NationStates Jolt Archive

Exactly.

Oh, and Good Morning, stranger!

:fluffle:
Good morning sir :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

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.

Almost exactly the opposite, actually.

I see no real reason to support a view based ENTIRELY on the 'scientific method', since we are such subjective beasts... but I see no real reason to accept ENTIRELY any taught 'school-of-thought' either... be that political, religious, or whatever.

I think 'blind faith' is a flawed concept... to me. My view is that it is saying "well, I have no real REASON to believe this... but I might as well believe something, and this one came along first...."

Almost exactly the opposite, actually.

I see no real reason to support a view based ENTIRELY on the 'scientific method', since we are such subjective beasts... but I see no real reason to accept ENTIRELY any taught 'school-of-thought' either... be that political, religious, or whatever.

I think 'blind faith' is a flawed concept... to me. My view is that it is saying "well, I have no real REASON to believe this... but I might as well believe something, and this one came along first...."
How have you determined what you believe?

Reminds me of something Justifidians didn't respond to that i posted, regarding Genesis and the nature of the propegation of the human "species".

Curious, isn't it... there are certain subjects that certain of the 'christian' posters just... avoid...

How have you determined what you believe?

I don't.

I accept the evidence of my eyes, and the assumption of repetition... so... the sun rises every morning... it will PROBABLY rise tomorrow morning.

But, do I 'believe' that?

No - it's a theory... and could be easily reshaped by evidence...

Same is true for everything.

I don't know how ANYONE can have a 'definite' belief, in a world that we can ONLY perceive entirely subjectively.

I don't.

I accept the evidence of my eyes, and the assumption of repetition... so... the sun rises every morning... it will PROBABLY rise tomorrow morning.

But, do I 'believe' that?

No - it's a theory... and could be easily reshaped by evidence...

Same is true for everything.

I don't know how ANYONE can have a 'definite' belief, in a world that we can ONLY perceive entirely subjectively.
Granted, logical induction is often useful, even if technically invalid, reasoning (see the "inductive turkey before Thanksgiving" argument).

My question is, how do you determine your deeper beliefs? Your views about the purpose of your existence? Your views on what will happen to you when your body dies? Your ethical views? Your views on the nature of humanity?

How do you determine stuff that cannot be determined by induction, even provisionally (and I mean specifically you, not "how does one?")?

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.

On the contrary, Neo... is this one of those parts of the bible you haven't read yet?

It is made VERY clear, in the text, that sacrifices are made to 'deal with' sin...

Exodus 29:36 "And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it".

Specifically: "offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement".

The Geneva Study Bible commentary of 1599 describes 'atonement' as: "To appease God’s wrath that sin may be pardoned".

Stop trying to impress your revisionist view of 'christianity' over the actual content of scripture.

Granted, logical induction is often useful, even if technically invalid, reasoning (see the "inductive turkey before Thanksgiving" argument).

My question is, how do you determine your deeper beliefs? Your views about the purpose of your existence? Your views on what will happen to you when your body dies? Your ethical views? Your views on the nature of humanity?

How do you determine stuff that cannot be determined by induction, even provisionally (and I mean specifically you, not "how does one?")?

I don't.

The purpose of my existence? Why does existence HAVE, or NEED a purpose?

I'm here, make the best of it... and one day I won't be... but that is life.

My ethical views? Pretty much the 'golden rule'... which seems to be one 'truth' at the heart of every religion... 'an it harm none, do what you will'... because I don't wnat bad things to happen to me, subjectively... so I should try to help others avoid having bad things happen to them.

The nature of humanity? We are all passengers on a big rock. Some of the passengers can talk, some can't. All are beasts, of one form or another.

Are we any more than that? Maybe... I have no way of knowing. And, I'm not about to let my desire for it to be true, colour my perception of it.


My 'belief', if I have one... is pragmatism. I'm making the best of it, because who knows what is REALLY going on, or when it will all stop.

Reminds me of something Justifidians didn't respond to that i posted, regarding Genesis and the nature of the propegation of the human "species".

Wait im confused. What did I not respond to?

I don't.

The purpose of my existence? Why does existence HAVE, or NEED a purpose?

I'm here, make the best of it... and one day I won't be... but that is life.

My ethical views? Pretty much the 'golden rule'... which seems to be one 'truth' at the heart of every religion... 'an it harm none, do what you will'... because I don't wnat bad things to happen to me, subjectively... so I should try to help others avoid having bad things happen to them.

The nature of humanity? We are all passengers on a big rock. Some of the passengers can talk, some can't. All are beasts, of one form or another.

Are we any more than that? Maybe... I have no way of knowing. And, I'm not about to let my desire for it to be true, colour my perception of it.


My 'belief', if I have one... is pragmatism. I'm making the best of it, because who knows what is REALLY going on, or when it will all stop.


You pretty much describe me as well :)

I don't.

The purpose of my existence? Why does existence HAVE, or NEED a purpose?

I'm here, make the best of it... and one day I won't be... but that is life.

My ethical views? Pretty much the 'golden rule'... which seems to be one 'truth' at the heart of every religion... 'an it harm none, do what you will'... because I don't wnat bad things to happen to me, subjectively... so I should try to help others avoid having bad things happen to them.

The nature of humanity? We are all passengers on a big rock. Some of the passengers can talk, some can't. All are beasts, of one form or another.

Are we any more than that? Maybe... I have no way of knowing. And, I'm not about to let my desire for it to be true, colour my perception of it.


My 'belief', if I have one... is pragmatism. I'm making the best of it, because who knows what is REALLY going on, or when it will all stop.
You say you don't, but you have.

You've decided, for now, that your existence has no objective purpose, and maybe needs none. How have you come to this provisional decision?

The "Golden Rule" is, I thought, "Do to others as you would have them do to you", or, in the negative form, "Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you."
This is ethically completely different from 'an it harm none, do what you will', which is the core commandment of moral relativism. In fact, the two rules can be in direct conflict.
How have you decided that some combination of these two rules should be the foundation of your ethics? Plenty of others who don't want bad things to happen to them have decided not to care about other people; how have you come to decide otherwise?

How have you decided that human beings are beasts?

Saying you believe in pragmatism is, I think, a bit of a cop-out. How do you know you actually are making the best of it? That there is nothing better out there for you?

You say you don't, but you have.

You've decided, for now, that your existence has no objective purpose, and maybe needs none. How have you come to this provisional decision?

The "Golden Rule" is, I thought, "Do to others as you would have them do to you", or, in the negative form, "Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you."
This is ethically completely different from 'an it harm none, do what you will', which is the core commandment of moral relativism. In fact, the two rules can be in direct conflict.
How have you decided that some combination of these two rules should be the foundation of your ethics? Plenty of others who don't want bad things to happen to them have decided not to care about other people; how have you come to decide otherwise?

How have you decided that human beings are beasts?

Saying you believe in pragmatism is, I think, a bit of a cop-out. How do you know you actually are making the best of it? That there is nothing better out there for you?


I am going to jump in here. If you want me to butt out say so.

One does not have to have deeply held beliefs about anything. The absence of any deeply held belief does not mean that there is a deeply held belief that there should be no such thing. This is a common error. It can be that at the moment he has no deep beliefs, later in life he may have these. They are not contrary to his position, they simply do not make up part of his position.

I too hold that my life has no specific end. So I will answer the second question for me. (he has to answer it for him as is obvious) I came to the decision by considering what it would mean for my life to have a specific end. Firstly it would mean that I was a means to an end. Something that I have strong ethical disagreemennts with. Secondly it would mean that ther was some agency involved in controlling my actions beyond my own. Now, I know that this is what religious people often choose to believe, but I prefer to believe that I control my own actions. I have no evidence for this, but I have no evidence against it either. Given this justificatory vacuum to decide in, I decide on the basis of what feels best to me (Passion over reason). It is abelief, yes, but not one that directs my life.

The Golden rule has many formulations. One of these is actually, if it harms no other, then do as you would do. It is not contradictory in any way with the basic formulation of "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law". It is, if you interpret harm in a broad sense, a rephrasing of it.

Egoism is a problem for moral theory in general. All I can answer is that I place value on my own self image. I like to see myself as being fair and just. As this is a value I hold, then doing as I will, includes consideration of this value. Simplified this means that I like to sleep at night.

Human beings are not beasts? That is news. When was it discovered? Seriously I do not hold that there is a qulitative difference between men and animals. There are quantitative and characteristical differences, but nothing that makes us not beasts.

I live my life based on my plans for the future. I try to hold true to my values, because I feel good when I do. That there is nothing more to life than this is not a problem, this is more than enough.

I know the questions were not directed at me, but I felt that my answers may help you understand this type of position.

I can answer some of these for myself as well - my "beliefs," while not the same, are in many ways similar.

You say you don't, but you have.

You've decided, for now, that your existence has no objective purpose, and maybe needs none. How have you come to this provisional decision?

Since nobody has shown me any evidence for the existence or need for an objective purpose, I figure there probably isn't one. Maybe I'm wrong - I'm never going to go around claiming that my belief is "the truth," I'm not going to say that "there is no purpose and we don't need it!"


The "Golden Rule" is, I thought, "Do to others as you would have them do to you", or, in the negative form, "Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you."
This is ethically completely different from 'an it harm none, do what you will', which is the core commandment of moral relativism. In fact, the two rules can be in direct conflict.
How have you decided that some combination of these two rules should be the foundation of your ethics? Plenty of others who don't want bad things to happen to them have decided not to care about other people; how have you come to decide otherwise?

How have I decided on a moral system? Not quite sure. A stab in the dark, I suppose. What feels "right".

There isn't any objective belief associated with it. I don't claim "my value system is RIGHT and is better than the others" - I merely say that this particular one is what I will follow.

How have you decided that human beings are beasts?

Well, look at the great similarities in DNA, body, everything that we share with other animals. There simply isn't enough of a difference between us and animals to say that we're not animals.

Saying you believe in pragmatism is, I think, a bit of a cop-out. How do you know you actually are making the best of it? That there is nothing better out there for you?

I don't know that I'm making the best of it. All I can do is try my best to make the best of it. I don't know that there's nothing better out there for me - but I don't see anything better, so I'm not going to abandon my life and run off in hope of running across something.

On the contrary, Neo... is this one of those parts of the bible you haven't read yet?

It is made VERY clear, in the text, that sacrifices are made to 'deal with' sin...

Exodus 29:36 "And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it".

Specifically: "offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement".

The Geneva Study Bible commentary of 1599 describes 'atonement' as: "To appease God’s wrath that sin may be pardoned".

Stop trying to impress your revisionist view of 'christianity' over the actual content of scripture.

Yes Grave, but think about this senabley for a moment. If sacrifices could remove sin, why did Jesus need to die. Sacrifices could not remove sin, they could only roll it back for when it was removed. The sin death cycle needed to be broken in order for sin to be removed from the world. Jesus, the man who had no sin, died. Yet sin equals death so surely....ERROR!..ERROR! The old sacrifices were an appessement. But Jesus's death changed all that. Read Hebrews for a better understanding

Yes Grave, but think about this senabley for a moment. If sacrifices could remove sin, why did Jesus need to die. Sacrifices could not remove sin, they could only roll it back for when it was removed. The sin death cycle needed to be broken in order for sin to be removed from the world. Jesus, the man who had no sin, died. Yet sin equals death so surely....ERROR!..ERROR! The old sacrifices were an appessement. But Jesus's death changed all that. Read Hebrews for a better understanding

Excellent - Neo just uncovered yet another bible discrepancy for me.

The Bible CLEARLY states that sacrifices were atonement, so why did Jesus have to die.

He didn't... it's a house of cards.

Thank you, Neo.

Unless you think that the Bible lies?

Excellent - Neo just uncovered yet another bible discrepancy for me.

The Bible CLEARLY states that sacrifices were atonement, so why did Jesus have to die.

He didn't... it's a house of cards.

Thank you, Neo.

Unless you think that the Bible lies?

The sacrifice system was not a removal of sin. What it did was "roll" sin back, untill such a time when it could be dealt with. It could not be "removed" using the sacrifice system. It could be appeased and held back, but not removed. Its like deleting a file on a computer. It is still there, just out of the way. Jesus was the way of permenantly removing sin. By breaking the sin death cycle he then made it possible for others to do the same.

You say you don't, but you have.

You've decided, for now, that your existence has no objective purpose, and maybe needs none. How have you come to this provisional decision?

The "Golden Rule" is, I thought, "Do to others as you would have them do to you", or, in the negative form, "Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you."
This is ethically completely different from 'an it harm none, do what you will', which is the core commandment of moral relativism. In fact, the two rules can be in direct conflict.
How have you decided that some combination of these two rules should be the foundation of your ethics? Plenty of others who don't want bad things to happen to them have decided not to care about other people; how have you come to decide otherwise?

How have you decided that human beings are beasts?

Saying you believe in pragmatism is, I think, a bit of a cop-out. How do you know you actually are making the best of it? That there is nothing better out there for you?

No, I didn't 'decide' that my existence has no purpose... I just don't necessarily think it does.... nor do I see why it should?

The "Golden Rule" in it's christian doctrine form, is "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you"... but that is just wording... the 'an it harm none, do as you will' version follows the same basic truth.... you don't do 'not-nice' things, because the universe seeks a balance... the same is true in pretty much every religion... and in science... nature demands equilibrium.

I haven't even really 'decided' that that is the heart of my philosophy... it just seems to fit... you try to help other people, and then they try to help you. It really is a 'pragmatic' approach.

Regarding: humans as beasts. We are all organic lifeforms, we all have young, we all die. Why wouldn't humans be beasts?

I say pragmatism because it seems like a word that fits... I guess I'm 'making the best of it' there, too. Basically, I try to 'make the best of it'... thus, I am pragmatic.... I accept what 'works', and leave what doesn't... thus I am pragmatic.

The sacrifice system was not a removal of sin. What it did was "roll" sin back, untill such a time when it could be dealt with. It could not be "removed" using the sacrifice system. It could be appeased and held back, but not removed. Its like deleting a file on a computer. It is still there, just out of the way. Jesus was the way of permenantly removing sin. By breaking the sin death cycle he then made it possible for others to do the same.

Not at all.

The Bible is very clear about it Neo.

You aren't arguing against me, here - but against scripture.

You show me a reason why Exodus 29:36 is WRONG.

Exodus 29:36 "And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it".

It says atonement.

Either you have to prove that the bible contradicts, or you have to admit that Jesus wasn't here for the purpose of removing the 'unremovable' sin of man.

The sacrifice system was not a removal of sin. What it did was "roll" sin back, untill such a time when it could be dealt with. It could not be "removed" using the sacrifice system. It could be appeased and held back, but not removed. Its like deleting a file on a computer. It is still there, just out of the way. Jesus was the way of permenantly removing sin. By breaking the sin death cycle he then made it possible for others to do the same.
honestly, it sounds like you are making this stuff up. i don't see any reason, going strictly on the text, to accept your particular interpretation...indeed, the text seems to very clearly indicate you are wrong.

can you give any reason why your interpretation should be accepted? beyond the fact that you think so, of course.

Not at all.

The Bible is very clear about it Neo.

You aren't arguing against me, here - but against scripture.

You show me a reason why Exodus 29:36 is WRONG.

Exodus 29:36 "And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it".

It says atonement.

Either you have to prove that the bible contradicts, or you have to admit that Jesus wasn't here for the purpose of removing the 'unremovable' sin of man.


The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.

Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said: “The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts. I will be their God,
and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Does that help? See where it says "remember their sins no more". That means that he originaly did remember them, in some fashion or other. Look in Jeremiah 31 for where he's comming from.

Does that help?

Not at all... what was that, the 'Children's illustrated guide to scripture'?

If that is your 'bible', I despair....

The thing is, I don't buy this idea that you can just say "New Covenant", and instantly dismiss the "Old Covenant". In fact - that is exactly what I have been objecting to... if the Old Covenant is 'wrong', then why should the prophecies be 'true'? And, of course, is prophecy is not true... then who says Jesus is 'Messiah'?


But, all that aside - that quote doesn't say that sacrifice 'rolled-back' sin.

So - I still think you are making up what suits your bias.

(Oh, and Jeremiah 31, if I recall correctly - specifically states that THAT 'new covenant' will be with Israel... not with any other people.

Thus - either the sacrifice of Jesus would only serve Israel, or it ISN'T the 'new covenant'... as it contradicts Jeremiah 31.

Not at all... what was that, the 'Children's illustrated guide to scripture'?


I'm going to ask you not to continue to patronise me. I'm not sure why as I doubt you will listen but I will do it anyway.


The thing is, I don't buy this idea that you can just say "New Covenant", and instantly dismiss the "Old Covenant". In fact - that is exactly what I have been objecting to... if the Old Covenant is 'wrong', then why should the prophecies be 'true'? And, of course, is prophecy is not true... then who says Jesus is 'Messiah'?


You obviously do not understand what the old Covenant is. The Old covenant was the way that God related to humans before the crucifixtion in terms of sin and justice. It is not the New Testement and everything that happened within it. The Old Covenant is detailed layed out in Exodus and Levitiucs. It describes the system of sacrifices which are used to deal with sin. However it does not support the notion that this system deals with sin perfectly. Nor does it say it will be around for ever. Genesis itself predicts the arivial of the one who will crush the Serpents head.


But, all that aside - that quote doesn't say that sacrifice 'rolled-back' sin.

So - I still think you are making up what suits your bias.

What it does say is that the old system was ineffect and not the ultimate way. Here explains a comparison complete with links

http://www.tentmaker.org/tracts/OldVsNewCovenant.html

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.

So, this probably isn't the best quote to address the issue with, but I've got 100 pages of archives to dig through, and only so much time to dig with. But this is concerning the writing of Gospels, what they mention, and their apparent historicisity (<- may not actually be a word, but sounds right when I say it out loud :)).

First off, we're talking the first few centuries CE: the market is saturated with texts claiming to be eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ. It's kinda like the tamagochi boom of the early nineties, only with Apostle writings. So there's a bit of competition going on.

When writing fiction that is meant to be taken seriously, or even, God forbid, be mistaken for true, one sets the piece firmly in its correct historical setting, and goes out of one's way to mention specific places, dates, and other details. This certainly includes avoiding anachronisms: if I were writing historical fiction about the Normans, I would avoid mentioning the Tories, even in extra-narrative commentary.

(there are also issues of choosing a credible narrator, usually a respected eyewitness, and mixing fiction and history carefully, but historical setting is the only really pertinent point)

Any Gospel which survived the competition will be credible as an eyewitness account, basically. No 2nd century writer would ever include in his gospel the destruction of the Temple 40 years later, because this would at best be jarring for the reader, and at worst completely discredit his work. Internal evidence for the factuality of the Bible, in other words, is meaningless, because it will be internally consistent with what it purports to be.

You obviously do not understand what the old Covenant is. The Old covenant was the way that God related to humans before the crucifixtion in terms of sin and justice. It is not the New Testement and everything that happened within it. The Old Covenant is detailed layed out in Exodus and Levitiucs. It describes the system of sacrifices which are used to deal with sin. However it does not support the notion that this system deals with sin perfectly. Nor does it say it will be around for ever. Genesis itself predicts the arivial of the one who will crush the Serpents head.

[/url]
So it boils down to god found a better way to do it through Jesus right?
But that begs the question why would an all knowing being who is supposedly infallible do it wrong from the start then switch his mind part way through?
Being all knowing he should have known the first way he did it was not the best … unless he messed up to start with … which incase he is fallible

Okay... why is this thread still in existance?

Okay... why is this thread still in existance?
1) because people like me are interested in arguing
2) because people like you keep asking stuff like that … adding to the post count and bringing it back up to the top

(complaining about a thread being alive while keeping it alive in part yourself is really quite ironic)

So it boils down to god found a better way to do it through Jesus right?
But that begs the question why would an all knowing being who is supposedly infallible do it wrong from the start then switch his mind part way through?
Being all knowing he should have known the first way he did it was not the best … unless he messed up to start with … which incase he is fallible

Or the more likely explination, which is that humans screwed it up and he had to fix it.

Or the more likely explination, which is that humans screwed it up and he had to fix it.
But he would have known that … again he is holding all the cards could have
1) made it more robust
2) predicted the change and planed for it much before then (maybe original incorporation into the religion) or an option (believe OR sacrifice whichever you are capable of) that way he would cover all during a transitional phase
Not to mention that it was a complete departure from what was there before hand (not a small tweek)

So, this probably isn't the best quote to address the issue with, but I've got 100 pages of archives to dig through, and only so much time to dig with. But this is concerning the writing of Gospels, what they mention, and their apparent historicisity (<- may not actually be a word, but sounds right when I say it out loud :)).

First off, we're talking the first few centuries CE: the market is saturated with texts claiming to be eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ. It's kinda like the tamagochi boom of the early nineties, only with Apostle writings. So there's a bit of competition going on.

When writing fiction that is meant to be taken seriously, or even, God forbid, be mistaken for true, one sets the piece firmly in its correct historical setting, and goes out of one's way to mention specific places, dates, and other details. This certainly includes avoiding anachronisms: if I were writing historical fiction about the Normans, I would avoid mentioning the Tories, even in extra-narrative commentary.

(there are also issues of choosing a credible narrator, usually a respected eyewitness, and mixing fiction and history carefully, but historical setting is the only really pertinent point)

Any Gospel which survived the competition will be credible as an eyewitness account, basically. No 2nd century writer would ever include in his gospel the destruction of the Temple 40 years later, because this would at best be jarring for the reader, and at worst completely discredit his work. Internal evidence for the factuality of the Bible, in other words, is meaningless, because it will be internally consistent with what it purports to be.

Excellent.

And very, very true.

For people to argue the 'truth' of the bible, because the one set of texts 'follows' the others so well, is amazing to me. After all, if I were to write a text that I wanted to be included in a recognised list... I would make sure it would fit as perfectly as I could make it.

But he would have known that … again he is holding all the cards could have
1) made it more robust
2) predicted the change and planed for it much before then (maybe original incorporation into the religion) or an option (believe OR sacrifice whichever you are capable of) that way he would cover all during a transitional phase
Not to mention that it was a complete departure from what was there before hand (not a small tweek)

To control the system to such an extent that they could not break it would be a violation of free will. Also think about this temporal and logical paradox for a second. God knows that they were going to eat the apple. Ergo God stops it. God is now wrong about his original interpretation as he has changed the future. You see the flaw. God will not use his omniscene to protect us. Look and I will explain

Timmy is in X situation where he can do Y thing which he thinks is a good idea

Timmy: "Hmm, Y looks like a good idea. In X case I think I will do Y. Hey, I cant do it! There is some kind of invisable force in the way"

God: "No Timmy you cant do Y"

Timmy: "Why not"

God: "Because its not best for you"

Timmy: "Isnt it up to me to decide whats best for me"

This is free will logic. God will not impeed your free will. That changes who you are as a human and impinges on your freedom.

Or the more likely explination, which is that humans screwed it up and he had to fix it.

Or the even MORE likely explanation... the two mythologies are not actually connected, and the one was 'shoe-horned' into the mould of the other.

Or the even MORE likely explanation... the two mythologies are not actually connected, and the one was 'shoe-horned' into the mould of the other.

Yes lets just ignore all the 300 or so mesianic prophecies which took place under the old covenant times being fufilled in a single man. Yes lets do that.

And again Grave, you display your complete inablity to understand when someone is discussing within the confines of Christianity and when they are not. I was just explaining a point in terms of Christian understanding. I wasn't discussing the relevent truthfullness or viability of it. I was just explaining it.

I'm going to ask you not to continue to patronise me. I'm not sure why as I doubt you will listen but I will do it anyway.


Neo - considering you blithely post on most of the time, totally ignoring any CONTENT that might have been made by others (myself included), you are in a strange place to be saying such a thing.

And, yes - I was mocking of your version of the bible... but, to be serious, I was halfway down the page before I realised that was what it was! I had assumed you were reciting scripture from memory, or something - and were trying to put it into easy-to-understand language.

I was literally distressed, when I realised that the text you were typing was from a book calling itself 'the bible'.

I honestly believe that, the sooner you get a proper bible, the better... if for no other reason than the fact that the KJV (while still flawed) contains some truly beautiful language.


You obviously do not understand what the old Covenant is. The Old covenant was the way that God related to humans before the crucifixtion in terms of sin and justice. It is not the New Testement and everything that happened within it. The Old Covenant is detailed layed out in Exodus and Levitiucs. It describes the system of sacrifices which are used to deal with sin. However it does not support the notion that this system deals with sin perfectly. Nor does it say it will be around for ever. Genesis itself predicts the arivial of the one who will crush the Serpents head.


Yes. That's right, Neo. Of course I don't understand what the Old 'covenant' was. After all, I am new to this whole 'scripture' thing.

You cannot explain away the fact that the Old testament allows for 'atonement'... and still reconcile that with what you are trying to 'sell'.

I, personally, find flaws in the connection between the so-called 'new covenant' and the laws which 'god' agreed with Israel, but - regardless - in this case, it does not say what you are trying to make it say.

Genesis does not predict "the arivial of the one who will crush the Serpents head". (sic)


What it does say is that the old system was ineffect and not the ultimate way. Here explains a comparison complete with links

http://www.tentmaker.org/tracts/OldVsNewCovenant.html

I don't want to read someone else's commentary, Neo.

If you have a SOURCE, or some EVIDENCE, then link to it.

If I just wanted to read someone ELSE, I would have done a websearch.

I come here for the debate... if you can't 'debate' (and that DOES NOT MEAN posting links to ANOTHER PERSON's ideas, instead of your own), then just don't reply!

