NationStates Jolt Archive

Where did he kill somebody? Sounds like conversions to me.

He was referring to a time when God supposedly struck a man and woman dead because they had stolen (or something similar) from the church.

Furthermore, does anyone who is a Christian not like Paul? I myself am not a Christian, but read the Bible and am not impressed by him. He seems sexist, racist, and bigoted as well as easy to anger and divisive.

sorry i ment chapter 12

you mean after the muslim radicals attack aka osama and saddam
I'm sorry, did you just use "attack" and "saddam" in the same sentence? Wow, you just lost some respect.

i do not wish to have respect from you or anyone

i listen to my greatgrandfather becuz he is a paster
Sorry, I'm nitpicking again, but I'll assume your great-grandfather was a pastor, as opposed to "one who uses paste".

12:20 And Herod was highly displeased with them of Tyre and Sidon: but they came with one accord to him, and, having made Blastus the king's chamberlain their friend, desired peace; because their country was nourished by the king's country.
12:21 And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them.
12:22 And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man.
12:23 And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.
12:24 But the word of God grew and multiplied.
12:25 And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.

Wasn't the Lord there. Sounds like the "angel" did it. Could be anybody now. I'm talking about the LORD sending a plague, or raining fire, or smiting somebody himself. He didn't in this case, it was his "angel" which is not the same thing.

Edit: What I mean by anybody doing the smiting was, it has been said that an angel could be a man doing the work of God, and so by saying an angel is doing the smiting, it could mean it was some believer stabbing the king in the back.

Edit #2: Not that it actually matters, that's purely metaphysical. He is a two-tongued serpent, seducing with "Do unto others" out one side his mouth, while having his servants smite unbelievers out the other.

Sorry, I'm nitpicking again, but I'll assume your great-grandfather was a pastor, as opposed to "one who uses paste".

:D Just gets better and better.

people think that other reglions are better then other but only remember that there is ONLY ONE GOD!!!!!!

Unless you're a pagan

Unless you're a Christian- God, AND Jesus

He was referring to a time when God supposedly struck a man and woman dead because they had stolen (or something similar) from the church.

Furthermore, does anyone who is a Christian not like Paul? I myself am not a Christian, but read the Bible and am not impressed by him. He seems sexist, racist, and bigoted as well as easy to anger and divisive.
Paul was a late convert to Christianity and had been a zealous persecuter of Christians prior to his conversion. To understand Paul, you have to understand the patriarchal nature of the Hebrew society of the time. In my eyes, it resembled the more extreme forms of some Islamic cultures, such as Afghanistan under the Taliban.

I'm no great fan of Paul's either, but there are some things in his writings which make considerable sense. The trick, as with most things in the Bible, is to determine what is and is not central to the basics of Christian faith. Do not allow others to tell you that you have to either accept the entire Bible as Truth, or reject the entire Bible. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, picks and chooses what they want to believe/accept as vaild.

Unless you're a Christian- God, AND Jesus


If you believe that Satan is an active enemy of or rebel against God (not like Job where he is an angel controlled by God) wouldn't this mean you accept him as a god as well?

I'm no great fan of Paul's either, but there are some things in his writings which make considerable sense. The trick, as with most things in the Bible, is to determine what is and is not central to the basics of Christian faith. Do not allow others to tell you that you have to either accept the entire Bible as Truth, or reject the entire Bible. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, picks and chooses what they want to believe/accept as vaild.

Thanks a lot. i'll have to look over it again with this in mind.

I don't see what the problem is with this proof shit. I mean, I'm a wiccan. I belive in the Threefold Law very deeply.

I'm a good studant, with an A in physics. I belive in the Law of Conservation of Energy

What's the problem? I know for a fact that if I put 1J of heat into an atom, 3J will not come out. If a 5g marble going 2m/s hits another marble going 2 m/s the other way, they don't each bounce off with a speed of 6 m/s. yet I belive that if I cast one hex, three times as bad stuff will happen to me. There's no problem there for me. One is science, the other religion, and I don't care if they conflict. One I know is true, the other I belive is true. I don't have to justify that to anyone.

THANK YOU!!! This is exactly what I get almost every time I tell someone of a Christian background that I am Pagan. I'm labeled a satanist or a heathen.

Try having to tell a Christian that you are a satanist.. They automatically asume that you believe in their god, and worship their devil.. :mp5: Funny, because in reality I believe in neither.. No good, evil, God, or Devil.. "Do what thou will, there is no god above man" :cool: pretty much sums it up. The thing about christianity that makes me laugh out loud though, is that their "devil" is the Roman god of light, air, and enlightenment. hehe :D

p.s.

Ffc2, I am still waiting for your rebuttal of the proof I supplied that this nation was not founded on Christianity. ;)

Try having to tell a Christian that you are a satanist.. They automatically asume that you believe in their god, and worship their devil.. :mp5: Funny, because in reality I believe in neither.. No good, evil, God, or Devil.. "Do what thou will, there is no god above man" :cool: pretty much sums it up. The thing about christianity that makes me laugh out loud though, is that their "devil" is the Roman god of light, air, and enlightenment. hehe :D

p.s.

Ffc2, I am still waiting for your rebuttal of the proof I supplied that this nation was not founded on Christianity. ;)


Try having your own beloved father tell you "You're not doing any spells in this house, it's unhealthy!"

Then justify it by saying that he's not anti-Wicca, he just "knows that you get upset and tend to get confused and this would be a tool you could use to bring about harm to yourself or others"

i know i need to be more tolerent of people bashing me but what about schools you cant read your bible you cant were a crucifix or youll get in trouble THATS NOT FAIR do you think its persicution in schools?
Where do you live? France? I agree that their policies are almost anti-religious, but mainly directed against Muslims.

ok who is sick of the people who call us as Christian crazy or insane cause we have a faith is ressurection when they dont think other religions are. post your ops
It's OK, I think all religions are crazy. ;)

j/k I am an atheist, but I am entirely tolerant of religious people and for the most part they are not crazy.

i think it was george washington that said "A country is blind without the Bible"
The US founding fathers are so misquoted these days it's not even funny.

ok let me revise what i said. The constitution clearly states freedom of religion correct? So who wrote that one of the first presidents so yes freedom of religion.
That also extends to non-Christian religions.

Well, first of all, I do not subscribe to any religious belief, and while I may respect people, I do not necessarily respect the views.

So consider my opinions on the matter to be a general lack of concern for views, but I am not intending any personal attacks.

When I think about religion, consider this.

What do you think of when you hear of someone, like David Koresh for example, claiming to be a profit or the son of god?

What would you think if your neighbor walked out of his house one day, wearing some strange looking robes and flip flops and started walking down the street claiming that god talked to him and told him that everyone who did not believe as he does is a sinner and is evil?

What would you think if somone claimed to have walked on water and turned water into wine? (Some may ask if they can turn vitamins into amphetamines or sugar into cocaine (to reference a king missile song), but I digress..)

What would you think if somone claimed to have had a vision of a 6 armed blue being who would randomly materialize before you? Or a giant that stands upon a cloud and likes to throw lightening bolts on the ground?

Or playing w/ leaves herbs and sticks and potions, needles, and chants and claiming that you're cursing somone or requesting rain and then claiming that you caused the weather to change.

When you consider the absurd claims of religious doctrines, one is as absurd and idiotic as the next...

I prefer empiricism.

The thing about christianity that makes me laugh out loud though, is that their "devil" is the Roman god of light, air, and enlightenment. hehe :D
The thing about christianity that makes me laught is that they say everything about there religion is totally made up from there own minds with the exception that they were all jews. I more so mean the holidays and certain traditions. I get into arguements all the time about christmas and yule, most of them just totally dismiss the fact that they "stole" yule.

Try having your own beloved father tell you "You're not doing any spells in this house, it's unhealthy!"

Then justify it by saying that he's not anti-Wicca, he just "knows that you get upset and tend to get confused and this would be a tool you could use to bring about harm to yourself or others"

I'm so sorry. I know how it feels to not be accepted by your parents because of your spirituality. My parents don't ban it but they don't support it either. My "dad" thinks it's a phase. Seeing that I was 16 when I first decided to leave the Church and take up paganism and I'm now 22, I think it's a rather long phase.

You should explain one of the most fundemental "rules" of Wicca "Do what you will, harm none". ::hugs::

Another brilliant thread by Biblical Scholars.

You folds never fail to impress.

Or not.

Blah i don't understand god. If he exists why doesn't he make himself known? Why doesn't he let people know what the truth is? To me, if he exists, hes like this: Picture two parents who have children. The two paretns have a rather large library and tell their children to find the book that contains the truth. The children being totally ignorant of what the truth may be, pick a book at random. The parents return praise the child that choose the right book, and burned the remaining children to death because their choose wrong. TO me this is what "god" is. A jealous, evil, spiteful being, who will punish you if you dont worship him well enough.

Blah i don't understand god. If he exists why doesn't he make himself known? Why doesn't he let people know what the truth is? To me, if he exists, hes like this: Picture two parents who have children. The two paretns have a rather large library and tell their children to find the book that contains the truth. The children being totally ignorant of what the truth may be, pick a book at random. The parents return praise the child that choose the right book, and burned the remaining children to death because their choose wrong. TO me this is what "god" is. A jealous, evil, spiteful being, who will punish you if you dont worship him well enough.

Actually, you got the parent analogy right. But it should be pretty obvious which Book to use. The only thing people get tripped up on - is when they read the (Bible), don't like it, and go look for another book, simply because they don't like the fact that something they enjoy might be wrong or sinful.

Plus, God is right there beside you, and He wants to help you:

> Find the book
> read the book
> understand the book
> apply it to your life
> bless your finances
> increase your standing with your fellow man
> show other people the book
> help them read the book
> help them understand the book
> help them apply it to their life

not necessarily in that order.

I would like to just tell Betulguese something (Betelgeuse?).
We (or at least I) am not attacking you. We are having what is called a "debate", although some are more low-brow than others. I have seen deadly logical fallacies on both sides, and at least half-way decent points made on both sides. When I respond to you, and I think when others do as well, it is not to put you down or to put our fingers in our ears. It is to correct your misunderstandings about science and what science says.
You do not seem to be using the scientific method at this point, but if you with to become a scientist that is noble, despite the reasons behind it (i.e. killing science). However, you must know that to find truth you must not start out with something set in your mind. If you decide, right now, that it is scientific truth that Creation happened 6100 years ago, and then proceed to do scientific studies on that issue, you will (purposely in your case, inadvertantly in others) dismiss the evidence against you and proclaim the proof of your already solidified beliefs. Science is not like the Bible: it cannot be interpreted at will to provide any answer you wish and still "hold true". Science is made to be impartial, although we as humans cannot completely fulfill this goal. True scientists admit it when they're wrong, and seek to better themselves through discussion, debate, and experimentation.
In short, when I show that your statements of science are wrong, I am not trying to get you to shut up. I'm trying to give you accurate information about what science says. I <3 analogies, so here goes:
If I were to say that I don't like Christianity because it tells me to eat babies five time a week, you'd have a problem with that, right? Because Christianity doesn't say anything of the sort! You may or may not have a problem with my view of Christianity, but you would be offended that I was basing my decision of something that was false. The same goes with what you say as evidence using science: you claim that science comes to a certain conclusion, or, worse, that you can make it come to a certain conclusion. I don't have any problem with your believe in God and in Jesus, and I think that such beliefs can often have very positive effects on the morality of people. That is sometimes not the case, but I believe it to be the goal. However, I do very much have a problem with your claims regarding science that lead you to that conclusion. If you must obscure facts to retain your faith, your faith is not strong. If you must invent reasons to prove your faith, your faith is not strong. A strong faith does not require reasons. You believe because you do, and because you feel, to your very core, that it is the truth. Trying to buttress this claim with faulty evidence is not only an insult to our collective intelligence, but also to your faith.
Religion cannot be proven or disproven, at its core. "You can't disprove it, so it must be so" is an example of the logical fallacy of "argument from ignorance". Same thing with "you can't prove it so it can't be true". Neither argument is sound. "If there were a God He would want us to know of Him and so would reveal himself" is also not a good argument. You cannot know the will of God, if He does in fact exist. And, to Christians, He has revealed himself, through the prophets and the Bible. Again, no valid arguments can be made. The only arguments for a God follow the line of an inductive explanation: basically, here's a phenomenon to be explained, it would be explained quite nicely if this this and this were true, so probably these things are true. Like the "watchmaker". However, there are many false arguments that can take that form.
The only arguments against a God are either sadly lacking in any substance or are else based upon contradictions in the Bible. One funny example on this is that somewhere in the Bible it describes how the Sun is 50 times as bright as on Earth in Heaven (or something like that, I'm working off of memory here). Crunch the numbers, and you can come up with a temperature for Heaven. It also describes Hell has having rivers of brimstone, and we know the temperature at which brimstone evaporates, and thus cannot be a "river". Turns out, using physics, Heaven is hotter than Hell is. This proves nothing, however. It may be amusing to poke fun at the Bible, but it is inherently impossible to disprove a being who could plant the evidence you use at will.
In short, you can't prove God, you can't disprove God. You can only believe, not, or not be sure. Personally, I'm not sure. I look to science for my answers, because if there is a God, science sure as hell describes His Creation very well, and if there isn't, it's the only explanation out there for how things came to be and how things work.
Thank you for lending me your time.


wow... all the effort I put into that, and nothing?

