NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, extend the previous bit to omnipotence. Omnipotence is a self-contradicting attribute (because things like a square triangle cannot be made) and CANNOT exist. Therefore god cannot be omnipotent and the bible is in error to claim that he is.

If you have read any of the Pslams regarding omnipotence described, you will see it does not describe logical omnipotence, but physical omnipotence. Have you ever considered that the reason God cannot create a four sided triangle is not because he is not omnipontent but because humans made that technicality into language.

What about all that happened from 1 Sam 17:52 to 2 Sam 21:19??
Saul is present when David killed Goliath. Saul dies in 1 Sam 31. David is annointed King in 2 Sam 2, and also there is war between the house of Saul and David.

To my mind, irrelevent.

I assume that the revised list of 'giants' is being inserted into the text where it can be made to fit, with perhaps a little jockeying around for space/continuity.

Also - just because it is written in one order, doesn't mean that the chronology follows the same order. Think of when 'god' confused the tongues in the text, and whether that follows a possible chronological interpretation.

If you have read any of the Pslams regarding omnipotence described, you will see it does not describe logical omnipotence, but physical omnipotence. Have you ever considered that the reason God cannot create a four sided triangle is not because he is not omnipontent but because humans made that technicality into language.

Amusing... 'god' is confounded by human language... and by a 'god-given' human language, if you buy the story of the Tower of Babel.

Poor Neo, so blind.

Even I can construct a four-sided triangle. It is only the limits on your mind, Neo, that harness you to a mere three-dimensions.

To my mind, irrelevent.

I assume that the revised list of 'giants' is being inserted into the text where it can be made to fit, with perhaps a little jockeying around for space/continuity.

Also - just because it is written in one order, doesn't mean that the chronology follows the same order. Think of when 'god' confused the tongues in the text, and whether that follows a possible chronological interpretation.

It is still impossible to say it was the same battle.

Amusing... 'god' is confounded by human language... and by a 'god-given' human language, if you buy the story of the Tower of Babel.

Poor Neo, so blind.

Even I can construct a four-sided triangle. It is only the limits on your mind, Neo, that harness you to a mere three-dimensions.

A four sided triange could said to be a trangular based prymiad. Its a triangle but with four sides. Maybe God can make a four sided triangle that is beyond our understanding. I dont know. What I am saying is that it is not a pre-requisite of omnipotence to be able to make a four sided triangle, or any other strange logical contridictions you come up with. The only reason those are impossible is because of human language. Its not some kind of super high standard that God just cannot reach because he's too "weak". Its just what humans have put in place to mean something. Its like saying "Can you make a green leaf that is purple?". Of course not, because you have already specified that the leaf is green.

It is still impossible to say it was the same battle.

Only if you accept that the entire text is inerrant, and somehow protected from the fictionalisation that occurs in ALL texts, to some degree.

The problem with history, even eye-witness history, is that it is coloured by subjectivity. The Old Testament texts, lke those of the New, were often written many years after any events they MIGHT be describing (and many of those events were probably parables anyway - explaining why there is no evidence for them).

Thus, the text should automatically be read as being open to the possibility of events becoming confused, dates being contradictory, the same person being in two places, at the same time, etc... the same sorts of things that happen in ALL historic texts.

It is ONLY if you accept the bible as complete, incorruptible, and inerrant, that you can assume the two battles against 'giants' (and THAT should be ringing warning bells, already) were anything more than contradictory accounts of the same event.

A four sided triange could said to be a trangular based prymiad. Its a triangle but with four sides. Maybe God can make a four sided triangle that is beyond our understanding. I dont know. What I am saying is that it is not a pre-requisite of omnipotence to be able to make a four sided triangle, or any other strange logical contridictions you come up with. The only reason those are impossible is because of human language. Its not some kind of super high standard that God just cannot reach because he's too "weak". Its just what humans have put in place to mean something. Its like saying "Can you make a green leaf that is purple?". Of course not, because you have already specified that the leaf is green.

Once again, Neo... you are being hurt by your own ignorance. Did you know that Lepidoptera see pretty much entirely within the ultra-violet component of the spectrum? Did you know that many flowers and leaves, that you or I see as one set of colours, actually have visible elements within the ultraviolet section of the spectrum?

Thus, it could be argued, many 'green leaves' ARE ALREADY 'purple'.

The 'pre-requisite' of 'omnipotence', is being all-powerful.

It's not a matter of semantics - except in as much as, someone originally wrote the concept of 'omnipotence' into scripture - obviously, trying to make their 'god' sound more powerful than all of the other 'gods' around.

Well, what they created, in more enlightened times, is an irresolvable dichotomy. A 'god' that is 'omnipotent' (which might be acceptable to the simple-minded believer of earlier times), but who is not able to do what an 'omnipotent' being MUST be able to do, in order to be truly 'omnipotent'.

You should be looking at the parts of scripture that are obviously just bravado, with an eye to which parts you should concede - rather than trying to weasel-word defenses to the indefensible.

Only if you accept that the entire text is inerrant, and somehow protected from the fictionalisation that occurs in ALL texts, to some degree.

The problem with history, even eye-witness history, is that it is coloured by subjectivity. The Old Testament texts, lke those of the New, were often written many years after any events they MIGHT be describing (and many of those events were probably parables anyway - explaining why there is no evidence for them).

Thus, the text should automatically be read as being open to the possibility of events becoming confused, dates being contradictory, the same person being in two places, at the same time, etc... the same sorts of things that happen in ALL historic texts.

It is ONLY if you accept the bible as complete, incorruptible, and inerrant, that you can assume the two battles against 'giants' (and THAT should be ringing warning bells, already) were anything more than contradictory accounts of the same event.

I see no reason to assume that the accounts were the same. They obviously are told differently, in setting, date, and circumstance. You can say that the stories were written after the events and were skewed to some degree, however that is still an assumtion on your part. I believe that there are no real contradictions in the Bible. I dont take that stance because the bible says that it is inerrant. I take that stance because I see no real evidence that proves otherwise. You've given an example of David and Elhanan, and I have shown that there are explinations to it. I hold the Bible to be true because it has not be proven false.

I see no reason to assume that the accounts were the same. They obviously are told differently, in setting, date, and circumstance. You can say that the stories were written after the events and were skewed to some degree, however that is still an assumtion on your part. I believe that there are no real contradictions in the Bible. I dont take that stance because the bible says that it is inerrant. I take that stance because I see no real evidence that proves otherwise. You've given an example of David and Elhanan, and I have shown that there are explinations to it. I hold the Bible to be true because it has not be proven false.

Okay - is "Peter Pan" also true?

There is no evidence to prove it false.

Therefore - you are either 'special pleading' in defence of the 'bible' - or you are misrepresenting your real motivations behind a 'logical' facade.

If you have read any of the Pslams regarding omnipotence described, you will see it does not describe logical omnipotence, but physical omnipotence. Have you ever considered that the reason God cannot create a four sided triangle is not because he is not omnipontent but because humans made that technicality into language.


and is it not in god's power to change that?

Okay - is "Peter Pan" also true?

There is no evidence to prove it false.

Therefore - you are either 'special pleading' in defence of the 'bible' - or you are misrepresenting your real motivations behind a 'logical' facade.

I knew you would say something like that. Thats always the come back....

Archeology gives us information about events and people from the Bible. It has factual basis. I believe it is the Word of God. You dont, but if you are going to discredit the Bible, there has to be real claims. People claim 'real' contradictions, but the fact is that the Bible has no 'real' contradictions.

I knew you would say something like that. Thats always the come back....

Archeology gives us information about events and people from the Bible. It has factual basis. I believe it is the Word of God. You dont, but if you are going to discredit the Bible, there has to be real claims. People claim 'real' contradictions, but the fact is that the Bible has no 'real' contradictions.

I am not trying to 'discredit' the bible.

You are trying to prove it to be the 'word of god' - for which there is no evidence, outside of the book itself.

Okay - so if I write a book, and entitle it "The Bible is Bullshit", does it automatically become true?

You are using special pleading to excuse why your text, and ONLY your text, should be considered factual based ENTIRELY on the circular logic of it's OWN contents.

Archeology MAY support the fact that there was a Babel. It doesn't support the (ridiculous, in my opinion) claim that 'god' confused the tongues of men, there.

Even I could write a text SET in a historic period... that wouldn't make it true. So, the bible MAY have some verifiable 'background flavour'... but NONE of the 'theological' elements... none of the 'miracle' material, can be verified scientifically - or EVEN by other texts of around the same time.

Personally - I think you should read some Mesopotamian mythology... it might surprise you to see how closely the Old Testament 'follows' some of the elements of Pre-Hebrew theology... then perhaps, you wouldn't automatically assume that the bible was a god-given perfect artifact... since some of the material it plagiarises STILL EXISTS today.


Ulitmately, however - you have, I believe... just 'lost' this debate.

Your argument for why the bible should be believed is ONLY acceptable for the bible... you will not accept the same response for, say "Peter Pan".

If that is the best defence you have, you have nothing.

I am not trying to 'discredit' the bible.

You are trying to prove it to be the 'word of god' - for which there is no evidence, outside of the book itself.

Okay - so if I write a book, and entitle it "The Bible is Bullshit", does it automatically become true?

You are using special pleading to excuse why your text, and ONLY your text, should be considered factual based ENTIRELY on the circular logic of it's OWN contents.

Archeology MAY support the fact that there was a Babel. It doesn't support the (ridiculous, in my opinion) claim that 'god' confused the tongues of men, there.

Even I could write a text SET in a historic period... that wouldn't make it true. So, the bible MAY have some verifiable 'background flavour'... but NONE of the 'theological' elements... none of the 'miracle' material, can be verified scientifically - or EVEN by other texts of around the same time.

Personally - I think you should read some Mesopotamian mythology... it might surprise you to see how closely the Old Testament 'follows' some of the elements of Pre-Hebrew theology... then perhaps, you wouldn't automatically assume that the bible was a god-given perfect artifact... since some of the material it plagiarises STILL EXISTS today.


Ulitmately, however - you have, I believe... just 'lost' this debate.

Your argument for why the bible should be believed is ONLY acceptable for the bible... you will not accept the same response for, say "Peter Pan".

If that is the best defence you have, you have nothing.

Right...

Speaking of Mesopotamian and Near East texts, I took an entire class over them just last semester. The Stories are not THAT similar.

Of course I lost the debate, because you said so.

Of course I lost the debate, because you said so.

Dont worry, Grave does that a lot.

in a completely historical sense, the easiest way to convert a people to your religion was to make your religion sound almost exactly like their old religion.

if you convince them that they have really just been worshipping your god under a different name, it makes the conversion a really easy process.


that's why so many of our holidays fall around the same time as many of the 'pagan' celebrations.

and is it not in god's power to change that?

God could indeed change the English language so a triangle means a shape with four sides or three sides. My point was that the reason you cannot create a four sided triangle is because that is not what the word Triangle means. That does not make God any less powerful for not being able to do it.

Your argument for why the bible should be believed is ONLY acceptable for the bible... you will not accept the same response for, say "Peter Pan".


Peter pan never claimed to be real in itself. The author never said what he wrote was true. The Bible is not written as a piece of fiction. It is a historical account of several things.

I've been in Catholic school for my entire life. Especially because of the "Christ and His Church" course I have to take this year, I've grown to really resent Christianity. I still believe that there is some sort of "force" out there, but I hate how eveyrone around me insists that Catholicism is the only way, especially with it's so-called conservativeness.

Right...

Speaking of Mesopotamian and Near East texts, I took an entire class over them just last semester. The Stories are not THAT similar.

Of course I lost the debate, because you said so.

Really? You didn't see parallels?

The Moah Flood Myth didn't strike you as remarkably similar to the earlier Babylonian flood myth? Even down to use of similar descriptive words?

The 'loss of innocence' and loss of the secret of eternal life, through the activities of a serpent, didn't seem strangely familiar?

The entiriety of Mosaic 'law', being essentially, a reproduction of Hammurabi's Code of Laws (which, by the way, IS LITERALLY 'carved in stone'... and would have been a monument clearly visible to the Hebrews during their time in Babylon... conincidental?) doesn't strike you as a little odd?

No - you haven't 'lost' the debate because I said so - as I said in the previous post... if ALL you have is 'special pleading', then you have no argument - and you are ADMITTING that you are arguing specifically from a vantage of prejudice.

If you choose to present an argument that IGNORES the necessity for logic or proof (which is what you ARE doing, if you offer the 'bible' as truth, based on NO EXTERNAL evidence), then you are not debating - you are preaching.

And thus, you 'lose' in terms of debate... since you are not seeking the exchange of concepts and the discussion of possibility... you are evangelising.

Peter pan never claimed to be real in itself. The author never said what he wrote was true. The Bible is not written as a piece of fiction. It is a historical account of several things.

And MOST of the 'bible' doesn't "claim to be real in itself" - you are aware that the biblical texts are COLLECTED texts, yes? They were originally written as independent from one another?

Thus, even if ONE text claims to be 'the word of god', that doesn't apply to the other books.

And, you can't take the angle that 'all scripture is inspired by god' as a proof, either... because otherwise you have to explain why you DON'T accept the Book of Enoch, for example.

Or the Koran...

Dont worry, Grave does that a lot.

Very constructive, Neo.

Resentment, perhaps?

Very constructive, Neo.

Resentment, perhaps?

No, you just claim to win debates a great deal, when you haven't. The homosexuality debate that we had a while back. You failed to produce any biblical postive endorsement of homosexuality or to disprove the negative verses regarding it. Yet you still thouht you had won. No one wins by claiming it.

And MOST of the 'bible' doesn't "claim to be real in itself" - you are aware that the biblical texts are COLLECTED texts, yes? They were originally written as independent from one another?

Thus, even if ONE text claims to be 'the word of god', that doesn't apply to the other books.


I dont think there are any of the books which make the obvious point that they are fiction. They are a group of works of non fiction. As to your point about the Quran, I was just dealing with the Peter pan thing which you sugested. I was not discussing Christianity reletive to other faiths.

No, you just claim to win debates a great deal, when you haven't. The homosexuality debate that we had a while back. You failed to produce any biblical postive endorsement of homosexuality or to disprove the negative verses regarding it. Yet you still thouht you had won. No one wins by claiming it.

Rubbish - Neo.

I showed that every translation you had presented was flawed.

I showed that many of the verses ACTUALLY decried LUST (which is consistent with other biblical teaching) rather than the specific acts of homosexuals.

I presented evidence of biblical patriarchs engaged in homosexual encounters.

I showed a logical biblical reason as to why Jesus (and his buddies) WOULD actually favour gay marriage.

In the end, I got sick of you trotting out the same "But the Bible says Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" cliche clap-trap.

(Oh, and I also showed why THAT was a flawed argument, remember?)

In the thread you mention - I cut down all of your arguments... and you would just blithely post them 20 pages later, as though they were new, or factual.

Thus - I claimed that, if you had nothing new, nothing provable, and you couldn't effectively refute MY arguments... then you had no argument.

I still see that as true.

I'm really not sure where you got the idea that I failed "to disprove the negative verses regarding it" - I suspect this is just another of those cases where you seem to ignore any post that proves you to be wrong.

I dont think there are any of the books which make the obvious point that they are fiction. They are a group of works of non fiction. As to your point about the Quran, I was just dealing with the Peter pan thing which you sugested. I was not discussing Christianity reletive to other faiths.

Irrelevent, Neo.

Your argument was that "Peter Pan" is 'less valid' than the Bible (as a history) PURELY because it doesn't say in the text, that it is true.

Okay - let's look at "Lemony Snicket's Series of Unfortuante Events". THAT text DOES claim to be true, within the confines of it's own pages... so, by YOUR argument, it MUST be true, and is as valid a history as the bible, right?

Or are you resorting to 'special pleading', also?


Regarding the Koran - it says that there is only one 'god', and his name is Allah - thus, YOUR 'god' is fake. How do YOU reconcile the fact that 'all scripture is inspired', and yet, another scripture in the same 'series' as the 'bible', says that YOUR view of 'god' is erroneous?

Irrelevent, Neo.

Your argument was that "Peter Pan" is 'less valid' than the Bible (as a history) PURELY because it doesn't say in the text, that it is true.

Okay - let's look at "Lemony Snicket's Series of Unfortuante Events". THAT text DOES claim to be true, within the confines of it's own pages... so, by YOUR argument, it MUST be true, and is as valid a history as the bible, right?

Or are you resorting to 'special pleading', also?


Regarding the Koran - it says that there is only one 'god', and his name is Allah - thus, YOUR 'god' is fake. How do YOU reconcile the fact that 'all scripture is inspired', and yet, another scripture in the same 'series' as the 'bible', says that YOUR view of 'god' is erroneous?

Allah is arabic for God. The main differences in Islam and Christianity is Jesus. The main difference between Islam and Judaism is theology.

If you choose to present an argument that IGNORES the necessity for logic or proof (which is what you ARE doing, if you offer the 'bible' as truth, based on NO EXTERNAL evidence), then you are not debating - you are preaching.

And thus, you 'lose' in terms of debate... since you are not seeking the exchange of concepts and the discussion of possibility... you are evangelising.

That is complete nonsense. I am not using logic? Thats almost insulting. You are attcking the credibility of the Bible and I and defending it. How is that evangelising? You are giving arguments and I am debating them, and so far you have not done anything to discredit the reliability to the Bible.

Allah is arabic for God. The main differences in Islam and Christianity is Jesus. The main difference between Islam and Judaism is theology.
the point is that an "inspired text" specifically states that Neo's "inspired text" is NOT accurate in its entirety. therefore, all "inspired texts" cannot be 100% true, because they contradict one another. therefore, saying that a text must be 100% accurate because it is "inspired" is invalid, because many contradictory piece of material are "inspired."

Allah is arabic for God. The main differences in Islam and Christianity is Jesus. The main difference between Islam and Judaism is theology.

Interesting that you mention the Islamic interpretation of "Jesus", since that seems to me, to be the thing that makes Islam and Judaism the closer family members, and leaves 'christianity' sat out in the cold - with an idolator 'god'.

The question to Neo still stands, however... if 'all scripture is inspired', how do you reconcile the disparate elements of the chain? Torah, Bible, Koran?

Not even heading into the realms of other 'scripture' which DOESN'T claim the same geneology.

That is complete nonsense. I am not using logic? Thats almost insulting. You are attcking the credibility of the Bible and I and defending it. How is that evangelising? You are giving arguments and I am debating them, and so far you have not done anything to discredit the reliability to the Bible.

If your idea of defending it, is to say it must be true, because it is the 'word of god' - then you are not using logic.

Unless you can PROVE that it is the 'word of god', of course.

And no, internal verification just doesn't cut it... unless you accept "Lemony Snicket" as a credible history, also.

The bible is filled with revisionism... just look at how HaSatan degenerates from being an arbiter for 'god', through a misunderstanding over Mesopotamian myth (in the lucifer confusion), through a misunderstanding of the use of the word 'adversary', in the greek translation, to the biblical equivalent of Dr Evil (in Revelation).

And yet, you will find ways to 'excuse' and 'ratify' all those disparate elements, just because you are starting with the assumption that the bible 'MUST be true' - when you KNOW you wouldn't accept THAT assumption for any other historic text.

So - you are not, in fact, debating inconsistency - you are asserting the truth of scripture, and basing your whole defence on that assumption. That is why I say you do not debate, you preach.

the point is that an "inspired text" specifically states that Neo's "inspired text" is NOT accurate in its entirety. therefore, all "inspired texts" cannot be 100% true, because they contradict one another. therefore, saying that a text must be 100% accurate because it is "inspired" is invalid, because many contradictory piece of material are "inspired."

Exactly - if we have to believe that the Bible is 'true', just because it is the 'inspired word of god', then we ALSO have to accept ALL the other scriptures of ALL the other theological persuasions, because they ALSO must be the 'inspired word of god'.

And, if it isn't safe to make that assumption, then it isn't safe to assume the 'truth' of ALL the scriptures that were united in the bible.

If your idea of defending it, is to say it must be true, because it is the 'word of god' - then you are not using logic.

Unless you can PROVE that it is the 'word of god', of course.

And no, internal verification just doesn't cut it... unless you accept "Lemony Snicket" as a credible history, also.

The bible is filled with revisionism... just look at how HaSatan degenerates from being an arbiter for 'god', through a misunderstanding over Mesopotamian myth (in the lucifer confusion), through a misunderstanding of the use of the word 'adversary', in the greek translation, to the biblical equivalent of Dr Evil (in Revelation).

And yet, you will find ways to 'excuse' and 'ratify' all those disparate elements, just because you are starting with the assumption that the bible 'MUST be true' - when you KNOW you wouldn't accept THAT assumption for any other historic text.

