50 replies to this topic

[SuperJon]

I apologize if this has been discussed (too lazy to search). If it has, then someone please link me in the right direction. My question is directed towards the Christians. If scientists were to locate a planet in the universe that contained life (of any variety), would you cease to believe in God?

[Balloon guy]

I apologize if this has been discussed (too lazy to search). If it has, then someone please link me in the right direction. My question is directed towards the Christians. If scientists were to locate a planet in the universe that contained life (of any variety), would you cease to believe in God?

I had a pastor that said he wouldn't be surprised if there was life on other planets, since our God is a creative God.

I lean more to the entire universe was created for us ( me actually, but my therapist is helping with that)

The Bible does not say there is no other life, nor does it say there is, so it's not a foundational thing to worry about.

[SuperJon]

I had a pastor that said he wouldn't be surprised if there was life on other planets, since our God is a creative God.

I lean more to the entire universe was created for us ( me actually, but my therapist is helping with that)

The Bible does not say there is no other life, nor does it say there is, so it's not a foundational thing to worry about.

Ah. I was under the impression that God only created life on Earth. Maybe I should actually read the bible.

Now what about this? Suppose complex life forms (such as humans) were discovered on another planet, and had proof that they came into existence by some means other than a higher power. Would this cause any Christians to no longer believe in God?

[brvheart]

I had a pastor that said he wouldn't be surprised if there was life on other planets, since our God is a creative God.

I lean more to the entire universe was created for us ( me actually, but my therapist is helping with that)

The Bible does not say there is no other life, nor does it say there is, so it's not a foundational thing to worry about.

correct.

[Zeatrix]

This is a very interesting philosophical issue. But my English isn't good enough to make it justice so I'll just add my two cent.

I personally feel that there is a very good possibility that some sort of life exist in the universe, except for what's on our green (soon brown) planet. On the other hand I would not be surprised if Terra is the only planet in the universe that harbors life. I also think it's highly unlikely that I will live to see proof of life in other parts of the universe if there indeed exist such.

But the poster Fox Mulder had in X Files sums it up "I want to believe"

[Loismustdie]

Ah. I was under the impression that God only created life on Earth. Maybe I should actually read the bible.

Now what about this? Suppose complex life forms (such as humans) were discovered on another planet, and had proof that they came into existence by some means other than a higher power. Would this cause any Christians to no longer believe in God?

No. Actually reading the Bible would be a fantastic start.

[David_Nicoson]

http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...showtopic=97553

[SAM_Hard8]

I apologize if this has been discussed (too lazy to search). If it has, then someone please link me in the right direction. My question is directed towards the Christians. If scientists were to locate a planet in the universe that contained life (of any variety), would you cease to believe in God?

nope

[Whalers2005]

If proof was found on this planet that there is no god...people will still believe. No need to find it on another planet.

[Balloon guy]

Ah. I was under the impression that God only created life on Earth. Maybe I should actually read the bible.

Now what about this? Suppose complex life forms (such as humans) were discovered on another planet, and had proof that they came into existence by some means other than a higher power. Would this cause any Christians to no longer believe in God?

How about this?

Suppose God came to this planet, lived with us, gave us advice, then people who lived with Him wrote these things down and those writings were compiled into a book and that book was available to you, would you read it and believe?

[KramitDaToad]

How about this?

Suppose God came to this planet, lived with us, gave us advice, then people who lived with Him wrote these things down and those writings were compiled into a book and that book was available to you, would you read it and believe?

It would be interesting if that happened.

However what actually happen is that a man claiming to be the son of God may or may not have come to this planet to give us some advice. Despite possibly living with us for 30+ years no-one at the time wrote anything about it. Then decades later some people who almost assuredly never met him, wrote some flat out contradictory stuff regarding his life. The 'acceptable' portion of that was compiled into a book. It's 'acceptability' being voted on by men centuries later, based on its conformity to their own opinions and politics.

[Balloon guy]

It would be interesting if that happened.

However what actually happen is that a man claiming to be the son of God may or may not have come to this planet to give us some advice. Despite possibly living with us for 30+ years no-one at the time wrote anything about it. Then decades later some people who almost assuredly never met him, wrote some flat out contradictory stuff regarding his life. The 'acceptable' portion of that was compiled into a book. It's 'acceptability' being voted on by men centuries later, based on its conformity to their own opinions and politics.

