god?

[Krudomanic]

Please do not take this as personal I'm just looking at this from a different view...

This is a very difficult subject and one, which can cause an argument in others who do believe in God? I have a lot of respect for people who have their faith and believe at one point there was a supreme human being whom they called God and then there was Jesus. I find it hard to believe anything in the Bible is true because when you think about it this was one of the first fully documented papers of history; which was written, edited and publish by man??

Please here me out here as I have a theory, which you can either take as fact or disbelief? It states that God came down to Earth on a great chariot of Fire, which you could say, was a spaceship? (No I am not on anything and I am sober?)

The chariot of fire you could predict as a spaceship therefore the supreme human being as God and then there was Jesus was actually a supreme human being but, an alien hybrid?? No this is where people normally tell me I am nuts?? But think about it?? There are cave drawings all over the World especially in Egypt, which show an astronaut in a space suite visiting Earth and a spaceship is also in this painting on the walls of a cave? (No I?m not taking a scene out of Stargate?)

So the great supreme human being everybody believes in could actually be our ancestors who at one time lived on Earth and cam back to Earth to help the inflicted, ill and blind. When people started to realize this person could revive the dead and heal the ill and blind skeptics who did not believe persecuted in him and others who thought he was a threat to all humanity so he was crucified and murdered??

You can take this any way you want? I?m not trying to rewrite history or trying to cloud people?s belief; but just think about it for one minute? I think I have a point here because there is a lot of a scientific fact and evidence to prove this fact? I have a lot of respect for people who believe in God and have their faith I just have a different view.

Thanks for listening?

[RGSPro]

it's one of the oldest arguments huh? than please enlighten me.

why does the bible contradicts itself at times?

why does god claim we must suffer for our sin but still is all benevolant(sp?) and forgiving?

i remember the episode in egypt, the grasshopper plague one with all the other plagues, why did a COUNTRY had to suffer for the supposed wrongs of ONE MAN?

if i remember correctly  :unsure:

585285119[/snapback]

Spoken like the true words of someone who hasn't read the bible. Haven't you even seen the Prince of Egypt?

Ok. How about proof linking humans to apes? That sorta contradicts the story of Adam and Eve. What about the fact that the Earth is over 11 million years old? Existence of dinosaurs...

I'm sure others could help me out with more.

585285126[/snapback]

That is not proof, even darwin himself dencounced his teachings on his deathbed. And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

There is a gigantic leap of physical evidence that is missing in the evolution of life that needs to be there even for Darwin himself to acknowledge that it is something of merit at all.

"How about proof linking humans to apes?" Ever heard of the missing link?.

[Krudomanic]

RGSPro I agree with you and you do have a very valid point... It also points to the same argument in which came first the chicken or the egg...?

We just don't really know...?

Spoken like the true words of someone who hasn't read the bible.  Haven't you even seen the Prince of Egypt?

That is not proof, even darwin himself dencounced his teachings on his deathbed.  And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

There is a gigantic leap of physical evidence that is missing in the evolution of life that needs to be there even for Darwin himself to acknowledge that it is something of merit at all.

"How about proof linking humans to apes?" Ever heard of the missing link?.

585285157[/snapback]

[+LogicalApex MVC]

i think i already posted in this one, but i just have a question for you?  why can't people like you just accept the fact that we DO NOT believe in god, or any form of religion.  why do we have to believe in something.  i do not believe in god, and its not because he hurt me, or someone that serves him hurt me, its because i just don't believe it.  i believe in evolution and all that scienfic stuff.  i won't defend myself, and i dont' think you should have to either.  why dont' we stop a forum like this, because no one is going to change their views.  people are gonna do what they do, why can't we all just deal with that.  you don't see me goin around trying to convince people there is no god, on the other hand theres always someone trying to convince us there is a god....

585284806[/snapback]

Debates like this are great because it exposes us all to each other's views so were not running around with stereotypes. It also (hopefully) will allow religions to start being able to exsist together. As non-believers i think we are 100x more accepting than believers of any religion. Simply because they always feel they are at war with non-believers and must convert them. Until they learn to stop that we will have a hellish planet, because the fact is no religion can be proved right or wrong...

