Do you believe the story the earth is only 6000 years old? What is your reference for this belief and can you explain it rationally?
I know of the biblical references that supposedly support this belief, but as I have explained many times on this site- I am a believer in the bible but I don't take everything in the bible as literal fact. It is evident much of the bible is allegory and metaphor meant to convey a message. Where things get tricky is knowing what is factual and what is not. Keep in mind that in 1616 Galileo was chastised and imprisoned by the church for heresy because he believed the earth and all the planets revolved around the sun instead of the earth being the center of the universe, as the church believed at the time. There are myriad examples over time that show discrepancies in biblical stories but I don't feel that should affect the true meaning that is being conveyed by biblical stories.
To further complicate this discussion, what other discrepancies in church teachings or biblical stories have you read that disprove some of the church beliefs but are insufficient to dim your belief in God's written word or has impacted your view of how to envision the Bible and, in the larger picture , your view of Christianity over the millennia.
I think we have beat the Moses and the Ark story to death a bit already...
Keep in mind that in 1616 Galileo was chastised and imprisoned by the church for heresy because he believed the earth and all the planets revolved around the sun instead of the earth being the center of the universe, as the church believed at the time.
Also keep in mind that at that time, the RCC was anything BUT Christian. The Inquisition was totally Satanic and the church was all about power and money. They wouldn't allow anything that might decrease their power and influence over the governments of Europe.
Gee think about it... if God was to make the earth to support life as it is right now and as He intended, he would have had to create a "old earth" or an earth as it is right now. Hmm... if there was fruit in the garden of Eden then the plants and trees had to be created "old" as we call them... I do not see a 5 day old tree producing fruit... God also had to create layers of earth for things to live in and the nutrients in the soil to support the life on the earth... I certainly believe God had knowledge that we would - could use oil as we do and thus created it... not just some chance happening over a billion years.
No. IIRC at one time scientists to the best of their knowledge thought that the Earth was 500 million years old. Then someone else said it is likely 1 billion years old. Then another guy looked at it and said it should be 2 billion. Presently the best scientific minds think it is about 4.5 billion years old. The only question is when will the next scientist come up with another age.
Do you believe the story the earth is only 6000 years old? What is your reference for this belief and can you explain it rationally?
I know of the biblical references that supposedly support this belief, but as I have explained many times on this site- I am a believer in the bible but I don't take everything in the bible as literal fact. It is evident much of the bible is allegory and metaphor meant to convey a message. Where things get tricky is knowing what is factual and what is not. Keep in mind that in 1616 Galileo was chastised and imprisoned by the church for heresy because he believed the earth and all the planets revolved around the sun instead of the earth being the center of the universe, as the church believed at the time. There are myriad examples over time that show discrepancies in biblical stories but I don't feel that should affect the true meaning that is being conveyed by biblical stories.
To further complicate this discussion, what other discrepancies in church teachings or biblical stories have you read that disprove some of the church beliefs but are insufficient to dim your belief in God's written word or has impacted your view of how to envision the Bible and, in the larger picture , your view of Christianity over the millennia.
I think we have beat the Moses and the Ark story to death a bit already...
You are obviously trying to push me out of my job.
I have no idea how old the Earth is. I am a follower of Christ. There are lots of things I do not know. I believe what the Bible teaches. I further believe the Bible is not a complete history of everything that ever happened.
There is a mountain of evidence, but secularists and weak Christians accept faith in men instead of God's Word. Creationists can explain why fossils, coal, oil, and even diamonds still have carbon 14 in them. Evolutionists have to appeal to a rescuing device.
As far as the present age of the earth: Look up info on the meteorite Allende (pronounced ah-yen-day). What a joke! It is used to date the earth!
I don't care if the earth is 6000 years old or 6 billion years old. I don't care if God created the earth in 6 billion years or 6 days. It doesn't really matter, and I have more important things to worry about. But I do believe God did it. While I don't know how old the earth is all I have to do is spend a little time walking around on this earth to know it's a lot older than 6000 years and that it took more than six 24-hour time periods to create earth and everything on it.
It's not that the Bible is wrong, it isn't. It's our inability to understand God that is the problem. The Bible is a rough sketch for us to go by. There is a lot more that God didn't tell us than he did and over the last 6000 years we've discovered how some of God's miracles happened. Remember, the men who wrote the Bible were 100% certain the earth was flat because God didn't think it was important for them to know it was round. At this point it isn't important for us to know exactly how old the earth is or how long a day is for God.
No. IIRC at one time scientists to the best of their knowledge thought that the Earth was 500 million years old. Then someone else said it is likely 1 billion years old. Then another guy looked at it and said it should be 2 billion. Presently the best scientific minds think it is about 4.5 billion years old. The only question is when will the next scientist come up with another age.
There is a mountain of evidence, but secularists and weak Christians accept faith in men instead of God's Word. Creationists can explain why fossils, coal, oil, and even diamonds still have carbon 14 in them. Evolutionists have to appeal to a rescuing device.
As far as the present age of the earth: Look up info on the meteorite Allende (pronounced ah-yen-day). What a joke! It is used to date the earth!
Pick any superstitious sect you want and compare its dogma to any other superstitious sect that opposes it. Both of them will fight to the death claiming theirs is the only correct one.
And I hope they do. They've been trying for a few thousand years.
Pick any superstitious sect you want and compare its dogma to any other superstitious sect that opposes it. Both of them will fight to the death claiming theirs is the only correct one.
And I hope they do. They've been trying for a few thousand years.
The Eridu Genesis is written on a Sumerian cuneiform tablet of which about two thirds are now lost.
The Creator Goddess thinks about humankind [1'-9'] Ninturnote was paying attention: "Let me bethink myself of my humankind, all forgotten as they are; and mindful of mine, Nintur's, creatures let me bring them back, let me lead the people back from their trails. Let they come and build cities and cult places, that I may cool myself in their shade; may they lay the bricks for the cult cities in pure spots, and may they found places for divination in pure spots!"
She gave directions for purification, and cries for clemency, the things that cool divine wrath,
[10'ff] perfected the divine service and the august offices, said to the surrounding regions: "Let me institute peace there!"
When An, Enlil, Enki, and Ninhursaga fashioned the dark-headed people, they had made the small animals that came up from out of the earth come from the earth in abundance and had let there be, as befits it, gazelles, wild donkeys, and four-footed beasts in the desert.
[large part lost; perhaps a story of a failed attempt to build a city]
Creation of kingship [32'-40'] ... "and let me have him advise; let me have him oversee their labor, and let him teach the nation to follow like unerringly like cattle!"
When the royal scepter was coming down from heaven, the august crown and the royal throne being already down from heaven, the king regularly performed to perfection the august divine services and offices, and laid the bricks of those cities in pure spots. They were named by name and allotted half-bushel baskets.
The first cities [41'ff] The firstling of the cities, Eridu, she gave to the leader Nudimmud, the second, Bad-Tibira, she gave to the Prince and the Sacred One, the third, Larak, she gave to Pahilsag, the fourth, Sippar, she gave to the gallant Utu, the fifth, Šuruppak, she gave to Ansud.note These cities, which had been named by names, and had been alloted half-bushel baskets, dredged the canals, which were blocked with purplish wind-borne clay, and they carried water, Their cleaning of the canals established abundant growth
[Large part lost, in which the antediluvian kings must have been mentioned. Working in the canals and on the fields, they produced so much noise, that the supreme god Enlil persuaded the other gods to destroy humankind.]
[81'-89'] That day, Nintur wept over her creatures and holy Inanna was fill of grief over her people; but Enki took counsel with his own heart. An, Enlil, Enki, and Ninhursaga had the gods of heaven and earth swear by the names of An and Enlil.
Ziusudra's Vision At that time Ziusudra was king and lustration priest. He fashioned, being a seer, the god of giddinessnote and stood in awe beside it, wording his wishes humbly. As he stood there regularly day after day
[90'-99'] something that was not a dream was appearing: conversation, a swearing of oaths by heaven and earth, a touching of throats,note and the gods bringing their thwarts up to Kiur.
Enki's advice And as Ziusudra stood there beside it, he went on hearing: "Step up to the wall to my left and listen! Let me speak a word to you at the wall and may you grasp what I say, may you heed my advice! By our hand a flood will sweep over the cities of the half-bushel baskets, and the country; the decision, that mankind is to be destroyed, has been made. A verdict, a command of the assembly, can not be revoked,
[100'ff] no order of An and Enlil is known to have been countermanded, their kingship, their term, has been uprooted; they must bethink themselves ... Now ... What I have to say to you ..."
[Lacuna; Enki orders Ziusudra to build the ark and load it with pairs of animals.]
The Flood [132'f] All the evil winds, all stormy winds gathered into one and with them, them, the Flood was sweeping over the cities of the half-bushel baskets, for seven days and seven nights. After the flood had swept over the country, after the evil wind had tossed the big boat about on the great waters, the sun came out spreading light over heaven and earth.
Ziusudra's sacrifice [138'-139'] Ziusudra then drilled an opening in the big boat and the gallant Utu sent his light into the interior of the big boat.
[140'] Ziusudra, being the king, stepped up before Utu kissing the ground before him. The king was butchering oxen, was being lavish with the sheep, barley cakes, crescents together with ... ... he was crumbling for him ... juniper, the pure plant of the mountains he filled on the fire and with a ... clasped to the breast he ...
[Lacuna; Enlil is angry at finding survivors, but Enki explains himself]
End of Enki's speech [175'-178'] "You here have sworn by the life's breath of heaven, the life's breath of earth that he verily is allied with you yourself; you there, An and Enlil, have sworn by the life's breath of heaven, the life's breath of earth, that he is allies with all of you. He will disembark the small animals that come up from the earth!"
Reward of Ziusudra [179'] Ziusudra, being king, stepped up before An and Enlil, kissing the ground, and An and Enlil after honoring him
[180'ff] were granting life like a god's, were making lasting breath of life, like a god's, descend into him. That day they made Ziusudra, preserver, as king, of the small animals and the seed of mankind, live toward the east over the mountains of Dilmun.
In Gen 1:1 it states that in the beginning (beginning of time, God is timeless but creation has a beginning) God created the heavens (the universe) and the earth. No one but God knows the age of the universe or this earth. One thing is clear that the heavens or the universe is older than the earth and so are the angels. In Job 38 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone— while the morning stars sang together and all the angels[a] shouted for joy? So the angels were already created when God created the earth and so were the heavens since angels had to have a place to live. In Gen 1:2 it says that the earth was (in the original became) waste. God did not created this earth a waste and covered with water, since the original says "became" it means that some kind of judgment took place after its creation and then from Gen 1:3 and to the end of the chapter in six days God remade the earth from the wasteland it became. So yes since the remaking of the earth and creation of man is approximately 6k years. If you notice in verse 1 it says God created, that means He called into being something which was not there, but from then on He made, fashioned or formed from pre-existing matter.
Potassium-Argon dating says the earth is a lot older than 6000 years. So do lots of other types of evidence. I'll go with that.
You believe, by faith, there was no daughter product in the beginning. Why? You believe, by faith, no parent product leached in or out for billions of years. Why? You believe, by faith, no daughter product leached in or out for billions of years. Why? You believe, by faith, nothing affected the radio-active rate for billions of years. Why?
Maybe you would like to explain why the ocean is so limited in its salt content.
Why are there almost no meteorites in the geological column?
Why are there only enough novas and super novas for about seven thousand years?
How did information come to be in the DNA molecule without a mind directing it? Even Dr. Crick, who discovered it, said it was to complex to originate by chance. He called it Pan Spermia. He just couldn't accept An Infinite Intelligent Energy call God did it.
In Gen 1:1 it states that in the beginning (beginning of time, God is timeless but creation has a beginning) God created the heavens (the universe) and the earth. No one but God knows the age of the universe or this earth. One thing is clear that the heavens or the universe is older than the earth and so are the angels. In Job 38 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone— while the morning stars sang together and all the angels[a] shouted for joy? So the angels were already created when God created the earth and so were the heavens since angels had to have a place to live. In Gen 1:2 it says that the earth was (in the original became) waste. God did not created this earth a waste and covered with water, since the original says "became" it means that some kind of judgment took place after its creation and then from Gen 1:3 and to the end of the chapter in six days God remade the earth from the wasteland it became. So yes since the remaking of the earth and creation of man is approximately 6k years. If you notice in verse 1 it says God created, that means He called into being something which was not there, but from then on He made, fashioned or formed from pre-existing matter.
The word you used for "became" in Verse Two is the same word used for every day of creation. It certainly does not mean there was some kind of judgement prior each day of creation or prior to Chapter Three when a judgement is mentioned. You are adding to God's Word.
God did whatever he did, and it took whatever time it took or didn’t. As creator of all, including time and the laws of nature, he’s able to do whatever he wants….. within or outside of those constraints.
I’m certainly not going to critique how he chose to describe that to a bunch of Bronze Age (or earlier) nomads living in tents….
Most Christians do not believe the timeline in the Bible is literal. It is not a book on science. Moses was not laying down scientific facts for doctoral students. It's a book about salvation. Apply the principles in the book to your life, or don't. Your choice.
there was no daughter product in the beginning. Why?
The answer is, the parent nuclide & the daughter nuclide can be so chemically different that the crystal containing the parent nuclide will exclude the daughter nuclide at the time of formation.
Quote
no parent product leached in or out for billions of years. Why? nothing affected the radio-active rate for billions of years. Why?
It’s true that most radioactive isotopes and elements have half-lives ranging from microseconds to thousands of years. Any radioactivity left over from those elements has disappeared long, long ago. So how is it that such a long time later, there’s still plenty of radioactivity in the ground? Simple. The most common radioactive elements in the Earth’s crust all have long half lives, which is why they are still present. For example Thorium 232 has a half life of 14 billion years. U-238, the most common isotope of uranium, has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. That’s almost exactly the age of the Earth. Half the U-238 that was in the original material of the Earth is still there.
Quote
Maybe you would like to explain why the ocean is so limited in its salt content.
A paper by Livingstone in 1963 entitled "The sodium cycle and the age of the ocean" presents many reasons for why changing salinity of the sea is neither a consistent process nor expected to be over time and thus is useless as a chronometer. Data collected from 1950 to 2000 concludes that some parts of the ocean have indeed increased their salinity over those years but there are many oceans for which the salinity decreased over the same period of time. It seems that on balance the salinity of the oceans is not changing much at all.
Quote
Why are there almost no meteorites in the geological column?
The Earth actually does have craters, but they may not be as prominent as those on other celestial bodies due to various factors. Erosion, plate tectonics, and the atmosphere can all contribute to the gradual disappearance or masking of impact craters on Earth's surface. Additionally, Earth's active geological processes constantly reshape the planet's surface, further obscuring evidence of past impacts. However, there are still visible impact craters on Earth, such as the Barringer Crater in Arizona and the Chicxulub Crater in Mexico.
Quote
Why are there only enough novas and super novas for about seven thousand years?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You mask a claim as a question. What evidence do you have that there have been too few supernovae? Multiple supernovae are detected every year across the universe. But keep in mind that of the main sequence stars in the galaxy, 80% are M-type red dwarfs which have a lifetime of 200 billion years and masses of that are 20% of the Sun. So, immediately you can exempt those from going supernovae. The same goes for F, G and K-type stars with a mass only 1.5, 1.0 and 0.7 solar masses, respectively. Those classes of stars account for a total of 13.5% of the main sequence stars. O and B-type main sequence stars have masses of 10-50 times the mass of the Sun, so they will definitely go supernovae and become black holes. But collectively, they account for only about 0.1% of all stars.
Read the original post. He said the church taught……. I have not read anywhere in the Bible God saying the Earth was flat or the the Sun revolved around the Earth. That’s man’s distortion. Check out the documentary “Is Genesis History” on Amazon. Explains how “science” is wrong about the geologic processes taking millions of years to form the Grand Canyon, etc.
Any number of millions of years could have come between verse one and verse 2 of Genesis. In verse one God created the earth. Verse 2 should be translated more along the lines of "And the earth became a total devastation." according to the Hebrew.
Think about it just a second. God created the heavens and earth, yet it was without any form, and it was void? It is a simple mistranslation.
Isn't it possible that the fall of Satan and the war in Heaven caused destruction and chaos on earth and then God made man as we know man after the destruction of the old earth. That would answer the question of Neanderthal man and all the human variants. Possibly they were not descended from Adam but were before Adam. Possibly it has only been 6000 years since God made Adam and the earth is much older.
I believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. I believe that the Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God. Everything else is "small stuff" that I am not going to sweat...
In Gen 1:1 it states that in the beginning (beginning of time, God is timeless but creation has a beginning) God created the heavens (the universe) and the earth. No one but God knows the age of the universe or this earth. One thing is clear that the heavens or the universe is older than the earth and so are the angels. In Job 38 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone— while the morning stars sang together and all the angels[a] shouted for joy? So the angels were already created when God created the earth and so were the heavens since angels had to have a place to live. In Gen 1:2 it says that the earth was (in the original became) waste. God did not created this earth a waste and covered with water, since the original says "became" it means that some kind of judgment took place after its creation and then from Gen 1:3 and to the end of the chapter in six days God remade the earth from the wasteland it became. So yes since the remaking of the earth and creation of man is approximately 6k years. If you notice in verse 1 it says God created, that means He called into being something which was not there, but from then on He made, fashioned or formed from pre-existing matter.
The word you used for "became" in Verse Two is the same word used for every day of creation. It certainly does not mean there was some kind of judgement prior each day of creation or prior to Chapter Three when a judgement is mentioned. You are adding to God's Word.
If I am not mistaken what duke61 is describing is called "gap theory" which says that an interval of time passed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Again, if I am not mistaken, the idea has been around a long time, maybe a couple hundred years, so perhaps its not solely an attempt to make the scriptural account of creation shoehorn into working with evolution and carbon dating. How big was the gap? As big as you want it I guess.
Is it true? I don't know, I was not there when God created the earth.
Did God create the earth in some process that causes the matter it consists of to appear to "science" to be a bazillion years old. I don't know, I wasn't there. Could be. It also could be that the procedure "science" uses to date things is flawed. I believe he created it.
Are the 6 days of creation literal 24 hour days? Some, using the verse from 2nd Peter about a day to the Lord being like a thousand years to give as a reason the earth could be bazillions of years old and therefore fit in without too much cognitive dissonance with the mainstream.
All kinds of ways to rationalize or ride the fence if you will.
I'll come to the point. I'm speaking to those of you who claim to be believers. The rest of you stop reading and have a nice day.
You believe that Jesus Christ was born in an extraordinary way, from a virgin mother.
You believe that Jesus Christ performed many great miracles including raising a guy from the dead and feeding 5000 people with a boy's lunch. Walked on water too.
You believe Jesus Christ was subjected to a Roman scourging, crucified, stabbed in the side with a spear, buried in a cave and yet 3 days later rose from the dead for your salvation.
Wouldn't it be easier to believe that a Roman soldier was Jesus's real father, the miracles were myths, and that Jesus really didn't die or his disciples stole his body and made the whole thing up? Or maybe it was all figurative or "allegory". All of these things have been said by unbelievers since day one.
Check your motives regarding what you believe about the origins of the earth. Jesus Christ quoted from Genesis at least a couple of times off the top of my head thus giving it his approval. Do you believe whatever it is you believe about the creation to avoid the persecution of being thought a fool by fools or is it some other reason?
If its the latter, you have problems imo. Its gonna get a lot worse than being laughed at by a fool. What will you do when they come after your money and or freedom? We are at the very brink of that as I type. How much will you compromise?
Paul said, writing to professing Christians, that they should test themselves to see if they are in the faith.
I think that is a good idea, I do it all the time when presented with "issues" of the day. Because at the end of the day, heaven is for believers. We are "saved by faith" but my concern is how half assed can your faith be and still get the job done? How much scripture can you ignore, or allegorize away until it becomes useless?
One of you start a thread asking "DID JESUS CHRIST RISE FROM THE DEAD" and see what you get.
I have no idea how old the Earth is. I am a follower of Christ. There are lots of things I do not know. I believe what the Bible teaches. I further believe the Bible is not a complete history of everything that ever happened.
I believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. I believe that the Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God. Everything else is "small stuff" that I am not going to sweat...
The idea Peter's quote could be used to confuse the issue is ludicrous. Read the context. It's talking about God's patience and wanting all to come to repentance. In the Psalms God says a thousand years is like a watch in the night; which is four hours. Take a look at the following, which comes right out of the Ten Commandments.
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. For six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your resident who stays with you. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Trying to shoehorn a judgement into Genesis One is no different from the unbelievers distorting the rest of the Scripture. By the way, if God's definition of a day in the first day is not clear enough it should be clear enough in the fourth day for even slow people.
Read the original post. He said the church taught……. I have not read anywhere in the Bible God saying the Earth was flat or the the Sun revolved around the Earth. That’s man’s distortion. Check out the documentary “Is Genesis History” on Amazon. Explains how “science” is wrong about the geologic processes taking millions of years to form the Grand Canyon, etc.
I specifically said "The Church" as opposed to quoting the Bible because it is quite evident that the truths of the Bible can and have been twisted or misunderstood by many over time. The hubris of the church leaders at times has distorted the bible and it's true meanings which has caused schisms within the faithful. This was the basis of the Lutheran faithful, among many others that felt the Catholic church at the time was either disregarding the bible or deliberately twisting its meaning for political or monetary gain.
I agree with many of you- the age of the earth, be it 6000 years or 6 Trillion is less important than what the Bible was assembled to teach us about how to live our life to glorify God . However, this old argument continues to come up in conversations here and in my personal interactions with people I know and consider well educated and religious. As adults and believers I think it is wise to be graceful to accept that they believe without ridiculing even if we believe 180 degrees differently and that is what I normally do. I say I "normally" do as there have been times when I have been confronted by militant religious people who feel it is their right to call me "other than acceptable titles" and insult my parentage when this subject comes up. At those times I respond in kind but I wonder if there was a better way to handle this situation in the future- after I calm down.
Faith works both ways- you can believe in God but in effect if you don't believe in the knowledge He has given us to understand our world are you not doubting his plan? If science can demonstrate that they can date objects, stars, the speed of light, and other seemingly impossible tasks just a century ago, was this ability not given to us by God? The rabbit hole is deep...
Where does it say in Bible the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the Earth? Watch “Is Genesis History” by Geologist Steve Austin.
It doesn't. Quite the opposite actually. Isaiah speaking of God, states He who sits above the "circle" of the earth.
Now how would somebody living around 700 B.C. who's world was only what he could see with his eye, know that. How would he know that more than 2600 years later when the first pictures of earth appeared when viewed from space, it is indeed a perfect circle.
More than 2000 years after those words were written some of the greatest minds of the day still believed the world was flat.
there was no daughter product in the beginning. Why?
The answer is, the parent nuclide & the daughter nuclide can be so chemically different that the crystal containing the parent nuclide will exclude the daughter nuclide at the time of formation.
Quote
no parent product leached in or out for billions of years. Why? nothing affected the radio-active rate for billions of years. Why?
It’s true that most radioactive isotopes and elements have half-lives ranging from microseconds to thousands of years. Any radioactivity left over from those elements has disappeared long, long ago. So how is it that such a long time later, there’s still plenty of radioactivity in the ground? Simple. The most common radioactive elements in the Earth’s crust all have long half lives, which is why they are still present. For example Thorium 232 has a half life of 14 billion years. U-238, the most common isotope of uranium, has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. That’s almost exactly the age of the Earth. Half the U-238 that was in the original material of the Earth is still there.
Quote
Maybe you would like to explain why the ocean is so limited in its salt content.
A paper by Livingstone in 1963 entitled "The sodium cycle and the age of the ocean" presents many reasons for why changing salinity of the sea is neither a consistent process nor expected to be over time and thus is useless as a chronometer. Data collected from 1950 to 2000 concludes that some parts of the ocean have indeed increased their salinity over those years but there are many oceans for which the salinity decreased over the same period of time. It seems that on balance the salinity of the oceans is not changing much at all.
Quote
Why are there almost no meteorites in the geological column?
The Earth actually does have craters, but they may not be as prominent as those on other celestial bodies due to various factors. Erosion, plate tectonics, and the atmosphere can all contribute to the gradual disappearance or masking of impact craters on Earth's surface. Additionally, Earth's active geological processes constantly reshape the planet's surface, further obscuring evidence of past impacts. However, there are still visible impact craters on Earth, such as the Barringer Crater in Arizona and the Chicxulub Crater in Mexico.
Quote
Why are there only enough novas and super novas for about seven thousand years?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You mask a claim as a question. What evidence do you have that there have been too few supernovae? Multiple supernovae are detected every year across the universe. But keep in mind that of the main sequence stars in the galaxy, 80% are M-type red dwarfs which have a lifetime of 200 billion years and masses of that are 20% of the Sun. So, immediately you can exempt those from going supernovae. The same goes for F, G and K-type stars with a mass only 1.5, 1.0 and 0.7 solar masses, respectively. Those classes of stars account for a total of 13.5% of the main sequence stars. O and B-type main sequence stars have masses of 10-50 times the mass of the Sun, so they will definitely go supernovae and become black holes. But collectively, they account for only about 0.1% of all stars.
Anything else you would like to know?
Well done, Sir! Rational thinkers will appreciate your post as we realize that it takes little time and effort to grunt out a steaming pile of nonsense a great deal more refute it. But don't expect a reply from Ringman, whose only refutation of facts is "Magic man in the sky done it" if he bothers to reply at all.
Where does it say in Bible the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the Earth? Watch “Is Genesis History” by Geologist Steve Austin.
It doesn't. Quite the opposite actually. Isaiah speaking of God, states He who sits above the "circle" of the earth.
Now how would somebody living around 700 B.C. who's world was only what he could see with his eye, know that. How would he know that more than 2600 years later when the first pictures of earth appeared when viewed from space, it is indeed a perfect circle.
More than 2000 years after those words were written some of the greatest minds of the day still believed the world was flat.
A circle is a two dimensional shape. You can rationalize it all you want, it still mean two dimension, of in other words flat.
Your question, "Anything else you would like to know?" is a bit arrogant. You are assuming I believe your answers. You did not answer my question about why you believe there was no daughter product in the beginning and why you believe none was leached in or out. I have the answer. You have to believe what you are taught by evolutionists. It's required by your world view.
About the novas: There was a non-creationist Ph.D. astronomer who developed a program that would track debris from novas and super novas for up to a million years. He contacted observatories around the world and requested any data they had. The oldest any astronomer sent he tracked to no more than 7,000 years old. There are about four per century. They discovered about 280 observed.
I, probably like you, am a parrot. I have no field experience or laboratory experience. I read what others have done and pass it on. I don't keep a file of fun info to pass on. I am convinced serious questioners will try to find the facts for themselves.
It's like a friend of mine who was a rabid evolutionist. Decades ago he seriously told me, "Christians have two brains. One is lost and the other is out looking for it." He decided to proof creationists wrong. He studied ten fields of study. You know, things like biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, laws of probability, geology, paleontology, etc. He eventually told me he proved himself wrong in everything he studied. Recently, told me, "There would be a lot more serious Christians if there were a lot more serious skeptics." He eventually ended with three doctorates.
Where does it say in Bible the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the Earth? Watch “Is Genesis History” by Geologist Steve Austin.
It doesn't. Quite the opposite actually. Isaiah speaking of God, states He who sits above the "circle" of the earth.
Now how would somebody living around 700 B.C. who's world was only what he could see with his eye, know that. How would he know that more than 2600 years later when the first pictures of earth appeared when viewed from space, it is indeed a perfect circle.
More than 2000 years after those words were written some of the greatest minds of the day still believed the world was flat.
A circle is a two dimensional shape. You can rationalize it all you want, it still mean two dimension, of in other words flat.
Lol. Who's rationalizing here. A man in sandals who had no method of travel or of higher learning and as a man of that time was only aware of the small world that his eye could see, stated in writing that the earth is a circle. If you draw a circle and ask a 3 yr old what it is, they will tell you it's a circle. That's what the earth looks like when viewed from space and it was called by a man living in 700 B.C.
Historical fact. Sorry it's so hard for you to rationalize that.
Where does it say in Bible the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the Earth? Watch “Is Genesis History” by Geologist Steve Austin.
It doesn't. Quite the opposite actually. Isaiah speaking of God, states He who sits above the "circle" of the earth.
Now how would somebody living around 700 B.C. who's world was only what he could see with his eye, know that. How would he know that more than 2600 years later when the first pictures of earth appeared when viewed from space, it is indeed a perfect circle.
More than 2000 years after those words were written some of the greatest minds of the day still believed the world was flat.
A circle is a two dimensional shape. You can rationalize it all you want, it still mean two dimension, of in other words flat.