So - you are not, in fact, debating inconsistency - you are asserting the truth of scripture, and basing your whole defence on that assumption. That is why I say you do not debate, you preach.

I believe it is the word of God. You believe it is not. So does my position make me more biased than you? You say I am starting with the assumption that it is true, but at the same time, you are starting with the assumption that it is not true.

If you claim im preaching to you, I can say the same thing that you are preaching to me.

I believe it is the word of God. You believe it is not. So does my position make me more biased than you? You say I am starting with the assumption that it is true, but at the same time, you are starting with the assumption that it is not true.

If you claim im preaching to you, I can say the same thing that you are preaching to me.

Your logic is flawed, I do not start with the assumption that the bible is a lie... i just start with the assumption that it is NOT TRUE, until proven so.

So, yes - your position IS more biased than mine.

If you could provide ONE evidence of the miraculous, theological nature of the bible - OUTSIDE of it's own pages (and the works of, say, Josephus, who wrote one hundred years after the life of Jesus, about hearsay)... then I would be happy to admit that the Bible may contain theological truth.

Similarly, if someone were to present an evidence that, for example, Babel never existed, I would admit that the bible may contain historical lies.

At the moment, I am willing to accept certain corroborated evidences of historicity, but see no reason to believe the more outrageous claims of miraculous nature.

While I think about it... you state that the bible is free from contradiction...

Okay... who killed Saul? First Samuel 31:4-6 says that Saul commited suicide. Second Samuel reports that Saul was murdered by an Amalekite.

Does 'god' tempt men? Gensis 22:1 says that 'god' does tempt men, whereas James 1:13 says that 'god' doesn't tempt men.

How many horses did Solomon have? First Kings reports 40,000, while Second Chronicles suggests four thousand.

Does every man sin? First Kings 8:46 says that no man is free from sin. But, First John 3:9 says that SOME men do not sin, and cannot sin.

Who bought the potter's field? Acts 1:18-19 says that Judas bought the potter's field, and commited suicide in it. Matthew 27:6-8, however, says that Chief Priests bought the potter's field.

Why was the potter's field called the "field of blood"? Acts 1 says it is because Judas commited suicide there, Matthew 27 says it is because the priests bought the field with tainted 'blood' money.

How many sons did Michal have? Second Samuel 6:23 says she died childless, and yet, Second Samuel 21:8 sys she had five sons.



I could just go on......

[quote]
While I think about it... you state that the bible is free from contradiction...

yes i do ;)


Okay... who killed Saul? First Samuel 31:4-6 says that Saul commited suicide. Second Samuel reports that Saul was murdered by an Amalekite.


With just a few short sentences, the skeptic appears to have documented a legitimate discrepancy within the biblical text. The key word here, however, is “appears.” As is so often the case, there is much more to the matter than merely quoting a single verse or two in an effort to make the Bible appear to contradict itself.

Ready? The Amalekite was LYING. He found Saul's dead body, then came in to David's camp with his made-up story thinking, "Hey, maybe if I say I saved Saul from humiliation, I'll get a big, fat reward from David!"

Just because the Amalekite mercenary claimed to have killed King Saul does not mean that he was telling the truth when he made such a claim. Once again, the skeptic’s claim of a biblical discrepancy can be answered by a common-sense appeal to reason that provides a solution consistent with the available facts.


Does 'god' tempt men? Gensis 22:1 says that 'god' does tempt men, whereas James 1:13 says that 'god' doesn't tempt men.


The difference between temptation and trial is that temptation says, "Do this pleasant thing and do not let yourself be hindered by the fact that it is wrong," whereas trial says, "Do this good and noble thing, and do not let yourself be hindered by the fact that it is painful". Temptation leads us down the path of sin and death, but trial leads us upward to a higher and nobler life.
In Genesis 22:1, the Hebrew word translated “tempted” is the word NACAH and it means to test, try, prove, tempt, assay, put to the proof or test. Because it has so many possible synonyms, we must look to the context and compare it to other passages. As we read the account of the event, we note that God did not intend Abram to complete the sacrifice of his promised heir. However, Abram did not know that, and was willing to carry out God’s orders, knowing that if God did require this, He was able to raise Isaac up from the dead (Heb 11:17-19). This passage in Hebrews (written in Greek) is translated ‘Abram was “tried”’ instead of saying he was “tempted.” So the conclusion is that in Genesis 22:1, the Hebrew word translated “tempt” has to do with testing or evaluating something.
Therefore, it was a test that God offered to Abraham, not a temptation to sin.
James 1:13 gives a guiding principle: no one has the right to say that he has been tempted “of God.” The word “of” is essential to our understanding this statement, because it indicates the origin of something. This is an important part, because that means temptations to sin do not originate with God. In that sense, James concludes: God does not tempt anyone to sin.


How many horses did Solomon have? First Kings reports 40,000, while Second Chronicles suggests four thousand.

Many have pointed out that the stalls mentioned in 2 Chronicles may have been large ones that housed 10 horses each (that is, a row of ten stalls). Therefore 4,000 of these large stalls would be equivalent to 40,000 small ones.


Does every man sin? First Kings 8:46 says that no man is free from sin. But, First John 3:9 says that SOME men do not sin, and cannot sin.

The last of the verses quoted is from 1 John 3:9 which says:
"No-one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God."
An older translation for 1 John 3:9 and so states, "No one born of God commits sin...and he cannot sin...," which is not a true translation of the Greek. In the newer translations, such as the NIV they translate correctly using the present continuous in this verse, as it is written that way in the Greek. Thus those born of God will not continue to sin, as they cannot go on sinning..., the idea being that this life of sinning will die out now that he has the help of the Holy Spirit in him or her.

It is for that reason that we are called not to continue in our sinful ways but to be changed into Christ's sinless likeness.


Who bought the potter's field? Acts 1:18-19 says that Judas bought the potter's field, and commited suicide in it. Matthew 27:6-8, however, says that Chief Priests bought the potter's field.

Acts 1:18 simply informs us that Judas furnished the means of purchasing the field. One is not forced to conclude that Judas personally bought the potter’s field. As in modern-day writings and speeches, it is very common for the Scriptures to represent a man as doing a thing when, in fact, he merely supplies the means for doing it. For example, Joseph spoke of his brothers as selling him into Egypt (Genesis 45:4-5; cf. Acts 7:9), when actually they sold him to the Ishmaelites (who then sold him into Egypt). John mentions that “the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples)” (John 4:1-3). And when the Bible says, “Pilate took Jesus and scourged Him” (John 19:1), most people understand that he simply ordered Jesus to be scourged, not that he actually did the scourging himself. The same principle is recognized in law in the well-known Latin maxim, “Qui facit per alium, facit per se” (“he who acts through another is deemed in law to do it himself”).
Upon closer scrutiny it appears one passage is just a summary of the other.
Matthew 27:1-10 describes in detail the events that happened in regard to Judas betrayal of Jesus, and their significance in terms of the fulfillment of the Scriptures. In particular he quotes from the prophet Zechariah 11:12-13 which many think are clarifications of the prophecies found in Jeremiah 19:1-13 and 32:6-9.

In the Acts 1:18-19 passage however, Luke is making a short resume of something that people already knew, as a point of clarification to the speech of Peter, among the believers. This is illustrated by the fact that in verse 19 he says, "Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this". Also it is more than probable that the Gospel record was already being circulated amongst the believers at the time of Luke's writing. Luke, therefore, was not required to go into detail about the facts of Judas' death


Why was the potter's field called the "field of blood"? Acts 1 says it is because Judas commited suicide there, Matthew 27 says it is because the priests bought the field with tainted 'blood' money.

Both passages agree that it was due to it being bought by blood-money. Acts 1:18-19 starts by saying, "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field". So it begins with the assumption that the field was bought by the blood-money, and then the author intending to cause revulsion for what had happened describes Judas bloody end on that piece of real estate.


How many sons did Michal have? Second Samuel 6:23 says she died childless, and yet, Second Samuel 21:8 sys she had five sons.

They where adopted children, from Merab, Saul's daughter (1 Samuel 18:19), the wife of Adriel, the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.

Saul had two daughters, Michal and Merab, which names are quite similar in Hebrew. The modern translations read correctly saying: "But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiah's daughter Rizpah, whom she had borne to Saul, together with the five sons of Saul's daughter Merab, whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite." IISamuel 21:8 (NIV) Thus it was referring to Merab, the older daughter, and not Michal, the younger. Notice that her husband was "Adriel" not David. It was Merab who was married to Adriel. "So when the time came for Merab, Saul's daughter, to be given to David, she was given in marriage to Adriel of Meholah." 1Sa 18:19 (Even the King James says that) Michal was married to David.

I'm an occultist. I study the very foundations of reality itself. I know there are christians and there are idiotic people that actually believe that God is vain enough to love a child-molester who believes in him but not an atheist that does social work. These second idiots call themselves christians as well, so I'll add quotation marks to their names for the sake of identification. So... Come get me, "christians". I DARE your petty, vain, idiotic evil excuse for a god to come and get me. I do not believe a god vain enough to allow a child molester into heaven just because said molester believes him, and I will not ever. The truly Christian God would be terribly disappointed to know what you "christians" have been saying in his name, so, again, I dare you to send your "God-that-hates-everyone-that's-not-Christian" after me. Come get me, punks.

Funny how this guy doesn't get any criticism for his thread but I do for mine. Atheism truly is a despicable belief.

Funny how this guy doesn't get any criticism for his thread but I do for mine. Atheism truly is a despicable belief.
What do you mean he hasn't gotten any criticism for it?
Have you read the thread?
He most certainly has gotten criticism, unless I'm hallucinating.

What do you mean he hasn't gotten any criticism for it?
Have you read the thread?
He most certainly has gotten criticism, unless I'm hallucinating.
selective reading on his part

ENOUGH WITH THIS THREAD AND ENOUGH WITH THE CHRISTIAN BASHING!
You non-Christians seems so intolerant, you don't see a million threads popping up each day saying "Hinduism is nonsense!" do you?
ENOUGH ENOUGH ENOUGH!
Can't you non Christians just shut the heck up and learn to live with the fact that Christianity exists? and stop posting threads and relies to endless meaningless threads like these?
Then don't post here. Sorry, but this is part of the backlash of a society that has been so forcefully christian (at the threat of death in the past). This society is still forcefully christian. Christians push ideas like banning gay marriage for nothing more then biblical reasons, and if anyone says anything to the contrary, they are labled as "anti-christian" or "christian haters". They inevitably CREATE the "anti-christian" mentality with their overbearing ways and victim mentality. With the way christian leaders talk, you'd think we're throwing christians to the lions for suggesting love and peace.

Notice that John, the only one to mention a departure before dawn, is also the only one who mentions no women apart from Mary Magdalene. So Mary Magdalene left her home before dawn, as stated by John. She met up with the other women, (which is where the other three gospels take up the narrative), and the group went to the tomb just after dawn.

I read down your objections and noticed how you keep saying Im assuming. Your assuming a contradiction because one says this and one says that, and its impossible to think that these accounts can mesh. Im telling you what is in the accounts and they can clearly be seen to be complementary.
I'm assuming a contradiction because they specifically state different things happened at the same place and time. That's a pretty safe assumption. Your asusmption seems to be that there is no contradiction, even if you have to make stuff up that the gospel writers somehow forgot to mention. Why would they have conflicting reports of events that took place on what is supposed to be THE most important day in christian theology.

Two angels. Two were present, but Matthew and Mark only mention the speaker. It is clear that the "men" in Mark and Luke were intended to be understood as angels, because they were dressed in a brilliant white and (more significantly) they had a message from God for the women.

Do you deem it necessary to write every detail? Jesus preached for 3 years how are they supposed to write every detail into a book. Some things are dropped because they are not needed to get the message across.
I'm not asking for EVERY single detail. If there was one boy/angel, then it's pretty easy to include a second if he was there. Come on, this is THE single most important day of christian theology. Why would the gospel writers neglect ANY detail, let alone how many angels they saw. I would think that seeing two angels would be more impressive and noteworthy then seeing one angel. I doubt you would hold CNN to the same loose and sloppy standard you are affording the gospel writers.

Further, if you allow them to neglect to mention things, how much more are they allowed to mistakenly neglect? This isn't the inerrant word of god if mistakes are allowed.

While Matthew describes the opening of the tomb, he does not say that the women witnessed it.
He certainly does.

Matt 28:1-2

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre

And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

They went to the sepulchre and they watched the stone roll back. See that word "behold"? It means to see something.

The Bible says nothing is impossible BEYOND GODS ABILITY. God has the power of ALL ABILITY. There is no such ability to create a square triangle, therefore God doesnt have it. There is NO ability to do such an act. God is still omnipotent.
You just contradicted yourself and misquoting the bible.

Show me scripture that backs up what you said. Where does it say "nothing is impossible beyond god's ability". I'll give you scripture that says otherwise.

Gen.18:14
"Is any thing too hard for the LORD?"
Jer.32:17
"Ah Lord God! ... there is nothing too hard for thee."
Jer.32:27
"Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for the Lord?"
Mt.19:26, Mk.10:27,
"With God all things are possible."

To be omnipotent is to be able to create a square circle. God is NOT omnipotent, because it is logically impossible to be omnipotent. Further, the scriptures I gave define omnipotence. Yet, god CANNOT be omnipotent, as I've already established. Therefore the bible is in error.

You must not have also read one of my examples from the OT, which you supposedly know so well. Genesis chapters 18 and 19 mention three men who came to visit Abraham and Sarah. These men stay for a short time, and then two of them continued on to visit the city of Sodom. Yet the Bible tells us in the first verse of Genesis 19 that these men were actually angels. But when the men of Sodom come to do violence to these angels, the city dwellers asked: “Where are the men that came in to thee this night” (Genesis 19:5). Throughout the two chapters, the messengers are referred to as men and as angels with equal accuracy.
I'll let you in on a secret, greek and hebrew are two completely different languages.

If you have read any of the Pslams regarding omnipotence described, you will see it does not describe logical omnipotence, but physical omnipotence. Have you ever considered that the reason God cannot create a four sided triangle is not because he is not omnipontent but because humans made that technicality into language.
There is no such distinction as "logical omnipotence" and "physical omnipotence", biblical appologists made that up. Read the "ominpotence" scriptures again.

Gen.18:14
"Is any thing too hard for the LORD?"
Jer.32:17
"Ah Lord God! ... there is nothing too hard for thee."
Jer.32:27
"Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for the Lord?"
Mt.19:26, Mk.10:27,
"With God all things are possible."

Further, god is regularly refered to as "all powerful" and "almighty". Omnipotence is a logical contradiction and thus CANNOT exist, therefore god is not omnipotent and the bible is in error for regularly refering to him as being so.

If I choose to use your definition of omnipotence (which I'm sure either you or a biblical appologist made up and is not in any dictionary), then I can say that I am omnipotent. After all, I can do anything that is within my power. :rolleyes:

A four sided triange could said to be a trangular based prymiad. Its a triangle but with four sides. Maybe God can make a four sided triangle that is beyond our understanding. I dont know. What I am saying is that it is not a pre-requisite of omnipotence to be able to make a four sided triangle, or any other strange logical contridictions you come up with. The only reason those are impossible is because of human language. Its not some kind of super high standard that God just cannot reach because he's too "weak". Its just what humans have put in place to mean something. Its like saying "Can you make a green leaf that is purple?". Of course not, because you have already specified that the leaf is green.
Thus the logical contradiction and why omnipotence is a logically impossible attribute and why god cannot be omnipotent.

I hold the Bible to be true because it has not be proven false.
WHOA! Do you have any idea how many logical fallacies are contained in that ONE statement?

Presuppositionalism, unstubstandiated a priori, shifting the weight of evidence.

The bible is a positive assertion. If you believe the bible and back up it's assertions, then the evidence is upon you to prove it. To demand someone to prove it wrong is to shift the weight of evidence onto another who is not making the claim. You are asking them to prove a negative, which is logically impossible in most cases. It doesn't work like that and that line of reasoning is not allowed in science. If you have a claim, then it is up to YOU, and no one else who does not make the same claim, to prove it.

People claim 'real' contradictions, but the fact is that the Bible has no 'real' contradictions.
Sure, as long as you're allowed to change the rules of language and allow the sort of flawed journalism that you wouldn't expect from a elementary school news paper.

<SNIP>
Hey buddy, Next time you decide to give a refutation, how about you cite your sources?

With just a few short sentences, the skeptic appears to have documented a legitimate discrepancy within the biblical text. The key word here, however, is “appears.” As is so often the case, there is much more to the matter than merely quoting a single verse or two in an effort to make the Bible appear to contradict itself.

Ready? The Amalekite was LYING. He found Saul's dead body, then came in to David's camp with his made-up story thinking, "Hey, maybe if I say I saved Saul from humiliation, I'll get a big, fat reward from David!"

Just because the Amalekite mercenary claimed to have killed King Saul does not mean that he was telling the truth when he made such a claim. Once again, the skeptic’s claim of a biblical discrepancy can be answered by a common-sense appeal to reason that provides a solution consistent with the available facts. Look familiar? Could it be a C&P off of these two sites?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1998/r&r9812b.htm
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/sauldead.html

The difference between temptation and trial is that temptation says, "Do this pleasant thing and do not let yourself be hindered by the fact that it is wrong," whereas trial says, "Do this good and noble thing, and do not let yourself be hindered by the fact that it is painful". Temptation leads us down the path of sin and death, but trial leads us upward to a higher and nobler life.
In Genesis 22:1, the Hebrew word translated “tempted” is the word NACAH and it means to test, try, prove, tempt, assay, put to the proof or test. Because it has so many possible synonyms, we must look to the context and compare it to other passages. As we read the account of the event, we note that God did not intend Abram to complete the sacrifice of his promised heir. However, Abram did not know that, and was willing to carry out God’s orders, knowing that if God did require this, He was able to raise Isaac up from the dead (Heb 11:17-19). This passage in Hebrews (written in Greek) is translated ‘Abram was “tried”’ instead of saying he was “tempted.” So the conclusion is that in Genesis 22:1, the Hebrew word translated “tempt” has to do with testing or evaluating something.
Therefore, it was a test that God offered to Abraham, not a temptation to sin.
James 1:13 gives a guiding principle: no one has the right to say that he has been tempted “of God.” The word “of” is essential to our understanding this statement, because it indicates the origin of something. This is an important part, because that means temptations to sin do not originate with God. In that sense, James concludes: God does not tempt anyone to sin.

Or this passage from http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/contradictions.html , http://www.gotquestions.org/God-tempt-us-to-sin.html , and http://www.lyrics.com/forum/tm.asp?m=132140 .

Many have pointed out that the stalls mentioned in 2 Chronicles may have been large ones that housed 10 horses each (that is, a row of ten stalls). Therefore 4,000 of these large stalls would be equivalent to 40,000 small ones.

http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm

The last of the verses quoted is from 1 John 3:9 which says:
"No-one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God."
An older translation for 1 John 3:9 and so states, "No one born of God commits sin...and he cannot sin...," which is not a true translation of the Greek. In the newer translations, such as the NIV they translate correctly using the present continuous in this verse, as it is written that way in the Greek. Thus those born of God will not continue to sin, as they cannot go on sinning..., the idea being that this life of sinning will die out now that he has the help of the Holy Spirit in him or her.

It is for that reason that we are called not to continue in our sinful ways but to be changed into Christ's sinless likeness.

http://forums.christianity.com/html/P961762/

Acts 1:18 simply informs us that Judas furnished the means of purchasing the field. One is not forced to conclude that Judas personally bought the potter’s field. As in modern-day writings and speeches, it is very common for the Scriptures to represent a man as doing a thing when, in fact, he merely supplies the means for doing it. For example, Joseph spoke of his brothers as selling him into Egypt (Genesis 45:4-5; cf. Acts 7:9), when actually they sold him to the Ishmaelites (who then sold him into Egypt). John mentions that “the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples)” (John 4:1-3). And when the Bible says, “Pilate took Jesus and scourged Him” (John 19:1), most people understand that he simply ordered Jesus to be scourged, not that he actually did the scourging himself. The same principle is recognized in law in the well-known Latin maxim, “Qui facit per alium, facit per se” (“he who acts through another is deemed in law to do it himself”).
Upon closer scrutiny it appears one passage is just a summary of the other.
Matthew 27:1-10 describes in detail the events that happened in regard to Judas betrayal of Jesus, and their significance in terms of the fulfillment of the Scriptures. In particular he quotes from the prophet Zechariah 11:12-13 which many think are clarifications of the prophecies found in Jeremiah 19:1-13 and 32:6-9.