What about the Koran? Or any other religious book? Why aren't they "the right one?" Why is the Bible the only right choice?


Why?

Actually, you got the parent analogy right. But it should be pretty obvious which Book to use. The only thing people get tripped up on - is when they read the (Bible), don't like it, and go look for another book, simply because they don't like the fact that something they enjoy might be wrong or sinful.

Plus, God is right there beside you, and He wants to help you:

> Find the book
> read the book
> understand the book
> apply it to your life
> bless your finances
> increase your standing with your fellow man
> show other people the book
> help them read the book
> help them understand the book
> help them apply it to their life

not necessarily in that order.

And which book would that be? Too many different beliefs, hence the children not knowing which book is the correct book.

Ah, don't you just love it when you have to explain metaphors to people who don't get them?

Maybe if I could try and prove the authenticity of the Bible, it would make this argument much easier. I mean, that is what the argument was originally about, right?

To start with, the Bible has stronger manuscript support than any other writing in history, even Plato, Homer, Aristotle, Caesar, and Tacitus. Just as astounding is that the Bible has been almost completely unaltered since the original writing, according to scholars who have compared modern writings with the original. Also, the reliability of the Bible is supported by the reliability of its writers, who were eyewitnesses, or close associates of eyewitnesses, to the recorded events. Coupled with secular historians who attest to the places, people, customs, and events mentioned in Scripture.
Also, archeology is a powerful testimony to the chronicles of the Bible, especially the New Testament books. Repeatedly, archeological fieldwork and findings, combined with careful Biblical interpretation, affirm the accuracy of the Bible. For example, recent archeological finds have supported Biblical details surrounding the trial that led to the torment and death of Jesus at the hands of Pontius Pilate.
In addition, the Bible records predictions of things that could not have been possibly known at the time. The book of Daniel, for example, which was written before 530 BC, accurately predicts the progression of kingdoms from Babylon, to the Medo-Persian Empite, to the Greek Empire, and finally the Roman Empire. Adding a prediction of the persecution and suffering of the JEws under Antiochus IV Epiphanes with the desecration of the temple, his untimely death, and freedom fro the Jews under Judas Maccabeus (all the way in 165 BC). The statistical odds of all, or even any, of the Bibles specifically detailed prophecies could have been fulfilled through chance or a good guess.

Oh yes, I'm back again, by the by.

wow... all the effort I put into that, and nothing?

Sorry, I missed what you said.

My faith is not based off of facts, but my debates are, because that is our current playing field.

Betulguese, what I was trying to tell you was that the scientific evidence you were using... the "facts" that you are using for this debate... are not facts at all, and are in fact made up by people who were insecure in their faith and had to come up with something to try to legitimize it with others.

My mind interprets things, what I did is I took the facts off of the books that I read which are sacreligious, and plugged their gaping holes into scripture. Very few pieces of information I used were actually from Christian books. Those little fun fact creationist textbooks I despise. I want the facts that fit both sides. That is why I read science.

To start with, the Bible has stronger manuscript support than any other writing in history, even Plato, Homer, Aristotle, Caesar, and Tacitus. Just as astounding is that the Bible has been almost completely unaltered since the original writing, according to scholars who have compared modern writings with the original. Also, the reliability of the Bible is supported by the reliability of its writers, who were eyewitnesses, or close associates of eyewitnesses, to the recorded events. Coupled with secular historians who attest to the places, people, customs, and events mentioned in Scripture.


Actually, that the Bible has been Completely unaltered since the original writing, is completely and utterly false. First, you phrase this as if the bible is a monolithic text, penned by a single hand. In FACT, most individual sections of book were not only written by multiple people, but edited at different times and places. Whole sections were removed. Phrasing was changed multiple times. the books had been translated and retranslated into different languages and thus creating multitudes of conflicting messages and inconsistencies, both stylistically as well as qualitatively in message.

Now would be a good time to actually do a little archaelogical research and study a bit more critically.

Actually, that the Bible has been Completely unaltered since the original writing, is completely and utterly false. First, you phrase this as if the bible is a monolithic text, penned by a single hand. In FACT, most individual sections of book were not only written by multiple people, but edited at different times and places. Whole sections were removed. Phrasing was changed multiple times. the books had been translated and retranslated into different languages and thus creating multitudes of conflicting messages and inconsistencies, both stylistically as well as qualitatively in message.

Now would be a good time to actually do a little archaelogical research and study a bit more critically.

Someone's finally back. Anywho, comparisons 'twixt the anciend Dead Sea Scrolls and the modern Old Testament show that they are very alike, with only translation errors to signify the smallest of differences, there is your whole 'translation problem.' And I never said that one man wrote the whole Bible, nor did I claim that every book was written by just one person. However, all of the Bible is God-inspired, and the parts that were omitted from today's Bible were parts that came from unreliable writers or those who weren't even associated with witnesses. Not to mention those who falsely accredited their writings to someone else. The message of the Bible, both in detail and in overall theme, remains quite the same as the original manuscripts. The editing done to the Bible was, of course, the before-mentioned omitting of falsely accredited books and books written by those not close to the actual events.

But that is just a piece of the overwhelming argument that supports the Bible, read my earlier post.

Actually, that the Bible has been Completely unaltered since the original writing, is completely and utterly false. First, you phrase this as if the bible is a monolithic text, penned by a single hand. In FACT, most individual sections of book were not only written by multiple people, but edited at different times and places. Whole sections were removed. Phrasing was changed multiple times. the books had been translated and retranslated into different languages and thus creating multitudes of conflicting messages and inconsistencies, both stylistically as well as qualitatively in message.

Now would be a good time to actually do a little archaelogical research and study a bit more critically.

Your statement makes a lot of assumptions. "Edited at different times and places." "Whole sections removed." "Phrasing changed." All of those statements imply that you were present at the occurrence of each of these so-called discrepancies. (We both know you weren't.)

I agree with you about the translations, and the multiple authors - the Bible gives a clear message that some portions have multiple authors, even if they are not identified specifically.

I think, however, concerning the translations (into English etc.): The meanings which might be lost or changed in a translation are miniscule. No one here seems to want to debate the difference between one word or another: Most just wholesale say the text is entirely wrong. Which I find highly illogical.

That's pretty much kinda EXACTLY what I just said!

That's pretty much kinda EXACTLY what I just said!

Yeah, I know, I spent a long time making up that post... then when I came out I saw you had already posted. Kewl.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ffc2
im home schooled



You don't say!


First off, don't bash those who are homeschooled. I was homeschooled. Some of us do know how to spell. I was homeschooled up until halfway through my senior year in high school. I was the valedictorian of the public school that I graduated from (of 300 graduating seniors). I received several scholarships for my grades. I scored very high on the SAT and ACT tests. So, it is not fair to bash homeschoolers. If you have a beef with Ffc2, take it up with him and not the whole homeschool community.

Secondly, Ffc2, way to give homeschooling and Christianity a bad name, man! Try typing somewhere where you can do a spellcheck and then cut and paste it to the forums because you are REALLY bad at spelling and punctuation! Also, know your faith well enough to defend yourself without posting a lame thread like this one. Wearing a crucifix is not banned from any school in the US that allows jewelry (as there are some schools that don't allow jewelry). I only know of one school that doesn't allow bibles in school. I believe it is in Georgia but I am not certain. All I can say is DO YOUR RESEARCH before you speak up.
:rolleyes: :headbang:

I was homeschooled once... it was in 3rd grade, didn't learn jack squat, but 4th grade was just as easy. Then I skipped 5th, 6th was a boatload of homework, and then 7th was the worst experience of my life, but was still easy, 8th was tough, and 9th is very stressful.

i know i need to be more tolerent of people bashing me but what about schools you cant read your bible you cant were a crucifix or youll get in trouble THATS NOT FAIR do you think its persicution in schools?
I don't think that is persicution. It's just like wearing a uniform at work, the BOSSES are just trying to minimize differences between people so that the individual person can focus on what they are required by that institution to do rather than worrying over whether the other guys turban is an offense to oneself...so it is not discrimination that you cant wear your cross at work or school just company rules. What you happen to wear or do in your own personal time doesn't matter to these same BOSSES now if they start telling you that you should't read the bible or wear crosses when you are out of class or work then they are discriminating against you. It isn't as though they care about what faith you are they just want to keep tensions down between people who might have cause for tension because their faith and yours don't agree..It's how you live your life anyway that will testify to your faith.

Your statement makes a lot of assumptions. "Edited at different times and places." "Whole sections removed." "Phrasing changed." All of those statements imply that you were present at the occurrence of each of these so-called discrepancies. (We both know you weren't.)

I agree with you about the translations, and the multiple authors - the Bible gives a clear message that some portions have multiple authors, even if they are not identified specifically.

I think, however, concerning the translations (into English etc.): The meanings which might be lost or changed in a translation are miniscule. No one here seems to want to debate the difference between one word or another: Most just wholesale say the text is entirely wrong. Which I find highly illogical.

But there are multitudes of small, but cumlative changes. In no places does the Bible directly condemn homosexuality: It's all in the interpretation. Translation errors even make one of the Commandments wrong: Most experts agree "Thou shalt not kill" is really supposed to be "Thou shalt not murder."

By the way people, it is persecution not persicution.

He is right, it's persecution, but if you read the last... um... 52 pages, you realize that the original post is not exactly what the debate's about anymore.

Anywho, I've never had that experience in any public school I went to.

But there are multitudes of small, but cumlative changes. In no places does the Bible directly condemn homosexuality: It's all in the interpretation. Translation errors even make one of the Commandments wrong: Most experts agree "Thou shalt not kill" is really supposed to be "Thou shalt not murder."

The Bible, like I said before, is clear when it wants to be taken literally or metaphorically, and almost flat-out tells you when it needs interpretation.

But I don't see how that has anything to do with small, but cumulative errors.

If the Bible was clear about that, we wouldn't have such a huge debate about Genesis going on.

What I don't get is that all this:


God, the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent deity who is the only one, created the universe. A mere six thousand, one hundred years ago, mankind sinned, and was banished from his presence for all eternity.
Without the presence of God, there was little that man could do, and continued in his sin. The only way to claim forgiveness was to kill a perfectly innocent animal.
Until...
Four thousand years after mankind's fall from God, a small child was born, in humble conditions, from a young woman who had not yet had sex, pledged to be married to a humble carpenter. The child grew up, gaining favor with both man and God as he increased his knowledge of what is now known as the Old Testament, and of God himself.
Upon his baptism, the child, now a man, was indwelt with the Holy Spirit, and gained his rightful place as both a temporary man and the eternal God. He spread his teachings, telling people who were, at the time, completely morally degraded, the differences 'twixt right and wrong. He was quite possibly the most popular man at the time.
However, problems brewed...
One man of the twelve who had pledged to follow Jesus became greedy, and, for a mere 30 pieces of silver, betrayed the Savior of the universe. Later, overcome with guilt, the man would hang himself.
Jesus, once a child born of a virgin girl, was scourged, mocked, and tortured a multitude of different ways. His torture was ended with the most painful form of death yet endured, crucifixion.
This happened almost a full two thousand years ago.
For one, brief moment, every sin of every man that had lived, lived, or was to live was placed upon that one, helpless, completely innocent man, that harmless soul. Much like the animal sacrifices of old, but so much bigger, so much more enduring, so much more saving.
The carved-up body was laid to rest in a simple tomb, and, by order of the Jewish Leaders, sealed away tight. However, three days later, an angel pulled back the stone, and God breathed life back into His Son, who walked the earth once more, teaching for a short while before being taken into heaven by a loving Father, leaving his students, the Deisciples, to spread his word among mankind.

