Jesus thread...

[geoff]

Nelson: you can not expect the world to believe everything we do. Someone will always try to rationalize the supernatural and miraculous. I believe you brother. There are very specific prophecies made by the prophet Daniel. But prophecy coming true is for the believers to know if that word was from God or not; it is not for those without faith to come to Christ. Only the Spirit may draw a man to salvation. We as believers are to preach the cross and plant a seed of hope and faith. God alone gives the increase.

[geoff]

Blank: you should look in a mirror some time sir.

[Got Milk?]

Blank: you should look in a mirror some time sir.


I find your signature very offending and racial, why do you have a white man, who seems to be in his late thirties, nailed to a 2x4?

[geoff]

Because that man whom you never met died for you and offered you eternal life. This man whom you ridicule, loves you unconditionally. Your sins put that man through the worst kind of pain one can experience and He did it because He thought your life was worth it. When you deserved death, He gave you life. I have that picture up so that the next time you make fun of Jesus or a Christians faith, you can be reminded that He did it for you.

[.blank cd]

Jesus wasn't White.

[Sinfix_15]

I can't believe you guys are still arguing about this. If there were any self respecting mods on this forum, they would have closed this long ago.

you dont have to visit this section of the forum.

[Elbow]

Jesus wasn't White.

Oh yes he was.

[Sinfix_15]

Oh yes he was.

Lot of white guys from this part of the world?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zAYWq3hW4RQ/Tc3DEEA0OPI/AAAAAAAABeA/sAuSOlGuixM/s1600/a+middle-east-map.jpg

[Elbow]

Lot of white guys from this part of the world?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zAYWq3hW4RQ/Tc3DEEA0OPI/AAAAAAAABeA/sAuSOlGuixM/s1600/a+middle-east-map.jpg

Yes, me.

[Sinfix_15]

Yes, me.

So Jesus was a white guy born in north africa over 2000 years ago? cool, learn something new every day.

[Elbow]

So Jesus was a white guy born in north africa over 2000 years ago? cool, learn something new every day.

He isn't from Earth. He was born in heaven. Jeez you don't know anything.

He was flown to Earth.

[.blank cd]

He was flown to Earth.
in a C130 or a Boeing 777? I'd imagine someone as important as him would travel pretty plush, so I'm gonna go with the 777

Maybe it was a G4

[BanginJimmy]

in a C130 or a Boeing 777? I'd imagine someone as important as him would travel pretty plush, so I'm gonna go with the 777

Maybe it was a G4

G650. He gave his g4 to Muhammad.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[geoff]

Bit off topic guys, don't you think? How about some trivia....can anyone here tell me what Jesus' message was? It consists of two rules and one proclamation that sum up pretty much everything...

I would really like to see if you know the simplest thing about what you choose not to believe and mock.

[Elbow]

Bit off topic guys, don't you think? How about some trivia....can anyone here tell me what Jesus' message was? It consists of two rules and one proclamation that sum up pretty much everything...

I would really like to see if you know the simplest thing about what you choose not to believe and mock.

I believe and don't mock.

Who are you anyway IA's official word of Jesus?

[geoff]

I'm IA's resident evangelist. My comments weren't directed to you. But since you responded, can you answer the question?

[Elbow]

I'm IA's resident evangelist. My comments weren't directed to you. But since you responded, can you answer the question?

What's the answer? lol

[geoff]

I'm asking you sir.

[Elbow]

I'm asking you sir.

I don't know.

[geoff]

I will pm you. I wanna see if any of the atheists here know just what they are refusing to believe.

[Sinfix_15]

Bit off topic guys, don't you think? How about some trivia....can anyone here tell me what Jesus' message was? It consists of two rules and one proclamation that sum up pretty much everything...

I would really like to see if you know the simplest thing about what you choose not to believe and mock.

to serve god and treat others how you want to be treated. To "save the world" by teaching people about God?


If someone stands in the middle of time square today and yells " i am the son of god, drink milk it's good for you ", i can believe one part of this without believing the other. The bible is filled with good ideas..... and bad ideas..... the usefulness of it doesnt validate it's credibility.

[.blank cd]

I will pm you. I wanna see if any of the atheists here know just what they are refusing to believe.

What does it matter what his message was anyway? Atheists don't believe in religious deities. It's that simple.

[geoff]

Sinfix: science can not test the claims Jesus made nor the miracles He performed. The only thing we can trust as far as credibility goes, is history. There was indeed a man named Jesus, from the region of galilae(sp?), son of a carpenter, who preached forgiveness and repentance, and was crucified. There are historical documents(evidence) that corroborate Pontias Pilate and the region of Israel as depicted in the Bible. Whether you believe that He was God in flesh or that He actually performed miracles; one thing is clear... This man did something incredible. Something so great that it sparked great debate in this roman controlled area, overthrew the "religious" ruling order of the time, caused great spread of His message and completely changed the known world at the time. So great was He and His message that it spread like wild fire and took over the surrounding area. This man caused a stirring of people's that has never again been seen nor ever was. The words of a mad man would not have had the same following or influence...the words of a liar would have quickly faded upon skeptics who were proven right if only one single thing He said was shown as false. Here it is 2000 years later and Jesus' words still echo as loudly as when He first said them. A billion people still believe in all He said and did. For one to conclude that Jesus was an insignificant character in history would be foolish. By the way, you were almost right. The proclamation He made was that the Kindom of God was with man.

Blank: my point is this, you choose to refute and distrust something you don't know a lot about. Science can not test or experiment on God. It can not replicate Him in lab studies. How would one even begin to do so? All the evidence of God ever needed was found in the man Jesus the Christ. His message, His deeds, his morals, His life, death, and resurrection. We will never get as close to God as when Jesus walked the region of Israel. Think about this for a second, Christians these days are full of faults, but can you name one fault in Jesus? He forgave even those who murdered Him. I have a sneaky suspicion that you might have actually like Jesus as a man...He had many liberal views.

[geoff]

Sinfix: there would be a simple way to test that man in time squares claim. You kill him, if he comes back to life three days later like he said he would, that man just might be divine.

[Sinfix_15]

Sinfix: science can not test the claims Jesus made nor the miracles He performed. The only thing we can trust as far as credibility goes, is history. There was indeed a man named Jesus, from the region of galilae(sp?), son of a carpenter, who preached forgiveness and repentance, and was crucified. There are historical documents(evidence) that corroborate Pontias Pilate and the region of Israel as depicted in the Bible. Whether you believe that He was God in flesh or that He actually performed miracles; one thing is clear... This man did something incredible. Something so great that it sparked great debate in this roman controlled area, overthrew the "religious" ruling order of the time, caused great spread of His message and completely changed the known world at the time. So great was He and His message that it spread like wild fire and took over the surrounding area. This man caused a stirring of people's that has never again been seen nor ever was. The words of a mad man would not have had the same following or influence...the words of a liar would have quickly faded upon skeptics who were proven right if only one single thing He said was shown as false. Here it is 2000 years later and Jesus' words still echo as loudly as when He first said them. A billion people still believe in all He said and did. For one to conclude that Jesus was an insignificant character in history would be foolish. By the way, you were almost right. The proclamation He made was that the Kindom of God was with man.

Blank: my point is this, you choose to refute and distrust something you don't know a lot about. Science can not test or experiment on God. It can not replicate Him in lab studies. How would one even begin to do so? All the evidence of God ever needed was found in the man Jesus the Christ. His message, His deeds, his morals, His life, death, and resurrection. We will never get as close to God as when Jesus walked the region of Israel. Think about this for a second, Christians these days are full of faults, but can you name one fault in Jesus? He forgave even those who murdered Him. I have a sneaky suspicion that you might have actually like Jesus as a man...He had many liberal views.

Have a response to this, but wont have time until i get off work.

[geoff]

Some non Biblical references to corroborate the Jesus story:

Flavious Josephus
Tacitus
Thallus
Pliny the younger
The Talmud
Lucian
Celsus
Terrullian
Yeshu and Joshua b. Parachiah
Simeon b. azzai
Baraitha
The toldoth yeshu

And then biblical accounts:
Matthew
Mark
John
Luke
James
Paul (formerly Saul of tarsus)
Peter

Non canon biblical references:
Mary magdalen
Judas
Ect....

Many references to historic/biblical Jesus. You can argue the authenticity of some of the writings, but that can be argued for many historic writings of anywhere or anyone whom there are no living eye witnesses. There are only two possible conclusions, either it's true or a lie. But one would think that if it was a lie, then only positive writings of Jesus, the church, and early Christianity would have been written. What of the negative ones? Just some food for thought...

[Got Milk?]

Sinfix: science can not test the claims Jesus made nor the miracles He performed. The only thing we can trust as far as credibility goes, is history. There was indeed a man named Jesus, from the region of galilae(sp?), son of a carpenter, who preached forgiveness and repentance, and was crucified. There are historical documents(evidence) that corroborate Pontias Pilate and the region of Israel as depicted in the Bible. Whether you believe that He was God in flesh or that He actually performed miracles; one thing is clear... This man did something incredible. Something so great that it sparked great debate in this roman controlled area, overthrew the "religious" ruling order of the time, caused great spread of His message and completely changed the known world at the time. So great was He and His message that it spread like wild fire and took over the surrounding area. This man caused a stirring of people's that has never again been seen nor ever was. The words of a mad man would not have had the same following or influence...the words of a liar would have quickly faded upon skeptics who were proven right if only one single thing He said was shown as false. Here it is 2000 years later and Jesus' words still echo as loudly as when He first said them. A billion people still believe in all He said and did. For one to conclude that Jesus was an insignificant character in history would be foolish. By the way, you were almost right. The proclamation He made was that the Kindom of God was with man.

Blank: my point is this, you choose to refute and distrust something you don't know a lot about. Science can not test or experiment on God. It can not replicate Him in lab studies. How would one even begin to do so? All the evidence of God ever needed was found in the man Jesus the Christ. His message, His deeds, his morals, His life, death, and resurrection. We will never get as close to God as when Jesus walked the region of Israel. Think about this for a second, Christians these days are full of faults, but can you name one fault in Jesus? He forgave even those who murdered Him. I have a sneaky suspicion that you might have actually like Jesus as a man...He had many liberal views.


It changed the world because all the peasants believed the fairy tale, because that's all they had going for them. I can come up with w.e. BS story, if i tell that story well, make it sound believable, I too could have followers/believers, and who knows, two thousands years down the road my followers might grow into billions. There are over 20 major religions in the world, over thousands overall, what does that tell you? I'll let you figure it out. And what happened to Greek gods, they weren't good enough your god? lolol @ religions.

Religions are good way of life in some aspects, but if you read your fucking book you believe in, and read everything in it, you, yourself wouldn't agree to half the crap in there. Stop trying to force your BELIEFS on other people, ITS ONLY A BELIEF, so quit your bickering.

[geoff]

^this guy.....I would bet my life that you could start your own religion and not gain even 1000 followers. I have read my Bible, many times. Ones eyes have to be open to the spiritual to truly understand. You seem to think Jesus was an insignificant character on history, yet here we are 2000 years later and He has a billion followers. That sir makes you seem very foolish.

[geoff]

Oh and I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone. I'm simply stating my views and side of the argument. You're the one that strolled in here and got offended. By the way, do you even know what force means? Real class you got there buddy...

[.blank cd]

^this guy.....I would bet my life that you could start your own religion and not gain even 1000 followers.L. Ron Hubbard did it. Joseph Smith Jr. did it too.


You seem to think Jesus was an insignificant character on history, yet here we are 2000 years later and He has a billion followers. That sir makes you seem very foolish.Still the minority of the world population and that number still dwindles every day.

[geoff]

You as an atheist are the minority my friend. I would love to see statistics on just how many followers Scientology has...

[geoff]

Also, Joseph smith didn't create anything new, he started a separate denomination.

[.blank cd]

You as an atheist are the minority my friend.If you include children and not-yet-indoctrinated persons, we're not as small of a group as you think. Regardless, out of more than 7 billion people, only 2 billion identify as Christian.

[geoff]

That's a pretty significant number my friend. Jesus' teaching are followed by 2 billion people 2000 years later. You also avoided everything else I posted I see.

[.blank cd]

That's a pretty significant number my friend. Jesus' teaching are followed by 2 billion people 2000 years later. You also avoided everything else I posted I see.

I didn't avoid it. Joseph Smith created the Latter-Day Saints movement, and they both have more than 1000 followers.

[quickdodge®]

HJow about all this Jesus talk be split into another thread and not cluttering up this one? Later, QD.

[geoff]

Someone start it up....

[Sinfix_15]

Sinfix: science can not test the claims Jesus made nor the miracles He performed. The only thing we can trust as far as credibility goes, is history. There was indeed a man named Jesus, from the region of galilae(sp?), son of a carpenter, who preached forgiveness and repentance, and was crucified. There are historical documents(evidence) that corroborate Pontias Pilate and the region of Israel as depicted in the Bible. Whether you believe that He was God in flesh or that He actually performed miracles; one thing is clear... This man did something incredible. Something so great that it sparked great debate in this roman controlled area, overthrew the "religious" ruling order of the time, caused great spread of His message and completely changed the known world at the time. So great was He and His message that it spread like wild fire and took over the surrounding area. This man caused a stirring of people's that has never again been seen nor ever was. The words of a mad man would not have had the same following or influence...the words of a liar would have quickly faded upon skeptics who were proven right if only one single thing He said was shown as false. Here it is 2000 years later and Jesus' words still echo as loudly as when He first said them. A billion people still believe in all He said and did. For one to conclude that Jesus was an insignificant character in history would be foolish. By the way, you were almost right. The proclamation He made was that the Kindom of God was with man.

Blank: my point is this, you choose to refute and distrust something you don't know a lot about. Science can not test or experiment on God. It can not replicate Him in lab studies. How would one even begin to do so? All the evidence of God ever needed was found in the man Jesus the Christ. His message, His deeds, his morals, His life, death, and resurrection. We will never get as close to God as when Jesus walked the region of Israel. Think about this for a second, Christians these days are full of faults, but can you name one fault in Jesus? He forgave even those who murdered Him. I have a sneaky suspicion that you might have actually like Jesus as a man...He had many liberal views.

Perfect time and setting. I've mentioned something like this before. Jesus landed in the perfect era for a story like this to catch fire. Recorded history was well enough for it to be recorded, but not traveled enough for it to be debunked. You also have the factor of an oppressive government. The only thing you need to be a leader, is followers. Jesus "stood up" to an oppressive government who was crucifying people in the streets. Of course he had followers. Jesus wasnt the only person crucified. 1000s were crucified. Jesus wasnt even the only person named Jesus to be crucified. Nor was he the only person to be crucified for claiming to be a god of some sort.

In the modern day, news of something like this would travel over twitter, facebook, news ect... people would fact check it and validate it or discredit it ect. With Jesus, the story had plenty of time to gain lore while traveling mouth to mouth. My guess is that with each person that spread the word, the lore grew. Yes, it is impressive that people are still following Jesus after all this time...... well, maybe impressive isnt the correct word.... but it's something. People are also still talking about Mayans, greek gods, mormonism, satanism, ect ect........

[geoff]

You got a source for that? Also, where did Jesus ever "stand up" against the oppressive government? He commanded them to submit to their leaders and pay the due taxes. What He did do is "stand up" to the political religious leaders. This "Christian" movement is by far the most significant in history. Is it just coincidence that He appeared during the "perfect" setting in history. The Romans probably began to lose faith in their gods because the relationship was one sided. Paul came to preach the "un named" god whom they worshipped. A God with whom they could know on a personal level. There is also a difference between talking about something I.e. Mayans, Greek gods, ect...and having a following of 2.18 billion devout believers. Christianity is not fading away and neither is Jesus. In fact in 1910 there were some 600 million believers, in 2010 there were 2.18 billion. Today it is roughly 2.3 billion and the largest religion in the world. No other event in history can claim that after 2000 years, the event still has such a strong filling. According to the numbers, Jesus the Christ was the most influential man in our history. Can you really try to rationalize that so many would follow a mad man or liar?

[Got Milk?]

You got a source for that? Also, where did Jesus ever "stand up" against the oppressive government? He commanded them to submit to their leaders and pay the due taxes. What He did do is "stand up" to the political religious leaders. This "Christian" movement is by far the most significant in history. Is it just coincidence that He appeared during the "perfect" setting in history. The Romans probably began to lose faith in their gods because the relationship was one sided. Paul came to preach the "un named" god whom they worshipped. A God with whom they could know on a personal level. There is also a difference between talking about something I.e. Mayans, Greek gods, ect...and having a following of 2.18 billion devout believers. Christianity is not fading away and neither is Jesus. In fact in 1910 there were some 600 million believers, in 2010 there were 2.18 billion. Today it is roughly 2.3 billion and the largest religion in the world. No other event in history can claim that after 2000 years, the event still has such a strong filling. According to the numbers, Jesus the Christ was the most influential man in our history. Can you really try to rationalize that so many would follow a mad man or liar?


Jesus was real, Jesus might, or have thought ways of life, so did my teachers in school. That's all he was, a preacher/teacher. And I agree with a lot that's written in the Bible,Quran, ect... But I also don't believe in a mass of it. For one, marrying my dead brothers wife is not, and will never be my way of life. What pisses me off is "Christians" who believe he was some god, or he could talk with god, ect.... Even to this day we have people who act in that way, but we have a place for those people now days, it's called a mental institution.

