The Religion Discussion

[RBphoto]

sigh
I can show you the words but I can't show you the understanding, can I

I think he is reading you wrong.

[Habit7]

there is no way a single book can hold all the answers for all the people, and no way all the people can read a single book and all have the same conclusion
Humans are far too diverse for that
This one-size-fits-all thing is utter bollocks

How can test this to be true aside from MG Man saying that it is so?

Or

By what authority are you saying this?

[MG Man]

You struggled with comprehension exercises back in primary school days, didntcha

[RBphoto]

I think he has a problem understanding that he is the one who has to provide proof that his fictitious book is of any value.

[MG Man]

any teacher will tell you: show any classroom full of students (regardless of age) a written passage, and everyone will have different ideas, interpretations and conclusions...heck many authors will tell you that scholars read much more into their metaphors and general writings and get far more meaning than they intended when they put pen to paper.....it is impossible to have one book that everyone can read and draw similar conclusions from, worse yet when it has to be translated.....unless you have The One Ring, you failed as a god

[Habit7]

Wow, career politician here

Tu quoque logic fallicies abound.

Nevertheless objective minds remain unfazed

[MG Man]

no surprise there

[Habit7]

any teacher will tell you: show any classroom full of students (regardless of age) a written passage, and everyone will have different ideas, interpretations and conclusions...heck many authors will tell you that scholars read much more into their metaphors and general writings and get far more meaning than they intended when they put pen to paper.....it is impossible to have one book that everyone can read and draw similar conclusions from, worse yet when it has to be translated.....unless you have The One Ring, you failed as a god

Reject the last post, I didnt see this response.

I agree with the majority of what is said here, however...

Initially you said, "there is no way a single book can hold all the answers for all the people" which is a universal claim. If there is one God, one way to know Him and one way to walk in knowledge of Him then those who go contrary to that are wrong, simple. If God has one universal truth for all people, in the same way the laws of science are universal, the variation within people are inconsequential. Either you follow the law or you break it.

You also said, "no way all the people can read a single book and all have the same conclusion," which is also correct. But just like the students in your analogy, in a literature class, those who fail to arrive at the right conclusion derived from the book are wrong. I have done literature from O levels straight to 2nd yr UWI, and even with the leeway of post-modernism if your conclusion cannot be accounted to from the book, you get and F for wrong conclusion.

"This one-size-fits-all thing" applies to everything in life. Earlier you and RB were claiming that I didnt understand your post. Because if I interpreted it as the lyrics to Like Ah Boss I would be wrong. However, your post (in your view) had a clear meaning and was capable of being understood.

Likewise the essential message of the Bible (the nature of God, the state of man's sinfulness, Jesus as the divine atonement and man's subsequent call to holiness) is clearly communicated and understood spread across the world through many different ppl like no other religious message.

Those who deny, reject or tinker with this conclusion from the Bible are wrong. In the same way you believe anyone who doesnt affirm the clear, self-attesting, irrefutable, universal theory of evolution is wrong.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Initially you said, "there is no way a single book can hold all the answers for all the people" which is a universal claim. If there is one God, one way to know Him and one way to walk in knowledge of Him then those who go contrary to that are wrong, simple. If God has one universal truth for all people, in the same way the laws of science are universal, the variation within people are inconsequential. Either you follow the law or you break it.

the argument is based on the premise "If there is one God". Religion is based on faith, what happens when someone believes differently?
based on MG Man's previous posts, it is apparent that he does not believe in any God or gods at all.

Also it is not necessarily the same as laws in science as there is no free will. You cannot choose not to obey the laws of gravity. There is no choice in following it. And there are no varying laws based on beliefs or interpretations. A scientific law is a law for all, not "you for your way and I for mine", that does not work in science.

[Habit7]

the argument is based on the premise "If there is one God". Religion is based on faith, what happens when someone believes differently?
based on MG Man's previous posts, it is apparent that he does not believe in any God or gods at all.

The belief that there is no causal agent for our material world is also a based in faith. If God exists and MG Man doesn't believe in Him, God's law will still apply to him and he still will be made to account.

Also it is not necessarily the same as laws in science as there is no free will. You cannot choose not to obey the laws of gravity. There is no choice in following it. And there are no varying laws based on beliefs or interpretations. A scientific law is a law for all, not "you for your way and I for mine", that does not work in science.

This is exactly the point I am making. If you go outside the safe bounds of the law of gravity, you will suffer the consequences. Likewise if you go outside the safe bounds of the law of God, you will suffer the consequences. Gravity consequences just happens immediately. God's law consequences goes on for eternity.

[Slartibartfast]

But can you proove that this is not what really happened to the dinosaurs?



Also, how does one go outside the safe bounds of gravity and how exactly does the law of gravity break down.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

the argument is based on the premise "If there is one God". Religion is based on faith, what happens when someone believes differently?
based on MG Man's previous posts, it is apparent that he does not believe in any God or gods at all.