In the Acts 1:18-19 passage however, Luke is making a short resume of something that people already knew, as a point of clarification to the speech of Peter, among the believers. This is illustrated by the fact that in verse 19 he says, "Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this". Also it is more than probable that the Gospel record was already being circulated amongst the believers at the time of Luke's writing. Luke, therefore, was not required to go into detail about the facts of Judas' death

http://www.worthynews.com/apologetics/101-96-101.htm
http://www.truthpizza.org/post/nitardy7.htm

Both passages agree that it was due to it being bought by blood-money. Acts 1:18-19 starts by saying, "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field". So it begins with the assumption that the field was bought by the blood-money, and then the author intending to cause revulsion for what had happened describes Judas bloody end on that piece of real estate.


http://www.worthynews.com/apologetics/101-61-65.htm

They where adopted children, from Merab, Saul's daughter (1 Samuel 18:19), the wife of Adriel, the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.

Saul had two daughters, Michal and Merab, which names are quite similar in Hebrew. The modern translations read correctly saying: "But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiah's daughter Rizpah, whom she had borne to Saul, together with the five sons of Saul's daughter Merab, whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite." IISamuel 21:8 (NIV) Thus it was referring to Merab, the older daughter, and not Michal, the younger. Notice that her husband was "Adriel" not David. It was Merab who was married to Adriel. "So when the time came for Merab, Saul's daughter, to be given to David, she was given in marriage to Adriel of Meholah." 1Sa 18:19 (Even the King James says that) Michal was married to David.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/contradictions.html
http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/ans5.html

So buddy, how about you actually try arguing instead of doing copy and paste off of google hits while refusing to give your sources?

I am not trying to 'discredit' the bible.

You are trying to prove it to be the 'word of god' - for which there is no evidence, outside of the book itself.

Okay - so if I write a book, and entitle it "The Bible is Bullshit", does it automatically become true?

You are using special pleading to excuse why your text, and ONLY your text, should be considered factual based ENTIRELY on the circular logic of it's OWN contents.

Archeology MAY support the fact that there was a Babel. It doesn't support the (ridiculous, in my opinion) claim that 'god' confused the tongues of men, there.

Even I could write a text SET in a historic period... that wouldn't make it true. So, the bible MAY have some verifiable 'background flavour'... but NONE of the 'theological' elements... none of the 'miracle' material, can be verified scientifically - or EVEN by other texts of around the same time.

Personally - I think you should read some Mesopotamian mythology... it might surprise you to see how closely the Old Testament 'follows' some of the elements of Pre-Hebrew theology... then perhaps, you wouldn't automatically assume that the bible was a god-given perfect artifact... since some of the material it plagiarises STILL EXISTS today.


Ulitmately, however - you have, I believe... just 'lost' this debate.

Your argument for why the bible should be believed is ONLY acceptable for the bible... you will not accept the same response for, say "Peter Pan".

If that is the best defence you have, you have nothing.
Greece was real, and Troy was real. They most had a war, from what we can tell, therefore the greecian gods were on the battle field, just like in Homer's "The Illiad".

New Orleans is a real place in Lousiana. Most of the places mentioned in "Interview with the Vampire" are real, there for Ann Rice's novel about vampires in New Orleans must be true.

Right...

Speaking of Mesopotamian and Near East texts, I took an entire class over them just last semester. The Stories are not THAT similar.
Then you weren't reading them as they were. Read Mythraism, Zoastorianism and the stories of Krishna. Don't take some guy's word for it, actually read them. They all existed before Jesus, and did lots of stuff that holds amazing parallels. Being born of a virgin, having 12 disciples, beginning their ministry at 30 and dying at 33, only to be resurrected shortly after their death. The followers of Apalonius (who thought he was the messiah) had a story so similar to that of Jesus, that it is nearly uncanny.

And MOST of the 'bible' doesn't "claim to be real in itself" - you are aware that the biblical texts are COLLECTED texts, yes? They were originally written as independent from one another?

Thus, even if ONE text claims to be 'the word of god', that doesn't apply to the other books.

And, you can't take the angle that 'all scripture is inspired by god' as a proof, either... because otherwise you have to explain why you DON'T accept the Book of Enoch, for example.

Or the Koran...
It's interesting that the Lord's prayer in the books of Psalms, is almost word for word identical to the prayer the Egyptians used to offer to Amen-Ra.

I believe it is the word of God. You believe it is not. So does my position make me more biased than you? You say I am starting with the assumption that it is true, but at the same time, you are starting with the assumption that it is not true.

If you claim im preaching to you, I can say the same thing that you are preaching to me.
You are presupposing the bible is true. I am not presupposing anything, because you haven't proven the bible to be true. My position is no position, thus I have no dogma or ideology to have shattered. Your position is to start with biblical truth and work backwards from that point.

I'll let you in on a little secret, I actually would like for the bible to be literally true as modern liberal chrisitians describe it to be. I would love nothing more then for it to be true. The problem is, that there is no evidence that it is true and it has too many internal inconsistencies, and logically impossible claims for it to be true.

Ready? The Amalekite was LYING. He found Saul's dead body, then came in to David's camp with his made-up story thinking, "Hey, maybe if I say I saved Saul from humiliation, I'll get a big, fat reward from David!"

Just because the Amalekite mercenary claimed to have killed King Saul does not mean that he was telling the truth when he made such a claim. Once again, the skeptic’s claim of a biblical discrepancy can be answered by a common-sense appeal to reason that provides a solution consistent with the available facts.

Saul committed suicide.
1 Sam.31:4-6
"Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. So Saul died."

1 Chr.10:4
"Then said Saul to his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. So Saul took a sword, and fell upon it."

Saul was killed by an Amalekite.
2 Sam.1:8-10
"And he [Saul] said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me. So I stood upon him, and slew him."

Saul was killed by the Philistines.
2 Sam.21:12
"The Philistines had slain Saul."

God killed him.
1 Chr.10:14
"So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it; And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse."

Funny how this guy doesn't get any criticism for his thread but I do for mine. Atheism truly is a despicable belief.
Belief? Athiesm is a lack of belief.

A: greek prefix meaning "without"
theos: greek, meaning "god belief"

Therefore, atheos is literally to be without a belief in god. Absence of belief is not a belief in absence.

Further, biggot, one guy shooting off his mouth does not represent everyone who shares his view. If that is so, then I'll just have to say that every christian is like Fred Phelps.

Hey buddy, Next time you decide to give a refutation, how about you cite your sources?

In other threads when I gave sites for them to see it was clear they never looked, so its much easier to put them directly to the page....

Then at least leave a link. Otherwise it is plagiarism.

In other threads when I gave sites for them to see it was clear they never looked, so its much easier to put them directly to the page....
Why can't you provide the sources of what you quote? To not do so, is plagerism.

Greece was real, and Troy was real. They most had a war, from what we can tell, therefore the greecian gods were on the battle field, just like in Homer's "The Illiad".

New Orleans is a real place in Lousiana. Most of the places mentioned in "Interview with the Vampire" are real, there for Ann Rice's novel about vampires in New Orleans must be true.

Im currently reading the Aeneid by Virgil, which is a Roman Myth that the Romans are decended from the Trojans, very good infact.

Then at least leave a link. Otherwise it is plagiarism.

Ok, I didnt think anything of it, but your right, ill leave the cites and links.

He certainly does.

Matt 28:1-2

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre

And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

They went to the sepulchre and they watched the stone roll back. See that word "behold"? It means to see something.

It doesnt say they the actually saw it happen. The behold insnt on the women, its to the earthquake and the stone rolling away. It doesnt say behold and they saw the stone roll away.

You just contradicted yourself and misquoting the bible.

Show me scripture that backs up what you said. Where does it say "nothing is impossible beyond god's ability". I'll give you scripture that says otherwise.

Gen.18:14
"Is any thing too hard for the LORD?"
Jer.32:17
"Ah Lord God! ... there is nothing too hard for thee."
Jer.32:27
"Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for the Lord?"
Mt.19:26, Mk.10:27,
"With God all things are possible."

To be omnipotent is to be able to create a square circle. God is NOT omnipotent, because it is logically impossible to be omnipotent. Further, the scriptures I gave define omnipotence. Yet, god CANNOT be omnipotent, as I've already established. Therefore the bible is in error.

I dont see how that works. All things are possible with God, but they are all things that are possible. Creating a squared circle is not possible.

It doesnt say they the actually saw it happen. The behold insnt on the women, its to the earthquake and the stone rolling away. It doesnt say behold and they saw the stone roll away.
If behold means to witness something and the women (the only people mentioned at that point) aren't the ones witnessing it, then the statement doesn't make any sense. Earthquakes and stones don't watch anything, so it MUST mean the women watched, unless you want to start redefining words again.

I'll let you in on a secret, greek and hebrew are two completely different languages.

What does that have to do with anything?

If behold means to witness something and the women (the only people mentioned at that point) aren't the ones witnessing it, then the statement doesn't make any sense. Earthquakes and stones don't watch anything, so it MUST mean the women watched, unless you want to start redefining words again.

Behold isnt actually rendered in the greek. It could be said, 'There was a violent earthquake...." This event happened before the women arrived.

I'm not asking for EVERY single detail. If there was one boy/angel, then it's pretty easy to include a second if he was there. Come on, this is THE single most important day of christian theology. Why would the gospel writers neglect ANY detail, let alone how many angels they saw. I would think that seeing two angels would be more impressive and noteworthy then seeing one angel. I doubt you would hold CNN to the same loose and sloppy standard you are affording the gospel writers.

Further, if you allow them to neglect to mention things, how much more are they allowed to mistakenly neglect? This isn't the inerrant word of god if mistakes are allowed.

Less information is a contradiction? They wrote what they felt was important to the audience. Why are they forced to go into such detail? The focus is obviously on the risen Lord and not the number of angels.

Behold isnt actually rendered in the greek. It could be said, 'There was a violent earthquake...." This event happened before the women arrived.
Then you can do a better translation then every translator who has looked at the texts? If your translation is better, then why do they use "behold"? Why not just say, "there was an earthquake" and then say that Mary arrived after the fact?

Less information is a contradiction? They wrote what they felt was important to the audience. Why are they forced to go into such detail? The focus is obviously on the risen Lord and not the number of angels.
You're treating the number of angels in the tomb as if it's some irrelevant detail and that it would have been some overly difficult task to say two angels instead of one. Again, I HIGHLY doubt you would accept this type of sloppy journalism from CNN.

Less information is a contradiction? They wrote what they felt was important to the audience. Why are they forced to go into such detail? The focus is obviously on the risen Lord and not the number of angels.


so it would not bother you if someone dug up a letter from mark that said "and oh, by the way, you know that book i wrote a while ago? i forgot to mention that jesus had a gay lover, and enjoyed S&M" ?

after all, the audience would not like to hear that, so why bother telling it to them?

just little details...

yes, in the case of 'infalliable' works of fiction, less information does construe, if not a contradiction, at least a crime serious enough to be considered one.

*states the obvious* This thread is insanely loooonng.

Then you can do a better translation then every translator who has looked at the texts? If your translation is better, then why do they use "behold"? Why not just say, "there was an earthquake" and then say that Mary arrived after the fact?

NIV doesnt use behold. theres one example...

NIV doesnt use behold. theres one example...


if one version says behold and another doesn't, which is correct?

Repent Sehnner! The Pah-r A Chriest Compels Yeuo!

Repent Sehnner! The Pah-r A Chriest Compels Yeuo!
"The power of Christ compels you, the power of Christ compels you, the power of Christ compels you, the power of Christ compels you, the power of Christ compels you, the power of Christ compels you, the power of Christ compels you!"

What movie?

"The power of Christ compels you, the power of Christ compels you, the power of Christ compels you, the power of Christ compels you, the power of Christ compels you, the power of Christ compels you, the power of Christ compels you!"

What movie?
GIGLI

GIGLI
Huh?

"I've been thinking. maybe God is like a zero in mathematics... so, while God is analog, a zero is still digital."

-Tachikoma: Ghosti n the Shell: Stand Alone Complex


PS,
if anyone can find the whole quote, it would be nice if you could post it. i've been looking everywhere for it, but can only get this segment from the video. thank you.

With just a few short sentences, the skeptic appears to have documented a legitimate discrepancy within the biblical text. The key word here, however, is “appears.” As is so often the case, there is much more to the matter than merely quoting a single verse or two in an effort to make the Bible appear to contradict itself.

Ready? The Amalekite was LYING. He found Saul's dead body, then came in to David's camp with his made-up story thinking, "Hey, maybe if I say I saved Saul from humiliation, I'll get a big, fat reward from David!"


The bible doesn't say that the Amalekite lied. You are attempting to revise biblical history. If we can assume that the Amalekite lied (in the word of god), then we can assume that ANYTHING that any character says is a lie.

Since the bible doesn't SAY the Amalekite lied, it must be assumed that the Amalekite didn't lie.

Unless you have some form of special pleading for this situation, as well - whereby you can choose the phrase you don't want to be true, and just say... "oh, that person was lying".


The difference between temptation and trial is that temptation says, "Do this pleasant thing and do not let yourself be hindered by the fact that it is wrong," whereas trial says, "Do this good and noble thing, and do not let yourself be hindered by the fact that it is painful". Temptation leads us down the path of sin and death, but trial leads us upward to a higher and nobler life.
In Genesis 22:1, the Hebrew word translated “tempted” is the word NACAH and it means to test, try, prove, tempt, assay, put to the proof or test. Because it has so many possible synonyms, we must look to the context and compare it to other passages. As we read the account of the event, we note that God did not intend Abram to complete the sacrifice of his promised heir. However, Abram did not know that, and was willing to carry out God’s orders, knowing that if God did require this, He was able to raise Isaac up from the dead (Heb 11:17-19). This passage in Hebrews (written in Greek) is translated ‘Abram was “tried”’ instead of saying he was “tempted.” So the conclusion is that in Genesis 22:1, the Hebrew word translated “tempt” has to do with testing or evaluating something.
Therefore, it was a test that God offered to Abraham, not a temptation to sin.
James 1:13 gives a guiding principle: no one has the right to say that he has been tempted “of God.” The word “of” is essential to our understanding this statement, because it indicates the origin of something. This is an important part, because that means temptations to sin do not originate with God. In that sense, James concludes: God does not tempt anyone to sin.


Rubbish - your entire justification for picking one translation of a Hebrew word over many other equal contenders, is the fact that you don't like the fact that it contradicts a Greek word, in a book written a thousand years later. I don't accept your 'special pleading' in this case, either.


Many have pointed out that the stalls mentioned in 2 Chronicles may have been large ones that housed 10 horses each (that is, a row of ten stalls). Therefore 4,000 of these large stalls would be equivalent to 40,000 small ones.


And the chariots... obviously they 'stalled' the chariots, too.

I'm not buying it. A stall is where you put a horse... you have an obvious case of either: a) copy error (someone transcribing 4,000 as 40,000... or vice versa; or b) someone exagerrating the number of horses, to make it sound more impressive and 'macho'... only to be caught out, later in the history.


The last of the verses quoted is from 1 John 3:9 which says:
"No-one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God."
An older translation for 1 John 3:9 and so states, "No one born of God commits sin...and he cannot sin...," which is not a true translation of the Greek. In the newer translations, such as the NIV they translate correctly using the present continuous in this verse, as it is written that way in the Greek. Thus those born of God will not continue to sin, as they cannot go on sinning..., the idea being that this life of sinning will die out now that he has the help of the Holy Spirit in him or her.

It is for that reason that we are called not to continue in our sinful ways but to be changed into Christ's sinless likeness.


Not at all - it is impossible to walk in the spirit and the flesh - so such an 'appeal' would be redundant. Since all men are born of god, no man sins... or continues to sin, if you prefer. It's a direct contradiction.


Acts 1:18 simply informs us that Judas furnished the means of purchasing the field. One is not forced to conclude that Judas personally bought the potter’s field. As in modern-day writings and speeches, it is very common for the Scriptures to represent a man as doing a thing when, in fact, he merely supplies the means for doing it. For example, Joseph spoke of his brothers as selling him into Egypt (Genesis 45:4-5; cf. Acts 7:9), when actually they sold him to the Ishmaelites (who then sold him into Egypt). John mentions that “the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples)” (John 4:1-3). And when the Bible says, “Pilate took Jesus and scourged Him” (John 19:1), most people understand that he simply ordered Jesus to be scourged, not that he actually did the scourging himself. The same principle is recognized in law in the well-known Latin maxim, “Qui facit per alium, facit per se” (“he who acts through another is deemed in law to do it himself”).
Upon closer scrutiny it appears one passage is just a summary of the other.
Matthew 27:1-10 describes in detail the events that happened in regard to Judas betrayal of Jesus, and their significance in terms of the fulfillment of the Scriptures. In particular he quotes from the prophet Zechariah 11:12-13 which many think are clarifications of the prophecies found in Jeremiah 19:1-13 and 32:6-9.

In the Acts 1:18-19 passage however, Luke is making a short resume of something that people already knew, as a point of clarification to the speech of Peter, among the believers. This is illustrated by the fact that in verse 19 he says, "Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this". Also it is more than probable that the Gospel record was already being circulated amongst the believers at the time of Luke's writing. Luke, therefore, was not required to go into detail about the facts of Judas' death


Acts 1:18 "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out..."

Acts 1:19 "And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood".

Clearly - the name of the field comes from the fact that Judas suicided there... which directly contradicts the assertion that the name comes from the Priest's use of blood money. Unless, perhaps you mean that Judas had someone else commit suicide for him?

The contradiction still stands... Judas didn't have the money, he returned it to the priest. The field is named after Judas, for his suicide. Judas bought the field with the money he didn't have. The field is named for the fact that the priests bought it with tainted bloodmoney...

Once again, I don't buy your 'special pleading'. If Judas can 'buy' the field by being responsible for the bloodmoney, then who is to say that Jesus is 'responsible' for his miracles? You can't just pick and choose which parts you want to be literal.


Both passages agree that it was due to it being bought by blood-money. Acts 1:18-19 starts by saying, "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field". So it begins with the assumption that the field was bought by the blood-money, and then the author intending to cause revulsion for what had happened describes Judas bloody end on that piece of real estate.


No - it seems QUITE clear, following the text, that the field was called the "Field of blood" because Judas spilled his guts all over it.

Sure, it MENTIONS the money... but, Judas didn't have the money - so that context makes no sense. The name of the field follows directly from the (bloody means of) suicide... to suspect any other mechanism for the naming, is to add complications that aren't in the text.


They where adopted children, from Merab, Saul's daughter (1 Samuel 18:19), the wife of Adriel, the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.

Saul had two daughters, Michal and Merab, which names are quite similar in Hebrew. The modern translations read correctly saying: "But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiah's daughter Rizpah, whom she had borne to Saul, together with the five sons of Saul's daughter Merab, whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite." IISamuel 21:8 (NIV) Thus it was referring to Merab, the older daughter, and not Michal, the younger. Notice that her husband was "Adriel" not David. It was Merab who was married to Adriel. "So when the time came for Merab, Saul's daughter, to be given to David, she was given in marriage to Adriel of Meholah." 1Sa 18:19 (Even the King James says that) Michal was married to David.

I know that Second Samuel 21:8 must have been a copyists mistake.

Still an error, and one which stood in the text for 2000 years....

WHOA! Do you have any idea how many logical fallacies are contained in that ONE statement?

Presuppositionalism, unstubstandiated a priori, shifting the weight of evidence.

The bible is a positive assertion. If you believe the bible and back up it's assertions, then the evidence is upon you to prove it. To demand someone to prove it wrong is to shift the weight of evidence onto another who is not making the claim. You are asking them to prove a negative, which is logically impossible in most cases. It doesn't work like that and that line of reasoning is not allowed in science. If you have a claim, then it is up to YOU, and no one else who does not make the same claim, to prove it.

A case of 'special pleading'... you note that the 'christians' don't accept "Peter Pan" as a historical truth, despite the fact that nobody has ever disproved it....

Neo came up with a response, that the bible SAYS it is true (a weird kind of internal justification) - but DOESN'T accept "Lemony Snicket" as true, despite the same 'internal' evidence.

You note, Justifidians and Neo Cannen both somehow ignore the fact that the modern 'incorruptible, innerant' text... is only a fraction of the texts that were ORIGINALLY considered holy scripture....

A case of 'special pleading'... you note that the 'christians' don't accept "Peter Pan" as a historical truth, despite the fact that nobody has ever disproved it....

Neo came up with a response, that the bible SAYS it is true (a weird kind of internal justification) - but DOESN'T accept "Lemony Snicket" as true, despite the same 'internal' evidence.