Even today, the sacrifice still has its effect on mankind, with hundreds of people taking it every day. By aknowledging their sins, admitting that they've done wrong, and asking the Living Spirit of Jesus to indwell them, despite them being the puny humans they are. The result is fascinating, a full missing third of their life has been filled, and the Holy Spirit dwells in them. They live their lives with the confidence that, whenever they are to die, their sins have been paid for by the Ultimate Sacrifice, and, like billions of others, but unlike so many more billions, will be accepted into God's presence. There their soul will live for eternity with their beloved Savior and His Loving Father.


Somehow deserved very little response.

If the Bible was clear about that, we wouldn't have such a huge debate about Genesis going on.

The Bible says seven days, it MEANS seven days, it means NOTHING else.

Because it's not a good argument. It's a repetition of the Bible, nothing more, not something you can argue against.

The Bible says seven days, it MEANS seven days, it means NOTHING else.


And science has quite clearly shown that this is utter bullshit. So some people are saying it's a metaphor.

Someone's finally back. Anywho, comparisons 'twixt the anciend Dead Sea Scrolls and the modern Old Testament show that they are very alike, with only translation errors to signify the smallest of differences, there is your whole 'translation problem.' And I never said that one man wrote the whole Bible, nor did I claim that every book was written by just one person. However, all of the Bible is God-inspired, and the parts that were omitted from today's Bible were parts that came from unreliable writers or those who weren't even associated with witnesses. Not to mention those who falsely accredited their writings to someone else. The message of the Bible, both in detail and in overall theme, remains quite the same as the original manuscripts. The editing done to the Bible was, of course, the before-mentioned omitting of falsely accredited books and books written by those not close to the actual events.
Actually texts such as the 'Book of Enoch' is a text ommitted by the bible but was read by and taught out of in the early church and was later rejected because the Enochian texts also taught that you can have a relationship with God without the church. Some of those dismissed texts weren't necessarally any more true or false than the cannonized bible, if you can find them in print they are worth reading, they offer different insights and have wisdom of their own worth checking out.

Oh, dear God.

Come now, what have we been debating about for the past 50 goddamn pages?

Science has not proven, to quote you, "bullshit" about the creation of the universe. The THEORY of Evolution and the Big Bang THEORY can be dwelled on by scientists for as long as they want. But until then, they remain just that, theories. They can say that they've proven it, but, to tell you the truth, they really haven't. And, if you check out my earlier post, you can see that I have a valid argument for the validity of the Bible. So, once again: IT MEANS SEVEN FREAKIN' DAYS.

By the way people, it is persecution not persicution.
Thank you that was very important to know. I feel so enlightened.

Actually texts such as the 'Book of Enoch' is a text ommitted by the bible but was read by and taught out of in the early church and was later rejected because the Enochian texts also taught that you can have a relationship with God without the church. Some of those dismissed texts weren't necessarally any more true or false than the cannonized bible, if you can find them in print they are worth reading, they offer different insights and have wisdom of their own worth checking out.

Really? That's interesting, and what the Enochian manuscripts say, according to your testimony, also appear to be true. Anywho, the editing I was referring to was the original editing by the very early church, when the pseudopigrypha and the something else-pigrypha were edited out.

Oh, dear God.

Come now, what have we been debating about for the past 50 goddamn pages?

Science has not proven, to quote you, "bullshit" about the creation of the universe. The THEORY of Evolution and the Big Bang THEORY can be dwelled on by scientists for as long as they want. But until then, they remain just that, theories. They can say that they've proven it, but, to tell you the truth, they really haven't. And, if you check out my earlier post, you can see that I have a valid argument for the validity of the Bible. So, once again: IT MEANS SEVEN FREAKIN' DAYS.


There is evidence for the Big Bang. A scientific theory is not totally proven, but neither is it without evidence: It must have a great deal of scientific evidence behind it to become a theory. Science predicted there would be echoes from the Big Bang.

They found them.

The Bible says seven days, it MEANS seven days, it means NOTHING else.

You clearly don't speak Hebrew. The word translated as day in the first chapter of Genisis doesn't even mean twenty four hours. It can mean sunset to sunset, sunrise to sunset or any period of time.

If the universe was created in seven days and was only 6001 years ago, why don't we see new creation springing up all the time? It seems hard to believe that, even if it was really 7 days, that it would just spontaneously end.

A link that parodies the "young earth" by compressing all of history in to the young earth timeline:

http://daveola.com/Pages/World_Birthday_Party/Silly_Chronology.html

Science has not proven, to quote you, "bullshit" about the creation of the universe. The THEORY of Evolution and the Big Bang THEORY can be dwelled on by scientists for as long as they want. But until then, they remain just that, theories. They can say that they've proven it, but, to tell you the truth, they really haven't.

define theory.


you seem to talk about theories so much, you must know what they are, so please:

give me the definition of 'scientific theory'

There is evidence for the Big Bang. A scientific theory is not totally proven, but neither is it without evidence: It must have a great deal of scientific evidence behind it to become a theory. Science predicted there would be echoes from the Big Bang.

They found them.

Yes, I know, I read all about those kind of things. However, the problem is that the temperature predicted, 5 degrees Kelvin above zero, was more than twice the temperature that was found. A bit of luck the first time, the second time they were screwed, but they twisted it around to make it look like they were right anyway.

Oh, dear God.

Come now, what have we been debating about for the past 50 goddamn pages?

Science has not proven, to quote you, "bullshit" about the creation of the universe. The THEORY of Evolution and the Big Bang THEORY can be dwelled on by scientists for as long as they want. But until then, they remain just that, theories. They can say that they've proven it, but, to tell you the truth, they really haven't. And, if you check out my earlier post, you can see that I have a valid argument for the validity of the Bible. So, once again: IT MEANS SEVEN FREAKIN' DAYS.
Hi just wanted to mention that I'm a Christian but even I don't think 7 days is literal. i think it's in spalms that it is mentioned that 1000 days is unto a day of the lord. so time is an uncertainty when comparing between earthly and heavenly time. Anyway if you read any sumarian religios manuscript anyone who might want to look for a relationship between science and religion might be interested in The Book of Enki, just look it up it's very interesting and also has the oldest known account of the Noah flood story. It is very interesting the references to scientific procedures that we are in the last 100 years now just discovering.

Betulguese:

the·o·ry Audio pronunciation of "theory" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Also to point out, although macro evolution cannot be conclusively proved (ie, you can't sit and watch it happen as it takes place over thousands of years), micro evolution can and has been observed (evolution of microbes and basic organisms)

But anyway, who said anything about evolution? Carbon dating proves that the earth has existed for more than 6000 years, and this has been proven accurate. Koroser's language could have been better chosen, but he was right that the 6000 year limit on the existence of the world is inaccurate

I'm not saying that the christian faith is wrong, I'm just saying that, personally, I think the bible would *have* to be a metaphor so that people with no education whatsoever could understand it.

I'd like to make a request to anyone claiming that the bible is the literal truth. I'd like for one of you to make a philosophical arguement, giving what arguements you can, without quoting the bible and without commiting a logical fallacy (http://datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm for anyone who is not familiar with logical fallacies) Thanks for reading, hope you can give me some good arguements :D

If the universe was created in seven days and was only 6001 years ago, why don't we see new creation springing up all the time? It seems hard to believe that, even if it was really 7 days, that it would just spontaneously end.

A link that parodies the "young earth" by compressing all of history in to the young earth timeline:

http://daveola.com/Pages/World_Birthday_Party/Silly_Chronology.html

It could have been more than 6000 years ago, I just said that 6000 years was how long ago the fall was.

Anyway, why would we see 'new creation springing up all the time?' Your accusation makes no sense.

Wait, so you're saying that the Earth COULD be older than 6000 years, but Genesis is literal?

Also to point out, although macro evolution cannot be conclusively proved (ie, you can't sit and watch it happen as it takes place over thousands of years), micro evolution can and has been observed (evolution of microbes and basic organisms)

But anyway, who said anything about evolution? Carbon dating proves that the earth has existed for more than 6000 years, and this has been proven accurate. Koroser's language could have been better chosen, but he was right that the 6000 year limit on the existence of the world is inaccurate



I support microevolution, it was the original theory that Darwin came up with: animals make small changes within their own species, say you come down to Florida from Minnesota. You're used to the cold, but, over a couple weeks, you will become accustomed to the heat. Microevolution!

Again, I never said the earth was 6000 years old, but I said the fall of man happened 6000 years ago. Who knows how long Adam and Eve were living with God in harmony?
However, like I said before, God made the universe mature, it makes no sense that it would not seem that the earth was old if it looked like the rest of the universe was old at the moment of creation.

Oh yes, and you can't measure the earth's age with carbon-dating, one: it has to have been alive, two: carbon dating has a short time limit.

Wait, so you're saying that the Earth COULD be older than 6000 years, but Genesis is literal?

Yes, exactly.

Not possible. The figures that give those people 6000 years are all in Genesis.

Anyway, why would we see 'new creation springing up all the time?' Your accusation makes no sense.

Why would God simply sit still and do nothing after initial creation?

Really? That's interesting, and what the Enochian manuscripts say, according to your testimony, also appear to be true. Anywho, the editing I was referring to was the original editing by the very early church, when the pseudopigrypha and the something else-pigrypha were edited out.
The Apocrypha wich means hidden texts, and the pseudepigrapha were only considered false by those who suppressed them, there has always been controversy as to wether these texts were or were not false. The book of Jubilees is another of the texts that one can find outside of the cannonized bible. And the book of jude makes reference to the book of Enoch also. Anyway I feel the more you read the more you gain an understanding of God.

The chronological figures (Methuselah lived until he was ___ years old, and then he died) that were used in Genesis can only be put to use after the Fall of Man. I did the math myself, added to about 6100 years, give or take a couple score.

I wouldn't say the Big Bang is exactly concrete either, I'd say at best it's just an educated guess that because things react as they do now, the big bang reaction makes sense to start it all.
Until Stephen Hawking comes to me with a photograph of the beginning of the universe I will remain as skeptical about the Big Bang as I am about God. Add to that how insanely ludricous most of modern physics has actually become and I don't really care much for physics beyond the simple things like realising the world isn't flat and electronics.

I am however an atheist and a strong one at that; I do not like the idea of offloading things onto some controlling deity, I prefer to think based on things immediately around me as they seem more important for the moment. My only real problem though with religion is when it is used as an excuse to allow terrible things to happen, I don't like the "It is God's divine plan" argument for explaining deaths which could have been avoided by people.

I may be re-iterating things that have already been said in this thread. But simply put, there are two sides to the spectrum. There are bible bashers who resent people who are happy with their faith, these people are narrow minded fools, it might sound narrow minded of me to say this but it is in fact the truth. Sure you can't prove the existence of God, nor can you disprove it, I'm an atheist and I accept this, and the same is true of the Big Bang and other theories.
At the other end of the spectrum you have the religious zealouts (I refer to them as fundies), the kind of people who seem to honestly believe that people who do not realise the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ are beyond hope and damned to an eternity of suffering, and that anyone who speaks against them is a pagan witch sent by Satan to scorn them and test their faith.

You can maybe tell I haven't had such great experience with the fundies, huh? But they are really just the same as bible bashers or religiously zealous atheists (the belief in no God, hey it's technically a religion too if you think about it!).

My advice is don't care in the slightest in what anyone says, you're entitled to believe whatever you want to believe about creation, life and ultimately death. If someone says you're wrong then chances are it's because rather than having a solid opinion of their own they are just lashing out at people who are happy with their stance on the issue.
I think what is most important is that you have thought about an issue, considered both sides and have reached a conclusion that you are happy with. I understand the arguments for a God, and some of them are not easy to explain otherwise (though I like to think I've got them covered), but at the same time I am all too aware of the arguments against a God and I feel that these win out and I also do not like the idea of a God in the first place, I prefer to think that I'm the controlling force in what happens around me, and that if I want to change something then it is I that will have to do it.

The only thing I like religious people to think about is this;
If your God(s) are so divine, then what would matter more, your worshipping them (sounds like ego to me) or your actions towards others and performing good deeds as you interpret them?
I'd like to think the latter is the most important, so you shouldn't focus so hard on the former being the 'only' way to do things.

