Proof of God . . .

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Buff@Jun 14 2005, 01:14 AM
They have found that it wasn't translated from language a to b to c to d to e. Rather from a to b, and a to c, etc. There may be some a to c to e somewhere in there, but there have been, like you said, minimal changes. The Bible still says the same thing in a version printed yesterday as a Bible printed 100 years ago, or a version of the Bible from 1000 years ago. It hasn't been changed to suit the current needs of Christianity, unlike other religions. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and so is his word.

Well I don't know how closely you've looked into it but it's certainly not as cut and dried as you make it appear.

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

"The New Testament was written by many different people. The traditional belief is that all the books were written by the apostles or their followers (e.g. Mark and Luke). Modern scholars now largely discount this assumption aside from seven of Paul's letters. Except for Hebrews, no serious question about the authorship of any of the books as listed above was raised in the church before the 18th century, when critical inquiry into the New Testament began."

"The process of canonization was complex and lengthy. It was characterized by a compilation of books that early Christians found inspiring in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Hebrew Testament (early Christian communities were primarily Jewish). In this way, the books considered authoritative revelation of the New Covenant were not hammered out in large, bureaucratic Church council meetings, but in the secret worship sessions of lower-class peasant Christians. While an episcopal hierarchy did develop and finally solidify the canon, this was a relatively late development.

In the first three centuries of the Christian Church, there was no New Testament canon that was universally recognized. Nevertheless, by the 2nd century there was a common collection of letters and gospels that a majority of church leaders considered authoritative. These contained the four gospels and many of the letters of Paul. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (all 2nd century), held these to be on par with the Hebrew Scriptures as being divinely inspired. Other books were held in high esteem, but were gradually relegated to the status of New Testament apocrypha.

One of the earliest attempt at solidifying a canon was made by Marcion, who rejected the entire Old Testament, all but one gospel (Luke), and three of the Pauline letters. His unorthodox canon was rejected by a majority of Christians, as was his gnostic theology. Around 200 the Muratorian fragment was written, listing the accepted works. This list was very similar to the modern canon, but also included the Wisdom of Solomon (now part of the Deuterocanonical books) and the Apocalypse of Peter. The New Testament canon as it is now was first listed by St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367, in a letter written to his churches in Egypt. That canon gained wider and wider recognition until it was accepted by all at the Third Council of Carthage in 397. Even this council did not settle the matter, however. Certain books continued to be questioned, especially James and Revelation. Even as late as the 16th century, theologian and reformer Martin Luther questioned (but in the end did not reject) the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation. Even today, German-language Luther Bibles are printed with these four books at the end of the canon, rather than their traditional order for other Christians."

If you really look into it, you really have to wonder about which books made the "Bible" as we know it, why, and which ones were excluded and why. Question about alterations certainly abound as well.

"All Christian groups respect the New Testament, but they differ in their understanding of the nature, extent, and relevance of its authority. Views of the authorititativeness of the New Testament often depend on the concept of inspiration, which relates to the role of God in the formation of the New Testament. Generally, the greater the role of God in one's doctrine of inspiration, the more one accepts the Bible's infallibility, inerrancy, and authorititativeness."

And if you follow the link they proceed to detail the position of a lot of the major churches on this very matter.

To further talk about the excluded books...

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

"In the process of determining the Biblical canon, a large number of works were excluded from the New Testament. These New Testament Apocrypha are generally not accepted by Christians, though the Ethiopian Orthodox Church recognizes Jubilees, Book of Enoch, the Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, Acts of Paul, and some uniquely Ethiopian books."

