whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => General Religious Discussion => Topic started by: violatedsmurf80 on October 07, 2011, 04:48:51 PM

Title: Question
Post by: violatedsmurf80 on October 07, 2011, 04:48:51 PM
When I went to church I was a good little follower of Christ, but I read a passage from Luke 2:52 that stated “And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men”. I was taught that jesus was GoD  or at the least the son of GoD. So my question about this was always, how could this be if jesus was the son of GoD why would he have to be in favor with GoD? I figured that GoD would talk to him and tell him what he needs to do or at least install in jesus all the knowledge and wisdom that he needed. Then I thought why? He is the son of GoD he should know everything about GoD.  So to insure I read this properly I went back a few scriptures and read. In Luke 2:46 it states “After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions”. Why would he be asking anyone questions especially men when he was the son of GoD, what could they possibly tech him? Then in Luke 2:47 “Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers”. This verse contradicts Luke 2:46 completely. Therefore the child jesus was influence by the elder of the community or at the least brain washed to think that he was the son of GoD.  I still was not convinced that jesus was who he said he was so I read the whole thing about how he strayed away from his parents to go to the temple for three day while they looked for him. Jesus was incapable of sinning right? If this is the case then how is it that he broke one of the Ten Commandments which states "Respect your father and your mother, so that you may live a long time in the land I am giving you". Exodus 20:12.

This is going to be part of my discussion in my New Testament class, could someone give me an honest answer as to how to improve or better express my point?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on October 07, 2011, 09:58:06 PM
The problem is that the synoptic gospels do not regard Jesus as God, but as being a great teacher, prophet and Jew, and also the man to lead them into the kingdom they wanted, whatever they thought that to be. They were not really clear on what it was, either, because Luke 17 says

[20] And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
[21] Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.


Some conceived of it as being a mental kingdom that would come, when enough of them were right with God, through the awesome understanding of Jesus. I'm avoiding using the word "Messiah", because nobody knows what it means. Nobody even knows what the Jews thought the Messiah was supposed to do; but the idea that he was supposed to create a kingdom on Earth, in their time, is consistent with Jewish interpretation of prophecy. At the time the synoptic gospels started being written, it would still have seemed like the new interpretation of Judaism, (which still didn't have a name), could bring about world peace. However, as it dragged on, it would need reinterpretation, and counter polemic.

This problem of Jesus not being God, and actually denying being "good" is not the worst problem of the schism between the synoptics and John/Paul.

[19] And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

It's in all three synoptic gospels. Nothing could be more blatant than that. It's possibly even put there for polemic purposes, against those who would worship Jesus. The Jesus of the synoptic paints a clear picture that you are supposed to get into heaven by works and perfection.

 

Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 10, 2011, 08:19:32 PM
Gods nature is a mystery to us. We can only take what the Bible tells us and try to make sense of it. The Bible indicates that while Jesus is God, he was also made lower than the angels while he was on Earth.
In Jewish culture, asking questions was a way for rabbis to teach their students, not learn from them.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Brakeman on October 10, 2011, 08:30:47 PM
Gods nature is a mystery to us.
Now why would that be? He sent us his word didn't he? He preached to us for thirty years didn't he?
We can talk to him every day through the magic of prayer can't we?
Was God such a poor communicator that he couldn't get his point across?
Or was it more likely that the bronze age goat herders that wrote the bible, didn't have many answers and didn't want to be caught up in their lies so they made up the whole "god is mysterious!" shit to deflect hard questions?

We can only take what the Bible tells us and try to make sense of it.
Why don't you pray for divine biblical clarity? Why would god refuse to explain what he meant to a christian? Then come back and explain a few things to us and let us test you.

The Bible indicates that while Jesus is God, he was also made lower than the angels while he was on Earth.
Citation seriously needed! If jesus was god in the tri-une, then he is greater than the angels, always, all the time.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 10, 2011, 09:59:56 PM
Quote
Now why would that be?
He must have had a reason.

Quote
He sent us his word didn't he?
Yes, and since then we know a little more.

Quote
He preached to us for thirty years didn't he?
No.

Quote
We can talk to him every day through the magic of prayer can't we?
Sure.

Quote
Was God such a poor communicator that he couldn't get his point across?
God reveals to certain people what He wants them to know.

Quote
Or was it more likely that the bronze age goat herders that wrote the bible, didn't have many answers and didn't want to be caught up in their lies so they made up the whole "god is mysterious!" shit to deflect hard questions?
I don't think anyone had to make anything up just because finite humans might not be able to explain an infinite Being.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Brakeman on October 10, 2011, 10:19:06 PM
Quote
We can talk to him every day through the magic of prayer can't we?
Sure.

Quote
Was God such a poor communicator that he couldn't get his point across?
God reveals to certain people what He wants them to know.

So what has god said to you? Have you asked him for biblical clarity so that you can obey him better, so that you can be righteous in his sight? What did he say? What did he sound like? What were his words?

Why would god choose one man over the other if it weren't for the mans desire to please god the most? Why would god choose moses for something important over you?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: curiousgirl on October 10, 2011, 10:20:32 PM
He must have had a reason.
Prove it. Unless you don't know what that reason is, therefore you really don't know if there is a reason.

I don't think anyone had to make anything up just because finite humans might not be able to explain an infinite Being.

Is this infinite being Bible God? Or Allah? Or Vishnu? Or maybe even another god? If you pick one, I want to know why one would be any more real than the other.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: MMcNeely on October 10, 2011, 10:20:46 PM
whatchamean? = Captain cop out!
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 11, 2011, 05:53:05 PM
Quote
Brakeman stated
Have you asked him for biblical clarity so that you can obey him better, so that you can be righteous in his sight?
You said at one time you were a Christian. You must have learned how people are considered righteous before God.

Quote
Why would god choose one man over the other if it weren't for the mans desire to please god the most? Why would god choose moses for something important over you?
What's more important than your life?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 11, 2011, 06:04:28 PM
Quote
curiousgirl stated
Prove it. Unless you don't know what that reason is, therefore you really don't know if there is a reason.
I don't know the reasons for lots of things. That doesn't make me think there must be no reason for what I don't currently understand. Is that truly the way you handle unanswered questions in your life?

Quote
Is this infinite being Bible God? Or Allah? Or Vishnu? Or maybe even another god? If you pick one, I want to know why one would be any more real than the other.
The prophecies concerning Jesus about his birth, life, death and resurrection show that the God of the Bible is real, but since you equated Allah and Vishnu with God, please show me an example where either of those gods prophecied anything that came true. Prove it.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Eaten by Bears on October 11, 2011, 06:07:18 PM
Quote
curiousgirl stated
Prove it. Unless you don't know what that reason is, therefore you really don't know if there is a reason.
I don't know the reasons for lots of things. That doesn't make me think there must be no reason for what I don't currently understand. Is that truly the way you handle unanswered questions in your life?

Quote
Is this infinite being Bible God? Or Allah? Or Vishnu? Or maybe even another god? If you pick one, I want to know why one would be any more real than the other.
The prophecies concerning Jesus about his birth, life, death and resurrection show that the God of the Bible is real, but since you equated Allah and Vishnu with God, please show me an example where either of those gods prophecied anything that came true. Prove it.


On Monday I wrote on a bit of paper 'A pink giraffe will fly past my window on Tuesday.'

On Wednesday I wrote on a bit of paper 'A pink giraffe flew past my window on Tuesday.'

So my prophecy came true.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: curiousgirl on October 11, 2011, 06:16:47 PM
Whatchamean, all you are doing is claiming your God exists because the Bible said so (BTW, words printed in a book do not entail truth, especially if its claims are extraordinary) and attempting to reverse the burden of proof when I have not made a positive claim (such as God exists) but instead asked you questions and demanded proof. It is predictable that you are using how I handle unanswered questions in my life as a red herring. We get theists like you all the time, preaching the Bible rather than providing logical arguments and scientific evidence.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: violatedsmurf80 on October 11, 2011, 06:41:00 PM
Quote
The prophecies concerning Jesus about his birth, life, death and resurrection show that the God of the Bible is real, but since you equated Allah and Vishnu with God, please show me an example where either of those gods prophecied anything that came true. Prove it.

Prove something in the bible prophecy came true other wise it is not anything but a nostradamus predictions, were it came true after it happen. 
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 12, 2011, 04:27:18 PM
Quote
curiousgirl stated
We get theists like you all the time, preaching the Bible rather than providing logical arguments and scientific evidence.
There's nothing scientific about fulfilled prophecy because it's supernatural. The prophecies concerning Jesus are clear and easily verified, yet it seems now that you can't back up your claim of the God of the Bible being like any other god, your curiosity has disappeared.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: curiousgirl on October 12, 2011, 04:33:52 PM
Whatchamean, I asked questions rather than making a positive claim. If you want to reverse the burden of proof when you are the one claiming God exists, why should any of us take your claim seriously?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Eaten by Bears on October 12, 2011, 05:13:20 PM
Quote
curiousgirl stated
We get theists like you all the time, preaching the Bible rather than providing logical arguments and scientific evidence.
There's nothing scientific about fulfilled prophecy because it's supernatural. The prophecies concerning Jesus are clear and easily verified, yet it seems now that you can't back up your claim of the God of the Bible being like any other god, your curiosity has disappeared.

The Jews would seem to disagree with you there.

How does a prophesy become verified by a story written afterwards that cannot in itself be verified?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Brakeman on October 12, 2011, 05:24:36 PM
Quote
Brakeman stated
Have you asked him for biblical clarity so that you can obey him better, so that you can be righteous in his sight?
You said at one time you were a Christian. You must have learned how people are considered righteous before God.

Quote
Why would god choose one man over the other if it weren't for the mans desire to please god the most? Why would god choose moses for something important over you?
What's more important than your life?

Are you QM?  Why do you always side step every question? You did not answer either question. You are behaving like a troll.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 12, 2011, 06:05:45 PM
Quote
curiousgirl stated
Whatchamean, I asked questions rather than making a positive claim. If you want to reverse the burden of proof when you are the one claiming God exists, why should any of us take your claim seriously?
Your question asked for reason why the God of the Bible is superior to Vishnu etc. and I gave you a valid answer. Now please support your contention that the false gods you mentioned are equal to my God and please give examples of those gods fortelling events which came true.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: curiousgirl on October 12, 2011, 10:05:15 PM
Whatchamean is ignoring my requests for proof, and demanding proof from me when I only asked questions. He might be a troll. We still don't know if he is a sock of QM, as he has yet to tell us.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: ParkingPlaces on October 12, 2011, 11:35:38 PM
whatchamean?, what you want is for there to be a god. Hence you believe there is. And since all you have is that belief, there is little (make that nothing) that you can say that will convince those of us who are less gullible and less afraid of dying and less convinced that we are all that important. Your job as one version of the One True Christian type is to convince yourself that you are right, and of course you have the advantage of low standards, so you make that part very easy. Convincing the rest of us is far harder. With nothing to work with but your hopes and desperation, you don't come across very impressively. You sound just like a bunch of other christians who have shown up here, each with their own version of reality, often conflicting very much with your own, but just as convinced.

Your willingness to accept anything that even peripherally resembles your hopes as proof that you are right is a weak-brained copout. I've no doubt you are capable of better. Most people are. But like many others that believe, actual thinking ruins everything for you, so you don't bother doing much of it.

Yes, I know, a god that is everywhere certainly isn't going to have time for hobbies, like saving starving children in Darfur or stopping good christian mothers from getting killed in car wrecks. A guy can't be a mosquito carrying malaria or a tetanus bacteria on the lookout for mammals/humans to infest and kill AND stop wars. A god can't be one of those fucking worms that gets in peoples eyeballs in Egypt and blinds than AND provide for the needs hundred of millions of slum dwellers. Your god's infinity is finite, and seeing that in the everything you think he is in must give you pause every once in a while. I know it did me, somewhere around fifty years ago, and I luckily I had senses to come to.

(If there were a god, would he let me end a sentence with a preposition? I don't think so.)

I hope you have senses to come to some day.

Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 13, 2011, 09:25:19 PM
Quote
Brakeman stated
Are you QM?  Why do you always side step every question? You did not answer either question. You are behaving like a troll.
I have never visited your website. I do not know who QM is or what a troll is. I do not side step any question I am asked. If I happen not to answer a question, it would be that I either missed it or dismissed it for being juvenile.
The Bible instructs people to pray for understanding, yet also tells us to study. I have had epiphanies while reading the Bible, but God has ever spoken to me the way He spoke to the prophets.
Why does God choose one man for a certain job? I don't know.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: jetson on October 13, 2011, 09:29:41 PM
Quote
Brakeman stated
Are you QM?  Why do you always side step every question? You did not answer either question. You are behaving like a troll.
I have never visited your website. I do not know who QM is or what a troll is. I do not side step any question I am asked. If I happen not to answer a question, it would be that I either missed it or dismissed it for being juvenile.
The Bible instructs people to pray for understanding, yet also tells us to study. I have had epiphanies while reading the Bible, but God has ever spoken to me the way He spoke to the prophets.
Why does God choose one man for a certain job? I don't know.

I read Revelation last night from the NIV.  Did you have any epiphanies reading Revelation?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 13, 2011, 09:43:08 PM
Quote
curiousgirl stated
Whatchamean is ignoring my requests for proof, and demanding proof from me when I only asked questions. He might be a troll. We still don't know if he is a sock of QM, as he has yet to tell us.
I gave you what I consider proof that the God of the Bible is the One true God. Your question also contained comparisons and if can't show that other "gods" have done what my God has done, I must take that as a concession. In my opinion, your position that manuscripts cannot qualify as proof for historical events is absurd. What matters is how credible the writings are. I do not know anyone named QM and have never visited your website under another name.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: 12 Monkeys on October 13, 2011, 09:54:25 PM
Quote
Brakeman stated
Have you asked him for biblical clarity so that you can obey him better, so that you can be righteous in his sight?
You said at one time you were a Christian. You must have learned how people are considered righteous before God.

Quote
Why would god choose one man over the other if it weren't for the mans desire to please god the most? Why would god choose moses for something important over you?
What's more important than your life?
Nothing is more important than life itself.....dead is dead. Why do Christians always fail to live like Jesus has commanded them to.....jobless,pennyless,homeless and let God take care of you
Title: Re: Question
Post by: 12 Monkeys on October 13, 2011, 09:55:41 PM
Quote
curiousgirl stated
Whatchamean is ignoring my requests for proof, and demanding proof from me when I only asked questions. He might be a troll. We still don't know if he is a sock of QM, as he has yet to tell us.
I gave you what I consider proof that the God of the Bible is the One true God. Your question also contained comparisons and if can't show that other "gods" have done what my God has done, I must take that as a concession. In my opinion, your position that manuscripts cannot qualify as proof for historical events is absurd. What matters is how credible the writings are. I do not know anyone named QM and have never visited your website under another name.
How about all the gods,God himself talks about....he only asks that you put NO god before him,,,,,he never says there are not other gods.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 13, 2011, 09:56:06 PM
Quote
Jetson stated
I read Revelation last night from the NIV.  Did you have any epiphanies reading Revelation?
Yes Jetson I've had 2. One was, "Not all believers are the New Jerusalem." The 2nd one was smaller. In 5:7, the book taken from God by ther Lamb is the book of Revelation itself. 
Title: Re: Question
Post by: 12 Monkeys on October 13, 2011, 09:58:16 PM
Quote
curiousgirl stated
Whatchamean, I asked questions rather than making a positive claim. If you want to reverse the burden of proof when you are the one claiming God exists, why should any of us take your claim seriously?
Your question asked for reason why the God of the Bible is superior to Vishnu etc. and I gave you a valid answer. Now please support your contention that the false gods you mentioned are equal to my God and please give examples of those gods fortelling events which came true.
Where is the proof,yours is not a false god....outside the ridiculous books written by a bunch of not too literiate goat herders?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 13, 2011, 10:09:16 PM
Quote
12 monkeys stated
Nothing is more important than life itself.....dead is dead. Why do Christians always fail to live like Jesus has commanded them to.....jobless,pennyless,homeless and let God take care of you
12 Monkeys, I have atheist friends and co-workers and I they are very decent people. At least they appear that way. I would never imagine one of them going home to their computer and posting things one would expect from an ill mannered child. In fact I've had many discussions with my friends and have learned from them. I was challenged recently by one of my unbelieving friends about the doctrine of eternal hell. He told me that he admired the moral teachings of Jesus, but didn't believe in God because he didn't believe God would torture people for eternity. I'm rethinking my belief in the doctrine of hell which I've believed for many years because of my friends logic.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: 12 Monkeys on October 13, 2011, 10:11:34 PM
Answer the Question. or do I have to dig out verses that tell you what Jesus expects from you?

 And why exactly are you comparing me to an ill-mannered child?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: violatedsmurf80 on October 13, 2011, 10:14:00 PM
Prove something in the bible prophecy came true after they wrote in the bible. It is like many of the prophecy that people make now it happen then people claimed that they said it was going to happen.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: jetson on October 13, 2011, 10:15:43 PM
Quote
Jetson stated
I read Revelation last night from the NIV.  Did you have any epiphanies reading Revelation?
Yes Jetson I've had 2. One was, "Not all believers are the New Jerusalem." The 2nd one was smaller. In 5:7, the book taken from God by ther Lamb is the book of Revelation itself.

Interesting.  I didn't get those epiphanies myself.  I was looking for coherence, and found it lacking overall.  The entire book seemed like mythology gone bad - a trip through the mind of a completely delirious person, quite possibly in serious hallucination, or perhaps just taking fictional liberties for entertainment.

It was broken, disconnected, and ultimately futile considering it's patently ridiculous "truths" regarding stars falling to earth, or it's bizarre metaphors, if that was the true intention.  The creatures, the abyss, the horses and swords, and the blood...very, very bizarre.  And what can I say about the focus on sexuality.

I suppose an epiphany for me would be the confirmation that whoever wrote the book was desperate, at best.  But then again, that author, or authors were more likely unaware that their scribbling would one day be looked at as an important event for humans that has yet to arrive, and that modern humans take seriously.  Weird.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: jetson on October 13, 2011, 10:16:46 PM
I'm rethinking my belief in the doctrine of hell which I've believed for many years because of my friends logic.

Bravo!
Title: Re: Question
Post by: curiousgirl on October 13, 2011, 10:34:06 PM
Quote
curiousgirl stated
Whatchamean is ignoring my requests for proof, and demanding proof from me when I only asked questions. .
I gave you what I consider proof that the God of the Bible is the One true God. Your question also contained comparisons and if can't show that other "gods" have done what my God has done, I must take that as a concession. In my opinion, your position that manuscripts cannot qualify as proof for historical events is absurd. What matters is how credible the writings are. I do not know anyone named QM and have never visited your website under another name.

Yes, but do you understand that your "proof" is not necessarily proof to us atheists? Again, using the Bible to prove God's existence is circular reasoning. I explained why, and Pianodwarf explained it as well in a different thread.

My position is that of a skeptic, yet you keep attributing some sort of positive claim to me. You are using the strawman fallacy when you refer to my supposed "position that manuscripts cannot qualify as proof for historical events." I said nothing about manuscripts. I merely asked for proof that the Bible is a historical document, which you have repeatedly dodged by trying to reverse the burden of proof. Again, I am skeptical of your claims. That DOES NOT mean I am making positive claims. Stop trying to reverse the burden of proof. That is a cop-out.

Provide me with proof for YOUR POSITIVE CLAIMS, and stop wasting my time.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on October 14, 2011, 09:20:46 AM
Quote
Is this infinite being Bible God? Or Allah? Or Vishnu? Or maybe even another god? If you pick one, I want to know why one would be any more real than the other.
The prophecies concerning Jesus about his birth, life, death and resurrection show that the God of the Bible is real, but since you equated Allah and Vishnu with God, please show me an example where either of those gods prophecied anything that came true. Prove it.

There is negligible evidence outside the NT as to the specifics of Jesus, and this evidence is all suspiciously constructed. Essentially it exists in 3 quotations:

- Testimonium Flavianum, which everyone admits has been tampered with, or on the extreme wholly inserted, since nobody quotes it until Eusebius suddenly "discovers" it.
- Annals of Tacitus, which also nobody quotes, and there have been suspicions that the whole work was faked by Bracciolini, for payment. "Tacitus" gives us nothing but unsubstantiated hearsay about Nero.
- Josephus' Antiquities, which notes Jesus being the brother of James, but the topic is obviously in the year 60AD, and strangely references another Jesus in the next few sentences, allowing for it being a fake insertion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#James_the_brother_of_Jesus

There are a whole heap of contemporary historians that fail to mention Jesus.

If you consider Paul to be a witness to Jesus in Galatians, Paul also gives us no historical information in his entire work that could be useful to verify against prophecy.

The evidence for the existence of Jesus is so vague that any person who existed at that time, who was martyred, could have been molded to fit supposed OT prophecy in the "narrative". Remember that the OT prophecy about Jesus was not declared in advance. The OT is a large tract of text, and parts of it were arbitrarily selected, as the subtleties in the story of Jesus were decided. The writer of Matthew obviously forcibly injects about 60 prophetic fulfillments into Mark as he redacted it; he creates questionable history about census, Egypt, Herod, double donkeys.

The OT does not specify that someone called Jesus would come at a certain date and be crucified at another certain date, and then be resurrected.

I'm reading my prophecy from here:
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/messiah.htm

This one claims he was "Of the seed of Abraham", and "Born of a virgin", "Heir to the throne of David", which is contradictory

"His name called Immanuel", not Jesus

In the list of supposed prophecy, I can see nothing that can be verified historically, outside the gospel narrative. When you look down the right column, you will see that most of the prophecy is documented in Matthew, which gives you an idea of who the main culprit was for faking prophecy. If he copied from Mark, then why does it not all come from Mark?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: gonegolfing on October 14, 2011, 10:00:59 AM
Quote
curiousgirl stated
Whatchamean is ignoring my requests for proof, and demanding proof from me when I only asked questions. .
I gave you what I consider proof that the God of the Bible is the One true God. Your question also contained comparisons and if can't show that other "gods" have done what my God has done, I must take that as a concession. In my opinion, your position that manuscripts cannot qualify as proof for historical events is absurd. What matters is how credible the writings are. I do not know anyone named QM and have never visited your website under another name.

Yes, but do you understand that your "proof" is not necessarily proof to us atheists? Again, using the Bible to prove God's existence is circular reasoning. I explained why, and Pianodwarf explained it as well in a different thread.

My position is that of a skeptic, yet you keep attributing some sort of positive claim to me. You are using the strawman fallacy when you refer to my supposed "position that manuscripts cannot qualify as proof for historical events." I said nothing about manuscripts. I merely asked for proof that the Bible is a historical document, which you have repeatedly dodged by trying to reverse the burden of proof. Again, I am skeptical of your claims. That DOES NOT mean I am making positive claims. Stop trying to reverse the burden of proof. That is a cop-out.

Provide me with proof for YOUR POSITIVE CLAIMS, and stop wasting my time.

BooYA !! Nice CG  ;)


""I'm reading this awesome book that says goats can fly!...this awesome book says that this awesome book is true!...therefore goats can fly!!!""
Title: Re: Question
Post by: gonegolfing on October 14, 2011, 10:32:25 AM
Quote
12 monkeys stated
Nothing is more important than life itself.....dead is dead. Why do Christians always fail to live like Jesus has commanded them to.....jobless,pennyless,homeless and let God take care of you
12 Monkeys, I have atheist friends and co-workers and I they are very decent people. At least they appear that way. I would never imagine one of them going home to their computer and posting things one would expect from an ill mannered child. In fact I've had many discussions with my friends and have learned from them. I was challenged recently by one of my unbelieving friends about the doctrine of eternal hell. He told me that he admired the moral teachings of Jesus, but didn't believe in God because he didn't believe God would torture people for eternity. I'm rethinking my belief in the doctrine of hell which I've believed for many years because of my friends logic.

This is good to see.

Hopefully it's not just the persuasiveness of your friend, but your recognizing the disgusting nature of the doctrine itself, and moreover, the clear contradiction that the doctrine of hell is in the first place that makes you reject it as true.

An infinitely loving god cannot be infinitely merciful and immoral at the same time. There's your contradiction. An infinitely merciful god cannot dole out eternal punishment for finite errors. Out of its divine and unchanging infinite mercy would flow divine and infinite forgiveness. Hell would be unnecessary. If a god demands that we live by the moral standard of unwavering forgiveness to others, then it must to abide by the very rule that it has designed for us and that has come out of itself. Are we not supposedly created in its image ? If we are under this command and are to be the image of forgiveness, then this god is bound by this same demand and must abide by its own nature and rules.

The world would be much better off if they would see the contradiction in this doctrine and that hell does not exist:-- as well as the nonexistence of direct and hard evidence for god/s.

Cheers  :)

 
Title: Re: Question
Post by: curiousgirl on October 14, 2011, 07:04:24 PM
BooYA !! Nice CG  ;)

Thank you  :)


""I'm reading this awesome book that says goats can fly!...this awesome book says that this awesome book is true!...therefore goats can fly!!!""

Yeah, that seems to be the gist of Whatchamean's "argument". LOL
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 14, 2011, 07:29:41 PM
Quote
ParkingPlaces stated
whatchamean?, what you want is for there to be a god. Hence you believe there is.
The opposite is true. After questioning what I'd been taught, I made a concious decision to examine the Christian religion with no agenda. ParkingPlaces, I can't continue to address you if you're going to tell lies about me.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Gnu Ordure on October 14, 2011, 07:49:38 PM
whatchamean?:
Quote
I have never visited your website. I do not know who QM is or what a troll is.
Come on... everyone knows what a troll is.

Sheesh, that's gotta be a lie...
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 14, 2011, 07:53:05 PM
Quote
Eaten by Bears stated
The Jews would seem to disagree with you there.
Would you be referring to the Jews who wrote the NT? (Just a little good humor there  :) ). Mostly, what you said is true where the Jews are concerned, but then, the Bible said that would happen before you did.

Quote
How does a prophesy become verified by a story written afterwards that cannot in itself be verified?
It has been verified. It's a matter of history. You believe it isn't (I think partly) because you apply stricter standards to biblical manuscripts than you would to other ancient texts.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 14, 2011, 08:02:54 PM
Quote
Gnu stated
Come on... everyone knows what a troll is.
Sheesh, that's gotta be a lie...
If you don't believe I'm telling you the truth about myself there's nothing more I can say to you. I don't know what a troll is. I haven't read your rule page yet. Gnu, look, I don't have alot of time to spend here and I'm not going to spend it bsing you. Ok?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Gnu Ordure on October 14, 2011, 08:15:46 PM
Whatever.

What about this thread (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20234.msg449241.html#msg449241)? Have you abandoned it, or what?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 14, 2011, 08:37:50 PM
Quote
curiousgirl stated
Yes, but do you understand that your "proof" is not necessarily proof to us atheists? Again, using the Bible to prove God's existence is circular reasoning. I explained why, and Pianodwarf explained it as well in a different thread.
Yes, I understand what you're saying and would even agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that the Bible isn't really one book. You're almost acting like the Bible was contrived as a conspiracy. Many of the authors didn't know one another. They didn't even live at the same time.

Quote
My position is that of a skeptic, yet you keep attributing some sort of positive claim to me.
Uh, no. To begin with, you asked why my God is better than Allah etc. and I gave you prophecy as a reason. Just for now, it doesn't matter whether we think the prophecies are bogus. Then I asked you to show me where other gods have made prophecies which have come true (or are said to have come true) and you apparently can't do it. What matters at this point is that no other ancient text contains prophecy that is purported to have been fulfilled. We won't say this proves my God is better than their gods, because for now, we can't prove whether the prophecies really did come true, but what we will say is that my God is different from their gods. Agreed?

Quote
You are using the strawman fallacy when you refer to my supposed "position that manuscripts cannot qualify as proof for historical events." I said nothing about manuscripts. I merely asked for proof that the Bible is a historical document, which you have repeatedly dodged by trying to reverse the burden of proof. Again, I am skeptical of your claims. That DOES NOT mean I am making positive claims. Stop trying to reverse the burden of proof. That is a cop-out. Provide me with proof for YOUR POSITIVE CLAIMS, and stop wasting my time.
Jetson set forth an intriguing request in the other thread on proof of historicity and I'd rather do it there.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Brakeman on October 14, 2011, 10:18:34 PM
Yes, I understand what you're saying and would even agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that the Bible isn't really one book. You're almost acting like the Bible was contrived as a conspiracy. Many of the authors didn't know one another. They didn't even live at the same time.
Even better than that, they didn't even sign their name! The authors, for the most part, wrote either anonymously or under a false identity.  Why would someone who's been "inspired" by god to pen his message to mankind, be afraid to pen his name to it?

Was he afraid or outside reprisals from unbelievers?  No, not believable, because a true believer who's really been tasked by god for a mission wouldn't be afraid of death anymore than a modern day suicide bomber. He would be reassured by his faith in god.

Was it because tribal priests could claim it as written further back in time by mystics to increase the credulity (believability) of there stories? Most likely..

What reason can you come up with?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on October 15, 2011, 12:28:52 AM
Uh, no. To begin with, you asked why my God is better than Allah etc. and I gave you prophecy as a reason. Just for now, it doesn't matter whether we think the prophecies are bogus.

So, your God was the same as any other, until Matthew faked a load of rubbish into his book?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: 12 Monkeys on October 15, 2011, 12:33:20 AM
Uh, no. To begin with, you asked why my God is better than Allah etc. and I gave you prophecy as a reason. Just for now, it doesn't matter whether we think the prophecies are bogus.

So, your God was the same as any other, until Matthew faked a load of rubbish into his book?
IT DOESN'T MATTER.....he states it in his post in plain english
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Eaten by Bears on October 15, 2011, 03:58:42 AM
Quote
How does a prophesy become verified by a story written afterwards that cannot in itself be verified?
It has been verified. It's a matter of history. You believe it isn't (I think partly) because you apply stricter standards to biblical manuscripts than you would to other ancient texts.

I am interested in how the prophesies have been verified. Could you please provide some sources to back up this claim?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: curiousgirl on October 15, 2011, 12:31:04 PM
Whatchamean, you need to go read the forum rules. All you are doing in this thread is making baseless claims and reversing the burden of proof. That stuff (I am using a more polite version of what I really mean) doesn't fly around here. I really hope to see your proof in the other thread that you mentioned. I won't play your little games. I am the skeptic, and I can outright reject your unfounded claims on this forum. PLEASE get with the program here and learn how to communicate properly with the atheists on this forum, or else you seem like a troll.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 16, 2011, 11:29:39 PM
Quote
curiousgirl stated
Whatchamean, you need to go read the forum rules. All you are doing in this thread is making baseless claims and reversing the burden of proof. That stuff (I am using a more polite version of what I really mean) doesn't fly around here. I really hope to see your proof in the other thread that you mentioned. I won't play your little games. I am the skeptic, and I can outright reject your unfounded claims on this forum. PLEASE get with the program here and learn how to communicate properly with the atheists on this forum, or else you seem like a troll.
I have read your rules and if I understand the term correctly, a troll is someone who makes inflammatory statements to provoke a certain response or emotion in another. If that's right, I don't know how I've done anything near that, but there may be a few members who tried to do that to me. I understand that you're a skeptic. I consider myself one too. You can outright reject my unfounded claim that there is a God, but please remember that your claim there is no God is also unfounded. I don't play games with people and what is wrong with how I communicate with atheists? I'm building a case for why I believe the things I do, same as you would.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: curiousgirl on October 16, 2011, 11:31:59 PM
Then stop attributing a claim to me (since I am asking questions) and provide objective proof for God's existence.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 16, 2011, 11:32:16 PM
Quote
Add Homonym stated
So, your God was the same as any other, until Matthew faked a load of rubbish into his book?
Prove it.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 17, 2011, 12:08:26 AM
Quote
curiousgirl stated
Then stop attributing a claim to me (since I am asking questions) and provide objective proof for God's existence.
I couldn't provide objective proof for Hannibals existence if you wanted it. Do you believe Hannibal existed?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 17, 2011, 12:54:51 AM
Quote
12 monkeys stated
IT DOESN'T MATTER.....he states it in his post in plain english
It doesn't matter....for now.



Title: Re: Question
Post by: curiousgirl on October 17, 2011, 09:23:08 AM
Quote
curiousgirl stated
Then stop attributing a claim to me (since I am asking questions) and provide objective proof for God's existence.
I couldn't provide objective proof for Hannibals existence if you wanted it. Do you believe Hannibal existed?

Red herring.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 17, 2011, 09:38:51 AM
Quote
curiousgirl stated
Red herring.
Yes, it is a red herring, since you can't answer my question as I answered yours. You do believe Hannibal existed...based solely on the testimony of those who never met him...don't you?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Zankuu on October 17, 2011, 09:42:08 AM
This is just getting silly...
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Finntroll on October 17, 2011, 09:43:01 AM
The prophecies concerning Jesus about his birth, life, death and resurrection show that the God of the Bible is real,
Wrong.
There are no prophecies about Jesus in the Old Testament. You would see that if you actually read the claimed texts in their totality, not just the verses NT writers quoted. Please read this article too:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html

What happened is that the gospel writers wanted to present Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, and then used scripture quite disonestly. Some of it is messianic profecy, but doesn´t fit Jesus. Some of it is not profecy at all, they just played with the wording of totally unrelated texts.

You can only get around that by claiming that the gospels are "The Word of God", and thefore their  interpretation of OT is correct. But when written, they were not considered "The Word of God". They were just letters written by some men.

And the Old Testament?
It is far from being historically accurate.
Read this, about the archaeology of Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed
If you disagree, surely Jesus or the Holy Ghost can show you where the missing evidence is hidden? Problems? Excuses?

The stories about the biblical God are not true.
Therefore that God does not exist as such.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: curiousgirl on October 17, 2011, 09:55:22 AM
Quote
curiousgirl stated
Red herring.
Yes, it is a red herring, since you can't answer my question as I answered yours. You do believe Hannibal existed...based solely on the testimony of those who never met him...don't you?

Again, red herring. This is not about Hannibal. Prove that God exists.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 17, 2011, 10:04:43 AM
Quote
curiousgirl stated
Again, red herring. This is not about Hannibal. Prove that God exists.
I already admitted there is no way to show the evidence you require for the existence of God. I just wanted to prove your hypocrisy....and I did.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: curiousgirl on October 17, 2011, 10:09:31 AM
No hypocrisy. I asked questions; I did not make positive claims. This is a pathetic attempt on your part to save face because you cannot prove your claim.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: naemhni on October 17, 2011, 10:10:11 AM
You do believe Hannibal existed...based solely on the testimony of those who never met him...don't you?

No.  There is quite a bit of other evidence (such as archaeological evidence) that Hannibal existed.  The same is true for most of the other red herrings that religionists like to use in this regard.  However, it is not true for Jesus.  All we have in his case are a few anonymous documents that are not corroborated by any of the writers or historians of the period and which are not supported by any other kind of evidence.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Finntroll on October 17, 2011, 10:10:41 AM
Perhaps it is not possible to prove the total nonexistence of god, but I think there is a way to prove that what you say is God, does not exist. Please read my previous post and check my links.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Samuelxcs on October 17, 2011, 10:22:56 AM
If Jesus is the son of God and religions say Jesus IS God, maybe God is his own son and father? I don't know how that is possible, there are a few wrong religions, just have to chose the right position and the real truth.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Zankuu on October 17, 2011, 10:37:24 AM
If Jesus is the son of God and religions say Jesus IS God, maybe God is his own son and father? I don't know how that is possible, there are a few wrong religions, just have to chose the right position and the real truth.

Do you even read the threads on this forum?  :P
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Samuelxcs on October 17, 2011, 10:47:10 AM
Do you even read the threads on this forum?  :P

Sometimes I do, sometimes i'm too lazy :)

Violatedsmurf80 typed:
Quote
So my question about this was always, how could this be if jesus was the son of GoD why would he have to be in favor with GoD?

That is why I typed what I thought of that question.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Zankuu on October 17, 2011, 10:55:48 AM
I playfully asked that question because believing that God is both father and son is a basic tenet of Christianity.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Samuelxcs on October 17, 2011, 11:03:15 AM
I know that.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: screwtape on October 17, 2011, 12:40:24 PM
Quote
curiousgirl stated
Again, red herring. This is not about Hannibal. Prove that God exists.
I already admitted there is no way to show the evidence you require for the existence of God. I just wanted to prove your hypocrisy....and I did.