To control the system to such an extent that they could not break it would be a violation of free will. Also think about this temporal and logical paradox for a second. God knows that they were going to eat the apple. Ergo God stops it. God is now wrong about his original interpretation as he has changed the future. You see the flaw. God will not use his omniscene to protect us. Look and I will explain


So, 'God' doesn't have free will?

'God' cannot choose his actions... by your example, choosing his actions would impinge free-will for the universe.

Also - you say that 'god' will not impinge free will... have you tried explaining that to Pharaoh? Or, perhaps to the citizens of Sodom?

More likely response - 'god', like every other being, cannot see the future - but, he can make really good guesses, because he's such a whizz-kid.

Thus - freewill isn't affected for ANYONE, not even 'god'.

The Atonement of Christ (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=658) - This is a good page to read on this subject.

Hebrews
24For Christ did not enter a manmade sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

I don't want to read someone else's commentary, Neo.

If you have a SOURCE, or some EVIDENCE, then link to it.

If I just wanted to read someone ELSE, I would have done a websearch.

I come here for the debate... if you can't 'debate' (and that DOES NOT MEAN posting links to ANOTHER PERSON's ideas, instead of your own), then just don't reply!

Its not a commentry. Had you read it you would understand that. Better still, I'll post it here

Mosaic Covenant New Covenant
- Old covenant II Cor. 3:14......New covenant II Cor. 3:6
- First covenant Heb. 8:7, 9:1......Second covenant Heb. 8:7, 10:1-9
- Came by Moses John 1:17.....Came by Christ Heb. 8:6, 9:15
- Law of Moses Acts 13:38-39.....Law of Christ Gal. 6:2
- Law of sin Rom. 7:5-6.....Law of righteousness Rom. 9:30-31
- Law of the flesh Rom. 7:5-6.....Law of the Spirit Rom. 8:2
- Not of faith Gal. 3:2.....Law of faith Rom. 3:27
- Yoke of bondage Gal. 5:1......Law of liberty Jam. 1:25
- Ended by Christ Rom. 10:4......Established by Christ Heb. 8:6, 10:9
- Law of death II Cor. 3:7......Law of life Gal. 3:11, 6:8
- Entangles Gal. 5:1......Makes free John 8:32, 36
- A shadow Col. 2:14-17......The reality Heb. 10:1-18
- Fulfilled Mat. 5:17-18......Now in force Heb. 8:6, 10:9
- Leaves imperfect Heb. 7:19......Makes perfect Heb. 7:19
- Glorious II Cor. 3:7......More glorious II Cor. 3:8-10
- Powerless to save Heb. 9:9, 10:4......Saves to uttermost Heb. 7:25
- Many sacrifices Heb. 9:12-13......One sacrifice for sin Heb. 10:12
- Temporary priest Heb. 7:23......Eternal priest Heb. 7:17 -Remembers sins Heb. 10:3......Forgets sins Heb. 8:12, 10:17
- Yearly atonement Heb. 10:3......Eternal atonement Heb. 10:14
- Priests have sin Heb. 5:1-4......Sinless priest Heb. 7:26
- Aaronic priesthood >Heb. 7:11......Melchisedec priesthood Heb. 5:5-10, 7:21 - Out of Levi Heb 7:11......Out of Judah Heb. 7:14 - Animal sacrifices Heb. 9:12......Human sacrifice Heb. 9:14-28
- Earthly tabernacle Heb. 9:2......Heavenly tabernacle Heb. 8:2
- Imperfect mediator Gal. 3:19......Sinless mediator I Tim. 2:5
- No inheritance Rom. 4:13......Eternal inheritance Heb. 9:15
- Instituted upon animal blood Heb. 9:16-22......Instituted upon blood of Christ Mat. 26-28 - Law of works Rom. 3:27......Law of grace and faith John 1:17
- Works wrath Rom. 4:15......Saves from wrath Rom. 5:9
- Non-redeeming Heb. 10:4......Redeems Gal. 3:13, Heb. 9:12-15
- Non-pleasing Ps. 40:6......Pleasing to God Heb 10:5-18
- Abolishment predicted Is. 51:6......Establishment predicted Heb. 8:7
- Circumcision Ex. 12:48......No circumcision Rom. 4:9-12
- Made to change Heb. 7:12, Gal. 3:25......Made eternal Heb. 13:20
- Faulty Heb. 8:7......Perfect James 1:25
- Weak Heb. 7:18......Strong Heb. 7:25
- Unprofitable Heb. 7:18......Profitable Heb. 7:19,25
- Natural program Heb. 9:10-14......Spiritual program II Cor. 3:6, 18
- Daily program Heb. 7:27......Finished program Heb. 10:10-18
- Infirm high priests Heb. 5:2, 7:28......Perfect high priest Heb. 7:26
- Made priests by law Heb. 7:12, 28......Made priests by an oath Heb. 7:21, 28 - No salvation Heb. 10:2-4......Eternal salvation Heb. 5:9, 10:10 - Perfected nothing Heb. 7:19......Perfects believers Heb. 7:19, 10:14 - Earthly priests Heb. 5:1-4......Heavenly priest Heb. 9:24, 10:12 - Repeated inability Heb. 10:11......Glorious success Heb. 10:10-18
- Many offerings Heb. 9:7......One offering Heb. 10:10-14
- Good promises Dt. 28:1-14......Better promises Heb. 8:6
- A good covenant Rom 7:12......A better covenant Heb. 7:22, 8:6
- Many high priests Heb. 7:23......One high priest Heb. 7:24-28
- Typical tabernacle Heb. 9......True tabernacle Heb. 8:2, 9:11 - No mercy Heb. 10:28......Complete mercy Heb. 8:12
- Handmade things Heb. 9:1-5, 24......Not handmade Heb. 9:23-24
- An old way Heb. 8:13......New and living way Heb. 10:19-20
- Unavailing ministers Heb. 7:18......Able ministers II Cor. 3:6
- Carnal ministry Heb. 9:9-10......Spiritual ministry II Cor. 3:6 - Ministration of condemnation II Cor. 3:9......Ministration of righteousness II Cor. 3:9 - Glory covered II Cor. 3:13......Glory uncovered II Cor. 3:18 - Brings bondage Gal. 4:24-25......Brings liberty II Cor. 3:17
- Cannot justify Gal. 2:16......Does justify Acts 13:38-39
- Brings a curse Gal. 3:10......Redeems from the curse Gal. 3:13
- Live by works Gal 3:10......Live by faith Gal. 3:11 - Cannot give life Gal. 3:21......Does give life John 6:63-68
- Exposes sin Gal 3:19......Covers sin Rom. 4:1-8
- Under law Rom 6:14-15......Under grace Gal. 3:22-25
- Done away II Cor. 3:7-14......Not done away II Cor. 3:11
- Abolished II Cor. 3:13......Continues glorious II Cor. 3:11
- Ministry of death II Cor. 3:7......Reconciliation ministry II Cor. 5:18
- For Israel only Dt. 4:7-8, 5:3......For all men Luke 22:20, Mark 14:24

Yes lets just ignore all the 300 or so mesianic prophecies which took place under the old covenant times being fufilled in a single man. Yes lets do that.

And again Grave, you display your complete inablity to understand when someone is discussing within the confines of Christianity and when they are not. I was just explaining a point in terms of Christian understanding. I wasn't discussing the relevent truthfullness or viability of it. I was just explaining it.

Not at all, Neo.

I was just showing an alternative.. I wasn't discussing the truthfulness of it, I was just explaining.

It's not that I am 'unable' to understand that you were discussing 'within' the confines of 'christianity'.

It's just... well, I think Sneaker Pimps put it best: "Don't think, cause I understand... I care".


Of course, regarding Messianic prophecy... you DO know that Baha'u'llah actually matches the prophecies better, don't you?

Of course, regarding Messianic prophecy... you DO know that Baha'u'llah actually matches the prophecies better, don't you?

Not that I rearly care but just interested, who is this person

Its not a commentry. Had you read it you would understand that. Better still, I'll post it here


Had you read my post, Neo - you'd have seen:

"I come here for the debate... if you can't 'debate' (and that DOES NOT MEAN posting links to ANOTHER PERSON's ideas, instead of your own), then just don't reply!"

Had you read my post, Neo - you'd have seen:

"I come here for the debate... if you can't 'debate' (and that DOES NOT MEAN posting links to ANOTHER PERSON's ideas, instead of your own), then just don't reply!"

Ever consdier this. They are my ideas but these people explain them better than me. Also consider that I have a life besides this forum and its easier to point you to the site which explains the views that I hold than to type them out in full myself.

Not that I rearly care but just interested, who is this person

You claim that you base your belief in christianity on how well the Messianic prophecy is met... (after all, without the prophecies, Jesus was just a prophet)... and yet you don't know who Baha'u'llah is.

Ignorance is no defence.

Ever consdier this. They are my ideas but these people explain them better than me. Also consider that I have a life besides this forum and its easier to point you to the site which explains the views that I hold than to type them out in full myself.

No. I have never considered that they are your own ideas, Neo.

I wish they were.

But all you seem to offer, is regurgitation of what someone else thinks.

Oh, I also have a life outside of NS... and a family, and a job, and an education...

And yet, somehow - I STILL manage to fit in time to have my own thoughts, and not resort to just copying and pasting my arguments.

And yet, somehow - I STILL manage to fit in time to have my own thoughts, and not resort to just copying and pasting my arguments.

Is it easier to question or to answer?

I guess you didnt even look at the link about the Atonement of Christ that I posted.

Not that I rearly care but just interested, who is this person


http://www.bahaullah.net/ You can get some info about it there. And Grave how about you give me an answer to how Baha’u’llah fulfills prophecy better that Christ. Oh, and thats hard to do since Christ matched it perfectly.

Is it easier to question or to answer?

I guess you didnt even look at the link about the Atonement of Christ that I posted.

1) I don't understand this question... so I don't know how to answer... that makes it a tie, I guess?

2) Sorry, didn't even see the post.... I'll look for it....

Or the more likely explination, which is that humans screwed it up and he had to fix it.

Which would only be possible if he left flaws in his perfect creation for a screwup to be possible.

When a l33t hax0r finds yet another security hole in windows and screws up a thousand computers before the programmers release a patch, it is the programmers' fault for creating the security hole in the first place. Sure it's that individual hacker's fault for exposing it first - but those affected are blaming Microsoft for putting that hole there in the first place.

When an architect builds a bridge, and four years later it collapses because the wind shakes it at the resonant frequency - it's not the wind's fault, it's the fault of the architect who built the bridge with the structural weakness.

When a terrorist sneaks past airport security, the security system gets blamed for having a flaw, as well as the terrorist being blamed for, well, being a terrorist.

And so on and so on.

When a parent leaves a child at a busy intersection, says "don't go into the road," but then stands by and watches as the child stands around for a bit, gets bored, wanders into the street, and gets hit by a car - that is the parents fault as well as the childs, for creating a situation where such a thing could have happened. It's a mistake, a flaw, a glaring imperfection... and not just in the child.

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
I already went over that list several pages back.

As I once told a friend “it’s the blind part of blind faith that is the problem, not the faith part”

Thanks for bringing up the issue of faith. I find it interesting that there are basically 3 different types of faith, yet theists often try to equate them to each other. We should really have 3 different words to describe these 3 different situations.

Faith #1: Faith with evidence. Example: Commercial airplanes fly often with a very low rate of incident. Therefore, I have faith that I will arrive at my destination witout incident.

Faith #2: Faith without evidence. Example: An inventor who has created a new gadget, yet has never tested it. The inventor has faith that it will work properly.

Faith #3: Faith against evidence. Example: An inventor who has created a new gadget, and it has failed every test thus far. Yet the inventor has faith that without any modification, the gadget will pass the next given test.

Theists go between faith 2 and 3 (depending on the situation) to maintain their beliefs. I use faith 1 throughout my life (having faith that my chair or car will work properly), yet theists will try to say faith 1 is the same as faith 2 and 3, and therefore their faith is rational and I ought to accept their god concept on faith. Some theists have tried to patronize me by saying that they admire my faith in science, when they know damn well that it is a completely different kind of faith then they utilize. Mine is a rationalized and reasoned faith, theirs is not. For some of them, their faith goes directly against rationalization and reason.

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.
Why can't god be proven empirically? To say that he can't be proven empirically is to try to put god beyond the reach of knowledge. The only reason I can see for wanting to do that is to keep him safe from disproof. Are you afraid that your god doesn't exist?

As we gain knowledge about the world and universe, god moves out of our reach by theists who try to keep him alive. At first, god was on mountain tops. We climbed the mountains, but did not find god. Then god moved to the clouds. We began flying through the clouds, but did not find god. Then god moved into outer space. We build telescopes that can see galaxies on the other side of the universe, but did not find god. Where is god now? Many say that he exists in alternate dimensions.

Natural explainations have always replaced supernatural explainations, but a supernatural explaination has never replaced a natural explaination.

Many theists from other faiths have EXACTLY the same type of faith and evidences. Does that mean their faith is just as true as yours?

My life has also changed in observable ways WITHOUT faith in Jesus Christ, but through my own effort and perserverance. Therefore, change of life is not related to faith in the supernatural.

Yes Grave, but think about this senabley for a moment. If sacrifices could remove sin, why did Jesus need to die. Sacrifices could not remove sin, they could only roll it back for when it was removed. The sin death cycle needed to be broken in order for sin to be removed from the world. Jesus, the man who had no sin, died. Yet sin equals death so surely....ERROR!..ERROR! The old sacrifices were an appessement. But Jesus's death changed all that. Read Hebrews for a better understanding
Can you scripturally support any of this, that sacrafices only "rolled back" sin?

The sacrifice system was not a removal of sin. What it did was "roll" sin back, untill such a time when it could be dealt with. It could not be "removed" using the sacrifice system. It could be appeased and held back, but not removed. Its like deleting a file on a computer. It is still there, just out of the way. Jesus was the way of permenantly removing sin. By breaking the sin death cycle he then made it possible for others to do the same.
You keep asserting this, yet you have not supported it with scripture.

It just occured to me that the atheists have posted TONS of scripture to support their arguments, yet the theists haven't posted ANY (at least none that I've seen). Things that make you go "Hmmmmm".

Or the more likely explination, which is that humans screwed it up and he had to fix it.
What, humans did something god didn't expect? I thought god was supposed to be all knowing.

To control the system to such an extent that they could not break it would be a violation of free will.
Then god is not all knowing or free will does not exist. Further, why couldn't god have made a better free will that allows us freedom of choice, but does not allow us to make "wrong" choices? After all, god is all powerful isn't he? An all powerful being is capable of such a thing.

Yes lets just ignore all the 300 or so mesianic prophecies which took place under the old covenant times being fufilled in a single man. Yes lets do that.

And again Grave, you display your complete inablity to understand when someone is discussing within the confines of Christianity and when they are not. I was just explaining a point in terms of Christian understanding. I wasn't discussing the relevent truthfullness or viability of it. I was just explaining it.
What? A sequal was written to fit the predictions of the prequal? Nnnnoooooooo!!!!!!

Think about it for a second, if someone wrote a book and then wrote a second book that is a continuing story of the first, the author would be stupid (to say the least) to not write the second book to fit the first book. That doesn't make it either true or magical. The Incarnations of Immortality series by Piers Anthony is 7 books long, and they all intertwine with each other. If he made any one of those books not fit the other, the plot line through 7 books wouldn't make any sense, and no one would have bought and read them.

Thanks for bringing up the issue of faith. I find it interesting that there are basically 3 different types of faith, yet theists often try to equate them to each other. We should really have 3 different words to describe these 3 different situations.

Faith #1: Faith with evidence. Example: Commercial airplanes fly often with a very low rate of incident. Therefore, I have faith that I will arrive at my destination witout incident.

Faith #2: Faith without evidence. Example: An inventor who has created a new gadget, yet has never tested it. The inventor has faith that it will work properly.

Faith #3: Faith against evidence. Example: An inventor who has created a new gadget, and it has failed every test thus far. Yet the inventor has faith that without any modification, the gadget will pass the next given test.

Theists go between faith 2 and 3 (depending on the situation) to maintain their beliefs. I use faith 1 throughout my life (having faith that my chair or car will work properly), yet theists will try to say faith 1 is the same as faith 2 and 3, and therefore their faith is rational and I ought to accept their god concept on faith. Some theists have tried to patronize me by saying that they admire my faith in science, when they know damn well that it is a completely different kind of faith then they utilize. Mine is a rationalized and reasoned faith, theirs is not. For some of them, their faith goes directly against rationalization and reason.

Alrighty then: Find me some proof against God then. I'm Catholic if that helps you in any way.

http://www.bahaullah.net/ You can get some info about it there. And Grave how about you give me an answer to how Baha’u’llah fulfills prophecy better that Christ. Oh, and thats hard to do since Christ matched it perfectly.

First of all, this argument is circular because it requires the bible to prove the bible. If I write a sequel to a story, then I would certainly write it to fit the prequel.

Seconly, doesn't match messianic prophecy perfectly. Read the messianic prophecies, they disqualify Jesus several times over.

First of all, jewish law prohibits human sacrafice, yet that's exactly what Jesus was.

Secondly, Matthew (1:12) lists Jeconiah as an ancestor of Jesus -- which, according to this prophecy, disqualifies Jesus as the Messiah.

22:28-30
Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

To control the system to such an extent that they could not break it would be a violation of free will. Also think about this temporal and logical paradox for a second. God knows that they were going to eat the apple. Ergo God stops it. God is now wrong about his original interpretation as he has changed the future. You see the flaw. God will not use his omniscene to protect us. Look and I will explain

Timmy is in X situation where he can do Y thing which he thinks is a good idea

Timmy: "Hmm, Y looks like a good idea. In X case I think I will do Y. Hey, I cant do it! There is some kind of invisable force in the way"

God: "No Timmy you cant do Y"

Timmy: "Why not"

God: "Because its not best for you"

Timmy: "Isnt it up to me to decide whats best for me"

This is free will logic. God will not impeed your free will. That changes who you are as a human and impinges on your freedom.

I was not geting into the apple arguement I was talking about the ways of salvation why was the system we have now now implemented earlier (it should no more effect free will then than it does now) if it is the better method?

http://www.bahaullah.net/ You can get some info about it there. And Grave how about you give me an answer to how Baha’u’llah fulfills prophecy better that Christ. Oh, and thats hard to do since Christ matched it perfectly.

There are better sites to learn about Baha'u'llah (Glory of God). This is one good one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/bahai/

And another good one.
http://www.bahai.org/

First of all, this argument is circular because it requires the bible to prove the bible. If I write a sequel to a story, then I would certainly write it to fit the prequel.

Seconly, doesn't match messianic prophecy perfectly. Read the messianic prophecies, they disqualify Jesus several times over.

Ive read prophecy many times. I see no problems. If you have objections point them out.



First of all, jewish law prohibits human sacrafice, yet that's exactly what Jesus was.


The JEWISH authors of the new testament are quite clear in stating a new covenant with God, which is sealed by the blood of Christ.


Secondly, Matthew (1:12) lists Jeconiah as an ancestor of Jesus -- which, according to this prophecy, disqualifies Jesus as the Messiah.

22:28-30
Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

The Tanakh indicates that the curse on Jeconiah was reversed, through the person of Zerubbabel.

In that day, says the YHVH Tzva'ot, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, says the YHVH, and will make thee as a signet ring: for I have chosen thee, says YHVH Tzva'ot.
Haggai 2:23

The phraseology of the "signet ring" here implies that the curse was lifted. Moreover, this argument is in full agreement with Jewish tradition. The Curse of Jeconiah was lifted, as evidenced in the Tanakh and Judaic literature.
- http://messianicart.com



"He said about Jekoniah: For no man of his seed shall prosper (Jer. XXII, 30) and it says, I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the nations... In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, My servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the Lord, and will make thee as a signet (Hag. II, 22 f.). Thus was annulled that which He had said to his forefather, viz. As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim King of Judah were the signet upon My right hand, yet I would pluck thee thence (Jer. XXII, 24)." --- Numbers Rabbah XX:20, Soncino Midrash Rabbah

Jehoiachin's sad experiences changed his nature entirely, and as he repented of the sins which he had committed as king he was pardoned by God, who revoked the decree to the effect that none of his descendants should ever become king (Jer. xxii. 30; Pesi., ed. Buber, xxv. 163a, b); he even became the ancestor of the Messiah (Tan., Toledot, 20 [ed. Buber, i. 140])" --- Jewish Encyclopedia, Entry on Jehoiachin

Alrighty then: Find me some proof against God then. I'm Catholic if that helps you in any way.
I'll do nothing of the sort. The burden of proof is not on me, but on the individual who makes the positive claim. I am making no positive claims, you are. Therefore, it is up to you (and god) to prove god's existence.

Ive read prophecy many times. I see no problems. If you have objections point them out.

I have, tons of them. Interestingly, atheists have been posting scripture to make their case. The theists have not been posting scriputre to defend their case.

The JEWISH authors of the new testament are quite clear in stating a new covenant with God, which is sealed by the blood of Christ.

1. God's word and laws are eternal.
2. Nowhere in the NT does it say that the OT doesn't count anymore. On the contrary, Jesus makes it clear that the OT still applies and always will.

Therefore, Jesus cannot be the messiah, because jewish law prohibits human sacrifice.

Alrighty then: Find me some proof against God then. I'm Catholic if that helps you in any way.

time is clear evidence against god. in the 5th and 6th dimensions there are multiple paths of time, in each one there is a slightly different universe to the one we're living in(multi-universe theory) if god existed, they would only exist in some of the paths of time, but it's completely impossible for something to exist in every path of time since they are aligned next to each other going on forever in the direction on the side of the paths. and since there is infinite universes, there is infinite possible outcomes and realities of each. the only way possible for the type of god christianity believes in to exist it would need to be in all of the paths of time, but since that's impossible, it doesn't exist.

time is clear evidence against god. in the 5th and 6th dimensions there are multiple paths of time, in each one there is a slightly different universe to the one we're living in(multi-universe theory) if god existed, they would only exist in some of the paths of time, but it's completely impossible for something to exist in every path of time since they are aligned next to each other going on forever in the direction on the side of the paths. and since there is infinite universes, there is infinite possible outcomes and realities of each. the only way possible for the type of god christianity believes in to exist it would need to be in all of the paths of time, but since that's impossible, it doesn't exist.
Which is, of course, nothing but inane psycho-babble which means absolutely nothing except that you have no real proof against God.

The multi-universe theory is, as it says, a theory. Personally, I go for the idea that all our decisions are based on our present environment and whatnot, so there's only one outcome and therefore only one universe. Time cannot be changed because if it is changed then it was always that way and you never actually changed it. But ALL of that is irrelevant.
God can exist outside of ALL of the universes, you know. God, being God, doesn't have exist in any "universe" at all. The space outside of our universe is necessarily something that we can't really grasp, seeing as how it's not really space at all. God could be in any number of places, regardless of other dimensions. You are a three dimensional being. You could include time, but lets face it, none of us really have any concept of the passing of time unless we're staring at a clock, and even then we don't really grasp it. We are incredibly limited beings, and we can only pretend to even begin to fathom what is outside of our meager dimensions. Don't act like you know what's out there or pretend to know how God could possibly exist. The possibilities of existence are endless, infinite. Hell, our laws of numbers don't even apply outside of our universe, so we can't even call it infinite.

In short, that is the most pathetic attempt at disproving God that I have ever heard.

I have, tons of them. Interestingly, atheists have been posting scripture to make their case. The theists have not been posting scriputre to defend their case.
Well, they should be. Then again, some things, like the "dimensions" thing don't need scripture to refute.


1. God's word and laws are eternal.
2. Nowhere in the NT does it say that the OT doesn't count anymore. On the contrary, Jesus makes it clear that the OT still applies and always will.
This is absolutely true.
But:
Romans 4:13
For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.
There are more, but it's late at the moment, so I'm tired and cranky and I'll look them up later.

Basically, yeah, the law is there, but the law was never ment to save anyone. That's Jesus' job. So yeah, you should follow the law, but you don't have to. Jesus saves, not law.


Therefore, Jesus cannot be the messiah, because jewish law prohibits human sacrifice.
A, How do you know? Got a verse? I can't remember if there is one or not...meh...
B, God sacrificed him, not us. We just killed him. He sacrificed himself. It's not human sacrifice, it's self-sacrifice...Taking the bullet, taking the blame, staying with the ship, giving up your seat on the lifeboat, giving up your parachute...I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

Thanks for bringing up the issue of faith. I find it interesting that there are basically 3 different types of faith, yet theists often try to equate them to each other. We should really have 3 different words to describe these 3 different situations.

Faith #1: Faith with evidence. Example: Commercial airplanes fly often with a very low rate of incident. Therefore, I have faith that I will arrive at my destination witout incident.

Faith #2: Faith without evidence. Example: An inventor who has created a new gadget, yet has never tested it. The inventor has faith that it will work properly.

Faith #3: Faith against evidence. Example: An inventor who has created a new gadget, and it has failed every test thus far. Yet the inventor has faith that without any modification, the gadget will pass the next given test.

Theists go between faith 2 and 3 (depending on the situation) to maintain their beliefs. I use faith 1 throughout my life (having faith that my chair or car will work properly), yet theists will try to say faith 1 is the same as faith 2 and 3, and therefore their faith is rational and I ought to accept their god concept on faith. Some theists have tried to patronize me by saying that they admire my faith in science, when they know damn well that it is a completely different kind of faith then they utilize. Mine is a rationalized and reasoned faith, theirs is not. For some of them, their faith goes directly against rationalization and reason.
I have seen God's work, I have felt God in my life, I have heard countless others tell their testimonies. I see truth in the Bible, I see lies and loss elsewhere. I have trusted God many times and been rewarded. And yet you say that this is not #1 faith? There is more than enough evidence to support God. The only reason you don't see it is because you don't want to see it.

