Who is going to hell? An argument for the Bible, Religion and God.

[ninjaface]

Originally Posted by BigDongedHoe

1 review of hundreds that you picked out to fit your agenda.

I actually read about 10 reviews. 5 of the 5-star and 5 of the 1-star. Most of the 1-star reviews I read were written by christians. And some of the 5-star reviews were retarded. Here is a snippet from one of the 5-star reviews.

I was very steadfast in my resentment towards Christianity, but I was influenced otherwise -- I just had to be because the logic that the author used, for me, made sense. For example, I lost a great deal of faith in Christianity when I learned how the Bible was written many years after Jesus' death, and that it was largely a result of "word of mouth".

This guy thinks the entire bible was written after jesus died. His 5-star review is meaningless.

Originally Posted by BigDongedHoe

I can't tell you one person who has had there life here changed by Horus the Sun God of Egypt but I can tell you thousands I've heard had there life changed by Christ.

You can't tell me one person who has had their life changed by Horus because this isn't 3000 BC Egypt. If you were born there and then, you would have had your sex, done your drugs, listened to your Dave Matthews Band. Then something would happen to you and scare the shit out of you. Then you wouldn't tell anyone about it, but instead turn to Horus and the other gods and live your life on the straight and narrow.

[BigDongedHoe]

Horus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I just read through that whole thing and fail to see a solid correlation between him and Jesus

[ninjaface]

Oh wow, I can't believe you read the "whole thing"! Thats an awful lot of words. Well golly... if something is not on the first wikipedia page you read, it must not exist at all!

On a more serious note, wikipedia is meant to give you a general understanding of things. Not a complete dissection of all concepts and theories related to whatever you're looking up. Haven't you ever had a teacher tell you that you can't use wikipedia as a reference?

I've checked several Christian-based websites and strictly Egyptian historical websites. Not just Wikipedia.

These are the facts as far as I can tell.
Horus was of divine birth, Osiris only son, he performed miracles, died and was resurrected, and was considered to be the Son of Osiris as well as Osiris himself.

Also, Horus was also called "dweller in the star Septet." Septet is the star you and I know as Sirius, which is the brightest star in the night sky. The hieroglyph of Sirius is a star and a tall triangle. Isis, Osiris, and Horus form a trinity.

[BigDongedHoe]

And this ideology has lasted how long? The God I know has been worshiped since the beginning of mankind. His one and only son (Jesus of Nazareth) has said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me." (John 14:6) Other religions believe in Jesus but they don't believe he is who he said he was. They simply believe he was a prophet and a good man who did many good things for God. Through scripture I believe differently.

As I've based my faith above I obviously believe that Jesus is who he said he was and you do not. I also mentioned that one of us is wrong and one of us is right and there is nothing wrong with that. I don't think of you any less because you don't believe, I am just simply giving my reasoning for why I do.

[Mr. Mistoffelees]

Originally Posted by BigDongedHoe

What I was saying about Messianic prophecies is that there isn't one prophecy that has yet to not come true. There are many that have been left unturned (such as the end of the world and pretty much the entire book of Revelations).

How can a prophecy NOT "come true" with this logic? When anything that hasn't come true is "left unturned?"

[BigDongedHoe]

ID if a prophecy in the bible was stated and didn't come true. Our faith would be completely shot. The entire book of Revelation is prophecies about the end times. No specific date is given but it obviously hasn't happened yet.

[Orgazmo]

I'll bet any of you 1000 blowjobs that I won't die in the next 50 years.

Any takers?

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by BigDongedHoe

My personal testimony and personal relationship with Christ is enough for me. If you really studied it at the very least I think you'd realize that Jesus did exsist. There are simply too many historical writings wrote about him including ones that weren't included in the bible. Bottom line is that I tried to get people at least thinking.

More of these historical writings on Jesus that aren't in the Bible, plz.

Also, I would wager to say most nonbelievers actually "think" more than a lot of nonbelievers.

I can't tell you one person who has had there life here changed by Horus the Sun God of Egypt but I can tell you thousands I've heard had there life changed by Christ. I know you can make a cultural argument but truth be told people are converting to Christ worldwide.

