No, hence once again you miss the point entirely.
Please do stop editing posts to make further points once that post has been quoted and answered by others. It makes for difficult discussion without re-reading the thread in its entirety each time.
Is the bible still relevant today?
- Thread starter bhavv
- Start date
- Status
No, hence once again you miss the point entirely.
Please do stop editing posts to make further points once that post has been quoted and answered by others. It makes for difficult discussion without re-reading the thread in its entirety each time.
Just a quick post as Im just passing......
According to Gospel tradition Christ was imbued with the holy spirit during his baptism, so whatever his DNA said would not necessarily impact on his alledged divinity.
Quite, but it'd be nice if you actually answered the points raised objecting to your viewpoint instead of producing circular moot arguments and refusing to address the counter points. The sum of your argument to date has been 'So God was human then' even when it was patently pointed out that this wasn't the case scripturally or theologically.
Which is a very mythological and unbelievable definition for people who dont believe in Spirits.
Even Islam would state that this is not possible.
Actually no, I mean that my actual point is that Jesus was not the son of God, as most Christians do believe, unless God was a human.
Quite, which is what I was getting at when I said that Jesus was the son of God in spirit not in physical form. Bhavv seems to be under the continued impression that for Jesus to be the son of God this means God must have a penis and DNA. Scripture is clear that this isn't so yet for some reason that's the only counter point Bhavv is bringing to the table.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,471
Why didn't you add it to the youtube thread?
Why haven't you stated all of your own opinions on something that was just uploaded again?
Yet the entire 'good question' revolves around the acceptance of such 'mythological and unbelievable' things being true. Without that there's no question. Again you're posting a supernatural question and refusing supernatural answers.
Yet it has been repeatedly pointed out to you by at least three people that in Christian tradition Christ is the son of God in Spirit not in flesh. So at the risk of repeating myself, your point is moot.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,471
If jesus came back today, it would all be over. Forget any tests as this earth would cease to exsist, and its straight onto Judgement for everyone, including the dead
HA!
I like it. Yes indeed, if he did come back, it would be sheep and goats time, and 'hell hath no fury like a God denied!'
I think that if Jesus did manage to return today, we'd probably find that his DNA test would yield interesting results. Assuming we weren't already burning. Extra-dimensional entity DNA perhaps...
I wanted to discuss it in its own thread.
And I think I have stated plenty of my own opinions on the topic.
And why exactly would we all be burning if Jesus came back today? I didnt think that Jesus was a violent or destructive person as everone in this thread is making him out to be, I thought that Jesus was about love and forgiveness?
Why do so many people have such an extremist belief that Jesus would be some kind of a terrorist if he came back today?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,471
What?
What do you think Islam would state?
Are you going for the anti-Christian line in this particular thread?
Or are you going for the anti-religious line?
Much easier to think of counter-arguments to wind you up if I know what you're babbling about in this thread. Please be more specific.
Because the Bible says many times that Jesus will return to judge, and if the accoun non revelations is to be believed, it will not be pretty.
I didnt actually state anything negative about wither Christianity or Islam in this thread, all the negatives about either religion so far are coming from people who think that Jesus would burn everyone in the whole world if he came back today.
Islam states that Jesus was not the son of God, nor God himself. He was only a prophet and a man and preached about God to the people, and that the idea of attributing any kind of godhood to Jesus is against the biblical and religious teachings of Christianity.
How did the people who wrote that know that this is what Jesus would do if he did somehow come back? Did Jesus himself state that if he came back, then this is what he would do?
From an atheist's perspective, I think most of what is written in the Bible has generally been discredited if taken merely as a factual or historically accurate book, though I'm quite sure those who avidly follow the Christian faith will strongly disagree - and why not if they believe in their god and faith?
However, irrespective of one's beliefs, if one is in need of moral guidance or simply needs examples of how one should behave toward their fellow man, then yes, the Bible is still relevant. The parables and positive messages, contained within the bible are mostly still as relevant today as they were when the first edition of the Bible was drafted!
Even for those who like myself have no religious beliefs, most of what we do and how decently we treat our fellow man is mostly down to the influence the Bible has had on our society and laws over the centuries.
Unfortunately, like most 'Holy ' books, it has also been commandeered/hijacked over the centuries for political and extremist policies by less than honest men for their own ends!
However, irrespective of one's beliefs, if one is in need of moral guidance or simply needs examples of how one should behave toward their fellow man, then yes, the Bible is still relevant. The parables and positive messages, contained within the bible are mostly still as relevant today as they were when the first edition of the Bible was drafted!
Even for those who like myself have no religious beliefs, most of what we do and how decently we treat our fellow man is mostly down to the influence the Bible has had on our society and laws over the centuries.
Unfortunately, like most 'Holy ' books, it has also been commandeered/hijacked over the centuries for political and extremist policies by less than honest men for their own ends!
I only seem to recall two. First that it's all mythological, thus ignoring all valid replies to your question. Secondly you erroneously stated that Jesus could only be God's son if God was human (whereby you admittedly provided definitions that automatically disqualified your own opinion).
I love how you start a thread asking if the bible is relevant, and use it as an excuse to repeat the same point over and over (despite it being countered, you just ignored those) - and then change the topic to 'Jesus is a terrorist??'. This really is turning into trolololol. It's nonsense. You refuse to acknowledge debate on your own terms, and simply change the definitions and even the question once it looks like your own position is moot or undermined.
You haven't actually given any reason for holding that view, though, except for your silly DNA argument which is based entirely on your being able to say what God can and cannot do with regard to creating a human.
