DVDizzy Forum

Actually, I always thought Jesus was born in the Spring because the gospels say that the shepherds that the angel of the Lord appeared to were tending to new born lambs. Aren't lambs usually born in spring? If so, this would be interesting because then there's the possibility that Jesus might've been crucified on or near His birthday...

*munches on some popcorn in true voyeuristic fashion*

Disneykid wrote:Actually, I always thought Jesus was born in the Spring because the gospels say that the shepherds that the angel of the Lord appeared to were tending to new born lambs. Aren't lambs usually born in spring? If so, this would be interesting because then there's the possibility that Jesus might've been crucified on or near His birthday...

Maybe..........you've got a piont. He said that they found him working in his father's wood work shop.
I'm not really sure..........

Ah, I didn't see the addendum 'till now...

Loomis wrote:If this debate has developed into a flame war between Aaron and myself, then it is because he is the one insisting that his path is the only right path, completely disenfranchising the rest of us.

Loomis, I believe that God's path through Jesus is the only right path. It is my sincere belief, and we are sharing our beliefs here. I'm not attempting to disenfranchise anyone, and quite frankly, I think that cheapens what I've said just a tad. But I don't want this to get personal. I don't feel that this has become a flame war between us, and hopefully you don't either. As Kelvin pointed out, that's not what he meant, either.

DisneyKid wrote:Oh, no no no, I didn't mean it like that. I meant that you and Aaron were like the main debators in this thread and I was wary of stepping in and getting involved (even though I just did ). On the contrary, I think this whole debate (while ever so slightly heated) has been handled quite maturely. For an example on how NOT to debate on religion, visit any thread on IMDb's Passion of the Christ board, where threads will conclude with posts such as "God's dumb!" "No he's not! You are!" "Shut up, fag!" etc. It's nice to know everyone on the boards is sensible enough not to make this too personal.

Right on. I totally agree, and it is refreshing. And those imdb boards can get ever so nasty... I stopped posting there LONG ago.

DisneyKid wrote:Actually, I always thought Jesus was born in the Spring because the gospels say that the shepherds that the angel of the Lord appeared to were tending to new born lambs. Aren't lambs usually born in spring? If so, this would be interesting because then there's the possibility that Jesus might've been crucified on or near His birthday...

Hmm, interesting, indeed. We'd probably have to consult some historians and scholars on that.

Paka wrote:*munches on some popcorn in true voyeuristic fashion*

-Aaron

awallaceunc wrote:Do you believe that God is omnipotent and the creator of humanity? If so, does it not stand to reason that we should aspire to His standards, not hold Him to our's?

I do believe that God is omnipotent, but no...not the creator of humanity. He created the Big Bang, or whatever you want to call "how it started". It meaning our universe. No, the real creator of humanity is evolution.

awallace wrote:I get asked this a lot, and have thought quite a bit about it. First, I must say that I honestly do not believe this will, or can, ever happen. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that a startling scientific discovery seemed to disprove a facet or teaching of Christianity. If that facet/teaching is founded in Scripture, then my reaction wouldn't be that "God made it happen," but rather that the science is wrong or misunderstood. For the scientific mind, I'm sure that's very difficult to conceive. I've never had a hard time suspending disbelief, and it's more than acceptable to me that there are things in this world that I do not and never will understand. It really is a matter of faith. My faith in God is stronger than my faith in mankind. Therefore, if ever the two conflict, my faith goes to God unfailingly, and I will never accept anything that seems to contradict or obstruct that faith. Hopefully that answered your question.

Really? Because I do find most of the stories hard to believe, namely the Noah's Ark story. A good read, but Harry Potter kicks its ass.

Disneykid wrote:That's brings me back to what I was saying before, though. No matter what you believe, you're going to believe you're right plain and simple. I can't imagine anyone saying they're for something without standing behind it 100%. It seems someone like that doesn't place enough faith in what they believe in and if so, what's the point in believing period? I'm always conscious about my faith around others, too, because like you said, this can come across as very arrogant, which also brings me back to the respect of other people's religions issue. My closest friends aren't even Christians, yet I don't rub my beliefs in their faces and go around saying I'm right and they're wrong. I tolerate their opinion just like they tolerate mine.

There is a difference though, between standing behind your faith or your belief 100% no matter what, and standing behind your faith or belief open to new ideas and questions. I might believe that Bernie Williams is a good baseball player, but I won't say he is good if he starts using profanity and losing his place as a role model to me.

