James Cameron to unveil Jesus Christ's Coffin live Monday.

[UncleMo]

What's with the double accounts to hide yourself.

One dude creates a double account to advocate pot.

Another one to advocate his religious beliefs.

I'll create one just so I won't be left out.

[DJEagles]

I'm sorry to tell you, but the God I surve wasn't created by man, like many out there.

There's the point I was trying to get across, since most religions have different teachings.

Ok, How can you say you believe in God, and the Bible, but only cjoose to believe what you want to believe. You are the worst hypocrite of all here then. What do you believe then? Big bang theory? Which do you believe, choice A or choice B?

A- In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.

B- In the begining, Chance created the earth and universe, which man knows little about.

Also, Jesus was buried in a tomb, yes, but a coffin, no. He was wrapped in linnin and spices, just like everyone else from that area/time period.

Someone said that they believe that some Muslims are saved. How can this be since they dont pray to Jesus, in fact, he's not even part of their religion. The thing that irritates me most, is how people are in such a big hurry to tear down religion, but could care less about starving children in Africa or the drug dealer selling to kids on their street corner.

It seems that lautrec and I have similar views on religion, but that I'm speak more on controversal topics and become persecuted because I dont know how to put things, where as he takes his time to explain himself.

The difference between you and Lautrec are simple. he comes across as educated in what he speaks of. You come across as very confrontational, and your way is "the only way". Give it up Medric before you alienate yourself further.

Just because your religion says it's the only way to the Lord, doesn't mean its true. Catholicism has been around a lot longer. I am tired of debating you, as some of your beliefs are quite scary. I enjoy reading lautrec's well written posts, and encourage him to share more of his thoughs on this matter.

[Kccitystar]

So how about the coffin unveiling...what came out of that?

[DJEagles]

I'm sorry to tell you, but the God I surve wasn't created by man, like many out there.

There's the point I was trying to get across, since most religions have different teachings.

Ok, How can you say you believe in God, and the Bible, but only cjoose to believe what you want to believe. You are the worst hypocrite of all here then. What do you believe then? Big bang theory? Which do you believe, choice A or choice B?

A- In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.

B- In the begining, Chance created the earth and universe, which man knows little about.

Also, Jesus was buried in a tomb, yes, but a coffin, no. He was wrapped in linnin and spices, just like everyone else from that area/time period.

Someone said that they believe that some Muslims are saved. How can this be since they dont pray to Jesus, in fact, he's not even part of their religion. The thing that irritates me most, is how people are in such a big hurry to tear down religion, but could care less about starving children in Africa or the drug dealer selling to kids on their street corner.

It seems that lautrec and I have similar views on religion, but that I'm speak more on controversal topics and become persecuted because I dont know how to put things, where as he takes his time to explain himself.

No Medric, you are the WORST hypocrite in this thread. A "Born Again Christian", who uses his religious beliefs to judge others. Don't try and tell us you don't. You have much to learn in your young life.

[Lars777]

The voices are loud and the opinions are many.........let me interject a simple thought here.

For those of you that have bought a house....have you not read through the loan agreement completly before signing it?

Of course you did....you know full well what you are binding yourself to.

Before we pass judgement and or do anything in our lives we want ALL the facts.

Not some of the facts not a few of the facts but ALL of the facts.

So what does this mean when a question comes up concerning God and man?

Or what is The Fathers relationship with us?

Do all of us have all the facts.......collected all the data.....or in short read the Bible at all?

The Bible contains all the answers for the questions that man can ask and then some.............where do we go when we die.......there will be many different answers on here but only one in the Bible.

Who had Jesus put to death?..........many will say the Romans.....others will say the Jews......the Bible tell us clearly who put Jesus to death and its neither of those two.

You see when you actually read the book you find the answers and not opinion or tradition.

Someone asked Pilot if he could remove Jesus body from the cross and place it in a tomb before the sun set......in fact it was this mans tomb that they used.......any takers on who this man is?

There is only one answer not many.........as it goes with all things.

We all have a free choice to chose what we want to believe.......but would it not be nice to have all the facts before jumping into the water?

Pick up the book and find out who it was that confronted God and told God to repent........and God did just that.....God himself repented!

Pick up the book and find out who the second man Adam is?

Also find out when the end comes there will be a great wedding feast.....who is it that got married?

On the day Jesus rose from the dead there were many more bodied that rose with Him.......who were these people?

The veil in the temple was torn in two from top to bottom and the very moment Jesus died......why......what did this mean?

