Quote:

 

Uhhh, yes they were. o_O The Book of John, for example, was written by one of his Disciples (John).

Inui

Jan 14 2008, 07:35 PM

Quote:

 

Uhhh, yes they were. o_O The Book of John, for example, was written by one of his Disciples (John).

Nope, they weren't. Most of the Gospels weren't even written until after Jesus and his original followers were dead. They weren't even compiled until after the Roman Empire stopped killing off Christians. It's also been proven that various Popes and other higher-ups in the religion changed stuff.

History Channel ftw.

Reaver

Jan 14 2008, 07:34 PM

Sentenal

 

Jesus would NOT be happy with someone living a "good/decent" life, but against his teachings.

And Jesus, as a jew, would've taught the torah (Old Testament) correct?

Sentenal

 

Jesus' teachings would be considered the New Covenant , which is different from the Old Covenant. Jesus went against traditional Jewish religion many times, as you commented about in your earlier posts. He taught that the only way to the father was via him, which is starkly against Jewish teachings. He associated with people that Jews never would, like Lepers, Gentiles, and such.

Sentenal

 

That isn't to say that Jesus didn't reaffirm parts of the Old Testiment in his teachings. Regardless of any part of the Old Testiment Jesus might/might not have reaffirmed, things like the study of the Earth's rotation would NOT land someone in hell, if they have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and have asked for forgiveness of their sins.

Kimichi

Jan 15 2008, 12:02 AM

Scooter McJenkins

Jan 13 2008, 11:54 PM

Kimichi

Jan 13 2008, 10:13 PM

After watching that, I wondered why there I was in a guild/group called da_niggaz online.

Kimichi, we're not a real organization. We're just a bunch of teenagers who joke around on an internet forum. Until someone is truly offended by that, then we'll stop. But no one is, because they can tell the difference between a joke and malice.

I'm sure MLK would be proud to see an African-American candidate running for president, with a legitimate chance at winning. I'm sure he'd also be proud to see the strives our culture has made. But then there's still plenty of negatives. The fact that Barack Obama being black is a problem still means we have a long way to go. When people are thought of as people, then I'm sure he'd be happy, but they're not. And, in my opinion, they never will be.

The Boondocks is made BY a black person. It was originally a comic made BY a black person and directed at black people. It isn't trivializing black culture, it's embracing it, and actually has messages that you're obviously failing to see. It's REAL, and that's the truth. It isn't an exaggeration, it's real. If anything, the white people in the show are exaggerated as a joke. Riley represents the Hip Hop influenced young black child, while Huey represents the intellectual that kids should strive to be.

Until you've been around black people, you can't say the show is racist. You have retards like Al Sharpton preaching against it, but the word "nigga" is a common part of black culture and language. That's just the way it is.

I didn't say the show was racist, and I didn't say the show was fake. I admit the white people are exaggerated on the show. But the black people in the show are a reflection of whats mostly happening today.

What MLK said in the episode represents the culture of good and bad contained in the black society.


I see the black community mostly being divided into two stereotype categories. Which are Athletes and Gangsters, and most gangsters believe they will not pass the age of 20 or 30. Boondocks is simply a message of what black people should be through the eyes of Huey. The setting also describes the standards that should be reached.

The word "nigger" was a racial slur that used to be used. And it probably is still used in secrecy today by other races. The fact that "nigga" has some what resembles the racial slur. But is the word "nigga" the choice of words MLK wanted black people to create?

Sentenal

Jan 14 2008, 08:44 PM

Hey, jerkoff, go read those links I pointed you to, if you actually want to debate.

Inui

Jan 14 2008, 09:50 PM

Sentenal

Jan 14 2008, 08:44 PM

Hey, jerkoff, go read those links I pointed you to, if you actually want to debate.

All's I know is that I saw a show on the History Channel that talked about the Gospels were not written into the Bible by the people that supposedly said the stuff originally. It's also well-known fact that Popes/other people in power changed stuff.

