Do you believe in God?

[PFSS]

Re: Do you believe in God?

I've read some of those "other" texts that got "left out". Trust me, there's a reason they weren't included. For example, the "Gospel" of Thomas has Jesus (as a child) smiting a boy for some forgettable reason. A lot of thought, prayer and debate went into selecting which texts would become canon and which were considered noncanon. I fully trust the council got it right.

Are you saying that the the events Thomas mentioned are false? It sounds a lot like the decision making process was based around picking the passages they agree with...

Recognize him as what? Shouldn't they hate him for being Jewish? Did they "recognize" his quote "I am the Way the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." as being true? See.. Moses never made a bold statement like that. So we nonJews can "recognize" Moses and still see Jesus as the Messiah. A Muslim CANNOT "recognize" Jesus and still follow Muhammad. If they did, Muhammadian would simply be a denomination, like Calvinism and Lutheran.

Given that God changes his mind quite a bit, particularly from the OT to the NT it seems a bit strange to assume he would never ever change his mind again.

As mentioned - Muslims don't hate Jewish people as a matter of faith. There are some people who are muslim who have issues with Jews in general because of Israel, but like most religions Islam has it's share of idiots. There are also some muslims who have issues with Israel but not with Jews, which from their perspective is kinda understandable really. There are also some muslims who read that the Quran states that Israel should be a Jewish nation. It's amazing how diverse beliefs can be among a billion or so people....

Many Jewish prophets are held in high regard and are popular choices when Muslim parents name their children - Ibraham, Moses, Isa (Jesus), Issac, Sara/Sarah (Abraham's wife IIRC), Adam, Noah

 

[moo-cow]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Is it an actual rule to not divinely heal someone on the Sabbath? Or is that considered "work", but following around a guy all day to see if he breaks the Sabbath isn't work, right?

The problem is that mercy was forced to take a backseat to letter-of-the-law perfectionism. You tell me who did more evil - a man who healed on the Sabbath, or the men who killed that man.

There is a prohibition to crush/grind/make medicine on the sabbath. taking medicine and healing derive from that. however, medicine for a person who is in the category that loosely translates as life threatening is allowed. so, assuming a pregnant woman might take an asperin in general, asperin is allowed to a pregnant woman on the sabbath but not to an otherwise healthy person who has a headache.

Until around the late 19th century muslims were great for the jews. across europe, until populations were converted to christianity they were also friendly to the jews. not being as knowledgeable about europe as i'd like, i'll go with starting around 1789, when the french decided the jews had to be included as people and given rights in order for the republic to be true, europe has become more tollerant with notable exceptions but i wouldn't go so far as to say actually friendly.

 

[buttershug]

Re: Do you believe in God?

I've read some of those "other" texts that got "left out". Trust me, there's a reason they weren't included. For example, the "Gospel" of Thomas has Jesus (as a child) smiting a boy for some forgettable reason. A lot of thought, prayer and debate went into selecting which texts would become canon and which were considered noncanon. I fully trust the council got it right.

You mean the council made up of Roman Catholics?
Which council are you putting your faith in?

 

[Majaii]

Re: Do you believe in God?

As far as I know none of the Gospels were written by anyone who ever met Jesus Christ. That pen was put to paper long after he and anyone who knew him were dead. That they were not written from journals. That they were written by people of the church of Rome.

I am curious as to whether they were written before or after it was voted that Jesus was of divine birth.
Maybe Wildberry or Dondrei know.

Majaii, you really should study up on the history of the Bible. And I mean independantly of the Bible.

I still think if Joeseph Smith had been say Muslim then what he told the world would be different from what he did tell the world. So it does matter what he started from.

I don't have time to look stuff up right this moment, but here is some random googling.

http://www.biblestudyplanet.com/q44.htm

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1988/who-wrote-the-bible-part-4

(this is even half against the direct apostles writing, but still agrees that it was done while the apostles were alive.)

http://biblestudies.suite101.com/article.cfm/who_wrote_the_new_testament


There are better ones from books I have read, but like I said I am at work and don't have time to look those up. I have studied the history of the bible, and yes it was independent from the bible. My dad has a paper he wrote on it somewhere, maybe I will get it from him at christmas. Oh and Paul met Christ, it was just after he was resurrected.

