This is but a prime example of what I said some time ago. If he's admitting anything, it's what tends to be the case with a lot of atheists: They don't fare that well, on a level playing field, or when the deck isn't so stacked in their favor. Again, it's "safety in numbers".

Basically, Trapezkerl couldn't back up his words or stand on his own merit. So, he ran, like a thief in the night, to that other site, inviting me there, with the hope that his skeptic buddies could curse and spew me into submission.

As for Ishtar, she basically asked my why I believe the Bible to be the word of God. When I gave her my answer, she later claimed that I did not convince her, nor did I give her a "good" reason.

Take Trapezkerl; pop a few ephedrine pills with some caffeine in him; and you basically have Minimalist, a foul-mouthed guy, with conspiracy theories out the wazoo, with little to support them, other than his come-hell-or-high-water stance that "The Christians made it all up". (i.e. he has flung accusations of forgery, left and right, when it comes to the non-Christian references to Jesus).

But, much like Trapzekerl, his sizzle outweighs his steak. And as for Trapzekerl, it's business as usual. When he can't back his smack, here, he'll flee there to get some soothing and an skeptic recharge.

BTW - Ishtar is a woman, who (unlike Trapezkerl and Minimalist) is actually a somewhat civil person, despite that potshot at the end of her post.

More like getting a hearty laugh!!! As I suspected all along, you invited me to that site, hoping the "safety-in-numbers" thing would hide the fact that you couldn't stand behind your claims here.

It's no different on that other site, as far as you're concerned. As for the guy on whom you primarily keep banking to perform this alleged "schooling", he has done little more than make a bunch of conspiracy theories and wild claims of forgery, with little to support his claims except for his anger-fueled, profane-laced stance of "The Christians made it all up" (or the stuff often found on atheist websites, such as "infidels.org").

There are some civil folks there, some of whom made some good points. Minimalist ain't one of them. Once you carve through all his cussing, it's easy to see why.

BTW, To Ozmo and Pole, the link in question is on his "Great Site on the Invented Town of Nazareth" thread.

Of course, he mentions it. He quotes Jesus as predicting that the Temple WOULD BE (as in future tense) destroyed. That is no indication that such was written after the fact.


And I loved your feeble attempt to use atheist propaganda to try and discredit Luke. BTW, that census isn't supposed. It's documented in Res Gestae.


Ishtar asked me why I believe the Bible is the word of God, which I answered. Furthermore, unless she's has a recent post that I missed, I don't recall her mentioning any prophecies (or things of that nature) made in the Vedas that have been historically documented as coming to pass.

The response is the same as the last time you brought it up: He created man with FREE WILL, which includes the ability to disobey Him (and to suffer the consequence of such).

To top it all off, while the Gospels have Jesus making the prediction about the Temple and the fate of Jerusalem, none of the Gospels confirm that such a prediction came to pass, which is one thing that support that they were written 1st century A.D., shortly after Jesus' lifetime, as opposed to 200 A.D. or later, as some skeptics have claimed.


Yet, Mark doesn't state that Jesus' prophecy about the Temple came to pass (neither does Matthew).

The "best minds in the world" have yet to cure cancer, AIDS, and host of other diseases. What's your point? With that said, it often takes centuries to find ancient artifacts. For example, it wasn't until the 19th century that cuneiform evidence was found, confirming the existence of Belshazzar, whose name was virtually unknown, outside the Bible.

Not that it matters, anyway, as every time scholars find evidence the does confirm the existence of people, places, and certain events in the Bible, you and many of your skeptic brethren (after bouts of profane hissy-fits) start breaking out the excuses and conspiracy theories. You've done that several times with items that include (but are not limited to):

- The non-Christian references to Jesus Christ
- Archaeological evidence for Nazareth
- Archaeological evidence supporting the Exodus (which would even include that special, done by National Geographic, in which scientists attempt to link the plagues on Egypt with certain natural disasters).


So, excuse me, if I seriously doubt that any more evidence backing such events/people/places would make one shred of difference, as far as your mindset goes.


Again, neither you nor your buddy on the other forum have established why such was (or is) necessary. Plus, that leaves you with the task of explaining:

 - Why Origen would claim that Josephus did not recognize Jesus as the Christ, after reading Book 18 of the Antiquities (and perhaps Book 20), if Josephus made no reference to Jesus Christ at all.

