Realizing this is a futile argument. When I was an atheist, even when I was agnostic too, I would accept nothing less than God Himself coming down and punching me in the face as evidence for His existence. Even then I'd probably want Him to shoot lightning bolts out of His feet or something, idk.
Simple observation. Otherwise, god remains in the same category as dragons.
What then is "sufficient evidence" for you? What would prove to you that God existed? If you saw Him, right? What else besides that?
Proving it's a him would start. I'd love to know why God is a sexist.
Quote: from greatescape11 at 9:46 pm on Jan. 3, 2009
Ok. I'm posting here again with a bit of hesitancy, as you seem to be taking this as a personal attack in some way. I really don't want to get in a spat over this because frankly, what you choose to believe makes little difference to me.
SpM implied that I'm intelligent so there's no reason I should be a Christian. You told me I was "taking it too far" although all I am trying to do is spread the Word of God as spoken in the Bible. Have you read the Bible? So far as I know maintaining that it is the Truth is only behaving as a Christian should, as dictated by the Bible. If I recall correctly, you also insulted me by implying I had only recently read the Bible and therefore could not have anything worth taking seriously to say. I seriously doubt tone as determined through text is the problem here (correct me if I'm wrong).
Honestly though, let's be done with that and discuss this.
But...considering I'm already here anyways, I'll try to spell this out as simply as possible. To start, I believe I've already said enough on the first link that you posted, and as you said, the debate is not one of science vs. religion, but rather one religion vs another.
So then I have given you many different reasons for why Christianity holds up next to other religions. Will you continue not to give me reasons in favor of other religions?
In regards to your first assertion, which was that the Bible is more valid because it "has proven itself repeatedly", I would argue that you must first look at the foundations on which that proof is resting. The part that immediately set me off in this article was the line, "It is the only religion that can prove itself, and a main source of that proof is the Bible." Any one claiming that their own religious doctrine is proof of the religion as a whole is making a tremendous (and faulty) leap in logic.
I've addressed this issue before. I agree that the Bible talking of the different prophecies etc will mean nothing to a nonbeliever, however, that is why there is the science section.
In a time before the scientific model and the degree of knowledge we have now, as well as the tools we have come to use, the Bible talks of many (now) commonly accepted scientific facts. How would those writing the Bible have acquired the knowledge such as that of the suspension of Earth in space and other astronomical ideas, along with the other examples provided on the page? Do you consider this a "coincidence?" Furthermore, what other religions have anything like this (I am interested to know)?
First I think it's important to note that Jesus did not in fact fulfill the prophecy of the Old Testament. If this were the case (and he had completely conformed to all that was predicted), wouldn't you suppose that there would be no separation between Christianity and Judaism? After all, the Old Testament is essentially the Torah used in Judaism. In that, it is predicted that a Messiah would arrive and the nation of Israel would be lead into a new age.
Why do you say that? Why would there be no separation between the two? I don't understand your reasoning. Remember in Exodus when the Israelites repeatedly disobeyed God due to lack of faith when Moses was gone for 40 days being taught about the Ten Commandments and then Moses called for many of them to be killed? They claimed to be believers yet as soon as they had any reason to doubt, they did. Even those claiming to be faithful do not always follow through. This could simply to be contributed to God testing the faith of his followers. Remember that the path to God is narrow.
That "new age"... do you find it impossible that it could be Christianity?