[Apollo]

Spoken like the true words of someone who hasn't read the bible.  Haven't you even seen the Prince of Egypt?

i read it many years ago and i don't remember many things but... you can answer the questions i asked.

isn't it true at times in the bible when it only speaks of vengeance, "eye for an eye", that people must suffer in order to...

and than it also speaks of a benevolant and forgiving god that only has love for his children...

isn't it a BIG contradiction?

[RGSPro]

i read it many years ago and i don't remember many things but... you can answer the questions i asked.

isn't it true at times in the bible when it only speaks of vengeance, "eye for an eye", that people must suffer in order to...

and than it also speaks of a benevolant and forgiving god that only has love for his children...

isn't it a BIG contradiction?

585285177[/snapback]

No, not really. eye for an eye is old testament doctrine, when the world was living without the salvation of jesus christ. jesus changed everything. in the old testament people gave blood sacrafices to account for their sin because the penalty for sin is death, but with jesus christ there is forgiveness. its very simple.

[Daxbash5000]

GOD!! I just plainly refuse to read all this bitching back and forth... seriously.. damn guys, what's the point in this bitching anyway? Believers are in no way going to change the minds of those who don't belive through that of posting on Neowin and likewise non-Believers are in no way going to change the minds of those who belive through that of posting on Neowin.... so why even try?

Just trying to make sence of it all because neither of you are really too sure about your belifs to begine with? Arguing with others who oppose what you think so you can reassure yourself that your making the right choice? hmm

Personally I belive that there is a higher force out there, on some other plane of existance that we can't even start to imagine... but I don't think the "God" that's been talked about through all these many years is that power, I think there's been some serious mis-conceptions in history. Maybe that's just me trying to put a tangable finger on something... but I don't know if I can't belive that a centiant being could actually be the one to make the choices of what to do with the world... expecially if he looked like man... I think the ones who wrote these anchient texts were just a little flawed in their encounters because their minds weren't evolved enough to grasp the concepts of what they were experiancing.

I don't find it retarded if someone has an opposing view to mine about this subject... I just find it sad that they can't find something in the world they can hang onto enough to insure them that there's more out there, not just talking about good experiances either... I belive because of all the bad experiances i've had in life and how i've seem it effect others, how i've learned through the years and how far I have been able to expand myself beyond that of the norm... I belive in "something"

*food for though* you fear death only because you were programmed to fear it... you have sex only because you were programmed to like it... ... imagine after death if that programming is taken away... you just really wouldn't care... because if you don't have the programming to care about living... then why would you want to? Now just imagine if you were programmed to feel perfectly blissfull at all times to a factor many tousands of times more powerful than anything we could ever feel in life... now imagine the same thing but opposite, the worse pain that could ever be imaginable time a factor of many tousands... it's just all about how we are programmed to feel at times, anyone who's been really ****** on some drug can tell you that life is entirely differant when your brains programming is being screwed with.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Since when does the christian church, moden day reformed, do anything bad?  I have no problem being associated as a Lutheran, and I myself am myself a follower of Jesus.  I am always seeing things done by so called "christians" that I would not want to, and furthermore you can't always believe that just because someone calls themself a christian that they are infact living a christian life, but even with that said, we are all sinners.

Ahh the old classic Christian response... I can very well point out the fact that Christians are attempting to block legislation for things like Gay Marriages, etc...

Your definition of right and wrong only fit your context very plainly. If what they do is "right by the bible" they are Christian if not "They aren't" (talking about church going Christians). All ways quick to jump on the boat and say "Ohh that bad apple who said he was Christian, wasn't, but we all sin." I mean get serious... That's no more than saying "Ohh yea he wasnt apart of our group we would never do anything that bad, but we all do very bad things." lol makes no sense it's like talking in circles.