 - Why an interpolator would add a mere two references to Jesus Christ, playing up His divinity in just one of them.



Correction: Competent scholars argue against the authenticity of the entire passage (the first one, anyway); but, as the reference (that Loco has so graciously provided on multiple occasions) suggests, the consensus is that Josephus DID make reference to Jesus Christ in the Antiquities.



Much of the evidence, as I pointed out to you some time ago, comes from second-hand sources, the earliest extant copies of which date centuries after those rulers' reported lifetimes. Such doesn't seem to be a problem, UNLESS it concerns one Jesus Christ. Then, all of a sudden, it has to be during His lifetime, or it's conspiracies galore. Then, there's the minor fact that Caesar and Alexander were earthly monarchs; while Jesus Christ was not, nor was He "the most important man in a loincloth in the hisotry of the world", during 1st century A.D. That is a status that, to many, He holds now and has held for centuries since then, hence a reason why we reference time as B.C. and A.D.


Hmmmmm.....I guess the fact that Jesus Christ was executed as a criminal MIGHT have had something to do some of that. Once again, Herod was an earthly king; Jesus was not. Of course, that has little to do with whether or not Jesus Christ actually existed.  Regardless, there were first century A.D. writers who wrote about Jesus, which include (despite your conspiratory claims to the contary) Josephus and Tacitus.


At one time, there were a number of things "NOT documented elsewhere by anyone" (the town of Nazareth, Belshazzar, the Hittites, etc.). But, this archaeology thing has a funny way of validating Scripture and tripping up skeptics.

Proven by whom? MAN!!! Hence, there's no issue by my saying that MAN cannot created nor destroy energy.

What's been "proven over and over" is that he can't do it, NOT that it can't be done.


Scientists don't know THAT abiogenesis has occured, and many (including the one, whose quote I included) have admitted as such. And, they've also admitted that the reason they still hold to evolution is because IF THEY DO NOT, THEY MUST CONCEDE TO THE CONCEPT OF SUPERNATURAL CREATION.

Therefore, to use Wald's words, it's a "philosophical necessity" that they believe in evolution.

Counter whose point? If you're going to do the cut-and-paste routine, at least cite your source.

An all-loving and all-loving God created His being with this little thing called FREE WILL, the one thing that seems to escape your mindset.

In the end, it's HIS creation, not yours or mine. That means He can do what He wants with what is His, whether you (or I) like it or not.

That's what got you in trouble, in the first place. How many more times are you atheists going to wail about something in the Bible being false, only to dine on crow (extra crispy), once discoveries show the Bible's accounts to be valid? As it is, you guys are already doing the two-step with the supposedly non-existent town of Nazareth. And, don't let Loco remind you......AGAIN......of how many times skeptics have been burned, when archaeological finds have supported the Biblical accounts.


Lots of people care, and the historical validation over the centuries have shown it to be true, thus making its comforting value quite significant. It's also what makes you (and a ton of other skeptics) MAD beyond belief. Christianity is simple one nut you can't crack, period.

BTW, In what bizarro universe did this alleged owning happened?

The mere fact that you invited me to that site shows how feeble your arguments were (and still are).

Rather than stand on your own two feet and make your points on your own, you ran like a punk, hoping that Minimalist (among others) would save your hide. In fact, one poster (Whore of Babylon) is actually complaining that after you invited me to that site, you've yet to address me head on, with regards to certain topics.

But, of course, I knew from the get-go that your invitation was merely of your playing the "safety-in-numbers" game, with the foolish belief that a bunch of foul-mouthed, condescending, overbearing atheists would brow-beat me into submission and show that "Fundy" MCWAY who's boss.

That didn't happen, because just as it is in your case, all one has to do is carve through the cussing and bleating, get to the meat-and-potatoes of the matter, and go to work, refuting such silliness with cold hard facts.

Those would be your words, not mine. What you missed is the point that evolution was intentionally crafted for a godless explanation for life on this planet. But, don't take my words for it:

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. - George Wald, The origin of life"  Scientific American   August 1954

A need or philosophical (NOT SCIENTIFIC) necessity to believe in spontaneous generation serves but one purpose: A blatant refusal to acknowledge the Almighty God.