I hope your point is more than to point out what you see as hypocrisy.  If not, then throw in the towel because curiousgirl's hypocrisy has zero bearing on whether gods are really existant beings, as advertised. 

It seems to me that what you are saying is any ancient source is as good as any other, yes?  That the veracity of any evidence indicating there was a military commander from north africa around the turn of the 3rd century BCE is on equal ground with evidence indicating yhwh, the god of the hebrews actually exists. 

But if you are going that route, then you are kind of in a pickle.  Because then that means the evidence for Zeus, Vishnu, Amaterasu and Amun Ra are also equally valid.  And if that's the case, well, why aren't you prostrate before them?

Let me ask you a question relating to Hannibal though.  If Hannibal actually did not exist, do you think that impacts our lives or how we live them in any significant way?  Can you say the same about yhwh or jesus H?

I am skeptical about your claims to be a skeptic.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 17, 2011, 12:56:49 PM
Quote
Zankuu stated
This is just getting silly...
I agree. To apply a set of standards to one person but not to anyone one else is nothing but silly.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 17, 2011, 01:01:40 PM
Quote
Eaten by Bears stated
I am interested in how the prophesies have been verified. Could you please provide some sources to back up this claim?
For the prophecies themselves, I'm mainly using the the Old and New Testaments, which appear to be the only ancient writings atheists feel have no value.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 17, 2011, 01:07:44 PM
Quote
Finntrol stated

Wrong.
There are no prophecies about Jesus in the Old Testament. You would see that if you actually read the claimed texts in their totality, not just the verses NT writers quoted. Please read this article too:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html

What happened is that the gospel writers wanted to present Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, and then used scripture quite disonestly. Some of it is messianic profecy, but doesn´t fit Jesus. Some of it is not profecy at all, they just played with the wording of totally unrelated texts.

You can only get around that by claiming that the gospels are "The Word of God", and thefore their  interpretation of OT is correct. But when written, they were not considered "The Word of God". They were just letters written by some men.

And the Old Testament?
It is far from being historically accurate.
Read this, about the archaeology of Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed
If you disagree, surely Jesus or the Holy Ghost can show you where the missing evidence is hidden? Problems? Excuses?

The stories about the biblical God are not true.
Therefore that God does not exist as such.
Thank you for the links Finntrol. I will examine them, but you should know that it is important to me to also test the source of the information being given to try to determine if any ulterior motives influenced the findings and websites such as infidels and wiki might have problems in that area.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Eaten by Bears on October 17, 2011, 01:20:17 PM
Quote
Eaten by Bears stated
I am interested in how the prophesies have been verified. Could you please provide some sources to back up this claim?
For the prophecies themselves, I'm mainly using the the Old and New Testaments, which appear to be the only ancient writings atheists feel have no value.

I'll be back in a minute. I'm just going after that circular logic which is rolling down the hill.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Finntroll on October 17, 2011, 01:34:30 PM
Watchamean:
The source of my stuff about the prophecies (which you present as the main proof for your religion over other religions) is the Bible itself. Read those claimed Jesus-prophecies yourself. I have. Like I said, the only way you can cope is that to decide to believe that the much later NT gospels and their interpretation of scripture is God´s Word. The jews don't think so and they know the Torah. (Note that I´m not defending the Torah/OT either, I'm just saying that NT writings don't fit to the prophecies) And your "proof" is only something you believe. Actually it means you want it to be so. And that is no more proof than a Muslim believes and wants that his holy book is actually based on the Hebrew religion and and adds to it more "divine knowledge".

The history part is well accepted among historians and non-committed theologians. Not even christian archaeologists have found the missing proof, and they have been busiest there. So again, if you disagree, find the missing evidence. It is not a proof that you WANT that your beliefs of history are true.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Historicity on October 17, 2011, 02:56:24 PM
Fulfilled prophecies in the Koran:

http://www.alislam.org/library/articles/prophecies.html (http://www.alislam.org/library/articles/prophecies.html)
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 18, 2011, 12:08:17 AM
Finntrol,
The site you provided on faked prophecies had a very impressive prologue, but after that I was pretty disappointed by Mr. Jim Lippard. After my dissolusionment, I looked for some background info on Mr. Lippard and wasn't surprised to find that he's an atheist with an agenda.

The way he presented his material, I couldn't take him seriously after the first page. For instance, he says that in Isaiah 7, a son will be born to a virgin and they'll call him Immanuel. He argues that Mary never called Jesus Immanuel and further states that the prophecy was taken out of context because it was fulfilled in Is.8 by a child named Mahershalalhashbaz....who is also never called Immanuel. Lippard argued that Mary never called Jesus Immanuel, as though Mary could have lent credence to this prophecy, yet seemed oblivious to the fact that Mary called herself a virgin. I'll take a look at the other site on archaeology. I really hope it's better.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 18, 2011, 12:18:15 AM
And you know Finntrol, I'm aware that Jews today claim the prophecy in Is.7 has nothing to do with a virgin or the messiah and they further assert that it never was thought of that way by Jews. Do you see the problem here? If Jews never believed this passage was about the messiah (and I have found no reason to doubt their claim), why did the Jews who wrote the NT ascribe it to him? If the Apostles wanted to promote Jesus as messiah, why invent a story about a virgin birth that none of their rabbis even knew of? 
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Finntroll on October 18, 2011, 05:33:46 AM
Well, I too think that the child in  Isaiah 7 was born in Isaiah 8. But OK, he was not called Immanuel, but nor was Jesus.

Anyway the child in Isaiah 7 doesn't sound like Jesus at all:
"
(This is from NIV, as a Finn I don´t know which english translation is which)

13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign: The virgin[d] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel.[f] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”

It is set in the time of Isaiah. Kings and warfare of that era. When Jesus was born even Assyria was long gone. Far too vaque to be Jesus.
But i guess biblical fundamentalist invent some symbolism or time leap or secret meaning in there. But that would be not in the Bible and it would be extrabiblical. Fundamentalists don't really respect the Bible like scholars do .

And why would the evangelists claim that Jesus was born from a virgin? In that time in the Roman/Hellenic world it was important to say that remarkable men were  born from a virgin and were fathered by some  god. So was said of  many of the Roman Emperors too. Those times that increased the credibility of the story! Linking Isaiah there is an attempt to prove this to the jews too. But mistaking that "almah" means a virgin! The only link to Jesus is that the child in the profecy is remarkable. Nothing about the life of Jesus.

The Jews did not accept Jesus partly because in the jewish faith and writings the Messiah would be a man, not son of God. Claiming to be the son of God was pagan polyteism and a good reason for execution.

I don't know Jim Lippard but he talks sense. That is more honest than taking some religion like yours as base facts.

As for the archaeology part, I hope you are not just going to dismiss it because your faith says that the Bible is true. The evidence contradicts that and and the same time provides physical evidence for a different kind of history. This is not an evil hoax. The fundamentalists are free to dig there too.

Title: Re: Question
Post by: screwtape on October 18, 2011, 07:54:11 AM
If Jews never believed this passage was about the messiah (and I have found no reason to doubt their claim), why did the Jews who wrote the NT ascribe it to him?

emotional investment. 

Or, they weren't jews.  Remember, a lot of the early xians were gentiles who knew squat about judaism, their culture or their traditions.  Much like modern xians.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 18, 2011, 09:20:16 PM
Quote
And why would the evangelists claim that Jesus was born from a virgin? In that time in the Roman/Hellenic world it was important to say that remarkable men were  born from a virgin and were fathered by some  god. So was said of  many of the Roman Emperors too. Those times that increased the credibility of the story! Linking Isaiah there is an attempt to prove this to the jews too. But mistaking that "almah" means a virgin! The only link to Jesus is that the child in the profecy is remarkable. Nothing about the life of Jesus.
Finn, the Jews didn't care about the false gods of the Romans or what the Romans thought of them. They didn't even like the Romans. They wouldn't have tried to make Jesus the Son of God just to impress the gentiles.

Quote
The Jews did not accept Jesus partly because in the jewish faith and writings the Messiah would be a man, not son of God. Claiming to be the son of God was pagan polyteism and a good reason for execution.
I agree, so what compelled the Apostles to persist in a belief that could cost them their lives? Were they insane? Were they on drugs? Were they just deluded? It's possible. It's aslo possible that Jesus did what they said he did.

Quote
I don't know Mr. Jim Lippard but he talks sense. That is more honest than taking some religion like yours as base facts.
I don't know him either, but I honestly felt his arguments were not well thought out.

There are also claims  Mr. Lippard makes such as how Jews never saw other prophecies as messianic and those assertions can be disproven by the Talmud.

Quote
As for the archaeology part, I hope you are not just going to dismiss it because your faith says that the Bible is true. The evidence contradicts that and and the same time provides physical evidence for a different kind of history. This is not an evil hoax. The fundamentalists are free to dig there too.
Finn, I don't dismiss something just because the Bible seems to say so. I've learned things from people of other religions as well as my own and from atheists, but I'm not going to dismiss my faith just because someone does a surface skim of the Bible and things don't seem to line up or because someone bagan their search with a preconceived idea and "low and behold... I was right!" I will look at the site objectively, but I'm already aware that archaeology proves nothing either for or against religion.


 
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 18, 2011, 09:28:27 PM
Quote
screwtape stated
Or, they weren't jews.  Remember, a lot of the early xians were gentiles who knew squat about judaism, their culture or their traditions.  Much like modern xians.
You might be right because if I was going to pick a messiah, I wouldn't pick one who told me to pay Roman taxes. Very strange.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Brakeman on October 19, 2011, 05:53:59 AM
Quote
The Jews did not accept Jesus partly because in the jewish faith and writings the Messiah would be a man, not son of God. Claiming to be the son of God was pagan polyteism and a good reason for execution.
I agree, so what compelled the Apostles to persist in a belief that could cost them their lives? Were they insane? Were they on drugs? Were they just deluded? ..
If they existed as described, yes, they were stupid and / or insane, just like the David Koresh followers, the Jim Jones followers, the Mormons, the muslims, and the Hare Krishna. Yep, pure A** stupid as they say down in the south..
Title: Re: Question
Post by: screwtape on October 19, 2011, 08:08:33 AM
Quote
screwtape stated
Or, they weren't jews.  Remember, a lot of the early xians were gentiles who knew squat about judaism, their culture or their traditions.  Much like modern xians.
You might be right because if I was going to pick a messiah, I wouldn't pick one who told me to pay Roman taxes. Very strange.

Why not?  If you were an oppressed minority who was labeled as an atheist[1], then it was pretty good advice to not make more trouble for yourself.  Even mohammed said similar things early on in his career, when he was on the outside looking in.  Once he had power though, he went all Queen of Hearts - "off with their heads!".  Given human nature, it is a pretty safe bet that had Paul been around when xianity became the Official Religion of the Roman Empire, all that Lamb of God shit would have been out the window and xianity would have been more like wahabist islam.  If you doubt me, just look at the extended xian revenge fantasy called "the Book of Revelation".  It is all about putting a hurting on their enemies.


 1. the Romans saw the xians as atheists because they did not pay tribute to the Roman gods, which was seen as civic duty
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Finntroll on October 19, 2011, 10:16:53 AM
Quote
And why would the evangelists claim that Jesus was born from a virgin? In that time in the Roman/Hellenic world it was important to say that remarkable men were  born from a virgin and were fathered by some  god. So was said of  many of the Roman Emperors too. Those times that increased the credibility of the story! Linking Isaiah there is an attempt to prove this to the jews too. But mistaking that "almah" means a virgin! The only link to Jesus is that the child in the profecy is remarkable. Nothing about the life of Jesus.
Finn, the Jews didn't care about the false gods of the Romans or what the Romans thought of them. They didn't even like the Romans. They wouldn't have tried to make Jesus the Son of God just to impress the gentiles.
.
.
Only Luke and Matthew mention the virgin birth.
According to most theologians (including the fundamentalists) Luke wrote for the gentiles. So it would be understandable if he wanted to explain Jesus in a way that fitted the pagan mindset.
Matthew on the other hand is considered to have been through and through jewish and writing to the jews. So you got me there :D Mark and John make no such claim. Nor is Jesus himself reported saying he was born without sexual intercourse.

And if these miracles of the nativity stories really happened, why Mary and Josef did not readily understand what the 12 year old Jesus was doing in the Temple and later tried to call Jesus home because they thought he had gone crazy? If eastern magi really brought gifts to baby Jesus, why didnt the whole of Judea talk about it?
(btw the nativity stories of Luke and Matthew can't be harmonized, but that's another issue)

But maybe Jesus really did say that he was the Son of God? And that was the final proof to execute him. Actually quite justly according to jewish law! But even being a or the son of God should not necessarily mean he was physically inseminated by God. Sounds like a primitive explanation of primitive minds to me. The confusion is shown when the gospels include Joseph to their versions of the Jesus genealogy.

 And early on there was unsubstantiated rumors that Jesus was an illegitimate child of a Roman soldier. I don't take that very seriously, but that would be a natural explanation. And a root to his identity crisis.

But the virginity-issue is a totally separate thing to the point we are discussing. That the prophecies about Jesus in the OT  would prove that Bible is true and trerefore Christianity is superior to other religions. The point is that when honestly read by anyone, not just by that Jim Lippard, those prophecies dont fit to Jesus! The NT writers twisted their original meaning. A pious fraud, but a fraud still. You ought to be get out of the mindset that the Bible has a coherent story and is somehow a holy book. In fact it is a collection of books that condradict each other both historically and theologically. Modern theologians know this,have known for a hundred years. (I myself have never studied theology, I studied first biology, then history at the Helsinki university, then worked as an internet geek and now I think I am a farmer or a landowner :D )

You ought to be get out of the mindset that the Bible has a coherent story and is somehow a holy book. In fact it is a collection of books that contradict each other both historically and theologically. Modern theologians know this, have known for a hundred years. Paradoxically if one really respects the Bible, one respects the purpose and circumstances of each text and that leads to admitting that there never was a coherent story and purpose in the book we call the Bible. "Fundamentalist" sects claim to know that there is, and to each of them it is different. Some lie that the Holy Ghost tells them the right interpretation, and that "knowledge" differs too from sect to sect. That all is completely dishonest, in effect claiming to be the all-knowing God yourself.   

Quote
The Jews did not accept Jesus partly because in the jewish faith and writings the Messiah would be a man, not son of God. Claiming to be the son of God was pagan polyteism and a good reason for execution.
I agree, so what compelled the Apostles to persist in a belief that could cost them their lives? Were they insane? Were they on drugs? Were they just deluded? It's possible. It's aslo possible that Jesus did what they said he did.
Well, Hindus have suffered martyr deaths willingly. Many mormons died for their faith, which originated when some nutcase made stuff up in a tent. Pastor Jim Jones convinced a a lot of people to kill themselves. UFO-cultists made a mass Suicide believing an UFO is coming to get them behind the comet Hale-Bopp. Terrorists flew aeroplanes into skyscrapers in the name of Allah. So this must prove to you that their faith is the true faith? That kind of thing was far easier in the first century, people were much more gullible then. They were not necessarily mentally ill, just gullible and uneducated. In our time we should know better.

Quote
I don't know Mr. Jim Lippard but he talks sense. That is more honest than taking some religion like yours as base facts.
I don't know him either, but I honestly felt his arguments were not well thought out.

There are also claims  Mr. Lippard makes such as how Jews never saw other prophecies as messianic and those assertions can be disproven by the Talmud.
I once tried to read the Talmud, and to me it seemed like endless blurred discussions in which no solid meaning is found. But then, I'm not a Jew, maybe I just don't get it.

That Jim Lippard page was just a quick way to show something from the Internet. I have though those profecies long before that. The only thing that I personally could suspect to be a propechy about Jesus, is psalm 22. But the translation about piercing hand and feet is disputed by the jews (even in the Finnish translation that bit is about lions) , Jesus ate notoriously well so his bones were not showing, theologically it don´t fit because the guy in the psalm wants to get out of there and anyway it is not said to be a propechy, just a suffering man. Jesus could very well have quoted the psalm or the evangelist written like he did even if he didn´t.

The rest is rubbish as Jesus-prophecies. Even Isaiah 53 fits to anyone who is suffering unjustly. I´m sure it was an inspiration to many people, including Jesus. But Jesus is not mentioned to have been ugly. Even more so with "sick" in some translations. Nor was Jesus despised by all, according to the Bible he had lots of followers when he was alive. Nor does "Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong" really sound like God's Only Son who has been given all the power in  heaven and earth.just somebody suffering and getting compensated at the end. And surely an inspiration for Jesus to go and suffer for others. He was not the first or the last messiah-claimant to do that and suffer a cruel end.

And Jesus knew that the Messiah was supposed to ride a donkey to Jerusalem. So he borrowed a donkey. Even I could do that.

I think Jesus could have neen an ordinary man or a mad cult leader or an enlightened sage, or even some divine creature. But he was not the Jewish messiah.
 
Quote
As for the archaeology part, I hope you are not just going to dismiss it because your faith says that the Bible is true. The evidence contradicts that and and the same time provides physical evidence for a different kind of history. This is not an evil hoax. The fundamentalists are free to dig there too.
Finn, I don't dismiss something just because the Bible seems to say so. I've learned things from people of other religions as well as my own and from atheists, but I'm not going to dismiss my faith just because someone does a surface skim of the Bible and things don't seem to line up or because someone bagan their search with a preconceived idea and "low and behold... I was right!" I will look at the site objectively, but I'm already aware that archaeology proves nothing either for or against religion.
The archaelology link I showed was of course just about one book. But it was the best summary I could find. I understand that there is dispute on details such as was Solomo's kingdom totally insignificant or could he still have had a medium-size state for that period. But there is wide agreement in history research and among non-fundamentalist real university theologians that the Exodus never happened, it is a myth, made-up official history by later Hebrew kings. There goes a lot of the OT!

(Better so, the God depicted there is a mass-murdering monster. Why do you wish he exists? Are you a fan of slaughtering women and children?)

And of course archaeology can prove against religion. And so can science. The Bible makes natural and historical claims that can be examined just like all ancient legends. It is you who has the preconceived idea that your favorite myth is true. In my neck of woods most people have not taken the Bible more literally than our national Kalevala for a long time. If the stories of the Biblical God are not true, then that God does not exist as such. Unless you can keep some kind of dishonest doublethink-mode, which is sadly typical for religious people.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 21, 2011, 04:27:34 PM
Quote
Screwtape stated
Why not?
Because the Jews didn't like being in subjection to foreign authority and believed when their Messiah appeared, he would crush their enemies. Instead, Jesus told them to render to Ceasar.

Quote
If you were an oppressed minority who was labeled as an atheist[1], then it was pretty good advice to not make more trouble for yourself.
That's true. You wouldn't want to put yourself in a situation where you might get crucified.
 
Quote
Even mohammed said similar things early on in his career, when he was on the outside looking in.  Once he had power though, he went all Queen of Hearts - "off with their heads!".  Given human nature, it is a pretty safe bet that had Paul been around when xianity became the Official Religion of the Roman Empire, all that Lamb of God shit would have been out the window and xianity would have been more like wahabist islam.
I think if Paul had been around when Christianity became the official religion, he would have been executed by the church.

Quote
If you doubt me, just look at the extended xian revenge fantasy called "the Book of Revelation".  It is all about putting a hurting on their enemies.
The Book of Revelation is about alot of things, but I can understand why you think it's only about revenge.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Hatter23 on October 21, 2011, 04:40:26 PM
Quote
curiousgirl stated
We get theists like you all the time, preaching the Bible rather than providing logical arguments and scientific evidence.
There's nothing scientific about fulfilled prophecy because it's supernatural. The prophecies concerning Jesus are clear and easily verified, yet it seems now that you can't back up your claim of the God of the Bible being like any other god, your curiosity has disappeared.

Clear and easily verified????????? You are aware Jews exist, right?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: jetson on October 21, 2011, 05:20:12 PM

The Book of Revelation is about alot of things, but I can understand why you think it's only about revenge.

Ha! I LOL'd at this reply.  Perhaps you can start a new thread that helps us all understand exactly what Revelation is about?  That would be lots of fun!

I have read it more than once, even very recently, and I can say with great certainty that Revelation was written during a drug binge that woul make Charles Manson sound like an adorable young Cub scout.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 21, 2011, 07:11:14 PM
Quote
Finntrol stated
Only Luke and Matthew mention the virgin birth.
And, according to Matthew...Isaiah.  :)

According to most theologians (including the fundamentalists) Luke wrote for the gentiles. So it would be understandable if he wanted to explain Jesus in a way that fitted the pagan mindset.
Matthew on the other hand is considered to have been through and through jewish and writing to the jews. So you got me there Mark and John make no such claim. Nor is Jesus himself reported saying he was born without sexual intercourse.[/quote
You're right, but Mark and John refer to Jesus as the Son of God in such a way (only begotten) which suggests the Spirit impregnated Mary. “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”  And Jesus said, “I am..." Mk.14:61 

Quote
And if these miracles of the nativity stories really happened, why Mary and Josef did not readily understand what the 12 year old Jesus was doing in the Temple
We have no idea to begin with how Mary and Joseph perceived Jesus as He was growing up. 

Quote
and later tried to call Jesus home because they thought he had gone crazy?
Don't know what you mean here.

Quote
If eastern magi really brought gifts to baby Jesus, why didnt the whole of Judea talk about it?
What do you mean? It was an event that happened and then passed. Matthews gospel says Jerusalem did talk about it.

Quote
(btw the nativity stories of Luke and Matthew can't be harmonized...
You gonna leave me hangin bro? Gotta get some sleep.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 21, 2011, 07:15:13 PM
Quote
Hatter23 stated
Clear and easily verified????????? You are aware Jews exist, right?
I've had a Jew tell me that Isaiah 53 was about National Israel. I think I read once where the Talmud compares it with the Messiah. Pretty sure.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Hatter23 on October 21, 2011, 11:02:46 PM
Quote
Hatter23 stated
Clear and easily verified????????? You are aware Jews exist, right?
I've had a Jew tell me that Isaiah 53 was about National Israel. I think I read once where the Talmud compares it with the Messiah. Pretty sure.

OK, that takes it...I'm calling Poe on this one.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Klokinator on October 21, 2011, 11:35:32 PM
Quote
Hatter23 stated
Clear and easily verified????????? You are aware Jews exist, right?
I've had a Jew tell me that Isaiah 53 was about National Israel. I think I read once where the Talmud compares it with the Messiah. Pretty sure.
I had a christian tell me once that it was easily possible to fit 40 million+ animals and bugs into the ark and not kill off freshwater and saltwater creatures that had to mix in the world wide flood. I "think" he said it was all magical, but none of this can be verified so it should not be brought into a debate.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: screwtape on October 22, 2011, 08:08:48 AM
whatchamean?

there is a way to get names and links to the original posts automatically on the quotes.  If you go to the Quoting Tutorials (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/board,75.0.html), it shows you how.  Please learn.  These are easier for you and they help us to read the original post you quote in context. 

Thanks
Screwtape
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 22, 2011, 04:05:25 PM
whatchamean?

there is a way to get names and links to the original posts automatically on the quotes.  If you go to the Quoting Tutorials (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/board,75.0.html), it shows you how.  Please learn.  These are easier for you and they help us to read the original post you quote in context. 

Thanks
Screwtape

Ok, Thanks.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 22, 2011, 06:37:00 PM
But maybe Jesus really did say that he was the Son of God? And that was the final proof to execute him. Actually quite justly according to jewish law! But even being a or the son of God should not necessarily mean he was physically inseminated by God. Sounds like a primitive explanation of primitive minds to me. The confusion is shown when the gospels include Joseph to their versions of the Jesus genealogy.
The writers avoided calling Joseph Jesus' father. How was it just to kill the Messiah acording to Jewish law? "Only Begotten" means God was literally His Father.

And early on there was unsubstantiated rumors that Jesus was an illegitimate child of a Roman soldier. I don't take that very seriously, but that would be a natural explanation. And a root to his identity crisis.
There are some who believe this tale is in the Talmud, but the names were changed to protect the innocent.

But the virginity-issue is a totally separate thing to the point we are discussing. That the prophecies about Jesus in the OT  would prove that Bible is true and trerefore Christianity is superior to other religions. The point is that when honestly read by anyone, not just by that Jim Lippard, those prophecies dont fit to Jesus! The NT writers twisted their original meaning. A pious fraud, but a fraud still.

The NT writers didn't write the Talmud:

 "The Messiah --what is his name?...The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, `surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted...'" (Sanhedrin 98b)

They were quoting Isaiah 53

Well, Hindus have suffered martyr deaths willingly. Many mormons died for their faith, which originated when some nutcase made stuff up in a tent. Pastor Jim Jones convinced a a lot of people to kill themselves. UFO-cultists made a mass Suicide believing an UFO is coming to get them behind the comet Hale-Bopp. Terrorists flew aeroplanes into skyscrapers in the name of Allah. So this must prove to you that their faith is the true faith? That kind of thing was far easier in the first century, people were much more gullible then. They were not necessarily mentally ill, just gullible and uneducated. In our time we should know better.
In many cases here you're comparing suicide with martyrdom, even terrorist suicide. Those people aren't martyrs, but there are people who are martyred for many different reasons. Buddhist monks were killed by the Chinese government because they wouldn't become communist. It doesn't mean they were wrong. The point is, the disciples of Jesus may not have feared death because they were convinced of the resurrection.

That Jim Lippard page was just a quick way to show something from the Internet. I have though those profecies long before that. The only thing that I personally could suspect to be a propechy about Jesus, is psalm 22. But the translation about piercing hand and feet is disputed by the jews (even in the Finnish translation that bit is about lions) , Jesus ate notoriously well so his bones were not showing, theologically it don´t fit because the guy in the psalm wants to get out of there and anyway it is not said to be a propechy, just a suffering man. Jesus could very well have quoted the psalm or the evangelist written like he did even if he didn´t.
I think it's interesting that the rendering of Psalm 22 in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint which precede the birth of Jesus both say the hands and feet were pierced, but the Masoretic text (after Jesus was executed) say lion. Funny, isn't it?


The rest is rubbish as Jesus-prophecies. Even Isaiah 53 fits to anyone who is suffering unjustly. I´m sure it was an inspiration to many people, including Jesus. But Jesus is not mentioned to have been ugly. Even more so with "sick" in some translations. Nor was Jesus despised by all, according to the Bible he had lots of followers when he was alive. Nor does "Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong" really sound like God's Only Son who has been given all the power in  heaven and earth.just somebody suffering and getting compensated at the end. And surely an inspiration for Jesus to go and suffer for others. He was not the first or the last messiah-claimant to do that and suffer a cruel end.

"...and he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death...and he shall divide the spoil with the strong..." Is.53:8,12

Tell me Finn, how can a person do anything after he's dead?

The archaelology link I showed was of course just about one book. But it was the best summary I could find. I understand that there is dispute on details such as was Solomo's kingdom totally insignificant or could he still have had a medium-size state for that period. But there is wide agreement in history research and among non-fundamentalist real university theologians that the Exodus never happened, it is a myth, made-up official history by later Hebrew kings. There goes a lot of the OT!
I have yet to look at the site, but i will soon.

(Better so, the God depicted there is a mass-murdering monster. Why do you wish he exists? Are you a fan of slaughtering women and children?)
No, when I decided to study the Bible, I viewed it through what the Bible says about God, not what I think God should do. The Bible claims that God created the universe and bestows life. If you read the Bible this way, you understand that God owns you and may take your life whenever He desires without apology. We are only lent to one another temporarily, but God can raise the dead.


It is you who has the preconceived idea that your favorite myth is true. In my neck of woods most people have not taken the Bible more literally than our national Kalevala for a long time. If the stories of the Biblical God are not true, then that God does not exist as such. Unless you can keep some kind of dishonest doublethink-mode, which is sadly typical for religious people.
I'm no scholar, but I did show you mistakes Mr. Lippard made. Just make sure you don't believe what the Bible says because you took an honest objective look at it.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 22, 2011, 07:01:29 PM
I hope your point is more than to point out what you see as hypocrisy.
It is, but pointing out how unfair people are when it comes to Jesus as opposed to other ancient historical figures is important as well.

If not, then throw in the towel because curiousgirl's hypocrisy has zero bearing on whether gods are really existant beings, as advertised.
That's true, but what it does have a bearing on is how honest someones examination of the scriptures has been. 

It seems to me that what you are saying is any ancient source is as good as any other, yes?
No. What I'm saying is that when people examine the Bible, they should afford it the same fair standards they would any ancient text. 

Let me ask you a question relating to Hannibal though.  If Hannibal actually did not exist, do you think that impacts our lives or how we live them in any significant way?  Can you say the same about yhwh or jesus H?
Hannibal did exist and though he doesn't impact our lives God does...and will.

I am skeptical about your claims to be a skeptic.
I've heard alot of outrageous claims by both Christians and atheists. I'll look for myself. I hope you do the same.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: curiousgirl on October 22, 2011, 07:22:17 PM
Whatchamean, I don't have a special grudge against Jesus and the Bible. I am merely skeptical of Jesus being the Son of God, performing miracles, rising from the dead, etc. I would really like for you to provide some actual evidence (not circular reasoning) for the Bible being a historical document that the others cannot tear to shreds after close examination. Seriously. I am all ears.

I have the same amount of skepticism towards Biblical miracles that I would toward ANY other extraordinary claims that I have not been shown real evidence for. If you provided some logical reasons and solid evidence that pointed toward Jesus being the Messiah, I would not deny that. But so far none of the theists that I have ever come into contact with have ever done that.

Honestly, you could tell me a very unlikely story (like a leprechaun that can read minds living in my garage, or perhaps a guy being resurrected) and as long as you could support it with logic and evidence, I would not be opposed to believing it.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: screwtape on October 23, 2011, 08:05:40 AM
If not, then throw in the towel because curiousgirl's hypocrisy has zero bearing on whether gods are really existant beings, as advertised.
That's true, but what it does have a bearing on is how honest someones examination of the scriptures has been. 

Do you also consider the fact that someone believes in god and was raised in an area where xianity permeated the culture to also bias their honest examination of the bible?

No. What I'm saying is that when people examine the Bible, they should afford it the same fair standards they would any ancient text. 

I don't think that is very clear.  I do not think you are dodging the question, but this^ could still be interpreted as you suggesting all ancient documents are equal.

Let me ask you a question relating to Hannibal though.  If Hannibal actually did not exist, do you think that impacts our lives or how we live them in any significant way?  Can you say the same about yhwh or jesus H?
Hannibal did exist and though he doesn't impact our lives God does...and will.

Close.  The point I was making was it is mainly irrelevant to anyone here whether Hannibal actually existed.  If tomorrow archaeologists found some lost evidence that lead them to conclude Hannibal was a gigantic hoax, we'd say, "interesting," and then keep going on about our day.  We are not invested in Hannibal.

For the religious, however, it is a different story. If jesus H wasn't real, then the whole premise of xianity collapses.  It would change your day.  You are invested in jesus H.  We are too, but not in the same way.  You believe in his existence and want it to be so.  We do not believe in biblejesus[1], but if he really did exist, we want to know.  It seems to me if we are talking about honesty, or let's call it bias so as to not attach too much negative baggage to it, we are in a better position than believers.

 1. though many of us think there may have been a loudmouth jew named jesus who was executed for treason by the Romans, around whom a legend was created
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Finntroll on October 23, 2011, 06:54:45 PM
Sorry, I took a few days leave from the internet.
And sorry for my English too.
I can understand it fluenly, both written and spoken. I rarely have to speak it though.
And I haven't written in English for years.
So now it seems the spelling of even the most familiar words is lacking. And grammarwise I'm confused when to use "in" or "on" or "at", when to say "for" or "to" and so on :D And Im not familiar with English religious terms or the names of the biblical characters in English. Add my typos that I make even when writing Finnish.

Quote
Finntrol stated
Only Luke and Matthew mention the virgin birth.
And, according to Matthew...Isaiah.  :)
.
You seem to be missing the point.
Which is while the evangelists surely did not and could not (and dared not) rewrite the Torah, in their own writings they twisted the meaning of many totally unrelated Torah verses to convince people that Jesus was the Messiah. So what if Matthew thought that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus? Why do you take the opinions of these men as "the Word of God"? They were just letters circulating around and it took years and years of purely human committee work to decide which ones to include to the book we now call the Bible.

Matthew was the sneakiest and most dishónest of them. Knowingly, I think.

Take Matthew 2
 14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

The prophet who said that was Hosea
11
1 “When Israel was a child, I loved him,
   and out of Egypt I called my son.
2 But the more they were called,
   the more they went away from me.
They sacrificed to the Baals
   and they burned incense to images.

You can clearly see that is not a prophecy of Jesus and not a prophecy at all. Matthew lied.

It gets worse:

Matthew 2
 16 When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. 17 Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:

 18 “A voice is heard in Ramah,
   weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
   and refusing to be comforted,
   because they are no more.”

That comes from Jeremiah 31
 
15 This is what the LORD says:

   “A voice is heard in Ramah,
   mourning and great weeping,
Rachel weeping for her children
   and refusing to be comforted,
   because they are no more.”

 16 This is what the LORD says:

   “Restrain your voice from weeping
   and your eyes from tears,
for your work will be rewarded,”
            declares the LORD.
   “They will return from the land of the enemy.
17 So there is hope for your descendants,”
            declares the LORD.
   “Your children will return to their own land.

That is not about the Herod massacre. That is about exiled children who come back home ALIVE!
Matthew lied again.

(And I'm not sure, but I remember checking once that Rama is not Bethlehem, but is situated at the other side of Jerusalem)

Quote
According to most theologians (including the fundamentalists) Luke wrote for the gentiles. So it would be understandable if he wanted to explain Jesus in a way that fitted the pagan mindset.
Matthew on the other hand is considered to have been through and through jewish and writing to the jews. So you got me there Mark and John make no such claim. Nor is Jesus himself reported saying he was born without sexual intercourse.
You're right, but Mark and John refer to Jesus as the Son of God in such a way (only begotten) which suggests the Spirit impregnated Mary. “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”  And Jesus said, “I am..." Mk.14:61
Like i said, it sounds very primitive thinking. My biologist side starts to ponder sperm and the chomosomes of the Holy Ghost :D Claiming to be divine spiritually don't necessarily have to mean that you are fathered by God in the physical sense. Anyway Jesus is reported to have beeb quite evasive of that question. In the lines of "thou said it" like it depends of the relative interpretation. Only when pressed he blurted the above. John´s theology contains Jesus saying that his pupils can be "Son of Man" too.

But as I said previously, maybe Jesus really thought he was the son of God. That kind of thing was very popular in antiquity, but not among the jews. And then Matthew and Luke did their best to sell that very unjewish and heretic idea to the people. But if Jesus said that, Jesus could have been wrong and deluded. I mean The Egyptian Pharaos really thought they were gods. Galigula thought he was god. The Pope thinks he is Christ's substitute on Earth. Dalai Lama thinks he is reincarnated Buddha. I don't believe them either.

One thing is certain: Both natural science and historical research show that the stories of the Old Testament are not true. Therefore the God of the Bible described through those stories does not exist. So Jesus could not have been the son of Biblegod Yahweh.
 
Quote
And if these miracles of the nativity stories really happened, why Mary and Josef did not readily understand what the 12 year old Jesus was doing in the Temple
We have no idea to begin with how Mary and Joseph perceived Jesus as He was growing up. 

Quote
and later tried to call Jesus home because they thought he had gone crazy?
Don't know what you mean here.
Mark 3
 20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”

Jesus didn't respect his mother much:
Matthew 12
 46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
 48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

You might think, that if Mary had really went through the divine insemination (sorry! :D ), angelic visitation, then shepards bowing to her child with an angelic choir, then eastern magi or kings bowing again to the child bringing gold and mirha, she would kind of have accepted anything Jesus was doing. And they would have been in more cordial relationship.

And the people of Nazareth would have spoken at least: "Hey that´s the dude some eastern magi or kings brought gold when he was a baby. They must be rich!" Instead they said like: "Nah, ain't that guy the son of some builder?"