That is the ultimate mistake that Atheists make when they evaluate religion, especially Christianity. Christianity has never been about "blind faith." God does not expect you to just trust him in the face of all evidence against him. Until atheists realize that, they will never understand why Christians can be as stubborn as we are. That is also why Atheists think we're closeminded. We're not closeminded, we're just very confident.

I have seen God's work, I have felt God in my life, I have heard countless others tell their testimonies. I see truth in the Bible, I see lies and loss elsewhere. I have trusted God many times and been rewarded. And yet you say that this is not #1 faith? There is more than enough evidence to support God.

Good for you.

Care to show us?

The only reason you don't see it is because you don't want to see it.

And this is why we think you're being close-minded. I, personally, do not see the evidence because, as far as I can tell, it isn't there. The best I've heard is an argument from ignorance - "the world can't possibly have turned out the way it did without a god!" - which is not valid reasoning.

I would be quite glad to find incontrovertible evidence of a God - be it the christian god, the muslim one, the jewish one, the ancient greek ones, the norse ones... the existence of a God would make life so much simpler.

And yet there is no evidence.

I find it quite offensive when you say "the evidence is there, YOU just can't see it." If you point it out to me, I'll be glad to examine it - if the reasoning doesn't have any flaws, I'll acknowledge its correctness.

That is the ultimate mistake that Atheists make when they evaluate religion, especially Christianity. Christianity has never been about "blind faith." God does not expect you to just trust him in the face of all evidence against him.

And yet that's exactly what you're saying we should do. Believe in God despite the lack of evidence.

Until atheists realize that, they will never understand why Christians can be as stubborn as we are. That is also why Atheists think we're closeminded. We're not closeminded, we're just very confident.

Ah. You're saying "We're not closeminded, we just know we're right!"

Sounds like a pretty closeminded assertion to me...

Which is, of course, nothing but inane psycho-babble which means absolutely nothing except that you have no real proof against God.

Completely agree with that part, that guy was being completely incomprehensible and nonsensical.

The multi-universe theory is, as it says, a theory.

Augh!! Not to be nitpicky here, but PLEASE don't use the argument "it's just a theory." It's a meaningless quibble over semantics - the "theory of relativity" or "quantum theory" or the "theory of evolution" are also just, as they say, theories. The fact that they are theories says nothing about their validity.

What you MEANT to say was "it has no evidence for it" or "it's not proven," both of which are true for multiuniverse theory.

I already went over that list several pages back.

I have too keep quoting 306 at you. Enlighten us as to what you are talking about.

And this is why we think you're being close-minded. I, personally, do not see the evidence because, as far as I can tell, it isn't there. The best I've heard is an argument from ignorance - "the world can't possibly have turned out the way it did without a god!" - which is not valid reasoning.


How about this one. Can you explain how anything in the Bible happened without a God, and actually explain properly. Dont go on the "The Bible is wrong" rant here. Just try and prove it all away.

Augh!! Not to be nitpicky here, but PLEASE don't use the argument "it's just a theory." It's a meaningless quibble over semantics - the "theory of relativity" or "quantum theory" or the "theory of evolution" are also just, as they say, theories. The fact that they are theories says nothing about their validity.

What you MEANT to say was "it has no evidence for it" or "it's not proven," both of which are true for multiuniverse theory.
No, I said exactly what I meant to say. There IS evidence, though it's way above my head. NO theory, however, is proven, which is why they are "theories."

Don't correct me.

Good for you.

Care to show us?
Hmm...I could talk about how I feel lost and empty unless I'm reading my Bible. I could talk about how there were times when I refused to trust God and bad stuff happened because my judgement sucks. I could give you hundreds of documented miracle stories. Yes, I say documented, because when people get up and walk after having polio since they were 5, doctors, that's people with PhDs, write it down in hospital records as essentially a miracle. I could talk about how I can hear him pushing me to do the right things, to read my Bible, to trust him. I could talk about how I've seen others turn away from him and get hurt. I could talk about a million different things.

And this is why we think you're being close-minded. I, personally, do not see the evidence because, as far as I can tell, it isn't there. The best I've heard is an argument from ignorance - "the world can't possibly have turned out the way it did without a god!" - which is not valid reasoning.
And saying "The world did turn out the way it did without God" is no more valid, which leaves us completely equal in our reasoning. Thus, I'm being open-minded to the idea that your ideas are equally valid as mine.
The reason I choose not to follow your reasoning is because I have personal experience that leads me to believe otherwise.

I would be quite glad to find incontrovertible evidence of a God - be it the christian god, the muslim one, the jewish one, the ancient greek ones, the norse ones... the existence of a God would make life so much simpler.

And yet there is no evidence.
I could say the same about evidence against God. But I won't, because I realize that there is evidence against God. There, again, I'm being openminded. I have just found far more evidence in favor of God than against him.

To sum it up, you're being closeminded and ignorant. You have no proof against God other than the same ramblings of Yupaenu. If you have real proof, post it. If not, shut up. Frankly, I could care less what your opinion of God is, unless of course, you can back it up. You have yet to back it up, though. Your entire argument boils down to: "God is dumb and I don't think he's real and you can't make me think he's real." By your own argument, that's not valid at all.
You call us closeminded because we won't consider your opinions, even though you have nothing to back them up with?
And you say Christianity is nothing but blind faith. :rolleyes:

I find it quite offensive when you say "the evidence is there, YOU just can't see it." If you point it out to me, I'll be glad to examine it - if the reasoning doesn't have any flaws, I'll acknowledge its correctness.
I have, and I'm sure countless others have too. I never said you "can't" see it. I said you refuse to see it. Big difference.

And yet that's exactly what you're saying we should do. Believe in God despite the lack of evidence.
Look, you're just being unreasonable. You have no proof, you have no evidence, you have no argument. Even Yupaenu had proof, pathetic as it was. All you're doing here is arguing that you're smarter than everyone else. Which, you're not, so stop arguing.

Ah. You're saying "We're not closeminded, we just know we're right!"
Sounds like a pretty closeminded assertion to me...
2+2=4, right?

Are you closeminded for not considering that 2+2=5? No, because anyone who thinks that 2+2=5 doesn't know math. You are right, he is wrong, and there is no way he could be right. How is that closeminded?

How about this one. Can you explain how anything in the Bible happened without a God, and actually explain properly. Dont go on the "The Bible is wrong" rant here. Just try and prove it all away.

Well, that's a mighty big book to explain away, all in one try... so how about we make a deal.

I will, personally, explain the whole thing away to you - without going on a 'bible is wrong' rant.... on one condition.

First, you must explain away all the events surrounding the seige at Helm's Deep, and actually explain it properly.

Don't just go on a "The Lord of the Rings is wrong" rant.

Just try to prove it all away.

Second, why should an atheist go to heaven? Why should he be allowed to go to a place that he beleives doesnt exist?

Actually, this is an excellent point...

An Atheist is merely "reaping what they have sown", are they not? To take this a step further, wouldn’t an Atheist believe that their entire “rewards” for their “service” on Earth would be realized while here on Earth and therefore have no expectations of an “Afterlife” through Faith? So they will have gotten what they expected, right?

I would also add that, as a Christian, I am aware of the "promises" God has made to me through Jesus, but I am also aware of some "promises" he made to the Jews...

So how would I know if he has or has not made other "promises" to other "Religions" that I may not be privy to?

So while I understand that there are things I must do to please the Lord God that I Worship, I will not for a second assume that I understand ALL of what he does and therefore refuse to say that I am saved because of my Faith and you are not because of yours...

The World was a very large and fairly well separated place for Humans at many times in its History. Why would I not believe that God may have had some sort of contacts with the many different people coming up through those Ages and may have made many different promises with them, for all I know?

Regards,
Gaar

First, you must explain away all the events surrounding the seige at Helm's Deep, and actually explain it properly.

Don't just go on a "The Lord of the Rings is wrong" rant.

Just try to prove it all away.

I was hoping to get a vaguely mature response about this. Oh well...

EDIT

The diffrences between LOTR and The Bible are many and various. However the primary one being that we know for a fact that it is fictional. We cannot say that with certianity about the Bible.

Well, that's a mighty big book to explain away, all in one try... so how about we make a deal.

I will, personally, explain the whole thing away to you - without going on a 'bible is wrong' rant.... on one condition.

First, you must explain away all the events surrounding the seige at Helm's Deep, and actually explain it properly.

Don't just go on a "The Lord of the Rings is wrong" rant.

Just try to prove it all away.
And I thought Yupaenu was pathetic...

This isn't even decent enough for a response.

But because I have nothing better to do at the moment, I'll respond anyways.

You can't "explain away" the Bible. It's historically accurate, it's got a lot of good ideas in it, it's not inconsistent, it's not hypocritical. Any unbiased historian would tell you that the Bible is completely historically accurate, and any unbiased literary expert would tell you that it's a unique and special book.
EVEN IF the Bible isn't true, it is still the only book of it's kind, and worth inspection.

If you really want to be nitpicky, explain to me exactly how evolution works and the Big Bang and whatnot. BB and evolution are every bit as "mythical" as the Bible, so don't even go off about "magic and powers" and all that crap.


We can go back and forth for hours "you can't prove this!" "You prove yours first" "No you prove it". Let's all be grown-up and just assume for a moment that both sides have evidence to suppor them. Instead of just ignoring each other's evidence, why don't we actually LISTEN for a moment, maybe we'll learn something.

Atheists: The Bible is accurate. You cannot escape from the fact that the Bible is unique, as well as Christianity. You also cannot escape from the fact that BB and evolution are theories. Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether or not they're true, because God could just as easily been the cause of the BB and evolution. There IS proof for God if you would just shut up and listen for a moment and stop being so damn arrogant. We have just as much reason and logic behind Christianity as you do behind Atheism. If you don't want to be Christian, fine. Leave us the hell alone. Yeah, we can be annoying, but you need to understand that if we think you're going to go to hell, you should take it as a compliment that we're trying to save you. Respectfully decline the offer, and they should leave you alone. If they don't, then have a problem with that person, not with Christianity. Most of the "arguments" against Christianity have nothing to do with the actual religion, only with the people following it; people aren't perfect, we make mistakes sometimes. But don't go off on some Bible-bashing rant. We don't diss your religion, we just respectfully think you are wrong. You can do the same without making threads about how stupid and closeminded Christians are. Yes, Christians can be stupid and closeminded, but so can Atheists, and anyone else, so don't try to take the moral high road. Come down off the pedistal and realize that our religions have equal reasoning behind them.

Christians: You may be correct, but they think they're correct just as much as you think you are. Arguing about who can prove what doesn't solve anything. In the grand sceme of things, winning an argument like that doesn't do anything, because they're still not going to acknowledge God, they're just going to go and sulk and be angry and bitter. Now I know it sounds like I'm being hypocritical, but I know I do it to, and this is a reminder for me as much as it is for everyone else. Josh McDowell, "Evidence is not for proving the Word of God but simply for providing a basis for faith." We should be trying to witness to them with scripture, not beating the crap out of them with a Bible. If they choose not to believe in God, it is their right to do so. Yes, we should defend Christianity, yes, we should try to prove that God really does exist, but the point isn't to win an argument, it's to bring people to God. I'm trying to get that in my head, and anyone who doesn't have that in their head should be doing likewise. God doesn't need defending...He's God, right? Who cares what people have to say about him...It's their loss, after all. Defend him not to win arguments and make God look cool, because he can do that on his own. Defend him to win PEOPLE. And a lot of the stuff that I told the Atheists applies to us as well. They have just as much faith in Atheism as we do in Christianity. They're not all stupid and closeminded. Yes, some of them are, but there are plenty of Christians like that, too (*coughJesussavescough*). Remember, we're supposed to be humble. We're not better than them, we're just more well informed. If they don't want to be Christians, well, it's their choice. Leave them alone, and pray, and hope that someday they'll see you as an example and start looking for God.

Summary for both: Everyone needs to come down off of the pedistal and realize that no one is better than anyone else. We all need to listen a little more.

I was hoping to get a vaguely mature response about this. Oh well...

EDIT

The diffrences between LOTR and The Bible are many and various. However the primary one being that we know for a fact that it is fictional. We cannot say that with certianity about the Bible.

I don't believe you.

I honestly do not think you were looking for a 'mature response'... because I don't think you could honestly have presented the bible, in it's entirety, and asked someone to disprove it... WITHOUT using outside sources.

The simple fact that there is no evidence of there EVER being a world-wide flood... much less one that only occured a few thousand years ago - would be an argument against PART of the scripture... but you are asking for the ENTIRE text to be invalidated INTERNALLY.

Fine.

Okay.

YOU invalidate "The Lord of the Rings" internally... then I will do the same for the 'bible.

Also - how do you 'know for a fact' that "The Lord of the Rings" is fictional?

Certain parts of it ARE metaphorical... such as The Shire being a 'type' of England, so HOW do you claim that the WHOLE text is ENTIRELY fictional?

The answer - 'Speacial Pleading'. Your 'book' MUST be true, by rules that you wouldn't allow to any other... PURELY because you want it that way.

Bad news, my friend... to MOST of the world, "The Bible" is just as much a fiction as "The Lord of the Rings". You PROVE that ONE is more 'true' than the other, and then we can revisit this point of debate.

No, I said exactly what I meant to say. There IS evidence, though it's way above my head. NO theory, however, is proven, which is why they are "theories."

Don't correct me.

Well, for one thing, I think there *isn't* any evidence for multiple universes - depending on how they are set up, the hypothesis of multiple universes resolves some interesting philosophical quandaries and explains away some things. However, there isn't any evidence that it's true - no predictions to confirm. Like String Theory, it would be very nice if it were true, but we don't know yet.

Saying it's "just a theory" is giving it too much credit - General Relativity is "just a theory," but nobody in their right mind will say "well, we don't KNOW for sure that apples won't fall up tomorrow - it's just a theory, after all." It's trivially true - we don't know for sure. However, if you disregard everything that's "just a theory," you basically disregard everything, since we can't know anything for sure. If that's your intent, then you phrased it right - the "theory of gravity" is just a theory, as is the "theory of electromagnetism." If your intent was to single out multiuniverse theory as not being solid enough ground to make a case out of, then I think you should have phrased it differently.

And I thought Yupaenu was pathetic...

This isn't even decent enough for a response.

But because I have nothing better to do at the moment, I'll respond anyways.
Summary for both: Everyone needs to come down off of the pedistal and realize that no one is better than anyone else. We all need to listen a little more.

How ironic.

Sorry, my friend... I trimmed out everything that WASN'T worth repeating.

Are you even aware that "The Big Bang" and "Evolution" are NOT the same as Atheism? Many Christians accept Evolution. Many Atheists reject The Big Bang.

On the subject of 'climbing down from pedestals'...

Of course - the BEST part was claiming that the Bible was 'completely historically accurate'. Fine. Show me the evidence that verifies the existence of angel-human crossbreeds, before the 'flood'. Or even, show me evidence of a worldwide flood? Show me evidence of 'Lucifer' falling from heaven. Show me evidence that Jesus walked on water.

You cannot claim the Bible to be "completely historically accurate", when almost every event and person can NOT be verified independantly.

Okay - so Egypt actually exists, does tht prove God spoke to a man on a mountain?

And- claiming that 'the bible' is unique is a joke, right?

You ARE aware that the first five books are the holy book of one religion, right? (Samaritans still exist today, and they ONLY accept the Pentatauch).

You are aware that the "Old Testament" IS, in fact, actually the (central) holy book of Judaism?

You are aware that the Catholic 'bible' has a different number of books in it to the Protestant bible?

You are aware that there was no 'bible', until a century or more AFTER the events of the Gospels? Just hundreds (yes, literally hundreds) of independant testimonies and books of prophecy... some of which were kept, and others 'suppressed'?

Well, for one thing, I think there *isn't* any evidence for multiple universes - depending on how they are set up, the hypothesis of multiple universes resolves some interesting philosophical quandaries and explains away some things. However, there isn't any evidence that it's true - no predictions to confirm. Like String Theory, it would be very nice if it were true, but we don't know yet.

Saying it's "just a theory" is giving it too much credit - General Relativity is "just a theory," but nobody in their right mind will say "well, we don't KNOW for sure that apples won't fall up tomorrow - it's just a theory, after all." It's trivially true - we don't know for sure. However, if you disregard everything that's "just a theory," you basically disregard everything, since we can't know anything for sure. If that's your intent, then you phrased it right - the "theory of gravity" is just a theory, as is the "theory of electromagnetism." If your intent was to single out multiuniverse theory as not being solid enough ground to make a case out of, then I think you should have phrased it differently.
I'm not disregarding it, I'm pointing out a fallicy in his argument. I never said it was a particularly good theory, I just said it was a theory. It is, though, a theory. It's not just some whimsical hoo-ha. Scientifically feasible? Maybe. Evidence? Probably. Does he have any idea what he's talking about? Probably not.
Does any of that matter at all? No.

Once again, the argument has gotten completely away from the point. WHO CARES!? The point is, he had no argument. All the other crap is just a distraction. If you have a RELEVANT argument, post it, but stop trying to pretend you're smarter than anyone else.

Hmm...I could talk about how I feel lost and empty unless I'm reading my Bible.

And I have felt bored and empty the several times I have tried reading the bible. Would this, then, be proof of God's nonexistence?

I could talk about how there were times when I refused to trust God and bad stuff happened because my judgement sucks.

And I have had times when I went against my gut instinct and gotten wrong answers too. And I have had times when I went against my gut instinct and ended up doing the right thing. Sometimes my judgement sucks, sometimes it's good. I take the credit and the blame for both cases.

I could give you hundreds of documented miracle stories. Yes, I say documented, because when people get up and walk after having polio since they were 5, doctors, that's people with PhDs, write it down in hospital records as essentially a miracle.

And, how is this evidence for Christianity? A one-in-a-million event WILL happen approximately once in a million times - and there have been lots and lots and lots and lots of cases of incurable illnesses in this world. The human immune system is pretty darn good - I would not at all be surprised if, once in a million times, it overcomes a disease that generally gets the best of it.

Looking at this description of polio, that I found on one of the first websites that came up on a googlesearch for polio, it seems very possible that there will be occasional miraculous recoveries.


What is Polio?

Polio, or more properly poliomyelitis, was one of the most feared and studied diseases of the first half of the 20th Century. Though the Salk and later the Sabin vaccines have essentially eliminated the disease in developed countries, many mysteries regarding polio remain. This is probably due to the fact that as polio epidemics ended in North America and Europe, research on the disease also came to an abrupt halt. Thus, as LaForce (1983) noted, knowledge about the epidemiology and pathology of polio is essentially frozen at a mid-1950s level.

In the paragraphs that follow, I will define the disease of polio and explore some of the mysteries that still surround it. Other sections of this site document polio's history, describe its late effects, and provide excerpts from narrative accounts of various aspects of the polio experience.

Poliomyelitis is an "inflammation of the gray matter of the spinal cord (Taber, 1970, p. P-77). Though the word "poliomyelitis" sounds complicated and impressive, it was formed by putting together the Greek words for the site of the disease - polios, meaning gray, myelos, meaning marrow, and adding the English suffix, itis, meaning inflammation. It has gone by many names including infantile paralysis, Heine-Medin's Disease, debility of the lower extremities, and spinal paralytic paralysis. In common usage, the term poliomyelitis is abbreviated to polio.

Polio is caused by a virus which results in an acute infection. However, contrary to what is commonly believed, the virus did not typically result in paralysis. Rather, the majority of infected individuals experienced only mild respiratory or gastrointestinal symptoms, often accompanied by fever, headache, and muscle stiffness. These symptoms lasted only a few days, and many had such mild cases that they did not even realize they were ill. Therefore, they often continued on with there daily routines, attending school or work, and exposing many others to the polio virus. This fact helps explain the reports of many polio survivors that they were the only ones in their family, neighborhood, or community to have had polio. In actuality, there could have been many individuals with whom they came into contact who had the minor illness, as non-paralytic polio was often called.

Only in a small number of cases did the virus penetrate the central nervous system, causing the major illness, or "true polio." In these cases, neurons (nerve cells) in the anterior horns of the spinal cord and the lower brain were affected, resulting in "tightness in the neck, back, and hamstring muscles as well as varying degrees of muscle weakness, as paralysis sets in" (Owen, 1990, p. 211). Though there was never a cure for polio, most who contracted it experienced improvement in muscle strength and control after the acute infection subsided. In some cases, however, motor neurons were left severely damaged or completely destroyed, resulting in permanent weakness or paralysis, most commonly to the lower extremities (Headley, 1995).

Reading that, I am completely unsurprised that for some people, the "improvement in muscle strength and control after the acute infection subsided" went far enough as to be able to walk again. (Source: http://www.polionet.org/ , the second link down)

I could talk about how I can hear him pushing me to do the right things, to read my Bible, to trust him. I could talk about how I've seen others turn away from him and get hurt. I could talk about a million different things.

And of those million different things, most would be personal only - you feel him and hear him. Not applicable to anybody but you. Voices in your head can be lots of things, even ones that claim they are God.


And saying "The world did turn out the way it did without God" is no more valid, which leaves us completely equal in our reasoning.

Which I never say any such thing... "The world did turn out the way it did without God" is, as far as I can tell a vacuous statement that can be reduced to "God does not exist." This is a potential conclusion, not an argument in its favor. What I WOULD say is that "The existence of God is not an assumption that is supported by evidence."

Thus, I'm being open-minded to the idea that your ideas are equally valid as mine.
The reason I choose not to follow your reasoning is because I have personal experience that leads me to believe otherwise.

Okay, fair enough.


I could say the same about evidence against God. But I won't, because I realize that there is evidence against God.

Evidence AGAINST God? I have yet to see any valid evidence against God either. God is a concept that's not disprovable, by the way it's defined. I'd be glad to shoot down any evidence against God if you'd like me to, I'm pretty sure I can - I've never seen anything remotely valid on that end either.

There, again, I'm being openminded. I have just found far more evidence in favor of God than against him.

And I have not found any valid evidence either for OR against him, just like I have not found any evidence for or against an invisible purple unicorn prancing around Jupiter, or for or against the existence of an unknown lifeform in the center of the Sun, and so on. Hence, all of those concepts have an equal truth value - and it seems to me that that truth value is most likely false.

To sum it up, you're being closeminded and ignorant. You have no proof against God other than the same ramblings of Yupaenu.

I have no proof against God; and I hope you don't claim that I support the ramblings of Yupaenu, because he's just babbling incoherently.

If you have real proof, post it.

I do not, nor did I ever claim I did.

If not, shut up. Frankly, I could care less what your opinion of God is, unless of course, you can back it up.

My opinion of God is that there is no proof for his existence, which is what I've been saying all along...

You have yet to back it up, though. Your entire argument boils down to: "God is dumb and I don't think he's real and you can't make me think he's real." By your own argument, that's not valid at all.

My argument boils down to "There is no valid evidence for the existence of God, and so I do not think he is real. "

You call us closeminded because we won't consider your opinions, even though you have nothing to back them up with?

Actually, I called you closeminded for the following phrase:
" The only reason you don't see it is because you don't want to see it."

And you say Christianity is nothing but blind faith. :rolleyes:

Hmm, I don't think I have said any such thing... and if I did, I would be (was? I don't think I said something like that, but I might've) wrong. There's plenty more reasons that people believe besides blind faith. It's just that none of them are valid evidence.


I have, and I'm sure countless others have too. I never said you "can't" see it. I said you refuse to see it. Big difference.

You have pointed out why you believe in God. I have pointed out why those reasons are not valid evidence and have other explanations which do not require the supposition of an omniscient being.

You then claim that I'm refusing to see what you're presenting. I do see it - however, I also see the flaws in it.


Look, you're just being unreasonable. You have no proof, you have no evidence, you have no argument.

And neither do you, which is the point I have been making!

Even Yupaenu had proof, pathetic as it was.

Pathetic proof, like his, is equivalent to no proof at all. My claim is that yours falls into the exact same category.

All you're doing here is arguing that you're smarter than everyone else. Which, you're not, so stop arguing.

Not once in this thread have I claimed "I am smarter than you." If I were to claim that, I would bring up evidence to support such a claim, and try to defend its validity. I am, however, making no such claim.

I will stop arguing when I run out of posts that I have a response to - either because I do not understand them, because I agree with them, or because I can find no flaw in them.


2+2=4, right?

Are you closeminded for not considering that 2+2=5? No, because anyone who thinks that 2+2=5 doesn't know math. You are right, he is wrong, and there is no way he could be right. How is that closeminded?

That's not closeminded, because "2+2=4" can be proven to be true from the rest of mathematics.

Unless, of course, the person that claims that 2+2=5 has developed a completely new system of mathematics that is internally consistent and that includes "2+2=5." This is probably not possible; 2+2=4 has been shown to apply to the real world very well, and is integral to basically everything that we calculate. There is evidence FOR "2+2=4"

A better analogy would be the case of flat space. The Parallel Postulate of Euclidean Geometry - for the longest time, people were SURE it was true. They were, indeed, being closeminded, despite the fact that it seemed obvious - parallel lines never cross and never diverge, duh! Except an alternative geometry was possible, and indeed was later used, in Einstein's theory of Relativity, to describe our universe much more successfully.

How ironic.

Sorry, my friend... I trimmed out everything that WASN'T worth repeating.
Oh dear, I do feel insulted. Whatever am I to do... :rolleyes:

Are you even aware that "The Big Bang" and "Evolution" are NOT the same as Atheism? Many Christians accept Evolution. Many Atheists reject The Big Bang.
Yes, and many theists don't believe the Bible. Once again, you have missed my point entirely.

On the subject of 'climbing down from pedestals'...