In response to this:

I still think if Joeseph Smith had been say Muslim then what he told the world would be different from what he did tell the world. So it does matter what he started from.

and this:

Either way there is a connection, but you seem to be arguing for the fact that he pulled his ideas out of a vacum rather than having built on what Christians had practiced for a thousand years or so as means to give his ideas more weight for the 'true' version of Christianity. Which seems an odd path to take.

The reason that the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is different is we believe that God has not stopped talking to his children. We believe that there was an apostasy after the death of Christ and the apostles, and so the Church needed to be restored. This is what Joseph Smith did in 1830, and it was done through heavenly messengers. Revelations through Joseph Smith and prophets who have followed him have also restored important doctrines and truths. We believe that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and the church is currently run by a prophet, his two counselors, and the quorum of the 12 apostles. They administer to the church of Christ the same way that the 12 apostles of Jesus's time did.

Since God is the same, and their are many truths in the Bible, there are also many truths that other churches will hold. We just believe that some were lost, and needed to be restored, along with the power to act in Gods name.

This is the reason why mormons have been ridiculed and persecuted, and they are bold statements to make. The church as it is today is the same as the church was when it was established in christs time, with apostles and prophets etc... If you want to read what happened to Joseph Smith then read this:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1

That is all I will say on the subject however; as this thread was not meant for that, rather it is to see who believes in God. I do, hence my posts, plus I believe strongly in the bible, so I chose to defend it. If you don't want to believe in it, then history will not convince you.

-Majaii

 

[WildBerry]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Until around the late 19th century muslims were great for the jews. across europe, until populations were converted to christianity they were also friendly to the jews. not being as knowledgeable about europe as i'd like, i'll go with starting around 1789, when the french decided the jews had to be included as people and given rights in order for the republic to be true, europe has become more tollerant with notable exceptions but i wouldn't go so far as to say actually friendly.

Depends on your part of the Europe. Pogroms were still common as 20th century started in the Eastern parts, and the Moslem world didn't really have it's Dreyfus cases before the creation of Israel.

 

[stillman]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Does any of this old stuff matter? The people who wrote anything in the Bible didn't know much in those days. People of that time thought the best way to cure a headache was to drill a hole in the back of your head and let the blood pour out taking the evil spirits with it. I don't get why so many people put their total faith into the words of such primitives.

You know, there are so many religous people who refuse to believe evidence that is shown repeatedly using the scienctific method in labs all around the world. Evolution happens right before your eyes under an electron microscope when you watch HIV changing to become more resistant to drugs with each new generation of viruses. It can also be shown in guppy fish and numerous other species. These religous people are sitting there wearing their glasses which science gave to them, using their computers that science allows them to use, and they are basically rejecting much of what science has shown.

Well you can stop using your computer, because it is a tool of science, and you strongly disagree with science. How can you go to the doctor and trust his/her words? Every doctor in America must have a grasp of evolution to studdy for the MCAT test. It is the most important brach of biology. Do you realize that whenever you take any medication at all you are relying on mankind's understanding of evolution? If people are going to bash Darwin, they should go all the way and live like the Omish. Taking medicine is blasphemous because medicine is based in part on evolution which flies in the face of creationism. Don't take your cold medicine; it is against God. Don't take an aspirin ever again; it is against God. You are either with God or you are with evolution. There is no middle ground here, sorry.

Probably most of the food you are eating is grown or raised using science, with evolution being at the heart of the grower's concerns. Farmers are at a constant war with pests which keep evolving to bypass or resist pesticides. You better stop eating food, or else you believe in evolution rather than creationism.

When you drop an object, it falls to the floor. It doesn't matter how much you believe in anything, it happens, and it happens every single time. Well the same stong evidence has been shown with evolution. It is happening whether you believe it or not. It doesn't matter how badly you wish it to not happen. It doesn't matter how wrong you think Darwin is. Evolution just keeps on happening regardless. Go drop something on the floor and try it.

Edit: Furthermore, the joke is on all these religous people who are basically taking schizophrenics' word for it. Any miracles described in the Bible were probably nothing more than psychosis making people see things that weren't really there. You may as well go to a psychiatric ward and tell all the schizophrenics that they are great prophets. Schizophrenia is quite common, affecting about 1% of the population. Don't believe them when they say they witness miracles.