Quote
(btw the nativity stories of Luke and Matthew can't be harmonized...
You gonna leave me hangin bro? Gotta get some sleep.
I´m saving my strenght and my keyboard. Read this:
(I had a better link in mind, can't find it now. This is fom a kind of a sister-site of this forum. I´m not registered there)
http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/35238-the-amazing-christmas-story/

More:
Jews at the time of Jesus believed that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. Based on

Micah (5:2)
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

So the evangelists "had" to write it so. Funny thing that Jesus was from Nazareth. For that Luke has the story of the taxation. However Roman history has no record of Luke´s taxation/census unlike taxation before and after. And it would be unheard that the Romans should have forced people to travel to their ancestral cities. Millions of people travelling around. The way was to send the taxmen to the people, not the other way round.

And "Bethlehem Ephratat" might not be a town but a clan. Brief note http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ (Don´t know, I must study that later myself)   "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chr.2:18, 2:50-52, 4:4)."

Then who else than Matthew tries to tie even Nazareth to prophecies.
"2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."
There is no such prophecy. I think it might refer to the "nazirs" and Samson. But unlike Jesus they did not drink wine and eat meat.

But maybe Jesus really did say that he was the Son of God? And that was the final proof to execute him. Actually quite justly according to jewish law! But even being a or the son of God should not necessarily mean he was physically inseminated by God. Sounds like a primitive explanation of primitive minds to me. The confusion is shown when the gospels include Joseph to their versions of the Jesus genealogy.
The writers avoided calling Joseph Jesus' father. How was it just to kill the Messiah acording to Jewish law? "Only Begotten" means God was literally His Father.
if Joseph was not his father, there goes the Davidian lineage of Jesus. And of course it was not O.K. to kill a Messiah. But what I have read about judaism, "messiah" means somebody annointed by god. Originally quite literally pouring oil on his head. And there were several "real" accepted messiahs thorough history. Even the pagan Cyrus the Great was called messiah, because he was so nice to the jews. But all messiahs were mortal men.  On the other hand to claim to be "The SON of God" would have been unbiblical heresy, pagan polytheism. And the penalty would be death. Even in the gospels the Sanhedrind gets very angry, tearing their clothes etc, when they during interrogation finally get Jesus to say he is the Son of God. And then consider the case proven.

For the Romans it was simpler. Some guy causing havoc during festivities in the Temple, pissing off their friendly Jewish allies, gathering a large following and claiming to be the KING of Jews. Rebel--> execute. No need to understand Jewish theology.

And early on there was unsubstantiated rumors that Jesus was an illegitimate child of a Roman soldier. I don't take that very seriously, but that would be a natural explanation. And a root to his identity crisis.
There are some who believe this tale is in the Talmud, but the names were changed to protect the innocent.
The Talmud discussions i have read concerning this subject are very blurred, they are not even in agreement which Jesus they are talking about.Could be in code, because the christians had a nasty habit of kikking jews.
The roman Celsus, adversary of christianity, mentions this "Pantera" as Jesus' father too.
Funnily enough, a roman soldiers grave has been found in Germany, nicknamed "Panthera" and records show he was stationed just outside Nazareth, in Sephoris, during Jesus´s supposed birth years. Google that if you want. I don't dig into that now, because I think that as a proof it is as lame as Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code". Which was stupid.


The NT writers didn't write the Talmud:

 "The Messiah --what is his name?...The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, `surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted...'" (Sanhedrin 98b)

They were quoting Isaiah 53
Of course they did not write the Talmud and would not have dared to commit forgery of texts everybody knew. Instead they wrote their own twisted interpretations, making stuff up, taking a verse here, a verse there.. just like modern Christians can prove their factions dogma by hopping from verse to verse, not respecting their original purpose at all. I Bet with the same method someone could "prove" that Barack Obama is prophecised in the old Mickey Mouse comics :D And take Nostradamus. Funny how his "prpohecies" seem to fit AFTER somehing has happened. Or the enviromental activist group Greenpeace (I think not too seriously) are keen to an old Hopi Indian prophecy about "Rainbow Warriors" who save the Earth. I once checked and among Hopi legends there really is one that resembles their version. But I still don't think the Hopi prophecied Greenpeace. Greenpeace just identifies with it.

About Isaiah 53 I don't really mind if that refers to the Israeli nation, the prophet himself or if it is a messianic prophecy. All interpretations are common. And the Talmud is just discussions and differing opinions of jews, not a Holy Book. What matters is that even it it was a messianic prophecy, it really doesn't fit Jesus. Allthough it might have been an inspiration to him and many people.

In many cases here you're comparing suicide with martyrdom, even terrorist suicide. Those people aren't martyrs, but there are people who are martyred for many different reasons. Buddhist monks were killed by the Chinese government because they wouldn't become communist. It doesn't mean they were wrong. The point is, the disciples of Jesus may not have feared death because they were convinced of the resurrection.
Even if it is suicide, the muslim terrorists are sure of Allah rewarding them after death. So they don't fear death. That nutcase cult Heaven´s Gate filmed a video before their suicide, all happy and smiling because they knew they were getting a ride in an UFO. Come on, they testified how they saw their leader glowing divine light! In christian martyrtom there was a suicide element too. Sorry, the source is out of hand, but a respectable history magazine had an article how some christians confessed and QUEUED to be executed. Sometimes it got so bad the romans got bored and ordered them home. Later on christians, both catholic and protestant, surely have terrorized people and died in wars defending their faith.

I don´t find it psychologically strange at all if the discibles collected themselves and continund to believe even after Jesus got killed. After all, he had told them that he must die and he will come back. No modern cult, however idiotic, is discouraged even when everything goes wrong. They always find a way to continue their delusion. Now, the disciples expected or at least hoped to see Jesus again. So they may have started seeing things. In the gospels half of the sightings are so vague, that disciples are not even sure it is Jesus. And those stories contradict each other badly. Some or all of them have to be invented by the Gospel writers. 
http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=stone
(note that in my mind that does not prove that Jesus did not resurrect. Maybe he did. But it means that if somebody is a biblical literalist who claims that the Bible has no contradictions and claims that the gospels are fit-for-court hard evidence of the resurrection... and if he reads that, can't solve that including the biggies like where did Jesus appear (nobody can)... and continues to claim what he claims.. then he knows he is a liar.But maybe he doesn't care. The whole purpose of such christianity seems to be lying. What if God sees them lying? :D

That Jim Lippard page was just a quick way to show something from the Internet. I have though those profecies long before that. The only thing that I personally could suspect to be a propechy about Jesus, is psalm 22. But the translation about piercing hand and feet is disputed by the jews (even in the Finnish translation that bit is about lions) , Jesus ate notoriously well so his bones were not showing, theologically it don´t fit because the guy in the psalm wants to get out of there and anyway it is not said to be a propechy, just a suffering man. Jesus could very well have quoted the psalm or the evangelist written like he did even if he didn´t.
I think it's interesting that the rendering of Psalm 22 in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint which precede the birth of Jesus both say the hands and feet were pierced, but the Masoretic text (after Jesus was executed) say lion. Funny, isn't it?
I knew that. That´s why the psalm is the only plausible to me. But all piercing is not crucifixion. Then there is the bit about the clothes.A coincedence, common habit when the victim has nice clothes, or a real case of precognition? But I think it would not be below the evangelists just to invent that detail, either. But that cant'be proven with text analysis, like most other claimed "Jesus- prophecies"can.

But the character of psalm 22 does not get pierced/gaped by lions willingly, like Jesus is said to have done. He is desperately begging God to get him out of there the whole time. There is not a clear death. Certainly no resurrection. He is not depicted as Messiah or Son of God. No universal meaning in his suffering. So if it would be the one real prophecy of Jesus in the OT, it is only about him suffering, no more. And then the usual praises of God at the end. Remember Nostradamus and the Hopi legend? Sometimes even the blind hen finds the grain, as the Finnish saying goes. Or a broken clock shows the right time twice a day.

 
The rest is rubbish as Jesus-prophecies. Even Isaiah 53 fits to anyone who is suffering unjustly. I´m sure it was an inspiration to many people, including Jesus. But Jesus is not mentioned to have been ugly. Even more so with "sick" in some translations. Nor was Jesus despised by all, according to the Bible he had lots of followers when he was alive. Nor does "Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong" really sound like God's Only Son who has been given all the power in  heaven and earth.just somebody suffering and getting compensated at the end. And surely an inspiration for Jesus to go and suffer for others. He was not the first or the last messiah-claimant to do that and suffer a cruel end.

"...and he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death...and he shall divide the spoil with the strong..." Is.53:8,12

Tell me Finn, how can a person do anything after he's dead?
The jewish ideas about an afterlife or resurrection are varied and I think still unsolved. The original old jew religion was not much interested of that. Gradually thoughs of an afterlife (like in many other religions) or a resurrection gained support. So maybe Isaih was in a phase when he believed in an afterlife where his character would be compensated. What this Isaiah's person does after his death does not sound like Jesus who is supposed to rule all, not just hang out "with the strong". Nor is Jesus said to have had offspring (but I quess christians take that part allegorically). Jesus was not despised by all, he had thousands of followers. He was not silent, he spoke his mind. Noboby is said to mock him for being ungainly. There is no claim of the Isaiah persons physical resurrection from the grave. The carrying of other peoples sins can be quite practical thing there because other peoples' sin is directed at him.

Ha, that might be even me as well as Jesus. I'm rather ungainly (not much luck with the ladies, tall skinny 49-year old geek), I have been despised, bullied as a child, in adult life years and years I have been unjustly wronged by people and I have two victorious Court cases to prove it :D But it still goes on.
Haven't killed me.. yet.. 

So I really don't care if Isaiah 53 is a messiah prophecy or not. It is far too vague to be Jesus or only Jesus and it doesn't fit Jesus very well. But surely the Isaiah was known to Jesus and might have been his self-chosen role model.

I admitted those two alleged Jesus-prophecies to have the right tune. Still: Close but no cigar.
The rest are worse. I mentioned some before. Then take that the cooking instructions of the Pastover Lamb are supposed to prophecise Jesus´s legs not to have been broken. That lamb was not a sacrifice to God. Not an atonement for sins. It was eaten by the household. And not only the bones were not broken, the lamb had to be unbruised. Jesus was bruised.

The archaeology link I showed was of course just about one book. But it was the best summary I could find. I understand that there is dispute on details such as was Solomon's kingdom totally insignificant or could he still have had a medium-size state for that period. But there is wide agreement in history research and among non-fundamentalist real university theologians that the Exodus never happened, it is a myth, made-up official history by later Hebrew kings. There goes a lot of the OT!
I have yet to look at the site, but i will soon.
If you disagree the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan not happening, and you claim to KNOW that... Then please share that supernatural knowledge with archaeologists. They would be happy with new findings. Especially the jewish or christian archeologists. Or admid you DON'T know, you just WISH it to be true.

(Better so, the God depicted there is a mass-murdering monster. Why do you wish he exists? Are you a fan of slaughtering women and children?)
No, when I decided to study the Bible, I viewed it through what the Bible says about God, not what I think God should do. The Bible claims that God created the universe and bestows life. If you read the Bible this way, you understand that God owns you and may take your life whenever He desires without apology. We are only lent to one another temporarily, but God can raise the dead.

Quit that typical Christian bullshit.
You are transferring you own moral or rather inmoral wishes and sick fantasies to your ancient tribal deity. When it gets tough, you back off claiming we can´t understand him, because he is God. In reality it is you who are closing your eyes, in fact lying, by trying not no see the common knowledge, science and history showing that your god does not exist. Your God does not exist. You just play excuses for your own desire for brutality and violence and maybe even other people burning in Hell forever. It is you, not your nonexistant God. The evil is in you and you are the evil.

Phew.. long post. I gotta get some sleep. And I need a beer.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 25, 2011, 02:46:39 AM
Finntrol stated
And the Old Testament?
It is far from being historically accurate.
Read this, about the archaeology of Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed
If you disagree, surely Jesus or the Holy Ghost can show you where the missing evidence is hidden? Problems? Excuses?

The stories about the biblical God are not true.
Therefore that God does not exist as such.
Finntrol
I finally looked at the archaeology evidence which you said disproves the Bible and it's so predjudiced I don't even know where to begin. It is so obvious the Wikipedia site is biased against the Bible it almost borders on hate. The way they only enlist people who support the notion that the Bible is unreliable is ridiculous. I would never use that site as a source of credibility. For sake of time, I'll give you one example of what I mean.

The basis of their information is a book titled "The Bible Unearthed." In short,  Mr. Finkelstein and Mr. Silberman claim the Bibles stories about Saul, David and Solomon are bs, but reflect a time in Israels history during the Oride Dynasty, so I'll give you an example of their jaded views from that time.

According to Wikipedia, The Bible Unearthed says that the Bibles record of Sennachribs' campaign against Jerusalem is nonsense because the 1) Taylor Prism doesn't mention any slaughter of the Assyrian army and 2) the Bible implys that after Sennachrib left with the tribute paid by Hezekiah, he was "immediately" killed by his sons. Lets look at the Taylor Prism compared to text of the Bible:

The Taylor Prism
As for Hezekiah the Judahite, who did not submit to my yoke: forty-six of his strong, walled cities, as well as the small towns in their area, which were without number, by levelling with battering-rams and by bringing up seige-engines, and by attacking and storming on foot, by mines, tunnels, and breeches, I besieged and took them. 200,150 people, great and small, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, cattle and sheep without number, I brought away from them and counted as spoil. (Hezekiah) himself, like a caged bird I shut up I sgut up in Jerusalem, his royal city. I threw up earthworks against him- the one coming out of the city-gate, I turned back to his misery. His cities, which I had despoiled, I cut off from his land, and to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron, and Silli, king of Gaza, I gave (them). And thus I diminished his land. I added to the former tribute, and I laid upon him the surrender of their land and imposts-gifts for my majesty. As for Hezekiah, the terrifying splendor of my majesty overcame him, and the Arabs and his mercenary troops which he had brought in to strengthen Jerusalem, his royal city, deserted him. In addition to the thirty talents of gold and eight hundred talents of silver, gems, antimony, jewels, large carnelians, ivory-inlaid couches, ivory-inlaid chairs, elephant hides, elephant tusks, ebony, boxwood, all kinds of valuable treasures, as well as his daughters, his harem, his male and female musicians, which he had brought after me to Nineveh, my royal city. To pay tribute and to accept servitude, he dispatched his messengers.

2 Kings 18:13-16
"Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them. And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the LORD, and in the treasures of the king's house.
At that time did Hezekiah cut off the gold from the doors of the temple of the LORD, and from the pillars which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the king of Assyria."

There is nothing in these accounts (except for the amount of silver paid) that conflict. Not too bad so far, agreed?
Now the Bible goes on to say:

"And the king of Assyria sent Tartan and Rabsaris and Rabshakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great host against Jerusalem." (vs.17)

What happened? Didn't Sennacherib leave after getting the extortion money? Yes, he did, but there is exidence that he returned:

"And when he heard say of Tirhakah king of Ethiopia..." 2 Kings 19:9

Tirhakah began his reign in 690 BC, ten years after Hezekiah bought Sennacherib off. Does this prove that the Bible story is true? No, but what it does show is that when you take an objective view, the Bibles account isn't proven wrong. That people assume the biblical narrative contains no break is the readers problem. "The Bible Unearthed" also incorrectly asserts that Sennacherib was killed by persons unknown, in opposition to the Bibles claim that he was murdered by his sons (see also: The Chronicle on the Reigns from Nabû-Nasir to Šamaš-šuma-ukin (ABC 1) Column 3 line 35).

Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 25, 2011, 04:00:41 AM

(Better so, the God depicted there is a mass-murdering monster. Why do you wish he exists? Are you a fan of slaughtering women and children?)
No, when I decided to study the Bible, I viewed it through what the Bible says about God, not what I think God should do. The Bible claims that God created the universe and bestows life. If you read the Bible this way, you understand that God owns you and may take your life whenever He desires without apology. We are only lent to one another temporarily, but God can raise the dead.


Quit that typical Christian bullshit.
You are transferring you own moral or rather inmoral wishes and sick fantasies to your ancient tribal deity. When it gets tough, you back off claiming we can´t understand him, because he is God. In reality it is you who are closing your eyes, in fact lying, by trying not no see the common knowledge, science and history showing that your god does not exist. Your God does not exist. You just play excuses for your own desire for brutality and violence and maybe even other people burning in Hell forever. It is you, not your nonexistant God. The evil is in you and you are the evil.
Phew.. long post. I gotta get some sleep. And I need a beer.
Yes Finn, much too long for me to bother with answering after your total misrepresentation of what I said.

You asked,
Quote
Are you a fan of slaughtering women and children?)
I answered,
Quote
No
You then stated,
Quote
You are transferring you own moral or rather inmoral wishes and sick fantasies to your ancient tribal deity.
You then went on to say,
Quote
When it gets tough, you back off claiming we can´t understand him, because he is God.
This was in response to my plain statement,
Quote
The Bible claims that God created the universe and bestows life......you understand that God owns you and may take your life whenever He desires without apology.
Your quote,
Quote
You just play excuses for your own desire for brutality and violence and maybe even other people burning in Hell forever. It is you, not your nonexistant God. The evil is in you and you are the evil.
Phew.. long post. I gotta get some sleep. And I need a beer.
Sounds to me like you've had a few already. I really hope no harm comes to you Finn. Goodbye.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: ungod on October 25, 2011, 05:52:35 AM
Yes Finn, much too long for me to bother with answering

Which chapter of "How to Win the Debate Through Evasion" did you learn that from?

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 25, 2011, 09:06:19 AM
Yes Finn, much too long for me to bother with answering

Which chapter of "How to Win the Debate Through Evasion" did you learn that from?

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
The chapter after " How some atheists will falsely accuse you of transferring you own moral or rather inmoral wishes and sick fantasies to your ancient tribal deity to  just play excuses for your own desire for brutality and violence and maybe even other people burning in Hell forever."
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Finntroll on October 25, 2011, 12:00:40 PM
whatchamean?:

"Wikipedia" is considered to be as or more reliable than, say, Encyclopedia Britannica. Better I think, because it is constanly been updated and corrected by many people. unlike the eminent huge paper-dictionarys or thesauruses where the articles are mostly written by one person, typically some out-of-date emeritus professor, and the articles stay unchanged for decades, But I sure don´t take Wiki articles as God's Word. And there are lots of other sources.

So you think Wikipedia is "biased" against the Bible? Boo hoo!
Then it is "anti-Quran" or "anti-Ilias". "anti-Mahabbarata" or "anti-Kalevala" at the very same level.
There is no reason for science to take your particular religion any more seriously than them.
There could be a person who believes the Arthurian legend, and is deeply offended by the historians "hating" it when they analyze it through other evidence :D

However, as I said, that wikipedia article is just about that one book. And so has to describe that book. I chose to show that link because the article is the most comprehensive description of what science thinks of the OT historicy I could find on the net. And I already said that to my knowledge (from other sources) there is dispute could Solomon's kingdom have been more significant than the writers of "The Bible Unearthed" think. However not even the others do think it was a superpower as in the Bible.

You criticize the Hezekiah part That was long after David and Solomon. I have read from other sources, that about from that time in the Kings the storyline is starting to close actual history. At least the persons there can be confirmed to have been real. More historical and less mythical stories.

But not always.
You deliberately try the miss the point why the article presents the Taylor Prism.

"2 Kings 19
 35 That night the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning—there were all the dead bodies! 36 So Sennacherib king of Assyria broke camp and withdrew. He returned to Nineveh and stayed there.

 37 One day, while he was worshiping in the temple of his god Nisrok, his sons Adrammelek and Sharezer killed him with the sword, and they escaped to the land of Ararat. And Esarhaddon his son succeeded him as king."

THAT "minor detail" is not in the Taylor Prism. So the differences are a little bit bigger than arguing the amount of silver paid in ransom! Of course the writers know the Bible. But I agree with you that the Bible does not state that Sennacherib got killed immediatelly.

Very typical for a biblical apologist like you is to take one detail and ignore the rest.
My main point was that no one has found evidence about the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan. The evidence supports totally different history. Some of it is yet hypotetical, but so is all history research. Never so certain as in school books.
However, like we can almost certainly say, that evidence does not support the wanderings of Israel's lost tribe in America as told in the book of Mormon, with that same level of certainty we can say that those stories in the Bible are not true. Since the information of Biblegods actions is based on those stories, which are not true, then sorry, Biblegod does not exist more than the Mormon angel Moroni.

And there is more than history. I don't know if you have lived under some rock in some place like Hicksville Alabama (my apologies to the place if the proverbial Hicksville exists) with biblethumping rednecks. if you are not aware that astronomy, geology, biology and antropology don't support the stories of biblegod's actions either. I don't know if you are a creationist. My apologies if you are not. But if you are, it takes huge effort from you to ignore that evidence and instéad rely on the pathetic pseudoscience of your cult. Closing your eyes like that from already common knowledge would be close to lying.

Yes Finn, much too long for me to bother with answering

Which chapter of "How to Win the Debate Through Evasion" did you learn that from?

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
The chapter after " How some atheists will falsely accuse you of transferring you own moral or rather inmoral wishes and sick fantasies to your ancient tribal deity to  just play excuses for your own desire for brutality and violence and maybe even other people burning in Hell forever."
Sure, be free to feel insulted.
I really think that fundamentalist Christianity is an evil and sick cult based on lies. And if one does not feel uncomfortable with it, he is seriously lacking morally. Even more so because I have never met a Christian or other fundamentalis who doesn't resort to closing their eyes or lying. By lying they prove that they don't really even believe, it is only a game to them. Which is very perverse. I may sound "biblical" :D here but Ì'm out of explanations other than deliberate human evil. But maybe then I respect them too much, maybe they are just plain stupid.

End of discussion from me too. This is too time-consuming and as always with Christians, frustrating.
But maybe someone with a larger knowledge in biblical history than me can take over?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: velkyn on October 25, 2011, 01:05:24 PM
I finally looked at the archaeology evidence which you said disproves the Bible and it's so predjudiced I don't even know where to begin. It is so obvious the Wikipedia site is biased against the Bible it almost borders on hate. The way they only enlist people who support the notion that the Bible is unreliable is ridiculous. I would never use that site as a source of credibility.

I do worry about what Christians like you would do if they really did encounter hate, and not a wiki page that dared disagree with them.  When you declare anyone showing your myths as false as "hating" you, it does make it look like you are one more Christian crying wolf. 

The bible makes various claims which should be supported by archaeology and they aren't.   We should see archaeological evidence of the exodus and the various plagues.  We don't.  We should see evidence of a global flood in the geologic record. We don't.  We should see evidence of a earthquake around 1 AD in the area of Jerusalem.  We don't.  We *shouldn't* see anything left from the city of Tyre.  But, the city's still there, being continually occupied for thousands of years and we find the relic bits underneath the new, even though God said he destroyed it and we'd never be able to find it ever ever again. &)  We find nothing of this extra special temple that Solomon built or the supposedly huge palaces of him and David.   

It's amusing.  Christians can't even figure out where their supposed "savior" was buried with two competeing sites in Israel and more around the world.  How could you guys forget that, the most important part of your story?  Where was the cross put up?  Heck the Jews lost a supposed magic gold box.   Funny how things just slip your minds.  ;D 

Title: Re: Question
Post by: Brakeman on October 25, 2011, 04:48:16 PM
Velkyn,

According to the Catholics, they did hang on to the magic foreskin of Jesus for many years, losing it conveniently just before DNA analysis was discovered. What a sad coincidence..

Whatcha say to that whatchamean?? Do you believe it or not? Are there really that many lying christians?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 26, 2011, 05:16:19 PM
I had a christian tell me once that it was easily possible to fit 40 million+ animals and bugs into the ark and not kill off freshwater and saltwater creatures that had to mix in the world wide flood. I "think" he said it was all magical, but none of this can be verified so it should not be brought into a debate.
Thank you for informing me about what should not be brought into a debate. I guess since your belief that God doesn't exist can't be verified, we may include God in a debate. I'll get back to you.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: jetson on October 26, 2011, 06:54:04 PM
I had a christian tell me once that it was easily possible to fit 40 million+ animals and bugs into the ark and not kill off freshwater and saltwater creatures that had to mix in the world wide flood. I "think" he said it was all magical, but none of this can be verified so it should not be brought into a debate.
Thank you for informing me about what should not be brought into a debate. I guess since your belief that God doesn't exist can't be verified, we may include God in a debate. I'll get back to you.

Nice try, but it's not a belief that God doesn't exist.  It's a fact.  If we admit that there is a possibility that there is a god, then you must also admit that there is a possibility that there is not a god.  But given those two possibilities, it is beyond abundantly clear, that there is simply no god in existence.  There is not even a coherent imagined god in existence.  No god ever posited, has ever been real, by simple observation.

The belief comes from the theist making the assertion that there is a real god, which has fallen flat on it's face for...freaking ever.  Saying there is a god, and it is real, is exactly the same as saying there is a Santa Claus, and he is real.  Pointless, not even coherent, completely useless, and demonstrably non existent. 

I realize that I am breaking the rules of logic, but I figured it's perfectly acceptable to do so, when the entirety of something as stupid as "Christianity", depends completely on the stunningly stupid and ridiculous claim that some ancient person was crucified, and then came back to life.  Unbelievable nonsense, and expected to be taken seriously by modern, supposedly educated people.

The Christians need to step down off of their pathetic and arrogant high horses, and admit that they don't know what the hell they're talking about when they claim to have knowledge of something so incredibly magical and supernatural, that supposedly left it's instructions in the form of oral tradition, by small groups of ignorant humans who had no idea they were circling the sun, on a lonely planet among the billions of galaxies across an actual universe. 

It's absolutely amazing to read the crap you write here.  And you're claiming to be highly educated and informed in these areas?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on October 26, 2011, 06:54:54 PM
"Wikipedia" is considered to be as or more reliable than, say, Encyclopedia Britannica. Better I think, because it is constanly been updated and corrected by many people.

Is the Bible *better* because it is constantly being updated and corrected by many people too?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: screwtape on October 26, 2011, 07:43:46 PM
"Wikipedia" is considered to be as or more reliable than, say, Encyclopedia Britannica. Better I think, because it is constanly been updated and corrected by many people.

Is the Bible *better* because it is constantly being updated and corrected by many people too?

Whaddya mean, jay?  who is updating and correcting any bibles?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on October 27, 2011, 10:48:40 AM
Whaddya mean, jay?  who is updating and correcting any bibles?

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/06/134307769/U-S-Catholic-Church-Rolls-Out-New-Bible-Translation

http://conservapedia.com/Bible_Retranslation_Project

http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew7/D7-NewBibleTranslationProjectUnderWay.html

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-Living-Translation-NLT-Bible/

Then there was of coarse the KJV, NIV, Gideons etc.

And here (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19803.msg437354.html#msg437354) Velkyn highlights the Bible Project which is several people collaborating together to provide a more perfect work.

So you see, the Bible has constantly been "improved" upon and "corrected" over the centuries and is still a work in progress.

So, I was asking Mr. Finntroll, since he was praising Wikipedia, if the same standard for praise should be applied to the Bible as well, since there are similarities in how they are created and maintained. Because, as you know, there are some members on this forum[1] who take Wikipedia with a grain of salt when it is cited as a reference.


Edited for a couple of unnecessary words  :P
 1. Myself included
Title: Re: Question
Post by: screwtape on October 27, 2011, 10:59:09 AM
But that is not the same way an encyclopedia is corrected.  That is just a new translation.  Nothing is really changed. The facts are not updated.

With the encyclopedias, they get actually new information.  If the bible were corrected in the same way, there would be scant little left.  there would be nothing about women not speaking in church, there would be nothing left of genesis, leviticus, exodus, etc.

If you don't completely trust wikipedia, that's fine.  But you should be able to construct a better reason than by trying to link it in some way to the bible.  That is just an emotional plea.

Title: Re: Question
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on October 27, 2011, 11:08:40 AM
But that is not the same way an encyclopedia is corrected.  That is just a new translation.  Nothing is really changed. The facts are not updated.

With the encyclopedias, they get actually new information.  If the bible were corrected in the same way, there would be scant little left.  there would be nothing about women not speaking in church, there would be nothing left of genesis, leviticus, exodus, etc.

If you don't completely trust wikipedia, that's fine.  But you should be able to construct a better reason than by trying to link it in some way to the bible.  That is just an emotional plea.

All I'm saying is that the *process*[1] is the same. The information provided and the spirit in which things are edited may not. And not to be too pedantic I wasn't talking about encyclopedias, just Wikipedia.
 1. Different people at different times reviewing what has been written and making changes as necessary to fit more closely to current understanding
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Finntroll on October 27, 2011, 11:24:11 AM
So, I was asking Mr. Finntroll, since he was praising Wikipedia, if the same standard for praise should be applied to the Bible as well, since there are similarities in how they are created and maintained. Because, as you know, there are some members on this forum[1] who take Wikipedia with a grain of salt when it is cited as a reference.
 1. Myself included
I agree with Screwtape  on the difference of encyclopedias and the Bible above.
Weird that I´m  suspected for taking Wiki articles as "THE truth" or something. I'm an university-trained albeit non-practicing historian you know. Majored in General World History. And there no text is really trusted.

There are lots of information in the Web. Wikipedia is just a nice, relatively new thing that makes finding stuff faster. And usually it provides several views of any subject, with links. Easier than combing trough hundreds of individual web sites. Which are great too, but usually present just on point of view and less data than a Wiki article.

Sometímes Wikipedia provides myth-busting too. Like today I read Wiki-articles of two jet fighters (I´m a warplane nerd) , and found that their capabilitiés might be greatly exaggerated in typical books and sites written by  fighter plane fans. But sure, Wiki might get that wrong

Title: Re: Question
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on October 27, 2011, 11:36:56 AM
Weird that I´m  suspected for taking Wiki articles as "THE truth" or something.

I do realize that in making my point about your praise of the process of review and editing, in regards to Wikipedia, that I implied that you take Wiki as "THE truth". My apologies. It was an unfortunate side effect to get my question across about the similarities in the editing process between how you described Wiki articles and how the Bible is revised.

Am I to conclude from the rest of your answer that you do not give similar praise to how the Bible is revised and edited even though it is similar to the process of how Wiki articles are revised and edited? Or would you rather restate your admiration for the process entirely? Or would you just rather redact your praise for Wikipedia in general?


Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 27, 2011, 06:18:14 PM
I had a christian tell me once that it was easily possible to fit 40 million+ animals and bugs into the ark and not kill off freshwater and saltwater creatures that had to mix in the world wide flood. I "think" he said it was all magical, but none of this can be verified so it should not be brought into a debate.
Well Klonk,
It seems Noah brought pairs of organisms on board the ark. It is obvious from the text that "kind" means from the same ancestral genetic pool. How many kinds were there? Nobody knows. Science does not know how many animal, bird or insect species there are currently living on our planet, but they estimate there are currently 2-30 million animal, 10 thousand bird an1-30 million insect,  so
maybe Noah had thousands of kinds. Nobody really knows.

Salt and fresh water fish? All kinds of plausible pro and con theorys swimming around out there. Pick your own agenda.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 27, 2011, 07:21:08 PM
Nice try, but it's not a belief that God doesn't exist.  It's a fact.
That's the funniest thing I've ever heard an atheist say.  :laugh:

If we admit that there is a possibility that there is a god, then you must also admit that there is a possibility that there is not a god.
But given those two possibilities, it is beyond abundantly clear, that there is simply no god in existence.  There is not even a coherent imagined god in existence.  No god ever posited, has ever been real, by simple observation.
Your observation?

The belief comes from the theist making the assertion that there is a real god, which has fallen flat on it's face for...freaking ever
The belief comes from taking God at His word and then growing in His knowledge, something you've never tried....right?

Saying there is a god, and it is real, is exactly the same as saying there is a Santa Claus, and he is real.  Pointless, not even coherent, completely useless, and demonstrably non existent.
At the very least, comparing a real person like Jesus to Santa Claus is demented.

I realize that I am breaking the rules of logic, but I figured it's perfectly acceptable to do so, when the entirety of something as stupid as "Christianity", depends completely on the stunningly stupid and ridiculous claim that some ancient person was crucified, and then came back to life.  Unbelievable nonsense, and expected to be taken seriously by modern, supposedly educated people.
You mean, a) modern, educated people who believe life arose spontaneously from nonlife as opposed to b) backward, uneducated people who believe life arose from a Being greater than man? Hmmm, let me think......yep, I still choose b.

The Christians need to step down off of their pathetic and arrogant high horses, and admit that they don't know what the hell they're talking about when they claim to have knowledge of something so incredibly magical and supernatural, that supposedly left it's instructions in the form of oral tradition, by small groups of ignorant humans who had no idea they were circling the sun, on a lonely planet among the billions of galaxies across an actual universe.
You can hang on to that false argument if you want, but Christians are neither pathetic,  arrogant or on a high horse. We understand we're sinners and know we're not better than others.


It's absolutely amazing to read the crap you write here.  And you're claiming to be highly educated and informed in these areas?
It's even more amazing that that I used to write the crap you write here. You want an education Jetson? Lose your education.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: jetson on October 27, 2011, 07:41:53 PM
Watcha, you can spout all of the blathering nonsense you want to, but you are just one more in a line of millions before you who claim there is a real god, yet have nothing to show it to be true except personal belief.  And your perfectly lame assumptions about science speak volumes about your actual ignorance of science...too bad.

As I have said to others before you, if there was a god, there would be no atheists.  It really is that simple.  There may be some fringe lunatics, like flat-earthers, who upon seeing a god would find a way to deny it, but they would remain just that, fringe lunatics.

Tell me something, and be as serious as you can with your reply.  Where is your god, and why can't I know him to exist? 
Title: Re: Question
Post by: violatedsmurf80 on October 27, 2011, 07:45:01 PM
At the very least, comparing a real person like Jesus to Santa Claus is demented.

Wheres the proof that Jesus was even real? Much less the fables of the bible, there is not any proof.

You can hang on to that false argument if you want, but Christians are neither pathetic,  arrogant or on a high horse. We understand we're sinners and know we're not better than other

How are ya not, you guys are so determent that you all are going to heaven when you die but no one can decide which story is true, do the Christians wait till the return or when you die you go straight to heaven, well no one can say because GoD will not clarify it for any one.

You mean, a) modern, educated people who believe life arose spontaneously from nonlife as opposed to b) backward, uneducated people who believe life arose from a Being greater than man? Hmmm, let me think......yep, I still choose b

just like if you were Hindu you would believe you would be reincarnated, no difference 

It's even more amazing that that I used to write the crap you write here. You want an education Jetson? Lose your education

History repeats it self with stories and it is clear that you are blind to the fact that the bible was not written by GoD there were bible before it, there were religions like the christain religion before it, this religion is nothing more then a copycat, cut and paste to fit what the Israelite want to believe. They felt left out so they took story from other and made there own. the Adam and eve story from the Jewish Talmud, the flood from the Sumerians, and the King of England wanted a divorce from his wife so he incorporated the Church of England to do it which turn in the christian religion we have today. A few years later came along the King James babble and out goes the Geneva bible.

Your right education blinds us from the reality that GoD is real.  &)   
Title: Re: Question
Post by: jetson on October 27, 2011, 08:00:44 PM

It's even more amazing that that I used to write the crap you write here. You want an education Jetson? Lose your education.

This is telling, isn't it?  That you are actually willing to tell me to lose my education, because apparently you value mythology and faith, I guess, more than education.  It says all I need to know, actually.  You are here to preach, and you have no intention of considering anything that the members say to you.  Too bad.  You do have decent grammar and writing skills, which is rare from the theists that join the fray here.

Oh well.  God doesn't need thinkers anyway.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 27, 2011, 09:49:41 PM
Whatchamean, I don't have a special grudge against Jesus and the Bible.
Truthfully, I don't carry an axe for any unbeliefs or beliefs atheists have either (or people of other faiths.)

I am merely skeptical of Jesus being the Son of God, performing miracles, rising from the dead, etc.
Any normal thinking person would be, but I'm convinced your belief that all life rose from the dead is dead wrong.