Of course - the BEST part was claiming that the Bible was 'completely historically accurate'. Fine. Show me the evidence that verifies the existence of angel-human crossbreeds, before the 'flood'. Or even, show me evidence of a worldwide flood? Show me evidence of 'Lucifer' falling from heaven. Show me evidence that Jesus walked on water.

You cannot claim the Bible to be "completely historically accurate", when almost every event and person can NOT be verified independantly.

Okay - so Egypt actually exists, does tht prove God spoke to a man on a mountain?[/quote]
Wow, twice in the same post. Congratulations, you have missed my point entirely AGAIN without even posting a second time. If I had a medal, I'd give it to you.

And- claiming that 'the bible' is unique is a joke, right?
*sigh*
The Bible is unique because:
Having been written over a 1500 year period and 40 generations by 40 different authors in three different languages on three continents, the Bible is still continuous in point and message. Josh McDowell makes the point like this:
Take 10 of the best authors, all from the same generation and background, and give them just one controversial subject, and ask them if they agree.

The Bible has been read by more people, printed more times, and in more languages than any other book. That's not someone's opinion, that's just a fact. So even if the Bible is entirely false, it's still unique in circulation.

The Bible has survived longer and better than any other book. We can get into a whole discussion about how well the Bible survived, but trust me, you'll lose. One example: the Bible has more manuscript evidence supporting it than the Odyssey. In other words, we're more sure about what the Bible originally said than we are of the Odyssey, which many regard as the most famous ancient text.
Note also that all this survival is in the face of persecution and criticism. Despite people's repeated attempts of getting rid of it, it's still more correct relatively than anything else.

The Bible is also unique in what it teachers. No other religious text is as historically accurate. It also has more prophecies than any other religious text. Even if they're all false, nothing else has as many.

And finally, the Bible is unique in its influence. No other book in history has caused such a big deal. The Bible has more books written about it, more people talking about it, more people hating it than any other book. Just do a forum search for "bible" or "God" or "Christian" and a search for "islam" or "allah" or "hindu" or anything else. There are more posts about the Bible than anyone else. Even if people are hating it, they're still talking about it more than any other book.

SO! Even if the Bible is nothing more than a bunch of really nice bed-time stories and is completely false and stupid, it's still the only book of its kind.
That it's false and stupid is another argument entirely.

You ARE aware that the first five books are the holy book of one religion, right? (Samaritans still exist today, and they ONLY accept the Pentatauch).
And?

You are aware that the "Old Testament" IS, in fact, actually the (central) holy book of Judaism?
And?

You are aware that the Catholic 'bible' has a different number of books in it to the Protestant bible?
And?

What's your point?

You are aware that there was no 'bible', until a century or more AFTER the events of the Gospels? Just hundreds (yes, literally hundreds) of independant testimonies and books of prophecy... some of which were kept, and others 'suppressed'?
Quite. Probably more aware than you are. I also know why the ones chosen were chosen, why any were chosen at all, why the others were discarded, where the ones chosen came from, when they were chosen, who chose them, all of that.
What is your point?

I'm not disregarding it, I'm pointing out a fallicy in his argument. I never said it was a particularly good theory, I just said it was a theory.

And MY point is that it being a "theory" is not a fallacy in his argument. He has plenty of others fallacies in his argument - such as the fact that we have no reason to believe that this theory corresponds to reality - but the fact that it is a "theory" is not one of them. A "theory" can be something as universally accepted as the "theory of gravity" - the fact that it's "just a theory" is not a valid reason to dismiss it. The fact that it's has no evidence IS a valid reason to dismiss it.

It is, though, a theory. It's not just some whimsical hoo-ha. Scientifically feasible? Maybe. Evidence? Probably.

As far as I know, no. No evidence for it.

Does he have any idea what he's talking about? Probably not.

I completely agree with you on this point...

Does any of that matter at all? No.

And this I shall disagree with - I do not to condone an invalid line of reasoning such as "it's just a theory, therefore it's wishy-washy."

Once again, the argument has gotten completely away from the point. WHO CARES!?

I do, since the "it's just a theory" argument gets on my nerves.

The point is, he had no argument.

And, as I have said before, I completely agree with you on this point.

All the other crap is just a distraction. If you have a RELEVANT argument, post it,

I have - my claim is that the "it's just a theory" argument holds no water, and that the "it does not have enough evidence" argument should be used instead.

but stop trying to pretend you're smarter than anyone else.

I am not trying to pretend that I am smarter than anyone else; I have never made such a claim. If I did, I was wrong and should never have made it; as far as I can remember though, I have said no such thing.

You all need to learn the concept of an analogy.

YOU invalidate "The Lord of the Rings" internally... then I will do the same for the 'bible.


There are maps of Middle Earth produced by its author. We have satalite scans of the entire Earth. No where satisfies these conditions.

As for evidence of the flood, the Cambrian Strata is one piece of evidence (though as I am aware, very debateable). Also there is the fact that the account of a massive flood exactly as depectied in the Bible apperes on every continent at around the same time. Hindu traditions, Fa-He of China is represented as fleeing a massive flood in a boat with his wife and his 3 sons and their 3 daughters, the Fiji islanders have a tradion depicting a family of 8 being saved in a boat and simmilar accounts are found in South America with paintings depicting it, and Cherroke Indians have a simmilar account. These are isolated civilisations, all with extremely simmilar accounts.

And I have felt bored and empty the several times I have tried reading the bible. Would this, then, be proof of God's nonexistence?
It could be used as evidence, yes.

And I have had times when I went against my gut instinct and gotten wrong answers too. And I have had times when I went against my gut instinct and ended up doing the right thing. Sometimes my judgement sucks, sometimes it's good. I take the credit and the blame for both cases.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.


And, how is this evidence for Christianity? A one-in-a-million event WILL happen approximately once in a million times - and there have been lots and lots and lots and lots of cases of incurable illnesses in this world. The human immune system is pretty darn good - I would not at all be surprised if, once in a million times, it overcomes a disease that generally gets the best of it.
*sigh* You're just proving my point here.

Looking at this description of polio, that I found on one of the first websites that came up on a googlesearch for polio, it seems very possible that there will be occasional miraculous recoveries.
ANALOGY!

And of those million different things, most would be personal only - you feel him and hear him. Not applicable to anybody but you. Voices in your head can be lots of things, even ones that claim they are God.
When several hundred thousand people hear the same voice that says the same thing, I'm inclined to think that maybe it's more than schizophrenia.

Technically, you can't prove to me that you even exist. But several hundred people here on NS would say that you exist. So I'm going to believe you exist.

You are, again, just proving my point. There IS evidence, you just won't accept it.



Which I never say any such thing... "The world did turn out the way it did without God" is, as far as I can tell a vacuous statement that can be reduced to "God does not exist." This is a potential conclusion, not an argument in its favor. What I WOULD say is that "The existence of God is not an assumption that is supported by evidence."
And I can just as easily say that "The nonexistence of God is not an assumption that is supported by evidence."
Guess what, we're even. Get a new argument.

Evidence AGAINST God? I have yet to see any valid evidence against God either. God is a concept that's not disprovable, by the way it's defined. I'd be glad to shoot down any evidence against God if you'd like me to, I'm pretty sure I can - I've never seen anything remotely valid on that end either.
You're just being unreasonable. You don't believe anything, do you? Arguing with you is pointless, because all you can say is that no one can prove anything. That may be true, so let's all suck our thumbs and feel insecure in the fact that we might all not exist.
At some point, you're going to have to shut up and face facts. There IS evidence FOR God, there IS evidence AGAINST God. Pick a damn side.

Not once in this thread have I claimed "I am smarter than you." If I were to claim that, I would bring up evidence to support such a claim, and try to defend its validity. I am, however, making no such claim.
You couldn't care less whether or not there's a God. You just want to win this argument so you can feel smart. This argument isn't about proving God anymore, it's about proving who can outsmart the other. It's a pointless argument. You have no proof, and you say I have no proof. What's the point of the argument then? We'd both be sitting her saying "I'm right", and whoever is right is obviously the smarter of the two.

You are arguing to prove that you're smarter than me. You're not smarter than me, so you can stop now.

That's not closeminded, because "2+2=4" can be proven to be true from the rest of mathematics.
Prove it then. Because I can easily say that whatever you use to prove it is nothing more than a construct of my mind and you don't really exist and etc. etc. etc. Cheap, but hey, it works.

And, as I have said over and over and over, THERE IS PROOF FOR GOD!



Look, all of your arguments here have nothing to do with whether or not God exists. You're just trying to make me look dumb. Fine, I'm dumb, now shut up and let me get on with the real arguments.

And MY point is that it being a "theory" is not a fallacy in his argument. He has plenty of others fallacies in his argument - such as the fact that we have no reason to believe that this theory corresponds to reality - but the fact that it is a "theory" is not one of them. A "theory" can be something as universally accepted as the "theory of gravity" - the fact that it's "just a theory" is not a valid reason to dismiss it. The fact that it's has no evidence IS a valid reason to dismiss it.



As far as I know, no. No evidence for it.



I completely agree with you on this point...



And this I shall disagree with - I do not to condone an invalid line of reasoning such as "it's just a theory, therefore it's wishy-washy."



I do, since the "it's just a theory" argument gets on my nerves.



And, as I have said before, I completely agree with you on this point.



I have - my claim is that the "it's just a theory" argument holds no water, and that the "it does not have enough evidence" argument should be used instead.



I am not trying to pretend that I am smarter than anyone else; I have never made such a claim. If I did, I was wrong and should never have made it; as far as I can remember though, I have said no such thing.
WHO CARES!?

IT DOESN'T MATTER!

The point is he was wrong. Who cares about the nitpicky little details. It doesn't matter how he was wrong, the point is, he was wrong!

This has nothing to do with anything in this thread. Stop trying to make yourself look smart and just shut up. You haven't contributed anything relevant to the argument yet. Be contructive or go away.

Let me repeat myself. Many people here need to learn the concept of an ANALOGY.

Oh dear, I do feel insulted. Whatever am I to do... :rolleyes:


Not post such insulting posts?

Not that difficult to work out, I'd have thought...


Yes, and many theists don't believe the Bible. Once again, you have missed my point entirely.


If your post is so obscure that there is no 'clear point', that's hardly my fault.

Perhaps you should rewrite, and this time, illustrate your point a little more clearly?


Okay - so Egypt actually exists, does tht prove God spoke to a man on a mountain?
Wow, twice in the same post. Congratulations, you have missed my point entirely AGAIN without even posting a second time. If I had a medal, I'd give it to you.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the medal - It's nice to win something... even if I only won it by default, because I was replying to an indecipherable post...


*sigh*
The Bible is unique because:
Having been written over a 1500 year period and 40 generations by 40 different authors in three different languages on three continents, the Bible is still continuous in point and message.


No, it isn't.

The first five books expressly forbid the addition of any more books.

The next batch of books fit poorly with the original set, and ALSO forbid the addition of any further books.

The 'new' batch almost totally disregard the original set, change the basic premise, and make a joke of the central concept. ANd THEN forbid the addition of any more books.

If there IS one central thought that DOES permeate the entire collection, it is people writing their own little 'updates' on an earlier text... wedging it in between the same covers, and then attaching a 'touch this and you're dead' sticker to the cover.


The Bible is also unique in what it teachers. No other religious text is as historically accurate. It also has more prophecies than any other religious text. Even if they're all false, nothing else has as many.


Referencing some historical events doesn't equate to being historically accurate.

Also - if you take a book of theological fables and commentaries and laws... and then attach prophecies - it's hardly surprising that there are lots of prophecies. There were, however, many more 'prophecies' that were NOT added, or that were removed... one assumes, because they were proved false.


And finally, the Bible is unique in its influence. No other book in history has caused such a big deal.


Finally got one right.

More people have died in the name of the bible than any other text.

Yay.

Go bible.

Not really sure that it's something I'd be proud of, personally.


What's your point?


The 'point' was, it's somewhat ironic to refer to a text as unique.. when it ISN'T 'one' text... and when the elements are all elements of someone else's collections...

There are maps of Middle Earth produced by its author. We have satalite scans of the entire Earth. No where satisfies these conditions.

As for evidence of the flood, the Cambrian Strata is one piece of evidence (though as I am aware, very debateable). Also there is the fact that the account of a massive flood exactly as depectied in the Bible apperes on every continent at around the same time. Hindu traditions, Fa-He of China is represented as fleeing a massive flood in a boat with his wife and his 3 sons and their 3 daughters, the Fiji islanders have a tradion depicting a family of 8 being saved in a boat and simmilar accounts are found in South America with paintings depicting it, and Cherroke Indians have a simmilar account. These are isolated civilisations, all with extremely simmilar accounts.

First: The 'maps' of Middle Earth OBVIOUSLY don't match the Earth NOW, silly.

As I pointed out, the Shire is a metaphor for England... so it is very likely that the whole 'map' is a metaphor... which would mean it WOULD NOT match any convetional maps, surely?

Secondly, of course: The bible clearly describes a flat earth, with corners, and one mountain (so tall, you can see the whole world from it), does it not? And, windows in the sky? etc...

Curious - I don't recall satellite scans showing evidence of those features, either.

Thirdly: Do you not understand, Neo? You aren't even sticking to your OWN rule... you wanted the bible disproved INTERNALLY - and yet you are resorting to the EXTERNAL to disprove the "Lord of the Rings"?

Fourthly: Take a little time to do some research, Neo. Many cultures DO have flood myths, but they didn't ALL occur at the SAME TIME - and they are often very different in scope. The Babylonian flood myth describes the flooding of a river, the bible steals the same myth, and expands it to the whole world... the one doesn't VALIDATE the other.


As a point of interest... did you know that almost EVERY culture has fairy stories? The Japanese have "Tengu", Africans have "Abatwa", the Irish Celts had the "Sidhe", the Germans had "Wichtlein", the Welsh had the "Ellyllon", Finland has "Tomtra", China has "Hu Hsien", India had the "Naga", Iran had the "Peri", The Passamaquoddy Indians had "Mekumwasuck".

Even 'Israel' had fairy tales... the Shideem and Shehireem, for example.

So - by YOUR logic... fairies are real?

Not post such insulting posts?

Not that difficult to work out, I'd have thought...
You seem to have difficulty with it nonetheless.


If your post is so obscure that there is no 'clear point', that's hardly my fault.
My point is that the primary support for Atheism, BB and evolution, are only theories. All atheistic dogma is just theory, just like all theistic dogma is theory. Yes, I think I'm right. Yes, you think you're right. WE ARE BOTH EQUAL IN OUR FAITH! Neither of us has any more or less faith in what we believe, so we can both stop acting like we're smarter than the other. As much as atheists claim that they don't need faith to believe in things LIKE BB and evolution, the fact is, they do. Get off the damn pedistal and realize that Christians are just as smart as atheists, and Christianity is just as reasonable as Atheism.

My other point was that the Bible HISTORICALLY ACCURATE! I know you know what I mean by that, so stop taking it apart like you're smarter than me. You know what I meant.

No, it isn't.

The first five books expressly forbid the addition of any more books.

The next batch of books fit poorly with the original set, and ALSO forbid the addition of any further books.

The 'new' batch almost totally disregard the original set, change the basic premise, and make a joke of the central concept. ANd THEN forbid the addition of any more books.
Which, assuming that is true, is STILL more unified than anything else written even remotely like the Bible.
AND, show me verses prohibiting the addition of more books. If you find any, I have a strong suspition that they will say "don't add to the word of God" which is fine, because last time I checked they were all the word of God. Now if you want me to go through the process by which the books of the Bible were chosen, I can, but I'm going to assume that I don't need to.

If there IS one central thought that DOES permeate the entire collection, it is people writing their own little 'updates' on an earlier text... wedging it in between the same covers, and then attaching a 'touch this and you're dead' sticker to the cover.
You have no concept of the Bible, do you?
The Bible is a repeated story of sin, then salvation. The entire Bible is one big story, the sin of Adam and Eve, then the salvation from Jesus. There are repeated accounts of Israel falling, then being redeemed. That is the entire point of the Bible: you sin, but are saved. I can go through specific examples, but again I'm going to assume that we're smarter than that.


Referencing some historical events doesn't equate to being historically accurate.
You know what I meant. Stop acting like you're the smartest guy on the planet.

Since you're obviously not going to see it on your own, I'll spell it out. The wars match other historical records, the kings match other historical records, the events match other historical records...it all fits. Every person in the Bible was a real person.

Now, you can call them fables all you want, but the events actually happened. Flood? happened. (For those who think there's no evidence, I'm working on it. I'll have it for you next week). Plagues of Egypt? Happened. And a bunch historians think they know how (volcano errupted nearby. I won't go into detail). Jesus? Actual person. All of the events of the Bible, however it is they happened, actually happened.

Also - if you take a book of theological fables and commentaries and laws... and then attach prophecies - it's hardly surprising that there are lots of prophecies. There were, however, many more 'prophecies' that were NOT added, or that were removed... one assumes, because they were proved false.
I didn't say it was right, I said it was unique. Again, you've missed the point. My argument here is not to show the Bible being correct. That comes later. Right now I'm just proving the Bible is different.



Finally got one right.

More people have died in the name of the bible than any other text.

Yay.

Go bible.

Not really sure that it's something I'd be proud of, personally.
Most of the people who died in the name of the Bible were killed by OTHER PEOPLE. That would show a problem with the rest of the world, not with Christianity.

The 'point' was, it's somewhat ironic to refer to a text as unique.. when it ISN'T 'one' text... and when the elements are all elements of someone else's collections...
And yet we refer to an anthology as "one text". We refer to a book as one text, despite being divided into chapters. We call a history book one text, despite it being a compilation of history from a number of sources.
That you think the Bible is nothing more than a collection of stories shows that you don't understand the Bible. Yes, it's a collection, but it's one story written by a bunch of people and put together. It's a collection of pieces making a whole, not a collection of whole stories.

Thus the argument that you can't pull one verse out of the Bible and think you understand it. You have to put it in context, and realize that it is part of a WHOLE.

As a point of interest... did you know that almost EVERY culture has fairy stories? The Japanese have "Tengu", Africans have "Abatwa", the Irish Celts had the "Sidhe", the Germans had "Wichtlein", the Welsh had the "Ellyllon", Finland has "Tomtra", China has "Hu Hsien", India had the "Naga", Iran had the "Peri", The Passamaquoddy Indians had "Mekumwasuck".

Even 'Israel' had fairy tales... the Shideem and Shehireem, for example.

So - by YOUR logic... fairies are real?
Though I don't want to get into your disprove-Middle-Earth argument, I have a comment to make on this side point you make.

It is a common part of a biblical worldview to believe in the existence of spiritual entities. In the Bible, the ones working for God are called "angels" in English (which means "messenger"), and the ones opposed to God are generally called "evil spirits", "unclean spirits" or "demons". They are identified as having personality, intelligence, and significant ability to influence the physical world. You know all this from your biblical studies.

As you point out, many (if not all) pre-Enlightenment cultures have reference to non-human intelligences.

Odd that only scientific materialism denies their existence. :rolleyes:

You seem to have difficulty with it nonetheless.


Can I have a side of 'delicious irony' with that, please?


My point is that the primary support for Atheism, BB and evolution, are only theories. All atheistic dogma is just theory, just like all theistic dogma is theory. Yes, I think I'm right. Yes, you think you're right. WE ARE BOTH EQUAL IN OUR FAITH! Neither of us has any more or less faith in what we believe, so we can both stop acting like we're smarter than the other. As much as atheists claim that they don't need faith to believe in things LIKE BB and evolution, the fact is, they do. Get off the damn pedistal and realize that Christians are just as smart as atheists, and Christianity is just as reasonable as Atheism.


There is no 'atheist' dogma... nor any 'support for atheism'. Atheism is the simple lack of belief in god or gods.

Thus, there IS no prescribed dogma, no holy book, no gathering places or churches.

Also - you actually need to look up the definition of the word theory. It doesn't actually mean what you seem to think it means.

You are also missing the point about how a theory applies. Do I think evolution is a good model for what life exists? Yes. Why? Because the evidence supports it.

Do I BELIEVE in Evolution? No.

I just think it is the best model, so far, to explain the origins of diverse life.


My other point was that the Bible HISTORICALLY ACCURATE! I know you know what I mean by that, so stop taking it apart like you're smarter than me. You know what I meant.


Why is it that every time I show an error in your reasoning, you attack me for acting 'like I'm smarter than you'?

It looks like that is your only response.. to accuse me of somehow maliciously 'being more intelligent'... like I do it deliberately...?

Sorry, My friend.. I'm not tring to 'act' smart... if that is how you perceive it... that is your issue, not mine.


Which, assuming that is true, is STILL more unified than anything else written even remotely like the Bible.
AND, show me verses prohibiting the addition of more books. If you find any, I have a strong suspition that they will say "don't add to the word of God" which is fine, because last time I checked they were all the word of God. Now if you want me to go through the process by which the books of the Bible were chosen, I can, but I'm going to assume that I don't need to.



Obviously you are familiar with Revelation?

Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
...And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book".

Proverbs 30:5-6 "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him... Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar".

Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you".


Thus - very clearly - not only does Revelation forbid amendment of the text, but it follows on from EXACTLY such a comment at the 'close' of the Old Testament... and that, in turn... builds on JUST SUCH AN ADMONITION in the Pentatauch.

This is the reason that Samaritans do not accept the remained of the Hebrew 'bible' - since they consider it heretical - since it adds to the text which was specifically marked as divine and unalterable.

Similarly, Jews do not accept the 'heretical' Christian scripture, which adds to the clearly delineated sacred text.


You have no concept of the Bible, do you?
The Bible is a repeated story of sin, then salvation. The entire Bible is one big story, the sin of Adam and Eve, then the salvation from Jesus. There are repeated accounts of Israel falling, then being redeemed. That is the entire point of the Bible: you sin, but are saved. I can go through specific examples, but again I'm going to assume that we're smarter than that.


That's your interpretation of the bible - personally, I don't see it as being 'about sin, then salvation'.

For me, it's all about sacrifice.


You know what I meant. Stop acting like you're the smartest guy on the planet.


Actually - no, I still don't understand the point you are trying to make... and there you go again, accusing me of being somehow deliberately 'smart', just to offend you...


Since you're obviously not going to see it on your own, I'll spell it out. The wars match other historical records, the kings match other historical records, the events match other historical records...it all fits. Every person in the Bible was a real person.

Now, you can call them fables all you want, but the events actually happened. Flood? happened. (For those who think there's no evidence, I'm working on it. I'll have it for you next week). Plagues of Egypt? Happened. And a bunch historians think they know how (volcano errupted nearby. I won't go into detail). Jesus? Actual person. All of the events of the Bible, however it is they happened, actually happened.


Rubbish.

You can't even verify the existence of Jesus - without resorting to Josephus, written a hundred years later - and popularly accepted now, as being a forged reference, anyway.

You are right on one thing, though. Egypt did have plagues. About every seven years, clearly documented... with the rise and fall of the Nile. A 'mystical' explanation isn't required for seasonal variation.

You have made an utterly insupportable claim here. I would advise you to withdraw it, before I show you just how insupportable it really is.


I didn't say it was right, I said it was unique. Again, you've missed the point. My argument here is not to show the Bible being correct. That comes later. Right now I'm just proving the Bible is different.


Every book is unique. Unfortunately, since it is LARGELY a collection of other peoples books, with a few new chapters added on... it isn't even all that unique...


Most of the people who died in the name of the Bible were killed by OTHER PEOPLE. That would show a problem with the rest of the world, not with Christianity.


Doesn't matter WHO killed who, now does it? If they were killed in the name of the bible, then they died for the bible... no matter how you cut it.

Personally - I suspect you are wrong. The Inquisition killed in the name of the bible... are you going to claim they were not religious?


And yet we refer to an anthology as "one text". We refer to a book as one text, despite being divided into chapters. We call a history book one text, despite it being a compilation of history from a number of sources.
That you think the Bible is nothing more than a collection of stories shows that you don't understand the Bible. Yes, it's a collection, but it's one story written by a bunch of people and put together. It's a collection of pieces making a whole, not a collection of whole stories.

Thus the argument that you can't pull one verse out of the Bible and think you understand it. You have to put it in context, and realize that it is part of a WHOLE.

The bible IS a collection of stories... and prophecies and commentaries.

You think it makes one continuous story.

I do not think that is the case.

You have no 'evidence' that can make me suspect otherwise, do you?

Though I don't want to get into your disprove-Middle-Earth argument, I have a comment to make on this side point you make.

It is a common part of a biblical worldview to believe in the existence of spiritual entities. In the Bible, the ones working for God are called "angels" in English (which means "messenger"), and the ones opposed to God are generally called "evil spirits", "unclean spirits" or "demons". They are identified as having personality, intelligence, and significant ability to influence the physical world. You know all this from your biblical studies.

As you point out, many (if not all) pre-Enlightenment cultures have reference to non-human intelligences.

Odd that only scientific materialism denies their existence. :rolleyes:

I don't think it's a matter of 'denying' existence... and, also, you have missed a key point... you are assuming 'pre-Enlightenment'.

There are people today, even in Enlightened societies, that totally believe in 'fairy' creatures... and many of these people may ALSO believe in the 'christian god', or another deity.

POPULAR acceptance of 'fairy' folk extends back a very short distance in our history - even the 'religious' among us are blinding themselves, if the believe otherwise.

The story of "Sleepy Hollow", for example - while portrayed as a kind of modern 'ghost story', is ACTUALLY a retelling of the myth of "Far Darocha"... the 'Gremlins' of World War 2 are an update of the French "Grimelin" fairy folk... the Banshee of ghost story fame, is a retelling of the Bean Sidhe concept.

