# The Bible, Faith & Martial Arts



## Dirty Dog

Touch Of Death said:


> Are you suggesting the other gods and goddesses are real?



I would say there is every bit as much objective evidence to support the existence of Zues, Odin, Ra or Quetzalcoatl as there is of any other deity.


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> I would say there is every bit as much objective evidence to support the existence of Zues, Odin, Ra or Quetzalcoatl as there is of any other deity.



Na we have eyewitness accounts of Jesus his life, his death and his resurrection


----------



## Touch Of Death

ballen0351 said:


> Na we have eyewitness accounts of Jesus his life, his death and his resurrection


 As did Dionysus and Triumph.


----------



## ballen0351

Touch Of Death said:


> As did Dionysus and Triumph.



If you say so


----------



## Touch Of Death

ballen0351 said:


> If you say so


Molek Tause had some guy come to earth as well.


----------



## Touch Of Death

ballen0351 said:


> If you say so


And while we are at it, count Heracles & Perseus.


----------



## Dirty Dog

ballen0351 said:


> Na we have eyewitness accounts of Jesus his life, his death and his resurrection



No, you don't. You have a book (actually, it's a collection of short stories, and a lot of the ones intended for the anthology were left out by the editors) that makes lots of unsupported (and unsupportable) claims. Pretty much the same evidence provided by other religions.


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> No, you don't. You have a book (actually, it's a collection of short stories, and a lot of the ones intended for the anthology were left out by the editors) that makes lots of unsupported (and unsupportable) claims. Pretty much the same evidence provided by other religions.


A book written by eyewitnesses like I said.............


----------



## ballen0351

Touch Of Death said:


> And while we are at it, count Heracles & Perseus.



Sure if you have eyewitness accounts which you dont so....


----------



## Touch Of Death

ballen0351 said:


> A book written by eyewitnesses like I said.............


Yet they differ.


----------



## Xue Sheng

ballen0351 said:


> A book written by eyewitnesses like I said.............



We don't actually know that. We also do not know what the church took out of the stories allegedly written by eye witnesses, we do know it was highly edited by those who were not eye witnesses.. And we do not actually know if those that actually witnessed it wrote anything at all. Could be someone they talked to or told the stories too. Kind of like all the writings of Buddha, and I think Confucius and more than likely Lao Tzu


----------



## ballen0351

Touch Of Death said:


> Yet they differ.


Just like all eyewitnesses.  Ever talk to 6 people tay saw the same thing?  I have


----------



## ballen0351

Xue Sheng said:


> We don't actually know that. We also do not know what the church took out of the stories allegedly written by eye witnesses, we do know it was highly edited by those who were not eye witnesses.. And we do not actually know if those that actually witnessed it wrote anything at all. Could be someone they talked to or told the stories too. Kind of like all the writings of Buddha, and I think Confucius and more than likely Lao Tzu



Sure we do.  You choose to believe what you will.  Paul says he saw what he saw and wrote what he wrote so you can believe it or not thats your choice


----------



## Xue Sheng

ballen0351 said:


> Sure we do.  You choose to believe what you will.  Paul says he saw what he saw and wrote what he wrote so you can believe it or not thats your choice



Now your talking faith and belief which is fine....but eye witnesses, to me, insinuates historic fact and since we do not know if Paul did, or did not, write anything and we do not know, if he did write it, if those who translated it kept 100% to what he wrote and we have no idea what the church may or may not have removed....it is not historic fact.


----------



## crushing

Touch Of Death said:


> Yet they differ.



They weren't contemporaries, were they?  Hundreds of years separated some of the authors from the time they were 'witnessing.'   Myths and fables are subject to evolution as they are passed down through the years.  Each "eyewitness" putting their own flourish on the story.  Not only that, there were translation errors as the stories moved from one language to the next as well as copy errors when publishing new books.

I'll bet the first to make up such fantastic stories of magic and witchcraft never considered that down the road that they would be taken seriously and lead to so much death and destruction.


----------



## ballen0351

Xue Sheng said:


> Now your talking faith and belief which is fine....but eye witnesses, to me, insinuates historic fact and since we do not know if Paul did, or did not, write anything and we do not know, if he did write it, if those who translated it kept 100% to what he wrote and we have no idea what the church may or may not have removed....it is not historic fact.



We dont know if Cesar was real either but we believe eyewitness accounts.  I have no reason not to believe the eyewitnesses that were around not just Christians but other religions as well Speak of Jesus


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> They weren't contemporaries, were they?  Hundreds of years separated some of the authors from the time they were 'witnessing.'   Myths and fables are subject to evolution as they are passed down through the years.  Each "eyewitness" putting their own flourish on the story.  Not only that, there were translation errors as the stories moved from one language to the next as well as copy errors when publishing new books.
> 
> I'll bet the first to make up such fantastic stories of magic and witchcraft never considered that down the road that they would be taken seriously and lead to so much death and destruction.


LOL except the first people to write of Jesus did so while he was still alive and just after his death not 100s of years later.  But i see the viciousness in your posts so your minds made up.  Sad


----------



## Xue Sheng

ballen0351 said:


> LOL except the first people to write of Jesus did so while he was still alive and just after his death not 100s of years later.  But i see the viciousness in your posts so your minds made up.  Sad



I don't see viciousness there and again we do not know if they wrote anything while they were alive little alone while Jesus lived. And what was written has been translated and edited (bigtime by the church) over the centuries.... it is highly unlikely what we read today 100% accurate as compared to what truly happened. Not saying if any of it is true or false but what we read today is highly likely not the same as what actually happened. Basically I do not think it would stand up on court as proof of anything other than someone wrote it


----------



## ballen0351

Xue Sheng said:


> I don't see viciousness



Calling Christianity myths fables, magic and witchcraft leading to death and destruction  lol  OK



> there and again we do not know if they wrote anything while they were alive little alone while Jesus lived. And what was written has been translated and edited (bigtime by the church) over the centuries.... it is highly unlikely what we read today 100% accurate as compared to what truly happened. Not saying if any of it is true or false but what we read today is highly likely not the same as what actually happened. Basically I do not think it would stand up on court as proof of anything other than someone wrote it


the fine details could have changed but the general story is true.  If thats your debate then nothing pre photograhic evidence should be believed due to changes in translation


----------



## Xue Sheng

ballen0351 said:


> We dont know if Cesar was real either but we believe eyewitness accounts.  I have no reason not to believe the eyewitnesses that were around not just Christians but other religions as well Speak of Jesus



Yes we do know Cesar was real based on historical evidence and the fact we know the authors of what was written and we have corroborating evidence of the fact that Ceaser existed in addition to archeological evidence. However this point has little to do with what you are saying or trying to prove. 

I do not doubt Jesus or his apostles lived nor have I ever said I did. What I am saying is that none of us have any idea who wrote the stories of the bible and those stories have been translated, likely with errors, and edited (changed - by the church) over the years. Basically the eyewitness accounts may or may not have been written by the eyewitnesses and even if they were they have been changed over the centuries


----------



## Xue Sheng

ballen0351 said:


> Calling Christianity myths fables, magic and witchcraft leading to death and destruction  lol  OK



No it isn't, but it is likely not 100% true either. And I did not see anywhere in crushing post were he wrote "magic and witchcraft leading to death and destruction"...you just added that bit



ballen0351 said:


> the fine details could have changed but the general story is true.  If thats your debate then nothing pre photograhic evidence should be believed due to changes in translation



 It is not fine detail and that can be proven by what the church removed, entire books. It is also likely that they edited what was left. and photographic evidence is not necessary, good historical and archeological research is all you need and from what we "know" the book has bee subjected to intense editing which very likely changed the story drastically.


----------



## crushing

Xue Sheng said:


> I don't see viciousness there.



Of course there wasn't viciousness from me.  He's (very often) silly like that.


----------



## crushing

ballen0351 said:


> Calling Christianity myths fables, magic and witchcraft leading to death and destruction  lol  OK



Do you really find these statements vicious?  Read the Bible and study history.  Not just history, look at the present.   Christians are STILL burning witches.


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> They weren't contemporaries, were they?  Hundreds of years separated some of the authors from the time they were 'witnessing.'   Myths and fables are subject to evolution as they are passed down through the years.  Each "eyewitness" putting their own flourish on the story.  Not only that, there were translation errors as the stories moved from one language to the next as well as copy errors when publishing new books.
> 
> I'll bet the first to make up such fantastic stories of magic and witchcraft never considered that down the road that they *would be taken seriously and lead to so much death and destruction.*



XUE Might want to read again


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> Do you really find these statements vicious?  Read the Bible and study history.  Not just history, look at the present.   Christians are STILL burning witches.



No people are Burning witches.  Thats not Christianity  just as much as Terrorist kill people not Muslims


----------



## ballen0351

Xue Sheng said:


> Yes we do know Cesar was real based on historical evidence and the fact we know the authors of what was written and we have corroborating evidence of the fact that Ceaser existed in addition to archeological evidence. However this point has little to do with what you are saying or trying to prove.


And the same has been proven for Jesus 


> I do not doubt Jesus or his apostles lived nor have I ever said I did. What I am saying is that none of us have any idea who wrote the stories of the bible and those stories have been translated, likely with errors, and edited (changed - by the church) over the years. Basically the eyewitness accounts may or may not have been written by the eyewitnesses and even if they were they have been changed over the centuries


And we have no reason to doubt they folks that claim to have written them no more then we dont doubt the peple that wrote about Cesar.  You choose to believe what you want to.  Its all faith.  You have faith that the books written about cesar was true yet you doubt the ones written about Jesus.  It is what it is I have no desire to change your mind on the topic but it is what it is.


----------



## Xue Sheng

ballen0351 said:


> XUE Might want to read again



Sorry, my mistake, I missed that...but in truth, Christianity was used to justify the Crusades and the Inquisition just to name two and there are others and one of those more recent and equally as heinous, although Christianity was a small part of that one........what about all the rest of what I wrote on correctness, editing, archeology and verifiable history


----------



## crushing

ballen0351 said:


> No people are Burning witches.  Thats not Christianity  just as much as Terrorist kill people not Muslims



In Exodus 22:18 the Bible commands the faithful specifically, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."   Like Christians, Muslims also use their holy texts to justify some awful deeds.  I think you make an apt comparison between Christian and Muslim terrorism.


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> In Exodus 22:18 the Bible commands the faithful specifically, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."   Like Christians, Muslims also use their holy texts to justify some awful deeds.  I think you make an apt comparison between Christian and Muslim terrorism.



Again someone that kills another can use whatever excuse he wants it doent make it so.


----------



## ballen0351

Xue Sheng said:


> what about all the rest of what I wrote on correctness, editing, archeology and verifiable history



I answered it.  the same evidence you believe proves Cesar exists for Jesus his life death and resurection


----------



## Dirty Dog

ballen0351 said:


> Calling Christianity myths fables, magic and witchcraft leading to death and destruction  lol  OK



Isn't that exactly what you do to non-Christian religions? You absolutely deny their validity (which means they're myths and fables) and attribute lots of nastiness to them. It's certainly true that religions (including Christianity) have been used to justify an awful lot of nastiness, and it's more than a little silly to pretend otherwise.

L Ron Hubbard (no relation to our own Bob, I assume...) claimed to have been an eyewitness to a lot of stuff I consider nonsense. Yet, his claims are as valid (though more recent) than those you claim as proof of your religious beliefs. 

You're free to believe anything you like, but claiming objective proof is simply foolish.