[Sinfix_15]

You got a source for that? Also, where did Jesus ever "stand up" against the oppressive government? He commanded them to submit to their leaders and pay the due taxes. What He did do is "stand up" to the political religious leaders. This "Christian" movement is by far the most significant in history. Is it just coincidence that He appeared during the "perfect" setting in history. The Romans probably began to lose faith in their gods because the relationship was one sided. Paul came to preach the "un named" god whom they worshipped. A God with whom they could know on a personal level. There is also a difference between talking about something I.e. Mayans, Greek gods, ect...and having a following of 2.18 billion devout believers. Christianity is not fading away and neither is Jesus. In fact in 1910 there were some 600 million believers, in 2010 there were 2.18 billion. Today it is roughly 2.3 billion and the largest religion in the world. No other event in history can claim that after 2000 years, the event still has such a strong filling. According to the numbers, Jesus the Christ was the most influential man in our history. Can you really try to rationalize that so many would follow a mad man or liar?

Let me rephrase, Jesus didnt "stand up" to the government in a sense that he fought them or anything. He was an opposing idea to an oppressing government. He was something to believe in for people who desperately needed something to believe in. Rome can take credit for the lore growing, if they didnt make it a big deal, it probably would have never been a big deal. Jesus is not an uncommon name. Being named Jesus would be like being named John. Being crucified was not something exclusive to Jesus Christ. Many people were crucified. If Jesus' was more "special" than others, it was probably a combination of him having a following and they felt the need to make an example of him and that he probably refused any "plea deals" offered by Rome and angered them.

Whether or not you want to believe a story can greatly change how it gets told. If Tim Tebow played football in 200BC before ESPN and twitter and the only evidence of his ability was the news spread by word of mouth from fans......

we'd be sitting here today talking about how Tim Tebow split the dead sea with a stiff arm and him diving for a touch down is what broke up the continents. The ice age that killed the dinosaurs was God icing Tebow's knees after a game.

Also, the argument that "people still believe in Jesus after 2000 years" doesnt validate it either. Christianity is not the lone standing religion. So obviously, people still believe in other deities as well, even though theyre aware of Jesus. Does "staying power" validate other religions?

[Elbow]

What exactly is the argument here? lol

[geoff]

Got milk: history will show us that a movement this large does not get inspired by a lunitic or liar. I believe everything Jesus said. I believe He is Divine. I believe He was/is God wrapped in flesh, an image of God and the evidence of God that people wanted. I also am not in a mental institution. Why does it "piss you off" as to what I believe? You can go on believing He was a good man and a preacher, it's no skin off my back. I am stating my own personal beliefs(which happen to be shared by 2.3 billion others). You can choose to deny His Divinity, but only a fool would deny that this man, whether God or not, made a HUGE impact on history.

Sinfix: Jesus taught submission to those who had power over you. The only thing He was against was the hypocritical religious pharasee's and saducees. They preached the coming kingdom of God and to obey mosaic law and ritual. They presented themselves as "holy", yet set up a business in the temple. Sounds kinda like the "church" today huh? The apostle Paul wrote that the Christ walked among them, and they knew Him not. The reason Jesus was so popular was for the simple reason that He was the fulfillment of a 1000 year old prophecy. A promise that God Himself would be with man on earth. He was the Messiah, the promise of salvation to the Jews. Yet, despite the number of His followers, He was still crucified...why? Because the High Priests in charge of the Jews believed the Messiah would free His people from oppression and establish a new Jewish kingdom. But they missed out, the promised Kingdom of God was not to be a physical one. It was a spiritual kingdom. Jesus did not bring salvation from the Romans, but salvation from sin. For the first time ever, the people could know God as a personal God. To not have to sacrifice animals to cover sin, but to have Christ be the sacrifice for absolute forgiveness of sin. The Pharasee's crucified Jesus, not the Romans. He was murdered because He didnt fit the Jewish interpretation of the Christ. He called them out on their hypocrisy and their false rituals. Therefore, they sought to silence Him. Little did they know, He was meant to be crucified as the ultimate and final sacrifice for sin. Rome was not the reason Christianity grew. Revival started in the places Jesus walked, talked, and performed miracles. He endowed the apostles with the same abilities and from that and eye witness accounts...Christianity spread like wildfire, first to the Jew then the gentile.

I'm sure Jesus was a popular name. I'm sure others were crucified. But none left the legacy He did, none claimed or taught what He did, none gave themselves up to die for humanity. Say what you will brother, but in 3 1/2 years, Jesus accomplished the greatest revival in history. One that no man has done or could do again. You choose to believe He was a good man that died and that's fine. For me, He is my own personal God, my Friend, my Father, my Savior and my Lord. Best of all; I know Him by name, by experience, and by things which surpass understanding and the natural world. I know what God has done for me and with me. Atheists mock Christians for believinibg something without proof, yet they have never actually seen evolution happen. Don't believe me, check out the article below for an unbiased non Christian report...

Science Literature - Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies)

[.blank cd]

Atheists mock Christians for believing something without proof, yet they have never actually seen evolution happen. Don't believe me, check out the article below for an unbiased non Christian report...

Science Literature - Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies)LOL. Here we go. Still believe evolution is a myth huh? FYI, that article doesn't say anything about not being able to observe evolution. Evolution has been observed many times.

[.blank cd]

Rome can take credit for the lore growing, if they didnt make it a big deal, it probably would have never been a big deal.This. That's what history tells us anyway.


Jesus is not an uncommon name. Being named Jesus would be like being named JohnHis name really wasnt "Jesus".

[Got Milk?]

Got milk: history will show us that a movement this large does not get inspired by a lunitic or liar. I believe everything Jesus said. I believe He is Divine. I believe He was/is God wrapped in flesh, an image of God and the evidence of God that people wanted. I also am not in a mental institution. Why does it "piss you off" as to what I believe? You can go on believing He was a good man and a preacher, it's no skin off my back. I am stating my own personal beliefs(which happen to be shared by 2.3 billion others). You can choose to deny His Divinity, but only a fool would deny that this man, whether God or not, made a HUGE impact on history.

Sinfix: Jesus taught submission to those who had power over you. The only thing He was against was the hypocritical religious pharasee's and saducees. They preached the coming kingdom of God and to obey mosaic law and ritual. They presented themselves as "holy", yet set up a business in the temple. Sounds kinda like the "church" today huh? The apostle Paul wrote that the Christ walked among them, and they knew Him not. The reason Jesus was so popular was for the simple reason that He was the fulfillment of a 1000 year old prophecy. A promise that God Himself would be with man on earth. He was the Messiah, the promise of salvation to the Jews. Yet, despite the number of His followers, He was still crucified...why? Because the High Priests in charge of the Jews believed the Messiah would free His people from oppression and establish a new Jewish kingdom. But they missed out, the promised Kingdom of God was not to be a physical one. It was a spiritual kingdom. Jesus did not bring salvation from the Romans, but salvation from sin. For the first time ever, the people could know God as a personal God. To not have to sacrifice animals to cover sin, but to have Christ be the sacrifice for absolute forgiveness of sin. The Pharasee's crucified Jesus, not the Romans. He was murdered because He didnt fit the Jewish interpretation of the Christ. He called them out on their hypocrisy and their false rituals. Therefore, they sought to silence Him. Little did they know, He was meant to be crucified as the ultimate and final sacrifice for sin. Rome was not the reason Christianity grew. Revival started in the places Jesus walked, talked, and performed miracles. He endowed the apostles with the same abilities and from that and eye witness accounts...Christianity spread like wildfire, first to the Jew then the gentile.

I'm sure Jesus was a popular name. I'm sure others were crucified. But none left the legacy He did, none claimed or taught what He did, none gave themselves up to die for humanity. Say what you will brother, but in 3 1/2 years, Jesus accomplished the greatest revival in history. One that no man has done or could do again. You choose to believe He was a good man that died and that's fine. For me, He is my own personal God, my Friend, my Father, my Savior and my Lord. Best of all; I know Him by name, by experience, and by things which surpass understanding and the natural world. I know what God has done for me and with me. Atheists mock Christians for believinibg something without proof, yet they have never actually seen evolution happen. Don't believe me, check out the article below for an unbiased non Christian report...

Science Literature - Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies)



So you believe in:

Jesus walked on water? Really...

That his killing was a sacrifice in order that we might be forgiven for the sins of Eve, the first woman in the world, who lived way before his time, a magical garden, where a talking snake convinced her to eat a forbidden apple. Really...

If your rape a women, and you take her virginity, she shall not sleep with no other man and is to marry the rapist? Really...

If your brother gets married, and has kids, if he passes away, it is your duty to marry his wife and take care of his kids.... Really...


Should I go on?

[.blank cd]

Don't forget, god put all life on the earth in their current form, from nothing.

[geoff]

Blank: I'm not sure what to call evolution. But I do know that according to that article and trying to observe evolution in bacteria; that after 600 generations of fruit flies and 40,000 generations of bacteria, that it has not been observed. Did you even read the article?

"Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles. This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for ~600 generations. Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments. This suggests that selection does not readily expunge genetic variation in sexual populations, a finding which in turn should motivate efforts to discover why this is seemingly the case."

Please tell me what that "really" means according to your logic. And just what was Jesus' name then? And please show me a source that says Christianity would not have grown without Romans spreading the lore.


Got milk: yeah, I believe Jesus walked on water. There is eye witness testimony given. Why should I disregard their testimony in favor of someone who wasn't there to see it, much less even believe Jesus was real. Is there evidence to the contrary? Your understanding of scripture is seriously flawed. Jesus didn't die for the sins of Eve. He died for your sins, my sins, and anyone who was/is/or will ever be. Again your understanding of scripture shows just how much understanding you actually lack. The man who raped a woman, and she cried out, was put to death. If she did not cry out for help ( then it wasn't rape, it was fornication) then they had to marry one another. The brother married the widow and sired children do that his brothers legacy might go on. This goes more in depth but I don't expect you to understand anything of Jewish tradition or Mosaic Law. Further more, I love when atheists try to use scripture against me, just shows how little you know about what you profess is a fairy tale/lie lol.

[geoff]

Don't forget, god put all life on the earth in their current form, from nothing.


No nature for no reason created nothing by chance which became life soup that sprouted legs and then became trees, rocks, monkeys, dinasaurs, and then humans. A theory that goes against the very laws of physics that govern evolution. Yeah, that makes sense, the 1:10000000000000000000000 chance that we are here for no apparent reason or cause...:thinking:

[.blank cd]

Blank: I'm not sure what to call evolution. But I do know that according to that article and trying to observe evolution in bacteria; that after 600 generations of fruit flies and 40,000 generations of bacteria, that it has not been observed. Did you even read the article?Yes I read it. Did you read it? Moreover, did you understand what it's telling us?


Please tell me what that "really" means according to your logic.According to the bible his name wasn't Jesus. You should know what it is.


And please show me a source that says Christianity would not have grown without Romans spreading the lore.Scholars suggest Christianity spread due to a Roman influence. Do you not know this?



yeah, I believe Jesus walked on water. There is eye witness testimony given.Eyewitness testimony of someone defying the laws of physics? And you seriously believe that? This is why you can't take evangelicals seriously, because their belief system is not grounded in reality.

[.blank cd]

No nature for no reason created nothing by chance which became life soup that sprouted legs and then became trees, rocks, monkeys, dinasaurs, and then humans. A theory that goes against the very laws of physics that govern evolution. Yeah, that makes sense, the 1:10000000000000000000000 chance that we are here for no apparent reason or cause...:thinking:So you do not understand the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis, because zero scientists think it goes against the laws of physics at all. None of what you said is anywhere near the current scientific theory of evolution. Sorry.

[geoff]

And this article below:
Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test - Evolution News & Views (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/thou_shalt_not062351.html)

I've asked this before and will ask again. What qualifies one researchers study and findings as true and another's as false? Why take ones word over the other? Any time some complication arises with evolution, atheists look for a scape goat I.e. " the question shouldn't be can x turn into y, it should be, can x turn into anything else? Is that how science works? You start out with a belief and then when complications arise, you tweak it and say " there ya go, this should work now". Evolution has not been observed in a lab during experimentation.

Here is a link to show how the scientific method works:
Scientific Method - The four steps of the scientific method. (http://www.scientificpsychic.com/workbook/scientific-method.htm)
With evolution not being able to be observed during experimentation, how than can it be a scientific fact or theory? Let's call it what it really is, a hypothesi.

[.blank cd]

And this article below:
Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test - Evolution News & Views (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/thou_shalt_not062351.html)

I've asked this before and will ask again. What qualifies one researchers study and findings as true and another's as false? Why take ones word over the other? Any time some complication arises with evolution, atheists look for a scape goat I.e. " the question shouldn't be can x turn into y, it should be, can x turn into anything else? Is that how science works? You start out with a belief and then when complications arise, you tweak it and say " there ya go, this should work now". Evolution has not been observed in a lab during experimentation.

Here is a link to show how the scientific method works:
Scientific Method - The four steps of the scientific method. (http://www.scientificpsychic.com/workbook/scientific-method.htm)
With evolution not being able to be observed during experimentation, how than can it be a scientific fact or theory? Let's call it what it really is, a hypothesi.I know full well what the scientific method is. Evolution is no longer a hypothesis, but a testable fact and theory. Just because YOU don't understand how it works doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Lol

[.blank cd]

Geoff, can we see your research you've conducted to disprove evolution? If you have some, you need to get it peer reviewed so you can go collect your Nobel Prize.

[quickdodge®]

Got milk: yeah, I believe Jesus walked on water. There is eye witness testimony given. Why should I disregard their testimony in favor of someone who wasn't there to see it...

Lolol. "Eye witnesses?" From 2,000, give or take, years ago? So there's no way this story could have been altered or exaggerated just a bit? You've never heard of fish stories? Where an event starts off one way and is a completely different occasion by the time it gets back to the original author? Later, QD.

[geoff]

QD: it could have, if it wasn't written down. So, no. I still have a simple question...does anyone here deny that Jesus and His message was the most influential and greatest event in history?

Blank: I will get back to you. You gave me a lot to respond too, give me some time.

[quickdodge®]

QD: it could have, if it wasn't written down. So, no.

That's funny, man. Lolol. So it was written down so it's true? Wow, dude. I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, but do you really believe that (what you just said)? If I wrote down that I jumped into Mt. St. Helen's during it's eruption in 1980 and landed with the ashes here in Georgia, would that be something you could believe happened as well? I mean, I did write it down so it has to be true, yes?


I still have a simple question...does anyone here deny that Jesus and His message was the most influential and greatest event in history?

I believe that the messages from the 10 Commandments are mostly certainly words to live by. I think they are a set of the most influential words to anyone's life. I believe it could be looked at as most influential as it provides a healthy foundation to live your life by. And I don't meant that from a religious standpoint. I mean that as a human being standpoint. As far as the "greatest events" thing? No because it's not known to have actually happened. If that stuff really happened, then probably yes. But as far as factual history and greatest events goes, I'd have to list the Wright Brothers, Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Graham Bell, etc. as providing some of the greatest events in history. Later, QD.

[geoff]

QD: re read what you said. You talked about the story of Jesus as being like the telephone game, a simple oral tradition. But, this is not the case. Eye witnesses and those that were alive experiencing the "Jesus" movement wrote down what they saw/ heard. Without being able to travel back in time or study the body of Jesus, all one can go on us historical documentation. I will provide you that list again below. Sure the 10 commandments are great, but we are talking about the man Jesus, of whom there does exist historical documentation of His life. One can choose to "chalk" up the documents as false or misleading, but that can be said about many historical figures. I addressed this in an earlier post. I find it ironic that people will do readily believe in evolution despite the fact that it has not been observed in a lab how the theory describes it. Yet, when presented with historical documentation, they choose to ignore it. 200 years from now, will anyone believe that blacks once had unequal rights or that the holocaust happened? How does one choose what history to accept and what history to describe. It is safe to say beyond reasonable doubt that the man Jesus existed and did something great that inspired 2.3 billion people to believe Him and His message 2000 years ago. I can not force you to accept simple truths.

List on page 2 post #26 of this thread.

Also, if you had thousands of eye witness see you do that incredible feat and then had 20 or so of them write about it; I would believe yet be skeptical.

[quickdodge®]

QD: re read what you said.

There is nothing to reread. I'm fully aware of what I posted, sir. I didn't say anything about a "telephone game." I was talking about word of mouth. How do you honestly know that there were witnesses? How do you honestly know that this story is completely accurate with zero flaws. You don't. You believe. That's my only "issue" with you, dude. You present everything as fact when it isn't. Some of it? Maybe. All of it? Not hardly.

Also, I didn't chalk up anything as false or anything like that. I simply said religion or not, the 10 Commandments are an excellent set of "rules" to live by. As for the other historical figures also having a chance to be falsely represented, you may be right. I think, though, that you're bringing them to the table to have some sort of rebuttal to the debate. See these other historical figures aren't known for any "magic" feats or the like. They are people who have been credited with discovering things, with being wartime heros, etc. You know yourself you're just flinging things in the pot when you bring in racial inequalities as being questioned 200 years from now. For that, we have actual video documentation. For the 20th century, history has an advantage whereas documentation can be a lot more conclusive. Yes I know that we have a program called Photoshop, but if the source is credible, then there's not much to discredit.

Also, who said Jesus never existed? Why is this even relevant?


