its funny how they call this christian fiction... Showing 301-350 of 1,587

[[deleted user]]

@Hazel, well, I could call you "Miss Hazel" instead of just "Hazel".

I have a DVD to watch with my brother, so I'm leaving, at least for now. IF any of you want me to "come back", just write something on here "to me" and I'll receive a notification in my Hotmail inbox. Thanks.

You all have a nice end-of-the-day.

[Hazel]

I would also suggest any book by Bart Ehrman, and Richard Dawkins The God Delusion. Its actually a very well written piece of work, and gives you plenty to think about. And for the science side of thins, well, theres Why Evolution Is True, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution and other books of the ilk. I'm not so up on whats good from the world of physics, but anything by Neil DeGrasse Tyson should serve, as he's a very good speaker, and knows how to make things understandable. Also, the Wonders of the Universe by Brian Cox, that series moved me when it was on TV.

[Hazel]

Kendra wrote: "@Hazel, well, I could call you "Miss Hazel" instead of just "Hazel".

I have a DVD to watch with my brother, so I'm leaving, at least for now. IF any of you want me to "come back", just write so..."

Hazel is fine, I'm also a Ms, not a miss, in that I was a mrs, but not yet divorced.

Have fun watching your DVD.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Kendra, i apologise, i had a brain fail, and thought your post was written by Mary. I retract what I said earlier, and will reply to you in amoment"

That's quite all right, Hazel. I have done the very same thing on numerous occasions. Don't be concerned about it.

[Will]

Ohhh, physics, I got this:

Lawrence M. Krauss: A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing

Brian Greene: The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory

Isaac Asimov: Understanding Physics

Stephen Hawking: A Brief History of Time

[[deleted user]]

Shaun wrote: "Mary wrote: "Kendra wrote: "Shaun wrote: "I think you are mis-categorising atheists. I haven't closed my mind to the possibility of a god or gods, but in the absense of either a need for one or ev..."

I truly wasn't "threatening". not intentionnally, anyway. I'm sorry.

[[deleted user]]

I HAVE A GREAT IDEA! (I think so, anyway). It's "tickling" at the inside of my brain!!

[[deleted user]]

I have something else to say, in defense of Christianity. This verse shows that SATAN - THE DEVIL - is who was meant for the lake of fire, and will be thrown into it when his time is up. He and his followers.

Revelation 20:10
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

[Will]

I have something to say in defense of the knights of Camelot. This verse shows that they were a quite easy-going bunch that weren't afraid to have a good time.

We're knights of the Round Table, we dance whene'er we're able. We do routines and chorus scenes with footwork impec-cable, We dine well here in Camelot, we eat ham and jam and Spam a lot. / We're knights of the Round Table, our shows are for-mi-dable. But many times we're given rhymes that are quite un-sing-able, We're opera mad in Camelot, we sing from the diaphragm a lot. / In war we're tough and able, Quite in-de-fa-ti-gable. Between our quests we sequin vests and impersonate Clark Gable / It's a busy life in Camelot.

[Mary]

"Revelation 20:10
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

The problem with quoting scripture to support your stance is one has to find the original source credible. Since I do not take the Bible as a literal source, this means nothing to me.

[[deleted user]]

Don't you see, Mary? It says in the very beginning that "the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone". Why does it say that? What did he do? The answer is in that sentence. "the devil that deceived them

[Hazel]

Will wrote: "I have something to say in defense of the knights of Camelot. This verse shows that they were a quite easy-going bunch that weren't afraid to have a good time.

We're knights of the Round Table, we..."

On second thoughts, lets not go to Camelot, tis a silly place

[Mary]

Kendra wrote: "Don't you see, Mary? It says in the very beginning that "the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone". Why does it say that? What did he do? The answer is in that ..."

I see that you are using a book that has not been authenticated to attempt to prove something. If I do not think the Bible is evidence or historically accurate, then nothing in there is sufficient proof. It is circular reasoning to use a source to prove a source.

[[deleted user]]

Not been authenticated?

