Hello,

I am interested in hearing everyone's views on this matter. I just want to argue. I'll admit it.

E- to the L.O. lol

I hate god because he killed over a millon people. But trully i don't hate god i hate people who follow him.

It's been said before.

"Dear God, protect me from your followers"

For me, it's neither here, nor there. Zero emotion, either way.

Why do you hate people who follow God. Do you mean the morons that use God as an excuse to destroy the world.

Let me rephrase that before people flip out on me for grammar.

Why do you hate people that follow God? (there is my question mark okay)Or do you just hate the people that use God as an excuse to destroy?

I think everyone hates the people that try to push their god onto others. Catholics are usually the first that come to mind, and I hate them for all they've done (and every other faith that ever did the same...which is probably quite a lot). But I don't quite hate God (if he does exist), because I know that I would be doing the same thing if I were in his position.

Edit: We hate these people because they're the biggest hypocrites in the world.

Take the 5th commandment

"Thou shalt not kill"

...right...unless it's a Jew...or anyone else that doesn't believe

[This message has been edited by AyKay_47 (edited 07-03-2006).]

I don't hate people that follow "God". I pity them. When I say "God" I mean the jeudo-christian god, jesus, the one that performed miracles. I'm not here ruling out the possibility of the existance of a high power being that has more control over the world than we do. I'm just saying that it probably didn't do all those things that people believe their gods did, like summon rain, and feed the hungry. I pity people who are convinced that "god" exists.

If I relied on God to feel justified in my actions and fulfilled in my life, I would consider myself weak.

I prefer to be independent and self sufficient (to the point of stubbornness).

I can respect people's need for a "greater" force, but I think it stems from a deep insecurity and reluctance to accept responsibility, rather than choice.

So, no, there's no hate. Just complete lack of understanding.

Jx

quote:Originally posted by Holy Shit:

I don't hate people that follow "God". I pity them. When I say "God" I mean the jeudo-christian god, jesus, the one that performed miracles. I'm not here ruling out the possibility of the existance of a high power being that has more control over the world than we do. I'm just saying that it probably didn't do all those things that people believe their gods did, like summon rain, and feed the hungry. I pity people who are convinced that "god" exists.

What summons the rain and feeds the hungry? What allows you to think and allows people to laugh and cry? What allows you to exist? What is the Universe within? What did the birth of the Universe occur within? What is it that controls the dropping of a leaf and the blowing of the wind, the orbits of the planets and the expansion of the Universe? What would you call it?

I like that perspective, and I believe that's a good way to look at it. But sometimes the strongest people out there, are the ones that have faith. What keeps you moving everyday and why do you live? What do you think of suicide?

quote:Originally posted by Jessic:

If I relied on God to feel justified in my actions and fulfilled in my life, I would consider myself weak.

I prefer to be independent and self sufficient (to the point of stubbornness).

I can respect people's need for a "greater" force, but I think it stems from a deep insecurity and reluctance to accept responsibility, rather than choice.

So, no, there's no hate. Just complete lack of understanding.

Jx

I guess what I really want to know, is when times get really hard for you, where you just want to die, why do you still keep going. If you don't believe in a God, then what do you think of suicide?

quote:Originally posted by Eloquence:

I like that perspective, and I believe that's a good way to look at it. But sometimes the strongest people out there, are the ones that have faith. What keeps you moving everyday and why do you live? What do you think of suicide?

I know what you mean, I hate those people too. And I am not for that.

quote:Originally posted by AyKay_47:

I think everyone hates the people that try to push their god onto others. Catholics are usually the first that come to mind, and I hate them for all they've done (and every other faith that ever did the same...which is probably quite a lot). But I don't quite hate God (if he does exist), because I know that I would be doing the same thing if I were in his position.

Edit: We hate these people because they're the biggest hypocrites in the world.

Take the 5th commandment

"Thou shalt not kill"

...right...unless it's a Jew...or anyone else that doesn't believe

quote:Originally posted by Eloquence:

But sometimes the strongest people out there, are the ones that have faith. What keeps you moving everyday and why do you live? What do you think of suicide?



El contraire.



I would say the strongest people would be the atheists in foxholes. If you need faith, belief in the afterlife, belief in some benevolent deity just to do the right thing, I have very little respect for you.

I have heard many a christian say that they would not be as good if they did not have an all-powerful deity that they were responsible to.

In other words, they wouldn't be good if there wasn't anything in it for them.

!!!

They would feel better if there was no one to whom they were responsible.

Then they go on to say that they are above such selfishness and egocentric views.

........!!!

If you are good or strong just because you believe there is a God and an afterlife, isn't that just saying you can be bribed/intimidated? Where is the goodness in that?

No, it's much stronger to be good for goodness' sake.

Yeah that is why I said BUT SOMETIMES...

I totally understand where you are coming from. My dad is agnostic/atheist; because he said when you get involved in all that religion, you can develop very negative character traits. I totally believe people must definately have there own sense of what is right or wrong, without having a God tell them. It's like saying you wouldn't be good if it weren't for your belief. What I meant by some, is people like GHANDI.