Even the medical condition we call a 'stroke', still holds the name of the "Elf Strike", which was the believed cause, for thousands of years.

My point was - Neo PROBABLY refutes the existence of 'fairies' - despite FAR GREATER diversity of evidence than for the 'christian god', and evidence that stretches back millenia - and sespite the fact that the tales appear all over the world... much as he claims for christian myth.


Regarding the point of 'material science' denying the existence of spiritual beings... I think you miss the point of 'science'.

Science explains the observable, and repeatable - by formulation of mechanisms.

The lack of observable and repeatable evidence for fairies, for ghosts, and even for 'god', means that science cannot explain those things.

'Science' doesn't 'deny' their existence - it just doesn't verify them, or accept them unproved.

Secondly, of course: The bible clearly describes a flat earth, with corners, and one mountain (so tall, you can see the whole world from it), does it not? And, windows in the sky? etc...

Isaiah 40:22
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth

Now you and I know know the original language in this case. It means sphere. So no, the Bible does not describe a flat Earth. Stop being immature Grave. You know for a fact that LOTR is fiction. So stop playing and do some serious debating.

Isaiah 40:22
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth

Now you and I know know the original language in this case. It means sphere. So no, the Bible does not describe a flat Earth. Stop being immature Grave. You know for a fact that LOTR is fiction. So stop playing and do some serious debating.
We know that now ... but in a few thousand years ... (specialy if we did not have the recording ability we have now for long term storage) ... it could very well be accepted as truth

Now, Grave, Rhyno is right is stating that evolution, the Big Bang, etc. are all theories. You are wrong in stating that the existing evidence supports them. Evolution was proposed over 150 years ago. If the evidence supported it, then it would be a scientific law right now. However, it remains a theory. A theory is recognized as being either unproven or unprovable. I'm not quite sure YOU are aware of the scientific use of such a term. Perhaps you need to write out more lab reports? The simple fact is that for scientists to believe in a theory, and try to prove it, they must rely on faith. Faith that their hypothesis will hold out. Faith that, even if it can't be proven now, then one day perhaps it will. In fact, the latter is precisely what most scientists tend to do now. They are simply waiting for the technology to become available that would enable to test the theory. Thus, both christians and scientists, in this particular area of the field, rely on faith.

Also, note that he stated "theistic" dogma, not "atheistic" dogma. And if there are people that are atheists, then they support an atheistic worldview. Words do have a variety of meanings, besides the ones you want them to have.Rhyno is not terribly eloquent, but there is no need to use that as a tool to defeat him without even allowing him to get his point across.

By the way, those quotes from the Bible actually were along the exact same lines Rhyno said they would be, and he already answered them. All of the books of the Bible were inspired by God, supposedly, and so are his word. Revelations speaks of "adding to the book of prophecy," meaning don't add to revelations. As far as the rest, there are many books thought to be inspired by God, that were, however, left out because they didn't seem to correspond with the rest of the books.

Grave, when he spoke of the historical accuracy of the Bible, you answered it by attcking only one point out of the whole post. Namely, the Plagues. However, according to the Bible all the plagues did not take place at a rate of one every seven years, as close as we can tell. Besides which, no "natural" plague would account for killing off every firstborn child in Egypt. That's just you being argumentative, and probably having no idea what exactly the plagues consisted of.

As far as the Bible not being unique, well, all I can say is that at that time it was. Especially since it is the first book we have that is a collection of writings straight from God. Humans may have done the writing, but it was inspired by God. Now, of course, you can refuse to believe that it was inspired by God. Feel free. There's still the small matter of it being a tale that goes from the beginning of time until a period around 40 years after the death of Jesus. Since it checks out historically as far as we have been able to tell, I'd say that means that we can safely say that it is probably accurate. I don't believe there is another non-fiction work of its kind. You just choose to see it in your own, personal, negative light.

The Inquisition was not a christian act. It was entirely out of line of what is preached in the Bible. The old Catholic church of medieval times was hopelessly corrupt. Pointing that out doesn't change the message.

As far as your views concerning the Bible, that is your opinion, and if it disagrees entirely with the view of the vast majority of those who read the Bible for comprehension and not simply for the purpose of trying to find fault with it, assuming you DID read it in its entirety. Your biased, bigoted personal opinion is not worthy of debate. I really don't feel either I or Rhyno should bother trying to change your opinion on matters in which you are hopelessly biased, and where your mind is closed tighter than an airlock.

What he said.

Oh, and lack of belief in god or gods is agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism is a deliberate belief in a lack of god or gods. There is a difference.

Athieism: belief in lack
Agnosticism: lack of belief

Isaiah 40:22
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth

Now you and I know know the original language in this case. It means sphere.

First - in response to your assertion that it means sphere - Strong's Concordance gives the following response:


"Chuwg"; Noun Masculine, Strong #: 2329

circle, circuit, compass
(BDB) vault (of the heavens)


Personally - I don't see ANY reason to believe that 'sphere' is implied here.

However - staying within Isaiah...

Isaiah 11:12 "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth".

Clearly describes the world as having corners... and only four, at that.

Also -

First Samuel 2:8 "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them".

Clearly describes the world as being 'set upon' pillars.

Also -

Second Samuel 22:16 "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils".

Clearly describes the world as having 'foundations'... and also, by the way, explicitly attributes 'nostrils' to 'god'...

While I'm at it...

First Chronicles 16:30 "Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved".

Clearly states that the world is somehow fixed, and unmoving.

Psalms 19:4 "Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun..."

Clearly states that the world has 'ends'... which hardly describes a sphere.


And, of course Luke 4:5 "And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, showed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time"... which CLEARLY describes the mountain so tall, that you can see the whole world from it... how does THAT work with a sphere?

And, of course Revelation 7:1 "And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree".

Which, again - clearly illustrates that the world has 'four corners'.

First - in response to your assertion that it means sphere - Strong's Concordance gives the following response:



Personally - I don't see ANY reason to believe that 'sphere' is implied here.

However - staying within Isaiah...

Isaiah 11:12 "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth".

Clearly describes the world as having corners... and only four, at that.

Also -

First Samuel 2:8 "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them".

Clearly describes the world as being 'set upon' pillars.

Also -

Second Samuel 22:16 "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils".

Clearly describes the world as having 'foundations'... and also, by the way, explicitly attributes 'nostrils' to 'god'...

While I'm at it...

First Chronicles 16:30 "Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved".

Clearly states that the world is somehow fixed, and unmoving.

Psalms 19:4 "Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun..."

Clearly states that the world has 'ends'... which hardly describes a sphere.


And, of course Luke 4:5 "And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, showed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time"... which CLEARLY describes the mountain so tall, that you can see the whole world from it... how does THAT work with a sphere?

And, of course Revelation 7:1 "And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree".

Which, again - clearly illustrates that the world has 'four corners'.

Oh Grave, your now playing the "Take it all literally" card. I thought you were smarter than that.

Seriously. Ever think that maybe North, South, East, and West might be the four corners? They're obviously not a place, but a concept. Four angels stopping the wind from blowing from the four corners. Insert a direction...An angel stopping wind from blowing from the North. Well...makes sense to me.

Note, that's just an educated guess. It might not mean that, it might. Either way, it certainly doesn't mean that the earth is square.

Circle, sphere, it's the same damn thing. Like most of the things in the Bible, it was written during a time when explaining that the earth is "round" means it's a big flat circle to the people reading it. God knew it was a sphere, the person who wrote it knew it was a sphere, but everyone else just took it to mean "circle" and forgot about it. You know know what the verse means, stop acting like a fool. Playing dumb only makes you look dumb, so you can stop.

so wait.

are you saying that the bible is in fact, open to interpretation?

so wait.

are you saying that the bible is in fact, open to interpretation?
Anything is open to interpretation. How you interpret it is another matter.

I could say something like, "Atheists are all dumbasses" (mind you, I'm only using this as an example. I do not believe that all atheists are dumbasses, I don't want you to think I mean all atheists are dumbasses, I don't mean this as a flame, it is simply an analogy. Don't get into an argument with me about whether or not atheists are dumbasses, because I don't think that they are and this is nothing more than a literary device meant to prove a point, and the point is not that atheists are dumbasses)..."Atheists are dumbasses" could be interpreted as a compliment, but that interpretation would almost certainly be wrong.

Now, Grave, Rhyno is right is stating that evolution, the Big Bang, etc. are all theories. You are wrong in stating that the existing evidence supports them. Evolution was proposed over 150 years ago. If the evidence supported it, then it would be a scientific law right now. However, it remains a theory. A theory is recognized as being either unproven or unprovable. I'm not quite sure YOU are aware of the scientific use of such a term. Perhaps you need to write out more lab reports? The simple fact is that for scientists to believe in a theory, and try to prove it, they must rely on faith. Faith that their hypothesis will hold out. Faith that, even if it can't be proven now, then one day perhaps it will. In fact, the latter is precisely what most scientists tend to do now. They are simply waiting for the technology to become available that would enable to test the theory. Thus, both christians and scientists, in this particular area of the field, rely on faith.


I am not going to argue - in THIS thread, why the evidence DOES support evolution. Suffice it to say, you have to ignore the wealth of evidence (from immunity of bacteria, to Peppered Moths, and on) to claim that there is NO evidence for evolution.

I am confused as to what you think a 'theory' is - and, in fact, what you think a 'scientific law' might be. Are you aware that the term 'law' is mainly a matter of WHEN the idea was popularised?

You don't seem to understand how science 'operates'... you don't HAVE TO BELIEVE anything. If the sun came up yesterday morning, and the day before, and the day before, and it came up again THIS morning.. you can observe that "the sun comes up every morning"... that is your 'theory', based on repeated observation. You don't HAVE TO BELIEVE that the sun will come up every morning... but the pattern SUGGESTS it will.

THAT is the essence of science.

And, of course, if the sun DOESN'T come up tomorrow morning, then the 'theory' gets adjusted, to accomodate.


Also, note that he stated "theistic" dogma, not "atheistic" dogma.


I beg to differ, here is a quote, directly from his post - go back and check, if you wish:


All atheistic dogma is just theory,



And if there are people that are atheists, then they support an atheistic worldview. Words do have a variety of meanings, besides the ones you want them to have.Rhyno is not terribly eloquent, but there is no need to use that as a tool to defeat him without even allowing him to get his point across.


I don't see what you mean... I am an Atheist.. and I don't believe in ghosts. I know an Atheist who DOES believe in ghosts... there is no defined canon of atheistic dogma... all that unites 'atheists', is that they DON'T believe in god or gods.


By the way, those quotes from the Bible actually were along the exact same lines Rhyno said they would be, and he already answered them. All of the books of the Bible were inspired by God, supposedly, and so are his word. Revelations speaks of "adding to the book of prophecy," meaning don't add to revelations. As far as the rest, there are many books thought to be inspired by God, that were, however, left out because they didn't seem to correspond with the rest of the books.


I disagree - as I pointed out... the Samaritans had their text... the Pentatauch. It contained wording SPECIFICALLY defying the addition of more text.

Over the next thousand years, other Hebrew sects added to those books - (which is why the Samaritans consider ALL other Hebrew sects to be heretical).

Eventually - the Hebrews (collectively) had a volume, which AGAIN contained an explicit admonition NOT TO ADD to the text.

Over the next few hundred years, the nascent 'christian' movement once again added texts... which is a large part of why the Hebrew faiths consider 'christians' to be heretical.

The Pentatauch was originally a sole document. It was added to. Then, the "Old Testament" was a sole document. It was added to.
Now, the 'bible' is a sole document. But, since all these books were written at different times, over three chief intervals - I don't see how anyone can argue that each EARLIER admonition is somehow supposed to be considered in the light of an overall text... which didn't EXIST, when the Mosaic texts were crafted.


Grave, when he spoke of the historical accuracy of the Bible, you answered it by attcking only one point out of the whole post. Namely, the Plagues. However, according to the Bible all the plagues did not take place at a rate of one every seven years, as close as we can tell. Besides which, no "natural" plague would account for killing off every firstborn child in Egypt. That's just you being argumentative, and probably having no idea what exactly the plagues consisted of.


I didn't say that the plagues took place 'one every seven years'.

I said that the biblical plagues coincide with the natural rise and fall of the Nile, which it did, and still does, cyclically.

By the way - the 'death of the firstborn' is unverifiable, outside of the bible... but, even if it WAS a true event, we could easily be talking about a disease that afflicted large groups of teenagers... a sexually transmitted disorder, for example... which would leave younger children alone, and thus, appear to be attacking 'only the firstborn'.


As far as the Bible not being unique, well, all I can say is that at that time it was. Especially since it is the first book we have that is a collection of writings straight from God. Humans may have done the writing, but it was inspired by God. Now, of course, you can refuse to believe that it was inspired by God. Feel free. There's still the small matter of it being a tale that goes from the beginning of time until a period around 40 years after the death of Jesus. Since it checks out historically as far as we have been able to tell, I'd say that means that we can safely say that it is probably accurate. I don't believe there is another non-fiction work of its kind. You just choose to see it in your own, personal, negative light.


Whether or not you believe that the bible was 'inspired by god', it was certainly not the FIRST such volume.

Babylonian mythology clearly predates even the earliest of the Mosaic scripture.

Perhaps you know of no other text like it, simply because you JUST DON'T KNOW about the other texts?


The Inquisition was not a christian act. It was entirely out of line of what is preached in the Bible. The old Catholic church of medieval times was hopelessly corrupt. Pointing that out doesn't change the message.


And doesn't change the fact that deaths have been caused, in the name of the bible.


As far as your views concerning the Bible, that is your opinion, and if it disagrees entirely with the view of the vast majority of those who read the Bible for comprehension and not simply for the purpose of trying to find fault with it, assuming you DID read it in its entirety. Your biased, bigoted personal opinion is not worthy of debate. I really don't feel either I or Rhyno should bother trying to change your opinion on matters in which you are hopelessly biased, and where your mind is closed tighter than an airlock.

So, I am bigoted? Flaming me for being a bigot... curious.

I HAVE read the bible... hundreds of times, my friend. In English. In Latin. In the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek. Even in French, once... just because I wanted to.

I WAS a 'christian' - so I find the accusation of being 'bigoted' especially ironic.

Of the three of us, (you, Rhyno and I), perhaps I am the ONLY one actually capable of admitting to having seen BOTH sides of the story?

Ok, let's look at these.....

First - in response to your assertion that it means sphere - Strong's Concordance gives the following response:

Personally - I don't see ANY reason to believe that 'sphere' is implied here.
As I said before, God can either spend a long time explaining the actual shape of the Earth, then space, then gravity, then the planets, then the solar system, then the universe in general...
Or...he can say circle, which gets his point across equally as well. And you don't need to know the actual shape of the earth to know that God rules it, do you?

However - staying within Isaiah...

Isaiah 11:12 "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth".
I already discussed this. Besides, the people had no reason to think that the earth was square. Flat or not, who's to say it has four corners? This is clearly a METAPHORE. You forget that most of these people have been to egypt and parts of europe and Asia. They had maps. Crude, inaccurate maps, but maps nonetheless. There is no reason to believe they actually thought that the world had four corners.
AND you're assuming that it was written purely by man. God certainly knows that the world is spherical. It's a metaphore.

First Samuel 2:8 "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them".
Or it could mean pillars that are on the earth. It just says "of the Earth." That could mean mountains. It could mean anything. Metaphore.

You obviously don't read much poetry, do you?

Second Samuel 22:16 "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils".
And if you read above that:
5 "The waves of death swirled about me;
the torrents of destruction overwhelmed me.
Hmm...Death doesn't have waves...
Note also that this IS a poem, and even MORE likely to have METAPHORES in it.

Clearly describes the world as having 'foundations'... and also, by the way, explicitly attributes 'nostrils' to 'god'...
Big deal. So God has nostrils...We are made in his image, after all.
And anyways, why do you care if he has nostrils? You don't think he exists!

First Chronicles 16:30 "Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved".
And who's to say that the earth doesn't move, and the entire universe moves relative to it? Plausible? Perhaps not. Possible? Entirely. To be able to see it you'd have to go outside of the universe, which you can't do, so you can't prove that's not what's happening. Do I honestly think that's what's happening? Maybe. It's a moot point, though, because it could also be a METAPHORE. Because again, that is out of a POEM. POEMS often have literary devices, such as METAPHORES.

Psalms 19:4 "Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun..."
I'm going to assume that by now you realize that this is a poem.

And, of course Luke 4:5 "And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, showed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time"... which CLEARLY describes the mountain so tall, that you can see the whole world from it... how does THAT work with a sphere?
He's God. He doesn't need a mountain to look at the whole world. This is, again, a METAPHORE. And who's to say they weren't on a mountain? Sitting on a high mountain where it's peaceful and calm and secluded, viewing the world in a supernatural way.

You need to go get a good poetry book. Or go back to English class. I recommend both.

BTW, if you've read the Bible, then you should be well aware of this passage from 1 Chronicles 2:
11The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
16"For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

Originally Posted by Dementedus_Yammus
so wait.

are you saying that the bible is in fact, open to interpretation?
Anything is open to interpretation. How you interpret it is another matter.

...

"Atheists are dumbasses" could be interpreted as a compliment, but that interpretation would almost certainly be wrong.
But most of the rules of "correct" interpretation are embodied in the language, hence we are able to communicate more than the literal meaning of things.

If "Atheists are dumbasses" is taken to be a compliment, it is only because an individual (or a few) has chosen to ignore a convention that says "dumbasses" is a bad thing. It is not a "wrong" act of interpretation, just an act of deliberately "incorrect" interpretation.

But most of the rules of "correct" interpretation are embodied in the language, hence we are able to communicate more than the literal meaning of things.

If "Atheists are dumbasses" is taken to be a compliment, it is only because an individual (or a few) has chosen to ignore a convention that says "dumbasses" is a bad thing. It is not a "wrong" act of interpretation, just an act of deliberately "incorrect" interpretation.
Precisely the point I was trying to make.

Precisely the point I was trying to make.
yay! :)

Relating this back to what Neo Cannen said to Grave, the "literal" intepretation of the bible taken by "literalists" is very rarely actually literal, as was the hand Grave was playing. Especially on these boards, it seems, they have applied a non-literal interpretation to the concept of literalness that allows for trope to be literal.

Very confusing.

Seriously. Ever think that maybe North, South, East, and West might be the four corners? They're obviously not a place, but a concept. Four angels stopping the wind from blowing from the four corners. Insert a direction...An angel stopping wind from blowing from the North. Well...makes sense to me.

Note, that's just an educated guess. It might not mean that, it might. Either way, it certainly doesn't mean that the earth is square.
Well done. That is precisely where the four corners are, mythologically, a meaning that has been handed down unaltered for several millennia. It is also to whence the four rivers of the Garden flow (http://www.logon.org/english/s/P246.html), each with their own symbolism of creative substance. "The sign of the four rivers is the sun cross..." In each of the four corners are pillars that hold up the sky, keeping sky and earth apart, halting creation long enough for us to enjoy life in the middle a bit. If the pillars should ever fail, the world would be plunged back into a mindless chaos of creation. Symbolism on symbolism.

Mythology is fun.

Circle, sphere, it's the same damn thing. Like most of the things in the Bible, it was written during a time when explaining that the earth is "round" means it's a big flat circle to the people reading it. God knew it was a sphere, the person who wrote it knew it was a sphere, but everyone else just took it to mean "circle" and forgot about it. You know know what the verse means, stop acting like a fool. Playing dumb only makes you look dumb, so you can stop.
Or the circle could be a description of the globe in cross-section, recognizing the earth not as the sphere on which we live, but rather the heavens above and the earth below as a spherical shape around the central observer.

If you get my drift.

What he said.

Oh, and lack of belief in god or gods is agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism is a deliberate belief in a lack of god or gods. There is a difference.

Athieism: belief in lack
Agnosticism: lack of belief

Might want to check your sources, friend.

Agnostic means (literally) "without knowing"... an Agnostic literally believes it is impossible to know if there is a god or not.

Atheist means (literally) "without god"... an Atheist doesn't believe in god or gods... there are two further divisions, however:

The 'soft' Atheist simply 'does not believe' in any gods.

The 'hard' Atheist actually believes that there ARE NO gods.

Oh Grave, your now playing the "Take it all literally" card. I thought you were smarter than that.

Interesting... so when I read the bible literally, it means I'm stupid... but when you read it literally, it means you are pious?

You brought it up, Neo... this is a monster of your own creation.

So - which is it? Is the bible not 'entirely true'? Or does it contradict itself and modern science, with it's description of the shape of the planet?

Might want to check your sources, friend.

Agnostic means (literally) "without knowing"... an Agnostic literally believes it is impossible to know if there is a god or not.

Atheist means (literally) "without god"... an Atheist doesn't believe in god or gods... there are two further divisions, however:

The 'soft' Atheist simply 'does not believe' in any gods.

The 'hard' Atheist actually believes that there ARE NO gods.
indeed. it's really annoying when people don't even bother to learn what "agnostic" and "atheist" actually mean before they attempt to criticize such beliefs.

there are agnostics who choose to believe in God, though they admit they do so arbitrarily and without any certain knowledge on the subject. conversely, there are atheists who believe they can KNOW that God does not exist, a belief that no agnostic would accept. and then there are the people who are both atheist and agnostic, who believe it is impossible to know whether God exists, and conclude that it is wisest not to assume belief in God (and, therefore, lack belief in God).

Seriously. Ever think that maybe North, South, East, and West might be the four corners? They're obviously not a place, but a concept. Four angels stopping the wind from blowing from the four corners. Insert a direction...An angel stopping wind from blowing from the North. Well...makes sense to me.

Note, that's just an educated guess. It might not mean that, it might. Either way, it certainly doesn't mean that the earth is square.

Circle, sphere, it's the same damn thing. Like most of the things in the Bible, it was written during a time when explaining that the earth is "round" means it's a big flat circle to the people reading it. God knew it was a sphere, the person who wrote it knew it was a sphere, but everyone else just took it to mean "circle" and forgot about it. You know know what the verse means, stop acting like a fool. Playing dumb only makes you look dumb, so you can stop.

So now you call me 'dumb' and a 'fool'?

Might want to not invest ALL your efforts in flaming, friend.

Can you prove that the 'writers' of the bible KNEW that the world was a sphere?

No... of course you can't.

What you have is conjecture... hardly sufficient grounds for you to be LABELLING ME a fool, surely?

I will not be expecting an apology... but, only because I don't expect you to swallow your pride long enough.

Ok, let's look at these.....

...You obviously don't read much poetry, do you?...


...He's God. He doesn't need a mountain to look at the whole world. This is, again, a METAPHORE. And who's to say they weren't on a mountain? Sitting on a high mountain where it's peaceful and calm and secluded, viewing the world in a supernatural way....

...You need to go get a good poetry book. Or go back to English class. I recommend both....


First: I find it amusing that you rebutt EVERY reference I posted, by saying it was 'a poem' or metaphor.

Effectively - you have written of huge swathes scripture as metaphorical... which I find curious. How do YOU decide which parts are metaphor?

To me - it seems that most of the book IS metaphor... but then, I'm not the one ALSO claiming it is historically accurate..


Second: Yes, I do read quite a lot of poetry, actually. I am something of a poet myself, also.

However, I am not trying to sell my material as a code of laws...


Third: Actually... you might want to look again at the verse I posted... the individual that you seem to be calling 'god', is usually called 'the devil' by most of the christian world. Easy mistake to make.


Fourth: I have many good poetry books, and I did go back to school to study English - in fact.


I'm getting somewhat bored of you insulting my intelligence, my knowledge of the 'English language', etc.

I am not a fool. Forget that at your peril.

yay! :)

Relating this back to what Neo Cannen said to Grave, the "literal" intepretation of the bible taken by "literalists" is very rarely actually literal, as was the hand Grave was playing. Especially on these boards, it seems, they have applied a non-literal interpretation to the concept of literalness that allows for trope to be literal.

Very confusing.

It seems that you, at least, understood where I was going...

How can you refute one text as not based on 'literal reality', when you are 'allowed' to claim that the 'reality' of the conflicting text is 'allowed' to be non-literal?

What kind of logic is that? What kind of chance does ANYONE have of arguing against... or even FOR... with that kind of approach?

indeed. it's really annoying when people don't even bother to learn what "agnostic" and "atheist" actually mean before they attempt to criticize such beliefs.

there are agnostics who choose to believe in God, though they admit they do so arbitrarily and without any certain knowledge on the subject. conversely, there are atheists who believe they can KNOW that God does not exist, a belief that no agnostic would accept. and then there are the people who are both atheist and agnostic, who believe it is impossible to know whether God exists, and conclude that it is wisest not to assume belief in God (and, therefore, lack belief in God).

And it's SO frustrating, to have someone tell you that your interpretations are wrong... based on their OWN incomplete knowledge...

How can someone correct me (for example) about the division between atheism and agnosticism... without even KNOWING that division themselves?

So now you call me 'dumb' and a 'fool'?

Might want to not invest ALL your efforts in flaming, friend.

Can you prove that the 'writers' of the bible KNEW that the world was a sphere?

No... of course you can't.

What you have is conjecture... hardly sufficient grounds for you to be LABELLING ME a fool, surely?

I will not be expecting an apology... but, only because I don't expect you to swallow your pride long enough.
I never called you a fool. I said you were acting like one. Difference.

Oh, and neither can you prove they didn't. Which leaves us equal in our theories. Get over it.

Damn this thread just hangs on and won't die. Amazing.

Interesting... so when I read the bible literally, it means I'm stupid... but when you read it literally, it means you are pious?

You brought it up, Neo... this is a monster of your own creation.

So - which is it? Is the bible not 'entirely true'? Or does it contradict itself and modern science, with it's description of the shape of the planet?
It's really not difficult.