You note, Justifidians and Neo Cannen both somehow ignore the fact that the modern 'incorruptible, innerant' text... is only a fraction of the texts that were ORIGINALLY considered holy scripture....

We know that Limoney Snikets book was intended as a work of fiction because it is published as such. The Bible was not. When it was distributed it was done so in the lifetimes of those who had lived with and seen Jesus. They knew who he was and what he had done and therefore knew the Bible to be accurate. They did not put it out as fiction, as you would have done had it been fiction.

We know that Limoney Snikets book was intended as a work of fiction because it is published as such. The Bible was not. When it was distributed it was done so in the lifetimes of those who had lived with and seen Jesus. They knew who he was and what he had done and therefore knew the Bible to be accurate. They did not put it out as fiction, as you would have done had it been fiction.
So intent of publishers makes it to be true? (even if I was to publish something I thought was true if it is obviously made up it would still be classified as such irregardless of what I intended it to be) maybe the time is overdue for an examination of what the bible is considered irregardless of publishers intent

So intent of publishers makes it to be true? (even if I was to publish something I thought was true if it is obviously made up it would still be classified as such irregardless of what I intended it to be) maybe the time is overdue for an examination of what the bible is considered irregardless of publishers intent

Its not their intent. Its WHAT THEY WERE DOING. Recording what they had seen and knew to be fact. Also you completely missed the main point of my post. Those who read the gospels were those who had witnessed Jesus's life and times and so knew who he was and that what they were reading was not fiction. If it was fiction claiming to be fact, it would have been dismissed. But it wasnt and those who read it knew that.

Its not their intent. Its WHAT THEY WERE DOING. Recording what they had seen and knew to be fact. Also you completely missed the main point of my post. Those who read the gospels were those who had witnessed Jesus's life and times and so knew who he was and that what they were reading was not fiction. If it was fiction claiming to be fact, it would have been dismissed. But it wasnt and those who read it knew that.
so what were the standards of proof? can I get a couple of friends to agree that the believe it as fact (hell there are plenty of corroberating stories that UFO's abducted them and analy probed them) if published does that make them true even if the people really believe it?

so what were the standards of proof? can I get a couple of friends to agree that the believe it as fact (hell there are plenty of corroberating stories that UFO's abducted them and analy probed them) if published does that make them true even if the people really believe it?

They were there! They saw, they knew, they believed. The fact is that the Bible was accepted by those who knew and saw Jesus, (those who first read the Gospels) as truth. They had their own memories to compare it to. They had been there. They had seen it. The Gospels were telling these people about what they knew to be true and as such they did not dismiss it as false. If a thousand people were all involved in the same incident and all gave the same accounts about what happened then likelyhood is its true or everyone was very board and came up with a story. Those who read the gospel after it was distributed regonised the truth of it. They too had been there and they too had seen it. Why would it have survived if it was a lie?

They were there! They saw, they knew, they believed. The fact is that the Bible was accepted by those who knew and saw Jesus, (those who first read the Gospels) as truth. They had their own memories to compare it to. They had been there. They had seen it. The Gospels were telling these people about what they knew to be true and as such they did not dismiss it as false. If a thousand people were all involved in the same incident and all gave the same accounts about what happened then likelyhood is its true or everyone was very board and came up with a story. Those who read the gospel after it was distributed regonised the truth of it. They too had been there and they too had seen it. Why would it have survived if it was a lie?
The same thing can be said of Mohammed and the Koran … does that not make it true as well?

The same thing can be said of Mohammed and the Koran … does that not make it true as well?

No because Mohammad was on his own when he claims to have seen God. Jesus was witnessed by mass multitudes. Those who read the Gospels saw the truth in them, having seen Jesus and what he did in their own lifetime. They did not dismiss it as fiction claiming to be truth as they would have done had it been so. Those who read it first saw the events described. Thats why so many knew it to be true.

We know that Limoney Snikets book was intended as a work of fiction because it is published as such. The Bible was not. When it was distributed it was done so in the lifetimes of those who had lived with and seen Jesus. They knew who he was and what he had done and therefore knew the Bible to be accurate. They did not put it out as fiction, as you would have done had it been fiction.

Lemony Snicket is sold in the fiction section... but, if you have ever read any of the Lemony Snicket books, they do not PRESENT themselves as fictional - but, instead, claim to be the history of the Baudelaire orphans.

And, Neo... the 'bible' WASN'T 'distributed' during 'their' lifetimes... although many of the individual texts may have been making SOME of the rounds then... Remember that the 'scripture' wasn't Canonised until several generations after the supposed 'death of Jesus'. And, at that point, many unaccepted texts were included, and many accepted texts were lost.


Just by the way - The Koran is sold in the same section as the bible... does that mean that Jesus is NOT the messiah, and is just a prophet, as Islam believes?

Must be... it's not sold as 'fiction', right?

And, Neo... the 'bible' WASN'T 'distributed' during 'their' lifetimes... although many of the individual texts may have been making SOME of the rounds then... Remember that the 'scripture' wasn't Canonised until several generations after the supposed 'death of Jesus'. And, at that point, many unaccepted texts were included, and many accepted texts were lost.


The Gospels were written and distributed within the lifetimes of those who saw and knew Jesus. They did not dismiss it as fiction claiming to be truth because they knew it to be true. They had seen it, they knew about it, they read about it. If it were fiction, it would have been dismissed outright.

Just by the way - The Koran is sold in the same section as the bible... does that mean that Jesus is NOT the messiah, and is just a prophet, as Islam believes?

The Koran and what is says was only witnessed by Mohammad himself. Hence we only have his word to verifiy it. Considering he, unlike Jesus was extremely self publising (he said to people 'I am the one God speaks through' and persuaded others to believe unlike Jesus who just did what he did and did not call out to people through words. He did not go around chanting "I am God, worship me" or anything egotistical like that). The Bible is somewhat unique and different to the Qu'ran. Despite being written over a millena or so it still all makes sense as one piece. The predictions of the comming and the fufillment of the comming and the preperation for the next comming.

No because Mohammad was on his own when he claims to have seen God. Jesus was witnessed by mass multitudes. Those who read the Gospels saw the truth in them, having seen Jesus and what he did in their own lifetime. They did not dismiss it as fiction claiming to be truth as they would have done had it been so. Those who read it first saw the events described. Thats why so many knew it to be true.

Jesus wasn't witnessed 'seeing god', was he?

Actually - if THAT is all that matters to you... many more people witnessed the miracles at the heart of the Baha'i faith...

Do you now renounce your 'christianity', in favour of the Baha'i theology?

They have more witnesses... and better witnesses (since many of the witnesses were 'outsiders' and 'independent')... so their version of the story must be MORE 'true', right?

The Gospels were written and distributed within the lifetimes of those who saw and knew Jesus. They did not dismiss it as fiction claiming to be truth because they knew it to be true. They had seen it, they knew about it, they read about it. If it were fiction, it would have been dismissed outright.


Are you really this mis-informed... or are you lying?

There isn't ANY evidence that ANY of the Gospels were written during the lifetimes of any witness, Neo.

And MUCH evidence that AT LEAST ONE of them was CERTAINLY written long after the deaths of any actual witnesses.

The Bible is somewhat unique and different to the Qu'ran. Despite being written over a millena or so it still all makes sense as one piece. The predictions of the comming and the fufillment of the comming and the preperation for the next comming.

Not finished reading the bible - so HOW CAN YOU MAKE THAT ASSERTION?

And, I would be willing to wager a LARGE SUM, that you have NEVER read the Koran... so how can you compare the two.... or critique the Koran, AT ALL?

Actually - if THAT is all that matters to you... many more people witnessed the miracles at the heart of the Baha'i faith...

Do you now renounce your 'christianity', in favour of the Baha'i theology?

They have more witnesses... and better witnesses (since many of the witnesses were 'outsiders' and 'independent')... so their version of the story must be MORE 'true', right?

It seemed to matter to you and UpwardThrust. You were the ones asking me. You seemed to have it in your mind that Christianity was flawed because of lack of evidence. I have faith in my own mind that isn't based particulally on the nature of the evidence, but on the spirtiual truth of what the evidence presents. But since you seem so concerned, shouldnt you be a Baha'i faith member (whatever the word for that is).

Are you really this mis-informed... or are you lying?

There isn't ANY evidence that ANY of the Gospels were written during the lifetimes of any witness, Neo.

And MUCH evidence that AT LEAST ONE of them was CERTAINLY written long after the deaths of any actual witnesses.

The earlier Gospels were known to be circulated around 40-60AD. Jesus died in 30AD aproximately. Thus those who saw his works would still be alive and when reading the Gospels, did not dismiss them as stupid fiction claiming to be fact.

It seemed to matter to you and UpwardThrust. You were the ones asking me. You seemed to have it in your mind that Christianity was flawed because of lack of evidence. I have faith in my own mind that isn't based particulally on the nature of the evidence, but on the spirtiual truth of what the evidence presents. But since you seem so concerned, shouldnt you be a Baha'i faith member (whatever the word for that is).

Perhaps you are confused as to what an 'Atheist' is, Neo.

I don't believe in ANY of the stories.... Baha'i OR Christian OR Muslim OR Hindu... etc.

You said that 'Christianity' must be 'true' because it had more witnesses to the divine than Islam did... well, the Baha'i have MORE evidence than 'christians', and more independent corroboration.... so, by YOUR logic... the Baha'i faith must be 'more true' than 'christianity'.

So - since that was your reason stated for the validity of 'christian' scripture... shouldn't you follow the Baha'i faith?

The earlier Gospels were known to be circulated around 40-60AD. Jesus died in 30AD aproximately. Thus those who saw his works would still be alive and when reading the Gospels, did not dismiss them as stupid fiction claiming to be fact.

And how many of the direct witnesses were still alive in 60AD, Neo?

During those times of persecution...

I didn't dismiss them as 'stupid fiction claiming to be fact'.

I, personally, think they probably WERE fictional... but, I make no claims.

You, on the other hand, have NO evidence for their factuality, and CLAIM they are true.

The earlier Gospels were known to be circulated around 40-60AD. Jesus died in 30AD aproximately. Thus those who saw his works would still be alive and when reading the Gospels, did not dismiss them as stupid fiction claiming to be fact.

I haven't read the bible... But from what you're saying, just the fact that people were alive when it came out doesn't prove anything.
Mein Kampf is still around, even though we know most of it is bullshit.

A cult publishing a book doesn't make the cult any more valid... Just look at L.Ron Hubbard

Will someone please just kill this thread already?

Nothings going to be accomplished by Atheists and Christians bickering over whos right and whos wrong, cause neither will accept the others arguments.

Man these threads are starting to piss me off.

Not finished reading the bible - so HOW CAN YOU MAKE THAT ASSERTION?


This stops right now. When I said to you I have not read the entire Bible, that does not mean I have read little bits of it and I am pretending to be a Christian. I have read practially all of it. The parts that I have not read or examined are small in size and number. Its not like I pretend to understand Chrisitanity without having read the most important parts. Most Christians have not read every single word in the Bible but there is not one part lurking somewhere that makes the whole rest of it fall apart. People can claim to find contridictions and mistakes but the fact of the matter is that none of these compromise the original message in a way that invalidates it. Tell me, if you have read the entire Bible, find me a part which significently alters the message.

I haven't read the bible... But from what you're saying, just the fact that people were alive when it came out doesn't prove anything.
Mein Kampf is still around, even though we know most of it is bullshit.

Mein Kamph is a historical document. It is the truth about Hitlers thoughts and life.

The Bible is a historical document, but somewhat more signifent in subject matter.

Will someone please just kill this thread already?

Nothings going to be accomplished by Atheists and Christians bickering over whos right and whos wrong, cause neither will accept the others arguments.

Man these threads are starting to piss me off.

You know, I agree.

And how many of the direct witnesses were still alive in 60AD, Neo?

During those times of persecution...


Enough to keep the Bible alive as scripture. Why exactly would people hold fiction dear to them and be persecuted for it. Tell me, wouldnt you if about to be killed for liking Enid Blyton eventually give it up and say "it doesnt matter, its not real".


I, personally, think they probably WERE fictional... but, I make no claims.

You, on the other hand, have NO evidence for their factuality, and CLAIM they are true.

I believe them to be true. I make no claims for being able to prove it certianly, thats what faith is. I will defend my beliefs however.

I would be interested to hear from you however why you think it is fiction?

This stops right now. When I said to you I have not read the entire Bible, that does not mean I have read little bits of it and I am pretending to be a Christian. I have read practially all of it. The parts that I have not read or examined are small in size and number. Its not like I pretend to understand Chrisitanity without having read the most important parts. Most Christians have not read every single word in the Bible but there is not one part lurking somewhere that makes the whole rest of it fall apart. People can claim to find contridictions and mistakes but the fact of the matter is that none of these compromise the original message in a way that invalidates it. Tell me, if you have read the entire Bible, find me a part which significently alters the message.

HOW can you claim to be 'christian' if you haven't even read the book?

How can you know what you 'believe'... what you are aligning yourself to, if you haven't read the manifesto?

Don't get all 'heavyweight' with me, Neo... "this stops right now"? You could have 'stopped this' at anytime since we have been debating, by simply finishing reading the scripture, couldn't you?

You are willing to tell me my understanding of 'christianity' is flawed, and yet, somehow, you consider you have some sort of special exemption, that makes your understanding of "god's word" perfect, without even needing to READ it?

The earlier Gospels were known to be circulated around 40-60AD. Jesus died in 30AD aproximately. Thus those who saw his works would still be alive and when reading the Gospels, did not dismiss them as stupid fiction claiming to be fact.Really? I heard that no texts showed up until the 2nd century, and there is much evidence that most were not actually written by the apostles but by their followers (some believe that most of the apostles were actually illiterate and had to rely on others to record their memoirs).

You ever done the little game where someone whispers a short story in someones ear and they whisper it to the person next to them, on down a line of people? The more people you have the more distorted the story is at the end.

Consider that the bible has thousands of years of being passed along and add the multiple translation factor and the editing done by the church over time and you are left with no other conclusion that the story has at least some errors at best, or is wrought with fallicies at worst.

Mein Kamph is a historical document. It is the truth about Hitlers thoughts and life.

The Bible is a historical document, but somewhat more signifent in subject matter.

Mein Kampf is full of racist propaganda and lies stated as facts. It just isn't the real truth about Hitlers life. Lucky for us that it's not the only source of information on Hitlers life.

We have hundreds, if not thousands of books published every year that are full of lies, bullshit theories and biased studies. The fact that they exist does not prove that the information they provide is accurate.

Really? I heard that no texts showed up until the 2nd century, and there is much evidence that most were not actually written by the apostles but by their followers (some believe that most of the apostles were actually illiterate and had to rely on others to record their memoirs).

You ever done the little game where someone whispers a short story in someones ear and they whisper it to the person next to them, on down a line of people? The more people you have the more distorted the story is at the end.

Consider that the bible has thousands of years of being passed along and add the multiple translation factor and the editing done by the church over time and you are left with no other conclusion that the story has at least some errors at best, or is wrought with fallicies at worst.

Gospels (http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm)

HOW can you claim to be 'christian' if you haven't even read the book?

How can you know what you 'believe'... what you are aligning yourself to, if you haven't read the manifesto?

Don't get all 'heavyweight' with me, Neo... "this stops right now"? You could have 'stopped this' at anytime since we have been debating, by simply finishing reading the scripture, couldn't you?

You are willing to tell me my understanding of 'christianity' is flawed, and yet, somehow, you consider you have some sort of special exemption, that makes your understanding of "god's word" perfect, without even needing to READ it?

I HAVE READ IT. You believe that because I havent read every last word I dont understand it. Newsflash Grave. There are Christians in Africa with only the New testement and a page or two of Jerimiah. You dont need to read every single word in the Bible to be a Christian. I have read it so stop saying I havent. You seem to think that when I say "I havent read it" that implies that I have read a tiny portion. Ive read well over 75%. Proberbly comming up to 90%. Do not dismiss me because I have not read it all. I never said my understanding was perfect but it is good.

Man these threads are starting to piss me off.

Its kind of easy to solve your problem, if you dont like them, dont click on the link to enter them.

Enough to keep the Bible alive as scripture. Why exactly would people hold fiction dear to them and be persecuted for it. Tell me, wouldnt you if about to be killed for liking Enid Blyton eventually give it up and say "it doesnt matter, its not real".


Interesting... why do you think Moslems are willing to die for their faith?

Do you believe that Mohammed was right?

To many people, Neo - the 'idea' is worth more than the 'truth'.

Look at James Cameron's "Titanic", for an example.

(Bear with me) The movie creates at least on fictional character, and runs through a series of fictionalised events, culminating in a historically recorded tragedy.

Did any of the 'fiction' events happen? Almost certainly the answer is "no".

But the MESSAGE of the film, the fact that it makes people identify with one or two people who might have been on the ship, and thus, feel the pain of their deaths.... and then MULTIPLY those deaths by a few thousands... THEN you can gain an understanding of what a tragedy like the sinking of the Titanic actually MEANS.

The 'fiction' is a better service to the TRUTH of that story, than the 'truth' is.


I believe them to be true. I make no claims for being able to prove it certianly, thats what faith is. I will defend my beliefs however.

I would be interested to hear from you however why you think it is fiction?

So - you admit that 'christianity' is based on something other than truth?

I don't necessarily believe that the bible is entirely fictional... but the miraculous needs to be supported by evidence.

There is no evidence... therefore, I see nor eason to believe in anything miraculous.

I won't just accept someone elses 'fairytale' because THEY say it is true... the same goes for the 'bible'.

Its kind of easy to solve your problem, if you dont like them, dont click on the link to enter them.

Problem is as long as people keep posting on them they end up at the top of the list. And what annoys me is that they just never end.

Interesting... why do you think Moslems are willing to die for their faith?


They have their faith, I have mine. I believe them to be inacurate. They believe me to be inaccurate. They are willing to die for their faith because their account says that its possible. I dont believe they think their account is fiction, I just believe it not to be the case. Their God, unlike mine is one which demands appeasement.


So - you admit that 'christianity' is based on something other than truth?


How did you come to that from what I said. No I dont. I believe it to be the truth but I cant prove it. I dont have to for myself though because I have what is known as faith.


I don't necessarily believe that the bible is entirely fictional... but the miraculous needs to be supported by evidence.

There is no evidence... therefore, I see nor eason to believe in anything miraculous.

I won't just accept someone elses 'fairytale' because THEY say it is true... the same goes for the 'bible'.

Fair enough, but let me ask you this. If you had much more evidence, evidence to prove it certianly, would you believe. A lot of people I think who say they need more proof are actually just scared by the posibility that there is a God who could do the things described and thus they demand evidence. When the dont find the evidence to their satisfaction they assume it didnt happen.

Problem is as long as people keep posting on them they end up at the top of the list. And what annoys me is that they just never end.

This isnt just an argument thread, debate actually does surface every now and then.

This isnt just an argument thread, debate actually does surface every now and then.

That's good. I hope i get to see it some time, this thread is just.. its just getting ridiculous. 1300+ posts? come on.

I HAVE READ IT. You believe that because I havent read every last word I dont understand it. Newsflash Grave. There are Christians in Africa with only the New testement and a page or two of Jerimiah. You dont need to read every single word in the Bible to be a Christian. I have read it so stop saying I havent. You seem to think that when I say "I havent read it" that implies that I have read a tiny portion. Ive read well over 75%. Proberbly comming up to 90%. Do not dismiss me because I have not read it all. I never said my understanding was perfect but it is good.

I have never said that you 'haven't read it at all'.

I have never said that you have 'only read a small portion'.

But - you haven't finished reading it, have you? Past imperfect. So, past perfect... you haven't 'read' it.

And, I don't agree.... those people in africa are being sold a religion, but they are being lied to. Unless they understand what they are buying into, I think it is tantamount to lying to call them 'christian'.

Which is nothing special... since most people ANYWHERE that call themselves 'christian' DO NOT actually follow 'christ'... they follow an organisation centred on a version of 'christ', and they believe that to be the same thing. Or, they claim to be 'christian' because they attend church. Or they claim to be 'christian' because they were born into a 'christian' home. Or they claim to be 'christian' because they have read the 'bible'.

I don't think you can HONESTLY claim to be 'christian', unless you try to live a 'christlike' life... unless you follow the teachings of Jesus... unless you admit to the reality of 'christ'.

And, without having read the entire bible... you cannot claim to have true knowledge of who 'christ' is... since you can't know who he was 'supposed to be'.

Problem is as long as people keep posting on them they end up at the top of the list. And what annoys me is that they just never end.

You realise, of course - that your OWN post ALSO bumped the thread back to the top of the list?

Good point.

Though i figure if its gonna be up there i might as well post instead of having it there as a pure eyesore.

