, boring, idiotic and hateful.
You're assuming that you're to "follow what other people are doing", which is generally not true. The idea of religion is not to "help God by serving him", but more to improve your own life. You don't need "facts" to do that. Personally, I'm 10x happier with it than without, but it depends on the person obviously. I follow my tradition (which I see as extremely important, regardless of "reasons" or "facts"), but I see what the purpose of the thing is at heart and have a purpose in life. I'd say to do what I did and read the Bible (original was the best version, LOL) in it's original Hebrew and translate it, but...yeah. You might get something out of it just reading in English and trying to understand what the idea behind it is.
Watch My video on Page 227 Before You reply to me. That guy, S.M. Lockridge, HE WAS 83 When he made this speech in detroit in 1992, He Died At Age 97 in 2000. Name 14 non-christian men that lived to even see 79. Not very many people, Right? This man is what me and many others consider proof of gods existence. No Man that was not a christian has lived past 80 if you didn't know already... This guy lived through Both World Wars, 9/11, Pearl Harbor, The Great Depression... He's Lived through alot more crap than you guys could ever imagine... And God held his hand the Whole dang way... And look where he was in 2000... Going up to heaven at Age 97... And i even bet he's happy to be there And to tell the truth... I can't Wait Either. Its gonna be amazing Too bad all you atheists are gonna miss out big time... And go ahead, Flame All You Want... My Faith Meter is Maxed out at 9001. That's just over 9000!
That's because it was so uncommon to NOT be religious back then. Look at our culture nowadays. A lot of non-religious people. Just wait 70 years, bud. That's your interpretation. I can say Allah held his hand the whole way, but you would call that "blasphemy" or something. Too bad you're missing out on your one life by wasting your time and energy on worshiping a god who won't even recognize your faith by showing itself. What a coward.
Well, my fail meter is detecting an astronomical amount of fail in this sector. You can't possibly link a long life with religion. You just can't. Oh, and if you heaven is so rad, kill yourself. Right now please
Well considering back in their time being an atheist was considered an extreme case, and you probably would have not only been shunned, but would have had people like the KKK terrorize you. Of course there will be more Christian people at old age. I think you would understand that.
Being religious and living to an old age has nothing in common it was very common to be religious if not manditory less than 40 years ago and it still is in some contries and or households. Not believeing has become more common and I don't think being religious or not will effect the longevity of your life lol. I don't care if I live longer TBH its just prolonged suffering in a decaying body. Also people are living to higher ages every year due to better life styles ,medicines, and many other advancements in science that improve our lives. Science has taken the place of religion I think as the savior of society. Science is helping people live better while religion is having an opposite effect as shown in recent times. Science has its good and bad sides but the good is growing and religion just can't say the same anymore.
Oh, I apologize, that was what I was saying, I was just making a point that religion was a more important aspect then, so of course old people would be more likely to be religious. I'm sure in 80 years we will have plenty of very old atheists.
lol no its my bad I didn't mean to quote your post lol I just wanted to reply to "greatjedi". I knew what you were talking about ,i'll edit my previous post lol. Yeah I know right lol. Im not sure which sides to blame for that we both seem to be bringing up some old crap I think we are only doing that because we had some new posters like scorpulus that brought old arguments back up. Not really his fault though since no one will read through 300 pages.
lmao report me then **** face. Forge Hub is for people like insane54, thesilencebroken, "colored people", norlinsky and nemihara. anyone else not mentioned gets thrown into the closet. So go ahead. IDRC.
I just reported you, get out of this thread. Hell, get out of the debate forum, you obviously cant handle being here so leave before you make yourself look even worse.
Oh this is ****ing funny. Scop is getting instantly permawarned for that ****. Same goes for anyone else that does that crap in here from here on out. and dumbass, just so you know, FH is for people with some semblance of self-respect and intelligence, judging by your posts, your idiotic thought to the contrary and the hypocrisy-proving self-loathing fact that you've been here for well over a year proves you're a depressed and depraved human being. Toodles.