"Jesus wept"
Probably literal. Someone close to Jesus died, so he cried.

(paraphrased) "Irael is a whore"
Probably a metaphore. The entire nation of Israel is not all prostitutes.

Some parts are literal. Some parts are metaphores. This isn't a hard concept. Do you speak exclusively with one or the other? I certainly don't. Why should God be limited to one or the other?

There are also many symbols in the Bible. Literal events that also act as metaphores. Like Jesus' death. He literally died. It's also a metaphore, refering to his spiritual death and decent to hell.

There are also many exaggerations in the Bible. Like, "cut off your hand if it causes you to sin." No, you shouldn't literally cut off your hand, but it is an exaggeration to prove a point: that you must be serious in your effort to stop sin.

The New Testament is filled with parables. There was probably no real lost son. A boy didn't literally do all those things. It's possible there was, but perhaps not exactly like the story. Does it matter? No, not really. It is an analogy. It doesn't matter whether it's real or not, so long as the point gets across. Just like the circle-earth. In that verse, it doesn't matter whether the earth is a circle or a sphere or a cube or a square or a triangular prism, the point is God is ruling over it. You can figure out what shape the earth is on your own. God isn't trying to tell you the shape of the earth, he's just trying to say he's ruling over it.

My frigging history textbook has metaphores in it, as well as (bad) puns. It's not a difficult concept, and the only reason you're making a big deal out of it is because you have to have an excuse to not like the Bible. If you don't have an excuse that makes you wrong, and you don't want to be wrong, you want to be right. This argument, like the argument with Reasonabilityness, has little to do with whether or not the Bible is reliable. You're just trying to prove you're right, and you couldn't care less why you're right so long as you're right about something.

I know you understand this. I know you're not stupid, I know you're smarter than this. Stop acting like a fool just so you can be right.

And it's SO frustrating, to have someone tell you that your interpretations are wrong... based on their OWN incomplete knowledge...

How can someone correct me (for example) about the division between atheism and agnosticism... without even KNOWING that division themselves?
Which is VERY similar to you telling me that my interpretations of the Bible are wrong, despite the fact that I'm a Christian for 12 years, a preacher's kid, and I can count the weeks I've missed church on one hand. Now, you may say that that doesn't mean squat, that I can still be completely ignorant. You're right, I could be, but I'm not. Even if I never paid attention, 17 years of living with a preacher and 880-some days of sermons and sunday school would give me just a tiny bit of experience, don't you think? And I DO pay attention.

So don't criticize me. I have done nothing more than you have.

If Christianity is open to interpretation, Atheism certainly is.

yay! :)

Relating this back to what Neo Cannen said to Grave, the "literal" intepretation of the bible taken by "literalists" is very rarely actually literal, as was the hand Grave was playing. Especially on these boards, it seems, they have applied a non-literal interpretation to the concept of literalness that allows for trope to be literal.

Very confusing.
I'm very confused as to whose side you're on. :confused:

First: I find it amusing that you rebutt EVERY reference I posted, by saying it was 'a poem' or metaphor.
Quite simply, EVERY reference you posted was a metaphore. There thousands of verses in the Bible, yes? Is it my fault you chose only metaphorical verses?

Effectively - you have written of huge swathes scripture as metaphorical... which I find curious. How do YOU decide which parts are metaphor?
Very carefully. ;)

To me - it seems that most of the book IS metaphor... but then, I'm not the one ALSO claiming it is historically accurate..
I can be both, you know.
For instance, "Washington crossed the Delaware like a theif in the night."
Historically accurate. Washington DID cross the Delaware. Was he a theif? No, he was not. Would anyone who understood English think that I was actually calling him a theif? No, they would not. Historically accurate AND metaphorical in the same sentense. If I am capable of doing it one sentense, it can't be that hard to do it in several thousand. And it is God, after all, so I'm sure he's more than capable.


Second: Yes, I do read quite a lot of poetry, actually. I am something of a poet myself, also.

However, I am not trying to sell my material as a code of laws...
Law: Don't speed.
Poetry: Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm puzzled as to how you get the two confused.
I'm also puzzled as to why you think the Bible is nothing more than a code of laws. Perhaps this is why you seem to be having trouble with the metaphores.


Third: Actually... you might want to look again at the verse I posted... the individual that you seem to be calling 'god', is usually called 'the devil' by most of the christian world. Easy mistake to make.
Which verse? You quoted several.
And Satan is an angel, you know. A fallen angel, yes, but an angel nonetheless. No, he's nowhere near as powerful as God, but he is certainly more powerful than us, and he's obviously capable of looking at the world without directly seeing it (assuming that's the verse you are talking about).


Fourth: I have many good poetry books, and I did go back to school to study English - in fact.

I'm getting somewhat bored of you insulting my intelligence, my knowledge of the 'English language', etc.

I am not a fool. Forget that at your peril.
And I am getting quite tired of you insulting MY intelligence and my knowledge of the Bible and of the Christian faith.


:D
'I'm not stupid!' In Bean's experience, that was a sentence never uttered except to prove its own inaccuracy.

Which is VERY similar to you telling me that my interpretations of the Bible are wrong, despite the fact that I'm a Christian for 12 years, a preacher's kid, and I can count the weeks I've missed church on one hand. Now, you may say that that doesn't mean squat, that I can still be completely ignorant. You're right, I could be, but I'm not. Even if I never paid attention, 17 years of living with a preacher and 880-some days of sermons and sunday school would give me just a tiny bit of experience, don't you think? And I DO pay attention.

So don't criticize me. I have done nothing more than you have.

If Christianity is open to interpretation, Atheism certainly is.
Your credentials notwithstanding, your interpretations (anyone's interpretations) are learned from sources, and so only as good as the sources you gather around you. It's not about "meaning squat", it's about what you learn from those who squat. A variety of teachers gives a broader outlook.

I'm very confused as to whose side you're on.
Mine.

Your credentials notwithstanding, your interpretations (anyone's interpretations) are learned from sources, and so only as good as the sources you gather around you. It's not about "meaning squat", it's about what you learn from those who squat. A variety of teachers gives a broader outlook.
I'm also in a military family, which means I haven't been anywhere for more than 4 years, which means I've changed churches AT LEAST every 4 years.

AND I could say the same to you, and to Grave. Which, again, leaves us equal in that respect, so how 'bout we just drop it, neh?

AND since I'm posting like hell at the moment:

While you clearly know what I meant when I said historically accurate, I'll take it one step further...

I happen to believe in God, which means I happen to believe that the all the supernatural stuff mentioned the Bible actually happened. That would leave the Bible completely historically accurate, INCLUDING the supernatural. And there is a distinct possibility that God does exist, and that he is the God described in the Bible. Which means I'm not just believing in fairy-tales.

BUT, as I said before, if you choose not to believe that those things happened, the Bible is still historically accurate.

Mine.
Ah, ok then...

Er...

Which side is your side again? :D

I'm also in a military family, which means I haven't been anywhere for more than 4 years, which means I've changed churches AT LEAST every 4 years.

AND I could say the same to you, and to Grave. Which, again, leaves us equal in that respect, so how 'bout we just drop it, neh?
I freely admit you can piss further than I, and I congratulate you on your opportunities for varied life experiences. Brad knows you've seen more of the world than I. But Brad also teaches us, in his humble and familiar way, that criticism from others means you're doing something wrong, and in this case it has nothing to do with the amount of learning you have, but that huge potato chip on your shoulder. My talk of sources was leading towards the suggestion that Grave_n_idle is one of those who squats; on the surface it may look like feces to you, but the fault for seeing that is not his. Open your heart for a moment and listen to what he is saying, rather than taking it as a challenge to your beliefs.

Just goin' with momentum here:

Metaphores:
Luke 15 and 16
How do I know they're metaphores? Well, for one they're labeled "The Parable of..." Also, the people in the stories are, for the most part, inconsequential. It doesn't matter if they were real or not, it's the story that's the point

Literal:
Noah's story (Genesis 5-9)
How do I know it's literal? Well, it goes into painfully detailed descriptions of how big the arc was and how long it rained and how many animals he was supposed to have...
Last time I checked, "My love for you burns like the 3000 degree corona of the sun, caused by the fusion of hydrogen molecules within the sun's core" is just bad poetry, so I'm going out on a limb and saying that Noah's story is probably literal.

I freely admit you can piss further than I, and I congratulate you on your opportunities for varied life experiences. Brad knows you've seen more of the world than I. But Brad also teaches us, in his humble and familiar way, that criticism from others means you're doing something wrong, and in this case it has nothing to do with the amount of learning you have, but that huge potato chip on your shoulder. My talk of sources was leading towards the suggestion that Grave_n_idle is one of those who squats; on the surface it may look like feces to you, but the fault for seeing that is not his. Open your heart for a moment and listen to what he is saying, rather than taking it as a challenge to your beliefs.

HE challenged MY experience. I was only defending myself.

I wasn't trying to prove I could piss father than him, I was proving I could piss at least as far as him.

But:
Which, again, leaves us equal in that respect, so how 'bout we just drop it, neh?

A child molester may have done some terrible things, but that does not excuse God not loving them. Loves sinner, hate sin. If the two were inseperable we would all be dead as the wages of sin are death. They are now seprable thanks to Jesus's death. And I am unsure where you get the idea that God hate's everyone who isnt Christian from. If you think he sends us to hell then thats a mistake. We go to hell if we are not saved. He does not send us there. To put it another way, if when climing on a wall we will fall off unless we hold the wall. God is not pushing off those who do not believe in him. He is saving those who do. Hell was not created for Humans, but for the Devil to be punished


Very nicely stated. God does not want us to go to hell. Inb fact, He has tried in every way possible to reach out to us. It is just up to us to take that hand that he is offering and recieve his free gift of heaven through his son, Jesus. God does not send people to hell,, but rather they chose that destination for themselves by not accepting Jesus.

Well, anyways, lets stop with the personally directed posts, perhaps, and get back to debating the issue, if you all don't mind. I personally don't care what Grave's sources or credentials are, and the same goes for Rhyno, and myself, and Willamena. Someone who teaches theirself to understand the subject matter earns more respect from me anyhow. Of course, when it comes to scripture, it is usually nice to have a little bit of professiona; input, but I prefer to get that from an elder or preacher/minister, since they usually went to college to study that particular field.

By the way, Rhyno is quite right in this sense of metaphors, etc., being extremely prevalent throughout the Bible. However, the greater issue comes when people take scripture's out of context, alone, without understanding how they fit within the chapter/book they were contained in. You must first read through the entire section, before you can quote one sentence from the Bible and pretend to know what it means. Assuming, of course, it doesn't say "Jesus wept," or "the apostles slept."

Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
...And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book".


By the time John wrote Revelation, the 'Bible' had not been compiled yet. I think it is easily agreeable that his words were not to be applied to the collection of writings. He was reffering to the book of Revelation itself. The same can be said to the Law of Moses.

By the time John wrote Revelation, the 'Bible' had not been compiled yet. I think it is easily agreeable that his words were not to be applied to the collection of writings. He was reffering to the book of Revelation itself. The same can be said to the Law of Moses.
Correct. I argued the same, about 20 pages back, or yesterday.
The reference to "the book of prophecy" is an obvious reference specifically to Revelations, since it is the only book that singularly focuses on what is to come.

John wrote Revelations 40 years after Christ died, and after everyone who had met Jesus was dead. It served primarily to boost the faith of the "second-generation" Christians, who hadn't witnessed the miracles.

So are we all agreed that this is a pointless argument? :D

So are we all agreed that this is a pointless argument? :D


are you finally admitting that the bible is not straight from the mouth of god, and was in fact written by human beings, and is just as flawed and occasionally misguided as anything else humans have written, and should not be taken literally, or be acted upon seriously?

until then, no, it is not a pointless argument.

are you finally admitting that the bible is not straight from the mouth of god, and was in fact written by human beings, and is just as flawed and occasionally misguided as anything else humans have written, and should not be taken literally, or be acted upon seriously?

until then, no, it is not a pointless argument.
Agreed as long as they use it to try and effect my life the arguement is not pointless because it effects what I can or can not do

are you finally admitting that the bible is not straight from the mouth of god, and was in fact written by human beings, and is just as flawed and occasionally misguided as anything else humans have written, and should not be taken literally, or be acted upon seriously?

until then, no, it is not a pointless argument.
First off, it was a joke.
Secondly, it was aimed at the Christians.
Third, I meant specifically with grave, not the entire argument.

can't we all just get a bong?

are you finally admitting that the bible is not straight from the mouth of god, and was in fact written by human beings, and is just as flawed and occasionally misguided as anything else humans have written, and should not be taken literally, or be acted upon seriously?

until then, no, it is not a pointless argument.

I ask you, what makes you think it is not the word of God. And dont fob us of with that "you made the claim, you prove it" arguement. Actually try to dispell it. We know it was written by people but what exactly is your problem with it.

Agreed as long as they use it to try and effect my life the arguement is not pointless because it effects what I can or can not do
How does it affect what you can and cannot do?

How does it affect what you can and cannot do?
They made decisions based on their book (gay marrige) that effects what I can and can not do (only one example)

They made decisions based on their book (gay marrige) that effects what I can and can not do (only one example)
So... you cannot get married in one of their churches. Is this a problem for you?

I never called you a fool. I said you were acting like one. Difference.

Oh, and neither can you prove they didn't. Which leaves us equal in our theories. Get over it.

A simple apology would have sufficed.

But, apparently, you decided to compound it, by being rude even beyond that.

Note: in debate, since YOU have made the assertion (in company with Neo Cannen) that the scripture means 'Sphere" where it clearly states "Circle"... the burden of proof is on YOU (and Neo Cannen) to supply.

Until you provide some evidence of WHY scripture should be read in a different manner - the text is taken as read - i.e. the Earth is a big disk, balanced on pillars.

So... you cannot get married in one of their churches. Is this a problem for you?
No What I ment currently is they are pushing law (civil) that effects me ... the arguement over the correctness of the book continues as long as thoes laws effect me directly

I could care less about what they do in the privacy of their own church/bedroom but the arguing over accuracy very well will continue as long as people legislate based on it

It's really not difficult.

"Jesus wept"
Probably literal. Someone close to Jesus died, so he cried.

(paraphrased) "Irael is a whore"
Probably a metaphore. The entire nation of Israel is not all prostitutes.

Some parts are literal. Some parts are metaphores. This isn't a hard concept. Do you speak exclusively with one or the other? I certainly don't. Why should God be limited to one or the other?

There are also many symbols in the Bible. Literal events that also act as metaphores. Like Jesus' death. He literally died. It's also a metaphore, refering to his spiritual death and decent to hell.

There are also many exaggerations in the Bible. Like, "cut off your hand if it causes you to sin." No, you shouldn't literally cut off your hand, but it is an exaggeration to prove a point: that you must be serious in your effort to stop sin.

The New Testament is filled with parables. There was probably no real lost son. A boy didn't literally do all those things. It's possible there was, but perhaps not exactly like the story. Does it matter? No, not really. It is an analogy. It doesn't matter whether it's real or not, so long as the point gets across. Just like the circle-earth. In that verse, it doesn't matter whether the earth is a circle or a sphere or a cube or a square or a triangular prism, the point is God is ruling over it. You can figure out what shape the earth is on your own. God isn't trying to tell you the shape of the earth, he's just trying to say he's ruling over it.

My frigging history textbook has metaphores in it, as well as (bad) puns. It's not a difficult concept, and the only reason you're making a big deal out of it is because you have to have an excuse to not like the Bible. If you don't have an excuse that makes you wrong, and you don't want to be wrong, you want to be right. This argument, like the argument with Reasonabilityness, has little to do with whether or not the Bible is reliable. You're just trying to prove you're right, and you couldn't care less why you're right so long as you're right about something.

I know you understand this. I know you're not stupid, I know you're smarter than this. Stop acting like a fool just so you can be right.

Once again, you are unnecessarily rude.

You are correct, I am far from stupid.

I do not think I am acting like a fool, and I'd be curious to know what behaviour it is EXACTLY, that YOU believe justifies you in making such 'flame' comments?

Incidentally - I DO understand the concept of a 'parable'... in fact, I believe that the whole of the New Testament is a parable, especially in context of the wealth of evidence that shows suggested roots for so many of the story elements.

Out of curiousity - why do you think I am looking for 'an excuse' to 'not like the bible'?

Where did you even get the idea that I do not like it?

My friend, you are confusing the capacity to LIKE something, with the capacity to discern whether or nat something is factual.

Once again, you are unnecessarily rude.

You are correct, I am far from stupid.

I do not think I am acting like a fool, and I'd be curious to know what behaviour it is EXACTLY, that YOU believe justifies you in making such 'flame' comments?

Incidentally - I DO understand the concept of a 'parable'... in fact, I believe that the whole of the New Testament is a parable, especially in context of the wealth of evidence that shows suggested roots for so many of the story elements.

Out of curiousity - why do you think I am looking for 'an excuse' to 'not like the bible'?

Where did you even get the idea that I do not like it?

My friend, you are confusing the capacity to LIKE something, with the capacity to discern whether or nat something is factual.
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Which is VERY similar to you telling me that my interpretations of the Bible are wrong, despite the fact that I'm a Christian for 12 years, a preacher's kid, and I can count the weeks I've missed church on one hand. Now, you may say that that doesn't mean squat, that I can still be completely ignorant. You're right, I could be, but I'm not. Even if I never paid attention, 17 years of living with a preacher and 880-some days of sermons and sunday school would give me just a tiny bit of experience, don't you think? And I DO pay attention.

So don't criticize me. I have done nothing more than you have.

If Christianity is open to interpretation, Atheism certainly is.

I haven't claimed that you 'acted like a fool', or told you that 'I know you are smarter than that', or any of the other 'flame' comments that YOU seem to feel are justified.

I have different interpretations to you, regarding scripture. My interpretations are based on my life as a Christian, my experience of OTHER cultures, my learning about religion and mythology in general, and my reading of the scripture.

That includes my reading of the scripture in it's purest form... which I find VERY different from the diluted 'translated' form.

You may not be aware... but Christianity IS NOT genetic... it doesn't matter WHO your parents were, preacher or no).

It ALSO isn't defined by church attendance... and I honestly pity you, if you think THAT is what the message of Jesus teaches.

I grant you your experience... and, at your age, I was also still a Christian... but I was never as rude as you are, I'm afraid... and I consider it to be a mark against your 'spirituality' that you think it is acceptable to act in such a manner.

But, if you want to compare experience... maybe we should have this debate again, after you have read the Babylonian creation stories, or the Sumerian genesis myths.

Or, even after you have just read the Bible in the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic.

I'm very confused as to whose side you're on. :confused:

Maybe it's not about being 'on sides'?

Maybe it's about learning from debate, rather than trying to hammer your belief down other's throats?

You may not be aware... but Christianity IS NOT genetic... it doesn't matter WHO your parents were, preacher or no).

It ALSO isn't defined by church attendance... and I honestly pity you, if you think THAT is what the message of Jesus teaches.


He's saying he has a good understanding, not that he's a better Christian.

Maybe it's not about being 'on sides'?

Maybe it's about learning from debate, rather than trying to hammer your belief down other's throats?
I confuse people when I switch sides on a debate as well lol :) hey its all an intelectual excersize anyways

Which verse? You quoted several.
And Satan is an angel, you know. A fallen angel, yes, but an angel nonetheless. No, he's nowhere near as powerful as God, but he is certainly more powerful than us, and he's obviously capable of looking at the world without directly seeing it (assuming that's the verse you are talking about).

And I am getting quite tired of you insulting MY intelligence and my knowledge of the Bible and of the Christian faith.


First: you posted your 'god' reference as a direct response to my comment about the mountain so tall.... but, apparently, you hadn't noticed that GOD isn't the entity in that reference... 'the devil' is the feature character.

Second: I haven't even ONCE insulted your intelligence. ANd yet, you offer such comments in every one of your posts.

I confuse people when I switch sides on a debate as well lol :) hey its all an intelectual excersize anyways

That's it... if all you do is hit the forums to abus people, or to preach... you're wasting your time.

If your not learning something new, you're in the wrong place.

I haven't claimed that you 'acted like a fool', or told you that 'I know you are smarter than that', or any of the other 'flame' comments that YOU seem to feel are justified.

I have different interpretations to you, regarding scripture. My interpretations are based on my life as a Christian, my experience of OTHER cultures, my learning about religion and mythology in general, and my reading of the scripture.

That includes my reading of the scripture in it's purest form... which I find VERY different from the diluted 'translated' form.

You may not be aware... but Christianity IS NOT genetic... it doesn't matter WHO your parents were, preacher or no).

It ALSO isn't defined by church attendance... and I honestly pity you, if you think THAT is what the message of Jesus teaches.

I grant you your experience... and, at your age, I was also still a Christian... but I was never as rude as you are, I'm afraid... and I consider it to be a mark against your 'spirituality' that you think it is acceptable to act in such a manner.

But, if you want to compare experience... maybe we should have this debate again, after you have read the Babylonian creation stories, or the Sumerian genesis myths.

Or, even after you have just read the Bible in the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic.
Once again, you have COMPLETELY missed my point. :headbang:

Once again, you have COMPLETELY missed my point. :headbang:
Well I ended up with the same thing gravy did so maybe your point needs a little restating?

AND since I'm posting like hell at the moment:

While you clearly know what I meant when I said historically accurate, I'll take it one step further...

I happen to believe in God, which means I happen to believe that the all the supernatural stuff mentioned the Bible actually happened. That would leave the Bible completely historically accurate, INCLUDING the supernatural. And there is a distinct possibility that God does exist, and that he is the God described in the Bible. Which means I'm not just believing in fairy-tales.

BUT, as I said before, if you choose not to believe that those things happened, the Bible is still historically accurate.

Sorry, friend...

EVen if you DO believe all the 'miracle' stuff... that STILL doesn't make it 'historically accurate'.

In fact, the ONLY way you can prove something 'historically accurate', is to provide some corroborative evidence...

So, let's see it?

If your not learning something new, you're in the wrong place.
Learning is much more fun, too. :)

I freely admit you can piss further than I, and I congratulate you on your opportunities for varied life experiences. Brad knows you've seen more of the world than I. But Brad also teaches us, in his humble and familiar way, that criticism from others means you're doing something wrong, and in this case it has nothing to do with the amount of learning you have, but that huge potato chip on your shoulder. My talk of sources was leading towards the suggestion that Grave_n_idle is one of those who squats; on the surface it may look like feces to you, but the fault for seeing that is not his. Open your heart for a moment and listen to what he is saying, rather than taking it as a challenge to your beliefs.

Thank you, Willamena.

That might be the greatest philosophical compliment I have seen on the forum.

Certainly one of the most enigmatic :)

Once again, you are unnecessarily rude.

You are correct, I am far from stupid.

I do not think I am acting like a fool, and I'd be curious to know what behaviour it is EXACTLY, that YOU believe justifies you in making such 'flame' comments?

Incidentally - I DO understand the concept of a 'parable'... in fact, I believe that the whole of the New Testament is a parable, especially in context of the wealth of evidence that shows suggested roots for so many of the story elements.

Out of curiousity - why do you think I am looking for 'an excuse' to 'not like the bible'?

Where did you even get the idea that I do not like it?

My friend, you are confusing the capacity to LIKE something, with the capacity to discern whether or nat something is factual.
I know you understand the analogies I'm making. I know you understand what we are trying to say. I know that you understand the concept of a metaphore. Yet you continue to act like you don't understand any of these things.

You make a big deal out of simple analogies. You're also making a big deal about simple Biblical metaphores. I know you understand them, I know you know they're only metaphores, but you treat them like literal passages just to make your point.

I truely apologize, I'm not trying to be rude. I'm just trying to move this argument beyond the pointless quibbles of translation and simple interpretation. You and I both know that the Bible isn't calling the earth flat or square, so why are you making a big deal out of it?

I'm just trying to avoid the arguments that consist of "You prove it!" "No you prove it!" and the "Well, if ___ says so it must be true!" crap. Things like that aren't worth arguing over, and I'm tired of having to argue over things like that. NationStates is supposed to be fun. When I have to spend 20 minutes just proving that my source is reputable it ceases being fun.
I trust you to use reputable sources. Do you honestly think I'd just make something up off the top of my head? If you do, I am very disappointed that I would give that impression.

So yes, I am very sorry for being rude. I just get a little cranky sometimes. I'm just trying to avoid pointless quibbles.

Learning is much more fun, too. :)

I think so.

Hell, that's why I am here, in the first place.

And the amount I learned from the now legendary "Grave-Willa-Iakeokeo" wars...

Seriously... if I didn't feel that people here were capable of reshaping my consciousness... I'd be doing something else.

(Yes - the Willamena/Iakeokeo threads DID change the way I think).

I miss Iakeokeo.

I think so.

Hell, that's why I am here, in the first place.

And the amount I learned from the now legendary "Grave-Willa-Iakeokeo" wars...

Seriously... if I didn't feel that people here were capable of reshaping my consciousness... I'd be doing something else.

(Yes - the Willamena/Iakeokeo threads DID change the way I think).
Same ... that was when I started as well

What happen to Iakedkeo with his crazy point of refference
"walks down sand laughing" sort of wiers frazal lol

Was a hoot

Well, anyways, lets stop with the personally directed posts, perhaps, and get back to debating the issue, if you all don't mind. I personally don't care what Grave's sources or credentials are, and the same goes for Rhyno, and myself, and Willamena. Someone who teaches theirself to understand the subject matter earns more respect from me anyhow. Of course, when it comes to scripture, it is usually nice to have a little bit of professiona; input, but I prefer to get that from an elder or preacher/minister, since they usually went to college to study that particular field.