Job chapters 38ff are springing to mind.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,471
Quite agree with you Ittlejoe, the parables can be interpreted to be revelant to any society where there is inequality, even Richard Dwakins eutopia without religion, there would still need to be some form of rule or regulation, and the base message and teachings of most holy books fulfil this role.
I dont think that Jesus is a terrorist, nor that he would be if he came back today.
I think that Jesus taught, and would still bring love and forgiveness if he came back today based on my limited understanding of what Jesus was like.
Why do Christians, or anyone else that wrote whatever they did about Jesus attribute such extremist viewpoints that he would be some kind of a bringer of judgement, hellfire, pain and torment if he was to return today?
I think that Jesus taught, and would still bring love and forgiveness if he came back today based on my limited understanding of what Jesus was like.
Why do Christians, or anyone else that wrote whatever they did about Jesus attribute such extremist viewpoints that he would be some kind of a bringer of judgement, hellfire, pain and torment if he was to return today?
bhavv said:
Yes, he did. It's in the gospels. Then it's referred to in the epistles. Then John states that Jesus told him the same in his vision that forms the basis of revelation.
Honestly, I miss arguing with people who actually know what they're talking about.
I don't hate religion, but I pity those who need a strict observance of it.
It has it's benefits, instills moral values and brings commmunities together. But I think such objectives could be achieved by other more modern means.
As for the stories of the bible themselves and how factual they actually are, I think there is some truth in it, but I don't think it's all truthful. And as the bishop said, you need to be able to distinguish between what is descriptive and what is prescriptive. And where some of it is prescriptive, that doesn't negate the fact that it could be semi-descriptive at the same time. The bible was written for a purpose at the end of the day, obviously that complete purpose is debateable, but for me I think it was wholly intended to be a guide for an ideal way of life combined with a belief in a god, and that to be at peace with that god you obviously needed to abide by the way of life that the bible prescribes in order to reach that religious harmony.
It's influence on the modern world however was all down to chance and that is why the other mythological stories of other gods have not survived/been as successful as the Christian/Jewish faiths.
For instance certain biblical stories such as Noah's Ark I think are fairly plausible. Who is to say there wasn't a guy called Noah who built a large boat and saved a load of animals on it bla bla bla. Whatever the biblical message behind that story is (frankly I don't care much for it) doesn't take away the fact that the guy might have been real.
Or Moses and the crossing of the red sea. I think he may well have led the Jew's out of Egypt, but that doesn't mean I think he actually managed to part the water and allow everyone to walk accross safely. The biblical message was of course to lead people to have faith and all that other nonsense.
And of there are other stories such as 'creation'. This I believe is merely prescriptive as oppose to those that are semi-descriptive/prescriptive like Noah and Moses. And it is these sorts of stories which I think mankind should be more wary of and take with a pinch of salt.
If you have a look around on the web there is quite a lot of commentary on the bible - both new and old testaments - and debate on how it came into being written. And arising from this is extensive debate on how the diets of those who wrote it may have affected what was actually compiled. For instance there is quite a heavy following that a lot of it may well have been written by people who had consumed magic mushrooms at all hours of the day. Something of which you'd have to question the effect of on peoples thoughts and collaborations.
It has it's benefits, instills moral values and brings commmunities together. But I think such objectives could be achieved by other more modern means.
As for the stories of the bible themselves and how factual they actually are, I think there is some truth in it, but I don't think it's all truthful. And as the bishop said, you need to be able to distinguish between what is descriptive and what is prescriptive. And where some of it is prescriptive, that doesn't negate the fact that it could be semi-descriptive at the same time. The bible was written for a purpose at the end of the day, obviously that complete purpose is debateable, but for me I think it was wholly intended to be a guide for an ideal way of life combined with a belief in a god, and that to be at peace with that god you obviously needed to abide by the way of life that the bible prescribes in order to reach that religious harmony.
It's influence on the modern world however was all down to chance and that is why the other mythological stories of other gods have not survived/been as successful as the Christian/Jewish faiths.
For instance certain biblical stories such as Noah's Ark I think are fairly plausible. Who is to say there wasn't a guy called Noah who built a large boat and saved a load of animals on it bla bla bla. Whatever the biblical message behind that story is (frankly I don't care much for it) doesn't take away the fact that the guy might have been real.
Or Moses and the crossing of the red sea. I think he may well have led the Jew's out of Egypt, but that doesn't mean I think he actually managed to part the water and allow everyone to walk accross safely. The biblical message was of course to lead people to have faith and all that other nonsense.
And of there are other stories such as 'creation'. This I believe is merely prescriptive as oppose to those that are semi-descriptive/prescriptive like Noah and Moses. And it is these sorts of stories which I think mankind should be more wary of and take with a pinch of salt.
If you have a look around on the web there is quite a lot of commentary on the bible - both new and old testaments - and debate on how it came into being written. And arising from this is extensive debate on how the diets of those who wrote it may have affected what was actually compiled. For instance there is quite a heavy following that a lot of it may well have been written by people who had consumed magic mushrooms at all hours of the day. Something of which you'd have to question the effect of on peoples thoughts and collaborations.
Well why dont you educate me and provide me links to the passages where this is said?
Also why do you believe that what the Bible says is the absolute truth on this or any other matter?
This depends on your definition and belief of what God is. I dont believe in your definition of God, and I do not believe that even if there was a God, that he / she / it could have any direct control on creating a human.
Last edited:
- Status