the thing that it says if someone slaps you you give them another cheek to slap..but why do christians kill other relegions and themselves if they belive this?
well they kind of get into wars. i saw a show on discovery where it showed our deep past ancestors, the apes. they would get into wars beating each other to death over food and territory.
First of all...Christians don't kill other people just for holding different beliefs. They do believe that theirs is the only way to God, but come on, no one in a Christian church would go crazy just because a Buddhist monk decided to walk in the door. I do remember the Crusades, but that was simply a political plot to gain land under the guise of a holy war. The church had nothing to do with it. As for "turning the other cheek," this doesn't mean Christians are pacifists, or allow themselves to be trod upon. It just means they don't go around retaliating against people all the time. To address the hypocrisy issue, I agree it exists and is a major problem. In fact, the church is aware of it. The fact is that everyone will give in to sin sometimes, but anyone who calls himself a Christian and purposely goes on sinning is just going to cause trouble for himself and make others think that Christians are no different from any other people when it comes to bad behavior. As for human nature, I've noticed that almost invariably, when left to their own devices, humans will choose evil over good. Also, as strange as this may sound, truth and morality are not relative concepts. They are absolute. Think about it; anyone who believes in physics believes in absolute truth. Is it not an absolute statement to say, "There exists a force in our universe called gravity which holds its structure together." ? Gravity works. That's an absolute statement. I don't believe in situational ethics, either. Things like murder and thievery will always be wrong, and no situation or circumstance can change that. There will always be good and evil, right and wrong. Whew - feeling a bit rantish...better quit before I write a whole book in this post! XD
Another question i have is couldn't some parts of the bible be false cause they had to take all the books and letters and some guy could've made a fake that went into the bible right under our noses!
Mathew, a lot of people outside of Christianity can see that problem, but some extreme, mostly Baptist Christians will argue til they die that the Bible is all truth and you shouldn't dare question it!
All your questions are valid and things people have thought about including myself. That is precisely why I think organized religion is primitive.
Aherlee, I'd have to say the Bible is all truth. It's a religious text, and a guide for living, certainly; but more than that, it's a historical document. Its veracity is supported by vast amounts of archaeological evidence, confirming both the existence of the people mentioned in the Bible as well as the truthfulness of the recorded events. Not only that, but hundreds of pages of the Bible are dedicated to detailed genealogies, specific descriptions of lands, cities, and procedures, and detailed blueprints of important buildings such as the temple built by Solomon and the ark built by Noah. Why do you think all this documentation was included in the writing of the Bible? It's to prove that it's a trustworthy source of information, and can be trusted as a guide to living as well.
Now, I want to stress that blind faith is not what Christianity is about. Faith is certainly a major part of it, but people are expected to exercise their own discernment and do their own research. It's much easier to accept something on a basis of faith after you've found qualifications to back it up. Also, I wouldn't criticize anyone for questioning the Bible, because anyone who questions it is bound to get an answer, provided they pursue that question, of course. If you have a question about the Bible, doesn't it make sense to look in the Bible for the answer? That Book has an answer for any question, and its own defense against any challenge. All you have to do is read it.
I know that a lot of the events described in the bible were proven to have actually happened, but were the spiritual portions of the events proven, or just the physical? Just because these things happened doesn't mean they happened the way the bible says they did. Just a thought.
Bloody, you make a lot of claims that I see no evidence for. Solomon's temple for example has no definitive proof that it ever existed. Last summer they found an artifact they BELIEVED to be from the temple, or a temple in that time, but not proof that it was Solomon's. The same with the Ark. The story has holes in it and doesn't think about the scientific impacts. My point is that it isn't meant to be taken as truth as it should be taken as a story just like mother goose. Mother goose taught children those little "after school" messages. It's a way of life - not a HISTORIC DOCUMENT. Why were so many parts of the Bible cut out, too?
On the genealogies, there is no way to prove that they were right on. I mean we obviously don't understand it the same way. How could the men have lived hundreds of years?
Now, I'll go into the writing process of the Bible. Just like a lot of texts it wasn't written until much later. As the quote goes, History books were written by the winners. Truth has nothing to do with it.
You seem to think that the veracity of a document comes into immediate question simply because it's being used by a religious institution. That makes no sense. Anyway, the original walls of Solomon's temple are right underneath the Dome of the Rock, the mosque right in the middle of Jerusalem. And there are writings in those walls labeling them as part of the temple, not to mention the layout and even the artwork on those walls matches the description of the temple in the Bible. Solomon's name is all over those walls and all the documents found within or near that site. As for the ark, the Bible records that it landed in the Ararat mountain range, which is exactly where they recently found that ark-like structure. Hmmmmm. I don't believe you should be questioning the accuracy of a document you haven't read, either. I should hope you've read the whole Bible before. If you have, let me ask you: does it read like a "how-to" book, or like a documentary? Each part of the Bible was written by the man who was appointed to do that either during the events that were being recorded, or within the man's lifetime no more than 100 years after the events he witnessed first-hand. The Bible is composed completely of first-hand accounts of events by the men that wrote it. The Bible is most certainly not a book of Mother Goose rhymes. Every single word you will read in the Bible is from a first-hand account of actual historical events. For example, the Gospel of John was written by John himself during the events described. All of the epistles, or letters, in the New Testament were penned by Paul, and Abraham himself wrote his part of the book of Genesis, as Moses wrote the book of Exodus. They are all first-hand accounts by their authors. And those genealogies are dead-on straight accurate, I assure you. They even record the lifespan of every entry. Those early men lived so long because the environment of the earth was very different, and they also lived differently. Did you notice, though, that after Adam, the lifespan of subsequent generations steadily decreased? After the fall of Adam and Eve, God appointed the lifespan of humans to be no more than 120 years, which is just about the limit we see today. As for why parts were left out, as you say, there has actually been nothing left out at all. Each subsequent author who contributed to the Bible added their accounts to it and passed it on, making millions of copies along the way. As soon as God deemed the work complete, the authors stopped writing and the books were compiled. Just because every single historical document written during that quite long time period was not included in the Bible does not mean anything at all was left out. If every document by every author from that time were included in the Bible, the Bible would take up a whole library of shelves from floor to ceiling. Only the necessary accounts written by the authors who were inspired by God were included. In fact, there is a passage in the Bible itself saying that if anything is added to or taken away from the Bible, it is a grievous offense. The Bible is fully complete as it is.
