Why won't God do a miracle and heal amputees?

[Oldschool Flip]

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

[loco]

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.

[Oldschool Flip]

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.

[MCWAY]

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.
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.

[MCWAY]

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).

[Oldschool Flip]

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?

[Oldschool Flip]

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.

[MCWAY]

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


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.

[Oldschool Flip]

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


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.

[MCWAY]

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. 

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.

[Oldschool Flip]

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. 

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.

[MCWAY]

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

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.

[Oldschool Flip]

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

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.

[MCWAY]

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.

[Oldschool Flip]

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.

[MCWAY]

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.

[Oldschool Flip]

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.

[MCWAY]

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.

[Oldschool Flip]

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?

[MCWAY]

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!!!

[Oldschool Flip]

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?

[MCWAY]

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.

[sweet_thang]

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.

[Oldschool Flip]

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.

[Oldschool Flip]

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.