----------



## Xue Sheng

ballen0351 said:


> And the same has been proven for Jesus



Yes it can, but you are changing the focus of the discussion to come out as being right. But I am not arguing the existence of Jesus so this point it moot, I am arguing the validity of the book written about him. And you are the one that threw Ceaser into this in order to say there was some question to his existence...and there isn't, to much historical proof of that. Please stay on topic and focus of what is being discussed



ballen0351 said:


> And we have no reason to doubt they folks that claim to have written them no more then we dont doubt the peple that wrote about Cesar.  You choose to believe what you want to.  Its all faith.  You have faith that the books written about cesar was true yet you doubt the ones written about Jesus.  It is what it is I have no desire to change your mind on the topic but it is what it is.



Wrong, we do not know if those claiming to have written them actually ever made that claim themselves since we do not know if they actually wrote them. You are confusing faith with historic fact and they are not the same. Caesar existed, historic fact, Jesus existed, historic fact. But who wrote the stories about Jesus is not historic fact. We don't know who wrote the books and they have been edited (with extreme prejudice by the church) so if you show up in court with a story that you cannot verify the author beyond hearsay and there is evidence that that story has been extremely edited.....how much evidence is it going to be in court....little or none.

Faith is a good thing but truth is truth, we do not know who actually wrote the books of the bible.


----------



## Xue Sheng

ballen0351 said:


> I answered it.  the same evidence you believe proves Cesar exists for Jesus his life death and resurection



Please stop changing the focus of your original statement to come off as being right.

Last time. I am not nor have I ever said Jesus did not exist and I never mentioned the resurrection, I am saying the book you are claiming to be written by eye witnesses we do not know if it was or was not written by eyewitnesses. You brought Caesar into this in order to make an argument to prove something that was never mentioned by me.

Please stay on track


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> Isn't that exactly what you do to non-Christian religions? You absolutely deny their validity (which means they're myths and fables) and attribute lots of nastiness to them.


Me no I deny the validity based on facts and I dont attribute nastiness to any religion.  Now in the past I have said less then honorable things about Muslim faith.  Youth, Anger, lack of understanding and testostrone are more to blame for that but have changed my views.


> It's certainly true that religions (including Christianity) have been used to justify an awful lot of nastiness, and it's more than a little silly to pretend otherwise.


People use all kinds of reason to justify anything.  If I go out kill 30 people and say Obama made me do it does that mean all Democrats are killers?  Thats whats done here.  People used Christianity to Justify behavior they know goes against the Christian faith (which is why they need to justify it in the first place).  Christians are no more murderers and killers then Muslims are all Terrorists.  


> L Ron Hubbard (no relation to our own Bob, I assume...) claimed to have been an eyewitness to a lot of stuff I consider nonsense. Yet, his claims are as valid (though more recent) than those you claim as proof of your religious beliefs.



we are not talking about 1 person but hundreds of documented accounts from several different religions and non-religious people were eyewitnesses.  Again I dont care if you believe or not the info is out there.  I once refused to believe it as well I made the same arguments you all are.   



> You're free to believe anything you like, but claiming objective proof is simply foolish.


And to deny facts proven over and over again is equally foolish


----------



## ballen0351

Xue Sheng said:


> Please stop changing the focus of your original statement to come off as being right.
> 
> Last time. I am not nor have I ever said Jesus did not exist and I never mentioned the resurrection, I am saying the book you are claiming to be written by eye witnesses we do not know if it was or was not written by eyewitnesses. You brought Caesar into this in order to make an argument to prove something that was never mentioned by me.
> 
> Please stay on track


Its not just the Bible ther are several texts and documents out there not just Christian documents


----------



## ballen0351

Xue Sheng said:


> Yes it can, but you are changing the focus of the discussion to come out as being right. But I am not arguing the existence of Jesus so this point it moot, I am arguing the validity of the book written about him. And you are the one that threw Ceaser into this in order to say there was some question to his existence...and there isn't, to much historical proof of that. Please stay on topic and focus of what is being discussed
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, we do not know if those claiming to have written them actually ever made that claim themselves since we do not know if they actually wrote them. You are confusing faith with historic fact and they are not the same. Caesar existed, historic fact, Jesus existed, historic fact. But who wrote the stories about Jesus is not historic fact. We don't know who wrote the books and they have been edited (with extreme prejudice by the church) so if you show up in court with a story that you cannot verify the author beyond hearsay and there is evidence that that story has been extremely edited.....how much evidence is it going to be in court....little or none.
> 
> Faith is a good thing but truth is truth, we do not know who actually wrote the books of the bible.



I have no reason not to believe the authors are who they say they are  and you have no proof they are not who they claim to be so we shall just disagree then No harm no foul


----------



## Xue Sheng

ballen0351 said:


> I have no reason not to believe the authors are who they say they are  and you have no proof they are not who they claim to be so we shall just disagree then No harm no foul



Did they tell you? You just said you "have no reason not to believe the authors are who *they say * they are". Unless you are actually Methuselah none of the alleged authors have claimed anything. As to proof there is verifiable historic proof that it was heavily edited by the church. My point is and has been throughout this is that what you read today is not what was originally written and there is no historically verifiable proof as to who actually wrote it

Other than that agreed we will disagree on this


----------



## Touch Of Death

ballen0351 said:


> Its not just the Bible ther are several texts and documents out there not just Christian documents


No there aren't.


----------



## ballen0351

Xue Sheng said:


> Did they tell you? You just said you "have no reason not to believe the authors are who *they say * they are". Unless you are actually Methuselah none of the alleged authors have claimed anything. As to proof there is verifiable historic proof that it was heavily edited by the church. My point is and has been throughout this is that what you read today is not what was originally written and there is no historically verifiable proof as to who actually wrote it
> 
> Other than that agreed we will disagree on this



No nobody has told me anything but several of the "books"  are letters written by people that tell you who thet are.  I have no reason not to believe them.  but we have been warned by the PO-PO so  good day


----------



## Touch Of Death

ballen0351 said:


> No nobody has told me anything but several of the "books"  are letters written by people that tell you who thet are.  I have no reason not to believe them.  but we have been warned by the PO-PO so  good day


Herodotus. Not proven to be credible.


----------



## oftheherd1

Xue Sheng said:


> What's wrong with it!?
> 
> You're kidding right!?
> 
> I would say that anyone of any religion who does feel that way surely would not have much faith in his/her religion.
> 
> If one truly believes in and has true faith in their religion there is no worry or concern about being swayed or a "proselytizer"
> 
> *I was not talking about a person who was strong in their faith, but those new to their faith.  And whether you are aware and acquainted with any, there are people who have accepted Christianity who do not start out strong in the faith.  That is also commented on by the Apostle Paul.  I can't speak for people of other faiths.*
> 
> As for what is wrong with that approach: For one learning stops in the name of fear, ignorance and dogma and they justified an Inquisition like that a few years back.
> 
> *I guess you are speaking about the Catholic inquisition, primarily in Spain, but also in other parts of Europe.  It attacked most all non-Catholics.  Many Christians were persecuted by that inquisition.  I don't know that it was started in fear, perhaps ignorance and dogma.*
> 
> So someone wants to teach Taiji, which is only associated to Taoism by the fact that some of its movements and fighting applications were based on the I Ching and they are a proselytizer!? A guy teaches Karate which is Japanese and thereby associated with Shinto so he is a proselytizer!?. Someone wants to teach yoga, which is only associated with Hinduism these days pretty much by country of origin only these days and they are a proselytizer!? Better Yet the Dalai Lama shows up just to give a speech and he is then also a proselytizer!? If someone of another religion (Catholicism, udaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Muslimism, any of the versions of Protestantism, etc)  shows up at a "Christian" church just to take a look and starts talking to people...is that person a proselytizer?
> 
> *It seems you have missed many posts in this thread that have made a point of stating many martial arts teachers do not teach religion with their martial arts.  As to people who might show up at a Christian church and starts talking to people, that person being a proselytizer would depend on what he was saying, not his simple appearance nor even talking talking, unless that talking was in fact in some way proselytizing.*
> 
> Thomas Merton was a Catholic and not only was he not afraid of other religions he studied them and wrote extensively about them and all it seemed to do was strengthen his faith.You may want to give him a read...or am I now being a proselytizer



I'm not familiar with Thomas Merton.  But it sounds like at the time of his studies of other religions, he was already strong in his faith.  The quoted link that started this thread seemed to be from a person who felt he was studying other religions or cults.  That doesn't require you or I to agree with his comments on Martial Arts.


----------



## oftheherd1

Dirty Dog said:


> No, you don't. You have a book (actually, it's a collection of short stories, and a lot of the ones intended for the anthology were left out by the editors) that makes lots of unsupported (and unsupportable) claims. Pretty much the same evidence provided by other religions.



Do you know why some books were chosen and some disregarded?  On what do you base books intended for inclusion in the Bible were left out?  That is, how do you know they were intended as Biblical books?

Unsupported and unsupportable claims?  Can you give some examples?  But you are correct that some religions have books they consider to be foundations for their religion.  As a Christian I accept the Bible on faith.  What is wrong about that?


----------



## oftheherd1

Touch Of Death said:


> Yet they differ.





In what way?


----------



## Touch Of Death

oftheherd1 said:


> What is wrong about that?


The grammar.


----------



## oftheherd1

Xue Sheng said:


> We don't actually know that. We also do not know what the church took out of the stories allegedly written by eye witnesses, we do know it was highly edited by those who were not eye witnesses.. And we do not actually know if those that actually witnessed it wrote anything at all. Could be someone they talked to or told the stories too. Kind of like all the writings of Buddha, and I think Confucius and more than likely Lao Tzu



What church took out things in the Bible?  I believe the KJV Bible is the inspired and infallible word of God, so I don't believe anything has been left out or added to those words God wants us to have.  

We do know that Peter commented on some of Paul's writings.  Would you consider that to be Peter witnessing anything about about Paul, who wrote things he witnessed about Jesus?  Even if you would not, I accept it on faith.  You may not.


----------



## oftheherd1

ballen0351 said:


> Sure we do.  You choose to believe what you will.  Paul says he saw what he saw and wrote what he wrote so you can believe it or not thats your choice


 
Paul, Matthew, Mark and John appear to have been witnesses.  Luke may have been writing to someone of things he researched from eye witnesses.


----------



## Dirty Dog

oftheherd1 said:


> Do you know why some books were chosen and some disregarded?



Do I know? Of course not, because in order to KNOW, I'd have to be both a mind reader and a medium. But I can speculate, based on what was left out. The gospels left out were likely left out because they didn't support the positions of the editors.



oftheherd1 said:


> On what do you base books intended for inclusion in the Bible were left out?  That is, how do you know they were intended as Biblical books?



Um... because they are attributed to biblical personas and are written about biblical topics?



oftheherd1 said:


> Unsupported and unsupportable claims?  Can you give some examples?



Sure. How about the claim that bats are mammals? That leprosy has something to do with being "unclean"? That disease is a punishment from god? That Jesus rose from the dead (making him either the first "documented" zombie or vampire...)? That Noah somehow managed to fit 2 of every species on earth in a wooden ship? That a god (with or without long white beard) exists?



oftheherd1 said:


> But you are correct that some religions have books they consider to be foundations for their religion.  As a Christian I accept the Bible on faith.  What is wrong about that?



Absolutely nothing is wrong with that. It *should* be accepted on faith. That's what faith is. It's when people claim a factual proof for their faith that things get silly.


