Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Oldschool Flip on October 09, 2008, 04:47:00 AM
-
Good video and makes you really think about unreasonable answers to support that God exists.
&feature=related
-
Good video and makes you really think about unreasonable answers to support that God exists.
&feature=related
Unfortunately for skeptics, this tired question hasn't been the death knell for Christianity and faith in general, that they'd hope it to be.
The rationale that God doesn't exist, because He doesn't heal amputees, is a rather weak one and makes about as much sense as my daughter claiming that I’m not her father and I don’t exist, because I won't give her a jelly donut. It reminds me of the temptations of Jesus in the wilderness. He was challenged, saying "If you are the son of God, command these stones be turned to bread". Jesus didn't do that. I guess that means He wasn't the Son of God, right?
WRONG!!!
The point is that He's the Son of God, whether He turned the stones to bread or not. Same thing goes for His crucifixion. His antagonists dared Him to prove that He was the Son of God by coming down off the cross. They taunted Him, "He saved others; himself He cannot save". Again, this was a wrong conclusion, deducing that He didn't save Himself simply because He couldn't do so.
There's a saying I've heard over the years, that goes like this: "An apple tree isn't an apple tree because it produces apples; an apple tree produces apples because it's an apple tree".
Besides, as Scripture has documented time and again, people have witnessed the miracles of God firsthand and STILL not believed. Judas saw them and still betrayed Jesus; Peter saw His power; yet, when pressured, denied that he even knew the Son of God.
To use a phrase from one of my favorite movies, "TEN TIMES YOU HAVE SEEN THE MIRACLES OF THE LORD; and still you have no faith", that referring to the Israelites, still doubting God, despite seeing His direct intervention (via the plagues) in their deliverance from Egypt. And, barely a month out of Egypt, they ended up building that infamous golden calf as their new god.
The point is simply this: Witnessing a miracle of God is anything but a guarantee that someone will believe in Him. If that was the case for His chosen people and His very own disciples, it should be of little surprise that skeptics have such a reaction (whether they witness such a feat or not).
-
With all of that said, here's a take from the other side of the story.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_wont_god_heal_amputees.html (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_wont_god_heal_amputees.html)
Here's an excerpt, from the author:
The first wrong assumption is that a large number of Christians are able to dictate to God what He should do. Healings do not necessarily require large numbers of people praying, since most recorded healings have involved just one prayer. The second wrong assumption is that God heals all who are prayed for. Even the Bible records examples of Christians - even apostles - who were not healed, despite prayer. The third wrong assumption is that every Christian has the gift to heal people. The Bible clearly says that this is not so. A fourth wrong assumption is that somebody can be found who is "deserving." According to the Bible, none of us is worthy of being saved. However, God, in His love, saves the undeserving through His mercy. God does not heal everybody of every infirmity in this life.
I began working for my current boss in 1983 at the UCLA Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center. Within two years, I developed Crohn's Disease, the most severe form of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, which has no cure. I found myself unable to do things using my own abilities and strength. After two months of being bedridden in severe pain, I cried out to God, even though I was a deist at the time (I had gone from an agnostic atheist to a deist in college). Within three months all symptoms of Crohn's disease had disappeared. That was over 20 years ago, and no symptoms of the disease have ever reappeared. However, thousands of people have gone through our Inflammatory Bowel Disease clinics and not been cured. I am sure that most of those people have prayed to God, but are still suffering. For some reason, God chose to heal me, so that I would know that He was personally involved in the lives of people. God acts to produce eternal, spiritual outcomes, and not just temporal, physical changes.
-
The rationale that God doesn't exist, because He doesn't heal amputees, is a rather weak one and makes about as much sense as my daughter claiming that I’m not her father and I don’t exist, because I won't give her a jelly donut.
Claims of "miracles" happen all the time with people of faith. You can prove that you're her father, but claimers can't prove it miracles by God happen. Coincedence is what happens. It reminds me of the temptations of Jesus in the wilderness. He was challenged, saying "If you are the son of God, command these stones be turned to bread". Jesus didn't do that. I guess that means He wasn't the Son of God, right?
WRONG!!!
If he could have that would at least been some proof.
The point is that He's the Son of God, whether He turned the stones to bread or not. Same thing goes for His crucifixion. His antagonists dared Him to prove that He was the Son of God by coming down off the cross. They taunted Him, "He saved others; himself He cannot save". Again, this was a wrong conclusion, deducing that He didn't save Himself simply because He couldn't do so.
There's a saying I've heard over the years, that goes like this: "An apple tree isn't an apple tree because it produces apples; an apple tree produces apples because it's an apple tree".
Besides, as Scripture has documented time and again, people have witnessed the miracles of God firsthand and STILL not believed. Judas saw them and still betrayed Jesus; Peter saw His power; yet, when pressured, denied that he even knew the Son of God.
I've witnessed great card tricks by magicians that seem that there was no way in the world I should be fooled. But common sense tells me it's a trick. Primitive people back then were also naive and fell for magic tricks. That's why almost every race has some sort of god or gods because they didn't have science back then to refute it.
To use a phrase from one of my favorite movies, "TEN TIMES YOU HAVE SEEN THE MIRACLES OF THE LORD; and still you have no faith", that referring to the Israelites, still doubting God, despite seeing His direct intervention (via the plagues) in their deliverance from Egypt. And, barely a month out of Egypt, they ended up building that infamous golden calf as their new god.
Lol, except for the Bible, there is no evidence that the Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians. Again, stories told by selected authors by a committee to make people think there is a God.
The point is simply this: Witnessing a miracle of God is anything but a guarantee that someone will believe in Him. If that was the case for His chosen people and His very own disciples, it should be of little surprise that skeptics have such a reaction (whether they witness such a feat or not).
If that's the simple point, then why are these miracles much more explainable now? We're much smarter and more advanced with equipment that can actual prove things that happen with explanation.
-
With all of that said, here's a take from the other side of the story.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_wont_god_heal_amputees.html (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_wont_god_heal_amputees.html)
Here's an excerpt, from the author:
The first wrong assumption is that a large number of Christians are able to dictate to God what He should do. Healings do not necessarily require large numbers of people praying, since most recorded healings have involved just one prayer. The second wrong assumption is that God heals all who are prayed for. Even the Bible records examples of Christians - even apostles - who were not healed, despite prayer. The third wrong assumption is that every Christian has the gift to heal people. The Bible clearly says that this is not so. A fourth wrong assumption is that somebody can be found who is "deserving." According to the Bible, none of us is worthy of being saved. However, God, in His love, saves the undeserving through His mercy. God does not heal everybody of every infirmity in this life.
I began working for my current boss in 1983 at the UCLA Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center. Within two years, I developed Crohn's Disease, the most severe form of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, which has no cure. I found myself unable to do things using my own abilities and strength. After two months of being bedridden in severe pain, I cried out to God, even though I was a deist at the time (I had gone from an agnostic atheist to a deist in college). Within three months all symptoms of Crohn's disease had disappeared. That was over 20 years ago, and no symptoms of the disease have ever reappeared. However, thousands of people have gone through our Inflammatory Bowel Disease clinics and not been cured. I am sure that most of those people have prayed to God, but are still suffering. For some reason, God chose to heal me, so that I would know that He was personally involved in the lives of people. God acts to produce eternal, spiritual outcomes, and not just temporal, physical changes.
It's jabber wocky. It's much simpler to say that they aren't healed or answered because God is an imaginary being. That's much easier to explain.
-
If that's the simple point, then why are these miracles much more explainable now? We're much smarter and more advanced with equipment that can actual prove things that happen with explanation.
(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b374/willbrink/bible_truths.jpg)
-
Claims of "miracles" happen all the time with people of faith. You can prove that you're her father, but claimers can't prove it miracles by God happen. Coincedence is what happens. If he could have that would at least been some proof.
Really? You can check Deem's medical records to see the documentation that he had that disease. You can give him a follow-up exam (or check the records from such) to see if he has it now. You can look at other cases study to show that Chron's disease has no medical cure, despite the attempted medical techniques used to get rid of the affliction.
Besides, your claim (and that of this video) is that God doesn't exist, if He doesn't answer a prayer to someone's liking. That's why I used the analogy with my daughter, the point of which you missed. I'm her father, whether I give her a jelly donut or not. Same goes for Jesus and the stones-into-bread thing.
I've witnessed great card tricks by magicians that seem that there was no way in the world I should be fooled. But common sense tells me it's a trick. Primitive people back then were also naive and fell for magic tricks. That's why almost every race has some sort of god or gods because they didn't have science back then to refute it.
Refute what? Science is simply observation and application of natural phenomena. Furthermore, your claim that people didn't have science back then is quite inaccurate.
Plus, exactly what type of "trick" feeds over 10,000 people with a lunch that could barely sustain a young boy? Or, what trick resurrects someone who has already been pronounced dead, wrapped in burial clothes, sealed in a tomb, and was starting to decompose?
Lol, except for the Bible, there is no evidence that the Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians. Again, stories told by selected authors by a committee to make people think there is a God.
That is incorrect. For starters, you have Egyptian steles and the writings of Josephus, as part of extra-Biblical documentation of Israel's enslavement in Egypt. Of course, there's that pesky Passover feast that the Jews have had for MILLENIA, to commemorate their deliverance.
If that's the simple point, then why are these miracles much more explainable now? We're much smarter and more advanced with equipment that can actual prove things that happen with explanation.
National Geographic tried that on a special about the Exodus, specifically with regards to natural explanations to the plagues that hit Egypt (BayGBM brought that up on a thread several months ago).
What that special DID NOT (and probably could not explain) is how those plagues:
a) occured at Moses' cue
b) affected primarily, if not exclusively, the Egyptians
c) did not cease, until Pharoah yielded and released the Hebrews
Ironically enough, this special was done, despite years of certain scholars DENYING that the Exodus occured or that the Israel was ever enslaved in Egypt. Now that such a claim has fallen flat, the trend now is to minimize Israel, claiming that they were much smaller in number than what is documented in Scripture.
It's jabber wocky. It's much simpler to say that they aren't healed or answered because God is an imaginary being. That's much easier to explain.
The problem with that is this guy (Rich Deem) was healed, according to his testimony. But, the point you missed, yet again, that his being healed or not has no bearing on whether or not God exists. Deem was healed; others with similar afflictions were not. I go back to my jelly donut anaology. Whether I give my daughter a jelly donut or not, I'm still her dad. Whether God healed Rich Deem of his Crohn's disease or not, He's still God.
(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b374/willbrink/bible_truths.jpg)
Yet, with all the works of science, certain people STILL can't comprehend that such a claim ("every animal species lived within walking distance....") IS NOT MADE in the Bible.
-
Yet, with all the works of science, certain people STILL can't comprehend that such a claim ("every animal species lived within walking distance....") IS NOT MADE in the Bible.
I wouldn't know. I prefer my super heroes and comic books to be more modern.
-
I wouldn't know. I prefer my super heroes and comic books to be more modern.
You wouldn't know, yet you used that graphic to make your point. Doesn't make a lot of sense.
-
You wouldn't know, yet you used that graphic to make your point. Doesn't make a lot of sense.
I don't know what happened in the last issue of Super Man comics to know it's fiction. Hey, what ever makes you happy, it's all good. Everyones needs their imaginary friends to get through the day I guess. Me, I am looking forward to Santa visiting soon.... ::)
-
I don't know what happened in the last issue of Super Man comics to know it's fiction. Hey, what ever makes you happy, it's all good. Everyones needs their imaginary friends to get through the day I guess. Me, I am looking forward to Santa visiting soon.... ::)
If I actually had an imaginary friend, I'd agree with you. Fortunately, for me, I do not.
;D
-
Really? You can check Deem's medical records to see the documentation that he had that disease. You can give him a follow-up exam (or check the records from such) to see if he has it now. You can look at other cases study to show that Chron's disease has no medical cure, despite the attempted medical techniques used to get rid of the affliction.
People survive falls and horrific maladies all the time. All over the world. Whether they are Buddists, Muslims, Christians or Athesists, there are many "miracles" that just happen. You're talking one man. It could happen without intervention from God.
Besides, your claim (and that of this video) is that God doesn't exist, if He doesn't answer a prayer to someone's liking. That's why I used the analogy with my daughter, the point of which you missed. I'm her father, whether I give her a jelly donut or not. Same goes for Jesus and the stones-into-bread thing.
Children starve in 3rd worlds. Christians go there to convert them to Christianity. Why are they still starving? Not worthy enough? It's been this way for a couple of thousand years. Does God need more time to think about it?
Refute what? Science is simply observation and application of natural phenomena. Furthermore, your claim that people didn't have science back then is quite inaccurate.
Uh no, science is usually factual not anecdotal. Yes they had science, but not even close to what we have now. They didn't know that dinosaurs existed and had no idea what they were.
Plus, exactly what type of "trick" feeds over 10,000 people with a lunch that could barely sustain a young boy? Or, what trick resurrects someone who has already been pronounced dead, wrapped in burial clothes, sealed in a tomb, and was starting to decompose?
Same trick that got you to believe it. It's a story. Just like Samson slaying how many thousand men in one afternoon. You believe it because the book you so adore says it's true. Lol, how do we know there wasn't a caravan of food hidden behind a hill?
That is incorrect. For starters, you have Egyptian steles and the writings of Josephus, as part of extra-Biblical documentation of Israel's enslavement in Egypt. Of course, there's that pesky Passover feast that the Jews have had for MILLENIA, to commemorate their deliverance.
Josephus life was way after Moses, so he could recount any story he wanted. He wasn't enslaved by Egyptians. Most of the slaves in Egypt were Egyptians that were poor, although I don't doubt there were also some Hebrew slaves. Egypt had conquered Israel, so this is how the story came about. And we've had Christmas for eons too, but we know that is a pagan holiday that was adopted by the Christians. Another great story.
National Geographic tried that on a special about the Exodus, specifically with regards to natural explanations to the plagues that hit Egypt (BayGBM brought that up on a thread several months ago).
What that special DID NOT (and probably could not explain) is how those plagues:
a) occured at Moses' cue (coincidence)
b) affected primarily, if not exclusively, the Egyptians (because they were there)
c) did not cease, until Pharoah yielded and released the Hebrews (they have the exact time line?)
Ironically enough, this special was done, despite years of certain scholars DENYING that the Exodus occured or that the Israel was ever enslaved in Egypt. Now that such a claim has fallen flat, the trend now is to minimize Israel, claiming that they were much smaller in number than what is documented in Scripture.
The problem with that is this guy (Rich Deem) was healed, according to his testimony. But, the point you missed, yet again, that his being healed or not has no bearing on whether or not God exists. Deem was healed; others with similar afflictions were not. I go back to my jelly donut anaology. Whether I give my daughter a jelly donut or not, I'm still her dad. Whether God healed Rich Deem of his Crohn's disease or not, He's still God.
I could pray to a jug of milk and get the same results. A yes answer, a no answer and a wait a see answer. God to you is a being you were told about. Do you think if you were lived in an isolated area away from Christianity, that you would have known about him? Doubt it. Guess what, it's still happening in the world today. Of course these tribes and people have their own Gods, but of course to you it's poppycock since you've been raised to believe that the Bible is the only true book. But to them it's how they were raised to believe.
I was raised Catholic and in a middle class family. At first not questioning my religion, until I was out on my own. The more I researched, the more I learned how religion is nothing more than a way to CONTROL people by fear. Christians fear Hellfire and Brimstone, so they do what a book tells them to so they can avoid it. Fear is a great way to get people to respond. Ask the media.
Yet, with all the works of science, certain people STILL can't comprehend that such a claim ("every animal species lived within walking distance....") IS NOT MADE in the Bible.
It's easy to explain. Continents divided, over millions of years (San Diego is creeping up to San Francisco at a rate of about 6 inches a year) and certain animals live where others don't. Australia is a great example of species of animals that are not found in other places on planet. Maybe that's where Noah's Ark really landed? Oh, wait no the Bible says it was Mt. Ararat so that has to be correct. ::)
-
Children starve in 3rd worlds. Christians go there to convert them to Christianity. Why are they still starving? Not worthy enough? It's been this way for a couple of thousand years. Does God need more time to think about it?
Oldschool Flip,
And what exactly are you doing right now for those starving children in 3rd world countries? Many Christian doctors, nurses, dentists and other volunteers from the US go several times a year to those 3rd world countries to provide those children with food, clothes, medicine, toys, build them shelters, teach them to read and write, etc.
Why are they still starving? Probably because there are way too many of them and more people in developed countries aren't doing what these Christians from the US are doing.
-
I don't know what happened in the last issue of Super Man comics to know it's fiction. Hey, what ever makes you happy, it's all good. Everyones needs their imaginary friends to get through the day I guess. Me, I am looking forward to Santa visiting soon.... ::)
Do you really believe some of the greatest thinkers of all time have wasted their time on a fairy tale? Couldn't there be just a little bit more to spiritual scripture than that?
Reading your post, I could very well argue the same as you do: you talk of things you are no "expert" of.
Reading the bible as an acurate historic resp. scientific description is misleading of course. That's not the purpose of spiritual scripture.
-
People survive falls and horrific maladies all the time. All over the world. Whether they are Buddists, Muslims, Christians or Athesists, there are many "miracles" that just happen. You're talking one man. It could happen without intervention from God.
But, per Deem's testimony, it didn't. The medicine the doctors gave him didn't work, as he still had the disease. After his prayer, the disease is gone. And Deem cites no other medical treatments or procedures, after his prayer request. And, referencing Deem is hardly and exhaustive list.
When it comes to curing the deadliest of diseases, it takes BILLIONS OF DOLLARS and countless man-hours of deliberate work from sentient beings (scientists and doctors) to even ATTEMPT to cure such ailments. Yet, you believe that such things "just happen". That takes about as much (for lack of a better term) "faith" for you to believe, as it takes a Christian to believe that God healed him of that disease.
Children starve in 3rd worlds. Christians go there to convert them to Christianity. Why are they still starving? Not worthy enough? It's been this way for a couple of thousand years. Does God need more time to think about it?
Jesus said, during His time on Earth, that his disciples would always have the poor with them. And, that's their opportunity to not only minister to their physical needs, but to preach the Gospel as well. Until His return, and as long as we live on this sinful planet, we will have poverty and those vicitmized by it. The old-"because there is misery on Earth, there is no God" take simply holds no water.
Uh no, science is usually factual not anecdotal. Yes they had science, but not even close to what we have now. They didn't know that dinosaurs existed and had no idea what they were.
Ummmmmm......"Dinosaur" is a 19th-CENTURY TERM; the first Bible that was translated into English happened nearly 200 years before that word came into existence. So, where do you get this claim that these people had no idea what the creatures, now known as "dinosaurs" were?
Same trick that got you to believe it. It's a story. Just like Samson slaying how many thousand men in one afternoon. You believe it because the book you so adore says it's true. Lol, how do we know there wasn't a caravan of food hidden behind a hill?
And this "trick" would be what? BTW, I'm sure there are plenty of "stories" you believe that you can't prove to be valid. But, that's another issue for another time.
Josephus life was way after Moses, so he could recount any story he wanted. He wasn't enslaved by Egyptians. Most of the slaves in Egypt were Egyptians that were poor, although I don't doubt there were also some Hebrew slaves. Egypt had conquered Israel, so this is how the story came about. And we've had Christmas for eons too, but we know that is a pagan holiday that was adopted by the Christians. Another great story.
Josephus has access to records, that documented the Israelites enslavement in Egypt, among those being the works of Egyptian historian, Manetho. Josephus cited those historical references in his writings. Most historical accounts from ancient figures are documented by people who lived after those figure's lifetimes. These historians has access to documents, which have been either destroyed or remain lost. Regardless, your claim of there being no extra-Biblical documentation of the Israelites being enslaved in Egypt is incorrect. So, your attempt to frame Josephus as simply recounting the story as he please is quite feeble.
As for Christmas, the recognition of the birth of Jesus may have been grafted onto a pagan holiday. But, for that to happen, the event HAD TO HAVE OCCURED in the first place.
I could pray to a jug of milk and get the same results. A yes answer, a no answer and a wait a see answer. God to you is a being you were told about. Do you think if you were lived in an isolated area away from Christianity, that you would have known about him? Doubt it.
Wrong again. History shows how the Christianity spread in certain parts of the planet, far removed from Israel. People who live in countries, in which practicing Christianity is punishable by DEATH are still learning about the Gospel.
Guess what, it's still happening in the world today. Of course these tribes and people have their own Gods, but of course to you it's poppycock since you've been raised to believe that the Bible is the only true book. But to them it's how they were raised to believe.
As is usually the case, you forget about the many millions of Christians who WERE NOT RAISED to believe in Christianity but did so later in their adult lives. And that's happening WORLDWIDE, far away from the USA (or North America, for that matter).
I was raised Catholic and in a middle class family. At first not questioning my religion, until I was out on my own. The more I researched, the more I learned how religion is nothing more than a way to CONTROL people by fear. Christians fear Hellfire and Brimstone, so they do what a book tells them to so they can avoid it. Fear is a great way to get people to respond. Ask the media.
You were raised Catholic.......AND? As I said earlier, Christians come from all walks of like. Some were raised in the faith and remained in it. Others were not raised as Christians, yet they became Christians later in life. Furthermore, others who were once atheists did their research (just like you) and became Christians as a result. Rich Deem, the guy referenced with the Crohn's disease, is one such fellow.
In fact, if you ask people, who have become believers as adults, most will tell you that fear of hell had little to do with their conversion.
I almost forgot!!
a) occured at Moses' cue (coincidence)
b) affected primarily, if not exclusively, the Egyptians (because they were there)
c) did not cease, until Pharoah yielded and released the Hebrews (they have the exact time line?)
A normally-prosperous Egypt just happens to get slammed with calamities, upon Moses' return (nevermind that no warnings of such hit the scene prior to his arrival). They start when Moses says they'll start; stop when he says they'll stop. And the ultimate end to them all results in the most powerful man in the world, yielding to the demands of his slaves, and allowing them to take his nation's wealth, after all of Egypt's firstborn INCLUDING the Pharoah's own (and excluding a handful, smart enough to get to a marked Hebrew house).
Concidence??? I don't think so!!! ;D
-
Oldschool Flip,
And what exactly are you doing right now for those starving children in 3rd world countries? Many Christian doctors, nurses, dentists and other volunteers from the US go several times a year to those 3rd world countries to provide those children with food, clothes, medicine, toys, build them shelters, teach them to read and write, etc.
Why are they still starving? Probably because there are way too many of them and more people in developed countries aren't doing what these Christians from the US are doing.
Actually it's because the governments are corrupt and don't give a crap about it. And to be honest, I don't feel compelled to volunteer to help. I have my family that I care about and want to ensure my genes and family continue on down the cycle.
It doesn't make sense to take care of other countries when we can't take care of our own first. Why don't doctors, nurses and others whom volunteer just run free clinics here to the poor and unfortunate if that's their goal.
I'll help out friends and even organization locally because I feel it helps the community, but to do it because you think it's "saintly" is just a feel good act. Even if I did, I'd be condemned to hell anyway since I don't accept Jesus as any type of savior, according to you or any other Christian, so why bother doing just good deeds? According to your Bible it would be for naught.
-
But, per Deem's testimony, it didn't. The medicine the doctors gave him didn't work, as he still had the disease. After his prayer, the disease is gone. And Deem cites no other medical treatments or procedures, after his prayer request. And, referencing Deem is hardly and exhaustive list.
When it comes to curing the deadliest of diseases, it takes BILLIONS OF DOLLARS and countless man-hours of deliberate work from sentient beings (scientists and doctors) to even ATTEMPT to cure such ailments. Yet, you believe that such things "just happen". That takes about as much (for lack of a better term) "faith" for you to believe, as it takes a Christian to believe that God healed him of that disease.
I have faith in science. Where AIDS was considered by many Christians a disease from God to show his anger towards homosexuals, we now have medicines to put it into dormancy. Guess God didn't think about that. And you're right, only Christians believe good fortune bestows upon them when good things happen like the lottery, or some unfounded treasure, or survival from a hurricane. Yet there are other millions of Christians that are unfortunate, but don't blame God for death from violence, accidents that mame them and they lose everything in the process, etc.
Jesus said, during His time on Earth, that his disciples would always have the poor with them. And, that's their opportunity to not only minister to their physical needs, but to preach the Gospel as well. Until His return, and as long as we live on this sinful planet, we will have poverty and those vicitmized by it. The old-"because there is misery on Earth, there is no God" take simply holds no water.
Lol, drug lords appeal to poor youth too. It's easy to influence poor people with something when they have nothing.