Oh, come on Loomis and Aaron, stop arguing!

Everyone can choose what they believe in. If you don't believe in God, you don't have to argue with God-believers and point out contradictions in the Bible. If you believe in God, you should not care about those who don't and argue with them until sunset.

I, myself, believe in God too, but I won't try to convert others who don't and argue with them. Has anyone watched the movie Bruce Almighty? Remember what it said about free will? That's the main point! I hope you guys can stop this useless debate and become friendly with each other.

Chris, I understand your concerns, but I honestly don't think it's a problem. I'm not the least bit inflamed, and I hope Loomis isn't either. And while we two may have done slightly more posting than others, it isn't only us sharing opinions, and it isn't an argument, persay. Plenty of others are here, all sharing their viewpoints and beliefs, and conducting a substantive conversation. Isn't that what communication is all about? It's good, and it's healthy. I don't feel at all un-friendly towards Loomis, and the beauty about UD is that you can entirely disagree with someone in one thread, entirely agree with them in another, and your opinion on the person and respect for them doesn't change.

-Aaron

You have nothing to worry about, Chris. This is just a simple debate. No one's mad at the other person and no one's arguing. Debates are actually pretty fun as long as they don't get out of hand, and I don't believe this one has at all.

OK, it's good if you think you're not in a debate, Aaron. I couldn't help but post 'cos I was getting dizzy after reading Loomis' sarcastic Bible jokes and your continuous paybacks to him...

awallaceunc wrote:Chris, I understand your concerns, but I honestly don't think it's a problem. I'm not the least bit inflamed, and I hope Loomis isn't either. [...] don't feel at all un-friendly towards Loomis, and the beauty about UD is that you can entirely disagree with someone in one thread, entirely agree with them in another, and your opinion on the person and respect for them doesn't change.

I'd just like to take time-out to second that. I find this whole process quite enjoyable. It is nice to put up an idea, have it challenged, and then be forced to defend it. I think if we are not constantly having our beliefs - whatever they may be - challenged, then we have no opportunity to develop those ideas, and change.

disneychris04 wrote:OK, it's good if you think you're not in a debate, Aaron. I couldn't help but post 'cos I was getting dizzy after reading Loomis' sarcastic Bible jokes and your continuous paybacks to him...

I'd like to add, though, that this IS a debate. We are on opposite sides of the fence over this question, but it seems to be progressing nicely so far. Nobody wants to start a flame war, but sometimes these things do get heated. And that is healthy too. Getting worked up over something shows you are passionate about it.

As for sarcastic bible jokes, I wouldn't say I have been that bad, have I? Yes, my method of argument tends to be to try and chip away the serious facade of another's argument, and get to the core of the matter in a not-so-serious way, but I am not trying to denegrate Aaron's faith in particular - I am merely trying to point out that firstly, I think the bible (like any text) is open to interpretation and secondly, no one faith is right - or more to the point, NONE of us KNOWS what is right. Some of us act on faith, others act on reason and emotion. Who knows what the story is? I certainly don't, and I don't believe any human or human text can answer that question.

Finally, I don't want the perception of this being a Aaron vs. Loomis thing either - everyone join in. Not too many bible-followers though, I'll have trouble keeping up Discussions are fun. Like that "tempatations of the flesh" thingy I'm not supposed to have...

Well-said.

Loomis wrote:I'd like to add, though, that this IS a debate.

Agreed, and debates can be great. Just for the record, I had said that this wasn't an argument, persay, which carries a slightly more negative connotation than debate.

-Aaron

Now, I made my position clear in an earlier post, and it's mirrors Prince Ali's, but for those people who believe the only way into heaven is to follow the word of the Bible, how do you explain all the different Christian religions?

The Church of England is different to the Catholic Church. What happens if you divorce? What about using even birth control (let's face it, most people will at some point in their lives) ? What about the Jehovah Witnesses? Can you have an organ transplant or not? What if one Jehovah Witness stops a family member getting an Organ Transplant? Is that person blessed for following the Bible, or damned for letting somebody die needlessly? I believe one group of Christians (as well as devout Jews) can only eat Fish on Friday, not any other meat. What happens if you don't follow this rule?

I'm probably going to offend people now, but I have huge problems with the Roman Catholic church. The fact that sins can be repented by saying a few (or a lot) of "Hail Mary"s just seems ridicules. So you're telling me a mass murderer who confesses and repents in the final moments of his life will be more likely to get into heaven than myself, if I live a good life with no malice or cruelty?

