Re: Jesus rocks
rufio wrote:If by logic you mean mathematically correct, than no, Christianity isn't logical. But Christianity did originate with a great many religions that had many gods, and carried those beliefs into its own theology. So it's rational and logical that this duality should exist. The problem with most people examining Christianity for its rationality is that they look at it as they might look at the work of a philosopher - something that someone just came up with off the top of their head and which has been left mostly intact over the years. This is not the case. Early Christianity was influenced by the many religions of the time that it was born in, which were in turn influenced by other things, and it has changed a lot since it was first begun. It's silly to take the final product of thousands of years of social change and culture and analyze it by itself. There's no usefulness in it. Saying 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 is simply a way of taking the semantics at face value and simplifying them into something that had no hold over the development of that concept.
Christianity originated out of Judaism, unlike your own information. It is true, however, that many Christian holidays are mostly pagan in origin, including symbols used to try to keep children interested and subtly (some not-so-subtle) traditions otherwise. But this is not the fault of Chrisitanity's originators but that of people bent on a quest to force the rest of the world to believe. But it's too long of a story to post here and now.
Frank Apisa wrote:If you would like some background on the Trinity aspect of Christianity, I have a link to some information.
I find this report is an attempt at being very thorough, and successful on many points. However, even in the "Greek" theology, it still resorts only to Latin. There are many differences in the way Greek and Latin would translate into English, or any other language for that matter. It is of course the same from the languages used for the original texts before they were even translated into Greek. This can never be ignored.
Terry wrote: What is really illogical about Christianity is the notion that God needed to sacrifice one of his selves to himself in order to forgive us for behaving exactly as he knew we would, given the imperfect brains, bodies and souls with which he endowed us..
This goes into a long topic about scriptures in the Old Testament, mainly about a blood requirement for the remission of sins. Also, there is a scripture that says that Jesus took all sin upon himself, which is the Old Testament stand about how the sin offering worked. He poured out His life unto death, and He let Himself be regarded as a criminal and be numbered with the transgressors, yet he bore (and took away) the sin of many...(Isaiah 53:12b).
Portal Star wrote:Is is reasonable to believe in a diety who can ressurect people from the dead and turn water into wine? Once one accepts that not all of the bible is true, one has to ask oneself what parts of the bible are true.
What about the things which still happen today? Do you discredit the people who are healed of various things on a daily basis? By this, I recognize both Christian and non-Christian events though I am a Christian and I have never witnessed a non-Christian healing.
cavfancier wrote:Terry, one of the devout could postulate that god sacrificing a part of himself is not far off from donating a kidney. Let the Christian Scientists debate that one for a while...
Christian Science is not true Christianity, on many accounts. The sacrifice was not to give God back Himself, but for God to bear, as a human being, the burden of all sin in order to enable His plan. Don't make blind assumptions. I'm not trying to convince you of what I believe. It's just that so many of the people bashing anything remotely Christian here are taking only bits of information to form an opinion.
Frank Apisa wrote:There are hundreds of discrepancies.
You want me to start listing them?
rufio wrote:There are plenty of discrepencies. But you're right, southern, the only illogical thing is assuming that a book that was written as haphazardly as the bible wouldn't have any.
Go ahead. It would be interesting. Bear in mind the general connotation of "day" in Genesis, implying a period of time and not a literal day. In fact, you would be best off proving yourselves with all Greek and Hebrew roots and meanings rather that third-party translations of Chaldea to Hebrew to Greek (in some cases), to Latin, to Elizabethan English, to Victorian English (as the case may be) and to modern English.
cavfancier wrote:Personally, I think the code of Hammurabi is more clear and concise than the Bible, but each to their own. I have tons of faith, and a good heart, and even morality, all without organized religion. Imagine that....
Faith in what? It's human nature to have faith in something, whether it's a deity or self or television.
cicerone imposter wrote:If god is god, why does god need a sacrifice to save us? Who created god? If we don't have "eternal life," what do we have?
You made a good (as uninformed as it may be) point. God has always required a sacrifice. From the beginning of humanity as fallen, He has requires blood for sin. It's all a proof of faith, and not to earn anything. The way God has worked throughout the Judeo-Christian history is that He gives the way to forgiveness, to remission of sin, and whoever chooses to follow may follow.
Who made God? God IS. He tells Moses His name is "I Am," which means He is -- any time, any place, God is. There was no time when God did not exist.
We do all have eternal life. There has been an incorrect connotation with this term for a long time. What is meant is that whoever does not believe in the way to salvation, Jesus and everything He did and why, would have eternal death. This is the eternal process of dying and decaying in any and every manner possible, at every stage except permanent death, forever.
Frank Apisa wrote:I can understand the fact that you think it reasonable to suppose a human sacrifice is necessary to appease your god...
...but I am having more and more trouble understanding why you people are so dead certain that Jesus was this god's ONLY son.
What information do you suppose John had that lead him to suppose the god only impregnated one woman?
John 14:6: "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
Why would God send several sons/children to die, but only one would be THE way?
Why is it that every prophecy in the Bible regarding the Messiah is singular?
Your question is unfounded -- find something that can back up such an unreasonable claim, if you want to ask Christians about their faith.
For when the world with all its earthly wisdom failed to perceive and recognize and know God by means of its own philosophy, God in His wisdom was pleased through the foolishness of preaching [salvation, procured by Christ and to be had through Him], to save those who believed (who clung to and trusted in and relied on Him).
1 Corinthians 1:21
Verses 22-24 basically say that basically for those who seek only the concrete, like signs, and solid philosophy, which Christianity does not meet according to those seeking philosophy, that it is all worthless. But if you decide to believe, it becomes a sign for itself and the absolute truth.
For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are (v.25-28)
Once a foolish man stood in front of a fast train and said, "If you believe, it exists. If you don't believe, it doesn't."