 

[buttershug]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Oh and Paul met Christ, it was just after he was resurrected.
-Majaii

I don't have time now either but you do understand why that can not be considered evidence, right?

 

[Majaii]

Re: Do you believe in God?

I don't have time now either but you do understand why that can not be considered evidence, right?

Yup, that's why I just threw it in there, wasn't meant to be empirical

 

[Felix]

Re: Do you believe in God?

I don't have time now either but you do understand why that can not be considered evidence, right?

Since you do it's abit hard to understand why you would even take part in a debate about faith.

And regarding the law and that it shall be untouched untill the very end. This basically means that an evil deed shall remain so to the end of the world. No advancement of science will change the fact that if you do something wrong, your inner self will know and be coloured by the deed. You think anyone verbally murders someone on the internet, without that deed will follow him in his life and in any situation influence, yes even dictate how bound his will is. Man fells judgement on himself we are told, and isn't that so. Do you not drag your own verdict along with you?

Is it not there in your false smile in act with new people who don't know you. Why? Is it not there every single moment you are alone? The soul colours and hardens as we go on our way. And by Law is bound to be defeated by Him who decides who shall live, and who by deeds deserve to die. Yes the death of a soul is the outcome of breaking the law, lest we find forgiveness from the Law. A clean conscience the outcome of receiving Jesus in faith. You call that invisible? I say no it is evident, it is you that is blind.

How many here who mock and taunt, have deeds hidden within himself he will never admit to us, and are these deeds not what chooses his stance for him? I see God everywhere, and I see his Law forced upon everyone the very second they violate. Because they can never lie to themselves.

And does one act of evil not bind a soul to do another? Why then can you say you not see God, when you are whole body and soul underneath his will and Law? For the Law is at work this time in life too, and man condems himself, guilty to the Law, lest he has faith he has been forgiven.

For or against, the Law remains.

Nothing will change for the individual regarding the Law whether he attends church, denies faith or claims it. Some say they can't see God, but everything they do have consequences on their inner self, based on the law.

As such God is the one you can't close your eyes to.

 

[Felix]

Re: Do you believe in God?

*I deleted post*

 

[Felix]

Re: Do you believe in God?

*deleted py poster*

 

[PFSS]

Re: Do you believe in God?

A dog is a dog is a dog.

Are Wolves, Coyotes and the various breeds of Domestic Dog all the same species?

 

[Felix]

Re: Do you believe in God?

*deleted by post*

 

[buttershug]

Re: Do you believe in God?

No, and you can't breed one into the other, which is my point. Now breeding backwards might seem to make the discussion silly, but as a hypothesis, why shouldn't you? By any scientific approach based on Darwins theory you most surely should be able to.

So the domestic dog stays the domestic dog, nomatter how different it's appearence becomes after breeding. Which makes no sense if Darwins theory is correct.

You are not even close.
Why don't you try and explain away "ring species"?

 

[PFSS]

Re: Do you believe in God?

No, and you can't breed one into the other, which is my point. Now breeding backwards might seem to make the discussion silly, but as a hypothesis, why shouldn't you? By any scientific approach based on Darwins theory you most surely should be able to.

So the domestic dog stays the domestic dog, nomatter how different it's appearence becomes after breeding. Which makes no sense if Darwins theory is correct.

You know the origins of the Domestic Dog don't you?

Ignoring that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybrid

Are these then are entirely new species created by man?

For or against, the Law remains.

I just saw this, again - where is all the Law laid down in the OT set aside (except for the bits that aren't)?

 

[Felix]

Re: Do you believe in God?

*deleted by post*

 

[PFSS]

Re: Do you believe in God?

I don't know, you tell me. Cause it sure looks like a dog to me. You do know that inter crossing species cannot bear fertile offspring?

This is highly dependent on the particular species being crossed. If you had read the link rather than look at the pictures you would have seen that many of the hybrids are fully capable of reproducing.

If the poor animals was to have even the slightest chance in the face of disaster, a nature that seems to hinder the theory you defend at every turn, does not make origins of new species by intercrossing familiar biological tree species plausible to me.

If Wolves and Dogs are separate species then a Wolf-Dog is obviously neither a Wolf nor a Dog - so it is a new species created by man yes?