Doesn't Genesis also state that Adam was the first man?

wow... all the effort I put into that, and nothing?
That's because it makes too much sense to argue with.

The chronological figures (Methuselah lived until he was ___ years old, and then he died) that were used in Genesis can only be put to use after the Fall of Man. I did the math myself, added to about 6100 years, give or take a couple score.

These given ages may be simply symbolic of the various iterations of the hebrew tribes over time, not real people.

An interesting side:
If take the 6100 years and convert it using the day-thousand years/ thousand years-day literally, you could backdate the chain to 2.2 billion years, which coincides with the first major glacial action, a kind of worldwide "great flood". Probably just coincidental.

say you come down to Florida from Minnesota. You're used to the cold, but, over a couple weeks, you will become accustomed to the heat. Microevolution!
That would only be evolution if your species became accustomed to the heat in future generations through breeding. I'm not sure if that's how you meant it, but that would be the correct analogy, so I thought I'd mention it in case anybody else was confused like I am.
Oh yes, and you can't measure the earth's age with carbon-dating, one: it has to have been alive, two: carbon dating has a short time limit.
http://www.c14dating.com/int.html

It would seem carbon dating's "short time limit" is longer than the 6000-ish years between now and the date that biblical creationists think the earth was created, seeing as the half-life of Carbon-14 is 5568 years...

It says the effective limit is reached at 50,000-60,000 years.

Also, I believe there are other radiometric techniques to measure age, although I may be mistaken.

These given ages may be simply symbolic of the various iterations of the hebrew tribes over time, not real people.

An interesting side:
If take the 6100 years and convert it using the day-thousand years/ thousand years-day literally, you could backdate the chain to 2.2 billion years, which coincides with the first major glacial action, a kind of worldwide "great flood". Probably just coincidental.

Of course it's referencing to real people, it talks about their lifetime and their children, not Hebrew tribes.

That would only be evolution if your species became accustomed to the heat in future generations through breeding. I'm not sure if that's how you meant it, but that would be the correct analogy, so I thought I'd mention it in case anybody else was confused like I am.

http://www.c14dating.com/int.html

It would seem carbon dating's "short time limit" is longer than the 6000-ish years between now and the date that biblical creationists think the earth was created, seeing as the half-life of Carbon-14 is 5568 years...

It says the effective limit is reached at 50,000-60,000 years.

Also, I believe there are other radiometric techniques to measure age, although I may be mistaken.

Yes I know there are other methods to measuring age, and yes I know the limit of C-14 Dating.
I was just correcting his error. I simple mistake on his part.

Doesn't Genesis also state that Adam was the first man?
Yes it does. Check it out.

Of course it's referencing to real people, it talks about their lifetime and their children, not Hebrew tribes.

However, this would mean that all of mankind stemmed from one lineage, and constantly inbred, wouldn't it?

Not possible. The figures that give those people 6000 years are all in Genesis.
I know that. Genesis is literal in saying God made the universe in 6 days, then took the 7th day off. Then He walked with Adam and Eve, but here's the problem, nobody knows for how long. Then they sin, then the chronological records come into play.

However, this would mean that all of mankind stemmed from one lineage, and constantly inbred, wouldn't it?
Adam and eve were born with all the genes, meaning that they were quite literally the 'perfect specimen.' Then the genes were cut in half by their offspring, and so on and so forth. Leaving us with the amount of genes we have today.

I know that. Genesis is literal in saying God made the universe in 6 days, then took the 7th day off. Then He walked with Adam and Eve, but here's the problem, nobody knows for how long. Then they sin, then the chronological records come into play.

But if the universe has expanded to its present size in this short period of time, how is it possible for the light from distant stars to reach us.

Doesn't Genesis state Adam's age at death as well?

But if the universe has expanded to its present size in this short period of time, how is it possible for the light from distant stars to reach us.

Again, God made the universe mature, as in, stars were already born, galaxies already existed, animals already had mates, and, of course, light has already traveled.

Doesn't Genesis state Adam's age at death as well?

Yes, it says 930 years, references to age were made about after the fall, because age would not have been an object at the time in the Garden of Eden, because everything was perfect, and Adam and Eve had no concept of time, as they walked with God Himself.

so great.

now that you've told us the fairy tale, can you start providing proof that it's true?

Yes, it says 930 years, references to age were made about after the fall, because age would not have been an object at the time in the Garden of Eden, because everything was perfect, and Adam and Eve had no concept of time, as they walked with God Himself.


You know this... how?

Again, God made the universe mature, as in, stars were already born, galaxies already existed, animals already had mates, and, of course, light has already traveled.

But still, the sheer distance could not be possibly traveled in 6000 years, since there are stars whose light reaches us from 100000+ years ago. Why would God tamper with the speed of light to make this possible, seeing as that is the only way possible?

I cannot provide any hard evidence that it's true, the only thing I can provide is a valid argument that proves that the "Book of Fairy Tales" is true.

But still, the sheer distance could not be possibly traveled in 6000 years, since there are stars whose light reaches us from 100000+ years ago. Why would God tamper with the speed of light to make this possible, seeing as that is the only way possible?
He didn't tamper with it. When I say that light had already traveled, I mean that it had already reached us.

Maybe you just don't comprehend a 'mature universe at creation' thing.

I cannot provide any hard evidence that it's true, the only thing I can provide is a valid argument that proves that the "Book of Fairy Tales" is true.

i'll call you out on that

go ahead.

prove the bible true.

He didn't tamper with it. When I say that light had already traveled, I mean that it had already reached us.

But it still had to get from those distant stars, so in order for it to already travel to us, there still would have had to have been a time when it was in transit, so where would this time fit in?

Gladly, I've kept this piece of argument from earlier debates handy, just in case, and it turned out to be useful, didn't it?:

To start with, the Bible has stronger manuscript support than any other writing in history, even Plato, Homer, Aristotle, Caesar, and Tacitus. Just as astounding is that the Bible has been almost completely unaltered since the original writing, according to scholars who have compared modern writings with the original. Also, the reliability of the Bible is supported by the reliability of its writers, who were eyewitnesses, or close associates of eyewitnesses, to the recorded events. Coupled with secular historians who attest to the places, people, customs, and events mentioned in Scripture.
Also, archeology is a powerful testimony to the chronicles of the Bible, especially the New Testament books. Repeatedly, archeological fieldwork and findings, combined with careful Biblical interpretation, affirm the accuracy of the Bible. For example, recent archeological finds have supported Biblical details surrounding the trial that led to the torment and death of Jesus at the hands of Pontius Pilate.
In addition, the Bible records predictions of things that could not have been possibly known at the time. The book of Daniel, for example, which was written before 530 BC, accurately predicts the progression of kingdoms from Babylon, to the Medo-Persian Empite, to the Greek Empire, and finally the Roman Empire. Adding a prediction of the persecution and suffering of the JEws under Antiochus IV Epiphanes with the desecration of the temple, his untimely death, and freedom fro the Jews under Judas Maccabeus (all the way in 165 BC). The statistical odds of all, or even any, of the Bibles specifically detailed prophecies could have been fulfilled through chance or a good guess.

But it still had to get from those distant stars, so in order for it to already travel to us, there still would have had to have been a time when it was in transit, so where would this time fit in?

DADGUMMIT! The 100,000 light-year long beam of light from the 100,000 light-year away star had already reached our planet at the time of creation, because that's the way God made it. There was no transit time, it just was already there. How do you not comprehend this?

Maybe you just don't comprehend a 'mature universe at creation' thing.

I comprehend it right well.

It's a flimsy rationalization.

I comprehend it right well.

It's a flimsy rationalization.
It ain't flimsy, it's rational and sensible. And it adequately explains the whole light distance/time thing.

I believe the timeline of the bible for most of it, save the earlier section of the book of Genesis, since all of the other books have some kind of historical mention which corresponds with the events. And, I can't really rule out prophecy, since there is so little evidence against it. Outside of creation, I think a majority of the timeframe given in the Bible is literal including Jesus' life, so to an extent I agree with you.

In fact, it can also explain why we have forms of dating that say the Earth is 4 billion years old, when it really may not be.

I believe the timeline of the bible for most of it, save the earlier section of the book of Genesis, since all of the other books have some kind of historical mention which corresponds with the events. And, I can't really rule out prophecy, since there is so little evidence against it. Outside of creation, I think a majority of the timeframe given in the Bible is literal including Jesus' life, so to an extent I agree with you.

Thank you very much. But, if you agree that most of the Bible is true, then why not the final piece of it that you still are in the dark about?

It ain't flimsy, it's rational and sensible. And it adequately explains the whole light distance/time thing.

"Entia Non Sunt Multiplicanda Praeter Necessitatem." Occam's Razor.

Which is simpler:
The light rays are appearing as if the stars were 100000 lt. years away because they really are.

God did it, moving every photon into place.

Thank you very much. But, if you agree that most of the Bible is true, then why not the final piece of it that you still are in the dark about?

Mostly because unlike the other timelines of the Bible, this one is both not defined and heavily symbolic, at least to me.

"Entia Non Sunt Multiplicanda Praeter Necessitatem." Occam's Razor.

Which is simpler:
The light rays are appearing as if the stars were 100000 lt. years away because they really are.

God did it, moving every photon into place.

That's a toughie.

I don't mind Christianity or any other form of religion. I do mind however, people who try and force their beliefs on me. Yes you are entitled to your own opinion and your choice in religion but you are not entitled to tell people they are going to hell just because the happen differ in religous beliefs, sexual orientation, culture, etc...

Just my 2 cents.
Why can't he say you're going to hell? Don't we have an ammendamant that gives us freedom of speech?

If you want to freely be able to voice your political likes and dislikes to further contribute to your society, or be able to sing or write to vent your inner feelings, then you're going to HAVE to deal with Klan spewing ****** and the religous zealots muttering sinner, it gos hand-in-hand..

If you don't like something too bad. You have a choice in life when you don't like something. A)Tolerate it. B)Try to change it. Or C)Do your best to get rid of it.

I hate this new pinko option of D)Whine and grovvle till the goverment gives the baby it's ba-ba.. that doesn't fly with me.

I'm not a Christian, infact i'm pretty sure it would be a sin just to talk to me considering the stuff I'm into lol.. but they have every damn right to spew thier "ignorance" and thier "hatred" just as much as you do. Instead of whining about how Jehova's Witnesses are bothering you, be thankful you don't have to be one just cause they want it that way. Be thankful you can even CHOOSE to be a Jehova's Witness!

Take advantage of those damn freedoms man, what's the point of having a brain if you're not going to use it?! You're so worried about "being offended" and "what THEY are doing" you're missing out on a good time you COULD be having..

If God does exsist He must love stupid people..
He sure makes alot of them..

Oh yes, and I can only recognize a few pieces of your latin quote there, what does it mean?

Gladly, I've kept this piece of argument from earlier debates handy, just in case, and it turned out to be useful, didn't it?:

To start with, the Bible has stronger manuscript support than any other writing in history, even Plato, Homer, Aristotle, Caesar, and Tacitus. Just as astounding is that the Bible has been almost completely unaltered since the original writing, according to scholars who have compared modern writings with the original. Also, the reliability of the Bible is supported by the reliability of its writers, who were eyewitnesses, or close associates of eyewitnesses, to the recorded events. Coupled with secular historians who attest to the places, people, customs, and events mentioned in Scripture.

which we already established was bullsh*t

Also, archeology is a powerful testimony to the chronicles of the Bible, especially the New Testament books. Repeatedly, archeological fieldwork and findings, combined with careful Biblical interpretation, affirm the accuracy of the Bible. For example, recent archeological finds have supported Biblical details surrounding the trial that led to the torment and death of Jesus at the hands of Pontius Pilate.

great.

a guy named jesus was crucified by a guy named pontius pilate.

does that, in any way, shape, or form indicate that:
A) he is god
and
B) any other story is true?

if i put my biography in a collection of Dr. Suess books, does it mean that yertle the turtle really happened? you say it does, all based on the fact that somebody who might have been named jesus, but has no proof that he is god, was mentioned between the same covers as genesis.