Lol. Who's rationalizing here. A man in sandals who had no method of travel or of higher learning and as a man of that time was only aware of the small world that his eye could see, stated in writing that the earth is a circle. If you draw a circle and ask a 3 yr old what it is, they will tell you it's a circle. That's what the earth looks like when viewed from space and it was called by a man living in 700 B.C.
Historical fact. Sorry it's so hard for you to rationalize that.
You think Isaiah had the mental capacity of a 3 year old? Fair enough. (Actually I think both of my kids were able to understand the concept of a spherical Earth as 3 year olds. It’s not that hard.)
People knew the Earth was spherical since at least the 5th century BC, probably earlier but that is as far back as evidence for that knowledge goes back. The circumference of the Earth was figured out with an amazing level of accuracy by the 3rd century BC. They did this with some very simple observations and a basic understanding of geometry.
I think the latest modern human rise in civilization is about that old.
I think that every time man advances enough to wipe out humanity that is what happens. My guess would be seven times or so. I think the pyramids are part of the last era of humanity well before the pharaohs.
No. I don't believe anyone knows the age of the age earth ! Sandals found around a hundred miles from here, are carbon dated double that length of time! My 2 cents.
Give or take 4 Billion. I seen dinosuroses and bare foot men foot prints in the same creek myself!Glen Rose Texas by golly. Mike Johnson runs his own creationist parks too ya know. Even he knows.
Where does it say in Bible the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the Earth? Watch “Is Genesis History” by Geologist Steve Austin.
It doesn't. Quite the opposite actually. Isaiah speaking of God, states He who sits above the "circle" of the earth.
Now how would somebody living around 700 B.C. who's world was only what he could see with his eye, know that. How would he know that more than 2600 years later when the first pictures of earth appeared when viewed from space, it is indeed a perfect circle.
More than 2000 years after those words were written some of the greatest minds of the day still believed the world was flat.
A circle is a two dimensional shape. You can rationalize it all you want, it still mean two dimension, of in other words flat.
Lol. Who's rationalizing here. A man in sandals who had no method of travel or of higher learning and as a man of that time was only aware of the small world that his eye could see, stated in writing that the earth is a circle. If you draw a circle and ask a 3 yr old what it is, they will tell you it's a circle. That's what the earth looks like when viewed from space and it was called by a man living in 700 B.C.
Historical fact. Sorry it's so hard for you to rationalize that.
You think Isaiah had the mental capacity of a 3 year old? Fair enough. (Actually I think both of my kids were able to understand the concept of a spherical Earth as 3 year olds. It’s not that hard.)
People knew the Earth was spherical since at least the 5th century BC, probably earlier but that is as far back as evidence for that knowledge goes back. The circumference of the Earth was figured out with an amazing level of accuracy by the 3rd century BC. They did this with some very simple observations and a basic understanding of geometry.
Nice try. No I don't think Isaiah had the mental capacity of a 3 year old. But you already knew that.
As far as the rest of it, Isaiah had it figured out in the 8th century BC, and the smartest minds of the day were arguing about it more than 2000 years later.
It’s true that most radioactive isotopes and elements have half-lives ranging from microseconds to thousands of years. Any radioactivity left over from those elements has disappeared long, long ago. So how is it that such a long time later, there’s still plenty of radioactivity in the ground? Simple. The most common radioactive elements in the Earth’s crust all have long half lives, which is why they are still present. For example Thorium 232 has a half life of 14 billion years. U-238, the most common isotope of uranium, has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. That’s almost exactly the age of the Earth. Half the U-238 that was in the original material of the Earth is still there.
That's not how it works at all. Elements heavier than iron are all forged during supernovae events and it's at that point radioactive decay begins. That half the U238 remains since the world has formed means nothing in establishing the age of the earth. In order to determine that, we use zircon crystals. When formed, zircon has a an affinity for uranium while at the same time has an aversion for Pb. The other useful fact about zircon is it's extremely durable. It doesn't erode away like quartz, limestone, feldspar and other naturally occurring minerals. So, it's therefore assumed only uranium and no lead was captured within zicron crystals when they were formed. One measures the ratio of Uranium to lead to establish the age of when the crystals were formed. It's also why zircon is referred to as the "Time Lord". Thus far, the oldest zircon crystals found are 4.4 billion years old from the Jack Hills range in Western Australia. It also may contradict that the first 500 million years of earth were a molten hellscape.
Your question, "Anything else you would like to know?" is a bit arrogant. You are assuming I believe your answers. You did not answer my question about why you believe there was no daughter product in the beginning and why you believe none was leached in or out. I have the answer. You have to believe what you are taught by evolutionists. It's required by your world view.
About the novas: There was a non-creationist Ph.D. astronomer who developed a program that would track debris from novas and super novas for up to a million years. He contacted observatories around the world and requested any data they had. The oldest any astronomer sent he tracked to no more than 7,000 years old. There are about four per century. They discovered about 280 observed.
I, probably like you, am a parrot. I have no field experience or laboratory experience. I read what others have done and pass it on. I don't keep a file of fun info to pass on. I am convinced serious questioners will try to find the facts for themselves.
It's like a friend of mine who was a rabid evolutionist. Decades ago he seriously told me, "Christians have two brains. One is lost and the other is out looking for it." He decided to proof creationists wrong. He studied ten fields of study. You know, things like biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, laws of probability, geology, paleontology, etc. He eventually told me he proved himself wrong in everything he studied. Recently, told me, "There would be a lot more serious Christians if there were a lot more serious skeptics." He eventually ended with three doctorates.
This really isn't even a debate of Christians vs non Christians. There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON a Christian has to believe the earth is only 6000 years old. This young earth crap is mostly a US evangelical movement. Many Christians have no problems believing in both God and a very old universe. It all comes down being able to accept that some things in the Bible do not have to be taken completely LITERALLY!
Let me given you an example. Are you a "Born Again" Christian. The Bible says you must be reborn or born again to see the kingdom of heaven. So, does this mean that all Christians have to crawl back up into a woman's uterus and be pushed out through her vagina in a second birth? Of course not. The term is being used "FIGURATIVELY" not literally. WOW! What a concept huh? The Bible does speak figuratively, metaphorically, and sometimes tries to teach moral lessons through parables that are not meant to be taken literally either.
Evidence that the earth is far older than 6000 years is so glaringly obvious that in order to believe such nonsense you have to engage in WILLFULL IGNORANCE. Young Earthers engage in the worse conformation bias of any group in the history of earth. They disregard any evidence that clearly refutes their case. They often seize small bits of information that seem to support their claims if not placed in the proper context. Then they of course intentionally fail to provide the context. Sadly, a whole branch of pseudo-scientific BS has been pumped onto the internet for people like yourselves to try to use as if it were real evidence in such debates. Like the bogus claim that the oceans should be saltier. Or that there haven't been enough supernovas. Both are ridiculous notions debunked long ago but people like yourself know that most people at a forum such as this don't possess the science knowledge to refute such claims and most who could won't bother to waste their time. People like yourself start with a belief and then try to selectively assemble only good sounding nuggets plucked from some bogus young earth website. You don't let the evidence lead you to the truth. You start with something you MUST BELIEVE and reject anything that contradicts it.
For myself on the other hand, it doesn't make a tinkers damn to me whether the earth is 6000 years old or 4.5 billion. And that fact allows me to look at the evidence objectively. It would have absolutely no negative impact on my life whatsoever if the evidence showed that the earth was only 6000 years old. It's just that the evidence doesn't show that.
Where does it say in Bible the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the Earth? Watch “Is Genesis History” by Geologist Steve Austin.
It doesn't. Quite the opposite actually. Isaiah speaking of God, states He who sits above the "circle" of the earth.
Now how would somebody living around 700 B.C. who's world was only what he could see with his eye, know that. How would he know that more than 2600 years later when the first pictures of earth appeared when viewed from space, it is indeed a perfect circle.
More than 2000 years after those words were written some of the greatest minds of the day still believed the world was flat.
Your question, "Anything else you would like to know?" is a bit arrogant. You are assuming I believe your answers. You did not answer my question about why you believe there was no daughter product in the beginning and why you believe none was leached in or out. I have the answer. You have to believe what you are taught by evolutionists. It's required by your world view.
About the novas: There was a non-creationist Ph.D. astronomer who developed a program that would track debris from novas and super novas for up to a million years. He contacted observatories around the world and requested any data they had. The oldest any astronomer sent he tracked to no more than 7,000 years old. There are about four per century. They discovered about 280 observed.
I, probably like you, am a parrot. I have no field experience or laboratory experience. I read what others have done and pass it on. I don't keep a file of fun info to pass on. I am convinced serious questioners will try to find the facts for themselves.
It's like a friend of mine who was a rabid evolutionist. Decades ago he seriously told me, "Christians have two brains. One is lost and the other is out looking for it." He decided to proof creationists wrong. He studied ten fields of study. You know, things like biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, laws of probability, geology, paleontology, etc. He eventually told me he proved himself wrong in everything he studied. Recently, told me, "There would be a lot more serious Christians if there were a lot more serious skeptics." He eventually ended with three doctorates.
This really isn't even a debate of Christians vs non Christians. There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON a Christian has to believe the earth is only 6000 years old. This young earth crap is mostly a US evangelical movement. Many Christians have no problems believing in both God and a very old universe. It all comes down being able to accept that some things in the Bible do not have to be taken completely LITERALLY!
Let me given you an example. Are you a "Born Again" Christian. The Bible says you must be reborn or born again to see the kingdom of heaven. So, does this mean that all Christians have to crawl back up into a woman's uterus and be pushed out through her vagina in a second birth? Of course not. The term is being used "FIGURATIVELY" not literally. WOW! What a concept huh? The Bible does speak figuratively, metaphorically, and sometimes tries to teach moral lessons through parables that are not meant to be taken literally either.
Evidence that the earth is far older than 6000 years is so glaringly obvious that in order to believe such nonsense you have to engage in WILLFULL IGNORANCE. Young Earthers engage in the worse conformation bias of any group in the history of earth. They disregard any evidence that clearly refutes their case. They often seize small bits of information that seem to support their claims if not placed in the proper context. Then they of course intentionally fail to provide the context. Sadly, a whole branch of pseudo-scientific BS has been pumped onto the internet for people like yourselves to try to use as if it were real evidence in such debates. Like the bogus claim that the oceans should be saltier. Or that there haven't been enough supernovas. Both are ridiculous notions debunked long ago but people like yourself know that most people at a forum such as this don't possess the science knowledge to refute such claims and most who could won't bother to waste their time. People like yourself start with a belief and then try to selectively assemble only good sounding nuggets plucked from some bogus young earth website. You don't let the evidence lead you to the truth. You start with something you MUST BELIEVE and reject anything that contradicts it.
For myself on the other hand, it doesn't make a tinkers damn to me whether the earth is 6000 years old or 4.5 billion. And that fact allows me to look at the evidence objectively. It would have absolutely no negative impact on my life whatsoever if the evidence showed that the earth was only 6000 years old. It's just that the evidence doesn't show that.
That all depends. If you belong to one of the sects that believes the Bible is the unerring, or perfect word of God, then you must believe the generations of blood line of Jesus listed in the NT give a timeline of the earth back to Adam, and hence, reveals the age of the Earth.
Keep in mind, if there's no Garden of Eden, there is no Original Sin.
No original Sin, no need for Jesus.
No Jesus, no Salvation.
So, yea, there are Christians who belief in Salvation hinges on a Young Earth.
If you belong to one of the sects that believes the Bible is the unerring, or perfect word of God, then you must believe the generations of blood line of Jesus listed in the NT give a timeline of the earth back to Adam, and hence, reveals the age of the Earth.
A lotta people feel that way about the Bible (that “it’s the unerring, or perfect word of God”) while at the same time realizing that the Bible clearly sometimes speaks figuratively, metaphorically, allegorically, and sometimes teaches through parables…NONE of which are meant to be taken literally.
I am a long ways from being atheist but I can see how a thinking young person could be pushed that direction even by self professed friends of Jesus and other believers. All this stuff about the road to salvation, young earth, etc., etc.
I have a forty year old son and we put him in a Catholic K through 12 school to keep him out of the public zoo. At about 9 years of age he came to me and told me he couldn't believe they were serious about what they taught in the mandatory 1 hour religion class. I told him to just listen, take the tests, and dismiss the foolish doctrine.
When you have 400 sects of Christianity in one country some of whom are seriously opposed to each other what is an outsider looking in to think. Some folks are so wed to a literal interpretation that they cannot acknowledge some of their beliefs as ludicrous. Obvious contradictions are explained away by some idiotic interpretation that I would guess was come up with by some half literate preacher way back when. Sophism is an art form in some of the more hard shell fundamentalist adherents of Christianity.
In any case I would say Jesus' "friends'' do his teachings far more harm than any questions by agnostics and atheists.
It’s the weightiest matters that matter; insignificant theological differences between folks don’t matter. At all.
As long as they agree that Jesus died for their sins and rose from the dead, and they accept God’s gift of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus alone, then they’re good to go. Period.
When you get right down to it, every individual is a denomination unto themselves. You sure are. I am too.
It’s the weightiest matters that matter; insignificant theological differences between folks don’t matter. At all.
As long as they agree that Jesus died for their sins and rose from the dead, and they accept God’s gift of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus alone, then they’re good to go. Period.
When you get right down to it, every individual is a denomination unto themselves. You sure are.
If you belong to one of the sects that believes the Bible is the unerring, or perfect word of God, then you must believe the generations of blood line of Jesus listed in the NT give a timeline of the earth back to Adam, and hence, reveals the age of the Earth.
A lotta people feel that way about the Bible (that “it’s the unerring, or perfect word of God”) while at the same time realizing that the Bible clearly sometimes speaks figuratively, metaphorically, allegorically, and sometimes teaches through parables…NONE of which are meant to be taken literally.
If the fall is figurative, so is the need for Jesus and redemption. If the account of creation in genesis is allegory, special creation did not happen.
I did not realize geologists etc needed to know earths actual age to be able to find petroleum.
Learn something new every day. I thought they looked at geology. Test core drilled. Checked that out for what matter was in it, then decided if possible. Then likely shot a seismic or did a test well.
Some with an agenda, some who have admitted right here on this forum that even if they knew for a fact that Christianity was true, they would still deny it, have further added that “If the fall is figurative, so is the need for Jesus and redemption.”
Nope. But until you see yourself as a sinner, you won’t see your need for a savior. Period. Most people don’t need the story of “the fall”…literally or figuratively…to realize that they’re not perfect, and that they are in fact, sinners.
Salvation isn’t based on whether or not one believes anything that was written in the Old Testament, literally or figuratively.
But it is based on believing in the Gospel.
As long as one acknowledges that Jesus died for the sins of everyone and rose from the dead, and one accepts God’s gift of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus alone, then they’re good to go. Period.
Nope. But until you see yourself as a sinner, you won’t see your need for a savior. Period. Most people don’t need the story of “the fall”…literally or figuratively…to realize that they’re not perfect, and that they are in fact, sinners.
Salvation isn’t based on whether or not one believes anything that was written in the Old Testament, literally or figuratively.
But it is based on believing in the Gospel.
As long as one acknowledges that Jesus died for the sins of everyone and rose from the dead, and one accepts God’s gift of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus alone, then they’re good to go. Period.
That's our version of Christianity, but not all Christians share your beliefs.
I am still having trouble trying to reconcile salvation by faith in "Christ and Him Crucified" (and resurrected) and all the billions that never heard the story and all the billions that died as children before they could ever form a thought past the fact they were hungry or cold and certainly not an abstract thought.
There are way more dead now that never heard of the God of Abraham than there are that did.
Reincarnation could be the answer but our learned men here boo that idea off the stage as soon as it's presented. It's a problem.
Again, salvation isn’t based on whether or not one believes anything that was written in the Old Testament, literally or figuratively.
But it is based on believing in the Gospel.
As long as one acknowledges that Jesus died for the sins of everyone and rose from the dead, and one accepts God’s gift of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus alone, then they’re good to go. Period.
You have a choice. God will honor your choice. You can choose to spend eternity in His presence. It’s easy. It’s simple. Nothing complicated about it. At all. Or you can choose to ‘not’ spend eternity in His presence. The choice is yours.
Again, salvation isn’t based on whether or not one believes anything that was written in the Old Testament, literally or figuratively.
But it is based on believing in the Gospel.
As long as one acknowledges that Jesus died for the sins of everyone and rose from the dead, and one accepts God’s gift of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus alone, then they’re good to go. Period.
You have a choice. God will honor your choice. You can choose to spend eternity in His presence. It’s easy. It’s simple. Nothing complicated about it. At all. Or you can choose to ‘not’ spend eternity in His presence. The choice is yours.
I am still having trouble trying to reconcile salvation by faith in "Christ and Him Crucified" (and resurrected)…,
All of the issues that you mention in your post have been addressed by multiple people here, on multiple threads of this kind, both present and past.
Yes, but none of it makes much sense if you hold it up against their other "beliefs". If you never heard of Jesus or Paul your works count. If you have available to you the approved version of the NT your faith in Christ and Him Crucified is the ticket. That's what Jimmy Swaggart teaches, and he advertises his writings excoriating the Catholics, the Mormons, the Moslems, and now he is pretty hard down on the Assembly of God the denomination that reluctantly gave him the boot.
In the present last few months what happens to the little Jewish or Palestinian 4 year old that got killed in the ongoing conflict over there? It's a problem.
I am still having trouble trying to reconcile salvation by faith in "Christ and Him Crucified" (and resurrected)…,
All of the issues that you mention in your post have been addressed by multiple people here, on multiple threads of this kind, both present and past.
Yes, but none of it makes much sense if you hold it up against their other "beliefs". If you never heard of Jesus or Paul your works count. If you have available to you the approved version of the NT your faith in Christ and Him Crucified is the ticket. That's what Jimmy Swaggart teaches, and he advertises his writings excoriating the Catholics, the Mormons, the Moslems, and now he is pretty hard down on the Assembly of God the denomination that reluctantly gave him the boot.
In the present last few months what happens to the little Jewish or Palestinian 4 year old that got killed in the ongoing conflict over there? It's a problem.
And if neither your god nor your eternity does not exist?
Then the choices we make regarding where we’ll spend eternity are moot.
But, if the Christian God and eternity as taught by Christianity does exist, then the choices we make regarding where we’ll spend eternity matter. Greatly.
And if neither your god nor your eternity does not exist?
Then the choices we make regarding where we’ll spend eternity are moot.
But, if the Christian God and eternity as taught by Christianity does exist, then the choices we make regarding where we’ll spend eternity matter. Greatly.
The ol' Pascals wager, which fails on multiple levels, the lease of which is that you're not Mormon:
But, if the Christian God and eternity as taught by Christianity does exist, then the choices we make regarding where we’ll spend eternity matter. Greatly.
There are about 4000 recognized religions. If any of the other 3999 besides Christianity are correct then you are just as screwed as the people who don't believe in any of them. Do you worry constantly that one of the other 3999 is the actual true path to God? After all to them you are a non believing heretic. No? This doesn't concern you? Well then you know how I feel about all 4000 of them.
Mathematically speaking you are only 0.025% less agnostic than me.
But, if the Christian God and eternity as taught by Christianity does exist, then the choices we make regarding where we’ll spend eternity matter. Greatly.
There are about 4000 recognized religions. If any of the other 3999 besides Christianity are correct then you are just as screwed as the people who don't believe in any of them. Do you worry constantly that one of the other 3999 is the actual true path to God? After all to them you are a non believing heretic. No? This doesn't concern you? Well then you know how I feel about all 4000 of them.
I don’t worry about any of it. At all. Ever. The other’s that you refer to can believe as they choose, just as you can.
The real definition of faith is trusting in what you have good evidence to believe is true. And there’s belief ‘that’ and there’s belief ‘in’. Belief ‘that’ is getting evidence that God exists, that Jesus rose from the dead, and that the New Testament manuscripts are telling us the truth. It’s simply apologetics. The evidence shows that there’s good reason to believe that these things are true.
But all the belief ‘that’ in the world won’t get our sins forgiven. For that we gotta go from belief ‘that’ to belief ‘in’ or trust ‘in’. Often when the Bible is talking about faith it’s talking about belief ‘in’ or trust ‘in’ ~ after you know, based on the evidence, that God exists, that Jesus rose from the dead, and that the New Testament manuscripts are telling us the truth.
The real definition of faith is trusting in what you have good evidence to believe is true. And there’s belief ‘that’ and there’s belief ‘in’. Belief ‘that’ is getting evidence that God exists, that Jesus rose from the dead, and that the New Testament manuscripts are telling us the truth. It’s simply apologetics. The evidence shows that there’s good reason to believe that these things are true.
But all the belief ‘that’ in the world won’t get our sins forgiven. For that we gotta go from belief ‘that’ to belief ‘in’ or trust ‘in’. Often when the Bible is talking about faith it’s talking about belief ‘in’ or trust ‘in’ ~ after you know, based on the evidence, that God exists, that Jesus rose from the dead, and that the New Testament manuscripts are telling us the truth.
You equivocate. Trust is built or destroyed when you have direct experience with someone or something.
Some people say they experience God in their lives, or they have a relationship with God, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. What they have is faith, they believe their experience is true, but can't prove it.
It was a very long seven days as described in Genesis. And Christians are responsible for the greatest amount of good in the world today. Anyone that looks down on me for believing that Jesus is the son of God, should probably look inward. The Bible was written by man. Man ain't perfect but one dude got close a long time ago.
When one’s position…which has been presented right here on this forum…is that they still would deny Christianity even if they knew for a fact that it was true, then their claimed “scrutiny” of a subject to “sort fact from fiction” and determine what is true falls flat. That person clearly has a bias. That’s their choice.
Again, faith simply means trusting in what you have good evidence to believe is true. Faith and reason work together. Reason simply gets you to a point where you can exercise trust. Reason simply helps you with belief ‘that’. Then it’s your own decision as to whether or not you’re gonna go from belief ‘that’ to belief ‘in’ or trust ‘in’. Reason deals with belief ‘that’ and trust deals with belief ‘in’.
The opposite of faith is not reason, the opposite of faith is a ‘lack’ of trust. And so the opposite of reason is not faith, but the opposite of reason is irrationality ~ like the above instance where one clearly chooses to deny the truth of a matter even when they know for a fact that the said matter is true.
Jesus and His apostle’s talk about getting evidence for your faith.
When one’s position…which has been presented right here on this forum…is that they still would deny Christianity even if they knew for a fact that it was true, then their claimed “scrutiny” of a subject to “sort fact from fiction” and determine what is true falls flat. That person clearly has a bias. That’s their choice.
Again, faith simply means trusting in what you have good evidence to believe is true. Faith and reason work together. Reason simply gets you to a point where you can exercise trust. Reason simply helps you with belief ‘that’. Then it’s your own decision as to whether or not you’re gonna go from belief ‘that’ to belief ‘in’ or trust ‘in’. Reason deals with belief ‘that’ and trust deals with belief ‘in’.
The opposite of faith is not reason, the opposite of faith is a ‘lack’ of trust. And so the opposite of reason is not faith, but the opposite of reason is irrationality ~ like the above instance where one clearly chooses to deny the truth of a matter even when they know for a fact that the said matter is true.
Jesus and His apostle’s talk about getting evidence for your faith.
No, you misconstrue the meaning of Hebrews 11:1.
Given the nature of evidence, if you have evidence anyone can access and examine that evidence and draw much the same conclusion.
If the existence of a God had the same evidence as the existence of the things of the world, sun, moon, stars, rivers, plants, animals, people, etc, we would equally accept the existence of God as we do the things of the world.
As it happens that we have plenty of evidence for the existence of the world, the universe, but nothing for the existence of a God/creator, it takes faith to believe that a God exists.
Which is why faith in religion is defined as a belief held without the support of evidence.
Faith; b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>- Merriam Webster
"Faith is like a piece of blank paper whereon you may write as well one miracle as another." ~ Charles Blount (1654-1693)
The New Testament writers had nothing to gain by making up a resurrected Jesus. They were Jews. They had everything to lose by saying that Jesus had risen from the dead. They got excommunicated from the synagogue. And then they got beaten, tortured, and killed. That’s not a list of perks. They had everything to lose by saying Jesus rose from the dead. But they said Jesus rose from the dead anyway.
And then many of em’ went and died for that. They coulda said, “Hey man, don’t kill me, we’re just makin’ this stuff up.” But they didn’t. The most persuasive people were these Jews who clearly had never seen anything like this before, who before thought it was blasphemous for a man to claim to be God, and who clearly before didn’t think somebody could rise from the dead…and now they do…and they were willing to die for it.
They had everything to lose. And they’re still saying it’s true. I’m puttin’ some stock in what they’re sayin’.
The New Testament writers had nothing to gain by making up a resurrected Jesus. They were Jews. They had everything to lose by saying that Jesus had risen from the dead. They got excommunicated from the synagogue. And then they got beaten, tortured, and killed. That’s not a list of perks. They had everything to lose by saying Jesus rose from the dead. But they said Jesus rose from the dead anyway.
And then many of em’ went and died for that. They coulda said, “Hey man, don’t kill me, we’re just makin’ this stuff up.” But they didn’t. The most persuasive people were these Jews who clearly had never seen anything like this before, who before thought it was blasphemous for a man to claim to be God, and who clearly before didn’t think somebody could rise from the dead…and now they do…and they were willing to die for it.
They had everything to lose. And they’re still saying it’s true. I’m puttin’ some stock in what they’re sayin’.
The writer of Matthew was probably Jewish. The writer of Luke was probably a gentile.
Once again, you demonstrate how little you know about the scriptures.
I’m 63; so I’m absolutely sure that the universe is at least 63 years old. Scientifically, the universe appears to be 13.8 billion years old. In order for the universe to be younger or older than that, then the laws of physics would have to have been different in the past than they are now.
Is that possible…? Maybe so. But we have no way of knowing if the laws of physics have changed. There’s a principle in science known as the principle of uniformity and it says that things happened in the past just like things happen now ~ that the laws of physics haven’t changed. But we can’t prove it 100%.
But again, if the laws of physics haven’t changed, then the universe appears to be 13.8 billion years old. I don’t see that the Bible teaches that the universe is 6000 years old. The first verse of the Bible says, “In the beginning, God created”…. That’s what I come away with. How He did it, or how long He took to do it…while interesting…is irrelevant. The fact the He did it is what really matters.
The very first words of the Bible are often incorrectly translated as "In THE beginning," where the correct translation is "In A beginning."
Once that dawns on you, you realize you have no way of knowing how many beginnings there were before humans recorded the history that we bring to these discussions, or how old the earth actually is, or anything else that exists anywhere. It's not hard to meld science and religion with this. The planet could infact be as old as scientists estimate, but the beginning we know from our narrow (minded) persective could only be generally what we are taught in the Bible.
Do you believe the story the earth is only 6000 years old?
No. Biblical scripture is not literal, it is metaphorical. Excellent messages, words to live by, not to be interpreted literally. Those that do so, imo, are misguided, but its no skin off my back. Most of my family do so.
Given the nature of evidence, if you have evidence anyone can access and examine that evidence and draw much the same conclusion.
If the existence of a God had the same evidence as the existence of the things of the world, sun, moon, stars, rivers, plants, animals, people, etc, we would equally accept the existence of God as we do the things of the world.
As it happens that we have plenty of evidence for the existence of the world, the universe, but nothing for the existence of a God/creator, it takes faith to believe that a God exists.
Which is why faith in religion is defined as a belief held without the support of evidence.
Faith; b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>- Merriam Webster
"Faith is like a piece of blank paper whereon you may write as well one miracle as another." ~ Charles Blount (1654-1693)
Let's see, 6000 years, about 300 generations is a generous estimate. From two original parents in less than 300 generations we ended up with Negroes, Aleuts, Australian Aborigines, Japanese, white Europeans, East Indians, Arabs, Chinese, and Mongols. If true, evolution was busy.
Personally I think humans have been around a while. Maybe they all started in Africa and as they escaped they bred into other human subspecies such as Neanderthal and Denisovan. Not sure how the Australian breed came about as he is fairly primitive but can breed with other humans.
6000 years doesn't quite mesh with what we now know.
Let's see, 6000 years, about 300 generations is a generous estimate. From two original parents in less than 300 generations we ended up with Negroes, Aleuts, Australian Aborigines, Japanese, white Europeans, East Indians, Arabs, Chinese, and Mongols. If true, evolution was busy.
Personally I think humans have been around a while. Maybe they all started in Africa and as they escaped they bred into other human subspecies such as Neanderthal and Denisovan. Not sure how the Australian breed came about as he is fairly primitive but can breed with other humans.
6000 years doesn't quite mesh with what we now know.
Creation itself is evidence of a Creator. And creation is right there, in front of us and all round us. And everyone can see it. Some simply choose to deny the evidence.
Creation itself is evidence of a Creator. And creation is right there, in front of us and all round us. And everyone can see it. Some simply choose to deny the evidence.