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

El contraire.



I would say the strongest people would be the atheists in foxholes. If you need faith, belief in the afterlife, belief in some benevolent deity just to do the right thing, I have very little respect for you.

I have heard many a christian say that they would not be as good if they did not have an all-powerful deity that they were responsible to.

In other words, they wouldn't be good if there wasn't anything in it for them.

!!!

They would feel better if there was no one to whom they were responsible.

Then they go on to say that they are above such selfishness and egocentric views.

........!!!

If you are good or strong just because you believe there is a God and an afterlife, isn't that just saying you can be bribed/intimidated? Where is the goodness in that?

No, it's much stronger to be good for goodness' sake.

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

El contraire.



I would say the strongest people would be the atheists in foxholes. If you need faith, belief in the afterlife, belief in some benevolent deity just to do the right thing, I have very little respect for you.

I have heard many a christian say that they would not be as good if they did not have an all-powerful deity that they were responsible to.

In other words, they wouldn't be good if there wasn't anything in it for them.

!!!

They would feel better if there was no one to whom they were responsible.

Then they go on to say that they are above such selfishness and egocentric views.

........!!!

If you are good or strong just because you believe there is a God and an afterlife, isn't that just saying you can be bribed/intimidated? Where is the goodness in that?

No, it's much stronger to be good for goodness' sake.



That's right, to be good for goodness sake is why one should be good, one of the many reasons: But to deny My God is to deny yourself and the universe and all that is within it.

because he has this thing called the bible and there are a bunch of stupidass rules in it, such as no sex before marriage or birth control or sloth or envy or whathaveyou. and we're all supposed to follow this so we can get to heaven and have THE ULTIMATE AFTERLIFE, but then we never have any fun living.

what i would like is a religion without having to follow all the rules that still involves someone who will look out for me and miraculously save my ass when i do something stupid.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

What summons the rain and feeds the hungry? What allows you to think and allows people to laugh and cry? What allows you to exist? What is the Universe within? What did the birth of the Universe occur within? What is it that controls the dropping of a leaf and the blowing of the wind, the orbits of the planets and the expansion of the Universe? What would you call it?

I'm not sure what it is, but I believe it didn't manifest itself in the form of jesus christ to die and come back to life again. And it sure as hell didn't create life by molding a man out of mud. It's all mythology, like Odin placing a sword in a tree. I don't hate what created the universe, I hate what created the bible. So I guess that would be the catholic church, since it voted on what the bible would contain. I hate people that blindly follow this book and how they systematically live by it's rules.

Its not that I hate 'God,' its just that I don't care for him. There's no need to have blind faith for some supposed perfect being. I believe in a naturalistic reality and being able to be backed by science, not mythology.

quote:Originally posted by Holy Shit:

I'm not sure what it is, but I believe it didn't manifest itself in the form of jesus christ to die and come back to life again. And it sure as hell didn't create life by molding a man out of mud. It's all mythology, like Odin placing a sword in a tree. I don't hate what created the universe, I hate what created the bible. So I guess that would be the catholic church, since it voted on what the bible would contain. I hate people that blindly follow this book and how they systematically live by it's rules.

Good, I agree with you. So what is your conflict with MY Religion?

quote:Originally posted by YouLookFourteen:

because he has this thing called the bible and there are a bunch of stupidass rules in it, such as no sex before marriage or birth control or sloth or envy or whathaveyou. and we're all supposed to follow this so we can get to heaven and have THE ULTIMATE AFTERLIFE, but then we never have any fun living.

what i would like is a religion without having to follow all the rules that still involves someone who will look out for me and miraculously save my ass when i do something stupid.

The bible never said no birth control.

Why you wanna fok a gal you aren't even willing to marry? You just want to masturbate in her body? If you can't commit to her enough to get married then why you stickin yo penyuz in her vignuz brozik?

quote:Originally posted by Eloquence:

Yeah that is why I said BUT SOMETIMES...

I totally understand where you are coming from. My dad is agnostic/atheist; because he said when you get involved in all that religion, you can develop very negative character traits. I totally believe people must definately have there own sense of what is right or wrong, without having a God tell them. It's like saying you wouldn't be good if it weren't for your belief. What I meant by some, is people like GHANDI.



That's true, I'll give you that.

I believe you should not judge others or hate them, for it is a selfish act to do. Why not love instead of hate?

... you damn nigger.

You can't have emotion for something until you've experienced it, and when you experience God you can only feel the strongest and most positive emotion.

Note.

Nigger WTF? But your statement I agree with.

quote:Originally posted by Xerxes89:

I believe you should not judge others or hate them, for it is a selfish act to do. Why not love instead of hate?

... you damn nigger.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

The bible never said no birth control.

Why you wanna fok a gal you aren't even willing to marry? You just want to masturbate in her body? If you can't commit to her enough to get married then why you stickin yo penyuz in her vignuz brozik?

dude. i'm a chick. and i rock in the sack, thus making abstinence not an option.

and christians don't believe in birth control. it says it...somewhere.

I don't hate fictional characters.

