Do you believe that Christ is the son of GOD? why?

Suff

Do you believe that Christ is the son of GOD?
Can you justify whorshiping a man?
Can you take the information in the bible as evidance?

MrJoeSoap

Suff wrote:

Do you believe that Christ is the son of GOD?

No.

Can you justify whorshiping a man?

No.

Can you take the information in the bible as evidance?

No.

Why? Science.

Suff

that was simple enough, but why you say sciense?

MrJoeSoap

Because I see the two (belief in a higher being VS science) as diametrically opposite. It has to be one or the other, for me anyway.

I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words on this type of thing, but thats my very basic view on the matter.

Suff

when it comes to religion Science can be used to prove a number of things.

however the reason for this thread is to prove that christ is not the son of GOD!

Nalz

I think we are all a bit wiser and knowledgeable these days to see that he or she was nothing but a myth, however most of his "teachings" are a decent guideline to live by in life....thats what matters. Whether or not the man existed, whether or not the entire bible is false, the majority of its stories and phrases are a decent indication on how to act and behave in general (the catholic church seem to miss the point). Im not mocking anyones beliefs, im a catholic myslef, but as much as Id love to believe I dont

MrJoeSoap

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Because I see the two (belief in a higher being VS science) as diametrically opposite. It has to be one or the other, for me anyway.

I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words on this type of thing, but thats my very basic view on the matter.

Science has nothing to do with god. It doesn't disprove or prove god, because they're two different things.

I think we are all a bit wiser and knowledgeable these days to see that he or she was nothing but a myth, however most of his "teachings" are a decent guideline to live by in life....thats what matters. Whether or not the man existed, whether or not the entire bible is false, the majority of its stories and phrases are a decent indication on how to act and behave in general (the catholic church seem to miss the point). Im not mocking anyones beliefs, im a catholic myslef, but as much as Id love to believe I dont

You're a catholic and think jesus is a myth?

To be honest, I think he was a guy who had some sensible things to say, and some good ideals for people to live up to.
Son of god, however, I very much doubt.

Suff

Why seperate God from Science???

if GOD created life / universe as we know it then all the laws of life were set by him in order to make this life work.
he created science for us to know that the universe was'nt created by inccedent! it all planned and messured.


Christ brought new and validated old teachings from Moses time. he did shap an area.
but it's really mad IMO to claim he was the son of GOD!
taking things from a scienctific approcach...why do we have kids?? in order to keep the line of humanity going right so we stay alive on this earth. so for GOD to have a son it would sugest that GOD is'nt imortal and he needs to keep his breed alive!!! also it would suggest that he's either a male or a female or even some mad gender! totally throws the GOD properties out the door.
IMO Christinains back then were influenced by a number of different faiths and some elements of their previous faith shaped few things in Christianity as we know it today..like Christmas day and Easter which are all pegan.

Suff

Suff wrote:

Why seperate God from Science???

if GOD created life / universe as we know it then all the laws of life were set by him in order to make this life work.
he created science for us to know that the universe was'nt created by inccedent! it all planned and messured.

Science can't measure god, or test god in a lab. The realm of science, so to speak, does not cover god.
This does not mean god does not exist, it means one cannot use science to prove or disprove god, regardless of whether god made the world we can test with science, or not.

Suff

i think it does prove he exist!
how... scientists and researchers tried to prove that GOD doesnt exist and they always reach a dead end stating that there must be a higher being who controls and have set the laws of life within the universe. it was aired on Channel 4 and the BBC some time in early last year.

Suff

Suff wrote:

i think it does prove he exist!
how... scientists and researchers tried to prove that GOD doesnt exist and they always reach a dead end stating that there must be a higher being who controls and have set the laws of life within the universe. it was aired on Channel 4 and the BBC some time in early last year.

WHAT exactly proves s/he/it/they exist?

As for the rest, frankly, I think they were ignorant if not downright stupid to try such a thing in the first place. There is no scientific method to apply to god; god is not a falsifiable theory, etc. And "I don't know" is not proof of god; it is only proof of "I don't know". Which is why my sig on forums in general is what it is.

