Historical Accuracy of the Bible

[Sorovis]

Since Skullfire has exhibited so much interest in such a topic recently (although with my prompting), and I have been waiting to start a topic for a long while, I have decided now is an excellent time; especially since Raven has exhibited interest in us not ruining the Constitution topic. Of course everyone is welcome, just remember no spamming and points require supporting evidence.

[kainashi]

hooray for another religion debate. don't you people have anything better to do?

[Sorovis]

Maybe Jesus was a real guy. If he was a real guy, I bet you he had none of the powers in the bible, he wasn't the son of god, he wasn't anything-- at the most, he might have been a really nice guy. The fact that Jesus 'may' be real does not at all prove any of the bible real, any of the things done in the bible real, any of the characters, the beings, the whateverthehell's real.

Care to support this with any evidence, or just with unsupported claims such as what you have done? Quite simply, I cannot argue with someone who simply will not yield to evidence or logic, so please be reasonable. I realize that at the thread you posted this in perhaps such rules did not apply, so I will be patient in waiting for supporting evidence (logical or found in posted sites).


Ninety-nine percent was just a bullshit number. It's a high number, though, but it's the same with the Big Bang theory.

With the Big Bang, some of it has been proven true-- although very little, and most of this could just be by coincidence. With the bible, it's the same thing-- some statements in the bible are true, although, once again, very little, and this doesn't make the rest of it true.

Again support would be favorable considering your position and what I have asked for on this thread. What is the difference between the Bible and the Big Bang? For one, nobody was around to see the Big Bang; only now do we have people to speculate on it and other related topics. In the Bible, there is archeological and historically documented evidence to support it, as will be provided in due time.

http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/rockcry.htm

Here is an example of archeological findings supported events and places in the Bible. Unfortunately for the Big Bang, all we can do, again, is speculate, because nobody was actually around to see it happen.


It would be like me writing a fantasy story about gremlins and demons and random wizards exploding into cowshit and then put the war of 1812 in it and claiming it was true because that war really took place.

No, actually it wouldn't, because there is no historical evidence to suggest that the fairies and gremlins in your story actually existed; there is evidence for Jesus' existence, or Moses' for that matter.

And yes Kainashi I do have other things to do. It's just I can fit another one of these into my schedule. That and Skullfire was just so insistant.

[Boy of Enders]

Yahoo! Another one of these!
Quick note though...

Aren't you supposed to say your beliefs on the historical accuracy of the bible in your first post? Kind of hard to debate with what you said if you dont say anything on the topic...

Edit: Heh, nevermind, you posted that as i was typing... meanie..

[GreenShirT]

Yeah I was a bit confused about that too, it looks like your first post has been split in 2 or something.

Anyway, biblical history eh? Hmm, well I would say biblical history is just as valid as any other view on the ancient world and anything before recorded history in my opinion.
What we think to be factual history is really just our best guess judging by what goes on today and because things are always changing we will never have it correct what went on in the past. (Anything that pre dates recorded history that is)
So I think a point of view such as the bible is quite valid since we don't know and will never know what actually happened in the past beyond a certain point, unless we manage to trvale back in time.
An example of this is the skin color/texture of dinosaurs and the sounds they make. We have no idea what so ever what they looked or sounded like but by the size of them and the places they lived we can guess, and only guess but it could just as easily turn out to be completely wrong or right. We will never know.

[Tainted]

Care to support this with any evidence, or just with unsupported claims such as what you have done? Quite simply, I cannot argue with someone who simply will not yield to evidence or logic, so please be reasonable. I realize that at the thread you posted this in perhaps such rules did not apply, so I will be patient in waiting for supporting evidence (logical or found in posted sites).

Alright, I'm sick of this, you're the one that wants to debate, not myself. How about we turn the tables on you, you support evidence, and valid evidence, that Jesus is existant. None of this "Well, a high christian supporter recently found a rock that said 'Jesus' on it," I mean real proof. My whole point was that there is no proof to credit EITHER side, not just my side, not just your side, EITHER side. If the word EITHER doesn't fit into your extensive vocabulary, then look it up.


Again support would be favorable considering your position and what I have asked for on this thread. What is the difference between the Bible and the Big Bang? For one, nobody was around to see the Big Bang; only now do we have people to speculate on it and other related topics. In the Bible, there is archeological and historically documented evidence to support it, as will be provided in due time.

http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/rockcry.htm

How many people do you know that were around to see Jesus walk on water? How many? What's that? Zero? Well, I'll be damned. You can't say "Well, at least people existed at the time he walked on water," because that's not valid proof, apparently. I didn't bother looking at the site, I don't plan on getting really far into this anyway.


Here is an example of archeological findings supported events and places in the Bible. Unfortunately for the Big Bang, all we can do, again, is speculate, because nobody was actually around to see it happen.

No, actually it wouldn't, because there is no historical evidence to suggest that the fairies and gremlins in your story actually existed; there is evidence for Jesus' existence, or Moses' for that matter.

And yes Kainashi I do have other things to do. It's just I can fit another one of these into my schedule. That and Skullfire was just so insistant.

Here's insistance: **** religion-topics, I'm sick of them, because no side ever wins. It eventually will turn into insults? Why? Because you can't debate like a gentlemen over something that has no real proof to back either side up.
The 'Big Bang Theory' has no real proof, and whatever that link was, unless I'm guessing wrongly, doesn't show proof of THE Jesus, or whatever it was trying to prove. Scientists aren't allowed to make up crackpot theories, and if they do, they aren't followed as strongly as the Big Bang Theory, is.

Remember this, Sorovis: Gravity was a theory at one point. Friction was only a theory at one point. The fact that the sun was in the center of the universe startled the church so much they wanted to kill the astrologists that claimed so, at one point.
And what now?: Gravity is a law. Friction is a law. The Heliocentric model is proven correct as opposed to the Geocentric.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[Tainted]

Yeah I was a bit confused about that too, it looks like your first post has been split in 2 or something.

Anyway, biblical history eh? Hmm, well I would say biblical history is just as valid as any other view on the ancient world and anything before recorded history in my opinion.
What we think to be factual history is really just our best guess judging by what goes on today and because things are always changing we will never have it correct what went on in the past. (Anything that pre dates recorded history that is)
So I think a point of view such as the bible is quite valid since we don't know and will never know what actually happened in the past beyond a certain point, unless we manage to trvale back in time.
An example of this is the skin color/texture of dinosaurs and the sounds they make. We have no idea what so ever what they looked or sounded like but by the size of them and the places they lived we can guess, and only guess but it could just as easily turn out to be completely wrong or right. We will never know.

Just as they have found fossils, they have found skin pattern imprints on rocks for Dinosaurs. The sounds they make can be recreated by making a model of what their larynx and such looks like and then blowing air through it-- and through this method around half of dinosaur sounds can be recreated.
However, what we don't know, is if dinosaurs really sounded like this-- but it can only be assumed that the only way they made sound was by exhaling air through the larynx.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[GreenShirT]

Again, assumptions and just because the skin left an imprint as they found it doesnt mean it is exactly how it was. Skin can easily be distorted and molded. One view is as valid as the next in my opinion and in any case I am not too bothered about things that have happened but more concerned with now and how the money spent on researching the past could be put to better use today.

[Sorovis]

Alright, I'm sick of this, you're the one that wants to debate, not myself. How about we turn the tables on you, you support evidence, and valid evidence, that Jesus is existant. None of this "Well, a high christian supporter recently found a rock that said 'Jesus' on it," I mean real proof. My whole point was that there is no proof to credit EITHER side, not just my side, not just your side, EITHER side. If the word EITHER doesn't fit into your extensive vocabulary, then look it up.

Amidst all of the complaining about how you do not want to debate (even though your posts suggest otherwise), I see you want me to provide evidence for Jesus and his existence. Very well:

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01.html

Perhaps you will enjoy reading this. Food for thought, as they say. Now if you choose to refuse historical evidence, then there is just no debating with you at all, and you might as well leave (as you have already expressed interest in).


How many people do you know that were around to see Jesus walk on water? How many? What's that? Zero? Well, I'll be damned. You can't say "Well, at least people existed at the time he walked on water," because that's not valid proof, apparently. I didn't bother looking at the site, I don't plan on getting really far into this anyway.

No wonder you're still an Atheist. At least The Rusted One, and any other Atheist I can think of actually bothered to contest whatever evidence I have provided; you on the other hand seem perfectly content to sit around and preach your beliefs and then complain when someone decides to disagree; discarding any arguments they provide to support their view.

And so you resort to the 'no living person saw it happened' argument, a very poor and ill-concieved approach for those who do not wish to actually debate, or cannot perhaps. By this very limited view of the world, why don't I claim none of history happened? Like perhaps the Revolutionary War? I was not there to see it; no living person was, thus we cannot be sure it happened. Please, come out from under that rock and face reality.


Here's insistance: **** religion-topics, I'm sick of them, because no side ever wins. It eventually will turn into insults? Why? Because you can't debate like a gentlemen over something that has no real proof to back either side up.
The 'Big Bang Theory' has no real proof, and whatever that link was, unless I'm guessing wrongly, doesn't show proof of THE Jesus, or whatever it was trying to prove. Scientists aren't allowed to make up crackpot theories, and if they do, they aren't followed as strongly as the Big Bang Theory, is.

Actually scientists are allowed to make up any theory they want; they must simply face the confrontation of their fellow scientists if that theory is poorly supported, and ultimately ridicule. I also love how you complain so much about how you hate religious topics and then reply to them. I am not holding a gun to your head, I hope you realize, and you don't have to reply.


Remember this, Sorovis: Gravity was a theory at one point. Friction was only a theory at one point. The fact that the sun was in the center of the universe startled the church so much they wanted to kill the astrologists that claimed so, at one point.
And what now?: Gravity is a law. Friction is a law. The Heliocentric model is proven correct as opposed to the Geocentric.

Your entire point? Gravity can be proven; we experience it everyday. Same with friction and the location of the Sun and Earth. What do we have for Jesus? A heap of accounts suggesting and supporting his existence and documents of his teachings. You're right, he never existed. How could I be so foolish?

[Tainted]

And so you resort to the 'no living person saw it happened' argument, a very poor and ill-concieved approach for those who do not wish to actually debate, or cannot perhaps. By this very limited view of the world, why don't I claim none of history happened? Like perhaps the Revolutionary War? I was not there to see it; no living person was, thus we cannot be sure it happened. Please, come out from under that rock and face reality.

I find it very insulting that you dub me a bad atheist. You used the same 'no living person saw it happen' for the Big Bang theory, why can't I use it for Jesus? Hypocrisy.


I am not holding a gun to your head, I hope you realize, and you don't have to reply.

I agree that you're a good debater in a sense that you go around and read crap written by other biased christians, but I don't want to argue about christianity or religion. The only reason I keep replying is because you have a gun loaded with insults pointed to my head, and I find some of the things you say insulting.

My christian friend gave me a documentary tape that explained a bunch of christians were mountain-climbing and found a wooden plank on the top of the mountain, brought it down, and instantly claimed it was from Noah's Ark... Yes, I'm serious. Now, supposedly they're doing further excavations on this mountain... To *ahem* find Noah's Ark... But I didn't believe any of it.
It just shows that one random plank of wood on the top of a mountain somewhere instantly amounts to tons of people saying it was from Noah's Ark, and tons believing it. Christians have used this as proof to the existance of Noah's Ark, therefore they say, it must prove the existance of god, etc.
Just the same, documented records saying there was a Jesus could be as tainted as the Greeks claiming they beat the Romans in that small insignificant war.

A lot of that website seems to be repeating constant crap. "People here wrote about Jesus, and people over here wrote about Jesus," which doesn't prove he's real, it just proves that religion travels. I'm pretty much done because of disgust, unless, again, I feel insulted, to which point I'll most likely reply.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[Sorovis]

I find it very insulting that you dub me a bad atheist. You used the same 'no living person saw it happen' for the Big Bang theory, why can't I use it for Jesus? Hypocrisy.

I don't recall directly calling you a bad anything. All I said was that you simply don't listen to evidence and that your logic seems to only work for you. Guess when the Big Bang happened? Supposedly when people were not in existence. Guess when Jesus happened? Suprisingly when people were in existence and left documents supporting his existence. Wow, I think there is a difference between the two.


I agree that you're a good debater in a sense that you go around and read crap written by other biased christians, but I don't want to argue about christianity or religion. The only reason I keep replying is because you have a gun loaded with insults pointed to my head, and I find some of the things you say insulting.

And I find your claiming the Bible has no historical evidence insulting. If you take that back I will gladly delete all of my past responses dealing with your points, and you will be free to do so as well. Honestly, if you don't want to debate, then either take back your comment or just leave the thread.


My christian friend gave me a documentary tape that explained a bunch of christians were mountain-climbing and found a wooden plank on the top of the mountain, brought it down, and instantly claimed it was from Noah's Ark... Yes, I'm serious. Now, supposedly they're doing further excavations on this mountain... To *ahem* find Noah's Ark... But I didn't believe any of it.
It just shows that one random plank of wood on the top of a mountain somewhere instantly amounts to tons of people saying it was from Noah's Ark, and tons believing it. Christians have used this as proof to the existance of Noah's Ark, therefore they say, it must prove the existance of god, etc.
Just the same, documented records saying there was a Jesus could be as tainted as the Greeks claiming they beat the Romans in that small insignificant war.

First of all that is a miserably innaccurate example. Do the people actually have Noah's Ark in their possession or at the very least available for public view? No, they claim to have not been able to find it again. Naturally the archeological findings supporting Jesus's existence are still available today; no mysterious disappearings there. And of course don't get me started on how some Atheists pounce on every shard of potential evidence supposedly disproving Jesus's existence or the Bible's validity. Yes they are out there, just do a search on the internet regarding Jesus's existence.

The real problem with saying the evidence may be tainted? Look at all of the varying sources the corraborate on the existence of Jesus, as listed on the most recent site I have provided. Had it been one person you may have had a point. The reality, however, is that a number of historical persons report the existence of a man called Jesus Christ.

And on to the entire bias argument while I am at it. There is a certain amount of human nature to be taken into account when listening to a person report something signifigant: misconceptions on what actually happened, not being able to accurately re-tell the event, etc.. Suggesting that a person may purposely alter the recording of an event to their leisure is certainly not proposterous, but farfetched nonetheless. That assumes that the human race is entirely comprised of lying, greedy, and selfish men and women with no code of morals and no respect. I for instance would not do such a thing; neither would many other people here. To say people of the past automatically would is ridiculous.


A lot of that website seems to be repeating constant crap. "People here wrote about Jesus, and people over here wrote about Jesus," which doesn't prove he's real, it just proves that religion travels. I'm pretty much done because of disgust, unless, again, I feel insulted, to which point I'll most likely reply.

Have you read any of the sites I have provided (both of them, that is)? Please do before coming to such hasty conclusions. Regardless of whether you want to debate or not, at least do so coherently.

[The Muffin Man]

hooray for another religion debate. don't you people have anything better to do?

At least they're not sneaking this into yet ANOTHER thread somehow...

[The Muffin Man]

No. No no no no NO. No ****ing way am I standing by and letting this bullshit go by.


No wonder you're still an Atheist.

Sorovis, don't you dare claim he's an athiest because he refuses to go to a site with information you provide. I try not to insult christianity because I respect that it is someone elses decision for their beliefs. I respect that, and although it doesn't look or sound like it I try to be as open as possible. This is not a goddamn conversion. You edit that OUT of that post. I'm ****ing serious, this is disgusting, assuming he's an athiest because he didn't read what YOU provided.

[Tainted]

Yes, I read the websites.


At least The Rusted One, and any other Atheist I can think of actually bothered to contest whatever evidence I have provided; you on the other hand seem perfectly content to sit around and preach your beliefs and then complain when someone decides to disagree

Is that not dubbing me a bad Atheist in your eyes? I'm done arguing, I don't really find anything you said in your last post worth arguing about, because, well, frankly you started this, and I continued because I like arguing. In reality, I don't give a **** if the bible is historically accurate, I don't give a **** if the big bang theory is incorrect and we were actually all created, I don't give a **** if Jesus was real, and I don't give a **** if God is real. Why don't I give a ****? Because if all of this stuff was there, and was real, I'd still be religion-less. I wouldn't doubt that they were real, I'd just choose to not believe in them.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[CaptainDean]

Yes, I read the websites.



Is that not dubbing me a bad Atheist in your eyes? I'm done arguing, I don't really find anything you said in your last post worth arguing about, because, well, frankly you started this, and I continued because I like arguing. In reality, I don't give a **** if the bible is historically accurate, I don't give a **** if the big bang theory is incorrect and we were actually all created, I don't give a **** if Jesus was real, and I don't give a **** if God is real. Why don't I give a ****? Because if all of this stuff was there, and was real, I'd still be religion-less. I wouldn't doubt that they were real, I'd just choose to not believe in them.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

Sorry, but you're a moron. You just said that even if it was a fact, you wouldn't believe it. That's sheer idiocy at it's finest.

[Tainted]

No wonder you're still an Atheist.


No. No no no no NO. No ****ing way am I standing by and letting this bullshit go by.

Sorovis, don't you dare claim he's an athiest because he refuses to go to a site with information you provide. I try not to insult christianity because I respect that it is someone elses decision for their beliefs. I respect that, and although it doesn't look or sound like it I try to be as open as possible. This is not a goddamn conversion. You edit that OUT of that post. I'm ****ing serious, this is disgusting, assuming he's an athiest because he didn't read what YOU provided.

I didn't even see that quote by Sorovis. Well, I'll be damned, that is EXTREMELY arrogant to say, thanks for pointing that out Mike. Dude, Sorovis, you don't see me saying anything like "Well, no wonder you're still a christian, you haven't been taught the world of science." Here's reality: I'm not converting now, and I'm not going to convert ever. I don't care if I have to ward off Jehovah's with a Stinger, I'll still stay Atheist. That statement, now, after finally reading it, has pissed me to the point of exploding-- no ****ing way, just back the **** off the whole topic, there's no way in hell any little website you provide is going to convert me. Like I said in my past post, even if ****ing Jesus was real I would still be an Atheist, I would still be with no religion.

Right now, I no longer care if I'm insulting you or your people because you have gone right out and insulted MYSELF and Atheism. So **** you, **** your god, **** your jesus christ, **** everything you stand for. **** your rights, **** your freedoms, **** your beliefs, and **** conversion. Are you insulted now? Good.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[Tainted]

Sorry, but you're a moron. You just said that even if it was a fact, you wouldn't believe it. That's sheer idiocy at it's finest.

Actually, you're a moron. I clearly stated I would acknowledge that they were true, I would just choose to be without a religion. Just because God is real would not mean I would have to worship him. Just because George Bush is real does not mean you have to believe that everything he says is right and just. Therefore, I would still be Atheist. I would believe in God, but I woulds till be religion-less. I would not pray to God, I would not go to church, I would still be an Atheist. Understand now? Good.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[Aglandiir]

To claim that the Bible is entirely made up is foolish. It obviously is not. If it were, then it wouldn't have survived this long; it would've been lost in history thousands of years ago as just another crackpot cultist book once people who were there starting talking about how none of it actually took place.

On the same note, to claim that everything in the Bible is true, just because *some* things in the Bible are true, is equally foolish.

Take, for example, the story of King Arthur. There was no King Arthur, no Knights of the Round Table, no Launcelot, etc. The general consensus these days is that Arthur is a conglomerate of a dozen different Roman, British and Norman rulers who lived over the course of several hundred years. At the same time, however, King Arthur is a central figure in British history, and the stories that go along with him helped spread the notion of chivalry and the benevolent royal court. This mythical figure had a profound influence on European history.

I'm not saying that Jesus was the same way, since there are obvious differences; one such being that Jesus' influence was seen much sooner after the time he would've lived than Arthur's was. Still, King Arthur provides an excellent example of how something made-up can turn in to something of profound importance and historical value. Just a hundred or few hundred years ago, people still believed that Arthur was real. One of the key reasons we have for believing the contrary is conflicting history, as well as the lack of archaelogical evidence. Such techniques cannot be used to examine Biblical stories, since Jesus' life would not have left behind many artifacts that would last this long (like Camelot would), and there is a general lack of written record from that far back in history. Take this, from that site you posted, for example:


To this Meier adds [ibid., 23] that in general, knowledge of the vast majority of ancient peoples is "simply not accessible to us today by historical research and never will be." It is just as was said in his earlier comment on Alexander the Great: What we know of most ancient people as individuals could fit on just a few pieces of paper. Thus it is misguided for the skeptic to complain that we know so little about the historical Jesus, and have so little recorded about Him in ancient pagan sources. Compared to most ancient people, we know quite a lot about Jesus, and have quite a lot recorded about Him! (For a response to a commonly-used list of writers who allegedly should have mentioned Jesus, see here.)

One or two sources can not generally be taken as proof of any theory in any field.

[The Muffin Man]

The Bibles not all true. Nor is it all false. It's like historical fiction. Or, for example, Hellboy(movie, not comics).

There WAS a WW2. There WERE Nazis. Did they do weird things to Jews? Yes. Were any of them involving the accult? Possibly. Was there a Hellboy? As far as we know, no.

[Zak]

I didn't even see that quote by Sorovis. Well, I'll be damned, that is EXTREMELY arrogant to say, thanks for pointing that out Mike. Dude, Sorovis, you don't see me saying anything like "Well, no wonder you're still a christian, you haven't been taught the world of science." Here's reality: I'm not converting now, and I'm not going to convert ever. I don't care if I have to ward off Jehovah's with a Stinger, I'll still stay Atheist. That statement, now, after finally reading it, has pissed me to the point of exploding-- no ****ing way, just back the **** off the whole topic, there's no way in hell any little website you provide is going to convert me. Like I said in my past post, even if ****ing Jesus was real I would still be an Atheist, I would still be with no religion.

Right now, I no longer care if I'm insulting you or your people because you have gone right out and insulted MYSELF and Atheism. So **** you, **** your god, **** your jesus christ, **** everything you stand for. **** your rights, **** your freedoms, **** your beliefs, and **** conversion. Are you insulted now? Good.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

Woah woah WOAH! Uh... settle down dude. I can understand you're angry, but if you look at your attitude, don't you think you're kinda making atheists look bad? I know you only mean to represent your own personal opinion, but I'm gonna have to give you a warning for this. You do indeed have every right to get deeply offended by Sorovis' nasty comment (which he is getting warned for as well). If it weren't for that last two sentences it would have been fine. Now it just seems you're almost sinking to his level.
Although, Skullfire, if that comment actually cut you real deep that you really feel the need to take it out on him in the roughest way possible, it would be better to do it via PM. That way you can get the message across to Sorovis, without offending some Christians on this board that actually have more sense.

And like I said Sorovis, I'll repeat what I said before: Don't EVER use atheism as a term of belittlement.

If this topic gets any more abuse, I'm closing it. End of story. We have enough religious debates as it is, so one down wouldn't hurt.

I'm staying out of this, because like HealdPK said in one topic, IMO religious debates are pointless, since it's nearly impossible to evangelize or convert someone over the internet.

~Zak

[DarkTemplarZ]

The Bible is so ambiguous and badly written that it's pointless to discuss it, because everybody has their own interpretation of it. You'll just get a flame war between somebody who thinks it's all bullshit and a Christian person, like what's happening here.

IMO Jesus did exist, there is plenty of evidence of that. It's like denying that Narmer existed; there are lots of tainted and biased documents about him but the belief that they were an actual person is generally accepted. The fact that he was the descendant of God (Which is just completely ridiculous. God is perfect, hence he doesn't engage in "pleasures of flesh", but since he had a son he must have.) and that he died for all our sins and we should worship him day and night is total bullshit. People died worse deaths for their gods in the Spanish Inquisition in the name of Christ, and we don't worship any of them. Hell, even Odysseus has a similar story, enduring twenty years of torment for his hubris (which can be equated to sins) in a story, and I don't see anybody revering him as a god. Besides, the Bible is just a conglomoration of Pagan stories. Can you deny the similarities between the Christian God and Zeus or between the stories of Jesus and Osiris (Betrayed and killed horribly, was eventually reborn and then went to the realm of the dead.)?

[AbareMax]

This is sad...The only proof anyone needs of Jesus' existance would be the Bible. That's it. If you all would read the Bible, then you would know the facts.... There's my two cents

AbareMax

[The Muffin Man]

This is sad...The only proof anyone needs of Jesus' existance would be the Bible. That's it. If you all would read the Bible, then you would know the facts.... There's my two cents

AbareMax

Leave the debates to the people willing to support it, Ok Kiddo? Thanks.

[Sorovis]

Oh yes, this is what I've been waiting for...


No. No no no no NO. No ****ing way am I standing by and letting this bullshit go by.

Sorovis, don't you dare claim he's an athiest because he refuses to go to a site with information you provide. I try not to insult christianity because I respect that it is someone elses decision for their beliefs. I respect that, and although it doesn't look or sound like it I try to be as open as possible. This is not a goddamn conversion. You edit that OUT of that post. I'm ****ing serious, this is disgusting, assuming he's an athiest because he didn't read what YOU provided.

The Muffin Man, do you know how to read? Or better yet, do you know what selective reading is? Apparantly not. Selective reading is what magically yields all of those 'Biblical flaws', and pertinant to now, what you just did. I said he was an Atheist because he was perfectly content to sit around and ignore evidence, whereas The Rusted One actually contested evidence with evidence. Just like ignorance is a bad way to be a Christian, so is it a bad reason to be an Atheist. Of course then again you may not have read it the way I intended, so I will assume the latter as of now. And for the love of your post don't get so angry. You look pathetic.


Yes, I read the websites.

Is that not dubbing me a bad Atheist in your eyes? I'm done arguing, I don't really find anything you said in your last post worth arguing about, because, well, frankly you started this, and I continued because I like arguing. In reality, I don't give a **** if the bible is historically accurate, I don't give a **** if the big bang theory is incorrect and we were actually all created, I don't give a **** if Jesus was real, and I don't give a **** if God is real. Why don't I give a ****? Because if all of this stuff was there, and was real, I'd still be religion-less. I wouldn't doubt that they were real, I'd just choose to not believe in them.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

I had no idea you liked to argue. After reading all of your 'I hate religious debates' and all of that, I would have assumed otherwise. Now as for the rest of the post, there really isn't that much to address. I don't care either way if you're a Christian or not, really, that is your choice. All I am trying to do is get you to stop making outrageous claims such as that the Bible has little or no historical accuracy.


I didn't even see that quote by Sorovis. Well, I'll be damned, that is EXTREMELY arrogant to say, thanks for pointing that out Mike. Dude, Sorovis, you don't see me saying anything like "Well, no wonder you're still a christian, you haven't been taught the world of science." Here's reality: I'm not converting now, and I'm not going to convert ever. I don't care if I have to ward off Jehovah's with a Stinger, I'll still stay Atheist. That statement, now, after finally reading it, has pissed me to the point of exploding-- no ****ing way, just back the **** off the whole topic, there's no way in hell any little website you provide is going to convert me. Like I said in my past post, even if ****ing Jesus was real I would still be an Atheist, I would still be with no religion.

Right now, I no longer care if I'm insulting you or your people because you have gone right out and insulted MYSELF and Atheism. So **** you, **** your god, **** your jesus christ, **** everything you stand for. **** your rights, **** your freedoms, **** your beliefs, and **** conversion. Are you insulted now? Good.

Not particularly. All I am going to do is ask you to stop so the thread does not turn into a flame war and get closed. Read how I replied to The Muffin Man above, and you'll see what I actually meant. By the way, insults don't get you anywhere, so please just calm down.

[The Muffin Man]

I said he was an Atheist because he was perfectly content to sit around and ignore evidence

Yeah. THAT'S doing you alot of favors.

[Sorovis]

Actually that perfectly fits what you are doing as of now. Have you bothered to look at the sites provided? I have no idea, as you have done nothing to contribute to the thread except whine and complain and get in your little insults when you can. That would be called spamming, and it would be very nice if you could perhaps stop it. Quite honestly, do you understand the term hypocracy yet?


The Bible is so ambiguous and badly written that it's pointless to discuss it, because everybody has their own interpretation of it. You'll just get a flame war between somebody who thinks it's all bullshit and a Christian person, like what's happening here.

Have you ever heard of a little thing we like to call the past? And of course you would be familiar with the conception that people wrote things differently in this thing called the past, correct?


IMO Jesus did exist, there is plenty of evidence of that. It's like denying that Narmer existed; there are lots of tainted and biased documents about him but the belief that they were an actual person is generally accepted. The fact that he was the descendant of God (Which is just completely ridiculous. God is perfect, hence he doesn't engage in "pleasures of flesh", but since he had a son he must have.)

Incorrect here. Jesus was considered the perfect human being and committed no sins, that includes murderous thoughts, jealousy, everything remotely bad. Also keep in mind that just because God created people does not at all mean that He cannot enjoy them Himself, otherwise we humans, who are also His creations, would not be able to enjoy earthly things either.


and that he died for all our sins and we should worship him day and night is total bullshit. People died worse deaths for their gods in the Spanish Inquisition in the name of Christ, and we don't worship any of them. Hell, even Odysseus has a similar story, enduring twenty years of torment for his hubris (which can be equated to sins) in a story, and I don't see anybody revering him as a god. Besides, the Bible is just a conglomoration of Pagan stories. Can you deny the similarities between the Christian God and Zeus or between the stories of Jesus and Osiris (Betrayed and killed horribly, was eventually reborn and then went to the realm of the dead.)?

No Jesus and Osiris had many differences; Osiris if I remember correctly was not ressurected by his own power, rather by another God. Jesus's ressurection was by his own will to prove that he could conquer death. Also note that people saw and recorded Jesus rising from the dead, whereas Osiris's miracles was only heard of in stories. Same with Odysseus. The difference? Jesus existed and people saw his miracles, Osiris and Odysseus did not and people did not see their miracles.

[The Muffin Man]

Actually that perfectly fits what you are doing as of now. Have you bothered to look at the sites provided? I have no idea, as you have done nothing to contribute to the thread except whine and complain and get in your little insults when you can. That would be called spamming, and it would be very nice if you could perhaps stop it. Quite honestly, do you understand the term hypocracy yet?


I said he was an Atheist because he was perfectly content to sit around and ignore evidence

So do you understand? Do you finally understand why we're pissed off? Or are you content to claim hypocrisy is anything you don't like?

I already said I try not to insult christianity because I respect that it is your belief. Now, do I need to ****ing define hypocrisy for you? Or are you gonna use it RIGHT?

[Sorovis]

What evidence have I had to ignore this entire topic, or any other for that matter? I always have and always will match evidence with evidence and point for point unless I miss something. All you are doing now is wasting time, not just your own, but mine.

Now, if everyone is ready to actually present evidence as opposed to use their selective reading skills and giving the swear filter a nice workout, let's actually turn this into a debate (note that Templar has been the only person to come close to what I have been searching for). No more snide comments from The Muffin Man and please no more enraged rants by Skullfire.

[Dark Scizor]

For the historical accuracy of the bible, i just think Chinese Whispers.

[RedStarWarrior]

Many of the events, places, and people in the Bible were real. However, I am not sure about the Bible as a whole. I know that many people might feel better about classifying it as historical fiction.

[The Muffin Man]

What evidence have I had to ignore this entire topic, or any other for that matter? I always have and always will match evidence with evidence and point for point unless I miss something. All you are doing now is wasting time, not just your own, but mine.
I didn't call YOU a hypocrite. I said stop using it incorrectly.



Now, if everyone is ready to actually present evidence as opposed to use their selective reading skills and giving the swear filter a nice workout, let's actually turn this into a debate (note that Templar has been the only person to come close to what I have been searching for). No more snide comments from The Muffin Man and please no more enraged rants by Skullfire.

So you're going to ignore the fact that you've blatantly insulted Athiesm and claimed it's just because people don't want to accept evidence??

[Aglandiir]

(note that Templar has been the only person to come close to what I have been searching for)

Thanks for completely, blatantly, and, as far as I can tell, intentionally ignoring my post.

[Checkmate]

Before I disect Dark Templar's post, I'll address the King Arthur point. You are right in that it's not a perfet analogy. The imperfections, however, are the keys. We have written document clearly stating that Jesus was the Son of God and died for our sins in a document written less than 5 years after his death. (1 Corinthians)

Also, King Arthur's story would not have lasted had the writers of his story been under heavy persecution attempting to dissuade them. I will not go into gory detail.

You are also mistaken in saying that architecture cannot back up the gospels. It can and has. For instance a certain pool at Bethesda has been dug up exactly where the gospel of John indicated. Luke's works have been investigated by a certain atheistic archaeologist and were found flawless to a tea. (9 islands, 52 cities,) People thought Luke was messed up for using the term 'politarch' in reference to a political position of government, until someone unearthed an inscription using just such a term. Since more than thirty other archaeological discoveries have been found using the word 'politarch'.

In fact, archaeology has stitched up several apparent problems with the gospels and Acts.

In conclusion, I agree that myths can influence history, but one cannot draw many decent parallels between King Arthur and Jesus Christ. (though they are both great kings)

Now, onto the other decent post.



The Bible is so ambiguous and badly written that it's pointless to discuss it, because everybody has their own interpretation of it.

Not quite. Could you please site an example. I agree that some passages and even some books (ie parts of Daniel and almost all of Revelation) seem confusing and could certainly be misinterpretted, calling the Bible as a whole, open to interpretation is grossly over-exaggerated generalization.


You'll just get a flame war between somebody who thinks it's all bullshit and a Christian person, like what's happening here.

Unfortunately you are correct. I find it disappointing that people such as Skullfire and The Muffin Man find it perfectly all right to ignorantly diss the Bible, but respond to any argument or requests for evidence with **** this, **** that, **** Christianity/religion, and **** you. A repulsive way to represent one's beliefs.



IMO Jesus did exist, there is plenty of evidence of that. It's like denying that Narmer existed; there are lots of tainted and biased documents about him but the belief that they were an actual person is generally accepted.

Obviously, I agree.


The fact that he was the descendant of God (Which is just completely ridiculous. God is perfect, hence he doesn't engage in "pleasures of flesh", but since he had a son he must have.) and that he died for all our sins and we should worship him day and night is total bullshit.

Not quite. First let me address your parentheses. a) sex is not a sin when it's inside marriage, but that's irrelevant b) Jesus' birth did not require sex or conception. (hence why 'a)' is irrelevant) You can't confine the spirit world to the limitations of the physicaly world, and God is not a physical being and does not operate like one.

Now for your statement as a whole. The thing is it's not really out of the question. The entire Bible including the beliefs of Judaism fit with it like two puzzle pieces. (I am speaking of OT Judaism) Blood sacrifices were necessary for cleansing sins. Jesus was the ultimate blood sacrifice to cleanse all sins.

Now, I might appear to contradict myself. After all, I just said that one cannot confine God to physical limitations, and now I'm claiming that Jesus was God incarnate.

However, I do not contradict myself in that when God himself confines himself to human limitations (the 30-some years of Jesus' life) he is then human and divine. Not completely contradictory.

Now on to the main point. No claim is ridiculous when met with sufficient evidence. Here is the evidence. The Bible (which can be historically defended) says that Jesus forgave sins (sins that were not against his person) and that he proclaimed divinity. Yet he also performed miracles. Only one man in history has done both, Jesus of Nazareth.

The prophets performed miracles. Decievers and lunatics have claimed divinity before and after the times of Christ, but none have done both. It is true that miracles can be done only by the power of God or Satan. (Satan's being much less powerful) That means that Jesus would have to have the backing of one of the two. (saying that his miracles were hoaxes beyond the realm of reasonable possibility. They were legit.)

Certainly God would not back a man that claimed divinity and was not divine. What Blasphemy! So the only two options are that Jesus was an agent of the devil, or the son of God. (we already know by his miracles that he works for one of the two) He cast out demons and ultimately led people to God. (following God's laws such as the top ten) And he also gave God's creation better lives. Two things the Devil definetly does not advocate.

The conclusion is logical. It's strange but logical. Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God, the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, he's everything. Messiah, Jehovah, the Prince of Peace. It's he. Son of man, seed of Abraham, second person in the trinity, he is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end.

Now of course, there are several points in my argument you could attack and I'm ready to defend. Such as the validity of the Bible or proof of the miracles. Ask and you shall receive. (evidence)


People died worse deaths for their gods in the Spanish Inquisition in the name of Christ, and we don't worship any of them.

Because they're not God and only God is worthy of worship. Jesus was God.


Hell, even Odysseus has a similar story, enduring twenty years of torment for his hubris (which can be equated to sins) in a story, and I don't see anybody revering him as a god.

Yeah, sure.


Besides, the Bible is just a conglomoration of Pagan stories.

That's worse than merely calling it fiction.


Can you deny the similarities between the Christian God and Zeus or between the stories of Jesus and Osiris

Maybe, but I really don't have deny the similarities, because there aren't any. For one thing, God is God alone. Zeus wasn't. He was the head God among other Gods. Zeus couldn't even obey the laws of the people he was sovereign over. He was gross adulterer and couldn't keep his own house hold in order. Zeus was also a tyrant. God is a judge. He loves those who he judges and always offers grace before his judgement.

As for Osirus, I am ignorant to any knowledge of him except him being Egyptian, but I doubt he died for his people out of agape love. If I am wrong, just show me.

[Aglandiir]

We have written document clearly stating that Jesus was the Son of God and died for our sins in a document written less than 5 years after his death. (1 Corinthians)

The fact that the book was written a short time after the event does not necessarily make it accurate. If the people who wrote the book had a vested interest in passing Jesus off as God Himself (which they certainly did, regardless of whether or not that claim was true), then they would have plenty of reason to write what they did, again regardless of whether or not it was true.

If they wanted to tell people that Jesus performed miracles, but he didn't... then why, exactly, would they write in their book that he *didn't* perform miracles? They wouldn't. They would lie, and say that he did.


[...] In fact, archaeology has stitched up several apparent problems with the gospels and Acts.

That isn't quite the sort of archaelogical evidence I was talking about. Camelot, if positively identified as ruins, would in turn prove the existance of King Arthur, since no other king has ever claimed to rule from such a place.

The artifacts you mention, however, have no bearing on whether or not Jesus was a divine being. All they prove is that the people who wrote the books actually lived where they said they lived, and actually paid attention to their surroundings. If Luke got his numbers right, that's because he was actually there. Maybe he even counted them himself. Who knows? It has no bearing on Jesus, though.


In conclusion, I agree that myths can influence history, but one cannot draw many decent parallels between King Arthur and Jesus Christ. (though they are both great kings)

There is at least one excellent parallel:

Both stories started with fact, (potentially) changed it around, and have been/were believed to be historical truth for a very long time.


Now on to the main point. No claim is ridiculous when met with sufficient evidence. Here is the evidence. The Bible (which can be historically defended) [...]

This is a logical fallacy. To quote myself:

"On the same note, to claim that everything in the Bible is true, just because *some* things in the Bible are true, is equally foolish."

*Some* parts of the Bible can, indeed, be historically defended. Nobody denies that. However, to claim that the Bible as a whole can be historically defended, merely because certain parts of it can, is just flat-out wrong.

Therefore, this entire part of your post...


[...] says that Jesus forgave sins (sins that were not against his person) and that he proclaimed divinity. Yet he also performed miracles. Only one man in history has done both, Jesus of Nazareth [...]

[...] That means that Jesus would have to have the backing of one of the two. (saying that his miracles were hoaxes beyond the realm of reasonable possibility. They were legit.) [...]

[...] He cast out demons and ultimately led people to God [...]

...is invalid.

It isn't necessarily untrue, but it cannot be proven either way, at least with the premises you are using.


The conclusion is logical. It's strange but logical.

It's only logical if the Bible is true, which it may or may not be. If the Bible is not true (a possibility which, to date, nobody has successfully discounted), then your conclusion is not logical.

[Razola]

It's a good historical reference. But what 2,000+ year old document isn't going to have something worth reading about?

[Tainted]

I find it disappointing that people such as Skullfire and The Muffin Man find it perfectly all right to ignorantly diss the Bible, but respond to any argument or requests for evidence with **** this, **** that, **** Christianity/religion, and **** you. A repulsive way to represent one's beliefs.

So, it's perfectly fine to 'diss' Atheism, and then be offended when I reply with '**** this, **** that, etc.' No, Sorovis stepped over the line, clearly-- you can't see just how far he stepped over the line because you have a damned bible infront of your face. Also, I responded with that not because I felt I lost, but rather because I felt Sorovis definately had crossed my offence boundary.
Oh, and I can represent my beliefs however I want. I don't tell you how to represent your beliefs, don't insist I represent mine in anything but repulsive. I don't represent Atheism, I'm too much of an ******* to do that, I represent myself and only myself.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[DarkTemplarZ]

As for Osirus, I am ignorant to any knowledge of him except him being Egyptian, but I doubt he died for his people out of agape love. If I am wrong, just show me.

Generally, Osiris was a kind and great leader and supposidly the grandson of Ra (The leader of the Egyptian gods) before he was betrayed and brutally murdered. He was later reborn and wandered the Earth before he went to the realm of the dead. Remind you of anybody?



