WTFauKorean Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 THE HOLY BIBLE i have done religious studies before as a social studies course and catholic church to christanity is never an old topic. people for years still debate on the event in the bible, if it has any alternate meaning if every word is taken literaly why it's supposedly cooler than the book of morman, hidden secrets of the old testimates all that jazz. i have read through the entire bible a few times actually, yes holy crap bible topic numbah 2 noahs ark (skipped cain and able for a reason get back to it later) so any evidence yet? is it true? certain meaning? history? how the f*** did he pull that off? you know the works IM EXPECTING THE NEXT TOPIC TO BE ABOUT NOAHS ARK! GET READY TO TROLL AND FLAME! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Revan of the Sith Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 w/e Well my interpretation is a little sketchy because itook it into a science sort of document. Mostly I felt that the "Garden Of Eden" was more of a Test facility created by what I consider "Ancient Astronauts" to confirm that these test subjects (Adam and Lilith, later Eve) were suitable for living on a new planet "Earth"and the Garden was a pretty much test earth. I believe the Garden is no longer here as it was claimed in the bible that it was located in a river that was in between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Although satellite imaging has proved that long ago there was visible river in between the other two it is no longer here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickiMinaj Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 My take on it is that you can't trust something that's been changed over 1000 times just for the accommodations of mankind and to gain followers. If that was the case, there would be millions of different religions all accommodating to their own creators and followers principles and moral value's, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Griffin Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 It's competing with Twilight for the worst fiction awards. Seriously, this thing encourages so many bad things, including the death penalty for pathetically minor crimes. Terrible, terrible book. The world needs to move beyond it already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Revan of the Sith Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 You are supposed to talk about your interpretations of a story in the bible not a hate speech seriously... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 Oh god no, not this topic. inb4haters *Looks up* .... Damn it. inb4morehaters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Revan of the Sith Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 Aw man you get a rep for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewk Posted January 24, 2011 Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 inb4 Atheist(s) who think their opinions are facts and refuse to shut up and demand factual evidence at every instant that anything slightly religious comes into a conversation. [spoiler=Oh]And I'm Agnostic[/spoiler] [i]EDIT: Oh wait, it appears I'm too late...[/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTFauKorean Posted January 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 lol every one is as heated as the arguments between me and my friends any ways ill throw in my part [spoiler=where my thoughts on genesis come from if you're curious]if did not no already im a history nut, so i once did the thesis on the question i made for myself: did god create man? or man create god? (yes this was not a school asignment and im bat s*** crazy for doing this for fun) i used in chronological order Introductory: on events past to present The Meat on the Bones (details to support thesis in chronolagical order of which i wrote them): genesis (as you can see) proverbs the old testimate the book of morman modern day bible (general) the events of the crusades the middle eastern wars the north korean society religion today (general) conclusion: man created god [/spoiler] so genesis ima tackle this one at a time so you know where im getting at. and this is really watered down and condense as i could get it the purpose of genesis was to ultimatly teach original sin, ill get to that later (dont worry im not preaching) ok so we got adam and eve, supposedly first man and woman created after a week of creation. obviously we got scientist all talking about how we orginate from homo-everthing primeapes and such. they actually got the evidence and the studies for it so most likely they aint wrong but what about adam and eve? if you have read through the entire bible like i have you'll notice every now and then i talks about this is the family line of so and so jacob, eziekeil, abraham all that which just goes to show adam and eve definatly wern't the first people ever obviously other countries had a population to. these population started for the middle eastern areas becasue of climate, resources and landscape (landscape is one of the biggest roles) meaning they're not the first people ever, but i think this is just the first celebrity gossip story. ima explain this next ok that was a mouthful thing to tackle number 2 the garden and the snake of temptation. this is where it get to the fun part. orginal sin... guess what it actually is? it's not eating a fruit actually. the original sin is lust. most primal and basic behavior. the garden represents the body and the tree of knowledge actually represents well... your dick. of course the [b]holy[/b] bible would try to make this censored so they stuck in a story bout a garden and hoping everyone would get the hint. obviously they diddnt. the clues are all there. the snake of temptation. both man and woman are at fault when it came to this sin, instead of covering their mouths when god was