Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
FREIGHT FREE
in Australia

Black Diamond: SET of 8 "C4" Cams and 8 matching wire gates. Sizes .3 .4 .5 .75 1 2 3 & 4 and 8 anodised "neutrino" - wire gate karabiners.   $625.00
20% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 7 of 12. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 235
Author
OT: Rebelious reopening of locked topic

markq
26/08/2010
2:22:34 PM
lighten up guys...

Bart: What do we need church shoes for? Jesus wore sandals.
Homer: Well, maybe if he had had better arch support, they wouldn't have caught 'im.

Homer: If the Bible has taught us nothing else -- and it hasn't -- it's that girls should stick to girl sports, such as hot oil wrestling, foxy boxing, and such and such.

Homer (giving a lecture on marriage): What is a wedding? Webster's Dictionary defines a wedding as "The process of removing weeds from one's garden."

Homer: A big mountain of sugar is too much for one man. I can see now why God portions it out in those little packets.

Marge: Homer, that's not God. That's a waffle Bart stuck to the ceiling.
(Marge pries the waffle off the ceiling.)

Homer: Lord, I know I shouldn't eat Thee, but... (munch munch munch) mmm... sacrelicious.

Homer: Oh, everything's too damned expensive these days. This bible cost 15 bucks! And talk about a preachy book! Everybody's a sinner! Except this guy.

Hendo
26/08/2010
2:25:56 PM
you forgot

Homer: I'm not normally a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me, Superman!
pensionerpower
26/08/2010
2:38:37 PM
On 25/08/2010 dave h. wrote:

>Pensionerpower - gee, I never thought of that before....Or not...

Sorry Dave, I don't speak in tongues, so I have no idea what you mean by that.

Christians commonly cite any part of the bible they like, to support their opinions. So it's completely fair game for others to say, "What about this ridiculous part? Why don't you believe that also?" Do you really think you can just say: "The author changed his mind about that. That's just there for historical reasons"? Sounds to me like you're picking and choosing the parts that you want.

Perhaps you get tired of hearing this argument. Perhaps you guys keep hearing it, because we non-believers think you haven't answered it?
rolsen1
26/08/2010
3:03:41 PM
On 26/08/2010 gordoste wrote:
>
>3. This is all a totally irrelevant to the original topic. The Bible disapproves
>of many types of people and we marry those people happily.

Yes and no.

This thread was the result of a hate post in the other thread. Other people while not using such extreme language have used their beliefs and the bible to support similar irrational illogical, although nowhere near as extreme, views.

>2. You cannot "tear down" Christianity with logic.
>Faith consists of believing something without proof

I'm not debating whether there could possibly be a god rather whether christians use illogical, hypocritical and self serving arguments to justify their discrimination of minority groups.

harold
26/08/2010
3:12:54 PM
Pensionerpower: For your information, the New Testament is titled **New** for a good reason. It specifically states many times that it replaces all the rules from the Old Testament. Also, just to clear up your confusion, the extreme rules that you quote came about when there were a million or so Jews wandering around in circles lost in the desert for 40 years camping in tents. I would assume the rules had a lot to do with maintaining social order. Its an interesting part of history (or not to some) but really has no bearing on daily christian life. The author didn't change his mind, its not picking and choosing, that's just how the whole thing reads.
pensionerpower
26/08/2010
3:27:44 PM
On 26/08/2010 harold wrote:
>Pensionerpower: For your information, the New Testament is titled **New**
>for a good reason. It specifically states many times that it replaces all
>the rules from the Old Testament.

Hi Harold

Can you tell me where it states that? This is a serious question, I'm not disbelieving you. I've just don't know where that reference is.

Cheers

The good Dr
26/08/2010
3:30:52 PM
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
dalai
26/08/2010
3:38:39 PM
Personally, as long as all sides go through life and leave me alone I don't care what people believe or don't believe in. It doesn't effect me so what's the big deal?

It appears in this types of arguments both side like to shout down the others views, rather than let people get on with their lives with whatever views makes them happy...

nmonteith
26/08/2010
3:50:16 PM
I'm still unconvinced that this topic is making Chockstone a better place for all...
dalai
26/08/2010
4:04:58 PM
On 26/08/2010 nmonteith wrote:
>I'm still unconvinced that this topic is making Chockstone a better place
>for all...