I would really like for you to provide some actual evidence (not circular reasoning) for the Bible being a historical document that the others cannot tear to shreds after close examination. Seriously. I am all ears.
There's no serious student who even doubts the Bible is many historical documents joined into one book, so your proposal doesn't make sense. Your definition of "circular reasoning" is incorrect as well. because many of the people within it are regarded even by skeptics as having lived on earth. It has been confirmed that many of the places described in it existed, or still do and it can be proven that events which the Bible says took place are also recorded in cultures which show no favoritism to Judaism or Christianity. The only place I've ever seen the Bible "torn to shreds" and falsely, are places that seem to be commanded  by atheists. (I looked up the founder of Wikipedia and wasn't at all surprised.) Did you read my rebuttal on Hezekiah and Sennacherib?

I have the same amount of skepticism towards Biblical miracles that I would toward ANY other extraordinary claims that I have not been shown real evidence for.
You haven't been shown any real evidence for the idea that your existence is the result of evolution, but you believe that. (And please, I don't mean glitter coated guess work.)

If you provided some logical reasons and solid evidence that pointed toward Jesus being the Messiah, I would not deny that. But so far none of the theists that I have ever come into contact with have ever done that.
I've given you very logical reasons curious. You've just been so poisoned into imagining that God must think like you, your entire view of God has been distorted. There's a possibility you'll never escape it.  As far as the miracles recorded in the Bible, after an objective view of the whole, you either believe those or you don't.

Honestly, you could tell me a very unlikely story (like a leprechaun that can read minds living in my garage, or perhaps a guy being resurrected) and as long as you could support it with logic and evidence, I would not be opposed to believing it.
You're not opposed to believing leprechaun stories without reason or evidence curiousgirl. You've been taught that God owes you an explanation for why He doesn't heal amputees. In the end honey it's just going to be me and you. Not me and my church friends (don't actually go to church), or you and your atheist friends. Just me and me alone.....and you and you alone. Do yourself right.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on October 27, 2011, 10:03:43 PM

There's no serious student who even doubts the Bible is many historical documents joined into one book, so your proposal doesn't make sense. Your definition of "circular reasoning" is incorrect as well. because many of the people within it are regarded even by skeptics as having lived on earth. It has been confirmed that many of the places described in it existed, or still do and it can be proven that events which the Bible says took place are also recorded in cultures which show no favoritism to Judaism or Christianity. The only place I've ever seen the Bible "torn to shreds" and falsely, are places that seem to be commanded  by atheists. (I looked up the founder of Wikipedia and wasn't at all surprised.) Did you read my rebuttal on Hezekiah and Sennacherib?

The fallacy here, is attempting to use the historicity of Sadduceean Judaism to back up the non-historicity of Christianity, because the two religions accompany each other in your compilation. The Jews were much more careful at constructing stories that could be proven untrue - with all the miracles being in the distant past. Except in Acts, Christianity is bereft of anything historically verifiable.

Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on October 27, 2011, 10:08:33 PM
I am merely skeptical of Jesus being the Son of God, performing miracles, rising from the dead, etc.
Any normal thinking person would be, but I'm convinced your belief that all life rose from the dead is dead wrong.

That's fine, but you have to prove that YOUR God created life, and not someone else's God. By prove, I mean, in the same sense that you ask of atheists: you have to supply actual pictures of God doing the work.

Proof = good documented evidence, logic, maths, repeatable. Proof is quite rigorous.

Evidence is anything you like. The moon is made of cheese, and I have evidence. The evidence can be anything I like.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: curiousgirl on October 27, 2011, 11:14:39 PM

I am merely skeptical of Jesus being the Son of God, performing miracles, rising from the dead, etc.


Any normal thinking person would be, but I'm convinced your belief that all life rose from the dead is dead wrong.

Where did I claim that "all life rose from the dead"? Is this a misunderstanding or a strawman on your part? When I said "rising from the dead," I was specifically referring to Jesus.

I would really like for you to provide some actual evidence (not circular reasoning) for the Bible being a historical document that the others cannot tear to shreds after close examination. Seriously. I am all ears.

There's no serious student who even doubts the Bible is many historical documents joined into one book, so your proposal doesn't make sense.

That sounds suspiciously "No True Scotsman" to me. What you are implying is that if a student disagrees with your claim that "the Bible is many historical documents joined into one book," then they are not a serious student. Flawed logic. And yes, my skepticism definitely makes sense.


Your definition of "circular reasoning" is incorrect as well. because many of the people within it are regarded even by skeptics as having lived on earth. It has been confirmed that many of the places described in it existed, or still do and it can be proven that events which the Bible says took place are also recorded in cultures which show no favoritism to Judaism or Christianity. The only place I've ever seen the Bible "torn to shreds" and falsely, are places that seem to be commanded  by atheists. (I looked up the founder of Wikipedia and wasn't at all surprised.) Did you read my rebuttal on Hezekiah and Sennacherib?

My defintion is correct, for reasons that I outlined in my original post about why it is circular reasoning to use the Bible as evidence for God when you have not established the existence of God. Think of this: the Bible is supposedly God's word. When one thinks of the Bible as such, they are assuming that God exists, is omnipotent, etc. If you have to assume that God exists for the Bible to be true, you cannot assume that the Bible (and its contents) are proof of God's existence.

Also, there are numerous events in the Bible that do not appear to have taken place (for lack of evidence), such as Noah's Flood and his Ark and the way his family was the only group of people left to repopulate the entire planet. In fact, there are many atheists on this board that question the existence of Jesus of Nazareth (even as a mere man).

I have the same amount of skepticism towards Biblical miracles that I would toward ANY other extraordinary claims that I have not been shown real evidence for.

You haven't been shown any real evidence for the idea that your existence is the result of evolution, but you believe that. (And please, I don't mean glitter coated guess work.)

It is ridiculous for you to assume that I have not been shown real evidence for my existence being the result of evolution. Perhaps you have not seen evidence for evolution, because you refuse to educate yourself. One word: FOSSILS. What is the "glitter coated guess work" you are referring to? Because science will certainly make more sense than the Bible to an atheist.

If you provided some logical reasons and solid evidence that pointed toward Jesus being the Messiah, I would not deny that. But so far none of the theists that I have ever come into contact with have ever done that.


I've given you very logical reasons curious. You've just been so poisoned into imagining that God must think like you, your entire view of God has been distorted. There's a possibility you'll never escape it.  As far as the miracles recorded in the Bible, after an objective view of the whole, you either believe those or you don't.

Actually, SPAG is common within Christians. I don't imagine that God must think like me, because I am skeptical of God's existence. A non-existent entity cannot think because it does not exist.

Honestly, you could tell me a very unlikely story (like a leprechaun that can read minds living in my garage, or perhaps a guy being resurrected) and as long as you could support it with logic and evidence, I would not be opposed to believing it.

You're not opposed to believing leprechaun stories without reason or evidence curiousgirl. You've been taught that God owes you an explanation for why He doesn't heal amputees. In the end honey it's just going to be me and you. Not me and my church friends (don't actually go to church), or you and your atheist friends. Just me and me alone.....and you and you alone. Do yourself right.

I am not opposed to believing in Jesus if you could show some reason and evidence for why I should believe that he is the Son of God who rose from the dead. His being the Son of God is as conceivable to me as the existence of leprechauns. If God does not owe me an explanation, he should not have put the desire for an explanation in my nature (if he even exists).

BTW, those last few sentences reeked of something you have been spoonfed by your church, with a little tiny hint of Pascal's Wager thrown in. Except the irony is that you are right that we are "alone," but in the sense that God is merely a projection of ourselves.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Finntroll on October 28, 2011, 02:03:10 AM
Weird that I´m  suspected for taking Wiki articles as "THE truth" or something.

I do realize that in making my point about your praise of the process of review and editing, in regards to Wikipedia, that I implied that you take Wiki as "THE truth". My apologies. It was an unfortunate side effect to get my question across about the similarities in the editing process between how you described Wiki articles and how the Bible is revised.

Am I to conclude from the rest of your answer that you do not give similar praise to how the Bible is revised and edited even though it is similar to the process of how Wiki articles are revised and edited? Or would you rather restate your admiration for the process entirely? Or would you just rather redact your praise for Wikipedia in general?
Sorry again. Even I can't spend all my time in discussion forums. :D
I have lurked here for years, and lately registered only when i felt that some claims by this whatcha-character were not addressed directly enough. Enough with him. I´m not going to continue. I might return to my passive state, for me personally combating Christianity is beginning to feel like beating a dead horse. From the perspective of a more secular nation like Finland and me not being an ex-christian escaping from fundamentalism. Anyway Antiquity studies were not my speciality.

To your post:
There are differences.
First the editing and updating the Bible stopped long time a go. So long ago that less educated religious people don't realize it being an edited human construction but respect it (and their own interpretation of it) like it fell from the skies as it is now.

Most authors of the Bible were not much interested in historical or scientific accuracy. They wrote to propagate their points adding legendary elements at will. Source criticism did not exist nor was expected. This continued through the Middle Ages, when it was perfectly acceptable for writers who actually respected or maybe even had known personally some saint or king they wrote about, to invent all kinds of legendary elements to their story about this person. So when I say that the Gospel writes lied, from the perspective of modern thought it is so. But at the time it was the norm. The Bible is a book of lies, but back then almost nobody did mind. It was not they felt like they were bullshitting, the mentality to separate fact from legend just didn't exist.

Nowadays even Biblical fundamentalists are used to more fact-oriented style of information. But the fundamentalists treat the Bible too as a history book or a science book. They do this by choice. That arrogant stubborness is dubbed "faith" and "faith" has got social respect. But that is like someone decided that the latest (maybe Hollywood) version of the Robin Hood legend is historically accurate and by that decision would dissmiss real historical research who Robin Hood might have been and what he actually did. That would be stupid and dishonest. But the Christian fundamentalists still demand that their worldview should be treated equally. "Teach the controversy." But then there would be too many similar and as unscienfical worldviews. Astrology respected and taught alongside astronomy? Book of Mormon taught alongside American History? Evolution, creationism and Scientology considered as equals? That's what movements like the playful Church of The Flying Spagetti Monster a.k.a the Pastafarians are trying to demonstrate demanding the same rights and respect as Chistianity still has.

History research does not study just the sources. The aim is to see through the sources what actually happened. In modern days research and documentary publications and encyclopedias like Wikipedia ( I almost forgot that you were asking my view of that specifically :D ) at least strive to get their facts straight. That is the purpose and justification of encyclopedias.

But just as in history research, it is virtually impossible to be totally non-biased. Historians don't anymore believe that such a thing even exists. Everybody has a cultural point of view. That's why every generation writes their own history. That is quite all right and even honest, because when times change, the ways we look and evaluate history changes too. And there are new questions to ask from these new viewpoints. If they don't use counterfit sources or misquote existing sources and cross-check what other sciences know about the period, that kind of revision is not lying.

On the other hand the Bible writers lived in a time when factuality and source criticism were not important. They were more like storytellers pushing their theological views with not much concern for the facts. I think many modern Christians too are not able to understand the strive for factuality. In a way they live in dreams. So they view everything at the same level as religion, including science. All but their own chosen religion.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: screwtape on October 28, 2011, 08:33:20 AM
The belief comes from taking God at His word ...

But you've not taken god at his word.  You've taken god at someone else's word.  Normally, when you "take someone at his word", it means someone has told you something of dubious credibility, but, you trust that he is telling the truth anyway, most likely because you know the person to be reliable.   But in the case of god, he's not actually spoken to you.  Unless I am mistaken, you are calling the bible "his word".  But the bible never says it was written by god.  So, if you believe the bible, then you are trusting that the guys who wrote it were right and telling the truth.  You are taking them at their word, not god.  The worst part is, you don't know them.  You have no way to know if they were reliable.  Even worse, we know parts of the bible are outright falsehoods.  So really, you should be listening to the bible writers with a raised eyebrow.

Or are you claiming god has spoken to you?

and then growing in His knowledge,

I hear xians say this all the time.  I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.  How do you "grow in His knowledge" when you cannot even see him?  I can grow in my knowledge of biology by studying biology, which is a collection of observations and explanations of actual living things.  But with god, there is nothing to observe.  So how does that work?  How does one "grow in his knowldge" of god?  It sounds like wide-eyed malarkey to me.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: ungod on October 28, 2011, 08:40:44 AM
Velkyn,

According to the Catholics, they did hang on to the magic foreskin of Jesus for many years, losing it conveniently just before DNA analysis was discovered. What a sad coincidence..

Whatcha say to that whatchamean?? Do you believe it or not? Are there really that many lying christians?
I've read claims  they had at least seven, count 'em - 7, foreskins of Christ, all possessing magical powers. Either ancient Christians were skilled in cloning, or Jeezus had miraculous regenerative powers...
Odd that the Catholic church no longer puts these holy prepuces on display, alongside the Shroud and that vial of blood that magically uncongeals every Easter.
 
Title: Re: Question
Post by: velkyn on October 28, 2011, 10:37:07 AM
Quote from: whatchamean? link=topic=20296.msg452390#msg452390

Well Klonk,
It seems Noah brought pairs of organisms on board the ark. It is obvious from the text that "kind" means from the same ancestral genetic pool. How many kinds were there? Nobody knows. Science does not know how many animal, bird or insect species there are currently living on our planet, but they estimate there are currently 2-30 million animal, 10 thousand bird an1-30 million insect,  so maybe Noah had thousands of kinds. Nobody really knows.
it's so cute when Christians bastardize science to make their myths attempt to make sense.  No, it's not "obvious" at all. Your myth is one of many (though not found in all cultures so that lie about flood myths is out of your grasp) other myths trying to explain the presence of evil in the world and how respective gods supposedly handle it.   

Quote
Salt and fresh water fish? All kinds of plausible pro and con theorys swimming around out there. Pick your own agenda.


No, there aren’t.  Your amazing ignorance of biology is quite telling here.  And I’m sure that ignorance extends much further.  There is no evidence of any “noah” flood.  None at all.  At best, you would have to claim that your god magically hid all evidence of it, which reduces to “last thursdayism”, the believe that a god created the world last Thursday and we only “think” we lived before that.  It’s so pathetic that the willfully ignorant attack things they have no clue about and then so hypocritically enjoy the fruits of the science they so decry.


edit - fixed quote
Title: Re: Question
Post by: C on October 28, 2011, 10:54:42 AM
Quote
There's no serious student who even doubts the Bible is many historical documents joined into one book,

A compilation of "historical documents" that were created/edited solely for two religions.

Quote
so your proposal doesn't make sense. Your definition of "circular reasoning" is incorrect as well. because many of the people within it are regarded even by skeptics as having lived on earth.

Like who? Adam and Eve? Lololol.

Quote
It has been confirmed that many of the places described in it existed, or still do and it can be proven that events which the Bible says took place are also recorded in cultures which show no favoritism to Judaism or Christianity.

A global deluge never occurred, people did not cross the Red Sea, an all powerful and all knowing God did not get pissed off at people trying to reach heaven simply by building a phallic tower that represented their ego.

Quote
The only place I've ever seen the Bible "torn to shreds" and falsely, are places that seem to be commanded  by atheists. (I looked up the founder of Wikipedia and wasn't at all surprised.)

Please provide concrete evidence that the Bible is remotely historically accurate at all besides putting in random people and locations that were real at the supposed time the alleged events described occurred.


Quote
You haven't been shown any real evidence for the idea that your existence is the result of evolution,

You seem to be confusing the study of evolution, a process, with biopoesis.

Quote
I've given you very logical reasons curious. You've just been so poisoned into imagining that God must think like you, your entire view of God has been distorted.

Were we not made in "His image"? So God would not be thinking like us, we'd be thinking like HIM. Doesn't matter in the end though. The one who's been "poisoned" would be you I say.

Quote
There's a possibility you'll never escape it.

One cannot escape from freedom of mind that excludes certain, silly religious beliefs, but only towards it.

Quote
As far as the miracles recorded in the Bible, after an objective view of the whole, you either believe those or you don't.

What about the rules that God commanded we should follow? Do you believe that we should stone homosexuals, workers working on the Sabbath and so forth?

Quote
You're not opposed to believing leprechaun stories without reason or evidence curiousgirl. You've been taught that God owes you an explanation for why He doesn't heal amputees. In the end honey it's just going to be me and you. Not me and my church friends (don't actually go to church), or you and your atheist friends. Just me and me alone.....and you and you alone. Do yourself right.

Rubbish.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: screwtape on October 28, 2011, 01:20:55 PM
There's no serious student who even doubts the Bible is many historical documents joined into one book,

depends what you mean by "historical". If you mean "they are political and religious propaganda that tell us something about the past even if what they say is not the truth, so a lot of reading between the lines and investigation is required", then yes, I agree. 

If, on the other hand, you mean, "the stories in the bible are accurate, unbiased, journalistic accounts of actual events in history and can be taken as true," then you could not be more wrong.

It has been confirmed that many of the places described in it existed, ...

a lot of them did not exists when they were said to have existed.  You seem to miss the Harry Potter analogy here.   

... and it can be proven that events which the Bible says took place are also recorded in cultures which show no favoritism to Judaism or Christianity.

Like...?  It is also true that many events recorded in the bible were not recorded anywhere else and others can even be shown to have never happened.

The only place I've ever seen the Bible "torn to shreds" and falsely, are places that seem to be commanded  by atheists.

"Falsely", that's a laugh. 

islamic websites.  jewish websites.  I dunno if hindus have websites, but I bet they do and I bet they have good reasons for doubting the bible.   

Are you saying atheists cannot be honest in their assessment of history?  I find that to be a rather convenient bit of bigotry on your part.

And anyway, if a xian did honest scholarship that indicated the bible was wrong, what do you think would happen?  I ask, because once upon a time I was an honest xian who did some bible scholarship and found it to be a collection of myths by a savage people.  What happened was, I ceased to be a xian.


You've been taught that God owes you an explanation for why He doesn't heal amputees.

Not god.  You.  You owe the explanation.  Xians who showcase a god that allegedly heals all manner of ailment as evidence of its awesome existence owe an explanation for the ailments that very conspicuously and consistently are never healed.  Because a god that heals some things but not others has some serious implications that demand an explanation.  If you are not that kind of xian, then the question is not for you.



Title: Re: Question
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on October 28, 2011, 05:28:29 PM
I have no quarrel with you good sir. So I wont push the issue any further after this post. But I do feel the need to address a couple of points you made which are demonstrably in error.

First the editing and updating the Bible stopped long time a go.

I provided several links here (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20296.msg452309.html#msg452309) which describe several past and current revisions. Now I know that Screwtape did not acknowledge these examples as being comparable to revisions made to Wikipedia, so I just wanted to highlight something both of you did not acknowledge.

All I'm saying is that the *process*[1] is the same.
 1. Different people at different times reviewing what has been written and making changes as necessary to fit more closely to current understanding

Without trying to speculate or expound on the differences in the type of people doing the revisions and what their motivation may be I would like to know why you and Screwtape think the *process*is different.

If the Bible hasn't been updated or edited in So long ... that less educated religious people don't realize it being an edited human construction but respect it (and their own interpretation of it) like it fell from the skies as it is now. (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20296.msg452511.html#msg452511) Then how do you describe the activities concerning the Bible in the links I provided?


Quote
Most authors of the Bible were not much interested in historical or scientific accuracy. They wrote to propagate their points adding legendary elements at will. Source criticism did not exist nor was expected.

I will address this shortly.

Quote
This continued through the Middle Ages, when it was perfectly acceptable for writers who actually respected or maybe even had known personally some saint or king they wrote about, to invent all kinds of legendary elements to their story about this person.

This is consistent with my understanding of human nature as well. We can still see this sort of thing happening on small and large scales today.

Quote
So when I say that the Gospel writes lied, from the perspective of modern thought it is so.

This just smacks of arrogance but if you say it's so then I guess it's true. But then it must also be true for everything man wrote during those times.

Quote
But at the time it was the norm.

Hold on to that thought

Quote
The Bible is a book of lies, but back then almost nobody did mind. It was not they felt like they were bullshitting, the mentality to separate fact from legend just didn't exist.

Bullshit. Utter rubbish. Our brains haven't changed that much in 2000 years.

Quote
History research does not study just the sources. The aim is to see through the sources what actually happened.


Is that like "reading between the lines"? I'm not trying to be snarky, I just want to know what you mean by "see through" the sources.

Quote
In modern days research and documentary publications and encyclopedias like Wikipedia <snip> at least strive to get their facts straight. That is the purpose and justification of encyclopedias.


Right, and I am not disputing that. I understand that, from time to time, it is necessary for people to re-examine what has been written and make changes, as necessary, to fit more closely to current understanding. 

Quote
But just as in history research, it is virtually impossible to be totally non-biased. Historians don't anymore believe that such a thing even exists. Everybody has a cultural point of view. That's why every generation writes their own history.


Remember that thought I asked you to hold onto? Is it still the norm? Could it be possible considering that there is no such thing as non-biased and considering that there is an established tendency for writers to embellish a little in favor of their subject?

Quote
That is quite all right and even honest, because when times change, the ways we look and evaluate history changes too. And there are new questions to ask from these new viewpoints.

Indeed.

Quote
If they don't use counterfit sources or misquote existing sources and cross-check what other sciences know about the period, that kind of revision is not lying.

Now we finally get to the meat of it don't we? Despite the fact that you expect and accept a little embellishment and different takes on historical events from non-secular sources you have zero tolerance for the exact same *process* when it comes to the Bible. Because 2000 years ago the people who wrote the Bible were not evolved enough to tell the difference between fact and legend.

Quote
On the other hand the Bible writers lived in a time when factuality and source criticism were not important.

So nice you had to say it twice. If you are going to insist on presenting this claim as a fact I will need other sources than your word. Because the problem with that statement is that you discredit everything mankind has written or thought about before what? A couple hundred years ago?

 

Title: Re: Question
Post by: Finntroll on October 29, 2011, 07:43:58 PM
Jaybwell: Don't call me "sir", boy! :D

I really don't understand why you seem to value the revisions of the Bible to the same level as updates of modern encyclopedias. Sure the Bible has been edited and re-edited, especially the OT, and theology traces these revisions. But looking as the historical-critical Bible research does, it becomes apparent that these revisions were not done to give more information of the past but to support then-current religious views and political goals. That is quite the opposite of modern scientific papers, publications and encyclopedias, who collect new data and then present the most plausible scenarios what actually happened back then.

It is like you were comparing the Soviet "Pravda" to western journalism at its best.

The links you provided are about new translations.
Not very impressive for "re-editions" of the Bible.
Yes it is necessary to have the most accurate translation possible. But even with that it brings no more credibility to the original texts. If you got the best possible English translation of the Finnish "Kalevala", I would not call that an improved edition, nor would you take the stories as facts. I bet first you would consult even let me think..hmmm.. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalevala And when finding out that the poems were "updated" in the early 19:th century, that would not strenghten your trust for Kalevala as a historical source, would it?

Translation is a difficult field. Especially with old Hebrew, which uses only consonants and the grammatical tense is almost lacking. An accurate translation of ancient Hebrew text would ne just a list of words in an  uncertain order. Then the translations of the Bible tend to project our own time to the past. Even the latest Finnish official translation does that too much, sort of streamlining the more ambivalent parts to what the translators think is the modern meaning in their everyday understanding. Which is usually too plain if the words could mean something deeper.

BTW if you complain the using and "trusting" Wikipedia, then goddammit, YOUR links are providing stuff from the Catholic Church, then some religious sect called "Tentmaker" (whose interpretation of the maybe original Isaiah 53 word "light" is ridiculously overreaching) and for crying out loud, you are linking Conservapedia! That doesn't necessarily mean that they get facts wrong, but you of all people ought not to be sneering at the use of Wikipedia.

About the Bible lying isn't it self-evident even for you? You can't explain away the conflict with actual physical evidence, the dishonestly how the Gospel writers used the Torah, or all the contradictions. If you would claim to "know" that there are none, then you would lie yourself. Bible writers made stuff up. Nowadays that woud be called lying, but above I tried to soften that accusation by stating that in the olden times that was more accepted, so they are not so guilty.

About the mentality of people:
Sure the human brain has not changed much for a couple of hundred thousand years. If anything, the brain size of Homo Sapiens has diminished according to some paleontologists. The people were maybe more intelligent than us, because nowadays (and saying this is not Politically Correct) at least in the more developed countries people with a lower IQ usually have more children, so evolution actually "favors" lesser intelligence now.

But I tend to go with Daniel Dennett, who claims that our conciousness has developed partly due to cultural evolution. He gives examples like  how apparently less than two thousand years ago many people could not read without saying the words aloud. (Source:  Just some TV-broadcast about Dennett, sorry). I myself have heard that it took years to get audiences to understand then-new media, the movies with their hops from set to set in fast cuts, which is unknown to actual life. My 80-year old parents really can't read comics nor understand Rock music aestehetics. And it seems impossible for them to understand how Computer graphic interfaces like Windows are meant to act like actual physical reality. They see it just like shadows on the screen and try to memorize every click.  They are not demented at all, just from a different time.  Used to the text-based computer interfaces during the latter part of their working career. (Hey this is Finland, not Poland :D )

So I think that what we call conciousness does have accumulated and layered cultural add-ons.

I admit, that there were SOME writers in Antiquity who aspired to present facts. Caesar with the war in Gallia, Plinius, Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus to name some. But they were rare and not so good historians by modern standards, because they were pioneers of the field. Not much was even documented to act as sources for them. And at the same time the Roman world had no problem with taking the Iliad with gods and all as actual history. They even wrote a fantasy sequel, the Aeneid, as the official state history. The Gospel writers added fantasy content with no shame. Think Matthew's saints raising from the grave when Jesus died. Matthew didn't even care if somebody else would confirm it (no one else records what would have been the media event of all time), and his readers did not mind. Makebelieve was O.K.

About your wondering what it means in history research to see beyond the sources. Studying just the sources would be the domain of Literature studies. Historians say that their aim is not to study the sources. It is more like police detective work, where finding "whodunnit" you just can't start by taking the wittness or suspect stories as facts.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: 12 Monkeys on October 29, 2011, 11:21:34 PM
Made up stuff, your post is nonsensical If it was that hard how do you know what the translators "made up"?

 Speaking of making stuff up,Joseph Smith did a good job of "making stuff up" and now long dead has almost 14 million followers.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on October 29, 2011, 11:23:42 PM
islamic websites.  jewish websites.  I dunno if hindus have websites, but I bet they do and I bet they have good reasons for doubting the bible.   

http://indianatheists.com/

The Indians fight shit on all fronts: Muslim shit, Hindu shit, Christian shit, Ayurvedic shit. They are basically assailed by shit from all directions.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on October 29, 2011, 11:29:14 PM
Perhaps you are god. How else can I explain this magnificent life like strawman you created? Hell the damn thing can practically walk! But as impressive as your skills are you still have not answered my question directly. Moving right along.

I really don't understand why you seem to value the revisions of the Bible to the same level as updates of modern encyclopedias.

Where did you get that idea? I was asking you if you valued them the same since the process is the same. And since you haven't addressed my definition of the process (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20296.msg452316.html#msg452316) in question, I must assume that you agree with the definition as evidenced by your silent acquiescence. You just keep bandying on about the substance of the revisions and the changing times and insulting the mental capacities of the religious types. Anything to avoid the question.

Quote
Sure the Bible has been edited and re-edited, especially the OT, and theology traces these revisions. But looking as the historical-critical Bible research does, it becomes apparent that these revisions were not done to give more information of the past but to support then-current religious views and political goals. That is quite the opposite of modern scientific papers, publications and encyclopedias, who collect new data and then present the most plausible scenarios what actually happened back then.

But you said That's why every generation writes their own history. That is quite all right and even honest, because when times change, the ways we look and evaluate history changes too. (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20296.msg452511.html#msg452511) Which is it? How can it be honest for non-secular scholars to re-interpret what was written to more closely fit our modern times when it is dishonest for secular scholars? Why the double standard?

Quote
It is like you were comparing the Soviet "Pravda" to western journalism at its best.

Thank you for providing what looks like an excellent news source. I had never heard of them before.

Quote
The links you provided are about new translations.
Not very impressive for "re-editions" of the Bible.
Yes it is necessary to have the most accurate translation possible. But even with that it brings no more credibility to the original texts. If you got the best possible English translation of the Finnish "Kalevala", I would not call that an improved edition, nor would you take the stories as facts. I bet first you would consult even let me think..hmmm.. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalevala And when finding out that the poems were "updated" in the early 19:th century, that would not strenghten your trust for Kalevala as a historical source, would it?

Strawman...I wasn't asking you about the credibility of the original text. I wasn't defending the credibility of the Bible. All I am interested in is the process. Nothing more.

Quote
Then the translations of the Bible tend to project our own time to the past. Even the latest Finnish official translation does that too much, sort of streamlining the more ambivalent parts to what the translators think is the modern meaning in their everyday understanding.

But you said That's why every generation writes their own history. That is quite all right and even honest, because when times change, the ways we look and evaluate history changes too. (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20296.msg452511.html#msg452511)

Quote
BTW if you complain the using and "trusting" Wikipedia, then goddammit, YOUR links are providing stuff from the Catholic Church, then some religious sect called "Tentmaker" (whose interpretation of the maybe original Isaiah 53 word "light" is ridiculously overreaching) and for crying out loud, you are linking Conservapedia! That doesn't necessarily mean that they get facts wrong, but you of all people ought not to be sneering at the use of Wikipedia.

Not sure what you call this logical fallacy. All I said was that I take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. What would you have said if I had provided no sources to back up my claim that the Bible, has before and is, currently undergoing revision?

Quote
About the Bible lying isn't it self-evident even for you? You can't explain away the conflict with actual physical evidence, the dishonestly how the Gospel writers used the Torah, or all the contradictions. If you would claim to "know" that there are none, then you would lie yourself. Bible writers made stuff up.


You're barking up the wrong tree again. Please...stop changing the subject and just answer the question.

Actually, I will give you the benefit of the doubt here. Can you show me what I said that makes you think that I am a believer in the Bible? You may even go through my past comments on other threads if you can't find anything solid in this thread.

Quote
About your wondering what it means in history research to see beyond the sources. Studying just the sources would be the domain of Literature studies. Historians say that their aim is not to study the sources.

This makes even less sense than putting screen doors on submarines. You do realize that in your previous post while you were criticizing the liars who wrote the bible you argued that they lived in a time when factuality and source criticism were not important. They were more like storytellers pushing their theological views with not much concern for the facts (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20296.msg452511.html#msg452511), don't you? Now you are telling me that modern historians don't even bother to look at the sources they are rewriting? Incredible.

I refuse to acknowledge the parts of your post I left out because they have nothing to do with the conversation. Just a bunch  bloviating to reinforce your bias.
I am only going to ask one more time, if you refuse to answer the question directly then I have nothing further to say. To help keep you focused on what started all this please refer to this link (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20296.msg452167.html#msg452167)

Title: Re: Question
Post by: ungod on October 30, 2011, 01:33:25 PM




Quote
The Bible is a book of lies, but back then almost nobody did mind. It was not they felt like they were bullshitting, the mentality to separate fact from legend just didn't exist.

Bullshit. Utter rubbish. Our brains haven't changed that much in 2000 years.


But EDUCATION Has - in spite of the theologues best efforts.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on October 31, 2011, 07:57:08 AM
Where did I claim that "all life rose from the dead"?When I said "rising from the dead," I was specifically referring to Jesus.
Follow your belief in evolution to its logical conclusion. Get as finite with your family tree as you can. It's ridiculous to you that Jesus rose from the dead, but you believe our most distant ancestor was a lifeless soup mix. 

What you are implying is that if a student disagrees with your claim that "the Bible is many historical documents joined into one book," then they are not a serious student.
What I'm implying is that after careful study, students will come to their own conclusion that the Bible is reliable. I'm not suggesting that serious study only includes running to sources that are designed to disprove the Bible.

My defintion is correct, for reasons that I outlined in my original post about why it is circular reasoning to use the Bible as evidence for God when you have not established the existence of God. Think of this: the Bible is supposedly God's word. When one thinks of the Bible as such, they are assuming that God exists, is omnipotent, etc. If you have to assume that God exists for the Bible to be true, you cannot assume that the Bible (and its contents) are proof of God's existence.
I will agree that you cannot solely make that assumption, but you must consider the possibility and that's where you have failed. All experiments begin with assumptions and are followed until the conclusion proves impossible. You haven't even started.

Also, there are numerous events in the Bible that do not appear to have taken place (for lack of evidence), such as Noah's Flood and his Ark and the way his family was the only group of people left to repopulate the entire planet.
Don't be afraid to investigate a claim.

In fact, there are many atheists on this board that question the existence of Jesus of Nazareth (even as a mere man).
Try questioning the existence of any person who is no longer among us. That'll really blow your mind.

I have the same amount of skepticism towards Biblical miracles that I would toward ANY other extraordinary claims that I have not been shown real evidence for.
You have zero evidence that life on earth spontaneously originated without the assistance of God, but you believe it anyway. You have zero evidence that we are genetically related to apes, but you believe it anyway. Good science has rightfully taught us that what you believe is not possible.

 
It is ridiculous for you to assume that I have not been shown real evidence for my existence being the result of evolution. Perhaps you have not seen evidence for evolution, because you refuse to educate yourself. One word: FOSSILS.
Two words: Transitional fossils. You'll find yourself sifting through long papers on "the evidence" in the fossil record only to discover that they're lacking at the species level. I'm not lying to you. Take an honest look for yourself.

Actually, SPAG is common within Christians. I don't imagine that God must think like me, because I am skeptical of God's existence. A non-existent entity cannot think because it does not exist.
And so you interpret the Bible accordingly. A school teacher prays to God for help when confronted by a crazed gunman and is shot to death. This is your evidence that God doesn't exist. You've decided that if God exists, He would do what you would do. What do you make of these?

"Then God said, "Take your only son, Isaac, the son you love, and go to the land of Moriah. Kill him there and offer him as a whole burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about." Abraham got up early in the morning and saddled his donkey. He took Isaac and two servants with him. After he cut the wood for the sacrifice, they went to the place God had told them to go. On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey. My son and I will go over there and worship, and then we will come back to you." Ge.22:2-5

"A man named Lazarus was sick. He lived in the town of Bethany, where Mary and her sister Martha lived. Mary was the woman who later put perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair. Mary's brother was Lazarus, the man who was now sick. So Mary and Martha sent someone to tell Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick."....Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, but when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was for two more days.
Jn.11:1-3,5-6

If God does not owe me an explanation, he should not have put the desire for an explanation in my nature (if he even exists).
I meant an explanation in the form of an apology....sorry.

BTW, those last few sentences reeked of something you have been spoonfed by your church, with a little tiny hint of Pascal's Wager thrown in. Except the irony is that you are right that we are "alone," but in the sense that God is merely a projection of ourselves.
My experience with church has proven most people are happy to simply believe what they are told about the Bible. My experience with atheists has proven they are unwilling to use their superior study and deductive reasoning skills when examining the Bible.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: screwtape on October 31, 2011, 09:43:54 AM
http://indianatheists.com/

The Indians fight shit on all fronts: Muslim shit, Hindu shit, Christian shit, Ayurvedic shit. They are basically assailed by shit from all directions.

That's because india is full of shit.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: jaimehlers on October 31, 2011, 10:15:21 AM
whatchamean:  You aren't being at all reasonable here.

First off, evolution doesn't have anything to do with abiogenesis.  Evolution is concerned with what happened after life got started on Earth, not how it got started.  And as far as the resurrection goes, if it were possible for human beings to come back to life after being dead for several days, we would see it occasionally.  And it isn't even remotely reasonable to claim that something happened when all we have is hearsay written down decades after the fact.

The default way humans learn is to slavishly copy the actions and attitudes of the ones teaching them, even when it doesn't make logical sense.  So of course if someone studying the Bible has a teacher who honestly believes that it is a series of factual historical documents, they will pick up that attitude; it has nothing to do with careful study and everything to do with the way the teacher acts.

And you are simply wrong that atheists such as curiousgirl have not considered the possibility of the Bible being true.  They have; that is largely why they are atheists, because they considered the possibilities, investigated the claims and evidence, and concluded that there really wasn't much of a basis for concluding that the Bible is a particularly valid historical document.  The fact that it includes some historical stuff doesn't make it a valid historical document anymore than a book about a secret 9/11 government conspiracy includes people, places, and things that actually exist makes it truthful about all the claims it makes.

As for "questioning the existence of someone who is no longer among us", what exactly is this supposed to mean?  I don't doubt that there were generations upon generations of people who have no historical records to back up their existence, but there is a difference between saying, "people in general lived even though we don't have specific records about them" and saying "this specific person did these specific things even though we have no records except for a religious holy book to verify it".