I do have other problems with the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope is supposed to be God's earthly presence and have unquestioned authority. And yet Pope's over history have done so many inappropriate things, the most famous being the Borgia Popes. But there's also the Spanish Inquisition, which although Rome and the Pope tried to stop it after a few years (without much success) was originally sanctioned by Rome. During the War, the Pope made sure no critisisms of Nazi Germany were issued (something the current Pope apologised for, to his credit). But there still seems to have been some sort of cover-up over the recent American sex abuse cases until the Church was forced to admit it. (and yes, while I accept the Pope may not have known about them until the church was forced to come clean, doesn't that just show how flawed the system is? God's envoy on Earth not being told what's happening in 'his' church?)

Even now, the current Pope gives President Bush a dressing down on his visit to the Vatican, and Bush just brushes it off with no remorse whatsoever, and still attempts to get Roman Catholic priests to tell their congregations to vote for him because of his stands on abortion and same-sex marriages. The 'Word of God' doesn't seem to have affected President Bush or his political strategy. (Yes, I know President Bush isn't a Roman Catholic, but it just shows how far apart even different Christian denominations are - I mean, God's representive on Earth is nothing to be sneezed at, for any devout Christian I would imagine).

Even now, the Christian right has stopped the US govenment subtitling BeWitched for the deaf from federal funds, because it "promotes witchcraft", even though, as I pointed out before, the much quoted "Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live" line was inserted into King James' Bible due to his own personal obsession and belief. I belive their is also a motion being tabled to remove Harry Potter books from public libraries for the same nonsensical reason.

Really, I may have picked on the Roman Catholic Church before to make my points, but I have issues with most, if not all, organised religion.

And all this rambling explains why I will never be a Christian in the organised sense. Because all the organisations are flawed. Most organised religion, worldwide, is about controling the masses. Leading them into wars (especially 'holy wars'), making sure that they were ingrained with respect for their 'betters'. In short, you don't need to be part of an organised religion to live your life in a moral and wholesome way.

In fact, you don't need any religion as such, just a good upbringing and a little common sense. And, while it may not say as such in the Bible, I'm sure any just God would accept anybody from any religion who has lived a decent, honest, generous life.

After all, isn't that what he wants? Or will a quick conversion and a few "Hail Mary"s be the only thing that tips the scales?

I find it funny how the human ego can be so arrogant as to even attempt to claim any intuitive grasp over the entire universal creation of existence as though it were only relative to our direct essence.

We are a particle of an element of dust in an endless and boundless infinity, yet persist to take it upon our own superficial word to proclaim the decisive knowledge of something that is so far above us and out of context without considering that vastness of existence, that I can't even begin to describe.

I won't delve any further because I personally find some of the unrelenting dogmatic theologies expressed in this topic quite daunting and being mindful of everyone here, I'll leave it at that.

I nominate this Thread as the most controversial of 2004! Now back to your scheduled programming..........

I just want to point out that there is a significant diffrence between Christians and all those of other faiths like muslims or budists or those that just are spiritual.

The Bible tells you that God is seeking mankind. To become a christian you ONLY have to BELIVE in God, and that he sent his son Jesus to our salvation. The Bible itself has a lot of rules, but they are only there for the best for us all. Salvation is not depending on how you follow these rules. The ultimate example of that is the man on the cross besides Jesus that was sentence to die, but because he belived in Jesus he was told that he would come to heaven. So Christianity is all about faith.

But then you have all the other religions where people are seeking a God. I know several muslims and they tell me that they can not be sure that Alla would save them, but if they do what they are told in their holy book they might have a bigger chance.

I know a lot of people have done horrible things in the past (and the present) in the word of Religion and God, but the reason for that is only that people have evil in them and many people will do the wrong things if they are presented with the power to do them. You must not judge the Bible and God upon what people are doing with it in their hands, but you must judge it upon whats in it and what it seas.

2099net wrote: for those people who believe the only way into heaven is to follow the word of the Bible, how do you explain all the different Christian religions?

Denominations are the creation of man, not of God. They spring out if differences in interpretations of the Word, interpretations that are often designed for convenience. Christianity was originally a literal faith, but was hijacked by Rome and made into a denomination. Man's will was made higher than God's, and going through the motions of an organized religion became the most important aspect for many members. Sadly, it continues in that form for much of the world today. The New Testament tells us that Christians are not to be divided in faith amongst each other, but it happened, as a result of Satan.