Been a busy week. What are the topics said best to avoid? Politics and religion...

dave h.
26/08/2010
4:07:57 PM
Rod - you are most welcome... hope you got up your climb?

Gordoste - thanks for the compliment. :)

Pensionerpower - I'm sorry that I let my frustration influence my reply to you more than I should have.

The gist of my reply to you earlier was this:
Christians are not bound to obey the old testament food laws, follow the sacrificial system (etc - for more details see Leviticus) because the New Testament makes it very clear that Christians are not saved because of their obedience to the law.

In other words, the Bible itself tells us that Jesus, not the law, is the way to salvation. Jesus himself suggests this:

In John 2:18-22, the Pharisees ask Jesus for a sign demonstrating his authority: "Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.'
The Jews replied, 'It has taken 46 years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?' But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words Jesus had spoken."

Here, Jesus uses the word 'temple' metaphorically to refer to the whole of the Old Testament law. For his Jewish audience, the temple and the law are how you relate to God - the priests who minister at the temple are the mediators of the old covenant between Israel and God. Jesus' words foreshadow the new covenant which is inaugurated by his death. Nor is this reference to the coming obsolescence of the OT law isolated - cf John 4:21-24: "...a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem...Yet a time is coming and HAS NOW COME when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks..." (emphasis added).


The Old Testament looks forward, and anticipates the new covenant inaugurated by Jesus' death. One reference in support of that idea is Jeremiah 31:31-35. Part of that passage reads:

'"The time is coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will NOT be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the Lord. "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time... I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people....they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest...For I will forgive their wickedness and remember their sins no more."

So there is, in the Old Testament itself, this idea of a coming covenant which will be different to that established when God brought Israel out of Egypt (which is an unambiguous reference to the Levitical laws etc). In fact the sacrificial law of the Old Testament is something which foreshadows the coming of Jesus. The author of the New Testament book of Hebrews quotes that passage from Jeremiah, shortly before he says (Hebrews 10:1-4):

"The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming - not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship...But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."

Previously in Hebrews 9 the author has compared Jesus to the High Priest of the Old Covenant, and made the point that he "entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood [rather than entering by the blood of a sacrificed animal as the High Priests had done], having obtained eternal redemption."
The author goes on to say "The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer [sanctify people so they are outwardly clean]. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!" (Heb 9:12-14).

The author's purpose in making all of these comparisons is very clear. He is stating that Jesus is a high priest superior to those of the old covenant; that the sacrifices of the old covenant did not atone for sins (although they made the Israelites ceremonially clean). Rather the old covenant sacrifices are offered in anticipation of the death of Christ, who was a sacrifice offered once and for all, and whose death is effective to remove sin (Heb 10:10).

I'm not really sure I can do a whole lot better than this. If you're still unhappy I'll see if I can find someone who can express things more clearly.


- The Good Dr
In response to your link (with respect, the author is an amateur), I will supply a rebutting link. (http://www.publicchristianity.com/jesusevidence.html )

The guy on your No Beliefs page either doesn't understand how ancient history works (in that the sources we have for much of ancient history usual come after the events they document) or is deliberately misleading.

Eduardo Slabofvic
26/08/2010
4:21:11 PM
On 26/08/2010 nmonteith wrote:
>I'm still unconvinced that this topic is making Chockstone a better place
>for all...

Just pretend that the Christians are the bolters trying to make everyone do things their way; and the atheists are tradsters putting forward a wide range of situations where bolting doesn't cut it. Then it makes perfect sense.
Wendy
26/08/2010
4:21:49 PM
On 26/08/2010 nmonteith wrote:
>I'm still unconvinced that this topic is making Chockstone a better place
>for all...

Is it any worse than the interminable climate skeptic one? Or the religious poll? I'm not sure how we moved into another debate about the existance of god, but here we go again ...

>Personally, as long as all sides go through life and leave me alone I don't care what people believe or don't believe in. It doesn't effect me so what's the big deal?

It appears in this types of arguments both side like to shout down the others views, rather than let people get on with their lives with whatever views makes them happy...

whether people believe in god or not shouldn't really effect other people, but when they use religion to justify things that do effect other people, that's not letting people get on with their lives. And other people have been citing other reasons for discrimination as well - all of which are worth a hefty debate.