Ummmmmm......"Dinosaur" is a 19th-CENTURY TERM; the first Bible that was translated into English happened nearly 200 years before that word came into existence. So, where do you get this claim that these people had no idea what the creatures, now known as "dinosaurs" were?
SHow me the translation from the original HEBREW BIBLE. Not some conjourned up New Edition English Bible.
And this "trick" would be what? BTW, I'm sure there are plenty of "stories" you believe that you can't prove to be valid. But, that's another issue for another time.
You can't be so naive to think that there weren't con men back in that era would you? People haven't really changed much in behavior in a few thousand years. They've just changed the way they scam people.
Josephus has access to records, that documented the Israelites enslavement in Egypt, among those being the works of Egyptian historian, Manetho. Josephus cited those historical references in his writings. Most historical accounts from ancient figures are documented by people who lived after those figure's lifetimes. These historians has access to documents, which have been either destroyed or remain lost. Regardless, your claim of there being no extra-Biblical documentation of the Israelites being enslaved in Egypt is incorrect. So, your attempt to frame Josephus as simply recounting the story as he please is quite feeble.
The Bible is a compilation of "stories" from some 80 authors, whom were chosen by a committee. There were more than 800 contributors all with their accounts during that time, but many weren't chosen. Just like the Great Flood that supposedly killed everyone except Noah and his family, was documented in China and also in South America at about the same time frame. How did happen when everyone was supposed to die? Because people back then didn't SEE the whole world or beyond just what they thought was the world.
As for Christmas, the recognition of the birth of Jesus may have been grafted onto a pagan holiday. But, for that to happen, the event HAD TO HAVE OCCURED in the first place.
Doesn't change the fact that info was inaccurate.
Wrong again. History shows how the Christianity spread in certain parts of the planet, far removed from Israel. People who live in countries, in which practicing Christianity is punishable by DEATH are still learning about the Gospel.
Dude you're killing me! ;D Christianity wasn't spread until Christians left Europe.
As is usually the case, you forget about the many millions of Christians who WERE NOT RAISED to believe in Christianity but did so later in their adult lives. And that's happening WORLDWIDE, far away from the USA (or North America, for that matter).
How can you be Christian if you didn't have that denomination? Show me an example.
You were raised Catholic.......AND? As I said earlier, Christians come from all walks of like. Some were raised in the faith and remained in it. Others were not raised as Christians, yet they became Christians later in life. Furthermore, others who were once atheists did their research (just like you) and became Christians as a result. Rich Deem, the guy referenced with the Crohn's disease, is one such fellow.
In fact, if you ask people, who have become believers as adults, most will tell you that fear of hell had little to do with their conversion.
It goes both ways. Many "believers" left Christianity to become atheists as well. My point about being Catholic was that everyone in my family is Catholic because our parents wanted it that way. What about people becoming Muslims or Buddists which don't agree with much in the Bible? You can argue about the "being Christians" before they even knew it, but common sense will tell you that if you raise ANY CHILD in a certain enviroment, they will adapt to that enviroment.
There are too many examples of this to show, but a couple would be young boys becoming men in whipping contests in Africa, eating cats and dogs like regular food in Asia, etc. Kids follow what they see.
I almost forgot!!
a) occured at Moses' cue (coincidence)
b) affected primarily, if not exclusively, the Egyptians (because they were there)
c) did not cease, until Pharoah yielded and released the Hebrews (they have the exact time line?)
A normally-prosperous Egypt just happens to get slammed with calamities, upon Moses' return (nevermind that no warnings of such hit the scene prior to his arrival). They start when Moses says they'll start; stop when he says they'll stop. And the ultimate end to them all results in the most powerful man in the world, yielding to the demands of his slaves, and allowing them to take his nation's wealth, after all of Egypt's firstborn INCLUDING the Pharoah's own (and excluding a handful, smart enough to get to a marked Hebrew house).
Concidence??? I don't think so!!! ;D
It's anecdotal. Plagues hit not only Egypt but China and other countries as well. Millions died. Another story in the Bible that doesn't coincide with Rameses real life.
-
Really? You can check Deem's medical records to see the documentation that he had that disease. You can give him a follow-up exam (or check the records from such) to see if he has it now. You can look at other cases study to show that Chron's disease has no medical cure, despite the attempted medical techniques used to get rid of the affliction.
chrons is a relapsing, remitting disease, there are numerous people who have had years of remission. Similar to childhood asthma, or any other immunological disease. What it proves is what we know, chrons can go into remission as it is an auto immune disease. No god is needed to explain it. Why doesnt god just heal an amputee something we know cant happen, remission in chrons is not impossible or improbable. Every miracle god conducts can be explained, why doesnt he just do something obvious and unexplanable?
-
I also want to add that people have been cured per se of IBD depending on the etiology. I have worked with doctors who have alleviated all symptoms by finding food allergies for example. GOD DID IT.
-
Do you really believe some of the greatest thinkers of all time have wasted their time on a fairy tale? Couldn't there be just a little bit more to spiritual scripture than that?
Reading your post, I could very well argue the same as you do: you talk of things you are no "expert" of.
Reading the bible as an acurate historic resp. scientific description is misleading of course. That's not the purpose of spiritual scripture.
Memeplexes engrained in childhood, combined with fear of death and mortality= powerful. We often compartmentalize our thinking to combine rational and irrational, your appeal to authority is also a fallacy and not worthy of argument.
-
Memeplexes engrained in childhood, combined with fear of death and mortality= powerful. We often compartmentalize our thinking to combine rational and irrational, your appeal to authority is also a fallacy and not worthy of argument.
Not exactly a new argument, reducing spirituality to fear and wishful thinking. It has absolutely nothing to do with either one. It also has nothing to do with appeal to authority, at least not in the way you put it.
-
I have faith in science. Where AIDS was considered by many Christians a disease from God to show his anger towards homosexuals, we now have medicines to put it into dormancy. Guess God didn't think about that. And you're right, only Christians believe good fortune bestows upon them when good things happen like the lottery, or some unfounded treasure, or survival from a hurricane. Yet there are other millions of Christians that are unfortunate, but don't blame God for death from violence, accidents that mame them and they lose everything in the process, etc.
Exactly how does some Christians thinking AIDS is a punishment to homosexuals equate to things just happening, especially as it relates to curing diseases? You claimed that people just survive horrible maladies all the time. If that's the case, why do scientists have to develop medicine to treat symptons of AIDS (that certainly doesn't just "happen" on its own)?
Knowledgable, living, and sentient beings have to spend MILLIONS of dollars and BILLIONS of man-hours just to develop medicine to simply TREAT the symptoms of this dreaded disease.
Lol, drug lords appeal to poor youth too. It's easy to influence poor people with something when they have nothing.
If that's the case, maybe some atheists should go and spread their godless message to the downtrodden. Then again, considering how many of them tend to be a bit on the snobby, intellectually-"elite" side, that probably won't happen.
SHow me the translation from the original HEBREW BIBLE. Not some conjourned up New Edition English Bible.
That's the point. The word, "dinosaur" is an English word, make two centuries after the KJV was translated. So, of course, you're not going to see that word in the KJV.
You can't be so naive to think that there weren't con men back in that era would you? People haven't really changed much in behavior in a few thousand years. They've just changed the way they scam people.
Con men of the era were often exposed and often PUT TO DEATH for such a fabrication. That, of course, doesn't help your argument, as you've yet to establish that such was the case with regards to the Bible, particularly the New Testament. Plus, there's the little matter of how EASILY Christianity could have exposed, had it been fabricated. Simply produce the body of Christ or get a confession out of the disciples that they fabricated the whole thing (a big stretch, since you claim they were so naive and ignorant), and the movement dies, before it really gets off the ground.
The Bible is a compilation of "stories" from some 80 authors, whom were chosen by a committee. There were more than 800 contributors all with their accounts during that time, but many weren't chosen. Just like the Great Flood that supposedly killed everyone except Noah and his family, was documented in China and also in South America at about the same time frame. How did happen when everyone was supposed to die? Because people back then didn't SEE the whole world or beyond just what they thought was the world.
South America and China (as well as scores of other nations and cultures) just happen to have some documentation that, at some point in this planet's history, this planet was destroyed by a massive flood, with only a handful of people surviving by stating on a floating vessel. Again, coincidence? I don't think so.
There are many descriptions of the remarkable event [the Genesis Flood]. Some of these have come from Greek historians, some from the Babylonian records; others from the cuneiform tablets, and still others from the mythology and traditions of different nations, so that we may say that no event has occurred either in ancient or modern times about which there is better evidence or more numerous records, than this very one which is so beautifully but briefly described in the sacred Scriptures. It is one of the events which seems to be familiar to the most distant nations—in Australia, in India, in China, in Scandinavia, and in the various parts of America. It is true that many look upon the story as it is repeated in these distant regions, as either referring to local floods, or as the result of contact with civilized people, who have brought it from historic countries, and yet the similarity of the story is such as to make even this explanation unsatisfactory. - Stephen D. Peet, “The Story of the Deluge,” American Antiquarian, Vol. 27, No. 4, July–August 1905, p. 203
Doesn't change the fact that info was inaccurate.
What info would that be?
Dude you're killing me! ;D Christianity wasn't spread until Christians left Europe.
Try that again! Christianity spread to Africa, Asia, and other countries LONG before it ever got to Europe.
How can you be Christian if you didn't have that denomination? Show me an example.
Why don't you ask Christians in the Middle East, particularly ones who've had family members executed for converting to Christianity in MUSLIM countries? I recall one guy, cutting out his daughter's tongue and setting her on fire, because she ditched Islam for Christianity.
As far as a living example goes, the son of a Hamas leader just did that not too long ago.
Son of Hamas Leader Turns Back on Islam and Embraces Christianity
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,402483,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,402483,00.html)
It goes both ways. Many "believers" left Christianity to become atheists as well. My point about being Catholic was that everyone in my family is Catholic because our parents wanted it that way. What about people becoming Muslims or Buddists which don't agree with much in the Bible? You can argue about the "being Christians" before they even knew it, but common sense will tell you that if you raise ANY CHILD in a certain enviroment, they will adapt to that enviroment.
It does go both ways. Your initial claim was that people were Christians, simply and primarily because they were raised in Christian households. That's not always the case. There are those who get raised in such houses who DON'T become or remain Christians. And, there are those were NOT raised in such homes who later become Christians. At the end of the day, it's a decision they have to make on their own.
It's anecdotal. Plagues hit not only Egypt but China and other countries as well. Millions died. Another story in the Bible that doesn't coincide with Rameses real life.
But, do those plagues come with the arrival of a member of that kingdom's slaves, who was once a ruler there? Do those plagues, a devastating one in particular, force a king to release a race of people, giving them a huge hunk of his wealth, in the process? NOPE!!!
-
Not exactly a new argument, reducing spirituality to fear and wishful thinking. It has absolutely nothing to do with either one. It also has nothing to do with appeal to authority, at least not in the way you put it.
memetics explains it well along with childrens programming to obey parents and accept rules and information without criticism. Memetic theory combined with the above explains it quite well, you are mistaken.
Do you really believe some of the greatest thinkers of all time have wasted their time on a fairy tale? Couldn't there be just a little bit more to spiritual scripture than that?
appeal to authority, plain and simple. Just because great thinkers have viewed the bible as truthful , this does nothing to support its position as truth.
-
memetics explains it well along with childrens programming to obey parents and accept rules and information without criticism. Memetic theory combined with the above explains it quite well, you are mistaken.
Pseudophilosphic / pseudoscientific nonsense, I'm afraid. Part of it may be valid, but the problem is again that restrictions are not recognized.
appeal to authority, plain and simple. Just because great thinkers have viewed the bible as truthful , this does nothing to support its position as truth.
Do I come across as someone who is interested in spirituality because of his "appeal to authority"? You are right however, that great thinkers can be wrong. But we should at least assume that they are smart enough to have considered all the philosophic child-play we are performing here.
-
Pseudophilosphic / pseudoscientific nonsense, I'm afraid. Part of it may be valid, but the problem is again that restrictions are not recognized.
Do I come across as someone who is interested in spirituality because of his "appeal to authority"? You are right however, that great thinkers can be wrong. But we should at least assume that they are smart enough to have considered all the philosophic child-play we are performing here.
memetic theory has mathematical models and predictive reliability.
Agreed on the last point. You really didnt make an argument in this response however.
-
memetic theory has mathematical models and predictive reliability.
As I said, part of it may be vaild. It however does not explain a human being (or his believe in God), it just attempts to describe certain scientific aspects. Everything else is inapplicable pseudo-philosophy.
Agreed on the last point. You really didnt make an argument in this response however.
I responded to yours.
-
Exactly how does some Christians thinking AIDS is a punishment to homosexuals equate to things just happening, especially as it relates to curing diseases? You claimed that people just survive horrible maladies all the time. If that's the case, why do scientists have to develop medicine to treat symptons of AIDS (that certainly doesn't just "happen" on its own)?
Knowledgable, living, and sentient beings have to spend MILLIONS of dollars and BILLIONS of man-hours just to develop medicine to simply TREAT the symptoms of this dreaded disease.
AIDS came from Africa. If God wanted it to be punishment, there would NEVER been a way to stop it. The only people who die from it now lack medical attention.
If that's the case, maybe some atheists should go and spread their godless message to the downtrodden. Then again, considering how many of them tend to be a bit on the snobby, intellectually-"elite" side, that probably won't happen.
They'd still be downtrodden. Most are that way because of choices they made. Getting them to be an atheist won't change their position unless they want to do it.
That's the point. The word, "dinosaur" is an English word, make two centuries after the KJV was translated. So, of course, you're not going to see that word in the KJV.
Let me guess, the blanket word "beast" is your proof? ::) Another way of making the Bible sound plausible to the discovery of dinosaurs. How about the Bible telling us how far we'll go intellectually as a species? Like time travel for example?
Con men of the era were often exposed and often PUT TO DEATH for such a fabrication.
Yep sounds like Jesus. That, of course, doesn't help your argument, as you've yet to establish that such was the case with regards to the Bible, particularly the New Testament. Plus, there's the little matter of how EASILY Christianity could have exposed, had it been fabricated. Simply produce the body of Christ or get a confession out of the disciples that they fabricated the whole thing (a big stretch, since you claim they were so naive and ignorant), and the movement dies, before it really gets off the ground.
The only people that questioned it were the Romans. Everyone else was conned.
South America and China (as well as scores of other nations and cultures) just happen to have some documentation that, at some point in this planet's history, this planet was destroyed by a massive flood, with only a handful of people surviving by stating on a floating vessel. Again, coincidence? I don't think so.
There are many descriptions of the remarkable event [the Genesis Flood]. Some of these have come from Greek historians, some from the Babylonian records; others from the cuneiform tablets, and still others from the mythology and traditions of different nations, so that we may say that no event has occurred either in ancient or modern times about which there is better evidence or more numerous records, than this very one which is so beautifully but briefly described in the sacred Scriptures. It is one of the events which seems to be familiar to the most distant nations—in Australia, in India, in China, in Scandinavia, and in the various parts of America. It is true that many look upon the story as it is repeated in these distant regions, as either referring to local floods, or as the result of contact with civilized people, who have brought it from historic countries, and yet the similarity of the story is such as to make even this explanation unsatisfactory. - Stephen D. Peet, “The Story of the Deluge,” American Antiquarian, Vol. 27, No. 4, July–August 1905, p. 203
That was my point. If everyone died, how were there transcripts from China? The documents are from the same time the supposed totally flooding of the world happened. Dead people don't write documents. Science has a better explaination of what happened based on soil samples from different parts of the world on lands that were affected.
What info would that be?
That Jesus wasn't born on Dec 25th.
Try that again! Christianity spread to Africa, Asia, and other countries LONG before it ever got to Europe
Lol, Rome is in Europe. You're actually going to sit there and tell me that Christianity wasn't in Rome, but in China, South America, North America, India first? ::)
Why don't you ask Christians in the Middle East, particularly ones who've had family members executed for converting to Christianity in MUSLIM countries? I recall one guy, cutting out his daughter's tongue and setting her on fire, because she ditched Islam for Christianity.
The Crusades are the main reason Muslims and other religions depise Christianity. Being FORCED by death to accept a religion was way worse than this.
As far as a living example goes, the son of a Hamas leader just did that not too long ago.
Son of Hamas Leader Turns Back on Islam and Embraces Christianity
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,402483,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,402483,00.html)
No explaination needed. See above.
It does go both ways. Your initial claim was that people were Christians, simply and primarily because they were raised in Christian households. That's not always the case. There are those who get raised in such houses who DON'T become or remain Christians. And, there are those were NOT raised in such homes who later become Christians. At the end of the day, it's a decision they have to make on their own.
Common sense tells you that if you went to a home and they had young kids, the kids were the denomination of the parents. The kids don't HAVE a choice. They do what they're told.
But, do those plagues come with the arrival of a member of that kingdom's slaves, who was once a ruler there? Do those plagues, a devastating one in particular, force a king to release a race of people, giving them a huge hunk of his wealth, in the process? NOPE!!!
Rameses had one child at the time and it was his first born, so that came about along the storyline. In fact, news of the skull of Rameses son had a depression showing fracture. This is forensic evidence and he may have acutally died from a blow to the head.
If so, this is the skull of a man who the Hebrew Bible says was killed by the 10th of the horrible plagues God sent to convince pharaoh to free the Hebrew slaves. And if so, it contains an important new piece of forensic evidence: The skull has a depressed fracture on the left hand side which pathologists say clearly occurred at the time of death.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/12/03/ramses-ii-the-10th-plague.htm
And even Hebrews lost not only their first child, but others to the plagues. Lol, and what king gives up his money? This is another story you heard. Show proof that Rameses gave them his wealth. In fact again, no documentation showed Rameses released slaves, but the Bible which of course is a story book for Christians. Parting of the Red Sea, or rightfully the "Reed Sea".
-
AIDS came from Africa. If God wanted it to be punishment, there would NEVER been a way to stop it. The only people who die from it now lack medical attention.
Whether AIDS is a punishment from God or not, it STILL HASN'T been stopped. At best, the inevitable effects have merely been delayed. Plus, just to delay those effects, it takes medicine, that cost lots of money and billions of man-hours to develop, from knowledgable doctors and scientists. People don't just happen to recover from AIDS.
They'd still be downtrodden. Most are that way because of choices they made. Getting them to be an atheist won't change their position unless they want to do it.
The same goes for their becoming Christians. What's your point?
Let me guess, the blanket word "beast" is your proof? ::) Another way of making the Bible sound plausible to the discovery of dinosaurs. How about the Bible telling us how far we'll go intellectually as a species? Like time travel for example?
You're the one, who needs to provide the proof, as you claimed that the people didn't know about "dinosaur" (and your evidence for that is simply that particular, coined in the 19th century, isn't mentioned).
Yep sounds like Jesus. The only people that questioned it were the Romans. Everyone else was conned.
Wrong again. Jesus was accused of blasphemy. Furthermore, his disciples were persecuted by OTHER Jewish people, including one who would eventually become a Christian himself (so much for "everyone else was conned").
That was my point. If everyone died, how were there transcripts from China? The documents are from the same time the supposed totally flooding of the world happened. Dead people don't write documents. Science has a better explaination of what happened based on soil samples from different parts of the world on lands that were affected.
Per the Biblical account, the flood lasted just over a year. The survivors, within the decades, presumably reproduced and dispersed. Of course, that still leaves you with the task of explaining how the Chinese (and several other cultures) ended up with the same notion that, at some point in this planet's history, it was destroyed by a massive flood with only a handful of people surviving.
Ironically enough, since you brought up China, the ancient word that translates into "boat" is made of three characters that literally read "eight-mouth-vessel" (with "mouth", meaning a mouth to feed). Guess how many people were in that Ark, according to Genesis.....EIGHT. Coincidence? I don't think so.
That Jesus wasn't born on Dec 25th.
Tell us something we don't know. That the date chosen to celebrate His birth. As the New Testament never claims that He was born 12/25, it's much ado about nothing.
Lol, Rome is in Europe. You're actually going to sit there and tell me that Christianity wasn't in Rome, but in China, South America, North America, India first? ::)
I'm going to sit here and tell you that your claim of Christianity, not spreading until the Chrisitians left Europe is FALSE.
The Crusades are the main reason Muslims and other religions depise Christianity. Being FORCED by death to accept a religion was way worse than this.
No explaination needed. See above.
Yet, guess what the Muslims do in their countries, if someone rejects Islam. Of course, that doesn't erase the fact that you asked "How can you be Christian if you didn't have that denomination? Show me an example. and got that example. Nor does your dismissing that example, because of the article coming from Fox News (as it's been shown on other news stations) change the fact that such occured.
Common sense tells you that if you went to a home and they had young kids, the kids were the denomination of the parents. The kids don't HAVE a choice. They do what they're told.
But, what happens once they leave that home? They must decide for themselves whether or not they will remain in the faith. That's' what you did or you wouldn't be an atheist. And the same applies for those who didn't grow in Christian homes but became Christians in their adult lives.
Rameses had one child at the time and it was his first born, so that came about along the storyline. In fact, news of the skull of Rameses son had a depression showing fracture. This is forensic evidence and he may have acutally died from a blow to the head.
If so, this is the skull of a man who the Hebrew Bible says was killed by the 10th of the horrible plagues God sent to convince pharaoh to free the Hebrew slaves. And if so, it contains an important new piece of forensic evidence: The skull has a depressed fracture on the left hand side which pathologists say clearly occurred at the time of death.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/12/03/ramses-ii-the-10th-plague.htm
And even Hebrews lost not only their first child, but others to the plagues. Lol, and what king gives up his money? This is another story you heard. Show proof that Rameses gave them his wealth. In fact again, no documentation showed Rameses released slaves, but the Bible which of course is a story book for Christians. Parting of the Red Sea, or rightfully the "Reed Sea".
Make up your mind here. You claimed that the Hebrews weren't enslaved in Egypt; yet, you just stated that their children died from the plagues, too. Furthermore, why are they crossing the Red Sea or the "Reed Sea", if Pharoah didn't free them (then, there's the little matter of his motivation for freeing them, if his son and other firstborn weren't killed as a result of that last plague).
To refresh your memory, I already cited the extra-Biblical references to the Exodus. Josephus is one such source but he's hardly the only one.
In ancient times there happened a great plague in Egypt, and many ascribed the cause of it to God, who was offended with them because there were many strangers in the land, by whom foreign rites and ceremonies were employed in their worship of the deity. The Egyptians concluded; therefore, that unless all strangers were driven out of the country, they should never be freed from their miseries....Upon this, some writers tell us, the most eminent and enterprising of those foreigners who were in Egypt, and obliged to leave the country...who retired into the province now called Judea, which was not far from Egypt, and in those times uninhabited. These emigrants were led by Moses, who was superior to all in wisdom and prowess. He gave them laws, and ordained that they should have no images of the gods, because there was only one deity, the heaven, which surrounds all things, and is Lord of the whole. -Diodorus Silicus
As for Josephus....
It now remains that I debate with Manetho about Moses. Now the Egyptians acknowledge him to have been a wonderful and a divine person; nay, they would willingly lay claim to him themselves, though after a most abusive and incredible manner, and pretend that he was of Heliopolis, and one of the priests of that place, and was ejected out of it among the rest, on account of his leprosy; although it had been demonstrated out of their records that he lived five hundred and eighteen years earlier, and then brought our forefathers out of Egypt into the country that is now inhabited by us.
-
Whether AIDS is a punishment from God or not, it STILL HASN'T been stopped. At best, the inevitable effects have merely been delayed. Plus, just to delay those effects, it takes medicine, that cost lots of money and billions of man-hours to develop, from knowledgable doctors and scientists. People don't just happen to recover from AIDS.
That WAS my point. Man shouldn't be able to undo what God wanted done. In words of many Christian religions, AIDS is punishment for homosexuality. But man has found a way....through science.
The same goes for their becoming Christians. What's your point?
Um you brought up about spreading atheism to them. I just responded.
You're the one, who needs to provide the proof, as you claimed that the people didn't know about "dinosaur" (and your evidence for that is simply that particular, coined in the 19th century, isn't mentioned).
There is NO PROOF in the Bible mentioning giant lizards or ferocious reptiles that lived before man. Can't prove to you something that's not mentioned. Can you prove it was?
Wrong again. Jesus was accused of blasphemy. Furthermore, his disciples were persecuted by OTHER Jewish people, including one who would eventually become a Christian himself (so much for "everyone else was conned").
Con man who died a martyr. People still thing Charles Manson and Hitler are great. They were leaders of cults too.