Also, if you had thousands of eye witness see you do that incredible feat and then had 20 or so of them write about it; I would believe yet be skeptical.

Yet you're not skeptical of Jesus' walking on water and rising from the dead? Talk about picking and choosing what history to believe or not. Later, QD.

[.blank cd]

I addressed this in an earlier post. I find it ironic that people will do readily believe in evolution despite the fact that it has not been observed in a lab how the theory describes it.False, not a fact.


Also, if you had thousands of eye witness see you do that incredible feat and then had 20 or so of them write about it; I would believe yet be skeptical.You would believe he defied the laws of phyisics if 20 people wrote it down? You are naive and gullible

[Got Milk?]

I was going to respond with a very detailed post, but I see QD beat me to it. But then I also realized, I'm trying to argue a point with a person who believes what was "witnessed" over two thousand years ago, and actually believes it with no doubt. They should make a commercial out of you.



False, not a fact.

You would believe he defied the laws of phyisics if 20 people wrote it down? You are naive and gullible

What are you trying to say lad.. Chris Angels did it on numerous occasions. Numerous witnesses, numerous recordings, numerous followers....

[.blank cd]

I was going to respond with a very detailed post, but I see QD beat me to it. But then I also realized, I'm trying to argue a point with a person who believes what was "witnessed" over two thousand years ago, and actually believes it with no doubt. They should make a commercial out of you.Thats what Im tryin to say. You cant reason with someone who's belief system isnt grounded in reality. Its impossible.

[geoff]

QD: How do you know the story is not 100% accurate? How do you know there were not eye witnesses? I gave you a list of historical documents the corroborate the story, beyond that I can do know more to convince you. We do not know 100% of every historical figure or account was portrayed as 100% accurate. We find documentation to corroborate the historical figures/events and then assume them to be accurate and true. There is no difference in the process of studying biblical events or figures. The claim which a person or event makes should not be the determining factor as to the authenticity of an event/figure. Hell, people believe the big bang occurred yet what solid evidence is there that there was once nothing and then matter appeared and exploded to eventually create all life. With out living eye witness account/picture/or video are we not taking everything historical to be completely accurate on faith? No I am not skeptical of Jesus walking on water or raising the dead; I take that on faith, simply because I know the personal experiences I've had with God that would be considered by science a "miracle". It seems to me that when it comes to historical evidence, one's own personal bias becomes a factor. What exactly makes the sources to the evidence of Jesus and His miracles not credible? If you have some information that shows they lied, I would love to see it.

[.blank cd]

What are you trying to say lad.. Chris Angels did it on numerous occasions. Numerous witnesses, numerous recordings, numerous followers....
This is true, this is true

[geoff]

Blank and got milk: what exactly makes your beliefs grounded in reality? I present to you evidence that evolution has not been observed in a lab and now the Darwinian model is being seen as insufficient yet you dismiss it. I provide for you historical evidence of Jesus and His miracles, yet again you dismiss it. You yourselves are no biologists, nor geneticists, nor scientists but rather read the words of other men and take it as truth. Have either of you seen evolution take place in a lab? Have either of you visited the beginning of time to witness the big bang or life form by chance? Have either of you published a paper on evolution, the origin of species, or any other scientific paper? No. You simply take it on faith. How dare you question my perception of reality when you yourselves can not provide evidence that is contrary to my beliefs. You can't even quote what I follow accurately nor tell me what one single message of what I believe is. Show me something interesting and worth while. Don't sit there like a 2 year old and point your finger at me saying I'm wrong and stupid and then not even have a minutely intelligent response. You will not convince me to believe other wise when you use immature come backs, vague shrouds of what appears to be evidence, and simple remarks that my little cousin could make. Get serious man, you think yourself so high and mighty that there is no flaw in your logic? You make me laugh. I have presented my argument and evidence. I have displayed my argument with intelligence and firm debate. Until you learn to have a debate like a grown up, I will no longer respond to you like one. You dodge my questions and don't acknowledge the evidence I provide. Keep using the Bill Mayer/Richard Dawkins approach...but don't expect to be taken seriously. Atheists really amuse me with their tactics and at the same time I pity you; living life with no purpose and no hope.

[geoff]

Any shroud of intelligence is welcomed, but I have yet to see that from got milk or blank. QD, the jury is still out on you. Blank, I'm not surprised with you, every thread I see you post in is filled with stubbornness and pig headedness. Not surprising so many people are frustrAted by you...like a blind man refusing to believe the sky is blue or tomatoes are red. Good Lord man, how do you live day by day. I will have to take a break from this, I think I'm forming a tumor from trying to understand the ignorance here. Take care.

[dc5-rsx]

Lot of white guys from this part of the world?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zAYWq3hW4RQ/Tc3DEEA0OPI/AAAAAAAABeA/sAuSOlGuixM/s1600/a+middle-east-map.jpg

No it wasn't. So you would consider a naturally brown skin person white? Name a white man from the middle east. Don't say jesus, cause no one know's what color he truly is.

I doubt anyone really knows what color jesus was. Or that it even matters.

Sent From My Omega Red Galaxy S2

[.blank cd]

Blank and got milk: what exactly makes your beliefs grounded in reality? I present to you evidence that evolution has not been observed in a lab and now the Darwinian model is being seen as insufficient yet you dismiss it. I provide for you historical evidence of Jesus and His miracles, yet again you dismiss it.Im grounded in reality because I dont believe in fairy tales. You havent presented any evidence that disproves an OLDER Darwinian evolution model. I dismiss miracles when they defy the laws of physics. Jesus didnt physically walk on water.


You yourselves are no biologists, nor geneticists, nor scientists but rather read the words of other men and take it as truth. Have either of you seen evolution take place in a lab? Have either of you visited the beginning of time to witness the big bang or life form by chance? Have either of you published a paper on evolution, the origin of species, or any other scientific paper? No. You simply take it on faith.You have no idea what my qualifications are, nor does scientific understanding require you to be a biologist or geneticist. Science is not in any sense a faith-based belief, the same way math isnt a faith based belief.


I have presented my argument and evidence. I have displayed my argument with intelligence and firm debate. Until you learn to have a debate like a grown up, I will no longer respond to you like one. You dodge my questions and don't acknowledge the evidence I provide.Bring me some scientific evidence that disproves modern evolutionary synthesis, and I'll acknowledge it. Since it doesnt exist, I dont think that will happen. You'll just keep pushing that anti-science creation garbage.[/QUOTE]

[.blank cd]

Any shroud of intelligence is welcomed, but I have yet to see that from got milk or blank. QD, the jury is still out on you. Blank, I'm not surprised with you, every thread I see you post in is filled with stubbornness and pig headedness. Not surprising so many people are frustrAted by you...like a blind man refusing to believe the sky is blue or tomatoes are red. Good Lord man, how do you live day by day. I will have to take a break from this, I think I'm forming a tumor from trying to understand the ignorance here. Take care.This isnt saying much coming from you. I dont expect someone who doesnt know what intelligence is to recognize it when its forced down his throat.


No it wasn't. So you would consider a naturally brown skin person white? Name a white man from the middle east. Don't say jesus, cause no one know's what color he truly is.

I doubt anyone really knows what color jesus was. Or that it even matters.

Sent From My Omega Red Galaxy S2Jesus was an Isrealite, his parents were Isrealites, their parents were Isrealites. We can pretty much assume he doesnt have blonde hair and blue eyes.

[ahabion]

Science is not in any sense a faith-based belief, the same way math isnt a faith based belief.


He's right. It's not faith based. It's assumed true until the next idea comes along to debunk the original. Truth is relative in science. Math on the other hand is made of absolutes.

[quickdodge®]

QD: How do you know the story is not 100% accurate? How do you know there were not eye witnesses? I gave you a list of historical documents the corroborate the story, beyond that I can do know more to convince you. We do not know 100% of every historical figure or account was portrayed as 100% accurate. We find documentation to corroborate the historical figures/events and then assume them to be accurate and true.

I never said the story is not accurate. I just have a hard time believing it to be true as with a lot of the stories/events of the Bible. And I surely never said anything about there not being witnesses. I laughed at the eye witness comment because you're taking the word of people that "saw" this from over 2,000 years ago as gospel (well, as a "Christian," you're supposed to). The way to debunk your argument about historical figures outside of the Bible possibly being inaccurate is easy. The non-Bible historical figures aren't claiming a "magical" event. The light bulb? We know it was invented. The television? Same. Discovery of the US? Again the same. Christopher Columbus wasn't in the middle of the ocean when land appeared before him out of thin air. That's hardly relatable to a man claiming to come back from the dead or from a man claiming to walk across water. Again, you're trying to justify these magical claims with claims that we do know actually happened.


The claim which a person or event makes should not be the determining factor as to the authenticity of an event/figure.

What?!?!? The claims people make have EVERYTHING to do with authenticity. If I were to walk around claiming I floated across the entire continent in ashes from a volcano, people would outcast me in a second.You go around claiming things that are impossible and you're going to be on the road to a mental institution.


Hell, people believe the big bang occurred yet what solid evidence is there that there was once nothing and then matter appeared and exploded to eventually create all life. With out living eye witness account/picture/or video are we not taking everything historical to be completely accurate on faith? No I am not skeptical of Jesus walking on water or raising the dead; I take that on faith, simply because I know the personal experiences I've had with God that would be considered by science a "miracle". It seems to me that when it comes to historical evidence, one's own personal bias becomes a factor. What exactly makes the sources to the evidence of Jesus and His miracles not credible? If you have some information that shows they lied, I would love to see it.

You're right on the Big Bang theory. But just as there may not be evidence of such a theory, there is also no evidence that God, or a god, did it either.


I provide for you historical evidence of Jesus and His miracles, yet again you dismiss it.

You have no evidence to provide except "eye witnesses."


You yourselves are no biologists, nor geneticists, nor scientists but rather read the words of other men and take it as truth. Have either of you seen evolution take place in a lab? Have either of you visited the beginning of time to witness the big bang or life form by chance?

The same questions could be asked to you, my friend. You're not a scientist, yourself. Have you visited the beginning of time to witness God creating everything we see?


QD, the jury is still out on you.

You don't have to leave the jury out. Bring it on in and call me what you want. I've yet to resort to name calling and insults (intentionally that is). I've even told you that I have no problems with you or your faith. And I'm certainly not going to try to dissuade you or anyone of their personal beliefs. Who am I to tell another what to think, do or believe? Later, QD.

[Elbow]

I don't like the whole forgiveness thing.

I've seen too many people use that as a way to act anyway they want and think they are "forgiven in the end."

I also like how anytime you ask a Christian about it, they stutter and can't really answer. Example, me speaking to a youth class teacher:

"So if someone broke into your house, raped your wife in front of you, and murdered your children, they should be forgiven and you'd accept that and forgive them?"

:blank stare:

Here's an idea, don't screw up in the first place and you have nothing to worry about. The Bible isn't a rule book, well it sort of is, but shouldn't be. Saying people won't go to heaven if they don't go to church, don't accept Jesus in their life, etc. That's all BS. I know many non church going individuals that haven't even read the Bible but believe in God, heaven, and the basics of Christianity and are good people.

I guess I'm trying to say the Bible doesn't mean anything.

[nelson9995]

I guess I'm trying to say the Bible doesn't mean anything.
Christianity and everything with it is based off the bible. How can it mean nothing?

[Elbow]

Christianity and everything with it is based off the bible. How can it mean nothing?

Because people shouldn't have to rely on stories and rules from a book to be decent human beings. Sure it MATTERS, but it shouldn't be the foundation of the religion as so many people treat it.

[Sinfix_15]

I don't like the whole forgiveness thing.

I've seen too many people use that as a way to act anyway they want and think they are "forgiven in the end."

I also like how anytime you ask a Christian about it, they stutter and can't really answer. Example, me speaking to a youth class teacher:

"So if someone broke into your house, raped your wife in front of you, and murdered your children, they should be forgiven and you'd accept that and forgive them?"

:blank stare:

Here's an idea, don't screw up in the first place and you have nothing to worry about. The Bible isn't a rule book, well it sort of is, but shouldn't be. Saying people won't go to heaven if they don't go to church, don't accept Jesus in their life, etc. That's all BS. I know many non church going individuals that haven't even read the Bible but believe in God, heaven, and the basics of Christianity and are good people.

I guess I'm trying to say the Bible doesn't mean anything.

Christian-1: Thou hast no other Gods before Me.
Satanic-1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.

Christian-2: Thou dost not make to thyself a graven image... Thou dost not bow thyself to them, nor serve them
Satanic-2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.

Christian-3: Thou dost not take up the name of Jehovah thy God for a vain thing
Satanic-3. When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.

Christian-4: Remember the Sabbath-day to sanctify it;
Satanic-4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

Christian-5: Honour thy father and thy mother
Satanic-5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

Christian-6: Thou dost not murder.
Satanic-6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.

Christian-7: Thou dost not commit adultery.
Satanic-7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

Christian-8: Thou dost not steal.
Satanic-8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

Christian-9: Thou dost not answer against thy neighbour a false testimony.
Satanic-9. Do not harm little children.

Christian-10: Thou dost not desire... anything which [is] thy neighbour's.
Satanic-10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

Satanic-11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.




Here's a list of the Christian commandments vs the satanic commandments. Kind of an interesting contrast. Note that the satanic commandments mention not to rape, harm children or kill animals unless to eat them.

Using this to make the point that any book can have good and bad messages. The bible has both good and bad messages and it can and has been used to do both great and terrible things.

[Sinfix_15]

Blank and got milk: what exactly makes your beliefs grounded in reality? I present to you evidence that evolution has not been observed in a lab and now the Darwinian model is being seen as insufficient yet you dismiss it. I provide for you historical evidence of Jesus and His miracles, yet again you dismiss it. You yourselves are no biologists, nor geneticists, nor scientists but rather read the words of other men and take it as truth. Have either of you seen evolution take place in a lab? Have either of you visited the beginning of time to witness the big bang or life form by chance? Have either of you published a paper on evolution, the origin of species, or any other scientific paper? No. You simply take it on faith. How dare you question my perception of reality when you yourselves can not provide evidence that is contrary to my beliefs. You can't even quote what I follow accurately nor tell me what one single message of what I believe is. Show me something interesting and worth while. Don't sit there like a 2 year old and point your finger at me saying I'm wrong and stupid and then not even have a minutely intelligent response. You will not convince me to believe other wise when you use immature come backs, vague shrouds of what appears to be evidence, and simple remarks that my little cousin could make. Get serious man, you think yourself so high and mighty that there is no flaw in your logic? You make me laugh. I have presented my argument and evidence. I have displayed my argument with intelligence and firm debate. Until you learn to have a debate like a grown up, I will no longer respond to you like one. You dodge my questions and don't acknowledge the evidence I provide. Keep using the Bill Mayer/Richard Dawkins approach...but don't expect to be taken seriously. Atheists really amuse me with their tactics and at the same time I pity you; living life with no purpose and no hope.

That is a compelling argument and you're right. I take "faith" in what i read from scientists. You take faith in what you read from the bible. The only explanation i can offer is just what i feel inside. I feel that science is at least on the path to discovering the truth, regardless of how far away they may or may not be from the truth at this point in time. When i look up at the stars, my brain instantly starts to wonder what else is out there and how we got here. When i see something strange happen, my mind wants to find a way to understand and explain it. When i hear someone say miracle, i want to understand how it happened and if it was chance, luck or can be repeated. I feel like nothing inside me gravitates in any way towards religion.

But, with that said..... i respect your side of the argument and your vigilance in standing up for it. Choosing to stand your ground when it's the unpopular thing to do and you're out numbered is admirable.

[ISAtlanta300]

Jesus was an Isrealite, his parents were Isrealites, their parents were Isrealites. We can pretty much assume he doesnt have blonde hair and blue eyes.

That's a pretty racist statement. It's like saying you 'assume' that everyone that is from Africa is black.....

[.blank cd]

That's a pretty racist statement. It's like saying you 'assume' that everyone that is from Africa is black.....Ummm no it's not. As a matter of fact, you were the one that said black.

[bu villain]

Hell, people believe the big bang occurred yet what solid evidence is there that there was once nothing and then matter appeared and exploded to eventually create all life.

You're right on the Big Bang theory. But just as there may not be evidence of such a theory, there is also no evidence that God, or a god, did it either.


Actually he isn't right on the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory doesn't say the universe came from nothing. It states all the matter in the universe existed before the big bang. Furthermore there is lots of solid evidence for it. Redshifting, cosmic background radiation, composition of the universe, etc. Even with the large amounts of evidence, any true scientist will tell you there is a chance, however small, that they are wrong. Are you willing to admit the possibility that you are wrong about Christianity Geoff?

[Elbow]

Christian-1: Thou hast no other Gods before Me.
Satanic-1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.

Christian-2: Thou dost not make to thyself a graven image... Thou dost not bow thyself to them, nor serve them
Satanic-2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.

Christian-3: Thou dost not take up the name of Jehovah thy God for a vain thing
Satanic-3. When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.

Christian-4: Remember the Sabbath-day to sanctify it;
Satanic-4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

Christian-5: Honour thy father and thy mother
Satanic-5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

Christian-6: Thou dost not murder.
Satanic-6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.

Christian-7: Thou dost not commit adultery.
Satanic-7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

Christian-8: Thou dost not steal.
Satanic-8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

Christian-9: Thou dost not answer against thy neighbour a false testimony.
Satanic-9. Do not harm little children.

