Eaglewings says: Okay correct me if I am wrong here but if these stories are so important that an new generation needs to hear them then why must we rewrite them and turn them into some trashy dime store novel? I mean can we not tell the story the way it is? I do not mind so much when some atheist insists on rewriting or interpreting the biblical stories of our faith from their perspective but when a member of the church decides to bastardize these sacred stories then I say ENOUGH ALREADY! Sounds kind of funny actually! Probably worth reading. As for bastardization...what do you think the King James Bible is? That author will have to go into hiding now. I bet the death threats are pouring in already... I don't know about going into hiding, but the death threats, those will flow. what do you think the King James Bible is?Perhaps the King James Version is a poor translation and certainly the addition of the WORD EASTER to replace the word Pascha (passover) is certainly bad, however at least the bible stories are still the same. As a matter of fact the New King James Version removed the word Easter from the text which I was happy about. Besides they are works of men which are subject to errors and the failings of man. That author will have to go into hiding now. I bet the death threats are pouring in already...Probably the reverse will be true. He will sell a million copies and be on the New York Times best selling list and probably be named for a nobel peace prize. The only ones who would offer up death threats would be if he trashed the Muslim religion or spoke about Jesus Christ being the only way to salvation. Then I can certainly see the hate and death threats coming. Are you sure? Because Rosie told me that radical Christians are just as dangerous as radical Islamists. Ah yes life according to Rosie @Eaglewings My god, did you think the bible was original? It's practically 100% plagiarized from Pagan and Gnostic Christianity. Take a look at part 1, Zeitgeist the Movie. (Seeing it in video form is a lot quicker than explaining every detail.) Note: scroll directly to the 9min. mark (or more precisely 13:37). That will take you directly to the relevant part of my comment. My god, did you think the bible was original? It's practically 100% plagiarized from Pagan and Gnostic Christianity.Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The Pagan... by about 3,000 years B.C. The Pagan... by about 3,000 years B.C.Jesus before the foundations of the world. Jesus before the foundations of the world.I didn't get that one. Sorry Aces.. Let me put it to you this way. In the beginning (before there was time) God created the heavens and the earth. Put in place all that there is and all that will ever be. Therefore, before time was He was, before the world was He was, before there were agnostics He was. Had God never created the heavens and the earth there would not have been any astrologist, atheists, or theists or any other ist. Therefore the Chicken came first. @Eaglewings Okay, I'm a bit slow on this one. You've got the creation story, you've got the Jesus story, you've got the chicken thing... How does any of this relate to the bible being un-original? How does any of this relate to the bible being un-original?Simple. Before there was a creation story, Jesus story or any other story concerning humankind there was God. Therefore God is the author of human history. In reality it is all His Story. To a non-believer like yourself who would think that humankind evolved from some lower life form I can see how a simple fact like this would escape you. I have a question for you Ace. Where do you think humankind came from? Before there was a creation story, Jesus story or any other story concerning humankind there was God. Therefore God is the author of human history. In reality it is all His Story.I got that from the outset when you said: "In the beginning (before there was time) God created the heavens and the earth." etc.. But that doesn't make the bible original if it was plagiarized from past religions. Does it? To a non-believer like yourself who would think that humankind evolved from some lower life form I can see how a simple fact like this would escape you.Nope, it didn't escape me. It's just that so far even if I was a believer, or didn't think mankind evolved, or ev... It doesn't make the bible original if it was plagiarized from other religions. Does it?Using your argument then we would have to conclude that other religions who copied the bible narrative would have plagarized the original story but in your way of thinking the original is the plagarized work while the plagarizers are considered inventive? It can not be both ways. Either God started the whole thing or He did not. Because I believe God started it all then ANY STORY, no matter what, if it pertains to human orgin and destiny has to have originated with the author GOD himself. Not to believe that is well DISHONEST. (BTW, to refer to something as fact that is not veri... other religions who copied the bible narrative would have plagarized the original story but in your way of thinking the original is the plagarized workNo where near anything I've said... You're putting way too many words in my mouth. I stated if the bible is plagiarized, it cannot be original. Can it? Start there and just answer the question. Can the bible (or anything) be ORIGINAL if it is plagiarized? Yes ____ No ____ --- Now we are on a different topic? You state: Either God started the whole thing or He did not.I agree. Because I believe God started it all then ANY STORY, no matter what, if it pertains to human orgin and destiny has to hav... Start there and just answer the question. Can the bible (or anything) be ORIGINAL if it is plagiarized?No That's right. So if the original story predates Christianity by aIt is true the original story predates Christianity by many thousand of years because the story starts and ends with God who predates all time. The bible narrative is not a Christianity story it is a Jewish story. Just to clarify. Judaism predates Christianity by many thousands of years as well. That's why the bible is a plagiarization! (And an extremely poor o... The story is so grand and glorious other religions copy it. The only problem is they can not copy Jesus so they replace him or eliminate him altogether. It is true the original story predates Christianity by many thousand of years because the story starts and ends with God who predates all time.That's the ticket! The bible narrative is not a Christianity story it is a Jewish story.And just to clarify further, it predates ALL the above by billions of years. "the plagarized works is not the biblical narrative..."I'm afraid it is, among many. You never watched Part 1 of Zeitgeist, did you? Also for the unlearned the bible contains writings from many You never watched Part 1 of Zeitgeist, did you?Yes I did. I found it humorous actually. And it does not change the facts one bit. Before people were God was. Therefore his plan for mankind was established before mankind ever was. ANY story written or told by anyone is just that a story unless that story actually reports actual events. Then it is history not myth or legend or some fantasy. In the case of the Jewish God the bible lists historical facts that can be proven. Therefore those portions of the bible are factual and can not be negated. They can be ignored but not negated. As far as the narrative of this person Jesus, it is a fact a person by the name of Jesus lived a... Your comment is accepted (as well as anticipated). But at least you have an understanding of where those that rely on evidence vs. those that rely on faith are. There is a clear historical progression of the very narrative of which you speak long before any Jesus or Christianity. And like you said, you can ignore them, but they cannot be negated. Historical evidence is a point of view based in the veracity of the evidence. Faith is based in a need to believe regardless of the evidence. Faith is based in a need to believe regardless of the evidence.And ignorance is failure to believe inspite of the evidence. And I wish to correct your statement concerning faith. Faith is not based on a need to believe faith is born out of belief. I believe therefore I have faith. It is not I have a need therefore I have faith. Faith would supplant the need. Hope would be an outgrowth of need I could suppose. But faith is based on a belief. Just for the record. Jesus was most likely not born on December 25th. Re: Faith I meant it within the context of the scripture you respect. Hbr 11:1 ¶ Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Things HOPED FOR (maybe I should have said a "want" to believe)... but for which one has seen no evidence of, (perhaps I should have said "in the absence of evidence", not regardless of it). But it has been my experience that a faithful person rarely changes a belief "regardless" of the evidence. So I'll correct my statement to: "Faith is based in a want to believe, in the absence of evidence." Nevertheless, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. So it's based on hope though no evidenc... But it has been my experience that a faithful person rarely changes a beliefInteresting that is my experience as well. Rarely a person changes their belief regardless of facts. So be careful. When you say "ignorance is failure to believe inspite of theAs far as myself is concerned I believe because the object of my faith has proven himself able to do exceedingly above anything I could ever ask for or seek after. I am well satisfied with the direction my life has taken since putting my faith in God. For me God is not some far off removed spiritual aperition. He is the true and li... |
View the Top Clips from March 28, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||