soha
a splendid one to behold
isnt that in islamic sydney
i love that site...
i love that site...
lol oh gotcha... no worries at all... it's so late i cnt even remember if i took it personalli...loljoujou_84 said:i didnt mean u personally changed it.....i mean christianity as a whole but fair enough.....
salam.......soha said:well im gonna call it a night and go to sleep
salamz pplz
*Barbie* said:under the law of Moses (the o.t.)..there were rules of clean and unclean beats...
in the new testament these rules are not applied... we see in [/B]Acts 10 [/B] through a vision to Simon (who would be sent to preach 2 Cornelius(a Gentile)) In the vision God told Simon to kill and eat...because he had been fasting and was hungry...Simon said he had never eaten any unclean thing b4...
God replied that what He has cleansed shall not b called common or unclean...
The rule for the clean and unclean beasts can be debated at length about all the benefits it offered the Jews, but a major part of all the laws given to the Jews was to separate them from the rest of the world...to make them a people separate unto God...After Jesus did His deal on earth, the door was open to all who were called. Jew or Gentile. So the rule for unclean beasts (for food) no longer applied because being separate unto God was accomplished by the Holy Spirit, not mere ceremonial laws... Jesus condemned the Pharasies saying that God could raise children of Abraham from mere stones if He wished. Confronting their vanity and conceit...
Jesus also told the Pharasies that it isn't what goes into a man's mouth that makes him unclean but the things that come out of a man's mouth.
...
i didnt change things... God said it in the old testament to set His people apart... in the New Testament as written above Salvation comes through the Holy Spirit to anyone Jew or Gentile... that's why it's changed...
*Barbie* said:good question...
i am pasting a quote from the wise C.S. Lewis... mayb you've read his books (the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe etc...luv those books lol )
"...I am trying here to prevent the one foolish thing many people often say about Jesus, 'I can accept Jesus as a good moral teacher, but not as God.'" That is one thing we cannot say. Jesus claimed to be God. If this wasn't true, saying it (along with the other statements He made) would mean He shouldn't be considered a good moral teacher. There are only 3 choices we have for Jesus: 1 He was wrong and he knew it (liar); 2 He was wrong, but thought he was God (lunatic); or, 3 He actually was Lord and God [McDowell, Evidence pg 103]. So the choices include liar, lunatic, or Lord; if He was a liar or lunatic He should not be considered a good moral teacher. There is no disputing the fact that there was a man named Jesus who lived..."
Jesus life and death were not refuted...
The writers of the New Testament were eye-witnesses of what they recorded. The fact that they wrote the manuscripts during the time the enemies of Christ were alive (and could prove whether the things they said were true or not) should be further proof that what was said/written was true. We don't have a record of any refutation as to the birth, life, death, or resurrection of Christ. The Bible says that after His death and resurrection Jesus was seen alive by more then 500 people; I Corinthians 15:5-8 says, "And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
So basically we believe Jesus is the Son of God because that's what God's word says...
"As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." Mark 1:10-11
It is truejoujou_84 said:moonlightsonata has turns and i believe has argued with everyone on this forum
Wait till we get a crisis in epistemological conflict, then maybe we'll see about that.Pace Setter said:Granted the truth of that idea (m.empiric), I've got no proof. But then again, I have yet to explicitly state whether I believe in god or not. My whole point was that you should have made clear the temporary assumption of moderate empiricism being "correct," as the starting point for this whole argument/thread.
started reading a bookkatie_tully said:The bible has many contradictions...And when people try and explain the contradictions, they end up contradicting something else.
imsooverskool said:ok i have to put in my 5 cents even though i what i am about to say has probabaly already been said 50 times!
ok here goes...
God doesnt exist simply because the bible is just an ancient book full of insidious lies that constantly contradicts itself. One of the biggest contradictions of the bible rests in the first tale of the bible, that being the one about Adam and Eve. I am assuming this has already been pointed out, but how does the Christian religion explain the incest that would have has to occur for the human race to begin? ie.Eve would have had to sleep with either Cane or Able for the human race to have begun :jaw: Now as someone who has never read the bible all the way through i am only assuming that incest is considered to be a sin (no, im not really that dum i know that incest is a sin, but you get my point )