Christian-10: Thou dost not desire... anything which [is] thy neighbour's.
Satanic-10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

Satanic-11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.




Here's a list of the Christian commandments vs the satanic commandments. Kind of an interesting contrast. Note that the satanic commandments mention not to rape, harm children or kill animals unless to eat them.

Using this to make the point that any book can have good and bad messages. The bible has both good and bad messages and it can and has been used to do both great and terrible things.

Am I missing where the bible says to rape, harm children, and kill animals? lol

[.blank cd]

Am I missing where the bible says to rape, harm children, and kill animals? lol

God either does it himself or makes his people do it for him throughout the OT. Need some reference quotes? Lol

[nelson9995]

Geoff- you know what you believe, so do I. These guys are making a clown out of you and laughing at everything you have to say (and the bible also states that this is what people will do to Christians). Let it be man. You did your part. When time comes around we will see who was right and who was wrong. Simple as that. I stopped wasting my time last thread lol.

[.blank cd]

We're mocking him (or at least I am) because he doesn't have anything intelligent to say and he repeatedly spouts fiction as fact. "Jesus literally walked on water" is not intelligent at all. "Creation myth" is not intelligent at all. Not by anyone's standards. And it's rather hilarious when he comes in here and says "blank, you have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation" and then turns right around and says "evolution is a myth". Lol

I understand people have different viewpoints, but there's a difference between two viewpoints based in reality and pure pseudo-scientific mythology.

[ahabion]

..."Jesus literally walked on water" is not intelligent at all. "...

No, it's not intelligent, just impossible.


I understand people have different viewpoints, but there's a difference between two viewpoints based in reality and pure pseudo-scientific mythology.

As much as we would all like to believe in whatever it is each person would like to believe, ultimately you believe in something. Faith is observed in both the scientific and religious/spiritual realms. To believe and be certain of what it is you don't see. The Matrix is beautiful in illustrating Faith.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGZiLMGdCE0

[.blank cd]

Faith, by it's very definition is a belief in something without evidence, a belief in something whether it's true or not. The thing about science is, that it's true whether you believe in it or not.

[ahabion]

Faith, by it's very definition is a belief in something without evidence, a belief in something whether it's true or not. The thing about science is, that it's true whether you believe in it or not.

Well, [in science] it's only true until you find the next thing to debunk what was previously true. So in other words, everything in science is true until something else proves to be truer (more true) or completely false. Basically, making truth relative and never a constant truth. Therein again, faith in practice.

[.blank cd]

Well, [in science] it's only true until you find the next thing to debunk what was previously true. So in other words, everything in science is true until something else proves to be truer (more true) or completely false. Basically, making truth relative and never a constant truth. Therein again, faith in practice.

Not really faith because we have evidence to support it or it's not science. Theories change because of the ways we observe things. We can observe things now in ways we couldn't 50 years ago. Evolutionary synthesis will always be how we explain how animals evolve, but back when Darwin pioneered the Darwinian evolution model, they could only see so much with the technology they had then. Now you can split apart DNA and map genomes and look at evolution on a deeper level. Just like newtons gravity changed into relativity. Nothing really changed, we can just see more about it

[Sinfix_15]

Am I missing where the bible says to rape, harm children, and kill animals? lol

are you being sarcastic or have you not read the bible?

[Elbow]

are you being sarcastic or have you not read the bible?

I haven't read it start to finish and never ran across that or heard anyone mention that. Post a direct quote.

[Sinfix_15]

I haven't read it start to finish and never ran across that or heard anyone mention that. Post a direct quote.

I usually dont like to copy and paste from these type of websites, but i dont feel like writing them all out. so here ya go. Or you can just go read Deuteronomy.

1) Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

Obviously these women were repeatedly raped. These sick bastards killed and raped an entire town and then wanted more virgins, so they hid beside the road to kidnap and rape some more. How can anyone see this as anything but evil?

2) Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Clearly Moses and God approves of rape of virgins.

3) More Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?

4) Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.

5) Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

It is clear that God doesn't give a damn about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation of another mans "property".

6) David's Punishment - Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and God's "Forgiveness" (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." [The child dies seven days later.]

This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick!

7) Rape of Female Captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

Once again God approves of forcible rape.

8) Rape and the Spoils of War (Judges 5:30 NAB)

They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)

9) Sex Slaves (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

10) God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

[geoff]

Sinfix: shame on you for copying/pasting from sites that are anti-christian and are known to twist scripture and take it out of context. The poison spread from those sites is ridiculous. Have we not already had this same exact discussion? I suppose I have to give another Bible study on here. As we discussed before, you are not exactly an expert on spirituality or the Bible. I will address this subject again shortyly.

Blank: it requires faith to believe that scientists are offering the final truth on a subject. Today's truth is tomorrows revised theory. You still haven't provided any evidence as to evolution being observed. Yet, when I quote a study which says otherwise you dismiss it as fiction. A hard headed blind man is what you portray yourself to be.

[Sinfix_15]

Sinfix: shame on you for copying/pasting from sites that are anti-christian and are known to twist scripture and take it out of context. The poison spread from those sites is ridiculous. Have we not already had this same exact discussion? I suppose I have to give another Bible study on here. As we discussed before, you are not exactly an expert on spirituality or the Bible. I will address this subject again shortyly.

Blank: it requires faith to believe that scientists are offering the final truth on a subject. Today's truth is tomorrows revised theory. You still haven't provided any evidence as to evolution being observed. Yet, when I quote a study which says otherwise you dismiss it as fiction. A hard headed blind man is what you portray yourself to be.

that's the first time i've copy and pasted, i usually just link the scripture and let people look it up themselves, however they see fit. regardless of whether or not you feel the bible condones or condemns rape, it does in fact mention it. However, it chose not mention it in the commandments. The satanic bible did.

[Elbow]

I'll go see if I can find any of that in my bible.

[geoff]

Any scripture can be taken out of context. Especially without reading the entire passage or having an understanding of Jewish history and tradition. Yet more importantly, is understanding the entirety of the message rather than a single part. The Bible doesn't condone rape, murder, or slavery. Did these things happen? Yes. We're they punishable? Yes

[geoff]

Simon: it's in there, yet that is only a small portion shown out of the entire picture and it's out of context

[.blank cd]

Sinfix: shame on you for copying/pasting from sites that are anti-christian and are known to twist scripture and take it out of context.I guess its a good thing he can look in his own bible and see the exact same scripture for himself huh? Lol.


Blank: it requires faith to believe that scientists are offering the final truth on a subject. Today's truth is tomorrows revised theory. You still haven't provided any evidence as to evolution being observed. Yet, when I quote a study which says otherwise you dismiss it as fiction. A hard headed blind man is what you portray yourself to be.Maybe it requires faith for you because you dont understand how science works. Me on the other hand, I know exactly how to obtain the same information these scientists get. You have yet to show me any purely scientific studies, just more pseudo-science intelligent design BS. Find me some scientific studies dismissing evolution from non-ID sources.


Simon: it's in there, yet that is only a small portion shown out of the entire picture and it's out of contextFunny, its always out of context when we point your bible out to be nothing but drivel. But when you use scripture from the same chapters in the bible to condemn homosexuals or dismiss evolution--"Its right here! This is what god said! This is how I live my life" This is called cherry picking.

[ahabion]

Not really faith because we have evidence to support it or it's not science. Theories change because of the ways we observe things. We can observe things now in ways we couldn't 50 years ago. Evolutionary synthesis will always be how we explain how animals evolve, but back when Darwin pioneered the Darwinian evolution model, they could only see so much with the technology they had then. Now you can split apart DNA and map genomes and look at evolution on a deeper level. Just like newtons gravity changed into relativity. Nothing really changed, we can just see more about it

So, I'm suppose to accept what you and the scientific community presents as evidence and when presented with evidence fromChristians, you call it circumstantial or completely false.

[geoff]

Surely he can look up the scripture in his own Bible. But without understanding of Jewish tradition and the entirety of the Mosaic Law, then any kind of negative interpretation can be understood. Blank you have no clue about faith or christianity. You have displayed your lack of biblical or Christian knowledge time and again. I don't understand how science works? I know that science without observable evidence is not science at all. I provided you with an article and a direct quote that stated after 600 generations of fruit fly breeding and 40,000 generations of bacteria, no significant evidence of evolution was observed. Should I provide that quote yet again? Or are you to thick to comprehend a statement made by a evolution believing expert on genetics? I have not said anything about my beliefs as far as creation goes. I for sure have not said anything about "creation science" or intelligent design. You see, I believe in absolute truths, not truths that can be modified to fit. I see many new models and names and theories for evolution, it never ends. I also never once used my faith to go against homosexuality or evolution. Please quote me where I did.

[Elbow]

So IN context what do those mean? Explain it to me with Jewish tradition and the entirety of the Mosaic Law in mind, because I don't know much about either.

Obviously sites will take pieces out and make them look bad, someone that wants a real argument against religion would do this research themselves though and compile a real argument with real facts on history.

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, I'm just honestly looking for an answer. lol

Some of the verses pasted above are clearly not thought through though with the comments below, they're not written the same as we would write something today and like I said I'll go find it in an actual bible to read ALL of it.

[slow_hatch]

It's all in how one interprets it. As far as i know, no one has the original copy of the "Bible". It's been interpreted and rewritten over thousands of years. Parts of it contradict the original statements, so pick and choose what parts you want to believe. All the people I've personally seen who claim to see/hear talking burning bushes, talking snakes and people walk on water are on hardcore drugs. I'd bet my paycheck they smoked some pretty good shit back in the day while writing that book.

[quickdodge®]

It's been interpreted and rewritten over thousands of years.

EXACTLY!!! That's the main reason why it's hard for a realist to completely trust it's writings as fact. Later, QD.

[Elbow]

...and the exact reason I don't think the book should hold as much of a purpose these days.

[geoff]

Simontibbett: it would be a lot of information for me to post on here, but it you are truly curious, read the thread under "news and politics" titled "are we blind, or playing stupid". I had a debate there about rape and slavery in the Bible. I also went into great length to describe Jewish tradition and Mosaic Law. You will also see how some of the atheists here show their knowledge of scripture, or lack there of. Slavery and rape are in the Bible as is "murder". Rape was punishable by death and slavery then was not what slavery in modern terms was. Slaves were to be treated very well under the "golden rule" and there was punishment for abuse. Also, slaves were to be set free every 7 years. What some here label as "murder" was realistically casualties of war. It was also punishment for sin. The wages of sun is death, it always has been. God sent the Israelites to pass judgement on idol worshiping nations that sacrificed their children. These nations were sinful and paid the price for sin....death. But don't be swift to judge. God also passes judgement on His own people, I.E. the story of David and the many times the people of Israel are taken captive as slaves. As the New Testament clearly puts it, " e Ed.)
For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" 1peter 4:17

I can tell you this my friend. The Bible is not a buffet which one can pick and choose what they like and disregard that which they find irrelevant. No personal interpretation is needed. One need nothing more than to read it for himself as the words are printed on the page. If you own a Bible, read it for yourself. Faith and salvation are to be worked out by each individual. Don't leave it up to men or a church to guide you. God is the guide and Jesus is the blueprint. It seems these days that the Bible is no longer relevant, and as each day passes that idea become more true. Yet, the Bible clearly speaks of this...

"2For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, 4treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these. 6For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, 7always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith. 9But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes’s and Jambres’s folly was also.
******10Now you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance, 11persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium and at Lystra; what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord rescued me! 12Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. 13But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. "

I leave you with this, read for yourself, pray for understanding, let no man mislead you, and by all means; look always unto Jesus, the Author of our faith. God bless!

[geoff]

The Bible has not been "interpreted" many times or "rewritten". What it has been is translated to many different languages. That does not mean the message has changed. For example, I am 100% Romanian and speak it fluently. In my language, good night is "nuopte buna". Literally translated it is "night good". Did that change the meaning? I think not. The Bible as a "book" holds so much of a "purpose" these days not because of the ink on the pages; but rather the Divine inspiration. As Jesus said, " Heaven and earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass". It is the Divine message and influence of God that brought Christianity Fromm 600 million in 1910 to 2.3 billion in 2012.

[quickdodge®]

I can tell you this my friend. The Bible is not a buffet which one can pick and choose what they like and disregard that which they find irrelevant. No personal interpretation is needed. One need nothing more than to read it for himself as the words are printed on the page. If you own a Bible, read it for yourself. Faith and salvation are to be worked out by each individual. Don't leave it up to men or a church to guide you. God is the guide and Jesus is the blueprint.

The only problem is that you can not sit there and say that the Bible has not been interpreted. As far as I know, the English language has not been around since the Biblical days. So to say that there is no chance the Bible could have been misinterpreted is quite a bit naive, yes?

Also, I believe God would be the blueprint and Jesus the guide.


the Author of our faith.

So Jesus wrote the Bible? Later, QD.

[geoff]

QD: yes and no. You see, the Bible is interpreted every Sunday across America. That interpretation is called a sermon. One can tell if an interpretation is correct or not by double checking the scriptures themselves. For example, if a Baptist minister one Sunday says, " Jesus taught if someone does you wrong, get back at him". Then I can go back into scripture and see what Jesus actually said. That would be an example of false message and misinterpretation. Does that happen? Absolutely. I am no fan boy of modern Christianity or the progressive church movement. What you are describing though is not interpretation but translation. If one wanted to test the authenticity of scripture, then one would read a Hebrew or Greek translated Bible as those were the first two languages the message was given in. The dead sea scrolls are also the oldest surviving translation of scripture, also in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. A scholar would only have to view the scriptures written in the first language they were written in and then compare it to modern English translation to test the accuracy. Even a layman can view the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic texts with a hebrew/Greek/Aramaic to English dictionary to test it. Of course controversy can arise from these scrolls. But then it goes back to an original debate, how much evidence is enough evidence? To each his own I suppose.

[geoff]

Yes and no( to your question of Jesus writing the Bible). Obviously the scriptures were penned by men, but the were Divinely inspired. As no proof can be given for or against this, it falls back on a matter of faith.

[.blank cd]

You will also see how some of the atheists here show their knowledge of scripture, or lack there of.Atheists lack of knowledge of scripture huh? You didnt even know the bible has been edited. I've clearly shown my knowledge of your scripture is greater than yours. You just choose to interpret it differently, and your interpretation is the "correct" interpretation.


Rape was punishable by death and slavery then was not what slavery in modern terms was. Slaves were to be treated very well under the "golden rule" and there was punishment for abuse. Also, slaves were to be set free every 7 years. What some here label as "murder" was realistically casualties of war.I dont think you understand what slavery is. I think you imagine that slavery in the 18-19th century was all brutally oppresive. This is not the case. None the less, slavery is slavery, 1st century or 21st century.

It was also punishment for sin.This is what we take issue with. There's a lot of trivial stuff the bible considers sin: Working on sunday, wearing blended fabrics, cutting your beard. Think I should be killed for wearing my favorite polyester shirt?



I can tell you this my friend. The Bible is not a buffet which one can pick and choose what they like and disregard that which they find irrelevant. No personal interpretation is needed.So why do believers pick gay marriage to crusade against, and not barber shops doing hot later shaves on men? Only one of those is a sin according to the bible, and I'll give you a hint, it involves a razor and shaving cream.


It seems these days that the Bible is no longer relevant, and as each day passes that idea become more true. Yet, the Bible clearly speaks of this...Like I've said before, its easy to predict the future when you make broad and incredibly vague predictions.


The Bible has not been "interpreted" many times or "rewritten".Unfortunately It has. It has been revised many times, entire books have been omitted, and it has been translated numerous times. Romani, Hungarian, and German, Romainas 2 recognised languages, are all viable. We're talking about a translation from many different languages that are no longer viable, into different versions of English that are no longer viable.


The only problem is that you can not sit there and say that the Bible has not been interpreted. As far as I know, the English language has not been around since the Biblical days. So to say that there is no chance the Bible could have been misinterpreted is quite a bit naive, yes?The version of english we speak has only been around for a few hundred years. Modern english has only been around since around 1400. I have a feeling some believers think "white Jesus" was prancing around back in the 1st century speaking Shakespearian english. Lol.

[geoff]

As spirituality increases so does understanding of scripture. I can point to you something very interesting in the first chapter of Genesis. You know the whole argument, " we'll if God knew man was gonna rebel, why create man at all?" we'll, what if I told you that before God created sinful man, He made Himself Jesus as the sacrifice for sin?

[geoff]

Show me evidence that the Bible has been edited. The finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls is evidence to the contrary. You have more knowledge of scripture than I? Ha, you demonstrated just how much knowledge you have when you couldn't even state how Old Testament believers achieved salvation. You have no knowledge of scripture, what you have is the google search bar. That does not suffice as "knowledge" of a subject sir. I understand what slavery is, but I can't argue with a black man how much of an injustice the modern form was from biblical slavery. How long has it been since you were in chains? Oh that's right, you never were. It does not matter what an atheist finds as trivial when it comes to sin, you do not hold yourself to Law any way. Most of the prohibited sins in the Old Testament were because they were pagan practices. And stop trying to argue that homosexuality was not a sin mentioned in the Bible, it just further shows your ignorance to scripture when you do so. The Bible takes a clear and decisive stance on it. Easy to predict the future? Vague? I just provided you with a detailed Biblical prediction. I'm sorry that does not count as descriptive to the almighty and all knowing blank cd. You are no standard for what is relevant, intelligent, or detailed. As I stated before, it was translated; not edited, revised, or interpreted. You don't seem to understand the difference though. Once again, the findings of the Dead Sea scrolls can attest to the accuracy of the translation.