2099Net wrote:I'm probably going to offend people now, but I have huge problems with the Roman Catholic church. The fact that sins can be repented by saying a few (or a lot) of "Hail Mary"s just seems ridicules. So you're telling me a mass murderer who confesses and repents in the final moments of his life will be more likely to get into heaven than myself, if I live a good life with no malice or cruelty?

I'm with you there. I, too, have major problems with the Catholic church, as it exists today. There is no scriptural foundation for Hail Marys or for confession, they are the creation of man.

2099Net wrote:I mean, God's representive on Earth is nothing to be sneezed at, for any devout Christian I would imagine).

Most non-Catholic Christians emphatically reject that the Pope is made holy or that he represents God on Earth any more than any other anointed priest.

2099Net wrote:Even now, the Christian right has stopped the US govenment subtitling BeWitched for the deaf from federal funds, because it "promotes witchcraft", even though, as I pointed out before, the much quoted "Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live" line was inserted into King James' Bible due to his own personal obsession and belief. I belive their is also a motion being tabled to remove Harry Potter books from public libraries for the same nonsensical reason.

There is much more to Christian opposition to witchcraft than that verse. It is what witchcraft involves (often including Satan worship, pagan practices, and/or earth gods/goddesses) and the taking of supernatural power upon oneself that stimulates opposition among Christians.

2099Net wrote:Really, I may have picked on the Roman Catholic Church before to make my points, but I have issues with most, if not all, organised religion.

And all this rambling explains why I will never be a Christian in the organised sense. Because all the organisations are flawed. Most organised religion, worldwide, is about controling the masses. Leading them into wars (especially 'holy wars'), making sure that they were ingrained with respect for their 'betters'. In short, you don't need to be part of an organised religion to live your life in a moral and wholesome way.

I agree with this as well. However, the creation of man (and man's obstruction of God's work) should not be allowed to taint the message of God itself. While that may be the perception, it's not a fair or accurate one. And for all the good intentions and good deeds that a person may have and do, there is a belief that there is a higher calling than that, and in making such a decision, it's an important belief to consider. Karlsen makes a good point about this.

2099Net wrote:In fact, you don't need any religion as such, just a good upbringing and a little common sense. And, while it may not say as such in the Bible, I'm sure any just God would accept anybody from any religion who has lived a decent, honest, generous life.

But why would that be just? On the surface, it does sound like it. But let's look at the Christian claim: God creates humans. Humans are tainted with sin. To save them from this, God sends His Son (also God) to be killed by His own creation. That created a process, a means by which man could ve saved from the sin that had tainted him. But if man chooses to skip the process altogether and follow his own, should God allow him anyways? Would it even be possible? It doesn't seem unjust to me at all.

-Aaron

awallaceunc wrote:Are the Easter events believed to have occurred in the April/May timeframe, though? I'm not sure on that.

-Aaron

I believe that Easter occurs in Springtime to coincide with the Pagan fertility rites. I very much doubt that the events actually happened around that time, but I could be wrong.

I think the main point in this discussion is that there's no possible way for anyone to know without question what the "truth" is. While some people may have strong enough beliefs that cause them to think that they are right and every other possibility is wrong, you really have to admit that religion/belief systems are no more than a strong opinion.

Wow. I haven't read the first four pages, because this one's long enough. So I'm just jumping in with my opinion:

I am a Christian, and although I don't read the Bible as often as I should, I believe that although many parts shouldn't be taken literally (esp. Revelations), I consider its stories (e.g. Noah's Ark, Jesus' life and death) to be as much a part of history as the War of 1812 or the Russian Revolution.

I usually tend to read it after a religious debate or discussion (looking for answers), after dinner for a devotion, for my Bible class homework, or at times when I'm really tense (reading it can really calm me down).

My favourite books are Psalms for the poetry, and Song of Solomon (I'm an openly obnoxious romantic).

Prince Adam wrote: I believe that although many parts shouldn't be taken literally (esp. Revelations)

How did you decide that this book in particular should not be read literally?

-Aaron

STASHONE wrote:I find it funny how the human ego can be so arrogant as to even attempt to claim any intuitive grasp over the entire universal creation of existence as though it were only relative to our direct essence.

We are a particle of an element of dust in an endless and boundless infinity, yet persist to take it upon our own superficial word to proclaim the decisive knowledge of something that is so far above us and out of context without considering that vastness of existence, that I can't even begin to describe.

That right there is why I consider myself an agnostic.