[Serious Discussion] Religion

[STyL4]

i have my own reasons to belive mate ^^

[WLproxy]

i have my own reasons to belive mate ^^

Care to share?

[Rien]

oh btw a man was dead for 3 years then he suddenly "woke" up due to small energy shock.

I'm assuming the dude was in a coma, not dead. Wouldn't be much left of him after 3 years of being dead.

[durrrrr]

DNA is just PART of complexion, we can discuss about planet's location, brains structure(thats late lol), the location of the Earth itself(its very exact) etc., RNA(same construction as DNA) just somehow appeard in that sea on the Earth in the evolution you can notice THEN the Amino-acids formed, its too abstract theory because the chances are VERY VERY LOW! they did form after alot of amount of time, but it needed a start, and energies could not make it FORMED with that amount of organisation. evolution is theory with proofs that shows POSSIBILITY, no matter how low the chances are.


Christianity!

I won't tell you about brains, DNA, RNA, amino-acids - those things FORMED. If it's possible to form, you can't deny that they didn't form. And we know that it's possible. (Of course, brains don't just form in 5 seconds or so, but they start as maybe a few neurons, and they develop into more).

Talking about orbits of planets, that happens when a smaller object is influenced by a heavier object's mass. The mass creates gravity, which curves the space-time, causing all objects, which are moving in a straight line (according to Newton), to move in a curved one.

The location of the Earth - well, that's nothing special. If Earth was 10 million kilometers further, we might have formed in other solar system. It's just about meeting the required conditions (like warmth, distance from the star, radius of the planet, atmosphere, etc.). If all these conditions are granted, or most of them, that means the conditions are GOOD (looking from the whole Universe perspective).

And amino-acids don't need something like pure energy to form. Amino-acids are made of chemical elements...

[0Target0]

TwistedDemon, read m y p o s t. Jesus was proved to be real person, now the skeptics are saying he was a normal human being as we all are. you can get the sources by PREACHERS that were with Jesus on his journey like Peter, those sources shows you the Jesus and his story could not be edited but do not really proof that he had  the powers(they said that too, even if they risked their life), but i truly belive that.  heard about those scrolls? they were also found! i suggest you not to deny Jesus as i wont deny your religion, but trust me - it might turn really ugly.

Funny how the stories from Peter are written at least 100 years after Jesus death, they were probably not written by the people who were with him. The bible is an assembly of translations. And if you ask people to translate things a 10000000 times not much of the original content stays intact. In fact, alot of the stories might be adapted to make 'Jesus' more impressive, especially in the first hundred years alot of verbal communication will have lead to people making up fantasy stories.

[Tuism]

TwistedDemon, read m y p o s t. Jesus was proved to be real person, now the skeptics are saying he was a normal human being as we all are. you can get the sources by PREACHERS that were with Jesus on his journey like Peter, those sources shows you the Jesus and his story could not be edited but do not really proof that he had  the powers(they said that too, even if they risked their life), but i truly belive that.  heard about those scrolls? they were also found! i suggest you not to deny Jesus as i wont deny your religion, but trust me - it might turn really ugly.

I KNOW that Jesus is real, I know that God gave him miracles so people would believe he is a prophet, but the question remains, how you Christian people know that your unfaithful leaders who edited the bible didn't change the original message of Jesus? peace be upon him.

And please, start denying my Religion, I'm sure I am going to enjoy it as your arguments against my religion won't stand on it's feet.

And I think the purpose of this topic is to know the truth and nothing but the truth?  just because you were born Christian it doesn't mean that Christianity is true, and just because I was born Muslim it doesn't mean that Islam is true because of that.... got the idea here?

Now answer my question please, how can you be 100% sure that the original message of Jesus wasn't edited like some parts of the Bible?

[0Target0]

I KNOW that Jesus is real, I know that God gave him miracles so people would believe he is a prophet, but the question remains, how you Christian people know that your unfaithful leaders who edited the bible didn't change the original message of Jesus? peace be upon him.