So some guys made up His life story, then a bunch of other guys cherry picked the things they wanted, and it still contridicts itself? Seems that your theory has some holes. Your theory would be more believable if everything written about Him was 100% perfectly in alignment.

The way it is points more to the belief that the things written were not changeable, regardless of the appearance of contridictions. The fact that all these contridication have been answered 100s of time for 100s of years, is just more fuel for the argument that the Bible is trustworthy.

[crowTrobot]

So some guys made up His life story, then a bunch of other guys cherry picked the things they wanted, and it still contridicts itself? Seems that your theory has some holes. Your theory would be more believable if everything written about Him was 100% perfectly in alignment.

that's moronic, and anyway he was referring to the selection (or exclusion) of individual books for the original canon, not selection of events by individual authors of the books. the books that were excluded were even more radically contradictory than those included.

The fact that all these contridication have been answered 100s of time for 100s of years, is just more fuel for the argument that the Bible is trustworthy.

actually christians have been making lame excuses for biblical contradictions for 100's of years because they are compelled to suspend all objectivity by the egocentric nature of their belief. the question of biblical contradictions has never been answered, which along with anthropological evidence (including apparent lack of contemporary historical reference to jesus) leads to the obvious conclusion that biblical works are most likely a mish-mash of derivations of widely varying oral traditions, some of it likely pre-dating the time of jesus, combined with multiple authors copying previous works with their own embellishments.

[El Guapo]

I do not know how much I actually want to delve into this as I am not very religious and have only read pieces of the Bible. But here are few nuggets for thought.

I have heard that since the text of the Bible was inspired by god, and because god is infallable then it is gramatically perfect.

In 300 AD stories were compiled by I believe a Roman forum and they decided which gospels were to be included and which were not.

King James had the bible trasnlated and at that time it is believed he had some orignial text left out that empowered women.

The story of lilith, the first woman of the Garden of eden is left out of the bible, this is the strongest eveidence I have seen that the Bible is possibly subjective to the way it is put together, witht the ommitting of contradictory stories.

Personally I view the bible as a history book one with many metaphors describing actual events, and like most history has be skewed by perception. It is a history book that spells out morality in a fairly complex yet simple way. I could really keep going but I think I will stop here, so as not to offend anyone further.

[Balloon guy]

I do not know how much I actually want to delve into this as I am not very religious and have only read pieces of the Bible. But here are few nuggets for thought.

I have heard that since the text of the Bible was inspired by god, and because god is infallable then it is gramatically perfect.

Was it perfect? Yes, Is it now? maybe not.

In 300 AD stories were compiled by I believe a Roman forum and they decided which gospels were to be included and which were not.

Not the full story, there were 'new' books being passed around, and the church decided they needed to create a way to verfy which books were authentic and which were recent attempts at misdirecting a church with poor communication between it's members. So they met to place the seal of approval on what is now the Bible. It took a long time, there were like 60+ guys that argued for years. The requirements for canonization were strict.

King James had the bible trasnlated and at that time it is believed he had some orignial text left out that empowered women.

No, the English church was just starting to get ahold of the better Greek translations of the New Testament. Before this they were usng the Latin versions which are very bad translations. The KJV was a very good translation, but it's errors were because of the Latin, not the intent of the translators.

The story of lilith, the first woman of the Garden of eden is left out of the bible, this is the strongest eveidence I have seen that the Bible is possibly subjective to the way it is put together, witht the ommitting of contradictory stories.

Never heard of Lilith, pretty sure Eve was the first woman. You might mean the apocrapha books, which I am on the fence about myself.

Personally I view the bible as a history book one with many metaphors describing actual events, and like most history has be skewed by perception. It is a history book that spells out morality in a fairly complex yet simple way. I could really keep going but I think I will stop here, so as not to offend anyone further.

The problem with saying the bible has some good stuff is you have to try to explain the parts where Jesus says:
A. He is God
B. He is deserving of worship
C. The only way to avoid being sent to hell is to accept Him as your Savior.
D. There is no other way to God except Him and Him alone.


Jesus didn't leave room for; "He was a good teacher" and the Bible doesn't leave room for: "It's a book of moral guidance"

[Loismustdie]

The problem with saying the bible has some good stuff is you have to try to explain the parts where Jesus says:
A. He is God
B. He is deserving of worship
C. The only way to avoid being sent to hell is to accept Him as your Savior.
D. There is no other way to God except Him and Him alone.
Jesus didn't leave room for; "He was a good teacher" and the Bible doesn't leave room for: "It's a book of moral guidance"

That about covers it. Incidentally,Balloon Guy, the conversation involving Dahmer was just getting good. What happened?