LMAO, nice way to put it, when you don't believe in it, seriously.

quote:Originally posted by Albatross:

I don't hate fictional characters.

quote:Originally posted by Albatross:

I don't hate fictional characters.

Same its just a word to me

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Good, I agree with you. So what is your conflict with MY Religion?

It's not so much I have a conflict with your belief. But rather, the history and continuation of organized religion. Organized religion limits the human mind, so it limits humanity's potential. That is a problem with me.

[This message has been edited by Holy Shit (edited 07-04-2006).]

Yeah actually most older religions do not believe in birth control; because they believe sex is meant only for reproduction purposes. BUT COME ON, I can probably bet over half the population of the world then and now, broke that rule at least once. Now some religions are more lineant with sex, and say "before sex, you must love the person,(and some/most expect marriage first) But damn, I would much rather prefer figuring how my man is in the sack before I say yes. lol. The whole no birth control thing, I don't agree with. Cuz there is some little sluts out there that just don't want to listen to their parents.

quote:Originally posted by YouLookFourteen:

dude. i'm a chick. and i rock in the sack, thus making abstinence not an option.

and christians don't believe in birth control. it says it...somewhere.

Do you only not believe because you cannot physically see him/her/it? Do any of you believe in aliens? If some believe in Aliens and not God, then that doesn't make sense.

Becouse he wouldnt give me my shiny bike when I was 7. Really, god doesent exist, yeah I said it, and I know alot of people believe it. Its people who say god did this and god did that. Awe fuck it. God is not real and has no basis in fact and he never listens when I call his name so He is of no concern to me.

quote:Originally posted by Eloquence:

Do you only not believe because you cannot physically see him/her/it? Do any of you believe in aliens? If some believe in Aliens and not God, then that doesn't make sense.

Other civilizations on one of the trillions of planets in the universe who are more advanced than we are. - Plausible.

Magical bearded man, who lives in the sky and decided to chronicle his some of his work in a book, and give to a certain people. While claiming he loves all his creations, but only gave to key to salvation to a small amount of people. -Not Plausible.

You catch my drift?

It is simple heretic I hate God because the Emperor protects.

Why would I hate myself? I have my reasons for everything I do.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

What summons the rain and feeds the hungry? What allows you to think and allows people to laugh and cry? What allows you to exist? What is the Universe within? What did the birth of the Universe occur within? What is it that controls the dropping of a leaf and the blowing of the wind, the orbits of the planets and the expansion of the Universe? What would you call it?

Nothing.

if he existed, i would hate him for being the most powerful being in existence.

You guys are funny

quote:Originally posted by FunkyZombie:

It is simple heretic I hate God because the Emperor protects.

Warhammer 40K much?

The Catholic Church took no vote on the Bible. It was established long before that time at the council of nicea. Even at this council it was simply an agreement of the major doctrines so that those who were trying to infiltrate the church and plant false doctrine would have no effect. O and it was not a close vote, there were only 2 that opposed what was being brought forward. And again it was simply an agreement on what had already been established. The first new testament that has been documented is in about 250 AD or before that, and since the substance of the writings date earlier then this then there were earlier copies written. The historical accuracy of the Bible is amazing, compared to the Illiad, Alexander the Great and even the writings of plato and socrates they were pretty much a news flash. Therefore I consider simply by the historic evidence given in the gospels that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, both God and man, and was sent here to die for us.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

The Catholic Church took no vote on the Bible. It was established long before that time at the council of nicea. Even at this council it was simply an agreement of the major doctrines so that those who were trying to infiltrate the church and plant false doctrine would have no effect. O and it was not a close vote, there were only 2 that opposed what was being brought forward. And again it was simply an agreement on what had already been established. The first new testament that has been documented is in about 250 AD or before that, and since the substance of the writings date earlier then this then there were earlier copies written. The historical accuracy of the Bible is amazing, compared to the Illiad, Alexander the Great and even the writings of plato and socrates they were pretty much a news flash. Therefore I consider simply by the historic evidence given in the gospels that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, both God and man, and was sent here to die for us.

There is no such thing as a "Son of God" nor can any historical account prove such a thing, if Jesus the man is the son of God, so are all men, but none of them are, because God is not a man, God is the creator, and Jesus, and all men, are the creation of God. Children are for humans and animals, not God, God is not an animal and does not have Children.

The word God is used many times. It may mean Yahweh, Odin, Ra, Buddha, Allah, etc. If you are referring to the Christian "god", then I think "god" is a man-made creation. ( notice the quotations )

In earlier history secretive men wanted a lot of power, and would use any propoganda to obtain even greater power. Religion is great because it forges the malleable mind into a machine of worship and war, that can be utilized by early emperors, such as Constantine. Hey, it kept Rome into one piece, right?

Do I hate people worshipping propoganda? No, I take my responsibility to give them a new perspective in life.

My views on Jesus's life differ from the bible, the Gospel of Thomas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and other gnostic materials. Most books giving the idea of Jesus being enlightened were all erased by the early church, so I guess that is my enemy. I believe Jesus was divine not through birth, but through his life. Although I don't believe in the super sayien miracle Jesus, I believe in one who preached parables, talked of living a better life with loving thy neighbor, etc.