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> Do I know? Of course not, because in order to KNOW, I'd have to be both a mind reader and a medium. But I can speculate, based on what was left out. The gospels left out were likely left out because they didn't support the positions of the editors.
> 
> 
> 
> Um... because they are attributed to biblical personas and are written about biblical topics?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. How about the claim that bats are mammals? That leprosy has something to do with being "unclean"? That disease is a punishment from god? That Jesus rose from the dead (making him either the first "documented" zombie or vampire...)? That Noah somehow managed to fit 2 of every species on earth in a wooden ship? That a god (with or without long white beard) exists?
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely nothing is wrong with that. It *should* be accepted on faith. That's what faith is. It's when people claim a factual proof for their faith that things get silly.



I think we were warned but if your going to get rude about it we can continue this topic your a MOD after all so do you override the others?  Just checking where we stand here snice Ive gotten infactions in the past for not following the Mods suggestions


----------



## RTKDCMB

ballen0351 said:


> Na we have eyewitness accounts of Jesus his life, his death and his resurrection



I think every cop and first year law student knows that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable.


----------



## RTKDCMB

oftheherd1 said:


> That is what I have been saying about most major religions.
> 
> Do you have a religion?  Does your religion not believe that way?



Although personally I do not believe in religion I respect that other people have their beliefs that I do not share and I do not have a problem them believing in them (except maybe Young Earth Creationists). The only problem I have with religion is what some people do with it, especially when they use religion as an excuse for the most despicable of acts, but that's not the religion's fault, it's the people's.


----------



## Cirdan

I saw great Thor riding his chariot across the sky yesterday, swinging mighty Mjolnir with crackling thunder and blessing us with rain. Tis`true I tell you!

It is still time to give up your silly desert religions, join the true faith where you get to party with valkyries for eternity and fight giants every day rising anew the next morning in Vallhalla with yesterday`s wounds gone. Beats sitting on a cloud playing the harp I tell you.


----------



## oftheherd1

Dirty Dog said:


> Do I know? Of course not, because in order to KNOW, I'd have to be both a mind reader and a medium. But I can speculate, based on what was left out. The gospels left out were likely left out because they didn't support the positions of the editors.
> 
> *Or read what has been written about the reasons some were not allowed in the canon.  If they did not support the deity of God or Jesus, or did not support the teachings of God, they were left out.*
> 
> Um... because they are attributed to biblical personas and are written about biblical topics?
> 
> *Please see my answer above.  By your definition, any book that makes any claim, however unsupportable, would have to be included in the canon when discovered.*
> 
> Sure. How about the claim that bats are mammals? That leprosy has something to do with being "unclean"? That disease is a punishment from god? That Jesus rose from the dead (making him either the first "documented" zombie or vampire...)? That Noah somehow managed to fit 2 of every species on earth in a wooden ship? That a god (with or without long white beard) exists?
> 
> *Interesting, I have always been told that bats are mammals.  Are you being facetious in that answer?  Also interesting that you say Jesus is a zombie or vampire.  I can't imagine where you get such an idea.  Noah is documented in the Bible.  I don't understand everything in the Bible, but I figure that is because my mind isn't big enough or accepting enough.  I do believe the Bible is the word of God, and that it has no errors.  Otherwise I cannot know what in fact are the words of God.  If you don't believe that, that is for you to decide.*
> 
> Absolutely nothing is wrong with that. It *should* be accepted on faith. That's what faith is. It's when people claim a factual proof for their faith that things get silly.



Well, faith indeed does not require facts.  If we had facts to explain everything, we wouldn't need faith for anything.  But there are facts to assist us in accepting the Bible.  I have been interested to read people who castigate Christians for having closed minds, yet insist in stating nothing that could in any way support any Christian belief.  But in my belief, each person is accountable to themselves and in the end, to God.

I think it is that same closed mindedness that allows people to make judgments about martial arts being religions.  Just my thoughts of course.  No one else need think as I do.


----------



## ballen0351

RTKDCMB said:


> I think every cop and first year law student knows that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable.



Naa not really.  It depends on many factors. Length of incodent, type of incident, proximity to incident,  severity of incident, number of incidents ect. Stranger eyewitness accounts or people not actually involved just watched an incident then yes.  People personally involved and for longer periods of time then they are pretty good for the most part which is why they are still admissible.   But what do I know I was only a Detective for many years and from the looks of things will be one again in a few weeks


----------



## RTKDCMB

ballen0351 said:


> Naa not really.  It depends on many factors. Length of incodent, type of incident, proximity to incident,  severity of incident, number of incidents ect. Stranger eyewitness accounts or people not actually involved just watched an incident then yes.  People personally involved and for longer periods of time then they are pretty good for the most part which is why they are still admissible.   But what do I know I was only a Detective for many years and from the looks of things will be one again in a few weeks



Sorry I meant to say "can be" instead of "are". You can imagine how admissible something that was witnessed 2000 or so years ago would be in a court today. Anyway, back to the OP.


----------



## donnaTKD

can we quit trashing the bible please - i'm not a religious person but i don't want to be reading and having to put up with these sorts of views being rammed in my face --- there's a time and a place in another thread for slagging off the bible and other religions if you so wish.

the OP talks expressly of martial arts being witchcraft - nowhere in that OP does it talk of bible's and everything in it and whether it be right or wrong it talks of MARTIAL ARTS BEING WITCHCRAFT !!!!!

either that or the OP needs to be retitled ASAP


----------



## ballen0351

RTKDCMB said:


> Sorry I meant to say "can be" instead of "are".


yes I agree they can be but they are not as bad as people try to make them out to be if they were we would never be able to use them in court at all.  In general they are fairly accurate 


> You can imagine how admissible something that was witnessed 2000 or so years ago would be in a court today. Anyway, back to the OP.


Well we couldnt try a case in court today all the witnesses are dead


----------



## crushing

donnaTKD said:


> can we quit trashing the bible please - i'm not a religious person but i don't want to be reading and having to put up with these sorts of views being rammed in my face --- there's a time and a place in another thread for slagging off the bible and other religions if you so wish.
> 
> the OP talks expressly of martial arts being witchcraft - nowhere in that OP does it talk of bible's and everything in it and whether it be right or wrong it talks of MARTIAL ARTS BEING WITCHCRAFT !!!!!
> 
> either that or the OP needs to be retitled ASAP



With all due respect, the Bible is not being trashed (and nobody has been vicious).  Discussion of the Bible and the beliefs that come from the Bible are key to this thread and further understanding for everyone involved.  We are in a sad state if any work of literature is above inspection and criticism.  To see how this conversation is relevant you may want to revisit the OP that specifically mentions the Bible and check out the website from the OP that we are discussing.

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT OCCULT, WITCHCRAFT, SEANCES, NEW AGE, ASTROLOGY, REINCARNATION, PSYCHIC POWER, CALLING SPIRITS, FORTUNE TELLING, OUIJA BOARD, CRYSTAL BALL, TAROT CARD, PALMISTRY, IDOL, DEMON

:asian:


----------



## RTKDCMB

ballen0351 said:


> Well we couldnt try a case in court today all the witnesses are dead



Good point.


----------



## oftheherd1

Xue Sheng said:


> *Catholic Bible and Protestant bible are not the same*
> 
> Look up The Decree of Damasus
> 
> And these
> 
> https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110610052642AAw3OC9
> 
> https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080119103755AAi0QUJ
> 
> _Folks, this is my last word on this the moderators want it back on topic so I shall no longer post on religious issues outside of the OP. I shall be ripping that apart later when I have time because there are more holes in that than Swiss cheese_



I agree with that.  And I agree that it should be the topic of a different thread.  What I find mildly amusing is that I pointed out early on that there was no mention of witchcraft in what the OP quoted.  But everyone keeps going with the the title of the thread.  ;-)


----------



## jks9199

Folks,
These posts were moved from the thread Martial Arts Are Witchcraft, because the discussions about the legitimacy of various faiths and scriptures were off topic there.  I hope that you'll continue to discuss these issues here; y'all have been doing a great job of discussing them without being disrespectful or uncivil, and I hope it continues.

jks9199
MT Asst. Administrator


----------



## crushing

ballen0351 said:


> Again someone that kills another can use whatever excuse he wants it doent make it so.



This certainly puts a different perspective on those that use the Bible to oppose martial arts, or marriage equality for that matter.  They may not be following their faith and the word of God, but they are just using religion as an excuse to deny such rights.   Good luck getting Duck Dynasty folks and their followers to admit this may be the case, right?   Thanks for the perspective as I hadn't considered it that way before.


----------



## Dirty Dog

ballen0351 said:


> I think we were warned but if your going to get rude about it we can continue this topic your a MOD after all so do you override the others?  Just checking where we stand here snice Ive gotten infactions in the past for not following the Mods suggestions



There is nothing rude in my post. If you think there is, I would encourage you to hit that big old RTM button in the lower left corner of your screen. Pointing out that your faith is based on faith (as it should be) and not facts (as it cannot be) is not rude.




oftheherd1 said:


> Well, faith indeed does not require facts.  If we had facts to explain everything, we wouldn't need faith for anything.  But there are facts to assist us in accepting the Bible.  I have been interested to read people who castigate Christians for having closed minds, yet insist in stating nothing that could in any way support any Christian belief.  But in my belief, each person is accountable to themselves and in the end, to God.
> 
> I think it is that same closed mindedness that allows people to make judgments about martial arts being religions.  Just my thoughts of course.  No one else need think as I do.



Inserting your comments inside the quoted text makes it a real pain in the *** to reply. Maybe you could break up the post if you want to reply to individual points?


> Some of this is from me, some from oftheherd:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Dirty Dog*
> 
> Do I know? Of course not, because in order to KNOW, I'd have to be both a mind reader and a medium. But I can speculate, based on what was left out. The gospels left out were likely left out because they didn't support the positions of the editors.
> 
> *Or read what has been written about the reasons some were not allowed in the canon.  If they did not support the deity of God or Jesus, or did not support the teachings of God, they were left out.*



That's what I said. They didn't support the position of the editors. See the Gospels of Mary, which asserts the equality of women, for one sterling example.



> Some of this is from me, some from oftheherd:
> Um... because they are attributed to biblical personas and are written about biblical topics?
> 
> *Please see my answer above.  By your definition, any book that makes any claim, however unsupportable, would have to be included in the canon when discovered. *



Well, you'd be hard pressed to find me saying that. But the claims in the gnostic gospels are every bit as supportable as those included in the Christian bible. That is to say... not at all.



> Some of this is from me, some from oftheherd:
> Sure. How about the claim that bats are mammals? That leprosy has something to do with being "unclean"? That disease is a punishment from god? That Jesus rose from the dead (making him either the first "documented" zombie or vampire...)? That Noah somehow managed to fit 2 of every species on earth in a wooden ship? That a god (with or without long white beard) exists?
> 
> *Interesting, I have always been told that bats are mammals.  Are you being facetious in that answer?  Also interesting that you say Jesus is a zombie or vampire.  I can't imagine where you get such an idea.  Noah is documented in the Bible.  I don't understand everything in the Bible, but I figure that is because my mind isn't big enough or accepting enough.  I do believe the Bible is the word of God, and that it has no errors.  Otherwise I cannot know what in fact are the words of God.  If you don't believe that, that is for you to decide. *



My bad. I find it difficult to type falsehoods; the statement should be "bats are birds", which is what is claimed in the bible. 



> Leviticus 11:13-19 - These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,the vulture, the black vulture, [SUP]14 [/SUP]the red kite, any kind of black kite, [SUP]15 [/SUP]any kind of raven, [SUP]16 [/SUP]the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, [SUP]17 [/SUP]the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, [SUP]18 [/SUP]the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, [SUP]19 [/SUP]the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.



And I can't help but notice that you only addressed the statement that was mistyped...