In addition, the Bible records predictions of things that could not have been possibly known at the time. The book of Daniel, for example, which was written before 530 BC, accurately predicts the progression of kingdoms from Babylon, to the Medo-Persian Empite, to the Greek Empire, and finally the Roman Empire. Adding a prediction of the persecution and suffering of the JEws under Antiochus IV Epiphanes with the desecration of the temple, his untimely death, and freedom fro the Jews under Judas Maccabeus (all the way in 165 BC). The statistical odds of all, or even any, of the Bibles specifically detailed prophecies could have been fulfilled through chance or a good guess.


and again, prophesies are ridiculously easy to make come true.

the 'prophecies' in daniel are so vague that nearly any set of empires falls under their umbrella.





try again.

Why can't he say you're going to hell? Don't we have an ammendamant that gives us freedom of speech?

If you want to freely be able to voice your political likes and dislikes to further contribute to your society, or be able to sing or write to vent your inner feelings, then you're going to HAVE to deal with Klan spewing ****** and the religous zealots muttering sinner, it gos hand-in-hand..

If you don't like something too bad. You have a choice in life when you don't like something. A)Tolerate it. B)Try to change it. Or C)Do your best to get rid of it.

I hate this new pinko option of D)Whine and grovvle till the goverment gives the baby it's ba-ba.. that doesn't fly with me.

I'm not a Christian, infact i'm pretty sure it would be a sin just to talk to me considering the stuff I'm into lol.. but they have every damn right to spew thier "ignorance" and thier "hatred" just as much as you do. Instead of whining about how Jehova's Witnesses are bothering you, be thankful you don't have to be one just cause they want it that way. Be thankful you can even CHOOSE to be a Jehova's Witness!

Take advantage of those damn freedoms man, what's the point of having a brain if you're not going to use it?! You're so worried about "being offended" and "what THEY are doing" you're missing out on a good time you COULD be having..

If God does exsist He must love stupid people..
He sure makes alot of them..

Um... I guess he's right. On the political spectrum, he seems to be on the good side.

All I have to say is it's great to hear different religous viewpoints. Time to go to the "Aliens and God" thread for awhile.

which we already established was bullsh*t

_________________________

great.

a guy named jesus was crucified by a guy named pontius pilate.

does that, in any way, shape, or form indicate that:
A) he is god
and
B) any other story is true?

if i put my biography in a collection of Dr. Suess books, does it mean that yertle the turtle really happened? you say it does, all based on the fact that somebody who might have been named jesus, but has no proof that he is god, was mentioned between the same covers as genesis.


______________________________

and again, prophesies are ridiculously easy to make come true.

the 'prophecies' in daniel are so vague that nearly any set of empires falls under their umbrella.





try again.

I seperated the three parts of your... um... ''argument'' to make it easy.

1. No we have not established that it was bullsh*t

2. Yes, it does establish that Jesus was God, especially when his crucifixion and every other aspect of his life, even the parts chronicled by those secular Roman writers, was prophesized at least a dozen times much earlier on.

3. No, they are not that vauge, not the interpretations of the prophetic dream the king had anyway. And the subsequent interpretations by Biblical Scholars are even less vauge (if at all possible).

YOU try again.

All I have to say is it's great to hear different religous viewpoints. Time to go to the "Aliens and God" thread for awhile.
You do that. Already been there.

Anyone else listening to music as they type? I'm listening to the organ song that most people would, from the first 30 seconds, attest to the fact that it is the theme song to the original Phantom of the Opera. I think that the first 30 secs are rather boring, but the other 9 minutes and 30 seconds are quite enjoyable.

I seperated the three parts of your... um... ''argument'' to make it easy.

1. No we have not established that it was bullsh*t

yes, we did.

go back to the first time you posted that, and look at our responses concerning the number of rewrites, translation errors, edits by people who didn't like what was in it, and so forth.

2. Yes, it does establish that Jesus was God, especially when his crucifixion and every other aspect of his life, even the parts chronicled by those secular Roman writers, was prophesized at least a dozen times much earlier on.

the history says that a man was crucified.

the archeology says so.

they do not say that he was god.

just because he existed, does not make him god.

i exist, am i god?

3. No, they are not that vauge, not the interpretations of the prophetic dream the king had anyway. And the subsequent interpretations by Biblical Scholars are even less vauge (if at all possible).

1) yes, they are vague.

read them again, and instead of being wishful and using the countries you present as 'proof' use countries that exist today.

2) duh. the interpretations were written after the 'prophecy' came true. of course they're going to interpret it the way that supports their claim.

3) i thought you said the bible was literal. you know, not open to interpretation?

Betulguese: Firstly, thank you for the lengthy resonable response. It's nice to see people can still be resonable about things like this (or some people can anyway *cough*Dementedus_Yammus*cough*)

But to get back to the issue at hand, I think you missed the point of my request (although I can see why you did) What I meant was, I would like for someone on the Christian side of the debate to make an arguement in the form of "since A is true, it implies that B is true", the same way that a scientific hypothesis must be in order to become a proven theory.

Although you came close to this (since archeologists have found evidence that someone was crucified under the name jesus by a man called pontious pilot, the new testament must be true) you haven't quite managed to make the connection (as somone mentioned, how does this prove he was the son of God) This was the reason I linked the site on logical fallacies, so that people could give such an arguement without missing a step in their proof.

Again, thanks for the detailed response. I hope you (or anyone else who is in a position to argue your case) can put forward arguements in favour of the creationist hypothesis

Betulguese: Firstly, thank you for the lengthy resonable response. It's nice to see people can still be resonable about things like this (or some people can anyway *cough*Dementedus_Yammus*cough*)

are you saying i'm being unreasonable about this?

I seperated the three parts of your... um... ''argument'' to make it easy.

1. No we have not established that it was bullsh*t

2. Yes, it does establish that Jesus was God, especially when his crucifixion and every other aspect of his life, even the parts chronicled by those secular Roman writers, was prophesized at least a dozen times much earlier on.

3. No, they are not that vauge, not the interpretations of the prophetic dream the king had anyway. And the subsequent interpretations by Biblical Scholars are even less vauge (if at all possible).

YOU try again.

You're really starting to annoy me. You use religious beliefs as hard evidence and then assume this arrogant stance. "My sunday-school teacher says Jesus loves me, therefore the theory of relativity is pure crap."

I mean, how's this for a theory: The Sun does not exist. The Goddess placed a big bright spot in the sky so we could have something to worship. Heat comes from the Goddess pouring her pure love into the atmosphere. It looks like it comes from the sun because the Goddess wants it to. It looks like we revolve around the sun because the oribiting mechanism was put into place despite there being nothing to orbit around because the Goddess created it that way. And the entire purpose of the whole thing is sunrise and sunset so we can appreciate Nature's beauty.

We have been talking for PAGES about the accuracy of the bible. we may not have established anything definite, but using "proof" that is seriously called into question is NOT a way to prove an argument. If we can't conclude the bible is accurate, then any argument based on that fact is null and void.

We've talked about prophecy and the general consensus (except for you) is that prophecy can be interpreted many ways, so nothing is ASBSOLUTLY prophecied. Furthermore, you compltely disregard the actual argument: even if you prove Jesus exists there's seriously no way to prove he's God. Absolutely none. You could no more prove he's god than I could that I'm a demon trapped in a human body. This is where the BELIEF of Chrsitianity comes in- you have FAITH that he's God because it CANNOT BE PROVEN.

Biblical scholors could be wrong. I haven't studied David's prophecies but judging by the fact that in this thread, we're questioning prophecy, it's another invalid argument.


If you truely belive, you could say "Well, this is what I belive. It cannot be proven because it is a belief. Much like good and evil cannot be proven one way or another, it's a viewpoint of the universe that helps me in the following ways: x, y, and z. That is why I am a Christian." That would seriously be mroe effective in converting people than argumentative arrogant bullshit

Betulguese: Firstly, thank you for the lengthy resonable response. It's nice to see people can still be resonable about things like this (or some people can anyway *cough*Dementedus_Yammus*cough*)

But to get back to the issue at hand, I think you missed the point of my request (although I can see why you did) What I meant was, I would like for someone on the Christian side of the debate to make an arguement in the form of "since A is true, it implies that B is true", the same way that a scientific hypothesis must be in order to become a proven theory.

Although you came close to this (since archeologists have found evidence that someone was crucified under the name jesus by a man called pontious pilot, the new testament must be true) you haven't quite managed to make the connection (as somone mentioned, how does this prove he was the son of God) This was the reason I linked the site on logical fallacies, so that people could give such an arguement without missing a step in their proof.

Again, thanks for the detailed response. I hope you (or anyone else who is in a position to argue your case) can put forward arguements in favour of the creationist hypothesis

Again, I talk about the prophecies made about Jesus's life. In fact, not only the Daniel prophecies came true, so this addresses two arguments. Jesus's life was attested to by secular writers, yes. The only reason that this proves that the whole thing ain't bullcrap is because prophecies were made thousands of years earlier about the life of a man who fits Jesus's history perfectly, weather His history was written in the NT or by Roman historians.
Two plus Two is Four.

And to you Dementedus, every argument put against me for the validity of the Bible in relation to how it was edited over time I rebutted quite well, and maintained the solid stance of the Bible being the truth.

Yes, I said the Bible is literal, in some places, however, I also said that the Bible is to be interpreted in some places, and it makes it QUITE clear when it is to be done so.

Your reference to his personal beliefs as bullshit was unreasonable. It was your phrasing I disagreed with rather than the content of your post. Although you might have had a good point, someone of a christian point of view who might otherwise be swayed by your arguement would more than likely take offence at the comment and not listen to what you said afterwards.

You're perfectly entitled to your own opinion, its just that I'd appreciate it if you could avoid using offensive language to put it across. Cursing has it's place (hell, I use it often enough myself) but a debate is not it.

And sorry if I offended you with my previous comment, I should have elaborated further on why I felt you were not being resonable with your replies (actually, resonable probably wasn't the best choice of words for it. Uncivilised maybe? Vulgar? Sorry, I can't think of what the proper word is for it at the minute)

Again, I talk about the prophecies made about Jesus's life. In fact, not only the Daniel prophecies came true, so this addresses two arguments. Jesus's life was attested to by secular writers, yes. The only reason that this proves that the whole thing ain't bullcrap is because prophecies were made thousands of years earlier about the life of a man who fits Jesus's history perfectly, weather His history was written in the NT or by Roman historians.

you're right.

it's called the myth of horus, and it was stolen by the christians from an earlier culture.


they took the myth of horus and wrapped one of their teachers around it.

You're really starting to annoy me. You use religious beliefs as hard evidence and then assume this arrogant stance. "My sunday-school teacher says Jesus loves me, therefore the theory of relativity is pure crap."

I mean, how's this for a theory: The Sun does not exist. The Goddess placed a big bright spot in the sky so we could have something to worship. Heat comes from the Goddess pouring her pure love into the atmosphere. It looks like it comes from the sun because the Goddess wants it to. It looks like we revolve around the sun because the oribiting mechanism was put into place despite there being nothing to orbit around because the Goddess created it that way. And the entire purpose of the whole thing is sunrise and sunset so we can appreciate Nature's beauty.

We have been talking for PAGES about the accuracy of the bible. we may not have established anything definite, but using "proof" that is seriously called into question is NOT a way to prove an argument. If we can't conclude the bible is accurate, then any argument based on that fact is null and void.

We've talked about prophecy and the general consensus (except for you) is that prophecy can be interpreted many ways, so nothing is ASBSOLUTLY prophecied. Furthermore, you compltely disregard the actual argument: even if you prove Jesus exists there's seriously no way to prove he's God. Absolutely none. You could no more prove he's god than I could that I'm a demon trapped in a human body. This is where the BELIEF of Chrsitianity comes in- you have FAITH that he's God because it CANNOT BE PROVEN.

Biblical scholors could be wrong. I haven't studied David's prophecies but judging by the fact that in this thread, we're questioning prophecy, it's another invalid argument.


If you truely belive, you could say "Well, this is what I belive. It cannot be proven because it is a belief. Much like good and evil cannot be proven one way or another, it's a viewpoint of the universe that helps me in the following ways: x, y, and z. That is why I am a Christian." That would seriously be mroe effective in converting people than argumentative arrogant bullshit

The Bible cannot be proven, of course, but it can be defended, and that's where the few and the proud like me come in. However, the many, the conformists to society like those debating against me blur the line 'twixt PROVING and DEFENDING.

Can I prove the Bible is true? No. But can I defend my beliefs by rebutting the arguments placed against them? Yes.