There is only one correct answer to all these questions......its not about what you believe in its about the truth........after all is that not what we are after?

[Pirate]

It's really very simple as to how different religions canled to the same path. We all seek forgiveness , enlightenment and hope. Some reach taht in heaven others in reincarnation and others in different ways. But upon death or the ending of our life on this world we just want our souls to rest in peace.

This is very simple, but it is an easy way to grasp my thought.

People speak different languages but we all say the same words, they just sound different. People also follow different religions but seek the same end. How they go about it is not any of our concern, it's all about the end and I will see you all there, I will also see the Hindus the Muslims, the Mormons, the Catholics, the Protestants, the Baptists... all that deserve peace, elightenment, hope and forgiveness.

No one religion is wrong.

No one can prove a religion to be incorrect because it is based on beliefs. Faith is a blind belief with no true evidence. Without evidence there are no facts. So no one is wrong.

[medric822]

Science vs. Religeon / fact vs. belief / rational thought vs. make believe / truth vs. faith

Ok, here's one for the science boy here. If Science is fact, then why do they change laws (The concrete "facts") about every 4 years? And why is Darwins theory of evolution still called a theory? According to Webster, as theory is...

Theory-noun, plural: guess or conjecture.

If its a guess, I'd go for something that has been followed for decades, rather than something that is a glorified educated guess. I love how you call all religion make belief. Your not only offending me, but anyone who worships on this website.

No Medric, you are the WORST hypocrite in this thread. A "Born Again Christian", who uses his religious beliefs to judge others. Don't try and tell us you don't. You have much to learn in your young life.

Oh, but it's OK for you to judge me?

...it's all about the end and I will see you all there...

Its called Judgement Day, and it wont be pritty.

...No one religion is wrong...

But only one is right.

I have said before that I give up trying to explain, and it seems that me and Mike Corleone have something in common-

"Everytime I try to get out, they pull me back in!" (The Godfather part 3)

[jogar84]

Medric, theory is just another name for FACT. (ie Einstein's Theory of Relativity)

[DJEagles]

Ok, here's one for the science boy here. If Science is fact, then why do they change laws (The concrete "facts") about every 4 years? And why is Darwins theory of evolution still called a theory? According to Webster, as theory is...

Theory-noun, plural: guess or conjecture.

If its a guess, I'd go for something that has been followed for decades, rather than something that is a glorified educated guess. I love how you call all religion make belief. Your not only offending me, but anyone who worships on this website.

Oh, but it's OK for you to judge me?

Its called Judgement Day, and it wont be pritty.

But only one is right.

I have said before that I give up trying to explain, and it seems that me and Mike Corleone have something in common-

"Everytime I try to get out, they pull me back in!" (The Godfather part 3)

I am passing comments on you, because you come off as a pompous ***. How can you say there is only one right religion...I am not even sure what the heck your religion is. Is it not a bastardized version of a few different religions. Is it not like the Jehovah's Witnesse, where they picked certain aspects of the Bible, and then claimed they are the only ones who are right? Is that not what you are claiming? Are you not passing judgement on the thousands of members here, whose religion may be different then yours. The difference between you and me are simple. I am not telling you that your religion is inferior, I am telling you that I don't agree with everything you are saying, and I dislike your attitude towards people in general, who you consider "inferior". I dislike the fact that you say your religion is the "only one". That is a bold, bold claim from you. I have enjoyed this thread up until this point. You are now treading on thin ice with a lot of people on this board with your outrageous claims of being apart of the"one true religion".

The Bible is what it is: A book that many different religions have interpreted for their gain. Yours is no different. You are not going to be at the front of the line when judgement day comes, because you are "Born Again". Give me a break.

[DJEagles]

One more thing. I am starting to understand how nations can go to war over the name of religion.

[jogar84]

I actually think the discovery of this tomb will actually unite Christians (whether they are of the Roman church, so called "born-agains", or Protestant)

If I wanted to destroy Christianity, i would not use this bogus tomb as evidence.

[DJEagles]

It's not the religion I have a problem with. It's the way certain people represent themselves because they think theirs is "the one".

[Padres67]

What is the record for the most posts for a topic-this is starting to get there probably-anybody who believes we are not beings with spirits would have a hard time explaining all the interest that this has generated-if we were like animals-why would we care-when we die-it's over-as if you never existed-just like the spider you squash under your shoe as you walk down the street-but we have an interest in the hereafter because most of us believe that this is not all there is. The big question is what is true. If you trully want to know-you will find it and it will set you free.