As for Jesus being a vampire or zombie... well, those are both well known to rise from the dead, and have every bit as much objective support as the story of Jesus.
So... if the bible has no errors (which is just plain silly, given that bats are not birds...) how do you account for the differences between various versions? How did you decide that *your* preferred version is the Real Actual And Correct one?
Do you believe (in direct contradiction to the text you claim is infallible) that women are not the equal of men? Do you think women should be allowed to wear jewelry? Braid their hair? When you have appendicitis, do you go to the hospital, or to a church? Do you have any tattoos? Do you believe that communion bread is actually the flesh of Jesus rather than merely a symbol? Or are you (as the vast majority are) practicing cafeteria-Christianity, where you just pick the parts you agree with, and ignore the rest?



donnaTKD said:


> can we quit trashing the bible please - i'm not a religious person but i don't want to be reading and having to put up with these sorts of views being rammed in my face --- there's a time and a place in another thread for slagging off the bible and other religions if you so wish.



None of the various bibles have been trashed. What's been "trashed" is the silly notion that there is objective proof of the stories in those books.



crushing said:


> This certainly puts a different perspective on those that use the Bible to oppose martial arts, or marriage equality for that matter.  They may not be following their faith and the word of God, but they are just using religion as an excuse to deny such rights.   Good luck getting Duck Dynasty folks and their followers to admit this may be the case, right?   Thanks for the perspective as I hadn't considered it that way before.



The Christian bible is actually very clear in insisting that women NOT equal to men. That's one of the reasons I could never be a Christian.
Applicable quotes can be found in Ephesians, 1 Peter, 1 Timothy and plenty of other places.


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> There is nothing rude in my post. If you think there is, I would encourage you to hit that big old RTM button in the lower left corner of your screen.


why your a MOD it would go nowhere and knowing some on this forum Id get another infraction for disrespect to the staff.


> Pointing out that your faith is based on faith (as it should be) and not facts (as it cannot be) is not rude.


that wasnt what I was referring to.  Taking shots calling Jesus a vampire and Zombie is rude and out of line.  
Ive just decided to move on from this however so good day

I do find it amusing that if someone talked about TKD the way you post bout Christianity they would be banned for style bashing but its perfectly fine to bash religion


----------



## Dirty Dog

ballen0351 said:


> that wasnt what I was referring to.  Taking shots calling Jesus a vampire and Zombie is rude and out of line.



Take a survey. Ask people to name something that rises from the dead... 



ballen0351 said:


> I do find it amusing that if someone talked about TKD the way you post bout Christianity they would be banned for style bashing but its perfectly fine to bash religion



I don't have any problem with Christianity. I have a problem with people who claim factual support for anything when no such factual support exists. 
I respond the same way to people who insist that 12 coffee enemas a day will make you live to the age of 900, or other such silliness.

Place your faith in Jesus, Mohammad, Budha or the Great Pumpkin. But don't claim your faith to be based on fact unless you have solid proof.


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> Take a survey. Ask people to name something that rises from the dead...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any problem with Christianity. I have a problem with people who claim factual support for anything when no such factual support exists.
> I respond the same way to people who insist that 12 coffee enemas a day will make you live to the age of 900, or other such silliness.
> 
> Place your faith in Jesus, Mohammad, Budha or the Great Pumpkin. But don't claim your faith to be based on fact unless you have solid proof.


I have no problem having a grown up discussion about religion I wont however have the discussion with someone that compares Jesus to zombies and the Great Pumpkin and Compares Christianity to coffee enemas.  So Grow up and we can talk if not I dont really care


----------



## Dirty Dog

Dirty Dog said:


> Take a survey. Ask people to name something that rises from the dead...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any problem with Christianity. I have a problem with people who claim factual support for anything when no such factual support exists.
> I respond the same way to people who insist that 12 coffee enemas a day will make you live to the age of 900, or other such silliness.
> 
> Place your faith in Jesus, Mohammad, Budha or the Great Pumpkin. But don't claim your faith to be based on fact unless you have solid proof.





ballen0351 said:


> I have no problem having a grown up discussion about religion I wont however have the discussion with someone that compares Jesus to zombies and the Great Pumpkin and Compares Christianity to coffee enemas.  So Grow up and we can talk if not I dont really care



Read it again. I compare claiming to have FACTS when you do not to another case of claiming to have FACTS when you don't.


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> Read it again. I compare claiming to have FACTS when you do not to another case of claiming to have FACTS when you don't.


Its your opinion that there are no facts you choose to believe or not to believe them.

So is he a Zombie or vamp or both?
Man who died for seventy minutes brought back to life after heart attack when doctors shock him 16 times | Mail Online


----------



## crushing

ballen0351 said:


> Its your opinion that there are no facts you choose to believe or not to believe them.
> 
> So is he a Zombie or vamp or both?
> Man who died for seventy minutes brought back to life after heart attack when doctors shock him 16 times | Mail Online




  It just so happens this man was only mostly dead.


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> It just so happens this man was only mostly dead.



Lol ok


----------



## crushing

ballen0351 said:


> Lol ok



Based on your reply, I'm not sure you got the reference.

[yt]D9tAKLTktY0[/yt]


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> The Christian bible is actually very clear in insisting that women NOT equal to men. That's one of the reasons I could never be a Christian.
> Applicable quotes can be found in Ephesians, 1 Peter, 1 Timothy and plenty of other places.


I just saw this.  You do realize men and woman are not equal.  We are different.  Different size shape strength feelings emotions body make up body chemistry ect.  We are not and never have been equal.  But the bible tells me to absolutely love adore cherish and treat my wife like the queen of queens.


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> Based on your reply, I'm not sure you got the reference.
> 
> [yt]D9tAKLTktY0[/yt]



No and I can't see what you posted from my phone.  My old phone would show video clips this new one doesn't which sucks I'll look again when I get home


----------



## Dirty Dog

ballen0351 said:


> Its your opinion that there are no facts you choose to believe or not to believe them.
> 
> So is he a Zombie or vamp or both?
> Man who died for seventy minutes brought back to life after heart attack when doctors shock him 16 times | Mail Online



To quote Miracle Max, he was only "mostly dead". There's a fairly significant lapse between the stopping of the heart and death of the brain. And good CPR can extend this, potentially indefinitely. I've had people with no cardiac activity wake up during the resuscitation thanks to really good CPR. 
Are you saying someone did really really effective CPR on Jesus for 3 days and then  defibrillated him?


----------



## Dirty Dog

ballen0351 said:


> I just saw this.  You do realize men and woman are not equal.  We are different.  Different size shape strength feelings emotions body make up body chemistry ect.  We are not and never have been equal.  But the bible tells me to absolutely love adore cherish and treat my wife like the queen of queens.



But that isn't what it says. It says she's supposed to be subservient to you, which I find highly offensive.



> 1 Timothy 2:12 - I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
> 
> Ephesians 5:22 - Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
> 
> 1 Peter 3:1-7 - Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external&#8212;the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear&#8212; but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands,



Personally, I have known many outstanding women teachers, as well as bosses. And I'm not about to tell my wife to keep quiet.

And I am certainly not the "head" of our marriage. It's a partnership.

My wife can wear whatever jewelry she likes, and do whatever she likes with her hair. 

If you claim that the Christian bible is perfect and 100% literal truth, then you must also think your wife should be submissive to you. Because it says so, right there. Yes, it says you need to treat your wife well. But it sure doesn't say men are expected to be submissive.


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> To quote Miracle Max, he was only "mostly dead". There's a fairly significant lapse between the stopping of the heart and death of the brain. And good CPR can extend this, potentially indefinitely. I've had people with no cardiac activity wake up during the resuscitation thanks to really good CPR.
> Are you saying someone did really really effective CPR on Jesus for 3 days and then  defibrillated him?



I'm not saying anything.  You made the claim people cannot come back from the dead.  Well not just him but many have.


----------



## ballen0351

Funny where you decide to start and stop your bible verses. 


The same goes for you husbands: Be good husbands to your wives. Honor them, delight in them. As women they lack some of your advantages. But in the new life of Gods grace, youre equals. Treat your wives, then, as equals so your prayers dont run aground. 


1 Peter 3:7

The Message (MSG)


----------



## Dirty Dog

ballen0351 said:


> Funny where you decide to start and stop your bible verses.
> 
> 
> The same goes for you husbands: Be good husbands to your wives. Honor them, delight in them. As women they lack some of your advantages. But in the new life of God&#8217;s grace, you&#8217;re equals. Treat your wives, then, as equals so your prayers don&#8217;t run aground.
> 
> 
> 1 Peter 3:7
> 
> The Message (MSG)



Gosh, for something that is the 100% literal true word of god, there sure are some big variations...

1 Peter 3:7 (
New International Version) 
Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

King James Version
[SUP] [/SUP]Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

How can there possibly be multiple versions of the Truth?

And of course, I think most people will understand the difference between "honor her" and "be submissive to him".

The bible can be the 100% literal truth, or it can be a text written in the context of the culture of the day, and subject to interpretation and revision. It can't be both at the same time.

And how about that whole "Bats are birds" thing, too?


----------



## ballen0351

Bats to birds?  What about it?  God created the animals man came up with scientific classifications.   


See you need to actually know what your reading in the Bible to understand what's going on.  
We forget sometimes that the epistles are just that: letters.

In our rush to find proof texts to support our various positions, we tend to skip past the initial greetings that designate the recipients of the message&#8212; &#8220;to the church of God in Corinth,&#8221; &#8220;to the churches in Galatia,&#8221; &#8220;to God&#8217;s holy people in Ephesus,&#8221; &#8220;to Timothy,&#8221; &#8220;to Titus&#8221;&#8212;or those odd little details that remind us that we are essentially listening in on someone else&#8217;s conversation--&#8220;I have made a fool of myself,&#8221; &#8220;I don&#8217;t remember if I baptized anyone else,&#8221; &#8220;When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus in Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.&#8221; (You don&#8217;t see that last one on many desk calendars.)

I&#8217;ve never once heard a sermon preached on the passage in which Paul tells Titus &#8220;Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons&#8221; (Titus 1:12&#8211;13), and yet, if these words are truly the inerrant and unchanging words of God intended as universal commands for all people in all places at all times, then the Christian community needs to do a better job of mobilizing against the Cretan people, perhaps constructing some &#8220;God Hates Cretans&#8221; signs!Hyperbole aside, it&#8217;s important to keep in mind that while the epistles are certainly written for us, they were not written to us.With the letters of Peter, Paul, James, John, and the other apostles, we are given the priceless gift of seeing how early followers of Jesus applied his teachings to their unique circumstances. While these letters are packed with important theological observations&#8212;&#8220;If anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come,&#8221; &#8220;Conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel,&#8221; &#8220;Have this attitude in you which was also in Christ Jesus&#8221;&#8212;they also include lengthy discussion concerning how first-century house churches should operate, how unprecedented influxes of poor widows should be handled, how women should cover their heads when they pray and prophecy, how slaves should behave toward their masters, whether Christian converts should be circumcised, whether Christians should eat meat sacrificed to idols, how to endure persecution, how not to offend the surrounding culture, and how to follow Christ with conviction while avoiding unwanted attention from the suspicious Roman officials.

In other words, these letters have contexts. They are addressing very practical problems. 

The epistles were never meant to be interpreted and applied as universal law. Rather, they provide us with an instructive and inspired glimpse into how Jesus&#8217; teachings were lived out by realpeople, in real communities, facing real challenges. It is not the details found in the letters that we should seek to imitate, but rather the attitudes.