So then the important question at hand would be "Why didn't the Jews accept Jesus as their savior (essentially, 'why don't Jews believe in Jesus?") ?" In order to understand that, I think it's important to understand the historical contexts surrounding the "entrance" of Jesus into the whole story. At the time, the nation of Israel was being oppressed by the Roman Empire, and the majority (if not all) of the Holy land was occupied by the Romans. If the Messiah were to pick a time to show up, the time was ripe for him to do so at that moment. The Israelites were looking for that Kingdom of God to arrive that would place them above all others. Enter Jesus. His followers were quick to label him as the Messiah, as he spread a word of peace (rather than retaliation against the Romans) throughout the land. Essentially, he was instructing the Jews to turn the other cheek everytime they were abused by the Romans. This is the first major conflict with the prophecy. Aside from that, Jesus preached that the Kingdom of God was a spiritual one, rather than an actual kingdom where the Israelites would form a "new kingdom on Earth." That really did not sit well with the Israelites, as the Old Testament had promised them a kingdom above all others. Finally, Jesus did not follow the laws of the Sabbath. He undermined religious leaders of the time, and all around did a pretty good job of making it clear he had no intentions of regarding the Old Testament with respect. Considering this, it's pretty easy to understand why Jesus was not seen favorably in the eyes of those who did not agree with his claims that he was "the Messiah". Of course, it's still important to consider the "miracles" that went along with his work, If it were not for the already apparent contrasts with Messianic prophecy, I would be more likely to buy into the idea that the listed miracles were indeed performed. However, since doubt has already been instilled, I'm more likely to question the context in which these miracles are described. From very early on, it has been suggested that the miracles of Jesus were no more than symbolic references to the work that he did. For example, healing the blind would refer to those who couldn't see the truth, and healing the deaf is a metaphor for helping those who had been too arrogant to listen. When looked at initially, this probably comes across as a bit of a stretch. However, it would be far from the only instance in the Bible where metaphors are used as a way of spreading the word of God. For example, unless you are a literal creationist (which I sincerely hope for the sake of my own sanity you are not), you will most likely agree that the world was not in fact created in seven days. It is assumed by most modern Christians who have some grasp on science that the story of creation was indeed a metaphor, along with other parts of Genesis/Exodus (see Red Sea Crossing...). It would be insane to look at them literally, rather than for what they are, which is essentially a cosmogony. The use of metaphors pops up several times in the New Testament as well (i.e. John 3:16 ""For God so love the world that He gave His only Son, that WHOSOEVER believes in Him should NOT perish, but have everlasting life."....we can assume there is no such thing as invincibility water. They're speaking of afterlife....). So you may ask, what reason do we have to believe that the miracles of Jesus were also metaphors? My main reasoning for this would be that it both historically and Biblically makes no sense that Jesus was able to do things that had never been done before, and have never been repeated. To claim this would be to say that God has acted differntly in one place at one time, which directly contrasts the claim that God is a never-changing constant. Simple as that.
Enter Jesus. His followers were quick to label him as the Messiah, as he spread a word of peace (rather than retaliation against the Romans) throughout the land. Essentially, he was instructing the Jews to turn the other cheek everytime they were abused by the Romans. This is the first major conflict with the prophecy. Aside from that, Jesus preached that the Kingdom of God was a spiritual one, rather than an actual kingdom where the Israelites would form a "new kingdom on Earth." That really did not sit well with the Israelites, as the Old Testament had promised them a kingdom above all others. Finally, Jesus did not follow the laws of the Sabbath. He undermined religious leaders of the time, and all around did a pretty good job of making it clear he had no intentions of regarding the Old Testament with respect.
Considering this, it's pretty easy to understand why Jesus was not seen favorably in the eyes of those who did not agree with his claims that he was "the Messiah". Of course, it's still important to consider the "miracles" that went along with his work,
If it were not for the already apparent contrasts with Messianic prophecy, I would be more likely to buy into the idea that the listed miracles were indeed performed. However, since doubt has already been instilled, I'm more likely to question the context in which these miracles are described.
From very early on, it has been suggested that the miracles of Jesus were no more than symbolic references to the work that he did. For example, healing the blind would refer to those who couldn't see the truth, and healing the deaf is a metaphor for helping those who had been too arrogant to listen. When looked at initially, this probably comes across as a bit of a stretch. However, it would be far from the only instance in the Bible where metaphors are used as a way of spreading the word of God.
For example, unless you are a literal creationist (which I sincerely hope for the sake of my own sanity you are not), you will most likely agree that the world was not in fact created in seven days. It is assumed by most modern Christians who have some grasp on science that the story of creation was indeed a metaphor, along with other parts of Genesis/Exodus (see Red Sea Crossing...). It would be insane to look at them literally, rather than for what they are, which is essentially a cosmogony. The use of metaphors pops up several times in the New Testament as well (i.e. John 3:16 ""For God so love the world that He gave His only Son, that WHOSOEVER believes in Him should NOT perish, but have everlasting life."....we can assume there is no such thing as invincibility water. They're speaking of afterlife....).
So you may ask, what reason do we have to believe that the miracles of Jesus were also metaphors? My main reasoning for this would be that it both historically and Biblically makes no sense that Jesus was able to do things that had never been done before, and have never been repeated. To claim this would be to say that God has acted differntly in one place at one time, which directly contrasts the claim that God is a never-changing constant. Simple as that.
At the present time, I guess I would consider myself a "literal Creationist" as I have a real problem with what I've seen of the two methods used to determine the earth's age. (radiometric dating and the geologic timescale and no I'm not going to summarize that, sorry). At the same time, I am learning every day so that isn't to say I am correct but only that on top of what I linked to, re-reading the Bible so far has not necessarily given me a reason to doubt that God didn't mean "seven days" when it was said.
http://godandscience.org/ is a site worth nothing here.
The Ancient Nation of Edom: I'm already confused as to why they're using this as an example. The area once known as Edom is still occupied (and has been for quite some time), and the predicted genocide never occured (from Isaiah 34:5). It never turns into another Sodom, which is what was originally prophecized. Aside from all that, I hardly even see the damnation of Edom as anything more than an ugly, racist rant by several of the prophets.