What created the creator? If the universe cannot just come from nothing then how did that which created it just spring forth from nothing? You see adding a creator doesn't really answer the mystery of the origin of all things. It just adds an invented extra layer to the mystery. One there is no real evidence for outside stories written in books by superstitious people long ago that knew far less about the universe than we do now.
Even if I accepted the existence of the universe as anecdotal evidence of a creator ( i don't ) it still wouldn't provide any evidence of which SPECIFIC god did it. Every religion on earth claims their god is the one true god that created everything. Simple deductive logic makes it clear that 99.9 % of those religions have to be wrong. And if that many people are wrong then it's no great leap to the possibility that they all are. After all none of them have any better evidence than the others to back them up.
At the end of the day all religious people (Christians too) are taking the word of other men that books like the Bible are of a divine nature. Men who often lived thousands of years ago that you don't actually know from Adams house cat. And there in lies the weak link. Men lie. Men exaggerate. Men make chit up to suit their wants and desires.
Christian theology teaches that God is eternal. Eternity past and eternity yet to come. Regarding creation, it’s subject to the law of causality, the law of cause and effect.
All truth does not only come from science. Very little from history can be repeatable. You can’t go in a lab and repeat history. If we’re gonna try and learn what happened in the past, we’ve gotta rely on testimony. We can’t go back in time and repeat the event. We can’t bring back Julius Caesar and stab him again.
The writers of the New Testament manuscripts had a big motive to deny the resurrection of Jesus. They were Jews. They wouldn’t wanna get kicked out of the a temple. They wouldn’t wanna get excommunicated. They wouldn’t wanna be thrown out of the “God’s chosen people” club. These men had no motive to lie about Jesus’ resurrection. They got beaten, tortured, and killed for saying it was true.
It woulda been easy enough for the Jewish Temple and the Roman Empire both to just have gone to the tomb and taken out Jesus’ body and said, “stop all of this nonsense talk about the resurrection, He’s dead.” They didn’t do that.
Yes, the evidence for a Creator of the Universe is extremely weak, to put it kindly.
How about all you atheists, non-believers, heathens, pagans, and minions of Satan start providing hard factual evidence that God does NOT exist. I mean, y'all must have something to be so damn cock sure of yourselves......
Yes, the evidence for a Creator of the Universe is extremely weak, to put it kindly.
How about all you atheists, non-believers, heathens, pagans, and minions of Satan start providing hard factual evidence that God does NOT exist. I mean, y'all must have something to be so damn cock sure of yourselves......
It is often hard to prove a negative. Not always, but in this case, yes.
Yes, the evidence for a Creator of the Universe is extremely weak, to put it kindly.
How about all you atheists, non-believers, heathens, pagans, and minions of Satan start providing hard factual evidence that God does NOT exist. I mean, y'all must have something to be so damn cock sure of yourselves......
Why are you attempting to shift the burned of proof?
Yes, the evidence for a Creator of the Universe is extremely weak, to put it kindly.
How about all you atheists, non-believers, heathens, pagans, and minions of Satan start providing hard factual evidence that God does NOT exist. I mean, y'all must have something to be so damn cock sure of yourselves......
It is often hard to prove a negative. Not always, but in this case, yes.
Yes, the Christian God in "non-falsifiable", so the burden of proof lies solely with those claiming he does exist.
Creation itself is evidence of a Creator. And creation is right there, in front of us and all round us. And everyone can see it. Some simply choose to deny the evidence.
Before you can assert the Universe was created, you must provide sufficient evidence that it was an intentional created by a sentient being and did not come to exist by some other means. To date, you have failed in this task.
Creation itself is evidence of a Creator. And creation is right there, in front of us and all round us. And everyone can see it. Some simply choose to deny the evidence.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Before you can assert the Universe was created, you must provide sufficient evidence that it was an intentional created by a sentient being and did not come to exist by some other means. To date, you have failed in this task.
To the contrary, you have simply chosen to deny the clear evidence that is all around us and is seen by everybody. Maybe one of these days when you stand before God you can tell Him that He “failed” to convince you of His existence.
Creation itself is evidence of a Creator. And creation is right there, in front of us and all round us. And everyone can see it. Some simply choose to deny the evidence.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Before you can assert the Universe was created, you must provide sufficient evidence that it was an intentional created by a sentient being and did not come to exist by some other means. To date, you have failed in this task.
To the contrary, you have simply chosen to deny the clear evidence that is all around us and is seen by everybody. Maybe one of these days when you stand before God you can tell Him that He “failed” to convince you of His existence.
You can tell when a Christian is defeated. He resorts to Pascals wager and threats.
Yes, the evidence for a Creator of the Universe is extremely weak, to put it kindly.
How about all you atheists, non-believers, heathens, pagans, and minions of Satan start providing hard factual evidence that God does NOT exist. I mean, y'all must have something to be so damn cock sure of yourselves......
Why are you attempting to shift the burned of proof?
If it because you got nothing?
Proof God exists is everywhere for everyone to see, whether you want to see it or not.
The burden of proof is on YOU to prove its meaningless.
…the burden of proof lies solely with those claiming he does exist.
The proof is all around us and is seen by everybody. You simply choose to deny the proof that exists. You simply choose to deny the proof that you seem to think others are obligated to provide you with.
Yes, the evidence for a Creator of the Universe is extremely weak, to put it kindly.
How about all you atheists, non-believers, heathens, pagans, and minions of Satan start providing hard factual evidence that God does NOT exist. I mean, y'all must have something to be so damn cock sure of yourselves......
Why are you attempting to shift the burned of proof?
If it because you got nothing?
Proof God exists is everywhere for everyone to see, whether you want to see it or not.
The burden of proof is on YOU to prove its meaningless.
Yes, the evidence for a Creator of the Universe is extremely weak, to put it kindly.
How about all you atheists, non-believers, heathens, pagans, and minions of Satan start providing hard factual evidence that God does NOT exist. I mean, y'all must have something to be so damn cock sure of yourselves......
It is often hard to prove a negative. Not always, but in this case, yes.
It is hard to prove a negative because a possibility could exist.
Now, you too, since you're absolutely sure, provide proof God doesn't exist.
Yes, the evidence for a Creator of the Universe is extremely weak, to put it kindly.
How about all you atheists, non-believers, heathens, pagans, and minions of Satan start providing hard factual evidence that God does NOT exist. I mean, y'all must have something to be so damn cock sure of yourselves......
Why are you attempting to shift the burned of proof?
If it because you got nothing?
Proof God exists is everywhere for everyone to see, whether you want to see it or not.
The burden of proof is on YOU to prove its meaningless.
The “evidence for a Creator of the Universe” is the most abundant body of evidence…for anything…that there is.
It's not exactly a hidden secret is it......
And this argument ends in the logical fallacy of special pleading.
YOUR entire argument is based solely on your insistence to ignore the evidence that God provides you on a daily basis, then demand some form of "better" evidence be provided by God's followers.
I don't wake up every day needing God to prove Himself to me.
I do wake up every day needing to prove myself to God.
Yes, the evidence for a Creator of the Universe is extremely weak, to put it kindly.
How about all you atheists, non-believers, heathens, pagans, and minions of Satan start providing hard factual evidence that God does NOT exist. I mean, y'all must have something to be so damn cock sure of yourselves......
It is often hard to prove a negative. Not always, but in this case, yes.
It is hard to prove a negative because a possibility could exist.
Now, you too, since you're absolutely sure, provide proof God doesn't exist.
I happen to believe that there is a supernatural force and I believe that Jesus was his/it’s messenger. But I sure cannot prove it.
Yes, the evidence for a Creator of the Universe is extremely weak, to put it kindly.
How about all you atheists, non-believers, heathens, pagans, and minions of Satan start providing hard factual evidence that God does NOT exist. I mean, y'all must have something to be so damn cock sure of yourselves......
It is often hard to prove a negative. Not always, but in this case, yes.
It is hard to prove a negative because a possibility could exist.
Now, you too, since you're absolutely sure, provide proof God doesn't exist.
I happen to believe that there is a supernatural force and I believe that Jesus was his/it’s messenger. But I sure cannot prove it.
“Logical fallacy of special pleading.” “Pascal’s wager.” etc.
lol
Do you have any original thoughts on this matter…?
You have clearly chosen to deny the abundant evidence that all of creation provides for a Creator.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
My position is simple.
It most definitely is. You don’t want there to be a God. Period.
How can Laws Of Logic exist in a random universe? They are immutable, everywhere, immaterial, abstract, mental constructs. AS has to borrow God's Laws to argue against God!
My position is simple. There's no good evidence for the existence of your god.
If you had good evidence you would present it.
Your silence is deafening.
The Miracle of Life is all the proof I need that God exists.
Why don't you step right up and make a living thing, a living ANYTHING.
Should be easy enough for you, since it doesn't require God......
No problem. I just need an earth sized test space and about 4.5 billion years.
No, you don't need that.
The ingredients are all around you, every single thing a living cell is made of is within your grasp. I doubt you'd even have to get out of your lazy boy.
My position is simple. There's no good evidence for the existence of your god.
If you had good evidence you would present it.
Your silence is deafening.
The Miracle of Life is all the proof I need that God exists.
Why don't you step right up and make a living thing, a living ANYTHING.
Should be easy enough for you, since it doesn't require God......
No problem. I just need an earth sized test space and about 4.5 billion years.
No, you don't need that.
The ingredients are all around you, every single thing a living cell is made of is within your grasp. I doubt you'd even have to get out of your lazy boy.
My position is simple. There's no good evidence for the existence of your god.
If you had good evidence you would present it.
Your silence is deafening.
The Miracle of Life is all the proof I need that God exists.
Why don't you step right up and make a living thing, a living ANYTHING.
Should be easy enough for you, since it doesn't require God......
No problem. I just need an earth sized test space and about 4.5 billion years.
No, you don't need that.
The ingredients are all around you, every single thing a living cell is made of is within your grasp. I doubt you'd even have to get out of your lazy boy.
Put stuff together, and create life.
Boy?
I'm not the one offering 3rd grade arguments.
GFY.
Lazy Boy.
Get up out of your lazy boy.
It's a chair, often found in a living room, or otherwise a generic term to describe any reclining living room chair........you dolt.
As usual, this discussion is devolving into finger pointing and name calling as per the the unwritten rules of 24HCF....
Everyone wants proof of the existence of a creator- that which us believers call God- before committing to a stance on this subject. It seems one of the arguments is there are thousands of religions so there can't be one right one and thousands of wrong ones so it is all hokus pokus and therefore nonsense. At least that seems to be the argument for many. I read an article many years ago that a number of scientists tried to get to the bottom of this and went in search of some sort of truth of what beliefs all the different religions followed and how they differed and how they were similar. After much research and collaboration between the scientists they discovered that the "creator" that almost all religions followed had extreme similarities to each other and could easily be resolved by simple or even substantial cultural differences. Even accounting for those factors, all these Gods were basically the same accounting for cultural differences and influences.
And then there is the matter of proof. It seems without proof in order to prove there is a God, then it cannot be rationally believed by a critically thinking people. So , God provided miracles over the years and especially when his people were starting to doubt His existence. The 10 commandments, the burning bush, the loaves and fishes, and many more including the Madonna. To many these are either lies or parlor tricks, not to be believed or trusted any more than a magician at the circus or a fortune teller in a tent. I agree that faith requires a certain suspension of rational thought and an effort to entertain the possibilities and accuracy of the recorded history- especially in the religious realm. Not all will be swayed and I think that is fine- and possibly by design. Real truths are only uncovered when there is tension in the conversation. If all followed blindly the history and truths would be lost or forgotten and have no real meaning.
Another article I read one time when I was teenager a very long time ago was that there was no hell beyond death. We create our hell here on earth and live it as punishment for our sins while we reside here. Some might call it Karma but misery is our reward for not following the teachings of Jesus Christ . The source of this interesting article was the Catholic Sentinel - the news paper of the time of the church - and was written by a cardinal in good standing at the time.
There is no doubt there are lots of critical thinkers here on this site- and quite a few who are not so much so.... but I would expect nothing less than a robust conversation about a subject so deeply personal as this.
I agree that faith requires a certain suspension of rational thought and an effort to entertain the possibilities and accuracy of the recorded history- especially in the religious realm.Bob
It seems you are not familiar with legal historical evidence. There is no "suspension of rational thought" necessary to believe historical records. Reasonable people accept the fact of the American Revolution, and yet none of us or our parents were alive to witness it. Same goes for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Prior to the printing press there is more written about these events than anything else. Many by eyewitnesses or people who were taught by eyewitnesses. Because some of these eye witnesses' stories were canonized does in no way diminish their truthfulness.
I agree that faith requires a certain suspension of rational thought and an effort to entertain the possibilities and accuracy of the recorded history- especially in the religious realm.
Originally Posted by Ringman
It seems you are not familiar with legal historical evidence. There is no "suspension of rational thought" necessary to believe historical records. Reasonable people accept the fact of the American Revolution, and yet none of us or our parents were alive to witness it. Same goes for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Prior to the printing press there is more written about these events than anything else. Many by eyewitnesses or people who were taught by eyewitnesses. Because some of these eye witnesses' stories were canonized does in no way diminish their truthfulness.
And the American Revolution is still being written about today. And no one doubts the accuracy or validity of the historical record. The atheist mantra that we’ve seen ad nauseam on these types of threads of, “the New Testament manuscripts were written by anonymous authors decades after the events”…as if that somehow denigrates the accuracy of those historical narratives…is nothing more than a pitiful attempt to add some legitimacy to their already weak position, and it fails entirely and completely and thoroughly.
It’s not logical, at all, for one to still deny the truth about something, when one knows for a fact and without a doubt that the matter at hand is true.
I agree that faith requires a certain suspension of rational thought and an effort to entertain the possibilities and accuracy of the recorded history- especially in the religious realm.
Originally Posted by Ringman
It seems you are not familiar with legal historical evidence. There is no "suspension of rational thought" necessary to believe historical records. Reasonable people accept the fact of the American Revolution, and yet none of us or our parents were alive to witness it. Same goes for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Prior to the printing press there is more written about these events than anything else. Many by eyewitnesses or people who were taught by eyewitnesses. Because some of these eye witnesses' stories were canonized does in no way diminish their truthfulness.
And the American Revolution is still being written about today. And no one doubts the accuracy or validity of the historical record. The atheist mantra that we’ve seen ad nauseam on these types of threads of, “the New Testament manuscripts were written by anonymous authors decades after the events”…as if that somehow denigrates the accuracy of those historical narratives…is nothing more than a pitiful attempt to add some legitimacy to their already weak position, and it fails entirely and completely and thoroughly.
Many stories about the Founding Fathers, Civil War and old are doubted and re-evaluated on a regular basis. As an example, the story of George Washington chopping down the Cherry Tree is now generally considered to be untrue.
And that's just us doubting an alleged mandate event a mere 250 years ago, not an alleged supernatural being returning from the dead 2000 years ago.
So not only are some events surrounding our founders in doubt, you're also drawing a false equivalency.
It’s not logical, at all, for one to still deny the truth about something, when one knows for a fact and without a doubt that the matter at hand is true.
Now you're a mind reader and "know" what's in the mind of others?
It’s not logical, at all, for one to still deny the truth about something, when one knows for a fact and without a doubt that the matter at hand is true.
Now you're a mind reader and "know" what's in the mind of others?
If you knew without a doubt that Christianity was true, would you become a Christian…?
It’s not logical, at all, for one to still deny the truth about something, when one knows for a fact and without a doubt that the matter at hand is true.
Now you're a mind reader and "know" what's in the mind of others?
If you knew without a doubt that Christianity was true, would you become a Christian…?
I know you intended that as a "gotcha" question, but that aside, I hope you don't think it's a simple question, but if you do, you're not the deep thinker I hoped you were.
If you know anything about philosophy at all, you should know there's only one think we can know "without a doubt", which is, "I think therefore I am". Everything beyond that has some level of doubt.
"That Christianity was true", so true in what sense, which Christianity, and as we've already discussed, there's no singular definition of "Christian".
I know that's not the answer you were looking for, but if you want better answers, try asking better questions.
Regardless, let me help you out. To the extent possible, my beliefs are based on evidence, logic and reason. I approach problems with a healthily level of practical skepticism, and after reaching a conclusion generally ask myself "How can I be wrong", and weigh likelihoods.
If you have good, convincing evidence that in some sense, some version of Christianity is in some sense true, I'm open to your argument, but thus far once you dump out all the fallacal arguments all I see is an empty sack.
But we’re talking about the American Revolution…a BIG deal…not a child George Washington chopping down a tree.
The American Revolution happened. Despite differences in minor details told by multiple historians over the last 248 years.
The Titanic sank. Despite some eyewitnesses saying it broke in half first, and other eyewitnesses saying it didn’t.
Nobody's claiming Molly Brown is the daughter of Aphrodite, drown in the icy North Atlantic, was resurrected 3 days later by John Jacob Astor IV, and now they answer prayers and save souls, and you can live with them forever in paradise.
Your position clearly has ZERO to do with logic or reason or evidence or science or truth. Your position is clearly a matter of the heart.
Thanks for making crystal clear what many of us here have suspected or known all along.
Dude,
Pour yourself a couple finders of good bourbon, perhaps something from Applejacks. Drop a couple Ice cubes in it, but the must be made of water form a Norwegian glacier, and relax a bit.
Again, salvation isn’t based on whether or not one believes anything that was written in the Old Testament, literally or figuratively.
But it is based on believing in the Gospel.
As long as one acknowledges that Jesus died for the sins of everyone and rose from the dead, and one accepts God’s gift of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus alone, then they’re good to go. Period.
You have a choice. God will honor your choice. You can choose to spend eternity in His presence. It’s easy. It’s simple. Nothing complicated about it. At all. Or you can choose to ‘not’ spend eternity in His presence. The choice is yours.
If he doesn't exist, it's an empty choice.
If it's an empty choice, and you chose to not spend eternity in his presence, you better be right. Posted this on here years ago and think about it often. I was in Virginia once and at a gas station....an old gentleman came out to get in his real old pickup....had a pair of overalls on...old straw had. As he got in his truck and turned around...I saw an old license plate on the front bumper...it said.."When you die and believe there is no God...you better be right." Think about that often.
Again, salvation isn’t based on whether or not one believes anything that was written in the Old Testament, literally or figuratively.
But it is based on believing in the Gospel.
As long as one acknowledges that Jesus died for the sins of everyone and rose from the dead, and one accepts God’s gift of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus alone, then they’re good to go. Period.
You have a choice. God will honor your choice. You can choose to spend eternity in His presence. It’s easy. It’s simple. Nothing complicated about it. At all. Or you can choose to ‘not’ spend eternity in His presence. The choice is yours.
If he doesn't exist, it's an empty choice.
If it's an empty choice, and you chose to not spend eternity in his presence, you better be right. Posted this on here years ago and think about it often. I was in Virginia once and at a gas station....an old gentleman came out to get in his real old pickup....had a pair of overalls on...old straw had. As he got in his truck and turned around...I saw an old license plate on the front bumper...it said.."When you die and believe there is no God...you better be right." Think about that often.
So , God provided miracles over the years and especially when his people were starting to doubt His existence. The 10 commandments, the burning bush, the loaves and fishes, and many more including the Madonna.
You are taking the word of men you don't know that lived thousands of years ago that any of that is true.
If accepting the Bible as the word of god and living your life by it is the most important thing in the world then why would god only reveal himself to a small group of people in a rural part of the middle east thousands of years ago? And what about all the people that lived in North America, Central America, South America at that time. I guess it wasn't important for them to be exposed to this great revelation because it would be another 1500 to 1600 years before they had any contact with a Christian. Hey, who cares what the heathen races believe anyway right?
Quote
"When you die and believe there is no God...you better be right." Think about that often.
When you die and have opted to only believe in one of the thousands of gods offered by the religions of the world.......you better be right. Think about that.
There are 8.1 billion people on earth. So that means 5.7 billion people aren't Christian. But this is not really relevant. Truth is not a popularity contest. And widespread belief in something is not evidence.
Do any of the “thousands of gods offered by the religions of the world” have a 2,000 year history and 2.4 billion followers today…?
Hinduism has approximately 1.2 billion adherents worldwide, It is as old as the Abrahamic religions and easily predates Christianity.
Originally Posted by antlers
Do any of the “thousands of gods offered by the religions of the world” have a 2,000 year history and 2.4 billion followers today…?
So when Christianity had a following of thousands and was 100 year old it was less true? Is Religion a search for some type of truth, or a democracy of people picking their god(s) and the god(s) that are most popular are the most true?
Do any of the “thousands of gods offered by the religions of the world” have a 2,000 year history and 2.4 billion followers today…?
Hinduism has approximately 1.2 billion adherents worldwide, It is as old as the Abrahamic religions and easily predates Christianity.
So it’s older than Christianity, but Christianity has 100% more followers.
Argumentum ad populum:
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because many people think so.
It’s much more than that. The evidence shows that early Christianity grew…against overwhelming odds…like an airborne contagion; from a tiny group of followers 2000 years ago to the most dominant religion in the world today.
The evidence shows that early Christianity grew…against overwhelming odds…like an airborne contagion; from a tiny group of followers 2000 years ago to the most dominant religion in the world today.
Facts matter. They carry some weight.
So if Christianity numbers ever drop below Hindu or Islamic numbers it will be a false religion. Got it.
So , God provided miracles over the years and especially when his people were starting to doubt His existence. The 10 commandments, the burning bush, the loaves and fishes, and many more including the Madonna.
You are taking the word of men you don't know that lived thousands of years ago that any of that is true.
If accepting the Bible as the word of god and living your life by it is the most important thing in the world then why would god only reveal himself to a small group of people in a rural part of the middle east thousands of years ago? And what about all the people that lived in North America, Central America, South America at that time. I guess it wasn't important for them to be exposed to this great revelation because it would be another 1500 to 1600 years before they had any contact with a Christian. Hey, who cares what the heathen races believe anyway right?
Quote
"When you die and believe there is no God...you better be right." Think about that often.
When you die and have opted to only believe in one of the thousands of gods offered by the religions of the world.......you better be right. Think about that.
So , God provided miracles over the years and especially when his people were starting to doubt His existence. The 10 commandments, the burning bush, the loaves and fishes, and many more including the Madonna.
You are taking the word of men you don't know that lived thousands of years ago that any of that is true.
If accepting the Bible as the word of god and living your life by it is the most important thing in the world then why would god only reveal himself to a small group of people in a rural part of the middle east thousands of years ago? And what about all the people that lived in North America, Central America, South America at that time. I guess it wasn't important for them to be exposed to this great revelation because it would be another 1500 to 1600 years before they had any contact with a Christian. Hey, who cares what the heathen races believe anyway right?
Quote
"When you die and believe there is no God...you better be right." Think about that often.
When you die and have opted to only believe in one of the thousands of gods offered by the religions of the world.......you better be right. Think about that.
So , God provided miracles over the years and especially when his people were starting to doubt His existence. The 10 commandments, the burning bush, the loaves and fishes, and many more including the Madonna.
You are taking the word of men you don't know that lived thousands of years ago that any of that is true.
If accepting the Bible as the word of god and living your life by it is the most important thing in the world then why would god only reveal himself to a small group of people in a rural part of the middle east thousands of years ago? And what about all the people that lived in North America, Central America, South America at that time. I guess it wasn't important for them to be exposed to this great revelation because it would be another 1500 to 1600 years before they had any contact with a Christian. Hey, who cares what the heathen races believe anyway right?
Quote
"When you die and believe there is no God...you better be right." Think about that often.
When you die and have opted to only believe in one of the thousands of gods offered by the religions of the world.......you better be right. Think about that.
Matthew 7:13-14 says.....Enter by the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
The evidence shows that early Christianity grew…against overwhelming odds…like an airborne contagion; from a tiny group of followers 2000 years ago to the most dominant religion in the world today. Facts matter. They carry some weight.
So if Christianity numbers ever drop below Hindu or Islamic numbers it will be a false religion. Got it.
No. But while it’s possible that all of the other religions offer some truth in them…if it differs from what Jesus says…then it would be wrong. Other religions may have many things right…but if they differ from what Jesus says…then it would be wrong. So in ‘that’ sense, Hinduism and Islam are already false religions.
The evidence shows that there really was a man named Jesus 2000 years ago who walked the earth and performed miracles, and who predicted His own death and resurrection and accomplished it.
And the evidence shows that there were Mosaic Law abiding Jews converting completely to this new belief system, and paying for it with their lives, to say that it really did happen.
This little guy right here is a pretty good argument against Darwinian evolution.
Not really sure how that is an argument against evolutions. But I am a bit amused that when you look at a beetle that shoots hot acid out its butt you think it's evidence for the Christian God.
So , God provided miracles over the years and especially when his people were starting to doubt His existence. The 10 commandments, the burning bush, the loaves and fishes, and many more including the Madonna.
You are taking the word of men you don't know that lived thousands of years ago that any of that is true.
If accepting the Bible as the word of god and living your life by it is the most important thing in the world then why would god only reveal himself to a small group of people in a rural part of the middle east thousands of years ago? And what about all the people that lived in North America, Central America, South America at that time. I guess it wasn't important for them to be exposed to this great revelation because it would be another 1500 to 1600 years before they had any contact with a Christian. Hey, who cares what the heathen races believe anyway right?
Quote
"When you die and believe there is no God...you better be right." Think about that often.
When you die and have opted to only believe in one of the thousands of gods offered by the religions of the world.......you better be right. Think about that.
Matthew 7:13-14 says.....Enter by the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Psalms 137:9 "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."
The evidence shows that there really was a man named Jesus 2000 years ago who walked the earth and performed miracles, and who predicted His own death and resurrection and accomplished it.
No evidence for that at all outside a story written in a book.
The evidence shows that there really was a man named Jesus 2000 years ago who walked the earth and performed miracles, and who predicted His own death and resurrection and accomplished it.
And the evidence shows that there were Mosaic Law abiding Jews converting completely to this new belief system, and paying for it with their lives, to say that it really did happen.
But where they really persecuted, and if so, how much?
The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom is a 2013 book by Candida Moss, a professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame. In her book, Moss advances a thesis that:
The traditional idea of the "Age of Martyrdom", when Christians suffered persecution from the Roman authorities and lived in fear of being thrown to the lions, is largely fictional.[1] Here she follows the work of G. E. M. de Ste. Croix.
There was never sustained, targeted persecution of Christians by Imperial Roman authorities. Official persecution of Christians by order of the Roman Emperor lasted for at most twelve years of the first three hundred of the Church's history.[2][3] Moss writes: "This does not mean, however, that there were no martyrs at all or that Christians never died. It is clear that some people were cruelly tortured and brutally executed for reasons that strike us as profoundly unjust."[4]
Most of the stories of individual martyrs amassed by the early modern period are pure inventions. She agrees with Bollandist scholar Hippolyte Delehaye that most martyrdom literature developed in the fourth century and beyond.[5]
Even the oldest and most historically accurate stories of martyrs and their sufferings have been altered and re-written by later editors, so that it is impossible to know for sure what any of the martyrs actually thought, did or said.[3][6]
Do any of the “thousands of gods offered by the religions of the world” have a 2,000 year history and 2.4 billion followers today…?
Well the fact that Christians spent a long time strapping people to a pole and setting them on fire for not being a Christian probably helped boost the numbers of people who converted. LOL! Most of the other religions didn't engage in such aggressive recruitment practices.
The evidence shows that there really was a man named Jesus 2000 years ago who walked the earth and performed miracles, and who predicted His own death and resurrection and accomplished it.
No evidence for that at all outside a story written in a book.
Actually there're 27 different canonical historical books. By at least 9 different authors. And many thousands of non-canonical historical works. By many thousands of different authors. Some are still being written today. And there’s history itself, which is significant.
This little guy right here is a pretty good argument against Darwinian evolution.
Not really sure how that is an argument against evolutions. But I am a bit amused that when you look at a beetle that shoots hot acid out its butt you think it's evidence for the Christian God.
So you’re amused when you stupidly create a straw man and then think you’re smart by refuting something I didn’t say?
Do any of the “thousands of gods offered by the religions of the world” have a 2,000 year history and 2.4 billion followers today…?
Well the fact that Christians spent a long time strapping people to a pole and setting them on fire for not being a Christian probably helped boost the numbers of people who converted. LOL! Most of the other religions didn't engage in such aggressive recruitment practices.
Those people who did such things hundreds of years ago weren’t practicing Christianity. Despite the anti-Christian behavior of those who did such things, the teachings of Christianity clearly continued to attract people. And grow into the world’s dominant religion today.
Do any of the “thousands of gods offered by the religions of the world” have a 2,000 year history and 2.4 billion followers today…?