Later she goes on to say
I suspect that Paul didn&#8217;t want the church, so full of unmarried women, to be seen as just another Greco-Roman cult. He also didn&#8217;t want pagans unfamiliar with the teachings of Christ and the Jewish culture interrupting services with questions or bossing around other converts. Is it any wonder, then, that he expected some women in Corinth to prophesy, but challenged others to &#8220;remain silent,&#8221; or that he advised the women at Ephesus not to seize authority over men but to &#8220;learn in quietness and full submission&#8221;? (Remember, the guys would have been seriously outnumbered!)

&#8220;We are thus led to the conclusion that when Paul asks women to be silent . . . he is not talking about ordinary Christian women; rather, he has a specific group of women in mind,&#8221; writes Scot McKnight in The Blue Parakeet. &#8220;His concern is with some untrained, morally loose, young widows, who, because they are theologically unformed, are teaching unorthodox ideas.&#8221; It is reasonable, then, to assume that once these widows were trained, they could resume speaking.

The above blog was written by Rachel Evans who is in fact a woman
For the sake of the gospel, let women speak

Sorry it's kinda choppy working on a cell phone and not having much luck. Not liking this Galaxy S5


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> Gosh, for something that is the 100% literal true word of god, there sure are some big variations...



Which is why we study the meanings and research the translations not just mix and match ah ha gotta ya verses.  If you actually study it you will see what is going on and what the context is.


----------



## ballen0351

Also for the record I've never once said the Bible was 100% accurate.   I believe I said it was written by men recalling what they saw heard were told and witnessed.  It's inspired by God who guided the authors but as I said a few pages ago the finer details could be lost to time and translation but the main points are correct.  Just like if I were to write about my day I may leave out or get minor details wrong but the general story will be correct.  Which is also why we study the bible and other texts and documents from the time.  To learn the context and meaning.  You keep making the claim that I said the Bible is 100% and I never said that.   Nothing could ever give you 100% Accra te details other then I guess a video camera recording Jesus himself which we don't have.  I do however know the general gist of the Bible to be correct.


----------



## Dirty Dog

ballen0351 said:


> Also for the record I've never once said the Bible was 100% accurate.   I believe I said it was written by men recalling what they saw heard were told and witnessed.  It's inspired by God who guided the authors but as I said a few pages ago the finer details could be lost to time and translation but the main points are correct.  Just like if I were to write about my day I may leave out or get minor details wrong but the general story will be correct.  Which is also why we study the bible and other texts and documents from the time.  To learn the context and meaning.  You keep making the claim that I said the Bible is 100% and I never said that.   Nothing could ever give you 100% Accra te details other then I guess a video camera recording Jesus himself which we don't have.  I do however know the general gist of the Bible to be correct.



I am aware who said what. In this thread, it was oftheheard who claimed that the bible is 100% literal truth. But it's certainly a common enough assertion, and since we were not in a private conversation, my comments were and are less specific than they would be in private.

If your position is that the bible is a text written in the context of the culture it was written for, then I have no argument. I'd say that is pretty much the only rational way to view it.
As a social contract, the 10 commandments make a lot of sense. And there are plenty of other parts of the Christian bible that make sense. Just as there are plenty of things in the Torah and the Koran and the teachings of Odin that make sense.

There is also plenty in each of them that is complete nonsense, or at least complete nonsense in THIS culture.


----------



## RTKDCMB

Dirty Dog said:


> Sure. How about the claim that bats are mammals? That leprosy has something to do with being "unclean"? That disease is a punishment from god? That Jesus rose from the dead (making him either the first "documented" zombie or vampire...)? That Noah somehow managed to fit 2 of every species on earth in a wooden ship? That a god (with or without long white beard) exists?



Here's some more:

Old Testament oddities - RationalWiki


----------



## ballen0351

RTKDCMB said:


> Here's some more:
> 
> Old Testament oddities - RationalWiki



Nonsense that's someone that hasn't read or research what he's posting


----------



## ballen0351

Dirty Dog said:


> I am aware who said what. In this thread, it was oftheheard who claimed that the bible is 100% literal truth. But it's certainly a common enough assertion, and since we were not in a private conversation, my comments were and are less specific than they would be in private.


There is a difference between 100% true and being a true document.  The general gist is true the eyewitness accounts are true.  The finer detail may be fuzzy.


> If your position is that the bible is a text written in the context of the culture it was written for, then I have no argument. I'd say that is pretty much the only rational way to view it.


I'm not saying it should be disregard as antiquated or Irrelevent in modern times.  The teaching are still very relevant


> As a social contract, the 10 commandments make a lot of sense. And there are plenty of other parts of the Christian bible that make sense. Just as there are plenty of things in the Torah and the Koran and the teachings of Odin that make sense.


Except there are no eyewitness accounts of Odin ever walking the earth there is plenty of evidence showing Jesus was here.


> There is also plenty in each of them that is complete nonsense, or at least complete nonsense in THIS culture.


There is plenty in modern day existence that we can't make sense of.  Just because it doesn't make sense doest mean it didn't happen.  Humans coming from matter+time+chance is just as nonsensical as what the Bible says happened but one of them is correct you have your belief and I have mine


----------



## RTKDCMB

ballen0351 said:


> Nonsense that's someone that hasn't read or research what he's posting



Funny but.


----------



## ballen0351

RTKDCMB said:


> Funny but.



If you say so


----------



## Cirdan

ballen0351 said:


> There is plenty in modern day existence that we can't make sense of. Just because it doesn't make sense doest mean it didn't happen. Humans coming from matter+time+chance is just as nonsensical as what the Bible says happened but one of them is correct you have your belief and I have mine



Actually we came from the apes. Here, have a banana. Ook ook!


----------



## ballen0351

Cirdan said:


> Actually we came from the apes. Here, have a banana. Ook ook!


And apes came from where?


----------



## crushing

ballen0351 said:


> And apes came from where?



If you are truly curious, The Ancestor's Tale makes for good and interesting reading on this very subject.


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> If you are truly curious, The Ancestor's Tale makes for good and interesting reading on this very subject.


Not really time+chance+matter is all the same no matter who authors the book.  It's all the same.  And nobody can say where matter and time came from and thinking we are all just here by chance I don't agree with


----------



## crushing

ballen0351 said:


> Not really time+chance+matter is all the same no matter who authors the book.  It's all the same.  And nobody can say where matter and time came from and thinking we are all just here by chance I don't agree with



You asked where apes came from.


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> You asked where apes came from.



I know where apes came from I was asking his opinion since he claimed we came from apes and to go eat a banana


----------



## Touch Of Death

ballen0351 said:


> And apes came from where?


Just for clarification, Evolutionary science does not claim man evolved from and ape, for just the reason you allude to, but they do claim a common ancestor.


----------



## Touch Of Death

ballen0351 said:


> I know where apes came from I was asking his opinion since he claimed we came from apes and to go eat a banana


First we were in the goo, then we were in a Zoo, and now... you're you.


----------



## ballen0351

Touch Of Death said:


> Just for clarification, Evolutionary science does not claim man evolved from and ape, for just the reason you allude to, but they do claim a common ancestor.



I didn't make the claim someone else did.  I was asking them to expand


----------



## ballen0351

Touch Of Death said:


> First we were in the goo, then we were in a Zoo, and now... you're you.



And where did the goo come from?


----------



## Touch Of Death

ballen0351 said:


> And where did the goo come from?


53 miles west of Venus. ... But seriously, why does it have to come from anywhere but Earth?


----------



## ballen0351

Touch Of Death said:


> 53 miles west of Venus. ... But seriously, why does it have to come from anywhere but Earth?


So it was magic?  It just appeared huh.....oh and 
Where did earth come from.


----------



## Touch Of Death

ballen0351 said:


> So it was magic?  It just appeared huh.....oh and
> Where did earth come from.


Debris from the big bang. Is this a trick question?


----------



## ballen0351

Touch Of Death said:


> Debris from the big bang. Is this a trick question?



No trick question.  Where did the big bang come from.  For your theory to work matter had to come from someplace.   Unless of course God put it there


----------



## Touch Of Death

ballen0351 said:


> No trick question.  Where did the big bang come from.  For your theory to work matter had to come from someplace.   Unless of course God put it there


If matter can neither be created or destroyed, why did God have to create it? The Muslims believe Allah never created anything, he was just extemporaneous with the existing matter. Perhaps the matter itself is God, but what was God doing all that time before there was matter? Can time exist without matter? If God exists outside time and space, where did he get the materials for all the matter he created? Or was he like Allah and just gave it order? As opposed to the total chaos of nothingness? Hmmmm.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Nothingness would have no distance; no depth; no location; no entropy, and then one day.... Bang.


----------



## ballen0351

Touch Of Death said:


> Nothingness would have no distance; no depth; no location; no entropy, and then one day.... Bang.



Nothing can't just bang.......God can however


----------



## ballen0351

Touch Of Death said:


> If matter can neither be created or destroyed, why did God have to create it?


You would need to ask him but since you don't believe you won't have 5 he chance.


> The Muslims believe Allah never created anything, he was just extemporaneous with the existing matter. Perhaps the matter itself is God, but what was God doing all that time before there was matter? Can time exist without matter? If God exists outside time and space, where did he get the materials for all the matter he created? Or was he like Allah and just gave it order? As opposed to the total chaos of nothingness? Hmmmm.


Muslims are mistaken.  Why can't you answer the questions I asked you?  Where did matter come from, earth, the goo, ect.


----------



## Touch Of Death

ballen0351 said:


> You would need to ask him but since you don't believe you won't have 5 he chance.
> 
> Muslims are mistaken.  Why can't you answer the questions I asked you?  Where did matter come from, earth, the goo, ect.


The magic Kingdom?


----------



## Touch Of Death

Touch Of Death said:


> The magic Kingdom?


The Muslims might be way off, but it does happen to be the first law of physics.


----------



## oftheherd1

Dirty Dog said:


> There is nothing rude in my post. If you think there is, I would encourage you to hit that big old RTM button in the lower left corner of your screen. Pointing out that your faith is based on faith (as it should be) and not facts (as it cannot be) is not rude.



I guess it must depend on what facts you are talking about.  If you object to what Christians believe; that Jesus existed, was crucified, died, and rose again, a Christians facts are the Bible. Do you believe there are any facts in the Bible, or do you think it is all non-fact?






Dirty Dog said:


> Inserting your comments inside the quoted text makes it a real pain in the *** to reply. Maybe you could break up the post if you want to reply to individual points?
> 
> 
> That's what I said. *They didn't support the position of the editors.* See the Gospels of Mary, which asserts the equality of women, for one sterling example.



I'm sorry, that seems to be to be rather playing with words and being insincere.  By saying it didn't support the position of the editors, and not commenting on why the editors had their position, you leave out something very important; they weren't being selfish or overly conservative in refusing to accept another book.  Rather, the other book did not support Christian beliefs which were already accepted.  Those of us who believe the King James Bible to be the very word of God, would also say they were preventing errors the be allowed in the Bible.



Dirty Dog said:


> Well, you'd be hard pressed to find me saying that. But the claims in the gnostic gospels are every bit as supportable as those included in the Christian bible. That is to say... not at all.



That is just too broad a statement.  Commenting on dietary restrictions, the Bible makes a claim that there are animals with cloven hooves, is that incorrect and unsupportable?  Of course not.  So you need to give some few specifics.



Dirty Dog said:


> My bad. I find it difficult to type falsehoods; the statement should be "bats are birds", which is what is claimed in the bible.



If you go to www.internationalstandardbible.com/f/fowl.html you will see in the first paragraph that at one time the Hebrew word for fowl at one time was used to denote all flying creatures.  If you look at Leviticus 11:20, in the King James Bible, you will find "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."



Dirty Dog said:


> And I can't help but notice that you only addressed the statement that was mistyped...