I know Wald wasn't an astrophysicist, but he was from Harvard. 

I made no claim that God started life and left it to evolution. Or did you forget that I believe in Creation?


And, you'll fall by those same claims. As for your allegedly explaining abiogenesis, GOOD LUCK!!! The last guys that tried had their hearts broken by one Louis Pasteur. Based on that, and the futile attempts of others, I don't like your chance.

Do you realize what you've just said? You just claimed that the "universe" and "matter" have always existed and is eternal. Yet, you have a cow, when Christians claim the same about God.

It's a tad hard for man to prove that matter has always existed, since even by "goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo" rules MAN HIMSELF has not always existed.

And, as I've stated before, it is man, who cannot create nor destroy energy. Those are natural laws. A supernatural deity, who is the source of such laws, can manipulate them as He sees fit.

You criticize others for believing in someone eternal, yet you believe in something eternal. So much for "logic" and "reason".

YAAAAAAAAAAWN!!!!!

Pole has managed to cut and paste a long-winded diatribe, that reflects his often whiny emotional tirades about how God isn't a loving God, because He judges sin and sinful behavior.

WAAAH, WAAAAH, WAAAAAH!!!! God is a great big meanie!!!!

I actually thought this was something interesting.

But, since I'm either bored out of my skull (winding down after Super Bowl 42) or I'm a glutton for punishment, I will actually address some of this atheist hissy-fit.


They would also understand that:

1) They have nothing documenting that Mt. Everest wasn't covered on Earth or even that Mt. Everest as we know it now was standing immediately before or after the Flood.

2) No one ever claimed that the Ark carried "the million of species that are now found on Earth". Quite the opposite, in Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study, the author claims that Noah would have had needed (at best) about 16,000 animals in the Ark. And, thanks to selective breeding that the little thing called "natural selection", animals can do what they do best: reproduce after their own kind.


Whoever wrote this gibberish apparently forgot that God (through Noah) gave mankind about 120 years to repent of their sins, as "the thoughts of man were only evil continuously".


Whoever assumed that is dead wrong. Perhaps, he should consider this question: WHy would a "mass murder" give His victims TWELVE DECADES TO REPENT and potentially spare them of their deserved fate, for violating His laws on a continued basis?


1) Christians don't accept a "mass-murderer". They accept the almight and soveriegn God.

2)  A loving and perfect being can give people the opportunity to repent of their transgressions (no matter how severe), spare them, and redeem them. That, O misinformed Pole (or whoever penned this silliness) is one reason why Christians worship him. If mankind refuses to accept such grace, then they received the fate metted upon them. BTW, when did Hitler offer to forgive the Jews, or blacks, or anyone who wasn't part of his so-called "master race"?



AHHHH YESSS!!! Here is the usual atheist tomfoolery of taking Bible texts way out of context and NOT posting the whole story in their infantile "God is a big meanie" rants.

Once again, the author "conveniently" forget that Israel was enslaved for 400 years, which included the killing of Israel's young boys as the population was growing too numerous. And, the famous words of Moses "conveniently" disappear from the memory of skeptics galore, LET MY PEOPLE GO!!!

I guess Team Skeptic expects us to forget that Pharoah had a mere NINE chances to release the Israelites, before the tenth (and most devastating plague) hits Egypt.


More of the same fluff!!!!

Let's recap how these women led Israel to act treacherously: If I recall, the Midianites were enemies of Israel, who assaulted them on multiple occasions. As Israel kept defeating them, the king of the Midianites figured, the only way he could subdue the Israelites was if the protective hand of God were not with them. One way to do that was to have the Israelites violate commandment #1 (Thou shalt have no other gods before Me). And what better way to get Israel's men to commit apostasy, than use the Midianite women to lure them into perverted sexual rituals, in worship of the Midianite god(s).


Last time I checked, this sounds like one of the prophecies, concerning the fall of Babylon, as the Medes and Persians knocked them off in 539 B.C. If that's the case, then what we have is a preview of the world history.



Ummmm.....last time I checked, HEROD was responsible for what happened in this account from Matthew. This, by the way, was the same account Columbusdude claimed didn't happen, after I used it to refute his claim that the accounts about Jesus' early life in Matthew and Luke were contradictory.