"Many alternate edited versions of other gospels existed during the period of early christianity. Sometimes, those attributed to the text state elsewhere that their text is the earlier version, or that their text excises all the additions and distortions made by their opponents to the more recognised version of the text. Although the church fathers insist that these people are incorrect (and indeed heretical) in their assertions, modern scholarship is not so convinced. It remains to be seen whether any are earlier and more accurate versions of the canonical texts. Details of their contents only survive in the attacks on them by their opponents, and so for the most part it is uncertain as to how extensively different they are, and whether any constitute entirely different works. These texts include:

* Gospel of Cerinthus (Cerinthus' version)
* Gospel of Basilides (Basilides' version)
* Gospel of Marcion (Marcion's version)
* Gospel of Appelles (Appelles' version)
* Gospel of Bardesanes (Bardesanes' version)
* Gospel of Mani (Mani's version)"

[Cheese]

Heres another slant....

The story starts in Rome where there were several mystery cults active. The Gods of these cults had diverse beginnings, some were Gods from other cultures and some were actual people who became mythologized. They all had similar features such as having been ressurected, celebrations of the winter solstice (December 25th or thereabouts) and Spring Solstice (late March early April) etc. All of these mystery religions competed for followers, more followers meant more political power. They all fought for legitimacy in that anciet ideological world.

Let's imagine for a moment that one of these mystery religions had a priest named Paul. It sucks being Paul because every time he gains a follower he loses one to a similar religion, but Paul is aware of a bizarre phenomenon going on in the south. An entire country of Jews is fighting and dying in vain against Roman might strictly for their beliefs. If only he could inspire such zeal in his followers.

Paul is nothing if not resourceful and studies this strange religion. He finds out that they have a written scripture and that they claim the laws in it are directly from God. He also finds out that many of the Jews that are killed by the Roman occupiers believe that they are a king who is prophesied in the Jewsih book of scriptures. What if Paul could tie his religion to this fanatical group and use the authority of their book to give his religion legitimacy?

Many of the Jewish rebels who were killed were called Jesus and they thought they were the messiahs of Judaism. Jesus the Messiah (in Greek, Messiah is Christ, Greek being thought of as a more refined language at the time) becomes Jesus the Christ. Of course Paul wants to keep it all familiar so he attributes to his new God the same attributes that the gods of other mystery religions have.

Paul begins networking outside of Rome, figuring that he might find converts among the Jews themselves. This proves to be a little dangerous as the Jews start pushing to make the new religion more Jewish. Things like circumcision and not eating pork are hard sells and he is competing for followers after all.

He goes back to Rome and starts recruiting followers there and is doing pretty well but his followers are a little too zealous and start creating problems. Paul gets in trouble because of all of this and gets hung. This ends up galvanizing the followers of Paul's new religion, one of them makes up a story about the new God and following the trend of the time, attributes it's writing to one of the alleged disciples of the New God. He comes up with the main story after seeing a play about another God of the mystery religions, Julius Caesar and combines that with a list of wise sayings he has collected. The story becomes known as the Gospel of Mark.

Most of the followers are pretty happy with the story but there are dissenters. The story of Mathew is written to correct some of those disputes followed by Luke. The gospel of John is written by an isolated cult called the gnostics who have a more mystical slant on all of it.

[photon]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Jun 14 2005, 09:02 AM
I've always found this argument rather curious. I have never understood why a god would deny a good person salvation if he didnt accept JC as his "savior". It seems to me that this argument implies that satisfying God's ego is more important than living up to his rules. One would think a god would be above that kind of thing.

Well the idea is that God is Holy. Man isn't, and to mix them would be like mixing oil and water; it can't happen. It's not that the water that chooses not to mix with the oil, they can't mix because of their very natures.

God wanted to provide a way for everyone who chooses to to be able to commune with him. So he created a path that could be accomplished with.

So accepting JC as savior isn't about stroking God's ego, it's about admitting that no matter how hard one tries one will always be imperfect (we're human) and accepting the path that was laid out. It's not about good deeds, being good, or anything. It's about an attitude and an act of submission.

So in that context, God denying someone salvation because they didn't choose to walk the path isn't like God saying "I'm taking my ball and going home", it's more like saying "I want to defy gravity and fly but I don't want to have wings or an engine or anything" and being astonished when it doesn't work. The rules can't be changed on a case by case basis or they aren't rules. It's like the laws of physics.