Well the fact that Christians spent a long time strapping people to a pole and setting them on fire for not being a Christian probably helped boost the numbers of people who converted. LOL! Most of the other religions didn't engage in such aggressive recruitment practices.
Those people who did such things hundreds of years ago weren’t practicing Christianity. Despite the anti-Christian behavior of those who did such things, the teachings of Christianity clearly continued to attract people. And grow into the world’s dominant religion today.
Who are you to say they were not "real Christians"?
Maybe you just don't understand "Their Jesus".
They thought they were Christians. Heck, they were willing to murder people for their faith. Isn't that proof that they believed?
The evidence shows that there really was a man named Jesus 2000 years ago who walked the earth and performed miracles, and who predicted His own death and resurrection and accomplished it.
No evidence for that at all outside a story written in a book.
Actually there're 27 different canonical historical books. By at least 9 different authors. And many thousands of non-canonical historical works. By many thousands of different authors. Some are still being written today. And there’s history itself, which is significant.
All are written in the context of a tradition and a faith, some being directly copied from earlier works, as seen in the overlap between gospels. Nothing was written in isolation.
Those people who did such things hundreds of years ago weren’t practicing Christianity.
You can retroactively try to disown them if you want but the people doing most of that stuff were acting with the authority of the church of that day. And how you feel towards them personally changes nothing about the effect their actions had. That effect being that many people converted to avoid persecution, torture and death. And that many pagan religions were essentially wiped out.
Hell, Christians can't even get along with other Christians. The pilgrims that came to America looking for religious freedom weren't fleeing from persecution by pagans, heretics, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or non believers. They were fleeing from "Other Christians".
The myth of down trodden Christians always being persecuted is mostly BS. The Roman emperor Constantine converted the Roman empire to Christianity in 337 CE. After that point Christians had a much more distinguished rampage against other religions and non believers than anything that was ever actually done to them.
This little guy right here is a pretty good argument against Darwinian evolution.
Not really sure how that is an argument against evolutions. But I am a bit amused that when you look at a beetle that shoots hot acid out its butt you think it's evidence for the Christian God.
So you’re amused when you stupidly create a straw man and then think you’re smart by refuting something I didn’t say?
The church of that day that was encouraging such behavior wasn’t practicing Christianity. Despite the anti-Christian behavior of the church of that day that was encouraging people to do such things, the teachings of Christianity clearly continued to attract people. And grow into the world’s dominant religion today.
Human beings, wherever they’re involved, there’s always disagreement. It’s not God’s issue, it’s our issue. People disagree about almost everything. Why would you expect people in a church, or group of churches, to all agree on everything…?
But during the first 300 or so years of Christianity, against overwhelming odds, Christianity…which began as a very tiny band of Jesus’ original followers…not only survived, but thrived. It survived, and outlasted the powerful Jewish Temple that was intent on stamping it out. And it survived, and outlasted the mighty Roman Empire that had conquered a great deal of the known world at that time, that most definitely persecuted Christians.
These persecutions culminated with the reign of Diocletian and Galerius at the end of the third century and the beginning of the 4th century. Against all odds, this tiny band of Jesus’ original followers grew to 10,000 Christians in the year 100, then grew to about 200,000 Christians by the year 200, and then grew to almost 2 million Christians by the year 250.
Had Constantine not made Christianity a state religion, it would probably remained a marginal faith. You can thank both Paul the promotor and Constantine, with the Church giving you the bible and helping to elevate the faith into a worldwide religion.
Had Constantine not made Christianity a state religion, it would probably remained a marginal faith. You can thank both Paul the promotor and Constantine, with the Church giving you the bible and helping to elevate the faith into a worldwide religion.
After the Romans converted their army with threat of execution then along came Charlemagne who executed thousands of German noblemen for not being proper Christians. They were sneaking around and still practicing their paganism. Very Christ like of old Charley.
If it's Your Will would You could You save some of these jokers from themselves. They are complete morons. Drooling, window licking, babbling, blithering idiots in desperate need of Your help.
Amen
Sorry fellers, sometimes the answer to a prayer is just "no".........
Had Constantine not made Christianity a state religion, it would probably remained a marginal faith. You can thank both Paul the promotor and Constantine, with the Church giving you the bible and helping to elevate the faith into a worldwide religion.
After the Romans converted their army with threat of execution then along came Charlemagne who executed thousands of German noblemen for not being proper Christians. They were sneaking around and still practicing their paganism. Very Christ like of old Charley.
Had Constantine not made Christianity a state religion, it would probably remained a marginal faith. You can thank both Paul the promotor and Constantine, with the Church giving you the bible and helping to elevate the faith into a worldwide religion.
After the Romans converted their army with threat of execution then along came Charlemagne who executed thousands of German noblemen for not being proper Christians. They were sneaking around and still practicing their paganism. Very Christ like of old Charley.
The origins of the phrase "kill them all, God will know his own", is not from Christians killing Muslims. It's from the Massacre of Beziers, a slaughter of Albigensian Christians during the Albigensian Crusade.
It's interesting how Antler's dismisses this element in the growth of Christianity.
By his reasoning, what ever religion can bully, scare, intimidate, torture and murder their way to world dominance is the one true religion.
Had Constantine not made Christianity a state religion, it would probably remained a marginal faith. You can thank both Paul the promotor and Constantine, with the Church giving you the bible and helping to elevate the faith into a worldwide religion.
After the Romans converted their army with threat of execution then along came Charlemagne who executed thousands of German noblemen for not being proper Christians. They were sneaking around and still practicing their paganism. Very Christ like of old Charley.
Were any of them Christ like?
Not real likely. But the "Christian" church after it left Jerusalem and western Asia became anything but Christ like if we are to accept Jesus' words.
The Christian church became an enforcement arm of the state and ruled by terror. When the Protestants broke away they kept that weapon in their arsenal.
Old Constantine was crafty. He offered the Bishops amnesty and position if they would just keep the populace under control by whatever means necessary.
Most all Christian churches today are lineal descendants of that state terror organization formed in Rome.
Christianity is an informed and evidence based faith. What folks oughta do…those who are so inclined…is to look at all of the evidence itself. And see which way the evidence points you. And then make your decision.
This little guy right here is a pretty good argument against Darwinian evolution.
Not really sure how that is an argument against evolutions. But I am a bit amused that when you look at a beetle that shoots hot acid out its butt you think it's evidence for the Christian God.
So you’re amused when you stupidly create a straw man and then think you’re smart by refuting something I didn’t say?
So what then was your point?
English much? My point was that the existence of the bombardier beetle is a pretty good argument against Darwinian evolution.
Self professed Christians with their warped interpretations of Jesus' simple teachings and their reliance on the codicils authored by the 13th self appointed apostle do more than anyone or anything else to reassure atheists and agnostics the validity of their doubts of a God or supernatural creator.
The disagreements over the road to salvation among the hundreds of Christian sects and the disowning of the Jewish covenant despite the miraculous return of Israel as a nation takes away all credibility of these folks.
I guess Antlers has me pegged correctly as a Judaizer. Jesus was one also.
''I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel"
Self professed Christians with their warped interpretations of Jesus' simple teachings and their reliance on the codicils authored by the 13th self appointed apostle do more than anyone or anything else to reassure atheists and agnostics the validity of their doubts of a God or supernatural creator.
Pretend (fake) Jews shouldn’t throw stones from the glass house they’re in. The atheists don’t want there to be a God. Period. It has zero to do with Jesus’ hand-picked apostle Paul. Your psychobabble Hebrew Roots movement theology is nuttier than a squirrel turd, and that’s clearly recognized by the one’s you denigrate as “self-professed” Christian’s.
Originally Posted by Hastings
The disagreements over the road to salvation among the hundreds of Christian sects and the disowning of the Jewish covenant despite the miraculous return of Israel as a nation takes away all credibility of these folks.
ALL “Christian” denominations are in agreement that salvation comes by God’ grace alone, through faith in Jesus alone ~ putting one’s trust and confidence in Jesus alone. Not cherry-pickin’ a tiny fragment of rules from the Mosaic Law to abide by and callin’ it good. The Abrahamic Covenant is still in effect. But the old covenant (the Mosaic Law) isn’t ~ just as Jesus Himself made crystal clear.
Originally Posted by Hastings
I guess Antlers has me pegged correctly as a Judaizer.
Yep.
Originally Posted by Hastings
Jesus was one also.
Nope. Not even a little bit. He introduced His New Covenant; the one prophesied about by Jeremiah. New wine in old wineskins doesn’t work, neither does a new patch on old cloth ~ just as Jesus taught.
Originally Posted by Hastings
''I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel"
Self professed Christians with their warped interpretations of Jesus' simple teachings and their reliance on the codicils authored by the 13th self appointed apostle do more than anyone or anything else to reassure atheists and agnostics the validity of their doubts of a God or supernatural creator.
Pretend (fake) Jews shouldn’t throw stones from the glass house they’re in. The atheists don’t want there to be a God. Period. It has zero to do with Jesus’ hand-picked apostle Paul. Your psychobabble Hebrew Roots movement theology is nuttier than a squirrel turd, and that’s clearly recognized by the one’s you denigrate as “self-professed” Christian’s.
Originally Posted by Hastings
The disagreements over the road to salvation among the hundreds of Christian sects and the disowning of the Jewish covenant despite the miraculous return of Israel as a nation takes away all credibility of these folks.
ALL “Christian” denominations are in agreement that salvation comes by God’ grace alone, through faith in Jesus alone ~ putting one’s trust and confidence in Jesus alone. Not cherry-pickin’ a tiny fragment of rules from the Mosaic Law to abide by and callin’ it good. The Abrahamic Covenant is still in effect. But the old covenant (the Mosaic Law) isn’t ~ just as Jesus Himself made crystal clear.
Originally Posted by Hastings
I guess Antlers has me pegged correctly as a Judaizer.
Yep.
Originally Posted by Hastings
Jesus was one also.
Nope. Not even a little bit. He introduced His New Covenant; the one prophesied about by Jeremiah. New wine in old wineskins doesn’t work, neither does a new patch on old cloth ~ just as Jesus taught.
Originally Posted by Hastings
''I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel"
Talk about “warped interpretations”…!
No, Hastings is not crazy. The points he brings up are areas of real debate:
Self professed Christians with their warped interpretations of Jesus' simple teachings and their reliance on the codicils authored by the 13th self appointed apostle do more than anyone or anything else to reassure atheists and agnostics the validity of their doubts of a God or supernatural creator.
Pretend (fake) Jews shouldn’t throw stones from the glass house they’re in. The atheists don’t want there to be a God. Period. It has zero to do with Jesus’ hand-picked apostle Paul. Your psychobabble Hebrew Roots movement theology is nuttier than a squirrel turd, and that’s clearly recognized by the one’s you denigrate as “self-professed” Christian’s.
Originally Posted by Hastings
The disagreements over the road to salvation among the hundreds of Christian sects and the disowning of the Jewish covenant despite the miraculous return of Israel as a nation takes away all credibility of these folks.
ALL “Christian” denominations are in agreement that salvation comes by God’ grace alone, through faith in Jesus alone ~ putting one’s trust and confidence in Jesus alone. Not cherry-pickin’ a tiny fragment of rules from the Mosaic Law to abide by and callin’ it good. The Abrahamic Covenant is still in effect. But the old covenant (the Mosaic Law) isn’t ~ just as Jesus Himself made crystal clear.
Originally Posted by Hastings
I guess Antlers has me pegged correctly as a Judaizer.
Yep.
Originally Posted by Hastings
Jesus was one also.
Nope. Not even a little bit. He introduced His New Covenant; the one prophesied about by Jeremiah. New wine in old wineskins doesn’t work, neither does a new patch on old cloth ~ just as Jesus taught.
Originally Posted by Hastings
''I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel"
Talk about “warped interpretations”…!
I thought you were ignoring me, but in any case I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
There are plenty of us Jesus following Christians that don't begin to believe Jesus selected Paul. There are thoughtful discussions on sites addressing this very subject. Count me very suspicious.
Did Jesus say "Oh wait it's been 4 years I forgot to say some things, I'll send a Roman/Sanhedrin enforcer and murderer to deliver the message''?
This little guy right here is a pretty good argument against Darwinian evolution.
Not really sure how that is an argument against evolutions. But I am a bit amused that when you look at a beetle that shoots hot acid out its butt you think it's evidence for the Christian God.
So you’re amused when you stupidly create a straw man and then think you’re smart by refuting something I didn’t say?
So what then was your point?
English much? My point was that the existence of the bombardier beetle is a pretty good argument against Darwinian evolution.
Did Jesus say "Oh wait it's been 4 years I forgot to say some things, I'll send a Roman/Sanhedrin enforcer and murderer to deliver the message''?
No, but Jesus clearly did say, “This man (Paul) is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel.”
This little guy right here is a pretty good argument against Darwinian evolution.
Not really sure how that is an argument against evolutions. But I am a bit amused that when you look at a beetle that shoots hot acid out its butt you think it's evidence for the Christian God.
So you’re amused when you stupidly create a straw man and then think you’re smart by refuting something I didn’t say?
So what then was your point?
English much? My point was that the existence of the bombardier beetle is a pretty good argument against Darwinian evolution.
Okay, you don’t know what straw man is.
Yes, I do. It’s the argument that I never made that you made up and then refuted.
You should stop. My IQ is at least two standards of deviation higher than yours.
ANTLERS - " ... It has zero to do with Jesus’ hand-picked apostle Paul. ..."
Didn't Paul say that men should not touch women, no marriage, no kids, etc., which would infer that women should never touch men, because "the end is very near? Any day now." "The end is very near," has been being prophesized by verious religions for thousands of years. End tiimes, end times, end times ... any day now. Very soon. Better be ready !!!!
Paul's demand that men and women should never touch each other brings us to the Roman Catholic Church and celibate preists and nuns.
That's the mainstay of religions today, seems to me. End times, any day now. Be ready. Be afraid. It's coming .... soon.
But you’ve taken the quote that you posted completely out of the context in which it was said. It was claimed by another here…someone who clearly despises Paul because he, like Jesus, teaches contrary to this other person’s already established position and agenda…that Paul is the reason why atheists are atheists. I refuted that. Atheists are atheists because they don’t want there to be a God. Period. It has zero to do with Jesus’ hand-picked apostle Paul.
But you’ve taken the quote that you posted completely out of the context in which it was said. It was claimed by another here…someone who clearly despises Paul because he, like Jesus, teaches contrary to this other person’s already established position and agenda…that Paul is the reason why atheists are atheists. I refuted that. Atheists are atheists because they don’t want there to be a God. Period. It has zero to do with Jesus’ hand-picked apostle Paul.
You are in no position to speak for all atheist.
Good thing you don't believe in maintaining The Law, especially that part about bearing false witness.
Every single atheist considers those as "Love is Love" because they all engage in one or all of those perversions ...... and it enrages them with a demonic hatred of Christians because they know the word of God prohibits these sexual perversions
Every single atheist considers those as "Love is Love" because they all engage in one or all of those perversions ...... and it enrages them with a demonic hatred of Christians because they know the word of God prohibits these sexual perversions
Did Jesus say "Oh wait it's been 4 years I forgot to say some things, I'll send a Roman/Sanhedrin enforcer and murderer to deliver the message''?
No, but Jesus clearly did say, “This man (Paul) is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel.”
Sure he did. Sent someone nobody would trust. They were onto him and “all of Asia’’ turned against him and the Jerusalem Church ran him off. He had to be rescued by the Army and put on a ship. Think about it.
Every single atheist considers those as "Love is Love" because they all engage in one or all of those perversions ...... and it enrages them with a demonic hatred of Christians because they know the word of God prohibits these sexual perversions
Swamplord: That sounds crazy. Surely you are engaging in hyperbole?
Every single atheist considers those as "Love is Love" because they all engage in one or all of those perversions ...... and it enrages them with a demonic hatred of Christians because they know the word of God prohibits these sexual perversions
Swamplord: That sounds crazy. Surely you are engaging in hyperbole?
He really is this unhinged.
His hate is so strong he's lost the ability to employ his reason. This makes people like him and GunChamp perfect targets for foreign influence campaigns such as those Russia's been running against the US since the beginning of Cold War. Of course Russia doesn't only target the right. He has counter parts on the Left equally susceptible to different kinds of propaganda operations, but they are typically yelling "Orange Man Bad".
Did Jesus say "Oh wait it's been 4 years I forgot to say some things, I'll send a Roman/Sanhedrin enforcer and murderer to deliver the message''?
Originally Posted by antlers
No, but Jesus clearly did say, “This man (Paul) is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel.”
Originally Posted by Hastings
Sure he did. Sent someone nobody would trust. They were onto him and “all of Asia’’ turned against him and the Jerusalem Church ran him off. He had to be rescued by the Army and put on a ship. Think about it.
Judaizers back then despised Paul, just like Judaizers of today…such as yourself…despise him, because he (like Jesus) clearly taught the incompatibility of the Law of Moses with Jesus’ New Covenant. The Judaizers…then and now…are the only one’s who despise Paul. Except for those…then and now…who despise ALL followers of Jesus.
Did Jesus say "Oh wait it's been 4 years I forgot to say some things, I'll send a Roman/Sanhedrin enforcer and murderer to deliver the message''?
Originally Posted by antlers
No, but Jesus clearly did say, “This man (Paul) is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel.”
Originally Posted by Hastings
Sure he did. Sent someone nobody would trust. They were onto him and “all of Asia’’ turned against him and the Jerusalem Church ran him off. He had to be rescued by the Army and put on a ship. Think about it.
Judaizers back then despised Paul, just like Judaizers of today…such as yourself…despise him, because he (like Jesus) clearly taught the incompatibility of the Law of Moses with Jesus’ New Covenant. The Judaizers…then and now…are the only one’s who despise Paul. Except for those…then and now…who despise ALL followers of Jesus.
Just a minute, that doesn't comport with what happened. The early church in Jerusalem and the church at Ephesus and all the other known Christian churches that Paul himself referred to as being against him despised the "followers of Jesus"?
When Paul was rescued and put on a ship for Europe he didn't have an adherent among the Followers of Jesus. At the very least there were none recorded.
He was suspected by the Jerusalem church founded by Jesus' publicly chosen apostles of being an enemy agent. Was he not?
When Paul was hauled off to Rome did he have any supporters in the Christian church? Other than Timothy?
If I had been Timothy I believe I would have been a bit askance at Paul wanting to cut on my pecker. What was that all about?
Every single atheist considers those as "Love is Love" because they all engage in one or all of those perversions ...... and it enrages them with a demonic hatred of Christians because they know the word of God prohibits these sexual perversions
Swamplord: That sounds crazy. Surely you are engaging in hyperbole?
He really is this unhinged.
His hate is so strong he's lost the ability to employ his reason. This makes people like him and GunChamp perfect targets for foreign influence campaigns such as those Russia's been running against the US since the beginning of Cold War. Of course Russia doesn't only target the right. He has counter parts on the Left equally susceptible to different kinds of propaganda operations, but they are typically yelling "Orange Man Bad".
The very first thing the self proclaimed atheists always do, is ridicule and paint those who speak up with "hate" "anti-semite" "racist" "bigot" "homophobe" "transphobe" etc & etc .. and they keep making up and weaponizing new -ist & -phobe words at their convenience
Just a minute, that doesn't comport with what happened. The early church in Jerusalem and the church at Ephesus and all the other known Christian churches that Paul himself referred to as being against him despised the "followers of Jesus"?
The only Christians that despised Paul were Judaizers, such as yourself. There were then, as there are now, other folks who despise Christianity itself and ALL followers of Jesus.
Originally Posted by Hastings
When Paul was rescued and put on a ship for Europe he didn't have an adherent among the Followers of Jesus. At the very least there were none recorded.
It’s crystal clear that Paul had good relations with those who were apostles before him, like Peter, John, and Jesus’ own brother James, who was to become the leader of the church in Jerusalem. When one reads the book of Acts it is clear that there is no ambiguity whatsoever about how Paul relates to these people. In the book of Acts, Paul’s entire mission to the Gentiles is endorsed with a unified voice by the Jerusalem apostles.
Originally Posted by Hastings
He was suspected by the Jerusalem church founded by Jesus' publicly chosen apostles of being an enemy agent. Was he not? When Paul was hauled off to Rome did he have any supporters in the Christian church? Other than Timothy?
See what I wrote above. Even world renowned Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman clearly affirms and concurs with what I wrote above.
Originally Posted by Hastings
If I had been Timothy I believe I would have been a bit askance at Paul wanting to cut on my pecker. What was that all about?
The big issue facing the early church involved the relationship of the Jewish Messiah to the non-Jewish peoples (Gentiles). For someone to be a follower of Jesus, the Judaizers insisted that one had to become circumcised and begin to follow the Law of Moses. The apostle Paul, both in his own letters and in Luke’s book of Acts, insisted that they absolutely did not have to do those things, as did Jesus Himself. And as did the apostle Peter, and as did James, Jesus’ own brother and the leader of the Jerusalem church. The salvation brought by the Jewish Messiah is for all people, not just for the Jews, and one does not have to become a Jew or follow the Mosaic Law in order to share in that salvation.
Luke’s book of Acts makes it completely clear that everyone…including the Jerusalem apostles…was completely on board with this view.
Every single atheist considers those as "Love is Love" because they all engage in one or all of those perversions ...... and it enrages them with a demonic hatred of Christians because they know the word of God prohibits these sexual perversions
Swamplord: That sounds crazy. Surely you are engaging in hyperbole?
He really is this unhinged.
His hate is so strong he's lost the ability to employ his reason. This makes people like him and GunChamp perfect targets for foreign influence campaigns such as those Russia's been running against the US since the beginning of Cold War. Of course Russia doesn't only target the right. He has counter parts on the Left equally susceptible to different kinds of propaganda operations, but they are typically yelling "Orange Man Bad".
The very first thing the self proclaimed atheists always do, is ridicule and paint those who speak up with "hate" "anti-semite" "racist" "bigot" "homophobe" "transphobe" etc & etc .. and they keep making up and weaponizing new -ist & -phobe words at their convenience
all designed to shut you up
your kryptonite doesn't work on everyone
You're the one who began a rant about:
Pedophilia Homosexuality Bisexuality Crossdressing and it was a Christian who said:
Originally Posted by Hastings
Swamplord: That sounds crazy. Surely you are engaging in hyperbole?
That's what happens when you respond with your emotions, not your logic. You make unforced errors.
Now stop and think for a moment how that can be harnessed by nefarious foreign actors.
Now think about how those same actors can harness "Orange man bad" against you.
Christianity is an informed and evidence based faith. What folks oughta do…those who are so inclined…is to look at all of the evidence itself. And see which way the evidence points you. And then make your decision.
Repeating a fallacy won't make it true. Evidence is something that anyone can access and evaluate. Faith is defined as a belief held without the support of evidence, just as Hebrews 11:1 defines it.
Did Jesus say "Oh wait it's been 4 years I forgot to say some things, I'll send a Roman/Sanhedrin enforcer and murderer to deliver the message''?
No, but Jesus clearly did say, “This man (Paul) is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel.”
We have nothing from Jesus himself, only what others wrote about him decades after.
Before there was ever a New Testament there were already Christians. They saw the risen Jesus themselves and then later they wrote it down. You can become a Christian without even knowing what the Bible says. As long as you know that Jesus rose from the dead, and as long as you know that He died for your sins, it’s very easy to become a Christian.
Paul says all you need to do is confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus rose from the dead, and you will be saved. Period. So before the Bible ever even existed, Christianity was already true. Now it is true that the New Testament helps us understand what Christianity is all about, and because we have the New Testament we can order our lives according to it.
But my point is, even if you find what you consider to be an error in the New Testament, that doesn’t negate the truth of Christianity. There are other ways of verifying that Jesus rose from the dead besides words written on a page. The explosion of the early church out of Jerusalem is an example. That wouldn’t have happened unless something extraordinary had happened. Especially in a group that had nothing to gain by saying Jesus rose from the dead. And they went on and got beaten, tortured, and killed for saying it.
It could’ve been easily refuted if the Jews and the Romans had simply gone to the tomb and pulled out the dead body of Jesus. Christianity would’ve been over. But they didn’t ~ because they couldn’t. But it persisted and turned the world around in its first nearly 300 years, through peaceful means.
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew.
Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time.
''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all.
No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all.
No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate.
Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times.
Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles.
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3)
Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any.
The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.''
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew.
Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time.
''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all.
No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all.
No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate.
Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times.
Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles.
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3)
Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any.
The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.''
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
Team finds over 30 strains of C-19, and they do not kill equally.
Li's team found that some of the most aggressive strains of the virus were able to generate 270 times the viral load as the weakest strains; in addition, the aggressive strains killed the human cells fastest.
More than 30 different mutations of the virus were detected, of which 19 were previously undiscovered.
The novel coronavirus has mutated into at least 30 different genetic variations, according to a new study in China.
The results showed that medical officials have vastly underestimated the overall ability of the virus to mutate, in finding that different strains have affected different parts of the world, leading to potential difficulties in finding an overall cure.
The study, which was carried out by professor Li Lanjuan and colleagues from Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China, was published in a non-peer reviewed paper released on Sunday.
The researchers analyzed the strains from 11 randomly chosen coronavirus patients from Hangzhou, where there have been 1,264 reported cases, and then tested how efficiently they could infect and kill cells. China's coronavirus numbers, however, have been questioned, as they have not been verified.
More than 30 different mutations of the virus were detected, of which 19 were previously undiscovered.
“Sars-CoV-2 has acquired mutations capable of substantially changing its pathogenicity,” Li wrote in the paper.
As of Tuesday afternoon, COVID-19 has infected more than 804,000 people in the United States and killed at least 43,200. More than 4 million tests have been conducted in the U.S., but experts believe that number must be increased in order to reopen society. Worldwide, there are at least 2.5 million cases of the disease.
Li's team found that some of the most aggressive strains of the virus were able to generate 270 times the viral load as the weakest strains; in addition, the aggressive strains killed the human cells fastest.
According to their findings, the "true diversity" of the viral strains is underappreciated and must be understood in order to find a treatment or vaccine.
"Drug and vaccine development, while urgent, need to take the impact of these accumulating mutations, especially the founding mutations, into account to avoid potential pitfall," the authors wrote.
Team finds over 30 strains of C-19, and they do not kill equally.
Li's team found that some of the most aggressive strains of the virus were able to generate 270 times the viral load as the weakest strains; in addition, the aggressive strains killed the human cells fastest.
More than 30 different mutations of the virus were detected, of which 19 were previously undiscovered.
The novel coronavirus has mutated into at least 30 different genetic variations, according to a new study in China.
The results showed that medical officials have vastly underestimated the overall ability of the virus to mutate, in finding that different strains have affected different parts of the world, leading to potential difficulties in finding an overall cure.
The study, which was carried out by professor Li Lanjuan and colleagues from Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China, was published in a non-peer reviewed paper released on Sunday.
The researchers analyzed the strains from 11 randomly chosen coronavirus patients from Hangzhou, where there have been 1,264 reported cases, and then tested how efficiently they could infect and kill cells. China's coronavirus numbers, however, have been questioned, as they have not been verified.
More than 30 different mutations of the virus were detected, of which 19 were previously undiscovered.
“Sars-CoV-2 has acquired mutations capable of substantially changing its pathogenicity,” Li wrote in the paper.
As of Tuesday afternoon, COVID-19 has infected more than 804,000 people in the United States and killed at least 43,200. More than 4 million tests have been conducted in the U.S., but experts believe that number must be increased in order to reopen society. Worldwide, there are at least 2.5 million cases of the disease.
Li's team found that some of the most aggressive strains of the virus were able to generate 270 times the viral load as the weakest strains; in addition, the aggressive strains killed the human cells fastest.
According to their findings, the "true diversity" of the viral strains is underappreciated and must be understood in order to find a treatment or vaccine.
"Drug and vaccine development, while urgent, need to take the impact of these accumulating mutations, especially the founding mutations, into account to avoid potential pitfall," the authors wrote.
That article is 4 years old and was unnecessarily alarmist at the time, claiming an almost 1/20th fatality rate. Have not we learned quite a bit since then? Or was there another point to be illustrated?
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
Prove there wasn't a Jesus, prove there wasn't a body.......
Go take a high school logic class, then you might be worth debating.
Speaking of logic, and your willingness to imply yourself overloaded with it......
How's that Miracle of Life thing going.
Making any progress?
You debate like a 6 year old.
Like I've said, once you've completed a high school level logic class it might be worth having a discussion with you.
There is no debate to be had. Without God, there is no Life.
It really is that simple, which is shocking that such an enlightened individual such as yourself can not even begin to grasp it.
You have no argument to bring to this table, you are irrelevant.
Abiogenesis requires proper initial conditions, chemistry, and time, a lot of time. 4.5 billion years is a long time, over 1.6 trillion days.