Aside from all that, I hardly even see the damnation of Edom as anything more than an ugly, racist rant by several of the prophets.
Did you read this about the history of Edom? On top of that, if you look at Isaiah 34:5 (and even Jeremiah) the point it is getting at is that the people of Edom (Petra specifically) will face destruction... and they did. The nation of Edom no longer exists so far as I know (and so far as a simple Google search has confirmed, along with Wikipedia). Even those Edomites having moved from the area have long ceased to exist, which is what Scripture was talking about.
Uh...as far as I can tell, all this is arguing is that the Bible is pretty much historically accurate, which I'm inclined to agree with? I have no doubt that the majority of people and (non-supernatural) events that were mentioned in the Bible actually took place. This says nothing in terms of divinity.
This says nothing in terms of divinity.
That is exactly the point - that historically the Bible is accurate. Despite that you find it hard to believe certain events based on what you have experienced in your lifetime is not reason to doubt the validity of a certain text (which has been backed up by history as well as in many other aspects).
This is a facinating claim considering scores of early Christians were persecuted for holding false beliefs.
Can you give me some specific examples to address?
But really, what I ask you again is what would it take for you to believe in God other than Him standing before you? What, specifically? Is there anything? If there's not, then you must see why it is pointless for me to continue responding to you. I'm not here to get some personal satisfaction from proving others wrong, that doesn't mean anything to me.
The second problem I have with it is their claim that prophecies in the Bible are evidence of the influence or existence of a higher power. I see no more complete way to go over these than to break them down one by one. Before I do so, however, I want to comment that I absolutely agree that it's possible that all of the prophecies were the result of divine intervention. I just happen to invest more heavily in the idea of that there is more likely a logical, valid reason for them. Alright...
One Type—The Messianic Prophecies These miracles and others were done many times in front of thousands of witnesses for three years. About 30 AD, Jesus was crucified (a prophecy) and died (a prophecy). Three days later he rose from the dead (another prophecy), after which He was seen by over 500 witnesses. Since these prophecies were written down at least 400 years before they happened, there is no doubt that the Bible's writers were inspired supernaturally—by God.
These miracles and others were done many times in front of thousands of witnesses for three years. About 30 AD, Jesus was crucified (a prophecy) and died (a prophecy). Three days later he rose from the dead (another prophecy), after which He was seen by over 500 witnesses. Since these prophecies were written down at least 400 years before they happened, there is no doubt that the Bible's writers were inspired supernaturally—by God.
So then the important question at hand would be "Why didn't the Jews accept Jesus as their savior (essentially, 'why don't Jews believe in Jesus?") ?" In order to understand that, I think it's important to understand the historical contexts surrounding the "entrance" of Jesus into the whole story. At the time, the nation of Israel was being oppressed by the Roman Empire, and the majority (if not all) of the Holy land was occupied by the Romans. If the Messiah were to pick a time to show up, the time was ripe for him to do so at that moment. The Israelites were looking for that Kingdom of God to arrive that would place them above all others.
This is already getting long winded. I apologize. I just feel that I owe you a proper response.
A Second Type—Fulfilled Prophecy Dealing With Nations There are many prophecies that can be proven through archaeology, especially prophecy dealing with entire nations. Typically, when God declared judgment on a nation, He would send a prophet to announce to the citizens why He was judging them and what He was going to do to them if they continued their evil behavior. On occasion, God would also tell the citizens how He would reward them if they started doing what was right
There are many prophecies that can be proven through archaeology, especially prophecy dealing with entire nations. Typically, when God declared judgment on a nation, He would send a prophet to announce to the citizens why He was judging them and what He was going to do to them if they continued their evil behavior. On occasion, God would also tell the citizens how He would reward them if they started doing what was right
The Ancient Nation of Edom: I'm already confused as to why they're using this as an example. The area once known as Edom is still occupied (and has been for quite some time), and the predicted genocide never occured (from Isaiah 34:5). It never turns into another Sodom, which is what was originally prophecized.
Hmm...I just scrolled down and realized that was the only example given. Lovely. If you've got more you want me to look at, feel free.
The Proof of Textual Evidence Over 20,000 known manuscripts document the New Testament text. This makes the New Testament the most reliable document of antiquity (a document written before the printing press). These manuscripts vary in size from a part of a page to an entire Bible (Old and New Testaments). The earliest New Testament manuscripts date from the second century (100-199) AD These manuscript copies were written in different languages by people of different nationalities, cultures, and backgrounds. In spite of all those differences between them, the New Testament texts all agree.