God isn't omnipotent. He has to abide by his rules just like everyone else.

All that said, a person's salvation is between them and God, and I can share my thoughts and experiences with them if they ask, but it's not my place to judge them.

[photon]

Originally posted by Cheese@Jun 14 2005, 08:50 AM
Its not that "some" Christians or "some" Muslims are good people and are doing good things. Its the belief in fairy tales to express this belief. Is it not possible to be good, to do good, without expressing it through a God? Why must Christianity or any other mainstream religion be "force fed" to the people, and why do they attempt to make people feel guilty for spiting them?

I know literally hundreds of good solid upstanding people who are what you and I would consider Atheists, or non Theists, that do wonderful things for all types of organizations, without the attachment of a religion. They deserve the same recognition as a church in my opinion. The difference is they dont desire the limelight and do it from their hearts with no political agenda whatsoever.
The line has been drawn, and with the advances of science and the knowledge that comes with it, educated people make smarter decisions. Part of those is not to believe in ghosts or an organizations control dogma of heaven and hell.

As in elementary school systems where Fairy tales are told and explained as fairy tales, there is no harm in discussing religion in that context.

Of course it is possible to do good or be good without joining an "organized" religion. And maybe that person will find salvation, I can't judge.

Any religion that tries to force-feed itself on people isn't at all doing what they should be doing, and any religion that tries to make people feel guilty doesn't at all understand what they say they believe.

It's been discussed here before; so many major organized religions are about power, control, and wealth. They aren't interested in educating their followers because then they'd lose them when they saw through the facade.

But on the flip side of the coin, there are many different people out there, many of whom will never think a big thought in their lives. The race of Man doesn't gain new levels of thought and understanding overnight and as a group. It's a process and while some can live good lives without the benefit of a support system or a system of guidelines, the proof is in the pudding that plenty can't. And maybe organized religion with all its flaws is intended to try and fill that gap? I don't know if I had all the answers I wouldn't be here discussing it and reading other people's views.

Are the stories in the Bible all true or are just intended to communicate a point? I don't know, I wasn't there. Do I think there is a God? Yeah, I do. Do I think that the Bible should be taken 100% literal? Again, I don't know. What should be taken literally and what should be taken as figurative? What should be taken as a good thing for all time, and what's bound by custom in the context of when it was written? The NT says something about men not having long hair, does that mean I should cut it off? Or is it more talking about how to interact with society? These are things I think about. Does that introspection and pursuit of spirituality make me a better person? I think it does.

Man, I talk too much

[Resolute 14]

Seems what you are basically saying then is that JC is really a personification of a belief, and by accepting him, you accept the belief - man is not perfect. However, is it not possible to accept the belief without accepting the man?

There are many paths to one end.

[V]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Jun 13 2005, 08:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Jun 13 2005, 08:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Dominicwasalreadytaken@Jun 13 2005, 06:53 PM
It goes way way deeper than that, and I have no interest in explaining it to you, but the NT does not 'lay to waste' the OT. It is more of a fulfillment, or coming to terms of the OT.

Oh. Too bad you don't have the interest.

I could have sworn from my years and years of Catholic school that the 'rules' from the OT to the NT changed fundamentally, and that things that were 'legal' in the first became 'illegal' in the second. That's definitely different than a 'fulfilment' of the Old Testament. Of course, I didn't pay much attention in religion class because it was super-boring.

edit: 'lay to waste' was my attempt at biblical talk. Feel free to semantic it up however you please. [/b][/quote]
I'm not overly interested in this argument, primarily for the same reason I try to stay out of the political threads. What's the point? If I ever saw an argument of this magnitude change someone's viewpoint on a topic it might be worth my while, but as it is, meh, I can't really be bothered.

A lot of Christians get a bad rep because of the few in the media that take crazy fanatical stances that are obviously both offensive and motive based. Come join my church and pay us lots of money so that I can become rich!!

