Cameron documentary claims to have found Jesus' Tomb. Oh, and dead body too... - Page 10 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

mykalberta · 02-26-2007, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Exactly

This is quite interesting stuff, but all this talk of evidence is a waste of time. Religion has nothing to do with evidence.

If a belief system is not based in evidence in the first place, then evidence won't be used to change it.

Its not a belief system if there is evidence, hence the word belief?

MYK

RougeUnderoos · 02-26-2007, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

Clearly. God's ultimate goal is to have us with Him. The way it was, very few people were acheiving that goal and He was lonely. So He changed the rules in the way we get to Him. He saw that the world was full of anger and hatred and disgusting things, and realized that more important than sacrifices and such was loving one another. Certainly, 'the code' still exists and we shouldn't sin, however the ultimate goal is to become more like Jesus who loved everyone. The end result is that if you truely believe that Jesus was His Son, you'll get to Heaven. He knows your heart, you can't fake something like that. It's much easier to get to Heaven this way than to ensure that you skin a cow and burn it on every third Sunday of the month and whatever else...

So what's this known as, The Mulligan Theory?

That's a pretty glaring mistake for an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful being to make. Also, the world is still full of anger, hatred and disgusting things. Do you think the rules will be changed by God again?

Bobblehead · 02-26-2007, 09:52 AM

FireFly · 02-26-2007, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

So what's this known as, The Mulligan Theory?

That's a pretty glaring mistake for an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful being to make. Also, the world is still full of anger, hatred and disgusting things. Do you think the rules will be changed by God again?

Is it really His mistake to believe the best in His children? Do not all parents do that? Besides, He planned for it. There's a reason Jesus was prophesied before He came. There's a reason for the Book of Revelation. He's well aware that there's still a lot of bad in the world, but He's now getting more on His side than He was before. If the events in the Book of Revelation are fulfilled, you could call that a change in rules... really though it's the same rule. He's a Father that wants to be loved by His children. He's given us ways we can love Him. He made it easier when He saw that we had a hard time. He'll make it easier once again.

Let's be honest here. If you're looking for proof, which I believe you said you are, when the events of the Book of Revelation start to unfold, will you believe then? They were written 2000 years ago, I'd say that's a pretty good way of saying "I'm real and I'm here."

FireFly · 02-26-2007, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Thank you for your thoughtful insight into this thread...

Agamemnon · 02-26-2007, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Hilarious!

mykalberta · 02-26-2007, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flames85

it's the job of men of god to translate meanings from the bible into today's society so people understand. of course things have changed but message remains the same.

Read the bible, the chuch was never intended to be the bibles mouth piece. It ened up that way due to poor literacy rates. "men of god" were some of the only few who could actually read so they "preached" to others.

The church is an antiquated organization in a society where literacy rates are near 100%. Alot of the questions that people ask today (abortion, gay marriage) they are both mentioned in the bible. The problem is two-fold, interpretting, and you have a zealous chuch that attmempts to use direct quotes (often not for their intention) to combat arguments.

MYK

Burninator · 02-26-2007, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

Such as? Let's be specific here.

Mostly that polygamy supports the idea of male dominance.

mykalberta · 02-26-2007, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flames85

sure you are, stand for something, Do you agree with gay marriages?

Join date, Feb2007.

Um, the CP crowd is not the forum where this debate should be have.

I wouldnt be surprised if this thread reaches 25 pages.

MYK

FireFly · 02-26-2007, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burninator

Mostly that polygamy supports the idea of male dominance.

I don't buy that at all. I think societal customs support the idea of male dominance and that depending on the particular relationship, polygamy could reinforce that. However, polygamous relationships can also go the other way.

Really, do you think Angelina Jolie couldn't have 5 husbands if she wanted them?

mykalberta · 02-26-2007, 10:11 AM

All this Old vs New Testimate...

Old testimate was a set of rules to follow (similar to Muslim not eating pork, etc) where if you disobeyed the rules, there was no recourse. The New Testimate is based on forgiveness where you dont have to live with the strict set of rules, you can be a rapist, murderer etc and still be accepted.

In fact, after reading the Book many times, and living in a family where that is the most important thing (never have gone to church - grandpa kicked out - long story) it is my believe that prostitutes, rapists, murderers have a better chance of being accepted before got than the regular Joe because it should be easier to see them as a sinner than yourself.

Both testimates are valid, just in the New one, they tend not to follow alot of the rules/teachings of the Old because they dont have to to be accepted. That is why you see far more strict word for word rules in the Old one than you do in the New one and more interpretation in the New one.

MYK

RougeUnderoos · 02-26-2007, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

Is it really His mistake to believe the best in His children? Do not all parents do that? Besides, He planned for it.

Yes, it is his mistake to believe the best in his children. It's pretty obviously a mistake to believe that human beings will be good all the time and follow all the rules. I know that. You know that. I don't think it's unreasonalbe to believe that the creator of the universe knows it too. "Besides, he planned it"? Talk about a free ride.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

There's a reason Jesus was prophesied before He came. There's a reason for the Book of Revelation. He's well aware that there's still a lot of bad in the world, but He's now getting more on His side than He was before. If the events in the Book of Revelation are fulfilled, you could call that a change in rules... really though it's the same rule. He's a Father that wants to be loved by His children. He's given us ways we can love Him. He made it easier when He saw that we had a hard time. He'll make it easier once again.