Maybe, but I really don't have deny the similarities, because there aren't any. For one thing, God is God alone. Zeus wasn't. He was the head God among other Gods. Zeus couldn't even obey the laws of the people he was sovereign over. He was gross adulterer and couldn't keep his own house hold in order. Zeus was also a tyrant. God is a judge. He loves those who he judges and always offers grace before his judgement.


lol right, and the Christian God isn't guilty of any of the seven deadly sins? Here's a few:

Jealously- "I, Yahweh, your God, am a jealous God. You shall have no other gods but me."
Wrath- "God's wrath", getting extremely pissed off any chucking people into hell. If damning people to eternal suffering isn't a sin then I don't know what is.
Pride- Believing that he is perfect and superior to everyone and everything else. Forget pride, that's downright arrogance.

The Christian God can't follow his own rules either. And PLEASE spare me any bullshit about humans being unable to understand God's intentions and emotions and these sins don't apply to him and stuff. Loves those he judges? "I love you... but still I have to condemn you to eternal suffering"? LMFAO



sex is not a sin when it's inside marriage, but that's irrelevant


So that's why Christian divinity requires complete abstinence? That's why Jesus supposidly didn't need to? That's why anyone who hopes to be Pope or Cardinal still has to practice abstinence for their entire lives? Right. Hypocrisy.



Now on to the main point. No claim is ridiculous when met with sufficient evidence. Here is the evidence. The Bible (which can be historically defended) says that Jesus forgave sins (sins that were not against his person) and that he proclaimed divinity. Yet he also performed miracles. Only one man in history has done both, Jesus of Nazareth.


Correction. Certain parts of the Bible, such as the actual existance of Jesus or Moses, can be defended. The fact that he performed miracles and stuff like that possibly were the result of the person recording it being high on drugs. Besides, there is no evidence of these "miracles" outside of the Bible. I don't see any evidence of land underneath the Red Sea being partially eroded by air because of God parting the sea for Moses. In other words, these "miracles" can't be historically defended. I would love to hear any proof you have of these miracles.



That's worse than merely calling it fiction.


Read the Bible and compare it to Pagan legends. Jesus dying for our sins was predated by the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl doing the same thing. The halo is simply a modernized Egyptian sun disk. Christmas is supposed to be the birthday of Jesus Christ, even though Jesus was born in March. Why? To copy the Pagan celebration of the winter solstice.

[The Muffin Man]

Unfortunately you are correct. I find it disappointing that people such as Skullfire and The Muffin Man find it perfectly all right to ignorantly diss the Bible, but respond to any argument or requests for evidence with **** this, **** that, **** Christianity/religion, and **** you. A repulsive way to represent one's beliefs.

I already told you, I try to be as respectful as possible to peoples religions. But just because I say the bible is mostly fictional is NOT insulting it. I already gave an example. And it wasn't an argument or request for evidence, he claimed Skullfire was an athiest because he REFUSED to accept "evidence"!! Are you even listening or just reading Sorovis posts and going off whatever it sounds like?

[Last Exile]

The Bible was written by men for men. It can hardly be accurate considering it was written to write women out of history in terms of their value and rights.

History = HIS STORY!

Any questions?!

[Sorovis]

I didn't call YOU a hypocrite. I said stop using it incorrectly.

I am not using it incorrectly. Yelling at people for not contributing to the debate and not doing so yourself clearly and easily makes you a hypocrite. It also seems as if you are inept at doing anything remotely close to debating; all that I have seen from you as of now is you attacking me in some way; or Checkmate for that matter.


So you're going to ignore the fact that you've blatantly insulted Athiesm and claimed it's just because people don't want to accept evidence??

Did you bother to read my post responding to your first post regarding this? Obviously not. Either that or you are incapable of understanding what I said in that post.

And I must apologize to Anglandir for missing his post. When I get the time I will go back and deal with it. From what I can tell, his post was also what I have been searching for, along with Templar's.


The Bible was written by men for men. It can hardly be accurate considering it was written to write women out of history in terms of their value and rights.

History = HIS STORY!

Any questions?!

Not quite. There are some female judges, queens, and perhaps prophets in the Bible.


I already told you, I try to be as respectful as possible to peoples religions. But just because I say the bible is mostly fictional is NOT insulting it. I already gave an example. And it wasn't an argument or request for evidence, he claimed Skullfire was an athiest because he REFUSED to accept "evidence"!! Are you even listening or just reading Sorovis posts and going off whatever it sounds like?

I am getting very tired of this. How many times do I have to explain to you that I was not insulting Atheism? All you are doing is wasting time, because Checkmate quite clearly knows what I meant.

[Tainted]

Alright, everyone, I've finally found out why Sorovis is so clueless to how he's insulting Atheism... He's speaking his own language, that apparently only other religious people like Checkmate can decipher. Apparently claiming that "No wonder you're still Atheist, you won't accept the evidence" translates loosely to "Ah, my Atheist child, let me soothe your soul and cleanse you from your own damnation-- follow me, child, follow me into God's light."

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[Sorovis]

Skullfire, I have explained multiple times the reason I said 'no wonder you're still Atheist' is because unlike other Atheists such as The Rusted One, you choose to simply ignore any evidence that is against what you believe. I am very tired of you trying to play the victim, because as of now it is simply very annoying. Either actually contribute to the thread by contesting the evidence, or just leave. I don't care if you give me four-hundred private messages threatening to eat my babies, just leave this thread to those who are willing to actually debate in it.

You have stated multiple times that you hate religion debates and that you don't think they get anywhere-- so why are you wasting your time here? Because you would like to pretend I directly insulted you and your beliefs, and that I am belittling you I am very sure. Honestly though, I have explained myself and tried to move on, and I don't need you desperately clinging to your little 'Sorovis hates me and destroyed my life!' argument.

[Tainted]

Skullfire, I have explained multiple times the reason I said 'no wonder you're still Atheist' is because unlike other Atheists such as The Rusted One, you choose to simply ignore any evidence that is against what you believe. I am very tired of you trying to play the victim, because as of now it is simply very annoying. Either actually contribute to the thread by contesting the evidence, or just leave. I don't care if you give me four-hundred private messages threatening to eat my babies, just leave this thread to those who are willing to actually debate in it.

You have stated multiple times that you hate religion debates and that you don't think they get anywhere-- so why are you wasting your time here? Because you would like to pretend I directly insulted you and your beliefs, and that I am belittling you I am very sure. Honestly though, I have explained myself and tried to move on, and I don't need you desperately clinging to your little 'Sorovis hates me and destroyed my life!' argument.

Alright, get off your pimply obese ass and take a look at what you said one more time because apparently three or four times isn't enough to get it through your fat skull.
"No wonder you're still an Atheist." This, to me, means that if I looked at this evidence I would've somehow been converted. I do hate religion debates. This debate is going nowhere. You did not destroy my life, because, well-- unlike some on these boards I do (believe it or not) have a social life.

You are belittling me, you did insult me and my beliefs, stop making me look like more of an ******* than I already am in each one of your posts and I'll stop posting. If your next post is anything saying "Please Skullfire, just stop posting, you're making *enter some religion that isn't christianity* look bad" then I'm going to keep posting end of story.
Oh, and I will eat your babies, but remember-- I must properly marinade them first...

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[Sorovis]

The fact that the book was written a short time after the event does not necessarily make it accurate. If the people who wrote the book had a vested interest in passing Jesus off as God Himself (which they certainly did, regardless of whether or not that claim was true), then they would have plenty of reason to write what they did, again regardless of whether or not it was true.

If they wanted to tell people that Jesus performed miracles, but he didn't... then why, exactly, would they write in their book that he *didn't* perform miracles? They wouldn't. They would lie, and say that he did.

So what reason exactly do these people have to follow someone who a) claims to be the Son of God when he clearly is not and b) claim that he did miracles when he clearly did not? Especially when the people in context are being threatened with death and torment for following such a man? That my friend is a logical fallacy. These people have no incentives to make up such lies, thus to assume they have done so anyways assumes that these people are illogical or perhaps insane, which based on their own renown they most certainly and clearly are not. Then you have the fact that there were four people who wrote about Jesus and his miracles, not just one.

Of course then what must be taken into account is that not only did many follow Jesus and his teachings due to the miracles he performed, many labelled him a sorceror, or a magician. What does this imply? That the fact that he did indeed perform miracles is not disputed so much as his actual purpose and motives.


That isn't quite the sort of archaelogical evidence I was talking about. Camelot, if positively identified as ruins, would in turn prove the existance of King Arthur, since no other king has ever claimed to rule from such a place.

The artifacts you mention, however, have no bearing on whether or not Jesus was a divine being. All they prove is that the people who wrote the books actually lived where they said they lived, and actually paid attention to their surroundings. If Luke got his numbers right, that's because he was actually there. Maybe he even counted them himself. Who knows? It has no bearing on Jesus, though.

Yes it does actually. For one it proves that Luke in particular is a very credible source, and that he would not just make things up or go on ill-concieved assumptions. This could be used to infer that perhaps Luke didn't take one look at Jesus and see some sort of 'trick' and then bow down to him as the son of the sovereign God. If you can prove that the writers of the Bible and, more pertinent to the issue at hand, the writers who told of Jesus's life and lineage were credible, then you can prove that perhaps the miracles he did were credible.


There is at least one excellent parallel:

Both stories started with fact, (potentially) changed it around, and have been/were believed to be historical truth for a very long time.

The difference? Arthur's existence is essentially accepted today as myth and legend, whereas Jesus's is still believed to have existed and walked the Earth at one point. Then of course there is the fact that so many historians corroborate that Jesus did indeed perform miracles, or even more basically, existed and died in the first place. Jesus lived and visited cities that have been proven to have existed at one point; Arthur lived in a castle which has never been found, surrounded by people who have never been proven to be real; Jesus's disciples and closest followers have been confirmed to have existed. There are simply too many differences between the two to compare them on such a level as possible reality.


This is a logical fallacy. To quote myself:

"On the same note, to claim that everything in the Bible is true, just because *some* things in the Bible are true, is equally foolish."

*Some* parts of the Bible can, indeed, be historically defended. Nobody denies that. However, to claim that the Bible as a whole can be historically defended, merely because certain parts of it can, is just flat-out wrong.

Therefore, this entire part of your post...

...is invalid.

This is not entirely correct, nor is what Checkmate said a logical fallacy. It is very safe to assume that if certain aspects of a historical document are proven to have actually happened at one point, that perhaps the document itself does have some historical credibility. As for how some portions of the Bible may have been embellished, like say, the Illiad, there are many key differences. For one, Homer, the story teller who told the Illiad made his living by telling stories, thus it is more likely that he would perhaps alter some pieces of a story and its characters to make it more interesting. Luke and John did not make a living off of telling stories from history, rather their lives were threatened and eventually lost due to telling these supposed truths. Not to mention the fact that Jesus must have done something (more than likely a series of things) to prove to Luke that he was who he claimed to be, otherwise a skeptic such as Luke would not waste his time spreading his story and teachings. And so, with so much on the line, Luke is much less likely to embellish his own story, whereas Homer is much more likely to. Comparing the Iliad and the Bible is innaccurate, as is comparing Jesus to King Arthur.


It's only logical if the Bible is true, which it may or may not be. If the Bible is not true (a possibility which, to date, nobody has successfully discounted), then your conclusion is not logical.

There is however a great deal of evidence that suggest that indeed the Bible is true. Many events that have happened in it, despite incredibility, have been proven to have happened; likewise, many of the places in it have been proven to have existed. True, this does not inherently mean the rest of the Bible is automatically true, but it does give a good indication. For Jesus in particular, his life and dealings can be accurately learned through those that wrote of his life, simply because those writers were credible themselves and had no reason to embellish their own stories.

To Skullfire,


Alright, get off your pimply obese ass and take a look at what you said one more time because apparently three or four times isn't enough to get it through your fat skull.
"No wonder you're still an Atheist." This, to me, means that if I looked at this evidence I would've somehow been converted. I do hate religion debates. This debate is going nowhere. You did not destroy my life, because, well-- unlike some on these boards I do (believe it or not) have a social life.

I can count four direct insults aimed towards me to start this off. So why, for arguments sake, would I apologize to you after you have insulted me what is very likely to have been ten times, along with spamming multiple times on my thread against my direct wishes? I have no reason to.

Now that that is out of the way, I am going to tell you one last time to read the rest of the post, not just that sentence. I hope for sanity's sake that you can fathom that generally statements may be explained in the next sentence if they are not in the first. That is what I attempted to do, yet again against my wishes you have chosen not to read it nor my clarification of what I meant, opting instead to keep trying to make it look like you have been the victim in this entire thread.


You are belittling me, you did insult me and my beliefs, stop making me look like more of an ******* than I already am in each one of your posts and I'll stop posting. If your next post is anything saying "Please Skullfire, just stop posting, you're making *enter some religion that isn't christianity* look bad" then I'm going to keep posting end of story.
Oh, and I will eat your babies, but remember-- I must properly marinade them first...

Let me put it like this: I did not insult you. End of story, end of my troubles. If you wish to consider insisting I did, then feel free to do so. Quite clearly though, I have said that I did not insult you, or at least not mean to. Go ahead and keep this spamming, hopefully Raven or another moderator will do something about it before it becomes more rampant than it already is.

I am done with attempting to convince Skullfire of anything. From now on, anything said that does not apply to the topic will be ignored. This goes for The Muffin Man, Skullfire, and anyone else.

[Tainted]

Alright, it's like talking to a ****ing brick wall. I'm out. Don't say another damn word about me.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[Razola]

The Bible was written by men for men. It can hardly be accurate considering it was written to write women out of history in terms of their value and rights.

History = HIS STORY!

Any questions?!
I swear to God that you're really a chick.

[phaedrus]

I swear to God that you're really a chick.

posting in agreement.

seriously, i didn't know "Last Exile" person was a guy until I looked in a poll. =|

no offense, though.

[The Muffin Man]

Alright, everyone, I've finally found out why Sorovis is so clueless to how he's insulting Atheism... He's speaking his own language, that apparently only other religious people like Checkmate can decipher. Apparently claiming that "No wonder you're still Atheist, you won't accept the evidence" translates loosely to "Ah, my Atheist child, let me soothe your soul and cleanse you from your own damnation-- follow me, child, follow me into God's light."

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

>:O I PMed you that, you bastard!

*fight scene ensues*

[Heald]

*fight scene ensues*Ready? Fight! *hadouken!*

[RedStarWarrior]

Sorovis, as I have stated in previous topics, ignore Skullfire if he is bothering you. I will be watching this topic closely for spam.

EDIT: In regards to the post following this, do not attack him harshly. TMM and Skullfire, please be considerate in your disagreement, despite his apparent arrogance.

[AbareMax]

How can you deny the Bible, if you've never read it? The only reason someone is an atheist is because they're too afraid to read the Bible. God can forgive anybody, you just gotta trust him. So don't go talking bad about my Savior, your Savior and everyone's Savior, if you haven't read his Words.

AbareMax

[The Muffin Man]

Sorovis, as I have stated in previous topics, ignore Skullfire if he is bothering you. I will be watching this topic closely for spam.

EDIT: In regards to the post following this, do not attack him harshly. TMM and Skullfire, please be considerate in your disagreement, despite his apparent arrogance.

I'm not arguing. Because I know him and his boyfriend Checkmate will tear into me if I DARE say the only reason they're christians is because they're easily convinced with little evidence.


Note to all other Christians - I'm using an example. I don't believe this, honestly. I'm just pointing out how obscenly unfair it is that he can get away with insulting athiesm.




The only reason someone is an atheist is because they're too afraid to read the Bible. God can forgive anybody, you just gotta trust him. So don't go talking bad about my Savior, your Savior and everyone's Savior, if you haven't read his Words.
Oh dear god...*Sighs*

No, I'm an athiest because I USED to be semi-christian. Than one day I thought "Why? Why do I believe? Why do I believe in a God?". I couldn't think of an answer. So that's when I decided it wasn't for me. Not because I'm afraid to read a collection of short stories based on true events.

Secondly, who are YOU to say he's everyones savior? What if he's NOT? You're willing to take the risk that you're right but no one else can take the risk they might be? Don't bother responding. You, Sorovis, and Checkmate have officially gone from "Love to argue religion" to "Religious zealots one step below restarting the Crusades"...

[Razola]

seriously, i didn't know "Last Exile" person was a guy until I looked in a poll. =|
Oh, I did too. And I still refuse to believe that LE's a guy.

[Sorovis]

Secondly, who are YOU to say he's everyones savior? What if he's NOT? You're willing to take the risk that you're right but no one else can take the risk they might be?

Actually part of the point of arguing the validity of the Bible and the events described in it is to establish that Christians are right in that Jesus is the one savior. We don't just argue because it's fun, rather to establish that perhaps Christians are not as dimwitted as they seem to be made out as, and that our beliefs do have some real basis to them.

For the point on how I am the one to argue how he is the only savior, see above. Arguing establishes a point; if you want to argue on how he is not the only savior (or even if there is one), then feel free to do so. Just remember, as long as we are willing to reasonably debate that Jesus is the one and only savior without directly insulting the opposition, making unsupported claims, and ignoring evidence, we have a right to do so.

[Syberia]

Originally posted by The Muffin Man:

Secondly, who are YOU to say he's everyones savior? What if he's NOT?[/b]
And who are you to say he's not? What if he is? It goes two ways, you know.

It's his beliefs, and while I agree that he shouldn't be shoving them down everyone's throats (especially on an internet message board, if you're going to convert people, go stand on a street corner handing out Bibles or something), he's entitled to them. But as it is, he's got every right to have the beliefs he does, and to make them known.

[The Muffin Man]

And who are you to say he's not? What if he is? It goes two ways, you know.


I never assumed he was OR wasn't. But there's alot more religions than christianity.

[AbareMax]

I never assumed he was OR wasn't. But there's alot more religions than christianity.

Lack of faith is the key to losing faith. Read the Bible and all of your questions will be answered. He is everyone's Savior. You can call names to us Christians, and say all you want, but you won't be hurting our feelings. All that you could possibly do would be to make our faith and love for Christ stronger.

[phaedrus]

e is everyone's Savior.

everyone meaning all christians (non-christians excluded, obviously), i bet. :rolleyes:

[Crazy]

I know this isn't really proof but as most of us here know they discovered a very large ark. I can't remember but I think they said something about animal cages being present although that could have been from anything. I wish I had actual evidence but all I have is meh beliefs.

[Checkmate]

Sorovis, Skullfire, I have one thing to say to the both of you. He who banters with a fool
displays his own foolishness and is redeemed only by leaving the argument.

In my opinion, the first person to stop replying to the other will appear the smarter one.


As for Osirus, I am ignorant to any knowledge of him except him
being Egyptian, but I doubt he died for his people out of agape love. If I am wrong, just
show me.


Generally, Osiris was a kind and great leader and supposidly the
grandson of Ra (The leader of the Egyptian gods) before he was betrayed and brutally
murdered. He was later reborn and wandered the Earth before he went to the realm of the
dead. Remind you of anybody?

Actually, no. That misses the entire point of Jesus. Jesus was a God giving up his life for
men. You have not stated that Osirus was either God, or giving up his life for
men.(humans have been related to Gods in other myths, such as pharoah, so the grandson
thing only hints toward divinity) I mean, I?m assuming you?re talking about Jesus. It?s so
hard to tell.





Maybe, but I really don't have to deny the similarities, because
there aren't any. For one thing, God is God alone. Zeus wasn't. He was the head God
among other Gods. Zeus couldn't even obey the laws of the people he was sovereign
over. He was gross adulterer and couldn't keep his own house hold in order. Zeus was
also a tyrant. God is a judge. He loves those who he judges and always offers grace before
his judgement.


lol right, and the Christian God isn't guilty of any of the seven deadly
sins? Here's a few:

Jealously- "I, Yahweh, your God, am a jealous God. You shall have no other gods but
me."
Wrath- "God's wrath", getting extremely pissed off any chucking people into hell. If
damning people to eternal suffering isn't a sin then I don't know what is.
Pride- Believing that he is perfect and superior to everyone and everything else. Forget
pride, that's downright arrogance.

The Christian God can't follow his own rules either.

Just where exactly are the seven deadly sins in the Bible?









sex is not a sin when it's inside marriage, but that's
irrelevant


So that's why Christian divinity requires complete abstinence? That's
why Jesus supposidly didn't need to? That's why anyone who hopes to be Pope or Cardinal
still has to practice abstinence for their entire lives? Right. Hypocrisy.

I love it when people rewrite the Bible and then use it against me. That basically covers
this entire post of yours. Christian divinity? Popes and Cardinals? Where are you finding
this????? Not in the Bible. The Bible has never once called marriage a bad thing for
anybody. (Paul didn?t prefer it personally, but that?s besides the point)




Now on to the main point. No claim is ridiculous when met with
sufficient evidence. Here is the evidence. The Bible (which can be historically defended)
says that Jesus forgave sins (sins that were not against his person) and that he proclaimed

divinity. Yet he also performed miracles. Only one man in history has done both, Jesus of
Nazareth.


Correction. Certain parts of the Bible, such as the actual existance of
Jesus or Moses, can be defended. The fact that he performed miracles and stuff like that
possibly were the result of the person recording it being high on drugs. Besides, there is no
evidence of these "miracles" outside of the Bible. I don't see any evidence of land
underneath the Red Sea being partially eroded by air because of God parting the sea for
Moses.

Or so you think....



In other words, these "miracles" can't be historically defended.

Wanna bet?



I would love to hear any proof you have of these miracles.


Ask and you shall receive.

The Jewish authorities of the 1st century could not even deny Jesus? miracles. In the
Gospels they accused him of driving out demons with Satan?s power. The Talmud (a
Jewish work compiled about AD 500 which includes the Mishnah which was compiled AD
200) call him a practitioner of magic. (which seems to concur with the gospels? accounts)

To quote Pro. M. Wilcox, ?The Jewish traditional literature, although it mentions Jesus
only quite sparingly (and must in any case be used with caution), supports the gospel claim
that he was a healer and miracle-worker, even though it ascribes these activities to
sorcery. In addition, it preserves the recollection that he was a teacher, and that he had
disciples (five of them), and that at least in the earlier Rabbinic period not all of the sages
had finally made up their minds that he was a ?heretic? or a ?deceiver?.


That's worse than merely calling it fiction.

[QUOTE="Aglandiir"]Read the Bible and compare it to Pagan legends. Jesus dying for our
sins was predated by the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl doing the same thing. The halo is simply
a modernized Egyptian sun disk. Christmas is supposed to be the birthday of Jesus Christ,
even though Jesus was born in March. Why? To copy the Pagan celebration of the winter
solstice.

You?ll have to show me some sort of site on Quetzywho before I believe that. Halos are
not biblical, and you are right about the solstice, but I hardly see how that proves any
point that would contradict me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



We have written documentS clearly stating that Jesus was the Son
of God and died for our sins in a document written less than 5 years after his death. (1
Corinthians)


The fact that the book was written a short time after the event
does not necessarily make it accurate. If the people who wrote the book had a vested
interest in passing Jesus off as God Himself (which they certainly did, regardless of
whether or not that claim was true), then they would have plenty of reason to write what
they did, again regardless of whether or not it was true.

You?ll have a hard time proving that they had a vested interest that had nothing to do with
their accounts being true.


If they wanted to tell people that Jesus performed miracles, but
he didn't... then why, exactly, would they write in their book that he *didn't* perform
miracles? They wouldn't. They would lie, and say that he did.

If he didn?t perform them, why would they want to tell people that he did? It?s illogical.



[...] In fact, archaeology has stitched up several apparent problems
with the gospels and Acts.


That isn't quite the sort of archaelogical evidence I was talking
about. Camelot, if positively identified as ruins, would in turn prove the existance of King
Arthur, since no other king has ever claimed to rule from such a place.

The artifacts you mention, however, have no bearing on whether or not Jesus was a divine
being. All they prove is that the people who wrote the books actually lived where they said
they lived, and actually paid attention to their surroundings. If Luke got his numbers right,
that's because he was actually there. Maybe he even counted them himself. Who knows? It
has no bearing on Jesus, though.

I?m not saying he got the numbers like that he was right about there being 9 islands. I?m
saying that he got everything right that he said about those 9 islands. It proves he
investigated the story. And why would he pay such agonizingly close attention to such
minute details and get the main story all wrong? Also illogical.



In conclusion, I agree that myths can influence history, but one
cannot draw many decent parallels between King Arthur and Jesus Christ. (though they
are both great kings)


There is at least one excellent parallel:

Both stories started with fact, (potentially) changed it around, and have been/were
believed to be historical truth for a very long time.

Wrong. All you do there is assume that all the gospels are wrong which you cannot just
assume.


Now on to the main point. No claim is ridiculous when met with
sufficient evidence. Here is the evidence. The Bible (which can be historically defended)



This is a logical fallacy. To quote myself:

"On the same note, to claim that everything in the Bible is true, just because *some*
things in the Bible are true, is equally foolish."

*Some* parts of the Bible can, indeed, be historically defended. Nobody denies that.
However, to claim that the Bible as a whole can be historically defended, merely because
certain parts of it can, is just flat-out wrong.

I was chiefly referring to the miracles. Which I corroborated above. Also, as I said a
historian investigated this whole story and would not waste his time checking every last
detail just to write a piece of fiction. (that would later get him hung from an olive tree)


It's only logical if the Bible is true, which it may or may not be.
If the Bible is not true (a possibility which, to date, nobody has successfully discounted),
then your conclusion is not logical.

I?ve presented alot more evidence for its truth than anyone on this site has given to prove
it false. Just look at.

Christians willingly gave up their lives to torturous deaths instead of deny Jesus. Including
all twelve apostles who (one must admit) would certainly know if this whole Christ thing
was a lie. Now why on earth would someone die for what they knew was a lie? Answer
me that.

And as I said the Jews themselves could not refute that Jesus performed miracles which
supports one of my points.

[Tainted]

>:O I PMed you that, you bastard!

*fight scene ensues*

I steal because I love. ;)

I read Checkmate's responses and one caught me by the testes. Checkmate said something along the lines of "Why would he lie about Jesus if Jesus did not really do these miracles?"
To gather a following. To lie. To make people believe there was a man that could do these things because of his strong christian faith, because he was the son of god. If this were not already displayed in the bible would it not make a good story? The son of God, performs miracles, comes to earth, to mankind, walks among humans and then dies for them.
To gather a following.

Oh, I don't really care about seeming wiser than Sorovis, and it won't make me look any wiser for walking out of the argument-- **** the Atheism bullshit, I'm here to debate.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[Animelee]

I chose to stop believing in Christianty because whenever I asked for proof, people would refer me to things that either didn't make any scientific sense, or they would tell me to "pray on it". I spent months doing research, but all the information I read would somehow be countered by very solid scientific proof. Now, I don't claim to have a degree in science, but I do know my fair share, especially after researching for months in my quest to find out if God existed or not. Nothing in any religion made sense, and all "miracles" couldn't be proven real. Besides, if God does exist, I don't want to worship it/she/he -- a "person" with all that power that sits by and lets evil happen to the good. Say God does come to Earth one day, I'll give 'im the ol' one-finger salute before I go take a **** out of disgust for him to actually have the balls to come show his face.

Aaaanyways, I'm sorry for going a tad off topic, but there is not enough proof in any religious writing, including Christianity's, to convince me that any of it is true. It's just historical fiction, like someone here said earlier.

[DarkTemplarZ]

How can you deny the Bible, if you've never read it? The only reason someone is an atheist is because they're too afraid to read the Bible. God can forgive anybody, you just gotta trust him. So don't go talking bad about my Savior, your Savior and everyone's Savior, if you haven't read his Words.

AbareMax

Just to tell you, I have read the Bible and it has more loopholes than Egyptian mythology, which is really saying something. Second of all, what kind of a chauvinistic arrogant slob would have the audacity to call Jesus everyone's savior? How many souls has he banished to hell? I hardly consider that salvation. You made a good point, but the last two sentences just killed it.



Actually, no. That misses the entire point of Jesus. Jesus was a God giving up his life for
men. You have not stated that Osirus was either God, or giving up his life for
men.(humans have been related to Gods in other myths, such as pharoah, so the grandson
thing only hints toward divinity) I mean, I?m assuming you?re talking about Jesus. It?s so
hard to tell.


and Osiris wasn't a god right? Osiris was a living god. He was the grandson of Ra and the son of Nut and Geb (Goddess of the Sky and God of the Earth), what else could he be? And the Osiris legend ends up with Osiris refusing to return to the life he knew (as his wife, the goddess Isis, could restore him somewhat) and living in the realm of the dead so the souls of his people could exist happily for eternity.



You?ll have to show me some sort of site on Quetzywho before I believe that. Halos are
not biblical, and you are right about the solstice, but I hardly see how that proves any
point that would contradict me.


http://www.rjames.com/Toltec/myth2.htm
A good leader who eventually sacrificed everything he had so his people would not fall to evil and eventually killed himself. The site also has a nice paragraph comparing Quetzalcoatl to Jesus.
And your so called "point" was that the Bible was completely unrelated to any Pagan stories and was completely original. Christmas is Christianity's most sacred holiday and yet it is a reincarnation of a Pagan holiday. I believe my point is clear.



Just where exactly are the seven deadly sins in the Bible?


So you are saying that the Gospels are in no way related to the Bible? Also, the seven deadly sins are pretty much the direct opposites of the virtues listed in the Bible; zeal, faith, temperance, kindness, humility, etc.



The Jewish authorities of the 1st century could not even deny Jesus? miracles. In the
Gospels they accused him of driving out demons with Satan?s power. The Talmud (a
Jewish work compiled about AD 500 which includes the Mishnah which was compiled AD
200) call him a practitioner of magic. (which seems to concur with the gospels? accounts)

To quote Pro. M. Wilcox, ?The Jewish traditional literature, although it mentions Jesus
only quite sparingly (and must in any case be used with caution), supports the gospel claim
that he was a healer and miracle-worker, even though it ascribes these activities to
sorcery. In addition, it preserves the recollection that he was a teacher, and that he had
disciples (five of them), and that at least in the earlier Rabbinic period not all of the sages
had finally made up their minds that he was a ?heretic? or a ?deceiver?.


This is actually pretty interesting. Can you give me the source where you got this from? Also, do they describe what these miracles were, because more often then not, so called "sorcery" is either prestidigitation or a scientific hoax and the Jewish people of this time period ascribed everything to either miracles or sorcery.

[The Muffin Man]

Lack of faith is the key to losing faith. Read the Bible and all of your questions will be answered. He is everyone's Savior. You can call names to us Christians, and say all you want, but you won't be hurting our feelings. All that you could possibly do would be to make our faith and love for Christ stronger.

*goes insane**Throws chairs around**eats children*

I DID NOT BECOME AN ATHIEST BECAUSE OF LACK OF FAITH. I believe in just about everything paranormal, and THAT takes faith. I turned away from religion because I saw what happened through the ages because of religion. No one as far as I know was killed because of LACK of religion.


Crazy - Even if they did, it's NOT the real ark. Why? TWO OF EVERY ANIMAL ON EARTH WOULD NOT FIT! Aside from the fact that there's this little thing called the "food chain"...How did he feed so many animals for 40 days and 40 nights? They'd die of starvation or eat each other.

[Animelee]

Saying there was a flood, at the time of the flood, there were more than ten billion species of animals. How would Noah be able to get twenty billion animals on one boat? I'm sure he wouldn't get that species of lizards that are lesbians, though, because of the fact that they're lesbians.

[The Muffin Man]

Saying there was a flood, at the time of the flood, there were more than ten billion species of animals. How would Noah be able to get twenty billion animals on one boat? I'm sure he wouldn't get that species of lizards that are lesbians, though, because of the fact that they're lesbians.

Is't it a species of frog? That shift genders when needed?

[Aglandiir]

He isn't my savior. Thus, he isn't everybody's savior. Many people's, perhaps, but not mine.

Anyway.


So what reason exactly do these people have to follow someone who a) claims to be the Son of God when he clearly is not and b) claim that he did miracles when he clearly did not? Especially when the people in context are being threatened with death and torment for following such a man? That my friend is a logical fallacy.

You're making an extremely broad assumption here: that the four people who wrote about Jesus were honest, truth-seeking individuals. If they and Jesus wanted to start a religious movement (a stated aim of many current cults), then why would they care whether or not Jesus was actually divine? They would lie about Jesus in their writings and preachings and everything else, in an attempt to get publicity and a following.

The civilians of the time, giving the living conditions, would have plenty of reason to believe in something that promised eternal bliss in Heaven in exchange for little more than an oath of faith. What was there to lose?

And why would being threatened with death dissuade the Apostles? It doesn't dissuade many current fanatics. Take, for example, the Branch Davidians at Waco. When threatened with force, they armed themselves and ended up getting killed. Look at religious terrorists in the Middle East, too; they are threatened with death constantly, but it has little effect on them. In fact, it can even broaden their appeal, by making them look like heros for standing up for what they believe in. Perhaps the Apostles saw the same thing happen: the Powers That Be threatened them, and the common people rallied towards them as a result.

It happens now, and it could very easily have happened then.


These people have no incentives to make up such lies, thus to assume they have done so anyways assumes that these people are illogical or perhaps insane, which based on their own renown they most certainly and clearly are not.

Religious leaders can be extremely insane and still command large followings. Read about al-Hakim, the Mad Caliph, for an example.

Also, there was plenty of incentive to make it up: "eternal life" via religious following. If their new religion succeeded, they would be famous forever. They could be bigger in history than the emperors who cruelly oppressed them. That isn't an incentive?


Then you have the fact that there were four people who wrote about Jesus and his miracles, not just one.

If those four people were all "in" with each other, and perhaps even with Jesus, and it was part of a plan to start a new religious movement, then the fact that there were four of them is irrelevant. I could pay 100 people to write that I am God. That doesn't make it true.


Of course then what must be taken into account is that not only did many follow Jesus and his teachings due to the miracles he performed, many labelled him a sorceror, or a magician. What does this imply?

Show me evidence that people who actually saw Jesus perform miracles called him a magician. In fact, show me evidence that these witnesses actually existed. I have never seen any; all I've found is written accounts from people who lived considerably after the fact, or would've had a vested interest in a certain version of events (read: reason to lie).


That the fact that he did indeed perform miracles is not disputed so much as his actual purpose and motives.

...

If the "fact" that Jesus performed miracles were not widely and intensely disputed, then everybody would be Christian.


Yes it does actually. For one it proves that Luke in particular is a very credible source, and that he would not just make things up or go on ill-concieved assumptions.

It proves no such thing.

In order for Luke to be proven to be a credible source, we would need more examples of his work. We don't have any. All we have is a single piece of his writing, on a single subject.

You can't look at a journalist who has written one article and call them highly credible, even if the journalist got all of their facts right in that article.

The same applies to the Apostles.

Thus, this...


This could be used to infer that perhaps Luke didn't take one look at Jesus and see some sort of 'trick' and then bow down to him as the son of the sovereign God.

...is incorrect. Such an inference could only be made if Luke were, in fact, a credible source. Because Luke cannot be shown to be a credible source, we have no reason to believe that he's telling the truth.

And surely you can't just give him the benefit of the doubt, can you? Religion is much too important for that.


If you can prove that the writers of the Bible and, more pertinent to the issue at hand, the writers who told of Jesus's life and lineage were credible, then you can prove that perhaps the miracles he did were credible.

Correct. But that's irrelevant, because the condition (IF we can prove...) has not been met. We cannot prove that they are credible, and thus we cannot prove that Jesus' miracles actually happened.


The difference? Arthur's existence is essentially accepted today as myth and legend, whereas Jesus's is still believed to have existed and walked the Earth at one point. Then of course there is the fact that so many historians corroborate that Jesus did indeed perform miracles, or even more basically, existed and died in the first place. Jesus lived and visited cities that have been proven to have existed at one point; Arthur lived in a castle which has never been found, surrounded by people who have never been proven to be real; Jesus's disciples and closest followers have been confirmed to have existed. There are simply too many differences between the two to compare them on such a level as possible reality.

I'm not using the King Arthur example to show the Jesus didn't exist. He did exist. I acknowledge that, as rational people generally do. I'm using it to show how a story based on reality can be modified to include parts that didn't actually happen: King Arthur's existance, Jesus' divine powers.


This is not entirely correct, nor is what Checkmate said a logical fallacy. It is very safe to assume that if certain aspects of a historical document are proven to have actually happened at one point, that perhaps the document itself does have some historical credibility.

No. No, it is not very safe at all to assume that.

If certain aspects of a historical document can be verified through other sources, then you can take those aspects of it as accurate history.

If certain parts cannot be verified, but sound reasonable anyway, then they can be treated as possible clues about what actually happened, though you should avoid putting too much weight on them.

However, if certain parts defy logical explanation and would require alterations to physics or leaps of faith about divine beings... AND those same parts cannot be verified by other sources ("other sources" being sources not created by the same person/group of people)... then no, you shouldn't use those parts as historical references.

Checkmate himself even said that the Bible's story is "strange."


As for how some portions of the Bible may have been embellished, like say, the Illiad, there are many key differences. For one, Homer, the story teller who told the Illiad made his living by telling stories, thus it is more likely that he would perhaps alter some pieces of a story and its characters to make it more interesting. Luke and John did not make a living off of telling stories from history, rather their lives were threatened and eventually lost due to telling these supposed truths. Not to mention the fact that Jesus must have done something (more than likely a series of things) to prove to Luke that he was who he claimed to be, otherwise a skeptic such as Luke would not waste his time spreading his story and teachings. And so, with so much on the line, Luke is much less likely to embellish his own story, whereas Homer is much more likely to. Comparing the Iliad and the Bible is innaccurate, as is comparing Jesus to King Arthur.

This goes back to my earlier point about the objectivity of the Apostles. You're assuming that Luke and John didn't have a vested interest in having people think Jesus was the son of God; I, however, see absolutely no reason to make that assumption. If the Apostles did have a vested interest, then they might've been compelled to write all sorts of looney things.

How do you know Luke was a skeptic? Who, other than the Apostles, has said such a thing? Nobody. Maybe Luke was in on it from the beginning, and figured that passing himself off as a skeptic who was convinced by these awesome miracles would help convince other skeptical people to join his religion.


There is however a great deal of evidence that suggest that indeed the Bible is true. Many events that have happened in it, despite incredibility, have been proven to have happened; likewise, many of the places in it have been proven to have existed. True, this does not inherently mean the rest of the Bible is automatically true, but it does give a good indication. For Jesus in particular, his life and dealings can be accurately learned through those that wrote of his life, simply because those writers were credible themselves and had no reason to embellish their own stories.

Name one incredible Biblical event that has been proven to have happened.

Nobody is arguing about the mundane parts of the Bible. Nobody argues that Jerusalem existed, for obvious reasons. I'm not trying to say that Jesus didn't live. I have no problem with counting islands and cities and what have you.

Because that stuff is believable.

I have a big problem believing that Jesus performed miracles, or came back to life. Because that is unbelievable. It's fantastic. It's a tremendous stretch or rational belief.

So you can use the proven parts of the Bible to infer that unproven, but still rational and realistic, parts of the Bible may also be true. But you cannot use mundane truths in the Bible to show that improbable, magical events are true. They're two different things.

[Checkmate]

I chose to stop believing in Christianty because whenever I asked for proof, people would refer me to things that either didn't make any scientific sense, or they would tell me to "pray on it".

You?ve said that many times, but you never post any of these problems. Being told constantly that ?you just need to have faith? can be irritating. And I must say that that statement alone could justify a belief in an office chair as savior and lord. But a few things in Christianity (such as the three-part monotheistic God) are humanly incomprehensible. I do think, however, that most of the questions about Christianity can be answered by the right people. I know I, personally, have answered a few tough questions in the past. (though one did stump me which I am still working on)

Just because some people, can?t answer some questions, does not mean that those questions do not have answers.



I spent months doing research,

On what?


but all the information I read would somehow be countered by very solid scientific proof. Now, I don't claim to have a degree in science, but I do know my fair share, especially after researching for months in my quest to find out if God existed or not. Nothing in any religion made sense, and all "miracles" couldn't be proven real. Besides, if God does exist, I don't want to worship it/she/he -- a "person" with all that power that sits by and lets evil happen to the good. Say God does come to Earth one day, I'll give 'im the ol' one-finger salute before I go take a **** out of disgust for him to actually have the balls to come show his face.

You seem to be biased toward science, assuming that scientific theories are always right. If this is the case, I must say I find that foolish. Most scientists even do no put all their stock in science because much of science (ie evolution and the big bang) cannot be proven beyond a doubt. It can be supported well, but not proven. Like in ?Should I Accept the Fact?? you stated that there were ?Biblical Flaws? that were biblical flaws because they were against science. I could just as easily say that science is flawed because it contradicts the Bible. You see? (I have other reasons, however, for claiming science is flawed)



How can you deny the Bible, if you've never read it? The only reason someone is an atheist is because they're too afraid to read the Bible. God can forgive anybody, you just gotta trust him. So don't go talking bad about my Savior, your Savior and everyone's Savior, if you haven't read his Words.

[QUOTE="DarkTemplarZ"]

AbareMax

Just to tell you, I have read the Bible and it has more loopholes than Egyptian mythology, which is really saying something.

Explain what you mean by loopholes, and then post a few examples please.


Second of all, what kind of a chauvinistic arrogant slob would have the audacity to call Jesus everyone's savior?

Perhaps he meant that Jesus is willing to be everyone?s savior. God is willing that none should parish but that all should come to repentance. But you are right in that the fact is he is not the savior of all. While all are given the gift, not all accept the gift.


How many souls has he banished to hell?