For you, that's seems to be more than you can comprehend, so you substitute something you can understand, a magical being. You chose the Christian God, but the Magical Flying Spaghettis Monster has just as much explanatory power as your god, or pixies, unicorns, a magical inter-dimensional ham sandwich, any other creation myth for that matter.
I think the easiest way to dispel young earth creationism is rock layers. There are rock layers even on the highest mountains. How'd they get there? Dirt and mud flow off high areas and dump onto low-lying areas. So if the earth was only 6000 years old a great flood would not put layers on mountains.
Since there are layers on high mountains that proves mountains were at one time low-lying plains. There was once a sea where the Rocky Mountains are.
Every spot on Earth was once low lying. Every spot on Earth was once high elevation.
This is incontrovertible proof to anyone willing to think.
While I have participated in some of these discussions peripherally, and occasionally when approached/addressed directly...
I do not understand why some would continue to directly engage when the other party has seen or heard HIS voice, and then overtly, directly, without equivocation, state that it was not there or was false, and HE does not exist...
While I have participated in some of these discussions peripherally, and occasionally when approached/addressed directly...
I do not understand why some would continue to directly engage when the other party has seen or heard HIS voice, and then overtly, directly, without equivocation, state that it was not there or was false, and HE does not exist...
Some people are seemingly concerned about discrepancies in the New Testament manuscripts. For example, the eyewitness details: one document says there was one angel at the tomb; another document says there were two angels at the tomb. Another document says such-and-such a person got to the tomb first, and another document implies that other people got to the tomb first.
These kind of minor differences are exactly what we should expect from eyewitness details. Any judge that has two or more eyewitnesses that come into his courtroom and give word-for-word testimony exactly about what happened…especially all of the minor details…is going to immediately assume that these eyewitnesses are in collusion. And they would be. Because eyewitnesses agree on the major event. Jesus was resurrected. They may disagree over the minor details.
When the Titanic sank in 1912, some of the eyewitnesses said the Titanic went down while; others eyewitnesses said it broke in half before it went down. Does one conclude the Titanic didn’t sink because the eyewitnesses disagree…? No. They all agree that the Titanic sank. They agree on the major event, even though they may disagree over the minor details.
The same thing is true about Jesus’ resurrection. The eyewitnesses may disagree about how many angels were there, or who got to the tomb first. But they all agree that Jesus was resurrected. And that’s the main point about Christianity. There was a resurrection and that’s what ALL of the eyewitnesses say.
There are those here who have made it crystal clear that they still would NOT become a Christian even if they KNEW for a fact and without a doubt that Christianity was true (which proves that their position has ZERO to do with truth and logic and reason and science and evidence). Their position is clearly a matter of the heart.
There are those here who have made it crystal clear that they still would NOT become a Christian even if they KNEW for a fact and without a doubt that Christianity was true (which proves that their position has ZERO to do with truth and logic and reason and science and evidence). Their position is clearly a matter of the heart.
A hard heart. The proud man will suddenly be broken, and that without remedy.
Abiogenesis requires proper initial conditions, chemistry, and time, a lot of time. 4.5 billion years is a long time, over 1.6 trillion days.
For you, that's seems to be more than you can comprehend, so you substitute something you can understand, a magical being. You chose the Christian God, but the Magical Flying Spaghettis Monster has just as much explanatory power as your god, or pixies, unicorns, a magical inter-dimensional ham sandwich, any other creation myth for that matter.
Studies, theories, and hypothesis........nothing proven, and it's well conceded that the derivation of the LUCA is, well, UNKNOWN.
It's also well conceded that abiogenisis has never been witnessed experimentally. Yeah, 1.6 trillion days, blah blah blah. We went from bare feet to traveling space in only a few centuries, smoke signals to cell phones in only a few centuries. We can make atoms dance and split in half.....but can't make inanimate substances live and breath.
Life started somewhere and even the brightest scientific minds known to man can't explain it. I find it more than hilarious that the bedrock of your belief system is the unexplained, unproven, and unknown. Sarcasm? Yep, dripping with it.
I think the easiest way to dispel young earth creationism is rock layers. There are rock layers even on the highest mountains. How'd they get there? Dirt and mud flow off high areas and dump onto low-lying areas. So if the earth was only 6000 years old a great flood would not put layers on mountains.
Since there are layers on high mountains that proves mountains were at one time low-lying plains. There was once a sea where the Rocky Mountains are.
Every spot on Earth was once low lying. Every spot on Earth was once high elevation.
This is incontrovertible proof to anyone willing to think.
Your post is confirmation of a worldwide flood. All those layers photographed were water born sediment at one time. Read up on the velocity of some of the currents produced by tides when there are no continents in the way.
Some people are seemingly concerned about discrepancies in the New Testament manuscripts. For example, the eyewitness details: one document says there was one angel at the tomb; another document says there were two angels at the tomb. Another document says such-and-such a person got to the tomb first, and another document implies that other people got to the tomb first.
These kind of minor differences are exactly what we should expect from eyewitness details. Any judge that has two or more eyewitnesses that come into his courtroom and give word-for-word testimony exactly about what happened…especially all of the minor details…is going to immediately assume that these eyewitnesses are in collusion. And they would be. Because eyewitnesses agree on the major event. Jesus was resurrected. They may disagree over the minor details.
When the Titanic sank in 1912, some of the eyewitnesses said the Titanic went down while; others eyewitnesses said it broke in half before it went down. Does one conclude the Titanic didn’t sink because the eyewitnesses disagree…? No. They all agree that the Titanic sank. They agree on the major event, even though they may disagree over the minor details.
The same thing is true about Jesus’ resurrection. The eyewitnesses may disagree about how many angels were there, or who got to the tomb first. But they all agree that Jesus was resurrected. And that’s the main point about Christianity. There was a resurrection and that’s what ALL of the eyewitnesses say.
None of the accounts of Titanic survivors are claimed to be the unerring directly inspired word of God. The perfect creator of the universe is held to a higher standard, shall we say an extraordinary standard due to the extraordinary nature of the claims.
While I have participated in some of these discussions peripherally, and occasionally when approached/addressed directly... I do not understand why some would continue to directly engage when the other party has seen or heard HIS voice, and then overtly, directly, without equivocation, state that it was not there or was false, and HE does not exist...
They keep lobbing slow-pitched softballs. What are we supposed to do…?
While I have participated in some of these discussions peripherally, and occasionally when approached/addressed directly... I do not understand why some would continue to directly engage when the other party has seen or heard HIS voice, and then overtly, directly, without equivocation, state that it was not there or was false, and HE does not exist...
They keep lobbing slow-pitched softballs. What are we supposed to do…?
Someone once said '...leave, and shake the dirt off your shoes...'
I think the easiest way to dispel young earth creationism is rock layers. There are rock layers even on the highest mountains. How'd they get there? Dirt and mud flow off high areas and dump onto low-lying areas. So if the earth was only 6000 years old a great flood would not put layers on mountains.
Since there are layers on high mountains that proves mountains were at one time low-lying plains. There was once a sea where the Rocky Mountains are.
Every spot on Earth was once low lying. Every spot on Earth was once high elevation.
This is incontrovertible proof to anyone willing to think.
Your last sentence illustrates the problem.
Some folks are not open to the idea of thinking. It's just too painful to consider "I may be wrong".
Some folks are not open to the idea of thinking. It's just too painful to consider "I may be wrong".
Does that apply to you too…? Or just to those who don’t agree with your Hebrew Roots Movement psychobabble…?
I know I don't have the whole story and I could be wrong on some things. But when the captain of the ship puts me to steering the boat and tells me something that I know he has the authority and knowledge to tell me and then warns me that there are sailors on board that will lie to me about his instructions I will be on the lookout.
Before you jump on this, I am not saying Jesus put me to driving his boat. But he did clearly tell me what to be on the lookout for. Does the desert and secret chambers ring a bell?
If you read Genesis 4 it indicates that there were other people in the land of Nod. Cain took a wife there. God marked Cain so the other people wouldn't kill him. There were other people.
If you read Genesis 4 it indicates that there were other people in the land of Nod. Cain took a wife there. God marked Cain so the other people wouldn't kill him. There were other people.
You are using the Bible. Go to Genesis 3 and you see Eve was the mother of ALL the living humans. Check out Acts 17 and you find all people came from one man.
If you read Genesis 4 it indicates that there were other people in the land of Nod. Cain took a wife there. God marked Cain so the other people wouldn't kill him. There were other people.
You are using the Bible. Go to Genesis 3 and you see Eve was the mother of ALL the living humans. Check out Acts 17 and you find all people came from one man.
Where did all the different races and sub-species of man come from? A bunch of Swedish aren't going to turn into Negroes in 10,000 years. I don't care if you put them in hottest Afriica.
Some folks are not open to the idea of thinking. It's just too painful to consider "I may be wrong".
Does that apply to you too…? Or just to those who don’t agree with your Hebrew Roots Movement psychobabble…?
I know I don't have the whole story and I could be wrong on some things. But when the captain of the ship puts me to steering the boat and tells me something that I know he has the authority and knowledge to tell me and then warns me that there are sailors on board that will lie to me about his instructions I will be on the lookout. Before you jump on this, I am not saying Jesus put me to driving his boat. But he did clearly tell me what to be on the lookout for. Does the desert and secret chambers ring a bell?
So basically it doesn't apply to you. That’s all you had to say, that it doesn’t apply to you. Thanks for verifying about yourself what has been clearly obvious to many of us here all along.
If you read Genesis 4 it indicates that there were other people in the land of Nod. Cain took a wife there. God marked Cain so the other people wouldn't kill him. There were other people.
You are using the Bible. Go to Genesis 3 and you see Eve was the mother of ALL the living humans. Check out Acts 17 and you find all people came from one man.
This is just one of many contradictions demonstrating the unreliability of The Bible.
If you read Genesis 4 it indicates that there were other people in the land of Nod. Cain took a wife there. God marked Cain so the other people wouldn't kill him. There were other people.
You are using the Bible. Go to Genesis 3 and you see Eve was the mother of ALL the living humans. Check out Acts 17 and you find all people came from one man.
This is just one of many contradictions demonstrating the unreliability of The Bible.
If you read Genesis 4 it indicates that there were other people in the land of Nod. Cain took a wife there. God marked Cain so the other people wouldn't kill him. There were other people.
You are using the Bible. Go to Genesis 3 and you see Eve was the mother of ALL the living humans. Check out Acts 17 and you find all people came from one man.
This is just one of many contradictions demonstrating the unreliability of The Bible.
People forget that the bible was written by men.
You aren't aware its Words were guided by the Holy Spirit? How sad.
If you read Genesis 4 it indicates that there were other people in the land of Nod. Cain took a wife there. God marked Cain so the other people wouldn't kill him. There were other people.
You are using the Bible. Go to Genesis 3 and you see Eve was the mother of ALL the living humans. Check out Acts 17 and you find all people came from one man.
This is just one of many contradictions demonstrating the unreliability of The Bible.
People forget that the bible was written by men.
You aren't aware its Words were guided by the Holy Spirit? How sad.
I am a believer. I believe Biblical history is the.history of the Hebrews. Land of Nod, Races of Giants that the Hebrews had to fight is just a question I have and the answer maybe that there were other races of people on the earth. From Adam to now is probably 5 to 6000 years if you go by the geneology and some guessing on the age of each begat. There is evidence also that the globe is a lot older than that. It took a while for the Grand Canyon to erode that much. Many known things about geology indicate an older earth. We can ask God for those answers when we die or not if none of it is true.
Some folks are not open to the idea of thinking. It's just too painful to consider "I may be wrong".
Does that apply to you too…? Or just to those who don’t agree with your Hebrew Roots Movement psychobabble…?
I know I don't have the whole story and I could be wrong on some things. But when the captain of the ship puts me to steering the boat and tells me something that I know he has the authority and knowledge to tell me and then warns me that there are sailors on board that will lie to me about his instructions I will be on the lookout. Before you jump on this, I am not saying Jesus put me to driving his boat. But he did clearly tell me what to be on the lookout for. Does the desert and secret chambers ring a bell?
So basically it doesn't apply to you. That’s all you had to say, that it doesn’t apply to you. Thanks for verifying about yourself what has been clearly obvious to many of us here all along.
You are just being a mean bullying sort that has mischaracterized what I said. I clearly said "I could be wrong". You are not coming across as a very persuasive representative of Jesus. Lucky for me I've become rather inured to the criticism of self appointed mind readers. I just believe that you have after being (mis)schooled about Jesus and Paul in an earlier life have in a sense added 2+2 and come up with 22 instead of 4. But you aren't alone and most people that have accepted your version of theology aren't going to consider that the theory they hold dear has some serious holes in it.
Think of Jesus' warning about someone claiming to have met him in the desert or secret chambers. Think of the improbability of Jesus in secret appointing an extra apostle 3 or 4 years later. Think of the improbability of him appointing a person no one would trust without appearing in person and making the announcement. Not to mention Paul teaches doctrines that as President Thomas Jefferson said "corrupt the doctrine of Jesus". Contrary to what you have said there is every evidence that Paul was renounced by the Jerusalem Church and all the satellite churches, he said so himself if he in fact wrote that letter,
If he was accepted by the Christians why was he so afraid of them that he caught a boat to Rome where he basically disappeared until some of his writings or at least writings accredited to Paul were canonized by the Roman church long after Paul disappeared. I find it a significant departure from Jesus in Romans 13 where he calls the civil government as God's servant for the good and clearly says if you rebel against the government you are rebelling against God.
Don't forget Paul's endorsement of slavery and his admonishment to slaves to obey.
Then there is his weirdness about women.
He is just a suspicious character if we have the straight story on him. No wonder the Christians that knew him personally ran him off.
Again, Luke’s book of Acts makes it clear that everyone…including the Jerusalem apostles…was completely on board with Paul’s view regarding the complete incompatibility of Jesus’ New Covenant with the Law of Moses. The only one’s in opposition to it were the Judaizers. Like you.
In the narrative of Acts, it’s actually Peter…not Paul…who first learns this lesson from God Himself, and then acts upon it by helping to convert a Gentile, the centurion Cornelius. Then…after Paul’s first missionary journey to Gentile lands…at a conference called in Jerusalem to deal with the issue (do Gentlie believers need to become Jews and follow the Mosaic Law in order to be Christians), there is rousing support for Paul’s view among all of the people that matter, with James and Peter speaking up for Paul’s position.
In Acts of the Apostles there is no opposition to Paul among the other apostles; on the contrary, Paul and the others see eye-to-eye in every way on this issue ~ and on all others. Acts clearly shows that there were no splits in the apostolic band, of any kind, whatsoever. You clearly have a different opinion on these matters. But your wacky false beliefs are quickly and decisively put down by this apostolic unity.
If you read Genesis 4 it indicates that there were other people in the land of Nod. Cain took a wife there. God marked Cain so the other people wouldn't kill him. There were other people.
You are using the Bible. Go to Genesis 3 and you see Eve was the mother of ALL the living humans. Check out Acts 17 and you find all people came from one man.
This is just one of many contradictions demonstrating the unreliability of The Bible.
People forget that the bible was written by men.
You aren't aware its Words were guided by the Holy Spirit? How sad.
That's a claim made by man, not God...from whom we hear nothing.
I am a believer. I believe Biblical history is the.history of the Hebrews. Land of Nod, Races of Giants that the Hebrews had to fight is just a question I have and the answer maybe that there were other races of people on the earth. From Adam to now is probably 5 to 6000 years if you go by the geneology and some guessing on the age of each begat. There is evidence also that the globe is a lot older than that. It took a while for the Grand Canyon to erode that much. Many known things about geology indicate an older earth. We can ask God for those answers when we die or not if none of it is true.
My. St. Hellens proved canyon formation does not take a long time.
I think the easiest way to dispel young earth creationism is rock layers. There are rock layers even on the highest mountains. How'd they get there? Dirt and mud flow off high areas and dump onto low-lying areas. So if the earth was only 6000 years old a great flood would not put layers on mountains.
Since there are layers on high mountains that proves mountains were at one time low-lying plains. There was once a sea where the Rocky Mountains are.
Every spot on Earth was once low lying. Every spot on Earth was once high elevation.
This is incontrovertible proof to anyone willing to think.
Your post is confirmation of a worldwide flood. All those layers photographed were water born sediment at one time. Read up on the velocity of some of the currents produced by tides when there are no continents in the way.
Sediments come from high elevations down to lower elevations. So how did the entire earth get covered in layers of sediment?? How did high mountains get sedimentary layers? Did mud come from space during this one worldwide flood? Even if mud did come from space how did it form many many layers on mountain tops? Mountains are actually MADE of layers! We also have layers way down deep in the Grand Canyon and other canyons. Have you ever thought about these things? The Earth must of gotten much bigger from all these sedimentary layers over all of the Earth?
I think the easiest way to dispel young earth creationism is rock layers. There are rock layers even on the highest mountains. How'd they get there? Dirt and mud flow off high areas and dump onto low-lying areas. So if the earth was only 6000 years old a great flood would not put layers on mountains.
Since there are layers on high mountains that proves mountains were at one time low-lying plains. There was once a sea where the Rocky Mountains are.
Every spot on Earth was once low lying. Every spot on Earth was once high elevation.
This is incontrovertible proof to anyone willing to think.
Your post is confirmation of a worldwide flood. All those layers photographed were water born sediment at one time. Read up on the velocity of some of the currents produced by tides when there are no continents in the way.
Sediments come from high elevations down to lower elevations. So how did the entire earth get covered in layers of sediment?? How did high mountains get sedimentary layers? Did mud come from space during this one worldwide flood? Even if mud did come from space how did it form many many layers on mountain tops? Mountains are actually MADE of layers! We also have layers way down deep in the Grand Canyon and other canyons. Have you ever thought about these things? The Earth must of gotten much bigger from all these sedimentary layers over all of the Earth?
Apparently you never heard of Pangia. During the Flood the supercontinent broke apart. The mountains did not exist until very late in the Flood. God says He pushed down the low places and raised up the high places. That's why fossils are found from sea level to the highest mountains.
I think the easiest way to dispel young earth creationism is rock layers. There are rock layers even on the highest mountains. How'd they get there? Dirt and mud flow off high areas and dump onto low-lying areas. So if the earth was only 6000 years old a great flood would not put layers on mountains.
Since there are layers on high mountains that proves mountains were at one time low-lying plains. There was once a sea where the Rocky Mountains are.
Every spot on Earth was once low lying. Every spot on Earth was once high elevation.
This is incontrovertible proof to anyone willing to think.
Your post is confirmation of a worldwide flood. All those layers photographed were water born sediment at one time. Read up on the velocity of some of the currents produced by tides when there are no continents in the way.
Sediments come from high elevations down to lower elevations. So how did the entire earth get covered in layers of sediment?? How did high mountains get sedimentary layers? Did mud come from space during this one worldwide flood? Even if mud did come from space how did it form many many layers on mountain tops? Mountains are actually MADE of layers! We also have layers way down deep in the Grand Canyon and other canyons. Have you ever thought about these things? The Earth must of gotten much bigger from all these sedimentary layers over all of the Earth?
Apparently you never heard of Pangia. During the Flood the supercontinent broke apart. The mountains did not exist until very late in the Flood. God says He pushed down the low places and raised up the high places. That's why fossils are found from sea level to the highest mountains.
Rich, this is the explanation offered by "young earthers" today. What was the explanation in the year 1900? Before the discovery of continental drift and plate tectonics?
Quote
Plate tectonic theory had its beginnings in 1915 when Alfred Wegener proposed his theory of "continental drift." Wegener proposed that the continents plowed through crust of ocean basins, which would explain why the outlines of many coastlines (like South America and Africa) look like they fit together like a puzzle.
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew.
Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time.
''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all.
No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all.
No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate.
Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times.
Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles.
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3)
Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any.
The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.''
Your argument is because there is confliction among witness testimony the bank robbery never happened.
You are an idiot.
A blithering, drooling, mouth breathing, dumbfuuck idiot......
What you fail to grasp is that there is no real evidence that anything happened, that it's not just another one of the embellished tales told by the ancients, written by people who had no interest in critical inquiry, where the purpose of the writers was to promote the faith, build a religion.
What we have written decades after the described events, contradictory as it is, doesn't establish anything. And the fantastic claim of the son of God coming to life and ascending into Heaven needs more than contradictory accounts to support it.
The fact is, we have no means of determining what really happened, and there is no reason to believe in fantastic claims because somebody wrote it two thousand years ago.
Your little dummy spit tough guy act shows just how immature you are.
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
While I have participated in some of these discussions peripherally, and occasionally when approached/addressed directly... I do not understand why some would continue to directly engage when the other party has seen or heard HIS voice, and then overtly, directly, without equivocation, state that it was not there or was false, and HE does not exist...
They keep lobbing slow-pitched softballs. What are we supposed to do…?
If a voice can be heard, anyone in earshot can hear it.
What theists believe to be the voice of God is something they experience in their mind, a subjective experience specific to them, neither objective or verifiable.
And as we know, the mind can and does play tricks.
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew.
Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time.
''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all.
No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all.
No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate.
Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times.
Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles.
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3)
Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any.
The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.''
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew.
Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time.
''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all.
No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all.
No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate.
Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times.
Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles.
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3)
Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any.
The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.''
Every single atheist considers those as "Love is Love" because they all engage in one or all of those perversions ...... and it enrages them with a demonic hatred of Christians because they know the word of God prohibits these sexual perversions
Swamplord: That sounds crazy. Surely you are engaging in hyperbole?
He really is this unhinged.
His hate is so strong he's lost the ability to employ his reason. This makes people like him and GunChamp perfect targets for foreign influence campaigns such as those Russia's been running against the US since the beginning of Cold War. Of course Russia doesn't only target the right. He has counter parts on the Left equally susceptible to different kinds of propaganda operations, but they are typically yelling "Orange Man Bad".
The very first thing the self proclaimed atheists always do, is ridicule and paint those who speak up with "hate" "anti-semite" "racist" "bigot" "homophobe" "transphobe" etc & etc .. and they keep making up and weaponizing new -ist & -phobe words at their convenience
all designed to shut you up
your kryptonite doesn't work on everyone
You're the one who began a rant about:
Pedophilia Homosexuality Bisexuality Crossdressing and it was a Christian who said:
Originally Posted by Hastings
Swamplord: That sounds crazy. Surely you are engaging in hyperbole?
That's what happens when you respond with your emotions, not your logic. You make unforced errors.
Now stop and think for a moment how that can be harnessed by nefarious foreign actors.
Now think about how those same actors can harness "Orange man bad" against you.
Dumbing down .... is exactly what creates zombies like you .. There is no better explanation than what you see here ..
you are but a temporary useful fool .. oops sorry, I mean tool !
While I have participated in some of these discussions peripherally, and occasionally when approached/addressed directly... I do not understand why some would continue to directly engage when the other party has seen or heard HIS voice, and then overtly, directly, without equivocation, state that it was not there or was false, and HE does not exist...
They keep lobbing slow-pitched softballs. What are we supposed to do…?
If a voice can be heard, anyone in earshot can hear it.
What theists believe to be the voice of God is something they experience in their mind, a subjective experience specific to them, neither objective or verifiable.
And as we know, the mind can and does play tricks.
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by antlers
Originally Posted by Muffin
While I have participated in some of these discussions peripherally, and occasionally when approached/addressed directly... I do not understand why some would continue to directly engage when the other party has seen or heard HIS voice, and then overtly, directly, without equivocation, state that it was not there or was false, and HE does not exist...
They keep lobbing slow-pitched softballs. What are we supposed to do…?
If a voice can be heard, anyone in earshot can hear it.
What theists believe to be the voice of God is something they experience in their mind, a subjective experience specific to them, neither objective or verifiable.
And as we know, the mind can and does play tricks.
Since you addressed me:
Psalm 18
1 The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
2 Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech, nor are there words,
whose voice is not heard.
4 Their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.
And
Romans 1
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
The video posted earlier of Richard Dawkins is a clear example that the atheists…especially the one’s who are most active here, as we’ve clearly seen…simply do not want there to be a God. Period. Their position clearly has nothing to do with logic or reason or science or evidence or truth. As we’ve seen, their position is strictly emotional and volitional. Period. They clearly aren’t the beacons of logic and reason searching for truth that they claim to be.
In the video, Dawkins (the most prominent atheist in the world) wants so badly for there not to be a God, but he accepts an alien civilization as a plausible explanation and cause for the creation of life on earth.
I do not understand why some would continue to directly engage when the other party has seen or heard HIS voice, and then overtly, directly, without equivocation, state that it was not there or was false, and HE does not exist...
JMHO
You can believe in God without having to take the Bible literally. Even an 8 year old looking at the rock layers and other evidence can see the earth is extremely old. Some people seem to think you must believe every word of the bible or you won't get into heaven. The young earth theory is worse than the flat earth conspiracy theory.
To be clear, I believe that there is a Supreme Being. Call it God, or whatever makes sense in the language that you understand. The Bible has several names for the same Being. As to the alien part of the previous post, God, Angels, the Devil, all are from somewhere other than earth, Thus Aliens in our current language. How the come and go is mostly a mystery, Space ships are a possibility. Did Angels have wings? Or to the uneducated of thousands of years ago, they flew, so they must have had wings. Trying to make sense of how things were back then, compared to life now, takes an open mind, study, and faith that you have it correct. miles
There is plenty of evidence of massive floods all around the world. That is becoming less and less debatable. If you are secular minded you can say these floods provided the impetus behind the more or less universal great flood “myth” found in hundreds of cultures and traditions around the world. If you are of a Christian bent, all of this is further proof of Biblical truth.
Argue those points as you wish, but there is tons of evidence for a massive flood or floods in our past.
There is plenty of evidence of massive floods all around the world. That is becoming less and less debatable. If you are secular minded you can say these floods provided the impetus behind the more or less universal great flood “myth” found in hundreds of cultures and traditions around the world. If you are of a Christian bent, all of this is further proof of Biblical truth.
Argue those points as you wish, but there is tons of evidence for a massive flood or floods in our past.
Of course there are legends of great floods all over the world. These cannot be Noah's flood. That doesn't even make sense.
Take for example the Native Americans. They have a legend of a great flood here in North America. But the legend doesn't say "The flood killed us all. Yes, we were all dead but then we were re-inhabited from the decedents of Noah."
That doesn't even make sense. If Noah's flood really killed off everyone except for Noah's family then the legend would be from the perspective of Middle East. It would be a legend of coming across the ocean. Native Americans do not have a legend of coming across to the Americas.
There is plenty of evidence of massive floods all around the world. That is becoming less and less debatable. If you are secular minded you can say these floods provided the impetus behind the more or less universal great flood “myth” found in hundreds of cultures and traditions around the world. If you are of a Christian bent, all of this is further proof of Biblical truth.
Argue those points as you wish, but there is tons of evidence for a massive flood or floods in our past.
Of course there are legends of great floods all over the world. These cannot be Noah's flood. That doesn't even make sense.
Take for example the Native Americans. They have a legend of a great flood here in North America. But the legend doesn't say "The flood killed us all. Yes, we were all dead but then we were re-inhabited from the decedents of Noah."
That doesn't even make sense. If Noah's flood really killed off everyone except for Noah's family then the legend would be from the perspective of Middle East. It would be a legend of coming across the ocean. Native Americans do not have a legend of coming across to the Americas.
Native Americans also have legends of medicine men turning into birds and other assorted bullschit. So detailed accuracy isn’t necessarily their thing. The point as to the flood legends is that they exist. It would be a stupid and foolish exercise to attempt to look for detailed accuracy in Native American legends about events that if they happened, were five thousand years in the past.
I do not understand why some would continue to directly engage when the other party has seen or heard HIS voice, and then overtly, directly, without equivocation, state that it was not there or was false, and HE does not exist...
JMHO
You can believe in God without having to take the Bible literally. Even an 8 year old looking at the rock layers and other evidence can see the earth is extremely old. Some people seem to think you must believe every word of the bible or you won't get into heaven. The young earth theory is worse than the flat earth conspiracy theory.
The flat earth conspiracy is also primarily a Christian phenomenon.
There is plenty of evidence of massive floods all around the world. That is becoming less and less debatable. If you are secular minded you can say these floods provided the impetus behind the more or less universal great flood “myth” found in hundreds of cultures and traditions around the world. If you are of a Christian bent, all of this is further proof of Biblical truth.
Argue those points as you wish, but there is tons of evidence for a massive flood or floods in our past.
Of course there are legends of great floods all over the world. These cannot be Noah's flood. That doesn't even make sense.
Take for example the Native Americans. They have a legend of a great flood here in North America. But the legend doesn't say "The flood killed us all. Yes, we were all dead but then we were re-inhabited from the decedents of Noah."
That doesn't even make sense. If Noah's flood really killed off everyone except for Noah's family then the legend would be from the perspective of Middle East. It would be a legend of coming across the ocean. Native Americans do not have a legend of coming across to the Americas.