That's because you live in the United State, and you weren't born in another part of the world. Also, people are converting mostly because of missionaries proselytizing while helping extremely poor and needy people. On geographic distribution of religion:

If Science Worked Like Religion

If Science Worked Like Religion

Originally Posted by BigDongedHoe

And this ideology has lasted how long? The God I know has been worshiped since the beginning of mankind.

No, he hasn't. Your god has been worshipped for 2,000 years, not 50,000. There were myriad gods before yours and there will be many more after (although i'm hoping not.)

List of deities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by BigDongedHoe

ID if a prophecy in the bible was stated and didn't come true. Our faith would be completely shot.

As far as I can tell (and i've already mentioned this) all these prophecies seem to be prophesied IN the Bible and then fulfilled...IN THE BIBLE. Do you understand this? Something in the Old Testament is proved in the New Testament. Throwing out the possibility of backediting which I already mentioned (which is completely feasible with how many hands/translations it went through, unless you can show me original, carbon-dated scrolls of the Old Testament), these prophecies aren't exactly specific. They're like horoscopes:

OT prophecies written hundreds of years before Jesus' life said the messiah would return in the form of a man being the Son of God who would be crucified on the cross and be risen from the dead. I can provide the scripture references to confirm those claims.

-A man who claims to be a God?! That's a prophecy??? As opposed to WHAT?! What else would a messiah claim to be??? -

-Crucifixion was a very popular form of torture for at least 500 years before Christs purported existence.

-Nobody can prove he was raised from the dead, making this prophecy unfulfilled.



As a sidepoint, @Ninja, Wikipedia is a fantastic source and on the bottom of literally almost every single page is a long list of references in the article. If nothing else, wikipedia is a good list of alternative and legitimate sources.

[BigDongedHoe]

Blonde the book that I mentioned for you to read will talk about some of the other historical writings. Take the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). Why were these four selected for the bible as opposed to the 40 or 50 scriptures written about Jesus' life? The book I provided will explain why they were selected. With 40 or 50 accounts of Jesus life one could assume he most definitely did live.

When I referred to the God I know being worshipped since the beginning of man I am not saying 2,000 years. I'm talking about God the Father. The same God referred to as "Allah" by Muslims. He has been worshipped since the beginning of time. He simply hadn't sent his son to walk the earth (God the Son).

As far as finding believers in other parts of the world. I'm going on a missions trip to El Progreso, Honduras in July. We will visit believers in a prison, visit the most 3rd world parts of Honduras, and also visit churches down there. I'm anxious to meet other brothers and sisters in Christ from a completely different culture than mine.

Blonde you are correct that the OT in general is prophecies that are answered in the NT. The books of the bible also are in historical order from the time they are written. So prophecies that were written some 500 years before Christ walked the earth were answered and historically accounted for in the NT 500 years later. The exception to this rule is Revelation which is the last book of the bible found at the end of the NT. It is by most accounts the most difficult book to understand as a believer. There are also many parts of Revelation that are argued amongst believers as to there opinion of what certain scriptures mean.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by BigDongedHoe

When I referred to the God I know being worshipped since the beginning of man I am not saying 2,000 years. I'm talking about God the Father. The same God referred to as "Allah" by Muslims. He has been worshipped since the beginning of time. He simply hadn't sent his son to walk the earth (God the Son).

ಠ_ಠ

[Repugnant Abomination]

What's sadder about missionaries - that their help to poor people comes with strings attached, or that they need to serve a higher power in order to help in the first place?

Evangelicalism and populism sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g. Look how they hold each other, how they look longingly into each others eyes - a match made in heaven! And unlike naughty catholic school girls, they won't fuck until after they're married.

They're both just fancy words which pretty much mean the same thing: simplification. Or, if we want to use a nastier word(s), dumb down. A brief breakdown for those who aren't familiar:

Evangelicalism - what you need to believe: The need to be "born again", Biblical authority, belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the need to do good works based on the gospel. That's it. If the Catholics are the scholars (and molesters) of the religious world then think of the evangelicals as the hillbillies. They've whittled down the complexities of religious argument to four basic tenants that even the most bumbling of their flock can follow. Their favorite rallying cry is "It's not religion, it's a relationship!" this doesn't just reveal that they want to be dissociated with the negative connotations of religion, but reinforces the simplification of. Why study ancient texts when I can have THE ONE TRUE GOD over for a slumber party every night?

