The Bible (Split from "The Bible on your iPod"
- Thread starter RyanLang
- Start date
I used no "foul" language at all. Apparently this forum is getting much like the FCC and the Bush administration in that if you have an idea that someone disagrees with they feel it's ok to just yank it. And another thing...being a moderator for an internet forum?? get over yourself... (not aimed at you, fryke). I've been on here since 2001 and I have every right to say whatever I want as long as I don't use those dirty words that hurt people's feelings for some reason. Whatever, I don't even care.
Jason
Eyebrow Moderator
Ryan, you can have that opinion all you want. But the way you stated it, WILL offend some, and is flame bait.
I don't really believe in god myself, but I am sure as hell not going to make fun of others for having that belief. Its about respect, IMHO you disrespected all who follow a religion or who are spiritual even.
to that, a *thumbs down*
I don't really believe in god myself, but I am sure as hell not going to make fun of others for having that belief. Its about respect, IMHO you disrespected all who follow a religion or who are spiritual even.
to that, a *thumbs down*
RyanLang said:
Those be debate words. Wanna start.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16
Don't even take the stance that the Bible is fiction. Even non-believers agree of the historical accuracy of it. In the end, it comes down to faith.
Between this day forward and the day you die... if you have not accepted Christ as your savior by that time... don't tell God, "Man, I never heard about Jesus." Cause you just heard about it here.
BoneFill
Registered
ScottW said:
RyanLang said:
Más leña al fuego (more wood to the fire) what I don't like about censorship is that it only can be applied one way lets see if I can make myself clear
Can you see that both statements above can be offensive for people who does not believe in Jesus but for sure believe in God ???
One way Ryan is telling that all believers are "weak minded people" what between lines and in a very polite way is useless people and by the other way we have Scott telling that "Christ is the only way to save yourself", what between lines and in a very polite way is "all other religions are trash".
So, how can you tell which statement has to be deleted/edited ???
I personally don't have any trouble with both statements, they have the right to believe or not on whatever they want and they are free to say it the way they want. In the end the important thing is not what you believe in but what you do and how you do it if there is a God he will save you, if there is no God there will be no need of been saved but the people that remains will remember what you do
Ricky
Registered
Just so you know, the reason I censored it was because it was originally posted in a thread where it would have been grossly off-topic and started a serious flame discussion which was also about off topic. And the reason that Scott's post wasn't censored was because it was posted after I had decided to split the thread.BoneFill said:
Thusly why I said "keep it civil" when I split it to here as posts are no less offensive in either view.
BoneFill
Registered
Jason said:
I know the way matters Jason but even in your example both statements are faraway from each other and are not the same thing, you see, in one you are just sayin' that you don't have any evidence and then you don't believe on the other example you are ensuring that God exists you "believe" and "he" is nothing but "the anus" ... see?
brianleahy
Colonel Panic
This is a debate that can barely be contained and kept civil under the very best of circumstances.
And really, in many ways, it can hardly take the form of a true debate. What one camp presents as evidence the other discards as spurious.
A hypothetical debate:
--------------------------
"Christianity is the one true religion. Jesus is the only way to heaven."
How do you know that?
"The Bible says so."
How do you know the Bible is true?
"A lot of what The Bible says is historical fact, verified by other sources."
Well yes, but the same is true of, for instance, the film "Titanic". That doesn't mean that Rose or Jack ever really existed.
"Lots of people have believed in the Bible. Wise, respected, important people."
True, but also, lots of wise, respected people have disbelieved it.
"I believe it."
Obviously. I, however, don't.
"I know it's true."
Your saying that means nothing without further proof. I can just as easily, and I suspect with equal conviction, say that I know it's false.
"Christianity is centuries old; vast human efforts have been devoted to praising Jesus through song, art, architecture and word."
The same could be said of the ancient Egyptians' religion. Does that make it true too?
"You'll see. When we're both dead, then we'll see who's right."
There, at least, we agree.
And really, in many ways, it can hardly take the form of a true debate. What one camp presents as evidence the other discards as spurious.
A hypothetical debate:
--------------------------
"Christianity is the one true religion. Jesus is the only way to heaven."
How do you know that?
"The Bible says so."
How do you know the Bible is true?
"A lot of what The Bible says is historical fact, verified by other sources."
Well yes, but the same is true of, for instance, the film "Titanic". That doesn't mean that Rose or Jack ever really existed.
"Lots of people have believed in the Bible. Wise, respected, important people."
True, but also, lots of wise, respected people have disbelieved it.
"I believe it."
Obviously. I, however, don't.
"I know it's true."
Your saying that means nothing without further proof. I can just as easily, and I suspect with equal conviction, say that I know it's false.
"Christianity is centuries old; vast human efforts have been devoted to praising Jesus through song, art, architecture and word."
The same could be said of the ancient Egyptians' religion. Does that make it true too?
"You'll see. When we're both dead, then we'll see who's right."
There, at least, we agree.
Krevinek
Evil PPC Tweaker
brianleahy said:
Yes, this is a situation where all sides should honestly agree to disagree. One of my friends who is a fairly devout Christian (which sect, I never bothered to ask) who doesn't even agree with a lot of "Christian" attitudes towards other religions. He believes that it is his duty to introduce Jesus as the savior to anyone who doesn't already believe that. If they reject Jesus, then he believes that he no longer has a duty to push the subject, and that the person has made his/her choice based on free will given by God. He also believes that God doesn't punish those who were never informed of Jesus as the savior, only those who are informed and reject Jesus.
Sensible approach to the faith, if you ask me, as this is a good example (IMO) of actually following the teachings of Jesus and compassion/understanding that he set out to introduce to the Jewish people, which wound up spawning the Christian faith. My views on all this? Well, let's just say my faith is a gestalt that is (once again, IMO) greater than the sum of its parts.