The two are seperate.

nubbintom

Suff wrote:

Christ brought new and validated old teachings from Moses time. he did shap an area. but it's really mad IMO to claim he was the son of GOD!

I guess you don't read much about Jesus

'Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father'?" (John 14:6-9)

Suff

fine fine leave it there...now why do you think early christians placed Christ as the son of GOD? I would put it to pegan influance.

Suff

Suff wrote:

fine fine leave it there...now why do you think early christians placed Christ as the son of GOD? I would put it to pegan influance

I assume you mean "pagan". And what evidence makes you say this?

As far as I'm aware, a messiah was expected, and he fulfilled some or all of the conditions. Plus nubbintom's post would indicate that Jesus admitted to being the son of god.

Also, I assume you mean once the religion itself was started up...

nubbintom

I've no problem people not believing in Christianty, but why Suff do you feal it necessary to bring up somthing which you cleary have no interest in?

Suff

nubbintom wrote:

I've no problem people not believing in Christianty, but why Suff do you feal it necessary to bring up somthing which you cleary have no interest in?

I am very interested in this issue, I am always trying to find the answer to questions have, sudying books is not enough, interacting with people is better to get their ideas on the matter. I just like to talk Religion

Suff

Suff wrote:

I am very interested in this issue, I am always trying to find the answer to questions have, sudying books is not enough, interacting with people is better to get their ideas on the matter. I just like to talk Religion

If so, then some actual arguments to defend the opinions/claims in your posts would be nice

Suff

bluewolf wrote:

As far as I'm aware, a messiah was expected, and he fulfilled some or all of the conditions. Plus nubbintom's post would indicate that Jesus admitted to being the son of god.

Also, I assume you mean once the religion itself was started up...

we cant talke the bible words on it only! the bible had went through a number of alterations and changes since it was written. and translation plays a big part.

Yes, in the early days of the religion.

nubbintom

If you cant take the Bible's word about Christianity who's can you take? If you choose a different view then its not the Christian view which you're interested in.

Suff

Suff wrote:

we cant talke the bible words on it only! the bible had went through a number of alterations and changes since it was written. and translation plays a big part.

Then start posting some sources which disagree and have some evidence and decent arguments, or stop.

Sorry, I don't mean to be mean, but stuff like this just doesn't seem to work unless you can actually argue your point.
And at this point I don't want to, so I shall bow out.

Suff

ok
some background first:

Historians accept the idea that the Bible is in fact a composite work that is, it is not the untouched work of a few men.
In actuality it has been added to and subtracted from and otherwise altered over the many centuries of its construction.
And while many religious scholars are quick to point out that that this is irrelevant, that nothing has ever been added or claimed that God himself did not cause to have so done, the fact remains that in our modern era this history of changes and omissions has led not to one version of the Bible, but to many. Which then is accurate? And how can we know that what we have now accurately reflects the original Gospel of Christ?

Because the Old Testament books of the Bible are essentially translations of the Hebrew Bible (or Tanach), the story of the Bible's construction and frequent reconstruction begins with that of the first 5 books of the Hebrew Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Also known as the Torah or the Pentateuch, these early books are fabled to have been written by Moses. According to legend, the first four were given by God himself in dictation, while the fifth was wholly authored by Moses or so the legend say.

the fact that the Torah once existed in many different versions and editions. These were then copied and recopied over the centuries, until they were gathered up by Jewish scribes and cobbled into a single, reasonably consistent text.
This mythology (that the Bible was created as a whole, direct from the mouth of God) would later be inherited by Christians to a degree.

The evidence suggests that the Torah was the collective work of four or five authors and that in all probability it was edited and altered by yet more individuals over the course of time.

It is useful to note here that religious scholars place the time of Moses at 3300 to 3450 years before the present time.

so perhaps the entire three and a half thousand year process of editing, deleting, and revising was done, this implies that earlier drafts of the Bible were wrong, so how do we know if anyone's gotten it right?
And perhaps no part of the text was ever lost due to accident or decay prior to being edited into the final form of the Torah.

