|
Post by Joey on Nov 30, 2010 21:36:38 GMT -5
Our religion is still technically taught as the "right" one. It enforces that a particular religion is correct, over others. That is the issue. Whats the point of believing in something that I dont think is right? Fun? If Im going to believe in God, I'm pretty sure I'm going to think its the correct belief.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Nov 30, 2010 22:09:30 GMT -5
It enforces that a particular religion is correct, over others. That is the issue. Whats the point of believing in something that I dont think is right? Fun? If Im going to believe in God, I'm pretty sure I'm going to think its the correct belief. Erm... That has nothing to do with it. I was pretty sure I was talking about education. The Catholic school enforces that the Catholic doctrine is correct (obviously). Therefore, it is biased, and inferior in comparison to a truly secular education.
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Nov 30, 2010 23:15:36 GMT -5
Whats the point of believing in something that I dont think is right? Fun? If Im going to believe in God, I'm pretty sure I'm going to think its the correct belief. Erm... That has nothing to do with it. I was pretty sure I was talking about education. The Catholic school enforces that the Catholic doctrine is correct (obviously). Therefore, it is biased, and inferior in comparison to a truly secular education. Again, the point of having a catholic school is to be biased, otherwise it wounldnt be a catholic school. And its only inferior to those who choose not to agree with its teachings, what I dont get is why can they not respect that those who do choose those teachings can decide to send their kids their. If I decide to send my kids to a public school, I am choosing to not give them a Catholic education, so its just a matter of what you believe. Obviously you believe that school is better without religion, and I believe otherwise. I know I wont change youre opinion and you wont change mine. Next topic?
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Dec 1, 2010 16:23:22 GMT -5
Erm... That has nothing to do with it. I was pretty sure I was talking about education. The Catholic school enforces that the Catholic doctrine is correct (obviously). Therefore, it is biased, and inferior in comparison to a truly secular education. Again, the point of having a catholic school is to be biased, otherwise it wounldnt be a catholic school. And its only inferior to those who choose not to agree with its teachings, what I dont get is why can they not respect that those who do choose those teachings can decide to send their kids their. If I decide to send my kids to a public school, I am choosing to not give them a Catholic education, so its just a matter of what you believe. Obviously you believe that school is better without religion, and I believe otherwise. I know I wont change youre opinion and you wont change mine. Next topic? You're NOT getting it. Say, for example, we had a school that was biased to teach that all black people are evil. And, say, you had white-supremacist parents who wanted to impose those views on their children -- so they send them to the biased school. Meanwhile, they could have sent their children to an unbiased school. Don't you see? It is utterly irresponsible for parents to place a biased education on their children just because they see it as "right". School needs to be with either COMPLETE religious tolerance (teaching every single religion and denomination known), or without religion whatsoever. It is absolutely unacceptable to have an infusion of unproven religious doctrine and scientific fact. That is NOT be education. And I don't care if they teach about other religions too, the point is that they teach that theirs is the correct one. That is why Catholic schools are inferior, and, in my opinion, should not exist. Okay?
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Dec 1, 2010 18:48:58 GMT -5
Again, the point of having a catholic school is to be biased, otherwise it wounldnt be a catholic school. And its only inferior to those who choose not to agree with its teachings, what I dont get is why can they not respect that those who do choose those teachings can decide to send their kids their. If I decide to send my kids to a public school, I am choosing to not give them a Catholic education, so its just a matter of what you believe. Obviously you believe that school is better without religion, and I believe otherwise. I know I wont change youre opinion and you wont change mine. Next topic? You're NOT getting it. Say, for example, we had a school that was biased to teach that all black people are evil. And, say, you had white-supremacist parents who wanted to impose those views on their children -- so they send them to the biased school. Meanwhile, they could have sent their children to an unbiased school. Don't you see? It is utterly irresponsible for parents to place a biased education on their children just because they see it as "right". School needs to be with either COMPLETE religious tolerance (teaching every single religion and denomination known), or without religion whatsoever. It is absolutely unacceptable to have an infusion of unproven religious doctrine and scientific fact. That is NOT be education. And I don't care if they teach about other religions too, the point is that they teach that theirs is the correct one. That is why Catholic schools are inferior, and, in my opinion, should not exist. Okay? Theres a difference between teaching that another human being is evil or just wrong. What harm does having a belief in God do to others? Nothing. But stuff like white supremacy does, people will act on that. And someone will bring up the Crusades or something, but thats the past, get over it. It has nothing to do with the catholic school system today. And I understand your opinion, I respect it. I beg to differ, but I know you wont change me and I wont change you. Lets move on.