Per the Biblical account, the flood lasted just over a year. The survivors, within the decades, presumably reproduced and dispersed. Of course, that still leaves you with the task of explaining how the Chinese (and several other cultures) ended up with the same notion that, at some point in this planet's history, it was destroyed by a massive flood with only a handful of people surviving.
Lol, the documents were written at the same time of the flood, not after it receded. So that presumability is wrong.
Ironically enough, since you brought up China, the ancient word that translates into "boat" is made of three characters that literally read "eight-mouth-vessel" (with "mouth", meaning a mouth to feed). Guess how many people were in that Ark, according to Genesis.....EIGHT. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Show proof of that. Lol, and are you saying Noah wrote in Chinese? ::)
Tell us something we don't know. That the date chosen to celebrate His birth. As the New Testament never claims that He was born 12/25, it's much ado about nothing.
Much like the Bible it's more story telling. If DNA testing was available back in that time, I'd bet dollars to donuts (jelly) that Jesus' father was Joseph.
I'm going to sit here and tell you that your claim of Christianity, not spreading until the Chrisitians left Europe is FALSE.
That's not what you said, you said:
Try that again! Christianity spread to Africa, Asia, and other countries LONG before it ever got to Europe.
How could that happen? Before it was divided into other countries Europe was just basically the Roman empire. And most continents outside of there weren't even discovered since no one actually sailed that far. Again, you must have some proof of this right? Dates will show if it happened or not.
Yet, guess what the Muslims do in their countries, if someone rejects Islam. Of course, that doesn't erase the fact that you asked "How can you be Christian if you didn't have that denomination? Show me an example. and got that example. Nor does your dismissing that example, because of the article coming from Fox News (as it's been shown on other news stations) change the fact that such occured.
Religions all around the world have there "rules". Break them and you suffer if you're a follower. If I say GOD DAMMIT in a church, I'd be ridiculed, but if I said it in a bar, most would ignore me.
People that hold religion dear to there hearts are some of the most hateful people. Step on their religion and they'll find a way to demean you, and in some cases like Islam, kill you. More wars are fought over religion daily, then over anything else.
But, what happens once they leave that home? They must decide for themselves whether or not they will remain in the faith. That's' what you did or you wouldn't be an atheist. And the same applies for those who didn't grow in Christian homes but became Christians in their adult lives.
My point was that children aren't aware of God until they were spoon fed it. I would bet that the number of non believers would be much higher after all children left home if they weren't subjected to it when they were young. But atheism is growing because science is slowly showing us more things like how our galaxy might have actually started by observing newer galaxies being formed now.
Make up your mind here. You claimed that the Hebrews weren't enslaved in Egypt; yet, you just stated that their children died from the plagues, too. Furthermore, why are they crossing the Red Sea or the "Reed Sea", if Pharoah didn't free them (then, there's the little matter of his motivation for freeing them, if his son and other firstborn weren't killed as a result of that last plague).
I mentioned that there might have been some Hebrew slaves in a previous post, but no where near a country full. ::)
I brought up the "Reed Sea" because translations issues based on excerpts from Biblical accounts say Moses parted the Red Sea, when it was more likely he crossed the sea of reeds during a low tide. And the motivation you spoke of is only written in the Bible. Like I said there are no Egyptian documentations, or Egyptologists that verify that Exodus is true.
To refresh your memory, I already cited the extra-Biblical references to the Exodus. Josephus is one such source but he's hardly the only one.
In ancient times there happened a great plague in Egypt, and many ascribed the cause of it to God, who was offended with them because there were many strangers in the land, by whom foreign rites and ceremonies were employed in their worship of the deity. The Egyptians concluded; therefore, that unless all strangers were driven out of the country, they should never be freed from their miseries....Upon this, some writers tell us, the most eminent and enterprising of those foreigners who were in Egypt, and obliged to leave the country...who retired into the province now called Judea, which was not far from Egypt, and in those times uninhabited. These emigrants were led by Moses, who was superior to all in wisdom and prowess. He gave them laws, and ordained that they should have no images of the gods, because there was only one deity, the heaven, which surrounds all things, and is Lord of the whole. -Diodorus Silicus
As for Josephus....
It now remains that I debate with Manetho about Moses. Now the Egyptians acknowledge him to have been a wonderful and a divine person; nay, they would willingly lay claim to him themselves, though after a most abusive and incredible manner, and pretend that he was of Heliopolis, and one of the priests of that place, and was ejected out of it among the rest, on account of his leprosy; although it had been demonstrated out of their records that he lived five hundred and eighteen years earlier, and then brought our forefathers out of Egypt into the country that is now inhabited by us.
Again, this is a recount from what he HEARD. He wasn't alive when it happened. It's a story HE heard. If it happened in Egypt, then Egyptian history would have it and be more precise about it.
And the translations from Hebrew to Greek left room for some major screw ups. Look at the word virgin in Greek. Somehow that was translated from "young woman" in Hebrew. So in that instance, every young woman in Hebrew was a virgin in Greek. Which of course wasn't always true. Ever wonder where the term Virgin Mary came from?
-
That WAS my point. Man shouldn't be able to undo what God wanted done. In words of many Christian religions, AIDS is punishment for homosexuality. But man has found a way....through science.
My point was that certain Christians claiming that AIDS is a punishment from God and that actually being the case are two different issues. Furthermore, man hasn't "found a way", anyway. They still can't cure it. At best, they can treat the symptoms and delay the inevitable.
There is NO PROOF in the Bible mentioning giant lizards or ferocious reptiles that lived before man. Can't prove to you something that's not mentioned. Can you prove it was?
EXACTLY!!! It's a bit unclear if the critters we know as dinosaurs are referenced in the Bible. That has no bearing, however, on whether or not they (the ancient Hebrews) knew about such creatures.
Con man who died a martyr. People still thing Charles Manson and Hitler are great. They were leaders of cults too.
To quote a Christian scholar, "There's the simple question of the honesty of these men (Jesus' disciples). Why would they lie? What would they have to gain from it? Most of them, it cost them their lives to teach and preach this." - Father Francis Martin, John Paul II Institute.
So what was Paul's incentive for supposedly conning people, especially since he, at one time, persecuted those very same people. If you look at what happened to Paul (imprisonment, flogging, eventual execution).
Lol, the documents were written at the same time of the flood, not after it receded. So that presumability is wrong.
LOL.....The Chinese wrote a similar account about Earth's destruction by flood, with just a few people surviving, at the same time such an event was actually occuring? ???
Show proof of that. Lol, and are you saying Noah wrote in Chinese? ::)
Ship is comprised of the following components
(http://www.yutopian.com/religion/words/Boat.jpg)
boat + eight + mouth (family member) = Ship
The origin of this word becomes more meaningful after reading the following verse. Genesis 7:7 - And Noah and his sons [Ham, Shem, and Japheth] and his wife and his sons' wives with him, went into the ark, to escape the waters of the flood.
The word 'mouth' is often used to describe number of family members. For example, the phrase 'One family of four mouths' means a family with four members. Four couples in Noah's family have a total of eight members.
http://www.yutopian.com/religion/words/ (http://www.yutopian.com/religion/words/)
Once again, how do the Chinese get a similar account of Earth's destruction by Flood, with just a few people survivng by building a floating vessel?
Much like the Bible it's more story telling. If DNA testing was available back in that time, I'd bet dollars to donuts (jelly) that Jesus' father was Joseph.
Were that the case, Joseph would not have considered divorcing Mary (as he was already married/bethroed at the time, having already paid the dowry for her). That has little to do with the Bible not prescribing December 25, as the date of Jesus' birth.
That's not what you said, you said: How could that happen? Before it was divided into other countries Europe was just basically the Roman empire. And most continents outside of there weren't even discovered since no one actually sailed that far. Again, you must have some proof of this right? Dates will show if it happened or not.
Asia was discovered long before Christ was even born. As were parts of Africa. In both of those areas, Christianity was spread. And, this occured while Romans were putting Christians to death. So, your claim that Christianity didn't spread, until Christians left Europe is still FALSE.
Religions all around the world have there "rules". Break them and you suffer if you're a follower. If I say GOD DAMMIT in a church, I'd be ridiculed, but if I said it in a bar, most would ignore me.
People that hold religion dear to there hearts are some of the most hateful people. Step on their religion and they'll find a way to demean you, and in some cases like Islam, kill you. More wars are fought over religion daily, then over anything else.
One: People who don't hold religion to their hearts are ALSO some of the most hateful people (check out some of the posts of certain non-believers here. Two:Wars are fought over power and weaith, whether religion is used as justification or not. Stalin killed more people in year than the Crusaders killed in a decade. And his regime had NOTHING to do with Christianity or Islam.
Three: You maintained that someone couldn't be a Christian, without the denomination. I showed you of an example of someone becoming a Christian in, perhaps, THE MOST HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT TO DO SO, a Muslim country. So, that claim of yours doesn't work.
My point was that children aren't aware of God until they were spoon fed it. I would bet that the number of non believers would be much higher after all children left home if they weren't subjected to it when they were young. But atheism is growing because science is slowly showing us more things like how our galaxy might have actually started by observing newer galaxies being formed now.
That's a bet you'd likely lose.
I mentioned that there might have been some Hebrew slaves in a previous post, but no where near a country full. ::)
Initially, you claimed they weren't there at all.
I brought up the "Reed Sea" because translations issues based on excerpts from Biblical accounts say Moses parted the Red Sea, when it was more likely he crossed the sea of reeds during a low tide. And the motivation you spoke of is only written in the Bible. Like I said there are no Egyptian documentations, or Egyptologists that verify that Exodus is true.
Ummm....to use your words, what you said was that there was nothing outside the Bible that documented the Exodus, which is false.
Again, this is a recount from what he HEARD. He wasn't alive when it happened. It's a story HE heard. If it happened in Egypt, then Egyptian history would have it and be more precise about it.
He cites the sources (written sources) of where he got those accounts. And, it doesn't matter if he was alive or not. NEWS FLASH!!! Most of the history that you read are events that YOU DID NOT WITNESSS YOURSELF (neither did the authors of the history books from which you read about them).
In essence, that is but a feeble excuse to cover your initial claim that there are no extra-Biblical references to the Exodus.
And the translations from Hebrew to Greek left room for some major screw ups. Look at the word virgin in Greek. Somehow that was translated from "young woman" in Hebrew. So in that instance, every young woman in Hebrew was a virgin in Greek. Which of course wasn't always true. Ever wonder where the term Virgin Mary came from?
First, that leaves you with the task of pointing out those alleged screw-ups, as it relates to the writings of Josephus. Second, when the term is used in Scripture, the surrounding context makes it clear that the female is a virgin. Mary said, when told about her upcoming pregnancy, "How can this be, since I have not known man?"
Again, that's how we deal with history. Otherwise, you may as well chuck all of your history books, news papers, and encyclopedias IN THE TRASH. All of them have historical accounts and references about events, written by people WHO DID NOT WITNESS THE ACCOUNTS THEMSELVES.
-
My point was that certain Christians claiming that AIDS is a punishment from God and that actually being the case are two different issues. Furthermore, man hasn't "found a way", anyway. They still can't cure it. At best, they can treat the symptoms and delay the inevitable.
Well you're wrong there. Having HIV is not the same as having AIDS. AIDS kills HIV doesn't. Drugs now prevent HIV from converting to AIDS. That's why people whom have access are still living years after contracting HIV and can live till old age or another reason takes their life.
EXACTLY!!! It's a bit unclear if the critters we know as dinosaurs are referenced in the Bible. That has no bearing, however, on whether or not they (the ancient Hebrews) knew about such creatures.
Creationists and other deciphers' of the Bible say that WAS already known, as well as much of the universe by vague writings. Beasts with a tale the size of a branch (the actual real translation, and not Oak or tree trunk as some Bibles are revised with) hardly signify that dinosaurs were known about. They could be talking an elephant or an ox here.
To quote a Christian scholar, "There's the simple question of the honesty of these men (Jesus' disciples). Why would they lie? What would they have to gain from it? Most of them, it cost them their lives to teach and preach this." - Father Francis Martin, John Paul II Institute.
I'm not saying they're lying, I'm saying they were conned and were conning other people based on what they believe is the truth.
So what was Paul's incentive for supposedly conning people, especially since he, at one time, persecuted those very same people. If you look at what happened to Paul (imprisonment, flogging, eventual execution).
No idea. I'm a former smoker and now ridicule smokers who smoke around me.
LOL.....The Chinese wrote a similar account about Earth's destruction by flood, with just a few people surviving, at the same time such an event was actually occuring? ???
The Chinese, nor any other race was wiped out. That's the point I'm trying to make. You can't document real time events if you're dead.
Ship is comprised of the following components
(http://www.yutopian.com/religion/words/Boat.jpg)
boat + eight + mouth (family member) = Ship
The origin of this word becomes more meaningful after reading the following verse. Genesis 7:7 - And Noah and his sons [Ham, Shem, and Japheth] and his wife and his sons' wives with him, went into the ark, to escape the waters of the flood.
The word 'mouth' is often used to describe number of family members. For example, the phrase 'One family of four mouths' means a family with four members. Four couples in Noah's family have a total of eight members.
http://www.yutopian.com/religion/words/ (http://www.yutopian.com/religion/words/)
Once again, how do the Chinese get a similar account of Earth's destruction by Flood, with just a few people survivng by building a floating vessel?
More translations that are adapted to fit Christian analogy. Mouth in Chinese means mouth. Family in Chinese means family.
Were that the case, Joseph would not have considered divorcing Mary (as he was already married/bethroed at the time, having already paid the dowry for her). That has little to do with the Bible not prescribing December 25, as the date of Jesus' birth.
Lol, you mean it was okay with God to have his son raised by an adulterer?
Asia was discovered long before Christ was even born. As were parts of Africa. In both of those areas, Christianity was spread. And, this occured while Romans were putting Christians to death. So, your claim that Christianity didn't spread, until Christians left Europe is still FALSE.
Uh wrong again Sherlock. Christianity spread after Christ DIED. Don't make up stuff you don't know about. Christianity was spread by Constantine of Rome. Not the way Jesus wanted of course.
http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?id=2134
One: People who don't hold religion to their hearts are ALSO some of the most hateful people (check out some of the posts of certain non-believers here.
I wouldn't count getbig as a reliable source when it comes to this. Two:Wars are fought over power and weaith, whether religion is used as justification or not. Stalin killed more people in year than the Crusaders killed in a decade. And his regime had NOTHING to do with Christianity or Islam.
True about Stalin, but whether it's about wealth and power, which do agree with, religion is the claimed reasons. Israelis and Palestinians have been waring for thousands of years because of HOLY LAND. And Muslims do suicidal missions not for money but because they believe in their religion. Even the Pope and the Vatican use religion to keep their priests and nuns in check by not letting them marry.
Three: You maintained that someone couldn't be a Christian, without the denomination. I showed you of an example of someone becoming a Christian in, perhaps, THE MOST HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT TO DO SO, a Muslim country. So, that claim of yours doesn't work.
Duh once they became Christian they had gotten a denomination. You can't become a Christian by just saying, I'm a Christian. You study it, and get BAPTIZED. Whether it was Baptist, Eveangelical, etc. doesn't matter, you're now a Christian.
That's a bet you'd likely lose.
Based on your analogy I would. But then your analogy is wrong.
Initially, you claimed they weren't there at all.
Initially I claimed that there
Ummm....to use your words, what you said was that there was nothing outside the Bible that documented the Exodus, which is false.
He cites the sources (written sources) of where he got those accounts. And, it doesn't matter if he was alive or not. NEWS FLASH!!! Most of the history that you read are events that YOU DID NOT WITNESSS YOURSELF (neither did the authors of the history books from which you read about them).
In essence, that is but a feeble excuse to cover your initial claim that there are no extra-Biblical references to the Exodus.
First, that leaves you with the task of pointing out those alleged screw-ups, as it relates to the writings of Josephus. Second, when the term is used in Scripture, the surrounding context makes it clear that the female is a virgin. Mary said, when told about her upcoming pregnancy, "How can this be, since I have not known man?"
Again Josephus didn't live at that time and had no idea of what happened except from what he heard.
Again, that's how we deal with history. Otherwise, you may as well chuck all of your history books, news papers, and encyclopedias IN THE TRASH. All of them have historical accounts and references about events, written by people WHO DID NOT WITNESS THE ACCOUNTS THEMSELVES.
The difference between a historical document and the Bible is they have proof of existence. The pyramids prove that they were built for royal entombment. The writings talk of flashes in the sky, black moons and such, but today's science tells us that they were meteorites and eclipses now. What people saw back then was what they thought were truths. And witness accounts can be made up. You aren't naive to believe that people are abducted by aliens even though they witnessed it? Or that there are vortexes in Sedona because someone knows in their heart they witnessed it. Forensic science blows up many eyewitness testimony when recounted and it doesn't fit. Quit relying on just your faith and use common sense too.
You and I could debate this all day, but just answer this one question then if you can't answer the amputee question:
If a Christian, whom gave their life to God, contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion because of an operation ( and there were many in the 80's) why didn't God save them if they weren't being evil? And why would God save a criminal who accepted Jesus as a savior, but condemn to hell a do gooder who volunteered and gave away all their assets to help the poor, unfortunate or sick that didn't? Is God that narcisitic?
-
this simple argument is a especially potent argument against god and miracles. If god did exist a miracle would be preformed where everyone would have to accept it, a breach of physics would be very noticable. Insted he does it by causing remissions in diseases in which remission is possible. For example the placebo effect can account for remissions, nothing miraculous about it, until the religious get ahold of it. Just one leg growing back in history would convince me.
-
Actually it's because the governments are corrupt and don't give a crap about it. And to be honest, I don't feel compelled to volunteer to help. I have my family that I care about and want to ensure my genes and family continue on down the cycle.
It doesn't make sense to take care of other countries when we can't take care of our own first. Why don't doctors, nurses and others whom volunteer just run free clinics here to the poor and unfortunate if that's their goal.
I'll help out friends and even organization locally because I feel it helps the community, but to do it because you think it's "saintly" is just a feel good act. Even if I did, I'd be condemned to hell anyway since I don't accept Jesus as any type of savior, according to you or any other Christian, so why bother doing just good deeds? According to your Bible it would be for naught.
What? You are the one who brought up Christians and starving children in 3rd world countries. Now you don't care about them? Right. Don't bring them up then. That's why those children are still starving, because too many people in developed countries think like you do.
And who said those same volunteers who help children in 3rd world countries don't help people in need in the US too? They do. They treat patients for free if they can't pay. Some even refuse to take medicaid or Medicare and treat them for free if that's all they have.
And they are not the only Christians helping people in the US. Ever heard of the Salvation Army? And that's just to name one of many.
Here, take it from a fellow atheist of yours:
"We atheists have to accept that most believers are better human beings"
Roy Hattersley
Monday September 12, 2005
Guardian
Hurricane Katrina did not stay on the front pages for long. Yesterday's Red Cross appeal for an extra 40,000 volunteer workers was virtually ignored.
The disaster will return to the headlines when one sort of newspaper reports a particularly gruesome discovery or another finds additional evidence of President Bush's negligence. But month after month of unremitting suffering is not news. Nor is the monotonous performance of the unpleasant tasks that relieve the pain and anguish of the old, the sick and the homeless - the tasks in which the Salvation Army specialise.
The Salvation Army has been given a special status as provider-in-chief of American disaster relief. But its work is being augmented by all sorts of other groups. Almost all of them have a religious origin and character.
Notable by their absence are teams from rationalist societies, free thinkers' clubs and atheists' associations - the sort of people who not only scoff at religion's intellectual absurdity but also regard it as a positive force for evil.
The arguments against religion are well known and persuasive. Faith schools, as they are now called, have left sectarian scars on Northern Ireland. Stem-cell research is forbidden because an imaginary God - who is not enough of a philosopher to realise that the ingenuity of a scientist is just as natural as the instinct of Rousseau's noble savage - condemns what he does not understand and the churches that follow his teaching forbid their members to pursue cures for lethal diseases.
Yet men and women who believe that the Pope is the devil incarnate, or (conversely) regard his ex cathedra pronouncements as holy writ, are the people most likely to take the risks and make the sacrifices involved in helping others. Last week a middle-ranking officer of the Salvation Army, who gave up a well-paid job to devote his life to the poor, attempted to convince me that homosexuality is a mortal sin.
Late at night, on the streets of one of our great cities, that man offers friendship as well as help to the most degraded and (to those of a censorious turn of mind) degenerate human beings who exist just outside the boundaries of our society. And he does what he believes to be his Christian duty without the slightest suggestion of disapproval. Yet, for much of his time, he is meeting needs that result from conduct he regards as intrinsically wicked.
Civilised people do not believe that drug addiction and male prostitution offend against divine ordinance. But those who do are the men and women most willing to change the fetid bandages, replace the sodden sleeping bags and - probably most difficult of all - argue, without a trace of impatience, that the time has come for some serious medical treatment. Good works, John Wesley insisted, are no guarantee of a place in heaven. But they are most likely to be performed by people who believe that heaven exists.
The correlation is so clear that it is impossible to doubt that faith and charity go hand in hand. The close relationship may have something to do with the belief that we are all God's children, or it may be the result of a primitive conviction that, although helping others is no guarantee of salvation, it is prudent to be recorded in a book of gold, like James Leigh Hunt's Abu Ben Adam, as "one who loves his fellow men". Whatever the reason, believers answer the call, and not just the Salvation Army. When I was a local councillor, the Little Sisters of the Poor - right at the other end of the theological spectrum - did the weekly washing for women in back-to-back houses who were too ill to scrub for themselves.
It ought to be possible to live a Christian life without being a Christian or, better still, to take Christianity à la carte. The Bible is so full of contradictions that we can accept or reject its moral advice according to taste. Yet men and women who, like me, cannot accept the mysteries and the miracles do not go out with the Salvation Army at night.
The only possible conclusion is that faith comes with a packet of moral imperatives that, while they do not condition the attitude of all believers, influence enough of them to make them morally superior to atheists like me. The truth may make us free. But it has not made us as admirable as the average captain in the Salvation Army.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5283079-103390,00.html
-
What? You are the one who brought up Christians and starving children in 3rd world countries. Now you don't care about them? Right. Don't bring them up then. That's why those children are still starving, because too many people in developed countries think like you do.
And who said those same volunteers who help children in 3rd world countries don't help people in need in the US too? They do. They treat patients for free if they can't pay. Some even refuse to take medicaid or Medicare and treat them for free if that's all they have.
And they are not the only Christians helping people in the US. Ever heard of the Salvation Army? And that's just to name one of many.
Here, take it from a fellow atheist of yours:
"We atheists have to accept that most believers are better human beings"
Roy Hattersley
Monday September 12, 2005
Guardian
Hurricane Katrina did not stay on the front pages for long. Yesterday's Red Cross appeal for an extra 40,000 volunteer workers was virtually ignored.
The disaster will return to the headlines when one sort of newspaper reports a particularly gruesome discovery or another finds additional evidence of President Bush's negligence. But month after month of unremitting suffering is not news. Nor is the monotonous performance of the unpleasant tasks that relieve the pain and anguish of the old, the sick and the homeless - the tasks in which the Salvation Army specialise.
The Salvation Army has been given a special status as provider-in-chief of American disaster relief. But its work is being augmented by all sorts of other groups. Almost all of them have a religious origin and character.
Notable by their absence are teams from rationalist societies, free thinkers' clubs and atheists' associations - the sort of people who not only scoff at religion's intellectual absurdity but also regard it as a positive force for evil.
The arguments against religion are well known and persuasive. Faith schools, as they are now called, have left sectarian scars on Northern Ireland. Stem-cell research is forbidden because an imaginary God - who is not enough of a philosopher to realise that the ingenuity of a scientist is just as natural as the instinct of Rousseau's noble savage - condemns what he does not understand and the churches that follow his teaching forbid their members to pursue cures for lethal diseases.
Yet men and women who believe that the Pope is the devil incarnate, or (conversely) regard his ex cathedra pronouncements as holy writ, are the people most likely to take the risks and make the sacrifices involved in helping others. Last week a middle-ranking officer of the Salvation Army, who gave up a well-paid job to devote his life to the poor, attempted to convince me that homosexuality is a mortal sin.
Late at night, on the streets of one of our great cities, that man offers friendship as well as help to the most degraded and (to those of a censorious turn of mind) degenerate human beings who exist just outside the boundaries of our society. And he does what he believes to be his Christian duty without the slightest suggestion of disapproval. Yet, for much of his time, he is meeting needs that result from conduct he regards as intrinsically wicked.