By the way, this is the Jesus thread. You don't believe in religion, God, Jesus, or Christian principles. Why then do you even post in here? This topic has nothing to do with you or any atheist.

[geoff]

By the way, my Romanian language is a fairly new one as well. My nation was once called Dacia. It has been heavily influenced by the Romans, Turks, Russian, and Hungarian people. Does that make my language invalid? Does that make my languages translation to English invalid? I think not.

[.blank cd]

It does not matter what an atheist finds as trivial when it comes to sin, you do not hold yourself to Law any wayGuess what? Im gonna wear polyester, buy liquor, work, cut my hair, and sleep with a girl Im not married to. All on sunday, and Im not gonna go to hell. How fantastic is that?


And stop trying to argue that homosexuality was not a sin mentioned in the Bible, it just further shows your ignorance to scripture when you do so. The Bible takes a clear and decisive stance on it.Nope, sure doesnt. Not according to most biblical scholars. Bible bangers take the clear and decisive stance. The bible does take a clear stance on tattoos though.


Once again, the findings of the Dead Sea scrolls can attest to the accuracy of the translation.I trust youve read these dead sea scrolls enough to make this assumption


By the way, this is the Jesus thread. You don't believe in religion, God, Jesus, or Christian principles. Why then do you even post in here? This topic has nothing to do with you or any atheist.Threatened much? Im just here to balance out the mythology with reality.

[geoff]

Actually the Bible makes a very clear dinstinction to its view on homosexuality. Unless you define an "abomination" as some sort of praise or condonement? You can drink, smoke, screw, and wear anything you want any day of the week. That is your choice to make. I can not and will not judge you as a person for your deeds. I can not condemn you to hell. Only God can judge you, but seeing as you don't believe in Him; when you die, it wont matter any way. Yes the Bible makes a clear stance on tattoos, I myself got inked before I found God. Actually I have read the dead sea scrolls, yet not in their entirety. I have also read a Hebrew Bible. Whats your point? I would consider myself as a Biblical scholar with countless hours of study. I would also consider myself an expert on faith, based on the fact that I do have it. You can not claim either, therefore can make no expert assumption or comment on either. You lack belief, that in no way shape or form qualifies you in matters pertaining to religion, faith, God, Jesus, or the Bible. I'm assuming you're in your late 20's or early 30's. Therefore, your words, beliefs, views, agenda, life experience or lack their of will have absolutely no impact on God, Jesus, the Bible, faith or religion; of that I am 100% sure. I am also sure that when you die, your life would have had no significance nor effect on anyone but yourself or children. Again I am sure that you not having a belief in God or faith in anything will not harm God or anyone else for that matter. God does not need you, any atheist, nor any believer to continue to exist. He was, is, and always will be God. You and I are just a tiny spec in the entirety of history and creation. We are insignificant to the larger picture. The only ones we have any significance to is ourselves. Such a vain and empty life one must live to try and bring down those with faith, to be intolerant of believers, to be filled with hate towards a God that they do not nor ever have known. I pity a life such as that. I am not threatened by you anymore than I am the kitten I rescued from outside a month ago. Your words and beliefs are empty with no weight to me. Do not for a second believe that you mean anything more to me than a lost soul. I can only point you in the right direction, it is up to you to walk the path.

[.blank cd]

I can only point you in the right direction, it is up to you to walk the path.Mark 3:28-29. I have commited an eternal sin. I do not and will not ever believe in the mythology that is the Abrahamic god. Any attempt to lead me to salvation is further affirmation of contradictions in the bible.

[geoff]

Ah yes, blaspheming the Holy Spirit. You my friend don't know what it means to be filled with the Spirit. How then can you blaspheme that which you do not know. That eternal sin is reference for believers not unbelievers. To see the work of God first hand and to have experienced the Holy Spirit and then deny the power thereof; that is unforgivable sin. You, despite all your joking and mocking and disbelief; are still offered salvation through Christ...it will remain that way until you take your final breath sir.

[oreign]

show me evidence the bible was "divinely inspired."

[geoff]

Show me it wasn't...I have faith it was. I have experienced God first hand. You have an empty belief on empty grounds.

[geoff]

If you really want evidence...Jesus is all the evidence you need. As He said, " I AM".

[.blank cd]

Show me it wasn't...I have faith it was. I have experienced God first hand. You have an empty belief on empty grounds.

So you admit there's no evidence, just faith. You believe it whether it actually happened or not?

[quickdodge®]

Show me it wasn't...I have faith it was.

The best response I think I've seen you give, dude. And you keep that faith. There's nothing wrong that.


I have experienced God first hand.

You feel that you have experienced God. Your faith helped you to do this. Later, QD.

[geoff]

Blank: How would one even begin to find evidence that the Bible was or wasn't Inspired by God? Does God have a unique literary style? Did He some how impose His finger prints in the words? I look at the universe and the complexity of it, I look at phenomenon, I look at my own personal experiences; and I have faith that God is as real as the air I breathe and that He inspired the writers of the Bible. So much that they are His own words. You chose not to believe and that's fine. Like I said before though, don't expect your words to shake my faith or anyone else's for that matter.

QD: faith is something that really can't be explained. Some have so much faith, that they would lay down their lives for it. I struggled for a long time to find pure, decisive evidence of God; but then I realized something. If there were tangible evidence, then faith would become obsolete. The Bible calls faith, " Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1. For the believer, all the evidence needed is in Christ Jesus. His actions, His words, His life. There is strong evidence that He was a real man as history corroborates. That is enough for an unbeliever to further search, and maybe come to have faith in Him as more than a man; but as the Son of God; fully human and fully Divine. Faith is not blind. A believer is to search and work out his/her own salvation. It is up to the believer to apply the scriptures to their lives. It is up to the believer to have more than a superficial belief, but to have a personal relationship. Faith does not happen in a day and neither is it easily achieved or maintained. Faith will be tested and tried by fire, but to those who endure there is everlasting life. Faith is a beautiful thing, it gives hope and comfort and stregnth in times when ordinary men would crumble. I wish every one could experience the faith I have and that is why I do what I do. You will not see me ever condemn anyone nor judge them, that does not build faith but rather push them away.

I will readily admit that there are faults in religion and Christianity. There is much division and so many different doctrines. I don't believe Christianity has stayed on the path it was intended to. It seems that it has become a social club and business. This however should not affect ones personal search or faith. Man kind is flawed, God is not.

[quickdodge®]

Man kind is flawed, God is not.

I've always stated that if God is for real, then He did make one mistake.

Putting man on Earth.

Later, QD.

[geoff]

Before man became a problem, God made the solution. Read the first chapter of Genesis.
Many have said that it seems that there are two creation accounts in the first two chapters. But read the first few verses. The creation of Night and Day are references to Good and Evil. Pretty interesting stuff.

[05dc5s]

Before man became a problem, God made the solution. Read the first chapter of Genesis.
Many have said that it seems that there are two creation accounts in the first two chapters. But read the first few verses. The creation of Night and Day are references to Good and Evil. Pretty interesting stuff.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you interpret it to be a reference to good and evil?

Are you disputing the two creation accounts? Do you recognize that it first says that the creatures of the sea and land were created and then man. Following almost immediately it then goes on to say man was created and then beasts and fowls? There are these inconsistencies because it was written by men.

If I was like you and put credit in the bible I would find it more interesting that in the first story it states that God is saying he made man in "our" image and after "our" likeness? Perhaps this is an artifact of previous "creation" stories from religions that have now been abandoned.

Being that this is a "Jesus" thread and you are a proclaimed Christian why are you putting much in the the old testament anyway? There is a pretty clear abandonment of this the in the new testament and the message is entirely different, going so far as to even reject some of what the criticisms that others in this thread have made about the bible. It would seem your message would come across more logically if you took that approach.

I respect that you're likely a good person with good principles and I respect your right to believe. I also understand there are good principles and messages in the bible but it's also true and clear that because the bible was written by many men with many ideas, ideals, and principles that it will hold whatever answer you seek. Like any group of people that practices the current religions or abstains from them, there will be good and there will be bad. It is not the religion or lack there of that defines that it's the individual. It doesn't require a book for that but it's in men for them to make the assertion of their belief and to say they are right. You've said it, and you're right it's your faith that makes you believe but, that is the action as it doesn't take an action to not have faith it takes an action to have one. Your argument and how you are trying to justify and explain everything make it seem like it's very important for others to agree with you to confirm that faith you've proclaimed. Read back, it's something you should consider.

[geoff]

05dc5s: The reference to Day and Night would be for good and evil. Knowing that He created good angels and also those who would rebel. Not much is given in detail about the "war" in heaven or the rebellion of Lucifer. As far as God saying "let's create man in "our" image...the Christian God is presented in three forms; God the Father, God the Som, and God the Holy Spirit. If you read the genesis account, you see God speaking things into existence, you have the reference of Day, and the reference of the Spirit hovering over the waters. They are all one and the same being, yet three different manifestations. Much like there is liquid water, ice, and vapor. God created man in "their" image in this fashion...man is a body, spirit, and soul. Much like Jesus is the body, God is the spirit, and the Holy Spirit is the soul. That is why I said before God created man (a problem), He created Himself the solution (Jesus). Further revel attain in the gospel of John says that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1. This was the disciple revealing Jesus as the Word and Christ. You see then, got created a solution to man sinning even before He created man.

I had to go back and retread the Genesis account to look for the discrepancy you were trying to point out. There are not two separate creation accounts. The creation account lists God creating sea creatures on the 5th day and then man and every other beast on the 6th. Chapter 2 then describes in detail God creating Eden and putting trees and life in it. He then brings the beasts to Adam for him to name. God then sees Adam is lonely and creates Eve as a "help mate". This is not two separate accounts of creation; it is just further detailing to the beginning of man and all life. There are no inconsistencies.

I do put emphasis on the Old Testament even though this is a "Jesus thread", and rightly so. Jesus Himself said that He did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. The Old testament is Gods first covenant with man. Man could not keep it. The prophets told of a new covenant that was to come, brought by the Messiah. That's just what Jesus did. He made Himself a sacrifice for the sins of men, so that they may be free from sin and the Law. For the Law brought forth the realization of sin and death as the punishment. No man could keep the Law for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. You see, under the Law, men would bring a sacrifice once a year to the high priest. The sacrifice "covered" the sins of men and pushed them forward until the next year. Under the New Covenant, Jesus lived a sinless life and then took all the sins of man upon Himself and sacrificed His life so that we might live. Jesus fulfilled all the requirements of the Law and took it upon Himself to be the Lamb slain for mankind. Our sins are then forgiven and wiped away, not covered or pushed forward. One last thing, Jesus did not due away with Mosaic Law. He said to follow two commandments, to love your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and stregnth; and to love your neighbor as yourself. If one could keep these two commandments, then he/she would fulfill all the Law.

I'm not really sure what your trying to say in your last paragraph, but I will answer to the best of my understanding. First, I'm not claiming the Bible was written by one single man at one sit down. There are many authors and literary styles. That's why each book in the Bible has a separate title. Each individual author was given his own revelation and received a portion of the "story". The ideals though remain the same as does the over all message. One simply reads from beginning to end and sees it flow from one section into the other. Of course it is up to the individual to figure bad and good. We are all instilled by God with a conscience. What many atheist so wrongly assume is that Christians are somehow robotic and live strictly to the Bible. We Christians are to go beyond that. We have a personal relationship with God and grow spiritually through prayer, fasting, and the Holy Spirit. The Bible tells us where we came from and tells of Gods love for us, it also guides us morally and gives us comfort in our daily lives. It is a big part of faith, but not faith in its entirety. Prayer and reflection upon prayer is what forms faith and the Christian as an individual. I will admit that faith requires action and unbelief does not. Me doing what I am doing on this site is not an action to proclaim my faith to others. I do not need acceptance or affirmation from people I have never met. I have and will continue to have faith regardless of what others think of me or make me out to be. My purpose here is to provide a clear image of what Christianity is and should be. The pure image of faith and Christ has been clouded and obscured by corrupt churches, scandals, perversion, and hypocrisy. The image or impression that modern Christianity has left is not a true reflection of God, Jesus, faith, or the Bible. I have admired also that I myself am not a true representation of it either. I am flesh and blood and flawed. I have faults, I sin, and have an imperfect nature. All I aim to do is guide people past the cloudiness and to Jesus. You may see it as primitive or in vain, but God has helped a few on here find faith again through my words. Even one soul is worth ridicule and jokes my friend. I force no man on here to believe what I do, I simply provide an opportunity to discover faith for themselves.

[Sinfix_15]

Simontibbett: it would be a lot of information for me to post on here, but it you are truly curious, read the thread under "news and politics" titled "are we blind, or playing stupid". I had a debate there about rape and slavery in the Bible. I also went into great length to describe Jewish tradition and Mosaic Law. You will also see how some of the atheists here show their knowledge of scripture, or lack there of. Slavery and rape are in the Bible as is "murder". Rape was punishable by death and slavery then was not what slavery in modern terms was. Slaves were to be treated very well under the "golden rule" and there was punishment for abuse. Also, slaves were to be set free every 7 years. What some here label as "murder" was realistically casualties of war. It was also punishment for sin. The wages of sun is death, it always has been. God sent the Israelites to pass judgement on idol worshiping nations that sacrificed their children. These nations were sinful and paid the price for sin....death. But don't be swift to judge. God also passes judgement on His own people, I.E. the story of David and the many times the people of Israel are taken captive as slaves. As the New Testament clearly puts it, " e Ed.)
For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" 1peter 4:17



A casualty of war is when soldiers or civilians are killed in battle are as an effect from battle. If an army killed a child because a child got caught in the crossfire, that would be a casualty of war. When the battle is over and someone says "go kill the children and bring all the women for our soldiers to rape" that is murder and rape. You can say God punished them for the murder and rape, but they took the city in God's name. The bible claims God gave them the power to overthrow these cities for their wickedness, but then they turn around and do wicked things themselves? Free will is the ultimate loop hole for religion.

It's like god could hand someone a ski mask, a machine gun and a sack, tell them to go into the bank and get all the money. The guy goes in, kills everyone and robs the bank. Then god's answer is, "he did that on his own, he could have wrote a check"

[geoff]

It's hard for someone who doesn't understand the ways of God to truly understand what took place. First, a nation was offered surrender. If they refused they were annihilated. God pronounced judgement on the wicked, they paid the penalty for sin...death. You don't have to agree, but that was punishment according to Jewish Law. God never told them to go in and rape the women. The women were taken as wives for Jewish men. What you are doing is holding God accountable to what you think is right and wrong. If an evil nation/man is punished by death; was justice done? For example, that ginger that shot up the theatre, if he gets the death penalty; is it morally wrong since a life was taken? What constitutes "innocent"? Just some food for thought.

Of course free will is a loop hole, but it is not one reserved for Christianity alone. A siolder takes orders from his superior, if that siolder then abuses his power and commits some sort of war crime, is he not punished? If he was ordered to go capture an enemy strong hold and does so, but also tortures the inhabitants and prisoners; is that the fault of the superior because he gave him authority to use force? I think not. Everyone is responsible and held liable for their actions.

[Sinfix_15]

It's hard for someone who doesn't understand the ways of God to truly understand what took place. First, a nation was offered surrender. If they refused they were annihilated. God pronounced judgement on the wicked, they paid the penalty for sin...death. You don't have to agree, but that was punishment according to Jewish Law. God never told them to go in and rape the women. The women were taken as wives for Jewish men. What you are doing is holding God accountable to what you think is right and wrong. If an evil nation/man is punished by death; was justice done? For example, that ginger that shot up the theatre, if he gets the death penalty; is it morally wrong since a life was taken? What constitutes "innocent"? Just some food for thought.

Of course free will is a loop hole, but it is not one reserved for Christianity alone. A siolder takes orders from his superior, if that siolder then abuses his power and commits some sort of war crime, is he not punished? If he was ordered to go capture an enemy strong hold and does so, but also tortures the inhabitants and prisoners; is that the fault of the superior because he gave him authority to use force? I think not. Everyone is responsible and held liable for their actions.

Can you show me a scripture that clearly defines that what they did was wrong? any scripture that references these actions in a negative light.

[geoff]

I have already provided scripture that show rape is punishable and so is murder. What are you missing?

[Sinfix_15]

I have already provided scripture that show rape is punishable and so is murder. What are you missing?

That's like pointing out the small print at the bottom of a screen on an infomercial. I want to see a scripture where someone addresses the fact that Moses' army killed a city full of children and raped their women. Not just a blanket statement applied to everything.

[geoff]

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Exodus 21:14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.

Numbers 35:20-21 But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he die; Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him.

Isaiah 1:21 How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers. ( God condemning Jews)

"But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26"But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27"When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her," (Deut. 22:25-27).

"If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you." duet. 22:23-24

[Sinfix_15]

will get back to this thread after work when i have time to read into those.

[geoff]

That's like pointing out the small print at the bottom of a screen on an infomercial. I want to see a scripture where someone addresses the fact that Moses' army killed a city full of children and raped their women. Not just a blanket statement applied to everything.