If you want to talk end times, then how about the persecution of the followers of Jesus.  Jesus predicted the persecution of the Church before His death:

"If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you... If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you." (John 15:18-20)

That proves nothing to me really as the bible was written by groups of people. The New Testament which holds all these Jesus storys was compilled quite a bit after his death (if he really even lived). So it wouldnt suprise me as to anything in there be accurate to the time. That was a time when the world they were in was going thru a lot of religious oppression. Maybe that should teach Christians to stop trying to oppress everyone else, but of course not...

An even more specific prophecy concerning the persecution of Christians is indicated in the book of Matthew:

"Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations on account of My name." (Matthew 24:9)

No wonder Christianity is being blamed for the tsunami by some Moslims in Iraq.

585284865[/snapback]

Again these things arent amazing... look at the time period when the books were compiled. If you weren't the religion of the country you were in, you were killed, dosen't matter if you were christian, athiest, buddist, hindu, whatever.

[RGSPro]

The origin of the Bible is God. It is a historical book that is backed by archeology, and a prophetic book that has lived up to all of its claims thus far. The Bible is God's letter to humanity collected into 66 books written by 40 divinely inspired writers over a period of over 1,600 years. The claim of divine inspiration may seem dramatic (or unrealistic to some), but a careful and honest study of the biblical scriptures will show them to be true. Powerfully, the Bible validates its divine authorship through fulfilled prophecies. An astonishing 668 prophecies have been fulfilled and none have ever been proven false (three are unconfirmed). God decided to use prophecy as His primary test of divine authorship, and an honest study of biblical prophecy will compellingly show the supernatural origin of the Bible. Skeptics must ask themselves, "Would the gambling industry even exist if people could really tell the future?" Again, no other holy book comes even close to the Bible in the amount of evidence supporting its credibility, authenticity and divine authorship.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

thats where your wrong.

thier are no happy athiests.

What would keep an athiest grounded? with no moral compass from above, wouldn't nature dictate to kill, murder, maim and basically try to make themselves and thier children live a care free life? And what about laws?..Who could possibly hold an athiest accountable for these crimes? other people? I think not. What If they never get caught. Then they would not bother with stopping because they have no concious. Why be scared of some inviso thing...

585284950[/snapback]

So now you are generalizing and stereotyping Athiest? Before i even begin to comment i have to ask where do you get this idea? Is it from your own inability to see without your religion or what?

[RGSPro]

So now you are generalizing and stereotyping Athiest? Before i even begin to comment i have to ask where do you get this idea? Is it from your own inability to see without your religion or what?

585285231[/snapback]

Thats one thing im pretty sure of. I don't see why there is a reason for happy athiests not to exist. Im sure there are plenty of athiests out there that are happy. This does not mean that they are saved. :pinch:

[jdb264c]

No, not really.  eye for an eye is old testament doctrine, when the world was living without the salvation of jesus christ.  jesus changed everything.

585285182[/snapback]

Sorry man, the NT clearly states that you have to believe every single word in the bible. You can't continue using this to excuse everything in the OT and all the terrible things God does.

This amazes me over and over again. You can talk for ages about the meetings that were supposed to decide what books should be in the bible or not, but since the bible is supposed to be God's words he would by now way allow mankind to change his words into a false doctrine right? If the Bible is what God wants "us" to believe in, why would you rather believe in what your simple priests say and not the words of God!?? It just doesn't fit...

Jesus didn't change anything.

And oh, while speaking of Jesus. Isn't it funny that not even the words of God (aka the bible) can make out his genealogy correct? If you follow the two different genealogies in Matt 1 and Luke 3 you can see that it starts to diverge at David.

How do you explain this?

Next issue, Jesus isn't qualified.

1. The NT says in a couple of verses that Jesus is from Nazareth in the province of Galilee.

Yet, the bible also states that no prophet is to rise from Galilee (John 7:52) and furthermore insinuates that nothing good can come from Nazareth (John 1:45-46)

How do you explain this?

2. According to the genealogy in Matt 1:11 Jesus is a descendant from Coniah. Yet God says that Coniah would never have a descendant that sat on David's throne.