And, Herod did this, because he felt that Jesus was a threat to his ruling Judea. He called for this edict, becasue all he knew about Jesus (the perceved threat) was that He was born in Bethlehem two years prior to the wise men's arrival.

I missed a few of the bleatings covered here. But, basically, you get the point.

The bottom line is this: People believe in this God, because He is the Creator of Earth. He sent Jesus here to redeem man and give us a chance at eternal life. The Gospel has offered hopes to millions of those in despair, peace in times of trouble, and joy in times of sorrow.

It is the greatest message on Earth. And, whether some of these self-proclaimed "enlightened", "free-thinking", or "bright" blowhards, often called atheists, like it or not, the God we serve reigns supreme. The frustration builds for them, because despite their best efforts, they CANNOT "rationalize" or "reason" Him out of existence.

Pophyry couldn't do it. Darwin couldn't do it; O'Hair couldn't it. Neither Dawkins nor Hitchens can do it. And, whatever atheist flavor-of-the-month succeeds them won't do it.

And, I don't get why people get all bent out of shape about those who want to vote on marriage amendments.

Whether you think there's a "clear and present danger" or not has no bearing on the issue. You can vote on it or skip it. Doing the former doesn't mean that particular issue is the dominant focus of your life or voting priorities.

Plenty of people don't make minimum wages. That doesn't mean that their voting on minimum wages law equates to that law being their sole (or major) focus in their political spectrum.

First of all, get your story straight. There is no teaching Creationism as science. The idea is to present two ideas as to the ORIGIN of life on this planet. Show the evidence, supporting both, and let the kids make an educated decision as to which is more sound for themselves.

That's the old "critical thinking" stuff, which atheists seem to think is used solely when people reject their religious belief.

Back to the issue at hand, we don't have mob rule or snob rule, especially when it comes to the latter. Our system is designed so that a bunch of stuck-up elitist and "enlightened" folks don't dictate policy to us, without our say-so. The system is far from perfect (Massachusetts is a prime example of that).

"Pre-occupied" and "distracted" from what? This may come as a surprise to you. But, people can actually vote on multiple issues, come election day. It took all of FIVE MINUTES for me to download the form and sign it (and that's because my computer's slow). Heck, I left the thing on my desk for nearly a week, before I actually mailed it. I don't that took a huge chunk out of my life.

If "most people don't care", then "most people" won't vote on the matter (or will simply put "Yes" or "No" just to fill in the space) and move forward to their issue of choice.

Again, this idea by some that those who vote on this issue do so, at the expense of other issues, is just silly.

His claim was that God was not needed to explain the origin of life.


If "we" don't know, then the possibility of "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth....." is still in play. And, that's what I believe. But, in your case, and that of Pole, it's not about "not knowing"; it's about not wanting to acknowledge the divine, under any circumstances.

Yep, like two big rocks, smashing together 5-billion years ago, making a pile of goo, that acidentally and randomly turned into this critter, which acidentally/randomly turned into that critter, etc., etc., etc.......until, somehow, someway (with no divine guidance or direction, of course), we get....MAN!!!

Tell that to the voters in Florida.


It's a Democratic Republic. And how sweeeeeeeeeeet it is!!!!!

The key is the keeping a delicate balance, so that the many don't rule the few and the few don't rule the many!!

In other words, no "mob rule" or "snob rule"

....as well as pick and choose when to enforce their own state's constitution.

Try that again!!! It's your being bothered by Colossus voting on such an issue (and that happens in a ballot box).


That's the way we like in the USA. So, we'll keep it that way, if you don't mind....or even if you do.

No more weirder than why what he does (or would do) in the privacy of the ballot box would bother you.

That's why we have this thing called DEMOCRACY, where more people than just the two of you (and like-minded folk) can decide what is or isn't necessary or outdated.

If it bugs you that much, you can join Trapezkerl and crusade to get a ban on marriage put on the ballot of the state in which you reside (assuming you live in the USA).

Well, our government happens to do that for married couples. And, any who play by the one-man-one-woman rules can get them, including you.

If it bugs you that much, get the paperwork out and start a petiton to ban marriage (or at least, marriage entitlements).