You're really starting to annoy me. You use religious beliefs as hard evidence and then assume this arrogant stance. "My sunday-school teacher says Jesus loves me, therefore the theory of relativity is pure crap."
I mean, how's this for a theory: The Sun does not exist. The Goddess placed a big bright spot in the sky so we could have something to worship. Heat comes from the Goddess pouring her pure love into the atmosphere. It looks like it comes from the sun because the Goddess wants it to. It looks like we revolve around the sun because the oribiting mechanism was put into place despite there being nothing to orbit around because the Goddess created it that way. And the entire purpose of the whole thing is sunrise and sunset so we can appreciate Nature's beauty.
We have been talking for PAGES about the accuracy of the bible. we may not have established anything definite, but using "proof" that is seriously called into question is NOT a way to prove an argument. If we can't conclude the bible is accurate, then any argument based on that fact is null and void.
We've talked about prophecy and the general consensus (except for you) is that prophecy can be interpreted many ways, so nothing is ASBSOLUTLY prophecied. Furthermore, you compltely disregard the actual argument: even if you prove Jesus exists there's seriously no way to prove he's God. Absolutely none. You could no more prove he's god than I could that I'm a demon trapped in a human body. This is where the BELIEF of Chrsitianity comes in- you have FAITH that he's God because it CANNOT BE PROVEN.
Biblical scholors could be wrong. I haven't studied David's prophecies but judging by the fact that in this thread, we're questioning prophecy, it's another invalid argument.
If you truely belive, you could say "Well, this is what I belive. It cannot be proven because it is a belief. Much like good and evil cannot be proven one way or another, it's a viewpoint of the universe that helps me in the following ways: x, y, and z. That is why I am a Christian." That would seriously be mroe effective in converting people than argumentative arrogant bullshit

While I agree somewhat with this, I think the human race has a very inflated view of itself when it comes to what we think we know, God may be a science so beyond us that sitting a cave man in front of a DVD recorder may be an apt comparison.

Your reference to his personal beliefs as bullshit was unreasonable.

my reference to his personal beliefs being true or having any applicable place in anyone's life as bullshit was reasonable

Ok, looks like Betulguese replied while I was typing.

I was not denying the possibility that Jesus did exist, I am perfectly happy to accept the idea that Jesus existed. This does not, however, prove that he was the son of God. I haven't read the book of Daniel myself (whenever I tried to read the bible as a kid I would get bored during the earlier books) However, if you give me till tomorrow I'll try and read through it and give a more educated response to what you have said here (it's currently 2:12am over here and I need sleep)

Anyway, I'll catch up on this topic after I've had some rest. That way I can avoid making mis-judged comments like the one I made about Dementedus

The Bible cannot be proven, of course, but it can be defended, and that's where the few and the proud like me come in. However, the many, the conformists to society like those debating against me blur the line 'twixt PROVING and DEFENDING.

really?

but in post 837 ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8534868&postcount=837 )

you said you could prove it.


well, now that you're finally starting to show some sense, would you mind telling us why we should believe it if it cannot be proven true?

The Bible cannot be proven, of course, but it can be defended, and that's where the few and the proud like me come in. However, the many, the conformists to society like those debating against me blur the line 'twixt PROVING and DEFENDING.

Can I prove the Bible is true? No. But can I defend my beliefs by rebutting the arguments placed against them? Yes.


I see. I am sorry. I was unaware that the proper response to "you're being arrogant" is "I'm a Defender of Justice and God and all that is Holy".

Why do you feel the need to defend your beliefs? I don't, when attacked about them. I'm all, "you don't get it, but I do, so I'm gonna go be over here casting spells now."

you're right.

it's called the myth of horus, and it was stolen by the christians from an earlier culture.


they took the myth of horus and wrapped one of their teachers around it.

I have seen the Myth of Horus, it is quite annoying.

Let me explain my logic to you:
Many years BEFORE the Myth of Horus, prophecies, very specific ones, I might add, that require little interpretation, were made about a man who would walk the Earth. He was to be God, and he was to die on behalf of all our sins (another SPECIFIC prophecy). Thousands of years later, a man who fits these prophecy perfectly was born, lived, and even died exactly according to the prophecies made many years before. However, many people could say that all that is just nonesense, written years before by the same guy who made the prophecies. However, this man's birth, life, and, yes, even supernatural death were accurately chronicled, in accordance with the Scriptures that went hand-in-hand with the prophecies, by Roman secular historians.
This is the logic I use to tell you that Jesus WAS God. I don't know why you don't get it! :headbang:

I see. I am sorry. I was unaware that the proper response to "you're being arrogant" is "I'm a Defender of Justice and God and all that is Holy".

Why do you feel the need to defend your beliefs? I don't, when attacked about them. I'm all, "you don't get it, but I do, so I'm gonna go be over here casting spells now."

Crap-ola. I feel the need to defend my beliefs not only because it is what I enjoy doing, but because I am instructed to do it. Not because I want the title, "Defender of Justice and God and all that is Holy."

Many years BEFORE the Myth of Horus,


really?

what year?

really?

but in post 837 ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8534868&postcount=837 )

you said you could prove it.


well, now that you're finally starting to show some sense, would you mind telling us why we should believe it if it cannot be proven true?

I said that I could provide you a convincing argument that might help to prove it in your mind. I never said I could prove it, if I did, then it must have been for lack of other words.

Why you should believe it? Because the alternative, to believe that we are just animals, by-products of an enormous cosmic coincidence, or to believe that we are merely dust on the wind, not real, loved people who have a place in eternity, is soul-crushingly depressing. I could not bear to live without God for merely a day, how ever do you cope?

really?

what year?

Apparently around 700 BC, and a couple hundred years both before and after.

So, my question arises again: who here is listening to music as they do this? I am!

Hello? Anyone?

Apparently around 700 BC, and a couple hundred years both before and after.


which does not, in the slightest, pre-date the egyptian empire, from whose myths the legend of jesus had been compiled

here, this site: http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm is pretty interesting.

and yes, it is all properly sourced and footnoted.


Why you should believe it? Because the alternative, to believe that we are just animals, by-products of an enormous cosmic coincidence, or to believe that we are merely dust on the wind, not real, loved people who have a place in eternity, is soul-crushingly depressing. I could not bear to live without God for merely a day, how ever do you cope?

1) just because the end result of the truth is not nice does not make it any less true.

you might not like the fact that we're not much more than animals (worse, in some ways) but does that mean you expect me to be willfully ignorant?

should i lie to myself to make myself feel better?

2) http://datanation.com/fallacies/conseq.htm logical fallacies: not for valid debate

you know whats funny im just like all of you :eek:

and no, i am not listening to music as i type

i am listening to the ticking alarm clock on the desk next to me, the occasional humming of the fan inside my laptop, and the tapping of my keys on the keyboard

you know whats funny im just like all of you :eek:


i certainly hope not

we are all simular you know. Just flesh buckets and slime realy :gundge:

we are all simular you know. Just flesh buckets and slime realy :gundge:


in that case, yes.


as much as it embarresses me to say so: we are both the same species

"And it shall it come to pass afterwords i will pour my spirit on all flesh and your sons and your daughters shall propheciize and your old men shall dream dreams and your young men shall see visions"

"And it shall it come to pass afterwords i will pour my spirit on all flesh and your sons and your daughters shall propheciize and your old men shall dream dreams and your young men shall see visions"


what the hell does that have to do with anything?

which does not, in the slightest, pre-date the egyptian empire, from whose myths the legend of jesus had been compiled

here, this site: http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm is pretty interesting.

and yes, it is all properly sourced and footnoted.




1) just because the end result of the truth is not nice does not make it any less true.

you might not like the fact that we're not much more than animals (worse, in some ways) but does that mean you expect me to be willfully ignorant?

should i lie to myself to make myself feel better?

2) http://datanation.com/fallacies/conseq.htm logical fallacies: not for valid debate


Of course it does not predate Egypt, but who would have known of such a myth. Did Isaiah? And even IF such a myth existed, the Story of Jesus could not have been copied from it because the man was REAL. Mayhap the Myth of Hora was stolen from the prophecies of the Prophet Isaiah?

let me ask first why do you hate me am i so different from you

Sorry, guys. But there is a sunrise service at my church and it's like 50 miles away, so I gotta wake up early.

I'll have some deep thoughts (and some not so deep succumbing-to-unfair-flame) with you tommorow, maybe.

Crap-ola. I feel the need to defend my beliefs not only because it is what I enjoy doing, but because I am instructed to do it. Not because I want the title, "Defender of Justice and God and all that is Holy."

You enjoy arguing and feeling superior, that much is painfuly clear.

Instructed to? And yet you look down on "conformists"? "My Sundayschool teacher told me Jesus loves me, so Im going to go yell at people who think he doesn't exist because how can he not exist if he loves me? AND she said I need to make the whole WORLD love Jesus just as much as _I_ do! Isn't this FUN! What? You don't like Jesus? BURN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

This is how Inquisitions and Anti-Gay-Marriage laws begin

"then do as jesus told his folowers, sit down, shut up, and listen" --my boyfriend

let me ask first why do you hate me am i so different from you


i hate you because you spout nothing but irrelivant ignorance and do nothing more than clog an otherwise reasonable debate with out-of-context scripture passages.

but as i have said am i different from you

Of course it does not predate Egypt, but who would have known of such a myth. Did Isaiah? And even IF such a myth existed, the Story of Jesus could not have been copied from it because the man was REAL. Mayhap the Myth of Hora was stolen from the prophecies of the Prophet Isaiah?


Okay, so I see. A man exists. Therefore the myth that predated him years before was stolen from his life? And whose to say Horus doesn't exist? Check out the Rosecrution(sp?) Order

Glad to see you're going away. I really need to focus on my DnD campaign

Of course it does not predate Egypt, but who would have known of such a myth. Did Isaiah? And even IF such a myth existed, the Story of Jesus could not have been copied from it because the man was REAL. Mayhap the Myth of Hora was stolen from the prophecies of the Prophet Isaiah?


1) the myths that the jesus myth was stolen from predate the jesus myth.

2) of course he would have known the myth.

or did you completely miss out on the part where canaan and egypt are right next to eachother and traded goods, fought wars, and took eachother as slaves?

myths and legends passed back and forth as well as everything else

you ignored me?

but as i have said am i different from you


from a genetic perspective, not really.

from an intelligence perspective, quite a lot.

then why do you not listen to the more intelegent?

then why do you not listen to the more intelegent?

the one who can't use correct grammer, you mean?

then why do you not listen to the more intelegent?


i do.

it's how i get along with myself so well.

if i never listened to myself, i wouldn't get very far

the one i was reffering to you mean oh you aint him sorry

That would only be evolution if your species became accustomed to the heat in future generations through breeding. I'm not sure if that's how you meant it, but that would be the correct analogy, so I thought I'd mention it in case anybody else was confused like I am.

http://www.c14dating.com/int.html

It would seem carbon dating's "short time limit" is longer than the 6000-ish years between now and the date that biblical creationists think the earth was created, seeing as the half-life of Carbon-14 is 5568 years...

It says the effective limit is reached at 50,000-60,000 years.

Also, I believe there are other radiometric techniques to measure age, although I may be mistaken.

There are three different isotopes of uranium that can also be used for dating. They are:
uranium-234: half life = 244 thousand years, 0.0055% of all uranium.
uranium-235: half life = 704 million years, 0.72% of all uranium.
uranium-238: half life = approximately 4.5 billion years, 99.28% of all uranium.
I have actually heard believers in "Creation science" :sniper: claim that evolutionists CHANGED THE HALF-LIVES OF THESE MATERIALS... :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
Figure THAT one out..

and so you know i only seek wisdom like solomon but my antenae keeps picking up evil transmissions

then why do you not listen to the more intelegent?

I suppose you meant to insinutate that you were more INTELLIGENT.. Try harder, You'll get it someday sparky!

Anyhow, I am STILL waiting for you to "discredit" my proof that this nation was NOT founded on Christianity. ;)

I seperated the three parts of your... um... ''argument'' to make it easy.

1. No we have not established that it was bullsh*t

2. Yes, it does establish that Jesus was God, especially when his crucifixion and every other aspect of his life, even the parts chronicled by those secular Roman writers, was prophesized at least a dozen times much earlier on.

3. No, they are not that vauge, not the interpretations of the prophetic dream the king had anyway. And the subsequent interpretations by Biblical Scholars are even less vauge (if at all possible).

YOU try again.

First of all the whole arguement is irrational. You cannot argue against religious belief because it's not based on facts or science, but faith. Fact and faith have nothing to do with one another.