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Dec 1, 2010 19:26:08 GMT -5
(I know you said you won't change his mind, nor he will change yours, but I still want to say something). Yeah, between saying "He is evil!!!" and "He is just wrong sonny boy" the latter seems like the best option, but there is more options like "that person just believes in something we don't, we think that person is wrong, but you are free to explore on that person's belief system and come up with your own conclusions" That's the problem with this biased system, when they teach they are right, they probably do so while teaching others are wrong and when asked for reasons as to why other people are wrong, they might not give the best arguments, and even if they do, they might damage the ability of the students to think critically about stuff and damage the ability to be skeptic about things and to doubt and search for real arguments and reasoning. In order to teach their religion as the right one, they will probably have to censor skepticism and reasoning, and the methods for that can be damaging (like teaching fallacious arguments as the right ones or teaching fear of hell so the students repress their own doubts).
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Dec 1, 2010 19:45:40 GMT -5
I said before, I agree, they need to teach how to explore your own beliefes, as my school does. So I think thats a plus if all Catholic schools did.
|
|
|
Post by nessieisreal on Dec 21, 2010 15:22:20 GMT -5
Sorry for bringing this stuff back but... When looking through this thread, what I saw was opinion. There wasn't much fact, which could be use to prove the Bible true (or false). Here's a few: 1. The Gospels were written 70 to 90 years after Jesus went back to heaven. Although it seems like a long time, it really isn't. For one, there were still plenty of eye-witnesses alive. Also, anything written during or within 500 years of the end of a person's life (or time on earth in this case) is believed by historians and important people who write history to be accurate and true. For example, we all know who Alexander the Great is. The documents that we have to base our information in textbooks and stuff on was written 300 years after his life, yet everyday people are taught about him. We believe in him and what we know, do we not? So, if anything, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are accurate. 2. All of the disciples (except for John) died brutal deaths because they would not deny their faith in Jesus. Let's say I told you I could fly. I am completly serious about it, and I really mean it. Now you put a gun to my head and ask me if I could fly, and if I can't do it if I say yes, you pull the trigger. I'm not going to tell you that I can fly anymore because I can't! I wouldn't die for something that is a lie. The reason that the disciples died is because they knew the truth. If it wasn't truth, they would have probably died of something normal. 3. Many quotes from people we know exisited are about Jesus and his miracles. If people were talking about him and how great he was, we know that he existed and that what is in the Bible was in actually preached by Jesus. 4. How in the world could the gospels and everything in them be remembered by Matthew/Mark/Luke/John? Back in those days, boys who went to school were set to work memorizing. By the age of 8 or so, a boy had the first 5 books of the Bible completely memorized. If they were to graduate from school, the whole Old Testament would be memorized word for word. I don't think any of the four who wrote the Gospels would have a hard time recalling what Jesus did. 5. Let's say Jesus didn't exist and some guys got together and planned the whole Old Testament out. If they did that, why is Jesus so unbelievably famous today? The Bible must be accurate to Jesus' existance. 6. Daniel 2. Summary: King Nebuchadnezzar has a dream of a statue with a head of gold, a chest and arms of sliver, a belly and thighs of bronze, legs of irons, and feet of clay mixed with iron. Daniel comes in and interprets the dream. The head is a representation of the kingdom of Babybalon (Neb's kingdom), and the other parts of the statue are symbolic of the world powers to come. (This next bit Daniel didn't know.) The silver is the Medo-Persian Empire, the Bronze is the Greecian Empire, the Iron is the Roman Empire. The feet or clay iron is still yet to come. These are the world powers that will arise before God's everlasting Kingom shall come. We are still considered the Roman Empire because it has affected our governing system, currency, and many other ways our country and world is run. However, this is definatly an interesting chapter because what the world is going to go through is... predicted with accuracy. If the Bible is false, how does this work? (I have more arguements like this with prophecy that comes true in them, but I don't want to bore you.) 7. When going through the Roman torture before cruxifiction, many people expirienced 'side-effects' because of so much blood loss. One of these was thrist. This was not know when the account of the cruxifiction was written. In the Bible, Jesus asked for a drink. Anyways, that's what I'll give for now. I could include more, but I don't want you to get bored.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Dec 21, 2010 15:53:17 GMT -5
"1. The Gospels were written 70 to 90 years after Jesus went back to heaven. Although it seems like a long time, it really isn't. For one, there were still plenty of eye-witnesses alive. Also, anything written during or within 500 years of the end of a person's life (or time on earth in this case) is believed by historians and important people who write history to be accurate and true. For example, we all know who Alexander the Great is. The documents that we have to base our information in textbooks and stuff on was written 300 years after his life, yet everyday people are taught about him. We believe in him and what we know, do we not? So, if anything, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are accurate."
I find it hard to believe that they had eye withnesses at age of 85, 1900 years ago. That would be only with modern life expectancy. Also not everything up to 500 years after the person was born is considered true, that world be highly illogical.