Native Americans also have legends of medicine men turning into birds and other assorted bullschit. So detailed accuracy isn’t necessarily their thing. The point as to the flood legends is that they exist. It would be a stupid and foolish exercise to attempt to look for detailed accuracy in Native American legends about events that if they happened, were five thousand years in the past.
We have the DNA and archeology which demonstrates the American Indians came from other parts of the world and has inhabited the Americas for much longer than 6k years.
There is plenty of evidence of massive floods all around the world. That is becoming less and less debatable. If you are secular minded you can say these floods provided the impetus behind the more or less universal great flood “myth” found in hundreds of cultures and traditions around the world. If you are of a Christian bent, all of this is further proof of Biblical truth.
Argue those points as you wish, but there is tons of evidence for a massive flood or floods in our past.
Of course there are legends of great floods all over the world. These cannot be Noah's flood. That doesn't even make sense.
Take for example the Native Americans. They have a legend of a great flood here in North America. But the legend doesn't say "The flood killed us all. Yes, we were all dead but then we were re-inhabited from the decedents of Noah."
That doesn't even make sense. If Noah's flood really killed off everyone except for Noah's family then the legend would be from the perspective of Middle East. It would be a legend of coming across the ocean. Native Americans do not have a legend of coming across to the Americas.
Native Americans also have legends of medicine men turning into birds and other assorted bullschit. So detailed accuracy isn’t necessarily their thing. The point as to the flood legends is that they exist. It would be a stupid and foolish exercise to attempt to look for detailed accuracy in Native American legends about events that if they happened, were five thousand years in the past.
We have the DNA and archeology which demonstrates the American Indians came from other parts of the world and has inhabited the Americas for much longer than 6k years.
That’s fine and completely immaterial from my assertion that there is plenty of physical evidence for a massive flood or floods and many legends of such around the world.
You guys should hone your argument snd reasoning skills. You always assume things not argued or in evidence and then try to jump twenty seven steps ahead to refute some point only made in your own minds.
You guys should hone your argument and reasoning skills. You always assume things not argued or in evidence and then try to jump twenty seven steps ahead to refute some point only made in your own minds.
It’s an intentional dishonest tactic on their (the atheists that are most active here) end. They don’t like it when their true colors are clearly pointed out and made clearly evident. And they surely and clearly don’t like it when their slow-pitched softballs get crushed outta the park…!
To be clear, I believe that there is a Supreme Being. Call it God, or whatever makes sense in the language that you understand. The Bible has several names for the same Being. As to the alien part of the previous post, God, Angels, the Devil, all are from somewhere other than earth, Thus Aliens in our current language. How the come and go is mostly a mystery, Space ships are a possibility. Did Angels have wings? Or to the uneducated of thousands of years ago, they flew, so they must have had wings. Trying to make sense of how things were back then, compared to life now, takes an open mind, study, and faith that you have it correct. miles
So your position is essentially that of Arthur C. Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.", or gods. You can see a detailed account of them on The History Channels Ancient Aliens, and they really confused the crap out of primitive societies?
These aliens are in some way related to the Supreme Creator of this Universe and are able to travel between this universe an another or other realms.
It's interesting to note how much your concept of God differs from that of they hard core Young Earth Creationist, and Flood believers.
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew.
Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time.
''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all.
No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all.
No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate.
Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times.
Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles.
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3)
Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any.
The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.''
Your argument is because there is confliction among witness testimony the bank robbery never happened.
You are an idiot.
A blithering, drooling, mouth breathing, dumbfuuck idiot......
What you fail to grasp is that there is no real evidence that anything happened, that it's not just another one of the embellished tales told by the ancients, written by people who had no interest in critical inquiry, where the purpose of the writers was to promote the faith, build a religion.
What we have written decades after the described events, contradictory as it is, doesn't establish anything. And the fantastic claim of the son of God coming to life and ascending into Heaven needs more than contradictory accounts to support it.
The fact is, we have no means of determining what really happened, and there is no reason to believe in fantastic claims because somebody wrote it two thousand years ago.
Your little dummy spit tough guy act shows just how immature you are.
And you too, base your argument solely on unproven, unknown, hypothesis and theory....and proceed to proclaim the belief in God, Jesus, the Bible, is unproven, unknown, hypothesis and theory. Go suck start a Glock and prove once and for all to us there's no Heaven and Hell.
There is plenty of evidence of massive floods all around the world. That is becoming less and less debatable. If you are secular minded you can say these floods provided the impetus behind the more or less universal great flood “myth” found in hundreds of cultures and traditions around the world. If you are of a Christian bent, all of this is further proof of Biblical truth.
Argue those points as you wish, but there is tons of evidence for a massive flood or floods in our past.
Of course there are legends of great floods all over the world. These cannot be Noah's flood. That doesn't even make sense.
Take for example the Native Americans. They have a legend of a great flood here in North America. But the legend doesn't say "The flood killed us all. Yes, we were all dead but then we were re-inhabited from the decedents of Noah."
That doesn't even make sense. If Noah's flood really killed off everyone except for Noah's family then the legend would be from the perspective of Middle East. It would be a legend of coming across the ocean. Native Americans do not have a legend of coming across to the Americas.
Native Americans also have legends of medicine men turning into birds and other assorted bullschit. So detailed accuracy isn’t necessarily their thing. The point as to the flood legends is that they exist. It would be a stupid and foolish exercise to attempt to look for detailed accuracy in Native American legends about events that if they happened, were five thousand years in the past.
We have the DNA and archeology which demonstrates the American Indians came from other parts of the world and has inhabited the Americas for much longer than 6k years.
That’s fine and completely immaterial from my assertion that there is plenty of physical evidence for a massive flood or floods and many legends of such around the world.
You guys should hone your argument snd reasoning skills. You always assume things not argued or in evidence and then try to jump twenty seven steps ahead to refute some point only made in your own minds.
Joe Bob, it's you who's creating a straw man. No on is arguing that floods don't occur. We are discussing the Biblical flood of Noah that allegedly covered the entire earth with water higher then the highest mountain, and wiped out every land born creature expect a single family and the critters they could fit on a single boat.
To any reasonably objective person the Noah Flood story as portrayed in The Bible is clearly not literally true, and by extension, any theology that depends on its literal truth is not true. The same can be said for the Garden of Eden, The Exodus, and Mythicist argue the same can be said about the life, death, and reresection of Jesus.
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew.
Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time.
''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all.
No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all.
No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate.
Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times.
Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles.
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3)
Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any.
The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.''
Your argument is because there is confliction among witness testimony the bank robbery never happened.
You are an idiot.
A blithering, drooling, mouth breathing, dumbfuuck idiot......
What you fail to grasp is that there is no real evidence that anything happened, that it's not just another one of the embellished tales told by the ancients, written by people who had no interest in critical inquiry, where the purpose of the writers was to promote the faith, build a religion.
What we have written decades after the described events, contradictory as it is, doesn't establish anything. And the fantastic claim of the son of God coming to life and ascending into Heaven needs more than contradictory accounts to support it.
The fact is, we have no means of determining what really happened, and there is no reason to believe in fantastic claims because somebody wrote it two thousand years ago.
Your little dummy spit tough guy act shows just how immature you are.
And you too, base your argument solely on unproven, unknown, hypothesis and theory....and proceed to proclaim the belief in God, Jesus, the Bible, is unproven, unknown, hypothesis and theory. Go suck start a Glock and prove once and for all to us there's no Heaven and Hell.
Somebody skipped kindergarten and learning how to play nice with others.
There is plenty of evidence of massive floods all around the world. That is becoming less and less debatable. If you are secular minded you can say these floods provided the impetus behind the more or less universal great flood “myth” found in hundreds of cultures and traditions around the world. If you are of a Christian bent, all of this is further proof of Biblical truth.
Argue those points as you wish, but there is tons of evidence for a massive flood or floods in our past.
Of course there are legends of great floods all over the world. These cannot be Noah's flood. That doesn't even make sense.
Take for example the Native Americans. They have a legend of a great flood here in North America. But the legend doesn't say "The flood killed us all. Yes, we were all dead but then we were re-inhabited from the decedents of Noah."
That doesn't even make sense. If Noah's flood really killed off everyone except for Noah's family then the legend would be from the perspective of Middle East. It would be a legend of coming across the ocean. Native Americans do not have a legend of coming across to the Americas.
Native Americans also have legends of medicine men turning into birds and other assorted bullschit. So detailed accuracy isn’t necessarily their thing. The point as to the flood legends is that they exist. It would be a stupid and foolish exercise to attempt to look for detailed accuracy in Native American legends about events that if they happened, were five thousand years in the past.
We have the DNA and archeology which demonstrates the American Indians came from other parts of the world and has inhabited the Americas for much longer than 6k years.
That’s fine and completely immaterial from my assertion that there is plenty of physical evidence for a massive flood or floods and many legends of such around the world.
You guys should hone your argument snd reasoning skills. You always assume things not argued or in evidence and then try to jump twenty seven steps ahead to refute some point only made in your own minds.
Joe Bob, it's you who's creating a straw man. No on is arguing that floods don't occur. We are discussing the Biblical flood of Noah that allegedly covered the entire earth with water higher then the highest mountain, and wiped out every land born creature expect a single family and the critters they could fit on a single boat.
To any reasonably objective person the Noah Flood story as portrayed in The Bible is clearly not literally true, and by extension, any theology that depends on its literal truth is not true. The same can be said for the Garden of Eden, The Exodus, and Mythicist argue the same can be said about the life, death, and reresection of Jesus.
You just can’t help yourself can you? I simply said that there is ample evidence for a gigantic flood or floods on a massive scale and that for Christians these could serve as evidence of Biblical truth and for others as evidence behind the Biblical flood myth. That’s it. I’ve said nothing else. I’m not here to argue minutia with you. I’m not here to give anyone my subjective opinion of what makes an “objective” person. Now, carry on with your personal crusade.
There is plenty of evidence of massive floods all around the world. That is becoming less and less debatable. If you are secular minded you can say these floods provided the impetus behind the more or less universal great flood “myth” found in hundreds of cultures and traditions around the world. If you are of a Christian bent, all of this is further proof of Biblical truth.
Argue those points as you wish, but there is tons of evidence for a massive flood or floods in our past.
Of course there are legends of great floods all over the world. These cannot be Noah's flood. That doesn't even make sense.
Take for example the Native Americans. They have a legend of a great flood here in North America. But the legend doesn't say "The flood killed us all. Yes, we were all dead but then we were re-inhabited from the decedents of Noah."
That doesn't even make sense. If Noah's flood really killed off everyone except for Noah's family then the legend would be from the perspective of Middle East. It would be a legend of coming across the ocean. Native Americans do not have a legend of coming across to the Americas.
Native Americans also have legends of medicine men turning into birds and other assorted bullschit. So detailed accuracy isn’t necessarily their thing. The point as to the flood legends is that they exist. It would be a stupid and foolish exercise to attempt to look for detailed accuracy in Native American legends about events that if they happened, were five thousand years in the past.
We have the DNA and archeology which demonstrates the American Indians came from other parts of the world and has inhabited the Americas for much longer than 6k years.
That’s fine and completely immaterial from my assertion that there is plenty of physical evidence for a massive flood or floods and many legends of such around the world.
You guys should hone your argument snd reasoning skills. You always assume things not argued or in evidence and then try to jump twenty seven steps ahead to refute some point only made in your own minds.
Joe Bob, it's you who's creating a straw man. No on is arguing that floods don't occur. We are discussing the Biblical flood of Noah that allegedly covered the entire earth with water higher then the highest mountain, and wiped out every land born creature expect a single family and the critters they could fit on a single boat.
To any reasonably objective person the Noah Flood story as portrayed in The Bible is clearly not literally true, and by extension, any theology that depends on its literal truth is not true. The same can be said for the Garden of Eden, The Exodus, and Mythicist argue the same can be said about the life, death, and reresection of Jesus.
You just can’t help yourself can you? I simply said that there is ample evidence for a gigantic flood or floods on a massive scale and that for Christians these could serve as evidence of Biblical truth and for others as evidence behind the Biblical flood myth. That’s it. I’ve said nothing else. I’m not here to argue minutia with you. I’m not here to give anyone my subjective opinion of what makes an “objective” person. Now, carry on with your personal crusade.
Floods happen. There's a story of a world wide flood in the Bible Therefore The Bible is true.
If that is enough for them to believe, what that say about such believers?
There are a small number of people who are specifically Jesus myth theorists, a vehement group of agenda driven deniers who are adherents to this fringe theory that the story of Jesus is mythology. It ranks right up there with the cadre of people who still claim the Holocaust didn’t happen. Very few of em’ are actually scholars with any training in biblical studies, ancient history, ancient languages such as Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek, or any other pertinent area of study. None of em’ teach Early Christianity or New Testament at any accredited university in the Western world...because their extreme views are so unconvincing...it’d be like giving a literal 6 day creationist a biology teaching position at an accredited university. Jesus is worshipped today by literally billions of people. He is the greatest individual in the history of Western civilization. Their claim that the Jesus story is a myth fails on its own proposition.
The fact that any atheist would use “the Mythicists” as ammunition to cast doubt on the life of Jesus is not only laughable, but it’s more clear evidence of the weakness and desperation of the atheists position, especially that of the most active atheists on this forum.
“With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of His life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) — sources that originated in Jesus’ native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of His life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. ...the claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground. ... like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.” - Bart Ehrman, world renowned Biblical scholar, and atheist
That’s fine and completely immaterial from my assertion that there is plenty of physical evidence for a massive flood or floods and many legends of such around the world.
You guys should hone your argument and reasoning skills. You always assume things not argued or in evidence and then try to jump twenty seven steps ahead to refute some point only made in your own minds.
They have been many, many massive floods. That tends to happen when intercontinental ice sheets measured in miles of thickness melt at the end of an ice age.
Of course, from the arguments of many here, all of these great floods occurred before the date given for the Creation of the Universe.
As mentioned before: Lake Missoula was comparable to lakes Huron combined with Erie in size and volume. It filled with glacial runoff and then burst through the ice dam and drained across the scab lands of Washington State numerous times.
And we have Lake Bonneville which covered a huge portion of Utah, and extended into Idaho and Nevada. Bonneville was not of glacial origin.
Lake Bonneville was the largest Late Pleistocene paleolake in the Great Basin of western North America. It was a pluvial lake that formed in response to an increase in precipitation and a decrease in evaporation as a result of cooler temperatures. The lake covered much of what is now western Utah and at its highest level extended into present-day Idaho and Nevada. Many other hydrographically closed basins in the Great Basin contained expanded lakes during the Late Pleistocene, including Lake Lahontan in northwestern Nevada.
Shorelines of Lake Bonneville are visible above Salt Lake City along the western front of the Wasatch Mountains and on other mountains throughout the Bonneville basin. These shorelines appear as shelves or benches that protrude from the mountainside above the valley floor, are visible on the ground from long distances and on satellite images, and have both depositional and erosional segments along their lengths. Three shorelines of Lake Bonneville that can be traced throughout the basin, have been given names: Stansbury, Bonneville, and Provo. The Stansbury and Bonneville shorelines formed during the transgressive phase of Lake Bonneville; the Provo shoreline formed during the overflowing phase. Numerous other unnamed shorelines, which cannot be mapped everywhere in the basin, some of which formed during the transgressive phase and some during the regressive phase, are also present on piedmont slopes and alluvial fans. At its maximum, when Lake Bonneville was more than 980 ft deep and almost 20,000 sq mi. in surface area, it covered almost as much area as modern Lake Michigan although its shoreline was more complex with many islands and peninsulas. Great Salt Lake, Utah Lake, and Sevier Lake are the largest post-Bonneville lakes in the Bonneville basin.
Quote
Lake Bonneville was not a proglacial lake although it formed between about 30,000 and 13,000 years ago, when glaciers at many places on Earth were expanded relative to today during the last major glaciation. For most of its existence (that is, during the transgressive plus regressive phases) Lake Bonneville had no river outlet and occupied a hydrographically closed basin. Changes in lake level were the result of changes in water balance caused by climate change (a simplified version of the water-balance equation is inputs equal outputs plus-or-minus storage changes). Storage changes are equal to volume changes, and changes in volume are correlated with changes in lake level. When inputs (e.g., precipitation; runoff in rivers) were greater than outputs (e.g., evaporation from the lake surface; evapotranspiration in the basin), lake level rose, and when outputs were greater than inputs, lake level fell. Changes in global atmospheric circulation led to changes in the water budget of Lake Bonneville and other lakes in the Great Basin of western North America. Mountain glaciers in the Bonneville drainage basin stored less than 5% of the water that Lake Bonneville held at its maximum and so even if all of the mountain glaciers in the basin melted at once and the water flowed into the lake (that did not happen since it took thousands of years for the mountain glaciers to melt, and Lake Bonneville was falling by that time), it would have had little effect on lake level. Lake Bonneville had no river connection with the huge North American ice sheets. While Lake Bonneville existed, the patterns of wave- and current-forming winds were not significantly affected by the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets in northern North America.
As this massive lake drained, it flooded from Idaho's southern border through the Snake River, Snake River Canyon, Hells Canyon, and down the Columbia through Portland and to the Pacific.
Quote
Lake Bonneville began to rise from elevations similar to those of modern Great Salt Lake about 30,000 years ago. During its transgressive phase in the closed basin (an endorheic basin), lake level oscillated because of changes in climate but the lake gradually rose until about 18,000 years ago when it reached its highest elevation, marked by the Bonneville shoreline. At that level the lake had risen to the lowest point on its basin rim and had begun to overflow into the Snake River drainage near Red Rock Pass in what is now southeastern Idaho. The overflow, which would have begun as a trickle across the dam formed by the Marsh Creek alluvial fan, quickly evolved into a tremendous flood, the Bonneville flood, which charged down the Marsh Creek valley to the Portneuf River, into the Snake River and then into the Columbia River and Pacific Ocean. Groundwater sapping on the north slope of the Marsh Creek alluvial fan, which began long before the lake had reached its highest level, added to the instability and ultimate collapse of the fan-dam.
The Bonneville flood probably lasted less than a year, during which time almost 1,200 cu mi (5,000 km3) of water flowed out of the lake basin with a maximum discharge of about 35,000,000 cu ft/s. Downcutting during the flood through the Marsh Creek alluvial-fan deposits and into the underlying Neogene sand, mud, and landslide debris, caused lake level to drop about 430 ft. River flow from the lake across the Red Rock Pass threshold and out of the lake basin continued non-catastrophically for about 3000 years after the flood ended; the Provo shoreline formed during this overflowing phase. The Provo shoreline is distinguished from other shorelines of Lake Bonneville by its topographic position, strong development, and thick accumulations of tufa. At the end of the overflowing phase, about 15,000 years ago, climate change and a shift to a negative water balance (more water evaporated off the surface of the lake than entered by rivers or direct precipitation) caused the lake to return to its closed-basin status as it declined to lower levels during the regressive phase. By 13,000 years ago the lake had fallen to an elevation similar to the average elevation of modern Great Salt Lake. During the regressive phase lake level declined approximately 660 ft in about 2000 years because of a change to warmer and drier climate. 660 ft is roughly 2/3 of the maximum depth of Lake Bonneville). Although Lake Bonneville and the Great Salt Lake are collectively one lake system, the name “Lake Bonneville” is applied to the lake during the period from 30,000 to 13,000 years ago, and the name “Great Salt Lake” since 13,000 years ago.
Quote
Lake Bonneville was anomalous in the long-term history of the basin. As the largest of four deep lakes in the basin during the past 800,000 years, Lake Bonneville plus the other three deep Pleistocene lakes, persisted for less than 10% of the time. The conditions experienced in the basin today are typical of over 90% of the past 800,000 years: a dry desert basin with a few scattered low-elevation lakes, the largest of which (Great Salt Lake) was hypersaline. For most of the time between the end of the youngest of the deep pre-Bonneville lakes (the Little Valley lake cycle, about 150,000 years ago) and the initial rise of Lake Bonneville about 30,000 years ago, the lake would have resembled modern Great Salt Lake in surface area and depth. A short episode of slightly higher lake levels during the Cutler Dam lake cycle occurred about 60,000 years ago; at this time a moderate-sized lake rose above the level of Great Salt Lake, but not as high as Lake Bonneville.
These are just two examples of numerous such examples. These are local to me, and are of familiarity to me. Such examples exist across North America, and Europe. We know of some such examples from the Middle East as seas broke over land masses and flooded interior regions.
Example: the Straight of Gibraltar, and also the English Channel, where once was a land bridge between England and France.
A little research done by the truly inquisitive will show scores of such events which has left evidence across the globe of these massive floods.
Evidence which has been misconstrued to represent a global "Noah's Flood".
While plate tectonics explains the growth of mountains, and shifting of sea basins to high elevations.
“With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of His life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) — sources that originated in Jesus’ native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of His life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. ...the claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground. ... like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.” - Bart Ehrman, world renowned Biblical scholar, and atheist
I see where an apologetics website attributed that quote to Bart, but I don't see a proper footnote to any of his writings.
That boat, aka "The Ark," was a really big boat. Was it a sail boat, or did Noah just shut it up tight when it started to rain, and he and his family just floated around hither and yon for a year or so, until the waters receded?? If it were a sail boat, did Noah and his kids know how to sail such a huge vessel, and where did they get the experience to sail a large boat in very serious weather and seas??
To be clear, I believe that there is a Supreme Being. Call it God, or whatever makes sense in the language that you understand. The Bible has several names for the same Being. As to the alien part of the previous post, God, Angels, the Devil, all are from somewhere other than earth, Thus Aliens in our current language. How the come and go is mostly a mystery, Space ships are a possibility. Did Angels have wings? Or to the uneducated of thousands of years ago, they flew, so they must have had wings. Trying to make sense of how things were back then, compared to life now, takes an open mind, study, and faith that you have it correct. miles
So your position is essentially that of Arthur C. Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.", or gods.
Ah, here we go. Perhaps I was influenced more by Clarke in my youth than I realized.
That has always been my contention. Perhaps some advanced society did have influence upon the construction and nature of the world we know. But if they did, they did it through advanced science and within the Laws of Physics.
Someday, if mankind does not go extinct first, we shall gain the knowledge of such science.
And, whoever they were, they have no interest in me or what I am doing today. They have zero influence on the nature of the world today, or our lives within it. They certainly are not recording my every thought and memory, so that they can reanimate me at some unknown date in the future.
Myths to the contrary have gone far to keep the Priesthood well housed, well fed, and well laid.
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew.
Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time.
''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all.
No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all.
No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate.
Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times.
Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles.
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3)
Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any.
The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.''
Your argument is because there is confliction among witness testimony the bank robbery never happened.
You are an idiot.
A blithering, drooling, mouth breathing, dumbfuuck idiot......
What you fail to grasp is that there is no real evidence that anything happened, that it's not just another one of the embellished tales told by the ancients, written by people who had no interest in critical inquiry, where the purpose of the writers was to promote the faith, build a religion.
What we have written decades after the described events, contradictory as it is, doesn't establish anything. And the fantastic claim of the son of God coming to life and ascending into Heaven needs more than contradictory accounts to support it.
The fact is, we have no means of determining what really happened, and there is no reason to believe in fantastic claims because somebody wrote it two thousand years ago.
Your little dummy spit tough guy act shows just how immature you are.
And you too, base your argument solely on unproven, unknown, hypothesis and theory....and proceed to proclaim the belief in God, Jesus, the Bible, is unproven, unknown, hypothesis and theory. Go suck start a Glock and prove once and for all to us there's no Heaven and Hell.
Somebody skipped kindergarten and learning how to play nice with others.
My bad, I have very little tolerance of Godless heathens like you and that kangaroo humping nitwit from "Aussie". I'll never deny being a Believer, but I'll never brag about being good at it.
That boat, aka "The Ark," was a really big boat. Was it a sail boat, or did Noah just shut it up tight when it started to rain, and he and his family just floated around hither and yon for a year or so, until the waters receded?? If it were a sail boat, did Noah and his kids know how to sail such a huge vessel, and where did they get the experience to sail a large boat in very serious weather and seas??
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew.
Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time.
''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all.
No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all.
No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate.
Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times.
Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles.
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3)
Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any.
The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.''
Your argument is because there is confliction among witness testimony the bank robbery never happened.
You are an idiot.
A blithering, drooling, mouth breathing, dumbfuuck idiot......
What you fail to grasp is that there is no real evidence that anything happened, that it's not just another one of the embellished tales told by the ancients, written by people who had no interest in critical inquiry, where the purpose of the writers was to promote the faith, build a religion.
What we have written decades after the described events, contradictory as it is, doesn't establish anything. And the fantastic claim of the son of God coming to life and ascending into Heaven needs more than contradictory accounts to support it.
The fact is, we have no means of determining what really happened, and there is no reason to believe in fantastic claims because somebody wrote it two thousand years ago.
Your little dummy spit tough guy act shows just how immature you are.
And you too, base your argument solely on unproven, unknown, hypothesis and theory....and proceed to proclaim the belief in God, Jesus, the Bible, is unproven, unknown, hypothesis and theory. Go suck start a Glock and prove once and for all to us there's no Heaven and Hell.
Somebody skipped kindergarten and learning how to play nice with others.
My bad, I have very little tolerance of Godless heathens like you and that kangaroo humping nitwit from "Aussie". I'll never deny being a Believer, but I'll never brag about being good at it.
Well, you might want to work on that:
Romans 14:1-4 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
1 Peter 3:8-11 Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. For “Whoever desires to love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit; let him turn away from evil and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it.
John 8:7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”
Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that you be not judged.
Matthew 7:12 So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
That boat, aka "The Ark," was a really big boat. Was it a sail boat, or did Noah just shut it up tight when it started to rain, and he and his family just floated around hither and yon for a year or so, until the waters receded?? If it were a sail boat, did Noah and his kids know how to sail such a huge vessel, and where did they get the experience to sail a large boat in very serious weather and seas??
Just curious.
L.W.
no, yes, yes, no
Genesis 6:13-22
Genesis 7:13-16
I wonder if Noah, his wife, their kids, and their grand children became seasick often, all those rough seas and winds???
For the earliest Christians, the driving force that led to the rapid growth of the early church and Christianity itself…against staggering odds…wasn’t anything in the Hebrew Scriptures. It wasn’t even anything in the Bible either, since the Bible…as we know it…didn’t even exist until the 4th century. For the first nearly 300 years or so, the driving force of Christianity was an event ~ the resurrection of Jesus.
The resurrection of Jesus is the foundation of Christianity. It was then. And it is now.
That boat, aka "The Ark," was a really big boat. Was it a sail boat, or did Noah just shut it up tight when it started to rain, and he and his family just floated around hither and yon for a year or so, until the waters receded?? If it were a sail boat, did Noah and his kids know how to sail such a huge vessel, and where did they get the experience to sail a large boat in very serious weather and seas??
Just curious.
L.W.
no, yes, yes, no
Genesis 6:13-22
Genesis 7:13-16
I wonder if Noah, his wife, their kids, and their grand children became seasick often, all those rough seas and winds???
That boat, aka "The Ark," was a really big boat. Was it a sail boat, or did Noah just shut it up tight when it started to rain, and he and his family just floated around hither and yon for a year or so, until the waters receded?? If it were a sail boat, did Noah and his kids know how to sail such a huge vessel, and where did they get the experience to sail a large boat in very serious weather and seas??
Just curious.
L.W.
no, yes, yes, no
Genesis 6:13-22
Genesis 7:13-16
I wonder if Noah, his wife, their kids, and their grand children became seasick often, all those rough seas and winds???
Still curious.
L.W.
You sound silly. Read the story.
Ringman, I have an idea you've never been out on the ocean in rough seas. (I have.) Obviously you have no curiosity about strange events and phenomena . I've met a lot of people over the years who have no curiosity about much of anything in life. They just muddle on through in ignorance of anything going on around them. As they say, "Ignorance is bliss."
That boat, aka "The Ark," was a really big boat. Was it a sail boat, or did Noah just shut it up tight when it started to rain, and he and his family just floated around hither and yon for a year or so, until the waters receded?? If it were a sail boat, did Noah and his kids know how to sail such a huge vessel, and where did they get the experience to sail a large boat in very serious weather and seas??
Just curious.
L.W.
no, yes, yes, no
Genesis 6:13-22
Genesis 7:13-16
I wonder if Noah, his wife, their kids, and their grand children became seasick often, all those rough seas and winds???
Still curious.
L.W.
You sound silly. Read the story.
Ringman, I have an idea you've never been out on the ocean in rough seas. (I have.) Obviously you have no curiosity about strange events and phenomena . I've met a lot of people over the years who have no curiosity about much of anything in life. They just muddle on through in ignorance of anything going on around them. As they say, "Ignorance is bliss."
L.W.
I was responding to your lack of information about who was on the boat.
Your assumption you are the only ocean guy is just as silly as your other post.