At last count,?.. none. Jesus does not banish people to hell. People choose hell. Like in the way a teacher gives grades on report cards. The student earns the grade. The teacher merely records it and makes it official. While some people accuse the teacher of giving them a bad grade, the student is the one at fault. Likewise, people earn hell. (they do not, however, earn heaven, but that?s another story)



I hardly consider that salvation.

*confused look Uh, you?re right. Hell is not salvation.



You made a good point, but the last two sentences just killed it.

I was merely making light fun.


Actually, no. That misses the entire point of Jesus. Jesus was a God giving up his life for
men. You have not stated that Osirus was either God, or giving up his life for
men.(humans have been related to Gods in other myths, such as pharoah, so the grandson
thing only hints toward divinity) I mean, I?m assuming you?re talking about Jesus. It?s so
hard to tell.


and Osiris wasn't a god right?

Don?t know. You?re the resident Osirus expert. You tell me.


Osiris was a living god.

Thanks for clearing that up.


He was the grandson of Ra and the son of Nut and Geb (Goddess of the Sky and God of the Earth), what else could he be? And the Osiris legend ends up with Osiris refusing to return to the life he knew (as his wife, the goddess Isis, could restore him somewhat) and living in the realm of the dead so the souls of his people could exist happily for eternity.

Nice little bio. Actually, I said in my above quote that you had not stated such. Now you have and we can get on to business.



You?ll have to show me some sort of site on Quetzywho before I believe that. Halos are
not biblical, and you are right about the solstice, but I hardly see how that proves any
point that would contradict me.

http://www.rjames.com/Toltec/myth2.htm

A good leader who eventually sacrificed everything he had so his people would not fall to evil and eventually killed himself. The site also has a nice paragraph comparing Quetzalcoatl to Jesus.
And your so called "point" was that the Bible was completely unrelated to any Pagan stories and was completely original. Christmas is Christianity's most sacred holiday and yet it is a reincarnation of a Pagan holiday. I believe my point is clear.

I may be mistaken, but I don?t believe I ever said the Bible was completely unrelated. After all, Christianity is considered by the majority (myself excluded) to be a religion, so therefore it must have something in common with religions. I do maintain, however, that Christianity bares stark contrast to religions. (notice I usually do not refer to Christianity as religion)

And by the way, Christmas is not biblical. It is a celebration of a biblical event but itself is not biblical, so it falls under the same classification as halos.



Just where exactly are the seven deadly sins in the Bible?


So you are saying that the Gospels are in no way related to the Bible?

*Another confused look. Uh? no?


Also, the seven deadly sins are pretty much the direct opposites of the virtues listed in the Bible; zeal, faith, temperance, kindness, humility, etc.

But they are themselves, not biblical. A) Righteous anger is completely condoned by the Bible. But it is seldom that I see a whole lot of people becoming righteously angry. Mostly it?s just people that have inept self-control.

Pride is the closest thing, you?ve come to as far as hitting on a contradiction. However, there is a reason that we are not supposed to have pride. Anyone who could even comprehend God would know more than anything that the very nature of the universe is chaotic when God is not worshipped. It?s practically a violation of natural law. That?s just how things work. We?re human and imperfect. (besides, sinful pride is practically synonymous with arrogance. Feeling good about yourself for doing a good job is not sinful) God is neither. Yet, God in human form was indeed humble. In fact, Paul calls us to imitate Christ?s humility in Philippians 2:3-9.


The Jewish authorities of the 1st century could not even deny Jesus? miracles. In the
Gospels they accused him of driving out demons with Satan?s power. The Talmud (a
Jewish work compiled about AD 500 which includes the Mishnah which was compiled AD
200) call him a practitioner of magic. (which seems to concur with the gospels? accounts)

To quote Pro. M. Wilcox, ?The Jewish traditional literature, although it mentions Jesus
only quite sparingly (and must in any case be used with caution), supports the gospel claim
that he was a healer and miracle-worker, even though it ascribes these activities to
sorcery. In addition, it preserves the recollection that he was a teacher, and that he had
disciples (five of them), and that at least in the earlier Rabbinic period not all of the sages
had finally made up their minds that he was a ?heretic? or a ?deceiver?.


This is actually pretty interesting. Can you give me the source where you got this from? Also, do they describe what these miracles were, because more often then not, so called "sorcery" is either prestidigitation or a scientific hoax and the Jewish people of this time period ascribed everything to either miracles or sorcery.

That?s stuff I found in a book called ?The Case for Christ?.



#66Saying there was a flood, at the time of the flood, there were more than ten billion species of animals. How would Noah be able to get twenty billion animals on one boat? I'm sure he wouldn't get that species of lizards that are lesbians, though, because of the fact that they're lesbians.

Animelee, I?m not sure you know as much about science as you think you do. For one, there?s no way they scientists could know how many species existed 5000 years ago. Common sense. Also, there is no species of anything that is completely lesbian. If it were that way, they would not be able to reproduce. Also common sense.


He isn't my savior. Thus, he isn't everybody's savior. Many people's, perhaps, but not mine.

Agreed. I answered to that above.



So what reason exactly do these people have to follow someone who a) claims to be the Son of God when he clearly is not and b) claim that he did miracles when he clearly did not? Especially when the people in context are being threatened with death and torment for following such a man? That my friend is a logical fallacy.

Flawed logic, but not an official logical fallacy, buddy.


You're making an extremely broad assumption here: that the four people who wrote about Jesus were honest, truth-seeking individuals.

You seem to be implying an equally broad assumption. That the four said people were deceitful cultists.


If they and Jesus wanted to start a religious movement (a stated aim of many current cults), then why would they care whether or not Jesus was actually divine? They would lie about Jesus in their writings and preachings and everything else, in an attempt to get publicity and a following.

Why would a Grecian doctor, and a Jewish tax collector, (I don?t know what John and Mark were) band together to start a religious movement when people were crucified for blasphemy. And also, the four gospels were written at different times, so that also seems to inhibit your theory.

Matthew was in the pocket of the Jews, why would he give all that up (he would have been rich!) just to start a religious movement. Certainly wasn?t for the money or the popularity. I can tell you that much.


The civilians of the time, giving the living conditions, would have plenty of reason to believe in something that promised eternal bliss in Heaven in exchange for little more than an oath of faith. What was there to lose?

Their lives for one?


And why would being threatened with death dissuade the Apostles?

ARE YOU KIDDIN? ME?!?!?!?!


It doesn't dissuade many current fanatics. Take, for example, the Branch Davidians at Waco. When threatened with force, they armed themselves and ended up getting killed. Look at religious terrorists in the Middle East, too; they are threatened with death constantly, but it has little effect on them. In fact, it can even broaden their appeal, by making them look like heros for standing up for what they believe in.

All those you?re mentioning believed it. According to your theory the apostles would not have truly believed in Jesus.


Perhaps the Apostles saw the same thing happen: the Powers That Be threatened them, and the common people rallied towards them as a result.

Then how would you explain Jesus ?laying down his life for his sheep? as provoking a revolution. When Jesus actually told Peter to not attack the Roman, but instead healed the ear that Peter had cut off with his sword. On that same note, how do you explain Jesus answering to the request for healing of a Roman centurion. (healing for his daughter I think)




These people have no incentives to make up such lies, thus to assume they have done so anyways assumes that these people are illogical or perhaps insane, which based on their own renown they most certainly and clearly are not.


Religious leaders can be extremely insane and still command large followings. Read about al-Hakim, the Mad Caliph, for an example.

under intense persecution and the teaching that people had been hearing their entire lives from the Rabbis?


Also, there was plenty of incentive to make it up: "eternal life" via religious following. If their new religion succeeded, they would be famous forever. They could be bigger in history than the emperors who cruelly oppressed them. That isn't an incentive?

Why would they care? They?d be dead. And let?s not forget what they?d been hearing their entire lives from the Rabbies. As Jews, they already had a God. A God that had, in the past, leveled entire cities for gross disobedience. I?m not sure I?d want to cross him.


Then you have the fact that there were four people who wrote about Jesus and his miracles, not just one.


If those four people were all "in" with each other, and perhaps even with Jesus, and it was part of a plan to start a new religious movement, then the fact that there were four of them is irrelevant. I could pay 100 people to write that I am God. That doesn't make it true.

You always conveniently omit the fact that they weren?t living in the 1st Amendment US! They could get killed for such blasphemies! You couldn?t pay me to be crucified for you. Sorry, not going to happen.


Of course then what must be taken into account is that not only did many follow Jesus and his teachings due to the miracles he performed, many labelled him a sorceror, or a magician. What does this imply?

Show me evidence that people who actually saw Jesus perform miracles called him a magician. In fact, show me evidence that these witnesses actually existed. I have never seen any; all I've found is written accounts from people who lived considerably after the fact, or would've had a vested interest in a certain version of events (read: reason to lie).

Already did that. In fact, I did you one better. I took people that would never admit that Jesus did miracles, unless there was no other reasonable option, and even in 200 AD they could not deny it, no matter how much they would have liked to.



That the fact that he did indeed perform miracles is not disputed so much as his actual purpose and motives.

...


If the "fact" that Jesus performed miracles were not widely and intensely disputed, then everybody would be Christian.

Not the Jews, and not Animelee who claims he would give Jesus the one-fingered salute.
Quote:

Yes it does actually. For one it proves that Luke in particular is a very credible source, and that he would not just make things up or go on ill-conceived assumptions.


It proves no such thing.

In order for Luke to be proven to be a credible source, we would need more examples of his work. We don't have any. All we have is a single piece of his writing, on a single subject.

Wrong. Two pieces of writing. Both that have been found factually flawless. (even when investigated by a certain atheist) He?s one of the most credible historians to ever live.


You can't look at a journalist who has written one article and call them highly credible, even if the journalist got all of their facts right in that article.

No, but you certainly couldn?t call them sloppy. If I read a book about a World War II battle written by a German man which discussed the layout of the terrain flawlessly and then in his book, said that the allied troops won, my first inclination would be to believe him. Luke wrote a book. (two actually) Not an article.




This could be used to infer that perhaps Luke didn't take one look at Jesus and see some sort of 'trick' and then bow down to him as the son of the sovereign God.

Luke most likely didn?t ever see Jesus face to face on Earth. Just fyi.


...is incorrect. Such an inference could only be made if Luke were, in fact, a credible source. Because Luke cannot be shown to be a credible source, we have no reason to believe that he's telling the truth.

Seems credible to me, and many authorities.



If you can prove that the writers of the Bible and, more pertinent to the issue at hand, the writers who told of Jesus's life and lineage were credible, then you can prove that perhaps the miracles he did were credible.


Correct. But that's irrelevant, because the condition (IF we can prove...) has not been met. We cannot prove that they are credible, and thus we cannot prove that Jesus' miracles actually happened.

Luke proves his own credibility in being the flawless writer that he was. Is this to say that you now believe in the miracles?



The difference? Arthur's existence is essentially accepted today as myth and legend, whereas Jesus's is still believed to have existed and walked the Earth at one point. Then of course there is the fact that so many historians corroborate that Jesus did indeed perform miracles, or even more basically, existed and died in the first place. Jesus lived and visited cities that have been proven to have existed at one point; Arthur lived in a castle which has never been found, surrounded by people who have never been proven to be real; Jesus's disciples and closest followers have been confirmed to have existed. There are simply too many differences between the two to compare them on such a level as possible reality.


I'm not using the King Arthur example to show the Jesus didn't exist. He did exist. I acknowledge that, as rational people generally do. I'm using it to show how a story based on reality can be modified to include parts that didn't actually happen: King Arthur's existance, Jesus' divine powers.

Yes, legends can spread. That doesn?t prove Jesus? divinity to be a legend.


This is not entirely correct, nor is what Checkmate said a logical fallacy. It is very safe to assume that if certain aspects of a historical document are proven to have actually happened at one point, that perhaps the document itself does have some historical credibility.


No. No, it is not very safe at all to assume that.

If certain aspects of a historical document can be verified through other sources, then you can take those aspects of it as accurate history.

So then, you would consider it accurate history that?.

Jesus was a Jewish teacher; many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms; some people believed he was the Messiah; he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by A.D. 64; and lastly all kinds of people from the cities and countryside- men and women, slave and free- worshiped him as God.


However, if certain parts defy logical explanation and would require alterations to physics or leaps of faith about divine beings... AND those same parts cannot be verified by other sources ("other sources" being sources not created by the same person/group of people)... then no, you shouldn't use those parts as historical references.

That entire statement presumes that the supernatural does not exist. A presumption you cannot back up.


Checkmate himself even said that the Bible's story is "strange."

A guy performing miracles and claiming he?s the son of God. It is strange. But they say truth is stranger than fiction.


As for how some portions of the Bible may have been embellished, like say, the Illiad, there are many key differences. For one, Homer, the story teller who told the Illiad made his living by telling stories, thus it is more likely that he would perhaps alter some pieces of a story and its characters to make it more interesting. Luke and John did not make a living off of telling stories from history, rather their lives were threatened and eventually lost due to telling these supposed truths. Not to mention the fact that Jesus must have done something (more than likely a series of things) to prove to Luke that he was who he claimed to be, otherwise a skeptic such as Luke would not waste his time spreading his story and teachings. And so, with so much on the line, Luke is much less likely to embellish his own story, whereas Homer is much more likely to. Comparing the Iliad and the Bible is innaccurate, as is comparing Jesus to King Arthur.


This goes back to my earlier point about the objectivity of the Apostles. You're assuming that Luke and John didn't have a vested interest in having people think Jesus was the son of God; I, however, see absolutely no reason to make that assumption. If the Apostles did have a vested interest, then they might've been compelled to write all sorts of looney things.

But you have to first give probable cause as to that vested interest. Keep in mind the intense persecution they had to endure.


How do you know Luke was a skeptic? Who, other than the Apostles, has said such a thing? Nobody. Maybe Luke was in on it from the beginning, and figured that passing himself off as a skeptic who was convinced by these awesome miracles would help convince other skeptical people to join his religion.

If you?re looking for a skeptic, you don?t look at Luke, you look at Paul. But that?s beside the point. I still haven?t seen any real credible source for why this all might be true. PERSECUTION It?s really hard to get past. You also haven?t attacked my miracles evidence either. You?re ignoring my key points.


There is however a great deal of evidence that suggest that indeed the Bible is true. Many events that have happened in it, despite incredibility, have been proven to have happened; likewise, many of the places in it have been proven to have existed. True, this does not inherently mean the rest of the Bible is automatically true, but it does give a good indication. For Jesus in particular, his life and dealings can be accurately learned through those that wrote of his life, simply because those writers were credible themselves and had no reason to embellish their own stories.

Name one incredible Biblical event that has been proven to have happened.

The star that the wise men followed. It was the planets Saturn and Jupiter crossing paths around 7 B.C. (keep in mind Herod died in 4 B.C. and Christ was at least two when Herod died so that hits about right) The star also fulfilled a messianic prophecy.

Also the earthquake and darkening of the Earth that happened while Jesus was on the Cross has been recorded historically.

A man named Julius Africanus quoted the history book (written about 52 AD) by a man named Thallus by saying this.

[referring to the crucifixion darkness] ?Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun- unreasonably it seems to me.?

Africanus goes on to argue that it could not have been an eclipse given the time the crucifixion occurred. Regardless of whether or not it was an eclipse, it still corroborates a fantastic event.

[The Muffin Man]

At last count,?.. none. Jesus does not banish people to hell. People choose hell.

*Sighs*Between this and Checkmate calling someone "Biased towards science" I'm really starting to wonder if he's being honest about this...

[Animelee]

You?ve said that many times, but you never post any of these problems. Being told constantly that ?you just need to have faith? can be irritating. And I must say that that statement alone could justify a belief in an office chair as savior and lord. But a few things in Christianity (such as the three-part monotheistic God) are humanly incomprehensible. I do think, however, that most of the questions about Christianity can be answered by the right people. I know I, personally, have answered a few tough questions in the past. (though one did stump me which I am still working on)

Just because some people, can?t answer some questions, does not mean that those questions do not have answers.

You seem to be biased toward science, assuming that scientific theories are always right. If this is the case, I must say I find that foolish. Most scientists even do no put all their stock in science because much of science (ie evolution and the big bang) cannot be proven beyond a doubt. It can be supported well, but not proven. Like in ?Should I Accept the Fact?? you stated that there were ?Biblical Flaws? that were biblical flaws because they were against science. I could just as easily say that science is flawed because it contradicts the Bible. You see? (I have other reasons, however, for claiming science is flawed)

Animelee, I?m not sure you know as much about science as you think you do. For one, there?s no way they scientists could know how many species existed 5000 years ago. Common sense. Also, there is no species of anything that is completely lesbian. If it were that way, they would not be able to reproduce. Also common sense.

I don't believe in science like I did in Christianity, a relgion. I'm an atheist, but I used facts, data, science, whatever you want to call it, as a way to come to my decision. The thing about the Bible is that you have to have faith to believe in it. The Bible says this, so you have to believe this, because it's in the Bible. Scientists provide proof -- data, research notes, tangible evidence -- basically, things that don't need a person to require faith to accept.

My questions were basically things the Bible said happened, like how God created the Earth a certain way, and all the species that exist today existed when God supposedly made the Earth, 6000-odd years ago. Then there was a world flood, where God asked a man to build a wooden boat and harbour two of every species of animal for fourty days and fourty nights on it. Some animals are carnivores, how would you be able to feed them, clean their messes, bathe them, etc.? It's impossible, even with today's technology. To say "God helped him out" is a way most Christians cop out of explaining things. And, you say there may of been a different amount of species 5000-years-ago? Didn't God make all the species that exist today? So, technically, by saying that, you're supporting evolution... It wasn't much different 5000 years ago than it was today. Today there are ten billion-odd species of animals, and I'm sure there were probably more then, since we, and other species of animals, have caused so many to go extinct.

The animal is called the whiptail lizard. There are males and unisex versions of the whiptail lizard, but they're sterile, and the females mate with eachother and produce offspring. That totally goes against the Bible, since God created all the animals how they exist today, and he is against homosexuality. Would the Christian God really create a homosexual species of animal?

Like I said, I'm not a professional in science, I'm at an even lower level than a novice, but I do know my fair share.

Final note: I still don't think God exists. If he did exist, the world would not be in the state it is in today, and all the evidence disproving what the Bible says wouldn't of existed, either.

[Aglandiir]

I'm really not trying to say that any of this is true, just that it could be. If you are trying to convince me of the truth of Christianity, then the burden of proof is on you. All I have to do is explain my reasons for doubting your position.

It goes back to a version of the admittedly flawed principle of Occam's Razor. Look at a light switch. It's very possible to explain how it does what it does through electrical and mechanical means. It's also very possible to believe that fairies live inside every single light switch and magically control the lights when it's flipped. Both beliefs will produce the same result: the belief that the lights will turn on when you hit the switch. One, however, deals with wires and current and things you can hold in your hand. The other requires a substantial leap of faith.

Which one is the more rational belief?

Perhaps I'm not explaining my position very well, but I still see absolutely no reason to believe that the Apostles were not crazy cultists who strongly felt the need to found a new religion, with total disrespect for their own well-being. Maybe they even actually believed what they wrote. People have believed strange and untrue things before, and they will continue to do so for as long as people exist.

Maybe Jesus' little band of followers had the right message, in the right place, at the right time, to become a global force for thousands of years to come. Maybe the people in the area were so disaffected with the Rabbis, and so sick of harsh Roman rule, that they were willing to believe absolutely anything if it promised that all of their suffering would be rewarded with an eternal afterlife in Heaven. Maybe they figured that being crucified or otherwise executed for their beliefs couldn't be all that much worse than what they were living with, and the whole "neverending bliss" thing sounded worth the price. Maybe they didn't even think that far ahead. Maybe the early Christian followers were like the current teenaged gunmen of militant Wahabbist Islam: willing to die for a cause they may or may not actually believe in, but are willing to say they believe in in order to reap the possible rewards or to escape a seemingly untenable situation.

Maybe the Apostles felt compelled to start a new religion, much like how some people are compelled to climb every mountain higher than 10,000 feet in Colorado, and some people are compelled to gamble away all of their money in casinos, and some people are compelled to drown their children in the bathtub because they love them so much.

Maybe Jesus really said all the things the Bible says he did. Maybe he was just a mountain man who hardly said anything at all, and was just picked as the Son of God by a group of people who felt compelled to start a religious movement but needed a central figure.

Or maybe not. Maybe the Bible is true. But, then again, maybe it isn't.

There are two options here, see: the electric-lightswitch option, and the fairy-lightswitch option. Christians go for the fairy explanation. I do not. If somebody comes along and prove to me that fairies do, in fact, inhabit all the world's lightswitches, and that electricity in fact has nothing to do with lightswitches, or perhaps doesn't exist at all... well, then I'd reconsider. But it hasn't happened yet.

[Leon-IH]

My faveourite books are the bible, the quran and any other religious text. When you really need a laugh try putting a sticker saying "Contents MAY conflict with reality" always say MAY otherwise you'll be chased down by fanatics, or shot in the back by someone who is too much of a coward to fight you.

[Crazy]

*goes insane**Throws chairs around**eats children*

I DID NOT BECOME AN ATHIEST BECAUSE OF LACK OF FAITH. I believe in just about everything paranormal, and THAT takes faith. I turned away from religion because I saw what happened through the ages because of religion. No one as far as I know was killed because of LACK of religion.


Crazy - Even if they did, it's NOT the real ark. Why? TWO OF EVERY ANIMAL ON EARTH WOULD NOT FIT! Aside from the fact that there's this little thing called the "food chain"...How did he feed so many animals for 40 days and 40 nights? They'd die of starvation or eat each other.

Gee when you have god on your side you could do anything correct? Simple as that. I am not sure why you qouted me due to trhe fact that I said it could be ANY ARK read my post please.

[DarkTemplarZ]

You?ve said that many times, but you never post any of these problems. Being told constantly that ?you just need to have faith? can be irritating. And I must say that that statement alone could justify a belief in an office chair as savior and lord. But a few things in Christianity (such as the three-part monotheistic God) are humanly incomprehensible. I do think, however, that most of the questions about Christianity can be answered by the right people. I know I, personally, have answered a few tough questions in the past. (though one did stump me which I am still working on)


This is what most people dispise about Christianity; "You're too inferior to understand God's ways." is the general response to everything. Why is God jealous? "You're too inferior to understand God's ways." If God is perfect, why does he get angry and bring his wrath onto people's souls? "You're too inferior to understand God's ways." I'm sick of that crap.



You seem to be biased toward science, assuming that scientific theories are always right. If this is the case, I must say I find that foolish. Most scientists even do no put all their stock in science because much of science (ie evolution and the big bang) cannot be proven beyond a doubt. It can be supported well, but not proven. Like in ?Should I Accept the Fact?? you stated that there were ?Biblical Flaws? that were biblical flaws because they were against science. I could just as easily say that science is flawed because it contradicts the Bible. You see? (I have other reasons, however, for claiming science is flawed)


Umm because most scientific theories have been PROVEN beyond a doubt, something that The Bible has yet to accomplish. And how has evolution not been proven? The concept of natural selection has been proven over and over again, most recently by the scenario of light vs. dark moths (Originally few dark moths would survive because they were easily spotted, but since pollution came into effect, the dark moths could not be seen by the birds that hunted them while the light moths were decimated, and the dark colored moth became the dominant species in the area. If that's not classic evolution, I don't know what is.)



Explain what you mean by loopholes, and then post a few examples please.


Something which you would go to church and ask the priest and the priest would respond; "You're too inferior to understand God's ways." See above for a few examples. Another is the story of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were the original humans if I'm not mistaken, yet later they walk around and visit villages with humans that were not related to them. Where did they come from?



Perhaps he meant that Jesus is willing to be everyone?s savior. God is willing that none should parish but that all should come to repentance. But you are right in that the fact is he is not the savior of all. While all are given the gift, not all accept the gift.


What gift? The gift that we should suffer and repent for something that our supposed ancestors (which is unlikely. What if we're descendants of the people in the villages which Adam and Eve visited?) did and then if we suffer enough then God will be happy with us? That's like putting somebody on a desert island and then saving them when they're on the brink of death.


At last count,?.. none. Jesus does not banish people to hell. People choose hell. Like in the way a teacher gives grades on report cards. The student earns the grade. The teacher merely records it and makes it official. While some people accuse the teacher of giving them a bad grade, the student is the one at fault. Likewise, people earn hell. (they do not, however, earn heaven, but that?s another story)



I may be mistaken, but I don?t believe I ever said the Bible was completely unrelated. After all, Christianity is considered by the majority (myself excluded) to be a religion, so therefore it must have something in common with religions. I do maintain, however, that Christianity bares stark contrast to religions. (notice I usually do not refer to Christianity as religion)

And by the way, Christmas is not biblical. It is a celebration of a biblical event but itself is not biblical, so it falls under the same classification as halos.



That's worse than calling it fiction


I believe that is what you said in response to my stating that the Bible was a modernization of Pagan stories. I assumed that you were implying that you thought that that statement was false.



*Another confused look. Uh? no?

If I remember correctly, the seven deadly sins were outlined in the Gospels...

[Leon-IH]

Damn, my awesome post was removed so im going to repost it, and if the mods don't like it tough.. it is an opinion and i can voice it :P

Sure, ill believe in you god, and your jesus.. but just let me describe it in very bare bones terminology, "Doesn't it just make more sense that an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good deity created the world out of nothingness, from magic, essentially, and then punished us for eating a piece of fruit, and then incarnated himself in human flesh and came down to shed his own blood so he could break his own rules, and then went through hell on a temporary basis and then went back into the sky and promised to come back and take everyone who believed in him to this heaven no one has ever seen?"

Anyone start to see my point yet, if not please continue to read.

And this is often the arguement Christians seem to use "I call it we don't understand.. oh well, god can help"

(1) I don't understand evolution, I mean how could there be nothing then something?
(2) (Well informed Atheist gives articulate explanation of evolution and gently explains that the beginning of the universe has nothing to do with evolution.)
(3) Well it seems way too complicated and unlikely to me. Plus I don't want to live my life thinking I evolved from a monkey.
(4) Therefore, God exists and Jesus died for our sins.
(5) (Atheist argues that theist's ignorance of evolution does not logically lead to the conclusion that there is a God, let alone the Christian God.)
(6) Says you! God bless.
(7) Therefore, God exists

[Checkmate]

ANIMELEE

You?ve said that many times, but you never post any of these problems. Being told constantly that ?you just need to have faith? can be irritating. And I must say that that statement alone could justify a belief in an office chair as savior and lord. But a few things in Christianity (such as the three-part monotheistic God) are humanly incomprehensible. I do think, however, that most of the questions about Christianity can be answered by the right people. I know I, personally, have answered a few tough questions in the past. (though one did stump me which I am still working on)

Just because some people, can?t answer some questions, does not mean that those questions do not have answers.

You seem to be biased toward science, assuming that scientific theories are always right. If this is the case, I must say I find that foolish. Most scientists even do no put all their stock in science because much of science (ie evolution and the big bang) cannot be proven beyond a doubt. It can be supported well, but not proven. Like in ?Should I Accept the Fact?? you stated that there were ?Biblical Flaws? that were biblical flaws because they were against science. I could just as easily say that science is flawed because it contradicts the Bible. You see? (I have other reasons, however, for claiming science is flawed)

Animelee, I?m not sure you know as much about science as you think you do. For one, there?s no way they scientists could know how many species existed 5000 years ago. Common sense. Also, there is no species of anything that is completely lesbian. If it were that way, they would not be able to reproduce. Also common sense.


I don't believe in science like I did in Christianity, a religion. I'm an atheist, but I used facts, data, science, whatever you want to call it, as a way to come to my decision. The thing about the Bible is that you have to have faith to believe in it. The Bible says this, so you have to believe this, because it's in the Bible. Scientists provide proof -- data, research notes, tangible evidence -- basically, things that don't need a person to require faith to accept.

Everything requires faith to accept. It requires faith to accept that the universe was a big accident and so is human life. It requires faith to believe that scientific theories that are accepted now are actually right. (ie evolution) Considering you don'? know everything, you basically have to have faith in everything. (though some things require more faith than others)

And I?ve also noticed that you still do not present any real argument against the Bible that might possibly be refuted.


My questions were basically things the Bible said happened, like how God created the Earth a certain way, and all the species that exist today existed when God supposedly made the Earth,

The Bible never says that new species shall not develop. Who told you that?


6000-odd years ago. Then there was a world flood, where God asked a man to build a wooden boat and harbor two of every species of animal for forty days and forty nights on it. Some animals are carnivores, how would you be able to feed them,

With food.


clean their messes, bathe them, etc.?

hard work. What else are eight people going to do for that long of a time.




It's impossible, even with today's technology. To say "God helped him out" is a way most Christians cop out of explaining things.

Why is that a cop-out. This is a nearly apocalyptic event. Might I ask how they got it to rain for forty days and forty nights? Would it be a cop-out to say that God helped them with the little rain thing?

Now if God helped them with the rain, why couldn't he help them with the work?


And, you say there may have been a different amount of species 5000-years-ago? Didn't God make all the species that exist today? So, technically, by saying that, you're supporting evolution...

Micro-evolution, yes. I've never once denied micro-evolution. It is entirely possible for some species to branch off into other species given environmental conditions. What is not possible is for everything to have come from single-celled organisms.


It wasn't much different 5000 years ago than it was today. Today there are ten billion-odd species of animals, and I'm sure there were probably more then, since we, and other species of animals, have caused so many to go extinct.

correction... sub species of animals. Sub species would not be required for such a task. Some estimates indicate that the ark,, if a cubit is considered to be 17.5 inches (and cubits would have been a few inches bigger than that), would have had capacity for 125,000 sheep sized animals and the size of the average animal was smaller than that of a sheep, and estimates are made that he would have only had 25,000 animals to deal with. Leaving room for food and Noah?s family.



The animal is called the whiptail lizard. There are males and unisex versions of the whiptail lizard, but they're sterile, and the females mate with eachother and produce offspring. That totally goes against the Bible, since God created all the animals how they exist today, and he is against homosexuality. Would the Christian God really create a homosexual species of animal?


Final note: I still don't think God exists. If he did exist, the world would not be in the state it is in today, and all the evidence disproving what the Bible says wouldn't of existed, either.

Are you arguing against the God of the Bible existing, or the God of your preconceived notions. I would guess that the latter truly does not exist. In fact, the God of the Bibl
e even called part of his creation ?not good? and later fixed the problem as God often does. The way the world is today does not prove that God does not exist. It proves that sin does.


I'm really not trying to say that any of this is true, just that it could be . If you are trying to convince me of the truth of Christianity, then the burden of proof is on you. All I have to do is explain my reasons for doubting your position.

Jesus? miracles? some of the corroboration I gave. There?s proof.


It goes back to a version of the admittedly flawed principle of Occam's Razor. Look at a light switch. It's very possible to explain how it does what it does through electrical and mechanical means. It's also very possible to believe that fairies live inside every single light switch and magically control the lights when it's flipped. Both beliefs will produce the same result: the belief that the lights will turn on when you hit the switch. One, however, deals with wires and current and things you can hold in your hand. The other requires a substantial leap of faith.

Which one is the more rational belief?

The former. What?s your point?


Perhaps I'm not explaining my position very well, but I still see absolutely no reason to believe that the Apostles were not crazy cultists who strongly felt the need to found a new religion, with total disrespect for their own well-being.

For someone who doesn't see it, they've sure presented by argument pretty well. Does the bold really sound logical to you. I could find not reason to believe in what you just said.


Maybe they even actually believed what they wrote. People have believed strange and untrue things before, and they will continue to do so for as long as people exist.

How could they believe it, if they knew it was a lie? And, being the apostles, how would they not know it was a lie. If it was false. They talked to Jesus and twelve people do not just simultaneously believe somebody said something or did something when that somebody didn?t say it or do it. It?s illogical. Twelve people that I talk to, are not going to believe beyond the shadow of a doubt, on pain of death, that I said something that I really did not say.


Maybe Jesus' little band of followers had the right message, in the right place, at the right time, to become a global force for thousands of years to come. Maybe the people in the area were so disaffected with the Rabbis, and so sick of harsh Roman rule, that they were willing to believe absolutely anything if it promised that all of their suffering would be rewarded with an eternal afterlife in Heaven. Maybe they figured that being crucified or otherwise executed for their beliefs couldn't be all that much worse than what they were living with, and the whole "neverending bliss" thing sounded worth the price. Maybe they didn't even think that far ahead. Maybe the early Christian followers were like the current teenaged gunmen of militant Wahabbist Islam: willing to die for a cause they may or may not actually believe in, but are willing to say they believe in order to reap the possible rewards or to escape a seemingly untenable situation.

I'm sorry, but the above quote is so illogical I don't even know where to begin. For one thing, you keep neglecting the proof that I have presented. You flippantly disregard the horrors of the 1st Century persecution such as being scourged until their veins shown bare, been tied with nails in your feet for several days. Being sewn inside a bag filled with deadly snakes and scorpions, being torn to shreds by hungry lions. Not much worse than what was happening alreadly. WHAT THE HECK?!?!

If they were so sick of it, they would have started a rebellion that might have been coated with some of the religious garbage you?re suggesting. But they didn?t. They didn?t rebel. You?re just not making any sense.


Maybe the Apostles felt compelled to start a new religion, much like how some people are compelled to climb every mountain higher than 10,000 feet in Colorado, and some people are compelled to gamble away all of their money in casinos, and some people are compelled to drown their children in the bathtub because they love them so much.

Such a compulsion would not have started the magnanimous movement that did Christianity.


Maybe Jesus really said all the things the Bible says he did. Maybe he was just a mountain man who hardly said anything at all, and was just picked as the Son of God by a group of people who felt compelled to start a religious movement but needed a central figure.

Are you reading what you?re saying??? Religious movements do not have the kind of following that Christinaity has/had especially with the persecution. Quit skipping over the facts! The apostles believed in what they said. And they weren?t told by somebody else. If anyone knew that it was a lie, the apostles would. They didn?t. It wasn?t.




There are two options here, see: the electric-lightswitch option, and the fairy-lightswitch option. Christians go for the fairy explanation. I do not. If somebody comes along and prove to me that fairies do, in fact, inhabit all the world's lightswitches, and that electricity in fact has nothing to do with lightswitches, or perhaps doesn't exist at all... well, then I'd reconsider. But it hasn't happened yet.

I showed you the miracles. I showed you Jesus? claims to be Messiah. No other man to walk the Earth has ever done miracles and claimed to be the Messiah. (except the messiah) There's your proof. Stop overlooking it.


You?ve said that many times, but you never post any of these problems. Being told constantly that ?you just need to have faith? can be irritating. And I must say that that statement alone could justify a belief in an office chair as savior and lord. But a few things in Christianity (such as the three-part monotheistic God) are humanly incomprehensible. I do think, however, that most of the questions about Christianity can be answered by the right people. I know I, personally, have answered a few tough questions in the past. (though one did stump me which I am still working on)


This is what most people despise about Christianity; "You're too inferior to understand God's ways." is the general response to everything. Why is God jealous?

Because we turn away from him. It?s not a sin to be jealous. It is a sin to covet. (10th commandment) But not to be jealous. Jealousy and anger are emotions and emotions themselves are not sins. God rightfully deserves our worship and obedience and becomes jealous when they go toward other things.

Exodus 20:2-3 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

That doesn?t make sense? He saves people and they spit in his face? Is he supposed to just tolerate that.



"You're too inferior to understand God's ways." If God is perfect, why does he get angry and bring his wrath onto people's souls? "You're too inferior to understand God's ways."

You seem to be implying that a perfect being would not become angry. Biblically, that's false.


You seem to be biased toward science, assuming that scientific theories are always right. If this is the case, I must say I find that foolish. Most scientists even do no put all their stock in science because much of science (ie evolution and the big bang) cannot be proven beyond a doubt. It can be supported well, but not proven. Like in 'Should I Accept the Fact?' you stated that there were ?Biblical Flaws? that were biblical flaws because they were against science. I could just as easily say that science is flawed because it contradicts the Bible. You see? (I have other reasons, however, for claiming science is flawed)


Umm because most scientific theories have been PROVEN beyond a doubt, something that The Bible has yet to accomplish. And how has evolution not been proven? The concept of natural selection has been proven over and over again, most recently by the scenario of light vs. dark moths (Originally few dark moths would survive because they were easily spotted, but since pollution came into effect, the dark moths could not be seen by the birds that hunted them while the light moths were decimated, and the dark colored moth became the dominant species in the area. If that's not classic evolution, I don't know what is.)

There?s a difference between natural selection and evolution. Evolution is when families of animals become different families of animals. Like a frog becomes some sort of reptile. That has not been proven beyond a doubt, because it has not been witnessed. Jesus has been witnessed, however.



Explain what you mean by loopholes, and then post a few examples please.


Something which you would go to church and ask the priest and the priest would respond; "You're too inferior to understand God's ways." See above for a few examples. Another is the story of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were the original humans if I'm not mistaken, yet later they walk around and visit villages with humans that were not related to them. Where did they come from?

What villages?



Perhaps he meant that Jesus is willing to be everyone?s savior. God is willing that none should parish but that all should come to repentance. But you are right in that the fact is he is not the savior of all. While all are given the gift, not all accept the gift.


What gift? The gift that we should suffer and repent for something that our supposed ancestors (which is unlikely. What if we're descendants of the people in the villages which Adam and Eve visited?) did and then if we suffer enough then God will be happy with us? That's like putting somebody on a desert island and then saving them when they're on the brink of death.

I don?t know where on Earth you?re getting that from, but it?s not the Bible. And you, I think, need a reality check, seeing as how you seem to be implying that you never sinned in your life.



At last count,?.. none. Jesus does not banish people to hell. People choose hell. Like in the way a teacher gives grades on report cards. The student earns the grade. The teacher merely records it and makes it official. While some people accuse the teacher of giving them a bad grade, the student is the one at fault. Likewise, people earn hell. (they do not, however, earn heaven, but that?s another story.


Quote:

I may be mistaken, but I don?t believe I ever said the Bible was completely unrelated. After all, Christianity is considered by the majority (myself excluded) to be a religion, so therefore it must have something in common with religions. I do maintain, however, that Christianity bares stark contrast to religions. (notice I usually do not refer to Christianity as religion)

And by the way, Christmas is not biblical. It is a celebration of a biblical event but itself is not biblical, so it falls under the same classification as halos.
Quote:

That's worse than calling it fiction)


I believe that is what you said in response to my stating that the Bible was a modernization of Pagan stories. I assumed that you were implying that you thought that that statement was false.

It?s not a modernization of other myths. Just because it has a few points in common with fiction, does not make it fiction. Heck, I could write up the entire Bible with new names and put it on a fiction book store. Does that make the Bible fictional? No.


If I remember correctly, the seven deadly sins were outlined in the Gospels...

I would say that you remember incorrectly.

[RedStarWarrior]

Damn, my awesome post was removed so im going to repost it, and if the mods don't like it tough.. it is an opinion and i can voice it :P
Actually, no, you can't. Your original post was trolling. Your new post is completely different from the original and is acceptable.

[AbareMax]

This has gotten so far off topic... Oh well. I fear for the souls of these people disgracing the name of the Son of God. The true Son of God. Now, don't go saying that I'm condemning you, that's not what I'm doing. All I'm saying is that I hope you make the right choice before it's too late...


I'm going to tell you of a time in the future that is prophecised in the Bible, and of course you can check it before you bash it :).

Throughout the years many phrophetical passages from the Bible have been proven correct. Israel will get her homeland back, wars and threats of wars will be upon us, and men will do what men want; not what God wants. Before all of the horrible apocolyptic stuff happens, Babylon (present day Iraq) will rise again, and be one of the most powerful nations in the world. Israel will be attacked, but not one Israeli will be killed in the attack.

How is this true? My golly gosh, the Bible says it, and the first three have happened! The next few will be upon us soon... I'm not saying that the world is ending, yet. But before it does, I sure hope you're ready to meet Jesus up in the clouds.

If you wish for me to tell you more, then I would be more than happy to share with you the perilous days that lie ahead for the unsaved.

The prophecies mentioned in this thread can be found in the book of Joel, and Daniel of the Old Testament. In the New Testament look in the books of Matthew, Acts, 2 Thessalonians and Revalation.

AbareMax

P.S: It appears 'Checkmate' has misquoted me, and added another passage to my last message... This is what he put, although I'm sure it wasn't on purpose:

'Just to tell you, I have read the Bible and it has more loopholes than Egyptian mythology, which is really saying something.'

[The Muffin Man]

This has gotten so far off topic... Oh well. I fear for the souls of these people disgracing the name of the Son of God. The true Son of God. Now, don't go saying that I'm condemning you, that's not what I'm doing. All I'm saying is that I hope you make the right choice before it's too late...
"I'm not condemning you. Just telling you you're absolutely wrong to not agree with me!"



I'm going to tell you of a time in the future that is prophecised in the Bible, and of course you can check it before you bash it :).

Throughout the years many phrophetical passages from the Bible have been proven correct. Israel will get her homeland back, wars and threats of wars will be upon us, and men will do what men want; not what God wants. Before all of the horrible apocolyptic stuff happens, Babylon (present day Iraq) will rise again, and be one of the most powerful nations in the world. Israel will be attacked, but not one Israeli will be killed in the attack.

How is this true? My golly gosh, the Bible says it, and the first three have happened! The next few will be upon us soon... I'm not saying that the world is ending, yet. But before it does, I sure hope you're ready to meet Jesus up in the clouds.
Saying men will do as they please, there will be war, and Irsaelis will get there homeland back is like saying a bird will fly, a fish will swim, and I will complain about people forcing their religion down my throat. It's not really a huge feat.


