[tw]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Although I'm not sure of your usage of the word "prophet" here, I can agree with the idea here.
...
Newest bibles? Last I checked there was a group of writings that was agreed upon a couple hundred years or so ago, and that was then termed "the Bible". Full stop. Your statement is based upon the flawed premise that the Bible is a textbook of science, which (for the third time) it's not.
...
Please explain how having will, opinions and love is pathetic or limited.
...
I don't believe my God chose George Bush. Bush may think that, some fundies may think that, I don't. So please refrain from linking me to your religio-political overgeneralizations.
...
Again (4th time) the bible is not a science book. That's YOUR straw man. Also, the bible doesn't say "nothing more need be learned". So please, stop making these ridiculous statements.
...
I'm hardly a religious extremist. And evolution as it relates to origion of man is not science. It's guesswork. And it shouldn't be taught in school any more than creationist origins should.
...
I disagree. First, the bible (specifically the old testament) is the cornerstone and foundation of Christian, Judaism and Islamic faiths. Within it are timeless concepts that will never be obsolete, as much as you wish they were. Granted, there are some things (like stoning people) that western society considers obsolete now, but the western justice system was based off of Christian laws and punishments within the bible. We don't stone people now, we imprison them. And as we have seen, imprisonment isnt much of a deterrant, is it? But that's another thread entirely....
...
So you agree it's also got history in it. History that has never been DISproven. We may not be able to prove all the history, but what secular history we can verify time and time again agrees with biblical history. So since it hasn't been DISproven, why not believe it all? Again, another thread, but definitely a product of the EvCvID debate.
...
Perhaps back in the day that was true. Now, many scientists learn science in an attempt to prove god doesn't exist, and to get other people to doubt god as well. What's the best way to do this? "Prove" that the primary and fundamental statement "In the beginning God created" is wrong, by advancing this UNPROVABLE notion that man evolved from primordial soup. If the Bible is wrong, then you can't trust any of it, and therefore, the foundation of 3 of the world's major religions is GONE. That's why this is such an important issue to Christians, indeed, it should be a major issue to Muslims and Jews. The theory of Evolution as it relates to origin of man is completely opposite of the bible. And you have to take a stand. Do you believe in the word of God or fallible man? Both theories are equally unprovable, and therefore, religious in nature, and should NOT be taught in school.
...
Tee, you are the ONLY person who I've ever met (virtually or otherwise) that thinks emotion is a bad thing, or limiting, or pathetic.
...
Again, I'm not so sure of your use of "prophets" here.
...
A scientist could be called a prophet, by def. 4, but I would say that "god's prophets" would be more apt to lift god up, so to speak, as opposed to many scientists, who try to tear him down.
...
Jesus used parables. And it was obvious when he used them because the style of writing changed and he SAID he was using a parable.
...
You need to define what a fact is and figure out if a fact is a fact all the time, or if a fact is a fact only after a certain time. Please be consistant on when a fact is a fact. Until then, I'm ignoring your Kerry-ish argument about facts.
...
Firstly, "worship the bible" is not something that people are supposed to be doing. Those who use the bible as a foundation for their faith are supposed to "worship" God (by whatever name each faith might use).

Secondly, I reject that if one believes in the bible that they cannot learn. And I do NOT promote hate of gays. I don't promote hate of anyone. That was a completely out of hand and inflammatory statement. And made to ilicit an emotional response. Be careful, Tee.
...
Last I checked, gods chosen people are the Israelites. And those are Jews. So you're saying Jews promote hate? huh?

First, not all whose religion is tightly tied to the bible are religious extremists. Furthermore, just because George Jr is 'god's chosen president' does not mean that it is the belief of all or any devout Christians. In fact George Jr is only god's chosen president because HE believes it. It is HIS religion and HIS religious belief. It demonstrates that George Jr worships a limited and flawed god. A god with gross human deficiencies such as choice and preference - and therefore a limited god - a pagan god.

Prophet - innovator. Someone who discovers more of god's laws. Someone who cannot exist hundreds of years later if only the bible is correct. Someone who advances mankind by adding or correcting principles long since expanded and corrected from the original bible.

It would be illogical to say that a flaw in the bible makes the entire bible flawed. It was a good book in its time just like all science books. We ignore what was wrong, use what works, write a new book, and advance mankind. From the bible have been spawned many new and better books such as geometry and Darwinism.

Despite what your religion may teach, mankind has been correcting, upgradings, and expanding on the bible and other early works; including the Quran. Using principles taught by the nuns with big sticks - they are all inspired words only from god? Nonsense. They are nothing more than men trying to understand a massive concept we call god. Conventional myopic religions fear to understand that mankind has long since moved beyond the original bible. We have learned more and wrote new versions. We have a whole Dewey Decimal system for corrections and updates that man has since made.

IOW the god as taught in those conventional and myopic religions is nothing more than an extension of human wants, need, and emotions. If a god has a chosen person (ie George Jr), then his god is a limited creation with human traits. And that god probably worships his god. That god would be as pagan as the Greek and Roman gods. After all, even those gods chose sides in war and had human emotions such as perference. Those gods had their favored 'good' people. Why did those gods not just eliminate the enemy themselves if those gods were so powerful? Damning logical question that Socrates asked.

A real god is far more infinite. He has no limits such as will, love, or 'choosen people'. Jesus was as much a son of god as is everyone else. Those who think otherwise need a pagan concept to comprehend something that is too infinite. BTW the concept of infinity also did not exist in biblical times.

No problem. Everyone must have some way of dealing with a concept so infinite. Just as long as they don't use beliefs to subvert other's lives. Again, a fundamental principle that made America so great. Religion is nothing more than a relationship between you and your god. It must not affect others against their will.

Bottom line - no matter what your religion says, mine has move long beyond its early and flawed "The Bible" - as we learn more of god's laws. My religion is not stagnant like fundamentalist Christians, conservative Jew, or 'Muslim Brotherhood' Muslim. Unlike those religions, mine promotes tolerance. Mine says god is something to keep learning more about. God does not 'talk' to choosen people. God is what science is about.

I have no problem with those who would worship the same old and flawed books. Religion in a most conservative and conventional sense is to believe something blindly as if nothing better, smarter, improved, or more accurate can exist. Fine. Just don't impose those religious beliefs on my life or my peers - as the previously quoted Pat Robertson would advocate to the destruction of America.

When I say 'worship the bible', it means blindly believe god as defined only in their 'perspective interpretation' of that bible. If they were worshipping god, then they knew the bible is nothing more than an early and flawed attempt to explain god. A limited god is created by 'worshipping the bible' rather than learning of a larger and more infinite god. Biblical word. Flawed. A good early attempt. Something quite limited using parables. If something so limited becomes the total foundation of a religion, then clearly that religion is just another pagan religion. Fundamental christians routinely discuss things that are too limited to be anything more than a pagan god. Damning fact. If a god has love, will, or his 'chosen people', then that god is limited - a classic pagan god with the same human traits (flaws) found in Greek and Roman gods.

Previously defined are examples of what a fact is. For example, to prove a fact, we must have both experimental evidence and underlying theory. Without both, a fact does not exist. This concept did not exist in biblical times as history teaches. A fact does not exist only because a lying president 'felt' there were weapons of mass destruction. Those who believed that 'feeling' to be fact were indeed using only emotion and easily subverted by propaganda. This same process is why many also believe 'their interpretation of the bible'.
[continued in following post]