And please, start denying my Religion, I'm sure I am going to enjoy it as your arguments against my religion won't stand on it's feet.

And I think the purpose of this topic is to know the truth and nothing but the truth?  just because you were born Christian it doesn't mean that Christianity is true, and just because I was born Muslim it doesn't mean that Islam is true because of that.... got the idea here?

Now answer my question please, how can you be 100% sure that the original message of Jesus wasn't edited like some parts of the Bible?

It's edited millions of times !

And I think the purpose of this topic is to know the truth and nothing but the truth?  just because you were born Christian it doesn't mean that Christianity is true, and just because I was born Muslim it doesn't mean that Islam is true because of that.... got the idea here?

Exactly!

[STyL4]

I KNOW that Jesus is real, I know that God gave him miracles so people would believe he is a prophet, but the question remains, how you Christian people know that your unfaithful leaders who edited the bible didn't change the original message of Jesus? peace be upon him.

And please, start denying my Religion, I'm sure I am going to enjoy it as your arguments against my religion won't stand on it's feet.

And I think the purpose of this topic is to know the truth and nothing but the truth?  just because you were born Christian it doesn't mean that Christianity is true, and just because I was born Muslim it doesn't mean that Islam is true because of that.... got the idea here?

Now answer my question please, how can you be 100% sure that the original message of Jesus wasn't edited like some parts of the Bible?

the autheniticty of Josephus is usually challenged simply because the surviving scraps of his text have down to us from church hands - thus in our times of conspiracy theories everyone immediately assumes it is a fake. Yes, many copies were made from 1100 onwards and the wording is similar to that given above. But the validity of his work seems to be only questioned in relation to his reference to Jesus.

A further problem with Josephus is that early Christians make no mention of it. Except that is for one in-direct reference by Origen in 240 AD which interestingly predates all known Josephus manuscripts. Origen make two references to Josephus. First he mentions the lesser known reference by Josephus as Jesus being the Brother of James but significantly goes on to note that Josephus did not accept Jesus as Christ. It is important here to remember that Christians were still seen as enemies of Rome at that time so wouldn't have the resouces needed to undertake such widespred forgery of an existing work. Therefore, it is clear that even if the church later embellished copies (perhaps converting Josephus to a christian) there must have been two references to Jesus in the original work by Josephus - how else could Origen have referred to them?

Next, we need to go even further back to consider the one of the earliest Christian documents - the Didache. This contains the early basic instructions, teaching and practice of the Christians. It is generally believed to be authentic, possibly written by the original Apostles and is usually dated between 50 - 120AD. This remarkable document not only mentions Jesus but states that baptism must be "into the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Spirit." And remember that this is quite possibly a first generation christian document.

Also, consider the accounts of the apologists. Take the case of Tertullian born 155/160 AD. Tertullian is widely accepted as being a Roman citizen, well educated and well versed in the law and his text is considered genuine. In a written defense of his faith to the senate he stated, ' At His own free-will, He with a word dismissed from Him His spirit, anticipating the executioner's work. In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his meridian blaze. Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no doubt thought it an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of the world-portent still in your archives.

But, lo, on the third day there a was a sudden shock of earthquake, and the stone which sealed the sepulchre was rolled away, and the guard fled off in terror: without a single disciple near, the grave was found empty....

All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the reigning Cæsar, who was at the time Tiberius.'

Tertullian is clearly identifying Jesus, His death, His resurrection and the darkness that fell upon the earth, and stating that a written report was submitted to the emperor by Pilate. It should also be pointed that there is not (as far as I'm aware)not one single early Roman document or reference to one in which Rome ever denied it had crucified Jesus - given the problems it faced with Christians had there been no Jesus and no crucifixion Rome would have certainly have said so.