You know that such scripture does not exist. Do you know why God sent the Israelites to destroy the Cannanites? They were a nation of idolaters, fornicators, murderers, child sacrifice practitioners, ect...The punishment for sin was and is death. God pronounced judgement on these people and enacted it swiftly. Do you know why He commanded that they even wipe out the cattle, sheep, ect...? He purified the land so that the Israelites would not fall into the practices of the condemned nation. We as men are all found guilty in the face of the Righteous and Holy God. He states that sin has no place with Him. The men, women, and children were all guilty of sin. As far as the children goes, no one is certain as to how they are judged. I believe the Righteous Judge does not condemn children that have no understanding of right and wrong. They were commanded to go to war with a nation and wipe it out, God gave them the ability to carry out His justice.

[05dc5s]

05dc5s: The reference to Day and Night would be for good and evil. Knowing that He created good angels and also those who would rebel. Not much is given in detail about the "war" in heaven or the rebellion of Lucifer. As far as God saying "let's create man in "our" image...the Christian God is presented in three forms; God the Father, God the Som, and God the Holy Spirit. If you read the genesis account, you see God speaking things into existence, you have the reference of Day, and the reference of the Spirit hovering over the waters. They are all one and the same being, yet three different manifestations. Much like there is liquid water, ice, and vapor. God created man in "their" image in this fashion...man is a body, spirit, and soul. Much like Jesus is the body, God is the spirit, and the Holy Spirit is the soul. That is why I said before God created man (a problem), He created Himself the solution (Jesus). Further revel attain in the gospel of John says that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1. This was the disciple revealing Jesus as the Word and Christ. You see then, got created a solution to man sinning even before He created man.

I had to go back and retread the Genesis account to look for the discrepancy you were trying to point out. There are not two separate creation accounts. The creation account lists God creating sea creatures on the 5th day and then man and every other beast on the 6th. Chapter 2 then describes in detail God creating Eden and putting trees and life in it. He then brings the beasts to Adam for him to name. God then sees Adam is lonely and creates Eve as a "help mate". This is not two separate accounts of creation; it is just further detailing to the beginning of man and all life. There are no inconsistencies.

I do put emphasis on the Old Testament even though this is a "Jesus thread", and rightly so. Jesus Himself said that He did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. The Old testament is Gods first covenant with man. Man could not keep it. The prophets told of a new covenant that was to come, brought by the Messiah. That's just what Jesus did. He made Himself a sacrifice for the sins of men, so that they may be free from sin and the Law. For the Law brought forth the realization of sin and death as the punishment. No man could keep the Law for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. You see, under the Law, men would bring a sacrifice once a year to the high priest. The sacrifice "covered" the sins of men and pushed them forward until the next year. Under the New Covenant, Jesus lived a sinless life and then took all the sins of man upon Himself and sacrificed His life so that we might live. Jesus fulfilled all the requirements of the Law and took it upon Himself to be the Lamb slain for mankind. Our sins are then forgiven and wiped away, not covered or pushed forward. One last thing, Jesus did not due away with Mosaic Law. He said to follow two commandments, to love your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and stregnth; and to love your neighbor as yourself. If one could keep these two commandments, then he/she would fulfill all the Law.

I'm not really sure what your trying to say in your last paragraph, but I will answer to the best of my understanding. First, I'm not claiming the Bible was written by one single man at one sit down. There are many authors and literary styles. That's why each book in the Bible has a separate title. Each individual author was given his own revelation and received a portion of the "story". The ideals though remain the same as does the over all message. One simply reads from beginning to end and sees it flow from one section into the other. Of course it is up to the individual to figure bad and good. We are all instilled by God with a conscience. What many atheist so wrongly assume is that Christians are somehow robotic and live strictly to the Bible. We Christians are to go beyond that. We have a personal relationship with God and grow spiritually through prayer, fasting, and the Holy Spirit. The Bible tells us where we came from and tells of Gods love for us, it also guides us morally and gives us comfort in our daily lives. It is a big part of faith, but not faith in its entirety. Prayer and reflection upon prayer is what forms faith and the Christian as an individual. I will admit that faith requires action and unbelief does not. Me doing what I am doing on this site is not an action to proclaim my faith to others. I do not need acceptance or affirmation from people I have never met. I have and will continue to have faith regardless of what others think of me or make me out to be. My purpose here is to provide a clear image of what Christianity is and should be. The pure image of faith and Christ has been clouded and obscured by corrupt churches, scandals, perversion, and hypocrisy. The image or impression that modern Christianity has left is not a true reflection of God, Jesus, faith, or the Bible. I have admired also that I myself am not a true representation of it either. I am flesh and blood and flawed. I have faults, I sin, and have an imperfect nature. All I aim to do is guide people past the cloudiness and to Jesus. You may see it as primitive or in vain, but God has helped a few on here find faith again through my words. Even one soul is worth ridicule and jokes my friend. I force no man on here to believe what I do, I simply provide an opportunity to discover faith for themselves.

There are quite clearly conflicting accounts in the creation story and while you disagree I'm quite capable of quoting the passages that illustrate this but, that would be unproductive if you have already chosen the book to be infallible as it seems you do. Ultimately it doesn't matter what I or anyone else on here think and while you say "all your trouble is worth it if..." the thin I would you to examine if you're so bent on you're assertion that you're right and working for a worthy cause is to look to the proclaimed actions of the man you made this thread about. He rejected what many were doing in the name of religion he rejected and destroyed temples, he hung around the disenfranchised, he spent time with whore, the homeless and the poor. If you're so confident in your beliefs and truly grounded it doesn't matter what I or anyone else things. Spend your time helping those that your book teaches you to help and don't waste your time on a car forum verbally jousting those that don't feel the need to be or do good because of the writings in your book. Good and Evil existed prior to the Christian religion and they will exist after it.

I say all this because I truly believe that you are here and engage in the conversations because you are seeking confirmation and you feel the need for people to agree with you to validate your belief. Trying being objectively introspective and you may be surprised at what you find.

[05dc5s]

You know that such scripture does not exist. Do you know why God sent the Israelites to destroy the Cannanites? They were a nation of idolaters, fornicators, murderers, child sacrifice practitioners, ect...The punishment for sin was and is death. God pronounced judgement on these people and enacted it swiftly. Do you know why He commanded that they even wipe out the cattle, sheep, ect...? He purified the land so that the Israelites would not fall into the practices of the condemned nation. We as men are all found guilty in the face of the Righteous and Holy God. He states that sin has no place with Him. The men, women, and children were all guilty of sin. As far as the children goes, no one is certain as to how they are judged. I believe the Righteous Judge does not condemn children that have no understanding of right and wrong. They were commanded to go to war with a nation and wipe it out, God gave them the ability to carry out His justice.

Listen to what you are saying. You're agree that that it was right for individuals to choose to slay innocent women and children because their practices were different from what they felt was right... unfounded I might add. They judged others and committed murder, rape, and slavery. Think about what you have read and know about Jesus, is this what he would have done or what he taught?

Take the parallel to current times. If Christians or any other religion took such an action against a nation or a group of people in the name of their god whom would support it? No good person would and Christians if they were not the ones that took such an action would proclaim such an action as sin and not something that Jesus would do. Yet, now, at this moment, you defend it and are justifying it. Why? Because if you were to begin to reject some part of your bible you may begin to question yourself and your faith. Again I believe you to be a good person with good intentions but I believe you are seeking a confirmation of your faith through these conversations.

[05dc5s]

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Exodus 21:14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.

Numbers 35:20-21 But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he die; Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him.

Isaiah 1:21 How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers. ( God condemning Jews)

"But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26"But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27"When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her," (Deut. 22:25-27).

"If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you." duet. 22:23-24

That is sick and despicable to state that women have any responsibility in rape. To imply otherwise is evil and only reflects to the way of thinking that existed at that time...when women were property.

[geoff]

Thanks for the psychiatric evaluation, but I already stated why I do this. Someone has to proclaim what true Christianity is. The world has had enough of the corrupt and hypocritical "church". I have visited many atheist blogs and religious debates. It would seem that atheists have a passionate hatred for Christians. They are fed up with the "business", the deception, the scandal and hypocrisy. All I see is hateful remarks aimed to degrade those with beliefs and faith and make them out to be stupid. What the world sees of Christians is not a true representation of Christ. If no one steps up and says the truth, then the message is lost. You wondered into a religion inspired thread my friend. No one forces you to read this or contemplate what is said.

[05dc5s]

Thanks for the psychiatric evaluation, but I already stated why I do this. Someone has to proclaim what true Christianity is. The world has had enough of the corrupt and hypocritical "church". I have visited many atheist blogs and religious debates. It would seem that atheists have a passionate hatred for Christians. They are fed up with the "business", the deception, the scandal and hypocrisy. All I see is hateful remarks aimed to degrade those with beliefs and faith and make them out to be stupid. What the world sees of Christians is not a true representation of Christ. If no one steps up and says the truth, then the message is lost. You wondered into a religion inspired thread my friend. No one forces you to read this or contemplate what is said.

Like I said before I believe your're well intentioned however, I disagree that you need the bible to be or know good. I don't hate you, Christians, or any group just blindly for that matter. I do disagree with some of what you say and when I see you holding onto some part of the bible that is clearly wrong and is used by others to take an ill action then I speak up about it.

[geoff]

I never said one needed to know the Bible to know good from evil. We all have a conscience. I already described what the Bible is to believers, to atheists its just some old book. The message contained in it has no meaning or impact on those who have no faith. I agree with you that some have used the Binle for Ill intentions, but that is not a fair representation of the whole. Many evil things have been done under the disguise of good intentions, hitler is a prime example. We can just agree to disagree.

[geoff]

You have not seen me once use scripture for ill intentions or actions.

[05dc5s]

I never said one needed to know the Bible to know good from evil. We all have a conscience. I already described what the Bible is to believers, to atheists its just some old book. The message contained in it has no meaning or impact on those who have no faith. I agree with you that some have used the Binle for Ill intentions, but that is not a fair representation of the whole. Many evil things have been done under the disguise of good intentions, hitler is a prime example. We can just agree to disagree.

Your blindly believing that everything in the bible is good, right, correct, righteous, and well intentioned is why I made my statements. With the same justification and confidence you proclaim Hitler committed evil actions(which he did) you should acknowledge that evil and wrong actions were committed in the old testament. Under the guise of righteousness that Hitler committed his ill actions can you not see the the precise parallel in the actions committed in the old testament? If you posses a great knowledge and history and the bible then you will see this and grasp an understanding of how Hitler was so successful in manipulating masses. He was a terrible person and I only use this example because of you bringing it up.

[05dc5s]

You have not seen me once use scripture for ill intentions or actions.

Nor have I stated that you have. I've repeatedly stated that I believe you to be well intentionted in spite of me agreeing with you or believing you to be right.

[geoff]

With greater understanding I can say that no evil actions were commanded by God. It's as simple as this, they commuted crimes punishable by death and God carried out that punishment either by war, plagues, or natural disasters. You don't have to agree with the judgement or actions of God. We as humans are capable of thought and intelligence, therefore we each make up our own minds as to what is right or wrong. I support the death penalty, some don't. Some support America going to war in the middle east, others do not. Some are conservatives while others are liberals. People deciding what's good, bad, right, wrong, productive and destructive. So if everyone has their own interpretation and opinion, then who or what is right and what's wrong? Are you the ultimate authority? Am I? Is anyone? You understand that when interpreting an event, their will be more than one interpretation? Hiltler was considered evil, yet he did something great. Great does not always mean morally right or productive. I hope you can understand this.

[geoff]

As long as we can come to a mutual understanding and respect each other despite our different views, then we demonstrate humanity at its finest.

[Sinfix_15]

You know that such scripture does not exist. Do you know why God sent the Israelites to destroy the Cannanites? They were a nation of idolaters, fornicators, murderers, child sacrifice practitioners, ect...The punishment for sin was and is death. God pronounced judgement on these people and enacted it swiftly. Do you know why He commanded that they even wipe out the cattle, sheep, ect...? He purified the land so that the Israelites would not fall into the practices of the condemned nation. We as men are all found guilty in the face of the Righteous and Holy God. He states that sin has no place with Him. The men, women, and children were all guilty of sin. As far as the children goes, no one is certain as to how they are judged. I believe the Righteous Judge does not condemn children that have no understanding of right and wrong. They were commanded to go to war with a nation and wipe it out, God gave them the ability to carry out His justice.

My mind just cant fathom this being the right thing to do. As ive said before, believing isnt the only obstacle in my way, i dont agree whether i believe or not.

[Sinfix_15]

As long as we can come to a mutual understanding and respect each other despite our different views, then we demonstrate humanity at its finest.

I respect you. Of all the people who participate in these threads, you're probably the person i disagree with the most, but also the 1st person id want to sit down and talk to. I agree with most of blank's views on religion, i wouldnt want to be in the same room with him.

[geoff]

To be honest I never questioned the Bible or God. I read it for what it was and agreed. I have though questioned the church. Man is very very fallible. I ran into some obstacles that weighed heavily on my faith. Glad we can respect eachother.

[guinness]

Here is the irony of religion, Christianity more specifically. The Bible says that Jesus/God does not want us to live in fear or to be afraid, but then in the same book also says that he will put into the lake of fire cowards. Really? How the hell are you going to expect anyone to not live in fear when you just put it in them by saying that you will be cast into that lake if you are scared, so you are running around scared that you will be thrown into that lake of fire because he said you would if you were a coward of any kind, so it's a catch-22 that you can't win or really accomplish. God says to treat everyone as you would want to be treated. If that is the case, when someone dOes wrong to you, does that mean that they are wanting to be wrong themselves and if so and you do such a thing, you have just broken one of his mighty commandments. The bible also says to have no false gods or idols made, but the Catholic church or any religion for that matter has made images of God, the saints, Mary, etc, and thus broken that law in effect as well. ReallY? I could go on and on about this, but the bottom line is this; the bible is a great guideline for living good, but it i also a standard that was set by so high and out of reach that it is impossible to do. ALSO, the bible was written by who? Man. Man who was under the "divine" inspiration of God, but still was man's hand that wrote it and thus was subject to their own interpretation of what they were being told or heard themselves. Unless God HIMSELF wrote that book, then it is flawed from the beginning becasue man wrote it.....PERIOD!!

[geoff]

Here is the irony of religion, Christianity more specifically. The Bible says that Jesus/God does not want us to live in fear or to be afraid, but then in the same book also says that he will put into the lake of fire cowards. Really? How the hell are you going to expect anyone to not live in fear when you just put it in them by saying that you will be cast into that lake if you are scared, so you are running around scared that you will be thrown into that lake of fire because he said you would if you were a coward of any kind, so it's a catch-22 that you can't win or really accomplish. God says to treat everyone as you would want to be treated. If that is the case, when someone dOes wrong to you, does that mean that they are wanting to be wrong themselves and if so and you do such a thing, you have just broken one of his mighty commandments. The bible also says to have no false gods or idols made, but the Catholic church or any religion for that matter has made images of God, the saints, Mary, etc, and thus broken that law in effect as well. ReallY? I could go on and on about this, but the bottom line is this; the bible is a great guideline for living good, but it i also a standard that was set by so high and out of reach that it is impossible to do. ALSO, the bible was written by who? Man. Man who was under the "divine" inspiration of God, but still was man's hand that wrote it and thus was subject to their own interpretation of what they were being told or heard themselves. Unless God HIMSELF wrote that book, then it is flawed from the beginning becasue man wrote it.....PERIOD!!


First, can you quote from scripture the part I made bold? Or are those just your own personal interpretations? Yes the Bible teaches to treat everyone as you want to be treated, specifically, to love your neighbor as yourself. No man in his right mind would intentionally harm himself. Jesus also teaches that when someone does you wrong, slap in the face, give them the other cheek also. He teaches to not seek revenge because vengeance belongs to the Lord. So if a man does you wrong, and you do wrong back to him, you are not following the Biblical teachings and therefore are just as guilty as the man that wronged you. Yes there exists Christian sects or denominations that make graven images and have false idols. Catholics and Orthodox come to mind. These churches are guilty of breaking the commandments. I completely agree with you their. The modern church is flawed, that is why the Bible says that God does not dwell in buildings nor is He confined to them. It also says to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. The Bible does not set ridiculous standards. Read the New Testament, as this is the covenant that we are judged by. There are two simple rules; love your God and love your neighbor as yourself. It goes on then to teach you how one can live a life of purity through Christ. It is not some unobtainable goal, it is very realistic. Yes the Bible was penned by men who were Divinely Inspired. But do you know what Divinely inspired means? The Holy Spirit of God is what moved on these men. I can not even begin to describe what that is to you, it is something that a believer themselves have to experience. If you understood though, you would see that it was basically God Himself that wrote the scriptures. The Holy Spirit dwelled in men and moved on them to write the scriptures.

[guinness]

Revelation 21:8; notice he lists cowards first, before all the others and has done it several other times in the bible.

[guinness]

As far as inspiration goes to write the bible, then why not inspire Moses to write the commandments? Isn't the spirit the same as God and Jesus? Aren't they the same in the trinity? If it's God's word, then it should be God writing it by his own hand and not by "inspiration". Crowley was inspired to write the Black writings and such, so are these the literal word of God...or of Satan, and if so, then why are they dismissed as written by a man who was off his rocker? Again, Christianity's double standard. Do as I say and command, but not as I do type shit. How much Jesus juice do you have to drink in order to daily keep buying into this shit?

