AstroEric Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 People used to know that the Earth was flat, that our solar system revolved around the Earth. Mainstream science has had a very long history of being wrong. A good example, but unfortunately, not for your side. "There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth." -- Martin Luther, on Copernicus' advancement of heliocentric theory A timeline of Galileo and heliocentrism, and his troubles with the church: 1616: * The Church officially declares that the heliocentric theory is "philosophically false and at least an erroneous belief." * De Revolutionibus was officially banned. * Galileo was called to an audience with Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, who cautioned him verbally to stop teaching and defending the Copernican model in public. 1624: * Galileo writes "A Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems", ably defending the Copernican system. * Seeks permission from Pope Urban VIII to publish it, but is rebuffed. 1632: * Galileo's Dialogue is published in Florence, written in Italian (Tuscan), not Latin. * It was an instant success & widely acclaimed. * Galileo unfortunately played directly into the hand of his enemies. 1633: * Galileo is summoned by the Roman Inquisition and a document is produced alleging that Bellarmine in 1616 specifically forbade him to discuss the Copernican system in any way (modern scholarship has shown that this document is a forgery, or at best trumped up). ...Galileo was placed under house arrest at his villa in Arcetri near Florence until his death in 1642. ...So in this case, mainstream science is wrong because they had to stick to the literal interpretations of the Bible for so long. --Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Unit Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 And as to the last post on the previous page, I'm sorry I didn't catch that it was from Family Guy, I stopped watching cartoons when I was 11, and I moved on, and so should you. Medric, you know Family Guy isn't a show suited for 11 years olds...you are a punk b*tch. Just shut your mouth you're sounding dumber and dumber every time you hit the post button. You think your religion is the best religion and you go about saying it, which is ridiculous. There's a reason people enjoy freedom, so they can share their open minds. Too bad a ****' idiot like you can't relate to that concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav3rek Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 I'm not Catholic, but I'm not an ***hole like fred13 sometimes is either. Someone said that they cant believe that God created the Earth in seven days, but that he could make it rain day and night fr 40 days? Please stop. It's religious people like you that give religion the bad reputation. You claim to be religious and what not, yet you don't live by the example Jesus set forth. I understand that we are human, and are not meant to be perfect, but when you constantly defend religion and then start talking like that while defending religion, you basically contradict what you say and nullify anything you have posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroEric Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Medric, you know Family Guy isn't a show suited for 11 years olds...you are a punk b*tch. Just shut your mouth you're sounding dumber and dumber every time you hit the post button. You think your religion is the best religion and you go about saying it, which is ridiculous. There's a reason people enjoy freedom, so they can share their open minds. Too bad a ****' idiot like you can't relate to that concept. Man, we're being fairly civil in here. There's no need to start the name calling again. And fart jokes ARE immature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Unit Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 I'm a little pissed about some personal matters, didn't mean to vent it out in here. I shouldn't have gone that far but at least I still have a reasonably open mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJEagles Posted March 2, 2007 Author Share Posted March 2, 2007 I'm a little pissed about some personal matters, didn't mean to vent it out in here. I shouldn't have gone that far but at least I still have a reasonably open mind. Listen to me D-Unit. that argument is becoming fairly weak around here. You have used the "Personal Matters" excuse a few times the past couple of days, as an excuse for your over the top posts. Stop swearing, and stop treating people like crap. Your getting as confrontational as Medric, so perhaps you shouldn't cast stones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Unit Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 I'm sorry DJ, but I really have some things involving my family that are going on and it's really been in my head. I'll stop being confrontational, especially since this is a touchy topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJEagles Posted March 2, 2007 Author Share Posted March 2, 2007 I understand , and I believe you...but this website is not here for people to take their problems out on other members. Just tone it done some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroEric Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 I should have said the same thing to Medric. I haven't seen where Fred has been an asshole, as you say. Maybe you could point it out to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleMo Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 2 things need to happen. We all get in a ring and go at it, and then afterward whoever can stand up, go grab a bite to eat an go to a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medric822 Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Calm the hell down! You brought this all on yourself, with your outlandish claims of being in the "one true religion". You are a hypocrite. I got done reading another thread, where you call something "gay". Is that not making fun of people. Does that not go against your beliefs. Your a real piece of work Medric. You hide behind your religion when it suits you... I said I try to be a good Christian, I never said I was God. People can outlash at me, but if I defend myself, you tell me to calm down? I dont get it DJE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYM Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Medric I can believe whatever the hell I want to believe. There is no better religion. If Jesus were alive today he wouldn't try and convert you to the "right" religion. He would tell you be a better (insert