You have zero evidence that life was created by God.  The Bible does not count, because life existed long before the Bible was even a collection of verbal chants, let alone written down.  It is true that scientists don't have evidence to verify what exactly got life started on Earth, but to go from there to the conclusion that God did it is nonsensical, especially since we have no other verifiable evidence of the things Christians said God did.

And please stop with the nonsense about "transitional fossils".  Seriously, just stop.  I already explained to you in that other topic you started that there are no such things as transitional species.  Because there are no transitional species, there can be no such things as transitional fossils.  If you want to say there are, you have to show that my statement is invalid, and you have not done so.

People pray to God because they feel helpless about things, that those things are beyond their power or control.  So of course, if something happens that is beneficial afterward, they assume that some higher power intervened on their behalf.  This ignores the much more likely situation where things don't get better despite the prayer.  It isn't a matter of thinking that God should have helped someone who prayed, it's a matter that it was nothing more than chance - and not a very good one - of something beneficial happening.  Rather than relying on a poor chance of a good outcome happening while doing nothing, it is better to try to make that good outcome happen.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: curiousgirl on October 31, 2011, 10:40:46 AM
Follow your belief in evolution to its logical conclusion. Get as finite with your family tree as you can. It's ridiculous to you that Jesus rose from the dead, but you believe our most distant ancestor was a lifeless soup mix. 

Is it more plausible that some male three-in-one god made man from the dust and woman from a rib? Take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis)

Quote
In 1952, in the Miller-Urey experiment, a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia was cycled through an apparatus that delivered electrical sparks to the mixture. After one week, it was found that about 10% to 15% of the carbon in the system was now in the form of organic compounds, including amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.

The underlying hypothesis held by Oparin and Haldane was that conditions on the primeval Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. A recent reanalysis of the saved vials containing the original extracts that resulted in the Miller and Urey experiments, using current and more advanced analytical equipment and technology, has uncovered more biochemicals than originally discovered in the 1950s. One of the more important findings was 23 amino acids, far more than five originally discovered.[22]

Amino acids don't need God to come down and say, "Let there be amino acids." No God is needed for them to form. They have even been developing in vials since the original Miller-Urey experiment.

Now, your turn. Any real proof that God created us?


What I'm implying is that after careful study, students will come to their own conclusion that the Bible is reliable. I'm not suggesting that serious study only includes running to sources that are designed to disprove the Bible.

So every student that studies the Bible carefully will come to the conclusion that it is reliable? Doesn't that imply, by your "logic," that they did not study it carefully if they find it unreliable? Still sounds too "No True Scotsman" for me. I think a student can certainly study the Bible carefully and conclude that it is unreliable. But not in your world, right?


I will agree that you cannot solely make that assumption, but you must consider the possibility and that's where you have failed. All experiments begin with assumptions and are followed until the conclusion proves impossible. You haven't even started.

I have no problem considering that something is possible, as long as you can back it up with proof. That is where you have failed.


You have zero evidence that life on earth spontaneously originated without the assistance of God, but you believe it anyway. You have zero evidence that we are genetically related to apes, but you believe it anyway. Good science has rightfully taught us that what you believe is not possible.

Those are either flat-out lies, or ignorance. BTW, if you don't like the Wiki link I provided above, here's another one:

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html (http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html)

Quote
At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments.

So science does support that amino acids came into existence without the help of God. Unless you can show me an experiment that proves that men are from dust and women are from ribs. Doubt that will happen, though. Also:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0520_030520_chimpanzees.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0520_030520_chimpanzees.html)

Quote
However, with the advent of molecular techniques to compare similarities in our DNA starting in the 1960s, most experts have come to accept the fact that humans and chimps are most closely related. Studies indicate that humans and chimps are between 95 and 98.5 percent genetically identical.

I’m not sure what planet you are living on in that head of yours, but I have just shown you evidence. God did not make man in his own image. Go read the article I provided. The lineages of humans and chimps diverged so that we could become homo sapiens and they could be homo troglodytes. If you kick and scream from this point on, I will have to attribute it to willful ignorance.

 
Two words: Transitional fossils. You'll find yourself sifting through long papers on "the evidence" in the fossil record only to discover that they're lacking at the species level. I'm not lying to you. Take an honest look for yourself.

So where are the fossils proving that Noah’s Flood happened, which I discussed in my last post? There should have been evidence of a mass extinction around the purported time of that event if it really happened. There is fossil evidence for evolution, which is obviously better than no fossil evidence for creationism.

http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html (http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html)
Quote
The oldest reptiles having mammal-like features, the synapsids, occur in rocks of Pennsylvanian age formed about 305 mya. However, the first mammals do not appear in the fossil record until Late Triassic time, about 210 mya. Hopson (1994) noted, "Of all the great transitions between major structural grades within vertebrates, the transition from basal amniotes [egg-laying tetrapods except amphibians] to basal mammals is represented by the most complete and continuous fossil record.... Structural evolution of particular functional systems has been well investigated, notably the feeding mechanism... and middle ear, and these studies have demonstrated the gradual nature of these major adaptive modifications."
 

The fossil evidence above clearly shows evidence of evolution. Note at least 100 million years between the synapsids and the first mammals. Kind of kills the creationists’ 6000-year-old Earth idea.

And so you interpret the Bible accordingly. A school teacher prays to God for help when confronted by a crazed gunman and is shot to death. This is your evidence that God doesn't exist. You've decided that if God exists, He would do what you would do. What do you make of these?

Strawman. The whole point of the schoolteacher story is to illustrate that whether you pray or not does not matter. Shit is going to happen whether or not you pray, because prayer does not seem to work. As far as the SPAG, I explained that it is a Christian thing, so I’m not sure why you keep attributing it to me, because I don’t even think there is a God, let alone believe he would think like me.

"Then God said, "Take your only son, Isaac, the son you love, and go to the land of Moriah. Kill him there and offer him as a whole burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about." Abraham got up early in the morning and saddled his donkey. He took Isaac and two servants with him. After he cut the wood for the sacrifice, they went to the place God had told them to go. On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey. My son and I will go over there and worship, and then we will come back to you." Ge.22:2-5

"A man named Lazarus was sick. He lived in the town of Bethany, where Mary and her sister Martha lived. Mary was the woman who later put perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair. Mary's brother was Lazarus, the man who was now sick. So Mary and Martha sent someone to tell Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick."....Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, but when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was for two more days.
Jn.11:1-3,5-6

Do you have any real evidence that these events occurred? Or could it be that they are just part of a story, like God?

If God does not owe me an explanation, he should not have put the desire for an explanation in my nature (if he even exists).

I meant an explanation in the form of an apology....sorry.

An apology has nothing to do with the discussion. I am talking about the possibility that IF God exists, he supposedly created me and therefore put the desire for truth in my heart. So why do Christians and the Bible tend to get things so wrong when it comes to truth?

BTW, those last few sentences reeked of something you have been spoonfed by your church, with a little tiny hint of Pascal's Wager thrown in. Except the irony is that you are right that we are "alone," but in the sense that God is merely a projection of ourselves.

My experience with church has proven most people are happy to simply believe what they are told about the Bible. My experience with atheists has proven they are unwilling to use their superior study and deductive reasoning skills when examining the Bible.

Actually, being one of the most eager Bible students in my classes throughout my childhood is what finally caused me to question the Bible. I would take the word “atheists” in your last sentence and replace it with “Christians” to be more accurate.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: C on October 31, 2011, 10:52:58 AM
Quote
My experience with church has proven most people are happy to simply believe what they are told about the Bible.

We here at the Atheist Thesaurus have several words for that: sheep, lazy, obedient, ignorant, indoctrinated;' take your pick.

Quote
My experience with atheists has proven they are unwilling to use their superior study and deductive reasoning skills when examining the Bible.

It's more so that you cannot comprehend the atheists' superior study and deductive reasoning skills regarding your religion and your silly god that you think this. You're not even open-minded for starters, don't even attempt to address the actual arguments made by others with actual evidence and so on.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: velkyn on October 31, 2011, 11:25:37 AM
Two words: Transitional fossils. You'll find yourself sifting through long papers on "the evidence" in the fossil record only to discover that they're lacking at the species level. I'm not lying to you. Take an honest look for yourself.

Funny how you use the word "honest" when you do not do the same thing and evidently think no one will check up on your attempt at deceit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html 

You are indeed lying to us.

Quote
And so you interpret the Bible accordingly. A school teacher prays to God for help when confronted by a crazed gunman and is shot to death. This is your evidence that God doesn't exist. You've decided that if God exists, He would do what you would do. What do you make of these?
"Then God said, "Take your only son, Isaac, the son you love, and go to the land of Moriah. Kill him there and offer him as a whole burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about." Abraham got up early in the morning and saddled his donkey. He took Isaac and two servants with him. After he cut the wood for the sacrifice, they went to the place God had told them to go. On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey. My son and I will go over there and worship, and then we will come back to you." Ge.22:2-5
God is rather psychotic, for doing this to a father.

Quote
"A man named Lazarus was sick. He lived in the town of Bethany, where Mary and her sister Martha lived. Mary was the woman who later put perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair. Mary's brother was Lazarus, the man who was now sick. So Mary and Martha sent someone to tell Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick."....Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, but when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was for two more days.
Jn.11:1-3,5-6
Jesus and God have less empathy and concern than an average human. Adn this is what you worship?
Quote
My experience with church has proven most people are happy to simply believe what they are told about the Bible. My experience with atheists has proven they are unwilling to use their superior study and deductive reasoning skills when examining the Bible.
Wow, what a baseless claim.  It is a shame for Christians that this is a written medium, since the words document here show your claims are false.  I wonder, does bearing false witness against others bother you, oh Christian?   All your words do here is show that you are like so many other Christians, insisting that those who don’t agree completely with you aren’t studying “correctly” or using their reasoning skills “correctly”.  Unfortunately for you, you can’t demonstrate this.   
Title: Re: Question
Post by: JeffPT on October 31, 2011, 04:33:41 PM
Follow your belief in evolution to its logical conclusion. Get as finite with your family tree as you can. It's ridiculous to you that Jesus rose from the dead, but you believe our most distant ancestor was a lifeless soup mix. 

No more or less unreasonable than understanding that you yourself were once an egg and a sperm.  And that egg and sperm, before they became you, were just lifeless strains of protein that formed a certain way. 

And that is how evolution works too.  Imagine taking a picture of yourself every day of your life and stacking them end to end on a really long bookshelf. (Avid Dawkin's readers will know where I'm going with this).  If you were to take 1 picture out at random, and hold it up next to the surrounding pictures from 10 days in either direction, would there be any difference?  No.  But somehow, someway, you went from a sperm and an egg to a fully grown human being, correct?  That is how you have to think of evolution.  Any species will be just like the species it came from, but will also be like the species it gave off.  But over a really REALLY long period of time, with small changes (just like how you've changed throughout your life) you will see enough changes to consider it a different species. 

In terms of these pictures... a good analogy for what you are doing here would be asking for the specific day, hour, minute and second you went from being a young adult to an adult.  Can you do that?  The same goes for evolution. 
Title: Re: Question
Post by: jetson on October 31, 2011, 07:07:12 PM
Hello fellow forumites.  The recent set of replies to watchamean made me proud to be an atheist!  Well written, well spoken replies and opinions on the fallacies and ignorance that was displayed regarding evolution, and biblical accuracy.

Damn...a smal tear just formed in my left eye.   :'(
Title: Re: Question
Post by: curiousgirl on October 31, 2011, 07:55:29 PM
Thank you, Jetson! And Happy Halloween!  :)
Title: Re: Question
Post by: JL on October 31, 2011, 10:04:28 PM
http://indianatheists.com/

The Indians fight shit on all fronts: Muslim shit, Hindu shit, Christian shit, Ayurvedic shit. They are basically assailed by shit from all directions.

That's because india is full of shit.

Right on, digress a bit...check this out http://www.chinasmack.com/2010/pictures/filthy-india-photos-chinese-netizen-reactions.html

Have a good read and now back to topic.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: JeffPT on October 31, 2011, 10:10:46 PM
I will agree that you cannot solely make that assumption, but you must consider the possibility and that's where you have failed.

I don't think you understand this at all.  Do you really, honestly think we have not considered the possibility that God is real?  Why would we not do that?  Of course we've considered that God could be real!  More than anything else, an atheist is a person who approaches the subject of religion by weighing the evidence on both sides of the argument with the same amount of vigor and skepticism.  And we do that with all religions.  The difference is that you don't do that for the Christian God, but you probably do it for all the other ones.

The question YOU have to ask yourself is... could YOU be wrong here?  Fact: There are millions of Christians.  Fact: There are millions of non-Christians.  Do you really think those millions of atheists have NEVER CONSIDERED that God might be real?  That's hysterically funny.  The opposite is true.  It is not the Christian who questions things.  It is the atheist. 

All experiments begin with assumptions and are followed until the conclusion proves impossible. You haven't even started.

If you believe this, then start with the assumption that you don't know if God is real.  And then look at the claims and the evidence for those claims on both sides.  Start with something simple... 

Claim: God loves everyone. 

Does reality show this to be true or not true?  First, you have to figure out what love we are talking about.  Most Christians would say it's like a father to a child.  Alright, well, I'm a father.  If God loved everyone even remotely in the way I love my children, then we would expect to see certain things, would we not?  While you may say God loves you, does he love the 5 year old who gets raped and killed by a stranger?  Does he love the thousands of children who die every day from starvation?  Does he love the people with cancer?   Obviously, God does not love everyone.  Now, you may say that He does, and that we just don't understand it, but the other explanation is that bad things and good things happen naturally all the time.  Which is the most reliable theory here?  The God theory that leaves a shit load of open questions?  Or the natural theory which explains everything without the intervention of an all powerful deity?  The most likely answer is obvious.   

You can do this with any God claim you want.  They all end up as a loss for you. 

You have zero evidence that life on earth spontaneously originated without the assistance of God, but you believe it anyway.

Can we not say the same about you?  You have zero evidence that life on earth spontaneously originated with God, but you believe it.  The thing is, you use this gap in current knowledge and fill it in with God as if it's the right answer by default.  It's not.  It never has been.  When we didn't understand earthquakes and people filled that gap in knowledge by saying it was God's anger, was it right?  How about disease?  When people didn't understand disease, they filled in that knowledge gap with God's wrath too.  Were they right?  No, no, no, no.  After a billion knowledge gaps have been filled by science, when is it finally OK to say, "You know what?  We may not know how this happened right now, but you can be pretty sure it wasn't a magical sky man." 

You have zero evidence that we are genetically related to apes, but you believe it anyway. Good science has rightfully taught us that what you believe is not possible.

Now THAT'S completely wrong.  In every way. 

Two words: Transitional fossils. You'll find yourself sifting through long papers on "the evidence" in the fossil record only to discover that they're lacking at the species level. I'm not lying to you. Take an honest look for yourself.

Maybe what you need to do is really educate yourself about what the actual scientists are saying before you make statements like this.  You aren't lying because you honestly believe what you are saying, but that doesn't mean you are saying the truth.  Educate yourself.  NOT from Christian sources who have everything to gain by telling you what to think.  Get your information from sources who have everything to gain by PROVING EACH OTHER WRONG. 

And so you interpret the Bible accordingly. A school teacher prays to God for help when confronted by a crazed gunman and is shot to death. This is your evidence that God doesn't exist.

Do you really find that unreasonable?  If God is the most powerful being in the universe, capable of literally anything, and he loves us with all his heart, you would think that he might help the teacher by... oh, I don't know, making the gun jam?  Having the police break in?  Making him trip and lose the gun?  While this, in and of itself is NOT evidence enough to make a solid conclusion, it certainly does damage to the idea that God exists, doesn't it?   Where does that go awry for you?

If a school teacher prayed to Zeus when confronted by a crazed gunman, and gets shot, does that evidence lead TOWARD the notion that Zeus is real, or AWAY from it.   

You've decided that if God exists, He would do what you would do.

Christians say that God loves everyone.  If God loved everyone, he would have saved the teacher, right?  Sure you could make up any excuse you want as to why God didn't save the teacher... just as I could make up any excuse I want as to why Zeus didn't save the teacher.  That gets you nowhere.  The obvious fact is that if God is real, he didn't help.  And if he doesn't help in situations like that, one possible reason is that GOD ISN'T REAL.  Can you really not see this? 

My experience with church has proven most people are happy to simply believe what they are told about the Bible.

True that. 

My experience with atheists has proven they are unwilling to use their superior study and deductive reasoning skills when examining the Bible.

No, whatchamean.  It is that very study and deductive reasoning that leads to atheism.  You see, when people convert from one religion to Christianity, or from atheism to Christianity, how does it usually happen?  Ask yourself that.  Is it an in depth use of study and deductive reasoning skills that makes someone say, "Huh, yeah I guess people really can live inside of a fish for 3 days"?  Or is it some sort of life altering emotionally charged experience they have?  It's the latter.  Now ask yourself the opposite.  What are the main causes of someone leaving Christianity? Is it an emotionally charged event?  A near death experience?  No; it is study, logic and reasoning. 

Let me ask you this.   If you were to go about debunking the Islamic faith, how would you go about it?  When you read the Quran and see that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse, what goes through your mind?  What do you tell yourself?  Do you say... "Well, that could happen", or do you reject it?  Eventually, you do reject it, but why?  When you've answered these questions, please apply that same reasoning to the bible when it says that Jesus died and rose from the dead 3 days later.  It is the SAME reasoning that brings you there.  If you read those words in ANY other book, you would reject them outright as false.  That is a FACT.  It is YOUR reasoning that is faulty when it comes to Christianity.  You give a free pass to Jesus walking on water, rising from the dead, etc, but you do NOT accept that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse.  Those are equally ludicrous claims, but you do not treat them equally.  We do.  And we do because we apply reason and logic the SAME WAY to all religions. 

I, personally, have read more books in the past 3 years about the bible than about ANY other subject.  I will admit that the vast majority have been written by atheists and agnostics, but I have read a few by Christians.  I've read 2 apologetics books, and more recently a book by Ravi Zacharias that wasted a significant amount of my time that I will never get back.  I've also read the bible, and I have read many books about the history of how the bible came to be.   Please do not try to say that we don't know about the bible.  We do.  More than the Christians who happily sit in church on Sunday while the preacher fills their heads with shit that they have to swallow unquestioningly.  They are sheep.  And I feel sorry for them.  And for you. 

Edit: word substituted
Title: Re: Question
Post by: jetson on October 31, 2011, 10:34:42 PM
JeffPT - excellent post, as usual.  I really thought we might have a theist in whatchamean that could discuss these topics without all of the ignorance and straw man fallacies, as well as bringing a superior knowledge of scripture to the table.  But alas, I was wrong.

I'm afraid that your post will go completely ignored, because it simply does not fit the worldview of all things God.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: JeffPT on October 31, 2011, 10:53:04 PM
Thanks jetson.  I gave up on that Godexists guy (he's absolutely lost), and figured I would try a bit harder on whatchamean, but I think you're right. Could be another lost cause. 

Title: Re: Question
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on November 01, 2011, 12:21:44 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEzuxkkGyWQ&feature=relmfu


HAPPY HALLOWEEN!!!
Title: Re: Question
Post by: curiousgirl on November 01, 2011, 09:10:54 AM
JeffPT, nice post, but you accidentally took whatchamean's words and quoted some of them under my name.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 08, 2011, 12:15:51 AM
First off, evolution doesn't have anything to do with abiogenesis.Evolution is concerned with what happened after life got started on Earth, not how it got started.
Your theory that God doesn't exist has everything to do with abiogenesis. Animation from inanimate matter is your faith. Don't be a coward simply because you have no scientific answer for living things.

And as far as the resurrection goes, if it were possible for human beings to come back to life after being dead for several days, we would see it occasionally.
We would if resurrection was a random event that occured for no purpose, but it's clear from the teachings of Jesus that our own resurrections will reveal what we sowed in life.

And it isn't even remotely reasonable to claim that something happened when all we have is hearsay written down decades after the fact.
Sure it is. You may even tell your grandchildren true stories about things that happened to you.

The default way humans learn is to slavishly copy the actions and attitudes of the ones teaching them, even when it doesn't make logical sense.  So of course if someone studying the Bible has a teacher who honestly believes that it is a series of factual historical documents, they will pick up that attitude; it has nothing to do with careful study and everything to do with the way the teacher acts.
Excellent point. It happens every day in college also.

And you are simply wrong that atheists such as curiousgirl have not considered the possibility of the Bible being true.  They have; that is largely why they are atheists, because they considered the possibilities, investigated the claims and evidence, and concluded that there really wasn't much of a basis for concluding that the Bible is a particularly valid historical document.
My point wasn't so much that atheists haven't considered, but how they considered.

The fact that it includes some historical stuff doesn't make it a valid historical document anymore than a book about a secret 9/11 government conspiracy includes people, places, and things that actually exist makes it truthful about all the claims it makes.
That's true, but we won't dismiss those facts just because a book makes claims that we might not understand right away.

As for "questioning the existence of someone who is no longer among us", what exactly is this supposed to mean?  I don't doubt that there were generations upon generations of people who have no historical records to back up their existence, but there is a difference between saying, "people in general lived even though we don't have specific records about them" and saying "this specific person did these specific things even though we have no records except for a religious holy book to verify it".
Actually, there are 66 books and/or letters written over roughly 1600 years compiled into one book called the Bible and most of them tell us things about the Messiah. How many books are there which contain info about people before they were born?

"And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people. To him shall the Gentiles seek and his rest shall be glorious." Isa.11:10

There are many prophecies of how non Jewish people from every nation on earth will come to worship the God of those backwoods people who lived in an insignificant country the size of Maine. Pretty impressive, but the point is....there is no other book on earth which matches this kind of stuff.

You have zero evidence that life was created by God.
I've already shown you the connection the Bible writers gave between creation and the attributes of God. Anyone can easily draw a hypothesis from their view that God exists.
 
The Bible does not count, because life existed long before the Bible was even a collection of verbal chants, let alone written down.
I'm sorry that God didn't choose to reveal Himself to me in Person too, but I'll learn to live with it.

It is true that scientists don't have evidence to verify what exactly got life started on Earth, but to go from there to the conclusion that God did it is nonsensical...
Seriously, it's the only thing that does make sense. Life only comes from the living. 

...especially since we have no other verifiable evidence of the things Christians said God did.
It is silly to believe stories like that of Noah. If such a tale was true, you'd have to find fossils of marine life in the Himalayas.

And please stop with the nonsense about "transitional fossils".  Seriously, just stop.  I already explained to you in that other topic you started that there are no such things as transitional species.  Because there are no transitional species, there can be no such things as transitional fossils.  If you want to say there are, you have to show that my statement is invalid, and you have not done so.
You don't have to convince me that there are no such things as transitional species. There's not even evidence to prove there ever were.

People pray to God because they feel helpless about things, that those things are beyond their power or control.  So of course, if something happens that is beneficial afterward, they assume that some higher power intervened on their behalf.
That's true.

This ignores the much more likely situation where things don't get better despite the prayer.
It only "ignores the much more likely situation" when you ignore what the Bible says about God and prayer.

It isn't a matter of thinking that God should have helped someone who prayed, it's a matter that it was nothing more than chance - and not a very good one - of something beneficial happening.  Rather than relying on a poor chance of a good outcome happening while doing nothing, it is better to try to make that good outcome happen.
I'm not opposed to working toward good outcomes, but I'm also not opposed to the idea that if I live a sinful life I should expect nothing from God through prayer. I'm also not opposed to the idea that what I think is good might not be.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 08, 2011, 02:26:28 AM
Amino acids don't need God to come down and say, "Let there be amino acids."
That's true. They only needed Miller....who couldn't impart life to them.

Now, your turn. Any real proof that God created us?
Yes. Millers amino acid experiment....which proves that without the assistance of external intelligence, amino acids wouldn't exist. I won't even discourage you with the probability that amino acids  (much less proteins) formed without intelligence.

So every student that studies the Bible carefully will come to the conclusion that it is reliable? Doesn't that imply, by your "logic," that they did not study it carefully if they find it unreliable?
Yes, that's right.

Still sounds too "No True Scotsman" for me. I think a student can certainly study the Bible carefully and conclude that it is unreliable. But not in your world, right?
You know your own heart. Be honest with yourself.

I have no problem considering that something is possible, as long as you can back it up with proof. That is where you have failed.
No, that's where you have failed.

Those are either flat-out lies, or ignorance. BTW, if you don't like the Wiki link I provided above, here's another one
Curious, I've looked at all this crap. It doesn't matter what sciences beliefs are. You sneer at Christians for their beliefs and then praise atheists for their faith.

So science does support that amino acids came into existence without the help of God. Unless you can show me an experiment that proves that men are from dust and women are from ribs. Doubt that will happen, though.
Science already knows that people are made from what is in the ground. If science could show that Adam wasn't chemically composed of the "dust" of the earth, then the Bible would be disproved. 

I’m not sure what planet you are living on in that head of yours, but I have just shown you evidence. God did not make man in his own image. Go read the article I provided. The lineages of humans and chimps diverged so that we could become homo sapiens and they could be homo troglodytes. If you kick and scream from this point on, I will have to attribute it to willful ignorance.
Willful ignorance is in knowing the ovewwhelming evidence that chimps and humans are so closely related genetically, that science has found it impossible to crossbreed them. It is you who are willfully ignorant.

 
So where are the fossils proving that Noah’s Flood happened, which I discussed in my last post? There should have been evidence of a mass extinction around the purported time of that event if it really happened. There is fossil evidence for evolution, which is obviously better than no fossil evidence for creationism.
There is no evidence of evolution in the fossil record. Many of the fossils we have are evidence of the biblical flood.
 
The oldest reptiles having mammal-like features, the synapsids, occur in rocks of Pennsylvanian age formed about 305 mya. However, the first mammals do not appear in the fossil record until Late Triassic time, about 210 mya. Hopson (1994) noted, "Of all the great transitions between major structural grades within vertebrates, the transition from basal amniotes [egg-laying tetrapods except amphibians] to basal mammals is represented by the most complete and continuous fossil record.... Structural evolution of particular functional systems has been well investigated, notably the feeding mechanism... and middle ear, and these studies have demonstrated the gradual nature of these major adaptive modifications."
Do you know that different rock layers contain fossils that aren't supposed to be there? Do you know how rock layers are dated? Do you know what you'd do if I saw a flood coming?

The fossil evidence above clearly shows evidence of evolution. Note at least 100 million years between the synapsids and the first mammals. Kind of kills the creationists’ 6000-year-old Earth idea.
Did you know that there's really no way to accurately date 100 million years....or one million years? You've been totally lied to sis.

Strawman. The whole point of the schoolteacher story is to illustrate that whether you pray or not does not matter. Shit is going to happen whether or not you pray, because prayer does not seem to work. As far as the SPAG, I explained that it is a Christian thing, so I’m not sure why you keep attributing it to me, because I don’t even think there is a God, let alone believe he would think like me.
Call it a strawman all you want. You've chosen to read the Bible with your own view of what God should do.

Do you have any real evidence that these events occurred? Or could it be that they are just part of a story, like God?
Only the testimony of the Bible, but thanks for dodging the question.

If God does not owe me an explanation, he should not have put the desire for an explanation in my nature (if he even exists).
God offers an explanation. He just doesn't owe you one. That's your problem. You can't see the difference.

An apology has nothing to do with the discussion. I am talking about the possibility that IF God exists, he supposedly created me and therefore put the desire for truth in my heart. So why do Christians and the Bible tend to get things so wrong when it comes to truth?
You didn't want the truth Curious. That's why you didn't understand it.

BTW, those last few sentences reeked of something you have been spoonfed by your church, with a little tiny hint of Pascal's Wager thrown in. Except the irony is that you are right that we are "alone," but in the sense that God is merely a projection of ourselves.
It still amazes me that you can always tell when someone hasn't approached God with an open heart. It's incredible how God did this.

Actually, being one of the most eager Bible students in my classes throughout my childhood is what finally caused me to question the Bible.
And when did you decide to have people who have no knowledge of Gods word define it for you?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on November 08, 2011, 08:09:09 AM
Bravo! In some ways I admire your artistry, watchamean. However, I'd like some clarification

Quote
I won't even discourage you with the probability that amino acids  (much less proteins) formed without intelligence.

Whilst I will concede that amino acids are improbable constructs, and that if I assume that there is only one way to construct life in this particular universe, via amino acids (which is not totally certain), then how do I honestly ascertain probability, given that the universe appears to be infinite in extent? To indulge you, do I assume that the universe is 26 billion light years across, and therefore of finite size? Or, do I grant that your infinite God may have created an infinite-sized universe for his splendor? If the universe is infinite in extent, then how do I judge "probability"; since any small probability multiplied by infinity gives at least 16.

Or, do you not agree that the universe is even 27billion light years across, because this is not consistent with the story of Noah?

In your assessment of the size of the universe, how do you interpret QM, which gives us an appearance of a universe which has not decided on any certain verdict, and could well be infinitely variable. To me, there seems to be enough power in the universe itself to create amino acids. It seems to me that creationists must underestimate the creation of God, to prove to themselves that God must meddle inside it. This is a circular problem. How do you know that God did not create the universe in a way that was designed to explore all forms of life; all variants of life constructs (inc. via amino acids), using its apparent infinite extent, and apparent acausal variability?

When you consider the photons from the Andromeda galaxy 2million light years away, do you invoke novel cosmological theories to explain the time involved; I mean axiomatically, photons must be up to something, if Noah was 6000 years ago.

Since you are so sure of everything, I and many physicists would like to know the following
(1) how big is the universe
(2) QM implies a multiverse; is that true or not?
(3) can you explain the mathematics of how the Andromeda galaxy appears to be 2 million light years away?
(4) do you think future physics and cosmology will explain things which you are trying to use as proof of God?

These things all need answering.

Also, your statement of chimp breeding was not clear.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on November 08, 2011, 08:24:34 AM
I guess what I'm really asking is: is your God smart enough to make a universe that can create life, itself, from dead things?

Title: Re: Question
Post by: screwtape on November 08, 2011, 08:34:53 AM
Your theory that God doesn't exist has everything to do with abiogenesis. Animation from inanimate matter is your faith. Don't be a coward simply because you have no scientific answer for living things.

bold mine. 

First, everyone who is a normal, healthy person connected to other people and society has some kind of faith.  But let's understand that when we talk about "faith", they are not all the same thing.  In the quote above, you are using it interchangeably with the word "religion", but implying it means "trust", which would be incorrect.  It is a dishonest way to argue. 

Second, calling someone a coward - particularly when courage has nothing to do with it - is also a pretty dishonest way to try to win an argument.  It is an emotional appeal, and a poor one at that. 

I also find it to be sad that you think it is a weakness or a fault that we have not found all the answers in the universe after less than 200 years with the scientific method.  We also have no "scientific answer" for cancer, or black holes, or why people vote republican, or glory holes, or traffic, or a trillion other questions. That does not mean god is the answer to any of it.   

That seems disrespectful and short sighted to me.  You[1] have made the identity god = ignorance.  By saying "you don't know, so it must be god" you have made the case that where we are ignorant, there answer is (has to be, I tell you!) god.  You have made a graven image of you ignorance, and you bow down to it.  In old testament times, yhwh might have killed you himself or he might have had a prophet command your tribe to do it for him.

By perpetuating a god of the gaps you are setting your descendants up to worship a very small and ever shrinking god.  While you think that may work for you now, as the human animal figures out the universe more and more, your god will have less and less responsibility, less and less power.  And eventually, your god will have dominion over but one thing - your mind.


 1. yes, you.  Not me.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 08, 2011, 10:25:28 AM
No more or less unreasonable than understanding that you yourself were once an egg and a sperm.  And that egg and sperm, before they became you, were just lifeless strains of protein that formed a certain way.And that is how evolution works too.
No they weren't Jeff. The egg and sperm are made of living cells each containing 23 chromosomes which then unite to form a new living cell which has all 46. Evolution isn't even in the same ballpark as creation. Life only comes from other living things Jeff. Your theory is dead from the start. 

  Any species will be just like the species it came from, but will also be like the species it gave off.  But over a really REALLY long period of time, with small changes (just like how you've changed throughout your life) you will see enough changes to consider it a different species.
You consider it a different species, but science does not. Science actually proves evolution is impossible because we know genetic boundries from one life form to another cannot be crossed. Your theory is dead even after throwing in life free of charge. Jeff, look at what you're theory teaches and then look at the evidence. You're being lied to.

 
In terms of these pictures... a good analogy for what you are doing here would be asking for the specific day, hour, minute and second you went from being a young adult to an adult.  Can you do that?  The same goes for evolution.
Your good anaology is that evolution is just like me becoming older. You are so warped it's almost beyond belief.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Emergence on November 08, 2011, 10:46:28 AM
Short interposed question out of personal interest:

Your theory is dead even after throwing in life free of charge. Jeff, look at what you're theory teaches and then look at the evidence. You're being lied to.

WCM, could you please outline the reasons you think the majority of the bioscience-community has for lying?

(If you already did so, please point me to the post where i can look that up. Thanks.)
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Emergence on November 08, 2011, 11:15:36 AM
On topic question:

You consider it a different species, but science does not. Science actually proves evolution is impossible because we know genetic boundries from one life form to another cannot be crossed. Y

This is a language tree of languages of Indo-European origin[1] (Click on thumbnail for large version):

(http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii71/Chemobile/th_nature02029-f12.jpg) (http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii71/Chemobile/nature02029-f12.jpg)

WCM, do you think that Irish A can cross the boundary to become Albanian C by way of future changes? Please motivate your answer.

 1. Taken from "Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v426/n6965/full/nature02029.html)"; Gray and Atkinson; Nature 426; 2003; link to Abstract
Title: Re: Question
Post by: velkyn on November 08, 2011, 11:17:48 AM
You consider it a different species, but science does not. Science actually proves evolution is impossible because we know genetic boundries from one life form to another cannot be crossed. Your theory is dead even after throwing in life free of charge. Jeff, look at what you're theory teaches and then look at the evidence. You're being lied to.
Yes, and it seems to be by *you*.  It's always sad that Christians think that they can lie for their religion and that no one actually knows the science that they lie so pathetically about.  I'd suggest you look at Romans 3 where Paul says that God gets mighty miffed if you think you can lie "for" him.

Along with what Emergence as asked, I'll ask you to show where "science" has "proven" evolution is impossible.  And you can use big words. I am quite up to date on biology so you won't have to "talk down" to me with your vast knowledge on how evolutionary theory is so "wrong".   &)  Now, I'm expecting that you'll either refuse outright or simply ignore my request.  And that, dear Whatcha, will demonstrate you for the willfully ignorant liar you are. 
Title: Re: Question
Post by: curiousgirl on November 08, 2011, 11:36:25 AM
Whatchamean, your last post to me was basically this (not necessarily in this order):

1. You ignored the evidence I presented for no good reason.

2. You lied that there was no evidence, when I had already presented some.

3. You used the No True Scotsman fallacy.

4. You implied that science is based on faith, when it is actually based on careful observation and conducting experiments to test hypotheses.

5. You said there was fossil evidence for the Biblical flood, but did not provide any for us.

6. You asked questions instead of answering them.

7. You were totally dismissive and condescending because I have challenged your precious little ticket to immortality.

Nice job. You are making yourself look ridiculous. You obviously don't care about evidence because you are so comfortable in your beliefs that you will use all of the shabby, pathetic little arguments that almost all the other desperate theists on here use every single day. In short, you are a dime a dozen.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: velkyn on November 08, 2011, 12:23:59 PM
There is no evidence of evolution in the fossil record. Many of the fossils we have are evidence of the biblical flood.
wow, how could I have missed this little gem.  No, whatcha, this is a lie and its sad that you think to spread it.  We have no evidence of your bible flood.  You see, I'm a geologist, and geologists know what floods do and what to look for when looking for evidence that they occured.  We see none of the telltale signs of a global flood anywhere.  Not one single shred of evidence. 

We see no large uniform layer, graded coarse at the bottom and fine at the top, in the time periods Christians claim as the time of the flood(you guys can't even agree on *that* little detail).  We see no mixed fossil beds containing similar shaped and similary heavy organisms.  No velociraptors and humans, for instance.  We see no massive rafts of vegetation.  We see no mixing of salt and freshwater organisms and sediment chemistry.  In short, we see NO evidence of the myth you present as supposed fact. 