[Will]

Hazel wrote: "On second thoughts, lets not go to Camelot, tis a silly place"

:P

[Hazel]

Kendra wrote: "Not been authenticated?"

Ah, you see Kendra, the names of the books in the bible are usually peoples names, or the books are attributed to certain people. However, most of the books with peoples names have actually been show to be written by "anonymous", with a name tagged on to the book to give it some sort of authority, but really, we have no idea who wrote the books,. The gospels certainly weren't written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, these were simply names given to the books to prevent being by "anonymous". Generally, any work written by an unknown source are not considered to be reliable sources.

It has also been found that much of what is in each book was added much later by different authors who then attributed their own work to the assumed original author of the book. In this day and age, creating some work and then publishing under someone elses name (pennames being the exception) is generally considered to be forgery, in the same way as copying an artwork and signing it with the original artists name is forgery.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FNO1O...

[Mary]

Kendra wrote: "Not been authenticated?"

The only contemporary evidence that Jesus even existed was a sentence or two by Josephus. The stories in the Bible cannot be authenticated without other contemporaneous sources (my undergraduate degree was in history by the way). Using the Bible to prove something that is in the Bible is like using A.A. Milne's Winne the Pooh to prove there are Heffalumps and Woozles.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Kendra wrote: "Not been authenticated?"

Ah, you see Kendra, the names of the books in the bible are usually peoples names, or the books are attributed to certain people. However, most of the books..."

So, the 2 books of the Bible named for the city of Corinth - named I and II Corinthians shouldn't be named like that? Those - and many other books of the New Testament - were named the way they were because they were to an entire city .

[Hazel]

The sentence or two by Josephus is also not considered to be reliable, many scholars believe that those sentences were probably added by other people much later to add weight to their own teachings. So, possible forgery again..

[Hazel]

Kendra wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Kendra wrote: "Not been authenticated?"

Ah, you see Kendra, the names of the books in the bible are usually peoples names, or the books are attributed to certain people. However, m..."

I said many, or most, not all. Watch the video I linked, its Bart Erhman, he's a theologian.

[Mary]

Hazel wrote: "The sentence or two by Josephus is also not considered to be reliable, many scholars believe that those sentences were probably added by other people much later to add weight to their own teachings..."

Yep

[Will]

The almighty James Randi with a thing or two to say on this topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSzQC1...#!

[Will]

Here is a good timeline of the history of the Bible and its construction: http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-eng...

[[deleted user]]

Hmm. How in the world did we get s tarted talking about whether the Bible is true or not, when you were originally discussing the Left Behind series? I honestly took some offense at the way in which you were insulting Tim LaHaye and jerry B. Jenkins' writing (even if they were on the NY best seller list).

[Will]

Popularity isn't an indicator of value, just look at Twilight.

[Xdyj]

People never ever agree on whether or not a book is well written. There are people who dislike Shakespeare or Jane Austen or James Joyce. And most books on NYT bestseller list will likely be forgotten in one or two decades. As to the popularity of Left Behind I think it's probably because there haven't been many thrillers specifically catering conservative Christians. And I do agree that Mr. LaHaye and Mr. Jenkins write much better than me (so are maybe 99% of the users on this website).

[Shaun]

Kendra wrote: "Hmm. How in the world did we get s tarted talking about whether the Bible is true or not, when you were originally discussing the Left Behind series? I honestly took some offense at the way in ..."

Quite easily - when somebody said (paraphrasing) "This is a true account of what will happen according to the bible."

People tend to notice statements like that, and find them to be, well, a bit silly. Because the bible itself is not a coherent work. It contradicts itself - not surprising given the number of different authors involved. The 4 Gospels can't even agree on Jesus' last words on the cross - something you'd think would be considered quite important.

You yourself have made it quite clear that you consider the Bible proof of the existence of god *because it says so*. Trusting the source explicitly because the source tells you to, and considering that inviolable evidence.

This is exactly the same as me telling you I'm honest, and expecting you to believe my unconditionally because honest people don't lie, and I said I'm honest therefore can't be lying.

As soon as somebody talks about the bible as being a true account of anything, warning bells go off in my head and make me think "This person hasn't actually *read* the bible." Past experience has shown me these people have used the bible to justify all sorts of horrible behaviours, such as bigotry and hatred, without even reading it.

The more likely a person talks about how "true" the bible is, the more they are likely, in my experience, to use cherry-picked parts of the bible to justify these abominable behaviours.

Hence an almost pavlovian response by many atheists who have actually read and studied the bible and its history to immediately refute any suggestion that the bible is the inerrant word of God, because if enough people become convinced that it *is* the inerant word of God then we face living in a society dominated by the ideas that Slavery is OK, women are second class citizens, you should force the victims of rape to marry their attackers and that you should stone anyone that disagrees with you to death.

That is not a society I wish to live in.

[Stephanie]

Jonathan.. I agree completely and appreciate your plea for people to not refer to the Bible as fiction.. My own husband calls it the "best selling fiction book of all", it drives me crazy, and I think that's why he says such things, to an extent..

[[deleted user]]

Shaun wrote: "Kendra wrote: "Hmm. How in the world did we get s tarted talking about whether the Bible is true or not, when you were originally discussing the Left Behind series? I honestly took some offense..."

I am only going to answer one of your accusations, Shaun. You said I believe the Bible only because of what the Bible says, but that isn't true in the least. I have heard/seen proof from many people. My father - one source - and quite a few others who have studied up on History, Science (Biology, microscopic, etc) and the Bible.

I don't believe the Bible simply because it is the Bible , but because it has been proven by others, also.

[Alec John]

I think this series was very hypociritcal. They made people die and go ton hell when they shouldn't. Like the lesbian, who are they to say that she's going to hell? this book was just too much.

[[deleted user]]

wally wrote: "Who's cherry-picking? Heh!

Jesus told us what the greatest commandments are....let us live by them.

That said...and perhaps to direct the conversation in other directions...has anyone read Tom Pe..."

First, no. I've not heard of this book. I live in Canada, so I don't hear about many of the newer books very frequently.

Secondly, even in the Left Behind series, they don't agree on what's happened straight away. There are many arguments that go on in those books. And those arguments never go away completely.

[[deleted user]]

Stephanie wrote: "Jonathan.. I agree completely and appreciate your plea for people to not refer to the Bible as fiction.. My own husband calls it the "best selling fiction book of all", it drives me crazy, and I th..."

I agree with Jonathan and Stephanie totally. Referring to the Bible as "fiction" is almost like referring to a dictionary as being full of fictional information, wouldn't you say?

[[deleted user]]

Will wrote: "Popularity isn't an indicator of value, just look at Twilight."

So, why are you all fighting to put the Bible down? I think that, if anything, the Bible has been put down and "unpopularized" by so many people over the centuries. I'm just thankful that it has stayed the Word of God

[Alec John]

Kendra wrote: "Will wrote: "Popularity isn't an indicator of value, just look at Twilight."

So, why are you all fighting to put the Bible down? I think that, if anything, the Bible has been put down and "unpo..."

exactly

[Xdyj]

I think many people here are just arguing that the bible should not be taken as literal truth. It was written in a more superstitutious times when people often mixed history with myths and propaganda (and sometimes people are still doing it today). It's like that in other countries also. Shi ji, a history text written in 2 century BC, generally considered one of the most authentic accounts of early Chinese history and notable for the author's objective, skeptical attitude, still contains a few miracles and divine induced virgin births & ridiculously accurate propheses are all over the place.

[[deleted user]]

Alec wrote: "Kendra wrote: "Will wrote: "Popularity isn't an indicator of value, just look at Twilight."

So, why are you all fighting to put the Bible down? I think that, if anything, the Bible has been put..."

You agree with me? Thanks. It's good to know that I'm not the only one out there who wants to defend the Word of God.

And no, that was not self-centered thinking at all. I'm very grateful that there are others.

[[deleted user]]

Xdyj wrote: "I think many people here are just arguing that the bible should not be taken as literal truth. It was written in a more superstitutious times when people often mixed history with myths and propagan..."

Let me get this straight. You are accusing all of those people who wrote the Books of the Bible - not to mention who lived through and took into account all of the happenings written about in the Bible - as liars? Do you have any idea what a huge number that is?

[[deleted user]]

Alec wrote: "I think this series was very hypociritcal. They made people die and go ton hell when they shouldn't. Like the lesbian, who are they to say that she's going to hell? this book was just too much."

"Go to Hell when they shouldn't"....you have it wrong there. Some people - supposedly "innocent" of any wrong-doing because "they didn't know better" will sooner or later discover-> probably by watching others- that what they are doing is wrong.

[[deleted user]]

Why don't you all read small portions at a time? Seriously, I don't read huge sections all at once. What I'm reading doesn't sink in if I do that. Even if you just take one verse and read it, digest it, think (or meditate on it) then you might just notice/ see something completely different. Perhaps even something life-changing

[Xdyj]

Kendra wrote: "Xdyj wrote: "I think many people here are just arguing that the bible should not be taken as literal truth. It was written in a more superstitutious times when people often mixed history with myths..."

No sorry I didn't make myself clear, what I meant is that I think it's possible they did truely believe in what they wrote, but they might make mistakes because they were using limited or unreliable sources, or influenced by prejudices of their community, just as many other historians in ancient times. Although I am not a Christian I do not want to deny the value of the bible.

[[deleted user]]

God is a very reliable Source! He is the One from Whom they received the words to say.

I will admit that over the centuries, man has surely made mistakes when printing, copying, etc. the Bible, but the original writing of said Book was by far the most perfect

[[deleted user]]

To all those who stated that there is no afterlife what makes youi so certain of that fact? An afterlife - at least in a Christian's case - is very real . Heaven/eternal life> afterlife of a Christian.

CHRISTIAN> one who believes in Christ. Not all believers in Christ put their lives under His ruling power. I admit that I have always had difficulty with authority - no matter who is might be. It could be a teacher, my parents, my babysitter when I was a small girl, even God . But I repent of my rebellious attitude every time, and I know that I'm forgiven by His grace .

[Hazel]

Kendra, is christ the same person as god?

[[deleted user]]

Yes. Jesus Christ is God's Son, born of a virgin.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Kendra, is christ the same person as god?"

May I ask why you are asking me? I don't mind answering, but if it's just so you can "make a point", I'd rather not start an argument or anything.

[Hazel]

Its not so I can start an argument, its just I wondered if you were of the sort of christian who says that god an jesus are two seperate beings, or if they are the same being.

[[deleted user]]

Well, there are several examples I can give to describe the Lord. He is one Person in 3 parts . The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.

Take an egg. It wouldn't be an egg if you didn't have a yolk , right? And how about the shell ? And, of course, we can't forget the yellow . Three parts that make up one egg .

Or, how about water,ice, vapor ? They are all scientifically the same thing , but in three different stages.

[Hazel]

yeah, I suppose you could say I was fishing to work out what denomination you are

... but I can call something an egg if it doesn't have a shell... I produce an egg every month that doesn't have a shell, and so do you... it doesn't have a yolk so much, either, nor does it really have a white...

[Shaun]

Kendra wrote: " God is a very reliable Source! He is the One from Whom they received the words to say.

I will admit that over the centuries, man has surely made mistakes when printing, copying, etc. the B..."

A case in point, if the bible were perfect at the point of creation, why did the rules of the old testament have to be superceded by the rules in the new testament? If the old testament were perfect in regard to instructions on how to treat your slaves and your women, and in which of your conquered foes it was ok to ensalve and which it was ok to slaughter, why did we need the newer, 2nd half?

And if it were perfect, why do you not still follow all of the rules in leviticus?

[[deleted user]]

Pardon me? What rules am I not following in Leviticus?

And the rules did not change from the Old Testament to the New Testament. There were more added to the ones that were already in existence.