No records survive to indicate what really happened. We know that changes occurred, but no one leaves a memo revealing why!

this applies for the old testement, the new testement went throught the same cut and paste, translations and alterations. for a proof of this..get a copy of a recently published bible and try to find a 100 year old copy and you'll see a small difference in a number of chapters. i have some written examples where one can find these changes, i have to get my note book out to get the ref's and links will do it soon

Vangelis

I don't see this thread going anywhere. It's the same old song...

turbot

I think Jesus was a highly evolved mystic.

I think he'd be appauled if he knew how his ideas have been used and abused.

starn

Suff wrote:

Do you believe that Christ is the son of GOD?

Suff wrote:

Jesus was just a man of flesh and bone

Suff wrote:

Can you justify whorshiping a man?

Suff wrote:

No. But I can justify following his tradition of being morally sound

Suff wrote:

[an you take the information in the bible as evidance?

No. The bible has been floating around in various incarnations for the last two thosand years each edition and translation with there own perspective and agenda. Whoknows what been aged and subtracted oveer the centerius. Look what the soviets were able to do in less then 90 years

Dades

Suff wrote:

scientists and researchers tried to prove that GOD doesnt exist and they always reach a dead end stating that there must be a higher being who controls and have set the laws of life within the universe. it was aired on Channel 4 and the BBC some time in early last year.

I'm sorry, what exactly was aired? A statement approved by all the world's 'scientists and researchers' saying: "As we have failed to disprove God, he clearly exists. Oh and by the way - it's Suff's God - not one of the other ones".

I'm surprised that never made the news.

Suff

The Atheist wrote:

I'm sorry, what exactly was aired? A statement approved by all the world's 'scientists and researchers' saying: "As we have failed to disprove God, he clearly exists. Oh and by the way - it's Suff's God - not one of the other ones".

I'm surprised that never made the news.

if you try to take things alittle bit seriously you can make a good argument atheist.
the program had a number of high qualified scientists and researchers from acorss the globe each analysing the laws of the feild they know. they all have agreed that the laws set in the universe can't be made by coincidence. and by the way they were all Atheist just like you!

Wibbs

The Atheist has a point Suff. How do you know it's "your" God that's throwing the switches on the universe? Could be one of the Hindu ones. They've been around longer anyway. BTW these wouldn't be the same scientists that reckoned the 7 heavens mentioned on the Quran were accurate representations of the earth's atmosphere among other "scientific" discoveries therein?

As for Jesus, the chances are he existed. Whether he was the son of God or not is a matter for faith, not science.

Suff

Wibbs wrote:

The Atheist has a point Suff. How do you know it's "your" God that's throwing the switches on the universe? Could be one of the Hindu ones. They've been around longer anyway.

If you follow one of the heavenly faiths [J,C,I] then you would know that GOD was whorshiped since the time of the first man ADAM.

if Christ is taken for GOD or the son of GOD then did Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacoub, Isac, Ishmael, Lot, Yasin, Moses,Yehya [John the baptist],Muhammad have all whorship Christ or even been sent by him?

Wibbs wrote:

BTW these wouldn't be the same scientists that reckoned the 7 heavens mentioned on the Quran were accurate representations of the earth's atmosphere among other "scientific" discoveries therein?

NO they are not , you can take it or leave it but still it stands.

Wibbs

Suff wrote:

If you follow one of the heavenly faiths [J,C,I] then you would know that GOD was whorshiped since the time of the first man ADAM.

So no other faith has any value then, outside the "heavenly" ones? Read the evolution thread for questions about the origins of "Adam". You quote scientists, then mention genesis?

NO they are not , you can take it or leave it but still it stands.

Eh no it doesn't TBH.

robindch

> a number of high qualified scientists and researchers
> you can take it or leave it but still it stands.

I think you'll have to justify your claim a bit more than that! Who said it and when? In connection with what? Were they scientists or creationists? Might they have had other motives for saying what they said?

Suff

they were actual scientists , physics, space, matter the lot.

It was aired early last year on channel 4 [maybe in march]. it was really interesting how come no one saw it!!!
I'm trying to find a link online for it.