looking for them they covered their private parts. of course this dosnt mean dont have sex period adam and eve just happen to be really really young. so that why god said you have to suffer and work for you're food, some how these guys predicted the events of teen pregnancy. even better relate their two sons cain and abel to modern day. sons will literally kill each oterh when you're parents cant control them, their to young and inexpereinced, they dont know s*** bout parenting the basic point of genesis is this, original sin is lust we're born with this primal instinct, everything else like wrath, envy, greed,sloth all easily controled but lust is common nature. know how to play it smart dont go for teen pregnancy. the man who made god mustve been a genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raine Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 The Bible is a collection of works chosen from a large selection of books that pertained to Christianity and Judaism and in Council of Nicaea they choose the books they agreed upon and collected them into the bible several works however have been thrown out and in since then but not in the past several hundred years. The Bible is not a book for fictional use it is a history though the eyes of a religion, just as history through a textbook is through the eyes of one historian, there is no true history how can we say that what the Bible says is any more or less accurate than what they teach you in class. You question the claim of one while leaving everything alone, if your gonna question the nature and truth of something you must examine everything else pertaining in the same fashion, how do we even know that there was a Council of Nicaea. How do we know that the Revolutionary War actually happened. Did the civilization of Rome really exist at the power we esteem it to have been. You call the Bible a fiction without taking into account what you know could be lies. It is easier to examine the nature of something you don't accept or find foreign instead of questioning your own beliefs or customs. Anyone who can think without doing so is small minded and I pity them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTFauKorean Posted January 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 [quote name='Grand★Raine' timestamp='1295932763' post='4959186'] The Bible is a collection of works chosen from a large selection of books that pertained to Christianity and Judaism and in Council of Nicaea they choose the books they agreed upon and collected them into the bible several works however have been thrown out and in since then but not in the past several hundred years. The Bible is not a book for fictional use it is a history though the eyes of a religion, just as history through a textbook is through the eyes of one historian, there is no true history how can we say that what the Bible says is any more or less accurate than what they teach you in class. You question the claim of one while leaving everything alone, if your gonna question the nature and truth of something you must examine everything else pertaining in the same fashion, how do we even know that there was a Council of Nicaea. How do we know that the Revolutionary War actually happened. Did the civilization of Rome really exist at the power we esteem it to have been. You call the Bible a fiction without taking into account what you know could be lies. It is easier to examine the nature of something you don't accept or find foreign instead of questioning your own beliefs or customs. Anyone who can think without doing so is small minded and I pity them. [/quote] always good to hear grand raines logic =D of course being you i still like to throw in small rebutles just so you can attack me back btw the histories you used as examples had written language, the historical time period of the bible started without written language, when written language was finnally develope (carbon dating old testimates) there was a huge span of time between verbal language and written language, things can really change in that time, to hidden meanings, metaphores, presonifications so on so forth. obviously you cant take everything in the bible as a literal history. also this still prove my point on how man created god unlike the theory in the bible that man created god Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raine Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 And you as well, however what I adress in my post was not the history of Bible it was more along the lines of a broader perspective that we should never take anything as is without questioning its origin and validity. Your argument address the changes in validity over time, ever play telephone, it works in much the same way. My point is on a more generic level of whether there is in fact truth at all in the evidence we possess or was there even a truth to be found plus the remarks on how people tend to have tunnel vision when questioning things. You already assume that a truth is present but it has been altered, distorted, or hidden by the means of time and the imperfection of our species, it is a legitate argument and for the sake of time consuming I agree to your intellectual war. Man is an interesting case we invent things to explain things around us and in earlier times the most basics of this world were called into question. Early man came out at night and stared onto the stars, they wondered not only what they were but how they compared to them. I think whether a truth has been broken to be unrecognizable is irrelevant, if Man created God or God created Man doesn't matter when boiled down, the fact of the matter is God exists because of it, God can now exist as like you said a momentum to explain things or as a religious figure head. Because the idea of an all powerful deity exists, whether it be Zeus, Shiva, Allah, it means that the truth is now that you speak of it, it