If you wish for me to tell you more, then I would be more than happy to share with you the perilous days that lie ahead for the unsaved.
Does God have this huge thing against people like you? People who claim they know better than someone else? I'm pretty sure God doesn't like his job of judging us being taken by you.


The prophecies mentioned in this thread can be found in the book of Joel, and Daniel of the Old Testament. In the New Testament look in the books of Matthew, Acts, 2 Thessalonians and Revalation.

AbareMax

P.S: It appears 'Checkmate' has misquoted me, and added another passage to my last message... This is what he put, although I'm sure it wasn't on purpose:

'Just to tell you, I have read the Bible and it has more loopholes than Egyptian mythology, which is really saying something.'

...Egyptian mythology and alot of the myths that the bible borrows from predate even the birth of Christ. Go find me an ancient egyptian or roman(Pre-A.D.) prophecy of the Son of God being born. THEN you'll have some ground.

[AbareMax]

I was saying there about the Egyptian mythology, that I never said that. I guess I should've put that...


Saying men will do as they please, there will be war, and Irsaelis will get there homeland back is like saying a bird will fly, a fish will swim, and I will complain about people forcing their religion down my throat. It's not really a huge feat.

Israel did get there homeland back *cough* 1949 *cough*, but fighting hasn't stopped. WOW! There's two right there! You need to watch the news more often and check your history. Hmm...men have been doing as the please. Have they not? Men being mankind, respectively. Examples being: Robbing, raping, drink incessently, drug dealing, people marrying other people of the same-sex. Need I say more, sir?
And, just so you know, I'm simply voicing my opinion, just as you do, and I'm placing the facts where the belong. Here.

Hey, I wasn't condemning you...and then you go around and say that I was? Please get things straight.


Does God have this huge thing against people like you? People who claim they know better than someone else? I'm pretty sure God doesn't like his job of judging us being taken by you.

God doesn't have anything against me or you. All he wants is to love you. And in no way am I claiming to know more than other people, because humans can only have finite knowledge.

[Crazy]

Abaremax don't shove religion down someone's throat. Tis people like you that make Christians look like morons.

[AbareMax]

Abaremax don't shove religion down someone's throat. Tis people like you that make Christians look like morons.

That's a nice sentiment...:D Care to elaborate? I'm not pushing anything down peoples throats. Is it scaring you perhaps that God is calling me to do this? Hmm? Let me know when I'm getting warmer...

[Crazy]

When you say "I hope you make the right choice before it is to late" you are saying that they are currently on the wrong path and therefore saying that their way is wrong while yours is right. THAT is shoving religion down someone's throat my friend. Keep your belief's to yourself.

[The Muffin Man]

That's a nice sentiment...:D Care to elaborate? I'm not pushing anything down peoples throats. Is it scaring you perhaps that God is calling me to do this? Hmm? Let me know when I'm getting warmer...

It's gonna be really funny if you're:
Wrong.
Right, but punished for being a dickhead to all the athiests.

If you are right, I'm gonna laugh if the latter is true.


Israel did get there homeland back *cough* 1949 *cough*, but fighting hasn't stopped. WOW! There's two right there!
Saying someones gonna get their homeland back isn't a huge deal. Saying fighting is gonna continue IS NOT A HUGE DEAL.

You need to watch the news more often and check your history. Hmm...men have been doing as the please. Have they not? Men being mankind, respectively. Examples being: Robbing, raping, drink incessently, drug dealing, people marrying other people of the same-sex. Need I say more, sir?
Yes. How did you disprove me? You're helping me. People getting their country back, people still killing one another, and humans still being royal asses to each other isn't exactly "Bible only". I predict that, for the next 30 years, the 23rd of March will fall after the 22nd and before the 24th. If I am right, in 30 years it'll prove I'm a prophet.

[AbareMax]

How, could I be punished? There's no punishment for the saved except judgement. Then they get to live with Jesus forever. Hmm...This stuff has been prophesized for centuries....

Crazy: You can join in the bashing on me, if it'd make you feel better :cry: . We're here to discuss not argue and bash other people aren't we? Keeping my beliefs to myself is something I cannot do. How can I express then, if you are blatently ordering me not to?

TMM: Saying someone gets their homeland back is a big deal. Especially for the Jews. They were taken out of their land forcefully, and were mistreated for centuries. Haven't you a heart, TMM? They got their land back. Their country, everything sacred to them. Fighting a senseless bloodshed will continue, mostly anyone can say that by themselves. But it's a big deal when God tells them to prophesize that. The Bible states that the fighting in Israel, Babylon, and the surrounding areas will never cease until Christ comes to establish his millenial reign on earth. My how exciting!

[phaedrus]

The Bible states that the fighting in Israel, Babylon, and the surrounding areas will never cease until Christ comes to establish his millenial reign on earth. My how exciting!

NEWSFLASH from TPM's Anchorman:

we don't care. the fighting will still go on, regardless. :rolleyes:

stop quoting the ****ing bible. we would like to see some common sense, not some bible some hobos wrote.

i can suggest a read for you: my sig.

[AbareMax]

Oh, strat. It seems as though you wish to join the bashing to? Before you bash God, and Jesus and of course His Kingdom, I suggest you read the Bible. Because it makes you look like an idiot, if you don't know what you are talking about....

[Checkmate]

Actually, from my view point, it would appear that AbareMax is not shoving anything down anyone's throat.

He's merely evangelizing. That's not judging that's actually an expression of caring. He cares about you all (or at least your souls) enough to actually tell them. Please, AbareMax, give the gospel.

AbareMax, ignore the Muffin Man. Just skipping over his posts is much less stressful. (and after spending an hour and a half countering Animelee, DarkTemplarZ, and Aglandiir it's nice to relieve a bit of stress)

[phaedrus]

Oh, strat. It seems as though you wish to join the bashing to? Before you bash God, and Jesus and of course His Kingdom, I suggest you read the Bible. Because it makes you look like an idiot, if you don't know what you are talking about....

apparently you don't get it. jesus died. christianity does not believe in reincarnation. if jesus can't get reincarnated, how can he establish what you call "millenial reign" on earth without a body? :wtf:

EDIT: oh right, rule from heaven. how does he get his rules down? prophets? nope. nobody listens because all those prophets are hobos living on 5th Street or High Street.

refer to my sig again.

i'm not bashing. i'm stating a case.

why read the bible when you know it's not very accurate? waste of time.

you do something worthwhile. like being buddhist. like me. what does it take in this world to understand christianity isn't really the "almighty" or "omgitsthebestifyouhateitillhavetorapeyouuptheass"?

buddhism > this thread.

i leave, you, little grasshopper, with this note:

Shut Up Fool!

[Tainted]

Actually, from my view point, it would appear that AbareMax is not shoving anything down anyone's throat.

He's merely evangelizing. That's not judging that's actually an expression of caring. He cares about you all (or at least your souls) enough to actually tell them. Please, AbareMax, give the gospel.

AbareMax, ignore the Muffin Man. Just skipping over his posts is much less stressful. (and after spending an hour and a half countering Animelee, DarkTemplarZ, and Aglandiir it's nice to relieve a bit of stress)

That's got to be the biggest crock of bullshit I've ever seen written by anyone at TPM. How can you say that? Oh, sure, he's not shoving religion down our throats now is he? He's just enlightening us because he cares too much to watch our souls be condemned because we're Atheists. Right? Go right out and say it.

Infact, I care about you christians so much that I devote my life to enlightening you to the side of Atheism, because we all know there is no God, we all know you'll be dissapointed when you die and you find yourself just rotting six feet under-- so we have devised a tried and trusted true method to help guide you fallen christians to the right side, the Atheist way.

Oh, by the way, nobody can take offense to the preceding paragraph because I wasn't shoving Atheism down anybody's throat, I was just evangelizing. I was merely expressing my care, merely just showing you that my way is right and everything you live and believe is wrong, and until you accept this, I will continue to enlighten you, until you see the light. Hold strong, my bretheren, for I hope with my help, I can guide you to the real side of the world, the Atheist way.

A-****ing-dieu,
Zak Hunter

EDIT: I don't want to see this post deleted, either. If this post is deleted-- delete everything AbareMax has posted in this entire thread. I will not stand for a double standard, so this is allowed if AbareMax can 'evangelize.'

[Checkmate]

reincarnation: rebirth in new bodies or forms of life; especially : a rebirth of a soul in a new human body

Jesus was only once incarnated in a human body. And reincarnation implies one soul leaving one body and going to another. Jesus never did that. When he resurrected it was into the same body that died.

And I'd love to know just how you 'know it's not accurate'


That's got to be the biggest crock of bullshit I've ever seen written by anyone at TPM. How can you say that? Oh, sure, he's not shoving religion down our throats now is he? He's just enlightening us because he cares too much to watch our souls be condemned because we're Atheists. Right? Go right out and say it.

Remove 'atheist'. Replace it with 'sinner'. Then you've got it right. Now, I'd like to take this time to clear up a misconception that will most certainly be stated.

AbareMax and I are sinners. The difference between us and you (assuming AbareMax is a true Christian, which I have no reason to doubt) is that we have accepted Christ's atonement for our sins. So our sins are payed for. Basically they've been thrown out, like in a courtroom. That's what allows us to enter heaven. Accept Christ and you can enter heaven when you die as well.


Infact, I care about you christians so much that I devote my life to enlightening you to the side of Atheism, because we all know there is no God, we all know you'll be dissapointed when you die and you find yourself just rotting six feet under-- so we have devised a tried and trusted true method to help guide you fallen christians to the right side, the Atheist way.


Oh, by the way, nobody can take offense to the preceding paragraph because I wasn't shoving Atheism down anybody's throat, I was just evangelizing. I was merely expressing my care, merely just showing you that my way is right and everything you live and believe is wrong, and until you accept this, I will continue to enlighten you, until you see the light. Hold strong, my bretheren, for I hope with my help, I can guide you to the real side of the world, the Atheist way.

I wasn't about to say you were shoving it down our throats. I accept that you saying that (eventhough you're not serious) is no different than the way in which AbareMax and I proclaim Christ.

[The Muffin Man]

How, could I be punished? There's no punishment for the saved except judgement. Then they get to live with Jesus forever. Hmm...This stuff has been prophesized for centuries....

Crazy: You can join in the bashing on me, if it'd make you feel better :cry: . We're here to discuss not argue and bash other people aren't we? Keeping my beliefs to myself is something I cannot do. How can I express then, if you are blatently ordering me not to?

TMM: Saying someone gets their homeland back is a big deal. Especially for the Jews. They were taken out of their land forcefully, and were mistreated for centuries. Haven't you a heart, TMM? They got their land back. Their country, everything sacred to them. Fighting a senseless bloodshed will continue, mostly anyone can say that by themselves. But it's a big deal when God tells them to prophesize that. The Bible states that the fighting in Israel, Babylon, and the surrounding areas will never cease until Christ comes to establish his millenial reign on earth. My how exciting!

...Are you even listening? Getting their homeland back being in the bible is no huge deal because alot of the "Prophecies" you're talking about are pretty much going to happen wether it's true or not.

And Checkmate - Go on. Ignore my posts. It just proves you're afraid I'll cut each and every one of your facts right down.

[Checkmate]

That's the most I've laughed in several hours Muffin Man. That's HILARIOUS!!! And I seriously am laughing out loud.

If you wanted to cut down each and every one of my posts you still can. Nothing's stopping you from attacking my evidence. I just doubt you will because your ignorant ranting seems to be more pleasing to you than actual debate. Too each his own.

[phaedrus]

reincarnation: rebirth in new bodies or forms of life; especially : a rebirth of a soul in a new human body

obviously.



Jesus was only once incarnated in a human body. And reincarnation implies one soul leaving one body and going to another. Jesus never did that. When he resurrected it was into the same body that died.

reincarnation being the living world. not heaven/hell/whatever you want to call it. obviously you missed my point. abaremax said "jesus will rule", and if you can't get reincarnated into the living world, how can you rule? that was my question.



And I'd love to know just how you 'know it's not accurate'


and i'd love to know just how you 'know it's accurate'.

[The Muffin Man]

That's the most I've laughed in several hours Muffin Man. That's HILARIOUS!!! And I seriously am laughing out loud.

You know what else is hilarious? Your feeble attempt at an insult :) You could have at least done me the honor of trying to disprove me, rather than come off as a complete ass. That's my job.


If you wanted to cut down each and every one of my posts you still can. Nothing's stopping you from attacking my evidence. I just doubt you will because your ignorant ranting seems to be more pleasing to you than actual debate. Too each his own.

No, I won't cut your evidence down because I know you'll just shoot back with your evidence proving the evidence you're trying to prove. I.e "The Bible says gays are evil" "Well why does it say that?" "because the Bible said so."

[Leon-IH]

Oh dear, AbareMax hasn't found a logical counter to my post of extreme awesomeness, try arguing with pure logic instead of "lets all just believe" for once.

Evangelist's is an anagram for Evil's Agents!!

Anyway, i love your judging people when the bible says "Judge not lest ye be judged" and even better is your saying "read the bible" when you've read it an claim to believe in it but plainly do not obey it.

Also, jews were only mistreated for the following reasons, They claimed everyone else was going to hell, They always think they're better due to the "gods chosen people" thing and whats more, they were the ones who started fighting with people who they considered Heathen 99% of the time, so OF COURSE THEY GOT MISTREATED, let me show this in an example, say you went to a trailer park and started verbally bashing the poor, of course your going to get beaten up, moron.

So all i can say is.. WHAT CHU GUNNA DO WHEN ATHEISM RUNS WILD ON YOU?
xD

[Checkmate]

Strat, the Bible never actually says that 'reincarnation is heresy' It merely has differing views on the afterlife which is why Christians do not believe reincarnaion in the same way Buddhists do. (I think they do but forgive me if I am mistaken since I know practically nothing about Buddhism)

However, I'm not quite sure that Jesus would have to change forms coming from heaven to earth. Maybe he will, but if so it's not a direct contradiction.

I find the Bible to be accurate just because it is historically cooberated by none-biblical sources and people seem to have a remarkable amount of trouble proving that it's flawed.

Muffin Man, I was not trying to insult you. I was stating that I was laughing at your statement that I was afraid of you.

I never said gays were evil. I said they were sinners. I think I might return to ignoring your posts as Raven suggests.

Leon IH, AbareMax is not judging people. He's merely telling you all of God's judgement.

[Leon-IH]

Correction, abare has stated he dissaproves of our choice of lifestyle "I hope you make the right choice before it is too late" therefore, he has judged that we have made the wrong choice.. I don't really mind too much but if your going to preach, do it properly.

[phaedrus]

Strat, the Bible never actually says that 'reincarnation is heresy' It merely has differing views on the afterlife which is why Christians do not believe reincarnaion in the same way Buddhists do. (I think they do but forgive me if I am mistaken since I know practically nothing about Buddhism)

buddhism is more like, "if you have bad karma, you get reincarnated into a smaller being, but if you have awesome karma, you go to nirvana, the ultimate place", of course, in more philosophical words.



However, I'm not quite sure that Jesus would have to change forms coming from heaven to earth. Maybe he will, but if so it's not a direct contradiction.

considering reincarnation as only for the living world (what you posted earlier is 'resurrection', not 'reincarnation'. watch that), the point i was trying to make was: how would jesus assume ruling the world for a 'millenia' if he couldn't get reincarnated? of course, you could consider resurrection, but i'm more concerned about reincarnation, because that's what i referred to first. i would consider debating ressurection, but not at this moment.



I find the Bible to be accurate just because it is historically cooberated by none-biblical sources and people seem to have a remarkable amount of trouble proving that it's flawed.

of course, there are ways you can prove parts of the bible true. to disprove something like that, you disprove the non-biblical sources. once that happens, you doubt the accuracy of the biblical sources, because if they were coincidal (sp?), they would both be wrong. catch my drift? i'm just saying that if the non-biblical references are incorrect, then the bible is inaccurate. i'm not saying the sources are inaccurate, i'm just saying if they were, the bible would be inaccurate.

[Zup]

Damn! What happened here? I'm a Christian(shields self from automatic blows) but the only two other Christian's in here sound like fundamentalist wackos. I'm all for telling people about Christ. I'm all for telling people about what's in store. But when people are so obviously against being "reborn", then why even try? I don't blame all of the people bashing the Christians. You guys are nuts. Where are all the smart, reasonable, logical Christians? Oh, that's right...off the internet, actually helping people.

I don't blame either side. My Father is an agnostic and I can see where he's coming from. I'm a protestant and I can stand firm in my beliefs and would happily debate points about the bible, if I was well educated in that region, but I'm not. So, please, don't flame me. You won't get me to flame or retaliate because, frankly, there's no point. We're tlking about personal beliefs, things that you decide for yourself. If you haven't made the decision, talking to random weirdoes on the internet isn't going to help. And neither is being that random weirdo trying to "save" people. Try to save the people that are actually calling for help. Not people on the internet.

(gets prepared to be flamed by both sides of the argument)

[Checkmate]

Zup, I'm not going to flame you but merely defend my cause. My main goal is to prove that Christians are not stupid.

You may think I've been counterproductive. If so, I'd appreciate constructive criticism. And you're calling me a fundamentalist wacko. Please illuminate for me the differences between your and my Christians beliefs.

(this entire post is ment to be read at face value and is not meant to be sarcastic or demeaning)

In response to Strat's entire post... ok.

As I said if Jesus was reincarnated I do not think that would directly contradict the Bible. The sources I refer to are generally accepted. (at least for the purposes I use them for) And I merely thought you were calling the resurrection reincarnation. You weren't. My mistake.

[Zup]

Most Christian's aren't stupid, intellectually or common sense wise. I live near a Christian home that provides a summer camp for the mentally handicapped. The parents are very smart and have plenty of common sense and their children have graduated from a prestigious private high school with honors. The mere fact that you're defending this "cause" is redundant. Let other Christians provide the stereotypes or you risk becoming one yourself. If one's being incredibly dumb, the step in, correct them, apologize for their behavior and move on. It's not worth risking your beliefs, a nights sleep or getting turned into the stereotype you so desperately defend against.

And I call anyone who continues to try and persuade people to Christ over the internet, flames sent so much that the board is nothing more than a pile of ash a fundamentalist wacko. No offense to those true fundamentalist wackos.

[Checkmate]

The thing is that many people think that belief in Christianity is ridiculous. I am defending against that. Note that I've never attempted to lead someone to Christ over these forums, but I have encouraged others that did it. Maybe God impressed upon them that it would make a difference. If so, who am I to fight them.

I am mainly trying to defend Christianity in saying that it is not a ludicrous belief. And while you may know intelligent Christians others do not have those same perceptions.

That is why I'm here. I can't stand people ignorantly walking all over the Bible.

[Zup]

So what if so many people think the bible is ridiculous? Let a friend of theirs or a peer help them come to another conclusion. It's not your place to "defend Christianity" or to prevent people from "walking all over the bible". There are probably people out there that worship books like Harry Potter. You can't stop them and they can't make you. Believe in what you believe, help people when they need it, convert only when people are truly asking for it. There is no need to defend something that is subscribed to by an incredible amount of people in the world. It's even more ludicrous to believe that this little mesage board dedicated to a videogame that's passed it's fad time (and now passed into the hardcore) has an inkling that it could actually make a difference in the entire scheme of things.

Chill, bro. Judgements people make about things in this world will fluctuate. Let them believe what they want. It's their life, their soul. If they believe that there is no soul, then good for them. At least they believe in something. Be happy that you believe in Christ and don't feel the need to defend it. There's always someone in this world ready to ridicule, to mock and to plain flame the hell out of our religion in general. Let them. It's their choice and they have, as the bible puts it, "hardened hearts". Let them be. They may soften eventually, but now's not the time. Now's not the time.

[Aglandiir]

I'd make a long reply to everything, but I'd rather go to sleep, so this will be short.

The "proof" you keep citing is not proof. Calling it proof will not make it such.

The Bible cannot be used as proof of the Bible.

The only actual outside source I've so far seen cited by anybody in this thread is the Dead Sea Scrolls. There was also that talk about the Jewish compilations and all that, but those were produced well after the fact and very well might have been a direct response to Christianity; regardless, they are still not the objective sources that a reasonable person might take as solid proof. All other sources have either been the Bible itself or "expert" analysis of the Bible.

Perhaps I'm not being clear: I'm talking about primary sources, not secondary. Show me something that has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible, but was created at roughly the same time, which talks about Jesus performing miracles. Show me something written by someone with no interest in the events, before, after, or at the time. Something totally objective.

Yes, my standards of proof are quite high in this case. But you're asking me to believe something that is highly unbelievable and improbable; asking for anything less than absolute proof of such a thing would be foolish.

Besides, I assume that most Christians have very high standards of proof with regards to Atheism. If I were to try to convince you of my beliefs (which I'm not), then I would need to absolutely disprove all of the wild claims the Bible makes, something which I probably could never do.

I think the fact that 2,000 years have passed between then and now is a serious impediment to either side making any headway. The people are all dead, most of the records have turned to dust, the stories have been warped through years of telling and retelling. The chances of either side proving anything about one of the few relics to survive from that time, the Bible, are quite small indeed.

One thing is quite clear, though: where you see solid truth, I see but one possible theory out of many. You called all of my "maybe"s about the people and the Apostles and everything "illogical," among other things. They obviously don't seem illogical at all to me. You may be willing to give these people the benefit of the doubt, but I am not. If it's possible that the Bible was written by a bunch of kooks and it caught on via a combination of excellent marketing and perfect environmental conditions, which it is, then I see that as a fine reason not to believe in the Bible. I'm not willing to make the leap of faith, to assume that everybody really was as they seem in the Bible. You obviously disagree.

Remember, people aren't always logical. It's so easy to get huge numbers of people to rally behind a cause that it happens at least once every hundred years or less, and the cause doesn't have to make much sense. It only needs to offer people a reward for following it.

[Last Exile]

I swear to God that you're really a chick.

Sorry, nope. ;) I have Tara (Pancake) to give face-to-face testimony on that, since the two of us met last month.

As for previous reponses:

1. Female evangelists were written out of the New Testament.
2. The Malachi tribe was usurped by the Judah tribe by Saul in order to stop the rise of women.
3. Modern Catholicism/Christianity is still outdated and sexist. Male priests can marry but nuns can't?! Get bent!
4. All religions are a stupid attempt by foolish mortals trying to grapple with their fear of the unknown and trying to answer it with something to rationalise their existence, even if they know it's false. There is no true or correct religion. If there was, 90% of the world would go to Hell because they believe in the wrong God.
5. Humanity is incestuous. In order to get enough people to produce the human race, Eve would have had to have slept with her sons once Adam lost his fertility.

[phaedrus]

5. Humanity is incestuous. In order to get enough people to produce the human race, Eve would have had to have slept with her sons once Adam lost his fertility.

sure, i'm not christian, but unless adam got an std, eve would have become infertile FIRST. or adam mighta gotten his shlong cut off/masturbated too much. females lose fertility around 40-50 years old. unless i'm deranged, males don't ever lose fertility (assuming there is no intervention, like castrating, infertility, stds). the thing that bars them from sex in like their 70's is well....i'm not going there.

[Crazy]

Zup, I'm not going to flame you but merely defend my cause. My main goal is to prove that Christians are not stupid.

You may think I've been counterproductive. If so, I'd appreciate constructive criticism. And you're calling me a fundamentalist wacko. Please illuminate for me the differences between your and my Christians beliefs.

(this entire post is ment to be read at face value and is not meant to be sarcastic or demeaning)

In response to Strat's entire post... ok.

As I said if Jesus was reincarnated I do not think that would directly contradict the Bible. The sources I refer to are generally accepted. (at least for the purposes I use them for) And I merely thought you were calling the resurrection reincarnation. You weren't. My mistake.

If that is your goal Checkmate you are not doing a very good job of it. I would like to say that I am a Christian. I just don't like the idea of telling people that they are wrong in what they believe in. I am not saying this to you really I am talking to Abaremax. Please people stay on topic and actually attempt to PROVE that the bible is historiclly accurate. I mean this is what
the topic is about.

[AbareMax]

If that is your goal Checkmate you are not doing a very good job of it. I would like to say that I am a Christian. I just don't like the idea of telling people that they are wrong in what they believe in. I am not saying this to you really I am talking to Abaremax. Please people stay on topic and actually attempt to PROVE that the bible is historiclly accurate. I mean this is what
the topic is about.

Crazy: You're a Christian eh? I thought you weren't, because instead of standing up for Jesus, and the Christian beliefs, you've been going against it.... I'm not telling them that they are wrong in their beliefs, nor am I telling them what to believe in. I see a person like yourself can't have an open mind...

TMM: The Jewish people are God's chosen people. He created them as well as us. It's not saying that they are better than us, or we are better than them. They have just been chosen to do God's will. Kind of what Checkmate and I are doing. Keep bashing us if it will make you feel better.

[phaedrus]

The Jewish people are God's chosen people. He created them as well as us. It's not saying that they are better than us, or we are better than them. They have just been chosen to do God's will. Kind of what Checkmate and I are doing.

NEWSFLASH on the 4:00 news:

YOU AREN'T JEWISH.

:rolleyes:

ONE VERY IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT: SHUT UP FOOL!

[Checkmate]

Aglandiir, the Talmud is even more than what you're asking for. Instead of being objective it is subjective AGAINST Christianity, but it still corroborates Jesus' miracles. And forget about the time lapse because that also does not hurt my case. In fact, as I've stated before, the fact that the Jews could not deny Jesus' miracles, [I]even after 150 years[I] only shows how well known it was that Jesus performed miracles.

In response to Last Exile, to my knowledge the first end times prophecy was given by woman, (Hannah in 1st Samuel chapter 2) Deborah was a female judge. The first people to spread the news of Christ's resurrection were two females.

This is not to say that women and men are treated the same in the Bible. I know full well that is not the truth. If you call, treating men and women differently sexism than I would say the Bible is sexist. I would also say that, by the above definition, any person who calls a man a man or a woman a woman is also sexist for not calling them the same thing. That is, after all, treating them differently.

Men and women are different. If they were not, they would not be called men and women. In my opinion it is not sexist (I do not agree with the above definition of sexism) to give men and women different roles. After all, they are different. Biblically speaking, the Bible does say that in the church, men should lead. It even goes so far as to say that a woman shall not usurp authority over a man in the church. Yes, it says that. I'm not denying it.

Speaking generally, men tend to represent (in my observation) the extremes of spectrums. The majority of world leaders are men. Almost all serial killers are men. Most of the saints recognized by the catholic church are men.

I agree with you by saying the majority of people will go to hell. (while I think 90% is far too liberal an estimate)

And as far as number five goes, Eve may or may not have slept with her sons. She probably would have had enough fertile years to just have kids with Adam. People lived a lot longer back then. (Adam lived to be 930) Now Adam's and Eve's children would have certainly slept with each other. (This was millenia before God's prohibition on incest) So what's your point with the Eve thing?

Crazy, I'd rather tell people that they're wrong instead of know that I'm letting them go to hell.

How am I making Christians look stupid?

[Zak]

NEWSFLASH on the 4:00 news:

YOU AREN'T JEWISH.

:rolleyes:

ONE VERY IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT: SHUT UP FOOL!

But I am, and I advise you stop spamming.

However, Abare, you aren't being any better yourself by trying to shove religion down people's throats. I think you should understand that there is a difference between that and defending yourself. Did you not see what I had warned Sorovis about earlier in this topic?


~Zak

[phaedrus]

But I am, and I advise you stop spamming.
~Zak

i know you're jewish, and i wholly respect that. i was just reminding AbareMax [that he's not Jewish], because he said earlier that the Jewish do "God's Will", and just a comma later, says he and Checkmate are doing exactly that. And if doing "God's Will" is what Jewish people do, and AbareMax and apparently Checkmate are doing that, doesn't that strike as stupidity? i was just reminding AbareMax that he's not Jewish. Jewish people are awesome, though. one of my friends is Jewish, and he's hilarious and he is an awesome keyboarder on top of that.

i didn't mean to offend anyone by that, i was talking more directly to AbareMax, not the general public.

[Checkmate]

Strat, anchormen talk. Is this to say that me claiming that I am able to talk is stupid? Think about that one.

And as I recall, Zak, you warned Sorovis about saying something to the degree of "No wonder you're an atheist". Not much to do with shoving something or another down your throat.

And I still don't understand how the above quote is an insult. I mean if I were to present people with firm evidence supporting my Christianity, someone might just say "Oh, no wonder you're a Christian."

Sorovis perceived that Skullfire did not read the evidence he posted, and concluded that if Skullfire treats evidence of Christianity that way, that would be a good way to explain why he was an atheist. It's a statement of perception.

[Zak]

Strat, that's not my point, I have no reason to take offense to that post, and I didn't. I was just pointing out that it was spammy in general and that is all. I'm not really religious myself, I'm actually agnostic belief-wise, but Jewish culture-wise. While I am paying attention to this debate, I'm not getting involved in this arguement. Unless I see something worth warning or commenting on, like earlier with Sorovis and Skullfire, as it is part of my job, I was just commenting on how that post was spammy. The fact that I am Jewish is irrelevant, despite me pointing out that I am (I just thought I might as well).
Actually, it was more relevant to what I said to AbareMax, but thats it.


EDIT: Checkmate - I had started this post before yours appeared, is "the above quote" referring to Strat's or to Sorovis's? If strat's, then I just explained above, it isn't. If you mean Sorovis's that you just pointed out... that's another matter.

~Zak

[phaedrus]

Strat, anchormen talk. Is this to say that me claiming that I am able to talk is stupid? Think about that one.


realize that i was talking to AbareMax, not you. from my view, AbareMax pulled you in for the hell of it, for the sake of not going down alone. i respect christianity, but as with everything, there are certain things that can be debated. which is why this thread exists. thankfully, you [attempt] to put logic in your arguments. unlike AbareMax.


Strat, that's not my point, I have no reason to take offense to that post, and I didn't. I was just pointing out that it was spammy in general and that is all.

well, being anchorman, i couldn't have done much else besides newflash. =| i do hope it did get the message across. that was all i wanted it to do. anchorman style.

[AbareMax]

Strat and Zak: You both crack me up! How can you guys share your beliefs and Checkmate and I can't? That's too funny. You both claim I'm shoving this down people's throats... I don't know how many times I'll have to say it... I'm simply voicing my beliefs. If you condemn me for it, then condemn just about everybody else who posted here. Remember the lies to tell, before you tell them...

[phaedrus]

Strat and Zak: You both crack me up! How can you guys share your beliefs and Checkmate and I can't? That's too funny. You both claim I'm shoving this down people's throats... I don't know how many times I'll have to say it... I'm simply voicing my beliefs. If you condemn me for it, then condemn just about everybody else who posted here. Remember the lies to tell, before you tell them...

let me summarize for you:

Checkmate: logic + non-biblical sources
You: "because the bible said so"

'nuff said.

[AbareMax]

Right... You never told me why you said that I 'shove Christianity down peoples throats'. I'd love to hear the reason, or perhaps you didn't have one...

Now, let me explain this to you. The Bible is logic. Plain and simple. Period. Care to come up with anything for us, strat?

[Crazy]

Crazy: You're a Christian eh? I thought you weren't, because instead of standing up for Jesus, and the Christian beliefs, you've been going against it.... I'm not telling them that they are wrong in their beliefs, nor am I telling them what to believe in. I see a person like yourself can't have an open mind...

TMM: The Jewish people are God's chosen people. He created them as well as us. It's not saying that they are better than us, or we are better than them. They have just been chosen to do God's will. Kind of what Checkmate and I are doing. Keep bashing us if it will make you feel better.

How am I going against Christianity? Could you please find a post where I bashed Christianity or said it wasn't real? I said stay on topic and I also said you that you shouldn't shove religion down people's throats. I don't see how saying those things went against Christian beliefs. I also want to know why you said that I can't have a open mind.

[AbareMax]

I said that in previous posts, because you seemed to go against it all the time. If you are truely Christian shouldn't you be supporting other Christians? And maybe I don't know... Christ? The whole open mind thing was not to you and I apologize. It was directed to everybody else and I should've changed it.

[Zak]

Abare - You may be right about some atheists in this board who tend to cringe at the words "bible", "god", "religion" et al. Those people are the awkward ones and they seem to think they have a right to discriminate.
However, you refusing to take seriously an arguement from someone who hasn't read the bible would be sinking to their level. A lot of atheists HAVE actually read a fair share of the bible, yet still remain atheist. So "You haven't read the bible, you don't know what you're talking about" is just... sick. I have no problem with people reccomending it as a piece of literature, but unfortunately everyone seems to either be a rabid fanboy of it, or hate it with a passion.
Although I do agree with you about having a right to the land of Israel, but for reasons other than the bible. Let's not get into that, though.
Maybe if you provided more sensible arguements like Checkmate, you will be taken seriously.

~Zak

[AbareMax]

I appreciate that Zak. But, I cannot stop talking... I'm sorry.

[Aglandiir]

Aglandiir, the Talmud is even more than what you're asking for.

I'll be the judge of that, thank you.

I'm no expert on the Talmud, but I'm fairly sure that it is not even close to being objective in the way I set forth. It was not written by people with absolutely no interest in the events, before, during, or after they took place. Rather, it was written by people of a religion which perhaps felt threatened by Christianity, and thus saw reason to portray the past in a certain way. Perhaps they didn't deny that Jesus performed miracles because that was actually a good thing. Perhaps the miracles he supposedly performed would've been seen as evidence of the power of the One God that the Jews and Christians both worship. Perhaps the argument for Jews at the time wasn't whether or not Jesus had divine favor, but whether he was actually the Son of God or just some holy man of little serious consequence.

Maybe not. I'm not an expert on the Talmud. Perhaps somebody who is could clarify this. Still, the Talmud is not an objective source, and thus does not meet my standards for proof.

Also, just a quick note on your mention of Adam's rediculous lifespan. Doesn't it strike you as just the tiniest bit strange? Don't you wonder how a human being, a small, frail human being, in a harsh environment with minimal technology and medicine, could live for nine times as long as humans can reasonably hope to survive for today?

Let's pretend for a moment that you can't say "God did it" and expect that to be good enough. Just try it, for me. Why should I believe that Adam lived almost a thousand years? Where are his bones with a thousand years of life etched into them? Where are all the other tales about a man who lived ten lifetimes (or really, back then, 25 lifetimes)?

For the record, I believe that most modern Christians to not take the Old Testament as accurate history and do not believe that anybody back then, in the days of plague and wilderness, could live that long.

[phaedrus]

Now, let me explain this to you. The Bible is logic. Plain and simple. Period. Care to come up with anything for us, strat?

do i see proof? do i? i can freely debate with Checkmate because he actually backs himself up. with evidence outside of "the bible said so"

it's like talking to a brick wall. "because the bible said so", "because it is that way", "because christianity is the **** and all other religions should get banned from the world".

[Crazy]

I said that in previous posts, because you seemed to go against it all the time. If you are truely Christian shouldn't you be supporting other Christians? And maybe I don't know... Christ? The whole open mind thing was not to you and I apologize. It was directed to everybody else and I should've changed it.

I can't support someone if I disagree with them. The reason why I keep qouting you is because the way you post could easily offend some people. Plus you don't stay on topic because you constantly say the bible says so. This topic is about the historical accuracy of the bible nothing more and nothing less. I thank you for apologizing though,but I don't really think it is fair to say everyone else has a closed mind.

[Checkmate]

I'm no expert on the Talmud, but I'm fairly sure that it is not even close to being objective in the way I set forth.

I'll agree that it's not objective. I never said it was. What I'm saying is that it's better than objective.


it was written by people of a religion which perhaps felt threatened by Christianity, and thus saw reason to portray the past in a certain way.

They wanted to squelch Christianity. They believed it was heresy. So far we actually agree.


Perhaps they didn't deny that Jesus performed miracles because that was actually a good thing.

Your first statement that I disagree with. There is no logical way that Christ's miracles would have been a good thing for them.


Perhaps the miracles he supposedly performed would've been seen as evidence of the power of the One God that the Jews and Christians both worship.

We kind of agree here. You come close to admitting that the miracles would have evidenced God. The thing is that that doesn't help the Jews much, and I'll explain why in a moment.



Perhaps the argument for Jews at the time wasn't whether or not Jesus had divine favor, but whether he was actually the Son of God or just some holy man of little serious consequence.

Here's the thing. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. The Talmud calls him a false messiah and the Bible says that he was tried and claimed to be the Messiah. Now, I know you do not believe in the Bible, but just here me out. That is what would be logically done. Does it not make sense that they would try him and ask him such a question in order to find him guilty. Historically that's what they did for Christians and cases as such. Therefore, it's not really a leap of faith to believe that Jesus thought he was the Messiah.

If you want to start a whole new debate about Jesus claiming divinity, I will reluctantly agree, but suffice it to say that it is not a great argument at all to try and argue against Jesus claiming to be the Messiah.

So, assuming you'll grant me that Jesus claimed divinity, (which would save us some debate) I'll go on.

As I've said before, people had performed miracles in the past. People have claimed to be the Messiah in the past. But it is most illogical to say that a person could do both (other than Satan) could be the Messiah.

It makes no sense to say that Jesus would have divine favor and not be the Messiah. Because if a person claims to be the messiah, and is not, they are a false prophet. God dispises false prophets. God would not give his favor to a false prophet. If he has divine favor, it's only logical to agree that he would not be blaspheming liar.


Maybe not. I'm not an expert on the Talmud. Perhaps somebody who is could clarify this. Still, the Talmud is not an objective source, and thus does not meet my standards for proof.

No, it's not an objective source. I must ask why you want an objective source. You might say that, 'an objective source would have no reason to embellish or lie'. Well the Talmud would certainly have no reason to embellish or lie. There is no possible reason they could have for actually giving Jesus credit for doing miracles.

Just think about it. I am a firm believer in Christ as the Messiah. If a person walked up to me on the street and said "I'm the Messiah. Come. Follow me." I'd give a weird look and walk away, most likely.

However, If the same guy did the same thing, and then held out his open hand, (with nothing in it) and bread suddenly appeared, he'd catch my interest. I'd tell my friends and maybe my brother about him. I'd try to see if I could find him again, or someone who knew about him.

Naturally, I would consider other possibilities as well. Such as him being a demon. I might try to see if there was a way the bread could have been an illusion. But I would also consider that he might be telling the truth.

It would be no different at all 1800 years ago. If the Jews just said that claimed to be the Messiah and was put to death, no one would care. The fact that they mentioned the miracles only proves that the miracles were undeniable. So much so, that they couldn't even try to say they didn't happen. They had to resort[I] to attacking the source.

I'm telling you. It's better than an objective source.


Also, just a quick note on your mention of Adam's rediculous lifespan. Doesn't it strike you as just the tiniest bit strange? Don't you wonder how a human being, a small, frail human being, in a harsh environment with minimal technology and medicine, could live for [i]nine times as long as humans can reasonably hope to survive for today?

Why is it so impossible that "God did it."? Here I'm telling you that Jesus performed miracles and you're not asking how? What's the difference between Jesus performing miracles and Adam living a long time? God needed Adam to live a long time, so Adam lived a long time.

Do you want me to admit that the Bible tells of things that cannot be done without divine intervention. FINE!!! I ADMIT IT!!! Why the heck do you think divine intervention is in the Bible in the first place?


Let's pretend for a moment that you can't say "God did it" and expect that to be good enough. Just try it, for me. Why should I believe that Adam lived almost a thousand years? Where are his bones with a thousand years of life etched into them? Where are all the other tales about a man who lived ten lifetimes (or really, back then, 25 lifetimes)?

This entire paragraph is pleading pro-silence. A bad argument. Lack of evidence does not constitute as evidence.


For the record, I believe that most modern Christians to not take the Old Testament as accurate history and do not believe that anybody back then, in the days of plague and wilderness, could live that long.

Don't care.

[Zak]

And isn't this the same book that said that Moses dipped his staff in the Nile river and it turned to blood? Later making the Red Sea split?

Anyway, yeah... Checkmate, it all comes down to whether Jesus was the Messiah or not. There isn't really proof to back either claim, which is why a debate would take forever.
Basically, think of this analogy:

Judaism:Christianity
Hinduism:Buddhism

Jesus was originally a Jew, he claimed to be the Messiah, believed by some and distrusted by others, branching out Christianity.
Buddha (Siddharta) was originally Hindu, claimed to be their Messiah (or whatever its referred to as there), yadda yadda yadda, Buddhism was born.

Basically, that conflict about whether they are or aren't false prophets isn't really solvable, and the evidence leads to a matter of opinion IMO. It's what makes the 6 main religions of the world, or however many there are. If there was concrete proof that one was, or proof that he wasn't, like Aglandiir said, everyone in the world would be the same religion, as it would have been confirmed.

~Zak

[Leon-IH]

Well i love that nobody can counter what i've posted except with "have faith" or "Read the book" and so you know, i have read the book and it's a good laugh that we got booted out of paradise for eating a piece of fruit, then we all got flooded down to 1 extended family, bluntly by logic if it's all true we should all be going crazy seeing as incest does that to the child.

Oh wait, we are going crazy believing in this stuff with no logic to support it :( darn, i just owned myself.

Also, checkmate your don't care arguement is because you fear that we are right, why bother saying "don't care" otherwise?