Civilised people do not believe that drug addiction and male prostitution offend against divine ordinance. But those who do are the men and women most willing to change the fetid bandages, replace the sodden sleeping bags and - probably most difficult of all - argue, without a trace of impatience, that the time has come for some serious medical treatment. Good works, John Wesley insisted, are no guarantee of a place in heaven. But they are most likely to be performed by people who believe that heaven exists.
The correlation is so clear that it is impossible to doubt that faith and charity go hand in hand. The close relationship may have something to do with the belief that we are all God's children, or it may be the result of a primitive conviction that, although helping others is no guarantee of salvation, it is prudent to be recorded in a book of gold, like James Leigh Hunt's Abu Ben Adam, as "one who loves his fellow men". Whatever the reason, believers answer the call, and not just the Salvation Army. When I was a local councillor, the Little Sisters of the Poor - right at the other end of the theological spectrum - did the weekly washing for women in back-to-back houses who were too ill to scrub for themselves.
It ought to be possible to live a Christian life without being a Christian or, better still, to take Christianity à la carte. The Bible is so full of contradictions that we can accept or reject its moral advice according to taste. Yet men and women who, like me, cannot accept the mysteries and the miracles do not go out with the Salvation Army at night.
The only possible conclusion is that faith comes with a packet of moral imperatives that, while they do not condition the attitude of all believers, influence enough of them to make them morally superior to atheists like me. The truth may make us free. But it has not made us as admirable as the average captain in the Salvation Army.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5283079-103390,00.html
Hey let God take care of them since he's Almighty. Remember all you Christians have to do is pray and it will turn out all right for all those starving kids. I brought up starving kids because if God did care they wouldn't be starving. It's not within my power or means to save them, so I CHOOSE to take care of my own. Nothing wrong with that as others is all countries, rich or poor do the same.
-
Hey let God take care of them since he's Almighty. Remember all you Christians have to do is pray and it will turn out all right for all those starving kids. I brought up starving kids because if God did care they wouldn't be starving. It's not within my power or means to save them, so I CHOOSE to take care of my own. Nothing wrong with that as others is all countries, rich or poor do the same.
And since you don't believe in God, you are pretty much saying "screw those children in 3rd world countries. Let them starve to death." Very nice! I'm glad not all secular people think like you. I'm glad Christian volunteers in the US don't think like you.
-
And since you don't believe in God, you are pretty much saying "screw those children in 3rd world countries. Let them starve to death." Very nice! I'm glad not all secular people think like you. I'm glad Christian volunteers in the US don't think like you.
your god created the condition since he can see the future he knew what would occur. How do you counter this?
how can your god be all good if evil exists? since he created all, and everything is his creation?
i would hope christian volunteers would help in 3rd world coundtries since their god created the situation.
-
your god created the condition since he can see the future he knew what would occur. How do you counter this?
how can your god be all good if evil exists? since he created all, and everything is his creation?
i would hope christian volunteers would help in 3rd world coundtries since their god created the situation.
Sure, God created the situation. It's all God's fault, oh and it's Bush's fault too, and the USA's fault, and the Jews' fault, and Israel's fault too. ::)
Why don't you look in the mirror and stop blaming others and pointing fingers?
We created the situation, not God.
-
Sure, God created the situation. It's all God's fault, oh and it's Bush's fault too, and the USA's fault, and the Jews' fault, and Israel's fault too. ::)
Why don't you look in the mirror and stop blaming others and pointing fingers?
We created the situation, not God.
wrong, does god not know the future? answer this question. Your right we did create the situation because there is no god. Please answer the first question.
-
And since you don't believe in God, you are pretty much saying "screw those children in 3rd world countries. Let them starve to death." Very nice! I'm glad not all secular people think like you. I'm glad Christian volunteers in the US don't think like you.
Way to twist words. Like I said, I don't have the means. Can squeeze blood from a turnip. If I was a billionaire, I would definitely have a food program to help, so maybe if you pray for me to win the lottery or something, that would help. ;)
-
wrong, does god not know the future? answer this question. Your right we did create the situation because there is no god. Please answer the first question.
If there is no God, then why do you blame him for the situation? What are you doing for starving children in 3rd world countries?
-
Way to twist words. Like I said, I don't have the means. Can squeeze blood from a turnip. If I was a billionaire, I would definitely have a food program to help, so maybe if you pray for me to win the lottery or something, that would help. ;)
Wrong. Lots of the volunteers who go with these doctors are middle class people with very humble incomes. All they would need from you is your time and your muscles. Money is not an issue, and the lack thereof it's not an excuse.
-
If there is no God, then why do you blame him for the situation? What are you doing for starving children in 3rd world countries?
you are avoiding the question, at least answer your question, are you afraid of the implications of your answer?
-
Well you're wrong there. Having HIV is not the same as having AIDS. AIDS kills HIV doesn't. Drugs now prevent HIV from converting to AIDS. That's why people whom have access are still living years after contracting HIV and can live till old age or another reason takes their life.
I never claimed that having HIV was the same as having AIDS. There's no cure for AIDS, as I stated before. Once you've got it (barring a miracle or a subsequent cure down the road), GAME OVER!!!
Creationists and other deciphers' of the Bible say that WAS already known, as well as much of the universe by vague writings. Beasts with a tale the size of a branch (the actual real translation, and not Oak or tree trunk as some Bibles are revised with) hardly signify that dinosaurs were known about. They could be talking an elephant or an ox here.
Oxen are mentioned by name in the Bible. Were they mentioning elephants? That I can't tell. Regardless, that does little to support your claim that dinosaus were unknown at that time period.
I'm not saying they're lying, I'm saying they were conned and were conning other people based on what they believe is the truth.
You cannot demonstrate that they were conned. The disciples claimed that Jesus rose from the dead. They saw Jesus beaten and crucified; and, He was pierced in His side, to confirm that He was dead. Pilate had an official of his CONFIRM Jesus' death, before releasing custody of Judas' body to Joseph of Arimathea. And, to top it all off, the Pharisees asked that the tomb be sealed and guarded to keep the disciples from stealing Jesus' body and claiming that He'd been resurrected.
Now, you get to explain how the disciples were "conned" into thinking He rose from that tomb. More importantly, who is this alleged con artist and what were his motives for all this?
The Chinese, nor any other race was wiped out. That's the point I'm trying to make. You can't document real time events if you're dead.
You still can't explain how the Chinese got the same (or similar) account. Their account has the planet being destroyed, with only a few (eight) people surviving, by building a floating structure.
More translations that are adapted to fit Christian analogy. Mouth in Chinese means mouth. Family in Chinese means family.
More like wishful thinking on your part.
Lol, you mean it was okay with God to have his son raised by an adulterer?
Mary didn't commit adultery, or Joseph would have (at least) divorced Mary or (at most) had her put to death. He did neither.
Uh wrong again Sherlock. Christianity spread after Christ DIED. Don't make up stuff you don't know about. Christianity was spread by Constantine of Rome. Not the way Jesus wanted of course.
You're one to talk!!! Christianity spread shortly after Christ's death and ressurection and BEFORE Constantine's time. It spread while Romans were persecuting Christians, which happened LONG before Constantine was even born. Constantine's adoption of Christianity as a state religion helped lead to its being spread MORE. But, its initial outreach began much earlier.
I wouldn't count getbig as a reliable source when it comes to this.
It's WAY beyong GetBig, to which I can attest firsthand.
True about Stalin, but whether it's about wealth and power, which do agree with, religion is the claimed reasons. Israelis and Palestinians have been waring for thousands of years because of HOLY LAND. And Muslims do suicidal missions not for money but because they believe in their religion. Even the Pope and the Vatican use religion to keep their priests and nuns in check by not letting them marry.
It's still about wealth and power. It's true about Stalin, the Muslims, and others. The difference simply is that one used religion as a medium and the other(s) did not. You also forget that, in the case of Muslim terrorists, the families of suicide bomobers often get paid for the bombers' service.
As for the Pope and the Vatican, whatever their reasoning for not allowing priests and nuns to go unmarry, it is categorically UNBIBLICAL. Nowhere in Scripture is being unmarried MANDATED for priests.
Duh once they became Christian they had gotten a denomination. You can't become a Christian by just saying, I'm a Christian. You study it, and get BAPTIZED. Whether it was Baptist, Eveangelical, etc. doesn't matter, you're now a Christian.
You forget that there are non-denominational Christians as well.
Again Josephus didn't live at that time and had no idea of what happened except from what he heard.
Wrong again! Josephus references some of his sources. Once again, if you read a history book or even a newspaper about certain accounts and the authors/writer did NOT witness those events themselves, you are relying on SECONDHAND acocunts, period.
You didn't live during the Civil War; does that meant that the events about which you read were just something the author(s) of your American History book(s) just heard? There's a reason we have these things called HISTORIANS.
The difference between a historical document and the Bible is they have proof of existence. The pyramids prove that they were built for royal entombment. The writings talk of flashes in the sky, black moons and such, but today's science tells us that they were meteorites and eclipses now. What people saw back then was what they thought were truths. And witness accounts can be made up. You aren't naive to believe that people are abducted by aliens even though they witnessed it? Or that there are vortexes in Sedona because someone knows in their heart they witnessed it. Forensic science blows up many eyewitness testimony when recounted and it doesn't fit. Quit relying on just your faith and use common sense too.
I have used common sense, which is why dismantling your claims is as easy as it is. First, you claimed that there was no documentation of the Exodus outside the Bible. When that got shown to be false, you make up excuses about people being "conned" and the extra-Biblical sources being "just what he heard". Of course, as is often the case, that standard isn't applied to other historical accounts.
Furthermore, you've presented no "forensic science" (or any other, for that matter) that "blows up" the account of the Exodus. On the contrary, archaeological discoveries have (time and time again) verified accounts and events that, at one point, were documented solely in Scripture. That's part of the reason why I can easily cite at least two extra-Biblical accounts of the Exodus.
You and I could debate this all day, but just answer this one question then if you can't answer the amputee question:
If a Christian, whom gave their life to God, contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion because of an operation ( and there were many in the 80's) why didn't God save them if they weren't being evil? And why would God save a criminal who accepted Jesus as a savior, but condemn to hell a do gooder who volunteered and gave away all their assets to help the poor, unfortunate or sick that didn't? Is God that narcisitic?
One, who says that God hasn't healed such cases? We already seen you try to marginalize or discredit the words of the man, who claim God healed him of Chron's disease. If someone were to say something similar about AIDS, you'd give the same excuses.
Besides, you state (on the one hand) that people "just happen" to get cured of diseases alll the time; yet, (on the other hand) you brag about medicine, which had to be developed with countless man-hours and millions of dollars, has delayed the effects of AIDS on people.
As far as saving criminals and condeming do-gooders, though, this was answered earlier. Man see the OUTWARD apperance; but the Lord sees the heart. He knows why people do what they do.
Paul mentions that such actions (giving away possessions) are still no guarantee to the kingdom, "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." 1 Cor. 13:3.
Yes, God has forgiven people who've done horrible things; but that doesn't mean they go unpunished (from an earthly perspective for their deeds). King David comes to mind, as does the repentant thief on the cross.
-
you are avoiding the question, at least answer your question, are you afraid of the implications of your answer?
Necrosis,
Are you new to this board? What is this? Are you quizzing me on my faith? You are going to play a game of words with me to try to make me question my faith? LOL ;D
Many others before you have played this game with me on this board. If you are bored and want to know my answer to all your questions, just browse the hundreds of threads on these board. Just search "loco" or simply browse.
Smarter and far more educated people then you and I out there believe in God, some of them are former atheists.
Now, if you have a legitimate question, then I will try to answer it. But I don't have time to play your game, again, right this moment.
-
Necrosis,
Are you new to this board? What is this? Are you quizzing me on my faith? You are going to play a game of words with me to try to make me question my faith? LOL ;D
Many others before you have played this game with me on this board. If you are bored and want to know my answer to all your questions, just browse the hundreds of threads on these board. Just search "loco" or simply browse.
Smarter and far more educate people then you and I out there believe in God, some of them are former atheists.
Now, if you have a legitimate question, then I will try to answer it. But I don't have time to play your game, again, right this moment.
no quzzing im interested if god knows the future, you wont answer this question for some reason. Does the christian god know the future?
appeal to authority is a fallacy.
I will leave you alone, i like you :D
continue your argument with oldschool, i wont interrupt anymore
-
no quzzing im interested if god knows the future, you wont answer this question for some reason. Does the christian god know the future?
appeal to authority is a fallacy.
I will leave you alone, i like you :D
continue your argument with oldschool, i wont interrupt anymore
No, don't leave me alone. The board is for discussing/debating. You are not interrupting.
If you really are interested, then yes, of course I believe that God knows the future. You know I believe this, and I know you'll follow this with another question. Your turn. :)
-
LOL.....The Chinese wrote a similar account about Earth's destruction by flood, with just a few people surviving, at the same time such an event was actually occuring? ???
Ship is comprised of the following components
(http://www.yutopian.com/religion/words/Boat.jpg)
boat + eight + mouth (family member) = Ship
More translations that are adapted to fit Christian analogy. Mouth in Chinese means mouth. Family in Chinese means family.
I don't know, Oldschool Flip. A Chinese woman, my physics professor at the time, told me this same thing about 12 years ago. She said that the word has its origin in an ancient story of the ark and the flood. Christians didn't just make this one up to "fit Christian analogy".
-
I never claimed that having HIV was the same as having AIDS. There's no cure for AIDS, as I stated before. Once you've got it (barring a miracle or a subsequent cure down the road), GAME OVER!!!
Okay, I agree with you here.
Oxen are mentioned by name in the Bible. Were they mentioning elephants? That I can't tell. Regardless, that does little to support your claim that dinosaus were unknown at that time period.
No mention of bones the size of a cart? Or animals that preceeded the size of a couple of houses? Surely if they knew that would be historical enough to include in the Bible.
You cannot demonstrate that they were conned. The disciples claimed that Jesus rose from the dead. They saw Jesus beaten and crucified; and, He was pierced in His side, to confirm that He was dead. Pilate had an official of his CONFIRM Jesus' death, before releasing custody of Judas' body to Joseph of Arimathea. And, to top it all off, the Pharisees asked that the tomb be sealed and guarded to keep the disciples from stealing Jesus' body and claiming that He'd been resurrected.
You can't demonstrate they weren't. Hearsay, doesn't prove it. Why not just show up in front of Pilate 3 days later? If they didn't continue with their "story" then no one would follow. Once discovered a farce, why would anyone believe?
Now, you get to explain how the disciples were "conned" into thinking He rose from that tomb. More importantly, who is this alleged con artist and what were his motives for all this?
Just did. If what they preached didn't come true, no one would believe anything they said afterward. That's a good enough reason. People have done it since man came to earth. Which BTW, was Adam a Cromagnan Man or Neanderthal? We have proof they existed and if Adam was neither, then that already refutes Genesis.
You still can't explain how the Chinese got the same (or similar) account. Their account has the planet being destroyed, with only a few (eight) people surviving, by building a floating structure.
Hope this helps:
This flood story apparently comes from the United States, not China. We have traced it back to Nelson's The Deluge Story in Stone (1931, 181-182). Nelson says that, according to the Hihking, Fuhi "escaped the waters of a deluge, and reappeared as the first man at the reproduction of a renovated world, accompanied by his wife, his three sons and three daughters." There is no mention of a boat. The temple illustration is a separate account which Nelson attributes to Gutzlaff, presumably Karl Gützlaff, a Lutheran missionary in China around 1825. Gutzlaff reports it as a picture of Noah, not Fuhi. There are no further references to allow either account to be checked.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG202_2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_flood#Hebrew
More like wishful thinking on your part.
Not really. The Bible has all sorts of scriptures of a beast with 7 seven heads, etc. then priests, pastors, whomever, make their own conclusions of what they think it really means.
Mary didn't commit adultery, or Joseph would have (at least) divorced Mary or (at most) had her put to death. He did neither.
Wait you said Joseph was already married so hooking up with Mary is not being faithful. Am I wrong here?
You're one to talk!!! Christianity spread shortly after Christ's death and ressurection and BEFORE Constantine's time. It spread while Romans were persecuting Christians, which happened LONG before Constantine was even born. Constantine's adoption of Christianity as a state religion helped lead to its being spread MORE. But, its initial outreach began much earlier.
Christianity was named after Christ. That should be a hint. It wasn't called Christianity in the Old Testament. The Romans were killing people who followed Christ's teachings. It had to start with HIM where he lived, which was in old Roman Empire. The Empire didn't divide to east and west until Jesus death. So unless Jesus could teleport to Asian countries (and there's no mention of that) then his teachings were in Europe before it went East.
http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/christrome.htm
It's WAY beyong GetBig, to which I can attest firsthand.
While it goes both ways, for people whom are taught "Love thy neighbor", you see few that truly follow it. And if you aren't following it, then how can you be a follower of God? Would you love someone whom murdered someone in your family? Doubt it. But that's what you're COMMANDED to do. Atheists don't feel that way. If someone did that to anyone in my family, I feel they deserve death. No if's, ands or buts. I not conflicted with what's the "right" thing to do. If you chose the murderer should die, then you're in the wrong according to your religion.
It's still about wealth and power. It's true about Stalin, the Muslims, and others. The difference simply is that one used religion as a medium and the other(s) did not. You also forget that, in the case of Muslim terrorists, the families of suicide bomobers often get paid for the bombers' service.
But using religion is preying on those whom are religious and probably wouldn't think about doing it until they are abashed with their duty to their God. Once they hear that their religious belief might be at stake, it's easy for them to abide even if they are unwilling because they think it's for a greater good.
As for the Pope and the Vatican, whatever their reasoning for not allowing priests and nuns to go unmarry, it is categorically UNBIBLICAL. Nowhere in Scripture is being unmarried MANDATED for priests.
Agreed, part of the reason I left Catholicism. They make up the rules as they go along.
You forget that there are non-denominational Christians as well.
So the denomination is a non-denominational Christian. In other words they are still labeled just like a Lutheran, Catholic, etc. Just not a "named" Christian of faith.
Wrong again! Josephus references some of his sources. Once again, if you read a history book or even a newspaper about certain accounts and the authors/writer did NOT witness those events themselves, you are relying on SECONDHAND acocunts, period.
But these authors are held to evidence at hand. If they wrote anything that didn't coincide with what happened historically, their writings would be scrutinized and be fabled myth. Stories of Rome conquering countries, though not by original authors, can be proven. Buildings are still around from that era showing the dominance the Romans had. The Bible can't be proven to be a "book from God".
You didn't live during the Civil War; does that meant that the events about which you read were just something the author(s) of your American History book(s) just heard? There's a reason we have these things called HISTORIANS.
We have guns, ammo, flags, antique clothing, forts. This is proof.
I have used common sense, which is why dismantling your claims is as easy as it is. First, you claimed that there was no documentation of the Exodus outside the Bible. When that got shown to be false, you make up excuses about people being "conned" and the extra-Biblical sources being "just what he heard". Of course, as is often the case, that standard isn't applied to other historical accounts.
Please, you reference Christian and other pro Christian sites as your proof of Exodus outside of the Bible. How about something from the Incas, China, or other thousand year old countries that have history of the beginning of the world? Would I believe China's account of how the world started too? Nope. The Incas either. Point being, they are all in the same boat. Before science they gave what they could perceive as the beginning of life. Of course science has shown that dinosaurs came before man, millions of years before. And you can't deny it because we have proof. If I saw limbs grow out of an amputee miraculously without any medical help, then I'd probably believe there was a God.
Furthermore, you've presented no "forensic science" (or any other, for that matter) that "blows up" the account of the Exodus. On the contrary, archaeological discoveries have (time and time again) verified accounts and events that, at one point, were documented solely in Scripture. That's part of the reason why I can easily cite at least two extra-Biblical accounts of the Exodus.
What? How do explain animals that are only native to Australia, and being many can't swim from Mt. Ararat to Australia, not anywhere else in the world? They are secluded because when continents separated, which took millions of years (remember that San Diego is inching towards San Francisco, this is proven), they had no where but Australia to live. Based on the blueprints in the Bible, there is NO WAY that every species alive today would have fit on the Ark, plus you had to have millions of pounds of food to have them survive, and ample room for waste. There is an estimated 40 millions species on Earth. Even if you divided by 2 that would be 20 million separate dwellings. Um science and COMMON SENSE knows that isn't possible with the measurements given. Lol, or did God shrink every animal down to insect size first? ::) Siting "scripture" isn't truth. Even others have disbeliefs of the Ark ever really existing based on physics of boats and ships made solely of wood.
http://www.genesisfiles.com/NoahsArk.htm
One, who says that God hasn't healed such cases? We already seen you try to marginalize or discredit the words of the man, who claim God healed him of Chron's disease. If someone were to say something similar about AIDS, you'd give the same excuses.
Didn't marginalize it. It happens daily.
Besides, you state (on the one hand) that people "just happen" to get cured of diseases alll the time; yet, (on the other hand) you brag about medicine, which had to be developed with countless man-hours and millions of dollars, has delayed the effects of AIDS on people.
Yes. Sometimes medicine works and sometimes people heal holistically. There's proof of that on paper.
As far as saving criminals and condeming do-gooders, though, this was answered earlier. Man see the OUTWARD apperance; but the Lord sees the heart. He knows why people do what they do.
And it doesn't make sense. Someone who steals and hurts people, but accepts Jesus and a person that volunteers their life to helping others but doesn't, is CHOSEN by God because the thief regardless of how harmful he's been, and how good and loving the latter was, pay homage. Lol, this is why I wouldn't participate in heaven, even if it was true (although it's not). Sounds like a dictatorship.
Paul mentions that such actions (giving away possessions) are still no guarantee to the kingdom, "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." 1 Cor. 13:3.
And Jesus did command you give EVERYTHING away and follow him. You've done that already right? Wait, you have a computer and land line though. :D
Yes, God has forgiven people who've done horrible things; but that doesn't mean they go unpunished (from an earthly perspective for their deeds). King David comes to mind, as does the repentant thief on the cross.
Mercy for the cruel, but not for starving non believing children. Makes total sense.
-
Furthermore, you've presented no "forensic science" (or any other, for that matter) that "blows up" the account of the Exodus. On the contrary, archaeological discoveries have (time and time again) verified accounts and events that, at one point, were documented solely in Scripture. That's part of the reason why I can easily cite at least two extra-Biblical accounts of the Exodus.
My bad. I was so wrapped up in Genesis, I responded wrong to you. My apology. But you can't have forensic evidence of an event that in didn't seem to occur in the first place. What archaeological discoveries? Don't say the pyramids are proof. We know why they are there. Show me.
Here's more on the story of Exodus outside of what the Bible teaches:
"Jews" did not became slaves in Egypt, as there were no "Jews" existent at the time. "Jews" is a misnomer for the Hebrew Children of Israel, or the Hebrews. Initially, the first "Jews;" so-called, consisted of only the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin who remained as the remnant of Abraham, after the secession of the ten tribes who moved to Samaria, and created the "Divided Monarchy" [circa 735 B.C.E.]. The Biblical Books of Genesis and Exodus provide the answer to the question of how the Hebrews became slaves in Egypt.. A famine was coming to the land in which the descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had settled. Joseph, son of Jacob, had been sold into slavery in Egypt due, in part, to the jealousy of his brothers. Though his early days there were filled with trouble, Jacob consistently found favor with the Egyptians, leading up to the day where he interpreted a dream that the Pharaoh of that day had; the dream indicated 7 years of bountiful harvests, followed by 7 years of famine. Joseph proposed a plan that would save not only Egypt, but the surrounding areas, from the full hardship of the famine. During the famine, Jacob sent his sons to Egypt. After some tests (what some would call cruel games), Joseph and his family were reunited, and were invited by Pharaoh to stay in the land.
Years passed, and the descendents of Jacob grew greatly in number. After several hundred years, the Pharaoh of Moses' day saw the Hebrews as a threat, rather than guests honored by his ancestor. In an attempt to subdue the threat, Pharaoh enslaved the Hebrews, even going so far as to order the death of all male Hebrew babies. One that was saved by his mother and sister was Moses, who became Pharaoh's adopted son, the succeeding Pharaoh's adopted brother, and the savior of the Hebrew people.
**************************************...
Actually, if you study the actual documented history Egypt there is serious doubt that there were the massive flux of Hebrew slaves as depicted in the bible. Assuming that the enslavement and exodus occurred during the Middle Kingdom, as thought by certain biblical references including the building of two cities for Ramses, there is a plethora of information from that period. None of said information refers to massive amounts of Hebrew slaves or to a mass exodus. Certainly, there is no literature from that time that points to the plagues that supposedly rained down on Egypt that were described in the bible.