Populism: Political-social ideology that places "the people" against the "elite" - it's characterized by a mistrust of excellence, essentially - we're not just talking about slimy politicians here, we're talking about achievers. We're talking about PhD's, social theorists, scientists, anyone who confuses them and messes with their world view, basically. They're "the folks" the honest to goodness down to earth people who the rich, intellectual tricksters take advantage of to get ahead. Populism appeals to the ethos (character) of a person. It's about simplicity, about making everything black and white. Guys like Foucault and Berger make them shake their heads in dismay. Classic victim complex.

Let's examine the population these two seductresses serve: White, middle class mid-westerners. Hey, who do we know who fits that description? Even before BDH felt the hand of God tugging his heartstrings he was in the perfect environment for this to happen.

Anyone with half a brain can see serious problems with how the Bible was put together without even delving into what it actually says. First, there's the translation issue. Let's just say when the King James version of the Bible was slapped together they weren't exactly being careful or impartial:

"James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy."

Source: Daniell, David (2003), The Bible in English: its history and influence, New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, ISBN 0300099304

Second, the books that were chosen versus the books that were excluded. The big secret is this - when they were consolidating Christianity into what it is as we know it, they contrived to select books that conformed to the version they wanted to push. Many of the books that are excluded from the Bible were left out because they contradicted the official version of Jesus the church wanted to push. Period. They needed to make sure there wasn't any doubt that Jesus was in fact the son of God. Anyone can argue WHY they did this, but the point is that they did it. What makes one book more divine than the other? The only thing believers can say is that those who chose the books were divinely inspired.

This discussion is pointless because the crux of BDH's belief comes from personal experience. He can throw whatever books he wants at Blonde, but as long as Blonde doesn't make exceptions for the Bible that he otherwise wouldn't for other epistemological ponderings then this won't go anywhere.

BDH, I don't doubt you feel what you feel, but that's just not enough. In my opinion you feel what you feel because you want to feel it - most people want to believe in God, very few people don't want to believe in God. Because of this people who don't believe in God are almost by definition more objective.

I realize I've come off as a condescending ass, but you of all people should be able to forgive me.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

Second, the books that were chosen versus the books that were excluded. The big secret is this - when they were consolidating Christianity into what it is as we know it, they contrived to select books that conformed to the version they wanted to push. Many of the books that are excluded from the Bible were left out because they contradicted the official version of Jesus the church wanted to push. Period. They needed to make sure there wasn't any doubt that Jesus was in fact the son of God. Anyone can argue WHY they did this, but the point is that they did it. What makes one book more divine than the other? The only thing believers can say is that those who chose the books were divinely inspired.

Thank you for bringing this up. On the way to work, I found myself thinking "Wait, wait, wait, ....why were books EXCLUDED from the Bible in the first place?!

Originally Posted by BigDongedHoe

Take the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). Why were these four selected for the bible as opposed to the 40 or 50 scriptures written about Jesus' life? The book I provided will explain why they were selected. With 40 or 50 accounts of Jesus life one could assume he most definitely did live.

I'm really looking forward to the rationale in the book, specifically, my criticism of it. Your posts have forced my hand to buy it from a bookstore here in Korea. I'll be picking it up this Saturday.

[BigDongedHoe]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

Second, the books that were chosen versus the books that were excluded. The big secret is this - when they were consolidating Christianity into what it is as we know it, they contrived to select books that conformed to the version they wanted to push. Many of the books that are excluded from the Bible were left out because they contradicted the official version of Jesus the church wanted to push. Period. They needed to make sure there wasn't any doubt that Jesus was in fact the son of God. Anyone can argue WHY they did this, but the point is that they did it. What makes one book more divine than the other? The only thing believers can say is that those who chose the books were divinely inspired.

Source? The books that were chosen for the bible were chosen because of two key factors. The amount of scriptures found for these particular books and also the time. The four gospels were chosen because of the hundreds of more copies found as opposed to other similar books. Also the time period they were written. The four gospels were written 50-80 years after Jesus' death. Other similar books were written over 200 years after his death seriously doubting the accuracy.

The translation argument is a really bad argument as well. Hebrew and Greek words can have double meanings at times but they usually mean something similar. One of the profs at the college I attended actually was involved in the translation of the NIV (widely known as the most popular version used today). He would venture to say that 99.9% of translations are completely accurate. With the .1 that comes from the double meanings in Greek and Hebrew. That's a direct source of someone who has read the Greek and Hebrew scriptures for themself.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by BigDongedHoe

One of the profs at the college I attended actually was involved in the translation of the NIV (widely known as the most popular version used today). He would venture to say that 99.9% of translations are completely accurate. With the .1 that comes from the double meanings in Greek and Hebrew. That's a direct source of someone who has read the Greek and Hebrew scriptures for themself.

Yes, but he was likely a Christian...

"A Letter to a Christian Nation" will be arriving at your door probably sometime next week; it's already been ordered.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Originally Posted by BigDongedHoe

Source?

Ever heard of The Council of Nicaea?

"The Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in A.D. 325... Its main accomplishments were discussion and settlement of the Christological issue of the relationship of Jesus to God the Father..."

Source (one of many): The Catholic encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/

Key word being Christological: "the field of study within Christian theology which is primarily concerned with the nature and person of Jesus Christ. Primary considerations include the relationship of Jesus' nature and person with the nature and person of God. As such, Christology is generally less concerned with the details of Jesus' life (what he did) or teaching than with who or what he is. There have been and are various perspectives by those who claim to be his followers since the church began after his ascension. The controversies ultimately focused on whether and how a human nature and a divine nature can co-exist in one person."

Now let's follow this to its natural logical conclusion: They determined the divinity of Jesus during The Council of Nicaea and solidified the canon of the New Testament. By officially declaring the divinity of Jesus they of course had to exclude certain books and include others that promoted that same conclusions they had come to.

[BigDongedHoe]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Yes, but he was likely a Christian...

He's a scholarly man with a Ph.D. That's an irrelevant argument. Are you trying to say a non-believer would translate it differently? I'm sure anyone who knows Greek and Hebrew will translate the words similarly Christian or not.

[ninjaface]

Originally Posted by BigDongedHoe

The four gospels were written 50-80 years after Jesus' death. Other similar books were written over 200 years after his death seriously doubting the accuracy.

HOW DARE YOU DOUBT THE ACCURACY OF THE HOLY BIBLE! I CAST THEE INTO HELL!!

[Repugnant Abomination]

I provided a source like you asked. The least you can do is respond.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by BigDongedHoe

He's a scholarly man with a Ph.D. That's an irrelevant argument. Are you trying to say a non-believer would translate it differently? I'm sure anyone who knows Greek and Hebrew will translate the words similarly Christian or not.

Translation Bias is a very relevant argument, especially when it comes to believers.

EDIT: Are you just going to ignore Repugs posts? The Bible is long as shit anyways, why couldn't they include other scriptures that were not included? Even in separate publications, are these other scriptures "lost" now? If not, why aren't they published?

[SittinOnDubsWGW]

Because God told them to lose them. clearly.

[vaga1220 *]

If you could reason with religious people religion wouldn't exist at all.

[Der Fuhrer]

Hell sounds fun. How do I sign up for that? Is it like summer camp? Satan seems like a cool guy, I'd like to be his friend.

[Dent]

Originally Posted by BigDongedHoe

The four gospels were written 50-80 years after Jesus' death. Other similar books were written over 200 years after his death seriously doubting the accuracy.

Did you just come out of an Alpha course class? You're gonna spout this bullshit, right?

Author No. of Copies Time Span
Caesar 10 1.000 years
Plato (Tetralogies) 7 1,200 years
Tacitus (Annals) 20 1,000 years
Pliny the Younger (History) 7 750 years
Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum) 8 800 years
Homer (Iliad) 643 500 years
New Testament Over 24,000 25 years

(copied this from somewhere, ones i've seen before say it's a greater timespan)


You're saying that because of the relatively short time between jesus doing his shit and it doing down on paper that it must be true? and that because historians regard the other books as being accurate that's more evidence for it being true, none of these other books make any huge claims about our origins, or tell us what we should be doing in the future, I couldn't give a shit whether any of the other books are 100% accurate, they don't play a huge role in our lives.

[Ugly Bastard]

Christianity is so fucking lame.

[BigDongedHoe]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

What's sadder about missionaries - that their help to poor people comes with strings attached, or that they need to serve a higher power in order to help in the first place?