[Pirate]

I'm probably going to hell anyway so I 'll be hanging with Medric playing MVP Baseball but my version won't have modded stadiums and his will only allow him to play with the Sox.

Only one correct religion.... so open minded you are.

[DJEagles]

If there isn't anything out there when we die, it's not like we are going to have time to be disappointed.

[DJEagles]

I'm probably going to hell anyway so I 'll be hanging with Medric playing MVP Baseball but my version won't have modded stadiums and his will only allow him to play with the Sox.

Only one correct religion.... so open minded you are.

Post of the thread. You sir, are a genius.

[medric822]

Ok, DJEagles, if you want to say that I claim to be superior to everyone else on this forum, then go ahead. I never said that. And feel free to call me a pompous ***. If thats how you feel about me, then fine. If I thought of you as an ignorant ***, does it make it so? No, it dosn't. And all thats going to come out of this thred is alot of hurt, distrust, and hate towards fellow members. So as now, I'm officially put of this thred. I'll keep reading, but trust me, I wont post anymore for fear of my threds being twisted and used to attack me like they have been.

I dont pick certain aspects of the Bible and use them to my benefit, I try to use the whole thing. I think you have me confused with NYM. No, I'm positive you have me confused with him. Many people are making comments that are similar to mine, but everyone is lining up to take a wack at me.

Yeah, it is very easy for nations to go to war on basis of religion. People start bashing my religion, and I tell of mine, and then I start getting bashed. And yes, according to my religion, it is the one. And I have quoted a verse earlier, and how it is applied to my religion in another post.

[DJEagles]

I am not bashing your religion. I am saying I have a dislike for your views on it. You are getting mad because I have a dislike for your views. Now can you imagine what a homosexual must feel like when they read your posts?

That's my point.

I also know that I can be ignorant...feel free to call me that. I probably deserve it. I know I am ignorant towards something I do not know much about. i am not claiming to know all. Unlike you, I am also not claiming to be a part of the "only true religion". May be I am just being ignorant to it, but I just flat out disagree with 99% of your comments.

[UncleMo]

Medric, I didn't mean to be talking degrading toward you, what I was trying to say is that you need to learn when to quit. That is what I meant. I think a few pages back would have been a great time to quit.

[southside_hitmen]

While your response is quite passionate, it, like the article you criticize, has holes in its accuracy. Actually, the holes are not in your arguments, per se, but rather in the source of your information. For example you refer to the Gospel of John. Many Biblical scholars agree that the Gospel of John is a blatant reproduction of Egyptian mythology at worst, and historically questionable at best. Much of the Gospel does not agree with the Synoptic Gospels (the Gospels that DO agree with one another): Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Furthermore, if one studies the history of the Bible itself, in particular the New Testament, one finds that the books selected to be canonized were those of only one of many Christian belief systems that existed at the time, and they were chosen as the result of a political decision, the purpose of which was to unite an empire (Constantinople) that was divided by religious beliefs (pagans vs. Christians). While this information appears in The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown, it also appears in many scholarly books and articles written by Biblical historians and is taught at many seminaries and colleges throughout the U.S. and the rest of the world today.

What's more, several versions of the different texts existed at the time of the canonization, and only one was selected. There were several versions of the Gospel of Mark (or was it Luke? or both?), for instance. They varied in meaningful ways, and only one was selected to be canonized.

Furthermore, the Bible has been greatly altered through the millenia. Consider that no copywrite laws existed, and creative license was often incorporated in copying from one scroll to the next, as part of the norm in such exercises of the day. Marcus J. Borg, an emminent biblical scholar, informs us that the story of the woman who adulterated whom Jesus saved from death by stoning entered the canon in the twelfth century. He explains that this was a popular story of the day that a scribe had written into the margin of the text. The next scribe mistakenly copied it into the body of the text and now it is considered Biblical history, which it is not.

The Book of Revelation was not added until the 600s. The original text of the New Testament avoided apocolyptic language, which was the belief system of another group of Christians that Constantine did not want HIS Christianity associated with.

Many of the historical accounts that might challenge the canonized Bible (excluding the above mentioned story and the Book of Revelation) were destroyed by Constantine throughout the fourth century. There once existed a library in Alexandria, Egypt that is said to have contained many historical documents, possibly including information about the lineage of Jesus, which Constantine burned to the ground in 367 CE.