Ok abrahim you did not even look at the historicity which i used. Jesus did claim Godhood, now address the issue of history please.

I laugh at God and his followers. To be laughed at is far worse than being hated.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

Ok abrahim you did not even look at the historicity which i used. Jesus did claim Godhood, now address the issue of history please.

I can write a book about a man before my time and claim the things he said which there is no proof that he said, and even if he said it, it doesn't make what he said TRUE.

No singular man can be God, God is what everything is made of and existing by, so he is as much God as a rock or a tree or an atom if he will make such a claim, but I don't believe Jesus ever did, nor do you have the book of Jesus, written by Jesus, you have the book of people who wrote after Jesus.

There is no Roman Record of Jesus ever existing at the time he was said to exist other than in one history book written by a person who was not there and years later.

Furthermore, lets say Jesus was in Roman times, and made the claim to be God (which I believe the real Jesus would never dare do as he was the humble servant and worshipper of God, not himself). Making a claim to divinity can NEVER be proven true no matter how many miracles a person performs as God is what allows those miracles to occur, God is what they are occuring in and by, and there is only One God of whom all things and universes are made of and existing by, and it is to THAT God you should direct your worship, for it is the ONLY, and ULTIMATE GOD.

i dont hate god but i hate people who belive in god and go with it. like they are just puppets. well im no damn puppet thats all im saying.

You can't hate or love something that doesn't exist.

quote:Originally posted by sybil:

You can't hate or love something that doesn't exist.

Sure you can!

Abrahim I would like you to back up what you said with truth. The first writing of the koran were not collected untill MANY years after his death, yet they are not questioned. Seeing as how those who wrote about jesus were eye witnesses then i do not see how doubt could arise that he ever existed. There were many early church fathers who also gave witness to this. The earliest writings of the bible were about 15-30 AD. This does not allow for any stretching of the truth or making up a myth. There was also no reason to doubt their character. They were to stand upright and walk in righteousness. Therefore i do not believe that they would fail in their integrity. Also, if he does not reject someone calling him God after rising from the dead then he dead claim Godhood, he dared to do so because only God has power over death, and Christ overcame death. Of course God has the power of miracles, he was God.

quote:Originally posted by sybil:

You can't hate or love something that doesn't exist.

No, but you can hate or love what it is supposed to stand for.

first off i didnt read all of the other posts too long. now i will tell you why i hate the figure of "god." i am saying figure because i know there is no god its just imposible for an un seen super person that can watch every one in the world at the same time. evolution created the earth and every thing in it. they teach that in school. thats why christians are against teaching evolution in school. its proving the christian faith wrong. now i hate the figure of god beacuse its making people do stupid things. there is a group of protesters going around the country to soldiers funerals protesting that god is punishing us by killing soldiers because the soldiers are fighting for a country that thinks being gay is ok. think of how it is for those familys of the soldiers. its a hard time for them and then they have police and protesters and good people making a wall so the famliys dont have to look at the protesters. its horrible and it makes me mad and this is why i get angry at the world. and hate living in it somtimes.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

Abrahim I would like you to back up what you said with truth. The first writing of the koran were not collected untill MANY years after his death, yet they are not questioned. Seeing as how those who wrote about jesus were eye witnesses then i do not see how doubt could arise that he ever existed. There were many early church fathers who also gave witness to this. The earliest writings of the bible were about 15-30 AD. This does not allow for any stretching of the truth or making up a myth. There was also no reason to doubt their character. They were to stand upright and walk in righteousness. Therefore i do not believe that they would fail in their integrity. Also, if he does not reject someone calling him God after rising from the dead then he dead claim Godhood, he dared to do so because only God has power over death, and Christ overcame death. Of course God has the power of miracles, he was God.

"Abrahim I would like you to back up what you said with truth. The first writing of the koran were not collected untill MANY years after his death, yet they are not questioned."

The Qur'an was written down during the prophet's lifetime but only on loose pieces of different material. Abu Bakr, the first Muslim leader after Muhammad's death, asked Zaid ibn Thabit to collect all the different writing materials on which the Quran was written down. The compilation was finished, sometime between 650 and 656 CE after Muhammaed death in 632 C.E. So its not that “many years”.



"Seeing as how those who wrote about jesus were eye witnesses then i do not see how doubt could arise that he ever existed. There were many early church fathers who also gave witness to this. The earliest writings of the bible were about 15-30 AD. This does not allow for any stretching of the truth or making up a myth."

For the Gospels they tend to date Mark no earlier than 65, and Matthew some time between 70 and 85. Luke is usually placed in the 80 to 95 time frame. The earliest of the books of the New Testament was First Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul, written probably in 51, or possibly Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing. Of the pseudepigraphical epistles, Christian scholars tend to place them somewhere between 70 and 150, with Second Peter usually being the latest.

"There was also no reason to doubt their character. They were to stand upright and walk in righteousness."

How can u assume that they stood “upright and righteousness” Besides both Matthew and Luke drew significantly upon the Gospel of Mark and another common source, known as the "Q Source".