The Middle Kingdom of Egypt was a vibrant time in Egyptian culture with many foreign peoples populating the land. Egypt had just recently reclaimed its society from being controlled by foreigners and thus were suspicious. Therefore, they assessed many more taxes on foreigners than on native Egyptians. During this period many cultures relocated, peacefully and staggered. Not in the mass exodus described in the bible. Also, recent evidence suggests that the "slaves" who built the cities and temples were respected artisans and workers. Of course, there were slaves in Egypt, as in most cultures of the time, but not the massive numbers portrayed in the bible. And most certainly not all hebrew.
It is suprising that an empire with such a rich and well documented history would be completely silent on such events as described in the bible. These chapters in the bible were written much later by hebrew priests attempting to make a great and powerful history for their small nomadic tribe. This tale ended with the Hebrews conquering the land of Israel thus giving rise to the myth of a Jewish holy land. This is obviously a story meant to give hope and spirit to people, to show that though they were outnumbered their God would save them. Unfortunately, the tiny Judah nation found out that these stories were just parables when they were conquered by the Romans.
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-exodus
and another:
http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Archaeology_and_the_Exodus.asp
-
Wrong. Lots of the volunteers who go with these doctors are middle class people with very humble incomes. All they would need from you is your time and your muscles. Money is not an issue, and the lack thereof it's not an excuse.
Lol, like many other "Christians" who live in the United States and don't do the same, I CHOOSE to live a good life here and not to endanger myself or my family on a quest that can't be solved unless the governments of Africa take care of their people first. You can make all the claims you want, but you're not over there volunteering either. Hypocrisy at it's best. Like you said money is not an issue and lack of it is no excuse, so what's yours? It's amazing how you ridicule what I am supposed to do, yet it's okay if you're not doing it. Pot meet kettle.
-
I don't know, Oldschool Flip. A Chinese woman, my physics professor at the time, told me this same thing about 12 years ago. She said that the word has its origin in an ancient story of the ark and the flood. Christians didn't just make this one up to "fit Christian analogy".
This flood story apparently comes from the United States, not China. We have traced it back to Nelson's The Deluge Story in Stone (1931, 181-182). Nelson says that, according to the Hihking, Fuhi "escaped the waters of a deluge, and reappeared as the first man at the reproduction of a renovated world, accompanied by his wife, his three sons and three daughters." There is no mention of a boat. The temple illustration is a separate account which Nelson attributes to Gutzlaff, presumably Karl Gützlaff, a Lutheran missionary in China around 1825. Gutzlaff reports it as a picture of Noah, not Fuhi. There are no further references to allow either account to be checked.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG202_2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_flood#Hebrew
-
This flood story apparently comes from the United States, not China. We have traced it back to Nelson's The Deluge Story in Stone (1931, 181-182). Nelson says that, according to the Hihking, Fuhi "escaped the waters of a deluge, and reappeared as the first man at the reproduction of a renovated world, accompanied by his wife, his three sons and three daughters." There is no mention of a boat. The temple illustration is a separate account which Nelson attributes to Gutzlaff, presumably Karl Gützlaff, a Lutheran missionary in China around 1825. Gutzlaff reports it as a picture of Noah, not Fuhi. There are no further references to allow either account to be checked.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG202_2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_flood#Hebrew
Thanks, Oldschool Flip! I always wanted to read more about this, but never got around to it. I will read it and comment later.
-
Thanks, Oldschool Flip! I always wanted to read more about this, but never got around to it. I will read it and comment later.
Pleasure loco.
-
No mention of bones the size of a cart? Or animals that preceeded the size of a couple of houses? Surely if they knew that would be historical enough to include in the Bible.
That's called an "argument from silence", and does nothing to suggest, one way or the other, about the creatures we call "dinosaurs" in the Old Testament.
You can't demonstrate they weren't. Hearsay, doesn't prove it. Why not just show up in front of Pilate 3 days later? If they didn't continue with their "story" then no one would follow. Once discovered a farce, why would anyone believe?
EXACTLY!!! And, all it would take to expose the Resurrection as a farce was :
a) Producing Jesus' body
b) Significant testimony from the guards that Jesus' body was in that tomb during that 3-day period.
c) A confession from the alleged con men, that the whole thing was fabricated.
Just did. If what they preached didn't come true, no one would believe anything they said afterward. That's a good enough reason. People have done it since man came to earth. Which BTW, was Adam a Cromagnan Man or Neanderthal? We have proof they existed and if Adam was neither, then that already refutes Genesis.
Then, you are claiming that the disciples "conned" the people about Jesus' ressurection. If that's the case, we're right back to square one: How and why?
As Father Martin's quote asks, what would they have to gain by lying? Nearly all of them were matyred for their beliefs.
Hope this helps:
This flood story apparently comes from the United States, not China. We have traced it back to Nelson's The Deluge Story in Stone (1931, 181-182). Nelson says that, according to the Hihking, Fuhi "escaped the waters of a deluge, and reappeared as the first man at the reproduction of a renovated world, accompanied by his wife, his three sons and three daughters." There is no mention of a boat. The temple illustration is a separate account which Nelson attributes to Gutzlaff, presumably Karl Gützlaff, a Lutheran missionary in China around 1825. Gutzlaff reports it as a picture of Noah, not Fuhi. There are no further references to allow either account to be checked.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG202_2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_flood#Hebrew
Not really. The Bible has all sorts of scriptures of a beast with 7 seven heads, etc. then priests, pastors, whomever, make their own conclusions of what they think it really means.
And, in those aforementioned passages, the surrounding contexts CLEARLY identified these as visions by the prophets or disciples, who describe them.
Wait you said Joseph was already married so hooking up with Mary is not being faithful. Am I wrong here?
Joseph and Mary were ENGAGED/bethroed to each other. It was Mary's fidelity, not that of Joseph, that was being questioned at the time. Joseph was planning to quietly dismiss Mary.
Christianity was named after Christ. That should be a hint. It wasn't called Christianity in the Old Testament. The Romans were killing people who followed Christ's teachings. It had to start with HIM where he lived, which was in old Roman Empire. The Empire didn't divide to east and west until Jesus death. So unless Jesus could teleport to Asian countries (and there's no mention of that) then his teachings were in Europe before it went East.
This may come as a surprise to you; but Christianity can be spread, WITHOUT Christ doing so himself. His followers were tasked to "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" (This is what modern Christians call the "Great Commission"). And this spreading of the Gospel occured LOOOOOOONG before Constantine's time. It occured, while Christians were being put to death by the Roman empire. Paul, after his conversion, was a major leader in the spreading of Christianity. And his travels (and those of his companions) took the Gospels to Asia and other countries.
While it goes both ways, for people whom are taught "Love thy neighbor", you see few that truly follow it. And if you aren't following it, then how can you be a follower of God? Would you love someone whom murdered someone in your family? Doubt it. But that's what you're COMMANDED to do. Atheists don't feel that way. If someone did that to anyone in my family, I feel they deserve death. No if's, ands or buts. I not conflicted with what's the "right" thing to do. If you chose the murderer should die, then you're in the wrong according to your religion.
People have done that with those who murdered a member of their family. No one claimed it was easy; in fact, that's among the hardest thing for Christians to do. As Christ said, anyone can love someone that loves them and does right by them and hate someone who hates them and does something evil towards them.
With that said, just because you forgive someone doesn't mean that someone will escape their earthly consequences of their behavior. Furthermore, I would have no say on what happens to a murderer anyway. I may forgive them, but they STILL may get life in prison or the death penalty.
Agreed, part of the reason I left Catholicism. They make up the rules as they go along.
That's my issue with Catholicism as well. And, it was the driving force behing the Reformation. People, after studying the Word for themselves, saw the HUGE GAP, between what the Bible actually said and what the Catholic church claimed it said. That's why Christians are instructed to study the Word for themselves.
So the denomination is a non-denominational Christian. In other words they are still labeled just like a Lutheran, Catholic, etc. Just not a "named" Christian of faith.
But these authors are held to evidence at hand. If they wrote anything that didn't coincide with what happened historically, their writings would be scrutinized and be fabled myth. Stories of Rome conquering countries, though not by original authors, can be proven. Buildings are still around from that era showing the dominance the Romans had. The Bible can't be proven to be a "book from God".
What makes you think that ancient historians weren't held to the same standards?
We have guns, ammo, flags, antique clothing, forts. This is proof.
And we have inscriptions on monuments, as well as extra-Biblical documentation of the Exodus, itself. The point remains what you read from history books, regarding the Civil War, was NOT penned by an eyewitness.
Please, you reference Christian and other pro Christian sites as your proof of Exodus outside of the Bible. How about something from the Incas, China, or other thousand year old countries that have history of the beginning of the world? Would I believe China's account of how the world started too? Nope. The Incas either. Point being, they are all in the same boat. Before science they gave what they could perceive as the beginning of life. Of course science has shown that dinosaurs came before man, millions of years before. And you can't deny it because we have proof. If I saw limbs grow out of an amputee miraculously without any medical help, then I'd probably believe there was a God.
I already did that, with an earlier quote and references to the mutiple civilizations that cite a global Flood, within their history and culture.
What? How do explain animals that are only native to Australia, and being many can't swim from Mt. Ararat to Australia, not anywhere else in the world? They are secluded because when continents separated, which took millions of years (remember that San Diego is inching towards San Francisco, this is proven), they had no where but Australia to live. Based on the blueprints in the Bible, there is NO WAY that every species alive today would have fit on the Ark, plus you had to have millions of pounds of food to have them survive, and ample room for waste. There is an estimated 40 millions species on Earth. Even if you divided by 2 that would be 20 million separate dwellings. Um science and COMMON SENSE knows that isn't possible with the measurements given. Lol, or did God shrink every animal down to insect size first? ::) Siting "scripture" isn't truth. Even others have disbeliefs of the Ark ever really existing based on physics of boats and ships made solely of wood.
One, you're assuming that the Earth's geography is exactly the same then as it is now. With the seismic activity, which would cause what's described in the Flood account in Genesis, that simply would not be the case. And, two, nowhere is it claimed that every species alive today went to the Ark. According to the author of "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study", Noah would have needed a mere 16,000 creatures then, in order to get the various species that we have now (actually, he cites that number to be much lower, but to make the issue more "complicated", he hikes the number to about 16,000).
To top it all off, the Ark was not a "boat" in the purest sense, as a boat is meant to be navigated within the water. There's no need to navigate something, if there's NOWHERE TO GO (no rudder, no sail, etc). All it has to do is stay afloat. And, if you check out any shipbuilders' guides, they will tell you that a 6:1 width-to-length ratio is quite ideal for stability. The Ark's dimensions, in that respect, are 300 cubits long and 50 cubits wide.
Yes. Sometimes medicine works and sometimes people heal holistically. There's proof of that on paper.
But, there are many diseases from which you cannot heal holistically. AIDS is one such disease; Chron's disease may be another.
And it doesn't make sense. Someone who steals and hurts people, but accepts Jesus and a person that volunteers their life to helping others but doesn't, is CHOSEN by God because the thief regardless of how harmful he's been, and how good and loving the latter was, pay homage. Lol, this is why I wouldn't participate in heaven, even if it was true (although it's not). Sounds like a dictatorship.
Loco already explained this issue. The key is what is in the HEART of a man. People can do charitable things for a number of reasons. Some do so because they truly care. Others do it to show off and look good in front of their peers. Man focused on the outward deeds, not the heart.
Jesus used the parable of the master, hiring servants to work in his fields, to illustrate his point. Some were hired early and did several hours worth of work; others were hired later and did less work. But, all received the same wage, because all agree to the same wage for their services. Yet, you have the earlier-working servants, getting angry with those who are hired later, because they got the same pay.
The point was simply this: If you agree to the terms, DON’T WORRY about what the Master does with His other employees.
And Jesus did command you give EVERYTHING away and follow him. You've done that already right? Wait, you have a computer and land line though. :D
Mercy for the cruel, but not for starving non believing children. Makes total sense.
Try that again. Jesus gave that command to a rich young ruler, who piously asked what he had to do to have eternal life. Of course, the point of His telling the young ruler to do so was to show that this man loved his possessions too much and really wasn't looking to be saved. He was essentially looking for a pat on the head.
-
My bad. I was so wrapped up in Genesis, I responded wrong to you. My apology. But you can't have forensic evidence of an event that in didn't seem to occur in the first place. What archaeological discoveries? Don't say the pyramids are proof. We know why they are there. Show me.
Here's more on the story of Exodus outside of what the Bible teaches:
"Jews" did not became slaves in Egypt, as there were no "Jews" existent at the time. "Jews" is a misnomer for the Hebrew Children of Israel, or the Hebrews. Initially, the first "Jews;" so-called, consisted of only the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin who remained as the remnant of Abraham, after the secession of the ten tribes who moved to Samaria, and created the "Divided Monarchy" [circa 735 B.C.E.]. The Biblical Books of Genesis and Exodus provide the answer to the question of how the Hebrews became slaves in Egypt.. A famine was coming to the land in which the descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had settled. Joseph, son of Jacob, had been sold into slavery in Egypt due, in part, to the jealousy of his brothers. Though his early days there were filled with trouble, Jacob consistently found favor with the Egyptians, leading up to the day where he interpreted a dream that the Pharaoh of that day had; the dream indicated 7 years of bountiful harvests, followed by 7 years of famine. Joseph proposed a plan that would save not only Egypt, but the surrounding areas, from the full hardship of the famine. During the famine, Jacob sent his sons to Egypt. After some tests (what some would call cruel games), Joseph and his family were reunited, and were invited by Pharaoh to stay in the land.
Years passed, and the descendents of Jacob grew greatly in number. After several hundred years, the Pharaoh of Moses' day saw the Hebrews as a threat, rather than guests honored by his ancestor. In an attempt to subdue the threat, Pharaoh enslaved the Hebrews, even going so far as to order the death of all male Hebrew babies. One that was saved by his mother and sister was Moses, who became Pharaoh's adopted son, the succeeding Pharaoh's adopted brother, and the savior of the Hebrew people.
**************************************...
Actually, if you study the actual documented history Egypt there is serious doubt that there were the massive flux of Hebrew slaves as depicted in the bible. Assuming that the enslavement and exodus occurred during the Middle Kingdom, as thought by certain biblical references including the building of two cities for Ramses, there is a plethora of information from that period. None of said information refers to massive amounts of Hebrew slaves or to a mass exodus. Certainly, there is no literature from that time that points to the plagues that supposedly rained down on Egypt that were described in the bible.
The Middle Kingdom of Egypt was a vibrant time in Egyptian culture with many foreign peoples populating the land. Egypt had just recently reclaimed its society from being controlled by foreigners and thus were suspicious. Therefore, they assessed many more taxes on foreigners than on native Egyptians. During this period many cultures relocated, peacefully and staggered. Not in the mass exodus described in the bible. Also, recent evidence suggests that the "slaves" who built the cities and temples were respected artisans and workers. Of course, there were slaves in Egypt, as in most cultures of the time, but not the massive numbers portrayed in the bible. And most certainly not all hebrew.
It is suprising that an empire with such a rich and well documented history would be completely silent on such events as described in the bible. These chapters in the bible were written much later by hebrew priests attempting to make a great and powerful history for their small nomadic tribe. This tale ended with the Hebrews conquering the land of Israel thus giving rise to the myth of a Jewish holy land. This is obviously a story meant to give hope and spirit to people, to show that though they were outnumbered their God would save them. Unfortunately, the tiny Judah nation found out that these stories were just parables when they were conquered by the Romans.
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-exodus
and another:
http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Archaeology_and_the_Exodus.asp
The claim that Egyptians don’t mention the Exodus is hardly proof that the event never occured. Some Egyptologists claimed that Egypt doesn’t mention is, giving as a reason that the Egyptians tend to not document their defeats.
The setting presented in Exodus 1-14 is indubitably that of Egypt's East Delta, whence the Hebrews are shown as going directly into the Sinai penninsula. Background data may be drawn from Egypt overall, but for locating the blbical Hebrews and their movements "on the ground" in Egypt, we are restricted to East Delta zone geographically. This fact imposes further severe limitations upon all inquiry into the subject.
The Delta is altuvial fan of mud deposited through many millenia by the annual flooding of the Nile; it has no source of stone within it. Mud, mud and wattle, and mud-brick structures were of limited duration and use and were repeatedly leveled and replaced, and very largely replaced once more with the mud of the fields. So, those who squawk intermittently, 'No trace of the Hebrews has ever been found' (so, of course, no exodus), are wasting their breath.
The mud hovels of brickfield slaves and humble cultivators have long since gone back to their mud origins, never to be seen again. Even stone structures (such as temples) hardly survive, in striking contrast to sites in the cliff-enclosed valley of upper Egypt to the South......And in the mud, 99 percent of discarded papyri have perished forever; a tiny fraction (of late date) have been found carbonized--like some at Pompeii--but can only be opened or red with immense difficulty. A tiny faction of reports from the east Delta occur in papyri recovered from the desert near Memphis; otherwise the entirety of Egypt's administrative records at all periods in the Delta is lost; and monumental texts are also nearly nil.
And as the pharaohs never monumentalize defeats on temple walls, no record of the successful exit of a large bunch of foreign slaves (with loss of a full chariot squadron) would ever have been memorialized by an king in the temples in the Delta or anywhere else. - Kitchen, Kenneth A. "On the Reliability of the Old Testament"
A great majority of the historical monuments were intended as official propaganda with the purpose of transmitting to posterity a "correct" impression of the glory and power of the pharaohs. Crises of revolution and that type of inner strife so common in the Orient, as well as military defeats in foreign wars, were either passed over completely or were interpreted so that the monuments conveyed impressions much distorted and unduly colored to the credit of the Egyptians - George Steindorff and Keith Seele, "When Egypt Ruled the East".
Based on the description of how the Exodus took place( Being decimated by the God of your slaves with plagues, your king conceding defeat, and your one-time slaves leaving your country with your loot), that ain't exactly an event I’d be eager to spend decades carving in stone, to be remembered for all time.
But, the simple fact is that someone documented the Exodus, and from the writings of Josephus, it appears that not only did he have documentation to such, but so did an earlier historian (Egyptian), Manetho. Furthermore, there is no requirement that the recording of such an event MUST come exclusively or primarily from Egyptian sources. Whether the Egytians readily admit to it or not, there is sufficient documentation to make the case that the Exodus did occur.
As for this, "This is obviously a story meant to give hope and spirit to people, to show that though they were outnumbered their God would save them. Unfortunately, the tiny Judah nation found out that these stories were just parables when they were conquered by the Romans", the Jews being captured by the Romans DOES NOT render the Exodus account as just a "parable".
In fact, the Roman subjugation of Israel was depicted, centuries beforehand, while the Jews were still in Babylonian captivitiy. Daniel records this in his book, when he describes his visions. The fourth beast and the iron legs of the image corresponds with the Roman empire. Yes, the Jews thought that the Messiah would deliver them from the power of Rome. But, Scripture (written centuries beforehand) stated that such would not be the case. Besides, even when under Roman subjugation, the Jews STILL celebrated the Passover, which commemorated their deliverance from Egypt (You will recall it was around the time of the Passover celebration, that Jesus Christ was crucified).
-
The claim that Egyptians don’t mention the Exodus is hardly proof that the event never occured. Some Egyptologists claimed that Egypt doesn’t mention is, giving as a reason that the Egyptians tend to not document their defeats.
The setting presented in Exodus 1-14 is indubitably that of Egypt's East Delta, whence the Hebrews are shown as going directly into the Sinai penninsula. Background data may be drawn from Egypt overall, but for locating the blbical Hebrews and their movements "on the ground" in Egypt, we are restricted to East Delta zone geographically. This fact imposes further severe limitations upon all inquiry into the subject.
The Delta is altuvial fan of mud deposited through many millenia by the annual flooding of the Nile; it has no source of stone within it. Mud, mud and wattle, and mud-brick structures were of limited duration and use and were repeatedly leveled and replaced, and very largely replaced once more with the mud of the fields. So, those who squawk intermittently, 'No trace of the Hebrews has ever been found' (so, of course, no exodus), are wasting their breath.
The mud hovels of brickfield slaves and humble cultivators have long since gone back to their mud origins, never to be seen again. Even stone structures (such as temples) hardly survive, in striking contrast to sites in the cliff-enclosed valley of upper Egypt to the South......And in the mud, 99 percent of discarded papyri have perished forever; a tiny fraction (of late date) have been found carbonized--like some at Pompeii--but can only be opened or red with immense difficulty. A tiny faction of reports from the east Delta occur in papyri recovered from the desert near Memphis; otherwise the entirety of Egypt's administrative records at all periods in the Delta is lost; and monumental texts are also nearly nil.
And as the pharaohs never monumentalize defeats on temple walls, no record of the successful exit of a large bunch of foreign slaves (with loss of a full chariot squadron) would ever have been memorialized by an king in the temples in the Delta or anywhere else. - Kitchen, Kenneth A. "On the Reliability of the Old Testament"
A great majority of the historical monuments were intended as official propaganda with the purpose of transmitting to posterity a "correct" impression of the glory and power of the pharaohs. Crises of revolution and that type of inner strife so common in the Orient, as well as military defeats in foreign wars, were either passed over completely or were interpreted so that the monuments conveyed impressions much distorted and unduly colored to the credit of the Egyptians - George Steindorff and Keith Seele, "When Egypt Ruled the East".
Based on the description of how the Exodus took place( Being decimated by the God of your slaves with plagues, your king conceding defeat, and your one-time slaves leaving your country with your loot), that ain't exactly an event I’d be eager to spend decades carving in stone, to be remembered for all time.
But, the simple fact is that someone documented the Exodus, and from the writings of Josephus, it appears that not only did he have documentation to such, but so did an earlier historian (Egyptian), Manetho. Furthermore, there is no requirement that the recording of such an event MUST come exclusively or primarily from Egyptian sources. Whether the Egytians readily admit to it or not, there is sufficient documentation to make the case that the Exodus did occur.
As for this, "This is obviously a story meant to give hope and spirit to people, to show that though they were outnumbered their God would save them. Unfortunately, the tiny Judah nation found out that these stories were just parables when they were conquered by the Romans", the Jews being captured by the Romans DOES NOT render the Exodus account as just a "parable".
In fact, the Roman subjugation of Israel was depicted, centuries beforehand, while the Jews were still in Babylonian captivitiy. Daniel records this in his book, when he describes his visions. The fourth beast and the iron legs of the image corresponds with the Roman empire. Yes, the Jews thought that the Messiah would deliver them from the power of Rome. But, Scripture (written centuries beforehand) stated that such would not be the case. Besides, even when under Roman subjugation, the Jews STILL celebrated the Passover, which commemorated their deliverance from Egypt (You will recall it was around the time of the Passover celebration, that Jesus Christ was crucified).
Then what you said is contradicting what you said earlier about Egypt having written proof of the Exodus. What is it, were they embarassed and didn't write about it? You claim they did. Which story now is correct according to you?
-
That's called an "argument from silence", and does nothing to suggest, one way or the other, about the creatures we call "dinosaurs" in the Old Testament.
Call it what you want, but there's still no mention of gigantic beasts that roamed the Earth before man in the Bible. Science brought that to light.
EXACTLY!!! And, all it would take to expose the Resurrection as a farce was :
a) Producing Jesus' body
b) Significant testimony from the guards that Jesus' body was in that tomb during that 3-day period.
c) A confession from the alleged con men, that the whole thing was fabricated.
You missing the point here. To save face, people do things. Politicians, even back then did it.
Then, you are claiming that the disciples "conned" the people about Jesus' ressurection. If that's the case, we're right back to square one: How and why?
Easy. People in despair turn to any means that might mean something good will happen to them. Lottery tickets aren't bought by millionaires because they chance their earned money on luck of the draw. But poorer people and people whom are overcome by debt are the MAIN buyers. Because somehow in their minds, this "chance" will free them and get them anything they desire. Religion is the same. I give credit to religion for building communities amongst people whom would have probably never spoken to others in their congregation outside of church. I also give credit because for some it gives them "hope". But if people look past religion and rely on common sense and moral behavior, you don't need the "hope".
As Father Martin's quote asks, what would they have to gain by lying? Nearly all of them were matyred for their beliefs.
I never said they were lying, I said they were conned. You can be conned and believe everything told to you to be the truth. Look at colonics, de tox foot pads, etc. People that use them swear by it and will recommend friends do it too, but science will tell you they were conned.
And, in those aforementioned passages, the surrounding contexts CLEARLY identified these as visions by the prophets or disciples, who describe them.
Seers do the same thing. Vague descriptions till they have you hear what you want. Nostradamus is a visionary whose prophecies are claimed to be real. Of course when you break down all the BS, you even know it's crap.