exists and that is the sin that will not die, an idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTFauKorean Posted January 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 [quote name='Grand★Raine' timestamp='1295935738' post='4959228'] And you as well, however what I adress in my post was not the history of Bible it was more along the lines of a broader perspective that we should never take anything as is without questioning its origin and validity. Your argument address the changes in validity over time, ever play telephone, it works in much the same way. My point is on a more generic level of whether there is in fact truth at all in the evidence we possess or was there even a truth to be found plus the remarks on how people tend to have tunnel vision when questioning things. You already assume that a truth is present but it has been altered, distorted, or hidden by the means of time and the imperfection of our species, it is a legitate argument and for the sake of time consuming I agree to your intellectual war. Man is an interesting case we invent things to explain things around us and in earlier times the most basics of this world were called into question. Early man came out at night and stared onto the stars, they wondered not only what they were but how they compared to them. I think whether a truth has been broken to be unrecognizable is irrelevant, if Man created God or God created Man doesn't matter when boiled down, the fact of the matter is God exists because of it, God can now exist as like you said a momentum to explain things or as a religious figure head. Because the idea of an all powerful deity exists, whether it be Zeus, Shiva, Allah, it means that the truth is now that you speak of it, it exists and that is the sin that will not die, an idea. [/quote] pretty much what i said and thought but longer and better worded glad you can agree with me, im never rebuttling you again you write to much and it tempts me to write even more XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raine Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 I do apologize, when I get into an intellectual or philosophical mood nothing can stop me. I love a good opponent, even when nothing gets anywhere you can strengthen your argument. I can never satisfy my need to challenge everything so I end up dissecting everything to their most basic elements so when I get coop up I start looking at things from a indiscriminate god view and this comes out a lot especially when someone debates philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTFauKorean Posted January 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 [quote name='Grand★Raine' timestamp='1295936798' post='4959244'] I do apologize, when I get into an intellectual or philosophical mood nothing can stop me. I love a good opponent, even when nothing gets anywhere you can strengthen your argument. I can never satisfy my need to challenge everything so I end up dissecting everything to their most basic elements so when I get coop up I start looking at things from a indiscriminate god view and this comes out a lot especially when someone debates philosophy. [/quote] LOL XD i'd gladly be your challenger i like to debate for the hell of it anyway, it's never gets old to fail at logic when you're countered by a awesome rebuttle, my mind is always there to shift and change according to my surroundings meaning if my logic turns out to fail, id rather have someone argue than be fail with me ^ _ ^ plus it turns out we might have more in common when it comes to ideal than we (maybe just I) thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raine Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 Well just keep me in touch when you open another debate such as this. I think I'll retire for the night, tah tah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 [quote name='Grand★Raine' timestamp='1295932763' post='4959186'] The Bible is a collection of works chosen from a large selection of books that pertained to Christianity and Judaism and in Council of Nicaea they choose the books they agreed upon and collected them into the bible several works however have been thrown out and in since then but not in the past several hundred years. The Bible is not a book for fictional use it is a history though the eyes of a religion, just as history through a textbook is through the eyes of one historian, there is no true history how can we say that what the Bible says is any more or less accurate than what they teach you in class. You question the claim of one while leaving everything alone, if your gonna question the nature and truth of something you must examine everything else pertaining in the same fashion, how do we even know that there was a Council of Nicaea. How do we know that the Revolutionary War actually happened. Did the civilization of Rome really exist at the power we esteem it to have been. You call the Bible a fiction without taking into account what you know could be lies. It is easier to examine the nature of something you don't accept or find foreign instead of questioning your own beliefs or customs. Anyone who can think without doing so is small minded and I pity them. [/quote] Holy sh**, is this actually an intelligent observation of the Bible? I think it is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 [quote name='Lewk' timestamp='1295891466' post='4957442'] inb4 Atheist(s) who think their opinions are facts and refuse to shut up and demand factual evidence at every instant that anything slightly religious comes into a conversation. [spoiler=Oh]And I'm Agnostic[/spoiler] [i]EDIT: Oh wait, it appears I'm too late...