[Checkmate]

Zak, I agree. It all does come down to whether or not Jesus was the messiah. However, Jesus fulfilled/will fulfill all the messianic prophecies. And believe me that is no small task. First you have to be born in Bethlehem, and be of the line of David. Then you have to travel to Egypt. (doable) People have to cast lots for your clothing. You have to die, a sacrifice. All that stuff. I can get into further detail if necessary.

The miracles and the claiming to be Messiah is just my preliminary argument.

Leon-IH I didn't respond to you because I figured you preferred to go on ranting. Your ranting doesn't really bother me, so I just decided to ignore it.

And my don't care argument was a response to one small paragraph stating that most Christians don't believe in the OT. It was not meant to be an argument, so it was not received with an argument.

I find it funny that you attack two words out of that entire post. Could it be that it is actually you who fears that I am right.

Now, since I doubt you actually wish to have a discussion about the issues you raised in your last post, I will just leave this post as is.

[Animelee]

ANIMELEE

Everything requires faith to accept. It requires faith to accept that the universe was a big accident and so is human life. It requires faith to believe that scientific theories that are accepted now are actually right. (ie evolution) Considering you don'? know everything, you basically have to have faith in everything. (though some things require more faith than others)

And I?ve also noticed that you still do not present any real argument against the Bible that might possibly be refuted.

The Bible never says that new species shall not develop. Who told you that?

With food.

hard work. What else are eight people going to do for that long of a time.

Why is that a cop-out. This is a nearly apocalyptic event. Might I ask how they got it to rain for forty days and forty nights? Would it be a cop-out to say that God helped them with the little rain thing?

Now if God helped them with the rain, why couldn't he help them with the work?

Micro-evolution, yes. I've never once denied micro-evolution. It is entirely possible for some species to branch off into other species given environmental conditions. What is not possible is for everything to have come from single-celled organisms.

correction... sub species of animals. Sub species would not be required for such a task. Some estimates indicate that the ark,, if a cubit is considered to be 17.5 inches (and cubits would have been a few inches bigger than that), would have had capacity for 125,000 sheep sized animals and the size of the average animal was smaller than that of a sheep, and estimates are made that he would have only had 25,000 animals to deal with. Leaving room for food and Noah?s family.

A group of scientists re-created a pseudo-environment of the way Earth first was billions of years ago, in a tank. I'm not too sure on what "ingredients" were needed, but a few weeks later, cells started to develop, the same cells they were thinking started life on this planet. If you want, I could go find a few pages explaining the exact experiement.

What kind of argument do you want? I mean, the whole concept of the Bible, well, all religions is that some deity that we have no proof of created us, our environment, other living things, and the entire universe as we know it. I mean, there's no proof of this deity. In the Bible, you have God appearing to people all the time. Now, we have nothing, except that evangelical Benny Hinn crap you see on TV, which was already proven false by many different organizations.

The Bible says God made all the modern animals (including humans) and plants that exist today. If new species develop, I'm pretty sure that's evolution at work.

Yeah, but God said to bring two of every animal on the ark. What'd the lions eat? They're carnivores, and God said only bring two of every animal. And with the lack of refridgeration, I doubt Noah could keep meat fresh for fourty days. I know he could've used salt, but would the carnivores extra-salty meats? And, I mean, with more than ten billion animals on board, you'd have to kill a hell of a lot of animals before setting sail.

A mere eight people tending to billions of species of animals? :sweat2:

Oh yeah, you believe that God exists and that the great flood caused by the great rain was also caused by him. I believe none of it ever happened. Sure, there's evidence of a great flood, but not five-thousand years ago.

But then what about all the fossils that we have as proof? What about the way scientists have linked us to other mammals through DNA, who're linked to animals, etc.? Did God put that there to test us? Did Satan? And, I mean, microevolution is pretty much the same thing as macroevolution. You can accept that a chihuahua and a German sheppard share the same ancestor, yet you cannot accept that modern apes and modern humans both share the same ancestor in the Australopithecus afarensis? Dogs have only been domesticated (from wolves) by humans for a few thousand years. In a million years, we'll see how different the breeds or dogs are from eachother (if we keep breeding the same breed with the same breed). That's what happened to us over millions of years, generation after generation. Macroevolution is just microevolution looked at on a grand scale. If there was some way for us to go back and look at our ancestors generation by generation, we'll hardly notice the differences, unless we look at their changes at, say, every 500,000 years. I hope what I typed up made sense, 'cause I have trouble putting things into words properly. ^^;

Yeah, but that was, according to you Christians, 5000-years-ago. You believe in microevolution, so you should know that things don't change much in 5000 years. There still would still be, roughly, about a massive couple billion animals at the time, by that logic. It's just one of the things in the Bible that doesn't make any sense. If there was proof for anything in the Bible, other than supposed "prophet grave sites" that exist in the Middle East, then I would surely give Christianity another go, but, really, I've seen nothing... No offense. :sweat2:

[Aglandiir]

A subjective source is almost never better than an objective source, because subjectivity automatically adds bias that may or may not be obvious or easy to see through. The Talmud might have mentioned Jesus' miracles because its writers saw a reason to mention them.

You'll note, perhaps, that religious Jews of the time believed in miracles, just as Christians did. It was perfectly plausible to them. They didn't think that Jesus was the Messiah, but despite what you seem to think, that did not necessarily mean (to the Jews) that Jesus could not have performed miracles. With no reason to doubt that miracles were actually possible, and potentially with a decent reason to grant that Jesus performed miracles, the Jews would've had no reason to question it.

If somebody who didn't already strongly believe in God and miracles, such as a Greek teacher, had written about such things, then I would take that as a solid objective source. The Talmud, the subjectivity of which you freely admit, is much, much weaker. If you still don't understand why, then I'm just not going to bother explaining it anymore.

As for Adam... I will grant you one thing: IF Adam lived to be 900-whatever years old, THEN God must have been behind it. Thus, IF Adam lived that long, THEN that would be proof of God's existance and THEN everybody in the world would believe in the Judeo-Christian God. As it stands right now, however, the only "evidence" that Adam actually did live that long comes from a story in the Bible that even most Christians don't believe, let alone anybody else. If there were bones or even non-Biblical stories (weaker, but still good evidence) to corroborate the tale, that would be one thing. But there aren't. All we have is an old story about somebody who lived to be 900, a feat which is clearly impossible today, with the help of a God who may or may not exist. That's pretty sketchy to a neutral observer.

Paul Bunyan was 20 feet tall and weighed 900 pounds. He gouged the Great Lakes and the Grand Canyon with nothing but his axe and his bare hands. He had a team of trained ants. Sounds crazy... but hey, there could've been divine intervention.

[Leon-IH]

And still nobody has replied to the awesome and undoubtedly incredible logic of my sig, OH YEAH i win.

[Zup]

Also, just a quick note on your mention of Adam's rediculous lifespan. Doesn't it strike you as just the tiniest bit strange? Don't you wonder how a human being, a small, frail human being, in a harsh environment with minimal technology and medicine, could live for nine times as long as humans can reasonably hope to survive for today?

Let's pretend for a moment that you can't say "God did it" and expect that to be good enough. Just try it, for me. Why should I believe that Adam lived almost a thousand years? Where are his bones with a thousand years of life etched into them? Where are all the other tales about a man who lived ten lifetimes (or really, back then, 25 lifetimes)?



How I see it: Was Adam a product of incest? No? Aren't we all a product of incest (whether you believe in the bible, or even evolution, we are). Wouldn't one of the only non-incestuous people live longer than products of incest? Because god created him out of dust, instead of a woman, he lived longer. There were no diseases that could be genetically brought down. And it never does say how long Adam lived in the Garden of Eden. He could have lived there for over 200 years for all we know.

[Checkmate]

In regards to Leon's above post...


Leon-IH I didn't respond to you because I figured you preferred to
go on ranting. Your ranting doesn't really bother me, so I just decided to ignore
it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All right, folks let's have a little review over how the debate?s gone so far. Specifically in
the imaginative speculation arena.

Here's one quote from Aglandiir.


If they and Jesus wanted to start a religious movement (a stated aim

of many current cults), then why would they care whether or not Jesus was actually
divine? They would lie about Jesus in their writings and preachings and everything else,
in an attempt to get publicity and a following.

Another from Aglandiir...


The civilians of the time, giving the living conditions, would have
plenty of reason to
believe in something that promised eternal bliss in Heaven in exchange for little more
than an oath of faith. What was there to lose?

What was there to lose? Three words cru-ci-fixion.


And why would being threatened with death dissuade the Apostles?
It doesn't dissuade
many current fanatics. Take, for example, the Branch Davidians at Waco. When
threatened with force, they armed themselves and ended up getting killed. Look at
religious terrorists in the Middle East, too; they are threatened with death constantly, but
it has little effect on them. In fact, it can even broaden their appeal, by making them look
like heros for standing up for what they believe in. Perhaps the Apostles saw the same
thing happen: the Powers That Be threatened them, and the common people rallied
towards them as a result

It happens now, and it could very easily have happened then


Maybe Jesus' little band of followers had the right message, in the
right place, at the right time, to become a global force for thousands of years to come.
Maybe the people in the area were so disaffected with the Rabbis, and so sick of harsh
Roman rule, that they were willing to believe absolutely anything if it promised that all of
their suffering would be rewarded with an eternal afterlife in Heaven. Maybe they figured
that being crucified or otherwise executed for their beliefs couldn't be all that much worse
than what they were living with, and the whole "neverending bliss" thing sounded worth
the price. Maybe they didn't even think that far ahead. Maybe the early Christian
followers were like the current teenaged gunmen of militant Wahabbist Islam: willing to
die for a cause they may or may not actually believe in, but are willing to say they believe
in in order to reap the possible rewards or to escape a seemingly untenable
situation.


Maybe the Apostles felt compelled to start a new religion, much like
how some people are compelled to climb every mountain higher than 10,000 feet in
Colorado, and some people are compelled to gamble away all of their money in casinos,
and some people are compelled to drown their children in the bathtub because they love
them so much.


Maybe Jesus really said all the things the Bible says he did. Maybe
he was just a mountain man who hardly said anything at all, and was just picked as the
Son of God by a group of people who felt compelled to start a religious movement but
needed a central figure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, that we're finished with this little update, let's compare it to what's currently up for
debate.


A subjective source is almost never better than an objective source,
because subjectivity automatically adds bias that may or may not be obvious or easy to see
through. The Talmud might have mentioned Jesus' miracles because its writers saw a
reason to mention them.

Since you're oh so good at drawing far-fetched scenarios out of the air, let's here one or
two of these reasons to mention the (allegedly false) miracles.


You'll note, perhaps, that religious Jews of the time believed in
miracles, just as Christians did. It was perfectly plausible to them. They didn't think that
Jesus was the Messiah, but despite what you seem to think, that did not necessarily mean
(to the Jews) that Jesus could not have performed miracles. With no reason to doubt that
miracles were actually possible, and potentially with a decent reason to grant that Jesus
performed miracles, the Jews would've had no reason to question it.

It sounds like you're trying to suggest that an earthly man can do miracles. A false
suggestion. Miracles are actually possible if you're working with a divine power. If God
was letting him do miracles, Jesus couldn't have been a liar! He claimed to be the Messiah.
If he's not lying, then he is... the... MESSIAH!!!!!

How many times do I have to repeat myself????


If somebody who didn't already strongly believe in God and miracles,
such as a Greek teacher, had written about such things, then I would take that as a solid
objective source. The Talmud, the subjectivity of which you freely admit, is much, much
weaker. If you still don't understand why, then I'm just not going to bother explaining it
anymore.

You still have some explaining to do as to why it's so much weaker. The only reason I
know of as to why objective sources are preferable is because they're not going to
embellish or lie to prove a point they're trying to make.

The Talmud was not trying to make the point that Jesus was the Messiah, so they, like an
objective source, would not embellish or lie to prove that Jesus was the Messiah. Yet the
miracles do exactly that. They offer proof that Jesus was the Messiah.


The Talmud might have mentioned Jesus' miracles because its
writers saw a reason to mention them.

This don't cut it.


As for Adam... I will grant you one thing: IF Adam lived to be
900-whatever years old, THEN God must have been behind it. Thus, IF Adam lived that
long, THEN that would be proof of God's existance and THEN everybody in the world
would believe in the Judeo-Christian God. As it stands right now, however, the only
"evidence" that Adam actually did live that long comes from a story in the Bible that even
most Christians don't believe, let alone anybody else. If there were bones or even
non-Biblical stories (weaker, but still good evidence) to corroborate the tale, that would
be one thing. But there aren't. All we have is an old story about somebody who lived to be
900, a feat which is clearly impossible today, with the help of a God who may or may not
exist. That's pretty sketchy to a neutral observer

Paul Bunyan was 20 feet tall and weighed 900 pounds. He gouged the Great Lakes and
the Grand Canyon with nothing but his axe and his bare hands. He had a team of trained
ants. Sounds crazy... but hey, there could've been divine intervention..

Comparing legend to Biblical writing is like comparing apples to T-bone steak. Paul
Bunyan was never represented as pure truth handed down by God. They're not even
meant for the same purposes, so they're not very comparable. If I write a fictional book,
people are not going to take it and compare it to a non-fiction account as if they are equal.

Zup, interesting argument, but Adam wasn't the only one in the Bible to live that long. Methusalah lived 969 years, and several other people like Noah and Enoch and Job and just about anyone in Genesis before the Tower of Bable.

[Legends-Kuja]

I just thought of something:

No sane optimist says there is no God. They may not be religious, but from what I noticed, blatant atheists tend to be pessimistic...

Maybe the whole organized religion thing was God's craziest trick to get us to live longer? I'm not really religious, but I think there's not enough evidence to say the Big Bang happened on its own.

Oh, and Leon, shut up. I'm pretty sure there's lots of logic that says we were created from nothing. I mean, come on, I guess we're all byproducts of spontaneous creation (same thing pre-1700 people believed animals like flies came from), hmmm?

[Rei_Zero]

I'm getting tired of these debates, but I'm willing to add one say. If other religions are willing to die for their god, then what makes the "they wouldn't take so much risk if it weren't real" so special?

[Checkmate]

Nice point, Rei. Here's the answer.

One of my major arguments in this thread is based on the persecution of the church in the first three centuries. However, I have not been using that to directly say that Christianity is true. Though I have been using it indirectly.

Here's the thing. Aglandiir keeps suggesting that the apostles made it up. The fact that they died torturous deaths proves (in my opinion) that they were not lying. They at least believed they were telling the truth. But think about it. The apostles were trained personally by Jesus. If what they were preaching- Jesus' divinity, his performing miracles, etc.- was not true, they'd know. They'd know they were preaching lies and they would not die for it. That is my point about the persecution.

The persecution proves that the apostles believed it was true. And if Christianity was a sham the apostles would be the ones to know.

[Rei_Zero]

But it still doesn't rule out the "we've been drugged" theory or the "the glory is worth the death" theory. Some people are like that. Maybe it was a minor form of Meglomania or maybe these people just wanted to be thought of as great. There is nothing to rule out these possibilities and it's happened in history before.

[Checkmate]

The profile that we get from the books that they've written seem to downplay the theory that they're seeking their own praise.

These men always directed their praise toward God and always advocated humility. It just doesn't gel.

[The Muffin Man]

The profile that we get from the books that they've written seem to downplay the theory that they're seeking their own praise.

These men always directed their praise toward God and always advocated humility. It just doesn't gel.

And what happens when you show humility and only praise God endlessly?
"Oh you're so humble and generous to do such a selfless act and praise God so much!"

Nothing in this life is truly altruistic(sp?).

[Rei_Zero]

Of course they're going to write it to attribute to god to make it convincing. It's not just doing it, it's doing it intelligently.

[Aglandiir]

Apparently, everybody but you, Checkmate, understands my argument. Maybe I'm just using too many words.

You ask me to give an example of a situation in which the Jews would not try to say Jesus didn't perform miracles, and yet the very next thing of mine you quote is exactly such an example. You claim to disprove it by saying that God would not give powers to a liar; however, what authority do you have to make such a claim? God can do whatever He wants. Perhaps the Jews saw things differently; maybe they looked back at the stories of God turning people into salt for merely looking over their shoulder and figured that God's ways are mysterious... just like Christians like to say. Is that really such a stretch? It might not be pleasant to admit that your God might not have acted in the manner you hope he did, but really... it isn't your place to make claims about what God would and would not do.

Out of curiousity, do you believe that Mohammad was divine in any way? Surely Islam wouldn't have taken off the way it did if he and his buddies had been lying.

Legends-Kuja: your blanket statement about atheists is... well, wrong. I fancy myself an optimist, I am quite sane, and I am a very blatant atheist. Many of the atheists I know are generally optimistic; this sort of thing grows from a faith in mankind and in the good nature of people, rather than from faith in a non-existant God. Atheists are willing to take responsibility and to take charge of things, because they believe it is up to them to make things happen. God does not factor in at all.

[Checkmate]

Apparently, everybody but you, Checkmate, understands my argument.

Where are you getting that? Besides. I understand your argument. It's just that it's wrong.


You ask me to give an example of a situation in which the Jews would not try to say Jesus didn't perform miracles, and yet the very next thing of mine you quote is exactly such an example.

No, I didn't. Maybe you were trying to give an example, but you didn't. Keep in mind I'm asking for a logical example.


You claim to disprove it by saying that God would not give powers to a liar; however, what authority do you have to make such a claim?

The authority of God. It's in the Bible. The Bible completely backs my statement and does not offer a hint of reasonable argument against what I just said.


God can do whatever He wants.

True. But he would not want to back up the best liar in history.


Perhaps the Jews saw things differently; maybe they looked back at the stories of God turning people into salt for merely looking over their shoulder and figured that God's ways are mysterious... just like Christians like to say.

That salt story only corroborates my point. In that story, God told someone specifically not to do something. They did it and were punished.

In the case of the Messiah, God told people to do something; watch for a Messiah that fit the description He gave them.

God would not do that to the people he loves. God tells us what to do and rewards us when we do it. He wouldn't tell us a lie.


Is that really such a stretch? It might not be pleasant to admit that your God might not have acted in the manner you hope he did, but really... it isn't your place to make claims about what God would and would not do.

Anything in accordance with God is my place.


Out of curiousity, do you believe that Mohammad was divine in any way? Surely Islam wouldn't have taken off the way it did if he and his buddies had been lying.

Are you saying that I'm claiming that Christianity is right soley because more people follow it? I assure you I never made that claim. Maybe I'm just reading too much into your statement.

[Rei_Zero]

But then, this is what this thread is about, isn't it Checkmate? The accuracy of the Bible. If it's completely accurate, then we wouldn't be doubting your words. But to say something that hasn't been made certain is like standing on a traphole.

[The Muffin Man]

Checkmate, I want a LOGICAL explanation as to why it's YOUR place to argue what God would and would not do. Nothing like "Well the Bible said so". I want exact excerpts that says "Checkmate may say whatever he wants about me." I want LOGICAL explinations. Not just what you interperet the bible says.

[AbareMax]

I'm thinking TMM, that he would like for you to look. I could find a few scriptures that say such things. For example in the Book of John 15:1-4, Jesus says:

I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. (2) Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch the bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. (3) You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. (4) Abide in Me, and I ine you. As the branches cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in Me.

Basically what it says, is that Jesus is the One and that his Father sent him. Every believer that doesn't do God's will, is taking away from the Kingdom of God. And everyone who does do God's will be rewarded. This gives us the freedom to back up God's words.

Also it says in verse four, that if you choose Jesus, he'll choose you and you will be rewarded for doing work for the Kingdom. Now, you way think that Christians are slaves. That is incorrect. Very incorrect. We are servants of God. Now, saying that I'm using 'the Bible said so' is rubbish. It's senseless to say that.

It is our place to argue that, because when you are on God's side, you can do great things.

[The Muffin Man]

You had a good point going until you claimed that gave you the right to tell us we're wrong.

What it says to me, AN ATHIEST, is that everyone who doesn't believe in god he just "prunes them", basically forsaking them. And everyone who DOES believe but believes too much, he prunes them too. What it says to me is don't doubt god, and don't push him on everyone else because you think he's the only god...What it says to me is "Believe in me, be remember that it's YOUR beliefs. Not his or hers."

But even still, I'm an athiest...and nothing you can say is going to change that, or anyone elses mind. So there's no real point arguing religion.

[Sorovis]

You had a good point going until you claimed that gave you the right to tell us we're wrong.

What it says to me, AN ATHIEST, is that everyone who doesn't believe in god he just "prunes them", basically forsaking them. And everyone who DOES believe but believes too much, he prunes them too. What it says to me is don't doubt god, and don't push him on everyone else because you think he's the only god...What it says to me is "Believe in me, be remember that it's YOUR beliefs. Not his or hers."

But even still, I'm an athiest...and nothing you can say is going to change that, or anyone elses mind. So there's no real point arguing religion.

Then why do you seem so insistent to nip at Checkmate and Abaremax's heels throughout this entire ordeal? If you can understand and admit that there is nothing to be accomplished by debating religion, wouldn't you stop wasting your time here?

Secondly of all, I cannot make any connection between the verses Abaremax provided and your interpretation. It may because I have been bitten by a few too many snakes this past week, or perhaps because I am exhausted, but nowhere in that passage does it say 'don't shove your beliefs down another's throat'.

[The Muffin Man]

Then why do you seem so insistent to nip at Checkmate and Abaremax's heels throughout this entire ordeal? If you can understand and admit that there is nothing to be accomplished by debating religion, wouldn't you stop wasting your time here?

Secondly of all, I cannot make any connection between the verses Abaremax provided and your interpretation. It may because I have been bitten by a few too many snakes this past week, or perhaps because I am exhausted, but nowhere in that passage does it say 'don't shove your beliefs down another's throat'.

I see the 'fruit' as faith. If there's too much, God apparently prunes it. If there's none, it's only hurting him.

[Leon-IH]

Lol, you say im not an optimist.

Sane i may or may not be but i can type in english can't I?

I'm the guy who would risk alot on a 50% chance.. personally i'd like to think theres a god, but everything i've ever read, everything i've ever heard completely contradicts it, theres OPTIMISM AND SHUTTING YOUR EYES TO THE GOD DAMNED FACTS.

[AbareMax]

To get the full meaning out of something, you need to have an open mind, of course. With a bad mind, you will only find the bad in something. I'm not saying you or anyone else is bad. I'm just saying this to everyone :D.

[Tainted]

To get the full meaning out of something, you need to have an open mind, of course. With a bad mind, you will only find the bad in something. I'm not saying you or anyone else is bad. I'm just saying this to everyone :D.

So, to have an atheist mind is to have a bad mind, correct? Why don't you be more open-minded, why don't you consider science more instead of using the bible just about every post this whole thread. Open-minded-ness goes both ways you know, being open minded doesn't mean your mind is just open to religion, it means atheism too, and other religions that aren't your own.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[AbareMax]

I never said you had a bad mind, :( All I said is for everyone to have an open mind. That definitely doesn't discude me. But let me know if I said that I wasn't open-minded, or didn't respect other peoples religions. When did you talk about science here, because you have rarely been on this topic. ANOTHER thing. If you're going be active in this topic, should you not pop up once in a while and be in it all the time? Correct me if I'm wrong :D.

[Aglandiir]

Oh boy, I was waiting for some poor sap to play the open-mindedness card. Whoever does that ALWAYS gets owned.

I mentioned Islam, Checkmate, because a large part of your argument in favor of the Bible seems to revolve around an assumption that the Apostles, and the people who were being threatened with crucifixion, would not have believed unless it were true. If you want to argue that way, then you'll need to contend with Islam, the most popular religion in the world. Surely the first Muslims would've seen right through any deception? Surely they wouldn't do anything brash if they knew the stories to be false?

That last part comes back to a point of mine you seem reluctant to address: did the first Christians know the stories to be either false or true? Or were they going on the word of a few seemingly trustworthy people? You claim that the Apostles and the masses wouldn't have risked it if they didn't truly believe it were true; that in itself, however, holds no water. People will believe absolutely anything if there's a good enough reason to do so. Belief inherently has exactly zero to do with truth. People may be more likely to believe true things, but truth is by no measure necessary for belief.

So the scenario I present to you boils down to this: the masses believe because they have a good reason to believe; perhaps the identities of the Apostles, outside circumstances, and the message of Christianity combined to create such a reason. The only people who might not have had a solid reason to believe are the Apostles themselves: a very, very small group of people. A small group of people can make grand plans, or fabricate grand lies, or be totally deceived by the same story. There were only a dozen of them. It is obviously possible that the Apostles had ulterior motives; everybody else could've followed their lead.

I'm guessing you'll respond to that by saying the Apostles wouldn't have risked it if they knew it to be false. In response to your response, I will say that the Apostles might not have known anything of the sort, and even if they did, getting a dozen somewhat crazy people together is no major feat.

Oh, and a word to all concerned. I wish I didn't have to keep telling people this, but: IF you are debating the validity or accuracy of a source, YOU CANNOT USE THAT SOURCE AS EVIDENCE. Doing so is called circular reasoning and is, quite frankly, the dumbest, newbie-est logical mistake you could possibly make. Thus, arguing that God wouldn't give powers to a liar (a key part of your argument in support of the Bible's accuracy) because, I quote:


It's in the Bible. The Bible completely backs my statement and does not offer a hint of reasonable argument against what I just said.

...is the dumbest, newbie-est logical mistake you could possibly make.

Carry on.

[AbareMax]

I mentioned Islam, Checkmate, because a large part of your argument in favor of the Bible seems to revolve around an assumption that the Apostles, and the people who were being threatened with crucifixion, would not have believed unless it were true. If you want to argue that way, then you'll need to contend with Islam, the most popular religion in the world. Surely the first Muslims would've seen right through any deception? Surely they wouldn't do anything brash if they knew the stories to be false?



Correction, sir. Christianity is the most popular religion in the world. Like it or not, it is. With nearly 2 billion followers, what other religion could be more popular? Tell me. Muslims originally followed God, and Muhammed(sp?) was the prophet to God. Somehow they came up with their own little religion along the way; worshiping Muhammed and Allah. Muhammed is dead. Jesus isn't. You can say all day long that he is dead...well then tell me where his body is. Same with Buddhism, and the other religions.

[phaedrus]

Correction, sir. Christianity is the most popular religion in the world. Like it or not, it is. With nearly 2 billion followers, what other religion could be more popular? Tell me. Muslims originally followed God, and Muhammed(sp?) was the prophet to God. Somehow they came up with their own little religion along the way; worshiping Muhammed and Allah. Muhammed is dead. Jesus isn't. You can say all day long that he is dead...well then tell me where his body is. Same with Buddhism, and the other religions.

note a few things:

Buddhism: Death is passing on to either reincarnation or Nirvana.

Christianity doesn't, in a sense, believe in death. It's considered moving on to heaven.

Islam, since I am not a Muslim (but I am Buddhist), I would assume they believe in death. So, they believe Mohammed died. Christianity believes Jesus moved on to heaven, correct? So, in a technical sense, Christianity doesn't really believe in death. For Buddhism, it's more complicated than that, so I won't delve into that unless prodded.

[The Muffin Man]

Most popular and most followed aren't the same thing. And I don't think Christianity is the most followed.

[Sorovis]

Oh boy, I was waiting for some poor sap to play the open-mindedness card. Whoever does that ALWAYS gets owned.

I mentioned Islam, Checkmate, because a large part of your argument in favor of the Bible seems to revolve around an assumption that the Apostles, and the people who were being threatened with crucifixion, would not have believed unless it were true. If you want to argue that way, then you'll need to contend with Islam, the most popular religion in the world. Surely the first Muslims would've seen right through any deception? Surely they wouldn't do anything brash if they knew the stories to be false?

Simply wonderful. You have fallen right into a trap I have been waiting for someone to walk into for a large degree of time. I assume that you have at least a minimal knowledge of the Islam religion yes? Then I am sure you are aware that Muslims also believe Jesus existed and that he did indeed perform miracles. They say that he was merely a prophet, as blatantly opposed to the long-awaited Messiah those of the Jewish faith had long been waiting for. So now, you see, we have not one but two religions, both widely popular, that seem to agree that Jesus was alive and did perform miracles; the latter of which does not share the Christian view of Jesus or his doings.


That last part comes back to a point of mine you seem reluctant to address: did the first Christians know the stories to be either false or true? Or were they going on the word of a few seemingly trustworthy people? You claim that the Apostles and the masses wouldn't have risked it if they didn't truly believe it were true; that in itself, however, holds no water. People will believe absolutely anything if there's a good enough reason to do so. Belief inherently has exactly zero to do with truth. People may be more likely to believe true things, but truth is by no measure necessary for belief.

This is an argument left for logical explanation; if you are being threatened with your life, you will not simply take a trustworthy man's word on something which could potentially get you killed. I understand belief does not necessarily have to do with the truth; what you do not understand is that even though two-thousand years ago people were different, they were not automatically gullible or illogical.

And what is this 'good enough reason to do so'? That the first Christians were told they would enter the Kingdom of God am I correct? If someone were to approach me in a time of need and tell me I will enter a beautiful afterlife if I do good deeds, does that mean I will immediatly believe in it because it seems nice? Again, illogical, and seems to assume people so many years ago were devoid of any intelligence-- human traits, for that matter.


So the scenario I present to you boils down to this: the masses believe because they have a good reason to believe; perhaps the identities of the Apostles, outside circumstances, and the message of Christianity combined to create such a reason. The only people who might not have had a solid reason to believe are the Apostles themselves: a very, very small group of people. A small group of people can make grand plans, or fabricate grand lies, or be totally deceived by the same story. There were only a dozen of them. It is obviously possible that the Apostles had ulterior motives; everybody else could've followed their lead.

And Aglandiir has descended into grand speculation territory. What if the Apostles actually schemed together and had a master plan you say? What if dinosaurs, despite their small brains, were very intelligent and decided to have the carbon in their bones decay quickly so when they died it would look like they were millions of years old as opposed to thousands. What then? Maybe the whole Theory of Evolution would be thrown off and discarded. Or what if Jesus was a super-intelligent being who used advanced telepathic and telekenetic abilities to do miracles, thus making him seem like a great person? You see, evidence is required in a debate; speculation is pointless unless supported with either logic or evidential support. Saying the Apostles schemed together has neither, and I will not seriously respond to it until you have mustered a credible argument.


I'm guessing you'll respond to that by saying the Apostles wouldn't have risked it if they knew it to be false. In response to your response, I will say that the Apostles might not have known anything of the sort, and even if they did, getting a dozen somewhat crazy people together is no major feat.

Maybe the Twin Towers collapsing was just due to a group of stupid pilots who were actually blind and nobody knew about it? It's not that difficult to get that many blind people together.

Seriously though, you cannot debate without any basis, that is pointless and destructable without so much as a whim on my part. I actually pity Checkmate if this is what he had to deal with for the past week or so.

[The Muffin Man]

Hey Sorovis, where's the part where he shot down your "proof" by saying you can't USE the bible to PROVE the bible?

[Rei_Zero]

To Sorovis,
Islam says Jesus does miracles as well. So why aren't you Islamic? You admit the existance of people like Moses. So why aren't you Jewish?

And aren't you speculating that everything the Bible says is true, Sorovis?
-Opponent in Debate
Lei Gong (a.k.a Rei_Zero)

[Aglandiir]

http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzreligion.htm

Christianity has 2 billion followers if you include all of the various sects of Christianity. Islam has 1.1 billion followers, counting both the Sunni and the Shia. Atheism and its variants have 1 billion followers. So I stand corrected about what I said about Islam, though you can see my point.

Sorovis, you've got problems if you call that a "trap." You'll recall, perhaps, that Islam began sometime around AD 620, more than five hundred years after Christianity. Unless there were some Adams or Isaacs around at the time, everybody who would've actually known whether or not Jesus performed miracles had been dead for hundreds of years by the time Muhammad supposedly ascended to heaven from the Rock in Jerusalem.

Muhammad didn't try to discredit Christianity because it would've been foolish to tell so many people they were flat-out wrong; he compromised instead, and said that, even though Jesus was not the Messiah, he was a great prophet and his teachings were valid.

As for your dogged insistance on saying that people wouldn't believe, or claim to believe, if threatened with death... I assume you also recall that Muhammad and many of his followers fled Mecca for Yathrib (sp?) after their preaching was met with violence and hostility. Yes, that's right: violence. But he still got followers. Funny, that.

As for the speculation... I'm really getting tired of reminding you of obvious things. Look up at the titlebar on your web browser. This thread is called "Historical Accuracy of the Bible." We are debating, first and foremost, whether or not the Bible is accurate history. The old standard of "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply here. It's precisely the opposite: guilty until proven innocent, or really, false until proven true. You are trying to prove to me that the Bible is accurate history. I, as I said quite a while ago, merely need to show that I have reasonable doubt about your arguments. I don't need to prove that the Bible is false. That isn't why I'm here. My speculation is my reasonable doubt. I presented a perfectly plausible theory. Nowhere did I claim it to be true, or false for that matter. I have no clue. All I said is that it's possible. Checkmate seems to understand that part; you, apparently, fail to do so. In fact, in your hasty mockery, you seem to admit (with your poor-taste crack about 9/11) that my theory is plausible. Good job.

I assume that, since you decided to mock my argument instead of respond, you've simply chosen to give up, in which case I graciously accept your surrender.

And I actually pity your parents if you're the best thing they managed to spit out upon this planet.

[Sorovis]

Sorovis, you've got problems if you call that a "trap." You'll recall, perhaps, that Islam began sometime around AD 620, more than five hundred years after Christianity. Unless there were some Adams or Isaacs around at the time, everybody who would've actually known whether or not Jesus performed miracles had been dead for hundreds of years by the time Muhammad supposedly ascended to heaven from the Rock in Jerusalem

Muhammad didn't try to discredit Christianity because it would've been foolish to tell so many people they were flat-out wrong; he compromised instead, and said that, even though Jesus was not the Messiah, he was a great prophet and his teachings were valid.

Are you absolutely positive that Muhammad claimed Jesus existed and performed miracles simply because it wouldn't be convenient for his case? Or could it quite possibly be that Muhammad believed in Jesus and his doings himself? Honestly, you cannot simply discard one option because it does not benefit your case. I could just as easily claim that President Bush claims to be a Christian because it pleases the people.

As for actually disproving Islam, I have no interest in doing so here, hence the title being 'Historical Accuracy of the Bible'. Please read more thoroughly next time; and quit trying to change the subject.


As for your dogged insistance on saying that people wouldn't believe, or claim to believe, if threatened with death... I assume you also recall that Muhammad and many of his followers fled Mecca for Yathrib (sp?) after their preaching was met with violence and hostility. Yes, that's right: violence. But he still got followers. Funny, that.

So perhaps they actually had some reason to follow Muhammad? It seems to me you are assuming here that Muhammad himself was a liar and those who followed him had no reason to do so. Think clearly for a second: would twelve people plus many others who had seen claim Jesus had done miracles for no reason? I thought we had already established that people are not stupid, nor were they more gullible in the past. If the President of the United States claimed to perform miracles, would everybody instantly believe him? Certainly not. There would be groups from one side attempting to make it all seem like trickery, as the Pharisees did to Jesus; then there would be the skeptics, a few of which were actually some of the Twelve Apostles.


As for the speculation... I'm really getting tired of reminding you of obvious things. Look up at the titlebar on your web browser. This thread is called "Historical Accuracy of the Bible." We are debating, first and foremost, whether or not the Bible is accurate history. The old standard of "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply here. It's precisely the opposite: guilty until proven innocent, or really, false until proven true. You are trying to prove to me that the Bible is accurate history. I, as I said quite a while ago, merely need to show that I have reasonable doubt about your arguments. I don't need to prove that the Bible is false. That isn't why I'm here. My speculation is my reasonable doubt. I presented a perfectly plausible theory. Nowhere did I claim it to be true, or false for that matter. I have no clue. All I said is that it's possible. Checkmate seems to understand that part; you, apparently, fail to do so. In fact, in your hasty mockery, you seem to admit (with your poor-taste crack about 9/11) that my theory is plausible. Good job.

Enough of your bitter quips please and we may move on. You will kindly observe that it is not my responsibility to sit here and disprove every one of your half-baked ideas; especially when they have no basis. Save me the 'my speculation is my doubt' rubbish, because if you are willing to doubt something do to some random ideas you have come up with that could disprove it, then you clearly have no intention to reasonably examine evidence from the other side. This is a debate, not one of your little discussions. In my first post, I [b]clearly stated that both sides must provide evidence to support their case[/I]. You seem very good at selective reading; or you must have forgotten that by now. Honestly, is it so difficult to understand the concept of a debate for you? That not one, but both sides present evidence-- not one side take the advantage in that the other has to labor to prove anything to them. Get out of your throne of superiority, it is an illusion.

Secondly, I at no point said your theory was plausible. In my 'poor taste crack on 9/11', I pointed out that we had no reason to doubt what had really happened that day, and that theories with no support (and even no logic) should not be used to doubt the actual events.


I assume that, since you decided to mock my argument instead of respond, you've simply chosen to give up, in which case I graciously accept your surrender.

I pity you now that I see how desperately you beg for my 'surrender'. You know how relentless I am in these debates, and seeing my current standing, you have many long weeks-- months for that matter-- ahead of you before I truly 'surrender'. No doubt you will actually taste the cold intensity that I argue with before the end. Maybe next time you will actually choose to debate instead of 'speculate', but that has yet to be seen.

You will also note that I clearly stated that I was mocking your argument due to how simply terrible it was. It was not hidden among a mound of insults; rather placed at the end of my first paragraph regarding such an argument for you to see. Maybe you would like me to make such statements bolder next time so that you may actually see them?


And I actually pity your parents if you're the best thing they managed to spit out upon this planet.

Ah, I see how truly low you feel you can stoop. What else did I say in my first post? Oh yes, no insults please. You might as well take a breath before your next post, because you are doing a miserable job at abiding by the rules I laid down.


To Sorovis,
Islam says Jesus does miracles as well. So why aren't you Islamic? You admit the existance of people like Moses. So why aren't you Jewish?

Both corroborate with the Bible; both people existed in the Bible. The fact that at least one religion that does not agree with Christianity and Judaism admits that men such as Moses and Jesus lived and performed miracles must say that the writers of the Bible did not necessarily embellish the truth.


And aren't you speculating that everything the Bible says is true, Sorovis?
-Opponent in Debate
Lei Gong (a.k.a Rei_Zero)

Yes, but as you can see I am doing more to support this speculation that making blind points with no basis to support my argument. There is an apparant difference between arguing the validity of something and claiming that it cannot be valid due to some crazy idea that you have come up with.

[Legends-Kuja]

Lol, you say im not an optimist.

Sane i may or may not be but i can type in english can't I?

I'm the guy who would risk alot on a 50% chance.. personally i'd like to think theres a god, but everything i've ever read, everything i've ever heard completely contradicts it, theres OPTIMISM AND SHUTTING YOUR EYES TO THE GOD DAMNED FACTS.
Tell me where you heard that something can come from nothing, and tell me if that person or source BSed you. I am not blind to facts. World took millions of years, NOT seven days to be born. The ENTIRE earth could not be flooded (but a large bit of it can, other religions tell of a great flood too.). I would not believe miracles unless I saw them with my own eyes. But to say that this universe could come from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING would be total lies. The Big Bang had to have had some sort of source, whether that was God, or a previously existing universe I don't know, but energy CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED, only transferred...

Feh, my "blanket statement" said MOST blatant atheists are pessimistic, not all, so Aglandiir, you are not really "blanketed" by my statement. Saying ALL BLATANT atheists would be false and a real "blanket statement"...

[Checkmate]

Let's look at a quote by the original start of this debate.


Of course everyone is welcome, just remember no spamming and
points require supporting evidence.

And also, from the beginning of this debate, a counter to most of what Aglandiir has posted...


Care to support this with any evidence, or just with unsupported claims
such as what you have done?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I mentioned Islam, Checkmate, because a large part of your argument in favor
of the Bible seems to revolve around an assumption that the Apostles, and the people who
were being threatened with crucifixion, would not have believed unless it were
true.

But what does Islam have to do with the apostles?


If you want to argue that way, then you'll need to contend with Islam, the most
popular religion in the world. Surely the first Muslims would've seen right through any
deception? Surely they wouldn't do anything brash if they knew the stories to be
false?

Slow down... stop. Think for a minute. Do you know what ?apostle? means? It means
someone who learned directly under Jesus personally.

My entire point has nothing to do with the early Christians. It has to do with 13 men who
knew Jesus personally. (12 minus Judas plus Paul plus Matthias)

If you want to use Islam to discredit my point you would have to show evidence that
followers of Mohammed who learned personally under Mohammed died torturous deaths
for their faith. That would give you a point.

If you could present evidence that Muhammed performed miracles or just any kind of sign
about divine favor you would have a very good point.

You currently do not have evidence of Muhammed?s divine favor, evidence of the
disciples proving their belief, nor, for that matter, a point.


That last part comes back to a point of mine you seem reluctant to
address: did the first Christians know the stories to be either false or true? Or were they
going on the word of a few seemingly trustworthy people? You claim that the Apostles
and the masses wouldn't have risked it if they didn't truly believe it were true; that in itself,
however, holds no water. People will believe absolutely anything if there's a good enough
reason to do so. Belief inherently has exactly zero to do with truth. People may be
more likely to believe true things, but truth is by no measure necessary for
belief.

When?s the last time you went to court? Belief has plenty to do with truth. When an eye
witness gives testimony, that testimony is automatically accepted as true until reason for
doubt is given.