I consider myself self-taught... since I taught myself to read the bible in Latin, and then, later, in the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek.

But, my knowledge is BASED on a Christian background... since my journey into Atheism STARTED in Christianity. So - I DO have some knowledge of the more 'organised religion' side of the coin, also.

I miss Iakeokeo.

Seriously... one of the 'big crimes' of Moderation.

People like Terminalia spouted actual vulgarity, and get suspensions.

Iakeokeo is unique... and gets canned.

Seriously... one of the 'big crimes' of Moderation.

People like Terminalia spouted actual vulgarity, and get suspensions.

Iakeokeo is unique... and gets canned.
What did he get canned for? I dont remember

Same ... that was when I started as well

What happen to Iakedkeo with his crazy point of refference
"walks down sand laughing" sort of wiers frazal lol

Was a hoot

Yeah - he was cool.... unfortunately.. I guess he didn't get on with the right people... and they ex'd him for it. :(

What did he get canned for? I dont remember
For coming back many times post-suspension.

Maybe Grave_n_idle and RhynoD could start afresh with a reaffirmation of the issue, their positions and how they see theirs differing from the other's?

By the time John wrote Revelation, the 'Bible' had not been compiled yet. I think it is easily agreeable that his words were not to be applied to the collection of writings. He was reffering to the book of Revelation itself. The same can be said to the Law of Moses.

Curiously - that is actually part of the point I was trying to make...

But mainly - that the text has been 'complete' many times... it is hard to provide a really good justification for whi they SHOULD all be considered ONE text.

Maybe Grave_n_idle and RhynoD could start afresh with a reaffirmation of the issue, their positions and how they see theirs differing from the other's?

I don't know any more.

I'm kind of getting bored of insults... and a general refusal to 'debate', when preaching or attacking seem to be more 'satisfying'.

He's saying he has a good understanding, not that he's a better Christian.

Come now, Neo... you really think that you base your understanding of scripture on which church you attend?

If so - I despair.

Come now, Neo... you really think that you base your understanding of scripture on which church you attend?

If so - I despair.
Sure it did ... I know because my priest used to make little jokes durring his sermon (when I was paying attention) LOL that qualifies me as EXPERT! (maybe at bad dry jokes lol)

You make a big deal out of simple analogies. You're also making a big deal about simple Biblical metaphores.

That's just it.

It seems obvious to me that, for example... 'Satan' is a metaphor.

ANd, you will HAVE to fundamentally disagree with me, if you follow the 'regular' church approach.

We can't just agree that there are metaphors, and leave it be...

Because most of the big arguing pints WE have, are over what IS metaphor.

Like 'Jesus'. Crucifixion is OBVIOUSLY (to me) metaphorical...

Note: in debate, since YOU have made the assertion (in company with Neo Cannen) that the scripture means 'Sphere" where it clearly states "Circle"... the burden of proof is on YOU (and Neo Cannen) to supply.

Until you provide some evidence of WHY scripture should be read in a different manner - the text is taken as read - i.e. the Earth is a big disk, balanced on pillars.



Grave what about the pillars of heaven? Job 26:11 says, "The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished at his reproof." ydwmu is used for the pillars of earth and heaven. Perhaps it should be read in a different manner because it doesnt always seem to be describing something physical.

Job states in 26:7 "He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing."

There is not a ""true"" word in Hebrew that means 'sphere.' In Isaiah 40:22 "the circle of the earth;" the word for circle here is chuwg, which can mean 'circle, compass, roundness.'

Looking at Isaiah 40:22, we have "he stretches out the heavens like a curtain." Here is a quote from Bob Suder: "The last time I flew out of Amman, I saw it again as our plane taxied on the tarmac. I looked out the window and saw that a huge cloud of desert dust had filled the skies and stretched across the horizon. In its 'folds' it looked like a curtain or a tent from the inside." And just looking at the ocean from a beach you can easily see the 'circle' of the earth.


I think it is best to look at the language of the scripture from the shoes of the writers.

There is not a ""true"" word in Hebrew that means 'sphere.' In Isaiah 40:22 "the circle of the earth;" the word for circle here is chuwg, which can mean 'circle, compass, roundness.'

Looking at Isaiah 40:22, we have "he stretches out the heavens like a curtain." Here is a quote from Bob Suder: "The last time I flew out of Amman, I saw it again as our plane taxied on the tarmac. I looked out the window and saw that a huge cloud of desert dust had filled the skies and stretched across the horizon. In its 'folds' it looked like a curtain or a tent from the inside." And just looking at the ocean from a beach you can easily see the 'circle' of the earth.


I think it is best to look at the language of the scripture from the shoes of the writers.
Exactly, from the perspective of a conscious person standing on the Earth.

The Earth is a circle defined by its horizon; it is not a globe. It's not metaphorical, it's simple observation.

This is Man, the Observer.

Grave what about the pillars of heaven? Job 26:11 says, "The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished at his reproof." ydwmu is used for the pillars of earth and heaven. Perhaps it should be read in a different manner because it doesnt always seem to be describing something physical.

Job states in 26:7 "He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing."

There is not a ""true"" word in Hebrew that means 'sphere.' In Isaiah 40:22 "the circle of the earth;" the word for circle here is chuwg, which can mean 'circle, compass, roundness.'

Looking at Isaiah 40:22, we have "he stretches out the heavens like a curtain." Here is a quote from Bob Suder: "The last time I flew out of Amman, I saw it again as our plane taxied on the tarmac. I looked out the window and saw that a huge cloud of desert dust had filled the skies and stretched across the horizon. In its 'folds' it looked like a curtain or a tent from the inside." And just looking at the ocean from a beach you can easily see the 'circle' of the earth.


I think it is best to look at the language of the scripture from the shoes of the writers.

Do you read my posts? Your central point actually looks like it was lifted directly from one of mine... yet you seem to be offering it back to me as a rebuttal of some kind?

You have just touched on something very interesting (to me), however - which is the perspective issue.

In the Genesis account, the heavens are described as "Shamayim" - meaning (at least in modern acceptance) "heavens" - but carrying a very real implication of the 'visible heavens'.

Thus - 'erets represents NOT ONLY earth, but, since linked by clause... possibly ALSO the 'visible land'.

Thus - the Genesis account contains, within the seeds of it's own text, an admission that it was just ONE creation, just ONE area, just ONE group of people. Perhaps.

Also - that would explain the 'flood' that now only has to stretch 'as far as the eye can see', rather than having to literally cover the whole world.

Come now, Neo... you really think that you base your understanding of scripture on which church you attend?

If so - I despair.

I'm no longer sure if your actually being obtuse or if your just trying to annoy me

What I meant was, if someone goes to church every week then they are likely to have a much better understanding than someone who doesnt go at all(I say likely at that point because some people just go and dont listen). Read your own posts for goodness sakes, look at what you were commenting on!

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.

have u ever actually listened to what we believe? the devil believes in God, that doesn't mean he'll go to heaven. said child molestor only goes to heaven if a) he asks God for forgiveness b) he believes God has fogiven him and c) he is actually truelly sorry for his actions. and God does not hate the atheist who does good works, or even the atheist who molests children. He loves them just as much as He loves the Christian who does good works. they simply will not go to heaven, and it's not God's fault. if they wanted to go to heaven, they believed they could, and they asked God to let them, then they would. hope u don't hate us or our totally awesome God anymore(or at least as much). God bless.

...to possess by faith what none could ever earn, all-surpassing gift of righteousness...

I'm no longer sure if your actually being obtuse or if your just trying to annoy me

What I meant was, if someone goes to church every week then they are likely to have a much better understanding than someone who doesnt go at all(I say likely at that point because some people just go and dont listen). Read your own posts for goodness sakes, look at what you were commenting on!

And I still say 'poppycock'.

Going to church has NOTHING to do with being Christian.

It may be a place where some Christians go, but that doesn't make you Christian for going there, or mean you will actually learn ANYTHING about Christianity when you ARE there.

Christianity - as I see it - is a relationship between a person, and their god.

Church can't 'teach' it.

Does someone 'become' gay, by attending a 'gay' club?

No - being gay, is about love - it is about love of your own gender.

Does someone 'become' Christian, by attending a Christian church?

No - being Christian, is about love - it is about love of god.


If ALL you know about Christianity, is what a man gets up and says twice a week, then you lack 'discernment'... you are missing the whole 'point' of Christianity.

In fact - one of Jesus' main messages, was to STOP listening to those who made it their 'job' to interpret the 'word of God'.

And you call that fair because...?
Do you really think it's fair for a child-molester that believes in God to go to heaven while a nice atheist doesn't? And I do not have the idea that God hates everyone non-christian, I DO have the idea that there are some idiots that think that and call themselves "christians".

yes, i do. if the child-molester does get into heaven, it's because he's not the child molester anymore. he's left that part of him behind. think of it as though all the bad things we do stick to us as if covered in glue. the door to heaven is not big enough for us to get through with all that crap sticking to us. but God offers to take it all off for us, which we can't do. the atheist doesn't get through because he doesn't let God take it off. and don't say he doesn't have any crap to take off, because all have sinned. all u need is a little white lie, or a stolen quarter, or an unkind word, and u won't fit thru that door.

...to possess by faith what none could ever earn, all-supassing gift of righteousness...

And I still say 'poppycock'.

Going to church has NOTHING to do with being Christian.

It may be a place where some Christians go, but that doesn't make you Christian for going there, or mean you will actually learn ANYTHING about Christianity when you ARE there.

Christianity - as I see it - is a relationship between a person, and their god.

Church can't 'teach' it.

Does someone 'become' gay, by attending a 'gay' club?

No - being gay, is about love - it is about love of your own gender.

Does someone 'become' Christian, by attending a Christian church?

No - being Christian, is about love - it is about love of god.


If ALL you know about Christianity, is what a man gets up and says twice a week, then you lack 'discernment'... you are missing the whole 'point' of Christianity.

In fact - one of Jesus' main messages, was to STOP listening to those who made it their 'job' to interpret the 'word of God'.

Ok, Im now convinced your doing this on purpose.

Read my post. I said understanding. I didn't say "A better Christian". Anyone can have a rudiementary and in some cases highly advanced understanding of Islam by visiting a Mosque every Friday. But that doesnt make them a Muslim, in the same way visiting a Chruch once a week doesnt make you a Chrisitan. I never said it did. What I said was you develop a good understanding of Chrisitanity through Church. You dont become a Christian just by going to Church. I never said that.

Ok, Im now convinced your doing this on purpose.

Read my post. I said understanding. I didn't say "A better Christian". Anyone can have a rudiementary and in some cases highly advanced understanding of Islam by visiting a Mosque every Friday. But that doesnt make them a Muslim, in the same way visiting a Chruch once a week doesnt make you a Chrisitan. I never said it did. What I said was you develop a good understanding of Chrisitanity through Church. You dont become a Christian just by going to Church. I never said that.

And, it isn't true.

That's the point.

You can experience fellowship with some other christians... and you can hear some other people give their ideas on what 'chrsitianity' means.

I don't think you can learn ANYTHING about Christianity through church.

If you can't get it from the book, or from the spirirt... you are unreachable... and if you think the church is the answer, then you are entirely missing the point of Christianity.

And, it isn't true.

That's the point.

You can experience fellowship with some other christians... and you can hear some other people give their ideas on what 'chrsitianity' means.

I don't think you can learn ANYTHING about Christianity through church.

If you can't get it from the book, or from the spirirt... you are unreachable... and if you think the church is the answer, then you are entirely missing the point of Christianity.

If by going to a church and listening to what people talk about there you learn nothing about Christianity, you are either not listening or stupid. I'm not saying Chruch makes you a better Chrisitan. I believe it can be spiritually helpful to Chrisitans but it doesnt make you more of a Christian, nor is church attendence in any way benefical to salvation. Of course you can learn it just as well, if not better through the bible and definitely better by simply trying to listen to the spirit. But Chuch is a place where you can learn about Christianity, non Chrisitans and Christians alike. Think about it, where would you go to learn more about Islam besides the web? A Mosque I would think. And the Qu'ran, if you can read Arabic (I understand they dont allow translations though I may be wrong)

Going to church has everything to do with being a Christian! No, it doesn't make you a Christian, nor does it make you a better Christian. But how can you say that you walk with the Lord when you never spend any time with other Christians? The entire point of church is both fellowship AND learning. What do you think priests and preachers are for? Church is, essentially, school for Christians. Preachers study the Bible and Christianity, they devote their life to understanding it. Thus, they're a hell of a lot smarter than me when it comes to the Bible. I go to church to learn from them, because they know more than me.

My pastor did an entire sermon on why we go to church. Ever heard of the 40 Days of Purpose book? There's an lesson devoted to fellowship and learning from other Christians.
Self-teaching is all well and good, but you can't teach yourself everything. AND you CAN teach yourself the wrong thing. True, so can a preacher, but they're a lot less likely to, since they learned from a bunch of different people AND studied it themselves.

And do you honestly think that I don't think about these things on my own? Do you think I'm just spouting off scripted stuff that my sunday school teacher told me?

And again, you missed the point I was trying to make. You criticize me for misinterpreting atheism. But you misinterpret Christianity! What's the difference? You say you have learning in atheism, well I have a lot of experience as well. No, not as much as you, but I still have a lot of experience. How can you judge my knowledge of Atheism if I can't judge your knowledge of Christianity? I wasn't trying to show that I'm smarter than you, I was trying to show you that I'm AS smart as you. You can't just dismiss me as some foolish Christian who doesn't know what he's talking about, just another pseudo-christian who only believes what he's told to believe.

I am not trying to put myself above you, I am trying to put myself EQUAL to you. I don't want to be smarter than you. I just want to 1) have a good debate and 2) witness for God. Your attitdude in this thread has been nothing but superiority in everything. You criticize the Bible, you criticize my beliefs, and you criticize my knowledge, but when I criticize atheism and your knowledge you repond only with a haughty dismissal. You're smart enough to call the Bible into question, but Atheism is above debate? Where is the sense in that?

I do not mean to pull you down, and I do not mean to insult you. I do not mean to put myself above you. I simply mean to show you that I am just as experienced and capable as you. I am just as able to criticize your beliefs as you are to mine. Our beliefs are equal in validity and faith. I recognize that atheism is reasonable, I don't think that atheists are stupid, misguided people. I know that atheism has its merits. But you have to understand that Christianity does too, and we're no more stupid or misguided than atheists.

If by going to a church and listening to what people talk about there you learn nothing about Christianity, you are either not listening or stupid. I'm not saying Chruch makes you a better Chrisitan. I believe it can be spiritually helpful to Chrisitans but it doesnt make you more of a Christian, nor is church attendence in any way benefical to salvation. Of course you can learn it just as well, if not better through the bible and definitely better by simply trying to listen to the spirit. But Chuch is a place where you can learn about Christianity, non Chrisitans and Christians alike. Think about it, where would you go to learn more about Islam besides the web? A Mosque I would think. And the Qu'ran, if you can read Arabic (I understand they dont allow translations though I may be wrong)

I would read the Koran, and commentaries.

And I would talk to my Moslem friends.

I wouldn't go to a mosque, unless I already felt that I understood WHY I would be there.

I have been in church a number of times, Neo. I listened, as I always do... and I am not stupid. I don't think it has ANYTHING to do with learning about Christianity, I think it was ALL to do, with 'christians' getting together, and listening to one guy saying how HE thought everyone else should be thinking.

If all I want from 'christianity' is someone yelling about 'how it's going to be', well, there are usually drunks around somewhere, if you look hard enough.

I would read the Koran, and commentaries.

And I would talk to my Moslem friends.

I wouldn't go to a mosque, unless I already felt that I understood WHY I would be there.

I have been in church a number of times, Neo. I listened, as I always do... and I am not stupid. I don't think it has ANYTHING to do with learning about Christianity, I think it was ALL to do, with 'christians' getting together, and listening to one guy saying how HE thought everyone else should be thinking.

If all I want from 'christianity' is someone yelling about 'how it's going to be', well, there are usually drunks around somewhere, if you look hard enough.

Depends on what Chruch you go to. A chruch I used to go to had people getting up and talking whenever they wanted, didnt matter who it was. Now there is one person at the front but I dont thing they are "imposing their will" as you seem to believe. They are just explaining the scripture. Someone once told me that the best chruch speekers say very little, and let the scripture speek for itself. Explain it and make its message clear. Now if you dont think that message is right, thats fine. But dont go around insulting those giving out the message and what they do. I would be very interested for you to come to my Church sometime, if your in the UK.

Going to church has everything to do with being a Christian! No, it doesn't make you a Christian, nor does it make you a better Christian. But how can you say that you walk with the Lord when you never spend any time with other Christians? The entire point of church is both fellowship AND learning. What do you think priests and preachers are for? Church is, essentially, school for Christians. Preachers study the Bible and Christianity, they devote their life to understanding it. Thus, they're a hell of a lot smarter than me when it comes to the Bible. I go to church to learn from them, because they know more than me.

My pastor did an entire sermon on why we go to church. Ever heard of the 40 Days of Purpose book? There's an lesson devoted to fellowship and learning from other Christians.
Self-teaching is all well and good, but you can't teach yourself everything. AND you CAN teach yourself the wrong thing. True, so can a preacher, but they're a lot less likely to, since they learned from a bunch of different people AND studied it themselves.

And do you honestly think that I don't think about these things on my own? Do you think I'm just spouting off scripted stuff that my sunday school teacher told me?

And again, you missed the point I was trying to make. You criticize me for misinterpreting atheism. But you misinterpret Christianity! What's the difference? You say you have learning in atheism, well I have a lot of experience as well. No, not as much as you, but I still have a lot of experience. How can you judge my knowledge of Atheism if I can't judge your knowledge of Christianity? I wasn't trying to show that I'm smarter than you, I was trying to show you that I'm AS smart as you. You can't just dismiss me as some foolish Christian who doesn't know what he's talking about, just another pseudo-christian who only believes what he's told to believe.

I am not trying to put myself above you, I am trying to put myself EQUAL to you. I don't want to be smarter than you. I just want to 1) have a good debate and 2) witness for God. Your attitdude in this thread has been nothing but superiority in everything. You criticize the Bible, you criticize my beliefs, and you criticize my knowledge, but when I criticize atheism and your knowledge you repond only with a haughty dismissal. You're smart enough to call the Bible into question, but Atheism is above debate? Where is the sense in that?

I do not mean to pull you down, and I do not mean to insult you. I do not mean to put myself above you. I simply mean to show you that I am just as experienced and capable as you. I am just as able to criticize your beliefs as you are to mine. Our beliefs are equal in validity and faith. I recognize that atheism is reasonable, I don't think that atheists are stupid, misguided people. I know that atheism has its merits. But you have to understand that Christianity does too, and we're no more stupid or misguided than atheists.

To be honest - I think priests and preachers are people doing a job that doesn't need doing. I think they are parasites. I think they have created the modern FORM of church to foster ignorance of the scripture, PURELY to give themselves power, and job security.

Well... you DID ask. (Note: My uncle is a vicar in the Anglican Church... and that does not dissuade me, at all, from that idea).

By the way - I have NEVER claimed to 'have a lot of learning in Atheism'.

I have a lot of learning... I have read a lot of scripture from a lot of different sources, and I have read a lot of other material, too... but I have no 'Atheist' learning, of which I am aware.

I don't consider 'Atheism' to be 'above' debate... quite the opposite, if anything.

The WHOLE POINT of Atheism, is that you are saying "I don't follow your belief structure"... how would anyone even ATTEMPT to prove NON-ACCEPTANCE a false belief? It is the LACK of belief.

I think you are misusing the word criticise... you seem to think it implies something bad.... but, using your version... I haven't criticised your belief, or your knowledge. I have presented to you different interpretations of scripture, and have offered some insight into my reasons... neither of those is any DIRECT comment on what YOU believe, or why.

I don't understand what you mean by 'not being able to judge my knowledge of Christianity'. I was a Christian... years ago... and NOW I am an Atheist.

I haven't 'forgotten' Christianity, I have merely built onto it.

Depends on what Chruch you go to. A chruch I used to go to had people getting up and talking whenever they wanted, didnt matter who it was. Now there is one person at the front but I dont thing they are "imposing their will" as you seem to believe. They are just explaining the scripture. Someone once told me that the best chruch speekers say very little, and let the scripture speek for itself. Explain it and make its message clear. Now if you dont think that message is right, thats fine. But dont go around insulting those giving out the message and what they do. I would be very interested for you to come to my Church sometime, if your in the UK.

I have been asked what I think preachers do.

I think they are self-serving, that is my answer.

I don't NEED someone to tell me how THEY think I should read the bible, or WHAT I should believe.

I don't want someone 'explaining' what the text MEANS.

If you cannot 'understand' the text, a church is NOT the right place for you.

Regarding the last part... I wouldn't rule it out.. I went to churches when I lived in England, and I have been to churches here in the US... and, while I think some are MAGNIFICENT articles of architecture... I also firmly believe that they are an abomination, and those that work there are parasites.

I think that, for all the fine words in Revelation.. if 'Jesus' came here today, he would burn the 'church' from the face of the earth.

Grave, what is the purpose of school? What is the purpose of teachers?

Grave, what is the purpose of school? What is the purpose of teachers?

To help the infantile to learn how to learn?

Once you get to your teens? If you 'need' school, you are wasting your time being there.

To help the infantile to learn how to learn?

Once you get to your teens? If you 'need' school, you are wasting your time being there.


Right. College is overrated...

Right. College is overrated...

It is, if you attend a college that claims to 'teach'.

College isn't about being 'taught', it is about learning for yourself.

To help the infantile to learn how to learn?

Once you get to your teens? If you 'need' school, you are wasting your time being there.
So you're saying that if I can't teach myself trig I'm infantile? You're saying that if I can't teach myself higher literature, I'm infantile? Advanced biology? Advanced history?

Yeah, if I had enough time and money for books I could probably do it, but it's a hell of a lot easier and faster if I go to school.

It is, if you attend a college that claims to 'teach'.

College isn't about being 'taught', it is about learning for yourself.

Then what is the point of having Professors?

So you're saying that if I can't teach myself trig I'm infantile? You're saying that if I can't teach myself higher literature, I'm infantile? Advanced biology? Advanced history?

Yeah, if I had enough time and money for books I could probably do it, but it's a hell of a lot easier and faster if I go to school.

First: 'Easier' isn't necessarily better.

The whole purpose of 'schooling' SHOULD BE to teach the young mind how to discern information for his/her self... do be discriminating over material and sources, to learn to corroborate, and to work out from principles.

Teach THOSE values - and a mind CAN work out math, or science, or theology, or art.

A school should be a repository of text, it should be a place where you can ask questions, it should be a place where you can search for information, and an intellectual 'sandbox' where you can apply the tools of learning.

If, at 16, you are still being 'taught' a subject... you really ARE misusing the resource.

At my college - we didn't have 'teachers', we had 'lecturers'... they would appear at a set time, and they would give a lecture - which was their review of a subject. There was a clear presentation of data, and a discussion of mechanisms. It was taken as read, that you already KNEW HOW to learn, by the time you WENT to college.

Then what is the point of having Professors?

Literally, one would assume - to 'profess'?

They talk, you listen - and then you apply the tools of learning and discernment.

Put it this way... I studied Chemistry, and Business - at University. Those who EXPECTED to be 'taught' business, failed their first year. THAT isn't the purpose. THOSE who relied on 'lessons' to pass Chemistry similarly failed.

Literally, one would assume - to 'profess'?

They talk, you listen - and then you apply the tools of learning and discernment.

Put it this way... I studied Chemistry, and Business - at University. Those who EXPECTED to be 'taught' business, failed their first year. THAT isn't the purpose. THOSE who relied on 'lessons' to pass Chemistry similarly failed.

Dont miss that Church is a place for Christians to go to worship God along with other believers.

Preachers are like teachers, There-fore you say School is pointless. Quakers say they can learn by themselves thats just their ways. People who want to know more about the bible want to know more about God. Worship is just like a class-room. The Preacher teaches those who listen. God wants people to learn about his mercy and that is a method that is used. People who are Quakers like I believe you might be just choose to do it a different way. It is like America without education. We have a privilege to vote. Yet, do we really know the reason of voting if we do not have schools. There for, God works through books, people, and preachers. It is not how we learn his mercy. It is that we know God's mercy.

Dont miss that Church is a place for Christians to go to worship God along with other believers.

I didn't miss that...

But, there is a reason why our language has different terms for the concepts of 'worshipping', and 'learning about'...

DID YOU READ MY REPLY!
or are you too sad because you got pwned!

Curious, isn't it... there are certain subjects that certain of the 'christian' posters just... avoid...
I figured there at least would've been another attempt to cut & paste on Justifidians' part .... to no avail.
*sigh*

Wait im confused. What did I not respond to?
Specifically you did not respond to my final post on the topic regarding Genesis 1:31 and into Gen. 2, regarding Adam and the events that led to the "fall", how they factored into god's "plan" and what arrangement and appreciation they have in the intent of said god. I specified (after you gleaned it was an issue of rehashing events) that it was linear and that if god allowed the apple and the birthing curse scenario in the 6th day (which it does NOT say), at the end of the 6th day god saw upon it all and beamed, saying it was good. And if it weren't good and did happen on the 7th day, that negates your theory that Adam and Eve were ordered to go forth and multiply on the 6th day SINCE SHE DIDN'T EVEN YET EXIST. Still, the following wording qualifies the wrath of an impetuous and unjust god right there in the beginning, supplementing Heikoku's many propositions refined in this thread.
You didn't reply with an answer at all, deciding your stance due the actual wording of the (sic) bible. That's what you didn't respond to.

No, I said exactly what I meant to say. There IS evidence, though it's way above my head. NO theory, however, is proven, which is why they are "theories."