That said, I don't believe any secular Roman writers said Jesus was God. If they did, that wouldn't mean it were so. They still haven't found Atlantis.

And like all prophecies, biblical ones are vague.

I suppose you meant to insinutate that you were more INTELLIGENT.. Try harder, You'll get it someday sparky!

Anyhow, I am STILL waiting for you to "discredit" my proof that this nation was NOT founded on Christianity. ;)as i am still waiting for proof against it

the one i was reffering to you mean oh you aint him sorry

An intellegant person would write more like:

The one I was refering to, you mean? Oh, you aren't him, sorry [/sarcasm]

See what punctuation and GRAMMER does? Plus a net courtasy

Forgive spelling errors, I know I can't spell for beans but at least I'm understood

does thou not understand for personal problems i.e. constipation

as i am still waiting for proof against it

can you proove this?



Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. (You may notice that some Christians avoid the Constitution, with its absence of God.)

However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them. The Declaration includes the words, "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold today, and we have more than thirteen states.

Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. It represents a historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our government.

Of course the Declaration stands as a great political document. Its author aimed at a future government designed and upheld by people and not based on a superstitious god or religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are created equal" meaning that we all get born with the abilities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." Please note that the Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity. It bears repeating: "Governments are instituted among men."

The pursuit of happiness does not mean a guarantee of happiness, only that we have the freedom to pursue it. Our Law of the Land incorporates this freedom of pursuit in the Constitution. We can believe or not believe as we wish. We may succeed or fail in our pursuit, but our Constitution (and not the Declaration) protects our unalienable rights in our attempt at happiness.

Moreover, the mentioning of God in the Declaration does not describe the personal God of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson who held deist beliefs, wrote the majority of the Declaration. The Declaration describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy and might even appeal to those of pantheistical beliefs, but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.

Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. goverenment to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original English version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

So here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties do (see the Constitution, Article VI, Sect.2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.")

Although the Treaty of Tripoli under agreement only lasted a few years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the American government.

As I said.. Deal with it.

Proof enough for you?

No. No it wasn't.

The writers of both the Constitution and the Declaration were Deist. The first 3 presidents were Deists. Benjamin Franklin was a Deist.


You are wrong! The United States was founded on the principal of, "In God In We Trust."

Figured I'd just tell ya'!

;)

does the prove anything i mean it was wrote by a modern day man get me something else

as he said "in God we trust" so christians trust God so deal with it

does the prove anything i mean it was wrote by a modern day man get me something else

Obviously you have not read any of this. Read through carefully, and then run a search on article 11 of the aforementioned treaty.

does thou not understand for personal problems i.e. constipation


i said it at the beginning, and i'll say it again.

this guy can not be for real.

not real? oh and why do you celebrate easter

You are wrong! The United States was founded on the principal of, "In God In We Trust."

Figured I'd just tell ya'!

;)


Deists believe in a god, just not the Christian one.

So, nice try, no dice.

not real?


yes.

as in: another forum member got a second country named 'Ffc2' and is posting as the world's biggest idiot because he has nothing better to do

ah but i am as real as you i am only a more true one since i am following the one whos sandle strap i am unfit to undue

Second biggest idiot, right after the guy who made him.

well?

as he said "in God we trust" so christians trust God so deal with it


Where did "In God We Trust" originate? Many mistakenly believe that it has been the national motto since revolutionary days; but the phraseology is strictly religious in origin.

The national motto adopted by the Founders was inscribed next to the Great Seal of the United States, a decoration devised under the supervision of Franklin, Adams and Jefferson. It was Jefferson who suggested "E Pluribus Unum," and that slogan was adopted in 1782, five years before the Constitutional convention of 1787.

It wasn't until nearly a century later, though, that "In God We Trust" was seriously proposed as a motto. Writing in her book "Freedom Under Siege," (J.P.Tarcher, Los Angeles, 1974), Madalyn O'Hair delineated the historical background for readers:

"In 1861, the Reverend M.R. Watkinson persuaded the secretary of the Treasury to try to introduce 'In God We Trust' as a motto on the coins of the land, arguing on the theological premise that in a Judeo-Christian nation, 'There is but one God.' Congress, then beginning to be responsive to the religious community and the votes that it was presumed to control, passed the Coinage Act of April 22, 1864, which designated that 'In God We Trust' be put on coins 'when and where sufficient space in the balance of the design' would permit it."

Rev. Watkinson's missive was directed to Secretary of the Treasury Samuel P. Chase. It read:

"Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.

One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW..."

Seven days after the transmittal of Watkinson's letter, Secretary Chase, on November 20, 1861, wrote to James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia. He instructed Pollock to prepare a motto, declaring "No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins..." A design was submitted in December, 1863 proposing OUR GOD AND OUR COUNTRY, or the alternative of GOD, OUR TRUST. On December 9, 1863, Chase formally approved a third slogan in a letter to the Mint Director.

"I approve your mottoes (sic), only suggesting that on that with the Washington obverse the motto should begin with the word OUR, so as to read OUR GOD AND OUR COUNTRY. And on that with the shield, it should be changed so as to read: IN GOD WE TRUST."

"In God We Trust" thus appeared on the short-lived 1864 two-cent coin. It has been used continuously on the one-cent coin since 1909, and on dimes since 1916. Since July 1, 1908,"In God We Trust" has also been stamped on gold coins, silver dollars, quarters and half-dollar coins

Watkinson's effort to religionize the coinage was part of a larger campaign waged by a coalition of eleven Protestant denominations under the umbrella of the National Reform Association. Disenchanted with the secularism of documents such as the Constitution, the NRA sought to amend that instrument to "indicate that this is a Christian nation." Petitions were raised and formally presented to Congress. They proposed a new preamble to the Constitution which read:


"We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government..."
Fortunately, the petition failed despite the membership of powerful and wealthy men in the National Reform Association. They included Supreme Court Justice William Strong, a handful of governors and prominent businessmen.

The next step in the process of religionizing the national currency had to wait nearly a century, when on July 11.1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed Public Law 140 making it mandatory that all coinage and paper currency display the motto "In God We Trust." The following year, Public Law 851 was enacted and signed, which officially replaced the national motto "E Pluribus Unum" with "In God We Trust" All of this occurred at the height of cold war tension, when political divisions between the Soviet and western block was simplistically portrayed as a confrontation between Judeo-Christian civilization and the "godless" menace of communism. Indeed, the new national motto was only part of a broader effort to effectively religionize civic ritual and symbols. On June 14, 1954, Congress unanimously ordered the inclusion of the words "Under God" into the nation's Pledge of Allegiance. By this time, other laws mandating public religiosity had also been enacted, including a statute for all federal justices and judges to swear an oath concluding with "So help me God."

All paper currency issued after October 1, 1957 included the IN GOD WE TRUST national motto.

I am sick of wasting skin cells typing out facts that you obviously do not read.. This is the last post I will make directed toward you, Ffc2. As I said before, research the treaty of Tripoli, particularly article eleven. Read what I took the time to type out the FIRST time.. And then kindly re-read this.. In god we trust has only been the national motto since the fifties. The founding fathers were NOT Christian. If you are unable to accept facts, I deeply, deeply feel sorry for you.. You will be a small, pathetic little man for the rest of your life. Until you can learn to face facts that are clearly laid out before you, that will not change.

and as you say "if you cannot accept the facts" i say the same to you about religion

and as you say "if you cannot accept the facts" i say the same to you about religion


What facts?

i ask you the same as i said before i am merely a servant of the one whos sandle strap i am not fit to unbuckle

i ask you the same as i said before i am merely a servant of the one whos sandle strap i am not fit to unbuckle


Didn't Jesus say that all were equal in the eyes of God?


Also, what race was Jesus?

not real? oh and why do you celebrate easter

Easter (Eostre, Ostara, Ostara's day) Is traditionally the Spring Equinox, the day when the year is in perfect balance between light and darknes. The God is now a green youth, and the Goddes is in her maiden aspect. Their courtship dance begins. Ostara is a solar festival of light, fire, and fertility sacred to the Saxon goddess of spring. Witches follow the age-old pagan custom of dyeing or painting hard-boiled eggs, then balancing the eggs on their ends to symbolize equilibrium. We work magic to balance any imbalances in our lives.

Jesus said that we are all equal to each other but Jesus is also above man though he made himself lower then man which made him greater then man

What race was this man you admire so much?

Don't you just LOVE circular reasoning?

who cares hes the son of the one living God amen

If you love this man so much, why don't you know a few elementary facts about his appearance?

Soooooo, anyone here actually take the time to read the two posts I made? I thought the material proved my point rather well..

For the full text, see No Beliefs (http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm)

If you love this man so much, why don't you know a few elementary facts about his appearance?because the only pictures of him are wrong they claim him to of had a long narrow face when in fact he did not
http://www.sofc.org/HOMEPAGE/jesushead.gif

How do you know he didn't have a narrow face?

because men of middle east 2000 years ago had more circular faces insted

For even more info about the founding fathers, click here. (http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/founders.htm) ;)

because men of middle east 2000 years ago had more circular faces insted

Hm. You're a little smarter than I thought.


Most people think of Jesus as an Caucasian white skinned male. But in reality, he was in all probablity a middle-browned middle eastern male.

you are correct but some people claim him to be black also

That's also pretty probable.

in my eyes people just wish to bring glory to there own cultures so they put one of best men in history as their own skin colour

Whites did it to Jesus first. Whites did it to EVERYBODY.

did what

Made all the famous people white.

oh lol true were all like "martin luther king jr was white"

oh lol true were all like "martin luther king jr was white"

I was thinking more of Ptolemy.

same difference right right :headbang:

well?

well?


dude, the debate's over.

you lost


go find something else to do

Adam and eve were born with all the genes, meaning that they were quite literally the 'perfect specimen.' Then the genes were cut in half by their offspring, and so on and so forth. Leaving us with the amount of genes we have today.
Someone may have said this already, but:
Take some genetics courses. This doesn't work. You get half of what your mother has, and half of what your father has, the "number of genes" stays the same.

i didn't think i was talking to you oh and the debates not over you moronic freak of nature who cant accept theres 1 greater then him because of his childish insecuritys

i didn't think i was talking to you oh and the debates not over you moronic freak of nature who cant accept theres 1 greater then him because of his childish insecuritys

Er...this isn't a debate.

This is a flame-war.

A debate would be both sides presenting arguments. References to constipation and freaks of nature are just plain..........

It makes me feel filthy to even type this. I'm gone.

i am right though

you know i am

Betulguese: Firstly, thank you for the lengthy resonable response. It's nice to see people can still be resonable about things like this (or some people can anyway *cough*Dementedus_Yammus*cough*)

But to get back to the issue at hand, I think you missed the point of my request (although I can see why you did) What I meant was, I would like for someone on the Christian side of the debate to make an arguement in the form of "since A is true, it implies that B is true", the same way that a scientific hypothesis must be in order to become a proven theory.

Although you came close to this (since archeologists have found evidence that someone was crucified under the name jesus by a man called pontious pilot, the new testament must be true) you haven't quite managed to make the connection (as somone mentioned, how does this prove he was the son of God) This was the reason I linked the site on logical fallacies, so that people could give such an arguement without missing a step in their proof.

Again, thanks for the detailed response. I hope you (or anyone else who is in a position to argue your case) can put forward arguements in favour of the creationist hypothesis

Oh, wow! Is there actually someone besides me on NS with some logical training? ::dances in joy::
I think what you'll find on both sides of the argument are problems of Sufficience (in terms of cogency) or Legitimate Movement (in terms of soundness) (most people pick cogency or soundness, don't know which you prefer). Also, on the pro-bible side, lots of circular reasoning and relevancy issues, and on the anti-bible side lots of every kind of ad hominem. Also, on both sides, tons of argument from ignorance: "you can't prove this so it's false".
As I noted in my previous post, I don't believe either side can possibly provide a sound argument, unless they dial down their modalities significantly. Some good attempts can of course be made, but it all comes down to certain assumptions that people disagree on. Still, it helps blow off steam if you discuss it. By the way, now that I've found you, want to discuss other things? If you're interested, drop me a TG.

You are wrong! The United States was founded on the principal of, "In God In We Trust."

Figured I'd just tell ya'!