Sorry, it didn't seem worthwhile after you comment on bats now being mammals. The Bible makes no such claim, but as I pointed out, seems to simply be implying that of all flying things, bats are not to be eaten.

But, leprosy at least the type that killed people was described as unclean, which I think meant not holy.  There was a belief that whatever one's mis-fortune, it was God-caused because of sin.  Job refuted that, as did Jesus.



Dirty Dog said:


> As for Jesus being a vampire or zombie... well, those are both well known to rise from the dead, and have every bit as much objective support as the story of Jesus.
> *So... if the bible has no errors (which is just plain silly, given that bats are not birds...)* how do you account for the differences between various versions? How did you decide that *your* preferred version is the Real Actual And Correct one?



So if you accept that fowls was all flying things, are you then willing to think the Bible has no errors?  ;-)

For my part, I have faith in the Bible, but not in zombies nor vampires.  Christians share that.  Unless they are not true Christians, or have weak faith.  Regardless, you have to know that is offensive to Christians, to compare Jesus to zombies and vampires, which are always associated with evil beings, whether you think they are real, or just myths.  Christians believe Jesus is God, so he could not be evil.  Is that what you intended?

I don't accept those Bible versions that differ from the King James Version as being correct.  Therefore if they disagree with the King James, their errors are the responsibility of the people who created those versions.  I understand those who like the other versions will disagree.  Again, that is on them.  As to the reasons, that should require another thread as it would take a lot of space, and a lot of time.  If you are sufficiently interested, perhaps you can either wait, or look for such books as 'The Understandable History of The Bible' by Gipp, 'Purified Seven Times, The Miracle of The English Bible' by Bill Bradley, or 'Answers to Your Bible Version Questions' by David W. Daniels.  There are others if your really want to know, and after you read those three, wish to read more.



Dirty Dog said:


> Do you believe (in direct contradiction to the text you claim is infallible) that women are not the equal of men? Do you think women should be allowed to wear jewelry? Braid their hair? When you have appendicitis, do you go to the hospital, or to a church? Do you have any tattoos? Do you believe that communion bread is actually the flesh of Jesus rather than merely a symbol? Or are you (as the vast majority are) practicing cafeteria-Christianity, where you just pick the parts you agree with, and ignore the rest?



Sorry, this is getting a little tedious:
1. Yes and no.
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. No
6. No
7. No





Dirty Dog said:


> None of the various bibles have been trashed. What's been "trashed" is the silly notion that there is objective proof of the stories in those books.



Again, too broad a statement.  What stories?  Some parts of the Bible do have to be accepted on faith.  I do.  Others, such as historical fact, are just that.




Dirty Dog said:


> The Christian bible is actually very clear in insisting that women NOT equal to men. That's one of the reasons I could never be a Christian.
> Applicable quotes can be found in Ephesians, 1 Peter, 1 Timothy and plenty of other places.



Being in the medical profession, I don't know how you can accept that women and men are not different.  They are different physically, emotionally, and in their thinking processes.  That doesn't mean they are inferior.  They have different roles.  Neither does the Bible say women aren't worth loving and protecting.  To the contrary, there are stories of women in the Bible that were of great intelligence, and still humble.  Some took an active role in teaching about God and Jesus.

I must applaud you in your post that you and your wife seem to have disagreements that are seemingly of no conflict.  That is wonderful!  Perhaps you could share how you do that with the rest of us.  I and my wife don't always agree, and on subjects that have nothing to do with the Bible.  Neither of us is willing to quickly and quietly concede to the other to avoid conflict with each disagreement.  Neither of us instantly sees the incorrectness of our position and gives in.  I don't try to assert my maleness as a reason my wife should concede.  I do listen to my wife when she has something to say, especially if it is in disagreement with me.  I would be a bigger fool than I am if I didn't.  She is intelligent and has life experience, just as I do.

But it is unusual that every disagreement, among any two people, can be quickly resolved and without any hard feelings.  I believe that is why God tells men to be the head of the family, but at the same time tells us to love and protect women, and gives us examples of good and smart women.

As always, with religious matters, no one else is required to believe as I do.  Everyone gets to make their own choices in how to live their life.


----------



## Touch Of Death

ballen0351 said:


> You would need to ask him but since you don't believe you won't have 5 he chance.
> 
> .


Couldn't I ask the Devil? It would stand to reason a person would find out either way, unless you happen to be Seventh Day Adventist; they believe you either die and not know, or you go with God.


----------



## ballen0351

Touch Of Death said:


> The magic Kingdom?


Ok see I thought you were interested in a real conversation never mind good day


----------



## Touch Of Death

ballen0351 said:


> Ok see I thought you were interested in a real conversation never mind good day


This became fantastic a long time ago, but real is relative.


----------



## oftheherd1

Touch Of Death said:


> Couldn't I ask the Devil? It would stand to reason a person would find out either way, unless you happen to be Seventh Day Adventist; they believe you either die and not know, or you go with God.



Interesting.  So you do believe parts of the Bible?  You believe the Devil exists, but not God?  Careful, Dirty Dog will call you a cafeteria-Christian.  ;-)

I didn't remember that about the Seventh Day Adventists.  I know the Jehovah's Witnesses believe in soul death at physical death, if you aren't a Jehovah's Witness.  They believe that 144,000 of them will go to heaven, and the rest of the good Jehovah's Witnesses will be alive on and work, the earth for eternity.


----------



## Touch Of Death

oftheherd1 said:


> Interesting. You believe the Devil exists, but not God?  .


I'm sorry if I gave you that impression.


----------



## Steve

Is it possible for something to be omnipotent and not omnibenevolent?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## oftheherd1

Touch Of Death said:


> I'm sorry if I gave you that impression.



May I ask what do you believe?


----------



## Touch Of Death

oftheherd1 said:


> May I ask what do you believe?


I believe we as humans loath disorder and chaos; so, we created gods to control the weather, hold each other to contracts, and, of course, control our children. Outside of that, we cannot possibly know what we don't know, but I am sure it makes us feel better if he looks like Santa, or as a WASP.


----------



## donald1

Steve said:


> Is it possible for something to be omnipotent and not omnibenevolent?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



To the best of my knowledge omnipotent means all powerful and   omnibenevolent means all loving (at least i think that's correct)  but if something is all powerful it doesn't necessarily mean good I think God is both but perhaps one does not always have the other


----------



## Steve

donald1 said:


> To the best of my knowledge omnipotent means all powerful and   omnibenevolent means all loving (at least i think that's correct)  but if something is all powerful it doesn't necessarily mean good I think God is both but perhaps one does not always have the other


agreed.  There are a whole lot of things the May or may not have led to the creation of the universe.  If it was a being of some kind, it may be an indifferent or even malevolent being.  Right?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## donald1

Steve said:


> agreed.  There are a whole lot of things the May or may not have led to the creation of the universe.  If it was a being of some kind, it may be an indifferent or even malevolent being.  Right?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Malevolent,  Like the problems of evil?  I agree that their may be a being out there.  But I'm not sure if it's indifferent or malevolent, I'm sure there is a answer to this. Except i just don't know so the closest thing I can guess is faith,  choose one answer that is believed correct and have faith that it is


----------



## Steve

donald1 said:


> Malevolent,  Like the problems of evil?  I agree that their may be a being out there.  But I'm not sure if it's indifferent or malevolent, I'm sure there is a answer to this. Except i just don't know so the closest thing I can guess is faith,  choose one answer that is believed correct and have faith that it is



I get it.  You have faith, and I respect that.  But surely we can agree that there are many other potential answers.  

For example, if we can conceive of an all powerful, all knowing, all loving being who created heaven and earth, then nothing is impossible.  There doesn't have to be a first.  Where does everything come from?  What if it came from something else, which in turn came from something else, ad infinitum?  Why is the idea that we are a part of an infinite, indifferent loop any less or more likely than a benevolent creator? 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## donald1

Steve said:


> I get it.  You have faith, and I respect that.  But surely we can agree that there are many other potential answers.
> 
> For example, if we can conceive of an all powerful, all knowing, all loving being who created heaven and earth, then nothing is impossible.  There doesn't have to be a first.  Where does everything come from?  What if it came from something else, which in turn came from something else, ad infinitum?  Why is the idea that we are a part of an infinite, indifferent loop any less or more likely than a benevolent creator?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



I agree with you definitely

Those are answers I too would like to know,  maybe anything is possible.  I have no reason to doubt it and it does sound possible.  In my opinion i think it would be hard to understand answers if nothing is impossible.  I almost wonder,  is the answer as intricate or complex as first appeared or could they be simple yet looked over.  Either way it is still interesting


----------



## oftheherd1

Steve said:


> I get it.  You have faith, and I respect that.  But surely we can agree that there are many other potential answers.
> 
> For example, if we can conceive of an all powerful, all knowing, all loving being who created heaven and earth, then nothing is impossible.  There doesn't have to be a first.  Where does everything come from?  What if it came from something else, which in turn came from something else, ad infinitum?  Why is the idea that we are a part of an infinite, indifferent loop any less or more likely than a benevolent creator?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



When I was a child, I remember asking my father where God came from.  He could not tell me.  I have thought of it many times since then.  There are indeed many things that we can conjure up as possibilities.  Some ideas/arguments are along the same lines as others, some are contradictory.  One of the problems is that if God is omnipotent, where did evil come from, and why can he not banish it?  Another that seems is often brought up is if God is omnibenevolent, why would he allow people to die and go to hell?

I can only go to my faith.  When I don't understand things in the Bible, or don't seem to find answers there, I must assume that God didn't think it was important for Him to comment on, or that I just don't understand.  If I don't understand I must assume that is my fault/problem, because I cannot understand the mind of God.  I do note that God seems to have said something similar to that to Job.  I think he is saying there that He, as the creator of all things, and being all powerful, gets to set the rules, and man cannot question him.

So, I believe that God is omnibenevolent.  At the end of the day, I believe that on faith.  If you or anyone brings up any philosophical or logical question that does not agree with my belief, I have no problem examining it or talking about it, but at some point, I must say whatever is put forth, if it doesn't agree with my faith, I will default to my faith.  So no such arguments can be won against me.  I will just reach a point where I would have to say I don't have any answer to what is asked, other than I believe what I believe, on faith.

I don't know if that was the answer you were looking for, but it is what I can only humbly offer.


----------



## RTKDCMB

ballen0351 said:


> So it was magic?  It just appeared huh.....oh and
> Where did earth come from.



The Earth, like the sun, came from the gas and dust left over from dead stars, sort of cosmic recycling.


----------



## RTKDCMB

ballen0351 said:


> No trick question.  Where did the big bang come from.  For your theory to work matter had to come from someplace.   Unless of course God put it there



A similar question; where did God come from and what was going on before the first day of creation?


----------



## zamanbutt

we are believe at One GoD. yup we are muslim. and i Suggest you that you should faith at one GOD and accept the Religion ISlam .


----------



## Touch Of Death

zamanbutt said:


> we are believe at One GoD. yup we are muslim. and i Suggest you that you should faith at one GOD and accept the Religion ISlam .


Maybe... Maybe...


----------



## Touch Of Death

RTKDCMB said:


> A similar question; where did God come from and what was going on before the first day of creation?


If God is outside of Time and space I suppose he would have been doing exactly what he does now, then, and in the future because he doesn't exist on a timeline; so the answer is nothing, or everything, or both.


----------



## RTKDCMB

zamanbutt said:


> we are believe at One GoD. yup we are muslim. and i Suggest you that you should faith at one GOD and accept the Religion ISlam .



Would you mind repeating that but a little more coherently?