The same accounts for Jehoiakim (Conaihs father) who was also cursed to have a descendant on David's throne.

How do you explain this?

3. The other genealogy, Luke 3, makes Jesus a descendant of Nathan and not Solomon, but 1 Chron 29:1 and 28:5 states that it is Solomon and not Nathan that will bring someone chosen by God to David's throne.

How do you explain this?

4. You think you could hide behind the thought of Jesus not actually being more than symbolically from David? Well, read for example Rom 1:3 "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" and Acts 2:30 "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne".

The funniest part of all christianity is that you are all defeated by your own book.

Finally:

Nowhere in the OT is the power of redeeming from sin and the authority of spiritual salvation attributed to the messiah.

Nowhere in the OT does it mention the messiah's power and glory in heaven or state that the messiah is God.

Just my two cents.

[jdb264c]

The origin of the Bible is God. It is a historical book that is backed by archeology, and a prophetic book that has lived up to all of its claims thus far. The Bible is God's letter to humanity collected into 66 books written by 40 divinely inspired writers over a period of over 1,600 years. The claim of divine inspiration may seem dramatic (or unrealistic to some), but a careful and honest study of the biblical scriptures will show them to be true. Powerfully, the Bible validates its divine authorship through fulfilled prophecies. An astonishing 668 prophecies have been fulfilled and none have ever been proven false (three are unconfirmed).

585285225[/snapback]

This is just hilarious. It's amazing to see how blind you christians are trying to defend a book so completely filled with lies.

Will get back to the prophecies but have to head off for work.

[RGSPro]

im not going to argue ignorance. i know i will be flamed for that, but its the truth of the matter.

[Apollo]

Thats one thing im pretty sure of.  I don't see why there is a reason for happy athiests not to exist.  Im sure there are plenty of athiests out there that are happy.  This does not mean that they are saved.  :pinch:

585285235[/snapback]

saved from what? eternal punishment?

lets imagine i never comited a mortal sin or broke any of the ten commandments but because i don't believe in something i'm doomed to be in misery and be punished for all eternity aka NOT being saved?

[The Gauge]

Just a quick point.

I would personally hold much more respect to someone justifying their religion if they didn't robotically quote verses from the very religious texts that are under scrutiny.

Try thinking beyond what you're told to believe, and reason with the skeptics using your own language and one which everyone can understand. Your bible quotes are utterly meaningless to me because, simply put, they're not your words.

[worzle]

Ok. How about proof linking humans to apes? That sorta contradicts the story of Adam and Eve. What about the fact that the Earth is over 11 million years old? Existence of dinosaurs...

I'm sure others could help me out with more.

"Proof", enlighten me please :) There have been numerous confirmed fakes linking human to apes (Piltdown Man etc), and yet as far as i can see no confirmed link. For evolution to be considered scientific it needs to be provable, much as the Bible's account of the creation etc needs to be. One of the only ways you can proove evolution is by finding these so called "missing links". Surely, unless the evolution happened incredably fast (somthing evolution cannot accept) we should have found some fairly conclusive "links"? As it stands i have yet to see a fair amount of credable evidence supporting this, although im sure you will enlighten me with your "evidence".

Earth is over 11 million years old? I'd be interested to see your conclusive evidence relating to this :)

I have no problem believing in dinosaurs, clearly they did exist and are now extinct. I do, however, take issue with the way they have been dated - using carbon dating that, theoretically, shouldn't work beyond 50,000 years at the maximum (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp among other articles). The fact they found *any* carbon dating is more of a proof that dinosaurs arn't really that old...

Jesus didn't change anything.

And oh, while speaking of Jesus. Isn't it funny that not even the words of God (aka the bible) can make out his genealogy correct? If you follow the two different genealogies in Matt 1 and Luke 3 you can see that it starts to diverge at David.

How do you explain this?

As you are probably aware the genealogy of Jesus was importent. He was proficied to be of the line of David. The seperate genealogy's refer to BOTH of Jesus' parents. If i get them the right way round, matthew 1 deals with Joseph - Luke 3 deals with Mary.