Evangelicalism and populism sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g. Look how they hold each other, how they look longingly into each others eyes - a match made in heaven! And unlike naughty catholic school girls, they won't fuck until after they're married.

They're both just fancy words which pretty much mean the same thing: simplification. Or, if we want to use a nastier word(s), dumb down. A brief breakdown for those who aren't familiar:

Evangelicalism - what you need to believe: The need to be "born again", Biblical authority, belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the need to do good works based on the gospel. That's it. If the Catholics are the scholars (and molesters) of the religious world then think of the evangelicals as the hillbillies. They've whittled down the complexities of religious argument to four basic tenants that even the most bumbling of their flock can follow. Their favorite rallying cry is "It's not religion, it's a relationship!" this doesn't just reveal that they want to be dissociated with the negative connotations of religion, but reinforces the simplification of. Why study ancient texts when I can have THE ONE TRUE GOD over for a slumber party every night?

Populism: Political-social ideology that places "the people" against the "elite" - it's characterized by a mistrust of excellence, essentially - we're not just talking about slimy politicians here, we're talking about achievers. We're talking about PhD's, social theorists, scientists, anyone who confuses them and messes with their world view, basically. They're "the folks" the honest to goodness down to earth people who the rich, intellectual tricksters take advantage of to get ahead. Populism appeals to the ethos (character) of a person. It's about simplicity, about making everything black and white. Guys like Foucault and Berger make them shake their heads in dismay. Classic victim complex.

Let's examine the population these two seductresses serve: White, middle class mid-westerners. Hey, who do we know who fits that description? Even before BDH felt the hand of God tugging his heartstrings he was in the perfect environment for this to happen.

Anyone with half a brain can see serious problems with how the Bible was put together without even delving into what it actually says. First, there's the translation issue. Let's just say when the King James version of the Bible was slapped together they weren't exactly being careful or impartial:

"James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy."

Source: Daniell, David (2003), The Bible in English: its history and influence, New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, ISBN 0300099304

Second, the books that were chosen versus the books that were excluded. The big secret is this - when they were consolidating Christianity into what it is as we know it, they contrived to select books that conformed to the version they wanted to push. Many of the books that are excluded from the Bible were left out because they contradicted the official version of Jesus the church wanted to push. Period. They needed to make sure there wasn't any doubt that Jesus was in fact the son of God. Anyone can argue WHY they did this, but the point is that they did it. What makes one book more divine than the other? The only thing believers can say is that those who chose the books were divinely inspired.

This discussion is pointless because the crux of BDH's belief comes from personal experience. He can throw whatever books he wants at Blonde, but as long as Blonde doesn't make exceptions for the Bible that he otherwise wouldn't for other epistemological ponderings then this won't go anywhere.

BDH, I don't doubt you feel what you feel, but that's just not enough. In my opinion you feel what you feel because you want to feel it - most people want to believe in God, very few people don't want to believe in God. Because of this people who don't believe in God are almost by definition more objective.

I realize I've come off as a condescending ass, but you of all people should be able to forgive me.

I feel like you guys try and find whatever loophole you can and then dig a wedge in it. In the same way you sit here and say Christians translated the texts to fit their agenda I could just as easily say those who speak against Christianity will twist things to fit their agenda as well.

There are how many translations of the bible? Off the top of my head I believe there are over 100. Everyone has a slightly different way of saying one particular piece of scripture. They all however have the same type of meaning with that scripture. BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages. type in a piece of scripture and read it in 10 or so different translations. Tell me how "different" each one really is. You're arguing semantics right now and really missing the whole point. I'm not douting that .1% of the bible may be inaccurate but the 99.9% that is accurate is enough for me.

I believe the bible to be truth and you don't. I don't need to argue with you guys on why I believe what I believe. However for someone to say what I believe is based off of "irrational emotion" isn't true at all. My initial life change to Christ was emotional and continues to be. I have however studied the subject really hard to solidify what I believe is truth. As I dig further and further it only confirms my faith (see definition of faith, following Christ is a very emotional thing) even more. In the end one of us is right and one of us is wrong and we both ultimately know the implications of what will happen when one or the other happens. If you're right and you live life how you see it fit and on the day you die thats it life is over. If I'm right I live my life in servitude to my Lord in trying to continue to live my life as Christ did and spend joy beyond what anyone can ever fathom eternally in Heaven.