In this regard Julian the apostate (331-363 AD), the last Roman Emperor to oppose Christianity, referred to the records of Jesus' being put to death. These records must have still been available in his day. He was a firm and thorough opponent of the faith he once professed to follow and had every interest in refuting and defeating the spread of the Christian faith. Had there been no knowledge or record of Jesus' existence or execution, he undoubtedly would have mentioned this. In fact, the reverse is the case.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_real_...ly_existed  quoted all the info there, read it all and understood it all. i can make it shorter just for you, mr. "debater"

[STyL4]

this is for 00target00 and you.


as for durrr, they DID form, but the beggining itself speaks that the ENERGY had to LEAD to the ORGANISATION, no matter what, the perfect conditions on Earth were required so the aminokislins formed, oh and RNA was BEFORE the aminokislines, they could not form from them or any other chemical structures. evolution already predicted wrong conditions for the earth's first conditions. but there had to be ORGANISED force because the chances are TOO low, you can say they all formed, but chances are as low as you getting wings right now and start flying around ur house and create a snowman out of grass.

you are talking about evolution's progresses, but trust me the Big Bang could not be formed with such conditions and lead to such organisation.. because afterall, it was the huge amount of energy that caused everything to start "moving" on.

[Tuism]

the autheniticty of Josephus is usually challenged simply because the surviving scraps of his text have down to us from church hands - thus in our times of conspiracy theories everyone immediately assumes it is a fake. Yes, many copies were made from 1100 onwards and the wording is similar to that given above. But the validity of his work seems to be only questioned in relation to his reference to Jesus.

A further problem with Josephus is that early Christians make no mention of it. Except that is for one in-direct reference by Origen in 240 AD which interestingly predates all known Josephus manuscripts. Origen make two references to Josephus. First he mentions the lesser known reference by Josephus as Jesus being the Brother of James but significantly goes on to note that Josephus did not accept Jesus as Christ. It is important here to remember that Christians were still seen as enemies of Rome at that time so wouldn't have the resouces needed to undertake such widespred forgery of an existing work. Therefore, it is clear that even if the church later embellished copies (perhaps converting Josephus to a christian) there must have been two references to Jesus in the original work by Josephus - how else could Origen have referred to them?

Next, we need to go even further back to consider the one of the earliest Christian documents - the Didache. This contains the early basic instructions, teaching and practice of the Christians. It is generally believed to be authentic, possibly written by the original Apostles and is usually dated between 50 - 120AD. This remarkable document not only mentions Jesus but states that baptism must be "into the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Spirit." And remember that this is quite possibly a first generation christian document.

Also, consider the accounts of the apologists. Take the case of Tertullian born 155/160 AD. Tertullian is widely accepted as being a Roman citizen, well educated and well versed in the law and his text is considered genuine. In a written defense of his faith to the senate he stated, ' At His own free-will, He with a word dismissed from Him His spirit, anticipating the executioner's work. In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his meridian blaze. Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no doubt thought it an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of the world-portent still in your archives.

But, lo, on the third day there a was a sudden shock of earthquake, and the stone which sealed the sepulchre was rolled away, and the guard fled off in terror: without a single disciple near, the grave was found empty....

All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the reigning Cæsar, who was at the time Tiberius.'

Tertullian is clearly identifying Jesus, His death, His resurrection and the darkness that fell upon the earth, and stating that a written report was submitted to the emperor by Pilate. It should also be pointed that there is not (as far as I'm aware)not one single early Roman document or reference to one in which Rome ever denied it had crucified Jesus - given the problems it faced with Christians had there been no Jesus and no crucifixion Rome would have certainly have said so.

In this regard Julian the apostate (331-363 AD), the last Roman Emperor to oppose Christianity, referred to the records of Jesus' being put to death. These records must have still been available in his day. He was a firm and thorough opponent of the faith he once professed to follow and had every interest in refuting and defeating the spread of the Christian faith. Had there been no knowledge or record of Jesus' existence or execution, he undoubtedly would have mentioned this. In fact, the reverse is the case.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_real_...ly_existed  quoted all the info there, read it all and understood it all. i can make it shorter just for you, mr. "debater"

Wait wait, you still don't get it?

My question is not: Did Jesus exist? I know he did.
My question is: If the bible is edited, and you admit it, how the hell do you still consider it as a holy and believe everything it said while you know that normal people wrote some parts of it?