Next issue, Jesus isn't qualified.

1. The NT says in a couple of verses that Jesus is from Nazareth in the province of Galilee.

Yet, the bible also states that no prophet is to rise from Galilee (John 7:52) and furthermore insinuates that nothing good can come from Nazareth (John 1:45-46)

How do you explain this?

I guess you have quoted this from another website... perhaps reading this in context will tell you that some doubters of Jesus said that, they are quotes.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search...07;&version=50; John 7:52, Jesus (as the Gospels state) was born in Bethlehem and then brought up in Galilee.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search...01;&version=50; John 1:45-46, presumably you don't believe this "humour". As i mentioned before, although Jesus lived in Nazareth he was born in Bethlehem to fulfill some prophecy in Isaiah.

2. According to the genealogy in Matt 1:11 Jesus is a descendant from Coniah. Yet God says that Coniah would never have a descendant that sat on David's throne.

The same accounts for Jehoiakim (Conaihs father) who was also cursed to have a descendant on David's throne.

How do you explain this?

Matthew 1:11 == "11Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers about the time they were carried away to Babylon. " where does it say Coniah? :huh: If you mean Jeconiah, can you show me the passage in the Bible where he said that, just for referance? Thanks :)

3. The other genealogy, Luke 3, makes Jesus a descendant of Nathan and not Solomon, but 1 Chron 29:1 and 28:5 states that it is Solomon and not Nathan that will bring someone chosen by God to David's throne.

How do you explain this?

As I mentioned, the two genealogies are different. They refer to two different people.

Your quotes don't seem to prove anything...

Chron 28:5 "5And of all my sons (for the LORD has given me many sons) He has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel. " Solomon did suceed David as King of Israel (who said the passage)..

Chron 19:1 "1 Then King David said to the whole assembly: "My son Solomon, the one whom God has chosen, is young and inexperienced. The task is great, because this palatial structure is not for man but for the LORD God."

4. You think you could hide behind the thought of Jesus not actually being more than symbolically from David? Well, read for example Rom 1:3 "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" and Acts 2:30 "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne".

The funniest part of all christianity is that you are all defeated by your own book.

Explain what part of this is wrong? I believe that he was a decendant of David, i have no problem with that.

Finally:

Nowhere in the OT is the power of redeeming from sin and the authority of spiritual salvation attributed to the messiah.

Nowhere in the OT does it mention the messiah's power and glory in heaven or state that the messiah is God.

PROVERBS 30:4 Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son's name, if you know? 5 Every word of God ['Eloah] is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. (NKJV)

DANIEL 7:13 "I was watching in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before Him. 14 Then to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed. (NKJV)

Etc.

Sorry man, the NT clearly states that you have to believe every single word in the bible. You can't continue using this to excuse everything in the OT and all the terrible things God does.

Admitedly the Old Testament does say that, and Jesus does say in the New Testament "38?You have heard that it was said, ?Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.?[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 4" (Matthew 5).

[Raum]

All you people looking for proof need to ask yourself something. If there was undeniable proof that God exists, the whole world would know within a matter of days, if that. You know how man damned people would then decide to believe in God etc? How is that a test of faith? Should people go to heaven for being able to put their faith in something like that? Don't you think that'd kind of defeat the purpose of listening to that little voice inside of you, figuring out what it is and then acepting Him into your heart? Assuming htat God exists, I don't think he'd want proof that he does. I could very well be wrong, but htis is just how I see it. Give us proof and have everyone believe....seems to half defeat the purpose to me. I dunno.

[TheDogsBed]

OK Back to practical issues once more:

1. How do you differentiate between following the teachings of the Bible and the behaviour of modern day cults, which, as we know, mostly prey upon the impressionable members of society.

2. What evidence would it take for you personally to disbelieve the existence of God, or at least that he didn't create the earth?