What we do see is the evidence of the slow regular deposition of marine invertebrates in the layers that now make the top of mountains, which fulfill the predictions of the theory of plate tectonics very nicely.  We see fossils increase steadily in complexity from older to newer layers.  We see newer layers consisting of the remains of older layers, in conglomerates.  We see folded rock here in the Applachians that demosntrate that only already formed rocks can be folded, wet ones squish too much. 

Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY It does a great job showing how reality simply doesn't support your myth as true.  However, I suspect that, like many Christians, you are too afraid to have your claims shown to be wrong and will not watch.  I suspect you will cling to your willful ignorance because you have too much of your self-worth wrapped up in such nonsense like the bible.  That's sad, but you have at least served as an example of how some Christians really are, unconcerned with facts but only with spreading nonsense to keep up their religion.

Title: Re: Question
Post by: jetson on November 08, 2011, 01:32:07 PM
Watchamean,

I find myself wondering when you are ever going to show any evidence for anything you are asserting, and everything you are attempting to refute with regards to science?  What is the problem with showing us the evidence that evolution is somehow wrong, and that we are being lied to?

Please, be specific, because we thrive on facts and evidence to test our assumptions.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: screwtape on November 08, 2011, 03:31:36 PM
crap!  I was trying to smite whatcha and accidentally hit the Darwin button.
crap! crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on November 08, 2011, 03:56:54 PM
You consider it a different species, but science does not. Science actually proves evolution is impossible because we know genetic boundries from one life form to another cannot be crossed. Your theory is dead even after throwing in life free of charge. Jeff, look at what you're theory teaches and then look at the evidence. You're being lied to.

   The evidence supports the theory. I don't know where you're coming from here, but the fossil records show the progression of multiple different lineages. The way you're trying to debunk evolution makes me wonder if you only know the word through Pokemon or something similar since you talk about "genetic boundaries" being crossed like you think one species jumps to another. That... isn't what either the theory says nor what the evidence shows. It's less that they are switching species, and more that species are slowly changing until the point where they no longer look at all similar to their great-great-great-greatx1000 grandparents and we rename them accordingly since they've become noticably distinct.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Historicity on November 08, 2011, 04:20:20 PM
crap!  I was trying to smite whatcha and accidentally hit the Darwin button.
crap! crap!crap!crap!crap!crap!
Apology accepted.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on November 08, 2011, 07:35:31 PM
Bah. Watchamean is doing the normal Christian troll thing of only answering the weakest rhetoric.



Title: Re: Question
Post by: Brakeman on November 08, 2011, 07:48:42 PM
This is a language tree of languages of Indo-European origin[1] (Click on thumbnail for large version):

(http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii71/Chemobile/th_nature02029-f12.jpg) (http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii71/Chemobile/nature02029-f12.jpg)

WCM, do you think that Irish A can cross the boundary to become Albanian C by way of future changes? Please motivate your answer.
 1. Taken from "Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v426/n6965/full/nature02029.html)"; Gray and Atkinson; Nature 426; 2003; link to Abstract

Wow Emergence, Did you see the huge mistake in that language tree? We all know that all languages emerged all at once because of the Tower of Babel incident, right Whachamean?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on November 08, 2011, 10:04:08 PM
We have no evidence of your bible flood. 

http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/12/rocks-of-age-how-varves-show-earth-old.html

Quote
Three cycles of greater length than the varve cycle are suggested by fairly regular recurrent variations in the thickness of the varves and in the thickness and character of certain beds and by the fairly regular spacing of certain salt-mold layers. The first of these cycles averaged a little less than 12 years in length and appears to correspond to the cycle of sunspot numbers. The second cycle had an average length of about 21,600 years and suggests the average period of about 21,000 years which is the resultant of the cyclic changes of eccentricity of the earth's orbit and the cycle of the precession of the equinoxes. The third cycle, which was about 50 years long, agrees with no well-established rhythm.

Quote
Rhythmites deposited in a lake near Interlaken in Switzerland are thin couplets, each consisting of a light-colored layer rich in calcium carbonate and a dark layer rich in organic matter. Proof that these rhythmites are annual and are therefore varves is established on organic evidence. The sediment contains pollen grains, whose number per unit volume of sediment varies cyclically, being greatest in the upper parts of the dark layers. The pollen grains of various genera are stratified systematically according to the season of blooming. Finally, diatoms are twice as abundant in the light-colored layers as in the dark. From this evidence it is concluded that the light layers represent summer seasons and the dark ones fall, winter, and spring. Counts of the layers indicate a record extending back to 9,500 yr B.P. ["years before present"].
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 09, 2011, 12:27:19 AM
How many negative Darwins do I have to get before I get a set of steak knives?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Brakeman on November 09, 2011, 06:45:53 AM
How many negative Darwins do I have to get before I get a set of steak knives?

I don't know, I think at -25 you do get the "True Christian"tm designation though..
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on November 09, 2011, 08:20:52 AM
How many negative Darwins do I have to get before I get a set of steak knives?

Checked ur back?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: velkyn on November 09, 2011, 09:39:52 AM
How many negative Darwins do I have to get before I get a set of steak knives?

Checked ur back?

Priceless!  ;D  and good job posting the bit about the varves.  Excellent evidence and always cool to get geologial terms spread far and wide.  :)

whatcha,  you seem to be doing just like I predicted, ignoring anything that shows your myths to be the nonsense they are.   You also avoid actually addressing anyone's request for evidence supporting your claims.  So much for a Christian trying to spread the "good news".  All you've done so far is demonstrate how empty your religion and your claims are.

Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 09, 2011, 10:44:06 AM
WCM, could you please outline the reasons you think the majority of the bioscience-community has for lying?
(If you already did so, please point me to the post where i can look that up. Thanks.)
I've been outlining it Emergence, but it's always ignored, or sidestepped like it is here:

Videos of richard dawkins speeless
Discover videos of richard dawkins speeless with Bing Video Search

Click to view videoRichard

(Please notice how after having a brain fart, your hero simply ignores the qestion and restates his unfounded belief.)
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 09, 2011, 10:49:45 AM
Checked ur back?
That should have been the first place I looked! LMAO
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on November 09, 2011, 11:06:05 AM
WCM, could you please outline the reasons you think the majority of the bioscience-community has for lying?
(If you already did so, please point me to the post where i can look that up. Thanks.)
I've been outlining it Emergence, but it's always ignored, or sidestepped like it is here:

Videos of richard dawkins speeless
Discover videos of richard dawkins speeless with Bing Video Search

Click to view videoRichard

(Please notice how after having a brain fart, your hero simply ignores the qestion and restates his unfounded belief.)

   Might help if you actually linked the video... and... uh... I'm assuming you copy/pasted some of those lines: The word is "speechless". I'm assuming. Because, after all, I can't view the video without links - so maybe he is being speeless.

   Also, the use of the word "Hero". Although I cannot speak for Emergence (or anyone else), I can say not every atheist looks up to him. He does not represent all of Biology, nor is he considered super-human. Assuming you aren't subverting a stupid statement from the person talking to Dawkins, a hicup or two does not a lie make. In fact, that's a bit of a non sequitur. If you want to show them as lying, you will have to actually dig up the subversion that you think most of the world's biologists are partaking in (because after all, it isn't just Dawkins). Or can we assume that your habit of ignoring posts means that you are lying to us?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 09, 2011, 11:16:28 AM
Do you really, honestly think we have not considered the possibility that God is real?
There's no doubt you haven't truly considered the possibility. If you honestly did, then you'd know. 

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." Jn.7:17

That's just a flat out statement which is either true or false. It doesn't rely on fossils or light travel or all the other bullshit we talk about. All it requires is honesty on the part of anyone who wants to know. There's no way to fake yourself around it.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: velkyn on November 09, 2011, 11:36:52 AM
Do you really, honestly think we have not considered the possibility that God is real?
There's no doubt you haven't truly considered the possibility. If you honestly did, then you'd know. 

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." Jn.7:17

That's just a flat out statement which is either true or false. It doesn't rely on fossils or light travel or all the other bullshit we talk about. All it requires is honesty on the part of anyone who wants to know. There's no way to fake yourself around it.

ooooh, the bible says so!   Considering that it is indeed false, you've failed. 

Quote
16 Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me. 17 Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. 18 Whoever speaks on their own does so to gain personal glory, but he who seeks the glory of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him. 19 Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?”
 

There is no reason to beleive that JC existed as some man/god, nor is there any reason to beleive that what is attributed to him is true in anyway.  We see in these verses that the "will of God" comes into play.  Just what is the "will of God", whatcha?  Every Christian of every stripe claims that they and only they know what this will "really" is, and not suprisingly, God's will always matches up to the desires and hatreds of each Christian.  You all claim to speak for this god, and funny how you all have the same lack of evidence that this is true.  None of you can do what was promised as followers of Jesus so indeed, the bible itself speaks against believing you at all.  And gee, right here we see JC saying that you should follow the laws of Moses?  How many workers who dare to work on the "sabbath(and when it that exactly, whatcha?) have you killed recently, whatcha?

Now, we have you claiming that atheists "really don't want to know".  Well, whatcha, that's a lie on your part since you don't know me and how, when I was losing my faith, I really really prayed and really really wanted to know this god.  But I got no response at all.  Now, please do cue the Christian whine "But you didn't do it "right".  If so, then tell me how to do it right.  I'll put your claims into action and then we'll see how much your god does.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 09, 2011, 12:11:11 PM
   Might help if you actually linked the video... and... uh... I'm assuming you copy/pasted some of those lines: The word is "speechless". I'm assuming. Because, after all, I can't view the video without links - so maybe he is being speeless.
Too much trouble to type in "Richard Dawkins speechless" then. That's fine. I wouldn't expect you to look anyway Avatar. I've gotten the same silence from everyone here I've asked about it.

If you want to show them as lying, you will have to actually dig up the subversion that you think most of the world's biologists are partaking in (because after all, it isn't just Dawkins).
The interviewer was asking Dawkins for proof of evolution at the molecular level. After his wires started to smoke, Dawkins completely ignored him.

Or can we assume that your habit of ignoring posts means that you are lying to us?
You can assume I'm one person answering 20 people on 3 different threads.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 09, 2011, 12:15:10 PM

Now, we have you claiming that atheists "really don't want to know".  Well, whatcha, that's a lie on your part since you don't know me and how, when I was losing my faith, I really really prayed and really really wanted to know this god.  But I got no response at all. 
What happened to you?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: screwtape on November 09, 2011, 12:19:39 PM
There's no doubt you haven't truly considered the possibility. If you honestly did, then you'd know. 

Well, at least that's an honest response.  I have two follow up questions:

How attached are you to that belief?
What would it take to change your mind?

You see, I strongly disagree with your position on this.  You are saying you know our minds, but you've not really talked with anyone.  You are coming to a rather judgmental conclusion solely based on the outcome, which really does not address whether we have seriously considered the possibilities. 

In your opinion, the ONLY conclusion any thinking person could possibly come to is the one you have arrived at.  That shows conviction, but is really not a humble or modest approach.  It is dismissive and arrogant.  It says we are some kind of idiots for disagreeing.

That's just a flat out statement which is either true or false.

So the truth of the quote is up in the air?  How do we determine which it is?

It doesn't rely on fossils or light travel or all the other bullshit we talk about.

Actually, it kind of does.  You see, jesus H believed literally in noah, eden, exodus and all that other bullshit.  So, if noah, eden exodus and all that other bullshit is wrong, then jesus H was wrong.  And if jesus H was talking out his ass, then he probably wasn't son/avatar of a Canaanite god called yhwh. 

This is how I came to the conclusion the xian god is not real.  My faith was built on the NT.  The NT was built on the OT.  But when the OT was shown to be malarkey - because of fossils and light travel and a myriad of other facts about how the universe works - then rug was pulled out from under all of it. 

All it requires is honesty on the part of anyone who wants to know. There's no way to fake yourself around it.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.  Maybe you could reword it to clarify.


Title: Re: Question
Post by: Brakeman on November 09, 2011, 12:22:48 PM
Whachamean,

I know that many of you christians speak in tongues, but can you type in tongues too?

1st Corinthians 14: something  - says that speaking in tongues is the spirit talking to god without the mind understanding. Do you really think your soul does things without your conscious mind knowing it?

Care to explain how that works?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: velkyn on November 09, 2011, 12:26:17 PM

Now, we have you claiming that atheists "really don't want to know".  Well, whatcha, that's a lie on your part since you don't know me and how, when I was losing my faith, I really really prayed and really really wanted to know this god.  But I got no response at all. 
What happened to you?

Hmmm?  what happened to me when?  If you are asking what happened to me to make me lose my faith, that was a bunch of things.  Reading the entire bible, which is a great way to become an atheist; realizing that the bible is no better than any other religion with its mistakes, unfulfilled promises, claims that one group of people is better than the rest;  realizing that people make up their own god to fit what they want;  seeing a universe that shows no evidence for a god of any kind at all.

Now, as always, you can't answer any questions put to you, whatch.  Answer mine if you can.  And you also can't show that biology or geology or anything else supports your mythical nonsense.  It's just more vague claims and nothing to back them up, just like every other creationist.   Same with claims about Dawkins, vague claims and nothing more, with you evidently too lazy to actually show people what you claim.  You use fallacy after fallacy, trying to support your nonsense, and try to corrupt science at every turn, just like creationists.  Happily, it's so easy to show your claims to be the garbage that they are, and that you can't support them at all. 

EDIT: and here's a refutation of your lies about Dawkins and a lovely example on how Christians must rely on lying to advance their nonsense: http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/

People who are honest and who have a leg to stand on shouldn't need to try to edit film and lie about other people.  That's called bearing false witness, lying about others whatcha, which your supposed savior said not to do.  When Christians repeatedly do this, it makes me wonder just how much they really believe, in that they would put their supposed immortal souls on teh line for something so petty as trying to make a man say what he doesn't say at all.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 09, 2011, 12:46:26 PM
Bah. Watchamean is doing the normal Christian troll thing of only answering the weakest rhetoric.
Add, give me your one best argument for your belief that mankind evolved from a lower life form. Don't hop around from fossils to dna, etc. Just pick one subject that you think best proves we are products of evolution. 
Title: Re: Question
Post by: naemhni on November 09, 2011, 01:08:34 PM
Add, give me your one best argument for your belief that mankind evolved from a lower life form. Don't hop around from fossils to dna, etc. Just pick one subject that you think best proves we are products of evolution.

You know, you don't really even need to hop from subject to subject.

Francis Collins is the head of the NIH, which is one of the largest, if not the largest, medical research institutes in the world.  Collins is an evangelical Christian, and he has said that even if we had no fossils of any kind anywhere, just the DNA evidence alone overwhelmingly proves that evolution is true.

EDIT:  Corrected per Gnu Ordure's note (below).
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on November 09, 2011, 01:11:57 PM
Too much trouble to type in "Richard Dawkins speechless" then. That's fine. I wouldn't expect you to look anyway Avatar. I've gotten the same silence from everyone here I've asked about it.

Yes, it is too much trouble when I go out of my way to provide links if I want to show a source or a video but the other person (you) chooses not to extend the same courtesy. I'm not here to do your reasearch for you, nor should I be required to go hunting for it no matter how easy it is. Lastly; even ignoring those two conditions I would prefer you give it so there is no question we are looking at the same video. If you think no-one is going to look, then why are you bothering in the first place?

If you link it; I will look at it. If the relevant part starts more than a minute in, please specify the time index. I will look at it when I get home (as I browse these forums at work, where streaming media is blocked).

Quote
The interviewer was asking Dawkins for proof of evolution at the molecular level. After his wires started to smoke, Dawkins completely ignored him.

Proof of evolution at the "molecular level" is itself nonsensical, so I'm already not surprised Dawkins was "speechless". May as well ask for proof of chocolate at the planetary level. Evolution doesn't rely on the individual molecules, you need to be up at at least the genetic/chemical level to see the effects.

That said, perhaps context will make the question seem less stupid, so please provide the link.

Or can we assume that your habit of ignoring posts means that you are lying to us?
You can assume I'm one person answering 20 people on 3 different threads.

I could also assume mars is made out of monkeys. As this is the most fun of the choices, I shall do so.

As for you ignoring people, may I recommend, if you are feeling overwhelmed here; you can challenge someone with a tad more time than myself to a debate thread. That way you can take it mano-a-mano (or more if you're feeling cocky) and we'll generally ease off of you for not responding over on the general boards in the hopes that your opponent will bring up the same issues. Keep in mind, however, that both sides are held to higher standards there in regards to their responsiveness towards each other.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Gnu Ordure on November 09, 2011, 02:54:21 PM
Quote
Francis Crick is the head of the NIH, which is one of the largest, if not the largest, medical research institutes in the world.  Crick is an evangelical Christian, and he has said that even if we had no fossils of any kind anywhere, just the DNA evidence alone overwhelmingly proves that evolution is true.
Brainfart, PD  :).

I'm pretty sure the NIH isn't headed by a dead person.

You mean [wiki]Francis Collins[/wiki] , not [wiki]Francis Crick [/wiki] (who was an agnostic atheist).
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Emergence on November 09, 2011, 02:58:33 PM
WCM, could you please outline the reasons you think the majority of the bioscience-community has for lying?
(If you already did so, please point me to the post where i can look that up. Thanks.)
I've been outlining it Emergence, but it's always ignored, or sidestepped like it is here:

Videos of richard dawkins speeless
Discover videos of richard dawkins speeless with Bing Video Search

Click to view videoRichard

(Please notice how after having a brain fart, your hero simply ignores the qestion and restates his unfounded belief.)

How, pray tell, does this answer my question? Please outline the reasons me and my colleagues - including Dawkin's whose books i haven't come around to reading [yet] - have for lying. Where's the gain?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: velkyn on November 09, 2011, 03:00:20 PM
Proof of evolution at the "molecular level" is itself nonsensical, so I'm already not surprised Dawkins was "speechless". May as well ask for proof of chocolate at the planetary level. Evolution doesn't rely on the individual molecules, you need to be up at at least the genetic/chemical level to see the effects.

You may be wrong with your claim or how you phrased it.  Might want to check this out  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_evolution 
Title: Re: Question
Post by: naemhni on November 09, 2011, 03:00:42 PM
Quote
Francis Crick is the head of the NIH, which is one of the largest, if not the largest, medical research institutes in the world.  Crick is an evangelical Christian, and he has said that even if we had no fossils of any kind anywhere, just the DNA evidence alone overwhelmingly proves that evolution is true.
Brainfart, PD  :).

I'm pretty sure the NIH isn't headed by a dead person.

You mean [wiki]Francis Collins[/wiki] , not [wiki]Francis Crick [/wiki] (who was an agnostic atheist).

Err, right, I knew that.  Just testing you.  Glad you passed.  *cough cough*

Sorry.  It's been a rough day.  I've just been moved into a new position where I'm going to be taking on all kinds of different responsibilities that I've never had in any other position before, plus there's a lot of confusion due to the contract change, so my brain is a little fuzzy today.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on November 09, 2011, 04:05:39 PM
Proof of evolution at the "molecular level" is itself nonsensical, so I'm already not surprised Dawkins was "speechless". May as well ask for proof of chocolate at the planetary level. Evolution doesn't rely on the individual molecules, you need to be up at at least the genetic/chemical level to see the effects.

You may be wrong with your claim or how you phrased it.  Might want to check this out  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_evolution

Ah, good catch. My actual statement is somewhat incorrect. Everything is usually understood in terms of RNA/DNA/Proteins/etc. which is usually interpretted through genetics, but some things are not.

A major part that lends to the confusion is that DNA, RNA, and proteins are themselves entire molecules (and macromolecules), which is not normally what I (and I'd imagine I'm not alone) think of them as. So, technically, evolution does rely on single molecules. Entirely my mistake there.

Thanks for catching that, Velkyn.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 09, 2011, 04:59:48 PM
Whachamean,

I know that many of you christians speak in tongues, but can you type in tongues too?

1st Corinthians 14: something  - says that speaking in tongues is the spirit talking to god without the mind understanding.
The mind of the hearer, not the speaker.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Brakeman on November 09, 2011, 05:32:24 PM
Whachamean,

I know that many of you christians speak in tongues, but can you type in tongues too?

1st Corinthians 14: something  - says that speaking in tongues is the spirit talking to god without the mind understanding.
The mind of the hearer, not the speaker.

Nope not the Listener, the one doing the praying - were you trying to be dishonest there, or is this new to you?

14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

Does your soul ever pray without you? Personally?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: violatedsmurf80 on November 09, 2011, 06:41:17 PM
Add, give me your one best argument for your belief that mankind evolved from a lower life form. Don't hop around from fossils to dna, etc. Just pick one subject that you think best proves we are products of evolution.

It does not matter about evolution or creation or any of the theories that try to explain anything.  The simple fact that if GoD was real and a part of our lives he would honor his word regardless if we are new or old believers he would treat us all equally and he does not.  He picks and chooses who he wants to have what. Would you pick and choose if you had two sons that want the same thing, give one what he wanted and not the other? GoD does this all the time, give people who are starving shit even if they are believer and give the nonbelievers everything.  It is BS, the simple fact that you would rather live a lie then face the truth is your problem, because the vast majority of us that did believed, HE cast us to the wayside by not following his word!!!
Title: Re: Question
Post by: JeffPT on November 09, 2011, 07:15:19 PM
There's no doubt you haven't truly considered the possibility. If you honestly did, then you'd know.

So reading the bible from cover to cover with the total intention of discovering whether or not God is real isn't truly considering it?  How about reading books written by apologists?  How about visiting several Christian websites and interacting directly with people as deluded as you are over the past 4 or so years of my life?  Honestly, fuck you for even insinuating that I haven't considered it.  That's probably the dumbest thing you could say.

No whatchamean.  I have truly considered the possibility that God is real.  I did for quite some time, until it proved foolish to continue to do so.  I STILL consider the possibility that there is some sort of deity out there.  I come here in part to hear the arguments in favor of, and against the notion that god is real, and you know what?  It's a landslide loss for your side.  You lose.  The Christian God is fake.  Any thinking person knows it.

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." Jn.7:17

That's just a flat out statement which is either true or false.

Bolded by me to show you that you really could be wrong here.  Under careful consideration, it's undoubtedly false. 

It doesn't rely on fossils or light travel or all the other bullshit we talk about. All it requires is honesty on the part of anyone who wants to know. There's no way to fake yourself around it.

If I said that all it took was honesty on your part to believe that Zeus was real, what would you tell me?

Yeah, forget all that evidence stuff.  Forget about analyzing what people say and just swallow what's written down in some really old book written by ignorant fools.  It's in the bible so it MUST be true, right?  Whatever... You go ahead and just keep trying to bull your way through, ignoring what everyone else is trying to tell you.  If you say it enough, we might start believing it right?  Well, just because that worked on you, doesn't mean we're as stupid as you are. 

Add, give me your one best argument for your belief that mankind evolved from a lower life form. Don't hop around from fossils to dna, etc. Just pick one subject that you think best proves we are products of evolution. 

It's against my better judgement to even argue with you on this because you have an agenda against evolution, but animal breeding is the one that really sealed it for me.  DNA is good, old earth science is good, fossils are good, but the animal breeding thing was the one that made me do that... "OH I GET IT" thing. 

Say you have 100 cows in your field.  If you wanted to make a line of really big cows, what would you do?  You would take the 2 biggest cows and mate them together, right?  Their offspring would tend to be big cows.  After you do that for a few years, you've got a whole field of big cows.  That's evolution in action.  Changes over time.  It happens. It's not in question.  Any dog breeder, pigeon breeder, plant breeder uses this principle every time they want to get something out of their breeding efforts.  In fact, humans have done this a lot and produced cows that are really, really big.  The process by which they do that is called evolution through ARTIFICIAL selection (humans making the choices of what traits get passed on).  Now imagine not just a few years, but a few hundred million years, coupled with ever changing environments with other predators and prey that are also changing over time.  That is evolution through NATURAL selection. Small changes over huge spans of time give rise to different species.   Whatever characteristics make the individual more likely to survive in its environment will tend to be passed on just by the sheer ability to live longer in that environment. It's really easy to see it then. 
 
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Brakeman on November 09, 2011, 07:24:32 PM
Say you have 100 cows in your field.  If you wanted to make a line of really big cows, what would you do?  You would take the 2 biggest cows and mate them together, right? 
Yes Jeff, but if you wanted striped cows you HAVE to use colored sticks.. Whacha's got you there!!!
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on November 09, 2011, 07:48:41 PM
Bah. Watchamean is doing the normal Christian troll thing of only answering the weakest rhetoric.
Add, give me your one best argument for your belief that mankind evolved from a lower life form. Don't hop around from fossils to dna, etc. Just pick one subject that you think best proves we are products of evolution.

<PEDANTIC MODE> And who will be the judge of whether I have beaten your argument? </PEDANTIC MODE>

<PEDANTIC MODE> I gave you some decent questions to answer, and you evaded them. </PEDANTIC MODE>

Basically, no answer to the rhetorical question you just posed above will satisfy you, because no matter what you find out, by researching evolution or listening to argument, your faith is apparently dependent on the Bible being literally true in its entirety. Christians who have another proof of God, that is what they claim direct experience are not particularly fussed about the story in Genesis, which can't be true anyway. Most Jews and Christians have abandoned it as a literal account, because it means something metaphorical to them.

I don't know whether you noticed, but in the creation story, God creates day and night, independent of the sun. The writer claims that a layer of water is above the sun and stars, and God created sun and stars as an afterthought, so that man could have "signs". The sun merely "rules the day", as if day is an inherent property without sun. (I know why they thought this.) He even creates the sun after plant life. If you demonstrate that evolution is false, then by your logic, we have to fall back on this joke as the only answer, do we?

Liberal Christians have a God who is smart enough to create a universe that can self-assemble life from amino acids; why is your God not smart enough to do this?

I have an explanation for you.

You want to defend Christianity on all fronts, whether they are contradictory, or not. I have seen Christians defend both ID and YEC at the same time. You don't want to explain the universe. You just want to use it as a bargaining chip in your snowstorm of misdirection.

Evolutionists did not invent evolution to thwart people like you. They invented it, because it best explains what we see out there. If you have nothing else to prove that Hebrew-God exists, besides the accuracy of the Genesis, then you are treading on zero ice. I hope you can walk on water, like Jesu.

Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on November 09, 2011, 08:35:30 PM
... by your logic, we have to fall back on this joke as the only answer, do we?

Of course, that was very low-brow of me. We don't just have the story in the bible to fall back on. We have the mountains of peer reviewed and tested scientific theory that creationists have published in Nature, as an alternative explanation.

Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 09, 2011, 09:09:16 PM
Nope not the Listener, the one doing the praying - were you trying to be dishonest there, or is this new to you?

14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
If I speak, (pray, sing, etc.) in a language (French, Italian, etc.) that is foreign to you, my understanding is unfruitful (fruitless, bears no fruit, is useless, etc.)  because you don't know what I'm saying. Read the chapter:

4....He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself
9...except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken
16...seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest
17 ...the other is not edified.

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance....And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
 Acts 2:4, 7-8

Tongues was speaking in foreign languages, not the silliness that goes on in Pentecostal circles today.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 09, 2011, 10:16:17 PM
How attached are you to that belief?
Very.

What would it take to change your mind?
Proof that I was wrong

You see, I strongly disgree with your position on this.
I strongly believe that every atheist who claims to have once been a believer was a pretender.

You are saying you know our minds, but you've not really talked with anyone. You are coming to a rather judgmental conclusion solely based on the outcome, which really does not address whether we have seriously considered the possibilities.
I already know you haven't seriously considered the possibilities.

In your opinion, the ONLY conclusion any thinking person could possibly come to is the one you have arrived at.  That shows conviction, but is really not a humble or modest approach.  It is dismissive and arrogant.  It says we are some kind of idiots for disagreeing.
Well stated.

So the truth of the quote is up in the air?

No.

How do we determine which it is?
You determine it.  The proof of what Jesus said is within your own self.

Actually, it kind of does.  You see, jesus H believed literally in noah, eden, exodus and all that other bullshit.  So, if noah, eden exodus and all that other bullshit is wrong, then jesus H was wrong.  And if jesus H was talking out his ass, then he probably wasn't son/avatar of a Canaanite god called yhwh.
And everyone has their own angle on Noah, Eden, etc. The only proof a person can't debate is the knowledge of self within his own mind. Be honest with yourself. 

This is how I came to the conclusion the xian god is not real.
I told you there are no current atheists who ever had a real past experience with God.

My faith was built on the NT.
No it wasn't. Your faith was based on playing church, like alot of other phonies.

The NT was built on the OT.
True.

But when the OT was shown to be malarkey - because of fossils and light travel and a myriad of other facts about how the universe works - then rug was pulled out from under all of it.
Fossils and light speed haven't disproved the Bible. Like C, you should visit more people than wiki. 

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.  Maybe you could reword it to clarify.
What you know about yourself isn't clear to most others, but it is to God and you'll never get around Him.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Astreja on November 10, 2011, 12:45:47 AM
I strongly believe that every atheist who claims to have once been a believer was a pretender.

"A pretender"?  Are you serious, Whatchamean?  Are you really so desperate to defend your beliefs that you have to dismiss the sincere efforts of anyone who no longer believes as you do?

Quote
I told you there are no current atheists who ever had a real past experience with God.

But how are we to determine if you have had a "real past experience with God," rather just imagining one?  If you're wrong about the sincerity of ex-believers, you could also be wrong about having a divine encounter.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Brakeman on November 10, 2011, 06:53:52 AM
Nope not the Listener, the one doing the praying - were you trying to be dishonest there, or is this new to you?

14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
If I speak, (pray, sing, etc.) in a language (French, Italian, etc.) that is foreign to you, my understanding is unfruitful (fruitless, bears no fruit, is useless, etc.)  because you don't know what I'm saying.
***** I see what you did there! How totally dishonest. A prayer is a conversation with god The verse does NOT include some other person It does NOT include singing or preaching to other people. The other verses speak of talking in tongues with other people. BUT, When praying the conversation is supposed to be with some form of god. So the understanding that is fruitless can only be the prayee unless you're saying god couldn't understand either - which is equally stupid.

Title: Re: Question
Post by: Brakeman on November 10, 2011, 07:02:42 AM
Similarly, {from http://www.rightlydividing.net/Speaking_In_Tongues.htm}

        * Acts 10:45,46a

          And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished ...because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
          46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

Tongues was the proof those skeptical Jews needed to believe that the Gentiles had really gotten saved. When Peter had problems explaining to the brethren back in Judea (Acts11:1-18) he pointed to that "sign" saying that the Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost in the same manner (with the tongues) as they themselves had. (v15)


If christians can show "Proof" of their connection with god through their abilities to speak "New" languages on a whim, I challenge you to speak to us in Quechua as I have an ex-mother in law that can verify it.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: jetson on November 10, 2011, 07:10:05 AM
Its always the ex mother in law...always.   ;D
Title: Re: Question
Post by: ungod on November 10, 2011, 07:14:33 AM

 The proof of what Jesus said is within your own self.


Hey there, Whatchamean - I've been looking for a Bible believer. So, in accordance with

Quote
Give to him who asks of you, AND do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you." Jesus, Matthew 5:42

I'm asking you to give me all your savings, and lend me your car and computer. How about it?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: screwtape on November 10, 2011, 09:17:47 AM
How attached are you to that belief?
Very.

And don't you think attachment to beliefs is an obstacle to improving your model of the world?  People were attached to a geocentric model of the solar system once. It was an obstacle to them having a better understanding of the world.

Also, why are you attached to it? 

What would it take to change your mind?
Proof that I was wrong

That is a flippant response that does not answer the question. You have a belief about what we have thought or been through - something you could not possibly know.  Specifically, how could it possibly be negated?  What would constitute proof.  So far several people have told you what they thought and been through and you have just waved your hand and called them liars. 

I strongly believe that every atheist who claims to have once been a believer was a pretender.

Why?  You cannot know the mind of anyone.  That is as silly as if I were to obstinately say "I strongly believe that every theist who claims to believe in god really worships squid." Or "every person who like vanilla ice cream thinks it is banana."


I already know you haven't seriously considered the possibilities.

Let's be accurate here, whatcha.  You don't know.  You believe.  Unless you tell me how you could possibly know, you only believe it.  You may feel a lot of certitude about it, but that does not equal knowledge.

In your opinion, the ONLY conclusion any thinking person could possibly come to is the one you have arrived at.  That shows conviction, but is really not a humble or modest approach.  It is dismissive and arrogant.  It says we are some kind of idiots for disagreeing.
Well stated.

So you are okay with your arrogance and pride?  Too bad jesus H isn't.  And does that then not mean that you are really just here to gloat?  That's not going to score points with jesus H either.

How do we determine which it is?
You determine it.  The proof of what Jesus said is within your own self.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. You said the truth of it is not unknown.  Now you are saying the truth of it is within me.  what the flip does that mean?

And everyone has their own angle on Noah, Eden, etc. The only proof a person can't debate is the knowledge of self within his own mind. Be honest with yourself. 

1. not the point. jesus H had an angle on noah, eden etc and that is the point.

2. what does "The only proof a person can't debate is the knowledge of self within his own mind," even mean?  I know what all those words individually mean.  But the way you have arranged them is mostly meaningless to me.  How does that even relate to what we are talking about?

I told you there are no current atheists who ever had a real past experience with God.

Yes.  I know you told me that.  I happend to think you are completely full of shit on that.  I also think you are a bigot in that regard.  You have no way of knowing what other people have experienced.  So making a blanket statement like that is no different than saying "all niggers steal".  What problems do you think your prejudice solves?

Is it that you fear losing your faith?  Are you afraid that if our experiences were real that means you too could possibly stop believing in god?


No it wasn't. Your faith was based on playing church, like alot of other phonies.

Again, you don't know me. You have no way of knowing my experiences.  And do you think calling me a phoney is a very xian think to do?

Fossils and light speed haven't disproved the Bible. Like C, you should visit more people than wiki. 

I did.  When I came to my conclusions about the OT, wiki was not even a concept and the internet was not widely known. I took classes on religion and the bible in college. 

 


Title: Re: Question
Post by: velkyn on November 10, 2011, 10:24:19 AM
Here a list of outright lies by a Christian

I strongly believe that every atheist who claims to have once been a believer was a pretender.

Quote
I already know you haven't seriously considered the possibilities.
Quote
I told you there are no current atheists who ever had a real past experience with God.
I think you desperately hope this is the case. However, you cannot show that it is true in the least.  All you are doing is attempting to bear false witness to support your claims.  Why should we believe someone who lies so badly about what they think they know about others?  This makes all of your claims suspect and you didn’t even have to go there.

Then we have many baseless attempts to claim that atheists aren’t “being honest” with themselves. 

Quote
Fossils and light speed haven't disproved the Bible. Like C, you should visit more people than wiki.
and more lies and ignorance.   
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on November 10, 2011, 11:38:51 AM
Proof that I was wrong

Which you would subsequently ignore.

I strongly believe that every atheist who claims to have once been a believer was a pretender.

I already know you haven't seriously considered the possibilities.

Your faith was based on playing church, like alot of other phonies.

You know nothing of what other people think or believe and promote your own delusion as if it were gospel truth. The only result is making you look like another lunatic preacher on a city sidewalk. Only difference is you have yet (from what I've read) to proclaim the end of the world is nigh.

What you know about yourself isn't clear to most others, but it is to God and you'll never get around Him.

The voices in your head betray you. Stop listening to them and go see a psycologist.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on November 10, 2011, 09:08:32 PM
This is what I don't understand about creationism:

(1) their faith that evolution is wrong, is based upon their belief that Genesis is correct, because its in "the Bible", not because anything in the story is correct.
(2) there is no (2)

Look at that story

- day and night are created prior to the sun
- the sun is created after plants
- the Earth is created from water
- the sun, stars and moon are created inside the Earth's atmosphere, and water is above it somewhere
- life is evolved in 3 days
- the Earth is about 7000 years old
- the story of Noah is impossible, given what we now know about Earth's fauna and flora distribution and population. Supporting that, the writer gives no hint that Noah's task involved several continents and millions of insects.
- the story of Noah accidentally implies that plants survived the catastrophe, even though there is no natural way they could; and it does not detail how they survived; giving the impression that the writer thought there was simply no problem

- the creation story gives us no hint that plants, animals and humans all have the same life-chemistry. Any omniscient writer would have pointed that out.
- the story is not only oblivious to the Earth being spherical, but its construct of "day and night" being independent of sunlight strongly suggests the writer thought it was flat, and daylight was a property of heavenly light, shining through blue water
- the writer is clearly not aware that the heavens are rather large, or that the sun is another star
- the writer doesn't know about planets, and writes as if there is nothing outside 100km, above the a flat plane
- the writer gives us no details about what is below us. Only the "up" direction is important

If evolution is not the answer, then their own creation story clearly proves that their God is false.