Joseph and Mary were ENGAGED/bethroed to each other. It was Mary's fidelity, not that of Joseph, that was being questioned at the time. Joseph was planning to quietly dismiss Mary.
Honestly don't know enough about them. But spontaneous pregnancy have yet to proven. Again a DNA test of both would clear everything up if it was available at the time.
This may come as a surprise to you; but Christianity can be spread, WITHOUT Christ doing so himself. His followers were tasked to "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" (This is what modern Christians call the "Great Commission"). And this spreading of the Gospel occured LOOOOOOONG before Constantine's time. It occured, while Christians were being put to death by the Roman empire. Paul, after his conversion, was a major leader in the spreading of Christianity. And his travels (and those of his companions) took the Gospels to Asia and other countries.
It was called Christianity at the time he was alive. That we know. If you called it "God's teachings" or something else, then maybe. But to say that Christianity was is Asia before it was in Rome or other countries nearby is BS.
People have done that with those who murdered a member of their family. No one claimed it was easy; in fact, that's among the hardest thing for Christians to do. As Christ said, anyone can love someone that loves them and does right by them and hate someone who hates them and does something evil towards them.
With that said, just because you forgive someone doesn't mean that someone will escape their earthly consequences of their behavior. Furthermore, I would have no say on what happens to a murderer anyway. I may forgive them, but they STILL may get life in prison or the death penalty.
Why then are most Christians (those whom are usually Republican based on religious belief) in favor of the death penalty? That's not loving thy neighbor.
What makes you think that ancient historians weren't held to the same standards?
Because lack of usable evidence, although science is creeping towards slowly finding out truths about world events through geology studies and such. The Titanic sunk just 100 years ago, and historians spoke of how the freakish burg ripped the side causing the hole. More and more evidence, from science, has now shown that the initial impact caused issues with the hull and rivets holding it due to bad manufactuering, that caused the flooding of the lower keel. Science tells the truth, that's why it's accepted in trials of murder. DNA profiling, has help to release innocents and convict the wrongdoers. Once science finds a way to prove Exodus and Genesis couldn't happen undoubtably, then religion will change.
And we have inscriptions on monuments, as well as extra-Biblical documentation of the Exodus, itself. The point remains what you read from history books, regarding the Civil War, was NOT penned by an eyewitness.
The real point should be that not all written history is entirely accurate unless scrutinized by truth that science can provide. This you cannot deny because science has taken us a long way in 2000 years since Christ's supposed death.
I already did that, with an earlier quote and references to the mutiple civilizations that cite a global Flood, within their history and culture.
Again, how could multiple civilizations cite it if they were supposedly dead? If Moses family repopulated the Earth, we all would share the same DNA because all family does. That's indisputable. I guarantee that you and I have no DNA genes in common.
One, you're assuming that the Earth's geography is exactly the same then as it is now. With the seismic activity, which would cause what's described in the Flood account in Genesis, that simply would not be the case. And, two, nowhere is it claimed that every species alive today went to the Ark. According to the author of "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study", Noah would have needed a mere 16,000 creatures then, in order to get the various species that we have now (actually, he cites that number to be much lower, but to make the issue more "complicated", he hikes the number to about 16,000).
Wait so you are saying evolution is real? How did we get to over 40 million species on Earth? Did God just make them magically appear?
To top it all off, the Ark was not a "boat" in the purest sense, as a boat is meant to be navigated within the water. There's no need to navigate something, if there's NOWHERE TO GO (no rudder, no sail, etc). All it has to do is stay afloat. And, if you check out any shipbuilders' guides, they will tell you that a 6:1 width-to-length ratio is quite ideal for stability. The Ark's dimensions, in that respect, are 300 cubits long and 50 cubits wide.
Yes, but the payload and the stress against it (remember, it's only pitch and nails hear that were hand driven) wouldn't have held long. The Titanic, which was much larger and made of steel sunk. Any wave movements would stress the hell out the hull due to pure size and there's no way wood is stronger than steel in this sense.
But, there are many diseases from which you cannot heal holistically. AIDS is one such disease; Chron's disease may be another.
I will agree here, but people still recover from devastating injuries and maladies without real medical attention throughout the world everyday. If they do, Christians claim it's God's will. But what if it was a Muslim or Buddist that survived? Was that God's will too? Of course by then they would be worshipping a different God, which is strictly prohibited by the Bible.
Loco already explained this issue. The key is what is in the HEART of a man. People can do charitable things for a number of reasons. Some do so because they truly care. Others do it to show off and look good in front of their peers. Man focused on the outward deeds, not the heart.
There are many volunteers around the world that aren't religious giving up their lives to help others. Too bad they are deemed hell bound.
Try that again. Jesus gave that command to a rich young ruler, who piously asked what he had to do to have eternal life. Of course, the point of His telling the young ruler to do so was to show that this man loved his possessions too much and really wasn't looking to be saved. He was essentially looking for a pat on the head.
People follow it to a T today. I knew of one woman in the town I was raised who gave up her earnings, minus what she needed to eat, have a home and utilities to her church. It was in our local paper. And her reasoning was that scripture said to do it. She even didn't have health insurance because her faith was strong that God wouldn't allow her to be sick or get ill. I'll have to look up what happened to her.
-
Call it what you want, but there's still no mention of gigantic beasts that roamed the Earth before man in the Bible. Science brought that to light.
There are mentions of such beasts. What exactly those beasts are is UNKNOWN. That doesn't mean that they were unaware of them.
You missing the point here. To save face, people do things. Politicians, even back then did it.
Save face from WHAT? Furthermore, who's doing this alleged face-saving?
Easy. People in despair turn to any means that might mean something good will happen to them. Lottery tickets aren't bought by millionaires because they chance their earned money on luck of the draw. But poorer people and people whom are overcome by debt are the MAIN buyers. Because somehow in their minds, this "chance" will free them and get them anything they desire. Religion is the same. I give credit to religion for building communities amongst people whom would have probably never spoken to others in their congregation outside of church. I also give credit because for some it gives them "hope". But if people look past religion and rely on common sense and moral behavior, you don't need the "hope".
Morals are based on a standard of conduct, that states what is right and wrong. Atheists (and I've seen this time and time again on this site) are so busy declaring what their standard IS NOT, that they rarely (if ever) clearly define what their standard IS.
You still have NOT answered how and why the disciples conned the people.
I never said they were lying, I said they were conned. You can be conned and believe everything told to you to be the truth. Look at colonics, de tox foot pads, etc. People that use them swear by it and will recommend friends do it too, but science will tell you they were conned.
People have used colonics on a regular basis, and their improved health (along with subsequent weight loss) is a testament to its effectiveness. Science is often BEHIND real-world results. How many times did "science" claim that anabolic steroids were ineffective, in terms of building muscle? Or, how DEAD WRONG was "science" about lifting weights and athletic performance? Many times when "science" is right, it simply validates what common sense and real-world practical experience have known from the get-go.
Yet again, you have NOT identified the so-called con artist or his motives for the alleged deception. Who tricked the disciples into believing that their Master (whom they saw PUT TO DEATH AND BURIED) resurrected from that grave and walked with them for nearly 6 weeks afterward?
Seers do the same thing. Vague descriptions till they have you hear what you want. Nostradamus is a visionary whose prophecies are claimed to be real. Of course when you break down all the BS, you even know it's crap.
Those descriptions are anything but vague. Many of the staunchest skeptics will testify to that, which is why (when they can't deny the accuracy of the prophecies) they claim that they were written late (after the events they describe).
Honestly don't know enough about them. But spontaneous pregnancy have yet to proven. Again a DNA test of both would clear everything up if it was available at the time.
No such test were needed, as the nature of the pregnancy was revealed to both Joseph and Mary.
It was called Christianity at the time he was alive. That we know. If you called it "God's teachings" or something else, then maybe. But to say that Christianity was is Asia before it was in Rome or other countries nearby is BS.
What's BS is your claim that it never spread, prior to Christians leaving Rome.
Why then are most Christians (those whom are usually Republican based on religious belief) in favor of the death penalty? That's not loving thy neighbor.
The death penalty is emphasized in BOTH TESTAMENTS, as punishment for severe crimes. Even when Jesus was being crucified Himself, He had compassion for the thief on the cross. However, He does not indicate that He should be spared of His sentence. Loving your neighbor as yourself DOES NOT MEAN that those who commit certain crimes automatically go unpunished. If you commit murder, you could get the death penalty.
Because lack of usable evidence, although science is creeping towards slowly finding out truths about world events through geology studies and such. The Titanic sunk just 100 years ago, and historians spoke of how the freakish burg ripped the side causing the hole. More and more evidence, from science, has now shown that the initial impact caused issues with the hull and rivets holding it due to bad manufactuering, that caused the flooding of the lower keel. Science tells the truth, that's why it's accepted in trials of murder. DNA profiling, has help to release innocents and convict the wrongdoers. Once science finds a way to prove Exodus and Genesis couldn't happen undoubtably, then religion will change.
Science doesn't tell anything, as it's not a sentient entity. Science is merely the study of natural phenomena. If "science" tells the truth, athletes wouldn't use anabolic steroids or lift weights, because "science" said neither improved athletic performance. Nor would bodybuilders eat 5-6 meals per day and higher amounts of protein, because "science" said that you don't need more than three meals or the RDA's amount of protein.
Scientists (at least, those with an anti-religious slant) have been trying to prove that the Exodus (and the events in Genesis) didn't occur for CENTURIES. To their frustration, their efforts have been largely ineffective.
The real point should be that not all written history is entirely accurate unless scrutinized by truth that science can provide. This you cannot deny because science has taken us a long way in 2000 years since Christ's supposed death.
No, the real point was that you have gleaned a HUGE amount of historical information from people, WHO DID NOT WITNESS THE EVENTS THEY REPORTED. By your standards, most history books should be scrapped, because virtually NONE of the authors witnessed the events.
With that said, many of the Biblical events have been scrutinized and their accounts verified.
Again, how could multiple civilizations cite it if they were supposedly dead? If Moses family repopulated the Earth, we all would share the same DNA because all family does. That's indisputable. I guarantee that you and I have no DNA genes in common.
I believe you meant to say Noah.
Wait so you are saying evolution is real? How did we get to over 40 million species on Earth? Did God just make them magically appear?
It's called speciation, which has nothing to do with "goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo" evolution. In laymen's terms, the birds we see now came from ancestors who were birds (not fish, not lizards, dogs, or cats).
Yes, but the payload and the stress against it (remember, it's only pitch and nails hear that were hand driven) wouldn't have held long. The Titanic, which was much larger and made of steel sunk. Any wave movements would stress the hell out the hull due to pure size and there's no way wood is stronger than steel in this sense.
This study begs to differ.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/noah.asp (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/noah.asp)
The Titanic sunk, because it hit an iceberg, which poked holes in the bottom of the ship. The iron of that ship became BRITTLE, because of the cold temperatures of the water. And, as mentioned earlier, the Ark was not a "ship", in the purest sense. All it had to do was stay stable and afloat.
I will agree here, but people still recover from devastating injuries and maladies without real medical attention throughout the world everyday. If they do, Christians claim it's God's will. But what if it was a Muslim or Buddist that survived? Was that God's will too? Of course by then they would be worshipping a different God, which is strictly prohibited by the Bible.
What that means is, either they got healed "holistically" or supernaturally.
There are many volunteers around the world that aren't religious giving up their lives to help others. Too bad they are deemed hell bound.
I'll let the Lord make that determination, if it's all the same to you.
People follow it to a T today. I knew of one woman in the town I was raised who gave up her earnings, minus what she needed to eat, have a home and utilities to her church. It was in our local paper. And her reasoning was that scripture said to do it. She even didn't have health insurance because her faith was strong that God wouldn't allow her to be sick or get ill. I'll have to look up what happened to her.
That's her reasoning.
The simple fact is Jesus had many followers from various walks of life. Did the centurion, whose servant Jesus healed, give up all his possessions? No! Did Nicodemus, one of the Jewish leaders whom Jesus told that he must be born again, give up all his things? No!
Zaccheus, the tax collector, said he would refund up to 4 times the money to those he swindled. However, Jesus gave him no specific instruction to do such.
When Paul went about spreading the Gospel, there were Christians who supported him, by giving him lodging and even funding his travels, awfully hard to do, if they'd given all their money away.
-
There are mentions of such beasts. What exactly those beasts are is UNKNOWN. That doesn't mean that they were unaware of them.
Crocodiles were alive at the time. They are direct ancestors of the dinosaurs. There's a HUGE difference in size yet NEVER mentioned. It's very significant to see and the reason why it's not mentioned it the Bible is just common sense. THEY DIDN'T KNOW. The mentions of the and beasts described in Bible are no bigger than an elephant.
Save face from WHAT? Furthermore, who's doing this alleged face-saving?
THis is beyond your thinking capacity.
People have used colonics on a regular basis, and their improved health (along with subsequent weight loss) is a testament to its effectiveness. Science is often BEHIND real-world results. How many times did "science" claim that anabolic steroids were ineffective, in terms of building muscle? Or, how DEAD WRONG was "science" about lifting weights and athletic performance? Many times when "science" is right, it simply validates what common sense and real-world practical experience have known from the get-go.
Lol, what a weak argument. The scientists you speak of were CHOSEN because of their stance against steroids. Medical doctors today are against steroids because of media. Whenever WADA writes an article on "enhancement drugs", they CHOOSE scientists and doctors in their favor. You're not that naive?
Yet again, you have NOT identified the so-called con artist or his motives for the alleged deception. Who tricked the disciples into believing that their Master (whom they saw PUT TO DEATH AND BURIED) resurrected from that grave and walked with them for nearly 6 weeks afterward?
Think about this for a minute rationally. If Jesus DIDN'T rise in 3 days, then what would people think of the disciples and Jesus teachings? People would think it was BS. The disciples would be ridiculed and their lives would be worthless. TO SAVE FACE, they continue to claim they saw Jesus come back to life. It's an easy story to make up. People do it all the time.
Those descriptions are anything but vague. Many of the staunchest skeptics will testify to that, which is why (when they can't deny the accuracy of the prophecies) they claim that they were written late (after the events they describe).
Lol, there will be rumors or wars, floods, earthquakes, etc. Wow, those are some real accurate prophecies. Here's a prophecy, in 5 years there will be a huge volcanic eruption that will amaze the world. Now all I have to is wait for an eruption in 5 years and when it happens, I'll be a prophet. And you can claim I made it. ::)
No such test were needed, as the nature of the pregnancy was revealed to both Joseph and Mary.
There is a reason why we have insanitariums today.
What's BS is your claim that it never spread, prior to Christians leaving Rome.
Had a typo in my statement. The term Christianity couldn't have spread, since Christ was alive and it was named after him when he died. Now do you deny this?
The death penalty is emphasized in BOTH TESTAMENTS, as punishment for severe crimes. Even when Jesus was being crucified Himself, He had compassion for the thief on the cross. However, He does not indicate that He should be spared of His sentence. Loving your neighbor as yourself DOES NOT MEAN that those who commit certain crimes automatically go unpunished. If you commit murder, you could get the death penalty.
Of course it is. It also says God wanted babies killed. Yet love your neighbor. Some real psycho stuff in the Bible.
Science doesn't tell anything, as it's not a sentient entity. Science is merely the study of natural phenomena. If "science" tells the truth, athletes wouldn't use anabolic steroids or lift weights, because "science" said neither improved athletic performance. Nor would bodybuilders eat 5-6 meals per day and higher amounts of protein, because "science" said that you don't need more than three meals or the RDA's amount of protein.
You're kidding! Science doesn't TELL us anything? Is the atom bomb a natural phenomenon or some created by science? And again, which scientist's are you quoting? I am more than sure I can find many in the Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism that would say different.
Scientists (at least, those with an anti-religious slant) have been trying to prove that the Exodus (and the events in Genesis) didn't occur for CENTURIES. To their frustration, their efforts have been largely ineffective.
Lol, scientist's that are doing it are in the minority, just like atheists are. People who have been brainwashed to believe that religion is real are hard to convince. Again, if we had Mary's and Joseph's and Jesus DNA, this would be the end of the story.
No, the real point was that you have gleaned a HUGE amount of historical information from people, WHO DID NOT WITNESS THE EVENTS THEY REPORTED. By your standards, most history books should be scrapped, because virtually NONE of the authors witnessed the events.
Like I said in a previous post, artifacts and timelines that coincide with what a historian says is more deemed true, than some made up book of God that makes all these scriptures that contradict each other. The Bible has been EDITED many times, so the BS of "nothing added or taken away" is not true. Not to mention translation issues from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English. Or are you going to say that's BS too?
With that said, many of the Biblical events have been scrutinized and their accounts verified.
According to you.
I believe you meant to say Noah.
My bad. So answer the question. Why doesn't EVERYONE in the world today share the same DNA? Or is this just science observing a natural phenomenon again? ::)
It's called speciation, which has nothing to do with "goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo" evolution. In laymen's terms, the birds we see now came from ancestors who were birds (not fish, not lizards, dogs, or cats).
Show proof of your claim here.
This study begs to differ.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/noah.asp (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/noah.asp)
The Titanic sunk, because it hit an iceberg, which poked holes in the bottom of the ship. The iron of that ship became BRITTLE, because of the cold temperatures of the water. And, as mentioned earlier, the Ark was not a "ship", in the purest sense. All it had to do was stay stable and afloat.
Yeah of course that study begs to differ SINCE IT'S A CHRISTIAN SITE. ::) Try harder.
http://skepdic.com/noahsark.html
Lol, and now you have quacks like this saying DINOSAURS were on the Ark too. ::)
http://contenderministries.org/evolution/dinosaurs.php
And if the whole earth was covered in water, then why don't the Ice caps of the North or South pole show any evidence in the ice? There would be some serious sediment left after receding waters that would have frozen and left a layer during the timeline. Of course you'll have some cockamamie excuse for that one right?
What that means is, either they got healed "holistically" or supernaturally.
Nice. Don't let that hold you back from saying God had something to do with it even if they weren't worshiping him.
I'll let the Lord make that determination, if it's all the same to you.
Hey, it's in scripture so it has to be true according to the Bible.
That's her reasoning.
The simple fact is Jesus had many followers from various walks of life. Did the centurion, whose servant Jesus healed, give up all his possessions? No! Did Nicodemus, one of the Jewish leaders whom Jesus told that he must be born again, give up all his things? No!
Zaccheus, the tax collector, said he would refund up to 4 times the money to those he swindled. However, Jesus gave him no specific instruction to do such.
When Paul went about spreading the Gospel, there were Christians who supported him, by giving him lodging and even funding his travels, awfully hard to do, if they'd given all their money away.
It's easy to explain for atheists. It's called BLIND DEVOTION. You see it in all cultures. People doing rituals to become men in tribes. Women subjecting themselves to torturous tests to prove they are worthy of a husband. Outside of Christianity this happens because in almost every culture, nationality, race, etc. there is a belief of some "God". When they can't explain (while science can) events and miracles, fire in the sky, etc. they say a god is punishing them or helping them.
Remember now that earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, etc. were all deemed "God's wrath" to punish humans back in those days. Science now shows that these are just natural events and even how they are caused. It's not magic. It's not God. It's earth doing it's natural thing that it's done for millions of years.
-
Crocodiles were alive at the time. They are direct ancestors of the dinosaurs. There's a HUGE difference in size yet NEVER mentioned. It's very significant to see and the reason why it's not mentioned it the Bible is just common sense. THEY DIDN'T KNOW. The mentions of the and beasts described in Bible are no bigger than an elephant.
What reason would there be for them to mention creatures that we call dinosaurs, if such had little to no bearing in the accounts being penned? Once again, nothing from texts suggest that they knew or didn't know about them. Your conclusion that they didn't, simply because such isn't mentioned makes little sense. The creatures named in OT texts is hardly exhaustive.
THis is beyond your thinking capacity.
No, it appears to be beyond yours. You keep making charges of deception and conning people. Yet, to this day, you have NOT shown the "who", "when", or "why".
Lol, what a weak argument. The scientists you speak of were CHOSEN because of their stance against steroids. Medical doctors today are against steroids because of media. Whenever WADA writes an article on "enhancement drugs", they CHOOSE scientists and doctors in their favor. You're not that naive?
Congratulations!! It's finally registered to you that science can be skewed by those who conduct the research. [/quote]
Think about this for a minute rationally. If Jesus DIDN'T rise in 3 days, then what would people think of the disciples and Jesus teachings? People would think it was BS. The disciples would be ridiculed and their lives would be worthless. TO SAVE FACE, they continue to claim they saw Jesus come back to life. It's an easy story to make up. People do it all the time.
Among the many problems with this claim are:
- The disciples themselves NEVER CLAIMED that Jesus would rise during that time. In fact, they didn't believe it themselves, when the women told them what happened.
- Those women went back to the tomb, for the expressed purpose of finishing the burial process for Jesus. When they did not see Jesus' body in the tomb, they thought someone stole it.
- When some of the disciples did see Jesus, they reported it to the others, who still DID NOT believe what happened (the most notable of which was Thomas, who demanded to see the wounds in Jesus' hands, feet, and side).
In short, the disciples weren't trying to save face, because they never proclaimed that Jesus would die and rise from the grave, in the first place. And, they were hiding in fear and despair, when the Ressurection transpired.
And, to top it all off, we have the reports from the Gospels (and from Paul's writings) that others, BESIDE THE DISCIPLES, saw Jesus post-Resurrection. Not only was this hardly a case of saving face, but all it would have taken was someone to produce Jesus' body or to confirm that He was still in that tomb, when He was supposed to have come out (a tomb marked with Pilate's seal and guarded, at the request of the Pharisees, to prevent such a thing from happening) to squash the disciples' proclamation COLD.
You claimed that the disciples were lying. So, one more time, who supposedly tricked them and why?
Lol, there will be rumors or wars, floods, earthquakes, etc. Wow, those are some real accurate prophecies. Here's a prophecy, in 5 years there will be a huge volcanic eruption that will amaze the world. Now all I have to is wait for an eruption in 5 years and when it happens, I'll be a prophet. And you can claim I made it. ::)
The prophecies, particularly in books like Ezekiel and Daniel, are FAR MORE SPECIFIC than that. Again, which is why when such are validated by historical finds, atheists resort to claiming that they were written after the fact.
There is a reason why we have insanitariums today.
Yep! They're perfect for housing folks who obsess over someone that they DON'T believe exists. ;D
Had a typo in my statement. The term Christianity couldn't have spread, since Christ was alive and it was named after him when he died. Now do you deny this?
Jesus' disciples, Paul, and other Christians spread the Gospel to other parts of the world BEFORE Constantine ever existed. Whether it was officially called "Christianity" or not makes no difference.
You're kidding! Science doesn't TELL us anything? Is the atom bomb a natural phenomenon or some created by science? And again, which scientist's are you quoting? I am more than sure I can find many in the Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism that would say different.
Science tells us nothing (as it is NOT a sentient being). Scientists do.
Lol, scientist's that are doing it are in the minority, just like atheists are. People who have been brainwashed to believe that religion is real are hard to convince. Again, if we had Mary's and Joseph's and Jesus DNA, this would be the end of the story.
No, it would lead to more pitiful excuses on your part, when confirmed that Joseph was not the biological father (something Joseph and Mary already knew, in the first place).
Like I said in a previous post, artifacts and timelines that coincide with what a historian says is more deemed true, than some made up book of God that makes all these scriptures that contradict each other. The Bible has been EDITED many times, so the BS of "nothing added or taken away" is not true. Not to mention translation issues from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English. Or are you going to say that's BS too?
You're babbling, because you can't dimiss the extra-Biblical documentation of the Exodus, which you initially claimed did not exist then later brushed off as what someone had heard, without dealing with the fact that you glean your historical information from people WHO DID NOT WITNESS THE ACCOUNTS that they report.
My bad. So answer the question. Why doesn't EVERYONE in the world today share the same DNA? Or is this just science observing a natural phenomenon again? ::)
Who says they didn't? You believe that humans share nearly all the DNA as chimps, yet you're asking why all HUMANS don't share the same DNA. Make up your mind, here.
Show proof of your claim here.
You need "proof" that birds come from birds??? ???
Yeah of course that study begs to differ SINCE IT'S A CHRISTIAN SITE. ::) Try harder.
http://skepdic.com/noahsark.html
Lol, and now you have quacks like this saying DINOSAURS were on the Ark too. ::)
http://contenderministries.org/evolution/dinosaurs.php
And if the whole earth was covered in water, then why don't the Ice caps of the North or South pole show any evidence in the ice? There would be some serious sediment left after receding waters that would have frozen and left a layer during the timeline. Of course you'll have some cockamamie excuse for that one right?