"5. Let's say Jesus didn't exist and some guys got together and planned the whole Old Testament out. If they did that, why is Jesus so unbelievably famous today? The Bible must be accurate to Jesus' existance."
New Testament
"6. Daniel 2. Summary: King Nebuchadnezzar has a dream of a statue with a head of gold, a chest and arms of sliver, a belly and thighs of bronze, legs of irons, and feet of clay mixed with iron. Daniel comes in and interprets the dream. The head is a representation of the kingdom of Babybalon (Neb's kingdom), and the other parts of the statue are symbolic of the world powers to come. (This next bit Daniel didn't know.) The silver is the Medo-Persian Empire, the Bronze is the Greecian Empire, the Iron is the Roman Empire. The feet or clay iron is still yet to come. These are the world powers that will arise before God's everlasting Kingom shall come. We are still considered the Roman Empire because it has affected our governing system, currency, and many other ways our country and world is run. However, this is definatly an interesting chapter because what the world is going to go through is... predicted with accuracy. If the Bible is false, how does this work? (I have more arguements like this with prophecy that comes true in them, but I don't want to bore you.)"
And now everyone knows you are a troll, (or an idot). But most likely troll
|
|
|
Post by nessieisreal on Dec 21, 2010 15:55:17 GMT -5
1. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John lived that long... 5. Sorry. 6. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Dec 21, 2010 16:31:30 GMT -5
The Bible cannot prove that the Bible is true. That's circular.
|
|
|
Post by nessieisreal on Dec 21, 2010 16:33:28 GMT -5
My first fact was purely from outside sources. As was 2, 4, and 5.
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Dec 21, 2010 16:37:24 GMT -5
I think there was other thread in which someone said something relatively similar... EDIT, oh, oh, there it is, not sure if it really is that similar, but it reminded me of that discussion 1: I'm not sure many people from that time would be abl to say "I lived to 50 years". That aside, I'm not sure Alexander's history was written so late, but supposing you are right: Many tings that 'prove' the bible, outside the bible itself (saying that stuff inside the bible prove the bible is silly) were letters and stuff like that (if I recall correctly), I don't think there was any REAL ACCOUNTABLE historian involved. 2. If this bit was obtained from the bible, then you are proving the bible with the bible, that's a circular argument, and a fallacy. Anyways, I actually think Jesus existed, I don't think he was divine, but I think he probably existed, so they could have died defending Jesus and what they believed in, but still it doesn't mean it's true. I bet, all around the world and thousands of time through history, people have died for their beliefs, obviously not all of them had the thruth. 3. Nope. We know that people have heard of this great guy Jesus, not that he existed or was anything divine. Take the present for example. People talk and quote endlessly things they've heard and characters from fiction who are famous, that doesn't mean they are real. For example, many people here would recognize the machine that had the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything, the answer was 42. But that doesn't mean it is true just because it's popular. In ancient times I bet greek people would quote and talk endlessly about the ancient greek heroes, that doesn't mean they really existed, and obviously, even if they existed, it doesn't mean they really were heroes and fought gods and etc. 4. Sorry 0.0. I'm not sure I recognize the argument here =/ 5. It is still possible that the people writing the bible believed what they wrote, the same goes for the coran, and all the other divine books. And all of them are really really popular today. That doesn't mean that the stories in any of them are true. 6. Nope. Just, nope. ... The interpretation of a dream most definetely is not proof of anything. And 'predictions' of the future 'happen' all the time. But they happen all the time because people give them meaning after they have occurred, which is especially easy if the prediction was vague in the first place. For example: I see darkness and light in your future, I see steel and wood. I just thought of it, with no meaning implied (seriously, just random words). Let's give it an hypothetical meaning "Oh crap, my brother had a car accident just a few days after I said this". Darkness is for night, the accident was at night, the light was the car lights, and steel and wood meant the car and the tree crashing. See, it's not that hard, throw some vague words, wait for someting to happen and somebody will find a way to give them a meaning, which actually has no importance if the meaning was given after the event happened. 7. Cruxifiction was not only for Jesus, I think people knew about it and was used before him. And even so, I'm not sure of what's your point. That Jesus existed? Yeah, OK, maybe, but that doesn't mean he was the son of God. Btw, hey ;D good to see you are not gone, long time no see.
|
|
|
Post by Kevak on Dec 21, 2010 18:08:04 GMT -5
The bible is kinda like twilight.
|
|
|
Post by nessieisreal on Dec 21, 2010 22:33:32 GMT -5
1. Only part of the New Testament is letters. The rest is eitheir an account of Creation, Law (which isn't followed any longer), accounts of prophets, prophecy, Gospel. 2. The fact that the disciple died horrible deaths is recorded in more than the Bible. 4. Argument is that they would have no problem remembering what to write because they were so great at memorization. 7. Yes, I know. It was the Roman's death penalty. But, they were not advanced enough to know that blood loss contributed to thrist. Which, we know now that it does, so the fact that Jesus asked for a drink is actually... odd. The fact that it is there must be true because if it were a hoax, I don't think that anybody would care about Jesus' thirst.