----------



## ballen0351

RTKDCMB said:


> A similar question; where did God come from and what was going on before the first day of creation?



I don't know.  Someday I'll ask him.  There are many parts of God's plan that we are not privileged to know at this time.


----------



## ballen0351

RTKDCMB said:


> The Earth, like the sun, came from the gas and dust left over from dead stars, sort of cosmic recycling.



And they came from where?  And how did cosmic dust turn into living things


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> And they came from where?  And how did cosmic dust turn into living things


Magic?


----------



## RTKDCMB

ballen0351 said:


> And they came from where?  And how did cosmic dust turn into living things



In a long complicated process that hasn't been completely resolved yet that has a plethora of evidence to support it across multiple disciplines. For a full explanation you would have to look it up in the textbooks. If I were religious then I would consider the stars to be God's factories where the elements were created.


----------



## RTKDCMB

ballen0351 said:


> I don't know.  Someday I'll ask him.  There are many parts of God's plan that we are not privileged to know at this time.



He probably would not tell you straight out since he works in "mysterious ways",


----------



## ballen0351

RTKDCMB said:


> In a long complicated process that hasn't been completely resolved yet that has a plethora of evidence to support it across multiple disciplines.


Which you believe through faith to be the case.  You have no proof yet it's what you believe.  So if that's possible so is a grand creator.  Yet your quick to dismiss that as "silly" but believe time+matter+chance all worked perfectly by chance to create humans.  Who can see, touch, hear, taste, smell, love, hope, fear, ect.....


> For a full explanation you would have to look it up in the textbooks. If I were religious then I would consider the stars to be God's factories where the elements were created.



I've read the books I have spent more time in my life as a non believer then I have a believe.  I made the same arguments you have called believers silly, stupid, redneck, gullible,  been down right rude and nasty to them.  Then I woke up saw the world for what it is.


----------



## Steve

The most reasonable position then is that we don't know for sure.  Could be anything, really.


----------



## RTKDCMB

ballen0351 said:


> Which you believe through faith to be the case.  You have no proof yet it's what you believe.



Two things; 

1) I have faith that the people (Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Hawking etc) who gathered that knowledge knew what they were doing.

2) Science does not deal in proof, it deals in evidence (being a former detective for many years I am sure you know what that is), proof is for mathematicians and makers of alcohol. The amount of evidence for evolution and the formation of stars, planets and life is enormous. So in a sense your second statement is correct in that I have no *proof *yet it is what I *believe*, I believe because the *evidence *points me to it. Science does not discount the presence of a deity it is just interested in how the universe works and not who may or may not have been responsible for it.



ballen0351 said:


> So if that's possible so is a grand creator.  Yet your quick to dismiss that as "silly" but believe time+matter+chance all worked perfectly by chance to create humans.  Who can see, touch, hear, taste, smell, love, hope, fear, ect.....
> 
> I made the same arguments you have called believers silly, stupid, redneck, gullible,  been down right rude and nasty to them.  Then I woke up saw the world for what it is.



You seem to have me confused with someone else as I have said none of those things.


----------



## ballen0351

RTKDCMB said:


> Two things;
> 
> 1) I have faith that the people (Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Hawking etc) who gathered that knowledge knew what they were doing.
> 
> 2) Science does not deal in proof, it deals in evidence (being a former detective for many years I am sure you know what that is), proof is for mathematicians and makers of alcohol. The amount of evidence for evolution and the formation of stars, planets and life is enormous. So in a sense your second statement is correct in that I have no *proof *yet it is what I *believe*, I believe because the *evidence *points me to it. Science does not discount the presence of a deity it is just interested in how the universe works and not who may or may not have been responsible for it.


And science and all these super smart guys have been wrong before.  So your faith is no different then mine we just believe in different things.  I also have evidence as people like Peter and Paul witnessed events that science can't explain. 


> You seem to have me confused with someone else as I have said none of those things.


No I didn't say you did but read through the thread and see how many times silly, magic, Jesus is a vampire, ect is used. I was speaking general terms


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> The most reasonable position then is that we don't know for sure.  Could be anything, really.


I don't disagree with that I have my belief and others have theirs


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> And science and all these super smart guys have been wrong before.  So your faith is no different then mine we just believe in different things.  I also have evidence as people like Peter and Paul witnessed events that science can't explain.
> 
> No I didn't say you did but read through the thread and see how many times silly, magic, Jesus is a vampire, ect is used. I was speaking general terms


Why is a belief in magic any different than what you believe in?


----------



## RTKDCMB

ballen0351 said:


> And science and all these super smart guys have been wrong before.  So your faith is no different then mine we just believe in different things.  I also have evidence as people like Peter and Paul witnessed events that science can't explain.



Science is an ongoing process, theories are produced based on the available evidence and when evidence that disproves part or all of the theory  it admits it and refines the theory or abandons it for a theory that fits the available evidence better, which is usually done by all those smart guys. It is a fallacious argument ... science has been wrong before so all science is therefore wrong has no basis in logic.


----------



## RTKDCMB

We could devote an entire forum to science versus religion and it still won't solve anything. I am reminded of an old joke:

A priest and an atheist are arguing, the priest says to the atheist "The problem with you is that you are like a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there". Then the atheist says to the priest "Well the only difference between you and me is that you found it".


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Why is a belief in magic any different than what you believe in?



Because calling it magic is used as a derogatory term to put down religion.  You can believe in whatever you want but calling it magic ad a means to be "cute" well that's not needed


----------



## ballen0351

RTKDCMB said:


> Science is an ongoing process, theories are produced based on the available evidence and when evidence that disproves part or all of the theory  it admits it and refines the theory or abandons it for a theory that fits the available evidence better, which is usually done by all those smart guys. It is a fallacious argument ... science has been wrong before so all science is therefore wrong has no basis in logic.


I've never said all science is wrong.  I said I don't find matter+time+chance made humans a viable theory.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Because calling it magic is used as a derogatory term to put down religion.  You can believe in whatever you want but calling it magic ad a means to be "cute" well that's not needed


It's like opposite day.  You should go back and read your own words regarding political correctness or hire people today are over sensitive.


----------



## crushing

ballen0351 said:


> I've never said all science is wrong.  I said I don't find matter+time+chance made humans a viable theory.



I find it extremely improbable, viable (obviously, anthropic principle), but improbable.  What would really increase that improbability and very much lessen the viability is to throw in to the mix a very complex supernatural agency that set it all in motion.  Perhaps there was an evolution of supernatural agencies?  Still incredibly improbable, but a slight improvement.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> It's like opposite day.  You should go back and read your own words regarding political correctness or hire people today are over sensitive.



I don't need to read anything.  Purposely making fun of religion I find offense.   I'm allowed to find some thing offensive or do I need to run it by you first?  Perhaps I am over sensitive on the topic perhaps I'm not.  You will notice however I didn't call for anyone to be banned or to be quiet I just said if we are going to have a grown up conversation we can actually talk like grown ups


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> I find it extremely improbable, viable (obviously, anthropic principle), but improbable.  What would really increase that improbability and very much lessen the viability is to throw in to the mix a very complex supernatural agency that set it all in motion.  Perhaps there was an evolution of supernatural agencies?  Still incredibly improbable, but a slight improvement.


So then what do you think happened?


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I don't need to read anything.  Purposely making fun of religion I find offense.   I'm allowed to find some thing offensive or do I need to run it by you first?  Perhaps I am over sensitive on the topic perhaps I'm not.  You will notice however I didn't call for anyone to be banned or to be quiet I just said if we are going to have a grown up conversation we can actually talk like grown ups


I said magic, but my intent was not to make fun of anything.  

You can be offended, but you sure do get judgy when the shoe is on the other foot.


----------



## donald1

RTKDCMB said:


> A similar question; *where did God come from* and what was going on before the first day of creation?



That is a good question, 
I haven't thought of that question,  but I too want to know that answer but one problem certain I'm not sure how or where that answer might be found,  and I'm almost certain that none of us truly know.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> I said magic, but my intent was not to make fun of anything.
> 
> You can be offended, but you sure do get judgy when the shoe is on the other foot.


I didn't judge anyone.   I just know how topics like this can quickly go down hill and get locked and so far it's been a good thread and I'd like to keep it that way and keep it open.  Resorting to making fun and comparing Jesus to zombies and religion to magic is a fast track down hill to a locked thread


----------



## ballen0351

Steve i also wasn't implying you were trying to make fun of anything but that's one of the go to insults when this topic comes up.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Steve said:


> Why is a belief in magic any different than what you believe in?


I know this one. Magic is always an attempt to defy fate, and or over ride it. This is true of almost all cultures. Fate is God in this context. 
Sean


----------



## crushing

ballen0351 said:


> Because calling it magic is used as a derogatory term to put down religion.  You can believe in whatever you want but calling it magic ad a means to be "cute" well that's not needed



Magic:  the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

Out of curiosity, and because this is the first time I've heard this complaint about the word magic, what is the politically correct term to use in its place so as not to offend?


----------



## Touch Of Death

I don't think anyone here would disagree that Magic is almost always ostensible, unless we are speaking of Gods works, which would not be magic, but a miracle.


----------



## Touch Of Death

crushing said:


> Magic:  the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
> 
> Out of curiosity, and because this is the first time I've heard this complaint about the word magic, what is the politically correct term to use in its place so as not to offend?


That is not the definition we see in an anthropology class; so, it would follow that some people have heard it different.


----------



## hoshin1600

> Many Wiccans believe in magic, a manipulative force exercised through the practice of witchcraft or sorcery.


Wicca - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i do not think the word magic is offensive to wiccans.  this is where the term would and should be applicable.  if there is any offense then it is a predjudice against pagans and wiccans.  to feel that one does not want to be considered equal to or compared to "those pagans".  

now outside of religion the word magic can be a description of a "magic Show"  like David Copperfield would do.


----------



## Touch Of Death

hoshin1600 said:


> Wicca - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> i do not think the word magic is offensive to wiccans.  this is where the term would and should be applicable.  if there is any offense then it is a predjudice against pagans and wiccans.  to feel that one does not want to be considered equal to or compared to "those pagans".
> 
> now outside of religion the word magic can be a description of a "magic Show"  like David Copperfield would do.


Show is the key term.


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> Magic:  the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
> 
> Out of curiosity, and because this is the first time I've heard this complaint about the word magic, what is the politically correct term to use in its place so as not to offend?


Most people think of Magic as a trick or illusion.  In other words magic isn't real.  A magician is an actor and a trickster.  So when speaking of religion and talking a magic it's normally done in a  negative way similar to the ever popular sky beings or sometimes magic sky beings.   As for a political correct term I don't know what your trying to describe.  What is it you think is "magic" in the first place?


----------



## hoshin1600

here are some questions i have for the Christian faith
how old is earth?  
what about dinasours?
Noah,  do you have any idea how many species there are on the planet. how long it would take to get them on the ark and the size of the ark that would be required? do you know how much water there is on the planet in comparison to solid matter and what covering the earth would do to the atmosphere?
what happened to YHWH 's wife..asherah?
why do you only belive in one God when Judaism was originaly a polytheism religion?


----------



## ballen0351

hoshin1600 said:


> Wicca - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> i do not think the word magic is offensive to wiccans.  this is where the term would and should be applicable.  if there is any offense then it is a predjudice against pagans and wiccans.  to feel that one does not want to be considered equal to or compared to "those pagans".
> 
> now outside of religion the word magic can be a description of a "magic Show"  like David Copperfield would do.