Suff

Wibbs wrote:

Eh no it doesn't TBH.

that's in your Opinion without providing any valid arguments.

Dades

Suff wrote:

if you try to take things alittle bit seriously you can make a good argument atheist.

Okay I'll get serious.

Suff wrote:

they were actual scientists , physics, space, matter the lot.

It was aired early last year on channel 4 [maybe in march]. it was really interesting how come no one saw it!!!

Let's not forget that for every documentery/website claiming one thing there is a dozen saying the opposite. For example did you watch Richard Dawkins two part documentary this month? He's a scientist and he doesn't agree "it stands".

It's all a bit OT anyway. But i think Wibbs said it best...

Wibbs wrote:

As for Jesus, the chances are he existed. Whether he was the son of God or not is a matter for faith, not science.

Suff

thats why its good to talk about it....


"Three sides to every story, your's mine and the truth! "
Ricky Warwick

robindch

> they were actual scientists , physics, space, matter the lot.

I'm asking because creationists are well known for producing people with fake qualifications who superficially look like they know something, but are actually there to sell their religion instead.

Just be careful to make sure that the people who call themselves "scientists" are actually genuine!

http://tinyurl.com/8aefc

There are also theology phds one can buy for 35 dollars.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Suff

ziggy67 wrote:

Nice copy & paste job. It was the correct spelling & grammar that gave it away.:)

Thanks, its taken from my own gathered notes that I have on my harddrive.
I have a growing Library on Religion Histroy. good thing to have

BrianCalgary

Suff wrote:

we cant talke the bible words on it only! the bible had went through a number of alterations and changes since it was written. and translation plays a big part.

Yes, in the early days of the religion.

This is simply not true Suff. The Bible we have today matches the one as written @2,000 years ago. When put to historical manuscript scrutiny it is the most reliable ancient book in existence. Where the Bible does change is when it is translated form the original Greek into English. Do you translate word for word, idea for idea, thought for thought? Do you use modern language (The Message), American vernacular, British Vernacular or Olde English (King James)?

The Bible has not gone through any changes. Therefore we conclude that Jesus did say that He is the Son of God. And I will believe Him because He backed it up by pulling off some dandy miracles. I like the raising Lazarus from the dea after four days in particular.

UU

The reverent of the church I attend said once:

Whenever religion falls into the hands of historians it has the life sucked out of it!

Little did it occur to me at the time how true his words were at the time until now.

I shall mention something interesting I said on another thread before again.

There are enough historical conundrums to keep the scholars in doctoral topics and the rest of us in confusion until the end of time. Why? Because the gospel stories are full of inaccuracies, logical contradictions and scientific implausibilities. Although, these aren't present in the text because of unreliable sources, defective memories or mistaken observations; they are there to stop us taking the stories literally. A while ago, the reverent mentioned what the Great Father Origen wrote in the third Christian century, and it bears repeating here: "Absurdities and contradictions appear in the text to force us to look beneath the surface to find the real meaning of the story". This statement should be printed in block capitals on the front of every Bible and it should be tattooed on the forehead of every student of scripture. Unless we take Origen's statement seriously we're at the mercy of squabbling historians and that, ladies and gentlemen, is a terrifying situation to be in.

The reverent gave a good example to us. He said that many years ago, he was going with the whole school to see Lawrence Olivier's film of Shakespeare's 'Richard III'. As they were filing out after the film, one of the history teachers was shaking his head and saying to a colleague, "That's not what happened". A shallow judgement indeed! As if Shakespeare, in his great study of the dept of human tyranny and malice was even remotely concerned with something as trivial as what actually happened! Richard was Shakespeare's vehicle for conveying some insights into the nature of human depravity; and in my opinion, Jesus was the evangelist's vehicle for conveying insights into the nature of the spiritual life.

The answer to the question of the thread.
No I don't believe in Jesus as a Son of God.
Why? Contradictions and absurdities make us look beneath the printed words on the page. And as a Unitarian Jesus is only regarded as a mortal but a teacher like the Buddha.

UU

Oh, and one more thing I forgot to mention. Einstein once said:

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind

I needn't say any more . . .