I won't be back for long. Sorry. I don't stay in one place unless I am called to.
Kevak: What?
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Dec 22, 2010 0:27:56 GMT -5
1 (version 2? xP): I wasn't talking about the insides of the bible, as already pointed out, bible proving itself provokes circualr arguments, which are no use. I was talking about things proving the things said in the bible, outside the bible. But the point was that I think 'witnesses' and people who wrote about it were not real historians. To reinforce this point I'd also conect this with something I said for another number. There are many different kinds of very popular holy books, with 'witnesses' an all. But that doesn't make any of them true.
2: I supposed so. Still, the point keeps being that dying for a belief and really believing in something doesn't make that true. Again, thousands of years of history, thousands of different places, many died, many believed in what they died for (the point I'm trying to make with this is that if you use this as an argument you are argumenting for all of this deaths and beliefs, and obviously two holy books can't be right at the same time).
4: Emh. Ok, I guess 0.0. Oh, maybe that's directed to an argument like "they were confused/couldn't remember what happened"? I don't think that's really a good argument, maybe that they were lying or were lied to would be better (please don't respond to those last, those weren't arguments, just examples) so I'm not sure of what to do with this. Again, even if they really believed in something, that doesn't make it truth.
7: Maybe there were a lot of people complaining about thirst 0.0? I mean, if Jesus had to ask for it, imagine the mortals. Again, I'm not saying he didn't exist or that he wasn't crucified, just that if he existed, he wasn't the son of God (nor God, or whatever he was supposed to be).
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Dec 22, 2010 1:01:24 GMT -5
1. Only part of the New Testament is letters. The rest is eitheir an account of Creation, Law (which isn't followed any longer), accounts of prophets, prophecy, Gospel. 2. The fact that the disciple died horrible deaths is recorded in more than the Bible. 4. Argument is that they would have no problem remembering what to write because they were so great at memorization. 7. Yes, I know. It was the Roman's death penalty. But, they were not advanced enough to know that blood loss contributed to thrist. Which, we know now that it does, so the fact that Jesus asked for a drink is actually... odd. The fact that it is there must be true because if it were a hoax, I don't think that anybody would care about Jesus' thirst. I won't be back for long. Sorry. I don't stay in one place unless I am called to. Kevak: What? It's the internet, its not really a place.
|
|
|
Post by nessieisreal on Dec 22, 2010 10:01:52 GMT -5
7. Then why did he call God "Abba?" Abba is the Hebrew word that literally means "Daddy." No other used this for praying. He obviously believed it.
krzych32: A specific place on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Dec 22, 2010 12:11:01 GMT -5
7: Supposing he existed, and then supposing he actually did say that (let's imagine there is an actual good source for what Jesus said and did not say), then why all this different prophets and mesias said whatever they said to make people believed that they were whatever they were supposed to be? They obviously believed it too. But as I've said already BELIEVING IN SOMETHING =/= HAVING THE TRUTH.
BTW: He was 0.0? I mean, I've heard other people (religious people) saying he was God's incarnation on Earth or stuff like that, you know, that's another thing about christianism and many other religions, it's hard to convince people when your stories are so divided and kind of different from one another. I don't know who wrote the first holy book, but someone would have had to (mh, I don't want to be disrespectful with whoever was supposed to write these stuff...) tell him off when that guy said "Oh, I've got a good idea, let's write everything with crazy stories and let people decide what's literal and what's metaphorical yes yes, that's a good idea that sure won't cause any problems".
|
|
|
Post by nessieisreal on Dec 22, 2010 13:39:08 GMT -5
Jesus was the form of God as human. (Whenever somebody says "the Son" or "Son of God" they are referring to Jesus. God or Father is referring to God the Father, and the Spirt is referring to the Holy Spirit. Together, these three make up the Trinity. Together, they are one, and they are also separate. It's confusing and hard to grasp, but see next point for a half-ish explanation.)
The reason some parts of the Bible are confusing is that if we understood everything about God or the Bible, what would be the fun of following it? There would be no point in it. Part of eternity is that we get to learn. We get to know God. And see Him.
And it was Moses that wrote the first books of the Bible, but there may have been other writings from the Egyptians of other religions at the time. He would have written some soon after the Israelites were freed from slavery from the Egyptians.
|
|