Let's be honest here. If you're looking for proof, which I believe you said you are, when the events of the Book of Revelation start to unfold, will you believe then? They were written 2000 years ago, I'd say that's a pretty good way of saying "I'm real and I'm here."

If the events in the Book of Revelation start to unfold then yes, I'll believe then. Until this wishy-washy egomaniac shows his face, I'll continue to be skeptical.

mykalberta · 02-26-2007, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

2 Peter 3:8
‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.'

Psalm 90:4
‘For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.’

The problems with Psalm 90:4 is that when the bible talks about creation, it clearly mentions the morning and evening. That would seem to indicate to me at least that when they are talking about days in that instance, it means sunup to sundown.

I agree, there are other parts in the Bible where that is relevant, but that is the inheret problem of the Bible. People take a literal quote from one part and attempt to use to to justify another part without reading the history, or taking the quote into context.

MYK

mykalberta · 02-26-2007, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

What contradicting evidence do you have that god doesnt exist or never did exist? Just wondering, you made a flame post so I assume you have something to back it up?

MYK

FireFly · 02-26-2007, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yes, it is his mistake to believe the best in his children. It's pretty obviously a mistake to believe that human beings will be good all the time and follow all the rules. I know that. You know that. I don't think it's unreasonalbe to believe that the creator of the universe knows it too. "Besides, he planned it"? Talk about a free ride.

If the events in the Book of Revelation start to unfold then yes, I'll believe then. Until this wishy-washy egomaniac shows his face, I'll continue to be skeptical.

I never said he planned it, I said he planned FOR it. He wanted to believe the best in his children, but knew it wouldn't happen. He saw what was coming, continued to have faith, made an escape route anyways. The Jewish people are His chosen ones... that's why He's already planned for another escape route. He knew they still wouldn't believe, and still wouldn't accept Jesus which is the reason He is the key point to Christianity and salvation, the acceptance of Him. Once the Jewish faith accepts Him, all the prophesies will be fulfilled.

Ah whatever. You just want to think that IF He exists, He's a dink and a ****-up and that's your right. I'm not going to change your mind. I know why I believe what I do, and if you think it's a free ride, that's your choice.

Bobblehead · 02-26-2007, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mykalberta

What contradicting evidence do you have that god doesnt exist or never did exist? Just wondering, you made a flame post so I assume you have something to back it up?

MYK

So you want me to come up with proof that, "god doesnt exist or never did exist"?

That is the essence of the issue, isn't it?

Burninator · 02-26-2007, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

I don't buy that at all. I think societal customs support the idea of male dominance and that depending on the particular relationship, polygamy could reinforce that. However, polygamous relationships can also go the other way.

Really, do you think Angelina Jolie couldn't have 5 husbands if she wanted them?

I don't buy that it's going to create more indenpendant women. Why would a strong woman (such as Angelina Jolie) want to share something so fundamentaly important as a husband with three or four other women? Hard to be indenpendant when your at home all the time pushing out and caring for babies.

RougeUnderoos · 02-26-2007, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

I never said he planned it, I said he planned FOR it.

Do you actually see a difference between "he planned it" and "he planned FOR it"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

He wanted to believe the best in his children, but knew it wouldn't happen. He saw what was coming, continued to have faith, made an escape route anyways. The Jewish people are His chosen ones... that's why He's already planned for another escape route. He knew they still wouldn't believe, and still wouldn't accept Jesus which is the reason He is the key point to Christianity and salvation, the acceptance of Him. Once the Jewish faith accepts Him, all the prophesies will be fulfilled.

Ah whatever. You just want to think that IF He exists, He's a dink and a ****-up and that's your right. I'm not going to change your mind. I know why I believe what I do, and if you think it's a free ride, that's your choice.

Escape route? Seriously?

And I don't want the think that if He exists, he's a dink and a ****-up. Quite the opposite, actually. If I'm going to believe in something clever enough to invent the sun and design my eyeballs, I have to believe that it's a pretty smart being, not prone to crazy mistakes and insistent on writing instruction manuals that are impossible to make sense of and dependent on sequels.

FireFly · 02-26-2007, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burninator

I don't buy that it's going to create more indenpendant women. Why would a strong woman (such as Angelina Jolie) want to share something so fundamentaly important as a husband with three or four other women? Hard to be indenpendant when your at home all the time pushing out and caring for babies.

Why should she settle for only one husband when she could have more? I didn't say it's going to create independant women, I just don't buy that it reinforces male dominance in all cases.

I think society suffers when there's no one at home caring for the children. Why not have an extra spouse to do just that?

Agamemnon · 02-26-2007, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

So you want me to come up with proof that, "god doesnt exist or never did exist"?

That is the essence of the issue, isn't it?

Pretty much... and until you can prove he doesn't exist, then it seems obvious that God rests with his Son on clouds, being serenaded by Cherbus and Seraphins, while the rest of us strum harps and wear the all-whites of the home team.

The burden of proof CLEARLY rests on your shoulders Bobble... infidel...