"Therefore i do not believe that they would fail in their integrity. Also, if he does not reject someone calling him God after rising from the dead then he dead claim Godhood, he dared to do so because only God has power over death, and Christ overcame death. Of course God has the power of miracles, he was God."

Science and empirical evidence disproves the raising of the dead and miracles are violations of the law of nature and therefore have a low chance of occurring. As Hume said Extraordinary claims needs Extraordinary evidence. Next time use real facts in your statements.



[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 07-07-2006).]

i dont hate god, or what you seem to think he stands for. i hate the people who follow him. or think they do i hate that the idea of religion is inherently flawed, that the most powerful argument for go is eather "how can life be random?" or "You cant prove that he dosnt excist so he must!" i hate that the peoplewho think they belive in god, will drop there beliefs the moment they become incovient

eg. kill people cus they say that the earth is not the center of the universe

ect. ect. ect.

I don't hate the idea of a deity, I hate how people let this idea become the bases of their lives and become impervious to anything else. They truly become ignorant beings.

quote:Originally posted by iSoape:

I don't hate the idea of a deity, I hate how people let this idea become the bases of their lives and become impervious to anything else. They truly become ignorant beings.

I am truly sorry hespeaks, you are right about the Koran, I apologize to all for that mistake. As for the gospels dates. Yes you have them down I think. Now what is it that you doubt about their accuracy? O and for them standing upright and righteous, of course they drew off of one anothers works. They wanted to get the closest discription possible and the most accurate. They drew of the Q documents as well, but these were writing of people who were there and wrote down Jesus quotes or some of his teachings. Each gospel is drawn off of another, but each is not a perfect copy. They actually each take a different approach while remaining factual. These different approaches are of course individual traits of the gospel writers, but since they differ and yet correlate that proves even more that they are accurate and not copies. And since they drew off of one another, they would then be under the scrutiny of the other gospels and could not be altered. As for miracles ... well what more could you want then an eyewitness testimony of hundreds of people? Paul himself relied on the eyewitness of the multitudes that christ had risen. He even listed names. That is extraordinary means to me. Again sorry about the errors, but you know the facts well, as you have shown and therefore you know that it is astounding to have historical documents written so soon after an event and so widespread. All these things point to accuracy, so what problem do you have with the Bible?

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

I am truly sorry hespeaks, you are right about the Koran, I apologize to all for that mistake. As for the gospels dates. Yes you have them down I think. Now what is it that you doubt about their accuracy? O and for them standing upright and righteous, of course they drew off of one anothers works. They wanted to get the closest discription possible and the most accurate. They drew of the Q documents as well, but these were writing of people who were there and wrote down Jesus quotes or some of his teachings. Each gospel is drawn off of another, but each is not a perfect copy. They actually each take a different approach while remaining factual. These different approaches are of course individual traits of the gospel writers, but since they differ and yet correlate that proves even more that they are accurate and not copies. And since they drew off of one another, they would then be under the scrutiny of the other gospels and could not be altered. As for miracles ... well what more could you want then an eyewitness testimony of hundreds of people? Paul himself relied on the eyewitness of the multitudes that christ had risen. He even listed names. That is extraordinary means to me. Again sorry about the errors, but you know the facts well, as you have shown and therefore you know that it is astounding to have historical documents written so soon after an event and so widespread. All these things point to accuracy, so what problem do you have with the Bible?

(N.B-The Q Document is theoretical, it hasn’t been proven to exist, just proposed as a bridge between Matthew/Luke and Mark, just to show the extent of their plagiarism) That’s assuming that their accounts were even true. Homer and Hesoid had common theories but differing viewpoints on the Greek version of the creation; does it make them any true? It’s logically possible that they borrowed from life –death –rebirth gods and the mystery religions that were prevalent during that age and through syncretism (a mixture of this with the Jewish religion) sprouted the Christian religion. And Paul’s testimony cannot be trusted because

There’s no historical evidence outside of the canon for Christ’s resurrection. It might easily be another legend. And historical documents are given their credibility when they are supported by other contemporary evidence. Even though hundreds of works from historians from the 1st Century A.D exists onto this day, none of them mention the raising of dead or etc. In addition they are thousands of “gospels” that were never included from the canon that has as much “credibility” as your gospels. Why the religious authorities and later ecumenical councils didn’t include those gospels? Because it contradicted their popular legends (they weren’t felt to have been orthodox –quote from Wikipedia) not because of any inaccuracies. That’s the problem I have the Bible. I have other issues with the bible but I stay in topic.



[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 07-09-2006).]

Well seeing as how plagairism isnt really plausible, because the Q documents were not a major part of the gospel works, then I will look at the other parts. There were also hostile jews that were making every attempt to make life worse for christians. They would have been extremely critical of any writings coming from these "christians". Those gospels of which you speak are the gnostic gospels. They do not relate to the 4 gospels that were canonized and they were written much later then the synoptics. There is also the fact that one of the first new testaments in the 140s AD did not contain them. The cannon was not made to pick these books, it was made by the books to weed out the false testimonies.

quote:Originally posted by hespeaks:

"Abrahim I would like you to back up what you said with truth. The first writing of the koran were not collected untill MANY years after his death, yet they are not questioned."