Don't correct me.
You'll do well on this thread with that kind of attitude. :rolleyes:
One might wonder how you handled reading this far ..... *nudge*

DID YOU READ MY REPLY!
or are you too sad because you got pwned!
i don't know about anybody else, but i couldn't understand what the hell you were trying to say. try re-stating your post...it was unintelligible.

I'm not disregarding it, I'm pointing out a fallicy in his argument. I never said it was a particularly good theory, I just said it was a theory. It is, though, a theory. It's not just some whimsical hoo-ha. Scientifically feasible? Maybe. Evidence? Probably. Does he have any idea what he's talking about? Probably not.
Does any of that matter at all? No.

Once again, the argument has gotten completely away from the point. WHO CARES!? The point is, he had no argument. All the other crap is just a distraction. If you have a RELEVANT argument, post it, but stop trying to pretend you're smarter than anyone else.
Reasonabilityness had a good post on this. You might take your own advice as to what matter it makes. It makes enough matter on the impact of your psyche to have warranted a response. And that principle, coupled with the second paragraph in your post lends credibility to the summation that you yourself have a few PEDESTAL (NOTE: You being corrected here) issues that you should resolve if you want to engage in what this thread is at this point - an obviously lively and pointed debate.
You would do even better to consider that there is a wide variety of somewhat quantifiable intellect on this thread and through NS in general (NOTE: SOME HERE MAY ACTUALLY BE SMARTER THAN OTHERS, DEAL WITH IT) Maybe you need to get past your persecution complex to argue rationally, especially given the nature of this thread.

God exists
He is good and loving
Evil exists
Therfore god can't exist

God exists
He is good and loving
Evil exists
Therfore god can't exist
God exists
It is good and love
We exist
There is no such thing as evil

You all need to learn the concept of an analogy.


If you have a RELEVANT argument, post it, but stop trying to pretend you're smarter than anyone else.

Wow. Shimmery :gundge:

You need to learn the concept of hypocrisy.
And further, understand what role your hypocrisy plays in the integrity of your statements in a logical argumentative structure.

Again, wow. I gotta know if you're going on tour .... *bells & whistles*

You are arguing to prove that you're smarter than me. You're not smarter than me, so you can stop now.
Look, all of your arguments here have nothing to do with whether or not God exists. You're just trying to make me look dumb. Fine, I'm dumb, now shut up and let me get on with the real arguments.
The point is he was wrong. Who cares about the nitpicky little details. It doesn't matter how he was wrong, the point is, he was wrong!
This has nothing to do with anything in this thread. Stop trying to make yourself look smart and just shut up. You haven't contributed anything relevant to the argument yet. Be contructive or go away.
Let me repeat myself. Many people here need to learn the concept of an ANALOGY.
Neither of us has any more or less faith in what we believe, so we can both stop acting like we're smarter than the other.
My other point was that the Bible HISTORICALLY ACCURATE!
I know you know what I mean by that, so stop taking it apart like you're smarter than me. You know what I meant.
That is the entire point of the Bible: you sin, but are saved. I can go through specific examples, but again I'm going to assume that we're smarter than that.You know what I meant.
Stop acting like you're the smartest guy on the planet. Playing dumb only makes you look dumb, so you can stop.
This is clearly a METAPHORE. It's a metaphore. It could mean anything. Metaphore.It's a moot point, though, because it could also be a METAPHORE. Because again, that is out of a POEM. POEMS often have literary devices, such as METAPHORES.This is, again, a METAPHORE. You need to go get a good poetry book. Or go back to English class. I recommend both. {Last edited by RhynoD : 28-02-2005 at 8:36 PM.}
I never called you a fool. I said you were acting like one.I know you understand this. I know you're not stupid, I know you're smarter than this. Stop acting like a fool just so you can be right.
-
Quote:Originally Posted by Orson Scott Card, "Ender's Shadow"'I'm not stupid!' In Bean's experience, that was a sentence never uttered except to prove its own inaccuracy.
-
Metaphores:Luke 15 and 16How do I know they're metaphores? Well, for one they're labeled "The Parable of..." Also, the people in the stories are, for the most part, inconsequential. It doesn't matter if they were real or not, it's the story that's the point.
I wasn't trying to show that I'm smarter than you, I was trying to show you that I'm AS smart as you. You can't just dismiss me as some foolish Christian who doesn't know what he's talking about, just another pseudo-christian who only believes what he's told to believe.
I am not trying to put myself above you, I am trying to put myself EQUAL to you. I don't want to be smarter than you. I just want to 1) have a good debate and 2) witness for God.

Note: Highlights of RhynoD quotes from last several pages ...including an edit (28-02-2005 at 8:36 PM).
Point being, what argument are you positing, exactly? Not once in ANY of your posts do you actually deal with the thread topicline or any of Heikoku's points for argument .... just that you appear deathly afraid of someone thinking less of your intellect than you want them to.
?

I have seen God's work, I have felt God in my life, I have heard countless others tell their testimonies. I see truth in the Bible, I see lies and loss elsewhere. I have trusted God many times and been rewarded. And yet you say that this is not #1 faith? There is more than enough evidence to support God. The only reason you don't see it is because you don't want to see it.

That is the ultimate mistake that Atheists make when they evaluate religion, especially Christianity. Christianity has never been about "blind faith." God does not expect you to just trust him in the face of all evidence against him. Until atheists realize that, they will never understand why Christians can be as stubborn as we are. That is also why Atheists think we're closeminded. We're not closeminded, we're just very confident.

Most of your post refutes the first sentence of your post. All you have is emotions that you base your god belief on. You have nothing but blind faith. If there was evidence for god, then it would not require faith, it would be a matter of fact rather then a belief.

BTW, thankyou for telling me what I do and do not want to see. You'll be amazed at how many atheists used to be ministers, preachers and priests. I was a devout believer and wanted desperately for god to be real. Becoming an atheist was probably the most painful experience of my life, but I'd rather live in reality then illusion.

If you don't want to be Christian, fine. Leave us the hell alone. Yeah, we can be annoying, but you need to understand that if we think you're going to go to hell, you should take it as a compliment that we're trying to save you. Respectfully decline the offer, and they should leave you alone.

This is a backlash, because christians won't leave US alone. They insist on shoving their religion in our faces, passing laws that reflect THEIR beliefs and no one else's.

It would be nice if everyone was respectful of everyone else's beliefs or lack there of, but unfortunately you haven't tried to live in a christian country as a non-christian. It is difficult to say the least.

How is a non-christian supposed to feel when they are made to say things in court like "I proise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me god,"? In a courtroom that displays the 10 commandments, to decline to say such a thing can bring a bias against the witness for simply not believing in their god. Several state's constitution says that someone who wants to hold public office MUST profess a belief in god. How is an atheist supposed to run for public office and still be honest? How am I supposed to feel when Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson get on national television and blam 9/11 on atheists and then all the major religious leaders of the country echo similar sentiments? How am I supposed to feel that aside from homsexuals, I am part of the most hated group in America, simply because I don't believe in the supernatural?

What am I supposed to do when my boss in the work place wants to know if I'm a good christian or not (with the implication that a positive answer will advance me while a negative answer will essentially end my stay at that place)? That happened to me in the military. My commander wanted to know if I was a christian and wanted to prothelatise to me. I listened and tried to respectfully decline. My reward was being sent from the commander's direct staff member to being given janitorial duties. How am I supposed to feel about that?

In my town, there is one intersection that has 3 churches out of the 4 corners. At christmas time, there is an endless bleating from everyone around me in the community, in print, on the radio and on television of "the reason for the season" and "seasons greetings is bull crap, it's christmas!" As if the Yule season is for christians only and no one else. As if no other holidays are celebrated at that time of year.

Maybe if christians moved to a country that was strongly of another religion, they might understand what it's like.

In my town, there is one intersection that has 3 churches out of the 4 corners. At christmas time, there is an endless bleating from everyone around me in the community, in print, on the radio and on television of "the reason for the season" and "seasons greetings is bull crap, it's christmas!" As if the Yule season is for christians only and no one else. As if no other holidays are celebrated at that time of year.

Not to mention that it was the date of a Pagan holiday before that and the Church placed the festival there so they could compete with the old Pagan religions...that always gets em annoyed...

There are maps of Middle Earth produced by its author. We have satalite scans of the entire Earth. No where satisfies these conditions.

As for evidence of the flood, the Cambrian Strata is one piece of evidence (though as I am aware, very debateable). Also there is the fact that the account of a massive flood exactly as depectied in the Bible apperes on every continent at around the same time. Hindu traditions, Fa-He of China is represented as fleeing a massive flood in a boat with his wife and his 3 sons and their 3 daughters, the Fiji islanders have a tradion depicting a family of 8 being saved in a boat and simmilar accounts are found in South America with paintings depicting it, and Cherroke Indians have a simmilar account. These are isolated civilisations, all with extremely simmilar accounts.

I have a couple of questions.

1. How could many civilizations have written about the same flood if everyone was killed by it except Noah?

2. Why do all these civilzations report a different number of people surviving the flood?

I have a couple of questions.

1. How could many civilizations have written about the same flood if everyone was killed by it except Noah?

2. Why do all these civilzations report a different number of people surviving the flood?

another question too...

3. Why is it not possible for all these places to have floods at one time or another? Why do they all have to be the same one?

My point is that the primary support for Atheism, BB and evolution, are only theories. All atheistic dogma is just theory, just like all theistic dogma is theory. Yes, I think I'm right. Yes, you think you're right. WE ARE BOTH EQUAL IN OUR FAITH! Neither of us has any more or less faith in what we believe, so we can both stop acting like we're smarter than the other. As much as atheists claim that they don't need faith to believe in things LIKE BB and evolution, the fact is, they do. Get off the damn pedistal and realize that Christians are just as smart as atheists, and Christianity is just as reasonable as Atheism.

Big bang and evolution have NOTHING to do with atheism. You are an atheist to an ancient greecian because you reject the ancient greek gods.

To say that something is "only a theory" demonstrates a gross misues of the word "theory". Theory does not mean "guess". Go take a science class and pay attention when the professor discusses what the word "theory" means.

Atheists do not have faith like theists have faith. There are 3 types of faith and they are not the same. My "faith" is based on sound reason and testable hypothesis. Your faith is more like the "guess" that you attribute to scientific theory. You can only guess that there is a god. There is no direct evidence, so you have nothing better then a guess. It is blind faith. I refuse to practice blind faith, because I refuse to accept a belief without any direct evidence.

Sure, there are christians who are just as smart as atheists. However, generally speaking, the more education one has, the less likely they are to believe in god.

Christianty is not reasonable, since there is no direct evidence for it. Atheism is very reasonable since it is the lack of a position, it is the ultimate "undecided" position. I'm not saying there is no god, I'm simply saying that I have not seen enough evidence to justify a belief in god. Absence of belief is not the same as belief of absence.

My other point was that the Bible HISTORICALLY ACCURATE! I know you know what I mean by that, so stop taking it apart like you're smarter than me. You know what I meant.

If the bible is historically accurate, then why is there no record of Egypt ever having hebrew slaves? Why is there no record of Nazareth existing at the time Jesus lived? Why is there no evidence of a world wide flood 4,500 years ago as the bible describes?

Christianty is not reasonable, since there is no direct evidence for it. Atheism is very reasonable since it is the lack of a position, it is the ultimate "undecided" position. I'm not saying there is no god, I'm simply saying that I have not seen enough evidence to justify a belief in god. Absence of belief is not the same as belief of absence.

Wouldn't you say that would be Agnosticism and not Atheism? As Athesim is the belief of absence surely...

Plagues of Egypt? Happened. And a bunch historians think they know how (volcano errupted nearby. I won't go into detail).

Then we're just supposed to take your word for it. There are no Egyptian records of the 10 plagues. Also, if these plagues were miracles from god, then what's with the mysterious "volcano" explaination? If it was a volcano, then how is it a miracle from god?

Now, Grave, Rhyno is right is stating that evolution, the Big Bang, etc. are all theories. You are wrong in stating that the existing evidence supports them. Evolution was proposed over 150 years ago. If the evidence supported it, then it would be a scientific law right now.

Quantum theory is THE most well tested theory in science today, even more so then the theory of gravity. It has more evidence and is accepted by the scientific community as THE strongest scientific theory today. Yet, it is a theory, or as you would say "only a theory". Go take a science class and pay attention when the professor speaks.

What he said.

Oh, and lack of belief in god or gods is agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism is a deliberate belief in a lack of god or gods. There is a difference.

Athieism: belief in lack
Agnosticism: lack of belief

Not so. Agnosticism addresses knowledge, atheism addresses belief.

A: Greek prefix meaning without.
Theos: Greek word meaning supernatural belief.

Thus, Atheos is a lack of supernatural belief.

A: Greek prefix meaning without.
Gnosis: Greek word meaning knowledge of the supernatural.

Thus, Agnosis means to be without a knowledge of the supernatural.

The two terms are not mutually exclusive and greatly misunderstood by what those at the pulpit have told everyone. Much like Satan worshippers sacraficing babies, the common use of the word "atheist" is a corruption brought on through christian propoganda.

Absence of belief is not the same as belief of absence.

Seriously. Ever think that maybe North, South, East, and West might be the four corners? They're obviously not a place, but a concept. Four angels stopping the wind from blowing from the four corners. Insert a direction...An angel stopping wind from blowing from the North. Well...makes sense to me.

Note, that's just an educated guess. It might not mean that, it might. Either way, it certainly doesn't mean that the earth is square.

Funny, because that's EXACTLY what the church believed and threatened to kill Gallileo over.

Then we're just supposed to take your word for it. There are no Egyptian records of the 10 plagues. Also, if these plagues were miracles from god, then what's with the mysterious "volcano" explaination? If it was a volcano, then how is it a miracle from god?

Maybe God caused the volcano which in turn caused the plauges. The volcano explination also sorts out the pillars of fire and cloud (I think, am not fully explained on this one) I think the volcano explaination goes that it sprayed some chemical into the clouds which then rained into the nile, causing all the fish to die which is what made the river run with blood, which in turn forced all the insects and frogs out of the river, biting animals and then humans. At least I think thats part of it, I'm not sure. RhynoD, any info?

Anything is open to interpretation. How you interpret it is another matter.

I could say something like, "Atheists are all dumbasses" (mind you, I'm only using this as an example. I do not believe that all atheists are dumbasses, I don't want you to think I mean all atheists are dumbasses, I don't mean this as a flame, it is simply an analogy. Don't get into an argument with me about whether or not atheists are dumbasses, because I don't think that they are and this is nothing more than a literary device meant to prove a point, and the point is not that atheists are dumbasses)..."Atheists are dumbasses" could be interpreted as a compliment, but that interpretation would almost certainly be wrong.
OK, interpret this, "Christians are dilluded and arrogant."

It's really not difficult.

"Jesus wept"
Probably literal. Someone close to Jesus died, so he cried.

(paraphrased) "Irael is a whore"
Probably a metaphore. The entire nation of Israel is not all prostitutes.

Some parts are literal. Some parts are metaphores. This isn't a hard concept. Do you speak exclusively with one or the other? I certainly don't. Why should God be limited to one or the other?

There are also many symbols in the Bible. Literal events that also act as metaphores. Like Jesus' death. He literally died. It's also a metaphore, refering to his spiritual death and decent to hell.

There are also many exaggerations in the Bible. Like, "cut off your hand if it causes you to sin." No, you shouldn't literally cut off your hand, but it is an exaggeration to prove a point: that you must be serious in your effort to stop sin.

The New Testament is filled with parables. There was probably no real lost son. A boy didn't literally do all those things. It's possible there was, but perhaps not exactly like the story. Does it matter? No, not really. It is an analogy. It doesn't matter whether it's real or not, so long as the point gets across. Just like the circle-earth. In that verse, it doesn't matter whether the earth is a circle or a sphere or a cube or a square or a triangular prism, the point is God is ruling over it. You can figure out what shape the earth is on your own. God isn't trying to tell you the shape of the earth, he's just trying to say he's ruling over it.

Interesting. Some of the bits that you are claiming are metaphor, others claim are literal. How does one decide which it is?

If Christianity is open to interpretation, Atheism certainly is.
How is atheism open to interpretation? Atheism is a lack of a position, so how can there be an interpretation on something that's not there? :confused:

AND since I'm posting like hell at the moment:

While you clearly know what I meant when I said historically accurate, I'll take it one step further...

I happen to believe in God, which means I happen to believe that the all the supernatural stuff mentioned the Bible actually happened. That would leave the Bible completely historically accurate, INCLUDING the supernatural. And there is a distinct possibility that God does exist, and that he is the God described in the Bible. Which means I'm not just believing in fairy-tales.

BUT, as I said before, if you choose not to believe that those things happened, the Bible is still historically accurate.
Then you believe that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and the average life span before the flood was 700 years?

Just goin' with momentum here:

Metaphores:
Luke 15 and 16
How do I know they're metaphores? Well, for one they're labeled "The Parable of..." Also, the people in the stories are, for the most part, inconsequential. It doesn't matter if they were real or not, it's the story that's the point

Literal:
Noah's story (Genesis 5-9)
How do I know it's literal? Well, it goes into painfully detailed descriptions of how big the arc was and how long it rained and how many animals he was supposed to have...
Last time I checked, "My love for you burns like the 3000 degree corona of the sun, caused by the fusion of hydrogen molecules within the sun's core" is just bad poetry, so I'm going out on a limb and saying that Noah's story is probably literal.

You believe that Noah built a boat that was 900'x150'x90' and filled it with EVERY animal on earth, 7 pairs of clean and 2 pairs of unclean? You run out of room before you get the elephants on board, not to mention the rhinos, giraffes, hippos and EVERY other animal on the planet.

Very nicely stated. God does not want us to go to hell. Inb fact, He has tried in every way possible to reach out to us. It is just up to us to take that hand that he is offering and recieve his free gift of heaven through his son, Jesus. God does not send people to hell,, but rather they chose that destination for themselves by not accepting Jesus.

God is "all powerful", right? Then if god doesn't want us to go to hell, then why does hell exist at all? Why can't he set up the universe so that hell is not necessary. If he cannot do so, then he is not all powerful. If he can, but does not, then he is evil.

Further, god has not reached out in all ways possible, if he has, then there would only be ONE religion and EVERYONE on earth would belong to it, because god's existence would be a matter of fact rather then a matter of faith.

By the way, Rhyno is quite right in this sense of metaphors, etc., being extremely prevalent throughout the Bible. However, the greater issue comes when people take scripture's out of context, alone, without understanding how they fit within the chapter/book they were contained in. You must first read through the entire section, before you can quote one sentence from the Bible and pretend to know what it means. Assuming, of course, it doesn't say "Jesus wept," or "the apostles slept."
Tell that to the 85,000 different sects of judeo-christians. They all have different interpretations of the same book.

I know you understand the analogies I'm making. I know you understand what we are trying to say. I know that you understand the concept of a metaphore. Yet you continue to act like you don't understand any of these things.

Maybe he does understand them and you don't understand his position. Keep in mind that most atheists (Grave and myself included) used to be theists, so we already understand arguments you are giving as they were once ours. However, you have never been an atheist, so you are not likely to fully understand our arguments.

To help the infantile to learn how to learn?

Once you get to your teens? If you 'need' school, you are wasting your time being there.
The mantra I have taken up in college is "school is no place to learn." I am in college specifically because I need a piece of paper to get my foot in the door.

The mantra I have taken up in college is "school is no place to learn." I am in college specifically because I need a piece of paper to get my foot in the door.

:confused: Are you going to use the paper to distract the guard while you slip your foot in? :confused:

Wouldn't you say that would be Agnosticism and not Atheism? As Athesim is the belief of absence surely...
Atheism is not a belief in absence, it is an absence of belief. The first is in itself a belief system, but atheism is the LACK of a supernatural belief system.

Maybe God caused the volcano which in turn caused the plauges. The volcano explination also sorts out the pillars of fire and cloud (I think, am not fully explained on this one) I think the volcano explaination goes that it sprayed some chemical into the clouds which then rained into the nile, causing all the fish to die which is what made the river run with blood, which in turn forced all the insects and frogs out of the river, biting animals and then humans. At least I think thats part of it, I'm not sure. RhynoD, any info?
And where are the Egyptian records of these 10 plagues that all took place at seperate times? What you described are plagues that took place all at once. Also, how did all the Egyptian cattle die, yet the Hebrew cattle didn't?

Finally, what volcano did this?

:confused: Are you going to use the paper to distract the guard while you slip your foot in? :confused:
Yup nudie pic's

Atheism is not a belief in absence, it is an absence of belief. The first is in itself a belief system, but atheism is the LACK of a supernatural belief system.
There is no such thing as an absence of belief. Knowledge of a thing requires at least one base belief: its existence, true or false. That you've chosen to not believe, that's fine. But beliefs about a thing are never absent.

There is no such thing as an absence of belief. Knowledge of a thing requires at least one base belief: its existence, true or false.
Maybe he should have been more specific … I have a feeling he did not mean lack of belief in general … rather lack of belief in a deity

Maybe he should have been more specific … I have a feeling he did not mean lack of belief in general … rather lack of belief in a deity
Yup; but saying what you mean and meaning what you say are two different things. ;-) And both are important to successful communication.

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.


I really would suggest that you need to check your grammar first before you hit the submit button DÚH! :sniper:

Yup; but saying what you mean and meaning what you say are two different things. ;-) And both are important to successful communication.
I understand and I pick on word choice as well you know that (I mean how can people communicate unless they paint an accurate picture of what they are trying to represent)

I really would suggest that you need to check your grammar first before you hit the submit button DÚH! :sniper:
That’s the best you could do with thousands of posts to respond to? Seriously (it was not all that bad by crappy NS poster standards lol).

There is no such thing as an absence of belief. Knowledge of a thing requires at least one base belief: its existence, true or false. That you've chosen to not believe, that's fine. But beliefs about a thing are never absent.
I don't buy that for a second. Why can't I have a lack of a belief, because you said so? I neither accept nor deny the existence of god, there's not enough evidence either way. Thus, I have no theological belief.

Yup; but saying what you mean and meaning what you say are two different things. ;-) And both are important to successful communication.
That is exactly what I've said, and I've said it MANY times on this forum. I'm not going to dig them all up because you want to be nitpicky about some stupid semantical point. Get a life.

The mantra I have taken up in college is "school is no place to learn." I am in college specifically because I need a piece of paper to get my foot in the door.

Exactly... the system requires a piece of paper, so you have to get one... but anyone who goes to college EXPECTING to be taught something, is missing the point... and will, most likely, fail.

You go to a college because it is a place where you can become 'qualified'... and that means, you can acheive the requirements of qualification... i.e. pass some tests, score an attendence... that kind of thing.

I doubt anyone really relies on the college for their education... it's just 'where they go' while they become more educated.

There is no such thing as an absence of belief. Knowledge of a thing requires at least one base belief: its existence, true or false. That you've chosen to not believe, that's fine. But beliefs about a thing are never absent.

Not true.

Do you believe in Purple Squirrels? You might do NOW that I have said it... but just before you read it, there was not even the concept of purple squirrels anywhere in your head (probably).

Thus - just before you read it, you didn't 'believe' in Purple Squirrels.

Now that you have become acquainted with the concept of 'purple squirrels', you might think they are a cool idea, but consider that there is NO evidence for you to change your world view, to accomodate them. Thus, you STILL don't believe in Purple Squirrels.

You didn't CHOOSE not to believe... you just didn't see any reason why you should.

Well, to me - 'gods' are like Purple Squirrels. People may talk about them.. and OTHER people may believe in them... but I have never seen one, and see no reason why they should take up any of my time. I don't have any 'belief' that gods exist.

I don't necessarily believe they DON'T exist... I just don't accept that they DO.

Maybe God caused the volcano which in turn caused the plauges. The volcano explination also sorts out the pillars of fire and cloud (I think, am not fully explained on this one) I think the volcano explaination goes that it sprayed some chemical into the clouds which then rained into the nile, causing all the fish to die which is what made the river run with blood, which in turn forced all the insects and frogs out of the river, biting animals and then humans. At least I think thats part of it, I'm not sure. RhynoD, any info?
Neo, i respect your staying power regarding this thread, as evidenced by how few times i interjected my presence in your conversation lines.
On this instance, however, i would implore you to consider your dignity and the integrity of your argument .... is asking RhynoD for backup on FACTS really such a good idea?

do Heikoku even come here anyome

Neo, i respect your staying power regarding this thread, as evidenced by how few times i interjected my presence in your conversation lines.
On this instance, however, i would implore you to consider your dignity and the integrity of your argument .... is asking RhynoD for backup on FACTS really such a good idea?

Well, when you are trying to prove the insupportable, I guess you have to try to get help wherever you can find it.

Even RhynoD.

Well, when you are trying to prove the insupportable, I guess you have to try to get help wherever you can find it.

Even RhynoD.
I'm thinking along the lines that RhynoD's argument "style" would be more hinderance than help here. At least Neo's feelings don't appear to get hurt when or if there's an assumption of a difference in intellectual capability (at least none that really stood out to me - one of the only objections has been regarding dubiousness on Neo's integrity as a "christian"). RhynoD is LIKE (note: METAPHOR {har! I KILL ME!}) the inevitable consequence of a full meal.
Note again: respects to "ALF"

I study the very foundations of reality itself.
We can only study MODELS of reality. That's all we have. Don't kid yourself.

do Heikoku even come here anyome
I think Heikoku alluded a few times MUCH earlier on that this argument isn't likely to end. I paraphrase, of course .... it would seem though that this little energizer bunny is enough for Heikoku to have performed "zim-zum".
Maybe Heikoku will wrap it up or start another thread that makes fun of this one.