Edited January 13, 2005 by SniperX

[worzle]

All you people looking for proof need to ask yourself something.? If there was undeniable proof that God exists, the whole world would know within a matter of days, if that.? You know how man damned people would then decide to believe in God etc?? How is that a test of faith?? Should people go to heaven for being able to put their faith in something like that?? Don't you think that'd kind of defeat the purpose of listening to that little voice inside of you, figuring out what it is and then acepting Him into your heart?? Assuming htat God exists, I don't think he'd want proof that he does.? I could very well be wrong, but htis is just how I see it.? Give us proof and have everyone believe....seems to half defeat the purpose to me.? I dunno.

585285615[/snapback]

[edit] I typed this out before i saw your comments, SniperX.

2. What evidence would it take for you personally to disbelieve the existence of God, or at least that he didn't create the earth?

Basically proving beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible is flawed.

[/edit]

Just as an antithesis to what you suggest; there will always people who wont believe even when clear evidence has been put before them. The only way (as far as I am concerned) that you could disprove God would be to find a clear and blatent fault in his inspired word. Unfortunatly its very hard to prove "history" (e.g. evolution) without written first hand accounts. You can always speculate on how or why somthing happened but without such accounts you will never know, regardless of how credable your "scientific" information may be.

Your methods of trying to "prove" evolution (such as dating fossils via c14 dating), or even your "theories" designed to support ideas about the "big bang", such as "red shift" can be observed as being false, however.

One way of calling into question the Bible would be to find races of people that have (unforged and correctly dated, obviously) written documents that date back well beyond 6,000 years - despite claims that such races existed, i have yet to see any re:) proof :).

From where i stand, and admitidly i have spent a lot of time reading the creation / evolution debate, most evidence is stacking up to support an young earth and a creator. Believing that somthing, and then life appeared from literally nothing (the concept "nothing" is unimaginable in my opinion) requires just as much faith, if not more so, than believing in a creator God - and utterly unprovable.

[edit2]

1. How do you differentiate between following the teachings of the Bible and the behaviour of modern day cults, which, as we know, mostly prey upon the impressionable members of society.

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/xian_cult.html <-- that sums it up fairly well.

Assuming you follow Christianity by the literal New Testiment meaning, and unfortunatly there are many people who don't, it becomes harder to assosiate it with a "cult" (under the given definitions).

[/edit2]

Edited January 13, 2005 by worzle

[TheDogsBed]

From where i stand, and admitidly i have spent a lot of time reading the creation / evolution debate, most evidence is stacking up to support an young earth and a creator.

I have to contest that point, strongly. I have yet to see a single scrap of evidence which suggests a creator. Which bit am I missing?

I don't dispute the Bible, how can I, it's there right in front of me, it exists. What I dispute is the reason, the intent, and the purpose of it. I have a strong interest in psychology and so, therefore, look at things chiefly from a psychological perspective. I cannot dispute for one second that the Bible is an exceptional collection of texts, truly exceptional. I can't even dispute that, in terms of sheer volume, it is unprecedented. However, that is where the greatness ends for me.

What you read as holy text and divine words to live by, I read essentially the same way as I read a party political broadcast brochure today, or, to be more precise, the laws of the land in which I reside.

You see, if I am to believe that the Bible is flawless then I also have to accept that man is flawless. Clearly he is not, never has been and never will be. He was, we must assume, as prone to ego, politics, lying, and cheating to serve his own ends then as he is today. Today, I couldn't expect a truth to remain the same for more than two miles after it being passed along by mere mortals. However, I am expected to believe that the Bible is not subject to the same flaws and that nothing within it has had it's original context, meaning, or source bent out of shape by any human flaw.

Further, the real brilliance of the Bible is its timing. Of course, the authors couldn't have known this at the time and I have every reason to believe that it was written as little more than documentary evidence of certain events, which has since grown into little more than a novel of truths, half-truths and complete fabrications.

It simply couldn't be done today as we're now at a state where we are able to physically examine evidence put before us. We don't have to take a word for it, we can look deeper and further than we ever have before. If you make a claim to rise from the dead today, you are more likely to find yourself at the end of a sedative than you are to find yourself the leader of a religion or a teacher of great wisdom. Why? Because we are no longer the relative simple being that we once were.