The Qur'an was written down during the prophet's lifetime but only on loose pieces of different material. Abu Bakr, the first Muslim leader after Muhammad's death, asked Zaid ibn Thabit to collect all the different writing materials on which the Quran was written down. The compilation was finished, sometime between 650 and 656 CE after Muhammaed death in 632 C.E. So its not that “many years”.



"Seeing as how those who wrote about jesus were eye witnesses then i do not see how doubt could arise that he ever existed. There were many early church fathers who also gave witness to this. The earliest writings of the bible were about 15-30 AD. This does not allow for any stretching of the truth or making up a myth."

For the Gospels they tend to date Mark no earlier than 65, and Matthew some time between 70 and 85. Luke is usually placed in the 80 to 95 time frame. The earliest of the books of the New Testament was First Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul, written probably in 51, or possibly Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing. Of the pseudepigraphical epistles, Christian scholars tend to place them somewhere between 70 and 150, with Second Peter usually being the latest.

"There was also no reason to doubt their character. They were to stand upright and walk in righteousness."

How can u assume that they stood “upright and righteousness” Besides both Matthew and Luke drew significantly upon the Gospel of Mark and another common source, known as the "Q Source".



"Therefore i do not believe that they would fail in their integrity. Also, if he does not reject someone calling him God after rising from the dead then he dead claim Godhood, he dared to do so because only God has power over death, and Christ overcame death. Of course God has the power of miracles, he was God."

Science and empirical evidence disproves the raising of the dead and miracles are violations of the law of nature and therefore have a low chance of occurring. As Hume said Extraordinary claims needs Extraordinary evidence. Next time use real facts in your statements.



According to the Qur'an, it makes reference to itself as a book that is being collected as a book as each phase of revelations "came down" and was recited. It makes reference to itself as "This Book" which seems to indicate it wasnt a scattered or confused bunch of papers flying around but actually being collected properly as each part was written in its own time.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

Well seeing as how plagairism isnt really plausible, because the Q documents were not a major part of the gospel works, then I will look at the other parts. There were also hostile jews that were making every attempt to make life worse for christians. They would have been extremely critical of any writings coming from these "christians". Those gospels of which you speak are the gnostic gospels. They do not relate to the 4 gospels that were canonized and they were written much later then the synoptics. There is also the fact that one of the first new testaments in the 140s AD did not contain them. The cannon was not made to pick these books, it was made by the books to weed out the false testimonies.

Out of a total of 1071 verses, Matthew has 387 in common with Mark and the Gospel of Luke, 130 with Mark alone, 184 with Luke alone; only 370 being unique to itself. Plagiarism is indeed plausible, since Matthew and Luke share much material not found in their generally recognized common source the Gospel of Mark, thus the Q document becomes a prominent part of the synoptic works.



Why do you think that Orthodox Judaism rejected the New Testament? The “stories” did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies of the Tanakh, nor embodied the personal qualifications of their “Messiah”. Besides the Jewish people were conquered by Babylonians, Assyrians, the Greeks and Romans, so you can't deny that a degree of cultural diffusion didn't occur.



Gnostic Gospels: Gospel of Thomas 50s-100s A.D. Gospel of Judas 130-180 A.D. Not all of the “gospels” excluded were Gnostic. The Book of Enoch was written in 3rd century BC-1st Century B.C ranges. The Gospel of James 140-170 A.D, Apocalypse of Peter- 100 A.D. The main reasons why they were not included in the canon because they were deemed heretical by the church. Also they were written too late from the traditional age of "Jesus" existance (which are not corroborated by any contempoary historical evidence) And then again no contempoary secular evidence of Jesus' life proves my point. I’ll end with an excerpt from the History Channel’s “Banned from the Bible”.

Bishop Eusebius, a scholar of early Christian writings found at Caesarea and Jerusalem and attendee of the First Council of Nicaea, published a comprehensive history of the Christian Church. In this history, he also critiqued many books and writings circulating in the Christian communities at the time in an attempt to form some sort common library. The books he reviewed were broken down into three categories: a) accepted (the four gospels, the Book of Acts and the Pauline epistles), b) highly likely (First John, First Peter), and c) questionable (Second John, Third John, Second Peter, Gospel of James, Epistle of Jude, the Book of Revelations, and others) He was all too aware of other church leaders views concerning Revelations with its imagery of war being at variance with Christ’s message of love and peace. He finally came down to eighteen books that HE BELIEVED should become official Christian scripture. Forty years later, a final list of 27 New Testament books was canonized by the Christian Church. This official list excluded many popular books either because they were felt to have been written too late or they weren’t felt to have been orthodox.



[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 07-10-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

According to the Qur'an, it makes reference to itself as a book that is being collected as a book as each phase of revelations "came down" and was recited. It makes reference to itself as "This Book" which seems to indicate it wasnt a scattered or confused bunch of papers flying around but actually being collected properly as each part was written in its own time.