Yeah, there's historical stuff that backs of the Bible, but that's not really proof that John sat down and wrote that stuff into the Bible directly, especially since the Bible wasn't written until after John was long dead.

Quote:

 

A further criticism concerns whether the copies we possess are credible. Since we do not possess the originals, people ask, how can we be sure they are identical to them? The initial answer is that we will never be completely certain, for there is no means at our disposal to reproduce the originals. This has always been a problem with all known ancient documents. Yet this same question is rarely asked of other historical manuscripts which we refer to constantly. If they are held to be credible, let's then see how the New Testament compares with them. Let's compare below the time gaps for the New Testament documents with other credible secular documents.

There were several historians of the ancient world whose works are quite popular. Thucydides, who wrote History of the Peloponnesian War, lived from 460 BC to 400 BC. Virtually everything we know about the war comes from his history. Yet, the earliest copy of any manuscripts of Thucydides' work dates around 900 AD, a full 1,300 years later! The Roman historian Suetonius lived between AD 70 to 140 AD. Yet the earliest copy of his book The Twelve Caesars is dated around AD 950, a full 800 years later. The chart below reveals the time gaps of these and other works from the ancient world and compares them to the earliest New Testament manuscripts (taken from McDowell 1972:42, & Bruce 1943:16-17).

NOTE:  The chart is alot easier to look at if you took the time to click on one of the links.
Author Date Written Earliest Copy Time Span Copies (extent)

Secular Manuscripts:
Herodotus (History) 480 - 425 BC 900 AD 1,300 years 8
Thucydides (History) 460 - 400 BC 900 AD 1,300 years ?
Aristotle (Philosopher) 384 - 322 BC 1,100 AD 1,400 years 5
Caesar (History) 100 - 44 BC 900 AD 1,000 years 10
Pliny (History) 61 - 113 AD 850 AD 750 years 7
Suetonius (Roman History) 70 - 140 AD 950 AD 800 years ?
Tacitus (Greek History) 100 AD 1,100 AD 1,000 years 20

Biblical Manuscripts: (note: these are individual manuscripts)
Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26) 1st century 50-60 AD co-existant (?) 
John Rylands (John) 90 AD 130 AD 40 years 
Bodmer Papyrus II (John) 90 AD 150-200 AD 60-110 years 
Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.) 1st century 200 AD 150 years 
Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels) 1st century 200 AD 150 years 
Codex Vaticanus (Bible) 1st century 325-350 AD 275-300 years 
Codex Sinaiticus (Bible) 1st century 350 AD 300 years 
Codex Alexandrinus (Bible) 1st century 400 AD 350 years

(Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies)
(Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230)

What one notices almost immediately from the table is that the New Testament manuscript copies which we possess today were compiled very early, a number of them hundreds of years before the earliest copy of a secular manuscript. This not only shows the importance the early Christians gave to preserving their scriptures, but the enormous wealth we have today for early Biblical documentation.

What is even more significant however, are the differences in time spans between the original manuscripts and the copies of both the biblical and secular manuscripts. It is well known in historical circles that the closer a document can be found to the event it describes the more credible it is. The time span for the biblical manuscript copies listed above are all within 350 years of the originals, some as early as 130-250 years and one even purporting to coexist with the original (i.e. the Magdalene Manuscript fragments of Matthew 26), while the time span for the secular manuscript copies are much greater, between 750-1,400 years! This indeed gives enormous authority to the biblical manuscript copies, as no other ancient piece of literature can make such close time comparisons.

Quote:

 

Yes, I do. So an Astronaut that donates to charity organizations and studies the earth's rotation is going to hell because he believes two things that contradict the Bible: the earth revolves around the sun and the moon is a lesser light (it merely reflects sunlight). Also, let's take everyone who doesn't follow dietary laws or chooses not to get circumcised: they are all going to hell regardless of their benign nature and good deeds because they aren't living by the book. I am a firm believer that the Bible is outdated.