[bu villain]

Jesus also teaches that when someone does you wrong, slap in the face, give them the other cheek also. He teaches to not seek revenge because vengeance belongs to the Lord. So if a man does you wrong, and you do wrong back to him, you are not following the Biblical teachings and therefore are just as guilty as the man that wronged you.

How do you reconcile this view with your support of the death penalty Geoff? These seem to be at odds with each other.

[geoff]

Moses was inspired to write the commandments, God wrote them first and then when Moses broke them, he wrote them himself. Do you not know the story? Can you compare crowleys writings to a tradition that predates recorded history? " do as I say and command, not as I do" ??? Are you serious, what exactly does the Bible say Jesus did? God came down in flesh as Jesus, underwent our struggles, fears, anxieties, and temptations yet managed to fulfill the Law perfectly. How much of the scriptures do you actually know? Or are you following the assumptions of a man who also didn't research and claims unbelief?

[geoff]

Bu villain: I reconcile my beliefs with the death penalty as so: Jesus commanded that we submit ourselves not only to God but to the governing body as well. We are to follow Gods laws and the ones which we set to rule over us. If a man commits murder, he is punishable by death by our laws as well as Biblically. It is not up to me as an individual to seek justice. I am to pray that that man/woman may come to find forgiveness in the eyes of God and I am to find it in my heart to forgive him as well. Forgiveness in my eyes and Gods' does not though excuse that murderer from the laws by which we govern ourselves.

[guinness]

Satan came down before he did as a snake and made his appearance. SO what. So since Moses wrote them after God did, who is to say that he did his own writing of it because at his old-ass age, memory isn't the best anymore. Besides that, man wrote it; you said it yourself just before. If man wrote it, where are they? Not the ark, those contain the real things according to legend and the bible as well as the rod of Aaron, etc. Fulfill the law perfectly? Define the law being fulfilled perfectly. Are you defining it according to what you read or were you divinely inspired to interpret or define it?

[geoff]

Guinness: what you are showing me is that you haven't read/understood scripture. I'm not trying to insult you, but you are trying to point out faults or inconsistencies that honestly are not there. God was present with Moses on Mt. Sinai when the commandments were given. "if man wrote it, where are they"? Is this a question of where the authors are( they are dead) or where the ten commandments are? The commandments themselves are contained in the Ark of the Covenant, which has eluded discovery as to this day.

Definition of the Law being fulfilled perfectly: Jesus commited no sin. That is the Law fulfilled. I define it according to what the Bible defined as the Law. It is not of my own interpretation. The Law detailed what was sin, what was prohibited, and how a Jew was to conduct themselves. Jesus adhered to it without fault. I honestly hope you have a stronger basis for your argument then scripture. As you have demonstrated that you don't believe in scripture nor have read it.

[.blank cd]

Guinness: what he actually meant to say was "You don't interpret the bible the same way I do, so your way is wrong and you don't understand it."

[geoff]

Ah blank, yet another "expert" in scripture that FAA to demonstrate common and basic knowledge of scripture. How can you interpret anything that you have no knowledge of?

[guinness]

I have read scripture, my mother has a doctorate in Theology and Escatology as well as other fields, but the fact that you say that I have no basis other than scripture for my arguments just nullifies your ability to argue back with anything concerning Christianity or religion because your whole rebuttal on any topic is built on and/or around scripture itself and only that. Yes, the people who had the commandments are dead, duh, they're sure as shit not older than Methuselah and didn't ride off on a chariot into the clouds lie Enoch or Elijah and then make a glorious return sometime later. Also, you said that God wrote the commandments and then Moses had to rewrite them because God commanded him to or whatever and are now in the Ark? Really? They would put an item that was rewritten by man after the original written by God himself, supposedly, was destroyed, into the most sacred and powerful item in all of bible and especially the Jewish faith? That's the case, then why not just put any written piece of material into there? It's holy and sacred because it is perceived as containing items that were either created by God or were from God. AS far as the location of the Ark goes,it is not "missing" and it is not in Ethiopia like so many people think it is or in some warehouse like in Indiana Jones. look up Jeremiah's Grotto and trace it through history and it's location from then until now and all that has happened literally on top of the grotto. I am not going to believe in a book that man's hand penned because it was man's hand, not God. Secondly, why do I need to believe in a book that is not complete and is missing some very important books in it that really need to be there to clear the confusion up, or at least make the best effort at it possible because the Vatican sees them as being not that important. The book is incomplete, too controversial, and has caused more problems of what it talks against than any other item in the history of the world.

[geoff]

I have read scripture, my mother has a doctorate in Theology and Escatology as well as other fields
First off, let me say that I really am not trying to offend you or stir up any emotions of anger. I will just simply clarify the truth on this subject. With that said, your mother should have a pretty good understanding of scripture then as should you; im sure she has spoken to you about it and you also claim to have read yourself. I can not then understand where your misinformation or confusion comes from. I will demonstrate below what I mean by you being misinformed and confused. Again, I do not aim to piss you off or make you out to be an idiot.


but the fact that you say that I have no basis other than scripture for my arguments just nullifies your ability to argue back with anything concerning Christianity or religion because your whole rebuttal on any topic is built on and/or around scripture itself and only that.
My point was this, you were trying to point out inconsistencies in scripture, therefore the debate became about the authenticity, accuracy, and legitimacy of scripture. What then shall I use as a source then when you claim, " the Bible says this and is contradicting itself"? Should I not then use scripture to defend scripture? As far as arguing about religion and Christianity; yes I will use scripture when one tries to use it against me. Yes I will use scripture when one says, " how do you believe Jesus fulfilled the Law"? When the thread topic was homosexuality or evolution, I did not use scripture or anything of faith. You can easily go back and see that.


Yes, the people who had the commandments are dead, duh, they're sure as shit not older than Methuselah and didn't ride off on a chariot into the clouds lie Enoch or Elijah and then make a glorious return sometime later.
First sign of misinformation or confusion; neither one of these men, Enoch or Elijah made any kind of glorious return. Also, the Bible does not say Enoch was carried off on a chariot of fire, it simply says, Enoch "walked with God: and he was not; for God took him" Gen.5:24


Also, you said that God wrote the commandments and then Moses had to rewrite them because God commanded him to or whatever and are now in the Ark? Really? They would put an item that was rewritten by man after the original written by God himself, supposedly, was destroyed, into the most sacred and powerful item in all of bible and especially the Jewish faith?

This is another example as to your confusion. God wrote the first set of commandments as described in Exodus 31:18 "And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God." Moses then went back down to the Israelites and witnessed them worshiping the calf of gold. In his anger he smashed the two tablets. Later on, he goes back on the mountain and receives the second set as described in Exodus 34:27-28 "And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." One can clearly see who "chiseled" the second set. Were they still the words of God? Of course, God was with Moses up on the mountain and God was the author, Moses His pen. Yes these two unbroken tablets were stored in the Ark as it says in Exod 25:16 "And you shall put into the ark the Testimony which I will give you." The book containing the rituals and ceremonies was stored along side the Ark but not in it. The Ark also contained a jar of mana and the rod of Aaron as described in Exod 16:32-33 "Then Moses said, This is the thing which the LORD has commanded: 'Fill an omer with it, to be kept for your generations, that they may see the bread with which I fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you out of the land of Egypt.' And Moses said to Aaron, Take a pot and put an omer of manna in it, and lay it up before the LORD, to be kept for your generations." and Num 17:7-8 "And Moses placed the rods before the LORD in the tabernacle of witness. Now it came to pass on the next day that Moses went into the tabernacle of witness, and behold, the rod of Aaron, of the house of Levi, had sprouted and put forth buds, had produced blossoms and yielded ripe almonds."
which are also referenced in Hebrews 9:4 "Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;"


That's the case, then why not just put any written piece of material into there? It's holy and sacred because it is perceived as containing items that were either created by God or were from God.

I believe I just covered this in the statements above. But to break it down further. The two tablets, they were the original Words of God scribed by His finger. The children of Israel broke the covenant when they were worshiping the golden calf. ( symbolism as Moses shatters the two original tablets.) The Israelites are punished and then God tells Moses two fashion two more tablets of which the words shall be rewritten. God was with Moses in person on the mountain. Not many more Holy or Divine encounters than that in the entire Bible. How then can you make it seem that the second set was insignificant? It symbolizes a renewed covenant between man and God. The jar of mana is there to remind Gods' people of His provision. The staff symbolizes Gods' approval of Aaron into the priesthood.


AS far as the location of the Ark goes,it is not "missing" and it is not in Ethiopia like so many people think it is or in some warehouse like in Indiana Jones. look up Jeremiah's Grotto and trace it through history and it's location from then until now and all that has happened literally on top of the grotto.
I was very unaware of this, you could imagine how this wouldn't be reported as a "popular" subject in modern times. I thank you for the information as I was completely unaware of it. One can only hope that it is true. I found this site, very very interesting. Ark of Covenant, Pt. 1 (http://www.arkdiscovery.com/aoc-1.htm)


I am not going to believe in a book that man's hand penned because it was man's hand, not God.

Everyone has there own opinion.


Secondly, why do I need to believe in a book that is not complete and is missing some very important books in it that really need to be there to clear the confusion up, or at least make the best effort at it possible because the Vatican sees them as being not that important.

Im curious how you find the Bible in its current form incomplete? You are talking about the "missing" books found in the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls. There are some good things in those, one quote I especially like is ""The Kingdom of God is inside/within you (and all about you), not in buildings/mansions of wood and stone. (When I am gone) Split a piece of wood and I am there, lift the/a stone and you will find me." From the gospel of Thomas. There are reasons as to why these books were not included in the canon. They were Gnostic writings ( you can tell by the message they give) that do not match with the accepted inspired words that are in the Bible today. To put is shortly, these were written by men who were a small sect considered to be blasphemers even by the early church.


The book is incomplete, too controversial, and has caused more problems of what it talks against than any other item in the history of the world.

Incomplete according to who? Are their mysteries concerning God, the heavens, ect....? Sure there are. Man is not meant to know all that is under heaven and earth. We saw with the tower of Babel what happens when mens' ego and pride gets too big. If God revealed every mystery, how long before prideful man thinks himself to be a god? Think about that honestly for a moment. Controversial? Who makes it controversial? The controversy comes from those that either do not believe in the Bible or do not want to submit to it as Gods Word. The Bible causes no controversy. It is man that thinks himself more moral and righteous than God that stirs emotions and causes controversy. The Bible has not caused problems. Men have done evil things in the name of scripture or God, but their actions alone speak that they are not Holy or Divinely inspired/led. You speak of the issue of homosexuality. Sure the Bible condemns it. It is men that have fashioned it as an acceptable lifestyle and a progressive issue. Men have free will to follow the Bible or do as the wish. It is the voice of the oppressive that seek to force belief onto an unbelieving people, to use scripture to somehow further their own beliefs. One that follows the scriptures knows that they are not to force faith on anyone, but rather speak of it and leave it up to that man or woman to decide for themselves.

You know, I have been trying to figure you out. You seem like a man that is conflicted in his faith. You want to believe but can not due to the fallibility and flaw of man.

[guinness]

Not the boks in the Dead sea scrolls, but the little Genesis, and the book itself called The Book of Enoch. Correct, Elijah was carried away and then Enoch simply vanished, but I never said that either of them returned. Was just making a reference as a joke in a sense, but not literal. If anything, the two witnesses described in Revelation are going to be Elijah and Moses or Enoch.

[geoff]

You do realize that these other books including the Book of Enoch are considered Gnostic writings. They were not accepted by the early 1st and 2nd century church because they strayed from the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. They believed salvation was obtained through knowledge and self awareness. They completely ignored the teachings of Jesus and were seen as heretics. You understand now why there teachings and writings were not included in the Bible? Further, have you read any of the Book of Enoch? It's almost like a myth story of Hercules.

[sport_122]

Faith, by it's very definition is a belief in something without evidence, a belief in something whether it's true or not. The thing about science is, that it's true whether you believe in it or not.

Not true. Because the scientist does not go back and rework all observations that lay the framework for their current research. They take those things on faith. Faith that because someone has told me that this is what happens when I do A to B and I am assuming it is true when I am going to something to D. Even scientists argue about the 'Laws' of science. There is a much stronger grain of faith in science than you would expect. And don't get me started on the part of the scientific method that would even lead you to believe that IF you do something to D, that you will accurately predict a result. That belief is an example of faith in and of itself.

[.blank cd]

Not true. Because the scientist does not go back and rework all observations that lay the framework for their current research. They take those things on faith. Faith that because someone has told me that this is what happens when I do A to B and I am assuming it is true when I am going to something to D.How do you figure scientific research is based on faith? Can you give an example of "faith based" scientific research?



There is a much stronger grain of faith in science than you would expect. And don't get me started on the part of the scientific method that would even lead you to believe that IF you do something to D, that you will accurately predict a result. That belief is an example of faith in and of itself.Which part of the scientific method is this? Can you explain further?

[sport_122]

How do you figure scientific research is based on faith? Can you give an example of "faith based" scientific research?


Which part of the scientific method is this? Can you explain further?

Sure. BTW its not faith based science, its the part of science that mandates the use of faith.

this is a little length but hang in there

Faith is a belief. It can be blind or it can be evidential.

How many of your friends believe in the big bang or evolution? How many of them have actually gone out and done some sort of research to prove it vs relying on what was told to them in class?

Hypotheses and the use of controls are typically results of someones belief that certain things are given and will present a specific type of result.

An example. All theories and hypothesis that are based off of the Big Bang. The big bang cannot be proven. It can be strongly hypothesized through observation, but it has never been observed. Even though this is the case, we have TONs of scientific hypothesis' that are based off of "IF" the Big Bang is how our universe was formed.

Evolution, as a theory of origin, cannot be proven because we don't have complete development data. And we never will. It will remain a theory that people take on faith, based off of incomplete origin records.

The arguments around these types of things always make me laugh we people argue science vs religion

There is this side of science where some people believe everything will be made known in time. we are realizing how much we don't know through the scientific method not how much we do know. For every one thing we think we figure out, we ask one hundred questions. But for some reason, there are a group of people who seem to think it different. Simply not true.

And ironically, all of these exact things can be said for people who claim faith in God.

My personal belief is that the atheistic movement, at some point in history, began to cling onto science as if it were a way to forge your own path without having to give any credit to God. the scientific method is much older than the atheist. That said. science does not rival or argue against God. People argue against God.

[.blank cd]

Sure. BTW its not faith based science, its the part of science that mandates the use of faith.

this is a little length but hang in there

Faith is a belief. It can be blind or it can be evidential.

How many of your friends believe in the big bang or evolution? How many of them have actually gone out and done some sort of research to prove it vs relying on what was told to them in class?

Hypotheses and the use of controls are typically results of someones belief that certain things are given and will present a specific type of result.

An example. All theories and hypothesis that are based off of the Big Bang. The big bang cannot be proven. It can be strongly hypothesized through observation, but it has never been observed. Even though this is the case, we have TONs of scientific hypothesis' that are based off of "IF" the Big Bang is how our universe was formed.

Evolution, as a theory of origin, cannot be proven because we don't have complete development data. And we never will. It will remain a theory that people take on faith, based off of incomplete origin records.

The arguments around these types of things always make me laugh we people argue science vs religion

There is this side of science where some people believe everything will be made known in time. we are realizing how much we don't know through the scientific method not how much we do know. For every one thing we think we figure out, we ask one hundred questions. But for some reason, there are a group of people who seem to think it different. Simply not true.

And ironically, all of these exact things can be said for people who claim faith in God.

My personal belief is that the atheistic movement, at some point in history, began to cling onto science as if it were a way to forge your own path without having to give any credit to God. the scientific method is much older than the atheist. That said. science does not rival or argue against God. People argue against God.

Hmmm. I see

I've noticed you've referred to a scientific theory as a layman theory. These are two different things.

Lets imagine for a second, you've got 20 neighborhood friends who don't know how a newspaper is printed. You really want to find out and you happen to have a big magnifying glass. You see a bunch of blue, pink, and yellow dots. You tell all your friends that the picture on the front of the paper is just a bunch of dots arranged into a pattern that looks like that picture, and you tell them how you found that out. This is what you'd call your scientific theory. It's how you explain how your picture comes from a bunch of dots and you've tested it with your magnifying glass. You've just done science! Now that all of your friends know, they go and tell their friends what you did and so on and so fourth. Which of these kids took this information on faith? Faith, by its definition, is a belief, or trust, without supporting evidence. All of these kids can ask you, all of these kids can work to make some money to buy a newspaper and a magnifying glass. Same thing happens in a science classroom. Not only are you learning facts and theories, but also how the people who found them come across the answer.

The way we explain how a process works is a scientific theory. The current model of evolution, Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, is indeed a fact and a theory. It's been tested, and observed. The thing is, a lot of people tend to believe its used to explain the origin of life. It is simply the way we explain how we get from point a to point b. It is not a theory of origin. There is a completely different framework for this. We call it Aboigenesis. It has also been tested, conclusively, many times.

One of the problems with the debate is that , people don't seem understand modern evolutionary synthesis, abiogenesis, and the Big Bang, and the differences between them. And they're all so complex, it would take a doctorate in astrophysics, particle physics, biochemistry, and evolutionary biology to really cover it all.

My question to you is, could it be possible that you don't believe it because you don't really understand it? Maybe there's more you should know about it?

[sport_122]

Hmmm. I see

I've noticed you've referred to a scientific theory as a layman theory. These are two different things.