I have never said that you 'haven't read it at all'.

I have never said that you have 'only read a small portion'.

But - you haven't finished reading it, have you? Past imperfect. So, past perfect... you haven't 'read' it.

And, I don't agree.... those people in africa are being sold a religion, but they are being lied to. Unless they understand what they are buying into, I think it is tantamount to lying to call them 'christian'.

Which is nothing special... since most people ANYWHERE that call themselves 'christian' DO NOT actually follow 'christ'... they follow an organisation centred on a version of 'christ', and they believe that to be the same thing. Or, they claim to be 'christian' because they attend church. Or they claim to be 'christian' because they were born into a 'christian' home. Or they claim to be 'christian' because they have read the 'bible'.

I don't think you can HONESTLY claim to be 'christian', unless you try to live a 'christlike' life... unless you follow the teachings of Jesus... unless you admit to the reality of 'christ'.

And, without having read the entire bible... you cannot claim to have true knowledge of who 'christ' is... since you can't know who he was 'supposed to be'.

Would you please stop treating it as some kind of major deficincy on my part though.

I have a great deal of understanding of who the Bible both said Christ would be in the Old Testement and who he was. You dont need to understand all the Old Testement prophecies to be a Christian. I made a five point plan to you ages ago in post 306. If you can find something biblically wrong with it I would be impressed.

I made a five point plan to you ages ago in post 306.

Dang, thats like 1050 posts ago!

They have their faith, I have mine. I believe them to be inacurate. They believe me to be inaccurate. They are willing to die for their faith because their account says that its possible. I dont believe they think their account is fiction, I just believe it not to be the case. Their God, unlike mine is one which demands appeasement.


Yet, both sides are willing to 'die for their god'... so, ONE side MUST be dying for a fiction, yes?

That ws the point you made about the early christians... why would they die for a fiction??? Well, people do it all the time.

The God of the bible DOES ask for appeasement.... Jesus was appeasement. Abel was appeasement. Isaac was appeasement.

The 'sacrifices' of the Hebrews were appeasement.


How did you come to that from what I said. No I dont. I believe it to be the truth but I cant prove it. I dont have to for myself though because I have what is known as faith.


You said: "I make no claims for being able to prove it certianly, thats what faith is. I will defend my beliefs however". You admit that there is no way of 'proving' the story, but that it 'doesn't matter', because you have faith, instead.

If you admit it is unprovable, and then dismiss that as unimportant... you are admitting that 'truth' isn't an important factor in faith.

Thus - you believe DESPITE the fact that the story may not be true.


Fair enough, but let me ask you this. If you had much more evidence, evidence to prove it certianly, would you believe. A lot of people I think who say they need more proof are actually just scared by the posibility that there is a God who could do the things described and thus they demand evidence. When the dont find the evidence to their satisfaction they assume it didnt happen.

If I saw incontrvertible evidence that supported the miraculous claims of the bible, I would believe the miraculous claims of the bible.

If I ever saw ACTUAL proof of the hand of a 'god', I would believe in a 'god'.

I have seen no evidence for the miraculous, and no proof for a 'god'... so I don't 'believe'.

That is why I am an Atheist... I don't 'believe' in any 'gods' - because there is nothing to show that they are real.

I also don't 'believe' that hamburgers can talk - because there is nothing to show it is true.

Present me credible evidence, and I'll believe in Leprachauns, Unicorns and whatever 'god' you care to bring to the debate.

Would you please stop treating it as some kind of major deficincy on my part though.

I have a great deal of understanding of who the Bible both said Christ would be in the Old Testement and who he was. You dont need to understand all the Old Testement prophecies to be a Christian. I made a five point plan to you ages ago in post 306. If you can find something biblically wrong with it I would be impressed.
I looked at the 5-point-plan, Neo... although it's so long ago, I don't really recall it.

I do remember it being fundamentally flawed... I think it required that you started by making an assumption, and gave no reason as to why that assumption should be true... I DID comment on that...

Sorry, can't remember any more detail than that, though.

The God of the bible DOES ask for appeasement.... Jesus was appeasement. Abel was appeasement. Isaac was appeasement.

The 'sacrifices' of the Hebrews were appeasement.


Islam believes that basicly you need to lead a good life to please God and he will allow you into heaven if your good deads outweigh your bad deeds and if you do all the things Allah commands (Pray 5 times a day etc). Islam demands appeasement of the spiritual sort, you have to be "good" enough to get to God.

Christianity places no such demands. It says that Humans cannot deal with the bad things in their life and that no matter how "good" you are, the bad things remain. So God created a way to deal with the bad things above human power. Jesus's death. Christainity says that you cannot ever be "good" enough in your actions for God, which is why Jesus was sent. God does not need apeasement from your actions, just aceptance and sincerity.

In my mind Christianity makes more sense (not just from that description but from much more). Its up to you to make your own choices about faith.

I looked at the 5-point-plan, Neo... although it's so long ago, I don't really recall it.

I do remember it being fundamentally flawed... I think it required that you started by making an assumption, and gave no reason as to why that assumption should be true... I DID comment on that...

Sorry, can't remember any more detail than that, though.

You said it was based on the idea that God existed at all. I am asking if you can find any biblical fault with the 5 point plan.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8137438&postcount=306

I'm an occultist. I study the very foundations of reality itself. I know there are christians and there are idiotic people that actually believe that God is vain enough to love a child-molester who believes in him but not an atheist that does social work. These second idiots call themselves christians as well, so I'll add quotation marks to their names for the sake of identification. So... Come get me, "christians". I DARE your petty, vain, idiotic evil excuse for a god to come and get me. I do not believe a god vain enough to allow a child molester into heaven just because said molester believes him, and I will not ever. The truly Christian God would be terribly disappointed to know what you "christians" have been saying in his name, so, again, I dare you to send your "God-that-hates-everyone-that's-not-Christian" after me. Come get me, punks.
You tool. God loves everyone, but those who cast him away cannot feel that love. Just because someone is Christian doesn't mean they are going to Heaven. Both of the examples that you gave have sin burning within them, as do all people.
You're just trying to flame up a debate.

Islam believes that basicly you need to lead a good life to please God and he will allow you into heaven if your good deads outweigh your bad deeds and if you do all the things Allah commands (Pray 5 times a day etc). Islam demands appeasement of the spiritual sort, you have to be "good" enough to get to God.

Christianity places no such demands. It says that Humans cannot deal with the bad things in their life and that no matter how "good" you are, the bad things remain. So God created a way to deal with the bad things above human power. Jesus's death. Christainity says that you cannot ever be "good" enough in your actions for God, which is why Jesus was sent. God does not need apeasement from your actions, just aceptance and sincerity.

In my mind Christianity makes more sense (not just from that description but from much more). Its up to you to make your own choices about faith.

First: Show me. Prove that your version of what Islam wants is an accurate representation of what Islam DOES really want?

You haven't read the Koran, have you?

Second: Methodists are 'christian', and also believe in the efficacy of works... and with good biblical precedent, since the bible clearly states that 'faith without works is dead'.

Third: Jesus' Death WAS appeasement - he was required as a sacrifice on an altar (the cross) to spill his sacred blood - that would be the ONLY reason why 'god' doesn't require appeasement in 'christianity'... he has already BEEN appeased, by a tribute of blood, no less.

Grave_n_idle]First: Show me. Prove that your version of what Islam wants is an accurate representation of what Islam DOES really want?

It seems like many of us think that Islam is a living breathing thing that makes decisions and acts in a paticular manner. I realise that you don't really think that Islam is like that but the above quote could be considered in that light. Islam does not make decisions--obviously people do. What some elements of Islam what to do does not mean that there plans are in accordance with the Qur'an or Muhammad. Make no mistake, there are elements of Islam, who call themselves Muslim, whose intentions are opposed to a peaceful, just world. They have taken the Holy Book of Islam and preverted it into something it was not intended to be. Unfortunately, the same can be said for the Holy Books of Judiasm and Christianity. Fortunately the numbers from Islam, Christianity and Judiasm and other religions, who prefer violence over reasonableness are not the majority.

Islam" does not derive from Muhammad's name. The word, from the
Arabic root "salima," is variously translated as surrender to God's
Will, and as obedience, peace and salvation, A Muslim is one who
follows Islam; who has surrendered himself to God, is obedient, has
attained salvation.

(Islamic Miscellaneous, Gail - Six Lessons on Islam, p. 1)

Gospels (http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm)
:rolleyes: Just what exactly is that link supposed to prove? It gives no support for it's assumptions or addresses any dissenting views.

Lame.

"The power of Christ compels you, the power of Christ compels you, the power of Christ compels you, the power of Christ compels you, the power of Christ compels you, the power of Christ compels you, the power of Christ compels you!"

What movie?
The Exorcist, I think .

You haven't read the Koran, have you?

he hasn't even read his own holy text. can you really expect him to have read any other holy texts? i mean, clearly one does not need to actually read different holy books before deciding which one is officially the best...that would be silly.

NIV doesnt use behold. theres one example...
The NIV is probably the worst translation ever. It translates Leviticus 18:22 to "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." It is clear that the bible is being changed today, so what makes you think it wasn't being changed before today?

We know that Limoney Snikets book was intended as a work of fiction because it is published as such. The Bible was not. When it was distributed it was done so in the lifetimes of those who had lived with and seen Jesus. They knew who he was and what he had done and therefore knew the Bible to be accurate. They did not put it out as fiction, as you would have done had it been fiction.
How do you know the bible wasn't issued as fiction? Consider the old biblical stories of Eden and the flood. These things could not have happened, but we can get something from them if we take them as metaphor for something else. Losing innocence. We've all had some gain in knowledge in our life that more or less ended our childhood. Maybe it was learning about cannibalism, seeing your parents have sex or something else maybe. The flood is about how to survive the turbulent times in life. There isn't anything else to them. People at the time understood that, many jews today understand that, but christians don't seem to understand that. For some reason, they try to take things at their literal face value and it has caused them and everyone around them a world of misery through torture, repression, war and hindering scientific progress.

They were there! They saw, they knew, they believed. The fact is that the Bible was accepted by those who knew and saw Jesus, (those who first read the Gospels) as truth. They had their own memories to compare it to. They had been there. They had seen it. The Gospels were telling these people about what they knew to be true and as such they did not dismiss it as false. If a thousand people were all involved in the same incident and all gave the same accounts about what happened then likelyhood is its true or everyone was very board and came up with a story. Those who read the gospel after it was distributed regonised the truth of it. They too had been there and they too had seen it. Why would it have survived if it was a lie?
The gospels didn't exist at that time. The first cannonical gospel, Mark, was written 30 years after Jesus' death, by a 3rd hand source (someon who knew someone, who know someone who said . . . ).

If Jesus created such a stir, then why aren't there any records of him at that time? No roman records. No pharissee records. Josephus lived 30 years after Jesus' death, and his ONE entry is accepted by the church as a 4th century forgery. This leaves Jesus as a mythical figure. Read what he said, think about it, learn from it, become a better person from it, but to say that it literally happened is simply not true. I think that deep down you have a doubting place inside of you. Thomas doubted, and for his doubting, Jesus spoke highly of him and proved himself to Thomas. Learn from Thomas' example; demand proof. If it is true, the proof will be provided. If it is not true, the proof will not come, but a series of excuses for lack of proof will.

No because Mohammad was on his own when he claims to have seen God.
Sort of like Moses? Wasn't Jesus alone every time he spoke with god?

The Gospels were written and distributed within the lifetimes of those who saw and knew Jesus. They did not dismiss it as fiction claiming to be truth because they knew it to be true. They had seen it, they knew about it, they read about it. If it were fiction, it would have been dismissed outright.
The first written and cannonized gospel, Mark, was written AFTER the lifetimes of those who supposedly witnessed Jesus. Mark was not written by an apostle, it was written by a guy who knew a guy, who knew a guy who claimed to have seen Jesus. At the time, it was not taken to be literally true, but metaphorically true.

It seemed to matter to you and UpwardThrust. You were the ones asking me. You seemed to have it in your mind that Christianity was flawed because of lack of evidence. I have faith in my own mind that isn't based particulally on the nature of the evidence, but on the spirtiual truth of what the evidence presents. But since you seem so concerned, shouldnt you be a Baha'i faith member (whatever the word for that is).
You are offering faith in place of evidence now. In that case, you're right. However, if something is true, then there should be evidence for it's truth. Otherwise, if faith is what it takes for something to be true, then that makes ALL religions true.

Will someone please just kill this thread already?

Nothings going to be accomplished by Atheists and Christians bickering over whos right and whos wrong, cause neither will accept the others arguments.

Man these threads are starting to piss me off.
THEN STOP POSTING IN THEM! Otherwise, I'll follow you around and try to ruin the threads you are enjoying. We are enjoying ourselves, if you are not, then DON'T POST HERE, troll.

You know, I agree.
Then you can take your trolling ass off this tread too.

Gospels (http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm)
Have you actually read this link? It discredits almost everything you have said about the gospels. They were NOT written within the lifetimes of those witnesses, they were NOT written by the apostles, Mark was the first gospel (which Matthew used as a template) and Mark was written around 25-40 years after Jesus' death. In a time when life expectancy wasn't much passed 30, Matthew would have had to have been 5 years old when he traveled with Jesus (assuming he traveled with Jesus at all), which would put him at the ripe old age of 45 when he wrote Matthew. Why did he wait 40 years to write Matthew?! Why didn't he write it right away, or even better yet, at the time? He was going off of the memory of an old man. If he was Jesus' age at the time, then he was around 75 when he wrote his gospel. That's not only well beyond the life expctancy of almost everyone at the time, but also at an age where his memory couldn't have been very sharp.

They say that Mark was not an eye witness and Luke was not an eye witness. They don't mention of Matthew was, but I'd wager that he wasn't. Even if he was, that means that 2 of the 4 gospels were written by people who weren't there, yet write the story as though they were. Heck, Luck was a companion of Paul, who wasn't an eye witness either.

Finally, John wrote his gospel 50-60 years after Jesus' death? Why?! That doesn't make any sense for an eye witness to wait until he's 80-100 years old to write his gospel. There is no reason for him to wait so long, unless he wasn't really an eye witness.

Thanks for the site!

Problem is as long as people keep posting on them they end up at the top of the list. And what annoys me is that they just never end.
Someone call a waaaaaaambulance.

That's good. I hope i get to see it some time, this thread is just.. its just getting ridiculous. 1300+ posts? come on.
Then STOP POSTING. Ignore it. Let us enjoy ourselves without your whining about it. If I EVER see you enjoying a thread, I'll be sure to crash it. Now, go away.

They have their faith, I have mine. I believe them to be inacurate. They believe me to be inaccurate. They are willing to die for their faith because their account says that its possible. I dont believe they think their account is fiction, I just believe it not to be the case. Their God, unlike mine is one which demands appeasement.
Your god DOES demand appeasement. What do you think Jesus was all about? God had to scrafice himself, to himself, to appease himself of something we did at the beginning of time, regarding a rule that he made up. Jesus PAID for your sins, that's appeasement. Since god is omnipotent, he doesn't NEED appeasement, he WANTS appeasement. Otherwise, he would just wave his hand and make it so that no appeasement is needed.

Ok I will explain this to you

Reason for "Nice" athiest to go to hell and for "Bad" Christian to go to heaven

To be accepted by God you need to believe truely the following things

1- That you have sinned/done wrong/been bad etc
2- That you cannot deal with the implications of said sins yourself
3- That you need a power beyond your understanding (God) to deal with it
4- That there is a God beyond your understanding who wants to and can deal with it.
5- Having accepted that you are in the wrong (sinned) you need to do something about it.

1- Of course, no one is perfect.
2- Why not? Why can't I learn from my mistakes on my own, not make them in the future and try to atone my wrongdoing to those who I have offended?
3- This is redundant of 2.
4- Since god is all knowing, he knows what it would take for me to know of his existence. He knows that I am the skeptical type. He has not provided this evidence. Therefore, he either does not exist or does not want me to know of his existence.
5- Redundant of 2.

1- Of course, no one is perfect.
2- Why not? Why can't I learn from my mistakes on my own, not make them in the future and try to atone my wrongdoing to those who I have offended?
3- This is redundant of 2.
4- Since god is all knowing, he knows what it would take for me to know of his existence. He knows that I am the skeptical type. He has not provided this evidence. Therefore, he either does not exist or does not want me to know of his existence.
5- Redundant of 2.
yeah, that's pretty much where most reasonable atheists and skeptics sit. "if God is all knowing, and if God made everything, then He made me and knows exactly what it would take for me to be convinced of His existence. He knows exactly what it would take for me to believe, for me to worship Him, and for me to be willing to base my morality on Him. He has not seen fit to provide what is necessary to satisfy me, and He made me, so He either doesn't have the ability to convince me (which makes him a pretty wimpy God), or He doesn't WANT to convince me. or He doesn't exist at all."

of course, for myself, i don't believe God could convince me of his existence even if he was real, so it's totally irrelevant no matter what :).

No because Mohammad was on his own when he claims to have seen God. Jesus was witnessed by mass multitudes. Those who read the Gospels saw the truth in them, having seen Jesus and what he did in their own lifetime. They did not dismiss it as fiction claiming to be truth as they would have done had it been so. Those who read it first saw the events described. Thats why so many knew it to be true.
And what about someone in the ot that was alone ... on a mountain ... um what was his name moses?

And what about someone in the ot that was alone ... on a mountain ... um what was his name moses?


yes, that would be moses getting the commandments.

a better example would have been jesus and his 40 days and nights alone in the wilderness, the many, many, times he asked to be left alone by the disciples to pray on a mountaintop, the night of the last supper when he prayed alone in his chambers (let this pass over me, and all that)

sure... lots of witnesses makes it true


why do the 5,000 witnesses who saw him make food out of thin air have more credibility than the 10,000 who watched the zorlak the mighty cut a woman in half and put her back together last night on stage?

does that mean that zorlak really cut the woman in half?

must be, since so many people saw it happen

yes, that would be moses getting the commandments.

a better example would have been jesus and his 40 days and nights alone in the wilderness, the many, many, times he asked to be left alone by the disciples to pray on a mountaintop, the night of the last supper when he prayed alone in his chambers (let this pass over me, and all that)

sure... lots of witnesses makes it true


why do the 5,000 witnesses who saw him make food out of thin air have more credibility than the 10,000 who watched the zorlak the mighty cut a woman in half and put her back together last night on stage?

does that mean that zorlak really cut the woman in half?

must be, since so many people saw it happen


Nice :) ... all hail zorlak

found the whole quote. here goes;

"You remember that existence of God thing I had so much trouble understanding? Well, guess what. I think I’m starting to grasp it now. Here’s my theory. Maybe, just maybe it’s a concept that’s similar to a zero in mathematics. In other words it’s a symbol that denies the absence of meaning. The meaning that’s necessitated by the delineation of one system to another. In analog, that’s God, in digital, its zero… but for analog based people like you, Mister Bateau, no matter how many digital components you’ve had on through cyberization or prosthetics, your ghost will never diminish. Plus, because you have a ghost you can even die. Tell me, what’s it like to have a ghost?"

-Tachikoma, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex

i was really off. sorry.

Gospels (http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm)

You know that merely not mentioning something, isn't proof, right?

[QUOTE=

It seems like many of us think that Islam is a living breathing thing that makes decisions and acts in a paticular manner. I realise that you don't really think that Islam is like that but the above quote could be considered in that light. Islam does not make decisions--obviously people do. What some elements of Islam what to do does not mean that there plans are in accordance with the Qur'an or Muhammad. Make no mistake, there are elements of Islam, who call themselves Muslim, whose intentions are opposed to a peaceful, just world. They have taken the Holy Book of Islam and preverted it into something it was not intended to be. Unfortunately, the same can be said for the Holy Books of Judiasm and Christianity. Fortunately the numbers from Islam, Christianity and Judiasm and other religions, who prefer violence over reasonableness are not the majority.

Islam" does not derive from Muhammad's name. The word, from the
Arabic root "salima," is variously translated as surrender to God's
Will, and as obedience, peace and salvation, A Muslim is one who
follows Islam; who has surrendered himself to God, is obedient, has
attained salvation.

(Islamic Miscellaneous, Gail - Six Lessons on Islam, p. 1)


Yeah - you see through me... I phrased it like that "what Islam wants"... because that is how Neo Cannen was describing it.

I was trying to imply that he cannot know what Islam 'wants'... mainly because he knows nothing about Islam, but also, because you can never know what ANY GROUP of people want... it's the nature of groups.

