umm christian historians are actual historians who have their area of focus on christian mythology, many of whom are not christian. would you not believe the authenticity of a greek document because it came from a greek historian? and actully the area that the documents were found in were not under the control of the church when they were found, the near east was one of the first areas that the byzantines(eastern roman empire) lost control of.[b said:Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Mar. 22 2005,3:41)]christian historians? i want historians not christian historians.
There are many myths out there... and christianity being the biggest religion is more prone to those myths. heck... someone even made a "jesus box" that fooled many scientists for a while. Then they cought the guy and there were tons of other things in museums and everything from that very same guy. He was also making other tons of artifacts. saying that there are documents that are in other languages is MUCH easier to both fake and believe. Besides, many of those documents would probably end up in the church and it's hard to get them out so they can be tested for authenticity.
and since it's been a while... that adds even more doubts.
and even if Jesus is mentioned, It doesn't really matter since I already think the probably did live. As I do think that most if not all of the temples and civilizations the bible talks about was little? I didn't fill more whole back then... nor happier)
[b said:Quote[/b] ]"god" could make natural selection possible. I don't see how they are mutually exlusive.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]I feel perfectly whole and happy as I am (did I mention I was christian when I was little? I didn't fill more whole back then... nor happier)
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Jesus did indeed exist (check out a history book for that time frame), however only Christianity believes him to be God. According to the nation of Islam he is considered a prophet in the Koran as was Mohammad and Moses
[b said:Quote[/b] (Alvin Meister @ Mar. 21 2005,8:41)][b said:Quote[/b] ]Jesus did indeed exist (check out a history book for that time frame), however only Christianity believes him to be God. According to the nation of Islam he is considered a prophet in the Koran as was Mohammad and Moses
I wonder why Christianity doesn't acknowledge much about Mohammad?
You may wish to google "animism". That is pretty much the belief you professed, IIRC, although I think animism extends to inanimate objects, as well.[b said:Quote[/b] (JustLikeAPill @ Mar. 21 2005,6:31)]I also believe that plants, animals, even the most humble protizoa has a soul or essence, however i don't think that the same set of "rules" applies to them. i'm still working on that part
This is a common sentiment among theists, but atheists generally believe their life has plenty of purpose, and don't seem to have a problem with morality. Atheistic morality is typically founded on the Golden Rule, and atheists recognize immorality by the objective, demonstrable harm a behavior causes.[b said:Quote[/b] (Rubra @ Mar. 21 2005,7:40)]I don't know about everybody else here, but the meaning of life is very important to me. If I am here only because some mud mutated, and if after I die, I just turn back into mud, there is no reason to do anything different from the animals, no reason not just to follow my instincts.
Mohammed (who was believed to be a prophet of god) lived about 600 years after christ. According to Muslims Mohammeds teachings were given to him by god and if you read the Koran you will find that both the old and new testament are included in a modified form. He is not included in the bible because first the bible was already written and complete and they would have had to add something 600 years into the religion, not and easy task. second there are fundimental differences between the practices of Isalm and Christianity that would make its incorrperation nearly impossible.[b said:Quote[/b] (Rubra @ Mar. 22 2005,4:30)]Mohammad lived a few hundred years after Christ. Even if he would have existed earlier, he probably wouldn't have been in the Bible, because his teachings are not God-breathed.
animism is more complex than what you are making it out to be and also it has many differnt forms. saying that someone is describing animism is like say someone is talking about polytheisism. The description given was of a specific belief system and although it may fall under animistic beliefs,(which it really does not, as there is no description of worship or revering these spirts and attempting to manipiulate them in anyway) that does not mean you should genralize them out to it. Also inanimate objects do not have souls or spirits per say but can contain the souls or spirits of other organizism.[b said:Quote[/b] (SarraceniaScott @ Mar. 22 2005,5:51)]You may wish to google "animism". That is pretty much the belief you professed, IIRC, although I think animism extends to inanimate objects, as well.[b said:Quote[/b] (JustLikeAPill @ Mar. 21 2005,6:31)]I also believe that plants, animals, even the most humble protizoa has a soul or essence, however i don't think that the same set of "rules" applies to them. i'm still working on that part
it's not that. It's what religion IS. Religion is believing what you WANT to believe without any proof. I don't believe in having faith (not like that anyway). I don't believe in choosing what you want to believe just because you like how it sounds. So far I have seen no evidence or anything for any religion so I don't believe it. give me evidence and I'll believe it. Not because I want to believe it, but because the evidence makes me believe it. Why do you keep bringing up me being close minded? We've gone over this before. If you think I'm close minded then fine... but don't keep briging up the same thing.[b said:Quote[/b] ]So because christianity was not right for you, you have sworn off all religion? isnt that a pretty close minded approach to life?
hmm... yes... exactly! I guess i'm a philosophical naturalist.[b said:Quote[/b] ]I am a philosophical naturalist. Not only do I believe in the methodological naturalism of science (nature is the only objective standard we have for science), but I also believe natural, rather than supernatural, explanations cover everything in the universe.
Merely not having yet discovered the natural cause of a phenomenon, IMHO, is not rational justification for assuming that a supernatural cause exists. To arrive at a supernatural explanation, we would first have to consider and reject all possible natural causes, which would require complete and perfect knowledge of the universe.
the caste system is the basis of hindu belief in reincarnation and moving up. Although it is also very effective at controling the populus. and like most religions when used in a theocracy they work as a way to maintain the power of the government.[b said:Quote[/b] (SunDoode182 @ Mar. 23 2005,12:20)]what are your thoughts on the caste system? I heard it was invented so the higher people could keep power?
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Religion is believing what you WANT to believe without any proof. I don't believe in having faith (not like that anyway).