It is then the job of the opposing counsel to discredit the witness. Perhaps exposing a
logical motive for the witness to lie, or proving that they had lied before about something
similarly important, or something like that. Unless you can give decent cause for the
person to lie, their testimony holds a good amount of water.

Lee Strobel said in his book that he?d seen a lot of people go to prison because of eye
witnesses.


So the scenario I present to you boils down to this: the masses believe because
they have a good reason to believe; perhaps the identities of the Apostles, outside
circumstances, and the message of Christianity combined to create such a reason. The only
people who might not have had a solid reason to believe are the Apostles themselves: a
very, very small group of people.

Thirteen is not a small number. If you take thirteen random people from various walks of
life and put them together, it is astoundingly improbable that all thirteen of them would
boldly and willingly die a torturous death instead of renounce their current religious (or
lack thereof) belief.


A small group of people can make grand plans, or fabricate grand lies, or be
totally deceived by the same story. There were only a dozen of them. It is obviously
possible that the Apostles had ulterior motives; everybody else could've followed their
lead.

But ulterior motives would have been exposed in the courtroom when they were told to
renounce Jesus or die. Ulterior motives don?t seem so important when your life and limb
are on the line.


I'm guessing you'll respond to that by saying the Apostles wouldn't have risked
it if they knew it to be false.

Finally, you're catching on.


In response to your response, I will say that the Apostles might not have
known anything of the sort, and even if they did, getting a dozen somewhat crazy people
together is no major feat.

There is no way that they could be fooled into thinking that Jesus fed 5000 people when
he didn?t. And I doubt that you?re going to call Luke crazy. After all, he?s been shown to
be a brilliant historian. You can?t say that a man with that precise of detail could be crazy.
But yet he researched this Christ and found it to be true. And being a medical assistant, for
Paul, he certainly could have recognized if Paul were insane when Paul claimed that Jesus
appeared to him.

Here?s what doesn't hold water, the claim that 12 random people, a tax collector, four
fishermen, and who knows who else were all insane.


Oh, and a word to all concerned. I wish I didn't have to keep telling people this,
but: IF you are debating the validity or accuracy of a source, YOU CANNOT USE THAT
SOURCE AS EVIDENCE. Doing so is called circular reasoning and is, quite frankly, the
dumbest, newbie-est logical mistake you could possibly make. Thus, arguing that God
wouldn't give powers to a liar (a key part of your argument in support of the Bible's
accuracy) because, I quote:


It's in the Bible. The Bible completely backs my statement and does
not offer a hint of reasonable argument against what I just said.

In my opinion, that debate ended. You still haven?t done anything to prove that Jesus did
not perform miracles. Nor can you prove that Jesus didn?t claim divinity. I figure that
debate is done.

[AbareMax]

Tell me where you heard that something can come from nothing, and tell me if that person or source BSed you. I am not blind to facts. World took millions of years, NOT seven days to be born. The ENTIRE earth could not be flooded (but a large bit of it can, other religions tell of a great flood too.). I would not believe miracles unless I saw them with my own eyes. But to say that this universe could come from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING would be total lies. The Big Bang had to have had some sort of source, whether that was God, or a previously existing universe I don't know, but energy CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED, only transferred...

Yes, this is partly true. The universe couldn't have developed by itself. You can't get water from a rock. And you are partly right about the world being created in seven days. Most theologians believe that back then, a day was 1,000 years.

[Tainted]

Yes, this is partly true. The universe couldn't have developed by itself. You can't get water from a rock. And you are partly right about the world being created in seven days. Most theologians believe that back then, a day was 1,000 years.

You can't get water from a rock, but you can water from a rock set ablaze. That's how all the elements that are on the earth were formed-- from one single element, hydrogen. When two hydrogens are heated to one million degrees celcius, the two join to form on helium-- and this process goes on until we have shitloads of elements. How can "back then, a day was 1,000 years?" Do you mean the earth's orbit was drastically differant from what it is now? And-- do you have any proof that 'most theologians' believe this, or is it just a random saying?

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[Sorovis]

You can't get water from a rock, but you can water from a rock set ablaze. That's how all the elements that are on the earth were formed-- from one single element, hydrogen. When two hydrogens are heated to one million degrees celcius, the two join to form on helium-- and this process goes on until we have shitloads of elements. How can "back then, a day was 1,000 years?" Do you mean the earth's orbit was drastically differant from what it is now? And-- do you have any proof that 'most theologians' believe this, or is it just a random saying?

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

No, referring to your 'days' point. In the time the Bible was written, there were very few available terms regarding periods of time. Thus, day does not necessarily mean a single revolution of the Earth, but could indeed be used to describe an age.

Your other point regarding the formation of water molecules through the heating of hydrogen is very interesting. Could you perhaps direct me to a site that further covers that?


A group of scientists re-created a pseudo-environment of the way Earth first was billions of years ago, in a tank. I'm not too sure on what "ingredients" were needed, but a few weeks later, cells started to develop, the same cells they were thinking started life on this planet. If you want, I could go find a few pages explaining the exact experiement.

That is not entirely true. I have read up on the matter in the past and found out that two amino acids were created by simulating what the scientists thought would be the atmosphere of early Earth, and then applying electricity. Problem with this is that some forty different amino acids are required to actually create cells. Amino acids I suppose could be considered the very basic forms of life, but certainly what was created in that particular experiment was not enough to suggest that life spontaneously generated from lightning striking primordial ooze.


What kind of argument do you want? I mean, the whole concept of the Bible, well, all religions is that some deity that we have no proof of created us, our environment, other living things, and the entire universe as we know it. I mean, there's no proof of this deity. In the Bible, you have God appearing to people all the time. Now, we have nothing, except that evangelical Benny Hinn crap you see on TV, which was already proven false by many different organizations.

Generalizations abound; most of which are grossly inaccurate. The proof we have of our God? One could say Jesus's miracles are evidence I suppose. Really though, our very existence could be evidence enough for a superior being. Quite honestly as I have expressed in the past, life cannot create itself no matter what the conditions. Seriously, just because you decided there is no God does not mean that there could not be proof.


The Bible says God made all the modern animals (including humans) and plants that exist today. If new species develop, I'm pretty sure that's evolution at work.

The Bible at no point addresses evolution. It does not directly say how God had created life, therefore evolution is an option.


Yeah, but God said to bring two of every animal on the ark. What'd the lions eat? They're carnivores, and God said only bring two of every animal. And with the lack of refridgeration, I doubt Noah could keep meat fresh for fourty days. I know he could've used salt, but would the carnivores extra-salty meats? And, I mean, with more than ten billion animals on board, you'd have to kill a hell of a lot of animals before setting sail.

Ten-million animals you say? Care to support that? As I have stated before Noah most likely did not include sub-species (perhaps even some species) of animals. Keep in mind the methods of classifying animals were not as great as they are today.

Lions do not boycott salty meat I am sorry to tell you. And it's not as if lions poached or kept in zoos or circuses necessarily get five-star meals. Add this to the fact that many animals can last for months before eating again. Again, use your imagination.


A mere eight people tending to billions of species of animals? :sweat2:

The number of animals aboard the Ark just increased one-hundred-fold.


Oh yeah, you believe that God exists and that the great flood caused by the great rain was also caused by him. I believe none of it ever happened. Sure, there's evidence of a great flood, but not five-thousand years ago.

That's nice.


Yeah, but that was, according to you Christians, 5000-years-ago. You believe in microevolution, so you should know that things don't change much in 5000 years. There still would still be, roughly, about a massive couple billion animals at the time, by that logic. It's just one of the things in the Bible that doesn't make any sense. If there was proof for anything in the Bible, other than supposed "prophet grave sites" that exist in the Middle East, then I would surely give Christianity another go, but, really, I've seen nothing... No offense. :sweat2:

Go to page one or two and look at the page regarding archeological findings that corroborate and support events and places in the Bible. Happy reading.

[The Muffin Man]

You can't get water from a rock, but you can water from a rock set ablaze. That's how all the elements that are on the earth were formed-- from one single element, hydrogen. When two hydrogens are heated to one million degrees celcius, the two join to form on helium-- and this process goes on until we have shitloads of elements. How can "back then, a day was 1,000 years?" Do you mean the earth's orbit was drastically differant from what it is now? And-- do you have any proof that 'most theologians' believe this, or is it just a random saying?

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

I think he's using the excuse that "A day to god could be a million years to us". I don't personally buy it, as that's only semi-recent as an explanation and seems fishy.

[Pork]

Although I am not extremely religious, I think that there is some kind of God, somewhere...I mean, when you're staring up at the night sky, that beautiful mystical canvas, you've got to think there's something bigger, don't you? I don't want to get technical, but it's fun to imagine...

[Sorovis]

I think he's using the excuse that "A day to god could be a million years to us". I don't personally buy it, as that's only semi-recent as an explanation and seems fishy.

All I ask is that you bother to read my posts. Again, there were very few terms to represent amounts of time; it is not at all impossible that the word 'day' did not necessarily mean twenty-four hours. Keep in mind languages have not always been as vast as they are today.

[Jeikobu]

The Bible at no point addresses evolution. It does not directly say how God had created life, therefore evolution is an option.
God spoke, and life was created. That's what creation is: making something out of nothing. That's what God did. For example, He said "let there be light" and immediately there was light. God created. There is no evolution.

[Animelee]

That is not entirely true. I have read up on the matter in the past and found out that two amino acids were created by simulating what the scientists thought would be the atmosphere of early Earth, and then applying electricity. Problem with this is that some forty different amino acids are required to actually create cells. Amino acids I suppose could be considered the very basic forms of life, but certainly what was created in that particular experiment was not enough to suggest that life spontaneously generated from lightning striking primordial ooze.

It's no more far-fetched than saying some sort of cosmic force that we have no proof of, and that does nothing to prove its existance today, created the universe, Earth, and all living things, and is currently watching us.


Generalizations abound; most of which are grossly inaccurate. The proof we have of our God? One could say Jesus's miracles are evidence I suppose. Really though, our very existence could be evidence enough for a superior being. Quite honestly as I have expressed in the past, life cannot create itself no matter what the conditions. Seriously, just because you decided there is no God does not mean that there could not be proof.

There's no proof to disprove the "life came from scratch" theory, either.

What about your God, though? I know the Bible says nothing on where God came from, but I mean, if he was the first living thing ever, then he came from scratch, did he not? If he can come from scratch, who's to say we didn't?




The Bible at no point addresses evolution. It does not directly say how God had created life, therefore evolution is an option.

The Bible says we were created in God's image, and then gives us two stories for how God made the animals. It says we were created seperately from the animals (even though we are a species of animal), and I'm pretty sure that that proves Christianity rules out evolution.



Ten-million animals you say? Care to support that? As I have stated before Noah most likely did not include sub-species (perhaps even some species) of animals. Keep in mind the methods of classifying animals were not as great as they are today.

Fine, ruling out sub-species, then there would still be about one million species of insects, and fifty-thousand species of animals needed to be collected on the boat. I doubt even with today's technology we'd be able to collect every species on a boat, and keep them there, fed and clean, for fourty days. And didn't Noah stay with the animals for sixth months before letting them go? Wouldn't he get incredibly sick from having to work all the time? I mean, fifty-thousand is still a lot. Not to mention Noah would have to go back around the world and redistribute the animals to their original habitats. Would you and your family be able to do that? It's beyond our capabilities as humans to work for such a long period of time without rest.


Lions do not boycott salty meat I am sorry to tell you. And it's not as if lions poached or kept in zoos or circuses necessarily get five-star meals. Add this to the fact that many animals can last for months before eating again. Again, use your imagination.

Yeah, but I'm betting they still get moderately-fresh raw meat. Zoos and circuses wouldn't take the risks in giving their lions old food, because the costs of getting another one would be much more than the costs of fresh meats.

I do use my imagination -- I am a Pokémon fan, afterall. Of course, I refuse to believe that Pokémon exists, or leprechans, or the Tooth Fairy, so why should I believe in tales of a God? I mean, leprechans have age-old legends behind them, like God and the Bible. Do you not pity the people who believe in aliens, even though they believe they have proof of them? They believe the aliens put us here, and you believe God put us here. Now do you see why it's so hard for many of us to accept that a God exists?


The number of animals aboard the Ark just increased one-hundred-fold.

I did say billion. Maybe you should re-read your ever-so-witty replies before you hit the button. :P


That's nice.

Yeah, it is nice.


Go to page one or two and look at the page regarding archeological findings that corroborate and support events and places in the Bible. Happy reading.

They also have archeological finds to support different events in the Hindu religion, but you refuse to believe in that, right? I mean, if the finds that support Christian events tell the truth, then so must the Hindu ones. What makes the Christian religion right, and the Hindu religion wrong?

[Aglandiir]

Sorovis, I know you'd like both sides to start on equal footing, but it just isn't possible. The Bible is a strange, fantastic story. Believing it is true is a stretch. Believing it is false is not. It is always harder to prove something improbable is true than it is to show such a thing to be false.

To everybody who cares, using Islam to prove Christianity doesn't work because Islam was founded 500 years after Christianity. The first Muslims would've had absolutely no way to know whether or not what the Bible said was true in a historical sense, because they simply hadn't been born at the time; all they had was belief.

The only reason I mentioned Islam at all was to point out that people will believe things even when threatened with death. You seem unwilling to concede this point, even though evidence of it appears every day in the evening news. I tried to explain that people don't always need a good reason to believe things, and they don't always need a good reason to die for their beliefs, even in gruesome ways. If you're unwilling to accept that fact, then that's your problem. I'm done with that.

Sorovis, I wouldn't insult you if you didn't insult me. I would follow your rules if you followed them yourself. And I don't need your faux-pity. I didn't expect or even want you to surrender; I only said that to piss you off a little bit, honestly.

You have, so far, offered no proof that the Apostles were who they said they were in the Bible. The only evidence you have so far cited is the Bible, which I have said many times is not valid evidence. I will not accept it as such, no matter how many times you quote it or reference it or pull things out of it to "prove" your point. As far as I'm concerned, nothing in the Bible is true until confirmed by an objective outside source. So really, to me, you're basing your argument on lies.

I'm going to drop the speculation because its purpose obviously goes right over your head.

Checkmate: Jesus did claim divinity. Nobody should argue that, because anybody can claim divinity. In fact, I just did it myself. There, I did it again. As for his miracles, I may not have disproved them, but neither have you proven them. You use the Bible as evidence of the Bible, which is circular reasoning. My case against Jesus' miracles would mainly be that such things clearly go against everything that I currently believe to be true, such the the laws of physics, and that there is no evidence of these miracles other than the Bible itself, which, for all practical purposes, can be treated as the same thing.

[AbareMax]

It's no more far-fetched than saying some sort of cosmic force that we have no proof of, and that does nothing to prove its existance today, created the universe, Earth, and all living things, and is currently watching us.



There's no proof to disprove the "life came from scratch" theory, either.

What about your God, though? I know the Bible says nothing on where God came from, but I mean, if he was the first living thing ever, then he came from scratch, did he not? If he can come from scratch, who's to say we didn't?





The Bible says we were created in God's image, and then gives us two stories for how God made the animals. It says we were created seperately from the animals (even though we are a species of animal), and I'm pretty sure that that proves Christianity rules out evolution.




Fine, ruling out sub-species, then there would still be about one million species of insects, and fifty-thousand species of animals needed to be collected on the boat. I doubt even with today's technology we'd be able to collect every species on a boat, and keep them there, fed and clean, for fourty days. And didn't Noah stay with the animals for sixth months before letting them go? Wouldn't he get incredibly sick from having to work all the time? I mean, fifty-thousand is still a lot. Not to mention Noah would have to go back around the world and redistribute the animals to their original habitats. Would you and your family be able to do that? It's beyond our capabilities as humans to work for such a long period of time without rest.



Yeah, but I'm betting they still get moderately-fresh raw meat. Zoos and circuses wouldn't take the risks in giving their lions old food, because the costs of getting another one would be much more than the costs of fresh meats.

I do use my imagination -- I am a Pokémon fan, afterall. Of course, I refuse to believe that Pokémon exists, or leprechans, or the Tooth Fairy, so why should I believe in tales of a God? I mean, leprechans have age-old legends behind them, like God and the Bible. Do you not pity the people who believe in aliens, even though they believe they have proof of them? They believe the aliens put us here, and you believe God put us here. Now do you see why it's so hard for many of us to accept that a God exists?



I did say billion. Maybe you should re-read your ever-so-witty replies before you hit the button. :P



Yeah, it is nice.



They also have archeological finds to support different events in the Hindu religion, but you refuse to believe in that, right? I mean, if the finds that support Christian events tell the truth, then so must the Hindu ones. What makes the Christian religion right, and the Hindu religion wrong?


Yes, the Bible does say we were created in God's image. In Genesis, it also describes how man was created. We were made from the dust. Also in Genesis, it says that God put every animal on the Ark, and he did, but not as you all think. There may have been billions, or perhaps more, but we don't know, and it's pointless to guess. Do you know how long it took for the ark to be built? 600 years. Go ahead and check it out for yourself.

[Roarkiller]

Juz casually step in and look what uve got. And the last post even mentioned my religion.

Im too far behind to even think bout catching up (12 pages aint funny), but juz browsing this page alone, a few notes to point out:

Proof of God:
Someone said that us being here alone should be proof enough of god existing. Yeah well, thats what islam teaches us (or basically, proof of god is simply the existence of this entire universe), but u cant convince a non-believer like that. And i believe christianity doesnt even mention how to prove god's existence.


What about your God, though? I know the Bible says nothing on where God came from, but I mean, if he was the first living thing ever, then he came from scratch, did he not? If he can come from scratch, who's to say we didn't?

The idea of god is someone who simply Is. Or to put it simply, he doesnt come from scratch; he didnt come from anything, he simply already exists, no beginning and no end. Technically, the above argument is based on another argument, and so isnt an argument. Does that even make sense? :P


And didn't Noah stay with the animals for sixth months before letting them go? Wouldn't he get incredibly sick from having to work all the time? I mean, fifty-thousand is still a lot. Not to mention Noah would have to go back around the world and redistribute the animals to their original habitats. Would you and your family be able to do that? It's beyond our capabilities as humans to work for such a long period of time without rest.

After preaching for 2000 yrs to his ppl (according to islam anyway), i dont think 6 mths makes much of a difference. And why would he have to go around the world? During his time, the world was only juz formed, everyone would occupy a land no larger than the USSR. And the flood prolly didnt even cover all of earth, juz that part of land, since the punishment is only to his ppl.


Islam says Jesus does miracles as well. So why aren't you Islamic? You admit the existance of people like Moses. So why aren't you Jewish?

Um, cuz even tho those pts r the same, a lot of other pts r in conflict? Major Duh to me.

Anyway, i prolly wont come here to see replies, but out of curiosity, a question to all of u not exactly relatiing to religion. The bible was written in some language, then translated to some language on the way to english. Now, some european languages pronounce J as Y, and some letters do not pronounce at all.

Thing is, "Jesus" has both qualities. Apply both and its pronounced the way muslims would pronounce it as; Isa. Same to Moses (Musa), Joseph (Yusof) and Jacob (Ya'cob, which is said as "ya" and not "yea").

Juz wondering. Kinda remembered to ask this after watching Chrno Crusades (anime) and Rosette's bro was called Joshua, incidentally pronounced as "Yoshua".

[Razola]

4. All religions are a stupid attempt by foolish mortals trying to grapple with their fear of the unknown and trying to answer it with something to rationalise their existence, even if they know it's false. There is no true or correct religion. If there was, 90% of the world would go to Hell because they believe in the wrong God.
That's retarded. Do you really think I fear death any less than your typical Al Atheist?

[phaedrus]

That's retarded. Do you really think I fear death any less than your typical Al Atheist?

you only fear death when you make yourself fear it.

[Sorovis]

It's no more far-fetched than saying some sort of cosmic force that we have no proof of, and that does nothing to prove its existance today, created the universe, Earth, and all living things, and is currently watching us.

I really don't think you necessarily fathom the improbability that DNA and the like could simply build itself randomly with no intelligent guidance. Random mutations in a creature is one thing; the completely random assembly of Deoxyribosenucleicacids when the origins of most of the necessary componants are unknown is a completely different field.


There's no proof to disprove the "life came from scratch" theory, either.

Maybe that it is extremely (a bit of an understatement, really) unlikely? Then there is the fact that no real experiment has accurately duplicated what was thought to be life's origins, despite our casual intellect and goals. If we cannot do it, then neither can nothing.


What about your God, though? I know the Bible says nothing on where God came from, but I mean, if he was the first living thing ever, then he came from scratch, did he not? If he can come from scratch, who's to say we didn't?

Once again consider the lego builder. His creations are made from legos and bound by legos; the Creator is not. If the creations were to deny the existence of the Creator due to the fact that he is not made of legos, would that not be foolish? Simply put, God is not necessarily dictated by forces which bind us.


The Bible says we were created in God's image, and then gives us two stories for how God made the animals. It says we were created seperately from the animals (even though we are a species of animal), and I'm pretty sure that that proves Christianity rules out evolution.

No actually I have dealt with this 'flaw' before. Read again and you will see that the Bible does not give an account that we were made in two different ways. Indeed this is usually seen as a flaw because the second account builds itself off of points raised in the first which it does not bother to restate.

Secondly there is enough of an argument that humans differ from animals to begin a totally different debate that could last for twice as long. Of course if you wish to argue that here I would be happy to accommodate.


Fine, ruling out sub-species, then there would still be about one million species of insects, and fifty-thousand species of animals needed to be collected on the boat. I doubt even with today's technology we'd be able to collect every species on a boat, and keep them there, fed and clean, for fourty days. And didn't Noah stay with the animals for sixth months before letting them go? Wouldn't he get incredibly sick from having to work all the time? I mean, fifty-thousand is still a lot. Not to mention Noah would have to go back around the world and redistribute the animals to their original habitats. Would you and your family be able to do that? It's beyond our capabilities as humans to work for such a long period of time without rest.

You have heard of Darwin's theory on the finches of the Galapagos? I forget the name of it, but essentially if two of the same finches live in two different environments and reproduce their for many generations, they will eventially evolve apart and become two different species. It is very plausible that perhaps Noah did this; one species of lion, one species of tiger, elephants, mantids, etc.. That also dramatically decreases the numbers of species on board the ship. Improbable or unsupported you say? Not really. It should be common knowledge by now that there were not nearly as many species and sub-species of animals in the past, even many thousands of years ago, as there are today. No black, yellow-belly, and striped racers (snakes) back then, but only black (or blue, you get the idea). Again, it is very likely that the varying species of animals we have today came from one base ancestor and spread out to cover different regions, not interacting (or rarely as the case may be) and evolving in totally different ways.


Yeah, but I'm betting they still get moderately-fresh raw meat. Zoos and circuses wouldn't take the risks in giving their lions old food, because the costs of getting another one would be much more than the costs of fresh meats.

You would be suprised how poorly animals are treated in circuses; but I digress. Lions you must know frequently do not make their own kills and will commonly eat carrion or even resort to cannibalism if the time calls. Lions, like all animals, must either adapt to dry spells where food is scarce or die off; it is not at all uncommon that such large cats will go weeks without feeding. Then if you want some speculation it could have been that such creatures were not as evenly distributed throughout the globe, and third level heterotrophs (I believe that is what they would be classified as) may have been good at living off of one good meal for a month at a time. I know some snakes may go two years between a meal if the time calls.

Then of course one must keep in mind that inactivity and lack of exercize which would use energy would help conserve energy better to a degree. Without having to prowl in the night and hunt, or fend from other prides, the lions could have gone a long time off of their fat reserves alone.


I do use my imagination -- I am a Pokémon fan, afterall. Of course, I refuse to believe that Pokémon exists, or leprechans, or the Tooth Fairy, so why should I believe in tales of a God? I mean, leprechans have age-old legends behind them, like God and the Bible. Do you not pity the people who believe in aliens, even though they believe they have proof of them? They believe the aliens put us here, and you believe God put us here. Now do you see why it's so hard for many of us to accept that a God exists?

But is there any logical or substantial evidence that supports to the existence of intelligent alien life forms or leprichauns? An idea such as an intelligent Creator is dramatically different than fairytale creatures, you must understand, both in concept and utter realism. Then you must take into account that even though the vast majority of the land surface of the Earth has been explored, nothing has been found of said leprichauns, not even reliable evidence. With the concept of aliens, the age-old query comes to light of who created the aliens? Assuming of course that they are bound by laws of physics and matter (if they weren't that would be more along speculation of a God rather than aliens).


I did say billion. Maybe you should re-read your ever-so-witty replies before you hit the button. :P

Reading error. My point still stands, however. Ten-billion animals is very unlikely given the time period that this supposedly happened and the limited method of phylogeny.


They also have archeological finds to support different events in the Hindu religion, but you refuse to believe in that, right? I mean, if the finds that support Christian events tell the truth, then so must the Hindu ones. What makes the Christian religion right, and the Hindu religion wrong?

Like what? It really depends on what you are talking about here. What I am talking about is places and peoples that were believed to be made up by the writers of the Bible until archeological findings confirmed they actually existed. I forget what the site I presented said, but if I remember correctly it was along some of those lines.


Sorovis, I know you'd like both sides to start on equal footing, but it just isn't possible. The Bible is a strange, fantastic story. Believing it is true is a stretch. Believing it is false is not. It is always harder to prove something improbable is true than it is to show such a thing to be false.

Then you don't belong on this thread, and I would suggest you leave now. Quite honestly, if you are going to tell me seriously that the Bible is 'a strange, fantastic story' and then support this claim with wild speculation, then you don't understand the concept of a debate; nor have you read the Bible, for that matter, in which case I would say you should actually find out what you are talking about before talking at all.


To everybody who cares, using Islam to prove Christianity doesn't work because Islam was founded 500 years after Christianity. The first Muslims would've had absolutely no way to know whether or not what the Bible said was true in a historical sense, because they simply hadn't been born at the time; all they had was belief.

And yet again this does not belong on this thread. This is to historically prove the Bible, not the Quran. So let us just drop this point for efficiancy sake and move on to more pertinent issues.


The only reason I mentioned Islam at all was to point out that people will believe things even when threatened with death. You seem unwilling to concede this point, even though evidence of it appears every day in the evening news. I tried to explain that people don't always need a good reason to believe things, and they don't always need a good reason to die for their beliefs, even in gruesome ways. If you're unwilling to accept that fact, then that's your problem. I'm done with that.

Well if you actually are, then I must say I definately am not. You seem to still duck under the conception that people are gullible fools who would discard their life for either poorly supported claims or what they know of as lies. Honestly, it is not at all that hard to understand that Luke got killed for something he actually believed was right and that he had a reason for that, is it? I could argue on this point for years and years if you want to continue (you have said the contrary). Chances are though it will end up with us endlessly repeating ourselves.


Sorovis, I wouldn't insult you if you didn't insult me. I would follow your rules if you followed them yourself. And I don't need your faux-pity. I didn't expect or even want you to surrender; I only said that to piss you off a little bit, honestly.

Well then don't. Make fun of my arguments, as you wish, and I will do so as well. Claim that I am finished on my own debate and that you accept my defeat and I will not take it lightly. Obviously I put at least a decent amount of time into debating here, and I would rather actually debate than have an insult match.


You have, so far, offered no proof that the Apostles were who they said they were in the Bible. The only evidence you have so far cited is the Bible, which I have said many times is not valid evidence. I will not accept it as such, no matter how many times you quote it or reference it or pull things out of it to "prove" your point. As far as I'm concerned, nothing in the Bible is true until confirmed by an objective outside source. So really, to me, you're basing your argument on lies.

I am assuming that this is addressed to Checkmate or Abaremax, as I have done nothing of the sort. Simply put though, the Apostles' existence is seen out of the Bible; in Roman history, etc.. For your sake I will try and find something to support this, so be patient until then.


I'm going to drop the speculation because its purpose obviously goes right over your head.

Or perhaps it was so weak that I didn't even feel it.

[Checkmate]

Yeah, ok. I don?t quite remember it that way. I seem to remember a little something called the Talmud. Ring any bells?

[Checkmate]

That is not entirely true. I have read up on the matter in the past and found out that two amino acids were created by simulating what the scientists thought would be the atmosphere of early Earth, and then applying electricity. Problem with this is that some forty different amino acids are required to actually create cells. Amino acids I suppose could be considered the very basic forms of life, but certainly what was created in that particular experiment was not enough to suggest that life spontaneously generated from lightning striking primordial ooze.


It?s no more far-fetched than saying some sort of cosmic force that we have no proof of, and that does nothing to prove its existance today, created the universe, Earth, and all living things, and is currently watching us.

Speak for yourself. He proves his existence to me fairly frequently. It would seem that the most faithful get the most proof. Interesting concept of God?s. But I?m not saying I?m the most faithful, because I don?t do things like miracles or anything. I just get little proofs. Anyway?

One?s conscious could be considered evidence. If you just stop and think about it, some of the basic points of the Bible become clear. We are made in the image of God. This is not the physical image, mind you, but the aesthetic, and spiritual image.

For instance, Human beings are the only beings that can read and write. Human beings are the only creatures that can build tools. Chimps can stick a stick into an anthill in order to fish out ants, but to my knowledge he is unable to modify that stick in any way. Or tie it to another stick in order to reach down deeper.

Also, human beings are the only beings capable of working on something unnecessary. The tools that apes use are designed to get food. Tools that we build or utilize are designed sometimes just for entertainment. Animals don?t follow dreams.


The Bible at no point addresses evolution. It does not directly say how God had created life, therefore evolution is an option.

This, right here, is one of the few points on which Sorovis and I disagree. I agree with Animelee in that Chrisitianity and macro-evolution do not mix.


The Bible says we were created in God's image, and then gives us two stories for how God made the animals. It says we were created seperately from the animals (even though we are a species of animal), and I'm pretty sure that that proves Christianity rules out evolution.

I agree.

And by the way, Animelee. Could you please give me some resources disproving Benny Hinn. This is not for debate, but rather personal interest. The first time I saw him on TBN I figured he was hypnotist. Considering he never actually healed anyone on stage, but merely put them into some sort of ecstatic transe that made them very easy to knock over.

And I saw a couple of other things in his first broadcast that made me doubt him.


Sorovis, I know you'd like both sides to start on equal footing, but it just isn't possible. The Bible is a strange, fantastic story. Believing it is true is a stretch. Believing it is false is not. It is always harder to prove something improbable is true than it is to show such a thing to be false.

The same can be said about evolution.


To everybody who cares, using Islam to prove Christianity doesn't work because Islam was founded 500 years after Christianity. The first Muslims would've had absolutely no way to know whether or not what the Bible said was true in a historical sense, because they simply hadn't been born at the time; all they had was belief.

*Grins and chuckles. Nice way to slither out of a trap. You were the one who brought up Islam and was using against us. Now you?re saying that we?re not aloud to use it. Brilliant.


The only reason I mentioned Islam at all was to point out that people will believe things even when threatened with death. You seem unwilling to concede this point, even though evidence of it appears every day in the evening news. I tried to explain that people don't always need a good reason to believe things, and they don't always need a good reason to die for their beliefs, even in gruesome ways. If you're unwilling to accept that fact, then that's your problem. I'm done with that.

And I?ve tried to explain that you?re fighting a point I never made. I already answered this point with Rei. Read much?


Sorovis, I wouldn't insult you if you didn't insult me. I would follow your rules if you followed them yourself. And I don't need your faux-pity. I didn't expect or even want you to surrender; I only said that to piss you off a little bit, honestly.

He does follow his own rules. He doesn?t come up with wild speculations just because he can?t prove anything. You said that it?s harder to prove something true that is fantastic than to prove it false. I find that funny considering I?ve presented proof for 2000 year old miracles and you haven?t presented against it.


You have, so far, offered no proof that the Apostles were who they said they were in the Bible.

Well, see this is the thing. The last time I offered proof, I was met with so-called rebuttal that proved that proved nothing. Why should I waste my time and energy to present proof that you?ll answer to with ?Well, the apostles have paid those people to say that.? Or something else similarly speculatory.


The only evidence you have so far cited is the Bible,

Yeah, ok. I don?t quite remember it that way. I seem to remember a little something called the Talmud. Ring any bells?


I'm going to drop the speculation

FINALLY!!!! YAY!!!!!!!!


because its purpose obviously goes right over your head.

No, I know its purpose. Its purpose is to present reasonable doubt. But even reasonable doubt requires some degree of evidence.


Checkmate: Jesus did claim divinity. Nobody should argue that, because anybody can claim divinity.

Good. I don?t have to argue that point. Thanks for that.


As for his miracles, I may not have disproved them, but neither have you proven them.[ You use the Bible as evidence of the Bible, which is circular reasoning. My case against Jesus' miracles would mainly be that such things clearly go against everything that I currently believe to be true, such the the laws of physics, and that there is no evidence of these miracles other than the Bible itself, which, for all practical purposes, can be treated as the same thing.

You?re funny Aggy.

Yeah, ok. I don?t quite remember it that way. I seem to remember a little something called the Talmud. Ring any bells?




Proof of God:
Someone said that us being here alone should be proof enough of god existing. Yeah well, thats what islam teaches us (or basically, proof of god is simply the existence of this entire universe), but u cant convince a non-believer like that. And i believe christianity doesnt even mention how to prove god's existence.

That depends on the non-believer. I heard the testimony of a man on CBN who used to be an atheist. His friend had been witnessing to him at the work place for several years. The atheist?s wife was pregnant, so the friend said this. ?When your little girl is born, give here a good hard look. And you?ll know that she could not have possibly been an accident.? The friend was right on all counts. The atheist later became a Christian.

I also heard of a soldier for Russian during World War II. He was in a foxhole and wrote a poem. He basically said in the poem that he?d always been told that God didn?t exist. (I think the poem was written as if talking to God) But he looked up at the heavens and knew otherwise. He basically said to God, if you exist, help me, save me because I might die tonight. Or something like that. That citizen of communist Russia prayed for Salvation that night. Just by looking up at the stars. And thank God, because that soldier did die that night. The letter was sent home to his mother.

I?m not sure about the details of that last story, but I know the stuff that matters. (salvation) If I could recite the poem exactly, I would. However, I know what someone?s going to say so I?ll respond to it right now. That soldier was not praying to God to save him from the war. That?s clear in the poem. He just wanted to go to heaven when he died, and he wanted to get his heart right with God before he died.


After preaching for 2000 yrs to his ppl (according to islam anyway), i dont think 6 mths makes much of a difference. And why would he have to go around the world? During his time, the world was only juz formed, everyone would occupy a land no larger than the USSR. And the flood prolly didnt even cover all of earth, juz that part of land, since the punishment is only to his ppl.

One minor difference between Christianity and Islam. Christianity believes that Noah did not even live to be 700. And that the Earth had not even been around for 2000 years at the time of Noah. The flood did cover the entire Earth. And according to the interpretation of the commentator in my new Study Bible, he thinks that since the Earth was ?filled with sin? that it would be filled with people. But just because the commentator said so, doesn?t necessarily make it true. Just thought I?d throw that in.

Suffice it so say that some people do see nature as proof or at least evidence of God. Case in point?


Although I am not extremely religious, I think that there is some kind of God, somewhere...I mean, when you're staring up at the night sky, that beautiful mystical canvas, you've got to think there's something bigger, don't you? I don't want to get technical, but it's fun to imagine...

And roarkiller, what was that whole language lesson about?

[The Muffin Man]

But even reasonable doubt requires some degree of evidence.

No. You idiot. Reasonabl doubt IS the evidence. "I have no real reason to believe, so I don't think I can"...

[Roarkiller]

@Checkmate: According to a book i have, Noah lived up to 950. Hmm, wonder where i got th idea of 2000 from. But in any case, 2000 or 950, compare that to 6 mths and its barely anything.

Bout the language thingy, its juz out of curiosity. Cuz both christianity, islam and the hebrew have the same prophet and therefore the name pronounciation should be the same (doesnt this pt makes u wonder why our religions r so diff then? lol), yet it isnt, and i have a believe that is falls under the problem of translation. Sorovis should remember this, when i once told him that when the bible was translated, meanings and interpretations can be lost, and example of this is names, altho it has no obvious consequence.

Speaking of translations, i stand by what i told him; when smthng is translated, meanings and interpretations and whatnot get lost easily, and the intended message becomes distorted, made worse if another translation was made out of the previous translation. Especially when some words in some languages can have different meanings, or different usage in different situations.

[Razola]

you only fear death when you make yourself fear it.
Nice try at a compelling quote, buddy.

I'm a still of big fan of living. It's pretty awesome. I'd rate it an 8/10.

[Sorovis]

God spoke, and life was created. That's what creation is: making something out of nothing. That's what God did. For example, He said "let there be light" and immediately there was light. God created. There is no evolution.

God said let there be light. No specific period of time is made clear of when He spoke it when it came into full existence. God created life, I have no question about that. On the idea of evolution, He may indeed have set things into motion, knowing the ultimate outcome; that is my view at least.

[AzureSeraph]

I would just like to say something about Noah's Ark. About 3 months ago, there was a documentary about Noah's Ark on the History channel. According to the Bible, Noah's Ark was supposed to be 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high or about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high

(http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GEN+6&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)

Now, if this ark was a perfect rectangle if would have a volume of 1,518,750 cubic feet. Although this seems like alot, it really isn't considering the ark has to be a perfect rectangle for this amount of volume. So for the sake of simplicity lets say the ark is 2/3 that size. So that makes it have 1012500.

Taken from the Bible:

Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

So suffice to say the ark probably had barely the amount of room for the animals and the food and the various living conditions.

However, one thing just doesn't make sense at all. The size of Noah's ark is about that same size as the HMS Ameer class escort aircraft carrier, which dimensions are 465 x 69.5 x 23.25 feet. (http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/canada.htm)

From what the Bible states:

14 So make yourself an ark of cypress [3] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out.

For those that don't know, pitch is about the equivalent of our tar except significantly weaker. So Noah's Ark was made of wood coated with pitch. An ark that large would without a doubt collapse under that kind of collosal tension. Wood and pitch just don't have the strength to stay together let alone stay a float. There is no point in arguing the fact that wood is weaker that steel. So how can a wooden boat the size of an aircraft carrier possibly exist?


There's another problem with a worldwide flood or even a large regional flood. It would have left massive evidence behind in the form of sediments. When water moves over an area of land, it tends to leave behind small grainy particles of sand. This should be apparent in rock samples all over the world. However, it is not.

Also, there isn't enough water in the world to cover all the land masses. Even if all the water in the polar ice caps were melted, there would still be landlocked areas that would remain untouched.

Even if somehow, there was enough water to flood earth, this would make earth unihabitable as the moisture in the air dramatically increases. Have you ever walked outside after a thunderstorm and found it difficult to breathe because of the water vapor in the air? Well, the amount of water vapor in the air would be so great, it would cause you to drown.

So, as I have explained, Noah's Ark or the great flood could not have happened on the scale that the Bible depicts.

[Ash_300]

Once again consider the lego builder. His creations are made from legos and bound by legos; the Creator is not. If the creations were to deny the existence of the Creator due to the fact that he is not made of legos, would that not be foolish? Simply put, God is not necessarily dictated by forces which bind us.

How do you know that God is not dictated by the "forces"(fairly vague term in this context but very good for avoiding the minute details) that bind us? Did you speak to him? I do not understand how you can draw parallels between legos and someone who apparently made us all. From what I know, humans are organic and legos are not(if that is not true then please lead me in the right direction). Furthermore, a lego cannot speak either(another thing which sets humans apart from them) so how can it deny the existence of its creator? What it comes down to is that analogies and attempts to draw parallels between non-related things do not prove anything.

[Roarkiller]

When it sez flood, it doesnt necessarily have to come from the seas, u know. This flood came from rain, and as much as it defies logic, lets juz say that if god wills it, it will happen.

In any case, i always like to say this: Logic is a flaw in itself. And science isnt always correct. After all, if it is, then get this: A bumblebee, because of its size and weight, and the size and speed of its wings, by right should not be able to fly. Look what its doing now.

[AzureSeraph]

Any type of flood, ANY, whether it be by sea, rain, or the over flowing of rivers of the magnitude that the Bible depicts MUST leave behind some evidence in the form of sedimentary rock. If there ever was a worldwide flood, geologists would have massive layers of sedimentary rock all over the world.

Also, as I said in my first post, a flood of the magnitude the Bible suggests, whether by rain or would create so much water vapor that you would drown by BREATHING. If there was that much water, human life would have ended as Noah and the rest of his family would have died breathing in water vapor and subsequently drowning.

[Aglandiir]

http://jewish.com/askarabbi/askarabbi/askr3913.htm

I thought I already told you why the Talmud is no good, but I'll tell you again: it was written 200 years later.

I brought up Islam to show how lots of people can be convinced to believe. The reason was very, very simply: if Islam is correct, then all the Christians were deceived. If Christianity is correct, then all the Muslims were deceived. There are a whole lot of both. They can't both be true; thus, there are billions of people who have good reason to believe in their religion, but are wrong. That was all I was trying to say.

I was not trying to say that Islam disproves Christianity. Islam does nothing at all to Christianity; seeing as it was founded 500 years later, it runs into the same exact problem as the Talmud. And as Sorovis seems to enjoy pointing out, this isn't a debate about Islam.

There. I said what you can and cannot use Islam for in this debate. Thanks to the wonders of selective reading, you seem to take my statement that you cannot use Islam to argue a certain point to be "slithering out of a trap". Way to go. It wasn't a trap, and even if it were, I'm a man, not a snake, despite what your views on atheism might suggest. I would walk out of it.