The idea of Jesus having been a deity was not introduced into Christianity until the Council of Nicea, 325 CE. The original Greek word in the New Testament that was translated into "virgin" in fact can also be translated as "young woman." Often young women WERE virgins, but not necessarily so. It is possible that the whole story of the spirit of God descending upon young Mary so she could concieve as a virgin was added to the Gospels to satisfy the pagans that Jesus was a deity, so they'd convert and Constantinople would be united.

Does all this nullify Christianity? No, not at all. What I believe it does is invite us to look more closely at the teachings of Jesus. Who the man was, whether deity or not, may NEVER be proven with certainty. What I think is VERY certain is the message Jesus taught us: The greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart, with all your soul, and all your mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus also taught us by his example to have compassion, to forgive, and to serve. By following his teachings, we honor his message that he is the way, the truth and the life, and in doing so we may ourselves be restored to God as was he.

By the way, for a great and very readable introduction to the history of the Bible, take a look at the book "Don't Know Much About the Bible" by Kenneth C. Davis. For a better understanding of the historical Jesus, Marcus J. Borg has a lot of publications that are wonderful.

The above was copied from another message board. This is why my fath in the Bible as being the absolute "Word Of God" is tested.

I think is the most important post in the thread. The Bible, believe it or not, was created by man, not God. Man chose what goes into the Bible. He also chose what to leave out. Has anyone heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? These are some of the many versions of the gospels that were around when selecting the gospels for the Bible. To take the Bible at face value and blindly believe is to not explore all aspects of your faith.

Now, am I saying the Bible is wrong? Absolutely not. I believe it is a wonderful tool for guiding our life, but it is only one part of it. We must also look to other accounts of the Bible and study them as well. I guess it is my History and Anthropology background, but the more sources and data we can collect the better.

To all the science people out there. Guess what, God has to exist. Even if you believe the Big Bang, something had to be there before to shove all those molecules of the Universe into that space of a tiny dust spec.

Above all, I believe that our relationship with God is a personal one. To say that you can only reach him through another person or through only one religion, is taking His word and grossly twisting it to serve your own human desires. God loves everyone, whether we love him back is up to us.

[SESbb30]

if there is a god, who created him?

[Edam]

Ok, here's one for the science boy here. If Science is fact, then why do they change laws (The concrete "facts") about every 4 years? And why is Darwins theory of evolution still called a theory? According to Webster, as theory is...

Theory-noun, plural: guess or conjecture.

If its a guess, I'd go for something that has been followed for decades, rather than something that is a glorified educated guess. I love how you call all religion make belief. Your not only offending me, but anyone who worships on this website.

Your ignorance about what a theory is explains a lot about some of your other comments throughout this thread.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law.

Scientists do not use the terms that way, however.

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

[southside_hitmen]

if there is a god, who created him?

LOL, I know there always has to be something "in the beginning". I know this question is as old as time, and I know one post will not change your mind, but here goes...

Whatever name you give the Creator, and whatever origin of the universe you choose to believe (Creation story, Big Bang, Bob's theory of the universe, etc...) there has to be something before. Is it necessarily called "God", of course not. This is the name that we humans, with all of our faults, have given to Him. But there has to be some higher power to Create the world. It cannot simply always have existed, something had to create it.

I know that one could go on and on forever about "If God created the world, then who created God" and then if something created God, then who created that something. For most this is God, but there has to be a higher power to Create everything we see. The physical world has been widely acknowledged to not have always existed, something had to pack all those little atoms into that small space.

[southside_hitmen]

Your ignorance about what a theory is explains a lot about some of your other comments throughout this thread.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law.

Scientists do not use the terms that way, however.

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

I will come right out and say that I do NOT believe in intelligent design. I belive that a higher power created the universe and then let it go. Made people and other species free to make their own choices and decisions.

That being said, there are some glaring weaknesses in Darwin's theory of evolution. Once again, I am not saying that a higher power is guiding it. But to say that "survival of the fittest" is the only way, when species are only deemed "fit" after they survive, is a very interesting concept.

From http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/in...nd=view&id=2292 There is also the "Cambrian explosion" in which many of the major groups ("phyla") of animals appeared in a geologically short time with no fossil evidence of common ancestry -- a fact that Darwin himself considered a "serious" problem that "may be truly urged as a valid argument against" his theory.

So that is why it is just a theory, and once again we will need more evidence as to whether it is viable or not.

[bishop1122]

If the world and us humans were created, what is our purpose? To praise god? I kind of doubt the he would be that arrogant. I think we were on the most part a mistake.