I wasn't trying to be misleading, I was replying to a post, in kind. :)

yeah, that's pretty much where most reasonable atheists and skeptics sit. "if God is all knowing, and if God made everything, then He made me and knows exactly what it would take for me to be convinced of His existence. He knows exactly what it would take for me to believe, for me to worship Him, and for me to be willing to base my morality on Him. He has not seen fit to provide what is necessary to satisfy me, and He made me, so He either doesn't have the ability to convince me (which makes him a pretty wimpy God), or He doesn't WANT to convince me. or He doesn't exist at all."

of course, for myself, i don't believe God could convince me of his existence even if he was real, so it's totally irrelevant no matter what :).
Bottle, do you realise what you said in your last sentence of the above quoted post?

You said that you have a bias against believing in the existence of God, even if He does exist. You seem to be comfortable in this bias, as your smiley indicates.

What's God supposed to do, supposing that he wants a relationship with you based on mutual love, as I believe He does? You actively refuse to believe he's there, and if He did demonstrate His existence and power with various mighty signs and wonders, that would not lead you to love Him.

The Israelites that came out of Egypt KNEW that God existed; they'd just seen some very selective calamities hit their Egyptian overlords, while they were "passed over". They were following a big smoke column around the desert, which turned to fire at night, food was literally appearing in the middle of the desert to sustain them, but do they love God? No, they're terrified of Him, they complain, moan and grumble, they even start pagan sacrifices when Moses leaves them alone for a few days.

You're insisting on believing in, worshipping, and following God on YOUR terms. That misses the point. If my worship of God is on my terms and not God's, I'm not worshipping God, I'm worshipping myself.

You know that merely not mentioning something, isn't proof, right?
I mention you ... therefore there is proof of you :D

You know that merely not mentioning something, isn't proof, right?

Its an analysis of data.

he hasn't even read his own holy text. can you really expect him to have read any other holy texts? i mean, clearly one does not need to actually read different holy books before deciding which one is officially the best...that would be silly.

Yeah, that'd be crazy... knowing what any of the books said before deciding which one you were going to believe....

Yeah, that'd be crazy... knowing what any of the books said before deciding which one you were going to believe....
amazing how people will put more effort into shopping (doing comparisons cost vs benifits) then they will with their religion

I mention you ... therefore there is proof of you :D

Yay! I exist! And now, I can prove it! :)

Your god DOES demand appeasement. What do you think Jesus was all about? God had to scrafice himself, to himself, to appease himself of something we did at the beginning of time, regarding a rule that he made up. Jesus PAID for your sins, that's appeasement. Since god is omnipotent, he doesn't NEED appeasement, he WANTS appeasement. Otherwise, he would just wave his hand and make it so that no appeasement is needed.

You misunderstand. God does not demand apeasement of behaviour. We dont have to "be good" to keep God happy. In Christianity, the motive behind doing good is because we love God like you love a father. If you love your father, you obey him. Its that simple.

Its an analysis of data.

That still doesn't make any sense.

See - I never mention Vietnam... so when was I born?

Just because the Gospels DON'T mention an event, doesn't mean they must have been written BEFORE that event... they are, after all, supposed to be desribing an earlier event... it would look pretty stupid to put the later event in, wouldn't it?

That still doesn't make any sense.

See - I never mention Vietnam... so when was I born?

Just because the Gospels DON'T mention an event, doesn't mean they must have been written BEFORE that event... they are, after all, supposed to be desribing an earlier event... it would look pretty stupid to put the later event in, wouldn't it?

Not exactly how it works. If you kept a diary but did not keep any dates in it and then mentioned one day

"Today this dreadfull thing happened. Two planes flew into these buildings, they collapased and killed loads of people"

Then we could work out you are talking about September 11th and work out the dates of your diary from that. Since the destruction of the temple was the Septemember 11th of that time then I think they would have mentioned it. Espically since it so clearly and obviously fits in with Jesus's prediction.

You misunderstand. God does not demand apeasement of behaviour. We dont have to "be good" to keep God happy. In Christianity, the motive behind doing good is because we love God like you love a father. If you love your father, you obey him. Its that simple.

The same for Islam - as far as I can tell... Islam is 'about' obedience, christianity is about obedience.

You respect god because you love him, and you fear him.

The same for Islam - as far as I can tell... Islam is 'about' obedience, christianity is about obedience.

You respect god because you love him, and you fear him.

Yes but Islam believes that for salvation. Christianity belives that out of the nature of God. At the end of your life in Islam your good deads are wheighed against the bad ones and that decides if you enter heaven or not. At least I believe that to be the case. I could be wrong. Is there not also an angel on each sholder. The right one recoring good deeds, the left recording bad.

Not exactly how it works. If you kept a diary but did not keep any dates in it and then mentioned one day

"Today this dreadfull thing happened. Two planes flew into these buildings, they collapased and killed loads of people"

Then we could work out you are talking about September 11th and work out the dates of your diary from that. Since the destruction of the temple was the Septemember 11th of that time then I think they would have mentioned it. Espically since it so clearly and obviously fits in with Jesus's prediction.

Missing the key point, Neo.

They were writing a HISTORY. If I was recording the sinking of the Titanic, based on witness testimony, and recorded evidence... I wouldn't mention September 11th, would I?

You don't mention the 'present' events... when you are writing a history of the 'past'.

And, JUST because the text doesn't mention it... still, it doesn't make any logical sense to assume the text MUST have been written before that event.

Have you actually read this link? It discredits almost everything you have said about the gospels. They were NOT written within the lifetimes of those witnesses......


"Though there is still some debate on the dates of when the gospels were written, they were most assuredly completed before the close of the first century and written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses."

Last little paragraph, maybe you didnt get that far.


""The main reason the Gospel accounts were not written immediately after Jesus' death and resurrection is that there was no apparent need for any such writings. Initially the gospel spread by word of mouth in Jerusalem. There was no need to compose a written account of Jesus' life, because those in the Jerusalem region were witnesses of Jesus and well aware of his ministry. However, when the gospel spread beyond Jerusalem, and the eyewitnesses were no longer readily accessible, there was a need for written accounts to educate others in Jesus' life and ministry."

Luke tells why he wrote the gospel: 20 "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as thy were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may have certainty of the things you have been taught."

John also gives the reason for writing his Gospel: "Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."21

(source (http://www.everystudent.com/features/bible.html) )

Yes but Islam believes that for salvation. Christianity belives that out of the nature of God. At the end of your life in Islam your good deads are wheighed against the bad ones and that decides if you enter heaven or not. At least I believe that to be the case. I could be wrong. Is there not also an angel on each sholder. The right one recoring good deeds, the left recording bad.

First: EVEN IF what you were saying was true - I can show you 'christians' that believe the same things about 'christianity'.

Second: Show me evidence, Neo. Don't use what you THINK might be the 'message' of Islam, as evidence of how it is different from 'christianity'.

If you can't prove it, it is just hearsay.

Third: You must realise that there are as many different ways of being a 'Muslim', as there are of being a 'christian'. Why are you trying to lump all 'muslims' into one mould?

Fourth: Just as a point... MOST of the 'christians' I have ever met, have believed that there were two of every animal on the Ark.

So - what a religion 'teaches', and what a religion SAYS, can be very different things.

That still doesn't make any sense.

See - I never mention Vietnam... so when was I born?

Just because the Gospels DON'T mention an event, doesn't mean they must have been written BEFORE that event... they are, after all, supposed to be desribing an earlier event... it would look pretty stupid to put the later event in, wouldn't it?

It would make perfect sense to add that the temple was destroy, especially since Jesus PREDICTED it. If they wrote these books afterward it would be an open chance to point out that the prophecy came true.

First: EVEN IF what you were saying was true - I can show you 'christians' that believe the same things about 'christianity'.

Second: Show me evidence, Neo. Don't use what you THINK might be the 'message' of Islam, as evidence of how it is different from 'christianity'.

If you can't prove it, it is just hearsay.

Third: You must realise that there are as many different ways of being a 'Muslim', as there are of being a 'christian'. Why are you trying to lump all 'muslims' into one mould?

Fourth: Just as a point... MOST of the 'christians' I have ever met, have believed that there were two of every animal on the Ark.

So - what a religion 'teaches', and what a religion SAYS, can be very different things.


Christianity and the Bible itself make it quite clear that salvation is not about works and about what you do. Islam on the other hand makes it clear that it is about salvation by works.

http://www.carm.org/islam/salvation_by_works.htm

Christianity and the Bible itself make it quite clear that salvation is not about works and about what you do. Islam on the other hand makes it clear that it is about salvation by works.

http://www.carm.org/islam/salvation_by_works.htm
Lol if we are using sources like that

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a14.htm

(know not Christianity as a whole but the biggest sect if I remember right … just as you conveniently ignore the many aspects of islam)

It would make perfect sense to add that the temple was destroy, especially since Jesus PREDICTED it. If they wrote these books afterward it would be an open chance to point out that the prophecy came true.

No - Justifidians... you don't PREFACE a supposed history... by saying "Oh look, it must be true, it happened 70 years later".

You write your history, about what is alleged to have happened, or recorded to have happened. And then, maybe, you record the OTHER events, but NOT in the same text.

And, of course, if EVERYONE knew about the 'current events'... there would be NO POINT in recording them. The connection (if real) to prophecy, would be obvious and self-evident.

Bottle, do you realise what you said in your last sentence of the above quoted post?

You said that you have a bias against believing in the existence of God, even if He does exist. You seem to be comfortable in this bias, as your smiley indicates.

it's not a bias, it's a simple awareness of my human limitations. i cannot conceive of any way that a God could prove it exists to me, because my human form has too many perceptual and cognitive limitations. i suppose you could say that the reality is biased, in this instance, which is what i was smiling about.


What's God supposed to do, supposing that he wants a relationship with you based on mutual love, as I believe He does? You actively refuse to believe he's there, and if He did demonstrate His existence and power with various mighty signs and wonders, that would not lead you to love Him.

i'm not "actively refusing" to believe in God, because i have no way to do that. i am saying that i cannot possibly know, one way or the other, if God exists. i do not "refuse" to believe, i simply must remain agnostic because there is no information i can use to reach a conclusion on the subject.


The Israelites that came out of Egypt KNEW that God existed; they'd just seen some very selective calamities hit their Egyptian overlords, while they were "passed over".

what they may or may not have known is debateable.

even IF some all-powerful being demonstrated its power in the way you describe, how could they possibly know it was God, and not merely some extremely powerful being that is NOT God? how would they be able to prove it wasn't God's archnemesis, Eddy the Evil Magic Troll?


They were following a big smoke column around the desert, which turned to fire at night, food was literally appearing in the middle of the desert to sustain them, but do they love God? No, they're terrified of Him, they complain, moan and grumble, they even start pagan sacrifices when Moses leaves them alone for a few days.

even IF any of this truly occured (which we have absolutely no evidence to support), that would not be proof of God in any way, shape, or form. it would be proof of some very powerful force, forces, being, or beings at work in ways that human beings cannot fully comprehend or perceive.


You're insisting on believing in, worshipping, and following God on YOUR terms. That misses the point. If my worship of God is on my terms and not God's, I'm not worshipping God, I'm worshipping myself.
you seem to be telling me that i should blindly choose to believe one of many possibly accounts of God, yet you give no reason why i should accept that particular account over all others. you give no reason why that account establishes God. yet you accuse me of picking and choosing how i will "worship" God? it seems that you are the one who is making decisions based purely on your personal opinions, and you are the one choosing which form of God best suits you. you have chosen to worship the God of the Bible, and thus have chosen to worship God on your terms rather than on the terms dictated by empirical reality.

Lol if we are using sources like that

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a14.htm

(know not Christianity as a whole but the biggest sect if I remember right … just as you conveniently ignore the many aspects of islam)

Your source makes the point that humans are not justified by works acording to Christianity.

The Bible asserts that he who "does not work" but "believes" is justified before God. Justification is not the reward for our works. Justification is the free gift of grace which we do not merit. The works that a Christian performs - and every true believer performs good works - are not the basis of their acceptance before God.

Your source makes the point that humans are not justified by works acording to Christianity.
But by Catholicism never mind subtle point I don’t know I must be confused today

But by Catholicism never mind subtle point I don’t know I must be confused today

I'm not a Catholic. Catholics dont get a lot of their ideas from the Bible. Thats whats wrong with them.

My point was Islam makes it very clear that it is a works based salvation idea. To me that corrupts the whole reason for doing good deads. Your doing them because you benefit. That to me seems flawed.

My point was Islam makes it very clear that it is a works based salvation idea. To me that corrupts the whole reason for doing good deads. Your doing them because you benefit. That to me seems flawed.
But then as a Christian why do them being that your morality is supposedly set by your religion (hey you want to do them as “extra” that is cool but its not defined as a must do by your religion)

Therefore iti s not the religion that is good and doing good deads rather you yourself

But then as a Christian why do them being that your morality is supposedly set by your religion (hey you want to do them as “extra” that is cool but its not defined as a must do by your religion)

Therefore iti s not the religion that is good and doing good deads rather you yourself

Christian logic behind works is simple. You do not do good things because they will get you into heaven or because it somehow benefits you. You do them because you love God. Jesus himself explains it in Matthew


For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

A big challenge that was stated to me by a friend once is that you love Jesus as much as love the person you love the least (note: By love I mean care about, and that doesnt mean people you have now knowledge of)

Christianity and the Bible itself make it quite clear that salvation is not about works and about what you do. Islam on the other hand makes it clear that it is about salvation by works.

http://www.carm.org/islam/salvation_by_works.htm

On the contrary, Neo.

James makes no uncertainty about it at all.

James 2:18 "Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works".

Clearly states that works are counted as faith.

James 2:20 "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"

Clearly states that there is no validity to a faith WITHOUT also having works.

James 2:26 "For as the body WITHOUT the spirit is dead, so FAITH WITHOUT WORKS is dead also".

Clearly states that the person without works is spiritually dead.

Christian logic behind works is simple. You do not do good things because they will get you into heaven or because it somehow benefits you. You do them because you love God. Jesus himself explains it in Matthew

A big challenge that was stated to me by a friend once is that you love Jesus as much as love the person you love the least (note: By love I mean care about, and that doesnt mean people you have now knowledge of)

Or, alternatively, you could argue that 'christians' only do good works, because it is a requirement of salvation - since it is the 'evidence' of faith... it is how you PROVE yourself faithful, according to James 2:20.

James makes no uncertainty about it at all.

James 2:18 "Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works".

Clearly states that works are counted as faith.
I think it states that works are counted as evidence of faith, rather than a substitute for it.

James 2:20 "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"

Clearly states that there is no validity to a faith WITHOUT also having works.

Yep, I agree with you on this. The works he talks about spring from faith.

James 2:26 "For as the body WITHOUT the spirit is dead, so FAITH WITHOUT WORKS is dead also".

Clearly states that the person without works is spiritually dead.
Yep, I agree with this as well.

Faith in Jesus Christ will always express itself in love (Gal. 5:6 has this, as do many, many verses in the Gospels and the Letters).

I think it states that works are counted as evidence of faith, rather than a substitute for it.


Wasn't that what I said?

They are counted as faith... they show faith, they are exemplars of faith.

Not that they directly replace it, but that works SHOW faith.

No - Justifidians... you don't PREFACE a supposed history... by saying "Oh look, it must be true, it happened 70 years later".

You write your history, about what is alleged to have happened, or recorded to have happened. And then, maybe, you record the OTHER events, but NOT in the same text.

And, of course, if EVERYONE knew about the 'current events'... there would be NO POINT in recording them. The connection (if real) to prophecy, would be obvious and self-evident.

They are recorded for those that dont know and for the future generations so that they have an account of Jesus. The gospel writers are giving an account of Jesus, by writing what he did and said. If the person your writing about gave a prophecy concerning the MOST IMPORTANT PART OF WORSHIP ( THE TEMPLE ) being destroyed, your going to write about it. And, if you are aware that the temple was destroyed, which it was in 70 A.D. your going to put that in the text, because it is TREMEDOUSLY IMPORTANT. The gospel writers give us the phrophecy by Jesus that the temple would be destroyed, yet they do not tell us it was destroyed. This gives us the impression that at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written before 70 A.D.

Also the book of Acts does not mention the death of Paul. Luke, the writer of Acts spent years with Paul on his missionary journeys, it would make no sense at all to close the book with Paul alive, if he were infact dead, which he was in 64 A.D. We know the book of Luke was written before Acts, because he mentions it in Acts 1:1-3.

These are important points to take into consideration when dating the books.

On the contrary, Neo.

James makes no uncertainty about it at all.

James 2:18 "Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works".

Clearly states that works are counted as faith.

James 2:20 "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"

Clearly states that there is no validity to a faith WITHOUT also having works.

James 2:26 "For as the body WITHOUT the spirit is dead, so FAITH WITHOUT WORKS is dead also".

Clearly states that the person without works is spiritually dead.

A person is saved by faith, but "faith without works is dead." If you have faith, you will certainly have works.

However, if you have works, you may not necessarily have faith.

On the contrary, Neo.

James makes no uncertainty about it at all.

James 2:18 "Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works".

Clearly states that works are counted as faith.

James 2:20 "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"

Clearly states that there is no validity to a faith WITHOUT also having works.

James 2:26 "For as the body WITHOUT the spirit is dead, so FAITH WITHOUT WORKS is dead also".

Clearly states that the person without works is spiritually dead.

While that is true, the Bible never supports salvation by works. Read the passage in James further and you will understand this.

Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on our good deeds. It is based on our faith. (Romans 3:27)

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation (Romans 4:4)

However I agree that the Bible makes it clear that true faith means works will happen as a result. However these works are not what justify us into heaven. What gets us to heaven are the 5 points I mentioned.

Wasn't that what I said?

They are counted as faith... they show faith, they are exemplars of faith.

Not that they directly replace it, but that works SHOW faith.
Confusion over use of language there. My bad.

I agree with you on this as well. :D

There is, of course, the point that two people could do very similar things, one from faith in Christ, love of Him, and a desire to live life His way, and the other from faith in himself, love of himself, and a desire to live life exactly the way he chose. Therefore, the works aren't the faith (on which you agree with me), but are evidence of possible faith. They are necessary, but not sufficient. This may, of course, be diverting the thread in an unhelpful direction. ;)

This whole thing was in reference to a salvation-by-works discussion you were having with Neo Cannen, wasn't it? What was your application of these verses to the relative perspectives of Christianity and Islam on such issues?

Confusion over use of language there. My bad.

I agree with you on this as well. :D

There is, of course, the point that two people could do very similar things, one from faith in Christ, love of Him, and a desire to live life His way, and the other from faith in himself, love of himself, and a desire to live life exactly the way he chose. Therefore, the works aren't the faith (on which you agree with me), but are evidence of possible faith. They are necessary, but not sufficient. This may, of course, be diverting the thread in an unhelpful direction. ;)

This whole thing was in reference to a salvation-by-works discussion you were having with Neo Cannen, wasn't it? What was your application of these verses to the relative perspectives of Christianity and Islam on such issues?

Neo assumes that (without reading the Koran) Islam 'requires' works, as the means to salvation.

And also holds that, all that is required for the 'christian', is to be 'saved'... i.e. to have faith.

I was illustrating that the bible also 'requires' works - since it clearly states in James, that faith without works, is spiritually 'dead'...

There is no point in me discussing whether his interpretation of the Koran is right - since he has never read it.

While that is true, the Bible never supports salvation by works. Read the passage in James further and you will understand this.

Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on our good deeds. It is based on our faith. (Romans 3:27)

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation (Romans 4:4)

However I agree that the Bible makes it clear that true faith means works will happen as a result. However these works are not what justify us into heaven. What gets us to heaven are the 5 points I mentioned.

Whatever the 'cause' of the works in 'christianity', the text specifically states that they are 'required'.

You argument over how the bible difffers from the Koran on this point, is, therefore, invalid.

Neo assumes that (without reading the Koran) Islam 'requires' works, as the means to salvation.

And also holds that, all that is required for the 'christian', is to be 'saved'... i.e. to have faith.

I was illustrating that the bible also 'requires' works - since it clearly states in James, that faith without works, is spiritually 'dead'...

There is no point in me discussing whether his interpretation of the Koran is right - since he has never read it.
I see.

What is your interpretation of the Koran on this issue?

P.S. I also have not yet read the Koran.

They are recorded for those that dont know and for the future generations so that they have an account of Jesus. The gospel writers are giving an account of Jesus, by writing what he did and said. If the person your writing about gave a prophecy concerning the MOST IMPORTANT PART OF WORSHIP ( THE TEMPLE ) being destroyed, your going to write about it. And, if you are aware that the temple was destroyed, which it was in 70 A.D. your going to put that in the text, because it is TREMEDOUSLY IMPORTANT. The gospel writers give us the phrophecy by Jesus that the temple would be destroyed, yet they do not tell us it was destroyed. This gives us the impression that at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written before 70 A.D.