religion here). The Bible is a book that is meant go guide you through life. As I said before, there are two senses to the Bible literal and spiritual. Humans wrote the Bible, therefore it is imperfect written, the message however is not. Thats my opinion though, you are entitled to yours. I would never put down God or Jesus because they are my saviors. Thats why I practice my faith everyday by trying to be a better person. I pray to God if I need help with something or anytime I want to. He is everywhere and is always around. Don't anyone say or imply that I do not believe because dammit if Armageddon was tommorrow you would damn well see me fighting for God. Some of you have to grow up. I don't have to exlpain myself anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJEagles Posted March 2, 2007 Author Share Posted March 2, 2007 I said I try to be a good Christian, I never said I was God. People can outlash at me, but if I defend myself, you tell me to calm down? I dont get it DJE. Of course you don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJEagles Posted March 2, 2007 Author Share Posted March 2, 2007 Medric I can believe whatever the hell I want to believe. There is no better religion. If Jesus were alive today he wouldn't try and convert you to the "right" religion. He would tell you be a better (insert religion here). The Bible is a book that is meant go guide you through life. As I said before, there are two senses to the Bible literal and spiritual. Humans wrote the Bible, therefore it is imperfect written, the message however is not. Thats my opinion though, you are entitled to yours. I would never put down God or Jesus because they are my saviors. Thats why I practice my faith everyday by trying to be a better person. I pray to God if I need help with something or anytime I want to. He is everywhere and is always around. Don't anyone say or imply that I do not believe because dammit if Armageddon was tommorrow you would damn well see me fighting for God. Some of you have to grow up. I don't have to exlpain myself anymore. Nice post NYM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big shmooz Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 The Bible has been translated correctly for the most part. I'll admit that some parts may be different, because the english language dosn't have the same words as Hebrew or Greek. For example, the Bible would say love, when refering to Motherly love, or Sibling love. But that wouldn't cause the Bible to be completely out of context. And here's one interesting tidbit you may consider coincidential. All the editors or producers of the new modern day "hip" Bibles have had terrible fates hapen to them, such as mental illness, and death because they misinterputed the Bible purposly. Which the Bible talks about, but I dont know the verse right off (will post when I find it later). One of the most famous mis-interputations with these Bibles, is in Isiah, it Calls the Devil "The Birght and Morning Star" and later in Revelations, it calls Jesus "The Bright and Morning Star." And as the New Testiment shows, Jesus wasn't a demon child, he was the holy son of God. As a Jew, I am not really going to comment on whether I believe that the casket contains jesus. However as a Jew that speaks fluent Hebrew I can say this. The Christian Bible is a grossly mistranslated document. I will note that you mention Isaiah as "One of the most famous mis-interputations". I would like to expound on this point. Actually in fact one of the most commonly quoted verses from Isaiah used by Christians is Isiaah chapter 7 verse 14. It states "Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (KJV)" (I use the KJV's version since it is the most common mainstream one that Christians use. However if you look at other versions you will find they basically say the same thing.) In fact Christians (as well as the new test) use this (supposed) verse to claim the foretelling of jesus's birth. However on closer look (if one understands Hebrew) one will note that Isiaiah in fact never said such a thing at all. Let me quote Isaiah as he actually spoke... "14. Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel." Also, for those with a further interest in understanding this issue, one may refer to this site. Anyway, the quote of the morning star thing is actually in Hebrew "haylayl ben shuhchar" which means literally "shining star son of morning" & is not referring to the devil at all. In fact if you look at verse 4 of the chapter there it specifically states whom it is referring to. I quote... "4. And you shall bear this parable against the king of Babylon, and you shall say, "How has the dominator ceased, has ceased the haughty one!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big shmooz Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Jesus was neither married nor had a son. Interesting you say that since most Christians believe that Isaiah 53 refers to jesus. Yet Isaiah states in chapter 53 about the "person" there (I put person in parenthesis nbecause Jews believe it actually refers to the nation of Israel which is spoken of in Scripture many times in the "singular") will have children. I quote... "10. And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand." Now I am not by any means claiming jesus had children since I do not believe jesus to be the subject of Isaiah 53. However for somebody who does believe Isaiah 53 to be referring to jesus might actually have a serious problem if jesus did not father children. Btw... for those who may interpret that verse to mean spiritual children, they would not be correct. The reason for this is, that the Hebrew word "zera" used there literally means seed. In Scripture seed when speaking about a person always means physical children. The more general term Hebrew word "ben" is substituted in Scripture if it does not mean literal children. (ben can mean both a literal child or a non literal child such as when Abraham speaking to G-d about who would inherit him if he did not have any children refers to Eliezer his slave as "son". There the word used is "ben".) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jogar84 Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 I'm no Christian, but I do believe SOMETHING did happen 2000 years ago. Why would Jesus' family preach that he rose from the dead if it wasn't true? Heresy had some pretty harsh punishments back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big shmooz Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 The Jews are the chosen ones. God blesses Jews alot. Very few Jews are poor (few when compared to wealthy Jews), they were given Israel after the Holocost, and unfortunately, they are still waiting for their savior, since their forefathers didn't accept Jesus because he didn't drive the Romans out of Israel. As a person I like you. But I must say this. I know many Jews that are poor. I wish I didn't, but in fact I do. However that is not really the gist of this post. I notice you say unfortunately we await our savior. I am Jewish & I do not await my savior. G-D is my savior. He was here before I was & He will be here after I am gone. I await the Messiah's coming. But only G-D can save. The Messiah is but a messenger of G-D. I will make one comment about one reason (amongst hundreds if not thousands) of why I do not accept jesus as that man. I am going to quote the great Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman (Nachmanidies) (sp?) (also known as "Ramban") in one of his quotes in his response in his debate with the Christian church. He stated as follows... "woe is to such a world if this is what it looks like AFTER the arrival of the Messiah." I really think that says it all. (& he lived around a 800 years ago) Think about the world today & tell me if this is what a post messiah world is meant to look like. I think that sums it up right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big shmooz Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 I'm no Christian, but I do believe SOMETHING did happen 2000 years ago. Why would Jesus' family preach that he rose from the dead if it wasn't true? Heresy had some pretty harsh punishments back then. What about all the millions of Jews back then who claimed it wasn't true? Why should one believe a handful of people who make a claim over the millions who claimed the opposite? I find it most interesting that the religion for the most part was adopted by people who never had any connection to jesus whatsoever yet the Jews (almost to the degree of 100% if you figure 5 people verses millions) who were eyewitnesses to his life totally deny the stories the new test tells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jogar84 Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 What about all the millions of Jews back then who claimed it wasn't true? Why should one believe a handful of people who make a claim over the millions who claimed the opposite? I find it most interesting that the religion for the most part was adopted by people who never had any connection to jesus whatsoever yet the Jews (almost to the degree of 100% if you figure 5 people verses millions) who were eyewitnesses to his life totally deny the stories the new test tells. The problem with you trying to disprove any religion is that you also have no tangible proof to back up your own. For all we know, Moses could have been the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaton (and people like Sigmund Freud have made that claim) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleMo Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Lockeroni. Please dear goodness gracious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroEric Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 The problem with you trying to disprove any religion is that you also have no tangible proof to back up your own. And therein lies the problem of this argument. Logic and faith, the "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" part of faith, don't co-exist. I would never try to talk someone out of their religion. I think the majority of us nay-sayers in here are only trying to get certain folks to consider -- not believe, just consider -- on the basis of logic that the beliefs of others are just as valid. --Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big shmooz Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 That is your basis for your dislike of homosexuals? Based upon my last reading (approx. 1 year ago), homosexuality was not the sin referred to. If you read with an open mind, I believe you will find the inhospitality, not homosexuality, to be the sin. Actually many were the sins of the 5 cities. However the one that sealed their fate was of a homosexual nature. The angels were there to be so to speak on site to determine what their fate was going to be. Their desire to sin homosexually was the straw that broke the camel's back. If you notice the angels only tell Lot that they were going to destroy the city after the entire population desired to sin homosexually. Btw... an important note of distinction is, G-D is not against a person being homosexual any more than He is against a person having an urge to steal. but G-D IS against a person sinning. The sin is not in being homosexual, but rather in having a homosexual relationship. But lest heterosexual people hold their heads high & say "I am better than you", one must remember G-D is also against heterosexual relationships if they are outside of a marriage & one who has a relationship with somebody else's wife is just as bad as the person who has a homosexual relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big shmooz Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 The problem with you trying to disprove any religion is that you also have no tangible proof to back up your own. For all we know, Moses could have been the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaton (and people like Sigmund Freud have made that claim) Actually in my post to you, I had no intention to specifically disprove Christianity. (though I do not believe Christianity to be true) All I meant to say is that your point of a few people claiming it to be so is not a sufficient proof to accept it on that basis if millions of other eyewitnesses deny the same claim. As far as Moses being the Egyptian Pharoh, I have a very personal problem with that since I am a descendent of Moses. (& his brother Aharon) Just because Freud the great Rabbi (sic) said so does not hold any water. He may have been good at his craft, but he was in no way certified by any stretch of the imagination to make such a claim. It would be like me making a claim that I know what it feels like to be frozen at a temp of minus 70 million. (clearly impossible) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big shmooz Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Just as Abraham was the Father of many nations not because he was a great man but he believed. Abraham was a great man. Part of his greatness was in his belief, but surely not all. Abraham's good deeds were a key to his greatness too. A person can believe in G-D & still be a lowlife. Abraham was not such a person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.