Lets imagine for a second, you've got 20 neighborhood friends who don't know how a newspaper is printed. You really want to find out and you happen to have a big magnifying glass. You see a bunch of blue, pink, and yellow dots. You tell all your friends that the picture on the front of the paper is just a bunch of dots arranged into a pattern that looks like that picture, and you tell them how you found that out. This is what you'd call your scientific theory. It's how you explain how your picture comes from a bunch of dots and you've tested it with your magnifying glass. You've just done science! Now that all of your friends know, they go and tell their friends what you did and so on and so fourth. Which of these kids took this information on faith? Faith, by its definition, is a belief, or trust, without supporting evidence. All of these kids can ask you, all of these kids can work to make some money to buy a newspaper and a magnifying glass. Same thing happens in a science classroom. Not only are you learning facts and theories, but also how the people who found them come across the answer.

The way we explain how a process works is a scientific theory. The current model of evolution, Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, is indeed a fact and a theory. It's been tested, and observed. The thing is, a lot of people tend to believe its used to explain the origin of life. It is simply the way we explain how we get from point a to point b. It is not a theory of origin. There is a completely different framework for this. We call it Aboigenesis. It has also been tested, conclusively, many times.

One of the problems with the debate is that , people don't seem understand modern evolutionary synthesis, abiogenesis, and the Big Bang, and the differences between them. And they're all so complex, it would take a doctorate in astrophysics, particle physics, biochemistry, and evolutionary biology to really cover it all.

My question to you is, could it be possible that you don't believe it because you don't really understand it? Maybe there's more you should know about it?

Its funny, I majored in Biology. Spent many days having this type of discussion.

first off: my case is again demonstrated in your reply: We dont need to take another persons word in order to have all of these things properly covered for us. Thats not observational science. The study that says something is true is only accepted in the scientific community when it can be demonstrated in a lab based off of the research as it was published. Observations must be repeatable. You and I should be able to reproduce the results of all of these claims. If we have to rely on the guy that "knows more" then we have ignored the scientific method at its core.

Secondly: Abiogenesis has not been proven. Not even wanting to go into it so you can look up any of the hundreds or thousands of PhD written journals that tear that idea apart. You can also look up Spontaneous Regeneration. Basically it requires "magic" as Richard Dawkins calls it when referring to miracles testified to in religious documents.

That leads to my next statement. The faith aspect of science. Scientific theories can be disproven. Maybe not today or tomorrow. Maybe 100 years from now. There are tons of things that were observed in our past that we have learned were not true, but were true to us at the time of their origin. Yet some of them were so foundational to the understanding of our universe that to have even started to go against them would have be met with mockery. The point is, after years of believing some things and learning to understand our world based off of those things, we have often times found out that we were wrong. So what do we call the confidence that people had in those ideas that were found to be invalid.

My final thought: (tribute to Springer) Science is not an enemy to my faith. I am a supporter of the scientific method. I believe that people are given observational tools by God. I just simply wanted to point out that I noticed a lot of people making claims like Science is definitive. Thats wrong. as i said before, the arguments aren't even about the science, they are about the presuppositions of the people who are arguing. PS. too tired to proof read.

[bu villain]

I just simply wanted to point out that I noticed a lot of people making claims like Science is definitive. Thats wrong.

I agree that science is always subject to revision but that is exactly why it is distinctly different from religious faith.

[.blank cd]

Its funny, I majored in Biology. Spent many days having this type of discussion.

first off: my case is again demonstrated in your reply: We dont need to take another persons word in order to have all of these things properly covered for us. Thats not observational science. The study that says something is true is only accepted in the scientific community when it can be demonstrated in a lab based off of the research as it was published. Observations must be repeatable. You and I should be able to reproduce the results of all of these claims. If we have to rely on the guy that "knows more" then we have ignored the scientific method at its core.I started in psych, but changed to CIS. I still have to finish and will probably go back to psych.

Thats what I'm saying. I don't have to rely on that guy that knows more. I can just as easily get a research job and find out myself. But in the case of religion, the guy that knows more is the pastor, and he makes scientific claims, and yet doesn't provide repeatable evidence. The problem I have is that religion is trying to become too scientific, and its not. Admit your biblical claim is purely philosophical, and I don't have a problem


Secondly: Abiogenesis has not been proven. Not even wanting to go into it so you can look up any of the hundreds or thousands of PhD written journals that tear that idea apart. You can also look up Spontaneous Regeneration. Basically it requires "magic" as Richard Dawkins calls it when referring to miracles testified to in religious documents.I haven't said abiogenesis has been proven. I know it hasn't. It has been tested, conclusively. As a biology major I'm sure you're familiar with Miller-Urey and other similar experiments. These experiments say "these may have been the conditions and the elements present when the earth was formed." No one has torn it apart. The only thing that seems to be debated is the conditions in which life began.


That leads to my next statement. The faith aspect of science. Scientific theories can be disproven. Maybe not today or tomorrow. Maybe 100 years from now. There are tons of things that were observed in our past that we have learned were not true, but were true to us at the time of their origin. Yet some of them were so foundational to the understanding of our universe that to have even started to go against them would have be met with mockery.Theories don't necessarily get disproven. They're simply replaced by better theories as our understanding and our observational abilities evolve. Kinda like how Newtons gravity theory was replaced by general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Religion is one thing that gives people comfort and stability. Some people aren't mentally equipped to deal with such a rock to their comfort zone as the thought that there's probably not a creator, that the stories that have been used to explain natural phenomenon are just myths, and that the end is just the end. I personally think of religion as a theory that has been replaced due to our drastic increase in observational abilities.

Science isn't definitive, or absolute at all. Anyone with an in depth knowledge of science will tell you that. But science will only explain what's within it's fundamental boundaries. It won't explain the supernatural and the philosophical.

[E36slide]

The ignorance is strong in this thread....


The one thing that always makes me laugh when i read the bible is the part where adam and eve populate an entire planet. Oh and the talking snake....oh and the ship that saved all the animals from the flood...honestly if you would have never read the bible and didn't know who or what god was you would think it's a children's book. The idea that people who don't believe in god will go to hell is blasphemy. There are third world countries that will never know who or what God is. The idea that people push religion on others also annoys me. Christianity is a racists religion. What makes your religion any better the Hinduism or any other religion.


Religion is a business simple and plain. I go to 12 stone and they have a mother fucking star bucks in their church. Yet ppl go hungry or can barely make it by.

I also believe in the way of since; i guess i too am ignorant and going to hell.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[Echonova]

The ignorance is strong in this thread....


The one thing that always makes me laugh when i read the bible is the part where adam and eve populate an entire planet. Oh and the talking snake....oh and the ship that saved all the animals from the flood...honestly if you would have never read the bible and didn't know who or what god was you would think it's a children's book. The idea that people who don't believe in god will go to hell is blasphemy. There are third world countries that will never know who or what God is. The idea that people push religion on others also annoys me. Christianity is a racists religion. What makes your religion any better the Hinduism or any other religion.


Religion is a business simple and plain. I go to 12 stone and they have a mother fucking star bucks in their church. Yet ppl go hungry or can barely make it by.

I also believe in the way of since; i guess i too am ignorant and going to hell.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2I'm seriously just quoting this so you can't edit your post...





Wow.

[E36slide]

I'm seriously just quoting this so you can't edit your post...





Wow.

I don't mind. This is what i believe. I could go in more dept and provide factual information...but i don't care to explain why i don't belive in god.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[Echonova]

I don't really care if you believe in 8lb 7oz baby Jesus or not. But if you don't believe then why go to church at all? Or did I just read your post wrong?


If you're going for a chick, you're doing it wrong. But I digest.

[E36slide]

I don't really care if you believe in 8lb 7oz baby Jesus or not. But if you don't believe then why go to church at all? Or did I just read your post wrong?


If you're going for a chick, you're doing it wrong. But I digest.

My grandmother lol

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[-EnVus-]

My grandmother lol

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
Did I just read you don't go to church for chicks you go for your grandma ?
Seriously is that all it takes to get in her cotterpooter these days

[E36slide]

Did I just read you don't go to church for chicks you go for your grandma ?
Seriously is that all it takes to get in her cotterpooter these days

She doesn't like going alone.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[-EnVus-]

She doesn't like going alone.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
I read my good book at home I think church is for sinners looking for resolution Grandma must be a sinner

[Echonova]

Yes, church is for sinners. If you're 100% righteous with God then you don't need church.



If you don't believe in God, you don't need church.





Everyone else, needs church.

[E36slide]

I read my good book at home I think church is for sinners looking for resolution Grandma must be a sinner

She just likes the church. It's entertaining

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[ahabion]

The ignorance is strong in this thread....


The one thing that always makes me laugh when i read the bible is the part where adam and eve populate an entire planet. Oh and the talking snake....oh and the ship that saved all the animals from the flood...honestly if you would have never read the bible and didn't know who or what god was you would think it's a children's book. The idea that people who don't believe in god will go to hell is blasphemy. There are third world countries that will never know who or what God is. The idea that people push religion on others also annoys me. Christianity is a racists religion. What makes your religion any better the Hinduism or any other religion.


Religion is a business simple and plain. I go to 12 stone and they have a mother fucking star bucks in their church. Yet ppl go hungry or can barely make it by.

I also believe in the way of since; i guess i too am ignorant and going to hell.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

I hope and pray that I run into you at church one day... maybe we can even meet at the Starbucks.

[E36slide]

I hope and pray that I run into you at church one day... maybe we can even meet at the Starbucks.

Why...will you give me a "praise the lord holla loooya" hug?

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[sport_122]

I started in psych, but changed to CIS. I still have to finish and will probably go back to psych.

Thats what I'm saying. I don't have to rely on that guy that knows more. I can just as easily get a research job and find out myself. But in the case of religion, the guy that knows more is the pastor, and he makes scientific claims, and yet doesn't provide repeatable evidence. The problem I have is that religion is trying to become too scientific, and its not. Admit your biblical claim is purely philosophical, and I don't have a problem Its not philosophical. its just that I believe there are reasons to believe in the accounts that were written. Also your statement that a Pastor is the guy that knows more is not supported biblically.


I haven't said abiogenesis has been proven. I know it hasn't. It has been tested, conclusively. As a biology major I'm sure you're familiar with Miller-Urey and other similar experiments. These experiments say "these may have been the conditions and the elements present when the earth was formed." No one has torn it apart. The only thing that seems to be debated is the conditions in which life began.
Abiogenesis is discussed solely as an origins of life theory. I am very familiar with the Miller Urey experiments. You may want to pull some journals on this. They didn't prove abiogenesis. I could really go on about this, so if you want I can point to dozens of PhD's publishing huge problems with this study and the claims made about abiogenesis. Dont be mistaken. The there has never been a scientist to create life from nonlife. Well, except Frankenstein which is what scientist of the time accused them of reading when they came up with the primordial soup theory.


Theories don't necessarily get disproven. They're simply replaced by better theories as our understanding and our observational abilities evolve. Kinda like how Newtons gravity theory was replaced by general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Religion is one thing that gives people comfort and stability. Some people aren't mentally equipped to deal with such a rock to their comfort zone as the thought that there's probably not a creator, that the stories that have been used to explain natural phenomenon are just myths, and that the end is just the end. I personally think of religion as a theory that has been replaced due to our drastic increase in observational abilities.

Religion is not a thing of comfort. My faith does not tell me how stable I am, it tells me how unstable I am. It also tells me that I should look into my world and understand who God is. for instance, my faith applies historical information. two quick examples to help you glimpse into my mind.

Christs life: simply put. If he wasn't working miracles, he wouldn't have had 100's of followers and thousands of believers in a culture that was completely opposed to his teachings and claims to be God in the flesh. He would have been killed on the spot had he not convinced masses.

Christs death: If he had not risen, as he claimed, the movement would have died. The men who lost their faith when they saw him die would not have changed their minds to the point of losing their lives. Something made them decide that their faith was stronger than the threat of losing their lives.




Science isn't definitive, or absolute at all. Anyone with an in depth knowledge of science will tell you that. But science will only explain what's within it's fundamental boundaries. It won't explain the supernatural and the philosophical. Philosophy covers things that can be studied through the scientific method. The same for supernatural things. Dr. Gary Swarze (spelling) of Arizona State university did a scientific study on the afterlife. He published his methods and his findings. You can get all the documentation and repeat the studies that he did to determine whether or not you get his results. Some scientists laugh at it, but you should read up on what he did. I think its great foundational work to show that science can deal with the metaphysical as this was his secondary goal. But i digress to my original point: Science has been hijacked by people who want to blatantly ignore these types of topics.

[quickdodge®]

... he wouldn't have had 100's of followers and thousands of believers ...

Have you ever heard of Charles Manson, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Nettles/Applewhite or even Fred Phelps?


Christs death: If he had not risen, as he claimed,

I do appreciate how you added the "as he claimed" part. No sarcasm involved, sir.

[sport_122]

Have you ever heard of Charles Manson, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Nettles/Applewhite or even Fred Phelps?



I do appreciate how you added the "as he claimed" part. No sarcasm involved, sir.

I sure have. AND? Do you have something intelligent to add, or are you going to regurgitate one liners to try to use suggestive hypothetical statements?

[quickdodge®]

I sure have. AND? Do you have something intelligent to add, or are you going to regurgitate one liners to try to use suggestive hypothetical statements?

And here I was responding to you because I didn't realize you'd get confrontational. I'm not going to drop down to that kind of arguing with you over my response. If you want to discuss it, I'm cool with that. If you're going to develop the need for insults, then that's not for me.

Sorry.

[sport_122]

And here I was responding to you because I didn't realize you'd get confrontational. I'm not going to drop down to that kind of arguing with you over my response. If you want to discuss it, I'm cool with that. If you're going to develop the need for insults, then that's not for me.

Sorry.


Ok. not confrontational. just looking for a real discussion. if you'd like to have one then begin it. You obviously have thoughts on what I have posted.

[-EnVus-]

Atheist want to truly believe there is no God cause the idea of a higher being just means they are to be judged for wrong things they do or believe. A person who does have faith also has heart and that means the spirit can forever live on. Id rather have faith and a delusional thought that I have a chance in a after life then to die and just turn to dirt THE END. "Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies"

[quickdodge®]

Have you ever heard of Charles Manson, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Nettles/Applewhite or even Fred Phelps?



I do appreciate how you added the "as he claimed" part. No sarcasm involved, sir.


Ok. not confrontational. just looking for a real discussion. if you'd like to have one then begin it. You obviously have thoughts on what I have posted.

My point, sport, was that the aforementioned people (in my initial post to you) also had 100's of people and followers and they put their faiths and beliefs completely in his hands. That doesn't include the ones that laid down their lives for these and the many other cult leaders that have been around. All your argument in that scenario does for me is to show that Jesus could have been the first cult leader this world has ever had. And these people didn't have to use the "miracle" tactic to get their followers. And the things these cult leaders have done to gain their followers are much more believable than what was written in the Bible. Not to mention provable. That's all I was wanting to get at, my friend.

The second part was truly non sarcasm. I was glad that you used the word claim so as to show that it isn't factual, but believed or said to have happened.

[quickdodge®]

Atheist want to truly believe there is no God cause the idea of a higher being just means they are to be judged for wrong things they do or believe. A person who does have faith also has heart and that means the spirit can forever live on. Id rather have faith and a delusional thought that I have a chance in a after life then to die and just turn to dirt THE END. "Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies"

And this just makes no sense.

[sport_122]

My point, sport, was that the aforementioned people (in my initial post to you) also had 100's of people and followers and they put their faiths and beliefs completely in his hands. That doesn't include the ones that laid down their lives for these and the many other cult leaders that have been around. All your argument in that scenario does for me is to show that Jesus could have been the first cult leader this world has ever had. And these people didn't have to use the "miracle" tactic to get their followers. And the things these cult leaders have done to gain their followers are much more believable than what was written in the Bible. Not to mention provable. That's all I was wanting to get at, my friend.

The second part was truly non sarcasm. I was glad that you used the word claim so as to show that it isn't factual, but believed or said to have happened.

i understood that. The assumption that you make is based off of the presupposition that because some men in the present day have made foolish claims then all men throughout history who have made outstanding claims were fools as well. The evidence would say something to the contrary.

Here are questions I'd ask to test a persons knowledge on the actual claims made around Christ's death and resurrection. I think the answers to these questions cast an incredibly different spectrum on him vs the occult leaders you mentioned. I also think that peoples sarcasm gets heavily in the way of hearing and understanding a claim before trying to cast doubt on it.

Who were the followers of Christ? How many were there? How many people saw him perform miracles? How many people challenged the validity of his miracles? How many people saw him after he died on the cross? How many of his followers were with him when he died? What happened to him after his resurrection? Did his followers believe he was resurrected right away?

[geoff]

Im curious as to why the same objections come up time and again. I have already made the arguement that evidence supporting Christ's story exists historically. What i boils down to is a simple rejection of the evidence laid before you. Science can be flawed, especially when assumptions of conditions or what not are used. History on the other hand either happened or it didnt. If there only existed writings of Christ from Christians, then one could argue that such evidence is biased....yet that is not the case.

[ahabion]

Why...will you give me a "praise the lord holla loooya" hug?

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

No, I'd shake your hand, pat on the back, buy you a drink and say "Good to see ya, God bless." Leave.

[TIGERJC]

WOW an imaginary friend thread. Please grow up or at the very least just think.