Over 20,000 known manuscripts document the New Testament text. This makes the New Testament the most reliable document of antiquity (a document written before the printing press). These manuscripts vary in size from a part of a page to an entire Bible (Old and New Testaments). The earliest New Testament manuscripts date from the second century (100-199) AD These manuscript copies were written in different languages by people of different nationalities, cultures, and backgrounds. In spite of all those differences between them, the New Testament texts all agree.
Uh...as far as I can tell, all this is arguing is that the Bible is pretty much historically accurate, which I'm inclined to agree with? I have no doubt that the majority of people and (non-supernatural) events that were mentioned in the Bible actually took place.
The Proof of People Living at the Time of Christ Further, the New Testament writings (before they were assembled into the "book" we call the New Testament) circulated during the lifetimes of thousands of people who had actually seen Jesus' miracles and other historic events. No one ever refuted the New Testament writings as "fairy tales."
Further, the New Testament writings (before they were assembled into the "book" we call the New Testament) circulated during the lifetimes of thousands of people who had actually seen Jesus' miracles and other historic events. No one ever refuted the New Testament writings as "fairy tales."
This is a facinating claim considering scores of early Christians were persecuted for holding false beliefs. I would love to hear where the author is getting the idea that Christianity was immediatly accepted by everyone who was touched by it.
(Final point repeats historical accuracy point...I'm skipping it.)
That is my objection. If you care.
There is no right religion exactly. All religions have some form of activities that not all people approve of.
This is true
I'll freely admit that I very much hope the Christian God is not real - the majority of human beings, including my family and most likely myself, would go to Hell - but I try to be honest in my questioning of the issue. If you presented what I felt was valid evidence I would renounce my atheism. I have no idea what you mean by "give the Christian God a chance to prove Himself". I'm sure He is quite capable of proving His existence with or without my cooperation. As for prizes, my arguments and conduct in this topic have been fairly abysmal, and so I'll leave gloating for another day.
I have no idea what you mean by "give the Christian God a chance to prove Himself". I'm sure He is quite capable of proving His existence with or without my cooperation.
As for prizes, my arguments and conduct in this topic have been fairly abysmal, and so I'll leave gloating for another day.
But like I've already said, my own belief does not rely on any of the things nonbelievers question me about. If anything, the things I posted simply strengthen my belief (and I still don't find the historical, textual, and yes, even scientific evidence to be invalid).
So claim your prizes, etc etc
I second that. I have put a good deal of time into actually studying and looking farther into various religions, as well as philosophical theory.
And yet you make the assumption (as is obvious throughout your posts) that I have not.
My rejection of your arguments has nothing to do with me being stubborn and everything to do that you have yet to present an idea that holds any weight.
And that right there is why you are stubborn. I have provided sufficient evidence for why Christianity differs from other religions, why it can be taken more seriously than others. If you want to provide me with some historical background or anything else that will back up the validity of other religions, then by all means, do so because I am interested.
You're right, but saying what you have doesn't mean that there are. The purpose of the page was to provide some of the more common ones and then provide Biblical examples of how they do not contradict it. Feel free to post scientific facts that DO disprove the Bible por favor.
Now we know that the men who recorded the life and teachings of Jesus were either eyewitnesses themselves or they related the accounts of eyewitnesses to the actual events of teachings of Jesus (I can provide examples of this if you like. I figured I wouldn't now for sake of being condensed).
We do know as well that the New Testament accounts of Christ were moving around and being circulated among those that were alive with Jesus was and they could've confirmed or denied the accuracy of those accounts.
"Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed—the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man."
The third and final test is the external evidence test. This test basically examines other historical material and whether or not it confirms or denies what the text is internally claiming. As Josh McDowell states, "In other words, what sources are there, apart from the literature under analysis, that substantiate its accuracy, reliability, and authenticity?" Dr. Louis Gottschalk, who I mentioned before, says that if there is conformity or agreement with other known historical or scientific facts is often the test of evidence that proves decisive. I left out the last bit because the author goes on to prove this with quotes taken from texts written by religious authors and I'm sure that's not what you want. Luckily, that Clarifying Christianity website I originally posted provides a couple pieces of text from secular histories that verify the existence of things recorded in the Bible.
The third and final test is the external evidence test. This test basically examines other historical material and whether or not it confirms or denies what the text is internally claiming. As Josh McDowell states, "In other words, what sources are there, apart from the literature under analysis, that substantiate its accuracy, reliability, and authenticity?" Dr. Louis Gottschalk, who I mentioned before, says that if there is conformity or agreement with other known historical or scientific facts is often the test of evidence that proves decisive.
I left out the last bit because the author goes on to prove this with quotes taken from texts written by religious authors and I'm sure that's not what you want. Luckily, that Clarifying Christianity website I originally posted provides a couple pieces of text from secular histories that verify the existence of things recorded in the Bible.
489 users online 
225315 members 612 active today Advertise Here
489 users online 225315 members 612 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