That boat, aka "The Ark," was a really big boat. Was it a sail boat, or did Noah just shut it up tight when it started to rain, and he and his family just floated around hither and yon for a year or so, until the waters receded?? If it were a sail boat, did Noah and his kids know how to sail such a huge vessel, and where did they get the experience to sail a large boat in very serious weather and seas??
Just curious.
L.W.
no, yes, yes, no
Genesis 6:13-22
Genesis 7:13-16
I wonder if Noah, his wife, their kids, and their grand children became seasick often, all those rough seas and winds???
Still curious.
L.W.
You sound silly. Read the story.
Ringman, I have an idea you've never been out on the ocean in rough seas. (I have.) Obviously you have no curiosity about strange events and phenomena . I've met a lot of people over the years who have no curiosity about much of anything in life. They just muddle on through in ignorance of anything going on around them. As they say, "Ignorance is bliss."
L.W.
I was responding to your lack of information about who was on the boat.
Your assumption you are the only ocean guy is just as silly as your other post.
Ahhh Ringman, there you go, making nonsensical and baseless statements which is not unusual in your case. I never assumed that I was the only person here who has been out on the ocean and I did not allude to that in any way, shape, or form. I wrote "I have an idea you've never been out on the ocean in rough seas." . I know there are not only retired sailors who are members here, but also some of the fishermen here go out onto the oceans to deep sea fish.
It might behoove you to make your insults a bit more cogent.
For the earliest Christians, the driving force that led to the rapid growth of the early church and Christianity itself…against staggering odds…wasn’t anything in the Hebrew Scriptures. It wasn’t even anything in the Bible either, since the Bible…as we know it…didn’t even exist until the 4th century. For the first nearly 300 years or so, the driving force of Christianity was an event ~ the resurrection of Jesus.
The resurrection of Jesus is the foundation of Christianity. It was then. And it is now.
You are seriously out of your depth in this discussion You would make a good Southern Baptist but I'm seriously doubting you would have fit in with the early church. The theologian you like the best was run off by the real Christians, barely escaping with his life.
Please swim back to the shallow end where you belong.
You are seriously out of your depth in this discussion.
That's laughable coming from you, spouting your wacky Hebrew Roots Movement psychobabble that clearly nobody here who professes Christian beliefs agrees with.
Originally Posted by Hastings
I'm seriously doubting you would have fit in with the early church.
I doubt that you would have either, but you would have fit right in with the Judaizers that Peter and James clearly spoke out against (as well as Paul), the same Judaizers that continued to insist upon something that Jesus Himself clearly spoke out against.
Not only do you deny Pauls teachings, you also clearly deny the teachings of Peter when they don’t jive with your already established position and agenda; just as you clearly deny the teachings of James when they don’t jive with your already established position and agenda; and just as you clearly deny the teachings of Jesus Himself when they don’t jive with your already established position and agenda.
You also clearly deny the very well established history of not only the earliest Christians, but also that of the early church and Christianity itself before Constantine.
You do have one big thing in common with the most vocal atheists here though: NONE of y’all are on a ‘truth’ quest; that’s crystal clear.
You also clearly deny the very well established history of not only the earliest Christians, but also that of the early church and Christianity itself before Constantine.
Early Christianity was a hodge-podge with over 30 major sect, over 100 gospels, with very different view on Jesus. These ranged from him being fully man to fully God, and everything in between. One sect even believed he was fully man until he spoke his last words as in Mark, at which point Jesus entered the mans body and then he died. Others believed he didn't even have an earthly body. What people saw was an aviator or an illusion.
The earliest Christians were nothing like you imagine.
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew.
Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time.
''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all.
No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all.
No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate.
Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times.
Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles.
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3)
Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any.
The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.''
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew.
Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time.
''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all.
No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all.
No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate.
Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times.
Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles.
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3)
Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any.
The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.''
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew.
Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time.
''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all.
No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all.
No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate.
Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times.
Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles.
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3)
Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any.
The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.''
Your argument is because there is confliction among witness testimony the bank robbery never happened.
You are an idiot.
A blithering, drooling, mouth breathing, dumbfuuck idiot......
What you fail to grasp is that there is no real evidence that anything happened, that it's not just another one of the embellished tales told by the ancients, written by people who had no interest in critical inquiry, where the purpose of the writers was to promote the faith, build a religion.
What we have written decades after the described events, contradictory as it is, doesn't establish anything. And the fantastic claim of the son of God coming to life and ascending into Heaven needs more than contradictory accounts to support it.
The fact is, we have no means of determining what really happened, and there is no reason to believe in fantastic claims because somebody wrote it two thousand years ago.
Your little dummy spit tough guy act shows just how immature you are.
And you too, base your argument solely on unproven, unknown, hypothesis and theory....and proceed to proclaim the belief in God, Jesus, the Bible, is unproven, unknown, hypothesis and theory. Go suck start a Glock and prove once and for all to us there's no Heaven and Hell.
No, I base my argument on the fact that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of a God and the miracles and wonders that ancient people believed in and wrote about.
That without evidence, there is no reason to be convinced in the truth of these stories. If a God presents themselves openly and honestly, there would be no more atheists or agnostics, no more debate or dispute.
That has yet to happen, and I won't be living in anticipation of it happening.
Ahhh Ringman, there you go, making nonsensical and baseless statements which is not unusual in your case. I never assumed that I was the only person here who has been out on the ocean and I did not allude to that in any way, shape, or form. I wrote "I have an idea you've never been out on the ocean in rough seas." . I know there are not only retired sailors who are members here, but also some of the fishermen here go out onto the oceans to deep sea fish.
It might behoove you to make your insults a bit more cogent.
L.W.
Leanwolf,
I am very sorry offend you. I try to act here just as I would if we were face to face.
I was once hired as a consultant and had lunch with the superintendent where I told him I have trouble with tact. He told me I still have trouble with it, so I must have inadvertently said something inappropriate to him.
You can question my beliefs all you want and it won't change a thing. Your beliefs or non-beliefs have zero bearing on my or anyone's life, beyond you and those like you being an occasional reminder of exactly how not to be. You are at least a little bit useful for that. Maybe that's the reason God put you here to begin with, by attempting to tear down believers you only serve to strengthen their resolve. I do sort of wonder, though, that if you and you alone are infact in control of your own faculties, why the beliefs of complete strangers upset you so dramatically that you feel compelled to be personally threatened by those beliefs. Seems to be a common theme among the Godless. Someone should pray for you. Unfortunately I'm not a good enough Christian to even care. Have a wonderful night, or day, or whatever it is down there on that chithole continent of yours.
You can question my beliefs all you want and it won't change a thing. Your beliefs or non-beliefs have zero bearing on my or anyone's life, beyond you and those like you being an occasional reminder of exactly how not to be. You are at least a little bit useful for that. Maybe that's the reason God put you here to begin with, by attempting to tear down believers you only serve to strengthen their resolve. I do sort of wonder, though, that if you and you alone are infact in control of your own faculties, why the beliefs of complete strangers upset you so dramatically that you feel compelled to be personally threatened by those beliefs. Seems to be a common theme among the Godless. Someone should pray for you. Unfortunately I'm not a good enough Christian to even care. Have a wonderful night, or day, or whatever it is down there on that chithole continent of yours.
It shouldn't be a matter of who believes this or who believes that, but what is true and factual regardless of what any of us may believe. But whatever you may want to believe regardless of whether it's true or factual or not is your own business
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew.
Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time.
''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all.
No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all.
No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate.
Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times.
Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles.
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3)
Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any.
The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.''
It's interesting to note how much your concept of God differs from that of they hard core Young Earth Creationist, and Flood believers.
I went to church regular as a young man, and I always wondered how the sheep herders and goat herders described what they saw while out in the field. Now, in my mind, they were un-educated and had little experience in the world except out in the fields, by themselves a lot. So they had to describe things in a way that made sense to them. The ones that wrote about it later, might have described what they were told in a completely different way, and not got everything correct. But there has been a lot things dug up, that show carvings in stone of things coming to earth, that most people have still never seen. Those old ruins have a lot of things that make you think "how in the hell did that come about". I try to put it all together, and make my own sense out of it. miles
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew.
Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time.
''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all.
No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all.
No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate.
Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times.
Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles.
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3)
Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any.
The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.''
Your argument is because there is confliction among witness testimony the bank robbery never happened.
You are an idiot.
A blithering, drooling, mouth breathing, dumbfuuck idiot......
Do you talk to all your Christian brothers this way? Or just your campfire bros?
Just drooling, mouth breathing dumbfuuck idiots.
The ones that earn it......
Such a exemplary Christian like attitude is gonna prevent your elevator from making it to the top floor.
Say your prayers you shameful feral varmit!
Lol
Humans are sinners by their very nature, since the moment they enter this world and remain so their entire lives. Being a saved true believer doesn't make you a non-sinner, just a forgiven one. Your implications suggest that acts are what get you into Heaven, but that's not how it works.
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew.
Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time.
''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all.
No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all.
No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate.
Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times.
Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles.
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3)
Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any.
The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.''
Your argument is because there is confliction among witness testimony the bank robbery never happened.
You are an idiot.
A blithering, drooling, mouth breathing, dumbfuuck idiot......
Do you talk to all your Christian brothers this way? Or just your campfire bros?
Just drooling, mouth breathing dumbfuuck idiots.
The ones that earn it......
Such a exemplary Christian like attitude is gonna prevent your elevator from making it to the top floor.
Say your prayers you shameful feral varmit!
Lol
Humans are sinners by their very nature, since the moment they enter this world and remain so their entire lives. Being a saved true believer doesn't make you a non-sinner, just a forgiven one. Your implications suggest that acts are what get you into Heaven, but that's not how it works.
That's an interesting theology you have. You're saved so you can be a dick and it doesn't matter. That might work on the internet, but if this is how you behave in real life, and some point I suspect your mouth will write a check your body can't cash, and Jesus won't be there to save you.
That's an interesting theology you have. You're saved so you can be a dick and it doesn't matter. That might work on the internet, but if this is how you behave in real life, and some point I suspect your mouth will write a check your body can't cash, and Jesus won't be there to save you.
Flatter yourself, random irrelevant internet atheist with nothing new to add, to think your random irrelevant internet opinion matters........
I wouldn't expect you to even remotely understand any of this. You haven't in the past, you don't now, and it's highly doubtful you will in the future. It's far deeper than your vast "superior intellect" can possibly grasp.
And if you want to try cashing MY check, then step right up and giver your level best......
Ahhh Ringman, there you go, making nonsensical and baseless statements which is not unusual in your case. I never assumed that I was the only person here who has been out on the ocean and I did not allude to that in any way, shape, or form. I wrote "I have an idea you've never been out on the ocean in rough seas." . I know there are not only retired sailors who are members here, but also some of the fishermen here go out onto the oceans to deep sea fish.
It might behoove you to make your insults a bit more cogent.
L.W.
Leanwolf,
I am very sorry offend you. I try to act here just as I would if we were face to face.
I was once hired as a consultant and had lunch with the superintendent where I told him I have trouble with tact. He told me I still have trouble with it, so I must have inadvertently said something inappropriate to him.
Again, I am sorry.
Ringman, no harm, no foul. Thanks for your apology.
That's an interesting theology you have. You're saved so you can be a dick and it doesn't matter. That might work on the internet, but if this is how you behave in real life, and some point I suspect your mouth will write a check your body can't cash, and Jesus won't be there to save you.
Flatter yourself, random irrelevant internet atheist with nothing new to add, to think your random irrelevant internet opinion matters........
I wouldn't expect you to even remotely understand any of this. You haven't in the past, you don't now, and it's highly doubtful you will in the future. It's far deeper than your vast "superior intellect" can possibly grasp.
And if you want to try cashing MY check, then step right up and giver your level best......
That's the best part. I don't have to do anything. The combination of your abrasive personality and low impulse control will act as a self correcting mechanism.
There are several contradictory accounts of the tomb incident.
''There are other discrepancies, but this is enough. I should stress that some of these differences can scarcely be reconciled unless you want to do a lot of imaginative interpretive gymnastics, of the kind fundamentalists love to do, when reading the texts. For example, what does one do with the fact that the women apparently meet different persons at the tomb? In Mark it is one man, in Luke it is two men, and in Matthew it is one angel.
The way this discrepancy is sometimes reconciled,by readers who can’t believe there could be a genuine discrepancy in the text, is by saying that the women actually met two angels at the tomb. Matthew mentions only one of them, but never denies there was a second one; moreover, the angels were in human guise, so Luke claims they were two men; Mark also mistakes the angels as men but mentions only one, not two, without denying there were two. And so the problem is easily solved! But it is solved in a very curious way indeed.
This solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of the Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by writing a new text that is unlike any of the others, so as to reconcile them to one another. You are certainly free to write your own Gospel if that’s what you want to do, but I wonder if that is the best way to interpret the Gospels that you already have.
If the burial account is flawed, so is the rest of the story. A story that was written decades after whatever is described based on stories that were told and retold as the myth grew.
Which is why Paul was not aware of some of the stories of Jesus the man - whom he had never seen in person - that were written in the gospels at a later time.
''No parables of the sheep and the goats, or the prodigal son, or the rich man and Lazarus, or the lost sheep, or the good Samaritan. In fact, no Jesus as teacher at all.
No driving out evil spirits, or healing the invalid at Bethesda, or cleansing the lepers, or raising Lazarus, or other healing miracles. As far as Paul tells us, Jesus performed no miracles at all.
No virgin birth, no Sermon on the Mount, no feeding the 5000, no public ministry, no cleansing the temple, no final words, and no Great Commission. Paul doesn’t even place Jesus within history—there’s nothing to connect Jesus with historical figures like Caesar Augustus, King Herod, or Pontius Pilate.
Perhaps everyone to whom Paul wrote his letters knew all this already? Okay, but presumably they already knew about the crucifixion, and Paul mentions that 13 times. And the resurrection, which Paul mentions 14 times.
Paul indirectly admits that he knew of no Jesus miracles.
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22–3)
Why “a stumbling block”? Jesus did lots of miraculous “signs”—why didn’t Paul convince the Jews with these? Paul apparently didn’t know any.
The Jesus of Paul is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.''
Your argument is because there is confliction among witness testimony the bank robbery never happened.
You are an idiot.
A blithering, drooling, mouth breathing, dumbfuuck idiot......
Do you talk to all your Christian brothers this way? Or just your campfire bros?
Just drooling, mouth breathing dumbfuuck idiots.
The ones that earn it......
Such a exemplary Christian like attitude is gonna prevent your elevator from making it to the top floor.
Say your prayers you shameful feral varmit!
Lol
Humans are sinners by their very nature, since the moment they enter this world and remain so their entire lives. Being a saved true believer doesn't make you a non-sinner, just a forgiven one. Your implications suggest that acts are what get you into Heaven, but that's not how it works.
That's the carrot that fuels most cult members, that and fear of the unknown.
Whatever religion you prescribe too is apparently ok with drooling, mouth breathing dumbfugh idiots!
I didn't read the whole thread, so I may or may not be repeating stuff.
The Bible is a Spiritual book, it has history, but isn't a history book per se, isn't even in chronological order. Job is thought to be the oldest book, but isn't first in line.
God created the world. Unlike some I know, the Truth of the Word doesn't have to be filtered thru my understanding. In fact I strive to have the Peace that passes understanding, don't want to get stuck on stupid.
How long The Lord took to create the world doesn't have to be filtered thru my understanding; someday we'll know. In the meantime, we've been given the knowledge we need. It's not our responsibility to fill in the blanks, decide if the Word is correct. Saul was diligent, thinking he was doing good stuff for God, when he encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus. After that "come to Jesus" meeting, he saw the light which changed his paradigm. Even had his name changed to Paul
Now, if the "flat earth" religious crowd of the Middle Ages had been more vigilant reading scripture, they've have found Is 40:42, "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth.." (NIV). They may have learned something instead of burning heretics at the stake (in the name of the Lord, of course)... They may have learned even more reading Job 22:14 and Prov 8:27.
So, IMO, when we assume we have the whole truth from what we know and want to hammer it home, impose it on others, just be careful lest we fall into error.
Nothing worse than a presumptuous "Christian" who thinks he knows it all. I try to avoid those types, don't see anything to be gained, listening to them.
So, how old is the Earth? I don't know, but I know who does. So, therefore I don't have to worry about it.
The Bible’s not a book on Creation Science. The Bible exists to make folks wise for salvation through trust and confidence in Jesus. It’s not supposed to tell us everything about everything. The Bible is really the story about one bloodline ~~ the Messiah’s bloodline.
Where Jesus actually comes to earth and adds humanity over His deity to save the very people who rebelled against Him. That’s what the real story is. Jesus even says that the scriptures are all about Him, and how He is the Redeemer of the world.
The Bible’s not a book on Creation Science. The Bible exists to make folks wise for salvation through trust and confidence in Jesus. It’s not supposed to tell us everything about everything. The Bible is really the story about one bloodline ~~ the Messiah’s bloodline.
Where Jesus actually comes to earth and adds humanity over His deity to save the very people who rebelled against Him. That’s what the real story is. Jesus even says that the scriptures are all about Him, and how He is the Redeemer of the world.
Jesus's blood line, where he knocks up Mary Madeline, she escapes to Southern France and give birth to the Merovingian Dynasty?
The Bible’s not a book on Creation Science. The Bible exists to make folks wise for salvation through trust and confidence in Jesus. It’s not supposed to tell us everything about everything. The Bible is really the story about one bloodline ~~ the Messiah’s bloodline.
Where Jesus actually comes to earth and adds humanity over His deity to save the very people who rebelled against Him. That’s what the real story is. Jesus even says that the scriptures are all about Him, and how He is the Redeemer of the world.
The bible gives an account of how the world was created by God, an account that is falsified by discoveries in science, that the world and universe is far older and vaster than the bible writers could have imagined, that species are not created, but evolve, etc, etc.....
The Bible’s not a book on Creation Science. The Bible exists to make folks wise for salvation through trust and confidence in Jesus. It’s not supposed to tell us everything about everything. The Bible is really the story about one bloodline ~~ the Messiah’s bloodline.
Where Jesus actually comes to earth and adds humanity over His deity to save the very people who rebelled against Him. That’s what the real story is. Jesus even says that the scriptures are all about Him, and how He is the Redeemer of the world.
The bible gives an account of how the world was created by God, an account that is falsified by discoveries in science, that the world and universe is far older and vaster than the bible writers could have imagined, that species are not created, but evolve, etc, etc.....
And if it's wrong about all of this, what else could it be wrong about?
That's an interesting theology you have. You're saved so you can be a dick and it doesn't matter. That might work on the internet, but if this is how you behave in real life, and some point I suspect your mouth will write a check your body can't cash, and Jesus won't be there to save you.
Flatter yourself, random irrelevant internet atheist with nothing new to add, to think your random irrelevant internet opinion matters........
I wouldn't expect you to even remotely understand any of this. You haven't in the past, you don't now, and it's highly doubtful you will in the future. It's far deeper than your vast "superior intellect" can possibly grasp.
And if you want to try cashing MY check, then step right up and giver your level best......
A good example of the argument from emotion. Well done.
That's an interesting theology you have. You're saved so you can be a dick and it doesn't matter. That might work on the internet, but if this is how you behave in real life, and some point I suspect your mouth will write a check your body can't cash, and Jesus won't be there to save you.
Flatter yourself, random irrelevant internet atheist with nothing new to add, to think your random irrelevant internet opinion matters........
I wouldn't expect you to even remotely understand any of this. You haven't in the past, you don't now, and it's highly doubtful you will in the future. It's far deeper than your vast "superior intellect" can possibly grasp.
And if you want to try cashing MY check, then step right up and giver your level best......
A good example of the argument from emotion. Well done.
That's an interesting theology you have. You're saved so you can be a dick and it doesn't matter. That might work on the internet, but if this is how you behave in real life, and some point I suspect your mouth will write a check your body can't cash, and Jesus won't be there to save you.
Flatter yourself, random irrelevant internet atheist with nothing new to add, to think your random irrelevant internet opinion matters........
I wouldn't expect you to even remotely understand any of this. You haven't in the past, you don't now, and it's highly doubtful you will in the future. It's far deeper than your vast "superior intellect" can possibly grasp.
And if you want to try cashing MY check, then step right up and giver your level best......
A good example of the argument from emotion. Well done.
That's an interesting theology you have. You're saved so you can be a dick and it doesn't matter. That might work on the internet, but if this is how you behave in real life, and some point I suspect your mouth will write a check your body can't cash, and Jesus won't be there to save you.
Flatter yourself, random irrelevant internet atheist with nothing new to add, to think your random irrelevant internet opinion matters........
I wouldn't expect you to even remotely understand any of this. You haven't in the past, you don't now, and it's highly doubtful you will in the future. It's far deeper than your vast "superior intellect" can possibly grasp.
And if you want to try cashing MY check, then step right up and giver your level best......
A good example of the argument from emotion. Well done.
Like you should talk.
Yet another sizzling argument. Wow, I feel so overwhelmed.
God has left effects behind that allow us to reason back that He exists, because He is the cause of these effects. The cosmic microwave background radiation provides evidence that our universe had a beginning. God is the best explanation of the way things really are regarding these matters ~ the best explanation of reality regarding these matters. And one of the ways things really are regarding these matters is that the universe was created out of nothing.
There was no space, time, or matter ~ but the entire universe came into existence. And if that’s so, the cause can’t be made of space, time, or matter because space, time, and matter were created. So the cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial ~ and personal.
Personal because to choose to create something is necessary to go from nothingness to a state of creation. And only persons can make choices. Impersonal forces don’t make choices. Gravity (for example) doesn’t decide to do things; gravity just does what it does over and over and over again. An impersonal force does not have the ability to make decisions. This is an attribute of persons, not impersonal forces.
Regardless of how old it all is, God created the universe.
God is the best explanation of the way things really are regarding these matters
No. Any explanation including magic works just as well.
Originally Posted by antlers
the universe was created out of nothing.
Not exactly. The Big Bang is the hot dense phase from with the Universe appeared to sort of burst forth from 13.8 billion years ago, but there was a phase before that:
Originally Posted by antlers
There was no space, time, or matter ~ but the entire universe came into existence.[\quote] Not necessarily, see above.
[quote=antlers]And if that’s so, the cause can’t be made of space, time, or matter because space, time, and matter were created. So the cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial
Your cosmology's 50 years out of date.
Originally Posted by antlers
Personal because to choose to create something is necessary to go from nothingness to a state of creation. And only persons can make choices. [\quote] Nope, dogs and cats can make choices.
[quote=antlers]Impersonal forces don’t make choices. Gravity (for example) doesn’t decide to do things; gravity just does what it does over and over and over again. An impersonal force does not have the ability to make decisions. This is an attribute of persons, not impersonal forces.
You have no evidence the universe resulted from the conscious choice of a sentient being, and nothing in the physics requires it.
As we’ve clearly seen, the most active atheists here are not honest about the REAL reason that they deny the existence of God. The motivation for their disbelief…as we’ve clearly seen…has nothing to do with evidence or science or logic or reason, or truth.
“It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God…! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. - Thomas Nagel, renowned philosopher and atheist
As we’ve clearly seen, the most active atheists here are not honest about the REAL reason that they deny the existence of God. The motivation for their disbelief…as we’ve clearly seen…has nothing to do with evidence or science or logic or reason, or truth.
“It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God…! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. - Thomas Nagel, renowned philosopher and atheist
At least Thomas Nagel is honest about it.
There are no 'activist atheists' here. Whatever you believe is your own business. Just that claims made on a public forum can be questioned. That's what you are getting here. Your questionable claims are being questioned.
That's an interesting theology you have. You're saved so you can be a dick and it doesn't matter. That might work on the internet, but if this is how you behave in real life, and some point I suspect your mouth will write a check your body can't cash, and Jesus won't be there to save you.
Flatter yourself, random irrelevant internet atheist with nothing new to add, to think your random irrelevant internet opinion matters........
I wouldn't expect you to even remotely understand any of this. You haven't in the past, you don't now, and it's highly doubtful you will in the future. It's far deeper than your vast "superior intellect" can possibly grasp.
And if you want to try cashing MY check, then step right up and giver your level best......
A good example of the argument from emotion. Well done.
There you go again, thinking someone like me cares about the opinion of a random godless heathen.
As we’ve clearly seen, the most active atheists here are not honest about the REAL reason that they deny the existence of God. The motivation for their disbelief…as we’ve clearly seen…has nothing to do with evidence or science or logic or reason, or truth.
“It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God…! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. - Thomas Nagel, renowned philosopher and atheist
That's an interesting theology you have. You're saved so you can be a dick and it doesn't matter. That might work on the internet, but if this is how you behave in real life, and some point I suspect your mouth will write a check your body can't cash, and Jesus won't be there to save you.
Flatter yourself, random irrelevant internet atheist with nothing new to add, to think your random irrelevant internet opinion matters........
I wouldn't expect you to even remotely understand any of this. You haven't in the past, you don't now, and it's highly doubtful you will in the future. It's far deeper than your vast "superior intellect" can possibly grasp.
And if you want to try cashing MY check, then step right up and giver your level best......
A good example of the argument from emotion. Well done.
There you go again, thinking someone like me cares about the opinion of a random godless heathen.
Well done, or something.
You keep responding, and seem to get rather emotional about it. Tell yourself you don't care all you like, but you do.
Coming from an atheist whose entire position on these matters is clearly emotional and volitional. And nothing else. Period. You keep telling yourself (and us) that’s it’s about “evidence” all you like, but it’s clearly not about “evidence” with you. You’ve made that abundantly clear.
That's an interesting theology you have. You're saved so you can be a dick and it doesn't matter. That might work on the internet, but if this is how you behave in real life, and some point I suspect your mouth will write a check your body can't cash, and Jesus won't be there to save you.
Flatter yourself, random irrelevant internet atheist with nothing new to add, to think your random irrelevant internet opinion matters........
I wouldn't expect you to even remotely understand any of this. You haven't in the past, you don't now, and it's highly doubtful you will in the future. It's far deeper than your vast "superior intellect" can possibly grasp.
And if you want to try cashing MY check, then step right up and giver your level best......
A good example of the argument from emotion. Well done.
There you go again, thinking someone like me cares about the opinion of a random godless heathen.
Well done, or something.
You keep responding, and seem to get rather emotional about it. Tell yourself you don't care all you like, but you do.
That's an interesting theology you have. You're saved so you can be a dick and it doesn't matter. That might work on the internet, but if this is how you behave in real life, and some point I suspect your mouth will write a check your body can't cash, and Jesus won't be there to save you.
Flatter yourself, random irrelevant internet atheist with nothing new to add, to think your random irrelevant internet opinion matters........
I wouldn't expect you to even remotely understand any of this. You haven't in the past, you don't now, and it's highly doubtful you will in the future. It's far deeper than your vast "superior intellect" can possibly grasp.
And if you want to try cashing MY check, then step right up and giver your level best......
A good example of the argument from emotion. Well done.
There you go again, thinking someone like me cares about the opinion of a random godless heathen.
Well done, or something.
You keep responding, and seem to get rather emotional about it. Tell yourself you don't care all you like, but you do.
Your passive aggressiveness isn't fooling anyone.
When ya coming to cash my check?
Lol........
I like how you consider helpful advise as a threat. Heed it or not. The decision and eventual results are on you.
Coming from an atheist whose entire position on these matters is clearly emotional and volitional. And nothing else. Period. You keep telling yourself (and us) that’s it’s about “evidence” all you like, but it’s clearly not about “evidence” with you. You’ve made that abundantly clear.
lol some more
Think of all the hoops you're jumping through to try and appear objective. Hastings' is more objective, he's honest about the contradictions between the various authors. But if you were truly objective, and took the text at face value, you'd end up where Ring Man is.
Ring Man might be wrong, but at least he's consistent.
As we’ve clearly seen, the most active atheists here are not honest about the REAL reason that they deny the existence of God. The motivation for their disbelief…as we’ve clearly seen…has nothing to do with evidence or science or logic or reason, or truth.
“It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God…! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. - Thomas Nagel, renowned philosopher and atheist
That's an interesting theology you have. You're saved so you can be a dick and it doesn't matter. That might work on the internet, but if this is how you behave in real life, and some point I suspect your mouth will write a check your body can't cash, and Jesus won't be there to save you.
Flatter yourself, random irrelevant internet atheist with nothing new to add, to think your random irrelevant internet opinion matters........
I wouldn't expect you to even remotely understand any of this. You haven't in the past, you don't now, and it's highly doubtful you will in the future. It's far deeper than your vast "superior intellect" can possibly grasp.
And if you want to try cashing MY check, then step right up and giver your level best......
A good example of the argument from emotion. Well done.
There you go again, thinking someone like me cares about the opinion of a random godless heathen.
Well done, or something.