Sure, I can see the benefit of believing that I'm going to live forever. (Subject to terms and conditions) I'm human, I want to believe that I'll go on and on, see my children grow, watch my work benefit others years from now, and so forth. But the fact is that with the best will in the world, I'm not going to, but it doesn't stop me from thinking what if I could? If we didn't have this natural curiosity within us, you and I may well have been debating this whilst clubbing our dinner to death.

In summary, I think the Bible is a brilliant piece of work but not for the same reasons as you perhaps do. I feel that ultimately it will be disproven (in the context which you place it into) and its true origins unearthed. (We get closer and provide more plausability each time we attempt it with new methods that are at our disposal.)

However, at present it still has Man's relatively primitive methods on its side and so certainly will not happen in my lifetime and even then, there will still be fundamentalists who refuse to see what is under their nose, in the same way that they refuse to see that religion is losing the 'velvet-glove, iron-fist' grip on the world it has enjoyed for so long, as we mortals explore more and enjoy more freedom to form our own ideals and perspectives.

Edited January 13, 2005 by SniperX

[The Gauge]

I eagerly await the day they find a missing page from the bible.

A page from the front that says "All characters and events in this story are fictitious. All names were created without regard to any possible real life counterparts. Any similarity to real life characters and events is PURELY coincidental."

:)

[worzle]

I have to contest that point, strongly. I have yet to see a single scrap of evidence which suggests a creator. Which bit am I missing?

"The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional ?simple? cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged2 to be worse than 1 in 10to the power of 57800. This is a chance of 1 in a number with 57,800 zeros. To try to put this in perspective, there are about 10 to the power of 80 (a number with 80 zeros) electrons in the universe. Even if every electron in our universe were another universe the same size as ours that would ?only? amount to 10 to the power of 160 electrons." ... continue reading here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/chance.as:)/url] :) After that have a poke around here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp i will be very impressed if you can prove any faults with what y:) find :)

You see, if I am to believe that the Bible is flawless then I also have to accept that man is flawless. Clearly he is not, never has been and never will be. He was, we must assume, as prone to ego, politics, lying, and cheating to serve his own ends then as he is today. Today, I couldn't expect a truth to remain the same for more than two miles after it being passed along by mere mortals. However, I am expected to believe that the Bible is not subject to the same flaws and that nothing within it has had it's original context, meaning, or source bent out of shape by any human flaw.

As you probably have read, when God created man he was "perfect". He was given free will and he chose to disobey God and he "fell". Its fairly obvious to me that man is full of flaws right now, and i am sure the same was true thousands of years ago. I cannot prove (much as you cannot) that the people who wrote the Bible had there own interests at heart. Reading through it personally i find it hard to see how someone writing letters from prison, knowing he would be executed, would have a lot to gain by reassuring peoples faith as Paul did. However, you are entitled to your opinion and i doubt i will be able to persuade you otherwise given the unprovable nature of it.

Further, the real brilliance of the Bible is its timing. Of course, the authors couldn't have known this at the time and I have every reason to believe that it was written as little more than documentary evidence of certain events, which has since grown into little more than a novel of truths, half-truths and complete fabrications.

In many cases (especially in the New Testament) i am sure that the writers did not know they would find themselves being read by millions of people world wide. I don't agree that it has "grown" into what you claim it has. I would love to see the reasons why you believe it has "grown" into what you claim it has. Have you seen any very early manuscripts that have markedly different tone to them (other than the end of Mark, which i tried to answer previously).

It simply couldn't be done today as we're now at a state where we are able to physically examine evidence put before us. We don't have to take a word for it, we can look deeper and further than we ever have before. If you make a claim to rise from the dead today, you are more likely to find yourself at the end of a sedative than you are to find yourself the leader of a religion or a teacher of great wisdom. Why? Because we are no longer the relative simple being that we once were.

I beg to differ. Science textbooks today, at least where i went to school, actively support evolution. Teachers, as well as textbooks and scientific journals, teach it as fact along with the Big Bang. We *are* in a position to examine the evidence, and even though time and time again it comes back as flawed it is still advocated.