And my point about the law you missed. A crime will remain a crime.

So if a married or engaged woman is raped in a town doesn't scream loud enough for anyone to hear her then she should be put to death?

 

[moo-cow]

Re: Do you believe in God?

religions hate science and are antithetical and stuff

in jewish law, as the knowledge changes, so does the law. bloodletting used to be a common medical practice. now scientists have shown it to be ineffective/bad and have replaced it with medicines/surgery/whatever and now to let blood would be forbidden. there is a quote in the talmud i'm still looking for that says the sages say the earth is flat and the greeks say it is round and the talmud concludes the greeks are right.

 

[Felix]

Re: Do you believe in God?

*deleted by post*

 

[PFSS]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Ad a) And i told you about apples and pears. I also told you this isn't Darwinism, it's PFSSs' theory of highly advanced science and forced breeding as an explanation to natural default settings which seems to be not there. Because in nature the wolf eats the dog.

This is me wondering how you justify your "A dog is a dog is a dog" statement and asking why you don't think a poodle is a different species than a rottweiler

When did I ever mention Darwin?

b) Lets say yes for the sake of argument, but you say it yourself, "created by man". But see a). Also we have the matter of survivability for the outcome to pay heed to. Amongst wolfs it would be shredded to death as the weak one. All these freaks coming out are just that, weak compared to what exists already. If everyone is 6 feet tall, dark skin and muscular, you think it would be sweet to be born skinny, pale skin and weird looking eyes? Well theres your new species in a pack of wolfes.

Again - if you read the link rather than looked at the pictures you would see:

"The Australian Dingo(Canis lupus dingo) breeds freely with domestic dogs. This is now so widespread that in some areas dingoes are now mostly feral domestic dogs, crossed in recent times with dogs from other parts of the world."

"These crossbreds are accepted back into the wild dingo population where they breed with pure dingoes."

"This can result in problematical and unsociable behaviour which makes them generally unsuitable as pets. As a result, they may be abandoned or allowed to stray and be absorbed into the feral dog or coyote population."

And if you read the Wolf-Dog link in there you would have seen:

"Hybridization in the wild usually occurs near human habitations where wolf density is low and dogs are common.[13] However, there were several reported cases of wolf-dogs in areas with normal wolf densities in the former Soviet Union. [14] Wild wolf-dogs were occasionally hunted by European aristocracy, and were termed lycisca to distinguish them from common wolves.[15] Noted historic cases (such as the Beast of Gévaudan) of large wolves that were abnormally aggressive toward humans, may be attributable to wolf-dog mating.[1] In Europe, unintentional matings of dogs and wild wolves have been confirmed in some populations through genetic testing. As the survival of some Continental European wolf packs is severely threatened, scientists fear that the creation of wolf-dog hybrid populations in the wild is a threat to the continued existence of European wolf populations.

and

"Observations on wild wolf hybrids in the former Soviet Union indicate that wolf hybrids in a wild state may form larger packs than pure wolves, and have greater endurance when chasing prey"

"In many cases the resulting adult wolfdog may be larger than either of its parents due to the genetic phenomenon of heterosis (commonly known as hybrid vigor)"

So much for Wolf-Dogs being smaller and weaker and getting torn apart by the pure-blood wolves eh?

c) Seems mighty harsh, but all I can do is shutter and think about a time where this was a milestone of an advancement in regards to what we call humane. Before the law a woman was worse of as there was no law for her. God put capital punishment on Rape, and he puts capital punishment on adultery. And thus starts mans long walk away from freely doing both.

Unresolved issues of pregnancy and the like would also lead to blood feuds, honor killings and the like. Very possibly much more widespread violence, was it not lawed in a way people of the time were ready to accept.

After this law, the girl knew; if she screamed she would be saved from the rapist and any repurcussions of the assault. She was given a tool out of being victimised. Before that if she had drawn attention the outcome of the situation would most likely get her killed, dont you think?

So I assume you still feel this law should be upheld as the crime of not screaming loud enough while being raped was not specifically revoked?

Also - why do you presume to know why God implemented this particular law? He didn't give any explanation for his motives...

It should also be noted that "Adultery" in the context of the various laws in the bible only refers to a man having sex with a woman who is married to someone else.