Also the book of Acts does not mention the death of Paul. Luke, the writer of Acts spent years with Paul on his missionary journeys, it would make no sense at all to close the book with Paul alive, if he were infact dead, which he was in 64 A.D. We know the book of Luke was written before Acts, because he mentions it in Acts 1:1-3.

These are important points to take into consideration when dating the books.

Not in the text, my friend.

you may have a whole collections of theories, and implications... which you think explain it all - but none of it matters... since ALL you have, is what is in the text.

Personally, I don't think you have to write about a disaster that has happened... no matter how 'important'.

I also think it strange that you refer to the Temple as being "the MOST IMPORTANT PART OF WORSHIP ". Personally, I think that the stones around you while you commune with god are pretty much irrelevent.

After all, didn't Jesus basically tell people to lock themselves into closets to pray?

Ultimately, what it comes down to is: You SUSPECT that the Gospels MUST have been written before the fall of the Temple.

But you have no way to prove it.

“They whose balances shall be heavy shall be blest. But they whose balances shall be light, they shall lose their soul, abiding in hell forever” (Sura 13:102-140).

If good works outweight the bad they recieve a place in Paradise.

Salvation has to be acheived. (Surah 9:20)

I also think it strange that you refer to the Temple as being "the MOST IMPORTANT PART OF WORSHIP ". Personally, I think that the stones around you while you commune with god are pretty much irrelevent.

After all, didn't Jesus basically tell people to lock themselves into closets to pray?

Uh, Grave, I'm pretty sure that the Jews of Jesus' day considered the Temple to be the focal point of their land, the place where they were to go to worship God. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise, or just probing for unstated assumptions?

I agree, Jesus said to pray in secret, and I don't consider my surroundings that significant when I spend time with God, but the point remains, the Jewish people thought the Temple was special.

I know some of them felt antsy about the fact that the Herod family had built it up quite a lot, the Herod family not being known as a great example of godliness other than this, but the Temple was still the Temple. 70 A.D. was v. signif. in Judaism.

I see.

What is your interpretation of the Koran on this issue?

P.S. I also have not yet read the Koran.

I think anyone can draw any interpretation they want out of any text, if they are willing to pick which parts of the text they want, and ignore the rest.

On this issue, personally, I have always thought Islam to be similar to 'christianity', in that I see BOTH as being 'about' belief, and BOTH 'requiring' good works of their adherents.

But, that's just my view.

“They whose balances shall be heavy shall be blest. But they whose balances shall be light, they shall lose their soul, abiding in hell forever” (Sura 13:102-140).

If good works outweight the bad they recieve a place in Paradise.

Salvation has to be acheived. (Surah 9:20)

Not much help when you quote it out of context.... this passage could be weighing fruit, couldn't it....

Also - the way I would read that Sura... those who show evidence of faith (through works) shall be blessed. Those without faith (no works), shall lose their soul.

EXACTLY the same message as 'christianity', no?

Uh, Grave, I'm pretty sure that the Jews of Jesus' day considered the Temple to be the focal point of their land, the place where they were to go to worship God. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise, or just probing for unstated assumptions?

I agree, Jesus said to pray in secret, and I don't consider my surroundings that significant when I spend time with God, but the point remains, the Jewish people thought the Temple was special.

I know some of them felt antsy about the fact that the Herod family had built it up quite a lot, the Herod family not being known as a great example of godliness other than this, but the Temple was still the Temple. 70 A.D. was v. signif. in Judaism.

I would assume that the relationship between an individual and his/her god, would be the 'most important' part of worship.

I am saying that I find it unlikely that the temple was THE MOST important part of worship... but, I still consider that to be a side issue... you wouldn't put an event that happened today, in a story you were writing about World War Two (true story, or fiction)... it just doesn't make sense to put 'to-date' information in a history.. no matter HOW exciting/shocking the news is.

I would assume that the relationship between an individual and his/her god, would be the 'most important' part of worship.

The temple was the central part of Judaism. It was where they worshipped.


I am saying that I find it unlikely that the temple was THE MOST important part of worship... but, I still consider that to be a side issue... you wouldn't put an event that happened today, in a story you were writing about World War Two (true story, or fiction)... it just doesn't make sense to put 'to-date' information in a history.. no matter HOW exciting/shocking the news is.

If someone told a prophecy about two planes crashing into the twin towers from WWII, and it came true in 2001, would you not put it in the text? Its a fulfilled prophecy. Jesus predicted that the Temple would be destroyed. It happens in 70 A.D. If one is writing after 70 A.D. they would certainly state that the prophecy actually happened. The Temple was the holiest landmark, the most important aspect of Judaism.

The gospels already stated that Jesus predicted it. If you write the prediction, why dont they add its fulfillment?

The temple was the central part of Judaism. It was where they worshipped.

If someone told a prophecy about two planes crashing into the twin towers from WWII, and it came true in 2001, would you not put it in the text? Its a fulfilled prophecy. Jesus predicted that the Temple would be destroyed. It happens in 70 A.D. If one is writing after 70 A.D. they would certainly state that the prophecy actually happened. The Temple was the holiest landmark, the most important aspect of Judaism.

The gospels already stated that Jesus predicted it. If you write the prediction, why dont they add its fulfillment?

No - Justifidians.... they were writing about the HISTORY... not about whether it was fulfilled.

If YOU were writing a HISTORY about Nostradamus, about HIS 'prophecy'... you would discuss the scenario in which he lived, what he 'did', and what his prophecy said. You WOULDN'T discuss possible matches for his prophecies.

Now - if you were writing a COMMENTARY on his prophecies, then yes - you would discuss whether or not his visions came to pass.

But, the Gospels aren't "commentaries"... they are alleged to be histories.

Thus... even if they were not written till 1976, there would be no call for them to mention ANYTHING beyond the immediate circumstances (supposed to have been) surrouunding the life, and death, of Jesus.

Also - while we are at it... "Your Temple will eventually fall down" is no big shakes, in terms of prophecy...

Any questions about Islam, go here: http://www.understanding-islam.com

No - Justifidians.... they were writing about the HISTORY... not about whether it was fulfilled.

If YOU were writing a HISTORY about Nostradamus, about HIS 'prophecy'... you would discuss the scenario in which he lived, what he 'did', and what his prophecy said. You WOULDN'T discuss possible matches for his prophecies.

Now - if you were writing a COMMENTARY on his prophecies, then yes - you would discuss whether or not his visions came to pass.

But, the Gospels aren't "commentaries"... they are alleged to be histories.

Thus... even if they were not written till 1976, there would be no call for them to mention ANYTHING beyond the immediate circumstances (supposed to have been) surrouunding the life, and death, of Jesus.

Also - while we are at it... "Your Temple will eventually fall down" is no big shakes, in terms of prophecy...

They were writing about Jesus himself. They are not just some historical documents. They are the sayings and teachings of Jesus.

They were writing about Jesus himself. They are not just some historical documents. They are the sayings and teachings of Jesus.

Think it through... you can do this.

I have all kinds of confidence in you...

That kind of writing... where you detail the things that people said, and did... is called a .....???

(Give you a clue... it's a 7 letter word, and sounds like 'mystery'....)

Any questions about Islam, go here: http://www.understanding-islam.com

Don't you wish it was that simple?

Or do you HONESTLY believe that there is just one school of thought that describes Islam perfectly?

Like Christianity, yes?

Think it through... you can do this.

I have all kinds of confidence in you...

That kind of writing... where you detail the things that people said, and did... is called a .....???

(Give you a clue... it's a 7 letter word, and sounds like 'mystery'....)

Just because you are unable to see the truth of my words does not give you the right to patronize me.

You said:

If YOU were writing a HISTORY about Nostradamus, about HIS 'prophecy'... you would discuss the scenario in which he lived, what he 'did', and what his prophecy said. You WOULDN'T discuss possible matches for his prophecies.

Do you know what the Gospels were for? Nostradamus was not the son of God was he? No. Jesus said he was the son of God. What are you trying to say about the gosels??

They give emphasis on the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament. An emphasis on Christ's humanity, focusing on what Jesus felt. They focus on what Jesus did. They emphasize Jesus as the Son of God. They FOCUSED on Jesus. So stating his prophecy would be highly relevent.

Don't you wish it was that simple?

Or do you HONESTLY believe that there is just one school of thought that describes Islam perfectly?

Like Christianity, yes?

Hmm, I gave a link that talks about Islam. I guess if anyone wants to learn about it, they can go and read the info. Its a Islamic site, not a Christian one. Theres one link that will help you understand it. If you think its not good enough, go somewhere else and read up on it. You are full of little comments that get nowhere.

Just because you are unable to see the truth of my words does not give you the right to patronize me.

You said:

Do you know what the Gospels were for? Nostradamus was not the son of God was he? No. Jesus said he was the son of God. What are you trying to say about the gosels??

They give emphasis on the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament. An emphasis on Christ's humanity, focusing on what Jesus felt. They focus on what Jesus did. They emphasize Jesus as the Son of God. They FOCUSED on Jesus. So stating his prophecy would be highly relevent.

Okay - that was kind of condescending... but the histories of Jesus recounted in the Gospels ARE just that... they are not commentaries... they aren't discussing whether Jesus might or might not be something... they WERE recounting (what they believed to be) HISTORY.

To say they were anything other than that, is to revise the text... and I don't feel I have the right to do that... nor do I think you are qualified to re-imagine what the bible scholars MEANT.

But, still - yes - STATING his prophecy WOULD be relevent.

But, saying.. "Oh, yes... and look... it happened 70 years later..." - that doesn't fit in with what a history 'does'.

Hmm, I gave a link that talks about Islam. I guess if anyone wants to learn about it, they can go and read the info. Its a Islamic site, not a Christian one. Theres one link that will help you understand it. If you think its not good enough, go somewhere else and read up on it. You are full of little comments that get nowhere.

How very barbed.

You said "ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ISLAM"... like that ONE source would be sufficient resource to answer all questions.

I just pointed out that, like 'christianity', Islam has no single, cohesive voice... not one that suffices for all.

But, saying.. "Oh, yes... and look... it happened 70 years later..." - that doesn't fit in with what a history 'does'.

But, they are more than just historical documents, they are claiming Jesus to be the Son of God. They wrote about all the prophecy Jesus fulfilled in his lifetime, plus all the prophecy he himeslf said. If you were writing to someone about Jesus and said he predicted the destruction of the temple, it seems more than logical to add such statements of its fulfillment if they were writing after it happened.

How very barbed.

You said "ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ISLAM"... like that ONE source would be sufficient resource to answer all questions.

I just pointed out that, like 'christianity', Islam has no single, cohesive voice... not one that suffices for all.

Sorry. I wasnt implying that the site is the only source. I just gave A source so people can learn more about what Islam is about.

The Israelites that came out of Egypt KNEW that God existed; they'd just seen some very selective calamities hit their Egyptian overlords, while they were "passed over".
The only thing they were "passed over" on was the whole child killing thing by putting some lamb's blood on their door.

You misunderstand. God does not demand apeasement of behaviour. We dont have to "be good" to keep God happy. In Christianity, the motive behind doing good is because we love God like you love a father. If you love your father, you obey him. Its that simple.
Yes he does, that's what Jesus' sacrifice was all about. He died so that we don't have to sacrafice a lamb every year for the sins we commit against god. That is demanding appeasement for behavior. Are you going to go back and change your definition again now? I swear that you do the revisionist thing so much, that I'm not sure if you even realize you're doing it; sort of like how a compulsive liar doesn't realize they're lying much of the time.

""The main reason the Gospel accounts were not written immediately after Jesus' death and resurrection is that there was no apparent need for any such writings.

That is the lamest steaming pile of BS I have seen for a while. First of all, I'd like to know HOW they know that the gospels weren't necessary until the close of the first century. Secondly, the written gospels weren't necessary? No need to write history down as it happens, we'll just try to remember it 30-60 years later. Yeah, THAT'S a recipe for accuracy.

The following is a LAME list of excuses that you wouldn't accept from any "historian" or journalist, yet you afford it to the writers of the gospel. The whole "word of mouth" bit is a sure fire recipe for exaggeration, myth building and guaranteed inaccuracy when someone later tries to write it all down. We have small inoccuous events happening today that spread by word of mouth and become almost mythic within only a few months. And somehow this wasn't possible in the 30-60 years from the time Jesus died to the time it was all written down?

Christianity and the Bible itself make it quite clear that salvation is not about works and about what you do. Islam on the other hand makes it clear that it is about salvation by works.

http://www.carm.org/islam/salvation_by_works.htm
I think that I can build a case that a christian is saved by his works.

Ps.62:12
"For you render to each one according to his works."
Jer.17:10
"I the Lord ... give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings."
Mt.12:37
"For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."
Mt.16:27
"For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works."
Mt.19:17
"If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
Lk.10:26-28
"He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live."
Jn.5:29
"And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."
Rom.2:6, 13
"Who 'will render to each one according to his deeds'. For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified."
2 Cor.5:10
"For we must all appear before the jugment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad."
2 Cor.11:15
"Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works."
Jas.2:14
"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?"
Jas.2:17
"Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
Jas.2:21-25
"Was not Abraham our father justified by works? You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rabab the harlot also justified by works? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."
1 Pet.1:17
"The Father, who without pariality judges according to each one's work."

Faith in Jesus Christ will always express itself in love (Gal. 5:6 has this, as do many, many verses in the Gospels and the Letters).
Yeah, well known christian love like witch burnings, the inquisition, the crusades, the third reich, slavery. Oh those loving faithful christians. :rolleyes:

I also think it strange that you refer to the Temple as being "the MOST IMPORTANT PART OF WORSHIP ". Personally, I think that the stones around you while you commune with god are pretty much irrelevent.

After all, didn't Jesus basically tell people to lock themselves into closets to pray?
The gospel of Thomas goes much more specifically in depth on that matter, which is one of the reasons why the church decided to hide that book. It is only within the last 50 years that we have found out that the church has been hiding it (and others, not to mention all the others they destroyed). Some inerrant word of god, which was constructed and edited by a political committee. :rolleyes:

The gospel of Thomas goes much more specifically in depth on that matter, which is one of the reasons why the church decided to hide that book. It is only within the last 50 years that we have found out that the church has been hiding it (and others, not to mention all the others they destroyed). Some inerrant word of god, which was constructed and edited by a political committee. :rolleyes:

The Gospel of Thomas was a book written in the 3rd or 4th century A.D. as a forgery, claiming to have been written by the apostle Thomas. It was not written by Thomas. It contains many false and heretical things that Jesus supposedly said and did. None of it (or at best very little of it) is true.

How very barbed.

You said "ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ISLAM"... like that ONE source would be sufficient resource to answer all questions.

I just pointed out that, like 'christianity', Islam has no single, cohesive voice... not one that suffices for all.

It seems to me that the lack of a single cohesive voice is what doomed Christanity and Islam to the corrupt states that they both exist in today. Without an clearly, well defined, appointed successor both religions suffered from internal division. There are those who would say the both religions had appointed successors who fill the definition. Unfortunately, the followers of those religions were not convinced.

The Gospel of Thomas was a book written in the 3rd or 4th century A.D. as a forgery, claiming to have been written by the apostle Thomas. It was not written by Thomas. It contains many false and heretical things that Jesus supposedly said and did. None of it (or at best very little of it) is true.


The Gospel of John was a book written in the 3rd or 4th century A.D. as a forgery, claiming to have been written by the apostle John. It was not written by John. It contains many false and heretical things that Jesus supposedly said and did. None of it (or at best very little of it) is true.



please tell me how the first is true and the second is not.

The Gospel of John was a book written in the 3rd or 4th century A.D. as a forgery, claiming to have been written by the apostle John. It was not written by John. It contains many false and heretical things that Jesus supposedly said and did. None of it (or at best very little of it) is true.



please tell me how the first is true and the second is not.


"Neither the Coptic translation nor the Greek fragments seem to have preserved this gospel in its oldest form. Even the comparison of the extant Coptic and Greek texts demonstrates that the text was subject to change in the process of transmission."

"In the further history and growth of the Gospel of Thomas, this wisdom interpretation of the sayings of Jesus is more clearly developed under the influence of gnostic theology."
-Helmut Koester

There are many commentaries on this Gospel. Here is one:

Gospel of Thomas 53:
"His disciples said to him, "Is circumcision beneficial or not?" He said to them, "If it were beneficial, their father would beget them already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become completely profitable."

This is quite unlikely to be a teaching of Jesus. Nowhere in the NT Gospels does Jesus address the issue of circumcision. But Paul does. And this is significant, because the issue of circumcision was a point of contention between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. Had Jesus taught this, you would have expected Paul to appeal to this authoritative teaching. Or, at the least, you would not have expected this to have been an issue for the Jerusalem Church.

"Neither the Coptic translation nor the Greek fragments seem to have preserved this gospel in its oldest form. Even the comparison of the extant Coptic and Greek texts demonstrates that the text was subject to change in the process of transmission."

"In the further history and growth of the Gospel of Thomas, this wisdom interpretation of the sayings of Jesus is more clearly developed under the influence of gnostic theology."
-Helmut Koester

There are many commentaries on this Gospel. Here is one:

Gospel of Thomas 53:
"His disciples said to him, "Is circumcision beneficial or not?" He said to them, "If it were beneficial, their father would beget them already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become completely profitable."

This is quite unlikely to be a teaching of Jesus. Nowhere in the NT Gospels does Jesus address the issue of circumcision. But Paul does. And this is significant, because the issue of circumcision was a point of contention between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. Had Jesus taught this, you would have expected Paul to appeal to this authoritative teaching. Or, at the least, you would not have expected this to have been an issue for the Jerusalem Church.


Good try, but you didn't defend why the Gospel of John is acceptable and the Gospel of Thomas is not when they were both written under much the same conditions. . .

I think that I can build a case that a christian is saved by his works.

Ps.62:12
"For you render to each one according to his works."
Jer.17:10
"I the Lord ... give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings."
Mt.12:37
"For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."
Mt.16:27
"For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works."
Mt.19:17
"If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
Lk.10:26-28
"He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live."
Jn.5:29
"And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."
Rom.2:6, 13
"Who 'will render to each one according to his deeds'. For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified."
2 Cor.5:10
"For we must all appear before the jugment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad."
2 Cor.11:15
"Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works."
Jas.2:14
"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?"
Jas.2:17
"Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
Jas.2:21-25
"Was not Abraham our father justified by works? You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rabab the harlot also justified by works? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."
1 Pet.1:17
"The Father, who without pariality judges according to each one's work."


Hmmm seems to be a lot to back up salvation by works ... amazing the bible fights with itself again LOL suprize suprize

what if god smoked cannibus?

I'm an occultist. I study the very foundations of reality itself. I know there are christians and there are idiotic people that actually believe that God is vain enough to love a child-molester who believes in him but not an atheist that does social work.

Just for clarification, the Christian belief is that God loves both the child-molester believer and atheistic social worker. However, he hates the sins they commit (molestation and disbelief in God).

Good try, but you didn't defend why the Gospel of John is acceptable and the Gospel of Thomas is not when they were both written under much the same conditions. . .

That's not true. The gospel of thomas has long since been rejected and debunked (maybe debunked is too strong a word). However, I'm too lazy to get a source.

Edit:
I lied. Here is some good info.
http://www.uscatholic.org/2003/09/featb0309.htm

Just for clarification, the Christian belief is that God loves both the child-molester believer and atheistic social worker. However, he hates the sins they commit (molestation and disbelief in God).
And while he hates the sin's he manages to punish the sinner

And while he hates the sin's he manages to punish the sinner

What do you mean? And from what perspective are you saying this from?

But, they are more than just historical documents, they are claiming Jesus to be the Son of God. They wrote about all the prophecy Jesus fulfilled in his lifetime, plus all the prophecy he himeslf said. If you were writing to someone about Jesus and said he predicted the destruction of the temple, it seems more than logical to add such statements of its fulfillment if they were writing after it happened.

I dont think that the Gospels DO claim Jesus was the 'Son of God', as such... not any more than mankind in general.

It was more than a century AFTER Jesus, that it was 'decided' that he had been 'god' incarnate.

I still disagree with your central premise. I think, if you were writing about the life of Jesus... you would include ONLY things that happened during that life.

If you were writing a commentary on prophecy, centred AROUND Jesus, you might include later events ('prophetic' events).

The Gospels seem to be the recounting of the 'story of his life', not a discourse on the nature of prophecy... hence, it would centre on the LIFE (and death) of Jesus... not on what happened almost a century later.