Admittedly some genetic mutations do confer an advantage in some situations. HOWEVER none have yet been found where a mincreasesases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage. How can a hypothesis such as evolution be taught as "fact" in such institutions (even though im sure it has been directed against)?

As for the "Big Bang", if you are interested try reading this new article... http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0112quasar.as:)/url] :)

Sure, I can see the benefit of believing that I'm going to live forever. (Subject to terms and conditions) I'm human, I want to believe that I'll go on and on, see my children grow, watch my work benefit others years from now, and soBut the fact is that with the best will in the world, I'm not going to, to, but it doesn't stop me from thinking what if I could? If we didn't have this natural curiosity within us, you and I may well have been debating this whilst clubbing our dinner to death.

Short of your belief in your own opinion, i'd be interested to hear why you are so certain of this;)

In summary, I think the Bible is a brilliant piece of work but not for the same reasons as you perhaps do. I feel that ultimately it will be disproven (in the context which you place it into) and its true origins unearthed. (We get closer and provide more plausability each time we attempt it with new methods that are at our disposal.)

May i ask what you would think would be the best way (or any way really) to conclusivly disprove the Bible? If as it stands there is no way to disprove the Bible, shouldn't it at least have its "scientific" statements handled with a little respect? Bare in mind that for any scientific hypotheses, there ought to be some way of disproving it else it'll turn into a phi;)sophy ;)

However, at present it still has Man's relatively primitive methods on its side and so certainly will not happen in my lifetime and even then, there will still be fundamentalists who refuse to see what is under their nose, in the same way that they refuse to see that religion is losing the 'velvet-glove, iron-fist' grip on the world it has enjoyed for so long, as we mortals explore more and enjoy more freedom to form our own ideals and perspectives.

When i see conclusive and 100% verifyable evidence that the Bible is completly and utterly inaccurate, then perhaps i will reconsider my position. However as it stands i see nothing that is incompatible with the Bible. One of the more interesting senario's floating around at the moment is the suggestion that the Bible's Egyption chronology is 200 years out, at least thats the way Eygptologists (is that even:$?:$) would have you believe. Having looked into it a little bit it seems as though the 21st and 22nd dynasties ran at the same time (look into the Tombs at Tanis i think), i would expect Eygption chronology to "fall" into place with that of the Bible, but i wouldn't hold your breath for an immediate;)hange ;)

I cannot deny that under the Catholic church that was the case in Europe, however i am not Catholic and personally believe that they hold heretical views. The Prodestant Church can't be exempt from this either, however you must remember much of what they undertook was not in anyway Christian. They merely hid themselves under the guise of Religion to excersise control over people. I cannot excuse what they did, however it is not what the Bible teaches ("my kingdom is not of this world" etc.).

You are free to form your own opinions on life, however from what i can see the more people think about such matters believing God doesn't exist, the more life seems so pointless. I have seen people end up in one of two camps; nihilism - the belief that there is quite frankly no point to anything (in which case why bother existing) or existentialism (i must create a false sense of purpose, "eat drink and be merry for tomorow we die"). Whilst you could argue that "neither are satisfactory, but they happen to be true" it does reduce life down to a pointless drag. Fine, if thats how you like it however i wouldn't use the word "enjoy" when admitting i don't have real purpose, surely that starts to wear down on people even:/ally. :/

[ph3412t3h13]

wow im glad to see that this thread is doing so well

but seriously folks u cant say that god exists just because a bible exists!!!!!!

then that would be stupid!!!!!!!

[worzle]

wow im glad to see that this thread is doing so well

but seriously folks u cant say that god exists just because a bible exists!!!!!!

then that would be stupid!!!!!!!

585288429[/snapback]

I'm not. What I am saying, however, is that if you can prove that the Bible is massively flawed then that would act as evidence against God. Until then it ought to be dealt with at least with the same respect you would give any other textbook that contains theory's or hypothesis that can be disproved :)