I say "clearly proves". If creationists directed the same level of criticality at their own creation story, then they would ROFL.

Very much a case of "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the sequoia that is in thine own eye?"

I'm quite happy to concede to a creationist that a god may have had a hand in the creation of life, if they will concede that their own creation story strongly proves that their own god is false. But, I'm guessing that this concession would be of no value to them.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: velkyn on November 11, 2011, 09:31:33 AM
heh, you can say hat again, Add.  ;D  Creationists are rather stuck with the silliness of their own claims.  They have the problem that there are two creation stories in tehir own magic book that contradict.  They then gin up "intelligent design" and get shot down by a conservative judge.   And of course, they've been promising for years that they'll have some "real science" supporting their nonsense "real soon now" and they have yet to have one scrap.  It's just fail after fail with them.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 11, 2011, 09:27:11 PM
***** I see what you did there! How totally dishonest. A prayer is a conversation with god The verse does NOT include some other person It does NOT include singing or preaching to other people. The other verses speak of talking in tongues with other people. BUT, When praying the conversation is supposed to be with some form of god. So the understanding that is fruitless can only be the prayee unless you're saying god couldn't understand either - which is equally stupid.
What are you, a former Pentecostal?

For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. 1 Cor.14:2

Someone speaking in a foreign language that others don't undertand is only speaking to God...who understands all language. Or,
to the air, since other people don't know the language.

...for ye shall speak into the air. vs.9

If christians can show "Proof" of their connection with god through their abilities to speak "New" languages on a whim, I challenge you to speak to us in Quechua as I have an ex-mother in law that can verify it.

The Bible doesn't teach that Christians can speak new languages on a whim. (see ch.12)
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on November 11, 2011, 10:34:19 PM
I'd like to see a few of these guys on youtube who claim they can speak in tongues, to give us a breakdown on what they just said, and explain the grammar to us.

Fair comment that others cannot understand them, but if they cannot understand themselves, and the language has no grammar or vocabulary, it may not count as a language.

Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 11, 2011, 11:16:44 PM
And don't you think attachment to beliefs is an obstacle to improving your model of the world?
My model is Jesus Christ and you'll never top Him.

People were attached to a geocentric model of the solar system once. It was an obstacle to them having a better understanding of the world.
People are attached to evolution today with not one iota of proof that it's true. It's amazing that people can look at something for so long and not see the truth about it. Scary really.

Also, why are you attached to it?
 
If you mean my centeredness on Jesus, there are many reasons. I used to think people living to 900 years old was silly too, until I discovered that old age doesn't kill people. It wasn't until a little later that I knew people weren't made to die.
 
That is a flippant response that does not answer the question. You have a belief about what we have thought or been through - something you could not possibly know.
Something you don't understand yet Screw. I don't have to know you. God already knows you and He can't be head faked.

Specifically, how could it possibly be negated?  What would constitute proof.  So far several people have told you what they thought and been through and you have just waved your hand and called them liars.
I've listened and in every instance the same mistake has been made. God isn't created in their image.   

Why?  You cannot know the mind of anyone.
What I strongly believe, God knows for sure.

That is as silly as if I were to obstinately say "I strongly believe that every theist who claims to believe in god really worships squid."
Most professing believers do worship squid.

Let's be accurate here, whatcha.  You don't know.  You believe.  Unless you tell me how you could possibly know, you only believe it.  You may feel a lot of certitude about it, but that does not equal knowledge.
Don't ever get to the point where you've convinced yourself that it's Gods fault.

So you are okay with your arrogance and pride?  Too bad jesus H isn't.  And does that then not mean that you are really just here to gloat?  That's not going to score points with jesus H either.
I used to tell Jesus jokes too. No, you're completely misunderstanding my position. God is great. We're all the same.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. You said the truth of it is not unknown.  Now you are saying the truth of it is within me.  what the flip does that mean?
It means quit being a pussy. It means get real with yourself if you still know how.

1. not the point. jesus H had an angle on noah, eden etc and that is the point.
Yeah I know, but the Lords angle on Noah isn't going to help me in my debate with an imbecile, is it.

2. what does "The only proof a person can't debate is the knowledge of self within his own mind," even mean?  I know what all those words individually mean.  But the way you have arranged them is mostly meaningless to me.  How does that even relate to what we are talking about?
You want irrefutable proof of Gods existence. There's only one way to get that and it's going to require your real self, not a churchgoer. You know who you are. You know what you want. Don't you?   

Yes.  I know you told me that.  I happend to think you are completely full of shit on that.  I also think you are a bigot in that regard.  You have no way of knowing what other people have experienced.  So making a blanket statement like that is no different than saying "all niggers steal".  What problems do you think your prejudice solves?
I just told you the truth about yourself....didn't I?  I'm sure you're unaware that I know I'm no better then you. Over the years, I've probably been worse than you. I know that Jesus died for my wrongdoing, so don't hand me this, "Christians think they're better than other people" crap.

Is it that you fear losing your faith?  Are you afraid that if our experiences were real that means you too could possibly stop believing in god?
No. I think your position that you had a genuine experience with God and chose to become an atheist aferward is ridiculous. Isn't it?

Again, you don't know me. You have no way of knowing my experiences.  And do you think calling me a phoney is a very xian think to do?
I think telling the truth is a very Christian thing to do.

I did.  When I came to my conclusions about the OT, wiki was not even a concept and the internet was not widely known. I took classes on religion and the bible in college.
So the idiot that didn't believe in God taught you all about Him.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: fungusdrool on November 11, 2011, 11:33:39 PM
2. what does "The only proof a person can't debate is the knowledge of self within his own mind," even mean?  I know what all those words individually mean.  But the way you have arranged them is mostly meaningless to me.  How does that even relate to what we are talking about?

Not that this relates to what you are arguing but the quote above is a well worded non-first person: Cogito Ergo Sum, argument.

Whatchamean generally makes no sense at all.  I guess in this instance he can copy well. 
Of course, Descartes, went on to spend the remaining discourses spouting babble, but the cogito is a wonderful bit of reasoning.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Brakeman on November 11, 2011, 11:40:26 PM
***** I see what you did there! How totally dishonest. A prayer is a conversation with god The verse does NOT include some other person It does NOT include singing or preaching to other people. The other verses speak of talking in tongues with other people. BUT, When praying the conversation is supposed to be with some form of god. So the understanding that is fruitless can only be the prayee unless you're saying god couldn't understand either - which is equally stupid.
What are you, a former Pentecostal?
No, A former Baptist, but I've been to several "Church of God"churches who do believe similarly to the pentecostals.
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. 1 Cor.14:2

Someone speaking in a foreign language that others don't understand is only speaking to God...who understands all language. Or,
to the air, since other people don't know the language.

...for ye shall speak into the air. vs.9
Again, you're dancing around the question, stick to the points raised in verse 14:14
( from http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/14-14.htm (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/14-14.htm)
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

International Standard Version (©2008)
For if I pray in another language, my spirit prays but my mind is not productive.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
For if I should pray in languages, my spirit is praying, but my understanding is unfruitful.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
If I pray in another language, my spirit prays, but my mind is not productive.

American King James Version
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.

Bible in Basic English
For if I make use of tongues in my prayers, my spirit makes the prayer, but not my mind.



Again, stated as clearly as I know how, How do you explain the soul praying without using your mind? Is your soul a separate entity from your mind and if so, just how does that wash with the normal view?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 11, 2011, 11:43:44 PM
I think you desperately hope this is the case. However, you cannot show that it is true in the least.  All you are doing is attempting to bear false witness to support your claims.  Why should we believe someone who lies so badly about what they think they know about others?  This makes all of your claims suspect and you didn’t even have to go there. Then we have many baseless attempts to claim that atheists aren’t “being honest” with themselves.
I desperately hope that you never really sought after God? That's funny. Truthfully, the only thing I desperately hope is that you aren't past the point of being real with yourself and from your statement above it's obvious you're well on the way.   

Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 11, 2011, 11:59:53 PM
No, A former Baptist, but I've been to several "Church of God"churches who do believe similarly to the pentecostals.
Again, you're dancing around the question, stick to the points raised in verse 14:14
( from http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/14-14.htm (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/14-14.htm)
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

Again, stated as clearly as I know how, How do you explain the soul praying without using your mind? Is your soul a separate entity from your mind and if so, just how does that wash with the normal view?
Dude, he's not saying the speaker doesn't understand. He's saying the hearers don't understand. Look at the precedeing verses.

vs.14 My understanding (or what i undersrtand) is fruitless.

Why?

vs.13 Because without an interpreter

vs.12 The congregation doesn't understand what is being said.

He enforces this advice with a proper reason, that, if he prayed in an unknown tongue, his spirit might pray, that is, a spiritual gift might be exercised in prayer, or his own mind might be devoutly engaged, but his understanding would be unfruitful (v. 14), that is, the sense and meaning of his words would be unfruitful, he would not be understood, nor therefore would others join with him in his devotions. Matthew Henry

my spirit prayeth;
I pray with my breath vocally; or else with affection and devotion, understanding what I say myself, and so am edified; or rather with the gift of the Spirit bestowed on me:
but my understanding is unfruitful;
that is, what I say with understanding to myself is unprofitable to others, not being understood by them. John Gill

If I pray in an unknown tongue - The apostle, as he did at 14:6 , transfers it to himself.My spirit prayeth - By the power of the Spirit I understand the words myself. But my understanding is unfruitful - The knowledge I have is no benefit to others. John Wesley

Title: Re: Question
Post by: Brakeman on November 12, 2011, 01:48:03 AM

Dude, he's not saying the speaker doesn't understand. He's saying the hearers don't understand. Look at the precedeing verses.

DUDE! It clearly says:

American King James Version
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.

Bible in Basic English
For if I make use of tongues in my prayers, my spirit makes the prayer, but not my mind.


THERE IS NO ONE ELSE IN THE CONVERSATION IN A PRAYER OTHER THAN YOU AND GOD!
Quit adding verses that speak of other people involved in other situations, that is dodging.

Title: Re: Question
Post by: Brakeman on November 12, 2011, 01:53:09 AM
.. But my understanding is unfruitful - The knowledge I have is no benefit to others. John Wesley

NO, Basic English, that would make it Their understanding is unfruitful, not yours...

John Wesley couldn't answer without bullshit either..
Title: Re: Question
Post by: freefromjesus on November 12, 2011, 07:08:02 PM
Whatchamean,

How is it that Pentecostals call themselves True Christian™ 's and you rake them over the coals about glossalia? It just shows that your GoD evidently can't even spell out his doctrines well enough in one language, and in one country, without causing divisiveness by those "called by His Name" to avoid them acting like children. There are no magic tongues and there is no sky-god to interpret them. That I'm sure of.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 12, 2011, 07:09:40 PM
DUDE! It clearly says:

American King James Version
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.
"For"means he drawing a conclusion to what he said previously:

"...let him that speaketh..." vs.13 "...For if I pray..." vs.14   The prayer is obviously out loud.

THERE IS NO ONE ELSE IN THE CONVERSATION IN A PRAYER OTHER THAN YOU AND GOD!
Quit adding verses that speak of other people involved in other situations, that is dodging.
You mean...the other situations in the same chapter dealing with the same problem.

I will pray with the spirit....I will sing with the spirit....when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? vss.15-16

Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on November 13, 2011, 07:43:44 AM

My model is Jesus Christ and you'll never top Him.


You forgot the BWHAHAHAHAH!

Quote
People are attached to evolution today with not one iota of proof that it's true. It's amazing that people can look at something for so long and not see the truth about it. Scary really.

What do you mean by iota? The same sort of iota as "until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

You realise that all I have to do to falsify your sweeping generalisation, is to find one "iota", or question you on what you mean by "proof". What is "proof", and what is an "evidence". Evidence can be anything I feel like, but "proof", what is it? Proofs are normally mathematical. The point of the theory of evolution is its predictive power, in creating a world model. It's not designed to supply "proof" to fringe cultists and astrologers. You may say you can fault it, but there is a Nobel prize in it, if you really can. If it's so obviously wrong, then there is an obvious Nobel prize in it for you.

Liberal Christians have no problem with evolution. What you object to, is people looking for you to supply "proof" of your own impossible creation beliefs.

How are you going with your own iota of proof that the sun was created 4 days after day and night? Got an iota yet?

You think it's scary that people would have faith in evolution, even though we can see how the genes in animals are related, and can see the ancientness of the universe, but you don't think it's scary that after these things have been shown, there are people who still believe that God made the sun and stars under a layer of water on day 4.

So, it's "really scary" that people believe the world is more than 6000 years old. What is it that really jumps out at you that it's only 6000 years old? What's so obvious, that we are missing?

I can only imagine the strange world you live in, where all evidence comes from a few paragraphs in a single book, and you have to close your eyes and go LALALALA to anything that science says.

Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on November 13, 2011, 07:49:48 AM
Sorry. Wrong thread. I thought it was strange that he hadn't posted in here for 3 days. It's in the other thread. Slaps forehead.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Brakeman on November 13, 2011, 09:15:30 AM
DUDE! It clearly says:

American King James Version
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.
Bible in Basic English
For if I make use of tongues in my prayers, my spirit makes the prayer, but not my mind.
"For"means he drawing a conclusion to what he said previously:

"...let him that speaketh..." vs.13 "...For if I pray..." vs.14   The prayer is obviously out loud.
The previous verses state that the gibberish is a message, but they do not refute in any way that the gibberish comes from the soul and NOT the mind. Here he states clearly that it is from the soul by explaining that during prayer his soul can pray independently of himself.

Your "SPAG" projection of third parties are unwarranted as most prayers are not for public consumption but rather for private conversations with god. What are you ? A pharisee?

Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 13, 2011, 07:45:43 PM
"...let him that speaketh..." vs.13 "...For if I pray..." vs.14   The prayer is obviously out loud.
The previous verses state that the gibberish is a message, but they do not refute in any way that the gibberish comes from the soul and NOT the mind. Here he states clearly that it is from the soul by explaining that during prayer his soul can pray independently of himself.[/quote]
That the language was undertood by the speaker is evident in that the speaker himself was edified.

Your "SPAG" projection of third parties are unwarranted as most prayers are not for public consumption but rather for private conversations with god. What are you ? A pharisee?
No, but they were living in the time of the Pharisees when public prayer was commonly practiced. Maybe you should start with verse 1.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on November 13, 2011, 08:36:42 PM
What's the argument? If Christians want to pretend to be possessed by devils, and speak a load of gibberish that even their own church condemns, I say more power to them

http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/heresies/tongues-have-ceased.htm
Title: Re: Question
Post by: screwtape on November 13, 2011, 09:16:11 PM
And don't you think attachment to beliefs is an obstacle to improving your model of the world?
My model is Jesus Christ and you'll never top Him.

either you think that is glib or you think it is an actual response.  If the former, can we please get past glib responses?  I'm trying to have an actual conversation  If the latter, you are an idiot.

People are attached to evolution today with not one iota of proof that it's true. It's amazing that people can look at something for so long and not see the truth about it. Scary really.

see my response above.  You are wasting my time.

If you mean my centeredness on Jesus,

No, not your obsession with jesus H.  Your bigotry about atheists.  You obsession on jesus H was never part of the conversation.


Something you don't understand yet Screw. I don't have to know you. God already knows you and He can't be head faked.

Then it is for god to say, not you.  So you should keep your yap shut. 

Specifically, how could it possibly be negated?  What would constitute proof.  So far several people have told you what they thought and been through and you have just waved your hand and called them liars.
I've listened and in every instance the same mistake has been made. God isn't created in their image.   

Are you just randomly typing responses?  Because what you have written has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.

Why?  You cannot know the mind of anyone.
What I strongly believe, God knows for sure.

BUT YOU ARE NOT GOD.

That is as silly as if I were to obstinately say "I strongly believe that every theist who claims to believe in god really worships squid."
Most professing believers do worship squid.

alright.  We're done.


Okay, one last response
So the idiot that didn't believe in God taught you all about Him.

No, you dumb arrogant fuck.  My bible teacher was a PhD and was a believer.  She was a sweet, brilliant, patient woman who also taught Sunday school.


Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 13, 2011, 09:35:49 PM
You forgot the BWHAHAHAHAH!
I really like your upside down roo. I think it would be fun to have a drink with you.

What do you mean by iota? The same sort of iota as "until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."
Yes.

You realise that all I have to do to falsify your sweeping generalisation, is to find one "iota", or question you on what you mean by "proof".
That would be fine.

What is "proof", and what is an "evidence".[/quote]
Proof is what you know is true by reason of your own senses. Evidence is what may or may not lend credence to what is true and may or may not be correct, depending on unknown factors.

The point of the theory of evolution is its predictive power, in creating a world model. It's not designed to supply "proof" to fringe cultists and astrologers.
Or anyone for that matter.

You may say you can fault it, but there is a Nobel prize in it, if you really can. If it's so obviously wrong, then there is an obvious Nobel prize in it for you.
That would be swell. I could use the money to feed the hungry. The award itself would go in the can.

Liberal Christians have no problem with evolution. What you object to, is people looking for you to supply "proof" of your own impossible creation beliefs.
I've already provided as much evidence that God created the universe as you have for evolution, but you're right about one thing. The  existence of everything there is in the world causes silence for scientists.   

How are you going with your own iota of proof that the sun was created 4 days after day and night? Got an iota yet?
I'm not the one with the problem of questions such as "Where did the light come from?" , or "How did plants live before there was a sun?" God is the giver and sustainer of all life, but to answer such a question for you would require knowledge of the source of the "light" that God created on the first day and how it was "separated" from the "darkness." There are some who believe the entirety of mankinds (and all of creations) existence from beginning to end is contained in the first chapter of Genesis.

You think it's scary that people would have faith in evolution, even though we can see how the genes in animals are related, and can see the ancientness of the universe, but you don't think it's scary that after these things have been shown, there are people who still believe that God made the sun and stars under a layer of water on day 4.
I think it's scary that when people are browbeaten with an idea over a long period they become unable to see the flaws in the teaching. Eternal hell may be like that in  religious circles. What the water was above the sky in the beginning I really don't know. I don't think anyone Bible teacher does know.

So, it's "really scary" that people believe the world is more than 6000 years old. What is it that really jumps out at you that it's only 6000 years old? What's so obvious, that we are missing?
We can talk about it if you want, but it has been a long day for me and I'm very tired. I might see you tomorrow.
I can only imagine the strange world you live in, where all evidence comes from a few paragraphs in a single book, and you have to close your eyes and go LALALALA to anything that science says.
I don't close my eyes to everything science says. I just don't believe everything evolution teaches. And while I do believe God can do what science cannot explain, try not to jump off the cliff about it.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 13, 2011, 09:38:21 PM
What's the argument? If Christians want to pretend to be possessed by devils, and speak a load of gibberish that even their own church condemns, I say more power to them

http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/heresies/tongues-have-ceased.htm
Then again, you do believe that order comes from disorder, so nonsense is perfectly normal to you.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 13, 2011, 09:48:33 PM
No, you dumb arrogant fuck.  My bible teacher was a PhD and was a believer.  She was a sweet, brilliant, patient woman who also taught Sunday school.
A brilliant believer, but you think people who believe in God are ignorant. You are just too transparent.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: riley2112 on November 13, 2011, 10:15:47 PM
What's the argument? If Christians want to pretend to be possessed by devils, and speak a load of gibberish that even their own church condemns, I say more power to them

http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/heresies/tongues-have-ceased.htm
Then again, you do believe that order comes from disorder, so nonsense is perfectly normal to you.
I am a believer  that is questioning my beliefs. Why do I believe? I am really not sure why anymore. Is it because the Bible lets me know the word of God? Look I what to believe. It makes me feel alright with myself. It lets me remain calm in a world that is going totally stupid. However I would like just once, for a christian or anybody for that matter to let me know how I can be sure that the word of God is real. I mean there seems to be so many different ways in which to worship. And everybody tells you their God is the true one. Their way is the right way. No wonder there are people that say we are crazy. How can you think they would just believe because someone told them to? I want to believe and I am confused.

If you tell me to read the Bible, I have. However I seem to  have a problem believing without a doubt something that whats me to put ALL my faith in sometime that tells me to remain separate from the world. And does not what me to check my belief or facts with anything other than the Bible itself. Isn't that the same as believe me because I said so? 
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Emily on November 13, 2011, 10:38:52 PM
No, you dumb arrogant fuck.  My bible teacher was a PhD and was a believer.  She was a sweet, brilliant, patient woman who also taught Sunday school.
A brilliant believer, but you think people who believe in God are ignorant. You are just too transparent.

Are you hinting that we (some of us, anyways) think believers are completely stupid and will never attain a post-grad degree, or somewhat otherwise position that highly intelligence people hold.

If so, you are an arrogant fuck. Ignorance isn't the negative to brilliance.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: JeffPT on November 13, 2011, 11:02:24 PM
A brilliant believer, but you think people who believe in God are ignorant.

Ignorance is a term used to describe someone's knowledge base on a particular subject.  When it comes to people who believe in god, they are ALL ignorant; but that ignorance does not always stem from a lack of knowledge about what they believe, but just as often a lack of knowledge about the other side of the argument.  Have you not noticed that atheists know more about religion than believers do?  There are surveys out there that show this beyond any doubt. 

Interestingly enough, the opposite is true about evolution.  The people who accept evolution as fact understand it far more than people with little knowledge about the subject.  You, for instance, have likely never studied the subject in any detail at all, yet you feel fully capable of talking to people who do and outright rejecting everything they say.  Not because you KNOW more than them, but because it doesn't jive with your other beliefs (which are threatened by the theory).   My atheism would not be threatened at all by evolution being found false.  Not a bit.  Evolution doesn't HAVE to be true.  There were millions of non-believers long before the theory of evolution came along.  And even if I didn't accept evolution, there is still no reason to believe in God.  It just so happens that evolution IS true.  It's real, and that truth doesn't give a shit about what you think.  It's there whether you like it or not.

You are a completely lost cause until you are able to come to grips with the fact that you really, really could be wrong here.  If you were ever to start with the question "Could evolution be true" and analyze that possibility seriously from an unbiased perspective, then you might find yourself on the right track.  But I'm betting you'll never do that.


I am a believer  that is questioning my beliefs. Why do I believe? I am really not sure why anymore. Is it because the Bible lets me know the word of God?

You know that just because a book says it's right, doesn't mean it's right, right? 

Look I what to believe.

I think what you meant to say was.. "Look, I don't know what to believe."  If that is the case, my response to you is yes, you do.  You know what you believe, but it may not be what you WANT to believe.  Is that not a better statement?  Point of fact:  you can't unlearn what you've learned, even though you may not like it. 

It makes me feel alright with myself. It lets me remain calm in a world that is going totally stupid.

Where do you think a good portion of the stupid comes from?  When you answer that, you will also have the answer to the question "Why do the atheists get so upset about this stuff?" 

Also, the reason it makes you feel alright with yourself is because for most of your life, you've probably been told that religion is "good".  And from the things you've seen and heard in church, that "good" came shining through.  But it's not the religion that's good.  The PEOPLE are good.  Yes, religious people can be, and often are, really good people.  The thing is, they aren't good BECAUSE of their belief in God; they are good DESPITE their belief in God. 

(As an aside, sometimes I think people defend their beliefs so ravenously because they think atheists are attacking not just the belief, but everything about the church experience as a whole, including all the people they go to church with every Sunday.  Almost like they aren't really understanding what we are fighting against.) 

However I would like just once, for a christian or anybody for that matter to let me know how I can be sure that the word of God is real. I mean there seems to be so many different ways in which to worship. And everybody tells you their God is the true one. Their way is the right way. No wonder there are people that say we are crazy. How can you think they would just believe because someone told them to? I want to believe and I am confused.

When you find that person who says they can answer that question for you, bring them here.  If they present a better, more logically sound, evidence based argument than we do, feel free to do what you want.  I've been coming to this site for a few years now.  Nobody's even come close riley.  Nobody. 

If you tell me to read the Bible, I have. However I seem to  have a problem believing without a doubt something that whats me to put ALL my faith in sometime that tells me to remain separate from the world. And does not what me to check my belief or facts with anything other than the Bible itself. Isn't that the same as believe me because I said so? 

Yes, it is.  The bible's reliance on faith is nothing more than a glorified way of saying, "Dude, don't think about it. You just gotta trust me on this one."  Does that REALLY add a single thing to the argument at all?  If you read that in any book, would that even remotely swing your stance in favor?  Yet this is the SUM TOTAL of the reasoning behind so many people's belief in God.  Faith. You gotta' have it.  Why?  Because the bible says you have to, that's why.  That's bat shit insane. 
Title: Re: Question
Post by: screwtape on November 14, 2011, 10:02:40 AM
he's just trolling.  Trying to push buttons.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: velkyn on November 14, 2011, 11:32:58 AM
I think you desperately hope this is the case. However, you cannot show that it is true in the least.  All you are doing is attempting to bear false witness to support your claims.  Why should we believe someone who lies so badly about what they think they know about others?  This makes all of your claims suspect and you didn’t even have to go there. Then we have many baseless attempts to claim that atheists aren’t “being honest” with themselves.
I desperately hope that you never really sought after God? That's funny. Truthfully, the only thing I desperately hope is that you aren't past the point of being real with yourself and from your statement above it's obvious you're well on the way.   
Yes, I belive that you do, when you claimed this "
Quote
I told you there are no current atheists who ever had a real past experience with God."
Because if you dared to acknowledge that Christians just like you can lose their faith and realize that they aren't this imaginary god's special snowflakes, your position in the universe is in doubt and the validity of your experience is in doubt.  You aren't as special as you hope you are.   You still try to make believe that you can read people's minds and that's just too cute. 

However, that doesnt' make anything you've said true.  I am quite self-aware of myself aka "real with myself" in that I have done all that Christians claim to find this god. Nothing has worked, so you all have failed. I prayed and prayed when I still had a scrap of faith left and what did that get me? Nothing again.   
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Hatter23 on November 14, 2011, 01:29:26 PM
Quote
I told you there are no current atheists who ever had a real past experience with God."
Because if you dared to acknowledge that Christians just like you can lose their faith and realize that they aren't this imaginary god's special snowflakes, your position in the universe is in doubt and the validity of your experience is in doubt.  You aren't as special as you hope you are.   You still try to make believe that you can read people's minds and that's just too cute. 
   

Actually no current atheist ever had a real experience with God, just like no theist had. No more than we've had no real experience with Santa Claus
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Gnu Ordure on November 14, 2011, 01:49:40 PM
Screwtape:
Quote
he's just trolling.  Trying to push buttons.
Who, Riley? Or Watcha?

Riley seems to be thinking about things (see this post (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20611.msg455836.html#msg455836), for example).
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Graybeard on November 14, 2011, 02:14:09 PM
[...]What the water was above the sky in the beginning I really don't know. I don't think anyone Bible teacher does know.
Oooo! Oooo! I know!

Genesis 1:6-9
And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so.

The waters behind the sky are kept in place by the strength of the firmament. Openings (windows) in the firmament could be the source of the flood that wiped out humanity in the time of Noah.[1]

Heaven is very hard, it has windows in it. It has to be hard otherwise all the rain would come through at once and there's be another flood.

Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventh day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth and the windows of the heavens were opened.

Genesis 8:2
the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,

From this we can see that no rocket could penetrate the sky and satellites are just figments of the fevered and Satanic minds of NASA and other agencies in league with the Devil.
 1. There is far less confusion when it comes to the heavens. The sky covers the earth like a tent and we live under it. The is no mention of an atmosphere in the Bible, nor of the preferential scattering of blue light by nitrogen molecules (nor any mention neither of nitrogen nor of molecules). The sky protects us and keeps us safe not by filtering out ionizing radiation but by its sheer strength. The sky of the Bible is solid -- a firmament.
Job 22:14
Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the vault of heaven.
Job 37:18
Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: screwtape on November 14, 2011, 03:14:08 PM
Screwtape:
Quote
he's just trolling.  Trying to push buttons.
Who, Riley? Or Watcha?

Riley seems to be thinking about things

Whatcha.  I agree about riley, although my initial impression was that he was up to no good.  Whatcha is just repeating the same shit to get a rise, the twerp.   

Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on November 14, 2011, 07:45:19 PM
You forgot the BWHAHAHAHAH!
I really like your upside down roo. I think it would be fun to have a drink with you.


Apology accepted. However, notionally I don't drink. Maybe because I'm upside down, and it would fall out.

Quote
Proof is what you know is true by reason of your own senses. Evidence is what may or may not lend credence to what is true and may or may not be correct, depending on unknown factors.

Oh. This is the same definition that the writer of the Bible had, when he decided that the day must be caused by heavenly light, and the sun merely ruled the day. Sounds fine, until you learn about atmospheric blue scattering. If it's the case that proof-for-you only requires an arbitrary dictum and ignorance of the user, then I have more than enough "proof" that your Bible narrative is either comedy or fire lighter material.

It can be shown very easily that what a person deduces is dependent on the correctness of their original information. In the case of evolution, geology and cosmology, all the jigsaw pieces are correct. It's up to the user to come to the conclusion about what they mean. Liberal Christians have decided that it adds up to the same thing as atheists; perhaps with a few tweaks for ID.

Creationists interpret geology, cosmology and paleontology incorrectly, because they start with an axiom that they have no evidence for: The Bible is inerrant, no matter which way you decide to interpret it. Liberal Christains have decided that Genesis is symbolic. This allows them to see the evidence of evolution, cosmoloy and geology the same way as atheists do.

Therefore, by your own definition of "proof", proof changes according to what you feel like on the day, and what your bias is. I suggest that there is only evidence, reason and better evidence, but not proof, unless you are a mathematician.

At least we know what your definition of proof is, now: personal bias.

What's the argument? If Christians want to pretend to be possessed by devils, and speak a load of gibberish that even their own church condemns, I say more power to them

http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/heresies/tongues-have-ceased.htm
Then again, you do believe that order comes from disorder, so nonsense is perfectly normal to you.

Trollin trollin trollin. I can assure you that nonsense is perfectly normal to any human, no matter what their belief system, and this is why you believe that the sun and stars were created in the Earth's upper atmosphere, one day after plant life; and that Noah distributed 900 species of eucalypts back to Australia, and put mistletoe on them, and re-established the mistoe bird ecosystem. Pot kettle white.

Fortunately we have the sun and geothermal energy as inputs. Although we don't know what the first chemical reaction was, that harnessed external energy and beat entropy within itself, it's perfectly obvious that this reaction is self sustaining, unless you want to claim that God is behind all life's chemical reactions. Therefore, evolution is a perfectly good deduction as to how this self propagating reaction further developed, unless you can show God helping at every point. Feel free to become a liberal Christain.

Title: Re: Question
Post by: velkyn on November 15, 2011, 09:05:21 AM
Actually no current atheist ever had a real experience with God, just like no theist had. No more than we've had no real experience with Santa Claus

indeed, you are correct.  We all think we've had valid experiences but atheists realize that waht they thought was an supernatural experience was not.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on November 15, 2011, 07:33:43 PM
Eternal hell may be like that in  religious circles. What the water was above the sky in the beginning I really don't know. I don't think anyone Bible teacher does know.

I'm interested in what type of hell you believe in. Is it aeonian? If so, how long is an aeon? I've noticed this word used in the Hebrew, but I don't know how long they thought it was, either. How do you reconcile your belief of a hell with a duration, vs. this woman, who says it's eternal, because she went there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGQDkCi-OIY

Would you just say she's a psychopath? Matthew says that the soul is consumed in hell, but Luke, when he does his copy-and-paste, removes duration. I think it's marvelous how one author gets that authority, without needing to show evidence. Is it a democratic process? If so, do I get a vote? Does Tamara get a vote? Would her votes count more, because her lie is so well-rehearsed?

How are you going with your own iota of proof that the sun was created 4 days after day and night? Got an iota yet?
I'm not the one with the problem of questions such as "Where did the light come from?" , or "How did plants live before there was a sun?" God is the giver and sustainer of all life, but to answer such a question for you would require knowledge of the source of the "light" that God created on the first day and how it was "separated" from the "darkness." There are some who believe the entirety of mankinds (and all of creations) existence from beginning to end is contained in the first chapter of Genesis.

The reason the mistakes in the creation story are important, is not that someone can show some symbolic parallel with the creation of light and dark, being good vs. evil. The problem [for a believer], is that it actually says "day" and "night": And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.. So, yes, there may be symbolism there, but overall, the mistake is consistent with a child who does not understand that sun causes daylight, and Earth's shadow caused night. You might think it's ridiculous that anyone could not be aware that the sun causes day, but there it is; the writer is as backward as those of his age.

This is re-iterated by saying: "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." Notice he doesn't say that the sun causes the day, but simply rules in it, like the moon in night. God simply pastes in the sun, stars and moon on one day, as if they have no significance besides things on a backdrop of day and night. This is consistent with a writer of that age, who knows nothing of galaxies and planets, or that there is any space outside our Earth's firmament. It's not consistent with a being who created something entirely different.

The problem with the creation story is not how wrong it is, but how it is consistent with childish misconceptions, consistent with the era.

I've already provided as much evidence that God created the universe as you have for evolution, but you're right about one thing. The  existence of everything there is in the world causes silence for scientists.   

Do you mean me, personally, or the people who go around dating pollen in 11,000 yr layered varve deposits, or the people who go around correlating oxygen isotopes in stalactites with ice ages? When you say "evidence", are you saying that evolutionists can only supply poor quality evidence [in truckloads], but creationists always supply very good quality evidence. I'm not understanding why you think there is not much "evidence" for "uniformitarianism", whereas you think you've supplied evidence that your god played a hand, vs. someone elses god. Your Genesis story shows he didn't, unless you want to remove that book from the Bible, and go with something more Christian. I'm all for a little editing.

ED: inserted "it", in there it is.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 16, 2011, 05:05:50 PM
Because if you dared to acknowledge that Christians just like you can lose their faith and realize that they aren't this imaginary god's special snowflakes, your position in the universe is in doubt and the validity of your experience is in doubt.  You aren't as special as you hope you are.   You still try to make believe that you can read people's minds and that's just too cute.
My point was that I see no reason why Christians would "lose their faith" and my point was based on Jesus' words (Jn.7:17). That's all I was saying. It has nothing to do with being able to "read peoples minds."   

However, that doesnt' make anything you've said true.  I am quite self-aware of myself aka "real with myself" in that I have done all that Christians claim to find this god. Nothing has worked, so you all have failed. I prayed and prayed when I still had a scrap of faith left and what did that get me? Nothing again.
I had the exact opposite result as you. I've found that God is true according to His word. What is it you were praying for?
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 16, 2011, 06:35:44 PM
Apology accepted. However, notionally I don't drink. Maybe because I'm upside down, and it would fall out.
I wasn't offering an apology. I just liked your upsidedown kanga.

Oh. This is the same definition that the writer of the Bible had, when he decided that the day must be caused by heavenly light, and the sun merely ruled the day. Sounds fine, until you learn about atmospheric blue scattering. If it's the case that proof-for-you only requires an arbitrary dictum and ignorance of the user, then I have more than enough "proof" that your Bible narrative is either comedy or fire lighter material.
Of course you think you would. You don't believe in God, so why would you think anything else?

It can be shown very easily that what a person deduces is dependent on the correctness of their original information.
I agree that it should be that way, but it can also be very easily shown that people make conclusions based on the incorrectnees of their original information, in which case their conclusions are wrong.
 
In the case of evolution, geology and cosmology, all the jigsaw pieces are correct. It's up to the user to come to the conclusion about what they mean.

No it isn't. If the pieces of the puzzle are right they can only mean one thing and the user has no right to deny it.