Sorovis...

...

First, my speculation had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the fact that the Bible is a strange story. That you seem to think that it did does nothing but prove that you have no clue what I was trying to do with the speculation. Insult it all you want, but... if you don't even understand what it's for, then you look a little foolish. I'm not abandoning that strategy because it's bad; I'm doing so because you just don't get it.

For your information, all the support I need for my claim that the Bible is a strange story comes from Checkmate, on page 3 of this thread:


The conclusion is logical. It's strange but logical. Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God, the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, he's everything. Messiah, Jehovah, the Prince of Peace. It's he. Son of man, seed of Abraham, second person in the trinity, he is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end.

AzureSeraph: there was a massive flood in the Mediterranean region... perhaps several floods, in fact. They happen because of the movement of the European and African tectonic plates. They periodically move together and pull apart. When they are near, the Strait of Gibraltar closes and the the Mediterranean sea, with no other significant water sources (the Nile certainly isn't big enough), dries up. When the plates pull apart, the Strait opens and seawater fills the massive Mediterranean basin. There is sedimentary and fossil evidence of these events from Morocco to Israel. The flood(s) are generally believed to have occured 5.5-8 million years ago.

[AzureSeraph]

However, that also leaves the matter of the size of the ark to be disputed over.

[Roarkiller]

However, that also leaves the matter of the size of the ark to be disputed over.

A long time ago, it was impossible to tame animals. A few decades back, it was impossible to talk to ppl over long distances. A few yrs ago, cloning was pure sci-fi. A few weeks ago, it was nothing more than a dream for me to go to pkmn TCG worlds.

Learn this boy, and learn this well; there is NOTHING that is impossible in this world.

[The Muffin Man]

When it sez flood, it doesnt necessarily have to come from the seas, u know. This flood came from rain, and as much as it defies logic, lets juz say that if god wills it, it will happen.
Water creates moisture. It doesn't matter if it rained, or if it randomly appeared...besides, rain water IS the same as ocean water. Where do you think rain comes from?


In any case, i always like to say this: Logic is a flaw in itself. And science isnt always correct. After all, if it is, then get this: A bumblebee, because of its size and weight, and the size and speed of its wings, by right should not be able to fly. Look what its doing now.
The speed the wings flap keeps it up. You are probably ignoring alot of factors. You're assuming in a vacuum most likely.


A long time ago, it was impossible to tame animals. A few decades back, it was impossible to talk to ppl over long distances. A few yrs ago, cloning was pure sci-fi. A few weeks ago, it was nothing more than a dream for me to go to pkmn TCG worlds.

Learn this boy, and learn this well; there is NOTHING that is impossible in this world.
My hatred for your pretend logic knows no boundries.

Wanna know what's impossible? Fitting a male and female of every animal in the world on a boat the size of the ark, which was made of wood and like Azure said, was impossible. It's been PROVEN to be impossible. Not just speculated. It's not "impossible" like cloning. Cloning, taming animals, and talking to people over long distances wasn't impossible but merely a matter of time before there was a way. The structure of wood cannot be that large, let alone hold the weight of 2 of every animal on earth...

Besides, do you know how hard it would be for ONE MAN to build a boat of that size alone? I'm pretty sure the bible says he did it alone. The pyramids had, I believe thousands of workers building them. And STILL people died constantly, due to stress and heat.

There's something you need to learn, Roarkiller. Impossibility and slight possibility are two entirely different things.

[Sorovis]

First of all I must say I am happy to finally see The Muffin Man actually debate. I may have missed similar instances during my absence, so I also apologize if I have.

First of all, regarding the Flood:

What people generally assume is that during the time of the Flood oceans and seas were approximately as large as they are today. With this conception generally people come to the conclusion that since the waters of the Flood are apparently not present today, and that since they seemingly have nowhere to hide, the Flood could not have happened. What I want people to consider is that oceans and lakes form due to the water compressing the land and gathering in that specific point of lower altitude; what is very likely to have happened in the case of Noah and his Ark is that at the time of the Flood, the land was much flatter than it was today. When the heavy rains came down, pressure upon the Earth's crust caused by the water eventually provided safe points of depression for the water to settle in, thus higher points of land eventually emerged dry. What else could this have done? This great Flood could have indeed formed or excellerated the formation of modern day mountains.


Wanna know what's impossible? Fitting a male and female of every animal in the world on a boat the size of the ark, which was made of wood and like Azure said, was impossible. It's been PROVEN to be impossible. Not just speculated. It's not "impossible" like cloning. Cloning, taming animals, and talking to people over long distances wasn't impossible but merely a matter of time before there was a way. The structure of wood cannot be that large, let alone hold the weight of 2 of every animal on earth...

Again on the Ark debate:

What is frequently assumed to be the size of the Ark is some four-hundred and fifty feet long yes? When thinking of this, one must recall the measure of the Ark is recorded in cubits, or ancient forms of measurement that were generally about the length of a grown man's forearm. The flaw with this is that not only do peoples' forearms vary in length (a minor flaw), measurements of the cubit itself have varied from time to time. It has been said and supported that the cubit may not have always been the traditional eighteen inches in length, as is the commonly used measurement, but at one time may have been closer to twenty-one or twenty-two inches in length (at one point it is thought the cubit may have measured somewhat past the forearm). This may seem like a minor and insignifigant difference in length, but remember that an increase in volume is by no means proportionate to an increase in mass; what was originally the Ark's volume would be multiplied many times. Couple this with the fact that in the time of Noah an efficiant form of Phylogeny had not yet been formed, and so subspecies and even some species of animals were likely to have never entered the Ark. As I have said before and I am re-stating, there may have only been a King Cobra aboard as opposed to the Asian Cobra and the Spitting Cobra. It is doubtful that Noah would have known the difference. What also compliments this is the fact that despite there being only one species of each animal on the Ark, we can still get the many varying animals we have today. You see, since environment and terrain play a part in the evolution of an animal, it is very plausible that once the animals on the Ark were set loose, they spread out to different areas around the world. Over time, as they adapted to their new environments and fit into their niches, they began to evolve in different ways. The old ancestor of the modern day cobras may have eventually evolved into some four different species, and so on. From all of this, it can be clearly seen that the numbers of animals likely to have been on the Ark not proposterous; that the size of the ark regarding volume and mass may be greater than was originally thought; and that Noah's Ark was not some ridiculous children's story.


Besides, do you know how hard it would be for ONE MAN to build a boat of that size alone? I'm pretty sure the bible says he did it alone. The pyramids had, I believe thousands of workers building them. And STILL people died constantly, due to stress and heat.

No, Noah did have help, although I am not entirely sure how much help he had. It would not have been thousands though, because for the most part the common people mocked him for believing there would be a Flood in the first place. Then you must remember that the Ark is made of wood, which is much different than the pyramids of stone. Along with this is the fact that the pyramids are in Egypt, and heat would most likely have been much of a greater problem.


Sorovis...
First, my speculation had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the fact that the Bible is a strange story. That you seem to think that it did does nothing but prove that you have no clue what I was trying to do with the speculation. Insult it all you want, but... if you don't even understand what it's for, then you look a little foolish. I'm not abandoning that strategy because it's bad; I'm doing so because you just don't get it.

Amidst all of the whining and the 'you don't understand this', I can extract at least one piece of that paragraph that could be responded to in a civilized manner. First, let us recall what I claimed to be a ridiculous speculation: you told me that perhaps the twelve disciples were in league with Jesus for this mass conspiracy to make everyone think he was the son of God. Then you proposed that the twelve may also have been insane. What is the problem with all of this? Everything concievable of course! Let me ask you this for the first one: why would the disciples and Jesus try and start a mass religion when it was clearly opposed by the local Pharisees and even the Roman governors? All of them, I believe, were crucified and/or martyred in extremely painful ways, so that would mean that the twelve Apostles must have been insane. The problem with that? If they were renowned as historians and doctors, how could they be crazy-- or stupid-- enough to sentence themselves to death for no reason? You see, you have made illogical, and downright stupid speculations. You may go on claiming I don't understand all you want, I will continue responding.


For your information, all the support I need for my claim that the Bible is a strange story comes from Checkmate, on page 3 of this thread:

It's called support. We are proving that Jesus existed and did miracles, but never sinned once in his life. We also are striving to prove the existence of God; if both of our points are proven true, Jesus would indeed be the Son of God. What have you done to support your speculations? Complained that Checkmate and I simply don't understand you. There is a difference.


How do you know that God is not dictated by the "forces"(fairly vague term in this context but very good for avoiding the minute details) that bind us? Did you speak to him? I do not understand how you can draw parallels between legos and someone who apparently made us all. From what I know, humans are organic and legos are not(if that is not true then please lead me in the right direction). Furthermore, a lego cannot speak either(another thing which sets humans apart from them) so how can it deny the existence of its creator? What it comes down to is that analogies and attempts to draw parallels between non-related things do not prove anything.

It's called an analogy. Consider this: a person labors over a computer program he has worked on for many years. Finally, his work is done and he has his own limited AI creations in their own virtual world. Now these little programs have their own free thought, and begin to wonder how they came about to be. They consider perhaps a Creator, but that does not make sense because a program cannot create a program on its own. So they eventually assume that there was no intelligent direction in their design; much to the fascination of the original Designer. Sound somewhat limited? People are misinterpreting the idea of a God and Creator. The term is 'create', meaning to make something.

[GirlRepellant]

OK, I'm not sure if anyone has posted like this yet (since reading through this entire post would require an amount of patience I just do not have for a mere internet debate). But here goes, some Biblical contradictions that make it very obvious that the Bible was written by multiple authors with different viewpoints at the very least, and not everything in the Bible can be taken for truth.

~2 Kings 14:6 says "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers, but every man shall be put to death for his own sin." However, Exodus 20:5 states "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"
~Jesus says both of the following: "I and my Father are one." (John 10:30) & "If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father for my Father is greater than I." (John 14:28) So which is it, Father AND Son, or Father IS Son?
~"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens..." (Genesis 7:2) vs. "Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, there went in two and two unto Noah and into the ark..." (Genesis 7:8-9) So either two or seven of each clean animal went on the ark, and it gets negated just a line later...
~Judas dies twice in the Bible: "And he [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and depareted, and went and hanged himself." (Matthew 27:5) However, "Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)
~According to 3 different accounts (Matthew 27:46,50; Luke 23:46; John 19:30), there were three different "last words": "My God, my God, what hast thou forsaken me?", "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit", "It is finished" (respecivally).
~Joseph apparently had two fathers, according to Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23, who claim both Jacob and Heli.
~Then there's the popular question of whether God is omniscient or blind: Hebrews 4:13 says "Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight." However, in Genesis 3:8-9, "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, 'Where are you?'"
~Eye for an eye, or turn the other cheek? Leviticus 24:20 "Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a bleming in a man, so shall it be done to him again." Then Jesus comes along and tells us "...Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also..." (Matthew 5:38,44)

Also, go ahead and read I & II Kings, then read the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Notice some similarities in the acts and miracles performed by Elijah and Jesus? It almost seems as if the gospels (which, just as a note, were written over 50 years after Jesus's time) were plagerized a bit.

[Heald]

OK, I'm not sure if anyone has posted like this yet (since reading through this entire post would require an amount of patience I just do not have for a mere internet debate). But here goes, some Biblical contradictions that make it very obvious that the Bible was written by multiple authors with different viewpoints at the very least, and not everything in the Bible can be taken for truth.

~2 Kings 14:6 says "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers, but every man shall be put to death for his own sin." However, Exodus 20:5 states "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"
~Jesus says both of the following: "I and my Father are one." (John 10:30) & "If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father for my Father is greater than I." (John 14:28) So which is it, Father AND Son, or Father IS Son?
~"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens..." (Genesis 7:2) vs. "Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, there went in two and two unto Noah and into the ark..." (Genesis 7:8-9) So either two or seven of each clean animal went on the ark, and it gets negated just a line later...
~Judas dies twice in the Bible: "And he [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and depareted, and went and hanged himself." (Matthew 27:5) However, "Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)
~According to 3 different accounts (Matthew 27:46,50; Luke 23:46; John 19:30), there were three different "last words": "My God, my God, what hast thou forsaken me?", "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit", "It is finished" (respecivally).
~Joseph apparently had two fathers, according to Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23, who claim both Jacob and Heli.
~Then there's the popular question of whether God is omniscient or blind: Hebrews 4:13 says "Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight." However, in Genesis 3:8-9, "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, 'Where are you?'"
~Eye for an eye, or turn the other cheek? Leviticus 24:20 "Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a bleming in a man, so shall it be done to him again." Then Jesus comes along and tells us "...Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also..." (Matthew 5:38,44)

Also, go ahead and read I & II Kings, then read the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Notice some similarities in the acts and miracles performed by Elijah and Jesus? It almost seems as if the gospels (which, just as a note, were written over 50 years after Jesus's time) were plagerized a bit.Yes, yes, we know, there are contradictions in the Bible, fúck off back to 1921, you shíthead.

And by the way, for the record, contradictions across the testaments aren't true contradictions, since they are effectively two different books altogether.

So what have you proved? Nothing, you peenarse.

[Checkmate]

Sorovis you're working on a really hard solution to a really simple problem.

I guess I've never brought up the polar ice caps before. While they only carry 3% of the Earth's water, there is still enough there that if it all completely melted, there would be a global flood. Eighth grade earth science, in case someone questions my source.

People have said that a steel arc crushed under it's own weight. Well, I have this to say. The wood that Noah used is not in existence today. Therefore we really don't know how reliable it is.

To my knowledge, steel is strong and pretty light. But still, isn't it possible that a certain type of wood, could have properties of strength and light density that could out do tha of iron and therefor support it's own weight better?

Aggy, if you're going to say that sources that speak of things that happened 170 years prior are irrelevant, than I hope you didn't learn history in school.

[GirlRepellant]

Yes, yes, we know, there are contradictions in the Bible, fúck off back to 1921, you shíthead.

And by the way, for the record, contradictions across the testaments aren't true contradictions, since they are effectively two different books altogether.

So what have you proved? Nothing, you peenarse.

Jesus Tapdancing Christ! Sorry, I thought maybe I was in a debate about the ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. In which case Biblical contradictions would be... um, what's the word? Oh yeah, RELEVENT! But why don't we just go ahead and insult people for bringing up a valid point instead of contributing to something on our own?

So if the contradictions between the testaments doesn't matter, then why do we still have the OT in the Bible? And why is it cited all the time by religious groups as to why homosexuals shouldn't have equal rights and such debates? Obviously the OT matters, but the NT matters as well. Therefore, contradictions between the two are still pertian to the debate. Care to try again?

Oh, and it's quite clever how you cover up swear words by using little accents. As clever as that was, you're still an ignorant, spiteful person. Have an nice day!

[Heald]

Jesus Tapdancing Christ! Sorry, I thought maybe I was in a debate about the ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. In which case Biblical contradictions would be... um, what's the word? Oh yeah, RELEVENT! But why don't we just go ahead and insult people for bringing up a valid point instead of contributing to something on our own?I fail to see how copying and pasting from anti-religious websites makes an argument, unless you're trying to argue how much of a dick you look while pretending to be a biblical scholar.
So if the contradictions between the testaments doesn't matter, then why do we still have the OT in the Bible? And why is it cited all the time by religious groups as to why homosexuals shouldn't have equal rights and such debates? Obviously the OT matters, but the NT matters as well. Therefore, contradictions between the two are still pertian to the debate. Care to try again?Hmm, Christianity...Christians...gee, maybe there is a link here...you know, the word Christ...maybe he was some dude...I dunno, maybe he was...perhaps...the Son of God? And perhaps if the religion is called Christianity...who do you think is going to be the main figure of this religion? Mr T? Ronald McDonald? Or Jesus Christ? Okay, so we've established Christianity is a religion based on Christ. Am I going too fast for you? Well, perhaps the New Testament, also known as the New Covenant of God and also known as the Testament of Christ, because it is the latest word of God, about 2000 years later than his original word, perhaps it should take precedence over the Old Testament? Actually, this isn't a case of perhaps, this is a case of the New Testament takes precedence over the Old Testament, therefore, they cannot contradict each other due to the fact Christians should hold the NT above the OT, no matter what. They are on two completely different levels.

Also, about these Christians who take the OT to prove that God hates homosexuals, I really do think they ought to pull their heads out of their asses, so I don't care what they say.
Oh, and it's quite clever how you cover up swear words by using little accents. As clever as that was, you're still an ignorant, spiteful person. Have an nice day!Oh, and it's quite clever how you cover up your own ignorance by copying from anti-religious websites. As unbelievably moronic and ignorant as that was, you're still an asshat and know nothing about the Bible. Have an shítty day.

[GirlRepellant]

Wow. You're so totally right. I shouldn't cut and paste from anti-religious websites. Good thing I cut and pasted from my own blog instead. Does that still make me an asshat?

Now let me show just how little I know about the Bible, having only read it through multiple times and studied it for a few years. No big. Now, the way you put it, the NT has more relevance to the world, since it's God's word 2000 years older than the OT. (It's believed that the stories in Genesis were started 4500 BC, but we'll ignore that since you know so much Biblical history and such, shall we?) Now, by saying that God changed his word, that would have made God... well, wrong in the first place, right? Because why would God need to change his point of view? I was pretty sure God was infallible. Maybe I'm wrong. I am, after all, an asshat. And you have still yet to tell me why we still keep the OT in the Bible, when the NT is so much more relevent.

Care to debate with me an a civillized manner yet? Or shall we keep calling each other such clever pet names as asshat and (my personal favorite) peenarse.

[Heald]

Wow. You're so totally right. I shouldn't cut and paste from anti-religious websites. Good thing I cut and pasted from my own blog instead. Does that still make me an asshat?Needless to say, you'll find the exact same quotes on most anti-religious websites. So whether you thought of them yourself or not, you aren't original.
since it's God's word 2000 years older than the OT. (It's believed that the stories in Genesis were started 4500 BC, but we'll ignore that since you know so much Biblical history and such, shall we?)Okay, it was a typo. Noted and editted.
Now, by saying that God changed his word, that would have made God... well, wrong in the first place, right? Because why would God need to change his point of view? I was pretty sure God was infallible. Maybe I'm wrong. I am, after all, an asshat. And you have still yet to tell me why we still keep the OT in the Bible, when the NT is so much more relevent.I have no idea why the OT is kept in the Bible, ask the Bible publishers. Perhaps it is used for reference so when Jesus does draw sayings from 'the scriptures' (considering he is a Jew, he is allowed too) so people can look at 'the scriptures' and go 'Hmm, yes, very good' or something.

And furthermore, I do not know why God changed his word, nor do I care. He is God, he can do whatever the hell he wants. Just because you lack the understanding as to why God changed his word doesn't mean he doesn't have the right too.

[AzureSeraph]

A long time ago, it was impossible to tame animals. A few decades back, it was impossible to talk to ppl over long distances. A few yrs ago, cloning was pure sci-fi. A few weeks ago, it was nothing more than a dream for me to go to pkmn TCG worlds.

Learn this boy, and learn this well; there is NOTHING that is impossible in this world.

All the things you have listed are improbable events. Not impossible. Again, it was only a matter of time for these events to take place. However, the strength of the wood and the pitch are not nearly close enough to support the structure of the ark let alone support the weight of the animals.


I guess I've never brought up the polar ice caps before. While they only carry 3% of the Earth's water, there is still enough there that if it all completely melted, there would be a global flood. Eighth grade earth science, in case someone questions my source.

The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted.

So the net gain is about 220 feet. (http://science.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm)

Many areas would be untouched by the flood. Needless to say, a 220 feet increase in ocean levels would not be sufficient to cover the entire world in water. Sure alot of the world would be covered, but not all.


Also, you still didn't address the fact that a global flood would leave behind massive amounts of evidence in the form of sedimentary rock.


People have said that a steel arc crushed under it's own weight. Well, I have this to say. The wood that Noah used is not in existence today. Therefore we really don't know how reliable it is.

Noah most likely would not even know what steel is. At this time, there was no smelting process to attain steel from iron. However, a steel arc would have probably faired better than a wooden arc since there are steel aircraft carriers, but no wooden aircraft carriers.

Yes, it is. Cypress wood is still existence today and its only special property is that it is more resistant to decay. It has no special properties in terms of strength. It would not have been able to support the structure even with the addition of tar. It would have collapsed under its own weight.


To my knowledge, steel is strong and pretty light. But still, isn't it possible that a certain type of wood, could have properties of strength and light density that could out do tha of iron and therefor support it's own weight better?

Yes, its possible. But the Bible clearly says to make the ark out of cypress wood. I also like how you use speculation. What if.....

[GirlRepellant]

Well, I apologize for not being able to add new information to a debate that has been going on since the 5th century AD. Are we done? Oh, and thank you for not adding in another highbrow insult.

[Heald]

Well, I apologize for not being able to add new information to a debate that has been going on since the 5th century AD.Finally. Someone understands. It's a miracle.
Are we done? Oh, and thank you for not adding in another highbrow insult.I stopped taking my cranky pills so I'm fine now :)

[Kris]

O.K guys calm it down, lets try not to get too moody about all of this.

Heald Im glad your feeling fine now:)

[Sorovis]

All the things you have listed are improbable events. Not impossible. Again, it was only a matter of time for these events to take place. However, the strength of the wood and the pitch are not nearly close enough to support the structure of the ark let alone support the weight of the animals.

I would appreciate evidence to support that aside from just your word. Not that I doubt your knowledge on this particular subject; you must understand I am generally a skeptical person regarding anything, even at one point the Bible itself and God's existence.


The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted.

So the net gain is about 220 feet. (http://science.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm)

Many areas would be untouched by the flood. Needless to say, a 220 feet increase in ocean levels would not be sufficient to cover the entire world in water. Sure alot of the world would be covered, but not all.

Interesting. I never even thought to consider the ice caps. In any case, add the water kept as ice in the poles along with the amount of water that is now located in depressions on the ocean beds and you have enough water to cover a great degree of land to say in the least.


Also, you still didn't address the fact that a global flood would leave behind massive amounts of evidence in the form of sedimentary rock.

I believe there is such evidence still around; it may be buried under other layers of rock by now but that is what I have heard.


Noah most likely would not even know what steel is. At this time, there was no smelting process to attain steel from iron. However, a steel arc would have probably faired better than a wooden arc since there are steel aircraft carriers, but no wooden aircraft carriers.

The idea of a stell Ark though is much more farfetched. Remember that, like you said, Noah would have no believable way of obtaining steel; nor is it likely that the men of that time had the tools to work with such a metal. Also remember that steel is more durable and less prone to damage during naval warfare or navigating dangerous waters, hence why there are no longer any great sea ships made of wood.


Yes, it is. Cypress wood is still existence today and its only special property is that it is more resistant to decay. It has no special properties in terms of strength. It would not have been able to support the structure even with the addition of tar. It would have collapsed under its own weight.

Again further evidence would be needed to prove this; the Ark was made thousands of years ago with no pieces behind to examine today. All that can be done is speculation; the exact structure is unknown, the construction material unknown, and what exactly the ship faced while afloat is unknown.


Yes, its possible. But the Bible clearly says to make the ark out of cypress wood. I also like how you use speculation. What if.....

What translators think is the best guess is Cypress. It is noted in my Bible, however, that the actual wood is unknown.

[AzureSeraph]

The idea of a stell Ark though is much more farfetched. Remember that, like you said, Noah would have no believable way of obtaining steel; nor is it likely that the men of that time had the tools to work with such a metal. Also remember that steel is more durable and less prone to damage during naval warfare or navigating dangerous waters, hence why there are no longer any great sea ships made of wood.

My statement about a steel ark was just hypothetical. It was a comment directed at Checkmate after he said a steel ark would be crushed under its own weight. Please don't take the steel ark idea any further. It's purely hypothetical.


I believe there is such evidence still around; it may be buried under other layers of rock by now but that is what I have heard.

For any evidence of a global flood, there would need to be a massive layer of sedimentary rock that is relatively even depending on the area. Evidence should be found by now. If dinosaurs that traced back 100+ million years ago could be found, a massive sedimentary layer that suggested a relatively recent global flood occurred should be found.


And about the ark, there is no known wood that could have maintained the structure of a vessel that large. The Bible specifically outlines its dimensions, and its dimensions are comparable to aircraft carriers. There is no known wood that has the strength to maintain a vessel that large.

[Aglandiir]

Aggy, if you're going to say that sources that speak of things that happened 170 years prior are irrelevant, than I hope you didn't learn history in school.

History books draw on hundreds of unrelated, cited, third-party sources, all of which eventually trace back to primary sources which were created at the time the events occured. The books also generally include eyewitness accounts and the like; those must always be taken with a grain of salt. A little care must be taken because of the possibility of biased sources and after-the-fact editing, but still... even if any one source can be called into question in a history book, there are many others which would need to be questioned separately.

The Talmud, as far as I know, was based on religious records, the Bible, Roman documents and oral history. Oral history is always suspect, and gets more so the further through time it travels. Religious records and Roman documents are just documentation of mundane facts and did not contribute to the story about Jesus. If I'm wrong about that, please show me evidence. The Bible, the lone remaining source, is what we're arguing about, and thus it cannot be assumed to be true (circular reasoning again). I'm not arguing about the mundane details of the Talmud which are backed up by Roman documents. I only distrust the parts which are supported by oral history and the Bible, since neither has been shown to be a good source for the information it's used for in this case. The parts about Jesus fall into that category, so using the Talmud as evidence of Jesus' miracles is relying on a suspect source.

Similarly, I don't dispute the mundane parts of the Bible... or really, any part which is backed up by third-party, independent sources. I only dispute the parts which are not, as I would for any historical account.

One last note on the speculation, unless somebody responds to this in a coherent and respectful manner: the scenario I came up with is very strange. So is, as Checkmate admits, the Bible's scenario. Two strange versions of events, both of which are plausible (from a totally objective standpoint). Assume I have no beliefs at all. Why should I believe the Bible's strange story instead of mine? If you don't have a useful answer to that question, then don't answer it.

[Ash_300]

It's called an analogy. Consider this: a person labors over a computer program he has worked on for many years. Finally, his work is done and he has his own limited AI creations in their own virtual world. Now these little programs have their own free thought, and begin to wonder how they came about to be. They consider perhaps a Creator, but that does not make sense because a program cannot create a program on its own. So they eventually assume that there was no intelligent direction in their design; much to the fascination of the original Designer. Sound somewhat limited? People are misinterpreting the idea of a God and Creator. The term is 'create', meaning to make something.

A great movie could be adapted from this "analogy" but it cannot logically be argued that it is the same as what God apparently did. The reason being that "AI creations" have not actually been made yet(if they have then please enlighten me). Thus, your little scenario is based only on your ideas, those of a human individual, and so it cannot be assumed that "AI creations" would think the way that you have proposed that they may think. In short, your "analogy" is a human interpretation of the way that an "AI creation" would think and therefore does not add credibility or clarity to your argument. I am not trying to argue against your beliefs. I am simply trying to understand the actual reasoning behind your claims.

Sorry but I still do not understand why you think people are misinterpreting the idea of God and Creator. I think it would be helpful if in your next reply you will explain what you think the differences between the two are.

[Sorovis]

Sorry but I still do not understand why you think people are misinterpreting the idea of God and Creator. I think it would be helpful if in your next reply you will explain what you think the differences between the two are.

What I am trying to say is that people seem to be assuming that God could not exist because He defies various laws and ideas, ie., how could He exist when there was nothing to cause His existence, or how come their is no solid physical evidence of Him. People are looking past the idea that He is God and the Creator, meaning that He has created everything; not just some things, and therefore is not dictated by His own Creations. In a computer game, is the designer bound by the two minute time limit that they created? Only if they wish to be. So God should be viewed as: not subject or at the mercy of His own laws and Creations but the master of them.


One last note on the speculation, unless somebody responds to this in a coherent and respectful manner: the scenario I came up with is very strange. So is, as Checkmate admits, the Bible's scenario. Two strange versions of events, both of which are plausible (from a totally objective standpoint). Assume I have no beliefs at all. Why should I believe the Bible's strange story instead of mine? If you don't have a useful answer to that question, then don't answer it.

Because Checkmate's piece of speculation would be supported and become much more plausible upon proving the existence of God and Jesus, along with Jesus's miracles being true. Once God is proven to exist, it would not be proposterous to claim that He may have a Son; if Jesus is proved to perform miracles and to be sinless as is claimed, then it would no longer be ridiculous to claim that He is the Son of God. What you have speculated, again, is that Christianity was concocted by the twelve Apostles for some reason regarding their own benefit. Again, the problem with this is you have done nothing to support it; no documents noting how Luke had psychological problems or Simon Peter had a drug addiction. Then of course there is the shear fact that as is stands it is totally illogical; The Apostles would not be famous and highly renowned as doctors and historians if they were known to be insane; if they were not insane and just inventing their own religion, you still must overcome the reason as of why they would do such a thing when there were no obvious benefits (unless death and torment count as benefits, which would circle back to the argument that the Twelve were insane).

[Rei_Zero]

But our speculation does have evidence. It's called psychological evidence, and it talks about how people think.

[Sorovis]

Please, Rei, think before you post. I just listed reasons as to why that speculation is extremely improbable to the point where it is unjustifiable to use it in a debate. Psychological evidence is great, unless it contradicts with known history. Until I see a reliable site regarding 'Luke the Mad' there is no basis to calling any one of the Apostles insane or even unreasonable to degree of potential importance.

[Rei_Zero]

One does not have to be insane when they are trying to idolize themselves. Besides, I'm not sure but I don't believe Meglomania was considered a disorder back then.

[Sorovis]

It would have been recorded and noted in their personalites. I can also say that I wouldn't try to make myself famous by starting a religion when I knew I would probably get me thrown and tied in a sac of venemous snakes and scorpions and then thrown into a river. I'm with Raz; I like to live.

[Aglandiir]

Because Checkmate's piece of speculation would be supported and become much more plausible upon proving the existence of God and Jesus, along with Jesus's miracles being true. Once God is proven to exist, it would not be proposterous to claim that He may have a Son; if Jesus is proved to perform miracles and to be sinless as is claimed, then it would no longer be ridiculous to claim that He is the Son of God.

Agreed. But you gloss right over the fact that such proof has not been forthcoming. Can you prove the existance of God and Jesus' miracles without using the Bible, or anything which draws on the Bible, such as the Talmud?

I highly doubt that it would be possible to prove my speculative scenario true. There are no documents about Paul the Mad. But the scenario is nevertheless plausible. If the Bible cannot be proven without relying on itself for proof, then my totally unsupported scenario is just as likely as the Bible's totally unsupported scenario. They have equal standing to an impartial observer, thus turning it in to a question of personal preference more than anything else.

About your discussion of the nature of God... yes, it's true that God might not be governed by the laws of His own creations. But that still doesn't address the counter-claim: the universe itself could possibly exist outside of the laws that apply to everything inside the universe. In other words, if God could just "exist" without a beginning or an end, then the universe could, too, without a need for a God to create it. We know nothing of the conditions or laws, or lack thereof, which would apply in either case.

[Sorovis]

Agreed. But you gloss right over the fact that such proof has not been forthcoming. Can you prove the existance of God and Jesus' miracles without using the Bible, or anything which draws on the Bible, such as the Talmud?

Yes. God can be proven by logics alone which I have labored on in the past and will do so in the future. As for the miracles Jesus has done, that I will argue with a more heated fervor when I have more time available.


I highly doubt that it would be possible to prove my speculative scenario true. There are no documents about Paul the Mad. But the scenario is nevertheless plausible. If the Bible cannot be proven without relying on itself for proof, then my totally unsupported scenario is just as likely as the Bible's totally unsupported scenario. They have equal standing to an impartial observer, thus turning it in to a question of personal preference more than anything else.

I agree, which is why Checkmate and I may actually have to put some time and thought in this debate from now on. I also understand how strange the concept of the Son of God may seem to one who does not follow the Christian faith; it has seemed strange to me at points of my life.


About your discussion of the nature of God... yes, it's true that God might not be governed by the laws of His own creations. But that still doesn't address the counter-claim: the universe itself could possibly exist outside of the laws that apply to everything inside the universe. In other words, if God could just "exist" without a beginning or an end, then the universe could, too, without a need for a God to create it. We know nothing of the conditions or laws, or lack thereof, which would apply in either case.

The universe itself simply existing out of existence is not really plausible at all; that would completely duck the question of what then created time, what created energy and mass? Matter must come from something; and a thoughtless surround of the universe itself is certainly not an answer.

[Toxicity]

Great. Another battle of religious views and chaos in which my words (might) cause a small peace time, but usually I am un-noticed. *sighs* In fact, I agree with Kris right now.

How is their proof in which religion is correct? From what I can say: I dunno. I personally am question a "great flood" of happening: if 220 meters were added to sea level, the whole world wouldn't be affected(in fact, I heard they predict in 1,000 years, Florida up to Lake Okechobee would be part of the Carribean/Atlantic). Besides, despite the rising temperatures that happened during the High Middle Ages(1000-1300) which was followed by a "little ice age" was a mere pattern over time. There are no records of a mass global warming of happening long ago, at least from proof so far...but there has been "little ice ages" like back in the 1300s. So, is it like The Day After Tomorrow has taught us: Our end might be a dramatic "little ice age"?

And with the creation of the universe and possible parallel universes, there must be a need for something to be created? How could a single being form if there was nothing? As I've read in Dan Brown's Angels and Demons, God, Buddha, etc. could've been created when matter merged with anti-matter...now there creates controversy considering how something could form out of nothing. All I will say on that is that religion and science when against each other gets us nowhere. However, if religion and science were to stop for once, we might be getting somewhere.

And how are miracles possible? Many Christians believe that pagans and witchcraft have the complete opposite of miracles, but merely that is their belief and they are only trying to find a cure or find love or the like? Miracles, however, much like magic, are found unproven. Much like the Torah, the Bible has the "miracles" written centuries after they were believed to take place, in which storytelling by a bard, etc. is in which probably the only document. But...is there still a way to find proof without the Bible for answers(as Angladiir suggested)?

-Questioning shown here brought to you by a girl who's name is coincidentaly that of two Catholic saints...oO

[Rei_Zero]

It could easily have been fabricated :nut: Anyways, I think we've reached another moot point Sorovis. So what is this logic u speakth of?

[Gavin Luper]

Christians (like myself) - and followers of any faith, really - do not need any proof of the bible or their God to believe and know that it is true. As such, I don't believe that the so-called facts that humans have come up with themselves (such as science) can determine the existence or non-existence of God, or prove the possibility of what the bible has detailed, such as the Great Flood or miracles.

It also goes without saying that nobody can prove or disprove the bible and religion in general. Therefore, I'm thinking that everyone in the world is entitled to believe what they want to believe without having their beliefs questioned or ridiculed.

That's my two bob's worth anyway, cheers!

[The Muffin Man]

Yes. God can be proven by logics alone which I have labored on in the past and will do so in the future. As for the miracles Jesus has done, that I will argue with a more heated fervor when I have more time available.

Remind me, was it your or Checkmate who said something about how God didn't obey the same laws of physics, etc. that humans did?

So what is it, really? God does follow the same logic and physics and everything he does we can do(Logic and physics don't allow the totally impossible) or God is above them?

[Sorovis]

I am trying to convey that God as the Creator would have created physics and matter along with the rest of the Universe, and so would not be limited by his own creations. This is not to say that God would be unable to interact with humans by doing miracles or perhaps contacting various people, but that asking a question of what Created Him would be useless. Not being a physical entity, you see, or event, God really cannot be caused at all.

As for the actual proof of an Intelligent Designer's existence, one can look towards the original cause of life, the beginning of the Universe, etc.. Again, I will begin delving further very soon.

[The Muffin Man]

I am trying to convey that God as the Creator would have created physics and matter along with the rest of the Universe, and so would not be limited by his own creations.
A creator is not neccasarily unlimited in what he uses to create.


This is not to say that God would be unable to interact with humans by doing miracles or perhaps contacting various people, but that asking a question of what Created Him would be useless. Not being a physical entity, you see, or event, God really cannot be caused at all.

As for the actual proof of an Intelligent Designer's existence, one can look towards the original cause of life, the beginning of the Universe, etc.. Again, I will begin delving further very soon.

In other words, you have no clue and need to find some sites to copy/paste from...

[Sorovis]

Or perhaps it means, unlike you, I possess the capacity to actually fathom such concepts and to study them further. I am actually reading a book at the time regarding the Creation and evidence both logical and evidential that supports the existence of an intelligent God.

[The Muffin Man]

Or perhaps it means unlike you I possess the capacity to actually fathom such concepts and to study them further. I am actually reading a book at the time regarding the Creation and evidence both logical and evidential that supports the existence of God.

Waitwaitwait. This is a golden one.

From the boneheaded structure of that sentence, what I get is that you fathom the way God works...OR that you fathom HOW God works...*Snickers*Oh god that's classic...

And what book are you reading, exactly? I just love how you give your information, but never a source.

Please. Post some LOGICAL evidence that an all-powerful being exists.

Logic - "VALID reasoning". You've given no valid reasoning as to why you're right. Merely insulted people who don't agree, and say "Oh well I said it already so I'm not gonna waste my time saying it again."

Humor me. Don't give me this "LOLZ WEL CHECKMATE SED IT I WONT REPEAT IT" bull****. That's just proving you DON'T have any argument. So go on. Give me an actual argument. Give me a logical reason that God HAS to exist. And do it without using the Bible once. Don't prove with what you're trying to prove.

[phaedrus]

intelligent God.


HAHA OMFG LOLZ :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

like THAT's gonna ever happen. :rolleyes:

[Sorovis]

Waitwaitwait. This is a golden one.

From the boneheaded structure of that sentence, what I get is that you fathom the way God works...OR that you fathom HOW God works...*Snickers*Oh god that's classic...

Sounds like someone doesn't understand what the term concept means.


And what book are you reading, exactly? I just love how you give your information, but never a source.

And I especially love how you never give anything. Please, at least benefit to the thread.


Please. Post some LOGICAL evidence that an all-powerful being exists.

Logic - "VALID reasoning". You've given no valid reasoning as to why you're right. Merely insulted people who don't agree, and say "Oh well I said it already so I'm not gonna waste my time saying it again."

Humor me. Don't give me this "LOLZ WEL CHECKMATE SED IT I WONT REPEAT IT" bull****. That's just proving you DON'T have any argument. So go on. Give me an actual argument. Give me a logical reason that God HAS to exist. And do it without using the Bible once. Don't prove with what you're trying to prove.

Very well:

By the complexity of the very Universe which we exist in, the existence of an Intelligent Creator is a concept that is the arguably the best explanation for both the origin of the Universe itself and the existence of the of life. One counter-argument which I will use as an example is simply that time itself is infinate, thus God could not have come about without time already in existence. This is easily countered due to a further thinking; if this was true then it must be assumed that time itself has always been around and thus must be infinate. What is the problem with this? If time were infinate and had gone on for a period of time unending, then it is logically impossible that we could be at this very period of time now. With no beginning, there can be no end, and their can be no point and time past that beginning because there is no beginning for that period to come from. One cannot reach point B when there is no point A. Therefore, from all of this it can be speculated safely that time is not absolute and thus God is not necessarily bound by time. A discovery made by Einstein some time ago is that the Universe is both expanding and decelerating. The only instance in which such a thing may occur is in an explosion; but certainly if the Universe were exploding it must have had a beginning? That seemed the logical answer. Moving right along, a concept easily understood by the vast majority of logical contemplators of this issue is that matter does not come from nothing; events do not happen without a cause. So how is it possible the Universe is a random occurance, and life the product of this random occurance? It is not; no matter cannot create matter, and no energy cannot create both negative and positive energy with no precursor available. With no particular direction given, assuming the Universe manifested itself from nothing with no purpose at all, the developement of life could not have progressed this far; in one obviously apparant direction. Now relying on the existence of God, which will be explained even more below, a master of the Universe which has complete control over every aspect and physical property would also have the power to go beyond such things; extradimensional phenomina such as Heaven and Hell, the Trinity, and miracles all become a possibility worth noting.

Stanley Miller's experiment which supposedly yields evidence suggesting that life itself had originated from simplistic chemical reactions. The experiment itself, however, over time have only expanded ideas on the actual beginning of life itself. Miller admitted that a large degree of the chemicals located in his simulated Early Earth atmosphere were most likely not present during the actual developement stages of Earth; likewise it has become apparant that if any life at all were to have originated at this time it would have been in total chaos as Earth was bombarded by space debree from the developing Solar System. Miller's experiment nonetheless yielded simplistic amino acids; only two different types, but a suggestion of perhaps the simplistic beginnings of life. These two amino acids, however, create more problems than they provide answers. As I have previously stated more than some forty different types of amino acids are necessary to sustain even the simplest form of life. It has been largely agreed that living organisms and systems are distinguishable from nonliving structures by their intricate arrangements which lead to performing biological functions. Living organisms may distinguish themselves from the nonliving by their capacity to process energy, store energy, and replicate. What also must be clarified at this point is that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection could not apply to the earliest forms of life; the theory itself states that living organisms are in a state capable of competing with eachother and reproduction. At the time of the beginning of life, this cannot be possible unless life itself instantly went from random molecular structures to complex organized living structures. Thus the origin of life cannot be said to follow Darwin's age-old system of 'the best adapted survive'. A sign of the early forms of life that effectively conveys the blatant complexity of living systems is that of the catalysts. ATP and glucose react generally at an extremely slow rate; it is basically impossible for the two molecules to mantain position long enough for an actual chemical reaction at this pace. Due to the presence of a protein molecule that would function as a catalyst, however, both the ATP and glucose are able to increase the rate of the chemical reaction millions of times by attaching themselves to the catalyst in such a delicate way that optimizes their position in relation to one another. Not only is this quite clearly beyond the capability of any non-living system and almost certainly nearly impossible to happen randomly while establishing a system of reproduction, and, essentially life, but it becomes even more complex as well. The surface features of the catalyst must be extremely exact for the ATP and glucose to attach and accelerate the reaction. In the protein catalyst itself, L-amino acids, which come in some twenty varieties, must be joined in a very exact way by peptide bonds. While every single amino acid does not have to be in the exactly correct place, some fifty-percent of the sites and acids are quite necessary. The results of even one of these important amino acids being out of place is catastrophic; as is apparent in the case of sickle cell anemia. Thus it can be seen that life, even the most basic form of it, is incredibly complex and cannot come to being due to random chance. There are simply too many things necessary for life which cannot be retained unless a system of accurate replication is accomplished, which would suggest that life has already occured anyways.