[KramitDaToad]

So some guys made up His life story, then a bunch of other guys cherry picked the things they wanted, and it still contridicts itself? Seems that your theory has some holes. Your theory would be more believable if everything written about Him was 100% perfectly in alignment.

See that's the rub. They were working with pretty lame material to begin with and creating some more was not an option. They were never going to get the Bible to align 100% because no 2 books do. Not even Luke and Matthew who copy a large majority of their material from the sames source.

They took the best they had and the best was abismal.

However instead of looking at facts Christians are quite happy with "close enough is good enough, oh and it's divinely inspired & 100% accurate too"

[Loismustdie]

See that's the rub. They were working with pretty lame material to begin with and creating some more was not an option. They were never going to get the Bible to align 100% because no 2 books do. Not even Luke and Matthew who copy a large majority of their material from the sames source.

They took the best they had and the best was abismal.

However instead of looking at facts Christians are quite happy with "close enough is good enough, oh and it's divinely inspired & 100% accurate too"

Tough to get observers to write the exact same thing about anything that happens. If it did, I wouldn't buy it. To neat.


As far as doctrine goes, it matches. They all taught and believed things that Jesus taught them that he was killed for and many of them were as well.

[KramitDaToad]

Tough to get observers to write the exact same thing about anything that happens. If it did, I wouldn't buy it. To neat.

As far as doctrine goes, it matches. They all taught and believed things that Jesus taught them that he was killed for and many of them were as well.

Problem is the authors weren't observers.

The earliest books, and majority of the Bible, are written by Paul some 30 years after the supposed crusifiction, and we all remember Paul's special relationship with Jesus don't we? That's right - they never met.

After Paul the first gospel chronologically is Mark c60 - 80 AD. It is attributed to Mark but the texts are anonymous. To add to the problem it is written in Greek and makes mistakes regarding Hebrew life. Hardly the writings of a Jew as is claimed. Further more, Mark doesn't mention the virgin birth and the orginal versions don't mention the resurection. They simply end at an empty tomb with a unknown man saying Jesus will be seen later. End of story and a symbolic end used in a lot of mythology common at the time (eg Apollonious or Hercules)

A decade or two later we get Matthew and Luke, again anonymous texts, which copy, often word for word, the text found in Mark. Beginning to understand why we get a repetition of doctrine? It's not multiple witnesses, it's good old plagarism. Like any good plagarism we get special additions (directors cuts if you will). We get the virgin birth and we get the resurection. Unfortunately these tacked on after thoughts are the bits that really really go astray.

Matthew:
After the birth, Mary and Joseph take Jesus to Egypt (2:14)
Jesus is first seen by the 2 Mary's post resurection (28:1-9)
Jesus tells his disciples to go to Galilee to meet him(28:10)
Jesus first appears to his disciples in Galilee (28:16)

Luke
After the birth, Mary and Joseph take Jesus to North Israel(2:39)
Jesus first appears to Cleopas and another man (24:13)
Jesus first appears to his disciples in Jerusalem (24:33-37)

etc etc etc...

Finally we get John, which like the others is again anonymous, and is written around 100AD and given that the John we want it to be is older than Jesus, really makes it ridiculously unlikely that he wrote it. It also quotes Mark (more plagarism - not multiple witnesses) and really goes to town on the physical evidence of the resurrection in a desperate attempt to builld up the miracle score.

So you have a story started by a guy that never met Jesus, followed by a tale of Jesus' life obviously not written by witnesses, that gets plagarised and grows, getting embellished over time like any good chinese whisper.

Along with this you finally have a council that removes all other 'witness' accounts because they are contradictory to what they want (have you ever read the infancy gospels of Thomas?), and yet people devote their lives to this story making lame excuses to avoid their fears of looking too close.

[Balloon guy]

stuff

We can have this debate in another thread, but one thing to see about the 4 Gospels is that each one was written to a different group of people, by a different writer. You should expect a difference. Luke was a Gentile, writing for Gentiles, John for Christians, Math for Jews, Mark for Romans.

But again, having these 4 books right next to each other, and having there be seemingly different facts, should point to these being if nothing else, an accurate handing down of the original text. Afterall, if you are making up a religion, wouldn't you 'fix' these 'problems?'