Liberal Christians have decided that it adds up to the same thing as atheists; perhaps with a few tweaks for ID.
So, liberal Christians have made decisions based on the correct or incorrectness of what they've been told (as we all do.)

Creationists interpret geology, cosmology and paleontology incorrectly, because they start with an axiom that they have no evidence for....
Atheists do the same thing. Are you really going to tell me that geologists know how old rocks are? You seriously believe paleontologists know how old fossils are?

Therefore, by your own definition of "proof", proof changes according to what you feel like on the day, and what your bias is.
Oh no my friend. When Jesus showed Himself alive from the dead, what the Apostles felt like on another day didn't change that proof. Evidence can be misinterpreted, but proof can never be changed.

At least we know what your definition of proof is, now: personal bias.
Personal bias involves personal motive. I have none. Neither did the disciples.

What's the argument? If Christians want to pretend to be possessed by devils, and speak a load of gibberish that even their own church condemns, I say more power to them
Your position as one outside and having no interest in Gods church is understandable.

Trollin trollin trollin. I can assure you that nonsense is perfectly normal to any human, no matter what their belief system, and this is why you believe that the sun and stars were created in the Earth's upper atmosphere, one day after plant life; and that Noah distributed 900 species of eucalypts back to Australia, and put mistletoe on them, and re-established the mistoe bird ecosystem. Pot kettle white.
Well, it looks like you're into wonderful atheistic arguments for why the Bible is nonsense. What argument do you have for the nonsense that after the big bang, all those exploding gasses traveling at the speed of light somehow compressed themselves into stars? But on second thought nevermind, because I forgot about all that dark matter.

Fortunately we have the sun and geothermal energy as inputs. Although we don't know what the first chemical reaction was, that harnessed external energy and beat entropy within itself, it's perfectly obvious that this reaction is self sustaining, unless you want to claim that God is behind all life's chemical reactions.
Life doesn't come from chemical reactions. Life only comes from other life. Do you know what my scientific conclusion is from this fact? Life has always existed....and you know the Bible says God is life.

Therefore, evolution is a perfectly good deduction as to how this self propagating reaction further developed, unless you can show God helping at every point. Feel free to become a liberal Christain.
You haven't started with a self propagating reaction.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 16, 2011, 06:46:15 PM
We all think we've had valid experiences but atheists realize that waht they thought was an supernatural experience was not.
God doesn't answer prayer according to our will, but according to his own.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on November 16, 2011, 08:46:11 PM
In the case of evolution, geology and cosmology, all the jigsaw pieces are correct. It's up to the user to come to the conclusion about what they mean.

No it isn't. If the pieces of the puzzle are right they can only mean one thing and the user has no right to deny it.

Interesting. You just denied that humans interpret data. You also skipped over the assumption I palmed onto you: that science had produced correct jigsaw pieces. Rather than attack that, you chose to say something incorrect. The quoting system must be getting to you.

You admitted before that you did not know much about the fossil record, or much about the sciences that have produced the jigsaw puzzle pieces. What you seem to be basing your deduction on, is meta-puzzle-pieces, provided by creationist critique of what you presume to be the actual puzzle pieces. For example, various creationists stunts, like sending Mt St Helens volcanic rock into a lab to produce a false dating on it. The jigsaw puzzle analogy is flawed, because science puzzle pieces overlap, and many bits are missing. With skill, a user who is missing [even more] pieces can deliberately assemble them in the wrong way.

I have the advantage of the consensus of scientists who know the subject and have been rigorously critiquing other's work. You do not have that advantage, because no creationist has ever produced a theory to be critiqued, so you cannot rely on a group consensus to assemble your puzzle for you; at least not a group that sticks to any single story. Because of this, you have no choice but to pursue the subject as an amateur sleuth with extreme prejudice. In other words, I contend that you do not look at the entirety of the original data, but are pointed to certain parts of it by a people who are already incredibly biased.

Therefore your puzzle pieces are a small subset of pieces that have been preselected to be misleading. You don't look at the puzzle, but the anti-puzzle. You would naturally refuse to do this for your own beliefs, and contend that I would do the same to yours. But, how would I go about doing this for your beliefs in Christianity? Exactly what proof would I be looking for, besides a personal experience of JC? Believing say-so stories about the resurrection does not quite cut it. The reason for this, is that no set of theologians believe in any interpretation which is consistent, and even the Bible stories do not match up. There is nothing for me to look at. You have a wealth of things in science to get busy looking at.

Quote
Atheists do the same thing. Are you really going to tell me that geologists know how old rocks are? You seriously believe paleontologists know how old fossils are?

No, but I can look at a volcanic plug myself. Take the caldera of a crater around where I live:
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=-28.395025,153.307343&spn=0.485643,0.891953&t=k&z=11&vpsrc=6

That's a massive volcano (55km across) that happened 22 million years ago, and then eroded over that course of time, and left a plug, called Mt Warning. The volcanic plug is made of harder material, which is slowly dropping around the base of the plug. By the rate the rocks drop down from the volcanic plug, and the composition of the rocks at its base, I can see that this erosion would have taken more than 10,000 years, [thanks], and that even if the caldera had been made by a flood, the plug would not have eroded in 6000 years. I can see this with my own eyes.

No matter how massive the evidence in favour of any particular theory, it only takes one inconvenient fact to screw it up. Your YEC belief can be screwed up by any number on inconvenient facts, but you choose instead, to spend your time looking for random faults in someone elses theory. The faults you find don't amount to anything. So, sometimes dating techniques mis-date rocks, but that doesn't mean that the world is 6000 years old.

Further, this volcano caused numerous igneous intrusions into coal seams which underly the region. This has coal seam gas companies salivating, because the volcano drove off water from the coal deposits. Coal deposits are very deep fossilized plants. If I were to believe you, then these plants got buried 2km deep in the flood, and then a volcano penetrated the region and boiled the water off, soon after the flood, and then in 6000 years the caldera eroded.

No, I don't think so.

We also have some interesting sandstone rock formations that have eroded very slowly by wind. You have the "Arizona wave". You can measure the rate this all happens, if you can be bothered.

Quote
Therefore, by your own definition of "proof", proof changes according to what you feel like on the day, and what your bias is.
Oh no my friend. When Jesus showed Himself alive from the dead, what the Apostles felt like on another day didn't change that proof. Evidence can be misinterpreted, but proof can never be changed.

Showed himself to you, did he? Or are you relying on the lies on 3 books?

Quote
At least we know what your definition of proof is, now: personal bias.
Personal bias involves personal motive. I have none. Neither did the disciples.

FFS. The gospel is a propaganda tirade, that ridicules/polemics anything that gets in its way.

Quote
What's the argument? If Christians want to pretend to be possessed by devils, and speak a load of gibberish that even their own church condemns, I say more power to them
Your position as one outside and having no interest in Gods church is understandable.

I quoted/linked to a Christian's opinion on the subject. Tongues is condemned by most(?) Christians.

Quote
Trollin trollin trollin. I can assure you that nonsense is perfectly normal to any human, no matter what their belief system, and this is why you believe that the sun and stars were created in the Earth's upper atmosphere, one day after plant life; and that Noah distributed 900 species of eucalypts back to Australia, and put mistletoe on them, and re-established the mistoe bird ecosystem. Pot kettle white.
Well, it looks like you're into wonderful atheistic arguments for why the Bible is nonsense. What argument do you have for the nonsense that after the big bang, all those exploding gasses traveling at the speed of light somehow compressed themselves into stars? But on second thought nevermind, because I forgot about all that dark matter.

So, your proof is that we have not got all the pieces, yet?

Quote
Fortunately we have the sun and geothermal energy as inputs. Although we don't know what the first chemical reaction was, that harnessed external energy and beat entropy within itself, it's perfectly obvious that this reaction is self sustaining, unless you want to claim that God is behind all life's chemical reactions.
Life doesn't come from chemical reactions. Life only comes from other life. Do you know what my scientific conclusion is from this fact? Life has always existed....and you know the Bible says God is life.

Yeah, but God is a sort of spiritual life, so your logic is not useful. DNA did not slip off God. God is not made of DNA. Even you would contend that God simply messed with amino acids. The amino acids were dead. How do viruses fit into your logic? They are dead, but still live. There is lots of life out there that doesn't qualify as "life". Once again, stop taking credit for a god's work.

ED: add [even more]
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on November 16, 2011, 08:54:53 PM
BTW, pretty cool that the forum embeds google maps.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on November 16, 2011, 10:28:33 PM
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/coal.html

Here's a gem I found on Talk Origins:

Quote
It is impossible to interpret these deposits as formed by a single event of short duration. The plants that form coal take time to grow, coal takes time to accumulate and decay, and trees take many years to grow. There are multiple coal seams and multiple tree and footprint horizons, and this is only in one short interval of the geologic record in one area. There are many other areas of similar coal deposits (e.g., Joggins, Nova Scotia). Rather than being a significant problem for conventional geology, coal is explained quite easily by analogy to modern peat environments. Coal deposits and associated sediments are an immense problem for any interpretation involving a "global flood".

I know in my area, the coal companies are after buried coal, in multiple seams up to 3km deep. Creationists, when they have time out of their busy schedule, have to explain how various stratas of footprints and erect trees got buried intact.

(http://i1141.photobucket.com/albums/n584/demonon/20749.gif)
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 16, 2011, 10:44:21 PM
I'm interested in what type of hell you believe in. Is it aeonian? If so, how long is an aeon? I've noticed this word used in the Hebrew, but I don't know how long they thought it was, either.
I believe "hell" as it is taught in the Bible is the lake of fire, where rebellious souls will be thrown (weeping) and destroyed (immediately.) The idea of "for ever", everlasting" etc. are better off being defined by the surrounding text.

How do you reconcile your belief of a hell with a duration, vs. this woman, who says it's eternal, because she went there.
She also said when the EMT's arrived and looked at her condition, they asked her mom if she was even going to bother having her taken to the ER. No EMT would ask such a question where anyone had even the most remote possibility of survival. I didn't believe her story.

Would you just say she's a psychopath?
I don't know what motivated her to tell the story. All I can say is that I don't believe part of it.

Matthew says that the soul is consumed in hell, but Luke, when he does his copy-and-paste, removes duration.
Text?

The reason the mistakes in the creation story are important, is not that someone can show some symbolic parallel with the creation of light and dark, being good vs. evil. The problem [for a believer], is that it actually says "day" and "night": And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.. So, yes, there may be symbolism there, but overall, the mistake is consistent with a child who does not understand that sun causes daylight, and Earth's shadow caused night. You might think it's ridiculous that anyone could not be aware that the sun causes day, but there it is; the writer is as backward as those of his age. This is re-iterated by saying: "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." Notice he doesn't say that the sun causes the day, but simply rules in it, like the moon in night. God simply pastes in the sun, stars and moon on one day, as if they have no significance besides things on a backdrop of day and night. This is consistent with a writer of that age, who knows nothing of galaxies and planets, or that there is any space outside our Earth's firmament. It's not consistent with a being who created something entirely different. The problem with the creation story is not how wrong it is, but how it is consistent with childish misconceptions, consistent with the era.
I like your deductive reasoning on this subject and it just caused me to see something I never really thought about before. I'll have to get back to you on this, but, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form and void."
Could it be that God "created" everything on the first day and caused what He created to take shape on the other five days in various ways so that life could survive on earth? Could it be that God actually created the sun on the first day? I have to look at the text closer but I'm too tired now. I'll get the the rest later.
 

Title: Re: Question
Post by: ungod on November 17, 2011, 06:15:38 AM

I believe "hell" as it is taught in the Bible is the lake of fire, where rebellious souls will be thrown (weeping) and destroyed (immediately.)

Heaven Is hotter than Hell!

http://www.cybercelebrations.com/Valentines/Heavens_hot.html (http://www.cybercelebrations.com/Valentines/Heavens_hot.html)
Title: Re: Question
Post by: gonegolfing on November 17, 2011, 09:16:52 AM

Creationists interpret geology, cosmology and paleontology incorrectly, because they start with an axiom that they have no evidence for....
Atheists do the same thing. Are you really going to tell me that geologists know how old rocks are? You seriously believe paleontologists know how old fossils are?


Well...there you have it ladies and gentleman.

His questions give him away. Whatchamean obviously feels that these specific branches of the scientific method and the bodies of scientists within them, are completely wrong, knowingly wrong, and therefore they have formed a conspiracy so as to mislead the public.

Since he knows that it is basically the entire body of scientists within these branches that claim these facts, he does not believe then that just a few of the scientists are merely deluded, but that the entire group as a whole are intentionally plotting against humanity with this false information so as to discredit any religionist or supernaturalists claims about special or young earth creationism.

Whatchamean..your ignorance of and disrespect for the scientific method, and scientists, is appalling.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 17, 2011, 09:25:22 AM
This is re-iterated by saying: "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." Notice he doesn't say that the sun causes the day, but simply rules in it, like the moon in night. God simply pastes in the sun, stars and moon on one day, as if they have no significance besides things on a backdrop of day and night. This is consistent with a writer of that age, who knows nothing of galaxies and planets, or that there is any space outside our Earth's firmament. It's not consistent with a being who created something entirely different.
The bible clearly says the heavenly bodies are "for seasons and for days and for years." Gen.1:14 All are true, as the earth rotates and revolves around the sun. Also, the idea that Moses didn't know that plant life needs sunlight isn't true: "And for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun..." Deut.33:14. (Still looking at the text.)

The problem with the creation story is not how wrong it is, but how it is consistent with childish misconceptions, consistent with the era.
I'm pretty sure nobody during that era knew about this.
"...Hanging the earth upon nothing.." Job 26:7

Do you mean me, personally, or the people who go around dating pollen in 11,000 yr layered varve deposits, or the people who go around correlating oxygen isotopes in stalactites with ice ages?
I meant both.

When you say "evidence", are you saying that evolutionists can only supply poor quality evidence [in truckloads], but creationists always supply very good quality evidence.
Quantity of evidence is only important as far as it's quality. The evidence you think supports your beliefs is built on assumptions which can't be confirmed. Life from nonliving things, evolution as a process by which mankind came to be, the claim that strata is billions of years old....it's all unprovable. When you look at the "truckloads" of evidence, it proves none of it.

I'm not understanding why you think there is not much "evidence" for "uniformitarianism", whereas you think you've supplied evidence that your god played a hand, vs. someone elses god.
All I can do for the sake of your argument is take what the Bible says about how God created the universe to see if it stands up to good science. The alleged geologic column touted by science disproves sciences idea of uniformitarianism. Science also believes catastrophies had a hand in shaping the earth. So where does one end and the other begin? Nobody can answer this question, unless recorded history gives an indication of cataclysm.  That's why I told you that anyone who claims to be able to date the earth is lying to you. It can't be done through dating rocks. It can't be done by dating fossils. Fossils and rocks are used to date each other and even then they disagree. It makes no sense.

Your Genesis story shows he didn't, unless you want to remove that book from the Bible, and go with something more Christian. I'm all for a little editing.
Except for translation (even between ancient and modern Hebrew), I wouldn't edit anything from the Bible. Quantity of evidence is only important as far as it's quality, but your contention that "evening and morning" (Gen.1:4) wouldn't exist without the earth rotating around the sun is duly noted as I'm examinig the text further.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: whatchamean? on November 17, 2011, 09:28:57 AM
Whatchamean..your ignorance of and disrespect for the scientific method, and scientists, is appalling.
Yes I know it is, so you won't mind telling me why you believe you know how old rocks are.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: velkyn on November 17, 2011, 10:48:32 AM
Because if you dared to acknowledge that Christians just like you can lose their faith and realize that they aren't this imaginary god's special snowflakes, your position in the universe is in doubt and the validity of your experience is in doubt.  You aren't as special as you hope you are.   You still try to make believe that you can read people's minds and that's just too cute.
My point was that I see no reason why Christians would "lose their faith" and my point was based on Jesus' words (Jn.7:17). That's all I was saying. It has nothing to do with being able to "read peoples minds."
You may see no reason but that doesn’t’ mean that you aren’t wrong.  The reason you see “no reason” is that it would make your claims false, which is does in spades.  You can’t accept that someone would find something you believe in false. 
and that verse is just more attempts to prove the bible with the bible, ignoring reality. 
Quote
16 Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me. 17 Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. 18 Whoever speaks on their own does so to gain personal glory, but he who seeks the glory of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him. 19 Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?”
  There is no way to find out if JC came from God or if the teaching does or if God exists in the first place.  No evidence supports this claim.  All of the supposed “evidence” that theists drag up is the same that all theists do, to support their various gods.  There’s nothing special about your particular bunch of myths at all.   
As for your reading minds, you’ve tried to claim you know what people are thinking and have thought, in your attempts to try to claim that no TrueChristiantm would ever ever lose their faith.  Considering your track record, you do have a habit of trying to ignore what you’ve posted, which I took the time to outline right here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20296.msg455345.html#msg455345 .  It’s rather funny in this written medium. 
Quote
I had the exact opposite result as you. I've found that God is true according to His word. What is it you were praying for?
Ah, and here we go with the Christian desperately attempting to claim that I prayed for the wrong thing and in the wrong way.  It’s so cute when you Christians do this, whatcha.  I was praying for god’s help in not losing my faith.  And guess what?  I had no response at all, no matter what forumula I used that I was given by other Christians and none to my own simply request “God, everything shows that you don’t exist, there’s no evidence that you do. Please show this doubting Thomas that you do.”  Now, we have a supposed precedent that God has no trouble in showing that he exists to those who doubt, right in the bible itself.  Why can’t this god help me if it does want all humans to come to it, as some Christians claim?  Now, other Christians are sure that it’s perfectly fine that I can’t believe since the Bible also says that there are some humans intended for nothing more than being damned, no choice possible on their part.  Then you’re stuck with quite a contradiction.  Which Christians have the correct story on what their god “really” meant? Which do you want to go for, whatcha?  We have a few options on what’s happening.  A god that is happy with what I am and who I am, either loving me for it or damning me for no good reason; a god that is totally random or not the god you think it is and even you have no idea if you’re doing it right; or a god that simply doesn’t exist.(there may be more, but these seem to cover it).  Which do you like best?   
Title: Re: Question
Post by: velkyn on November 17, 2011, 11:00:32 AM
We all think we've had valid experiences but atheists realize that waht they thought was an supernatural experience was not.
God doesn't answer prayer according to our will, but according to his own.
Nope, that's not what the bible says at all.  You've made that up to excuse your god's evident impotence at best, and nonexistence at worst.  The bible is quite clear that your god will answer prayers positively(aka what is requested is given) and quickly.  You see, whatcha, I've read the bible, both as a beleiver and as not, and I know exactly what it says.  Matthew 7 is one of the best to show how the modern Christian claim of “God only answers prayer according to his will” is not supported by the bible. 
Quote
Matthew 7: 7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.    9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. (Luke 11 repeats this)
At best, whatcha, you might have find a few qualifiers in the bible:
Quote
Matthew 18: 19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
Gee, can we get two people to ask for the same thing?  How about healing those amputees?
Quote
John 14: 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
I asked in God’s name when I prayed, why didn’t this work?  Why doesn’t it work *ever*? Are there no TrueChristians to do this “right”? The same is repeated in John 16.

Again, it’s easy to show how the Christian religion has been altered to fit reality, to excuse this god for doing nothing.  Christians must run around declaring that prayers aren’t answered as promised in the bible by making new “rules” up.  But that doesn’t stop them from declaring that their prayers are answered when convenient.  Funny how God only answers prayers randomly, just like coincidence would do.  No need of a god at all.

Title: Re: Question
Post by: velkyn on November 17, 2011, 11:03:20 AM
Atheists do the same thing. Are you really going to tell me that geologists know how old rocks are? You seriously believe paleontologists know how old fossils are?
and oh this is hilarious.  Yep, we do, whatcha.  It's so funny to see you simply ignore that we do actually know how to date things.  The methods for dating rocks come from the same science that you poor little hypocrites use everyday. 

EDIT: oh and whatcha, what's the earth "hanging" ON? 
Title: Re: Question
Post by: violatedsmurf80 on November 17, 2011, 11:12:38 AM
Quantity of evidence is only important as far as it's quality. The evidence you think supports your beliefs is built on assumptions which can't be confirmed. Life from nonliving things, evolution as a process by which mankind came to be, the claim that strata is billions of years old....it's all unprovable. When you look at the "truckloads" of evidence, it proves none of it.
So lets just disregard it and believe the creation myths that suit us better.  &) There are thousands of them but the one in the babble is the correct one?  lets get real here, the only thing that is true about the bible is that it was written when people did not have a clue about anything and the bible thumpers of the time was scared that philosophy and science would put an end to the absurd religion.

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

All I can do for the sake of your argument is take what the Bible says about how God created the universe to see if it stands up to good science. 
It doesn't it is still at the door waiting to be let in with the rest of the religion because the Earth is not a circle, it is not flat, it does not stand on pillers, nor does it do anything else that the bible says it does.

I wouldn't edit anything from the Bible.

Of course you wouldn't, cause if you did then it would be even more unbelievable then it already it.  I would add The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Mary, and the most important one Apocalypse of Moses just to prove how many of these stories are taken from anther religion.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Truth OT on November 17, 2011, 11:28:29 AM
  I am quite self-aware of myself aka "real with myself" in that I have done all that Christians claim to find this god. Nothing has worked, so you all have failed. I prayed and prayed when I still had a scrap of faith left and what did that get me? Nothing again.   

Prayer, fasting, deep introspection, etc. have been employed by many with the same result for all being that No definitive sign of God's presence or nearness is realized. Some get a feeling they identify as God's hand moving in their life, but such a feeling is but a feeling that can be explained a million other ways.
For me, prayer became less and less apart of my life over the last 5 or so years. Initially I concluded that God exists, but generally is not in the business of answering prayers and has not been doing so very much since the time of the apostles. I literally believed that since the suppossed time of Jesus 1st century "2nd coming" that there was no group of "God's people" alive on the Earth and that God's hand had pretty much been inactive here on Earth since the time Jesus was to have "taken" his "bride" way back when. My everything was tied up in the idea that I, and everyone else would at some time in the future be resurrected from the state of being dead and reanimated in a world, this Earth where Jesus' Kingdom reign would be evident and we all would have to choose whether we would submit ourselves to that reign and be given access to rivers and trees of life, or whether we would rebel against tht rule and face the ultimate judgment from which there would be no resurrection. Basically, my idea was that God's presence and undeniable evidence of His hand would be on display for all to see in the resurrection and likely not before that time.
Until very recently, I never even for a moment gave rise to the consideration that prayers were not generally answered because the God to whom people pray was a creation of man's imagination as opposed to the genuine article. It's amazing how bringing "givens" into a discussion can blind you to something that is so obvious were it not for a preconception, especially a flawed one.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Truth OT on November 17, 2011, 11:35:28 AM
and the most important one Apocalypse of Moses just to prove how many of these stories are taken from anther religion.

So you are familiar with this writing as well I see. For years it has been of interest to me and was a supporting document I employed while still a Bible believer to argue against the idea of Hell and human soul immortality.
According to the experts this document dates to what, about 100 bce and goes by various other titles. What I have often wondered is; where did this document come from? Have you any idea who the originators were, Hellenists, Assyrians, someone else perhaps? 
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on November 17, 2011, 11:57:41 AM
Science also believes catastrophies had a hand in shaping the earth. So where does one end and the other begin? Nobody can answer this question, unless recorded history gives an indication of cataclysm.  That's why I told you that anyone who claims to be able to date the earth is lying to you. It can't be done through dating rocks. It can't be done by dating fossils. Fossils and rocks are used to date each other and even then they disagree. It makes no sense.

   As far as catastrophies go; we can see what causes catastrophies and what the results of those catastrophies are. Then we can find similar results that already existed.

   If you see a crater, you know something smashed into the earth there. If you see a multi-layered mountain containing types of rock and certain types of peaks, you know that mountain was once a volcano. Doesn't matter if it happened within recorded histroy, because we don't need to rely on people recording these events to know what they look like or what they do.

   If you find poop in your yard, do you need a written record of it to not think God put it there?


   Now - your claim of "Fossils and rocks are used to date each other" is also false. The main way to date rocks is Radiometric Dating. We know how fast certain chemical elements decay, so when we look at a rock we can know how long ago the elements in it formed. There is no need to compare it to another rock - we just compare its current state with the know rate of decay. A more specific variant of the Radiometric Dating method is used for fossils. Radiocarbon Dating (which specifically uses Carbon-14) can give us a pretty good date-range for fossils (and other carbon-based items). It isn't comparing rocks to rocks, it's looking at an hourglass that can measure tens to hundreds of thousands of years and beyond. There's enough 'sand' that the rate of decay would take that long for a newly created atom to completely decay.

   Even the least accurate radiocarbon dating method gives a clear minimum age of the planet well beyond any of the young-earth predictions (well over 10,000 - you can forget about 6,000). The most accurate ones go so far beyond those minimums as to make YEC a joke.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: velkyn on November 17, 2011, 01:07:19 PM
actually, Carbon 14 isn't much use for many fossils. No carbon is left in the average replacement fossil.   But there are plenty of other elements that can be used. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating 

all of these work because of the same science that hypocrites like whatcha use everyday.

It does help us in dating as you said, things with carbon.  Like oh, any archaeological evidence of the "exodus" but there isn't any.  Darn.  &)
Title: Re: Question
Post by: ungod on November 17, 2011, 02:41:00 PM
Science also believes catastrophies had a hand in shaping the earth. So where does one end and the other begin? Nobody can answer this question, unless recorded history gives an indication of cataclysm.
So the craters on the Moon don't exist because nobody recorded the impacts!

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Question
Post by: violatedsmurf80 on November 17, 2011, 04:03:39 PM
and the most important one Apocalypse of Moses just to prove how many of these stories are taken from anther religion.

So you are familiar with this writing as well I see. For years it has been of interest to me and was a supporting document I employed while still a Bible believer to argue against the idea of Hell and human soul immortality.
According to the experts this document dates to what, about 100 bce and goes by various other titles. What I have often wondered is; where did this document come from? Have you any idea who the originators were, Hellenists, Assyrians, someone else perhaps?
I am not sure but for some reason I am lead to think that the Greeks or Syriac wrote it, and IMH they wrote is for a part of an Epic or even an Comedy but of course the religious found it and think it is something special. 

There are a lot of parallels between the Latin Vita Adae et Evae and Apocalypse of Moses. I learn from one of my teachers that this one was from the 4th CE never heard of it being earlier unless your talking about the Sumerians
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Truth OT on November 17, 2011, 04:15:47 PM
and the most important one Apocalypse of Moses just to prove how many of these stories are taken from anther religion.

So you are familiar with this writing as well I see. For years it has been of interest to me and was a supporting document I employed while still a Bible believer to argue against the idea of Hell and human soul immortality.
According to the experts this document dates to what, about 100 bce and goes by various other titles. What I have often wondered is; where did this document come from? Have you any idea who the originators were, Hellenists, Assyrians, someone else perhaps?
I am not sure but for some reason I am lead to think that the Greeks or Syriac wrote it, and IMH they wrote is for a part of an Epic or even an Comedy but of course the religious found it and think it is something special. 

There are a lot of parallels between the Latin Vita Adae et Evae and Apocalypse of Moses. I learn from one of my teachers that this one was from the 4th CE never heard of it being earlier unless your talking about the Sumerians

According to wiki, the originals were Jewish in origin and were likely 1st century writings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_of_Adam_and_Eve
Quote
While the versions were composed from the early third to the fifth century, the literary units in the work are considered to be older and predominantly of Jewish origin. There is wide agreement that the original was composed in a Semitic language in the 1st century AD/CE.

I guess it would be attributed to the Hellenists then. But where did they get the idea? I would at first say it was Greek in origination except for the fact that I see nothing in Greek mythology or history that would lead to such a conclusion. Maybe it's an older Sumerian legend.
Title: Re: Question
Post by: violatedsmurf80 on November 17, 2011, 07:31:38 PM
Hellenists.....   I would at first say it was Greek in origination except for the fact that I see nothing in Greek mythology or history that would lead to such a conclusion.   

The Hellenistic civilization where the Greek civilization beyond classical Greeks. It a common fact that the Isreallits were in Greece

A great article you might enjoy reading would be "Hellenism and Jewish nationalism: ambivalence and its ancient roots"
. It talks about the relationship of Hebraism and Hellenism from ancient times to the foundation of modern Israel

But where did they get the idea

It is consider and Old Testament pseudepigrapha, but many modern Christians and Jews look to is a the truth just like the bible. They were the first ones with the idea then the followers, the Jewish torah and Talmud, the Anunnaki, Baal just look back at the origins of the first people. Hell if you want to just look up Sumer as the origin of Garden of Edan

Maybe it's an older Sumerian legend
   
The most important invention that the Sumerians did was writing and if I am not mistaken it was during the late 4th century BCE. So it cannot be older then the  Sumerians. 

Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on November 19, 2011, 12:46:21 AM
I'm interested in what type of hell you believe in. Is it aeonian? If so, how long is an aeon? I've noticed this word used in the Hebrew, but I don't know how long they thought it was, either.
I believe "hell" as it is taught in the Bible is the lake of fire, where rebellious souls will be thrown (weeping) and destroyed (immediately.) The idea of "for ever", everlasting" etc. are better off being defined by the surrounding text.

That's fair enough.

Quote
Matthew says that the soul is consumed in hell, but Luke, when he does his copy-and-paste, removes duration.
Text?

Matthew : And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Luke: [4] And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
[5] But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.


In this part, Matthew gives us an idea that the soul will be destroyed in hell, but Luke just says that something terribly fearful happens there. Further on, Matthew says that [46] And these shall go away into eonian punishment: but the righteous into life eonian. This tends to imply that it takes all the eon to destroy you.

In these cases, Luke and Matthew agree that something fearful happens, but it's not specified clearly what. John is also vague, and says And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. This tends to imply that it's a symmetrical "eonian" death. However, what happens after this eon? You then become infinitely dead. This makes no sense, either. They may have just not had a word for eternal.

Luke then introduces a bogus hades in Luke 16, which is what this Tamara woman obviously claims to have been in, yet she says it's eternal. This "Bosom of Abraham" in hades concept may have originated from 1 Enoch, which was revered by Jew/Christians between -100(?) to +200AD. The early apologists, like Tertullian and Origen seemed to respect it, but then the book was condemned by all, except Ethiopians. This version of instant "hades" conflicts with the later resurrection account in Revelation, so in order to make it work, some Christians have had to postulate a temporary hell, which for some people has lasted millions of years. Strangely, the Catholics do not regard the Lazarus parable as proof of purgatory, but derive it some other way.

Luke admits that he was not an eyewitness, and does not attribute the parable to any eyewitness. The premise of the parable is unlikely: Jesus uses a saved Abraham and Lazarus as a sock puppet, to say that we do not need any more proof of hell: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets".  Err... which prophets? Is he referring to some deleted text? Does the deleted text contradict Revelation? Is that why it was deleted? I don't know, but Luke 16 contains remnants of a belief that hades was directly after death, and that this premise was accepted by various Christian sects, inc. the one that the genuine Jesus belonged to.

Christians are forced to fossick around in extant scriptures, to ascertain subtle implications in fragments of quotes that are (in fact) redacted re-quotes. The hell concept does not integrate well with Sadduceean Judaism. So, the Christian position on such an important concept is according to personal taste, or what's know as popular vote.

Quote
How do you reconcile your belief of a hell with a duration, vs. this woman, who says it's eternal, because she went there.
She also said when the EMT's arrived and looked at her condition, they asked her mom if she was even going to bother having her taken to the ER. No EMT would ask such a question where anyone had even the most remote possibility of survival. I didn't believe her story.

Yes, so it's down to popular vote. There are two types of "evidence": (1) hearsay (2) facts you can go and check out, yourself. When a position is based purely on hearsay, the observer has no alternative other than to knit pick at certain aspects, to ascertain truth. But it can never be certain how cleverly the hearsay was constructed. Scientific evidence always gives you the opportunity to check it out yourself.

Quote
Would you just say she's a psychopath?
I don't know what motivated her to tell the story. All I can say is that I don't believe part of it.

When you don't believe part of the evolutionary story, you chuck the whole lot out. When atheists see blatant errors in Genesis, we chuck the whole lot out, rather than looking to stitch it up with mirco-quotes from Job. However, you can actually check out the evolutionary story, yourself.

Likewise I do not understand the motivation that the gospel writer had, to invent a resurrection, and also say that other people saw it.

Quote
Could it be that God "created" everything on the first day and caused what He created to take shape on the other five days in various ways so that life could survive on earth? Could it be that God actually created the sun on the first day? I have to look at the text closer but I'm too tired now. I'll get the the rest later.

Good luck with that ad-hoc re-interpretation. Be careful that it does not accidentally create a new hell.  Remember that the blue sky is caused by the water in the heavens.

Quote
I'm pretty sure nobody during that era knew about this.
"...Hanging the earth upon nothing.." Job 26:7

Good thing we can rescue the integrity of biblical authors by taking micro-quotes out of context. He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. When I look at the Hebrew, it implies that the writer believed that "the north" was some kind of mirky abyss that hung off the end of the land, over desolation. The entirety of this biblical space knowledge rests on one interpretation of one word in one book. The problem is that space is actually something, and the writer saith "nothing whatever". There is simply non-existence under the flat Earth. Better than turtles or Atlas, anyway. You see, upward is heaven, downwards is desolation and non-existence. You cannot get into his head by projecting your modern ideas onto a single poetic word. (But you can pretend.)

http://www.qbible.com/hebrew-old-testament/job/26.html  <---- give it a shot.

At least Job says that sheol is not painful. He got that right.

Quote
The alleged geologic column touted by science disproves sciences idea of uniformitarianism.

Oh, it's alleged, and it disproves the position it alleges. Nice to have some clarification. I would say that the alleged column is correct, but your interpretation of it has been misdirected; perhaps by not noticing that tree roots exist through multiple layers of coal and sandstone. This is either true, or alleged. If it's true, then your position has been blown to bits, irrespective of whether the alleged data supports uniformatarianism.

Quote
Quantity of evidence is only important as far as it's quality. The evidence you think supports your beliefs is built on assumptions which can't be confirmed. Life from nonliving things, evolution as a process by which mankind came to be, the claim that strata is billions of years old....it's all unprovable. When you look at the "truckloads" of evidence, it proves none of it.

And as I keep pointing out: it doesn't have to prove my position, it just has to disprove yours.

Quote
Except for translation (even between ancient and modern Hebrew), I wouldn't edit anything from the Bible. Quantity of evidence is only important as far as it's quality, but your contention that "evening and morning" (Gen.1:4) wouldn't exist without the earth rotating around the sun is duly noted as I'm examinig the text further.

The Earth only has to rotate on axis to have a notional 24hour day. We can time this using clocks. The time is not the issue. The problem is that day and night are created as an entity without sun.

(about time to press submit, before the computer crashes, or I press tab.)
Title: Re: Question
Post by: Add Homonym on November 19, 2011, 03:17:37 AM

Eratosthenes of Cyrene (Ancient Greek: c. 276 BC – c. 195 BC), first to calculate circumference of Earth.

Heraclides Ponticus (Greek: c. 390 BC – c. 310 BC), also known as Herakleides and Heraklides of Pontus, was a Greek philosopher and astronomer who lived and died at Heraclea Pontica, now Karadeniz Ere?li, Turkey. He is best remembered for proposing that the earth rotates on its axis, from west to east, once every 24 hours

The notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun had been proposed as early as the 3rd century BC by Aristarchus of Samos, but had received no support from most other ancient astronomers.

compare with dating of Job:

Most scholars date Job between the 6th and 4th century BCE. While "there is an intentional editorial unity with a cohesive purpose and message in the canonical form of the book," Job contains many separate elements, some of which may have had an independent existence prior to being incorporated into the present text.[13] Scholars agree that the introductory and concluding sections of the book, the framing devices, were composed to set the central poem into a prose "folk-book", as the compilers of the Jewish Encyclopedia expressed it. The central poem is from another source. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls is the Targum of Job 11Q10. Another example of text from the last chapter or epilogue of Job can be found in the book The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, showing examples of how fragments of The Book of Job found among the scrolls differ from the text as now known.

Conclusion: during the period where people were messing around with the book of Job, Greek scientists knew the Earth was a sphere that rotated in space. The book of Job is substantially more ignorant than its time.