The belief that there is no causal agent for our material world is also a based in faith. If God exists and MG Man doesn't believe in Him, God's law will still apply to him and he still will be made to account.

still IF. And which God? Different religions have different laws. Just looking at this from a holistic standpoint.

Also lack of belief is not a form of belief. You cannot equate a lack of belief with belief. Atheism is not based on faith.

Also it is not necessarily the same as laws in science as there is no free will. You cannot choose not to obey the laws of gravity. There is no choice in following it. And there are no varying laws based on beliefs or interpretations. A scientific law is a law for all, not "you for your way and I for mine", that does not work in science.

This is exactly the point I am making. If you go outside the safe bounds of the law of gravity, you will suffer the consequences. Likewise if you go outside the safe bounds of the law of God, you will suffer the consequences. Gravity consequences just happens immediately. God's law consequences goes on for eternity.

if what you believe is true. Gravity does not require faith.

[Habit7]

You are shift goalpost now. We were first talking about the universality of God's law. To discuss such we much precude God exist. Now if you want to shift to the nature of God, reference the several pages where we discuss this before.

The existence of God doesn't require faith too. God didn't create man to have faith in him to allow for His existence.

[Numb3r4]

What if I say that Religion and such forms of spiritual belief are "dumbed" down forms of early observational science. Namely a more personal, simplified and identifiable means of explaining the workings of nature to the masses.

[Slartibartfast]

Then you would be right but Habit still won't see it that way.

[maj. tom]

So sorry that they couldn't understand Jesus's lectures on the dual nature of light or electron transport chain.

[RBphoto]

So sorry that they couldn't understand Jesus's lectures on the dual nature of light or electron transport chain.

He gave us the recipe to curry duck as well.... somewhere in revelations I think.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/revela ... 18_08.html

[York]

So sorry that they couldn't understand Jesus's lectures on the dual nature of light or electron transport chain.

He gave us the recipe to curry duck as well.... somewhere in revelations I think.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/revela ... 18_08.html

Wrong! He spoke no fowl language.

[York]

I've heard that there is no historical evidence that can be corroborated for the existence of Jesus, any comments / views?

[Slartibartfast]

I've heard that there is no historical evidence that can be corroborated for the existence of Jesus, any comments / views?

Yes

[MG Man]

I've heard that there is no historical evidence that can be corroborated for the existence of Jesus, any comments / views?

outside the bible, zip...nada....nought
Also he was not the only wandering hippie preacherman....if things had gone a bit differently, it would have been Apolonius Christ instead of Hay-soo

[Slartibartfast]

I've heard that there is no historical evidence that can be corroborated for the existence of Jesus, any comments / views?

Have you tried reading the bible? The bible is the most verified and historically accurate book in existence. There are many references to Jesus in the Bible. There is no historical corroboration because atheism is starting to take a hold in the field of history and they are beginning to want multiple sources of evidence for the same event. However, in most areas that existed around the time the bible was written, only the king and the record keepers could read and write. This meant that in most cases only one account of events would be recorded. They didn't have facerocks and instachisels back in the day. So I ask you is there any historical corroboration that proves the non-existence of the Bible?

Also, here is a list of other historical events that are not "corroborated" with in multiple historical records
-Hitler's first birthday
-The big bang
-Noah's ark
-Evolution
-The birth and subsequent self-disguise of artificial intelligence

Are you saying that none of these events ever happened?

[Habit7]

I've heard that there is no historical evidence that can be corroborated for the existence of Jesus, any comments / views?

outside the bible, zip...nada....nought
Also he was not the only wandering hippie preacherman....if things had gone a bit differently, it would have been Apolonius Christ instead of Hay-soo

There are over 42 sources within 150 years after Jesus’ death which mention his existence and record many events of his life.

9 Traditional New Testament Authors
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Author of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude.
20 Early Christian Writers Outside the New Testament
Clement of Rome, 2 Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Fragments of Papias, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, and Epistula Apostolorum.
4 Heretical Writings
Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, and Treatise on Resurrection.
9 Secular Sources
Josephus (Jewish historian), Tacitus (Roman historian), Pliny the Younger (Roman politician), Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories), Lucian (Greek satirist), Celsus (Roman philosopher), Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution), Suetonius, and Thallus.

[MG Man]

in other words, zip....nada...nought

[Slartibartfast]

I don't think the first 33 of those 42 sources count.

Also, any link to the secular sources. I'm interested to see what they say.

[Habit7]

This is what happens when atheists like Baldeosingh use Bart Ehrman to even assert any doubt in the existence of Jesus.

York plz be advised, Kevin Baldeosingh is a good satirist, not a historian.

[Habit7]

You don't believe because you lack the evidence, you all don't believe because you reject the message.


You are in like company with those who personally observed the miraculous work of Jesus, yet still rejected the message.

No amount of evidence, which is plentiful, will make you believe because your lack of belief is moral, not intellectual.

[megadoc1]

I've heard that there is no historical evidence that can be corroborated for the existence of Jesus, any comments / views?

people who are of this view are usually jokers or trolls ,dont take that bait york ...

[MG Man]

[megadoc1]

exactly my point..jokers and trolls