Most all of the Christians I know are pretty level headed and really aren't out to convert you. If you want to hear my story I'll tell you, but all you really need to know is that I'm a Christian and I have no problem with you, so you shouldn't have a problem with me. There are a lot of offensive atheists out there. I'm not going to judge every single one on that premise. As photon said, it's not my place to judge.

As for the fulfillment thing, I'm no theologian, but this is how I understand it. Most of the laws that are pulled out of Leviticus were instituted not for religious reasons, but for health and welness, law and order, and the like. There are others that are directly linked to religion, and those are the ones that were fulfilled with the coming of Christ. For example, the OT says that you cannot sleep with your neighbour's wife. In the NT, Jesus says that to simply lust after another man's wife is to commit adultery. There are many other examples where an OT law is 'changed' in the NT, not to make it more relevant to that day and time, but as a fulfillment to the law.

I'm not putting this together very well, but I hope you at least understand where I'm coming from. The NT didn't abolish the OT laws, but fulfilled them. The laws took on a new meaning with the coming of Christ, if you will.

[Hakan]

Wouldn't it make more sense to to believe that Jesus was just a guy who had it figured out way better than most and was just another 'prophet' like Gotama or Mohammed or Siddhartha? Believing Jesus is the ONE son of God reiks of ethnocentrism.

I highly recommend the book, Master and Marguerita by Mikhail Bulgakov. It kind of touches on this.

[octothorp]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+Jun 14 2005, 08:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ Jun 14 2005, 08:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Buff@Jun 14 2005, 01:14 AM
They have found that it wasn't translated from language a to b to c to d to e. Rather from a to b, and a to c, etc. There may be some a to c to e somewhere in there, but there have been, like you said, minimal changes. The Bible still says the same thing in a version printed yesterday as a Bible printed 100 years ago, or a version of the Bible from 1000 years ago. It hasn't been changed to suit the current needs of Christianity, unlike other religions. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and so is his word.

Well I don't know how closely you've looked into it but it's certainly not as cut and dried as you make it appear.
[/b][/quote]
FDW, the stuff you quote talks strictly about what texts were originally included in the bible. I think Buff's point is in regards to how the language of the bible has changed over the last thousand years:

a couple hundred years after the initial writings in Greek, the church decides that the bible can be written only in Latin. The Latin language goes through a tremendous amount of flux, and so, over a thousand years, the actual bible becomes so perverted as to be meaningless. Then in the 16th century, Erasmus rewrote the latin from the original greek, basically throwing out all of the changes to the language, and going back to the original source. Martin Luther used the Erasmus version when he translated the bible into German, and Tyndale used the same source to create the first English language bible. Then came the Geneva Bible (by Calvin and Knox, I think), not a great translation, but the first bible to use the system of numbered verses and footnotes that have become a staple in all recent bibles. About a century later, the Catholics published their own version in English, this one translated from their own corrupted latin source. Next major bible to be written was the King James, which was an exhaustive academic undertaking, and took elements from all major translations done to that time, as well as the original source, and of course, the Geneva Bible's format. This was the only significant English bible for a couple centuries, until the English Revised version and the American Standard Version, both of which were derived from the King James. The New American Standard Version, written in the early 1970s, is a translation of the original Hebrew/Greek. It was so accurate a translation that the language was in many ways difficult and clumsy, so that brought out the New International Version, and the English Standard Version, both of which were based on the NASV, but were more readable.

For the most part, the biblical translations haven't been the work of agenda-pushing clergy, but of serious academics. In most cases (early catholics being the one notable exception), there has always been a serious emphasis on going back to the original text as much as possible. Buff's analogy of a to b, a to c, with a bit of a to c to e is pretty accurate.

[V]

On another note, I don't really understand why people are so obsessed with finding proof that God exists. How does it go in HHG?

The philosophers realized that the Babel fish was such an extrodinary creature that it had to have been created by God. So it is proof that God exists. But since God requires us to believe in him with faith alone, any proof of his existence nullifies his existence. I got a kick out of that.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by octothorp@Jun 14 2005, 05:02 PM
For the most part, the biblical translations haven't been the work of agenda-pushing clergy, but of serious academics. In most cases (early catholics being the one notable exception), there has always been a serious emphasis on going back to the original text as much as possible. Buff's analogy of a to b, a to c, with a bit of a to c to e is pretty accurate.