Thats assuming that the Quran itself is true. It is logical to assume that they say that Muhammad put forth verses and laws that he claimed to be of divine origin; that his followers memorized or wrote down his revelations; that numerous versions of these revelations circulated after his death in 632 CE, and that Uthman ordered the collection and ordering of this mass of material circa 650-656. Scholars point to many attributes of the Qur'an as indicative of a human collection process that was extremely respectful of a miscellaneous collection of original texts

fuck god...

hes done nothing good for me

he has

1) killed me grandad

2) made me mum n dad lose money

3) made me not well many timez!!

FUCK YOU GOD!

I can't hate something that does not exists.

Friendly neighborhood advice:Paragraphs.

Wait, fuck, does that make sense? Friendly neighborhood advice? I'm so high right now.

If god does exsist, he is sadistic and not deserving to be worshiped. He is viewed as an all knowing, all powerful being, yet created humans knowingly condemning quite a few to an eternity in hell. Either he gave me free will knowing what I would do with it, dooming me to an eternity in hell, or he didn't give me free will, actively dooming me to an eternity in hell. Personally, I don't see why he should be praised for that.

New Rage, God gives the gift of everlasting life freely but we can also choose everlasting death. He knows what your choice will be, but that does not take away your free will, knowing has nothing to do with making, you could no exactly how something was going to turn out, but that doesnt mean you forced it to be that way. You have been blessed with a life to waiste or live. God will never give up on you, He sent his son to save you. He is always trying to get through. But in the end it is your choice. O and he makes no one go to hell. Choice.

Hespeaks. The Gospels drew off of one another .... i know that. They used each others writing so they did not screw up. It made guidlines almost. As for the gnostic gospels, you are correct in saying that what was written in them was not orthodox. Meaning that it did not adhear to the truth given the church and therefore deserved no place as being called Gods word. And if you read the Bible, Jesus coming was a perfect fit into the Old Testament prophecies, it was predicted that he would be of a virgin in bethlehem of the line of David, it was written also that he would die on a cross to take away our sins, it was even prophecied how he would be beaten.

quote:Originally posted by NewRage:

If god does exsist, he is sadistic and not deserving to be worshiped. He is viewed as an all knowing, all powerful being, yet created humans knowingly condemning quite a few to an eternity in hell. Either he gave me free will knowing what I would do with it, dooming me to an eternity in hell, or he didn't give me free will, actively dooming me to an eternity in hell. Personally, I don't see why he should be praised for that.

Who is praising God for that? But for the ability to write your complaint, to exist, but if you don't want to exist or are unappreciative and unhappy with your existence, you can simply...but you shouldn't do that, but you even have THAT option, how nice is that?!

quote:Originally posted by hespeaks:

Thats assuming that the Quran itself is true. It is logical to assume that they say that Muhammad put forth verses and laws that he claimed to be of divine origin; that his followers memorized or wrote down his revelations; that numerous versions of these revelations circulated after his death in 632 CE, and that Uthman ordered the collection and ordering of this mass of material circa 650-656. Scholars point to many attributes of the Qur'an as indicative of a human collection process that was extremely respectful of a miscellaneous collection of original texts



According to the Qur'an itself each new revelation and the revelations before it were recorded on parchment by scribes and kept in an order or some kind. The only reason mentioning what the Qur'an says as relevant is that it is a document from the actual time and it would be a little strange for it to say things about itself that aren't obvious. But thanks a million for your factoids I really appreciate them.

I don't completely subscribe to the history of Muhammed or Islam as written at later times, here is a segment from a wikipedia article:

Other sources for biographies of Muhammad are: the military chronicles of Waqidi (745-822); the biographies of Ibn Sa'd (783-845), a student of Waqidi; later histories; Quranic commentaries; and collections of Prophetic hadith. These texts were recorded more than a century, and often several centuries, after the death of Muhammad. Some passages in the Qur'an are believed to shed some light on Muhammad's biography; however, they require a great deal of interpretation to be useful.

Some skeptical scholars (Wansbrough, Cook, Crone, and others) have raised doubts about the reliability of the Islamic sources, especially the hadith collections. They note for instance that the earliest biography of Muhammad of Ibn Ishaq does not contain any dates or explicit details; yet, later Islamic narratives have progressively more dates, with minute details of Muhammad's life being inserted into their accounts as successive generations of scholars relay the story, such that by the time we arrive at contemporary renditions of Muhammad's story, dates and details have exploded exponentially without explanation. These skeptics believe that many hadith and other traditions were manufactured, or doctored, to support one or another of the many political or doctrinal factions that had developed within Islam in its first century or later. The life of Muhammad was believed to be the exemplar for all Muslims; hence the importance of showing that Muhammad said or did something proving that a particular faction was right. If the skeptics are right, and if much of the early material cannot really be trusted, then all that is factually known is what is contained in the summary above."

So the reason I mention the Qur'an is that it, itself states that things were being written down by scribes rather than orally memorized.

quote:Originally posted by Eloquence:

If you hate God, tell me why please.

He burned down my family, ate my crops and raped my prize goat.