;)

"In God We Trust" was universally coined... literally... by Eisenhower. America was not founded on this ideal. It was added to ALL ofl our currency, as well as "under God" in the Pledge, in the 1950s.
There was a lot of religious fervor in America around the time of the Revolution, and there are many religious things that are ingrained upon our culture, for better or for worse. However, I would greatly appreciate it if you would use accurate arguments to show this fact.

But yes, Brain Death is right, this was founded as a secular nation, because they knew that officially incorporating their own religious thoughts would lead to an ultimately unstable government.

not real? oh and why do you celebrate easter
I believe he was referring to you.
And to answer your question, we also talk about the Tooth Fairy. Although there is substantial, good evidence to support the idea that Jesus existed (nothing saying he was God) this is not it.

ok who is sick of the people who call us as Christian crazy or insane cause we have a faith is ressurection when they dont think other religions are. post your ops
Would you prefer "Whackey Christians"? What about if I wrote it in a cute way like "Cwazy Cwistians".

Your sick of that, everyone is is sick of you knocking on their doors.

Your sick of that, everyone is is sick of you knocking on their doors.

Yeah, its pretty damn annoying. I think Cwazy Cwistians is better. It's more "fun"

Oh, and for the record, Brain Death, I did read all of your posts (all of everyone's posts, actually... took forever...) and I greatly appreciate the effort you put in. While I disagree slightly with your tactics as far as diplomacy goes, I can fully understand your frustration.

i didn't think i was talking to you oh and the debates not over you moronic freak of nature who cant accept theres 1 greater then him because of his childish insecuritys

Yes... a person who calls someone a "moronic freak of nature" when they disagree doesn't have any childish insecurities at all.

i didn't think i was talking to you oh and the debates not over you moronic freak of nature who cant accept theres 1 greater then him because of his childish insecuritys

Haha, you're funny.
You're right, that's the *only* reason we don't believe in God, or in fact we just pretend not to, yup, you sure got us there pal. :rolleyes:

Somebody ( two at least) on this thread wouldn't know rational, reasonable or logical arguements if they bit them on the ass. And at least on of them must be a troll, because absolutely NO ONE could be that stupid. I'm sure those familiar with me can figure out who I'm talking about.

Er...this isn't a debate.

This is a flame-war.

A debate would be both sides presenting arguments. References to constipation and freaks of nature are just plain..........

Sad, but true. As with most religeous debates this has desended into a flame war


Oh, wow! Is there actually someone besides me on NS with some logical training? ::dances in joy::


Nope, we covered it breifly in a course I'm doing (ie, the lecturer spent about 10 minutes telling us about how funny it is that lawiers tend to commit logical fallacies constantly) and then I heard the host on a radio show I listen to mention it. Since my family has a tendancy to get into arguements (ones that are closer to debates than flame wars though) I thought it'd be something useful to know, so I read up on it a bit. Still no expert on it though

Wow, 65 pages.

It hasn't grown much since I was last here though.
That was last night.

But I must have missed something, I left about the time FfC2 came on, and until that point, it was reasonably debat-ey. Until, anyway, that Dementedeus dude came in (or whatever his name is).


Soooo... what'd I miss?

Oops, logged in as the wrong guy, sorry.

Remember Betulguese?

None too fondly, but yes.



And?

Just askin' what I missed.

I remember getting into some heated debates last time I was here.
Soooo... What happened 'twixt then and now?

He left, then persistant thread degeneration into a minor flamewar, then everyone sort of left.

Ffc2 is on the right side, but he is quite a stain on it. Both gramatically and behaviorally.

Please don't think that he represents the entire Christian community. Even less those intelligent enough to get in debates.

I can barely understand what he writes, it's so badly written.

He left, then persistant thread degeneration into a minor flamewar, then everyone sort of left.

Ah, I see.

So no picking up the debate again?

What makes the Christian side the "right" side?

It's the side that fights on behalf of good.

Not saying that everyone else fights on behalf of evil, they just fight on behalf of what isn't so.

Proof?

Science has shown some of the Christian religion to be "not so." Does that mean you're on the "wrong" side?

HOWEVER, I did learn something about that, "a thousand years a day unto the Lord" verse. It's in reference to the human lifespan, as in, all of our years add up to nothing when compared to God.

Proof?

Science has shown some of the Christian religion to be "not so." Does that mean you're on the "wrong" side?
You know, we've been debating this for 60 pages now. You should realize at this point that science hasn't proven jack squat about Christianity, weather it's true or false.

Have you ever seen Red vs. Blue? Funny little videos. A bit of language, but very funny nonetheless.

You know what I think would be funny? If we suddenly started a roleplay, like right here, and everyone who joined would be so lost, it'd be kinda funny.

Now, hold on. The dog is barking at me.
Lemme go walk her. Be back in 10 or so minutes.

The Earth is clearly more than 6000 years old. There is no geologic evidence for the great flood.

There is no geologic evidence for the great flood.

No, there isn't. Personally I think the flood was just a large one in the Tigris-Euphrates River valley, and didn't have any real effect on anything outside of that region. However, the effect this would have on the early religions would be immense, so this is how I interpret it.

Wow! 66 pages of mostly flaming, that has to be a record.

Wow! 66 pages of mostly flaming, that has to be a record.

We need to get it to 1000!

Nope, we covered it breifly in a course I'm doing (ie, the lecturer spent about 10 minutes telling us about how funny it is that lawiers tend to commit logical fallacies constantly) and then I heard the host on a radio show I listen to mention it. Since my family has a tendancy to get into arguements (ones that are closer to debates than flame wars though) I thought it'd be something useful to know, so I read up on it a bit. Still no expert on it though

I wasn't expecting you to be an expert, and neither am I. I just had a 3 month course on it in school, and while I learned a lot and am fairly comfortable with the material we covered, I'm just an interested student. Let me rephrase my earlier statement: Wow, someone who actually knows something about logic! ::dances with joy::

People seem to be arguing back and forth about "proof". However, this can never be resolved if you don't define what you mean by that. Here are some things that are true. They can't be proven in any way, because they are the fundamental building blocks of thought and what "truth" is. So just trust me. Or not.
1. Nothing can ever be proven without assumptions. Some assumptions are generally accepted, but at one point (way before Columbus, the Greeks figured this out) nobody thought that the earth was round. So agreement doesn't make it so. For a little project, prove to me that 2+2=4. I will agree with you that it is so, as will most people. But this statement is purely theoretical. "2" does not exist, except in the mind. It is arbitrary. Most of Mathematics is based on observed behaviors of numbers, and uses our commonly agreed upon arbitrary system for describing the world.
2. Science is the use of inductive logic. It can never prove anything. This is evidenced by the fact that theories have been wrong in the past, or not perfect, and had to be modified. No matter how many times you test something, you can't be absolutely certain. Newton almost single-handedly invented modern(ish) physics, and his predictions work in the environments in which we work. But it breaks down in certain situations, like in a dense gravitational field or on very small scales. Relativity eventually covered one of those, while Quantum Mechanics covered the other. But nobody has been able to come up with a theory that works for everything. Einstein tried, for the last 30 years of his life, in vain.
Basically, what this means is that a scientific theory has what logicians call "practical certainty", meaning that it seems to be right, nobody can find any problems with it, there is a heck of a lot of supporting evidence, and it is useful for (accurately) predicting things about the Universe that were previously unknown. All of this assumes that the Universe is consistent, that the things we observe at one time will always be true. We can't prove that gravity doesn't work the opposite way for brief moments every once in a while, we can't prove that something will always stay in motion in a straight line once put in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Laws of Thermodynamics? Laws of Motion? These are things that have been observed to be true, but because of their fundamental nature, must stand alone.
3. Given some basic axioms, many things can be discovered. Based on exactly 5 assumed truths, all of Euclidean Geometry can be proven. As I said, nothing can be proven without assumptions, but it is truly amazing that with only 5 assumptions, all of geometry can be proven, beyond a doubt, to be true. Different geometries can be made assuming different axioms, and that has in fact been done. There are certain things that are axioms of argument: things like "murder is bad" and "helping others is good". We use these to construct "normative statements", which appeal to social norms, and it is this form of argument that is used to persuade people to take a certain action.

Basically, in summary, nothing can be proven without assumptions. One side of this "debate" is using "the Bible is true" as an assumption, or at the very least "the people who say that the Bible is true are right". The people arguing against are assuming "things found with practical certainty in science are true". Personally, I find the second claim more reasonable, partially because it follows from very strong inductive arguments, but that's just me. If anyone disagrees with me on this, let me know. If not, please argue in a more civilized tone, because nobody here actually knows anything.

I apologize for the rediculously long-winded nature of the above post :)

That last sentance before the smiley kinda sounded like what a hippie would say, no offense, dude:

"Nobody actually owns anything. One people, one property, right, man? Like, who knows, dude; we could be just the daydreams of a greater spirit or something."



Wait... I protest. I have not been up to as much flaming as anybody else on this forum.
Oh, just as a side note, I was formerly known as Betulguese.

What if the physical world is really just an illusion? Or, what if it is really a kind of Purgatory? This raises the question: How can we prove our existence?

I haven't a problem when people are religious..

HOWEVER,

I do mind when they think their idea's are the truth and the way - Disrespecting my life and MY beliefs...

If religion works for you - Good, Great... If something else does - Good, Great...

I can honestly say I am not relgious - Yet I find my moral values equal to better then most people in life..

The question isn't about - How does God feel about me ?

But rather - How Does Troy feel about me ?

In that is the truth...

Troy*

I haven't a problem when people are religious..

HOWEVER,

I do mind when they think their idea's are the truth and the way - Disrespecting my life and MY beliefs...


Policing other people's thoughts now, too...

What if the physical world is really just an illusion? Or, what if it is really a kind of Purgatory? This raises the question: How can we prove our existence?

"I think, therefore, I am."

If I have the ability to question my existence, I most certainly exist.

If I have the ability to question my existence, I most certainly exist.

Excellent reply. That's all I can say.

I have so much respect for posters in this thread. They can't spell "insecurities" right, along with other sixth-grade words, but have the whole universe figured out.

I can sum all of this up in a single sentence.

We are all arrogant and think we are right.
:headbang: Is it really that difficult to admit?

Do you remember the guy who said, "I think, therefore I am?"

That's who came up with the idea.

Whoops... Gotta go.

I'll admit it right now: I think I am right, and so would be considered arogant.

Well, that was refreshing. Time to move on to another thread.

I can sum all of this up in a single sentence.

We are all arrogant and think we are right.
:headbang: Is it really that difficult to admit?

I'll go with that.

I'll admit it right now: I think I am right, and so would be considered arogant.

Well, that was refreshing. Time to move on to another thread.
Everyone is arrogant to a degree, which I failed to mention. I am not saying that anyone is wrong, however.

Everyone is arrogant to a degree, which I failed to mention. I am not saying that anyone is wrong, however.

Didn't interpret it that way, and I'm just admitting the truth about myself.

You know, we've been debating this for 60 pages now. You should realize at this point that science hasn't proven jack squat about Christianity, weather it's true or false.

Yeah, and you haven't proven jack shit about anything, so don't be all cocky. You have simply beliefs. You cannot prove a belief; nor can you assume that you are absolutly right, end of story, without being incredibly arrogant

I haven't a problem when people are religious..

HOWEVER,

I do mind when they think their idea's are the truth and the way - Disrespecting my life and MY beliefs...

If religion works for you - Good, Great... If something else does - Good, Great...

I can honestly say I am not relgious - Yet I find my moral values equal to better then most people in life..

The question isn't about - How does God feel about me ?

But rather - How Does Troy feel about me ?

In that is the truth...

Troy*

You object to other people considering their religion better than other peoples' and telling them that, and yet you just broadcast to the world that:
<snip>...Yet I find my moral values equal to better then most people in life....</snip>

I think I know what you mean, but still, be more careful about that please :)
Oh, and about my being a hippie? No, I'm not. Prove our existance? We can't, because all methods of proof rely on our experiences and reasoning being true. As far as us just being the imaginations of a greater being? Well, if so, does it matter? They imagined a Universe for us to play with :)
My post was completely serious, and I challenge you to prove any part of it false. Not saying it's impossible, just saying it's a "challenge".

"I think, therefore, I am."

If I have the ability to question my existence, I most certainly exist.

This reasoning is flawed, because the verb takes "I" as a subject. Sure, if you assume there's an "I" to do the thinking, you can draw from that that there exists an "I". It's a very popular circular logic.
However, don't worry, I believe you when you say you exist :)