I would think of you told a Wiccan what they believed in was magic t he y may take offense to it for same reason I said before.  Magic isn't real it's a trick or illusion.  You can by magic sets at Toys R us.  They are childish games


----------



## Touch Of Death

hoshin1600 said:


> here are some questions i have for the Christian faith
> how old is earth?
> what about dinasours?
> Noah,  do you have any idea how many species there are on the planet. how long it would take to get them on the ark and the size of the ark that would be required? do you know how much water there is on the planet in comparison to solid matter and what covering the earth would do to the atmosphere?
> what happened to YHWH 's wife..asherah?
> why do you only belive in one God when Judaism was originaly a polytheism religion?


When they placed God outside of space and time (God of Abraham) he didn't need a wife and kids.


----------



## ballen0351

hoshin1600 said:


> here are some questions i have for the Christian faith
> how old is earth?


Who knows? Time is an earthly measure. Time to God is meaningless We here on earth decided 60 seconds is a min 60 min is an hour 24 hour is a day 365 days (or 366 depending on the year) is a year 


> what about dinasours?


What about them? God created and Destroyed many things


> Noah,  do you have any idea how many species there are on the planet. how long it would take to get them on the ark and the size of the ark that would be required? do you know how much water there is on the planet in comparison to solid matter and what covering the earth would do to the atmosphere?


All things are possible with God on your side


> what happened to YHWH 's wife..asherah?


Never existed like all the other false Gods and idols


> why do you only belive in one God when Judaism was originaly a polytheism religion?


Christianity isnt Judaism why would believe in other religions?


----------



## crushing

ballen0351 said:


> Most people think of Magic as a trick or illusion.  In other words magic isn't real.  A magician is an actor and a trickster.  So when speaking of religion and talking a magic it's normally done in a  negative way similar to the ever popular sky beings or sometimes magic sky beings.   As for a political correct term I don't know what your trying to describe.  What is it you think is "magic" in the first place?



A magician is really an illusionist.  What a magician does is not actually magic, but the audience believes it to be magic because they lack an understanding of what is really happening during the illusions.  Magic would be stopping the sun, turning a rod in to a serpent, turning water in to wine, walking on water, etc.


----------



## hoshin1600

> Time is an earthly measure. Time to God is meaningless We here on earth decided 60 seconds is a min 60 min is an hour 24 hour is a day 365 days (or 366 depending on the year) is a year



so then how can you say that creation was done in seven days?  if time is meaningless as you say then it might just as well have taken 12 billion years.



> God created and Destroyed many things


but if the bible/ creation is to be belived it does not mention dinosours, there are fosils in museums and if there are bones to be touched and witnessed then these creatures disapeared...then by all logic this is evolution. 



> Never existed like all the other false Gods and idols


seems like a denial from the belivers in the bible to their own history of where the bible came from and how it created the religion we know today.

dont take this the wrong way but it seems to me that if christian belivers were a little more open and less dogmatic in their thinking they could easily exist side by side with science and not be at odds with it.  
science says that there may be 10 dimensions of space, could not some of these be proof of a heaven or life after death?  that 7 days could easliy have been 12 billion years creating the universe, that evolution of mankind was the method on HOW God created man.
the problem seems to be the way people defend their interpretation of bible to be 100% true and that causes a disconnect with science and with other religions.  who's bible is it anyways?  but that is another post.


----------



## ballen0351

crushing said:


> A magician is really an illusionist.  What a magician does is not actually magic, but the audience believes it to be magic because they lack an understanding of what is really happening during the illusions.  Magic would be stopping the sun, turning a rod in to a serpent, turning water in to wine, walking on water, etc.


Yes that's the Webster definition.   The common use of the word however magicians put on magic shows.  Which isn't real they are tricks


----------



## ballen0351

hoshin1600 said:


> so then how can you say that creation was done in seven days?  if time is meaningless as you say then it might just as well have taken 12 billion years.


What's a day?  23.87655 hours?  Was one of the day a daylight savings day where is was on 23 hours or 25 hours?   What we as humans decided are days God's is not restricted to.  Time is a human concept years days ect don't apply to God.   





> but if the bible/ creation is to be belived it does not mention dinosours, there are fosils in museums and if there are bones to be touched and witnessed then these creatures disapeared...then by all logic this is evolution.


The bible is just a small book it couldn't possibly mention everything that has ever happened in the history of the world.  It's not mention maybe because God didn't think it was relevant to what was needed in the Bible.  Maybe It was mentioned and never made it in.  


> seems like a denial from the belivers in the bible to their own history of where the bible came from and how it created the religion we know today.


Denial of what?  The bible specifically mentions the false sky queen as well as other false Gods.  Why would it be denial to not recognize something that isn't real.  The Easter Bunny isn't real am I in bunny denial?


> dont take this the wrong way but it seems to me that if christian belivers were a little more open and less dogmatic in their thinking they could easily exist side by side with science and not be at odds with it.


We do exist side by side with science over the last 2000 year most scientific research was done by or funded by the church.  


> science says that there may be 10 dimensions of space, could not some of these be proof of a heaven or life after death?  that 7 days could easliy have been 12 billion years creating the universe, that evolution of mankind was the method on HOW God created man.
> the problem seems to be the way people defend their interpretation of bible to be 100% true and that causes a disconnect with science and with other religions.  who's bible is it anyways?  but that is another post.



Of you read back I've never said the Bible was 100%.  And science has its beliefs and so do I


----------



## RTKDCMB

ballen0351 said:


> Most people think of Magic as a trick or illusion.  In other words magic isn't real.  A magician is an actor and a trickster.  So when speaking of religion and talking a magic it's normally done in a  negative way similar to the ever popular sky beings or sometimes magic sky beings.   As for a political correct term I don't know what your trying to describe.  What is it you think is "magic" in the first place?



Magic, as in what magicians like David Copperfield do, is a trick or illusion used to simulate magic (pretend magic), magic being a supernatural force. Hence the term 'magic trick'.


----------



## ballen0351

RTKDCMB said:


> Magic, as in what magicians like David Copperfield do, is a trick or illusion used to simulate magic (pretend magic), magic being a supernatural force. Hence the term 'magic trick'.



Ok?  And


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Most people think of Magic as a trick or illusion.  In other words magic isn't real.  A magician is an actor and a trickster.  So when speaking of religion and talking a magic it's normally done in a  negative way similar to the ever popular sky beings or sometimes magic sky beings.   As for a political correct term I don't know what your trying to describe.  What is it you think is "magic" in the first place?


You're confusing magic with illusion.


----------



## Steve

crushing said:


> A magician is really an illusionist.  What a magician does is not actually magic, but the audience believes it to be magic because they lack an understanding of what is really happening during the illusions.  Magic would be stopping the sun, turning a rod in to a serpent, turning water in to wine, walking on water, etc.





ballen0351 said:


> Yes that's the Webster definition.   The common use of the word however magicians put on magic shows.  Which isn't real they are tricks


Context matters.  When you use the term magic, people think most often of magic spells. When you say magic show, it's illusion.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> You're confusing magic with illusion.



I'm not confusing anything.  Your confusing dictionary Def with common usages.   I just independently asked my wife and kids what's magic.
Wife:  illusions, shows, Vegas
Son:  like magic trick?
Daughter: dad it's 750 in the morning stop asking me stupid questions.  
Daughter #2: dad rolled eyes walks away


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Context matters.  When you use the term magic, people think most often of magic spells. When you say magic show, it's illusion.


Context does matter usually when used in reference to religion magic is used as an insult


----------



## seasoned

This is a play on words. Outside of these forums and in the real world words as they are presented here could be, in the right context, taken as rude, depending on who they are directed at. In a church these words are not used, outside of a church, as in this thread, they are being debated.  

Is this a valid debate or just a matter of someone trying to win.... do we need to move to a better place within our posting? 
Just my personal opinion.


----------



## hoshin1600

Ballen,


> I've never said the Bible was 100%.



to be fair and accurate my comments were never aimed at you.  my first post said i had questions for Christains.  i am not questioning your faith in particular. i hope you can understand that.  this thread seemed to be going in a direction of faith VS science so i was attempting to unify the two ideas.

as far as "magic" and its use i feel this is not worth the time spent on the debate.  it is very possible that depending on where you live the word magic will have a different nuance of meaning. i live in Massachusetts and for myself when anyone uses the word magic, i think in referance to witches.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I'm not confusing anything.  Your confusing dictionary Def with common usages.   I just independently asked my wife and kids what's magic.
> Wife:  illusions, shows, Vegas
> Son:  like magic trick?
> Daughter: dad it's 750 in the morning stop asking me stupid questions.
> Daughter #2: dad rolled eyes walks away


I think you're confusing your family with everyone else.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Context does matter usually when used in reference to religion magic is used as an insult


For me, magic in context of religion both refer to things that don't exist but that a lot of people would really like to.

It's all improbable, unprovable stuff.  Neither is intended to be insulting, although either word could be meant that way.  I think it really matters how it's meant and the context.  

There are a lot of great things about religion, but the only difference between a miracle abd magic is the spelling.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> I think you're confusing your family with everyone else.



No I was just asking others to see if I was off base on my opinion. I'm not confusing anything thanks.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> No I was just asking others to see if I was off base on my opinion. I'm not confusing anything thanks.


Oh.  Well if that's the case, you're off base.  Thanks for asking.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> For me, magic in context of religion both refer to things that don't exist but that a lot of people would really like to.
> 
> It's all improbable, unprovable stuff.  Neither is intended to be insulting, although either weird could be meant that way.  I think it really matters how it's meant and the context.
> 
> There are a lot of great things about religion, but the only difference between a miracle abd magic is the spelling.


I've been on both sides of the argument of religion and I've had the debate more times then I can Remember.  Usually when someone is a non-believer uses the term "magic" it's an attempt to down play the importance of God.  Perhaps you don't mean it that way but it's used that way often even in this forum you see "magic sky beings" or some combo of that as a way to.  I think we have distracted the main point of the thread long enough.   Call it magic call it whatever you want just get back to the main topic.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> Oh.  Well if that's the case, you're off base.  Thanks for asking.



Are you always this arrogant or just behind the keyboard?   Guess it's time for you to go back on ignore.  Good day.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Are you always this arrogant or just behind the keyboard?   Guess it's time for you to go back on ignore.  Good day.


I've asked myself the same question regarding you often.


----------



## seasoned

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

 Wes Yager
 MT Senior Moderator-


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

Cirdan said:


> I saw great Thor riding his chariot across the sky yesterday, swinging mighty Mjolnir with crackling thunder and blessing us with rain. Tis`true I tell you!
> 
> It is still time to give up your silly desert religions, join the true faith where you get to party with valkyries for eternity and fight giants every day rising anew the next morning in Vallhalla with yesterday`s wounds gone. Beats sitting on a cloud playing the harp I tell you.



I'm convinced, where do I sign up?


----------



## Balrog

ballen0351 said:


> Na we have eyewitness accounts of Jesus his life, his death and his resurrection


I will resurrect (sorry) this thread in order to say that this statement is incorrect.

There is actually no proof of any kind of the existence of Jesus.  There are no eyewitness accounts; the earliest gospel was written some 40-odd years after his supposed death.  The biggest argument is that there is absolutely no contemporary mention of him.  The Romans were anal about record keeping.  If Jesus had been half the pain to the Romans as the New Testament makes him out to be, Pilate would have documented his execution, if for no other reason than to cover his own butt with Caesar.

We can find lists of the names of gladiators killed in the arenas from that time frame.  It's an interesting point to ponder:  why can we find absolutely nothing about Jesus in that same time frame?

Food for thought.


----------



## hoshin1600

This is why it's called a faith or a belief, because nothing you, I ,Hitchens, Harris or Neil Degras Tyson says will change anyone's mind about the subject.


----------