It seems to me that the lack of a single cohesive voice is what doomed Christanity and Islam to the corrupt states that they both exist in today. Without an clearly, well defined, appointed successor both religions suffered from internal division. There are those who would say the both religions had appointed successors who fill the definition. Unfortunately, the followers of those religions were not convinced.

True... some of the non-canonical texts show a very different picture of the relationships between Jesus and various other people... even down to appointing Mary Magdelene as the true heir to Jesus' ministry on earth.

And now, both Islam and Christianity are so riven with internal struggles, that they should be worrying more about the 'enemies within', than making shadow-puppets of each other to perpetuate some 'religious Cold War'.

Ps.62:12
"For you render to each one according to his works."
Jer.17:10
"I the Lord ... give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings."
Mt.12:37
"For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."
Mt.16:27
"For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works."
Mt.19:17
"If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
Lk.10:26-28
"He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live."
Jn.5:29
"And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."
Rom.2:6, 13
"Who 'will render to each one according to his deeds'. For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified."
2 Cor.5:10
"For we must all appear before the jugment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad."
2 Cor.11:15
"Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works."
Jas.2:14
"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?"
Jas.2:17
"Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
Jas.2:21-25
"Was not Abraham our father justified by works? You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rabab the harlot also justified by works? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."
1 Pet.1:17
"The Father, who without pariality judges according to each one's work."

While works are important, they are not how you are saved. The Bible makes that clear. The verses you have taken here deal with point 5 on my list. Basicly if you accept you have done wrong you then you attempt to fix what you have done wrong. Works are a way of mesuring how serioulsly you take Gods message. I never support the idea of faith alone. Thats stupid, but God does not weigh out your life and look to see if you have done more good works than someone else to see who is heaven worthy.

While works are important, they are not how you are saved. The Bible makes that clear. The verses you have taken here deal with point 5 on my list. Basicly if you accept you have done wrong you then you attempt to fix what you have done wrong. Works are a way of mesuring how serioulsly you take Gods message. I never support the idea of faith alone. Thats stupid, but God does not weigh out your life and look to see if you have done more good works than someone else to see who is heaven worthy.
What if I do works because that is what I want to do ... how is that a proof of how seriously I take gods message?

What if I do works because that is what I want to do ... how is that a proof of how seriously I take gods message?

Its not. Works on their own are good but in terms of salvation they have no value. If you ignore God and the sin in your life then you are basicly ignoring what he did for you. If you ignore what he did for you (Jesus death) there is no way to deal with your sin thus you will go to hell.

lol damn this is flamebait. I suggest finding a really Christian forum somewhere and posting it there. That would be extremely amusing. Just to see what happens.

Its not. Works on their own are good but in terms of salvation they have no value. If you ignore God and the sin in your life then you are basicly ignoring what he did for you. If you ignore what he did for you (Jesus death) there is no way to deal with your sin thus you will go to hell.

Or, alternatively... the 'christians' have it wrong.. and have been led on a merry dance by Paul's acolytes for millenia... and it is THEY who are consigned to hell... and all us people that do 'good works' even without faith, are actually going to get shiny presents in the afterlife...

Or, alternatively... the 'christians' have it wrong.. and have been led on a merry dance by Paul's acolytes for millenia... and it is THEY who are consigned to hell... and all us people that do 'good works' even without faith, are actually going to get shiny presents in the afterlife...

I'm just describing the Chrisitan belief. I'm not trying to prove the truthfullness of it. I am just explaining it. I think thats where you make a mistake a lot of the time.

If God's giift really was a dead man, even a dead son, I'll pass. No thanks. I'll do the right thing, not benefit from suicidal sado-masochism. Also, there is no justice in imposing an infinite penalty for finite "sins".

If God's giift really was a dead man, even a dead son, I'll pass. No thanks. I'll do the right thing, not benefit from suicidal sado-masochism. Also, there is no justice in imposing an infinite penalty for finite "sins".

The gift was his sons death so that we could enjoy eternal life. Eternal life is the ultimate gift. And what hell is, not a specific punishment as such. What hell will be is everywhere that heaven isnt. See here for a rather intensive explination of the various descriptions of hell

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part2.html

Yes he does, that's what Jesus' sacrifice was all about. He died so that we don't have to sacrafice a lamb every year for the sins we commit against god. That is demanding appeasement for behavior. Are you going to go back and change your definition again now? I swear that you do the revisionist thing so much, that I'm not sure if you even realize you're doing it; sort of like how a compulsive liar doesn't realize they're lying much of the time.

Not apeasement "for" behavior. Apesement OF behaviour. You dont need to be "Good" for God to accept you. God judges you not on how many good deeds you have done in your life, but by the way you reacted to what he did for you.

Gospel of Thomas 53:
"His disciples said to him, "Is circumcision beneficial or not?" He said to them, "If it were beneficial, their father would beget them already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become completely profitable."

This is quite unlikely to be a teaching of Jesus. Nowhere in the NT Gospels does Jesus address the issue of circumcision. But Paul does. And this is significant, because the issue of circumcision was a point of contention between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. Had Jesus taught this, you would have expected Paul to appeal to this authoritative teaching. Or, at the least, you would not have expected this to have been an issue for the Jerusalem Church.

bolded: who are you to say?

entire thing:

the gospels of mathew, mark, luke and john do n ot adress the issue of circumcision. the gospels of thomas, bob, frank, and melissa do. who is right? why do you blindly accept the word of four men who corroborate over one man who does not? if my freinds all banded together to say that the moon was made of cheese, and someone else said we were wrong, who would you believe, the ones who agree with eachother, or the one who stands alone?

bolded: who are you to say?

entire thing:

the gospels of mathew, mark, luke and john do n ot adress the issue of circumcision. the gospels of thomas, bob, frank, and melissa do. who is right? why do you blindly accept the word of four men who corroborate over one man who does not? if my freinds all banded together to say that the moon was made of cheese, and someone else said we were wrong, who would you believe, the ones who agree with eachother, or the one who stands alone?

Do you think the Gospel of Thomas is in the minority? What about those just like it?

'The Gospel of Thomas'
Traditions of Sayings of Jesus
The Dialogue of the Savior
The Gospel of the Egyptians
Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840
The Apocryphon of James
Traditions of Stories About Jesus
The Secret Gospel of Mark
Papyrus Egerton 2
The Gospel of Peter
The Gospel of the Hebrews
'John's Preaching of the Gospel,' The Acts of John 87-105
The Gospel of the Nazoreans
The Gospel of the Ebionites
The Protevangelium of James
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
The Epistula Apostolorum
The Acts of Pilate

There were a number of gospels written in the second century AD. or later called the Apocryphal Gospels. There are 22, of which 10 are written in Greek and 12 in Latin.

Gnosticism is primarily a religion of salvation that came through secret knowledge. The Greek word for “knowledge” is "Gnosis." The Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic writing. Look at the opening words "These are the secret words which the Living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas wrote."

Paul in the book of Colossians warned about heresy that may be the early roots of gnosticism. Paul warns about: secret knowledge (2:18; 2:2-3), asceticism (2:21) angel worship (2:18), Low view of Christ (1:15-20), and reliance on human wisdom & tradition (2:4,8).

I John also warns of early gnosticism which was a major threat to Christianity in the first two centuries. Gnostics believed matter was evil. The spirit was good. Salvation was escape from our evil body through secret knowledge. Christ was not truly human. He just seemed to have a body (Docetism). There were extremes of asceticism and licentiousness.

"The author of Gospel of Thomas shows a decided dependence on the canonical Gospels, demonstrating a later date for its composition than the Gospels. In the Gospel of Thomas we see a tendency of the redactor to deliberately make clear traditions into 'hidden' or 'secret' sayings--in keeping with his theology stated at the beginning of his work." "The distinctives of the Coptic version parallels alterations of the Gospel tradition found in later 2nd- through 4th-century documents, including Coptic translations of the Gospels."

Quote from BibleandScience.com

The Gospel of Thomas was a book written in the 3rd or 4th century A.D. as a forgery, claiming to have been written by the apostle Thomas. It was not written by Thomas. It contains many false and heretical things that Jesus supposedly said and did. None of it (or at best very little of it) is true.
Which explains why it was used by the Gnostics in the 1st century.

It seems to me that the lack of a single cohesive voice is what doomed Christanity and Islam to the corrupt states that they both exist in today. Without an clearly, well defined, appointed successor both religions suffered from internal division. There are those who would say the both religions had appointed successors who fill the definition. Unfortunately, the followers of those religions were not convinced.
If god wants us to know him through his word, he would have written it so that it could not have been interpreted in 85,000 different ways.

Gospel of Thomas 53:
"His disciples said to him, "Is circumcision beneficial or not?" He said to them, "If it were beneficial, their father would beget them already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become completely profitable."

This is quite unlikely to be a teaching of Jesus. Nowhere in the NT Gospels does Jesus address the issue of circumcision. But Paul does. And this is significant, because the issue of circumcision was a point of contention between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. Had Jesus taught this, you would have expected Paul to appeal to this authoritative teaching. Or, at the least, you would not have expected this to have been an issue for the Jerusalem Church.
The Gospel of Thomas isn't the word of Jesus because it contradicts Paul's words? Paul contradicts the current 4 gospels of the NT. That must mean that the 4 gospels must be forgeries.

That's not true. The gospel of thomas has long since been rejected and debunked (maybe debunked is too strong a word). However, I'm too lazy to get a source.

Edit:
I lied. Here is some good info.
http://www.uscatholic.org/2003/09/featb0309.htm
Have you got a non-catholic source. I don't expect them to be anywhere near unbiased, considering that these are the people that supressed this particular gospel for the last 1,600 years.

While works are important, they are not how you are saved. The Bible makes that clear. The verses you have taken here deal with point 5 on my list. Basicly if you accept you have done wrong you then you attempt to fix what you have done wrong. Works are a way of mesuring how serioulsly you take Gods message. I never support the idea of faith alone. Thats stupid, but God does not weigh out your life and look to see if you have done more good works than someone else to see who is heaven worthy.
Then faith alone cannot save you?

Rom.3:28
"A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law
Gal.2:16
"A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ."
Gal.3:11-12
"The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith."
Eph.2:8-9
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast."
Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost."

Its not. Works on their own are good but in terms of salvation they have no value. If you ignore God and the sin in your life then you are basicly ignoring what he did for you. If you ignore what he did for you (Jesus death) there is no way to deal with your sin thus you will go to hell.
You said earlier that one must be saved through faith AND works, now you're saying that works "in terms of salvation they have no value." Which is it, do they have value or do they not? If they don't, then why should we bother loving our neighbors? So long as we have faith, we're saved.

If God's giift really was a dead man, even a dead son, I'll pass. No thanks. I'll do the right thing, not benefit from suicidal sado-masochism. Also, there is no justice in imposing an infinite penalty for finite "sins".
That's an interesting point, doing good due to a offer or reward and/or a threat of punishment is not truly good. To truly do good, one should understand why they are doing it and appreciate the act for its own intrinsic value. I have little respect for those who have to be good due to threats and rewards. That's the lowest level on the Kohlberg scale of ethical cognition.

The gift was his sons death so that we could enjoy eternal life. Eternal life is the ultimate gift. And what hell is, not a specific punishment as such. What hell will be is everywhere that heaven isnt. See here for a rather intensive explination of the various descriptions of hell

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part2.html
Why do I care what some dude says is in hell? Why would I buy into a fairy tale with NO evidence for its being true, because of some offered reward that I'm not even going to get and have no proof that I'll EVER get? That's a matter of trying to intimidate and bribe me into believing and it's not going to work. I don't buy Pascal's Wager.

Further, since god made the rules to begin with and is all powerful, his sacraficing his son doesn't mean anything. His son is still with him, so he didn't sacrafice anything. Also, he could have changed the rules at any time he wanted to. After all, he's god "almighty".

Not apeasement "for" behavior. Apesement OF behaviour. You dont need to be "Good" for God to accept you. God judges you not on how many good deeds you have done in your life, but by the way you reacted to what he did for you.
Nonsense, you're playing games with words. Read your bible. The hebrews had to make sacrafices to god in order to atone for their sins, they were appeasing him. That's the whole point of Jesus' coming, he is supposed to replace the sacrafices the hebrews were making to atone for their sins.

Why did the hebrews need to atone for sins through animal sacrafice anyway? God doesn't need the sacrafices, he's all powerful.

Do you think the Gospel of Thomas is in the minority? What about those just like it?

'The Gospel of Thomas'
Traditions of Sayings of Jesus
The Dialogue of the Savior
The Gospel of the Egyptians
Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840
The Apocryphon of James
Traditions of Stories About Jesus
The Secret Gospel of Mark
Papyrus Egerton 2
The Gospel of Peter
The Gospel of the Hebrews
'John's Preaching of the Gospel,' The Acts of John 87-105
The Gospel of the Nazoreans
The Gospel of the Ebionites
The Protevangelium of James
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
The Epistula Apostolorum
The Acts of Pilate

There were a number of gospels written in the second century AD. or later called the Apocryphal Gospels. There are 22, of which 10 are written in Greek and 12 in Latin.

Gnosticism is primarily a religion of salvation that came through secret knowledge. The Greek word for “knowledge” is "Gnosis." The Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic writing. Look at the opening words "These are the secret words which the Living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas wrote."

Paul in the book of Colossians warned about heresy that may be the early roots of gnosticism. Paul warns about: secret knowledge (2:18; 2:2-3), asceticism (2:21) angel worship (2:18), Low view of Christ (1:15-20), and reliance on human wisdom & tradition (2:4,8).

I John also warns of early gnosticism which was a major threat to Christianity in the first two centuries. Gnostics believed matter was evil. The spirit was good. Salvation was escape from our evil body through secret knowledge. Christ was not truly human. He just seemed to have a body (Docetism). There were extremes of asceticism and licentiousness.

"The author of Gospel of Thomas shows a decided dependence on the canonical Gospels, demonstrating a later date for its composition than the Gospels. In the Gospel of Thomas we see a tendency of the redactor to deliberately make clear traditions into 'hidden' or 'secret' sayings--in keeping with his theology stated at the beginning of his work." "The distinctives of the Coptic version parallels alterations of the Gospel tradition found in later 2nd- through 4th-century documents, including Coptic translations of the Gospels."

Quote from BibleandScience.com
And you got all this by studying non-gnostic sources. Why would someone do that if they wanted the real truth? Would you try to learn about christianity from an islamic website? Of course not. Go to gnostic sources to read about gnosticism, because what you have included here would offend a gnostic.

Further, there were a lot more books and "gospels" written that the council of Nicea did not include in the bible and destroyed. Many of them were written in later years, and many of them were written at and shortly after the time Jesus supposedly lived, which gives them just as much credibility as the 4 cannon gospels.

To my mind, irrelevent.

I assume that the revised list of 'giants' is being inserted into the text where it can be made to fit, with perhaps a little jockeying around for space/continuity.

Also - just because it is written in one order, doesn't mean that the chronology follows the same order. Think of when 'god' confused the tongues in the text, and whether that follows a possible chronological interpretation.
Reminds me of something Justifidians didn't respond to that i posted, regarding Genesis and the nature of the propegation of the human "species".

Hey buddy, Next time you decide to give a refutation, how about you cite your sources?

Look familiar? Could it be a C&P off of these two sites?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1998/r&r9812b.htm
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/sauldead.html



Or this passage from http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/contradictions.html , http://www.gotquestions.org/God-tempt-us-to-sin.html , and http://www.lyrics.com/forum/tm.asp?m=132140 .


http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm



http://forums.christianity.com/html/P961762/



http://www.worthynews.com/apologetics/101-96-101.htm
http://www.truthpizza.org/post/nitardy7.htm



http://www.worthynews.com/apologetics/101-61-65.htm



http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/contradictions.html
http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/ans5.html

So buddy, how about you actually try arguing instead of doing copy and paste off of google hits while refusing to give your sources?
Thank you. Makes a good end to a long and winding story. Could use a cognac and a nap now!
*KaPOW!* :sniper:
You rock.

You said earlier that one must be saved through faith AND works, now you're saying that works "in terms of salvation they have no value." Which is it, do they have value or do they not? If they don't, then why should we bother loving our neighbors? So long as we have faith, we're saved.

Ok let me get this cleat to you.

- Faith is the thing that saves
- Real faith will generate works
- Works on their own are of no value in terms of salvation
- Faith without works is not real faith

Go see post 306 to make it clear, specificly point 5 of post 306

Nonsense, you're playing games with words. Read your bible. The hebrews had to make sacrafices to god in order to atone for their sins, they were appeasing him. That's the whole point of Jesus' coming, he is supposed to replace the sacrafices the hebrews were making to atone for their sins.

Why did the hebrews need to atone for sins through animal sacrafice anyway? God doesn't need the sacrafices, he's all powerful.

The Pre Crufixition people needed sacrifices because there was no method for dealing with sins at that time. The sacrifices simpley 'held back' sins untill they could be dealt with. Jesus then dealt with the sin of the world via his death. I am refering to appesement of behaviour. You do not need to "be Good" to make God "less angry" towards you and eventually so "not angry" that he will let you into heaven. That is not what the Christian system means.

The Pre Crufixition people needed sacrifices because there was no method for dealing with sins at that time. The sacrifices simpley 'held back' sins untill they could be dealt with. Jesus then dealt with the sin of the world via his death. I am refering to appesement of behaviour. You do not need to "be Good" to make God "less angry" towards you and eventually so "not angry" that he will let you into heaven. That is not what the Christian system means.
So why did god change his mind and change his mind and decide to send his son? was his origional system flawed? did god make a mistake doing it the origional way?

I'm just describing the Chrisitan belief. I'm not trying to prove the truthfullness of it. I am just explaining it. I think thats where you make a mistake a lot of the time.

My mistake? I'm not trying to disprove the christian belief, there - I am just stating that it is only one possibility... and then I presented another possibility. I am just explaining what it might mean if 'christians' are wrong.

Big worry, I would have thought... certainly a cause for concern if you ONLY have faith, and no proof.

Or maybe that's just my thinking.

My mistake? I'm not trying to disprove the christian belief, there - I am just stating that it is only one possibility... and then I presented another possibility. I am just explaining what it might mean if 'christians' are wrong.

Big worry, I would have thought... certainly a cause for concern if you ONLY have faith, and no proof.

Or maybe that's just my thinking.
As I once told a friend “it’s the blind part of blind faith that is the problem, not the faith part”

The Gospel of Thomas was a book written in the 3rd or 4th century A.D. as a forgery, claiming to have been written by the apostle Thomas. It was not written by Thomas. It contains many false and heretical things that Jesus supposedly said and did. None of it (or at best very little of it) is true.

I don't believe you.

Prove it.

How about... like pretty much every other biblical text... we assume that it was written by who it says it was written by? Maybe we can't find an earlier version because it was suppressed? Maybe we can't find an earlier version because it was largely transmitted by oral tradition? Maybe there was only a handful of copies originally, and all that is left now are the later copies from the originals.

Wasn't the earliest copy of Thomas found in the first century AD?

My mistake? I'm not trying to disprove the christian belief, there - I am just stating that it is only one possibility... and then I presented another possibility. I am just explaining what it might mean if 'christians' are wrong.

Big worry, I would have thought... certainly a cause for concern if you ONLY have faith, and no proof.

Or maybe that's just my thinking.
The problem with that idea, Grave, is that you're assuming that rationalism and the scientific method are the most appropriate thought systems for determining the truth of Christianity.

You believe that the issue is empirical proof, at least, I think that's what you imply from this post. But empirical proof depends on the assumption of materialism, which I don't assume, because I believe that supernatural events occur, as I have witnessed them.

I can NEVER have proof, absolute proof that totally denies the existence of any possible alternate explanation, other than the explanation given in the Bible, for the data I have before me. What I do have is faith in Jesus Christ, and the observation that my life has changed in observable ways since I first had faith in Jesus Christ.

The problem with that idea, Grave, is that you're assuming that rationalism and the scientific method are the most appropriate thought systems for determining the truth of Christianity.

You believe that the issue is empirical proof, at least, I think that's what you imply from this post. But empirical proof depends on the assumption of materialism, which I don't assume, because I believe that supernatural events occur, as I have witnessed them.

I can NEVER have proof, absolute proof that totally denies the existence of any possible alternate explanation, other than the explanation given in the Bible, for the data I have before me. What I do have is faith in Jesus Christ, and the observation that my life has changed in observable ways since I first had faith in Jesus Christ.
As has mine after I lost the faith… I like my life a lot better now and I like who I am without belief … ehh you make of life what you want to, maybe all the rest is just excuses

As I once told a friend “it’s the blind part of blind faith that is the problem, not the faith part”

Exactly.

Oh, and Good Morning, stranger!

:fluffle: