Religious Question

[Don Corleone]

The population in Norway at that time was around 1 million.

In 1349 at least 1/3 of the population died from the Black Death plague.
With a lot of inbreeding and family marriages, is it really likely that we can trace me back that far?
Taking into consideration that my family, as far back as I know, have never done something out of the ordinary that would imply that the bloodline were written down for more than a couple of hundred years- at best, it's not very plausible to suggest that I am a descendant of Leif Erikson.

This is only a thousand years back.

I lied to make a point, Squealy's point actually.
He said it's not very plausible that you can trace your roots 2500 years back. Like it or not, he is right.
That doesn't mean it's impossible that you are linked to the tribe, just that it's impossible to know that for sure.

So does that mean that the 4 million people who call themselves that also have been wrong this whole time? Oh no, has it been a mistake this whole time? So all the history books, languages written on artifacts and all that was false? Not so. Don't just argue a point because the guy who made it put in cute little words to make it sound intersting. Think for yourself. Again, I know what I am and I don't need people like you to tell me. If you look at Israelis, many can trace their roots back to the old days. Look at ******s, they trace their roots back to Ishmael from the Old Testament. And the Mayans of today who trace their roots back to their ancestors. And the Chinese. Many people do. Some might not find hard proof and evidence but basically when you speak the language, know your history, you know where you came from. Again, some people during ancient civilizations mixed with other cultures and destroyed any direct bloodline that would be apparent today. But people like the Chaldeans and Assyrians haven't. Which is why we carry out own artifacts, which were passed on through thousands of years. That is why we speak the same language and it is why we still call ourselves and are identified by everyone in the world as Chaldeans/Assyrians. Doesn't matter how you look at it, I might not prove exactly from which exact tribe of which exact village that my ancestors were from but I know who I am

[tyson]

I don't feel my religion is better and nowhere did I state that, because that has no relevance to the topic. Its about studying the religion at faith not questioning which one is better. There is no such thing. Everyone has their own belief. I am just questioning what it says in the Quran which accepts Jesus but deny's much of the Bible which IMO doesn't fit well. And in your opinion, Buddhism is better then Christianity then that is your choice. But when it comes to religion, everyone has their own opinions and faith based on if you even have a religion. I am guessing you don't know much about Muhammad so it doesn't make sense for me to argue points with you. I don't see Muhammad as a better man then Jesus was. That is my opinion just like everyone has their own

I don't know much about Muhammad. You know why?
Because Norway is a Christian country. We were taught christianity in school, with a mention of the other religions out there.

I asked you what the Bible says about defending yourself. You say Muhammad killed many men in battle. Going by the Bible, would that be a sin?

You sounded like you thought your views are more correct because ******s doesn't treat women as equals. I thought that meant you find Christianity to be a "better" or more correct religion.

I think Buddhism is better because the focus there is to advance yourself spiritually instead of worshipping the almighty God.

[Don Corleone]

I don't know much about Muhammad. You know why?
Because Norway is a Christian country. We were taught christianity in school, with a mention of the other religions out there.

I asked you what the Bible says about defending yourself. You say Muhammad killed many men in battle. Going by the Bible, would that be a sin?

You sounded like you thought your views are more correct because ******s doesn't treat women as equals. I thought that meant you find Christianity to be a "better" or more correct religion.

I think Buddhism is better because the focus there is to advance yourself spiritually instead of worshipping the almighty God.

Its not about seeing Christianity as a better teaching. On this subject Muhammad treated women unequally and Jesus treated them equally and is apparent in the Mary Magdelaine story in which she was seen as commiting adultery, but instead of letting men stone her, he asked "the person without sin can cast the first stone". In the time of Muhammad, there were many cases where women were beaten, sold off as slaved and killed for something like that. It says it right in the Quran. Basically everyone sins, but what Christianity says is, if you repent and ask for forgiveness then you will be given a second chance and it is what Jesus implied.

So because you see Buddhism better does is mean that everyone should? No. Again everyone has different perspectives on everything. I have learned about all of these religions, but it doesn't make sense for me to say that Chrisstianity is better. What I can do is question other ones and try to find answers to be compared with mine to see where the differences lie. You cannot progress if you don't ask questions and put to test, everything that you hear in history books and so on, and even in Buddhism it asks you to question everything untill it makes sense to you. Jesus also stated that you should test spirits and men until it is right to you so there are some similiarities to their teachings

[tyson]

So does that mean that the 4 million people who call themselves that also have been wrong this whole time? Oh no, has it been a mistake this whole time? So all the history books, languages written on artifacts and all that was false? Not so. Don't just argue a point because the guy who made it put in cute little words to make it sound intersting.

You misunderstand the whole point. It is not likely that you are a direct and pure descendant. You might carry some of the genes, but it's not likely that those are your only genes.
Again, not saying it's impossible, but very unlikely.

Again, I know what I am and I don't need people like you to tell me. If you look at Israelis, many can trace their roots back to the old days. Look at ******s, they trace their roots back to Ishmael from the Old Testament. And the Mayans of today who trace their roots back to their ancestors. And the Chinese. Many people do.

You are what you are and I won't tell you otherwise.
The ******s trace themselves back to Ishmael from the Old Testament?
How exactly do they do that? They can, much like you and me, accurately trace the bloodline a few centuries back. After that, they would need to rely on stories, history books that named tribes in the area, etc.
Going back thousands of years, I would guess it's impossible to nail the roots down to anything other than "possible".

Some might not find hard proof and evidence but basically when you speak the language, know your history, you know where you came from. Again, some people during ancient civilizations mixed with other cultures and destroyed any direct bloodline that would be apparent today. But people like the Chaldeans and Assyrians haven't. Which is why we carry out own artifacts, which were passed on through thousands of years. That is why we speak the same language and it is why we still call ourselves and are identified by everyone in the world as Chaldeans/Assyrians. Doesn't matter how you look at it, I might not prove exactly from which exact tribe of which exact village that my ancestors were from but I know who I am

You are you. Will always be.

It still isn't likely that you are a pure descendant from those who lived 2500 years ago, even if the traditions are still among you.

[Don Corleone]

I understand, since you don't see how it is exactly possible that I am a pure descendant, then atleast you would see that I came from around there "purely" or not. I don't know why its an issue. If I am then I am. If I wasn't then I wouldn't be. Even if you might not see how I am, then what would you want me to call myself. Turkish? Persian? Mogolian? Roman? Well the Chaldeans of today must be something right. The whole point I'm making is the first guy who disputed me being from ancient Babylon basically said that there is no way that I am from where I would say I am. So does that mean that it is imposible. And if so, based on what he says, what does he suggest that the Chaldeans/Assyrians of today call themselves? Whether we are purely from there or not, we are recognized as Chaldeans/Assyrians. I don't see any more point to argue this on this topic. Let's stick to the topic of the thread...

[tyson]

Its not about seeing Christianity as a better teaching.

Is it about finding the one that suits your views most? Is it about finding the teaching with the most truth to it?
Is it about just believing in something? What is it about?

On this subject Muhammad treated women unequally and Jesus treated them equally and is apparent in the Mary Magdelaine story in which she was seen as commiting adultery, but instead of letting men stone her, he asked "the person without sin can cast the first stone".

That right there leads me to wonder; Isn't it likely that the men of that time, those who didn't believe in the things we do know, would just throw the stone anyways?
If they believed they were doing what they had the right to do, why would they think they had sinned?
A nice story, but highly unlikely that Mary Magdalaine would escape unscathed.

In the time of Muhammad, there were many cases where women were beaten, sold off as slaved and killed for something like that. It says it right in the Quran. Basically everyone sins, but what Christianity says is, if you repent and ask for forgiveness then you will be given a second chance and it is what Jesus implied.

Yes, but the same can be said about the time of Jesus.

The Bible says we are born sinful. That makes no sense. None of the ten commandments have been broken by a new-born baby.

So because you see Buddhism better does is mean that everyone should? No.

Never said so. I expect the majority of people to stumble over the truth, look upon it and then walk away like nothing happened.

Again everyone has different perspectives on everything. I have learned about all of these religions, but it doesn't make sense for me to say that Chrisstianity is better. What I can do is question other ones and try to find answers to be compared with mine to see where the differences lie. You cannot progress if you don't ask questions and put to test, everything that you hear in history books and so on, and even in Buddhism it asks you to question everything untill it makes sense to you. Jesus also stated that you should test spirits and men until it is right to you so there are some similiarities to their teachings

The Bible also state that you shouldn't ask questions, you should just believe.
But why would you believe in a religion if you didn't think it was better or more truthful than the others?

[iron_boy]

no, it comes down to the problem of free will. because God wants us to be free to choose, we have to be free to choose evil as well as good, therefore God can't step in and rearrange people's lives every time we have a problem - though sometimes He does anyway, it's just not as fast as we want it to be. God waits to what we think is along time because seconds mean alot to us but nothing to HIm. i think these complainers are just bitches, though, because we happliy suck up all the good things God does for us, then ***** and moan about the world isn't exactly as we want it. the real problem is we need to humble ourselves and let God be God

u shouldn't be surpised i believe in God, buddy, i'm a street kid that grew up on my own, when u have to go through everything alone, u realize pretty fast u can;t do without God as a source of strength. i've been pretty succesful in life where everyone says i shouldn't be, but i've also had a lot of pain. if i'm going to accept the good things from God, why wouldn't i accept the bad also?

that was a great true post. if your gonan except your gonna have to accept him for good and bad, not just the single thing

[MindBat]

If there is a God, is it male or female?

Is it androgynous (both)?

Or is it like electricity which just is -- existing in the invisible realm -- and is available for our use or mis-use at any moment?

Or like water which just is, and is, also, available to us for our use or mis-use at any moment?

Or like the wind, etc., etc.?

Does anyone really know?

[squealpiggy]

The whole point I'm making is the first guy who disputed me being from ancient Babylon basically said that there is no way that I am from where I would say I am.

No I disputed you knowing for sure that you are "from" there. 2500 years is a long time and if the incredible well documented family trees of the European aristocracy get lost in the quagmire of time after 1000 years then a non-royal from a turbulant region cannot trace back their lineage with any degree of certainty over 2500 years, especially as the end of the babylonian empire came about through conquest. If you choose to believe that you are descended from the noble Babylonians then that's up to you but you should understand that it is a matter of faith and not fact.

So does that mean that the 4 million people who call themselves that also have been wrong this whole time?

How many tens of millions of British and Americans erroniously believe themselves to be Anglo-Saxon?

Look at ******s, they trace their roots back to Ishmael from the Old Testament.

Firsty there is no such thing as an ethnic ******. Are you talking about Arab ******s? Persian ******s? How about Indonesians? Algerians? Nigerians? So saying that an unspecified ethnic group can somehow trace their roots back to a biblical figure who may or may not have existed without the use of written records is not exactly supporting your case.

And the Mayans of today who trace their roots back to their ancestors. And the Chinese.

The Mayans are another extremely poor choice of example. There were several distinct Mayan groups who continually conquered one another until the collapse of Mayan civilisation. Around the collapse they were conquered by Spanish conquistadors. Former Mayan lands now make up Mexico.

Could you do me a favour and break your posts up into smaller paragraphs? It's hard to read when you hsve a 400 word block of text.

[The Noose]

If there is a God, is it male or female?

Is it androgynous (both)?

Or is it like electricity which just is -- existing in the invisible realm -- and is available for our use or mis-use at any moment?

Or like water which just is, and is, also, available to us for our use or mis-use at any moment?

Or like the wind, etc., etc.?

Does anyone really know?

God is not measurable through scientific means.
Unless u believe God answers prayers. And as far as i know, all tests to prove this have been 'inconclusive'.