Sarah Gara
26/08/2010
8:42:16 PM
On 26/08/2010 harold wrote:
>Pensionerpower: For your information, the New Testament is titled **New**
>for a good reason. It specifically states many times that it replaces all
>the rules from the Old Testament.

So when will they decide that all the rules in the new testement are rubbish and come up with a NEw New Testement?

Again Harold wrote:
>Also, just to clear up your confusion,
>the extreme rules that you quote came about when there were a million or
>so Jews wandering around in circles lost in the desert for 40 years camping
>in tents. I would assume the rules had a lot to do with maintaining social
>order.

Isn't that why Religion was formed in the first place -a control on people who were unable to behave morally without fear/threat of punishment from divine being.

And again he wrote:
> Its an interesting part of history (or not to some) but really
>has no bearing on daily christian life.

I think the link between morality and Xianity is tedious at best. I don't think the bible has much link on the lives of most people who call themseleves Xian.

Dave h wrote:
>Well the fact that there's better historical evidence for the person of Jesus Christ than there >is for Julius Caesar might've helped persuade the more reasonable ones.


What evidence? where exactly is this evidence? oh yes the bible...

>reasonable ones

? huh - reasonable? rational and resonable minds believe that a man rose from the dead walked on water and turned water into wine. that the red sea was parted -whoops sorry that one isn't true -that was in the first book the one that we lied in so we could maintain social order while we were living in tents!!

The whole temple thlng too - body is the temple grrr... jesus you could read anything into it if you what to be that vauge and metaphorical.

dave h wrote:
3) The empty tomb. Extrabiblical historical sources confirm the Biblical account of tension between the Jesus and the Pharisees (a Jewish sect whose authority was threatened by Jesus' popularity and teaching). If you don't know the story, the Biblical gospels teach that it was the Pharisees who orchestrated Jesus' execution at the hands of the Romans. The point is, had the Pharisees wanted to disprove the Resurrection, which they certainly would have, they could simply have gone down to the tomb, seen Jesus' body rotting there, and then shown the people the fraud the disciples were attempting to perpetrate. They didn't. Instead they argued that the disciples had stolen Jesus' body.


hmmm -extrabiblical sources.. such as? - oh there was the shroud of turin... oh wait that was declared a fake...

see I'm not even desputing that the body was missing or anything -because even if there was evidence to support that beyond the bibile what evidence is there to support that jesus was even cruixified/lived/put in the tomb in the first place...

And again dave h :
>Quite frankly, people have been trying to tear down Christianity for 2000 years. >Demonstrating some sort of internal inconsistency or contradiction would be a pretty good >way to do it, and so far no-one has succeeded. But don't let that deter you - so, what >exactly is contradictory about Christianity?

I think that the whole xianity argument comesdown to faith. I just don't have that faith. I think god provides a nice secure mindset for people I wishI could belive it.

We could argue (and I have on many many occasions) about religion forever and it wouldn't make any difference. I went to a church school, did RE at school at GCSE, studied Xian theology at A-level and Moral ethics and I did philosophy at Uni I've discussed the topic at lengthmany times (ithink even on chockstone before )

Just like I will never be able to change your mind - I doubt you youwould turn mine. It all comes down to faith. -I just don't have it.

>hedo wrote:
>Homer: I'm not normally a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me, Superman!

love it.

Now has anyone ever climbed the dribble? x
J.C.
26/08/2010
8:48:03 PM
>So when will they decide that all the rules in the new testement are rubbish
>and come up with a NEw New Testement?

http://base-book.com/

Sarah Gara
26/08/2010
8:52:12 PM
adorable kitten sneezes and cum shots? hmmm . x
J.C.
26/08/2010
9:00:54 PM
did you watch those clips? i was delighted to find a notable lack of both feline nasal activity and wang explosions, rather there are big mountains and big mountain men doing mountainy things
bl@ke
26/08/2010
9:01:56 PM
Simpson.
Homeless guy: If your Duff-man then I must really be jesus. Up up and away! (jumps out of window)

dave h.
26/08/2010
10:09:28 PM
In reply to Sarah Gara

Is it rational to believe in the miraculous?
The answer depends on your assumptions. If the universe is a godless one devoid of anything which could be described as supernatural, of course belief in the miraculous is irrational.