Let's stop a sec and thing, though. Bluntly, you're wrong. The Bible was NOT written by people who had first-hand accounts of these things, sorry, and even the ones that were written by them were not written DURING the events.
Genesis? Good luck proving that Abraham or Moses wrote that one while it happened. Heck, good luck proving that Genesis happened.
Exodus? Hah. Find some proof that the Israelites were enslaved by the Egyptians, period, then find some evidence that they wandered the wilderness for 40 years.
You won't find it.
The Old Testament is a bunch of fabrications or unsupported statements according to science and archeology. Heck, the whole prophecy about Christ having to be born of a virgin? Whoopsies, that was a mistranslation in the early texts. It should have been young woman, not virgin. Big oops.
Genealogies? So what, if I was to write a list of my supposed family tree and list exact dates, they would be automatically right? No. They must be supported by evidence, something that the Bible is sorely lacking. Heck, the genealogies contradict themselves!
Now to the New Testament...know the whole Christmas story? Being taxed by Caesar Augustus, etc, etc? Yeah...didn't happen.
The Roman empire was meticulous about keeping records of their taxing, and NEVER was a nationwide census called. It wasn't even in their laws. They couldn't do it. When taxes were called, though, it was never a requirement to return to their hometown. They could pay from whatever city they were in, period.
The story of Herod killing the babies? Nope. Herod wasn't even alive during the time that Jesus is suggested to have existed. Historical documents, as well, that have not been kind to Herod and exposed many of his flaws, never have mentioned his supposed infant genocide. That's a problem.
To paraphrase a very wise quote, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Luke? Never saw Jesus...got his accounts from other people, and there is evidence of parts being added long after the initial writing.
Paul? The guy had the classic symptoms of a stroke on the so called "Damascus Road" encounter, and suddenly decides to worship Jesus. Hmm.
For a so-called "erfect, inspired" Word of God, it seems odd that the books that were supposed to be canonized were chosen by groups of elite Catholic elders. The ones that didn't line up with the teachings that they wanted...well, they didn't use them. Remember, out of ALL of the books that were written, they chose 66.
That's weird.
And how, exactly, do you know that God appointed lifespans of only 120 years? Why don't we see evidence of civilizations of people that lived hundreds of years? According to the Bible, there were people living for hundreds and hundreds of years quite a bit after Adam. Methuselah ring a bell?
Look, the point is, you need to do some research before you make blanket statements like your entire post made. It's so blatantly full of fallacies and inaccuracies that it's hard to know where to begin - hence the jumping around that my post has done.
I used to be a Christian and believed the same things that you wrote. I wised up, did some research, and now am proudly atheistic. *shrug* To each his own, but at least get your facts right.
There's a thing about sciece. It's own defenition of itself is that it can't completely prove anything. Another scientific definition of itself is that it can't deal with religion, opinions, or anything of the sort. Science can only support or disprove.
In fact, life is like being in a big box. Science can see everything INSIDE that box, but that's all. Science may be nigh-perfect, but it's also greatly limited.
That said, recent scientific findings have supported that there were some proof of SOME people crossing the red sea with wooden wheeled things. Some other scientific findings have supported many things in the Bible and other religious documents.
However, we don't have and never will have the technology to completely disprove or prove Christianity, because of the death barrier. The only way you can absolutely know what's right is by dying, and by then it's too late.
(By the way, has anyone noticed that the topic of this has gone way out of what it origionally was intended for?)
Yes, I noticed...we're not on topic anymore, and actually I think I led it in that direction. I apologize. I got really agitated trying to defend my faith and took the discussion all over the radar with that. However, I still feel obligated to do my best in that regard. And I do like to rant a lot; it's just what I do. I'm going to be a bit more level-headed this time.
Razaki, one thing I left unmentioned is, of course, I know the account of the universe's creation, for instance, could not have been witnessed by any human. But how can you say Luke never met Jesus when he followed Him around for three years? He even wrote down his own conversations with Jesus. As for the lifespan issue, I already know that people lived hundreds of years for generations after Adam, but the average lifespan steadily decreased until it reached that limit of 120 years.
I have done a lot of research about the Bible, archaeology, and the rest of my faith during my lifetime, and I plan to do much, much more. I can see that you've done quite a bit yourself, but sometimes that research leads to the opposite result it did with you. I have read accounts of atheists who set out to disprove the Bible's accuracy and actually ended up converting themselves to Christianity. I also agree with what Paladin said about the limits of science concerning religious beliefs. Thank you, Paladin, for acting as a mediator there. As I've said before, Christian beliefs are definitely hard to prove, but to disprove them is even harder. And beyond that, though I keep my faith, I still consider myself a man of science. The importance of the ability to observe and draw conclusions will never be diminished. Though, I said my thoughts about the "turn the other cheek" statement long ago in this topic, so I should probably stop posting here.