I don't need an excuse. You claimed that the Ark wouldn't have been stable and would have broken under the stress. That study I linked says otherwise.
Nice. Don't let that hold you back from saying God had something to do with it even if they weren't worshiping him.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't recall the centurion's servant, worshipping God, when he got healed.
It's easy to explain for atheists. It's called BLIND DEVOTION. You see it in all cultures. People doing rituals to become men in tribes. Women subjecting themselves to torturous tests to prove they are worthy of a husband. Outside of Christianity this happens because in almost every culture, nationality, race, etc. there is a belief of some "God". When they can't explain (while science can) events and miracles, fire in the sky, etc. they say a god is punishing them or helping them.
What does any of that have to do with your inaccurate claim, regarding Jesus and possessions? You just stated that Jesus commanded His followers to give their things away. Yet, when shown that your claim was inaccurate, you resort to this babble.
Remember now that earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, etc. were all deemed "God's wrath" to punish humans back in those days. Science now shows that these are just natural events and even how they are caused. It's not magic. It's not God. It's earth doing it's natural thing that it's done for millions of years.
Try that again. Natural disasters happen on a regular basis. Yet, only a handful of times were they deemed as punishments or God's wrath, usually for specific purposes. When that is done, the reason is given, the timing is known, and the disaster DOES NOT STOP, until its purpose is fulfilled. That leads me back to the Exodus, specifically the plagues that hit Egypt. They started when Moses arrived, happened when Moses said they would, and DID NOT STOP, until the mission was complete. That mission, of course, was delivering the Hebrews from Egyptian bondage. Mere run-of-the-mill calamities would not have let to Pharoah capitulating.
-
What reason would there be for them to mention creatures that we call dinosaurs, if such had little to no bearing in the accounts being penned? Once again, nothing from texts suggest that they knew or didn't know about them. Your conclusion that they didn't, simply because such isn't mentioned makes little sense. The creatures named in OT texts is hardly exhaustive.
Nice cop out.
No, it appears to be beyond yours. You keep making charges of deception and conning people. Yet, to this day, you have NOT shown the "who", "when", or "why".
Okay here it is. Who-Jesus conned the the disciples and everyone who listened to him. When- during his life. Why- because delusional people do weird things to control people. Hitler, Manson, James Jones, etc. were like this.
Congratulations!! It's finally registered to you that science can be skewed by those who conduct the research.
Some science can't be denied. DNA is undeniable. Find good scientist's with no bias and usually you'll get the right answer.
Among the many problems with this claim are:
- The disciples themselves NEVER CLAIMED that Jesus would rise during that time. In fact, they didn't believe it themselves, when the women told them what happened.
- Those women went back to the tomb, for the expressed purpose of finishing the burial process for Jesus. When they did not see Jesus' body in the tomb, they thought someone stole it.
- When some of the disciples did see Jesus, they reported it to the others, who still DID NOT believe what happened (the most notable of which was Thomas, who demanded to see the wounds in Jesus' hands, feet, and side).
In short, the disciples weren't trying to save face, because they never proclaimed that Jesus would die and rise from the grave, in the first place. And, they were hiding in fear and despair, when the Ressurection transpired.
And, to top it all off, we have the reports from the Gospels (and from Paul's writings) that others, BESIDE THE DISCIPLES, saw Jesus post-Resurrection. Not only was this hardly a case of saving face, but all it would have taken was someone to produce Jesus' body or to confirm that He was still in that tomb, when He was supposed to have come out (a tomb marked with Pilate's seal and guarded, at the request of the Pharisees, to prevent such a thing from happening) to squash the disciples' proclamation COLD.
Hahaha! Back to the Bible again to prove your point. Fairy tales aren't proof.
You claimed that the disciples were lying. So, one more time, who supposedly tricked them and why?
Can't explain conning to you because you don't get it.
The prophecies, particularly in books like Ezekiel and Daniel, are FAR MORE SPECIFIC than that. Again, which is why when such are validated by historical finds, atheists resort to claiming that they were written after the fact.
Right. I'm sure they told us that we'd be able to make babies outside of a woman's womb too. And go past the planets to other galaxies. Four horsemen, yeah that's specific. ::)
Yep! They're perfect for housing folks who obsess over someone that they DON'T believe exists. ;D
Now even funnier is that insanitariums have MANY people who have done things in the name of God and Jesus. I'm sure you've never heard that one.
Jesus' disciples, Paul, and other Christians spread the Gospel to other parts of the world BEFORE Constantine ever existed. Whether it was officially called "Christianity" or not makes no difference.
The term Christianity didn't exist till Christ died. If there was no difference, it would have been called Christianity and not Gospel. Christianity today includes the Old and New Testament. The Gospel was just of Christ's life.
Science tells us nothing (as it is NOT a sentient being). Scientists do.
Nit picking now after proven wrong about natural phenomenon huh?
No, it would lead to more pitiful excuses on your part, when confirmed that Joseph was not the biological father (something Joseph and Mary already knew, in the first place).
Nope, it would prove that you need a man's sperm and a woman's egg to make a child. You know that to be true today.
You're babbling, because you can't dimiss the extra-Biblical documentation of the Exodus, which you initially claimed did not exist then later brushed off as what someone had heard, without dealing with the fact that you glean your historical information from people WHO DID NOT WITNESS THE ACCOUNTS that they report.
Aesop wrote tales in Greek too. Many fairy tales back in those days. Here's more references to the bogus story of Exodus.
http://ptet.dubar.com/myth-exodus.html
http://www.hermetics.org/exodus.html
http://deb8n1.com/religion/Exodus_Revealed/index.html
http://www.beth-elsa.org/be_s0601.htm
Who says they didn't? You believe that humans share nearly all the DNA as chimps, yet you're asking why all HUMANS don't share the same DNA. Make up your mind, here.
Um, key word is "nearly". And ALL FAMILY MEMBERS share the same DNA. This is proven. That's how you can prove if someone is someones child, sibling, parent, grandparent, etc. So do you and I and my neighbor have the same family DNA? We have to according to the Bible because Noah repopulated the Earth through just his family when everyone died. Now you KNOW as well as I do that we don't share family DNA. The debunks that everyone perished in the flood story.
Not to mention that "inbreeding" of genes causes birth defects. That's why even first cousins are deterred from marrying and having children. You're not going to doubt that inbreeding can cause many issues like fertility issues, child mortality, facial distortions, learning and physical disabilities are you? If Noah and is family, as well as Adam and Eve, populated the whole earth we would have MASSIVE genetic issues today.
You need "proof" that birds come from birds???
Show proof that birds DIDN'T come from dinosaur ancestors.
http://www.dino-web.com/birds.html
http://animals.howstuffworks.com/dinosaurs/dinosaur-feather.htm
I don't need an excuse. You claimed that the Ark wouldn't have been stable and would have broken under the stress. That study I linked says otherwise.
Like you said, scientists can be manipulated. Here's another view of the Flood story that makes sense.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/noah_com.htm
What does any of that have to do with your inaccurate claim, regarding Jesus and possessions? You just stated that Jesus commanded His followers to give their things away. Yet, when shown that your claim was inaccurate, you resort to this babble.
People adapt religion to the lifestyle they want to lead. People flagrantly defy the commandments everyday without even blinking, but going to church and repenting will allow them to be forgiven. If a child did the same asinine thing day after day, they would eventually wear out there chances. But not a Christian. They can keep on sinning and breaking the rules with NO FEAR because they know God loves them and they have accepted Jesus as their savior. This sounds sane. ::)
Try that again. Natural disasters happen on a regular basis. Yet, only a handful of times were they deemed as punishments or God's wrath, usually for specific purposes. When that is done, the reason is given, the timing is known, and the disaster DOES NOT STOP, until its purpose is fulfilled. That leads me back to the Exodus, specifically the plagues that hit Egypt. They started when Moses arrived, happened when Moses said they would, and DID NOT STOP, until the mission was complete. That mission, of course, was delivering the Hebrews from Egyptian bondage. Mere run-of-the-mill calamities would not have let to Pharoah capitulating.
BS. Science shows what happens with tornadoes, hurricanes, eruptions, and are even getting closer in their predictions on when they might happen based on chronology of events. The Bible uses coincidence of this disasters to claim it's God's doing. Just like when AIDS first broke out. Everyone thought it was a homosexual disease then later found out it was transferable to any human regardless of gender or sexual orientation. There's a reference above about the plagues during "Exodus" which makes sense. Lol, in fact the "migration" of the Hebrews probably happened due to the plagues because who wants to stay where death might be imminent. And anyone write a story of that travel and have it deciphered wrong to make it sound sensational.
-
Nice cop out.
::)
Okay here it is. Who-Jesus conned the the disciples and everyone who listened to him. When- during his life. Why- because delusional people do weird things to control people. Hitler, Manson, James Jones, etc. were like this.
After all this time, this is the best you could do? That's rich!! The question isn't whether Manson or Hitler did this. It's whether or not Jesus did such. OJ Simpson commited robbery and kidnapping. That doesn't mean that Jesus did the same.
As for the "control" stuff, He controlled the disciples so much that one betrayed Him, another denied Him, and the rest ran like scalded dogs. ::)
Jesus "conned" the disciples into believing that He rose from the dead, after being crucified?
He had so much "control" over the Pharisees, that they demanded His execution. As for the regular folks, let's see: Mary and Martha got "conned" into thinking their brother was resurrected. Then, there's Jarius, who got "conned" into thinking his daughter was also resurrected; the centurion "conned" into thinking his servant had been healed, without Jesus even seeing that servant whatosever. Not to mention, Zaccheus, Bartimaeus, just to name a few.
Of course, lost in all this is precisely what Jesus supposedly gained from all this alleged conning and control. He had little earthly wealth of which to speak, no political position, was falsely accused of all manner of crimes, and died the most humiliating form of death of that era.
"He came unto His own and His own received Him not", John 1:11. Yep, that's lots of "control" right there.
Furthermore, if you're going to "con" someone, you certainly don't use the details given in the Gospels, regarding Jesus' life.
What is it in those documents that seems to be true and seems to be the type of material that someone wouldn't have made up. And, there are a variety of things. For instance, the women being the first ones to arrive at the tomb. Women were not, in that day and age, looked upon very highly. All one has to do is study 1st-century Jewish documents to realize that. They couldn't give testimony in a court of law; they couldn't report what they'd seen. So, if someone's making up a story, certainly they're not going to have the women to be the ones who show up first.....In the first century, shepherds were among the lowest of occupations. They were seen as dishonest; they also couldn't testify in a court of law. Yet, the first appearance of Jesus, in the Gospel of Luke, came to the shepherds. That's not something someone's going to make up. - Dr. Sam Lamerson, "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen"
Some science can't be denied. DNA is undeniable. Find good scientist's with no bias and usually you'll get the right answer.
Scientists with no bias? Good luck with that.
Hahaha! Back to the Bible again to prove your point. Fairy tales aren't proof.
Wrong again!! You said the disciples were trying to save face. For them to do that, THE DISCIPLES THEMSELVES would have to have claimed that Jesus would rise from the grave. They did no such thing. And, for all your tall tales of massive deception on their part, you repeatedly gloss over how easily the disciples' claim of a ressurected Christ could have been dismantled, thus ending Christianity before it ever starts.
(Also from "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?")
One of the things I've spent a good deal of time on myself is with the movements that seemed parallel to Jesus and His movements. There were prophets---one named Judas; another, an Egyptian Jewish prophet---who led thier followers into the wilderness, expecting that God was going to carry out some new act of liberation and give the people freedom back in their own land. Of course, the Romans dispatched the troops, brought their heads back on a pole; and all of their followers (as far as we know) simply dispered - Dr. Richard Horsley, University of Massachusetts (Boston)
What's interesting about the early Christians is not just that they went from being a dejected, despairing, frightened little group to a lively, outgoing, dynamic and brave group--though that's true, too--is that they didn't get another Messiah. They said that Jesus was the Messiah. Since everybody knew that a crucified Messiah was a failed Messiah, the only thing that explains why they said that Jesus was the Messiah was that they believed He had been bodily raised from the dead. - Dr. N.T. Wright, Westminster Abbey
Can't explain conning to you because you don't get it.
What you can't explain is your wacky and grossly unsubstantiated claims of Jesus and/or the disciples conning people.
Now even funnier is that insanitariums have MANY people who have done things in the name of God and Jesus. I'm sure you've never heard that one.
They have many people who have done things for a number of reasons.
The term Christianity didn't exist till Christ died. If there was no difference, it would have been called Christianity and not Gospel. Christianity today includes the Old and New Testament. The Gospel was just of Christ's life.
DUH!!! The point remains that Christianity started spread BEFORE Constantine's time, contrary to your repeated and inaccurate claims that it didn't spread, until Christians left Europe. Furthermore, the Gospel was not merely just Christ's life, as Jesus said, with regards to Mary Magdeline's gift of sacrifice, that whereever the Gospel was preached, her story would be remembered. And, we have the statements of Paul, preaching the Gospel as well, which happened AFTER Christ's death and resurrection.
Nit picking now after proven wrong about natural phenomenon huh?
Nope, especially since this being proven wrong about natural phenomenon hasn't occured.
Nope, it would prove that you need a man's sperm and a woman's egg to make a child. You know that to be true today.
Under normal, natural circumstances, YES!! This was not such a case, hence the term, "supernatural".
Aesop wrote tales in Greek too. Many fairy tales back in those days. Here's more references to the bogus story of Exodus.
http://ptet.dubar.com/myth-exodus.html
http://www.hermetics.org/exodus.html
http://deb8n1.com/religion/Exodus_Revealed/index.html
http://www.beth-elsa.org/be_s0601.htm
Using the term "fairy tales" doesn't clear your false statement of there being no extra-Biblical references to the Exodus. Furthermore, Aesop was not regarded as an historian, as Josephus, Diodorus, and Manetho were.
Um, key word is "nearly". And ALL FAMILY MEMBERS share the same DNA. This is proven. That's how you can prove if someone is someones child, sibling, parent, grandparent, etc. So do you and I and my neighbor have the same family DNA? We have to according to the Bible because Noah repopulated the Earth through just his family when everyone died. Now you KNOW as well as I do that we don't share family DNA. The debunks that everyone perished in the flood story.
Ummmmm....nobody said that everybody perished in the Flood account. Last time I checked, there were eight survivors.
Not to mention that "inbreeding" of genes causes birth defects. That's why even first cousins are deterred from marrying and having children. You're not going to doubt that inbreeding can cause many issues like fertility issues, child mortality, facial distortions, learning and physical disabilities are you? If Noah and is family, as well as Adam and Eve, populated the whole earth we would have MASSIVE genetic issues today.
All of this is under the gross assumption that the genetic defects that close relatives have now existed at that time. If you buy that people (and other creatures) all "evolved" from a common ancestor, then at some point and at some level, you would have "inbreeding".
Plus, first cousins marrying and having children may cause those kids to have defects. But the more removed they are (i.e. second cousins and further), the less likely such defects are to happen. Obviously, we would not be as closely related as those more immediate descendants (i.e. his grandsons and great-grandsons).
Show proof that birds DIDN'T come from dinosaur ancestors.
http://www.dino-web.com/birds.html
http://animals.howstuffworks.com/dinosaurs/dinosaur-feather.htm
You can start here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/did-dinosaurs-turn-into-birds (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/did-dinosaurs-turn-into-birds)
Like you said, scientists can be manipulated. Here's another view of the Flood story that makes sense.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/noah_com.htm
Let me guess: The old Gilgamesh routine!!!
The tired claim of the Hebrews copying this from the Babylonias pops up again. So, it's back to the usual refutation routine for me.
One, the Babylonians making an "ark", in the form of a cube, one of the WORST design for a stable vessel in the water; whereas the Hebrews (not exactly praised for their nautical skills) speak of a barge-like Ark with a very-ideal stability ratio of 6:1 (length to width/breadth).
Two, Per the Biblical account, the Flood lasts about a year, and Noah's priority is LIVING CREATURES; whereas Unapht....(Uey) is storing silver and gold (where's he'd going to spend this, with the planet being destroyed, is anybody's guess).
Three, notwithstanding that building a cube-shaped "ark" is quite dumb, (if stability afloat is the goal), Uey does this in less than a week, with his friends, in between bouts of drunkennesss. According to Genesis, there was 120 years between the time God delcared judgment on the Earth and the time the Flood actually hit. Whether it took Noah and crew that long to build the Ark is unknown. But, it's quite unlikely that something 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high, was built in 7 days.
Even with those issues between the Genesis account and the Gilgamesh thing, you STILL have the same predicament: Yet another civilization claiming that at some point in Earth’s history, the planet was destroyed by global flood, with only a handful of people surviving (courtesy of building a floating vessel and gathering animals/other people).
People adapt religion to the lifestyle they want to lead. People flagrantly defy the commandments everyday without even blinking, but going to church and repenting will allow them to be forgiven. If a child did the same asinine thing day after day, they would eventually wear out there chances. But not a Christian. They can keep on sinning and breaking the rules with NO FEAR because they know God loves them and they have accepted Jesus as their savior. This sounds sane. ::)
And??? Jesus addressed that long ago, when He told His disciples (and others), "Not everyone who says, 'Lord, Lord' will be saved". In fact, what you just mentioned was His biggest problem with the Pharisees. He blasted them for such behavior, which was one of the reasons they wanted to have Him killed.
BS. Science shows what happens with tornadoes, hurricanes, eruptions, and are even getting closer in their predictions on when they might happen based on chronology of events. The Bible uses coincidence of this disasters to claim it's God's doing. Just like when AIDS first broke out. Everyone thought it was a homosexual disease then later found out it was transferable to any human regardless of gender or sexual orientation. There's a reference above about the plagues during "Exodus" which makes sense. Lol, in fact the "migration" of the Hebrews probably happened due to the plagues because who wants to stay where death might be imminent. And anyone write a story of that travel and have it deciphered wrong to make it sound sensational.
People thought it was a homosexual disease, because HOMOSEXUALS WERE THE PRIMARY ONES catching the disease in the USA. And per the CDC's report (last time I checked), gay/bisexual men remain the top carriers AIDS, based on behavior patterns (namely risque sex and IV drug use).
As for claims, regarding the Exodus, slaves didn't get to choose whether or not they can migrate, based on imminent death. Were it simply run-of-the-mill natural disasters, the Hebrews wouldn't have been released and would have suffered with the Egyptians. The plagues occuring upon Moses' return and not stopping, until the release of the Hebrews is hardly a coincidence.
-
::)
Yep thought so.
After all this time, this is the best you could do? That's rich!! The question isn't whether Manson or Hitler did this. It's whether or not Jesus did such. OJ Simpson commited robbery and kidnapping. That doesn't mean that Jesus did the same.
As for the "control" stuff, He controlled the disciples so much that one betrayed Him, another denied Him, and the rest ran like scalded dogs. ::)
Jesus "conned" the disciples into believing that He rose from the dead, after being crucified?
He had so much "control" over the Pharisees, that they demanded His execution. As for the regular folks, let's see: Mary and Martha got "conned" into thinking their brother was resurrected. Then, there's Jarius, who got "conned" into thinking his daughter was also resurrected; the centurion "conned" into thinking his servant had been healed, without Jesus even seeing that servant whatosever. Not to mention, Zaccheus, Bartimaeus, just to name a few.
Of course, lost in all this is precisely what Jesus supposedly gained from all this alleged conning and control. He had little earthly wealth of which to speak, no political position, was falsely accused of all manner of crimes, and died the most humiliating form of death of that era.
"He came unto His own and His own received Him not", John 1:11. Yep, that's lots of "control" right there.
Furthermore, if you're going to "con" someone, you certainly don't use the details given in the Gospels, regarding Jesus' life.
What is it in those documents that seems to be true and seems to be the type of material that someone wouldn't have made up. And, there are a variety of things. For instance, the women being the first ones to arrive at the tomb. Women were not, in that day and age, looked upon very highly. All one has to do is study 1st-century Jewish documents to realize that. They couldn't give testimony in a court of law; they couldn't report what they'd seen. So, if someone's making up a story, certainly they're not going to have the women to be the ones who show up first.....In the first century, shepherds were among the lowest of occupations. They were seen as dishonest; they also couldn't testify in a court of law. Yet, the first appearance of Jesus, in the Gospel of Luke, came to the shepherds. That's not something someone's going to make up. - Dr. Sam Lamerson, "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen"
Again this is anecdotal truth at best. On the same level as mythology.
Scientists with no bias? Good luck with that.
It's hard to deny that technology is bringing to light things that people thought could be true. Criminals imprisoned today are being set free because of DNA when a jury of their peers convicted them due to evidence they could only see at hand. Give it time. Just like the Gods of the Greeks, the Christian God and others will soon be forgotten.
Wrong again!! You said the disciples were trying to save face. For them to do that, THE DISCIPLES THEMSELVES would have to have claimed that Jesus would rise from the grave. They did no such thing. And, for all your tall tales of massive deception on their part, you repeatedly gloss over how easily the disciples' claim of a ressurected Christ could have been dismantled, thus ending Christianity before it ever starts.
Hardly evidence that they were trying to save face. People have doubts in football games and when the games over they retort, "I knew it all along".
(Also from "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?")
One of the things I've spent a good deal of time on myself is with the movements that seemed parallel to Jesus and His movements. There were prophets---one named Judas; another, an Egyptian Jewish prophet---who led thier followers into the wilderness, expecting that God was going to carry out some new act of liberation and give the people freedom back in their own land. Of course, the Romans dispatched the troops, brought their heads back on a pole; and all of their followers (as far as we know) simply dispered - Dr. Richard Horsley, University of Massachusetts (Boston)
What's interesting about the early Christians is not just that they went from being a dejected, despairing, frightened little group to a lively, outgoing, dynamic and brave group--though that's true, too--is that they didn't get another Messiah. They said that Jesus was the Messiah. Since everybody knew that a crucified Messiah was a failed Messiah, the only thing that explains why they said that Jesus was the Messiah was that they believed He had been bodily raised from the dead. - Dr. N.T. Wright, Westminster Abbey
Believing a proof of it actually happening are two different things. If Jesus was this revered person he claimed to be, why wasn't it WORLD news after a few years? Because no one else thought of Jesus as the son of God. The Koran, Torah, etc. talks of no ressurection.
What you can't explain is your wacky and grossly unsubstantiated claims of Jesus and/or the disciples conning people.
You just choose to believe that stories of the Bible are true.
They have many people who have done things for a number of reasons.
Of course, but usually insane people have demons and god talking to them. Almost all notorius serial killers were "spooked" by some entity and compelled them to commit their crimes.
DUH!!! The point remains that Christianity started spread BEFORE Constantine's time, contrary to your repeated and inaccurate claims that it didn't spread, until Christians left Europe. Furthermore, the Gospel was not merely just Christ's life, as Jesus said, with regards to Mary Magdeline's gift of sacrifice, that whereever the Gospel was preached, her story would be remembered. And, we have the statements of Paul, preaching the Gospel as well, which happened AFTER Christ's death and resurrection.
No, my claim was it was spread in Europe before places like Africa and Asia. Since Jerusalem is in the now Middle East, and that's where Jesus died, then from there is where Christianity would start. Near Israel is Turkey, which in Old world European maps was part of Europe. Turkey is also where Paul set up several of the 1st churches. Not in China or Africa. This is fact.
Nope, especially since this being proven wrong about natural phenomenon hasn't occured.
A natural phenomenon is a non-artificial event in the physical sense, and therefore not produced by humans, although it may affect humans (e.g. bacteria, ageing, natural disasters). Common examples of natural phenomena include volcanic eruptions, weather, and decay.
Aurora is one of a natural phenomenon
Aurora is one of a natural phenomenon
Most natural phenomenons are harmless such as rain. Some natural phenomenons such as volcanic eruptions, tsunami and tornadoes are considered dangerous and might lead to death.
So you're claim that science is just "observance of natural phenomenon" which is incomplete. You test with methods to learn and come to conclusions. Observing is not testing with scientific method.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
Science is how we got the atom bomb, invitro fertilization (heck we can do what God can't for couples who can't have kids "naturally") etc.
Under normal, natural circumstances, YES!! This was not such a case, hence the term, "supernatural".
Again a great story from a fairytale book.
Using the term "fairy tales" doesn't clear your false statement of there being no extra-Biblical references to the Exodus. Furthermore, Aesop was not regarded as an historian, as Josephus, Diodorus, and Manetho were.
Josephus was a traitor to his own country and did anything to save his ass at the expense of others. Tell me about the other 2.
Ummmmm....nobody said that everybody perished in the Flood account. Last time I checked, there were eight survivors.