[/i] [/quote] You truly are a moron. I think the Bible is particularly a good fictional story, so long as you ignore religious context. It is a collection of short, fictional stories, and is jam-packed with senseless killing and floods of water. I personally think whoever wrote it was pretty smart, since its language is somewhat descriptive but vague at the same time. Unfortunately, a group of less-than-average-intelligence people tried to claim this book to have true word to it. It's quite obvious that the author intended the book to be for comedic and entertainment purposes, so I see no reason to push such a book as true. That'd be the same as pushing Harry Potter through as true, but we all know Harry Potter > The Bible. On a more serious note, none of the claims in the Bible have proven to be true (nor has any sort of substantial evidence been provided for most of the claims), but some historians consider it a really vague timeline. I'd have to agree. While the Bible is really just a collection of stories, it also does have some truth to it in a historical sense. I believe at one point it talks about Jewish civilizations in Mesopotamia, and the aforementioned vague descriptions in the book kind of give us a sense of how people lived in the past. Surely there isn't much evidence to back up the "weirder" claims, but it does have some worth. Just not enough worth to have over a billion followers. [i] if Man created God or God created Man doesn't matter when boiled down, the fact of the matter is God exists because of it[/i] God existing as an idea and as an entity are two entirely different things. Anyone who can think with a brain knows that god exists as an idea, since man has created the idea of god for his own gain. However, when people push god as an entity, that is when things become different. I can imagine an invisible pink unicorn, for example, and all must agree it exists as an idea. None (except a select few geniuses) would agree it exists as an entity or tangible object. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTFauKorean Posted January 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 [quote name='Dark' timestamp='1295998123' post='4960717'] You truly are a moron. I think the Bible is particularly a good fictional story, so long as you ignore religious context. It is a collection of short, fictional stories, and is jam-packed with senseless killing and floods of water. I personally think whoever wrote it was pretty smart, since its language is somewhat descriptive but vague at the same time. Unfortunately, a group of less-than-average-intelligence people tried to claim this book to have true word to it. It's quite obvious that the author intended the book to be for comedic and entertainment purposes, so I see no reason to push such a book as true. That'd be the same as pushing Harry Potter through as true, but we all know Harry Potter > The Bible. On a more serious note, none of the claims in the Bible have proven to be true (nor has any sort of substantial evidence been provided for most of the claims), but some historians consider it a really vague timeline. I'd have to agree. While the Bible is really just a collection of stories, it also does have some truth to it in a historical sense. I believe at one point it talks about Jewish civilizations in Mesopotamia, and the aforementioned vague descriptions in the book kind of give us a sense of how people lived in the past. Surely there isn't much evidence to back up the "weirder" claims, but it does have some worth. Just not enough worth to have over a billion followers. [i] if Man created God or God created Man doesn't matter when boiled down, the fact of the matter is God exists because of it[/i] God existing as an idea and as an entity are two entirely different things. Anyone who can think with a brain knows that god exists as an idea, since man has created the idea of god for his own gain. However, when people push god as an entity, that is when things become different. I can imagine an invisible pink unicorn, for example, and all must agree it exists as an idea. None (except a select few geniuses) would agree it exists as an entity or tangible object. [/quote] whoohoo clash of opinions although i think the bible certainly isnt a entertainment value story like aesops fables, its more of an collection of histories pretaining to like you said the idea of this religion, because there is in fact much more proof than you would have though through modern day technology, that the events and people we're real by studying location ,carbon dating, land structure, tombs, skelatons and so forth i definatly agree that the person(s) who created this collection was infact a genius because it is most likely key historical events all used to teach,similar to how buddha delivered his teachings a person creating a religion through a personal philosiphy. ooooh the entity thing is what i argued in my thesis paper using north korea this was one of my conclusions, as you can tell kim jung il is a physical form of god in the perspective of north korea, but if someone we're to kill him boom entity of his social impact, gone. he's not something to fear. but something like the middle eastern wars or the crusades, no physical form a nontangable entity. because an idea is ones own no matter how much influence a person can simply choose not to believe certain things. because religion uses fear to get people. hell, bad reincarnation, losing connection to the alah, mormon hell XD w/e good example are dangerous cults (not all cults are bad btw) but yes the dangerous ones you can show someone in it everything horrible about it but they will never change their mind. or if they really want to easily be persuaded that the cult is dangerous, it's all up to his/her own mind. [b]btw i think genesis is getting to be a way to serious topic moving on to noah ark soon[/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raine Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 [quote name='Dark' timestamp='1295998123' post='4960717'] You truly are a moron. I think the Bible is particularly a good fictional story, so long as you ignore religious