Quote:

 

This also doesn't answer why modern day religions have selectively read and chose to disregard dietary laws and other Old Testament traditions that "no longer apply.

Quote:

 

He did pick and choose some regarding to his pleasure; where the hell did the practice of dietary laws go? Why don't we believe everything revolves around the earth? Why do people work on Sundays? Why are blue laws slowly disappearing across the United States?

Quote:

 

That's a divorce; Catholic Churches refuse to marry men or women going into a second marriage if their former significant other still lives.

Quote:

 

This doesn't address the point that Jesus wasn't a fan of a rigid social order...

Quote:

 

Wait, Jesus's commandments were "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" and "Love your God" correct? I'm pretty sure that most people, even if they don't follow all of the teachings in the Bible.

Quote:

 

1) Response to stimuli.
2) Ability to reproduce at sometime in life.
3) Growth and Development
4) Organization (organisms are made up of cells)
5) Metabolism (uses energy)
6) Maintains homeostasis.
Fetuses struggle with homeostasis. A fetus cannot regulate it's own internal processes for quite some time in the womb, and a zygote can't either because zygotes don't have internal functions. A fetus is not alive for quite some time, do not call it alive (since abortions in the third trimester, where the fetus begins to regulate it's own bodily functions, are illegal).

Quote:

 

And his word eliminated the Old Testament for Christians, in theory, because he said you only need to associate through him to reach God and only left two commandments: love thy god and love thy neighbor as you love thyself.
I can see people being decent disregarding everything else in the Bible save those two commandments.

Quote:

 

4 But the Pharisees hearing that he had silenced the Sadducees, came together: 35 And one of them, a doctor of the law, asking him, tempting him:
36 Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40 On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.

Quote:

 

Nope, they weren't. Most of the Gospels weren't even written until after Jesus and his original followers were dead. They weren't even compiled until after the Roman Empire stopped killing off Christians. It's also been proven that various Popes and other higher-ups in the religion changed stuff.

Quote:

 

While the example of orbits was a Catholic Church thing, the story of creation in Genesis discusses how God created two lights, the greater to rule the day (the sun) and the lesser to rule the night (the moon). That's fairly contrary to the Bible to believe the moon reflects light from the sun and nothing more.

Cephas

 

Explain then, why the following always occurs if the zygote does not have internal functions:
Cleavage
Blastulation
Gastrulation
Organogenesis

The stem cells in the fetus to be quite capable of doing the same things in the cell cycle as adult cells, like taking in nutrients and excreting wastes, since otherwise it would die. If that isn't homeostasis(maintaining a balance), I don't know what is. The fact that it needs outside nourishment is not unique to the unborn. Babies too, can't fend for themselves without assistence. They won't eat or just eat whatever's in front of them.

Cephas

 

The Old Law is necessary for justifying the New Law, since all of the practices were made for the anticipation of the Messiah; that is why it's
still preserved. Jesus said "The sabbath was made for man, not man made for the sabbath", for example. Jesus did not say here that the sabbath was worthless since it was made for man. If something is made for you, it's either to help or hurt you. Since God does no evil, anything he makes for man is good, hence the sabbath was good.

Cephas

 

So? The purpose of the Moon is to be the greatest object in nighttime sky, and that has not changed, regardless of the mechanism that makes it so. I see no contradiction.

Quote:

 

Okay, and if the fetus can't respond to stimuli (such as not having food or being attacked) it can't acheive homeostasis and dies. Everything you've listed is merely the development as regulated by the womb: but if a fetus cannot maintain stable conditions by it's own making it cannot be alive (yet).

Quote:

 

So we can void old laws and keep old laws? We can't choose one or the other, as your earlier points brought up the Old Testament is void. How can you possibly say we've based the current system off of something that has no connections to the new system whatsoever, as it doesn't count.

Quote:

 

The Bible would've said the moon reflected the sun's light if that is what it intended the moon to do. The mechanism is stressed: the moon is the "lesser light" despite not being a light at all.