Yeah I understand that he was a big part of the point he was trying to make. But then he said, "It hasn't been changed to suit the current needs of Christianity, unlike other religions. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and so is his word."

If you question how the original texts were selected then the accuracy of translating them is not as significant. And one must wonder how accurate the original texts we have are?

The questions surrounding that make it impossible for me to believe that the Bible is the literal word of God.

[Frank the Tank]

Originally posted by Dominicwasalreadytaken@Jun 14 2005, 12:05 PM
On another note, I don't really understand why people are so obsessed with finding proof that God exists. How does it go in HHG?

The philosophers realized that the Babel fish was such an extrodinary creature that it had to have been created by God. So it is proof that God exists. But since God requires us to believe in him with faith alone, any proof of his existence nullifies his existence. I got a kick out of that.

Well, its just like I can't beleive that somebody would just accept something as ridiculous as the bible and religion as fact because they have been told its fact and to just accept it. Just to clarify, I don't care if people are religious or not, to each his own, I just choose not to accept god/religion/the bible.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by photon+Jun 14 2005, 12:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (photon @ Jun 14 2005, 12:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cheese@Jun 14 2005, 08:50 AM
Its not that "some" Christians or "some" Muslims are good people and are doing good things. Its the belief in fairy tales to express this belief. Is it not possible to be good, to do good, without expressing it through a God? Why must Christianity or any other mainstream religion be "force fed" to the people, and why do they attempt to make people feel guilty for spiting them?

I know literally hundreds of good solid upstanding people who are what you and I would consider Atheists, or non Theists, that do wonderful things for all types of organizations, without the attachment of a religion. They deserve the same recognition as a church in my opinion. The difference is they dont desire the limelight and do it from their hearts with no political agenda whatsoever.
The line has been drawn, and with the advances of science and the knowledge that comes with it, educated people make smarter decisions. Part of those is not to believe in ghosts or an organizations control dogma of heaven and hell.

As in elementary school systems where Fairy tales are told and explained as fairy tales, there is no harm in discussing religion in that context.

Of course it is possible to do good or be good without joining an "organized" religion. And maybe that person will find salvation, I can't judge.

Any religion that tries to force-feed itself on people isn't at all doing what they should be doing, and any religion that tries to make people feel guilty doesn't at all understand what they say they believe.

It's been discussed here before; so many major organized religions are about power, control, and wealth. They aren't interested in educating their followers because then they'd lose them when they saw through the facade.

But on the flip side of the coin, there are many different people out there, many of whom will never think a big thought in their lives. The race of Man doesn't gain new levels of thought and understanding overnight and as a group. It's a process and while some can live good lives without the benefit of a support system or a system of guidelines, the proof is in the pudding that plenty can't. And maybe organized religion with all its flaws is intended to try and fill that gap? I don't know if I had all the answers I wouldn't be here discussing it and reading other people's views.

Are the stories in the Bible all true or are just intended to communicate a point? I don't know, I wasn't there. Do I think there is a God? Yeah, I do. Do I think that the Bible should be taken 100% literal? Again, I don't know. What should be taken literally and what should be taken as figurative? What should be taken as a good thing for all time, and what's bound by custom in the context of when it was written? The NT says something about men not having long hair, does that mean I should cut it off? Or is it more talking about how to interact with society? These are things I think about. Does that introspection and pursuit of spirituality make me a better person? I think it does.

Man, I talk too much [/b][/quote]
ah Photon...the struggle of whether to be or not to be...LOL...

So it looks like you have asneed to be saved....or have salvation.
I think the exact reason you see so many tossing out the religous aspect is because it is flawed, it doesnt provide the path to salvation that most people seek.
I also think that many of those same people find an inner salvation, otherwise known as being comfortable with oneself and their place on earth. I think you are on that road...although you are still juggling the Supreme Being/God/Alien/Ghost aspects.

A part of my theory on why religious establishments exist is the need for people to network, the need to talk to others and the need to get out and experience new things. Those ideas in themselves are excellent and some religions do a decent job providing that medium without the added guilt trips. It is also why you see a huge multitude of alterior programs for people to get out on Sundays or any other day of the week to "network" amongst peers.
This type of networking is removing the need for people to become involved in organized religion.

[octothorp]

Originally posted by Dominicwasalreadytaken@Jun 14 2005, 10:05 AM
On another note, I don't really understand why people are so obsessed with finding proof that God exists. How does it go in HHG?

The philosophers realized that the Babel fish was such an extrodinary creature that it had to have been created by God. So it is proof that God exists. But since God requires us to believe in him with faith alone, any proof of his existence nullifies his existence. I got a kick out of that.

The probability that the babelfish evolved by chance is so unlikely that some philosophers have taken it as proof of the non-existance of God. The argument goes like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God. "For proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."
"Ah, but the babelfish is a dead giveaway, isn't it?" says man. "It proves that you exist, and so therefore you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," who promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says man, who goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed at the next zebra crossing.
A lot of theologans have claimed that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Coluphid from using it as the central argument in his book, "Well That About Wraps It Up For God."

Yeah, I have the entire radio series memorized. I'm an uber-geek.

[octothorp]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@Jun 14 2005, 10:16 AM


If you question how the original texts were selected then the accuracy of translating them is not as significant. And one must wonder how accurate the original texts we have are?

Ah, okay I completely missed your point then. Yeah, there are a lot of problems with the notion that the bible is the literal word of God, but as a non-believer, there's not much point in me commenting on them.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by octothorp+Jun 14 2005, 11:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (octothorp @ Jun 14 2005, 11:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Dominicwasalreadytaken@Jun 14 2005, 10:05 AM
On another note, I don't really understand why people are so obsessed with finding proof that God exists. How does it go in HHG?

The philosophers realized that the Babel fish was such an extrodinary creature that it had to have been created by God. So it is proof that God exists. But since God requires us to believe in him with faith alone, any proof of his existence nullifies his existence. I got a kick out of that.

The probability that the babelfish evolved by chance is so unlikely that some philosophers have taken it as proof of the non-existance of God. The argument goes like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God. "For proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."
"Ah, but the babelfish is a dead giveaway, isn't it?" says man. "It proves that you exist, and so therefore you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," who promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says man, who goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed at the next zebra crossing.
A lot of theologans have claimed that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Coluphid from using it as the central argument in his book, "Well That About Wraps It Up For God."

Yeah, I have the entire radio series memorized. I'm an uber-geek. [/b][/quote]
What the hell is a babelfish?

[Hakan]

See:

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Actually... read it.

[V]

Originally posted by octothorp+Jun 14 2005, 10:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (octothorp @ Jun 14 2005, 10:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Dominicwasalreadytaken@Jun 14 2005, 10:05 AM
On another note, I don't really understand why people are so obsessed with finding proof that God exists. How does it go in HHG?

The philosophers realized that the Babel fish was such an extrodinary creature that it had to have been created by God. So it is proof that God exists. But since God requires us to believe in him with faith alone, any proof of his existence nullifies his existence. I got a kick out of that.

The probability that the babelfish evolved by chance is so unlikely that some philosophers have taken it as proof of the non-existance of God. The argument goes like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God. "For proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."
"Ah, but the babelfish is a dead giveaway, isn't it?" says man. "It proves that you exist, and so therefore you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," who promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says man, who goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed at the next zebra crossing.
A lot of theologans have claimed that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Coluphid from using it as the central argument in his book, "Well That About Wraps It Up For God."

Yeah, I have the entire radio series memorized. I'm an uber-geek. [/b][/quote]
Yeah, I thought I butchered the quote.

The thing is, why prove that God exists? The Christian God, at least? To want to do such a thing you would probably have some kind of interest in the Bible, and it explicitly says that you should believe in God as a little child does. Unwaveringly, and without proof. So if you aren't willing to believe in the Christian God as portrayed in the Bible, why bother proving that he exists at all? Faith is the hope for things unseen, after all.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Jun 14 2005, 09:02 AM
I've always found this argument rather curious.# I have never understood why a god would deny a good person salvation if he didnt accept JC as his "savior".# It seems to me that this argument implies that satisfying God's ego is more important than living up to his rules.# One would think a god would be above that kind of thing.

Because a central tenet of Protestanism is that you are not saved by works but by the grace of God and faith in Jesus Christ. You don't have to be a good person neccessarily to be saved. I know this sounds horrible, but you could have spent your life as a serial rapist, but somehow genuinely repented and believed in Christ and you could be saved. Or you could spend you life as Ghandi, not know Christ, and probably not be saved. This is definetely one thing that to most people, makes Christianity seem artbitrary, barbaric, and senseless.

The reasons for these things can be summed up by two verses in the Bible that say:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast (Eph. 2:8-9)

The only way is simply belief in Christ. It's the gift of God and arguably choice that you should recieve salvation. Either way, there are serious implications in many verses that there are people that God chooses NOT to save but I'm not going to go into that. Either way, to Christians it seems an incredible and miraculous grace that reconciliation with a perfect God with imperfect people is so simple...because the concept is that we are sinful and unworthy in any regard. To non-Christians, it sounds arbitrary, uncompassionate, unjust, and self-serving for a God to have to have it this way. Most Christians would claim this is just the ego of man thinking that they can rely on their own devices and have no need for a God.

But really, at the heart of it, most Christians just think they have something truely joyful to share. Like Photon said, it's like somebody trying to convert you to Linux because they think it's heaven and staying with Microsoft is dealing with the devil

Seems what you are basically saying then is that JC is really a personification of a belief, and by accepting him, you accept the belief - man is not perfect. However, is it not possible to accept the belief without accepting the man?

There are many paths to one end.

Not for Christianity, which explicitly guards against many paths to one end, or plurality because there is only one true God according to scripture.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Jun 14 2005, 01:06 PM
What the hell is a babelfish?

You know that website Babelfish that lets you translate webpages or text into any language?

You know the universal translator in Star Trek?

Basically, in the Old Testament of the bible, there was an event that occured at the Tower of Babel. Basically, mankind (which was some sort of homogenous group) tried to build an incredible tower into the sky and man's ego thought they would be gods themselves if they reached heaven and they were full of pride vanity about their works. So God got fed up with this and split mankind into different cultures and languages so they couldn't understand each other and the tower had to be abandoned.

I realize how much this doesn't make any sense in terms of both cultural, linguistic, and archeological anthropology...another reason to question taking things in the Bible literally.

So in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, people found this fish that you could stick in your ear that allowed everybody to understand each other again, even alien species from all over the galaxy. It was a universal translator that was impossible to have evolved on its own. But then God was really uptight about requiring people to have faith in him, and by definition, faith excludes proof. So when the dude found proof... God went *poof*!

[Ace]

The one excuse I hear the most is that "bla bla bla, just cause they believe some book"

There are Christians who are intellectual, and are able to read the Bible and see the truth in it and believe it. God has given us an avenue to have confidence in the word through fulfilled prophecies. Accurate predictions
You can always come against Christians by saying they believe the writings of a book. <--- Yes this is true, God says it is by faith, and every true Christian is saved that way. Ephesians 2:8. But the beauty is it is not blind faith as the bible gives plenty of historically accurate evidence that it is truth.

Also please do not use the OT Differs from NT excuse without first studying them. It is ignorant to knock the book down when you havent taken the time to understand what it says. You must have some basic understanding of an area before you come against it.

(I too avoid these discussions, as it becomes a flame fest -- but i had to speak against the "just a book" argument)