context. It is a collection of short, fictional stories, and is jam-packed with senseless killing and floods of water. I personally think whoever wrote it was pretty smart, since its language is somewhat descriptive but vague at the same time. Unfortunately, a group of less-than-average-intelligence people tried to claim this book to have true word to it. It's quite obvious that the author intended the book to be for comedic and entertainment purposes, so I see no reason to push such a book as true. That'd be the same as pushing Harry Potter through as true, but we all know Harry Potter > The Bible. On a more serious note, none of the claims in the Bible have proven to be true (nor has any sort of substantial evidence been provided for most of the claims), but some historians consider it a really vague timeline. I'd have to agree. While the Bible is really just a collection of stories, it also does have some truth to it in a historical sense. I believe at one point it talks about Jewish civilizations in Mesopotamia, and the aforementioned vague descriptions in the book kind of give us a sense of how people lived in the past. Surely there isn't much evidence to back up the "weirder" claims, but it does have some worth. Just not enough worth to have over a billion followers. [i] if Man created God or God created Man doesn't matter when boiled down, the fact of the matter is God exists because of it[/i] God existing as an idea and as an entity are two entirely different things. Anyone who can think with a brain knows that god exists as an idea, since man has created the idea of god for his own gain. However, when people push god as an entity, that is when things become different. I can imagine an invisible pink unicorn, for example, and all must agree it exists as an idea. None (except a select few geniuses) would agree it exists as an entity or tangible object. [/quote] Your logic would be irrefutable, if it were supported by more than an angst and a single POV. You are a not a moron just a person who views something and it is for that same reason your argument is flawed. A God existing as an idea or as a deity, is EXACTLY the same thing, or at least in the context of this god. Why are you atheist? If not, what are you? Why do you think that others are wrong? Why are those who see the Bible as true of less-than-average-intelligence? You are so narrow minded in your argument to not challenge your own standing and assaulting another's claim that until you evalutate and compare on a level beyond yourself, I have neither the time nor the inclination to even bother in challenging such an inadequate post . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTFauKorean Posted January 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 [quote name='Grand★Raine' timestamp='1296009606' post='4961256'] Your logic would be irrefutable, if it were supported by more than an angst and a single POV. You are a not a moron just a person who views something and it is for that same reason your argument is flawed. A God existing as an idea or as a deity, is EXACTLY the same thing, or at least in the context of this god. Why are you atheist? If not, what are you? Why do you think that others are wrong? Why are those who see the Bible as true of less-than-average-intelligence? You are so narrow minded in your argument to not challenge your own standing and assaulting another's claim that until you evalutate and compare on a level beyond yourself, I have neither the time nor the inclination to even bother in challenging such an inadequate post . [/quote] LOL XD okay yeah before a flame war starts (although i admit raine made a boss play on that one) ima move one to noahs ark topic, hopefully more subtle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Unclean One: VK Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 Oh great, a troll decided to create a flame war. Oh well, I might as well jump in. The bible to me is suppost to be taken not as a book showing everything that have happened and literal but rather suppost to be taken in a metaphorical sense. The fact is God as an idea exists, but the existence of a god cannot be proven or disproven unless he, she, or it comes out and prove it to us, which is kinda impossible. The fact is that I believe that there might be a entity that have created this universe on a whim, such as a experiment, a simulation, or just for the lulz. In no way this creator is a divine entity that demands we all be pious or holy. It may be our creator, but in no way are we forced worship as a holy father or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTFauKorean Posted January 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 [quote name='VK's Red Terror' timestamp='1296011470' post='4961341'] Oh great, a troll decided to create a flame war. Oh well, I might as well jump in. The bible to me is suppost to be taken not as a book showing everything that have happened and literal but rather suppost to be taken in a metaphorical sense. The fact is God as an idea exists, but the existence of a god cannot be proven or disproven unless he, she, or it comes out and prove it to us, which is kinda impossible. The fact is that I believe that there might be a entity that have created this universe on a whim, such as a experiment, a simulation, or just for the lulz. In no way this creator is a divine entity that demands we all be pious or holy. It may be our creator, but in no way are we forced worship as a holy father or whatever. [/quote] bingo a way to elaborate on some of my points Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 Damn, forgot to inb4Dark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Revan of the Sith Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 Its amazing how christians could easily prove the existance of god but choose to not use a certain argument... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.