[This message has been edited by jb_mcbean (edited 07-11-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

New Rage, God gives the gift of everlasting life freely but we can also choose everlasting death. He knows what your choice will be, but that does not take away your free will, knowing has nothing to do with making, you could no exactly how something was going to turn out, but that doesnt mean you forced it to be that way. You have been blessed with a life to waiste or live. God will never give up on you, He sent his son to save you. He is always trying to get through. But in the end it is your choice. O and he makes no one go to hell. Choice.

Hespeaks. The Gospels drew off of one another .... i know that. They used each others writing so they did not screw up. It made guidlines almost. As for the gnostic gospels, you are correct in saying that what was written in them was not orthodox. Meaning that it did not adhear to the truth given the church and therefore deserved no place as being called Gods word. And if you read the Bible, Jesus coming was a perfect fit into the Old Testament prophecies, it was predicted that he would be of a virgin in bethlehem of the line of David, it was written also that he would die on a cross to take away our sins, it was even prophecied how he would be beaten.

You keep avoiding the possibility that they might recall events that didnt occur in history. As I said earlier, Homer's epics and Hesoid's "Theogony" have similar parelles about Greek creation but differ in many ways just as the Gospels, the Eddas of Norse mythology have the same condition. Does it make Greek and Norse mythology any true?



When I say orthodox, it means that it didnt fit in the "accepted version" of the Church. The "accepted version" of the church may itself be derived from error and legend. For Example: Veneration of Mary and Christmas. "Worship of Isis, Horus' mother, was a prominent cult, and the proposal that this is the basis of veneration of Mary, and more particularly Marian Iconography, has some merit."

"The idea that many Christian practices, including 25th December being Jesus' birth-date, and Sunday being the dedicated day of worship, derived originally from Mithraism is regarded as likely by many mainstream historians."

Therefore the Church's version cannot be used as a demarcation into which is right or not if it is itself a center of controversy.

And as I said BEFORE There is no contempoary evidence of Jesus' existance outside of the Gospels. Therefore the writers of the gospels might have intentionally made their story to conform to Judiasm to gain wider acceptance.

"Some scholars believe that certain elements of the gospels are not history but a type of midrash: creative narratives based on the stories, prophecies, and quotes in the Hebrew Bible."

* and a little food for thought:If God is omniscient then that disputes free will, don't you remember the story of Oedipus? Also, God is omniscient he cannot be omnipotent because if he knows the future with absolute certainity he cannot change it-therefore not omnipotent. Therefore a omniscent omnipotent God cannot exist. In Addition, there are many obstacles to free will in our present world (famine, mental retardation, grave diseases, premature death, etc.) and God does little or nothing to prevent them. This is not conclusive proof that God does not have human free will as a high priority, but it does count against it.*



[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 07-12-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

According to the Qur'an itself each new revelation and the revelations before it were recorded on parchment by scribes and kept in an order or some kind. The only reason mentioning what the Qur'an says as relevant is that it is a document from the actual time and it would be a little strange for it to say things about itself that aren't obvious. But thanks a million for your factoids I really appreciate them.

I don't completely subscribe to the history of Muhammed or Islam as written at later times, here is a segment from a wikipedia article:

Other sources for biographies of Muhammad are: the military chronicles of Waqidi (745-822); the biographies of Ibn Sa'd (783-845), a student of Waqidi; later histories; Quranic commentaries; and collections of Prophetic hadith. These texts were recorded more than a century, and often several centuries, after the death of Muhammad. Some passages in the Qur'an are believed to shed some light on Muhammad's biography; however, they require a great deal of interpretation to be useful.

Some skeptical scholars (Wansbrough, Cook, Crone, and others) have raised doubts about the reliability of the Islamic sources, especially the hadith collections. They note for instance that the earliest biography of Muhammad of Ibn Ishaq does not contain any dates or explicit details; yet, later Islamic narratives have progressively more dates, with minute details of Muhammad's life being inserted into their accounts as successive generations of scholars relay the story, such that by the time we arrive at contemporary renditions of Muhammad's story, dates and details have exploded exponentially without explanation. These skeptics believe that many hadith and other traditions were manufactured, or doctored, to support one or another of the many political or doctrinal factions that had developed within Islam in its first century or later. The life of Muhammad was believed to be the exemplar for all Muslims; hence the importance of showing that Muhammad said or did something proving that a particular faction was right. If the skeptics are right, and if much of the early material cannot really be trusted, then all that is factually known is what is contained in the summary above."

So the reason I mention the Qur'an is that it, itself states that things were being written down by scribes rather than orally memorized.

I wouldn't consider angels and supernatural activity "obvious" since its not confirmed by empirical evidence. Similiarities between the Koran and the Judeo-Christian tradition suggests a dependance on the Jewish Christian accounts which are in themselves controversial. It is also presumed that Muhammaed brought these influences into Islam from the Byzantine Empire. "They alleged that Islam was formed slowly, over the centuries after the Muslim conquests, as the Islamic conquerors elaborated their beliefs in response to Jewish and Christian challenges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_and_development_of_the_Qur%27an#Traditional ists[/URL]





[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 07-16-2006).]