Lol, I mentioned Noah and his family. ::) And now we're to believe that all the races of the Earth are repopulated because of these 8? Who were African and Asian in Noah's clan? As well as Spanish, Norwegian, Inuit, Samoan,....... and of course sharing family genes without defects?
All of this is under the gross assumption that the genetic defects that close relatives have now existed at that time. If you buy that people (and other creatures) all "evolved" from a common ancestor, then at some point and at some level, you would have "inbreeding".
Dude you said there were 8 survivors. To make let's say just 100,000 population from the same family tree. Our genes haven't changed in thousands of years going back. This is not an assumption, this is from studies of the early years of humans (not chimps). And yes inbreeding happened in clans of early people. There are skull deformation fossils to prove it. However, unlike your story of 8 people repopulating the earth, we know of hundreds of humans in different parts of the world. Evolution is something you don't believe, so to explain it to you would be a waste of time.
Plus, first cousins marrying and having children may cause those kids to have defects. But the more removed they are (i.e. second cousins and further), the less likely such defects are to happen. Obviously, we would not be as closely related as those more immediate descendants (i.e. his grandsons and great-grandsons).
Okay, explain how you get second cousins when the survivors of the ark would have children. The children would all be 1st cousins. The only way a second cousin would come about is if an "outside" person were to procreate with them. Which of course didn't happen according to your story of the flood. So back to square one.
You can start here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/did-dinosaurs-turn-into-birds (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/did-dinosaurs-turn-into-birds)
Not all birds fly. Penguins and ostriches are examples. Their bone structures are similar more to mammals than that of their bird cousins. Think about it.
Let me guess: The old Gilgamesh routine!!!
The tired claim of the Hebrews copying this from the Babylonias pops up again. So, it's back to the usual refutation routine for me.
One, the Babylonians making an "ark", in the form of a cube, one of the WORST design for a stable vessel in the water; whereas the Hebrews (not exactly praised for their nautical skills) speak of a barge-like Ark with a very-ideal stability ratio of 6:1 (length to width/breadth).
Two, Per the Biblical account, the Flood lasts about a year, and Noah's priority is LIVING CREATURES; whereas Unapht....(Uey) is storing silver and gold (where's he'd going to spend this, with the planet being destroyed, is anybody's guess).
Three, notwithstanding that building a cube-shaped "ark" is quite dumb, (if stability afloat is the goal), Uey does this in less than a week, with his friends, in between bouts of drunkennesss. According to Genesis, there was 120 years between the time God delcared judgment on the Earth and the time the Flood actually hit. Whether it took Noah and crew that long to build the Ark is unknown. But, it's quite unlikely that something 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high, was built in 7 days.
Even with those issues between the Genesis account and the Gilgamesh thing, you STILL have the same predicament: Yet another civilization claiming that at some point in Earth’s history, the planet was destroyed by global flood, with only a handful of people surviving (courtesy of building a floating vessel and gathering animals/other people).[/quote]Which makes it a great story to pass to different cultures and let them translate it the way they want. Stories are proof that the event happened.
And??? Jesus addressed that long ago, when He told His disciples (and others), "Not everyone who says, 'Lord, Lord' will be saved". In fact, what you just mentioned was His biggest problem with the Pharisees. He blasted them for such behavior, which was one of the reasons they wanted to have Him killed.
I'm sure Jesus is "talking" to ones that will be saved. BTW, have you ever had God speak to you? Not in a dream mind you, since dreams seem real but we know it's fantasy in our minds. but really spoken to you while you were concious?
People thought it was a homosexual disease, because HOMOSEXUALS WERE THE PRIMARY ONES catching the disease in the USA.
People didn't think, it's what they were told by media. And per the CDC's report (last time I checked), gay/bisexual men remain the top carriers AIDS, based on behavior patterns (namely risque sex and IV drug use).
Wrong. Africa has the largest population of AIDS in the world and it's not from homosexual activity, but heterosexual activity. That's why as many females have it as males.
As for claims, regarding the Exodus, slaves didn't get to choose whether or not they can migrate, based on imminent death. Were it simply run-of-the-mill natural disasters, the Hebrews wouldn't have been released and would have suffered with the Egyptians. The plagues occuring upon Moses' return and not stopping, until the release of the Hebrews is hardly a coincidence.
Again the majority of slaves in Egypt weren't Hebrew, but poor Egyptians themselves. Coincidence happens more than people think. We just got out local paper where a picture of myself and daughter are in. People at the gym joked about me being famous. How did the pic get in there. I was buying lunch and gas in a shopping center and was asked to participate. I wasnt' "supernatural" urged to be there because of this. It's just coincidence it happened. Just like when I won $500 in the lottery. No special reason it happened.
This has been great debating this, but it's getting old because we can go in circles all day and never agree. I'm sure you and I have spent a lot of time looking up stuff. The title of this thread still has to be answered logically.
-
Yep thought so.
Again this is anecdotal truth at best. On the same level as mythology.
Hardly!! If, as you've repeatedly (yet falsely) contended, Jesus and/or the disciples were conning people, using such scenarios which they knew the people they were supposedly conning wouldn't buy would be pointless (to say nothing of ineffective).
It's hard to deny that technology is bringing to light things that people thought could be true. Criminals imprisoned today are being set free because of DNA when a jury of their peers convicted them due to evidence they could only see at hand. Give it time. Just like the Gods of the Greeks, the Christian God and others will soon be forgotten.
Atheists have been saying that for centuries. But, that hasn't been the case with God, which drives many atheists NUTS! When's the last time you've run into a Baal-worshipper, or a follower of Molech? Come across any children of Dagon or Ashoreth, lately? How about Merodach?
EXACTLY!!! Notice that when those nations and empires that followed those deities were destroyed, the gods that they served went MIA. Yet, despite the nearly countless times Israel has been enslaves (by Egyptians, Babylonians, Medes and Persians, Greeks, Romans, et al.), the God of heaven STILL prevails within the history of this world.
As for your DNA spiel, lost in all of it is that (with regards to Jesus) neither Joseph nor Mary needed DNA testing for one simple reason: They both knew that Joseph was not the biological father, with Joseph finding out later of Mary's supernatural conception.
Hardly evidence that they were trying to save face. People have doubts in football games and when the games over they retort, "I knew it all along".
And exactly where do the disciples make such a proclamation. Again, simply produce the body and there is NO Christianity whatsoever.
Believing a proof of it actually happening are two different things. If Jesus was this revered person he claimed to be, why wasn't it WORLD news after a few years? Because no one else thought of Jesus as the son of God. The Koran, Torah, etc. talks of no ressurection.
One, it doesn't have to be "WORLD" news. With that said, we have at least two extra-Biblical sources that cite the reports of Jesus' resurrection. Like so many other skeptics, you make the extremely inaccurate assumption that the "celebrity" (for lack of a better term) that Jesus enjoys now He had back then.
Jesus was executed as a criminal and charged with blasphemy. Carpenters being accused of blasphemy and executed via crucifixion hardly made the Jerusalem News Network. Yet, we have the life of Jesus recorded in both Christian and non-Christian sources.
You just choose to believe that stories of the Bible are true.
And you choose to believe that they're false. What's your point? You claimed that the disciples and/or Jesus were conning people. Yet, when asked to provide examples of such (along with the how and why), you make up excuses like this.
Of course, but usually insane people have demons and god talking to them. Almost all notorius serial killers were "spooked" by some entity and compelled them to commit their crimes.
I beg to differ. Serial killers often use that, in hopes of avoiding the death penalty.
No, my claim was it was spread in Europe before places like Africa and Asia. Since Jerusalem is in the now Middle East, and that's where Jesus died, then from there is where Christianity would start. Near Israel is Turkey, which in Old world European maps was part of Europe. Turkey is also where Paul set up several of the 1st churches. Not in China or Africa. This is fact.
You just proved my point. Paul set up those churches, with the help of other believers. Paul and his companions also traveled to Asia and Africa. And they did this, spreading Christianity, BEFORE THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE.
A natural phenomenon is a non-artificial event in the physical sense, and therefore not produced by humans, although it may affect humans (e.g. bacteria, ageing, natural disasters). Common examples of natural phenomena include volcanic eruptions, weather, and decay.
Aurora is one of a natural phenomenon
Aurora is one of a natural phenomenon
Most natural phenomenons are harmless such as rain. Some natural phenomenons such as volcanic eruptions, tsunami and tornadoes are considered dangerous and might lead to death.
So you're claim that science is just "observance of natural phenomenon" which is incomplete. You test with methods to learn and come to conclusions. Observing is not testing with scientific method.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
Science is how we got the atom bomb, invitro fertilization (heck we can do what God can't for couples who can't have kids "naturally") etc.
One, your claim of doing what "God can't" is quite spurious, especially with testimonies (past and present) of God blessing people having fertility problems with children.
Second, how we got the atom bomb and other things is simply by observing God's natural laws, using God's natural resources, and applying His principles of things like physics. Hence, the reason we have the term "DISCOVERY"; man has simply (or finally) learned what God has known all along.
Josephus was a traitor to his own country and did anything to save his ass at the expense of others. Tell me about the other 2.
Josephus' being a traitor has little to do with his documentation of the Exodus, from earlier existing source. Nor does that save your false claim of there being no extra-Biblical documentation of the Exodus.
Lol, I mentioned Noah and his family. ::) And now we're to believe that all the races of the Earth are repopulated because of these 8? Who were African and Asian in Noah's clan? As well as Spanish, Norwegian, Inuit, Samoan,....... and of course sharing family genes without defects?
Why not? You believe that human "evolved" from other creatures, which in turn, came from a common ancestor (whatever that is). That would mean that, at some level, you would have the very same INTERBREEDING that you decry, as it relates to the descendants of Noah.
Dude you said there were 8 survivors. To make let's say just 100,000 population from the same family tree. Our genes haven't changed in thousands of years going back. This is not an assumption, this is from studies of the early years of humans (not chimps). And yes inbreeding happened in clans of early people. There are skull deformation fossils to prove it. However, unlike your story of 8 people repopulating the earth, we know of hundreds of humans in different parts of the world. Evolution is something you don't believe, so to explain it to you would be a waste of time.
Okay, explain how you get second cousins when the survivors of the ark would have children. The children would all be 1st cousins. The only way a second cousin would come about is if an "outside" person were to procreate with them. Which of course didn't happen according to your story of the flood. So back to square one.
That goes back to what I've said earlier. If you believe that humans evolved from chimps, which in turn evolved from some other critter, from another critter, and ultimately from one common ancestor, that means that at the earliest level, there is INTERBREEDING.
Not all birds fly. Penguins and ostriches are examples. Their bone structures are similar more to mammals than that of their bird cousins. Think about it.
Never claimed that all birds did fly. Regardless, they're still birds.
Which makes it a great story to pass to different cultures and let them translate it the way they want. Stories are proof that the event happened.
Ummmm.....the event in question is a global flood. So, you've pretty much stated what I said earlier about all these cultures acknowledging that, at some point in Earth's history, a global FLOOD destroyed the planet.
I'm sure Jesus is "talking" to ones that will be saved. BTW, have you ever had God speak to you? Not in a dream mind you, since dreams seem real but we know it's fantasy in our minds. but really spoken to you while you were concious?
Does it matter? But, to answer your question, YES!!
People didn't think, it's what they were told by media.
What media told them that AIDS was a punishment from God?
Wrong. Africa has the largest population of AIDS in the world and it's not from homosexual activity, but heterosexual activity. That's why as many females have it as males.
Ummmm...did you not read what I posted. I said those reports are from the CDC, with regards to carriers of AIDS in THE UNITED STATES. Gay/bisexual men still lead the pack as far as those who carry the affliction are concerned.
As for Africa, read that again. Gay/bisexual men. Hence the reason, the black community has coined the term "down low" (i.e. black men who have sex with men on the sneak, and then have sex with their girlfriends or wives).
Again the majority of slaves in Egypt weren't Hebrew, but poor Egyptians themselves. Coincidence happens more than people think. We just got out local paper where a picture of myself and daughter are in. People at the gym joked about me being famous. How did the pic get in there. I was buying lunch and gas in a shopping center and was asked to participate. I wasnt' "supernatural" urged to be there because of this. It's just coincidence it happened. Just like when I won $500 in the lottery. No special reason it happened.
Yet, you have NOT demonstrated that the plagues that hit Egypt were a coincidence, or why the Hebrews would be released if Pharoah thought such was the case.
This has been great debating this, but it's getting old because we can go in circles all day and never agree. I'm sure you and I have spent a lot of time looking up stuff. The title of this thread still has to be answered logically.
I beg to differ. Your whole point of starting this thread was to contend that God doesn't exist, because He doesn't heal amputees. You, however, have not supported that case. You show no correlation that He must heal amputees or He does not exist (notwitstanding the reference to Jesus' healing the guard, whose ear Peter cut off).
What God does or doesn't do has no bearing on His existence. That's the point.
-
What God does or doesn't do has no bearing on His existence. That's the point.
Not according to Christians though. Faith healing, good fortune and saving of their lives are attributed to God, even though it's just coincidence. It gourds me when a Christian says things like, "Wow, that hurricane just missed us! God is great!", but along the way it killed 1,200 other people.
This past summer, while we were already in CA, my wife and I were talking about how tough it might be to come back home for Christmas in CA. (I go back every 6 months) due to the cost of fuel. It means so much to us to be with family every holiday. At the airport on our way back to VA, our flight was canceled, but there was another flight that replaced it. Problem was the flight was already overbooked and though we might get seats, we wouldn't sit together. However they offered future flight tickets for anyone willing to give up their seats for a later flight in the day, 3 hours later. Well to ensure we sat together and got FREE tickets, we gave up our 3 seats. Not only did we sit together, but because of my wife's flight status, we moved up to first class. And when we got to the airport, our luggage was already there since it was already on the original flight so no wait time on the carousel. All in all it really only cost us about, 2 hours in longer time, since the original flight took off late anyway. So now we have round trip return tickets that can be used anytime as long as we use them in a years time! Was I "praying" for it to happen? Nope.
When I told one of my Christian friends at the gym about it he said, "Wow, God was watching out for you." I told him that it wasn't God watching out for me, since I'm an atheist, but COINCIDENCE that all of that happened. Common sense told me it was a good deal so we took it. Did God mysteriously make the plane have engine trouble so I could get the free tickets? If I was a Christian telling this story, they would attribute it to it when it was just COINCIDENCE that it happened. It happens more than anyone thinks.
-
Not according to Christians though. Faith healing, good fortune and saving of their lives are attributed to God, even though it's just coincidence. It gourds me when a Christian says things like, "Wow, that hurricane just missed us! God is great!", but along the way it killed 1,200 other people.
If that were the case, you wouldn’t have the words of Job, “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away; blessed be the name of the Lord”. He worshipped God when he had everything and he did so when he LOST nearly everything.
To this day, Christians serve the Lord, regardless of good fortune or bad fortune. Through death, illness, poverty, and everything in between, their acknowledgment of a Sovereign God does not change.
Therefore, your conclusions remain inaccurate and incomplete.
-
If that were the case, you wouldn’t have the words of Job, “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away; blessed be the name of the Lord”. He worshipped God when he had everything and he did so when he LOST nearly everything.
To this day, Christians serve the Lord, regardless of good fortune or bad fortune. Through death, illness, poverty, and everything in between, their acknowledgment of a Sovereign God does not change.
Therefore, your conclusions remain inaccurate and incomplete.
Lol, by serving you mean just going on with their lives pretending that they are really doing what he wants, but just really satisfying themselves in their own life? Apparently there are millions of "Christians" in the US, but not millions of volunteers to help the less fortunate.
-
Lol, by serving you mean just going on with their lives pretending that they are really doing what he wants, but just really satisfying themselves in their own life? Apparently there are millions of "Christians" in the US, but not millions of volunteers to help the less fortunate.
Unfortunately, you are correct about people satisfying themselves in their own life. But, you are also throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. Furthermore, there are millions of volunteers that help the less fortunate. And, you'll find that the lion's share of them are Christians, who do many humanitarian deeds through their church. They have food banks; they volunteer in homeless shelters; they aid with disaster relief; they mentor "at-risk" youth in the inner cities. And that's just the short list.
Granted, there's more that can be done. But, more often than not, you'll see Christians at the forefront of such projects.
-
Unfortunately, you are correct about people satisfying themselves in their own life. But, you are also throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. Furthermore, there are millions of volunteers that help the less fortunate. And, you'll find that the lion's share of them are Christians, who do many humanitarian deeds through their church. They have food banks; they volunteer in homeless shelters; they aid with disaster relief; they mentor "at-risk" youth in the inner cities. And that's just the short list.
Granted, there's more that can be done. But, more often than not, you'll see Christians at the forefront of such projects.
But shouldn't it be ALL Christians that help the unfortunate. I give credit to the ones that do, but don't you think that the problem might be on a much smaller scale if there were more participation? Again, one thing I noticed when I was a Catholic was the money that was donated to help people, only came from about 30% of the whole congregation. What about the other 70%? I'm sure those numbers reflect other denominations too. It's one thing if your are struggling with money, but through right "prayers" and following scriptures, that shouldn't happen to the majority, right?
-
But shouldn't it be ALL Christians that help the unfortunate. I give credit to the ones that do, but don't you think that the problem might be on a much smaller scale if there were more participation? Again, one thing I noticed when I was a Catholic was the money that was donated to help people, only came from about 30% of the whole congregation. What about the other 70%? I'm sure those numbers reflect other denominations too. It's one thing if your are struggling with money, but through right "prayers" and following scriptures, that shouldn't happen to the majority, right?
Should they? YES!! Do they? Sadly, NO!!!
-
Should they? YES!! Do they? Sadly, NO!!!
So then this question comes to mind: How many Christians do you think really follow their religion with true commitment? I for one feel almost all the Catholic families I know don't follow it with commitment, but just with good intentions. Their thinking is just attending Mass, staying out of trouble with the law and basically being good to people is good enough. And I'm betting that many other denominations are no different. So how do you determine whom is really a TRUE Christian and one that just carries a label? I'm sure that if you went out today and just ran a survey to random Christians of where Christianity has it's roots, that more than 80% wouldn't know. So aren't they just masses following the masses?
-
So then this question comes to mind: How many Christians do you think really follow their religion with true commitment? I for one feel almost all the Catholic families I know don't follow it with commitment, but just with good intentions. Their thinking is just attending Mass, staying out of trouble with the law and basically being good to people is good enough. And I'm betting that many other denominations are no different. So how do you determine whom is really a TRUE Christian and one that just carries a label? I'm sure that if you went out today and just ran a survey to random Christians of where Christianity has it's roots, that more than 80% wouldn't know. So aren't they just masses following the masses?
Ultimately, the Lord makes that determination. He knows why people do the good works that they do.
Based on your background, your frustration seems to be more with Catholicism, in particular, than with Christianity in general. I will say this. Often, the trials of life can separate the tares from the wheat.
Some people are hardly seen at church, when things are going alright. But, when they get slammed, they're back in the sanctuary, confessing their sins before the Lord.
Others are the exact opposite. With the bills paid, the marriage wonderful, and the children obedient, they're hooping, hollering, and shouting to anyone within earshot of how "God is good, all the time and all the time, God is good". But, let some strife hit their life. Let the marriage get rocky, let the foreclosure/eviction notice show up on the door. Let those kids start acting a fool. Then, the praises don't go up quite as often, or as loudly.
I guess, the best (and perhaps the only) way to make an assessment on anyone is consistency: Those who worship the Lord in sunshine and in rain, in abundance and in lack, in good times and in bad times. That may be the toughest part of the Christian walk.
-
This is a extremely touch subject for some. 'christianity'. But to this post it does not seem fair for god to heal some and not others. Just a good question i believe for myself, nothing i would make a big deal about. of course i'm not sure exactly if it is the will of 'god' to heal people's ailments or if its just coincidence?? Medical science has come a long.... way over the years. Don't push the thought aside that maybe a higher power above us could be watching over us and maybe helping us out when we're down. But staying on the topic if i were an amputee i would feel left out of the miracle recieving. I have heard time and time again i prayed about this and God came through for me, whether it was for a job, car, bills, sickness, spouse having an addiction, whatever the case they seemed to have recieved their miracle.. Don't want to say i'm right or i'm wrong. Nor do i say someone else has it wrong. I think there's more to our existance than we can imagine. And this vicious religion circle some seem to get caught up in just kinda makes life harder for everyone! I Just Say Follow Your Heart. Thats my two cents to any sorta religion debates.
-
Ultimately, the Lord makes that determination. He knows why people do the good works that they do.
Based on your background, your frustration seems to be more with Catholicism, in particular, than with Christianity in general. I will say this. Often, the trials of life can separate the tares from the wheat.
Some people are hardly seen at church, when things are going alright. But, when they get slammed, they're back in the sanctuary, confessing their sins before the Lord.
Others are the exact opposite. With the bills paid, the marriage wonderful, and the children obedient, they're hooping, hollering, and shouting to anyone within earshot of how "God is good, all the time and all the time, God is good". But, let some strife hit their life. Let the marriage get rocky, let the foreclosure/eviction notice show up on the door. Let those kids start acting a fool. Then, the praises don't go up quite as often, or as loudly.
I guess, the best (and perhaps the only) way to make an assessment on anyone is consistency: Those who worship the Lord in sunshine and in rain, in abundance and in lack, in good times and in bad times. That may be the toughest part of the Christian walk.
I use Catholicism because that was my raising, however I have had other religions try to indoctrinate me as well. One is one that my older brother (whom is gay) attends now. They don't know he's gay and he's never mentioned it to anyone of that church. Of course my response to him is if they ever found out, they would kick him out immediately even with all the volunteer work, money and worship he has done. He finds peace with it because he believes the church is the true church of God based on it's doctrines. They don't celebrate Christmas, Easter or any pagan holidays. No gambling, no drinking, and no belief in the Holy Trinity, etc. Here's more info on them, I think you'll find it interesting :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iglesia_ni_Cristo
Of course when I questioned the pastor who was trying to answer my questions, he referred back to scriptures that solidified his claims. One for example is that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all separate. That Jesus is not God, that the Holy Spirit is not God. Of course there are also conflicting scriptures to counter it, but he never acknowledged those. You can read more on it.
Anyway from your last statement, I will say that there are many Christians who are without real faith. Just the label. I mentioned before about divorce rate numbers being the same with non Christians as Christians. To me it's obvious that these Christians didn't have faith or they would find a way to make it work. And yes there are many that don't sway at all, and others that profess just to make it look like they are Christian when in turn they don't follow their religion much at all. Athletes come to mind on this. This is part of the reason I say that there are a lot of followers who just follow because it's what they knew growing up, without any realization of what their religion requires from them. Whether Catholic, Protestant, etc., I think the numbers are on the higher end of those that don't know compared to those that really do know what's expected and follow it.
-
This is a extremely touch subject for some. 'christianity'. But to this post it does not seem fair for god to heal some and not others. Just a good question i believe for myself, nothing i would make a big deal about. of course i'm not sure exactly if it is the will of 'god' to heal people's ailments or if its just coincidence?? Medical science has come a long.... way over the years. Don't push the thought aside that maybe a higher power above us could be watching over us and maybe helping us out when we're down. But staying on the topic if i were an amputee i would feel left out of the miracle recieving. I have heard time and time again i prayed about this and God came through for me, whether it was for a job, car, bills, sickness, spouse having an addiction, whatever the case they seemed to have recieved their miracle.. Don't want to say i'm right or i'm wrong. Nor do i say someone else has it wrong. I think there's more to our existance than we can imagine. And this vicious religion circle some seem to get caught up in just kinda makes life harder for everyone! I Just Say Follow Your Heart. Thats my two cents to any sorta religion debates.
One of the biggest concerns I have about religion is it's hold on devoted people for the wrong reason. I have quite a few Muslim friends, and they are concerned how they are viewed because of the radicals. These radicals are no different then Hitler. They use the religion of Islam to propagate the destruction of the Israel, Britain and the US. And like Hitler, they are really pounding this radicalism into today's youth. They tell them to fight and kill in the name of Allah because it's what they are supposed to do. My Muslim friends have told me that that's not what Islam is really about. Like some other religions that use scripture from their books to clarify that their goals are right, the radicals use chosen scriptures from the Koran to bend the minds of the young to follow what they want done.
And all religion has some political power. If your candidate has as belief in God and the opposing doesn't, whether the candidate is worthy or not of the position, Christians will vote over that one, than the one whom doesn't just because they share that in common.
I say your common sense will lead you in the right direction if you really leave your mind open. I have friends now whom are praying not to lose their homes, when in retrospect if they didn't live beyond their means, they wouldn't have the problem.