You keep responding, and seem to get rather emotional about it. Tell yourself you don't care all you like, but you do.
Your passive aggressiveness isn't fooling anyone.
When ya coming to cash my check?
Lol........
I like how you consider helpful advise as a threat. Heed it or not. The decision and eventual results are on you.
Atheists standing atop their moral molehill blubbering on and on about hurt feelings.
priceless.......
As far as I'm concerned athiests are in good company with communists, liberal democrats, and pedophiles; and deserve all the respect that position commands.
I'm glad there's a rule for getting into Heaven, it keeps the human garbage out.
That's an interesting theology you have. You're saved so you can be a dick and it doesn't matter. That might work on the internet, but if this is how you behave in real life, and some point I suspect your mouth will write a check your body can't cash, and Jesus won't be there to save you.
Flatter yourself, random irrelevant internet atheist with nothing new to add, to think your random irrelevant internet opinion matters........
I wouldn't expect you to even remotely understand any of this. You haven't in the past, you don't now, and it's highly doubtful you will in the future. It's far deeper than your vast "superior intellect" can possibly grasp.
And if you want to try cashing MY check, then step right up and giver your level best......
A good example of the argument from emotion. Well done.
There you go again, thinking someone like me cares about the opinion of a random godless heathen.
Well done, or something.
You keep responding, and seem to get rather emotional about it. Tell yourself you don't care all you like, but you do.
Your passive aggressiveness isn't fooling anyone.
When ya coming to cash my check?
Lol........
I like how you consider helpful advise as a threat. Heed it or not. The decision and eventual results are on you.
Atheists standing atop their moral molehill blubbering on and on about hurt feelings.
priceless.......
As far as I'm concerned athiests are in good company with communists, liberal democrats, and pedophiles; and deserve all the respect that position commands.
I'm glad there's a rule for getting into Heaven, it keeps the human garbage out.
Most Christians are good people. Of all the Christian's I've debated, none are as lacking in civility as you. If this is who you really are, and I hope it's not, you belong in the same category as a Muslim Extremists.
This has not been my life experience. They are just people, in a way like Muslims, in that if they see you as not of the same faith/Denomination, there is no sin in screwing you over. miles
This has not been my life experience. They are just people, in a way like Muslims, in that if they see you as not of the same faith/Denomination, there is no sin in screwing you over. miles
Yes, most people are good people, or at least a good as circumstances allow. I live in a diverse area. Pick a country, race, color, creed, religion, you can find them here. Sure they all have their knuckleheads, some more then others, but with a little civility and respect it's pretty easy to get along with the vast majority of them.
In my world, I want to be around people that I trust not to have a "screw you" outlook. Not to say that you cannot try for a better deal, but you start lying for that better deal, I am done with with you. miles
Should add, out of a bunch of self professed Christians that I know, most are not what I would deem a Christian. A few are. miles
I used to do dispute resolution and settlement negotiations for a major brokerage firm. The more the counter party talked about how religious they were, regardless of the professed religion, the more of a snake they were.
Most Christians are good people. Of all the Christian's I've debated, none are as lacking in civility as you. If this is who you really are, and I hope it's not, you belong in the same category as a Muslim Extremists.
Oh stop playing victim, it's pathetic.
A genuine debate on this subject is so far above you it's laughable.
Your's, that cuck from Australia, and a couple others entire premise here has been to convince anyone who dares confess in front of you that God is the Creator and Jesus is the Savior that they are wrong. And you take great offense to your efforts being wholly rejected and/or ridiculed.
Just who the hell do you think you are anyway?
I suspect evil is working overtime through you, and them. Evil is not to be coddled or tolerated. It's OK to hate evil.
Imagine an existance of spending ones life trying to disprove something, and convince others, of something that you don't believe in to begin with lol.
Imagine an existance of spending ones life trying to disprove something, and convince others, of something that you don't believe in to begin with lol.
Imagine an existence spending ones life trying to convince people fairy tales are real.
Imagine an existance of spending ones life trying to disprove something, and convince others, of something that you don't believe in to begin with lol.
It's clearly not enough for ‘them’ to not believe; they don’t want ‘you’ to believe either. They clearly can’t stand it. It clearly eats em’ up.
Should add, out of a bunch of self professed Christians that I know, most are not what I would deem a Christian. A few are. miles
I used to do dispute resolution and settlement negotiations for a major brokerage firm. The more the counter party talked about how religious they were, regardless of the professed religion, the more of a snake they were.
Ralph Waldon Emerson "the louder he talked of his honor the faster we counted our spoons".
Imagine an existance of spending ones life trying to disprove something, and convince others, of something that you don't believe in to begin with lol.
It's clearly not enough for ‘them’ to not believe; they don’t want ‘you’ to believe either. They clearly can’t stand it. It clearly eats em’ up.
Self defense. Belief in an all powerful deity isn't exactly a benign belief.
Imagine an existance of spending ones life trying to disprove something, and convince others, of something that you don't believe in to begin with lol.
Originally Posted by antlers
It's clearly not enough for ‘them’ to not believe; they don’t want ‘you’ to believe either. They clearly can’t stand it. It clearly eats em’ up.
Originally Posted by RHOD
Self defense.
lol
Originally Posted by RHOD
Belief in an all powerful deity isn't exactly a benign belief.
Then why don’t these ‘persecuted’ atheists start atheist threads so they can discuss their religion with other atheists…? I doubt very much that the theists would even participate.
Imagine an existance of spending ones life trying to disprove something, and convince others, of something that you don't believe in to begin with lol.
Originally Posted by antlers
It's clearly not enough for ‘them’ to not believe; they don’t want ‘you’ to believe either. They clearly can’t stand it. It clearly eats em’ up.
Originally Posted by RHOD
Self defense.
lol
Originally Posted by RHOD
Belief in an all powerful deity isn't exactly a benign belief.
Then why don’t these ‘persecuted’ atheists start atheist threads so they can discuss their religion with other atheists…? I doubt very much that the theists would even participate.
When Christians stop trying to push there fantasy into our schools, our government, public policy, etc. then I'll listen to your little whine about disagreeing with you on an internet forum.
I have no idea how old the Earth is. I am a follower of Christ. There are lots of things I do not know. I believe what the Bible teaches. I further believe the Bible is not a complete history of everything that ever happened.
i to agree with you, theres so much more to learn if one digs deeper
Imagine an existance of spending ones life trying to disprove something, and convince others, of something that you don't believe in to begin with lol.
Originally Posted by antlers
It's clearly not enough for ‘them’ to not believe; they don’t want ‘you’ to believe either. They clearly can’t stand it. It clearly eats em’ up.
Originally Posted by RHOD
Self defense.
lol
Originally Posted by RHOD
Belief in an all powerful deity isn't exactly a benign belief.
Then why don’t these ‘persecuted’ atheists start atheist threads so they can discuss their religion with other atheists…? I doubt very much that the theists would even participate.
Even the demonic forces are too smart to be atheists or agnostics. Scripture says they believe and tremble.
When Christians stop trying to push there fantasy into our schools, our government, public policy, etc. then I'll listen to your little whine about disagreeing with you on an internet forum.
I doubt it. But you made the assertion earlier that the most active atheists here were posting in “self-defense”. I called boolschit on that assertion. You didn’t refute it. At all. Instead you simply diverted to ‘another’ assertion (above) that had zero to do with the conversation at hand.
That's an interesting theology you have. You're saved so you can be a dick and it doesn't matter. That might work on the internet, but if this is how you behave in real life, and some point I suspect your mouth will write a check your body can't cash, and Jesus won't be there to save you.
Flatter yourself, random irrelevant internet atheist with nothing new to add, to think your random irrelevant internet opinion matters........
I wouldn't expect you to even remotely understand any of this. You haven't in the past, you don't now, and it's highly doubtful you will in the future. It's far deeper than your vast "superior intellect" can possibly grasp.
And if you want to try cashing MY check, then step right up and giver your level best......
A good example of the argument from emotion. Well done.
There you go again, thinking someone like me cares about the opinion of a random godless heathen.
Well done, or something.
There you go thinking that anyone cares about you, your beliefs, dellusions or fantasies. It has nothing to do with you.
That's an interesting theology you have. You're saved so you can be a dick and it doesn't matter. That might work on the internet, but if this is how you behave in real life, and some point I suspect your mouth will write a check your body can't cash, and Jesus won't be there to save you.
Flatter yourself, random irrelevant internet atheist with nothing new to add, to think your random irrelevant internet opinion matters........
I wouldn't expect you to even remotely understand any of this. You haven't in the past, you don't now, and it's highly doubtful you will in the future. It's far deeper than your vast "superior intellect" can possibly grasp.
And if you want to try cashing MY check, then step right up and giver your level best......
A good example of the argument from emotion. Well done.
There you go again, thinking someone like me cares about the opinion of a random godless heathen.
Well done, or something.
There you go thinking that anyone cares about you, your beliefs, dellusions or fantasies. It has nothing to do with you.
You seem to care a great deal about my beliefs else you'd just shut the hell up and move on.
Just answer this ONE simple question. Why do the beliefs of complete strangers on the internet upset you so greatly?
Is it ego? Is it a control complex? Or do demons have thier foot squarely up your ass too.....
I have no idea how old the Earth is. I am a follower of Christ. There are lots of things I do not know. I believe what the Bible teaches. I further believe the Bible is not a complete history of everything that ever happened.
i to agree with you, theres so much more to learn if one digs deeper
AND
'we have been given all things pertaining to life and GODliness', and would do well to focus there.
There ARE a lot of things I/we don't know, and it's not wrong to be curious, but in the end, it apparently doesn't matter that much............ OR we would have been told!!
When Christians stop trying to push there fantasy into our schools, our government, public policy, etc. then I'll listen to your little whine about disagreeing with you on an internet forum.
This statement is not exactly the way things are. Religeon has always been in schools, government and public policy. It is the others trying to push religeon out. miles
That's an interesting theology you have. You're saved so you can be a dick and it doesn't matter. That might work on the internet, but if this is how you behave in real life, and some point I suspect your mouth will write a check your body can't cash, and Jesus won't be there to save you.
Flatter yourself, random irrelevant internet atheist with nothing new to add, to think your random irrelevant internet opinion matters........
I wouldn't expect you to even remotely understand any of this. You haven't in the past, you don't now, and it's highly doubtful you will in the future. It's far deeper than your vast "superior intellect" can possibly grasp.
And if you want to try cashing MY check, then step right up and giver your level best......
A good example of the argument from emotion. Well done.
There you go again, thinking someone like me cares about the opinion of a random godless heathen.
Well done, or something.
There you go thinking that anyone cares about you, your beliefs, dellusions or fantasies. It has nothing to do with you.
You seem to care a great deal about my beliefs else you'd just shut the hell up and move on.
Just answer this ONE simple question. Why do the beliefs of complete strangers on the internet upset you so greatly?
Is it ego? Is it a control complex? Or do demons have thier foot squarely up your ass too.....
I don't care about you or your beliefs. Claims are being made and claims are being questioned, that's all.
It can't be helped if that upsets you. Perhaps you are too sensitive.
When Christians stop trying to push there fantasy into our schools, our government, public policy, etc. then I'll listen to your little whine about disagreeing with you on an internet forum.
This statement is not exactly the way things are. Religeon has always been in schools, government and public policy. It is the others trying to push religeon out. miles
About 10 to 15 years ago there was a pretty significant Christian movement to teach Young Earth Creationism, intelligent design, and other religious ideas in science classes. In Texas they tried to get warning stickers on Biology Textbooks that evolution was "just a theory". So yes, Christians have been trying to infiltrate the science class.
Imagine an existance of spending ones life trying to disprove something, and convince others, of something that you don't believe in to begin with lol.
Originally Posted by antlers
It's clearly not enough for ‘them’ to not believe; they don’t want ‘you’ to believe either. They clearly can’t stand it. It clearly eats em’ up.
Originally Posted by RHOD
Self defense.
lol
Originally Posted by RHOD
Belief in an all powerful deity isn't exactly a benign belief.
Then why don’t these ‘persecuted’ atheists start atheist threads so they can discuss their religion with other atheists…? I doubt very much that the theists would even participate.
When Christians stop trying to push there fantasy into our schools, our government, public policy, etc. then I'll listen to your little whine about disagreeing with you on an internet forum.
RHODent, I assume you say this while living in a Christian Nation, the USA, or if you are in Canada, it is also a Christian Nation, it is YOU that are "trying to push" your shyte. Its YOU and people like YOU who are taking from us lol. Why do people who are not Christians immigrate to Christian Nations, then try to change them? answer = so they can fugg them up.
Imagine an existance of spending ones life trying to disprove something, and convince others, of something that you don't believe in to begin with lol.
Originally Posted by antlers
It's clearly not enough for ‘them’ to not believe; they don’t want ‘you’ to believe either. They clearly can’t stand it. It clearly eats em’ up.
Originally Posted by RHOD
Self defense.
lol
Originally Posted by RHOD
Belief in an all powerful deity isn't exactly a benign belief.
Then why don’t these ‘persecuted’ atheists start atheist threads so they can discuss their religion with other atheists…? I doubt very much that the theists would even participate.
When Christians stop trying to push there fantasy into our schools, our government, public policy, etc. then I'll listen to your little whine about disagreeing with you on an internet forum.
RHODent, I assume you say this while living in a Christian Nation, the USA, or if you are in Canada, it is also a Christian Nation, it is YOU that are "trying to push" your shyte. Its YOU and people like YOU who are taking from us lol. Why do people who are not Christians immigrate to Christian Nations, then try to change them? answer = so they can fugg them up.
Somebody wrote something about that...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....
RHODent, I assume you say this while living in a Christian Nation, the USA, or if you are in Canada, it is also a Christian Nation, it is YOU that are "trying to push" your shyte. Its YOU and people like YOU who are taking from us lol. Why do people who are not Christians immigrate to Christian Nations, then try to change them? answer = so they can fugg them up.
That river of brown peasants they're drowning us in is substantially more Christian than we natives are.
Which will, if you let it, tell you something important about Christianity.
RHODent, I assume you say this while living in a Christian Nation, the USA, or if you are in Canada, it is also a Christian Nation, it is YOU that are "trying to push" your shyte. Its YOU and people like YOU who are taking from us lol. Why do people who are not Christians immigrate to Christian Nations, then try to change them? answer = so they can fugg them up.
That river of brown peasants they're drowning us in is substantially more Christian than we natives are.
Which will, if you let it, tell you something important about Christianity.
RHODent, I assume you say this while living in a Christian Nation, the USA, or if you are in Canada, it is also a Christian Nation, it is YOU that are "trying to push" your shyte. Its YOU and people like YOU who are taking from us lol. Why do people who are not Christians immigrate to Christian Nations, then try to change them? answer = so they can fugg them up.
That river of brown peasants they're drowning us in is substantially more Christian than we natives are.
Which will, if you let it, tell you something important about Christianity.
RHODent, I assume you say this while living in a Christian Nation, the USA, or if you are in Canada, it is also a Christian Nation, it is YOU that are "trying to push" your shyte. Its YOU and people like YOU who are taking from us lol. Why do people who are not Christians immigrate to Christian Nations, then try to change them? answer = so they can fugg them up.
That river of brown peasants they're drowning us in is substantially more Christian than we natives are.
Which will, if you let it, tell you something important about Christianity.
Rwanda is more Christian than the US.
Let that sink in.
Did genocide cause that?
Askin for a friend.
It was Christians killing Christians.
The genocide was preached from the Catholic pulpits.
The genocide was preached from the Catholic pulpits.
I had no idea the Catholic church was fanning the flames in Rwanda. But I did some searching. It's true and they've admitted it. I wasn't much interested and just figured it was a Moslem vs. Christian affair.
The genocide was preached from the Catholic pulpits.
I had no idea the Catholic church was fanning the flames in Rwanda. But I did some searching. It's true and they've admitted it. I wasn't much interested and just figured it was a Moslem vs. Christian affair.
The reason everyone but deniers knows the earth is only 6000 + years old is because they believe without doubt what a Roman Catholic Archbishop told them.
In the mid 17th Century, Archbishop James Usher counted it back through the bible and said -- with the unquestioned authority of the R.C. Church -- that God created the earth on Oct. 23, 4004 BC, at precisely 9:00 AM.
There you have it, you deniers. If you question Archbishop Usher's finding, you are going to roast in Hell for eternity.
Better get your minds straight, boys and girls, before you die.
The genocide was preached from the Catholic pulpits.
I had no idea the Catholic church was fanning the flames in Rwanda. But I did some searching. It's true and they've admitted it. I wasn't much interested and just figured it was a Moslem vs. Christian affair.
What do they say about assumptions?
It was Africa being Africa, basically tribal violence much like our noble red men before the whites moved in and weren't playing that game. Not being very interested I had no idea it was Christian on Christian violence. But Europe was doing that same thing a few centuries ago.
Keeping government and religion separate was a wonderful idea that Tom Jefferson pushed. Keeps down witch burning and other nasty Christian, Hindu, Moslem, etc. habits. Even when I was a gentile in Northern Utah as a kid it kept us mostly safe from the Mormons.
The genocide was preached from the Catholic pulpits.
I had no idea the Catholic church was fanning the flames in Rwanda. But I did some searching. It's true and they've admitted it. I wasn't much interested and just figured it was a Moslem vs. Christian affair.
What do they say about assumptions?
It was Africa being Africa, basically tribal violence much like our noble red men before the whites moved in and weren't playing that game. Not being very interested I had no idea it was Christian on Christian violence. But Europe was doing that same thing a few centuries ago.
Keeping government and religion separate was a wonderful idea that Tom Jefferson pushed. Keeps down witch burning and other nasty Christian, Hindu, Moslem, etc. habits. Even when I was a gentile in Northern Utah as a kid it kept us mostly safe from the Mormons.
The genocide was preached from the Catholic pulpits.
I had no idea the Catholic church was fanning the flames in Rwanda. But I did some searching. It's true and they've admitted it. I wasn't much interested and just figured it was a Moslem vs. Christian affair.
What do they say about assumptions?
It was Africa being Africa, basically tribal violence much like our noble red men before the whites moved in and weren't playing that game. Not being very interested I had no idea it was Christian on Christian violence. But Europe was doing that same thing a few centuries ago.
The genocide was preached from the Catholic pulpits.
I had no idea the Catholic church was fanning the flames in Rwanda. But I did some searching. It's true and they've admitted it. I wasn't much interested and just figured it was a Moslem vs. Christian affair.
What do they say about assumptions?
It was Africa being Africa, basically tribal violence much like our noble red men before the whites moved in and weren't playing that game. Not being very interested I had no idea it was Christian on Christian violence. But Europe was doing that same thing a few centuries ago.
Ever heard of a place called Ireland?
You are right. Alcohol and religious fervor are a bad mix.
The genocide was preached from the Catholic pulpits.
I had no idea the Catholic church was fanning the flames in Rwanda. But I did some searching. It's true and they've admitted it. I wasn't much interested and just figured it was a Moslem vs. Christian affair.
I never considered Catholics Christian, but I can believe what you say, it isn't the first time that has happened and I think it is going to happen again.
Now prove it by shutting the hell up and move on. Stop berating the believers here else get that back in return.
I do what I please. You need to pull your head out of your arse and stop whining like a child. It's not all about you.
Didn't figure you could/would, because you're an arrogant fuuck.
Of course you do as you please, that's exactly why you don't want there to be God. You want no accountability for your chosen lifestyle.
Just leave the children alone......
I wasn't the one doing the dummy spit, that's you. I wasn't the one resorting to childish insults, that's you. You present yourself in an arrogant, aggressive, tough boy manner, scream 'stop posting' because you don't like the challenge of questioning faith, then pretend it's the other guys fault, that you are the tragic victim.
Now prove it by shutting the hell up and move on. Stop berating the believers here else get that back in return.
I do what I please. You need to pull your head out of your arse and stop whining like a child. It's not all about you.
Didn't figure you could/would, because you're an arrogant fuuck.
Of course you do as you please, that's exactly why you don't want there to be God. You want no accountability for your chosen lifestyle.
Just leave the children alone......
I wasn't the one doing the dummy spit, that's you. I wasn't the one resorting to childish insults, that's you. You present yourself in an arrogant, aggressive, tough boy manner, scream 'stop posting' because you don't like the challenge of questioning faith, then pretend it's the other guys fault, that you are the tragic victim.
Wake up, it was never about you.
You're arrogant, I'm confident, there's a difference.
If stop insulting others for their beliefs means stop posting altogether then we know all we need to know about "DBT".
As far as "childish insults", I would expect nothing less than the brutal truth train wrecking your fragile feelings.
There is a certain satisfaction to knocking the wicked off their lofty perch, and you certainly do not disappoint.
[quote]I never considered Catholics Christian/quote] What about Lutheran? I asked one, once a long time ago about His Religion, And His reply was "we are basically bad Catholics" . miles
[quote]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....
/quote]
Read what is in red, and then go back and look at your posts, carefully. miles
Miles, let's talk about that part in red. Because that part is why all forms of religion must be removed from any part of government, including the schools.
Why?
Because all religions are equal under the law; whether it be Jew, Muslim, Catholic, Morman, Shinto, JW, Nazarene, Baptist, Hindu, or Buddhist.
Many cry that teachers no longer lead their kids in Christian Prayer. But there would be hell to pay if the teacher taught the kids a Muslim or a Hindu prayer.
Nonchristians deserve, under the law, as much protection from Christian exposure as Christians deserve protection from non Christian exposure.
That is what is meant by "free exercise thereof". We are all free to do as we wish in our homes and churches. If parents want their kids taught their religion in school, that is what private schools are for.
Now prove it by shutting the hell up and move on. Stop berating the believers here else get that back in return.
I do what I please. You need to pull your head out of your arse and stop whining like a child. It's not all about you.
Didn't figure you could/would, because you're an arrogant fuuck.
Of course you do as you please, that's exactly why you don't want there to be God. You want no accountability for your chosen lifestyle.
Just leave the children alone......
I wasn't the one doing the dummy spit, that's you. I wasn't the one resorting to childish insults, that's you. You present yourself in an arrogant, aggressive, tough boy manner, scream 'stop posting' because you don't like the challenge of questioning faith, then pretend it's the other guys fault, that you are the tragic victim.
Wake up, it was never about you.
You're arrogant, I'm confident, there's a difference.
If stop insulting others for their beliefs means stop posting altogether then we know all we need to know about "DBT".
As far as "childish insults", I would expect nothing less than the brutal truth train wrecking your fragile feelings.
There is a certain satisfaction to knocking the wicked off their lofty perch, and you certainly do not disappoint.
Where's your mirror? Drop your self rightous indignation, look long and hard into it and question your own beliefs and assumptions.
But I guess you aren't interested in the truth, natural stellar and planetary formation, genetics, adaption, evolution....do you find the truth 'insulting?' Do you find open inquiry and questioning 'insulting?'
That is what is meant by "free exercise thereof". We are all free to do as we wish in our homes and churches. If parents want their kids taught their religion in school, that is what private schools are for.
If only it was this simple. Currently the schools are teaching the Governments agenda. In other words, brain washing the kids leading them to socialism. If you choose to send your children to private school, you still have to pay your fair share of the public school system. Most folks can't afford that kind of double paying for stuff. miles
That is what is meant by "free exercise thereof". We are all free to do as we wish in our homes and churches. If parents want their kids taught their religion in school, that is what private schools are for.
If only it was this simple. Currently the schools are teaching the Governments agenda. In other words, brain washing the kids leading them to socialism. If you choose to send your children to private school, you still have to pay your fair share of the public school system. Most folks can't afford that kind of double paying for stuff. miles
90% of elementary school teachers are female.
How do women vote, especially in big cities?
They're not teaching the "government" agenda, they're teaching their own agenda.
Apparently you don't understand "prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
Yes Rich, I understand it well. I heard all about it in Sabbath School as a tyke.
Quote
The days are coming when your religion will be outlawed. You will be persecuted, jailed, and even murdered for the practice thereof. Do not resist the .gov agents. Go along quietly to your .gov meted punishment as the Christians met the lions in the arenas. Know that you shall receive your reward in Heaven.
I said I heard it, I did not say I believed it.
Yet, I have not seen anyone in America executed, or even jailed for meeting in a church, or a home, or even discretely praying over a meal in school or other public place.
Apparently you don't understand "prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
Part of freedom of religion is freedom from religion. Part of that you don't get to shove your religion down the throats of my kids in a school paid for with my tax dollars.
Apparently you don't understand "prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
Part of freedom of religion is freedom from religion. Part of that you don't get to shove your religion down the throats of my kids in a school paid for with my tax dollars.
Scientific observable FACTS are still science even if they conflict with the religion of some small minority of the population.
And are thus suitable for teaching in public schools.
Again, one is free to teach one's kids whatever you want at home. Today in America, you are free to opt out of public school entirely with tremendous home schooling, and online opportunities, or private parochial schools.
Apparently you don't understand "prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
Yes Rich, I understand it well. I heard all about it in Sabbath School as a tyke.
Quote
The days are coming when your religion will be outlawed. You will be persecuted, jailed, and even murdered for the practice thereof. Do not resist the .gov agents. Go along quietly to your .gov meted punishment as the Christians met the lions in the arenas. Know that you shall receive your reward in Heaven.
I said I heard it, I did not say I believed it.
Yet, I have not seen anyone in America executed, or even jailed for meeting in a church, or a home, or even discretely praying over a meal in school or other public place.
Scientific observable FACTS are still science even if they conflict with the religion of some small minority of the population.
And are thus suitable for teaching in public schools.
Perhaps you should watch the video, "EXPELLED! No intelligence allowed."
I have. The "Intelligence" referenced in the title is "intelligent design" being allowed in science classes. ID is religion, not science, and does not belong in science classes.
Apparently you don't understand "prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
Yes Rich, I understand it well. I heard all about it in Sabbath School as a tyke.
Quote
The days are coming when your religion will be outlawed. You will be persecuted, jailed, and even murdered for the practice thereof. Do not resist the .gov agents. Go along quietly to your .gov meted punishment as the Christians met the lions in the arenas. Know that you shall receive your reward in Heaven.
I said I heard it, I did not say I believed it.
Yet, I have not seen anyone in America executed, or even jailed for meeting in a church, or a home, or even discretely praying over a meal in school or other public place.
You have not kept up with some school programs.
Rich, please identify a situation where one was jailed or executed for meeting in a church, or a home, or even discretely praying over a meal in school or other public place.
In my world, Public school teachers would not be allowed to teach any personal opinions, on any subject. They do, and have done so for a long time, resulting in how screwed up the United States has become. I see Christianity no worse than a lot of other opinions being taught. miles
I don’t know how old the earth is exactly, but if you held a gun to my head, I would say it’s far younger than many believe.
I am convinced by many proofs that there is a God and that he is involved in our day-to-day lives. I am convinced that people are acted upon by good and evil that exists outside and separate and apart from their own intentions and desires. I do not think a really intelligent person can be an atheistic materialist. I believe that the world operates by processes that we may or may not understand, though I do not rule out us understanding them better at a later date. I think much of what we claim to know and understand about physics and the laws of the universe are akin to classical physicians who”knew” disease was cause by imbalances of the humors in the body. Much of what we don’t know is termed “supernatural”, but is in reality anything but and completely natural but beyond our understanding.
I think given what we currently understand about the process within the cells and the insurmountable mathematics involved, Darwinian evolution is an impossibility. Even at four billion years, there hasn’t been enough time for random evolution as envisioned by Darwin to occur.
I’m okay with not knowing the answers to everything. I’m not incurious, I simply don’t worship my intellect nor anyone else’s and realize that there are limitations to what we can understand. I don’t discourage anyone from looking nor discount their answers. But I am skeptical of anyone who states anything with authority as that we’ve always found our knowledge to be lacking in the end no matter how settled and accepted it was.
![[Linked Image from photos.imageevent.com]](https://photos.imageevent.com/buzzandpat/newpictures/websize/DINOSAURhq1.jpg)
![[Linked Image from photos.imageevent.com]](https://photos.imageevent.com/buzzandpat/newpictures/websize/alix_1.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/0mTnz4w.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/fbQTWXtH/archie.gif)
![[Linked Image from evolutionisamyth.com]](https://www.evolutionisamyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/bomrardier-beetle-810x456.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/HL1hKcjc/8mg5sr.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/bJJX979b/11e43751d4d5bbb2a91d89141d4d859b.jpg)
![[Linked Image from waterknowledge.colostate.edu]](https://waterknowledge.colostate.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2018/08/CO-Sedimentary-Rock-Book-Cliffs-CGS.jpg)
![[Linked Image from grandcanyontrust.org]](https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/sites/default/files/blog/Blog_Grand_Canyon_Butte_Foreground_Ed_Moss.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/G2VdBpFg/large-flintstones-leaving-work-magnet1-923479879.jpg)