This is merely a taste of what I have been studying with a more heated fervor in these past few days. My argument, what you have seen above, is not even half complete, and I will most likely be unable to present the finished until several days from now. But this should nonetheless serve as evidence that I am actually researching into my own topic; something that I have only been forced to do once or twice in the past; once with Brain, once with The Rusted One. If anyone is interested, the major source of my studies is a book called The Creation Hypothesis, made by a variety of authors each covering their own respective points or perhaps overlapping to corroborate with eachother with complementary evidence or logics in some cases. Please be patient; it will be some time before I am finally ready to engage in a full out debate regarding this topic. Such an argument as I am attempting to wield requires a great amount of time and thought. Until I am completely ready, I will remain here just to keep the comments in check until I am finally prepared.

[The Muffin Man]

Nice copy/paste job. Now to shoot it down:


Therefore, from all of this it can be speculated safely that time is not absolute and thus God is not necessarily bound by time.

So your 'logic' is that "Because Time is not absolute, God is not necessarily bound by it"...you're...kidding right? Please tell me you are.That can't be what you're basing your faith on.


Moving right along, a concept easily understood by the vast majority of logical contemplators of this issue is that matter does not come from nothing; events do not happen without a cause.

Alright smart guy, where did God come from if nothing just 'happens'?


Darwin's theory of Natural Selection could not apply to the earliest forms of life;

...so cells don't compete whatsoever? There will always be enough food for single-celled organisms to survive indefinetly, and have no need to replicate into more complex creatures to get a heads up on other organisms?


Thus it can be seen that life, even the most basic form of it, is incredibly complex and cannot come to being due to random chance.

Do you even know how random chances work?
Let's assume that you live forever. There is a 1 in one million chance that you will turn into a balloon animal for an hour. You live forever, so that 1 in 1 million chance has plenty of time when it has to hit the exact right moment. Billions of years makes a 1 in 1 million chance seem pretty insignificant.

Your last paragraph looks more like you want us to believe you DIDN'T copy/paste/edit all that.

Now, first things wrong - You're going off ONE book that obviously supports your side. You're not even bothering to consider that evolution might be correct, only that creationism is right and that's that.

[Sorovis]

So I see you are either too lazy to actually disect my entire point or incapable. May be both actually. In any case, I imagine at least a few of these 'counters' may have already been answered in the paragraph itself. By the way, that is of my own composition thank you very much.


Nice copy/paste job. Now to shoot it down:

So your 'logic' is that "Because Time is not absolute, God is not necessarily bound by it"...you're...kidding right? Please tell me you are.That can't be what you're basing your faith on.

Looks like you've failed to 'shoot it down' here. My entire point here, sorry if you missed it, is that time is not absolute and thus does not absolutely bind God. If time had been around forever and ever, with an infinate timeline going both ways, it would be difficult to argue that God was not working under time and existing under time. That however is not the case.


Alright smart guy, where did God come from if nothing just 'happens'?

Paying attention is of the essence; I said that matter and energy could not simply spontaneously appear, then stated that God is neither of these. I have also stated at some point that God is after all the Creator of both of these.


...cells don't compete whatsoever? There will always be enough food for single-celled organisms to survive indefinetly, and have no need to replicate into more complex creatures to get a heads up on other organisms?

What I said was that unless the stages of the development of life went from absolutely no life to absolutely life, the developing life could not compete because it would be totally incapable of doing so.

Secondly where did you get that? I completely explained that Natural Selection could not apply while life was developing. You must have looked over that, right? Read the rest of the paragraph, please.


Do you even know how random chances work?
Let's assume that you live forever. There is a 1 in one million chance that you will turn into a balloon animal for an hour. You live forever, so that 1 in 1 million chance has plenty of time when it has to hit the exact right moment. Billions of years makes a 1 in 1 million chance seem pretty insignificant.

And yet I never specified how great the odds of any of this happening were. Let me give you a hint: I remember reading they are somewhere around one in ten to the twentieth power.


Your last paragraph looks more like you want us to believe you DIDN'T copy/paste/edit all that.

Now, first things wrong - You're going off ONE book that obviously supports your side. You're not even bothering to consider that evolution might be correct, only that creationism is right and that's that.

You have done a terrible job at 'shooting it down' I would like to say first. Secondly, claim all you want that I merely copied my argument; I am telling you I did not and that is all I will bother to say, considering you have proven to be ridiculously stubborn and close-minded in the past (and I am sure if I were not saying something here that you would take what I just said and in some way try and make it look as if I were being hypocritical). And please, if you want to represent the other side feel free to do so. What I have read makes sense to me. I still believe in evolution, so I have no idea where you are getting that from. Honestly though, ever heard of taking action? It's the difference between you saying 'there's other stuff' and actually trying to use that 'other stuff' against me.

[The Muffin Man]

So I see you are either too lazy to actually disect my entire point or incapable. May be both actually. In any case, I imagine at least a few of these 'counters' may have already been answered in the paragraph itself. By the way, that is of my own composition thank you very much.


I dissected what made the least sense to be considered an argument. If you wanna stop belittling everyone who argues against you, maybe this topic wouldn't have degraded to me and you arguing.

God is neither matter nor energy. He's a concept. A thought. Meaning he has no actual form.

I WOULD disect the rest of your post, but it essentially boils down to "Nuh-uh! You didn't get it! No! That's not it! Nope! No that's not what I said! Uh-uh!"

Stop picking at technicalities, stop copy/pasting your arguments, and give me an actual responce as to why there HAS to be a god. None of this biased bullshit, no using the bible to prove the bible, no claiming God isn't constrained by time or physics(There's a thing for that...it's called "thought").

Until them I will just copy and paste this post until you decide to actually bring up points, rather than the same old "Nuh uh, I proved you wrong."

Or you can accept I don't have your beliefs and walk away, because there's no possible way you will convince me otherwise. Or anyone else. Stop wasting everyones time, Sorovis. You are not changing anything. You're wasting your breath. Now be a big kid and walk away now.

[phaedrus]

I dissected what made the least sense to be considered an argument. If you wanna stop belittling everyone who argues against you, maybe this topic wouldn't have degraded to me and you arguing.

God is neither matter nor energy. He's a concept. A thought. Meaning he has no actual form.

I WOULD disect the rest of your post, but it essentially boils down to "Nuh-uh! You didn't get it! No! That's not it! Nope! No that's not what I said! Uh-uh!"

Stop picking at technicalities, stop copy/pasting your arguments, and give me an actual responce as to why there HAS to be a god. None of this biased bullshit, no using the bible to prove the bible, no claiming God isn't constrained by time or physics(There's a thing for that...it's called "thought").

Until them I will just copy and paste this post until you decide to actually bring up points, rather than the same old "Nuh uh, I proved you wrong."

Or you can accept I don't have your beliefs and walk away, because there's no possible way you will convince me otherwise. Or anyone else. Stop wasting everyones time, Sorovis. You are not changing anything. You're wasting your breath. Now be a big kid and walk away now.


looks like soro just got owned. :wave:

seconding this. i been watching, and sorovis is just failing to deliver.

1. time is absolute. perception is what lengthens it.
2. Matter nor energy can be created, only transformed.
3.
Paying attention is of the essence; I said that matter and energy could not simply spontaneously appear, then stated that God is neither of these. I have also stated at some point that God is after all the Creator of both of these.

that must mean God is a concept. if God isn't matter or energy, then WHAT IS IT?

[Sorovis]

Honestly strat, is that a serious comment? Have you read the post where I just explained why God must exist or have you simply ignored it yourself? It would be very wise of you to actually attempt to support what you have just stated, because quite honestly that falls short of what I have asked for in this debate, as well as logic. As for The Muffin Man, who is now on my Ignore List, just reread my original response to you regarding evidence for God. That is all I need for my counter.

And please strat, learn how to read, not how to selective read. One is bad, the other good.

[The Muffin Man]

I dissected what made the least sense to be considered an argument. If you wanna stop belittling everyone who argues against you, maybe this topic wouldn't have degraded to me and you arguing.

God is neither matter nor energy. He's a concept. A thought. Meaning he has no actual form.

I WOULD disect the rest of your post, but it essentially boils down to "Nuh-uh! You didn't get it! No! That's not it! Nope! No that's not what I said! Uh-uh!"

Stop picking at technicalities, stop copy/pasting your arguments, and give me an actual responce as to why there HAS to be a god. None of this biased bullshit, no using the bible to prove the bible, no claiming God isn't constrained by time or physics(There's a thing for that...it's called "thought").

Until them I will just copy and paste this post until you decide to actually bring up points, rather than the same old "Nuh uh, I proved you wrong."

Or you can accept I don't have your beliefs and walk away, because there's no possible way you will convince me otherwise. Or anyone else. Stop wasting everyones time, Sorovis. You are not changing anything. You're wasting your breath. Now be a big kid and walk away now.


*Snickers at the thought of "Why God MUST exist"*

[Da Fragger]

Holy crap. Hey The Muffin Man, strat, read what Sorovis posted like about a page ago. Not that I actually agree with all of it, but it actually makes sense. Then I see what you post in response and its like bashing my head against a wall made of spikes.

[phaedrus]

Honestly strat, is that a serious comment? Have you read the post where I just explained why God must exist or have you simply ignored it yourself? It would be very wise of you to actually attempt to support what you have just stated, because quite honestly that falls short of what I have asked for in this debate, as well as logic. As for The Muffin Man, who is now on my Ignore List, just reread my original response to you regarding evidence for God. That is all I need for my counter.

And please strat, learn how to read, not how to selective read. One is bad, the other good.

1. suffered the case of TOO LONG, DIDN'T READ.
2. yes, it is serious. you fail to deliver. :wag:
3. prove why God must exist before using it as a basis for "you're a dip**** and your arguments are wrong"
4. "reread" is sure a great counter. :rolleyes:
5. "selective read" is what GETS YOU INTO HARVARD/PRINCETON, on the SAT or ACT. "selective read" is what i like to call "getting you places". "read" gets you places, but not as fast.
6. maybe buddhist logic is at a too high of a level for a christian like you. :wave:
7. i have supported myself enough. you suffer a case of accusation-itis. accusing people too much, just because you can't do it yourself. once again, you fail to deliver. :wag:

if i must, supports for 1-3 (Previous Post)

1. how is time absolute? it's a measurement. if the measurement isn't absolute, then time shouldn't exist.
2. law of conservation. i believe it's part of Newton's Second Law, if i remember correctly.
3. no matter or energy, no existance.

[The Muffin Man]

Holy crap. Hey The Muffin Man, strat, read what Sorovis posted like about a page ago. Not that I actually agree with all of it, but it actually makes sense. Then I see what you post in response and its like bashing my head against a wall made of spikes.

Do you actually know what I'm asking for? Or do you just pick around it?

He did not prove anything. It did not make any sense proving Gods existance. He is an elitist jerk who thinks he can change our minds as long as he can bombard us with roundedabout logic.

[Da Fragger]

"Please. Post some LOGICAL evidence that an all-powerful being exists."

That was YOU and what YOU asked for. That is what YOU got. I swear to god I understood it and so did he, so why cant you? It's not rocket science or anything. Its not like I love Sorovis because I also think he is kind of a jerk, but still. Geez. No wonder he hates you so much.

[phaedrus]

"Please. Post some LOGICAL evidence that an all-powerful being exists."

That was YOU and what YOU asked for. That is what YOU got. I swear to god I understood it and so did he, so why cant you? It's not rocket science or anything. Its not like I love Sorovis because I also think he is kind of a jerk, but still. Geez. No wonder he hates you so much.

No wonder both of us hate both of you so much.

[Sorovis]

1. suffered the case of TOO LONG, DIDN'T READ.

That should support my case enough. How do you plan to debate somebody if you don't even bother to read their posts? Sounds ridiculous to me.


1. how is time absolute? it's a measurement. if the measurement isn't absolute, then time shouldn't exist.

Refer back to my infinate time point: If time went on infinately in the past, it would be impossible to be at the current point we are at now; with no beginning, there can be no current existence or time. Once again, one cannot reach point B without starting from point A.


3. no matter or energy, no existance.

My point though is that God is neither but instead is an existence beyond that of His own creations; ie., matter and energy.

[phaedrus]

That should support my case enough. How do you plan to debate somebody if you don't even bother to read their posts? Sounds ridiculous to me.

as i've seen before, i'll say it here: Even if you win a debate [on the Internet], you're still retarded. i do read posts. you sound ridiculous to me. also, note how i apparently "selective read", not "DIDN'T READ".



Refer back to my infinate time point: If time went on infinately in the past, it would be impossible to be at the current point we are at now; with no beginning, there can be no current existence or time. Once again, one cannot reach point B without starting from point A.

1. one who cannot say "inifinite time" doesn't believe in infinite time.
2. beginning = Big Bang
3. so, Point A = Big Bang, and Point B = Now. i think the big bang is a beginning point. that's a beginning. time didn't exist until the world existed. asshat.



My point though is that God is neither but instead is an existence beyond that of His own creations; ie., matter and energy.

seems quite like a communist or a dictator, i'd have to say. apparently, because this God is above all of "His own creations", this God is a fruitcake, because a "Rightful Ruler" would let himself be bound by his own laws.

do you not see that matter and energy are needed to exist? no matter or energy, no existence. :rolleyes:

you're still failing to deliver. :wag:

[The Muffin Man]

as i've seen before, i'll say it here: Even if you win a debate [on the Internet], you're still retarded. i do read posts. you sound ridiculous to me. also, note how i apparently "selective read", not "DIDN'T READ".




1. one who cannot say "inifinite time" doesn't believe in infinite time.
2. beginning = Big Bang
3. so, Point A = Big Bang, and Point B = Now. i think the big bang is a beginning point. that's a beginning. time didn't exist until the world existed. asshat.




seems quite like a communist or a dictator, i'd have to say. apparently, because this God is above all of "His own creations", this God is a fruitcake, because a "Rightful Ruler" would let himself be bound by his own laws.

do you not see that matter and energy are needed to exist? no matter or energy, no existence. :rolleyes:

you're still failing to deliver. :wag:

Well, there is ANTI-matter, but the name alone implies it is quite impossible.

[phaedrus]

Well, there is ANTI-matter, but the name alone implies it is quite impossible.

anti-matter is "no matter." no matter, no existence. so if God is "ANTI-matter" (deduced from Sorovis' claim that God is "above matter"), then God does not exist, because ANTI-matter means "no matter," which means no existence.

[Sorovis]

as i've seen before, i'll say it here: Even if you win a debate [on the Internet], you're still retarded. i do read posts. you sound ridiculous to me. also, note how i apparently "selective read", not "DIDN'T READ".

Not necessarily. Obviously intellect alone cannot win a debate, it requires time and charisma (and endurance). And if you're going to selective read just about everything I post, why should I bother to respond to you? Obviously you don't wish to take me seriously; so why should I take you seriously?


1. one who cannot say "inifinite time" doesn't believe in infinite time.
2. beginning = Big Bang
3. so, Point A = Big Bang, and Point B = Now. i think the big bang is a beginning point. that's a beginning. time didn't exist until the world existed. asshat.

But if time did not exist until the world existed, then there could have been no time when the Big Bang happened, and when the Universe was developing. That quite clearly contradicts your 'time is a measurement' point.

And also; what set the Big Bang into motion then? There must have been something, because as I have said events and matter need causing; the Big Bang I would say counts as an event, thus needs something to cause it.


seems quite like a communist or a dictator, i'd have to say. apparently, because this God is above all of "His own creations", this God is a fruitcake, because a "Rightful Ruler" would let himself be bound by his own laws.

You obviously do not understand the concept of Creator. If you could refer back to my example of the lego builder or the (hypothetical) example of the creator and his AI inventions set in their computer environment. That should pretty well explain it.


do you not see that matter and energy are needed to exist? no matter or energy, no existence.

Unless of course there is a God to Create them who is not composed of them, which is what I am proving.

Also, I am not very knowledgable on anti-matter, but I do believe it exists. I am fairly certain it has to do with black holes, but again, I don't know much about it.

[phaedrus]

Not necessarily. Obviously intellect alone cannot win a debate, it requires time and charisma (and endurance). And if you're going to selective read just about everything I post, why should I bother to respond to you? Obviously you don't wish to take me seriously; so why should I take you seriously?

that one, i selectively read, because that one was too long.

1. if you don't want to respond to me, by all means, go ahead. it just means my points go by unchallenged. your pick. your religion or your reputation.
2. i don't take you seriously because you base yourself off the fact that GOD HAS TO EXIST. if you started by proving that, maybe the reputation factor would go up, and maybe i would start to take you more seriously.


But if time did not exist until the world existed, then there could have been no time when the Big Bang happened, and when the Universe was developing. That quite clearly contradicts your 'time is a measurement' point.

time began at the Big Bang. of course, there is no proof of how it happened. like how there's no proof that God exists.


And also; what set the Big Bang into motion then? There must have been something, because as I have said events and matter need causing; the Big Bang I would say counts as an event, thus needs something to cause it.

no one knows how it began. read my previous comment. if you say something needed to cause the Big Bang, then something had to happen that resulted in God.


You obviously do not understand the concept of Creator. If you could refer back to my example of the lego builder or the (hypothetical) example of the creator and his AI inventions set in their computer environment. That should pretty well explain it.

obviously, you do not understand that something had to create God. he can't go "poof, i'm here because i damn well can." unless he is a dictator, of course.


Unless of course there is a God to Create them who is not composed of them, which is what I am proving.

awkward wording, can't tell what the **** you're saying. if God created people, then something had to have created God.


Also, I am not very knowledgable on anti-matter, but I do believe it exists. I am fairly certain it has to do with black holes, but again, I don't know much about it.

When an object gets sucked into a black hole, it becomes anti-matter. In a sense, a black hole is a fat bastard that can't stop eating. There isn't an explanation for the reason why black holes exist, but there are a whole lot of things that don't have reasons or logical explanations. like the existence of God.

[Sorovis]

that one, i selectively read, because that one was too long.

1. if you don't want to respond to me, by all means, go ahead. it just means my points go by unchallenged. your pick. your religion or your reputation.
2. i don't take you seriously because you base yourself off the fact that GOD HAS TO EXIST. if you started by proving that, maybe the reputation factor would go up, and maybe i would start to take you more seriously.

Perhaps you would see that I already have presented numerous reasons supporting God's existence. It's not my fault you have chosen to look over them; nor will I labor again to restate them. If you want to see my argument as of now, you can go back to where I posted it. Have fun.


time began at the Big Bang. of course, there is no proof of how it happened. like how there's no proof that God exists.

The proof that God exists could easily been in the fact that something had to cause the Big Bang. Then of course there is my entire point regarding why life should prove the existence of God. Chances of life coming about on its own is so incredibly unlikely that there is a greater chance that within one hour I will be killed when a piece of straw is thrown down my throat by a tornado rotating counterclockwise and going East at fifty-seven miles an hour. Intelligent Design is really the only logical option.


no one knows how it began. read my previous comment. if you say something needed to cause the Big Bang, then something had to happen that resulted in God.

Not if you would consider my point that God does not need causing, because God is not energy or matter because He created both. And then of course remember that God is also not an event; saying that since the Big Bang occured God must as well dismisses the fact that they are two totally different things: one was an occurance; the other an intelligent supreme being.


obviously, you do not understand that something had to create God. he can't go "poof, i'm here because i damn well can." unless he is a dictator, of course.

Consider the term 'God'. Consider the term Creator, or at least in the way I attribute to God. Then consider once again that God is not a limited being as is assumed.


awkward wording, can't tell what the **** you're saying. if God created people, then something had to have created God.

Take it into context with what I was answering and you will see that I was saying that God created both and is comprised of neither. Again, consider the term 'God'. People are different than God, you see, in that they are the creations of a Creator; no endless cycle of Creator/creation is within the realm of proof; only speculation, as so I am going to dismiss any possible future argument regarding such.


When an object gets sucked into a black hole, it becomes anti-matter. In a sense, a black hole is a fat bastard that can't stop eating. There isn't an explanation for the reason why black holes exist, but there are a whole lot of things that don't have reasons or logical explanations. like the existence of God.

Just because God's existence may not have any logical explanation that is confirmed with evidence does not mean He does not exist though, just remember that. In any case, thanks for the information.

[Aglandiir]

When an object is sucked into a black hole, it gets ripped apart to its component atoms. We don't really know what happens after that, since you can't exactly send a probe down there, and even if you could, the nearest black hole is millions of light years away. Black holes do seem to emit odd particles, but I don't believe they're antimatter.

I never really looked into it much, but I believe antimatter is the same as matter, but with an opposite energy state. (Warning: pseudo-math follows) See, E = mc^2 is actually an oversimplified version of the real equation for energy, which boils down to E^2 = m^2c^4. Since the E is squared, the equation has two solutions: one positive and one negative. Normal matter satisfies the positive solution and fits E = mc^2. Antimatter fits the negative-energy solution. It behaves in the same way as normal matter and obeys the same physical laws. Every particle of matter has a corresponding antiparticle; protons, neutrons, and electrons have antiprotons, antineutrons, and positrons, respectively.

If God was created by interaction between matter and antimatter, then God would be energy. Because that's what happens when they meet. When a particle collides with its antiparticle, both become pure energy and disperse.

About the Big Bang, time, and all that junk: scientists are working on it. Remember, time is just a dimension, like the three spacial dimensions we can see and touch. On that note, I suggest you do a little studying on string theory and M-theory... or at least read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Green. As it applies to this debate, it basically says that the Big Bang might not have been the beginning at all... and that our universe might actually exist inside of higher-dimensional constructs of varying shapes. And remember: once you start talking about things outside of the universe, whether they're God or multiverses or whatever, then time has no meaning. Time is a lower dimension; these things exist outside of time, outside of three-dimensional space (though they would have projections in three-space, just like a 3D brick casts a 2D shadow on a wall), and outside of anything our 3D-evolved brains can grasp.

Basically, "everything" might exist in a state similar to what you're claiming about God... except without a God.

And before you get all worked up and say it hasn't been proven yet... don't bother. It doesn't need to be proven to serve a function here; since your arguments on the subject seem to say that God must exist because there is no other explanation... well, M-theory is another explanation. God's got competition.

About the astronomically low chances of life randomly happening: nobody denies it. Trouble is, it's a red-herring argument. The chances could be one billion, one trillion, a zillion to one... it doesn't matter. As long as there is any chance of something happening, no matter how remote, then, given an infinite amount of time, there is a 100% sure-bet chance that it'll happen eventually. Life took 12 billion years to get started on Earth. Sure, given the odds that might seem kinda quick, but it's a random chance. There was just as good a chance for life to start when it did as five billion years earlier or later. If the Earth had been destroyed before life came around, no worries; another suitable planet would eventually crop up somewhere.

Your claims about infinite time being impossible are just totally wrong. You obviously can have a here or a now in something infinite. Space is infinite (to a practical extent), and we are certainly somewhere in space. You don't need a beginning or an end in order to have a meaningful position. Beginnings and ends are just special cases of something much, much more fundamental: reference points. You don't need a reference point to have a position... but having a position is pretty useless if there's nothing to measure it against. Anyway, if time is infinite, we could still exist "now" for one very simple reason: we existed "just a moment ago," and that is a perfectly good reference point by which to measure how far along in time we've traveled.

One reminder: by the definition of God, it is logically impossible to prove that God does not exist. The only option us non-believers have is to provide alternatives. Speaking of the definition of God... there really isn't a meaningful one. That makes it awfully easy for believers to adapt their stories to changing times. God could always exist, just beyond the current limits of our knowledge. Thousands of years ago, he existed above the sky and the stars. Once people started look at space with telescopes, God was beyond the blackness. Then he was outside of the universe itself. He's outside of everything, always one step ahead.

[Pokemaster Matt]

The proof that God exists could easily been in the fact that something had to cause the Big Bang. Then of course there is my entire point regarding why life should prove the existence of God. Chances of life coming about on its own is so incredibly unlikely that there is a greater chance that within one hour I will be killed when a piece of straw is thrown down my throat by a tornado rotating counterclockwise and going East at fifty-seven miles an hour. Intelligent Design is really the only logical option.

Sorry, Sorovis, but you still aren't getting anywhere with this argument. By saying that God must exist, because the Big Bang can't happen without Him, destroys your own argument. I know you think that He's above of us, therefore He doesn't need a logical explaination, but really, it doesn't convince anyone. Like Strat said, he can't go: 'Poof, I exist because I damn well can.'

[Gavin Luper]

I don't see how some of you hope to get anywhere by quoting scientific evidence such as energy and matter and the rest of that crap when trying to prove the non-existence of God. It's all null and void, in my opinion, for a reason which I will attempt to explain.

God, to be frank, is an unknown. Nobody on earth (as far as I believe) would be able to perceive a greater understanding of what He is than what I can imagine. However, God is eternal - he does not die - meaning time does not bind Him.

One of those who don't believe in God (either Strat or TMM i think) brought up Newton's law of conservation of mass. I don't understand how something devised (or "discovered") by a mere human could possibly define God's parameters. I don't think I can fully explain that concept - indeed, it would probably be overlooked if I did anyway - but what I'm saying is that God is eternal, and he is everywhere. God is not like a person, who exists in one single place at any point in time; he is everywhere, throughout the universe, eternally. Suggesting that he is bound by the so-called laws of Physics are rather closed-minded.

The problem today is that people are blinded by what they believe to be concrete - physics and the sciences. Fewer people are questioning beyond that understanding and trying to discover whether those principles, such as Physics, are applicable to every being and everything in the entire universe. In my belief, whether physics is right or wrong, it can not apply to everything. It's like how there's always an exception to the rule - well, God is one. Then again, maybe the rule is an exception to Him. I do not know.

For those of you who read this, I ask you to just consider what I am saying, I definitely do not ask you to agree with it. I simply request your tolerance and open-mindedness in this debate.

Thanks.

- Gavin.

[Brain]

The universe itself simply existing out of existence is not really plausible at all; that would completely duck the question of what then created time, what created energy and mass? Matter must come from something; and a thoughtless surround of the universe itself is certainly not an answer.

So we have the universe, right. The universe is a collection of matter and energy which have a certain spatial configuration. We can thus speak of the "state of the universe" as the quantity of matter and energy the universe has, the spatial configuration is holds, as well as the radius of the universe, and all appropriate properties of the universe that I did not explicitely mention. There are as many possible states for the universe as combinatorial mathematics can come up with.

Now, what is interesting is to link all the possible states together according to a certain set of rules. In other words, you can define functions which will take the state of the universe as input and spit out another state of the universe. Let us have one such function, f, which represents the laws of physics. The laws of physics take the state of the universe as input, and then calculate another state of the universe which is the state of the universe one time quantum later (as far as I know, quantum physics imply the existance of time and space quanta, i.e. time is not continuous and is in fact a succession of "frames", and space is not continuous and is in fact a set of irreducible spatial elements - but that's besides the point for now).

Therefore, you have the following elements:

1- the state of the universe: data
2- the laws of the universe: f: algorithm

How do you make an universe as we know them out of this?

1- you arbitrarily define state zero: s(0) = whatever
2- you define the recursive function: s(t+1) = f(s(t))
3- you launch it: you give state zero to the universe and apply the recursive function on it, then on the result, then again and again and again

Now, from this definition, and from that particular recursion, you can easily see that:

1- every state is entirely calculated from the previous state by f...
2- EXCEPT STATE ZERO

In other words, state zero has no cause. Whatever matter and energy existed at time zero has no origin. It is uncalculated. It was just there, it isn't the consequence of anything, it doesn't come from anywhere. State zero is the FIRST STATE, and as such, it is not subject to any rules as to its composition. The first moment of the universe can be any random junk you want, it doesn't matter one bit, because it is only subject to rules starting with state ONE. The rules apply between the first and second moment, and every interval from there on, but it has no say in the composition of state zero. When you start your computer, it acts in a predictable manner, following strict rules, but it doesn't change the fact that the registers and main memory is full of random junk before the programs clean them, even if no existing program could actually create that random junk.

In other words, no, matter and energy don't have to come from anywhere. Conservation of matter and energy are rules that apply between state zero and state one and every subsequent interval between two states in order to calculate them.


Now you will reiterate that state zero has to be initiated by an intelligent agent, etc. I will therefore pursue my argument in order to show you that it does not have to, and that if it was caused by an intelligent agent, then we would still have the same problem.

When you say "B comes from A", or "A created B" what does that mean? Quite obviously, when someone tells me that, I must conclude that:

1- This is an event. Therefore, there exists an integer t representing the frame of time where the creation occurred.
2- If I create something, it means that this something did not exist before. Therefore, B did not exist before time t.
3- If I create something, it means that this something exists now. Therefore, B exists at time t.
4- Obviously, in order to create something, you have to exist before you created it. Therefore, A existed before B, therefore it existed before time t, therefore it existed at time t-1.
5- Subjectively, A performed an action which resulted in the existence of B. It is the most important thing about creation, but for my argument, it is totally irrelevant.

In any way, when you speak about creation, you must admit the existence of at least two states of the universe. The first state, dubbed s(t-1) is a state in which A exists and B does not exist. The second state, dubbed s(t) is a state in which A may or may not exist, and B exists. Furthermore, the relation which exists between the two states is a relation of chronology. s(t-1) must absolutely precede s(t). To say this, implies the existence of time.

Therefore, time is a logical pre-requisite for creation.

Therefore, time cannot be created.


Now, let us apply the definition of creation to state zero. In this case, B, which is the created object, is all the matter and energy of the universe existing at state zero. Therefore, t = 0 and s(t) = s(0). Therefore, t-1 = -1 and s(t-1) = s(-1).

Therefore, if you wish to say that state zero comes from somewhere (God?), then the process of creation was performed between moment MINUS ONE and moment zero. But that's contradictory, because the first moment is moment zero. There is no moment minus one. And if there is a moment minus one, then from where does s(-1) originate? s(-2)? Now YOU are the one who's talking about a timeline which has no beginning.

In other words, whatever exists at the beginning of time cannot be created by anything, because creation implies that there was a state previous to the state where the creation appears and that is a blatant, obvious contradiction. If the universe was created, then the beginning of our universe was not the beginning of time, it did not occur at state zero, and our timeline is contained within another timeline. From this, one can either conclude to the existence of an infinite timeline or to the existence of a state zero which is uncaused.

When you give an initial state to a program, for that program, that initial state is state zero. From within its own timeline, time starts when you press the "GO" button. However, you must admit that this timeline is enclosed within ours. Therefore, that state zero which is uncaused within that universe, is caused by an event in our timeline. But in our timeline, the state zero of the program is not state zero, and the moment we pressed "GO" is not time zero either. It could not be otherwise. If there is a cause to a state zero, then that state zero is part of a state n in another timeline. If a timeline is the "last" timeline, and that no other timeline encloses it, then state zero is absolutely uncaused, and the matter which seemingly came from nowhere, in fact, didn't come from anywhere (there's a difference). The first moment in the universe had matter and energy which did not come from anywhere, as in, it could not come from something and still be the first moment. This said, the first state is as likely to be nothing, random junk or a bouquet of roses. There is no conceptual difference between the three.

Note that you may calculate a cause to state zero in its own timeline - I call that a virtual cause, or a retropolated (?) cause. The theory of the Big Bang, basically, retropolates the state of the universe until a point where no known rules can cause it. Therefore, time zero cannot have been before that point. However, time zero might have been yesterday. There would be no real cause to this state, however, there would be many virtual causes, as in, states which never actually happened in the timeline but who would have resulted in state zero if they did. It's like a movie - time zero is when the movie starts, and even though there are causes to the first events in the movie, these causes are virtual since they never really happened in the movie.

I'll repeat this: the rules of conservation of matter and energy are applied in each interval between two states, and the first such interval is between states zero and one. State zero is not subject to them. It's an exception, and it could not be otherwise, because it is a logical necessity for it to be an exception. The rules apply recursively and you need a seed to start it off. There's no "cause" to the seed, it just exists, period. If there is a "cause", then IT IS NOT TIME ZERO.

This said, causality is a void concept if time does not exist: a god outside of time cannot cause nor create anything. Saying otherwise is akin to not knowing the language you're speaking in.


Conclusion:

1- Time cannot be created
2- If matter and energy at state zero have a cause, that cause is a state of rank greater than or equal to zero from an enclosing timeline, and then the same reasoning can be applied for the state zero of that timeline ad infinitum or up to the encounter of an uncaused state zero


I'll come back on the "extremely small chances of life occurring" later. In the meantime learn about the "Game of Life", "fractals", "emerging complexity", "self-organizing systems", "statistical entropy" and such. It'll show you some very interesting ideas and examples about simple rules generating very complex structures, and theories about how complexity can come from chaos.

Also understand that the people who calculate these odds usually don't know what they are talking about. The calculations leading to the incredibly small chances you are basing your arguments on, if they weren't taken straight out of context, have been pretty much obliterated by the scientific community.

[Heald]

The Law of the Conservation of Matter

Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed into one form of another.

However, in the beginning, there was only antimatter and matter. When antimatter and matter collide, they are both destroyed. However, because there was more matter than antimatter, there was still matter left over. The reaction of this matter and antimatter colliding caused the Big Bang. It is believed there is no antimatter left in existence.

Also, Sorovis, saying it does not make sense that the universe cannot come to exist on its own is not proof at all. Rather, it just shows that human minds cannot comprehend that possibility. Just because we cannot understand something does not mean that it is not possible. Believe it or not, we are not infallible (except me ;)).

[Sorovis]

About the Big Bang, time, and all that junk: scientists are working on it. Remember, time is just a dimension, like the three spacial dimensions we can see and touch. On that note, I suggest you do a little studying on string theory and M-theory... or at least read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Green. As it applies to this debate, it basically says that the Big Bang might not have been the beginning at all... and that our universe might actually exist inside of higher-dimensional constructs of varying shapes. And remember: once you start talking about things outside of the universe, whether they're God or multiverses or whatever, then time has no meaning. Time is a lower dimension; these things exist outside of time, outside of three-dimensional space (though they would have projections in three-space, just like a 3D brick casts a 2D shadow on a wall), and outside of anything our 3D-evolved brains can grasp.

Basically, "everything" might exist in a state similar to what you're claiming about God... except without a God.

Considering I have only heard of such a theory in the passing it would become necessary for you to perhaps link to a site explaining it, or maybe explain it yourself. Quite obviously I am not going to just take your word on it yet simultaneously I am not going to deny it could be great potential debate material.


About the astronomically low chances of life randomly happening: nobody denies it. Trouble is, it's a red-herring argument. The chances could be one billion, one trillion, a zillion to one... it doesn't matter. As long as there is any chance of something happening, no matter how remote, then, given an infinite amount of time, there is a 100% sure-bet chance that it'll happen eventually. Life took 12 billion years to get started on Earth. Sure, given the odds that might seem kinda quick, but it's a random chance. There was just as good a chance for life to start when it did as five billion years earlier or later. If the Earth had been destroyed before life came around, no worries; another suitable planet would eventually crop up somewhere.

A red herring argument? Not intentionally, nor does it function as one as I will explain. First, twelve-billion years to get started on Earth? From everything I have looked at Earth isn't even twelve-billion years old; I forget what exactly I have read but somewhere between three and five-billion seems much closer to the true number. And here also you assume that ever since the Earth was created there has always been a chance for life to come into being; along with the rest of the planets. This is a flawed assumption. Life quite clearly could not have begun without the necessary gases and elements being present in the atmosphere, and without the necessary molecules to be present as well. The random chance for something to happen is great; but if there are so many settings and situations that must be correct before it even begins, that greatly limits the amount of time life would have had to begin on any given planet. Not only this, but you must consider how incredibly complex the earliest life must have been; I have used catalysts and how precise the two other molecules must be designed in order for the reaction to be accelerated. That would have to happen randomly, first of all, before any life could begin. At the same time, happening randomly in the same place, DNA and RNA would also have to randomly assemble themselves; no simple task, I might remind you. And if a sufficiant means of reproduction was not available at the time, all of this would be lost. Life is simply too complex to have happened by any random chance; unless by Intelligent Design.


Your claims about infinite time being impossible are just totally wrong. You obviously can have a here or a now in something infinite. Space is infinite (to a practical extent), and we are certainly somewhere in space. You don't need a beginning or an end in order to have a meaningful position. Beginnings and ends are just special cases of something much, much more fundamental: reference points. You don't need a reference point to have a position... but having a position is pretty useless if there's nothing to measure it against. Anyway, if time is infinite, we could still exist "now" for one very simple reason: we existed "just a moment ago," and that is a perfectly good reference point by which to measure how far along in time we've traveled.

Yes but if time went on without an end we would not be here yet because time would still be attempting to travel from point A; with no beginning and time simply going farther and farther back, reaching any particular destination becomes impossible; we wouldn't even have reached the creation of our own solar system yet. If time, you see, spanned for infinity, then there would be an infinate amount of time between the beginning of time (point A) and the present time (point B). Try counting backwards from negative infinity and try to reach zero. Not that fun, nor is it even possible.


One reminder: by the definition of God, it is logically impossible to prove that God does not exist. The only option us non-believers have is to provide alternatives. Speaking of the definition of God... there really isn't a meaningful one. That makes it awfully easy for believers to adapt their stories to changing times. God could always exist, just beyond the current limits of our knowledge. Thousands of years ago, he existed above the sky and the stars. Once people started look at space with telescopes, God was beyond the blackness. Then he was outside of the universe itself. He's outside of everything, always one step ahead.

Because He's God. The concept of a God is that they are above physical matter and energy; this one that He is the Creator. Is it so unreasonably ridiculous to claim that the ultimate supreme being would not be sitting right next to the farthest star? Back in that period of time, space was the limit to their thinking, thus God would be right beyond it. When we learned about the Universe and its extent, God was not there because that was within percievable knowledge. In truth, God is everywhere, as I believe Gavin Luper stated. You will not find God made of energy and matter because He is the Creator. It is a concept that must be understood before debating such a matter.

Well it seems that once again Brain has forced me to back down from the claim that God is not governed by time. If I am to find a counter for this, or perhaps set aside the time to reread the post to every detail (I understand it completely; for flaws, I mean), then I will attempt to resume this argument. For now, though, it goes to Brain as I have previously stated. I am however much more prepared to go about arguing the probability of the occurance of life, so it is much more doubtful, Brain, that I will back down on that specific point without at least a few posts on my part.

But I do still have a few questions and points regarding that post nonetheless: first and foremost, God, as you have stated, must have created the Universe and the Beginning under time (in which you also say that it must not have been the Beginning if time was taken to create it), to which I will ask if that necessarily means that God Himself exists under time, or simply operates under time? I suspect this point may be ignorant to something you have already posted, but if you would be so kind as to direct me to where it was answered I will be glad to read it again. If not, that as of now is my only standing point aside from speculations as to how other dimensions may affect our perception of this very topic; if you want to continue something on that issue, please state so and I will be happy to further state my ideas.


Also, Sorovis, saying it does not make sense that the universe cannot come to exist on its own is not proof at all. Rather, it just shows that human minds cannot comprehend that possibility. Just because we cannot understand something does not mean that it is not possible. Believe it or not, we are not infallible (except me ;)).

An argument suggesting that the actual cause of the Universe may not be comprehendable to humans is moreso speculation than anything else; it also benefits the other side. In which case all I have to say is 'maybe the concept of God and the way He works is beyond the realm of human understanding'. For lack of an argument, however, and the fact that I am still laboring to prove God exists in the first place, I cannot and will not.


Sorry, Sorovis, but you still aren't getting anywhere with this argument. By saying that God must exist, because the Big Bang can't happen without Him, destroys your own argument. I know you think that He's above of us, therefore He doesn't need a logical explaination, but really, it doesn't convince anyone. Like Strat said, he can't go: 'Poof, I exist because I damn well can.'

First of all: think of the concept of God. Then, remember that I have stated repeatedly that God is not matter nor is He energy, nor is He an event; thus He does not need causing. In order to argue a person who claims that as God the Creator is above mass and energy, you cannot say 'that doesn't make sense who made him?' because I have already stated that as God, and the fact that He is not composed of physical properties and elements, He does not need to be created. From now on, I might as well do The Muffin Man's favorite thing and copy/paste this argument, because it looks like I will be repeating many times in the future. In order for you to disprove all of this by the way, you must first disprove the existence of God. Remember that.