If you believe in the God of the Bible (IE one who created the universe by speaking it into being), then it requires no great leap to suppose that such a God could intervene if He saw fit to.


If you think what Jesus said was unclear, I suggest you try reading the New Testament for yourself. You'll get the 'vibe' of it for sure. It beggars belief that you can have all that formal education on this subject and still entertain doubts as to what Jesus meant by that.

Faith does come into it to be sure. But faith is not blind.

Re evidence for Jesus - I'll disregard the Bible for the sake of argument, even though mainstream historians use it as a text (of course that does not mean they accept everything written in it).

When considering the extra-biblical evidence that's available it's important to remember that Jesus was, despite the influence He has had in the 2000 years since he walked the Earth, a relatively marginal figure in his day. According to the Bible He was a public figure for about three years. We don't know a lot (anything??) about any other first century Jewish artisans of humble origins. Secondly, ancient historical sources are the ultimate game of pot luck, given that we only possess a tiny amount of the material that would have been written in Jesus' lifetime. The minister at my church wrote this on the subject:

"By a chance discovery of some ancient Greek letters written on papyrus we happen to know about the plight of a certain second century BC tax official named Dionysius son of Zoilus. One evening while strolling home from a recently opened public bathhouse, poor old Dennis was mugged by a certain Philon and friends (ironically, Philon means ‘love, friendship’). In his letter, Dionysius describes his utter humiliation, and he implores the city guard (who also happens to be named Philon) to arrest the thugs and investigate the case. It is a delightful, random portrait of life in ancient times.

But contrast this intimate snapshot of a lowly bureaucrat with the fact that we do not possess a single such personal letter from Emperor Tiberius, who ruled the Roman world from AD 14-37. Such is the unpredictability of historical evidence."


Anyway as it turns out there is extrabiblical material which alludes to a Jesus called the Christ, his followers, and his crucifixion. Some extra-biblical sources are:

- Tacitus, who writes in Annals, book 15: "...Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome..."

- Julius Africanus (a 3rd century historian), who cites Thallus. Thallus wrote history in the first century.

Africanus writes: "On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun...Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth - manifestly that one of which we speak."

This is consistent with the Biblical account of an earthquake (Matt 27:51) and darkness (Matt 27:35 says "from the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land.").


Discussion of more sources is here.


>I think god provides a nice secure mindset for people I wishI could belive it.
"...seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you..."

Nooj
26/08/2010
10:28:41 PM
On 26/08/2010 harold wrote:
>Also, just to clear up your confusion,
>the extreme rules that you quote came about when there were a million or
>so Jews wandering around in circles lost in the desert for 40 years camping
>in tents. I would assume the rules had a lot to do with maintaining social
>order. Its an interesting part of history (or not to some) but really
>has no bearing on daily christian life. The author didn't change his mind,
>its not picking and choosing, that's just how the whole thing reads.

Of course, there's no evidence that a million or so Israelites (Jews as a people only came about after the Babylonian Exile) wandered around in a comparatively small desert for 40 years. No evidence at all in fact that they ever left Egypt with big flashy disasters following at their heels, no evidence at all that they were ever slaves.

Even if you accept the claim that all these things happened the way the Bible says it did, the laws about stoning adulterers to death, parents executing their own children for being lazy louts, making rapists marry their victims are all laws for a state. Not for a bunch of wandering nomads. Why would there be laws about how to treat slaves when they were wandering around in a desert with no slaves to boss around? It's anachronistic stuff. It's obvious that the rules given in the book of Exodus were written into the fabled past by writers who were taking them from their own time.

The way Israelites lived their lives 3000 years ago may not have relevance to Christians nowadays, but the fact that it was God ordering the Israelites to live their lives that way has relevance to Christianity (and Judaism, but no one here seems to be arguing against them). Because Christians claim that God is good, just and unchanging - but then you hear about God ordering the Israelites to massacre this bunch of people and that bunch of people, and you start to realise what a gigantic wanker he is.

 Page 7 of 12. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 235
There are 235 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints