Is This *logical*

[Angel of Hope]

You understand that, in order to create a concept, we have to work with ideas we already have. Those ideas come from observation. That observation, in turn, comes from experimentation. Hence, the idea of God as who He is... It is believed by Christians (myself included,) that God left little clues to his existence in all Creation.

Alright, stop right there. Go no further. Let's talk about that. "God left little clues"? Why? Why pray tell me would the Almighty, Eternal, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, God of the entire Universe, Heavens and Hell, past, present, and future.... leave "little clues"? Doesn't this sort of make God sound more like some sort of little pixie sprinkling little bits of star dust around that if you look hard enough you might see??? God left little clues? Doesn't Psalm 19 say, "The heavens declare the glory of God, the firment shows his handiwork, day unto day uttereth speach, night unto night showeth knoweldge." And Romans 1:20, "The invisible things of Him through the Creation are clearly seen and made known"?

 

Think about it. Imagine that if God were in fact God, that you wouldn't be seeing "little clues" of the Almightly hiding himslef in a corner somewhere, you see it written accross the sky with a huge unmistakable hand "GOD". The Psalmist thought so. The Apostle Paul thought so. But the difference between them and you, is that today, with our knowledge of the natural world through the tools of science, it's not the huge mystery it used to be where you could easily sign the name GOD on it, like David and Paul did. Today, it seems you're left looking for "little clues", like your on a quest to find the ever elusive Yeti living in the Himalayas.

 

So if it turns out that we finally find evidence for God in the microbes that grow on a special moss only found once a century on a certain type of tree North Ireland during the month of June, then I'd be forced to ask Him, "WTF??"

 

The reason we hold to the Bible as His Word, instead of going just by what we learn from nature is, basically, the same reason we go by the research of others, along with the experiments we ourselves use...

You know what the problem is with this? Going with the Bible is NOT like going with the research of others, as in the sciences. Why? Peer review. There is no external corroborating evidence that the things it claims are really true. What you have is a bunch of interpretations. You can use it a starting point, a book of metaphors and allegories to spark some thought, but then at the end the message you get is one you created. That's the power of myth. That's the Bible at its best. At its worst however, its a case of the blind leading the blind, and such is the case in the majority of those who are literalist and claim it as authoritative in addressing issue of how to live ones life.

 

Remember the analogy I gave you of the oak and the willow?

 

Good evening, Antlerman...

 

Perhaps I was wrong to put my point in the way I did. I meant to try to convey the very message you asked me about (concerning the message of Psalm 19 and Romans 1:20). I did not mean that the evidence is hard to find, or that it takes someone with extraordinary deductive skills to find it, at all. I meant that God leaves proof of His existence in how He has created everything to a universal standard.

 

With all due respect, while it is true that there are some problems with the peer review part, evidence is being discovered seemingly every day that corroborates the message of the Bible. There are ancient texts from unrelated civilizations that teach the same thing the Bible does... not to mention all the other archaeological evidence. Even if it were merely metaphor and allegory, wouldn't it still hold some kind of application to how we live our lives today, depending on how the interpretation? Sure, there may be several interpretations. However, essentially, wouldn't they point to the same ideals?

 

The oak and the willow... great analogy. That reminds me to ask where you came up with that one. I mean, seriously, it is a good analogy, that would fit in many ways.

 

God bless,

 

~AOH~

[Franciscan Monkey]

If I remember correctly, you wanted to know how we can be sure the Bible is true. That is how your question was answered. Take, for example, the recent finds. In an area that was about 150 miles from the Dead Sea, a 4,000 year-old Sumerian tablet was found, which paralleled the story of the destruction of the Cities of the Plain in Genesis (Sodom and Gomorrha). Plus, archaeologists have discovered an ancient, underground temple in Sudan that was dedicated to the worship of the star Sirius, with what they believe is the Ark of the Covenant. Testing still has to be done, but it fits the Biblical parameters, has remains of ancient sacrifices on it, and was found in a temple that has remained undisturbed for thousands of years (I wish I had the links to the online news articles about this, but you should be able to find them on Yahoo! archives, under the Associated Press articles). Thus, if there is historical evidence of the "stories" of the Bible, then why not believe what they have to say in their entirety? I know you'd probably bring up how some people use the Gilgamesh epic to prove the Ark story, but I think that's just a Babylonian spin on the historical data. An artifact in the exact parameters of the Biblical Ark, however, was photographed by NASA satellites within the past few months, in the mountains of Ararat. Isn't it, therefore, possible that the Bible is right?

 

A few points, Angel of Hope:

 

1. The Sumerian tablet you mentioned actually displays the fictional nature of the Bible. It depicts an asteroid hitting the Austrian Alps in 3123 BC, and it is speculated that its destructive path and subsequent debris would have affected the Middle East. The Sodom and Gomorrah story allegedly takes place around 1898 BC, according to the Bible. So what we have is a Hebrew writer taking historical events and modifying them to come up with a new story. This seems to be a recurring theme in the OT, such as the story of the destruction of Ai, which in reality was destroyed 1000 years before the story of Joshua takes place.

 

2. It may be just how you worded it, but you seem to say that the actual Ark of the Covenant was found in Ethiopia (not Sudan, BTW), when it was just the altar that some have surmised the Ark rested upon. Tha Ark has not been found.

 

3. The NASA photographs of "Noah's Ark" that you reference are not of an "artifact," as you put it, as an artifact is something that is man-made, and there is no evidence as of yet that this object is man-made. It is also quite a stretch for you to say that it fits the "exact" parameters of the Ark. Its length-to-width ratio is <i>similar</i>, but it appears to be over 1000 feet long, much bigger than the Biblical Ark at 450 feet or so. BTW, the photos are a few years old, not a few months. So far no credible evidence has turned up for Noah's Ark, they are usually shown to be hoaxes or natural formations.

 

4. You wrote in a previous post that, "As for circumcision, Paul tells us that circumcision was for the purpose of a symbol: a sign of the Jews denying their baser impulses, to serve the one true God. The reason God gave Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses seems to fit with that idea." Do you not find it odd that God would use a rite that was practiced by the Egyptians at least 500 years before God's alleged covenant with Abraham as a symbol for that covenant? Not only that, but many of the nations surrounding Israel also practiced circumcision. Both Herodotus and Josephus claim that the Israelites picked up circumcision from the Egyptians.

 

There are parts of the Bible that are historically accurate, to be sure, but that does not mean that the whole Bible by extension is accurate or true. And they may even eventually find the Ark of the Covenant, as it most likely was an actual artifact and may have survived in hiding somewhere. Noah's Ark is a whole different deal, though. It was not historical. I can guarantee if they ever did find Noah's Ark, I'd reconvert on the spot, as that would prove, at least to me, the validity of the Bible.

 

It was the historical inaccuracies, together with the scientific errors, contradictions, failed prophecies, and non-sensical stories contained in the Bible that caused me to leave the Christian faith.

 

Respectfully,

Franciscan Monkey

[insanezenmistress]

Throwing something out here....

 

 

Is Angle still asking why we left. Franciscan sparked something in me.

 

Angle spoke of her understanding that the bible is being validated in *recent* archeology. And those things must seem thrilling. I myself am taken back when i think i see various words of prophecy seemingly comming into play. Such as Russia getting all trigger happy becasue we are messing with iran now. As it can be made to appear that's what Ezekiel was talking about with Gog and Magog and the gathering of the armies.......Of course i may be so prohetically hysterical at the moment, i can likewise see visions of 1984 comming to pass as well..........and then there are the calanders of the Aztec.

 

 

Clearly , if we want to believe in the holy books of the ages...all mythologies SEEEEEEMMMMM to be pointing to an end of some kind, and it only points to the inevidable fact that all things will change.

 

All the aungst in the World now. If you wanted to make a case for the validity of your Bible, you could very well point to all the evils that swarm about in accordance to the written thing. The planed forgone conclusions. The appearance of coincidence.

 

Many here argue that personal subjective interpretations of the bible is all that feuls a person's faith in their understanding of god. Their understanding of god is personally limited to the parameters they set for themselves via religion, science, psychology, society, morality, and interpretation.

 

You try to say that theses stories, though copied, are being prooven yet you give us a handfull of shakey *what if* findings. SO......lets pretend your facts are suddenly prooven.....

 

 

Well Franciscan says he might..but i interpretit as *might would* reconvert on the spot. That suggests that even he should agree that he is capable of reinterpreting how he interpretes and understands that bible in light of eveidence of the stories being true.

 

But He would also soon discover that there are MANY other things that DONT go along with history, and are directly opposed by archeology. Such as the very thing that made me realise that my bible was not A perfect thing from god, but something of man.

 

That is that there was NO Herodian Slaughter of the innocents. The very foundation of the gospells is an outright false statement.

 

I would like to tangent off in another direction for a moment.......... yesterday My Pastor gave me a phone call.

 

I was concerned for HIM because he mentioned Todd Bently form the pulpit basically wishy washing about his teachings but believing in a "Move of God".......he thinks he sees people comming to Christ in droves......and he cannot understand my critique that good things dont come from false teachers.

 

But according to His thinking As long as Tood throws in occasionally how Jesus died for our sins and is the only way of Salvation...........he can talk about what ever angles and holy ghost BAMS that he wants.

 

Dude is saying..."well jesus said if that are not tareing down they are building up and let them alone even if they are not with us." He Is saying he can over look the occult becasue the man is saying jesus is the way.............But clearly not teaching that jesus is Lord, or anything about the truth of the world. Instead its all LA la healing, La la bullshit.

 

But he cant even see sound doctrine. That makes ME think , for a moment...............geee isn't THAT a proof of the bible saying something true!.....God will send a strong delusion that if it where possible would decieve the very elect.

 

I know on the one hand that the bible is wrong, if you try to concider it impeccible, unblimished, prooven, and congruent. But on the other hand, it some times just hits the nail on the head.

 

I think you may notice it hits the nail on the head as offtian as it agrees with our interpretation. As well as , as offtian as it strikes a Human moral code, understanding of a right or a wrong thing.

 

But it does not hit the nail on the head concerning historical, physical, factaul, things, but only in things of hope and wishing and philosphopy. The bible is as good as any other holy book at teaching man things that enhance the experience of life. But It is equally as evil as any holy book to become what ever the humans want. There is NO understanding or interpretation fo any scripture that could ever be concidered ALL CORRECT FOR ALL HUMANITY...unless of course, humanity learns to recpect eachother's understandingd and interpreations and make for peace in our freedom to do so.......(there i, go day dreaming again, the bible says that will never happen becasue we have original sin)

 

The Bible has no world curing power. Though individauls may get what ever benifet they create for themselves.

 

 

 

But i got side tracked.....My point is partially that we see what we want to see.

 

Some times we see logically, even if we illogically hope that the reality we interpret is correct enough for our happy living.\

 

 

forgive me if i was so off topic ........just needed to ramble a bit.

 

insane.

[Franciscan Monkey]

Well Franciscan says he might..but i interpretit as *might would* reconvert on the spot. That suggests that even he should agree that he is capable of reinterpreting how he interpretes and understands that bible in light of eveidence of the stories being true.

 

But He would also soon discover that there are MANY other things that DONT go along with history, and are directly opposed by archeology. Such as the very thing that made me realise that my bible was not A perfect thing from god, but something of man.

 

The reason why I'd reconvert if Noah's Ark were to be found is that the story is impossible and could only be true if there were supernatural aspects to it. A wooden boat that size would not be seaworthy and could not have landed on the top of a mountain. Yes, I would have to reinterpret the Bible, forcing its other errors into a mold of inerrancy, just like I did when I was a Christian apologist, and just like Angel of Hope does now. Of course, Noah's Ark will not be found because it never existed. The only parts of the Bible that match up with history and reality are the parts that we'd expect to and don't require the supernatural.

 

Respectfully,

Franciscan Monkey

[Ouroboros]

Just a thought: If the Flood story is proven to be true, it means Judaism is the true religion, not Christianity.

[Angel of Hope]

If I remember correctly, you wanted to know how we can be sure the Bible is true. That is how your question was answered. Take, for example, the recent finds. In an area that was about 150 miles from the Dead Sea, a 4,000 year-old Sumerian tablet was found, which paralleled the story of the destruction of the Cities of the Plain in Genesis (Sodom and Gomorrha). Plus, archaeologists have discovered an ancient, underground temple in Sudan that was dedicated to the worship of the star Sirius, with what they believe is the Ark of the Covenant. Testing still has to be done, but it fits the Biblical parameters, has remains of ancient sacrifices on it, and was found in a temple that has remained undisturbed for thousands of years (I wish I had the links to the online news articles about this, but you should be able to find them on Yahoo! archives, under the Associated Press articles). Thus, if there is historical evidence of the "stories" of the Bible, then why not believe what they have to say in their entirety? I know you'd probably bring up how some people use the Gilgamesh epic to prove the Ark story, but I think that's just a Babylonian spin on the historical data. An artifact in the exact parameters of the Biblical Ark, however, was photographed by NASA satellites within the past few months, in the mountains of Ararat. Isn't it, therefore, possible that the Bible is right?

 

A few points, Angel of Hope:

 

1. The Sumerian tablet you mentioned actually displays the fictional nature of the Bible. It depicts an asteroid hitting the Austrian Alps in 3123 BC, and it is speculated that its destructive path and subsequent debris would have affected the Middle East. The Sodom and Gomorrah story allegedly takes place around 1898 BC, according to the Bible. So what we have is a Hebrew writer taking historical events and modifying them to come up with a new story. This seems to be a recurring theme in the OT, such as the story of the destruction of Ai, which in reality was destroyed 1000 years before the story of Joshua takes place.

 

2. It may be just how you worded it, but you seem to say that the actual Ark of the Covenant was found in Ethiopia (not Sudan, BTW), when it was just the altar that some have surmised the Ark rested upon. Tha Ark has not been found.

 

3. The NASA photographs of "Noah's Ark" that you reference are not of an "artifact," as you put it, as an artifact is something that is man-made, and there is no evidence as of yet that this object is man-made. It is also quite a stretch for you to say that it fits the "exact" parameters of the Ark. Its length-to-width ratio is <i>similar</i>, but it appears to be over 1000 feet long, much bigger than the Biblical Ark at 450 feet or so. BTW, the photos are a few years old, not a few months. So far no credible evidence has turned up for Noah's Ark, they are usually shown to be hoaxes or natural formations.

 

4. You wrote in a previous post that, "As for circumcision, Paul tells us that circumcision was for the purpose of a symbol: a sign of the Jews denying their baser impulses, to serve the one true God. The reason God gave Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses seems to fit with that idea." Do you not find it odd that God would use a rite that was practiced by the Egyptians at least 500 years before God's alleged covenant with Abraham as a symbol for that covenant? Not only that, but many of the nations surrounding Israel also practiced circumcision. Both Herodotus and Josephus claim that the Israelites picked up circumcision from the Egyptians.

 

There are parts of the Bible that are historically accurate, to be sure, but that does not mean that the whole Bible by extension is accurate or true. And they may even eventually find the Ark of the Covenant, as it most likely was an actual artifact and may have survived in hiding somewhere. Noah's Ark is a whole different deal, though. It was not historical. I can guarantee if they ever did find Noah's Ark, I'd reconvert on the spot, as that would prove, at least to me, the validity of the Bible.

 

It was the historical inaccuracies, together with the scientific errors, contradictions, failed prophecies, and non-sensical stories contained in the Bible that caused me to leave the Christian faith.

 

Respectfully,

Franciscan Monkey

 

This is certainly an interesting discussion...

 

1. The Sumerian table you're referring to must be a different one, or else the articles I read left that information out. This one was a more recent find, discovered just a couple months ago, just after NASA came out with the photographs and conclusions of their investigation into the matter of the Ark on the mountains of Ararat. This one didn't mention any European nations or landmarks, as far as I'm aware. I could be wrong, but I was only aware of it's comments about the immediate area surrounding it. It said that a "white bowl, filled with fire" came down until it hovered just over one city (presumably Sodom or Gomorrha), swept along all the cities of the plain, and flew back up into the sky... just before it had the chance to blaze across the land the Bible calls Zoar. Is this the same tablet you're talking about, or was it indeed a different one?

 

2. I didn't mean to insinuate that the Ark of the Covenant was found in Ethiopia. From what I understood of the article, the location was in Sudan. Though it is a neighbor to Ethiopia, Ethiopia wasn't the nation I meant to refer to. As for the Ark, I meant to say that they found the actual ark itself, upon a stone altar, in the underground temple. The altar, as far as I know, was destroyed in AD 70, along with the rest of the Jewish temple.

 

3. The artifact I refer to has been examined by NASA equipment. Granted, it was from a distance, but they are convinced that it is a man-made seafaring vessel. The fact that it is generally of a rectangular shape, of a wooden construct, and of roughly similar dimensions is what they say means it is man-made. Also, take it for what you will, but there is the possibility that it had become swolen and warped over time. If, as I believe, the flood was a real event, that's a huge amount of water... not to mention the weather conditions in those mountains would have warped the wood that had become swolen over the centuries. As for the age of the photos, I didn't mean to imply that they were a recent discovery. NASA had been holding on to them for a while, until they could confirm their suspicions, and then released the information to the press. Perhaps the sightings are usually hoaxes, I'll give you that. However, this doesn't seem to be the kind of thing NASA would fake.

 

4. Perhaps there were other nations that practiced the ritual before the Israelites did. However, wouldn't that fit with the idea that it was used for the purpose of a symbol? There are many seemingly pagan symbols that Christians have used over the millennia for their symbolic significance to the Christian faith. The anchor was a symbol of the god Typhon, and the fish of Poseidon. The fish symbol has been claimed to be taken from maternal religions. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that Christianity is pagan. We're talking about people who, while they might have had a great deal of insight, were not all that imaginative (no matter what your personal beliefs about the Bible's teachings). There is the possibility that they couldn't come up with their own symbols to accurately portray the tenets of their faith. Or, perhaps they came up with symbols, and no matter what they tried, they always ended up looking like the ones the pagans used. Of course, many Christians were once pagan themselves. There is no telling where their symbols came from, but the Bible is always clear on their intended symbolism. The same was my point regarding circumcision: it wasn't to fix a mistake, but to symbolize the will and desire to do whatever it takes to obey God above our own ideas, because only the Creator would know the absolute truth about everything that has to do with Creation and how each part interacts with it's fellows.

 

I'm glad to hear that you are open-minded enough to state that there is some measure of evidence that would bring you back.

 

I won't get into a discussion about how flawed the Bible can seem. From what I've seen on this board, it causes too much offense. Suffice it to say, I believe that the Bible, when properly understood, is the furthest thing from false or wrong.

 

Respectfully,

~AOH~

 

P.S.- I like the name "Franciscan Monkey". What prompted you to make it up?

[Neon Genesis]

Regarding your question of how God created the matter and energy that exist... I am not so highminded as to pretend that I know how God does everything He does. Being beyond the rules that govern us and, thus, beyond our limited comprehension, there is no way I could possibly be able to tell you with any certainty how He created anything. Perhaps there was a "big bang", but wouldn't that be more of a result of an action? Where would the material and energy come from to cause the "big bang"?

Scientists don't claim to know everything about what happened before the birth of the existence of the universe, but just because we don't know everything doesn't mean that a god was behind it. To me, it seems intellectually lazy and dishonest to say "Oh, I don't understand how the universe works, therefore god must have done it." Aren't you basically arguing from your own ignorance for the existence of god? Do you really want to base your whole argument on god's existence on the fact that you don't know something? Isn't that kind of insulting to your god to say "Oh, God, I'm not smart enough to know everything, therefore I'll just say you did it at all so I wouldn't have to think for myself."

 

That isn't so: if He did, He would be no different from us. We would be gods, if God followed the same rules we follow, during all of His existence. Just because He obeyed those rules for a short time, mind you, doesn't mean that He is still the same as we are. When Christ was resurrected, His human nature was still dead. We can't be gods, because we have to follow the rules of Creation: God can be God, because He doesn't have to exist by them.

So, basically you're saying god can do whatever it feels like because it's god? But where in the bible does it say this? What verse says that god doesn't follow the same laws as us because that would make us like gods? Last I checked, it doesn't and in fact the bible says we have already become like gods in Genesis 3:22

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"

 

How does saying that God doesn't need a creator, because He exists outside the laws of Creation - and, specifically, time, - not answer your question? Your question, as I understand it, was how God could exist without a creator, and laws to govern Him. How is the reason, the "what for", not the "why"? Both types of questions can be used interchangeably, so they must refer to the same question. Your analogy doesn't fit my response. The reason has nothing to do with an unrelated side-effect, but the cause and effect themselves. God doesn't need a creator, because He has always existed. He has always existed, because He exists beyond the jurisdiction of time. If time loses it's authority where God is, and time is one of the most basic laws that govern existence, it follows that God exists beyond the laws of Creation. That's how He can exist without a creator: He is not only not weak enough to require one, but He exists in a sort of loop (always has, connecting to always is, connecting to always will be, connecting back to always has, etc).

It's not an answer because you haven't explained anything. Your whole argument is still revolving around faith, not logic. It's like when I ask Christians, "How did god create the universe in six days?" They'll respond by saying that god spoke the universe into existence. Ok, then, but how does god speaking result in the universe? They'll then respond by saying "it's a miracle!" I ask them how do they know it's a miracle and they'll respond "Oh, that's what faith is for!" and so we're right back to where we started as if they didn't have any "answers" to begin with. Another example is that I once asked my dad how can a star stay in one place for an extended period of time? His only answer was "It's a miracle!" which doesn't answer my question at all because it's all back to the whole "you just have to have faith!" argument and I'm right back to where I started. That's why your argument doesn't answer my question. Because the whole reason for your argument is based on faith, not proven facts yet the whole reason I asked for facts was because I can't believe with faith. If your whole argument is based on faith, why bother with your so-called "facts" at all?

 

If I remember properly, I stated that either possibility could fit. Thus, I didn't claim to know for sure. I have never seen God face-to-face, so how can I claim to know what His construction looks like? You are correct in saying that either God is of a complex construct, or a simple one (if "construct" can even be applied to the description of Him). God's ways are beyond our understanding, because He is beyond us. How could we understand the ways of our leaders; unless they either explain it to us, or they don't, and we are left to guess. My point, exactly, was that God is beyond us. We can't pretend to understand Him as well as we understand ourselves, and we don't even have a complete understanding of ourselves!

How do you know then that you have the correct way of understanding how god created the universe? Since you yourself admit that you can't know because you've never seen god face to face, how do you know god couldn't have created life using evolution? How do you know that evolution isn't incompatible with god or even with the bible? It should be pointed out that in the NKJV of the bible, there is a footnote in Genesis chapter 1 which says the original Hebrew word used in the creation account literally means generations, so it is seven generations, not a literal seven days. Even later verses in the bible support the idea that Genesis is an allegorical fable, not a historical account of the world's creation. For example, 2 Peter 3:8

But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.

And Titus 1:13

13This testimony is true. For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith, not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth.

Obviously, according to Paul, the Genesis story is a Jewish myth that he doesn't want us to pay attention to, thus the Genesis story is not meant to be taken literally.

[Neon Genesis]

I never claimed that there was "another universe", per se. However, Einstein theorized that the universe as we know it has boundaries, and something must lie beyond those boundaries.

Einstein also didn't believe in a literal "god" but he used "god" as a metaphor for the universe. He also hated Christianity and thought the Christian god was petty and immature, so it's obvious that Einstein didn't think the existence of god was all that probable.

 

If God were not, in some part, detached from Creation, the laws that govern it would apply to all of God. However, since there is always some aspect of God beyond Creation, that means that they don't apply unless He chooses to follow them... which, thankfully, for our sakes, He is not unwilling to do: either in interacting with us, or in living among us. God can exist in our universe, by the same laws that govern us, because there is always a part of Him beyond the laws that govern us. That means that, at any time when it is in our best interests, God can shed those laws in favour of His rightful position.

Where in the bible does it say that god is detached from creation? Where does it say that the laws of the universe do not apply to god? Where does the bible say that god can shed those laws in favor of his rightful position?

 

You ask what evidence I have that I know anything at all. I ask you, what evidence do you have that I don't know anything at all? I can't claim to know it all, but I do know some things. What I don't know, I have to take on faith, until it is definitively disproved beyond the shadow of a doubt.

You can't prove a negative. That's logically impossible to do. But just because you can't prove a negative doesn't mean that the total opposite answer is probable. Disbelief isn't about proving negatives, it's about improbability. Let's say for example, that there are microscopic teacups that exist outside the rings of Saturn. They're so small that none of Earth's most powerful telescopes can detect them. Since you can't see the microscopic teacups in outer space, and you just have to have faith to prove that they are true, then since you can't prove that there are not microscopic teacups in outer space, as long as you have faith in them, does that mean that microscopic teacups exist in outer space? Now prove to me that microscopic teacups do not exist outside the rings of Saturn.

 

You ask why I believe that gods would need a Creator beyond them. Ever heard the saying, "there can be only one"? Essentially, if God is all-powerful, then there can be no other gods along with Him. There can be parts of Him, but they would be part of Him, and thus not other gods. If there are other gods, they can't be all-powerful. Thus, they exist by some kind of rules. That means that they must have a Creator that is beyond them, and all the laws of Creation, because it wouldn't make sense for an existence that functions in the span of time - which has a beginning, middle, and end, - to have an eternal set of causes, stretching back as far as eternity among those creations.

Question, can all-knowing god change its mind?

 

God isn't some cosmic baby-sitter. He intervenes when the intervention is too great for humans to achieve, and blesses us when we try to intervene for ourselves, as long as we do it for the right reasons.

So, when a Catholic priest rapes a child, why didn't god intervene then? Or are you saying that the intervention wasn't that great for a child to be raped?

[Angel of Hope]

I hadn't even gotten back to the question of why you left... nor might I, because it seems the people on this board tend to include that in their posts. I might as well just sit back, and let them answer the question before I even ask it. It's much easier...

 

It would seem that the prophecies are coming to pass, as it were. However, I wouldn't necessarily point to that, because people like George Orwell had the insight, information and foresight to see these things happening 60 years ago, so you could very well point out that it's not impossible that the writers of the Biblical texts anticipated the possibilities...

 

What evidence is there that the Herodian slaughter of the innocents didn't happen? I haven't heard of it yet.

 

On your tangent... did this pastor of yours actually ask why good things couldn't come from false teaching?! And, who is this "Todd Bentley" guy? I feel like I've heard his name before... maybe on the news.

 

This pastor you spoke to is wrong, and I would not believe what he told you very much. The fact is that you can't believe in anything that has to do with something you don't believe in. If you don't believe in the Holy Ghost using us today to work miracles, then how could you believe the guy when he, apparently in the same breath if that's what you're saying, says something about Christ? In the human mind, if a person is wrong on one point, they can't be right on any other point connected to it.

 

Again, I would say that, whoever this healer is, he is teaching something false, and making the faith shipwreck. It is understandable if people don't believe one part of his doctrine, because of the other part.

 

God said He'd give them over to strong delusion. That much He has. Can you blame Him? If people don't want to believe, not even God can bring Himself to force it upon them. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

 

So, if you know of some times when it "hits the nail on the head", what other times might there be when the Bible got it right?

 

Perhaps it is true that the Bible hits it on the head concerning morality and other such important ideals. However, if it doesn't hit any historical, physical, or factual idea on the head as well, it's not believable. Yet, so many people - scientists included, - have believed in it. Why, if the evidence is so convincing against the Bible, do such intelligent people, who do such conclusive research before believing anything else, believe the Bible? Wouldn't they apply the same standards to believing the Bible that they apply so scrutinously to everything else

 

The Bible says it will never happen, because people aren't generally willing to listen to anything other than what they want to hear. I, too, would dance for the day that people would understand each-other... or, at least, try to.

 

The Bible has a good idea, right? So, if a sick patient refuses the medication that would make him/her better, does that mean the medicine is ineffective?

 

Point well presented.

 

It is a good topic to discuss, in my opinion. Nothing for you to apologize for.

 

God bless,

 

~AOH~

[Franciscan Monkey]

1. The Sumerian table you're referring to must be a different one, or else the articles I read left that information out. This one was a more recent find, discovered just a couple months ago, just after NASA came out with the photographs and conclusions of their investigation into the matter of the Ark on the mountains of Ararat. This one didn't mention any European nations or landmarks, as far as I'm aware. I could be wrong, but I was only aware of it's comments about the immediate area surrounding it. It said that a "white bowl, filled with fire" came down until it hovered just over one city (presumably Sodom or Gomorrha), swept along all the cities of the plain, and flew back up into the sky... just before it had the chance to blaze across the land the Bible calls Zoar. Is this the same tablet you're talking about, or was it indeed a different one?

 

It's the same one. Perhaps you were reading about it at a Christian apologist site, where the parts that contradict the Bible were edited out?

 

From Fox News

 

2. I didn't mean to insinuate that the Ark of the Covenant was found in Ethiopia. From what I understood of the article, the location was in Sudan. Though it is a neighbor to Ethiopia, Ethiopia wasn't the nation I meant to refer to. As for the Ark, I meant to say that they found the actual ark itself, upon a stone altar, in the underground temple. The altar, as far as I know, was destroyed in AD 70, along with the rest of the Jewish temple.

 

What I was saying was that the location is actually in Ethiopia, not Sudan. And they did not find the Ark, just an altar. The temple to Sirius was in Ethiopia, not Sudan. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but it seems inaccurate.

 

From Fox News

 

3. The artifact I refer to has been examined by NASA equipment. Granted, it was from a distance, but they are convinced that it is a man-made seafaring vessel. The fact that it is generally of a rectangular shape, of a wooden construct, and of roughly similar dimensions is what they say means it is man-made. Also, take it for what you will, but there is the possibility that it had become swolen and warped over time. If, as I believe, the flood was a real event, that's a huge amount of water... not to mention the weather conditions in those mountains would have warped the wood that had become swolen over the centuries. As for the age of the photos, I didn't mean to imply that they were a recent discovery. NASA had been holding on to them for a while, until they could confirm their suspicions, and then released the information to the press. Perhaps the sightings are usually hoaxes, I'll give you that. However, this doesn't seem to be the kind of thing NASA would fake.

 

Link me up with that information, then, because I have not seen any information that NASA or any other credible scientific organization has concluded that it is a "man-made sea-faring vessel," or made of wood. Do you honestly think that a wooden boat would swell to over twice it's original size? I doubt that is possible, but even so, it would not retain enough structural integrity to be recognizable. Again, provide a link, because that would be incredible, earth-shattering news indeed.

 

4. Perhaps there were other nations that practiced the ritual before the Israelites did. However, wouldn't that fit with the idea that it was used for the purpose of a symbol? There are many seemingly pagan symbols that Christians have used over the millennia for their symbolic significance to the Christian faith. The anchor was a symbol of the god Typhon, and the fish of Poseidon. The fish symbol has been claimed to be taken from maternal religions. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that Christianity is pagan. We're talking about people who, while they might have had a great deal of insight, were not all that imaginative (no matter what your personal beliefs about the Bible's teachings). There is the possibility that they couldn't come up with their own symbols to accurately portray the tenets of their faith. Or, perhaps they came up with symbols, and no matter what they tried, they always ended up looking like the ones the pagans used. Of course, many Christians were once pagan themselves. There is no telling where their symbols came from, but the Bible is always clear on their intended symbolism. The same was my point regarding circumcision: it wasn't to fix a mistake, but to symbolize the will and desire to do whatever it takes to obey God above our own ideas, because only the Creator would know the absolute truth about everything that has to do with Creation and how each part interacts with it's fellows.

 

I find it odd that a supposedly God-ordained rite or symbol would be based on somethimg that non-believing nations practiced, especially when you consider how God allegedly wanted to make Israel separate and distinct from the surrounding peoples. It does, however, fit very nicely into what a man, not a god, would come up with, which you seem to allude to when you wrote, "We're talking about people who, while they might have had a great deal of insight, were not all that imaginative (no matter what your personal beliefs about the Bible's teachings). There is the possibility that they couldn't come up with their own symbols to accurately portray the tenets of their faith." Regardless, it doesn't invalidate the Bible, but it is curious.

 

I'm glad to hear that you are open-minded enough to state that there is some measure of evidence that would bring you back.

 

I am open to the truth. That is why I left Christianity. I am not afraid of the truth, wherever that may lead. Question for you, would you be willing to forsake your Christian beliefs if there were enough evidence against them?

 

I won't get into a discussion about how flawed the Bible can seem. From what I've seen on this board, it causes too much offense. Suffice it to say, I believe that the Bible, when properly understood, is the furthest thing from false or wrong.

 

When I started to look at the Bible objectively, "properly understood," I came to the conclusion that it could not possibly be the Word of God.

 

P.S.- I like the name "Franciscan Monkey". What prompted you to make it up?

 

Just the play on words. And, yes, I know Franciscans are not monks, but friars.

 

Respectfully,

Franciscan Monkey

[Ouroboros]

Just the play on words. And, yes, I know Franciscans are not monks, but friars.

So maybe it should've been Franciscan Fried Monkey?

[Skankboy]

3 words: CITE YOUR SOURCES.

 

You can claim NASA found Santa's workshop, but until you can at least provide links for these "amazing discoveries" I am forced to conclude you are pulling them from the same biased sources we usually hear from around here.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you are being deliberately deceptive, but without giving us the opportunity to follow up on your claims you are not giving us anything to really debate about.

 

Provide some sources and we'll talk.

 

IMOHO,

[Franciscan Monkey]

So maybe it should've been Franciscan Fried Monkey?

 

LOL! I like it!

[Antlerman]

Good evening, Antlerman...

 

Perhaps I was wrong to put my point in the way I did. I meant to try to convey the very message you asked me about (concerning the message of Psalm 19 and Romans 1:20). I did not mean that the evidence is hard to find, or that it takes someone with extraordinary deductive skills to find it, at all. I meant that God leaves proof of His existence in how He has created everything to a universal standard.

OK. You used "little clues" as a figure of speech. But at the same token, I'm a believer that the choices behind why we choose certain phrases or terms is because the connotation touches on some underlying thought. Generally "little clues" implies things like a bread trail, that if you weren't being consciously aware of why those are there you might miss the picture that they actually tell a tale, like looking at the little clues found here and there around a dig site for an archaeologist. I tend to be very particular in my word choices because of connotation. For myself, I look at the words I find myself wanting to choose as "little clues" into my own thoughts going on behind the scenes about something.

 

To your point that you meant what the writer of Romans and the Psalms did, that comes back to my point that they are stating that when look at creation they see it as "declaring" God. That's an announcement. "I AM GOD". In their world, in their time, with their lack of knowledge of how the natural world actually works, to them this constituted an announcement, not a matter of "clues".

 

To me, I can appreciate someone who looks at the world that is and frames it in a context of "God", as some big overarching "Reason" for it. But that is ultimately a perception, not something that can ever have "evidence" to support it, in the sense of confirming or corroborating as valid scientifically. The "clue" to me is a choice of perception, not some empirical thing.

 

In fact, I will offer you my compliments in what I read you posted about the Trinity and quantum physics. I found it refreshing to hear you having taken your perceptions, your way of framing an understanding of the world though a religious sense and try to place into a context that you can also appreciate the natural world as it stands. It was drawing me in actually into an intriguing way of reconciling ancient mythological symbolism into the context of modern thought - which I personally can see a value in doing this. I was quite impressed seeing you using your own thoughts like this! It's wonderful that you weren't just using an existing framework from someone else and building your house on that. You were making it your own. I understand this, and appreciate it.

 

However, I have to admit being a bit let down when you then stepped back down from that and in fact did start going a different direction in this path of finding supporting evidence, citing these "NASA has images of the Ark", etc, etc sorts of things that come out of those religious groups on the fringes - using the sames sorts of hype of "They've found evidence of..." as those who believe in UFOs and Big Foot. These are hugely overblown, and I really would prefer to let others spend their time offering you the reasons why they are, because I would prefer to look at the bigger picture with you.

 

But just a one tiny, brief aside to this damned "ark found" hype: It was in particular ONE person who "interpreted it" and it smacks of some religious mission. This sort of thing is seen again and again and again with these "proofs", and despite it being throughly debunked or shown in a more reasoned light, the tales on the Internet persist over and over for years. You're buying into it - and the reason of why, that I would prefer to discuss with you. Let me offer something from that article, and I'll move beyond this as I don't want to get embroiled in a debate about "evidence":

 

<snip>

But at

least one man

wonders if it could be the remains of Noah's Ark, a vessel said to have been built to save people and selected animals from the Great Flood, the 40 days and 40 nights of deluge as detailed in the Book of Genesis.

 

<snip>

 

Identifying the Ararat anomaly has been

a 13-year quest of Porcher Taylor, an associate professor in paralegal studies

at the University of Richmond's School of Continuing Studies in Virginia.

 

<snip>

 

"I've got newfound optimism ... as far as my continuing push to have the intelligence community declassify some of the more definitive-type imagery," Taylor told SPACE.com/LiveScience. He points to a "new and significant development," a high-resolution image taken by DigitalGlobe's impressive QuickBird satellite and shown here publicly for the first time [alternate version with no annotation].

 

"

I'm calling this my satellite archeology project

," Taylor said. It's an effort that has now included use of QuickBird, GeoEye's Ikonos spacecraft, Canada's Radarsat 1, as well as declassified aerial and satellite images taken by the various U.S. intelligence agencies.

 

<snip>

 

There are also experts in remote sensing who offer a skeptical view. "Image interpretation is an art," said Farouk El-Baz, Director of the Boston University Center for Remote Sensing.

 

"One has to be familiar with sun lighting effects on the shape of observed features," El-Baz said. "

Very slight changes in slope modify shadow shapes that affect the interpretations.

Up to this time, all the images I have seen can be interpreted as natural landforms

.

The feature that has been interpreted as the 'Ararat Anomaly' is to me a ledge of rock in partial shadow, with varied thickness of snow and ice cover.

There's always people who go for the spectacular, and those who are a willing audience who drive them onward. Would this prove the Bible was written by God if it turned out to be an actual boat? No. Not anymore than it would prove the stories told by the Sumerian's were God delivered. But the reality of it is, all of these sort of "evidences" are very much more on the level of those that the UFO buff claims as evidence in seeing patterns in photographs, like seeing faces in clouds, etc. Compelling evidence? Hardly. Again, hardly.

 

But to the greater issue I prefer to discuss is why cite evidence like this at all? Why set the faith up to be destroyed when these sorts of "proof found" hype gets blown to smithereens, again and again? Do you not see how dangerous this is? I can't stress that enough. And the greater question is that I ask you is, why is it necessary? Does faith need proof? What is faith? This is supposed to be, according to the Bible itself, "evidence of things unseen", in and of itself. But no! We have NASA sightings of the Ark!

 

We touched briefly on something earlier I'm going to respond to in a moment, but in relation to this to that and the above I will restate something I've said many times in the past, that the surest way to kill God is to take him off the throne of heaven and make him a phenomenon here on earth that can be examined by the tools of science. If science were to discovered God, then he would become a curiosity, and not a divine symbol. Big Foot holds are fascination through the power of our imaginations, but if they found him, he'd just be a big curious monkey for a time until he's just another species. I'll get back to this later with you.

 

With all due respect, while it is true that there are some problems with the peer review part, evidence is being discovered seemingly every day that corroborates the message of the Bible. There are ancient texts from unrelated civilizations that teach the same thing the Bible does... not to mention all the other archaeological evidence. Even if it were merely metaphor and allegory, wouldn't it still hold some kind of application to how we live our lives today, depending on how the interpretation? Sure, there may be several interpretations. However, essentially, wouldn't they point to the same ideals?

 

The oak and the willow... great analogy. That reminds me to ask where you came up with that one. I mean, seriously, it is a good analogy, that would fit in many ways.

Again the "evidence" not only should be unnecessary, but it actually diminishes it and very, very potentially destroys faith for people when the proofs turn out be nothing better than examples of religious bias in the human mind destroying their ability to be clear minded and objective - a quality that is as much an important part of being human as is the appreciation of the aesthetic. But the greater point is what you ask me about it holding some sort of application to how we live our lives today, and that doesn't that point to the same ideals? My answer is both yes and no.

 

Yes. I do believe it holds some relevance. Of course. It should because it was written by humans, and just as any stories, myths, works of art, literature, culture etc are works of humans, they have value because they come from the same place that ties us all together - our humanity. We speak to each other. We relate to each other. When I listen to a piece of music that is written, not as folk entertainment, but as act of expression of ideals, I will find myself elevated in thought and spirit to transcendent places where I move beyond the mundane. By the same token, a system of expression of living as a human in the form of myth symbols, of gods, and heavens, the fall, separation, salvation, redemption, etc can be representative of very human issues that in fact can transcend generations. (I should add though, that the Christian symbols may have an easier time speaking to this culture here in the West because it was very much shaped through Christian ideals infused into our secular lives).

 

Where I would say no, is to those who see it as literal truth from a literal God. The reason no, is because there are things that are quite clearly representative of a different culture that does not share the same values as we have today. So much so that we even find them repugnant to our developed sensibilities. What you have then with those who insist on the Bible being some sort of God delivered, real, direct word from the God to us, is this predicament of trying to make that belief fit the stories of brutality and backwardness that we find primitive. Rather than simply saying, it was their ideas and we don't see god that way anymore, they are forced by their marriage to a doctrine of infallibility to try to fit God into this square hole. Let's go with Jesus' analogy of new wine in old skins. That's what I'm talking about. That's the problem with literalism, such as you seem to be buying into for some reason. You can't take old ways, such as "women shall stay silent in church because it's how God made them to be submissive!", coming from of culture that Paul lived in, and pour the rightly evolved moral sensibilities of a modern culture into an old skin like that. It will burst. And indeed it is.

 

So the fact that some principles are valid, does this prove divine authorship? Not really. But if someone were to say that those higher ideals that seem to transcend cultures and generations are something we use the word God to represent, that this is "God's word", then I'd say sure, as a figure of speech, as a means of expression of some noble sentiment of human spirit that helps define our higher self, then it could be called "God's word" - in places, but not all by any means and certainly not in a direction dictation sort of way. In fact, you may not be aware of this but the idea you have just accepted doctrinally, that of Direct Revelation, is really not a historically continuous notion. I'm planning at some point to lay out a time of changing ideas about that through Church history some time, but will suffice to say that the views you have are change points within Christianity, and your views are reflective of the time you live in.

 

It's all so much less clear as those of the more conservative camps would try to sell us on. It may appeal to those who want to not reason too deeply, who want some simple framework on which to base their thoughts without too much challenge or tasking of their resources, but it certainly doesn't work for those who care to go further. I couldn't accept those limits, nor do I now.

 

I would very much enjoy a deeper discussion with you. It seems as if it would be interesting to do this with you. Let me know if you wish for a more one on one venue and I'd be happy, time permitting, to explore thoughts with you.

 

 

 

P.S. The oak and willow analogy is something I heard from someplace I can't recall around 20 years ago (some Native American saying I believe). It's stuck with me through the years as an important principle that seems counter-intuitive to our Western way of thinking. The strongest materials are those that are woven, or those that have a lattice structure to them. To me this applies to being stronger through diversity, rather than limiting the materials we use to make ourselves strong in our culture. Now, apply this to the singular, linear pattern of a single system of thought such as Christianity, or science alone for that matter. Ponder that, and get back to me with your thoughts.

[insanezenmistress]

What evidence is there that the Herodian slaughter of the innocents didn't happen? I haven't heard of it yet.

 

On your tangent... did this pastor of yours actually ask why good things couldn't come from false teaching?! And, who is this "Todd Bentley" guy? I feel like I've heard his name before... maybe on the news.

 

 

Again, I would say that, whoever this healer is, he is teaching something false, and making the faith shipwreck. It is understandable if people don't believe one part of his doctrine, because of the other part.

 

God said He'd give them over to strong delusion. That much He has. Can you blame Him?

 

If people don't want to believe, not even God can bring Himself to force it upon them. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

 

So, if you know of some times when it "hits the nail on the head", what other times might there be when the Bible got it right?

 

The Bible says it will never happen, because people aren't generally willing to listen to anything other than what they want to hear. I, too, would dance for the day that people would understand each-other... or, at least, try to.

 

The Bible has a good idea, right? So, if a sick patient refuses the medication that would make him/her better, does that mean the medicine is ineffective?

 

Point well presented.

 

 

~AOH~

 

 

Where did ifind evidence that the herodian babyslaughter did not happen? Threw various convincing arguments that i have read but cant seem to remember just where i found......some debate with Ferril Till and something on the history channel about josephus...and stuf. If you want to see for yourself you will have to google "slaughter of the innocents*

 

Which will verify that in all of history the ONLY place that mentions it, is the the single mention in Matthew. Not even Jposephus who was the at the time historian that chronincalled each of herod's other many haneous acts of nasty kingmanship. Josephus Hated Herod, and would have taken notice of herod in the history books of he had killed all those babies.

 

That Pastor , did not ask anything. He said he diagrees with the mans theology, but believes people are still getting saved thru his "disagreable theology* ministry. a blantent contraidiction or blindness......He confessed spiritaul jealousy........he wishes lots of people got saved at our church. but there are only a few. and our numbers are dwendling.

 

Todd Bently is a tattoed preacher bamming people in their pocketbooks and preforming mind bending tricks for JEBUS in Lakewood florida.

 

 

You asked me if i could blame god for sending this delusion? Hell no i dont blame god. The way i see it, people themselves left off looking to be holy before god ages ago. No one is really *working out their salvation*. For a christian this is a sad veiw. The way i see it, these Exchristians have done more Striving for the things of god than most christians who come in to correct them.

 

 

I dont blame god for the way the church is screwed up , I am not angery at him for sending an evil delusion what ever ....it is the ultimate twisted thing. He's trying to get us to wake up to truth. But that's my oppinion, some would say it is not god but our deepest reason that wants us to stop lieing to ourselves, even if we have to see the sillyness of ourselves in our own actions.

 

To attain great realisation of wisdom or truth we will have been hitherto decieved by a strong delusion. IN order to reach higher in knowledge or understanding, we have to realise ignorance, or potnetal ideas. Thefore we will have had to be deluded or incomplete in our understanding else learning coudl not happen. My Point is i am not mad that god could be the kind of being that sends lies and warps his church and destroys form time to time, i am rather angrey that hehave had to make god become rediculous in order to see our sillyness. In Order to get us to break out and strive for the important Things of liveing life.

 

 

 

The Bible reprecents various methods and ways to belivein god. Some good, majority not so good. One can almsot say that humanity simply doesnt want ot be all good anyway regardless of the corect realigion. If we did then evidence woul support a more peacfull honest world. But..EHHHH it does not.

 

SO the bible is likewise powerless to reall effect and power............but perhaps by itself it doe snot.....perhaps the power is in the spoken word. As some have suggested. But we as a common poluloce do not have any common knowledge of a person speaking in power the word of god. There may indeed be stories scattered here and there. Even I have my anctidotes. But beyond myself my stories are embelishable hearsay.

 

Oh wait Thomas Paine brought out that point........have you read Him?

 

Finially about the paitent refusing the effective medicine. Where is this medicine?

 

He must have a reason for refusing the effective medicine, if indeed he knows that it is effective. IF he has only heard that it was sometimes effective he might take it. If he has heard that it was never effective he might take it in hope that perhaps he can make it work for him. But in this case he refused the effective medicine. Then he has chosen to die his way at that time.

 

Why do you blame him? Eventaully we all die, and on the way we experience and learn form our lives short or long, with and without medicine.

 

 

Jessy

[Neon Genesis]

I'm sure you've heard of a phenomenon called "lucid dreaming". Even though you're in a realistic dream, and would otherwise believe in it's reality, there is a part of you that says it's fake... and thus, by exerting concentration through that part of yourself, you can change how your dream works out. As for the mirage, isn't it something our minds conjure up to alleviate our suffering? I have had hallucinations before, and worked through them, so I do know that you can change how you see things with enough effort (except in some extreme and tragic cases). God did create a perfect world. Everything was supposed to work together, and every creation was supposed to read from the same page their parts. The only problem is that we decided, as humans, to do our own thing. The illusion is perfect for us as individuals, because we want it to be a certain way. When we try to make it so in real life, it rarely works out that way... especially in the long run. God is beyond all that, so God wouldn't create an imperfect world. Essentially, we got ourselves into this mess; and, if we're all sincere, we'd better do whatever we can to get out of it (not just sin per se, but pollution, crime, corruption, and all of the mess in general).

But not all dreams can be controlled and you yourself say that it's takes a lot of effort to control one. If the universe was an illusion, wouldn't it take even more effort to control the illusion of it than any old hallucination?

 

If I remember correctly, you wanted to know how we can be sure the Bible is true. That is how your question was answered. Take, for example, the recent finds. In an area that was about 150 miles from the Dead Sea, a 4,000 year-old Sumerian tablet was found, which paralleled the story of the destruction of the Cities of the Plain in Genesis (Sodom and Gomorrha). Plus, archaeologists have discovered an ancient, underground temple in Sudan that was dedicated to the worship of the star Sirius, with what they believe is the Ark of the Covenant. Testing still has to be done, but it fits the Biblical parameters, has remains of ancient sacrifices on it, and was found in a temple that has remained undisturbed for thousands of years (I wish I had the links to the online news articles about this, but you should be able to find them on Yahoo! archives, under the Associated Press articles). Thus, if there is historical evidence of the "stories" of the Bible, then why not believe what they have to say in their entirety? I know you'd probably bring up how some people use the Gilgamesh epic to prove the Ark story, but I think that's just a Babylonian spin on the historical data. An artifact in the exact parameters of the Biblical Ark, however, was photographed by NASA satellites within the past few months, in the mountains of Ararat. Isn't it, therefore, possible that the Bible is right?

If any of this was "actual" evidence, why isn't this Earth-shattering nationwide news that's changing the world? Why aren't atheists converting to Christianity by the droves? Why isn't this being televised 24/7 on CNN? Surely if this was "evidence" it would be obviously true for everyone and there would be no more religions and non-religious people and everyone would be Christians? Also, even if an ark is found in Antarctica, what makes you think it must be the ark of the bible? You yourself admit that there are other myths and religions with flood stories. How do you know it's not the ark of one of those and Gilgamesh is actually true?

 

I didn't mean to insinuate that everything in Islam is true. I meant to point out that the parts adopted from Judaism and Christianity were adopted because they were proven to be right. Why, then, would they not be right in their entirety, if other religions are taking parts that are obviously right to them, and putting them together to suit their own beliefs? They needed something to base their beliefs on, and they saw something right in the Bible, so they took bits and pieces of the Bible's teachings, and used them to confirm their beliefs

Christianity ripped off pagan myths, too. For example, there are many parallels between Jesus and Mithras. Does this mean that Mithraism must be true because Christianity borrowed from it?

 

Actually, according to me and what I have learned from the Bible, if you're willing to change your ways from deliberately disobeying Christ's message, then there's always the possibility of being forgiven and accepted back. The point is to repent; not to make excuses. Christians don't have the license to sin, if that's what you're trying to say. Paul made that perfectly clear. Christians can do what is easiest for them to do, in obeying God's Word, because God doesn't want people to have a problem with following His Way. That's why it's the reason that matters just that much more than the act.The key word, here, is "deliberately". I don't mean to disobey, but if I do, I will try to change my ways. That's all God can expect from us, because we are limited beings.

Where in the bible does it say we can choose to change?

[Neon Genesis]

You ask what makes me so arrogant as to think I have it right. I ask what makes you so arrogant as to believe I can't have anything right. Is the Pope Christ? If he were, wouldn't that make the Bible a lie? If so, what makes you think that Catholicism can be absolutely right, if they get something wrong?

Well, according to Pascal's Wager, if you die and it turns out you were wrong and god exists, you go to hell. If you didn't believe in god and go to hell, then you had lost everything. But if you believe in god, even if you die and find out it was wrong, you would have lost nothing, so it's better to be a Christian than not be one. But since Blaise Pascal was a Catholic, then if Pascal's Wager is true, then Catholicism must be true since he's the one who made it. Thus, either Pascal's Wager is a reasonable argument and Catholicism is true because Pascal was a Catholic, or it isn't a reasonable argument and Catholicism is false.

 

Did the prophets and servants of God get tormented in Hell because they didn't know any better? That's not what the Bible teaches happened. It says they got whatever they deserved: if they were doing the best they knew how, they weren't punished. If they were doing what they knew was wrong, just for their own sakes, they were, because they disregarded the welfare of the rest of Creation, and the Way of God.

If we can still go to heaven as long as we do our best, then what does it matter if we believe in god or not? What does it matter if we follow everything in the bible 100%? If it's all about our intentions and the judgment of god, what's the point of being a Christian?

 

You are referring to Sheol as though it were meant to refer to some other destination of the soul besides Hell...

Because it is?

 

As for the Bible, it is only your opinion that the Bible is unreliable. It is not necessarily fact.

But even in my NKJV bible, it has a footnote that says the last half of Mark chapter 16 was added in later and is not in any of the earliest manuscripts, so even actual bibles say it was added to.

 

However, if you ask anyone who has used Wikipedia, you will find out from most of them that it is too easily changed for you to take their articles alone as the basis for your point. In fact, most colleges won't allow you to use Wikipedia as a reference: they would rather, if there is a reference in the Wikipedia article, you use that reference (or, at least, the one I "go to" has that requirement).

But this isn't a college, this is the Internet and technically, most everything on the Internet has just as much chance of being inaccurate as anything on Wikipedia. But if the information on Wikipedia is correct, what difference does it make to quote it? So, if you find something incorrect on Wikipedia, then it's your job to prove it, but otherwise I see no reason to use if it the information isn't inaccurate and I see no reason to think it should be in that article's case since most everywhere else besides biased Christian sites agree that Sheol is the correct word in the bible. Even the English versions of bibles sometimes uses Sheol in their translations, so obviously it must not be totally inaccurate information.

 

To put it simply, it wasn't what they wanted, though it was what they needed. Jesus didn't change the perfect Law: Jesus revealed it's deeper meaning. There is a difference. Why would God not wait until there was no other way? Isn't Jesus His only begotten son? You might ask why He would then send Him at all, but I ask you this: if God loved us just that much more, and Christ offered to be sent for our sakes, why wouldn't God let Him do it? Thus, God would let Christ sacrifice Himself for us, but not until we absolutely had no other hope.

But why didn't god send Jesus from the start? If Jesus simply revealed the "deeper meaning" of the Law, why didn't god reveal the deeper meaning from the start? Wouldn't that have saved god a whole lot of trouble if it had just explained what the true meaning of the Law was to begin with?

 

Then, you ask why an all-loving God, who is also supposed to be a just God, would let people go their own way - which leads into Hell, - if they don't want to do what they know is best for everyone involved? Then, you go back to the idea that an all-loving God would force something on a person that doesn't want it? If we were toys for God to play with, would He give us a choice at all?

Where in the bible does it say we have a choice? Doesn't the bible say in 2 Thessalonians 2:11 say

For this reason ©God will send upon them a (D)deluding influence so that they will believe what is false

According to this verse, god purposely causes people to disbelief, so I don't get where you get this idea that the bible says we have freewill. And how is being threatened to worship god with hell give us freewill? That's like saying if a kidnapper put a gun to your head and told you to do what he said or die, and then he tells you that you have the freewill to choose to follow him or die. Now replace the victim with us, the kidnapper with god, and the gun with hell, and how is it any different than a horrible kidnapper?

 

Does God just let everyone into Heaven, no matter what kind of mistakes they might decide to make, regardless of the consequences? It wouldn't be Heaven, if it were imperfect, would it?

So, in other words, you don't care if god gives us freewill, you just want to see some bloodshed in hell? Wasn't it Jesus who said to love your enemies, forgive those who persecute you, turn the other cheek, etc? Of course the actions of immoral people aren't justified, but why would you care about what we did in this life when you're dead? I thought Christians were supposed to be happy in heaven but apparently you won't be happy until people are tortured for eternity. And how is hell a just punishment? The purpose of a punishment isn't to torture people mercilessly for eternity. The purpose is to show people the error of their ways and give them the chance to repent and learn from their mistakes. How can you learn from your mistakes if you're being tortured forever? I thought god was supposed to be a loving forgiving god who believed in loving your enemies, but apparently not. IMO, anyone who won't be satisfied until somebody is tortured for eternity is just as immoral as the people who committed the crime. Aren't you just using hell as a justification for your hateful vengeance?

[Angel of Hope]

I'm sure you've heard of a phenomenon called "lucid dreaming". Even though you're in a realistic dream, and would otherwise believe in it's reality, there is a part of you that says it's fake... and thus, by exerting concentration through that part of yourself, you can change how your dream works out. As for the mirage, isn't it something our minds conjure up to alleviate our suffering? I have had hallucinations before, and worked through them, so I do know that you can change how you see things with enough effort (except in some extreme and tragic cases). God did create a perfect world. Everything was supposed to work together, and every creation was supposed to read from the same page their parts. The only problem is that we decided, as humans, to do our own thing. The illusion is perfect for us as individuals, because we want it to be a certain way. When we try to make it so in real life, it rarely works out that way... especially in the long run. God is beyond all that, so God wouldn't create an imperfect world. Essentially, we got ourselves into this mess; and, if we're all sincere, we'd better do whatever we can to get out of it (not just sin per se, but pollution, crime, corruption, and all of the mess in general).

But not all dreams can be controlled and you yourself say that it's takes a lot of effort to control one. If the universe was an illusion, wouldn't it take even more effort to control the illusion of it than any old hallucination?

 

If I remember correctly, you wanted to know how we can be sure the Bible is true. That is how your question was answered. Take, for example, the recent finds. In an area that was about 150 miles from the Dead Sea, a 4,000 year-old Sumerian tablet was found, which paralleled the story of the destruction of the Cities of the Plain in Genesis (Sodom and Gomorrha). Plus, archaeologists have discovered an ancient, underground temple in Sudan that was dedicated to the worship of the star Sirius, with what they believe is the Ark of the Covenant. Testing still has to be done, but it fits the Biblical parameters, has remains of ancient sacrifices on it, and was found in a temple that has remained undisturbed for thousands of years (I wish I had the links to the online news articles about this, but you should be able to find them on Yahoo! archives, under the Associated Press articles). Thus, if there is historical evidence of the "stories" of the Bible, then why not believe what they have to say in their entirety? I know you'd probably bring up how some people use the Gilgamesh epic to prove the Ark story, but I think that's just a Babylonian spin on the historical data. An artifact in the exact parameters of the Biblical Ark, however, was photographed by NASA satellites within the past few months, in the mountains of Ararat. Isn't it, therefore, possible that the Bible is right?

If any of this was "actual" evidence, why isn't this Earth-shattering nationwide news that's changing the world? Why aren't atheists converting to Christianity by the droves? Why isn't this being televised 24/7 on CNN? Surely if this was "evidence" it would be obviously true for everyone and there would be no more religions and non-religious people and everyone would be Christians? Also, even if an ark is found in Antarctica, what makes you think it must be the ark of the bible? You yourself admit that there are other myths and religions with flood stories. How do you know it's not the ark of one of those and Gilgamesh is actually true?

 

I didn't mean to insinuate that everything in Islam is true. I meant to point out that the parts adopted from Judaism and Christianity were adopted because they were proven to be right. Why, then, would they not be right in their entirety, if other religions are taking parts that are obviously right to them, and putting them together to suit their own beliefs? They needed something to base their beliefs on, and they saw something right in the Bible, so they took bits and pieces of the Bible's teachings, and used them to confirm their beliefs

Christianity ripped off pagan myths, too. For example, there are many parallels between Jesus and Mithras. Does this mean that Mithraism must be true because Christianity borrowed from it?

 

Actually, according to me and what I have learned from the Bible, if you're willing to change your ways from deliberately disobeying Christ's message, then there's always the possibility of being forgiven and accepted back. The point is to repent; not to make excuses. Christians don't have the license to sin, if that's what you're trying to say. Paul made that perfectly clear. Christians can do what is easiest for them to do, in obeying God's Word, because God doesn't want people to have a problem with following His Way. That's why it's the reason that matters just that much more than the act.The key word, here, is "deliberately". I don't mean to disobey, but if I do, I will try to change my ways. That's all God can expect from us, because we are limited beings.

Where in the bible does it say we can choose to change?

 

It might take more effort, but surely at least one of the 6-7 billion people in this world would be able to achieve it... not to mention the quadrillions who have died since the Earth first came into being.

 

Firstly, the reason it's not all over the news, and people haven't converted and re-converted in droves, is because - quite frankly, - most people don't care. The majority of the people care more about American Idol and TMZ than they do about an ancient box-shaped boat in some far-away and obscure mountainous region. Besides, with all due respect to everyone on this board (and I'm certainly not insinuating anyone in particular is this way), some people will find any reason they can to not accept the evidence.

 

Secondly, though there are other myths and legends based on the same idea, couldn't they all come from the same source? I tend to believe the Bible more on the subject of the Deluge than other myths, because it goes into greater detail about the event (and the events surrounding it), but it doesn't put the cause of the flood on such a base level as some giant babies up in the spirit-world flooding the Earth, to stop all the noise so they can sleep... And, it doesn't put the hero of the story into an unbelievable character. Noah is a righteous man, who tries to do God's Will, while Gilgamesh is a demigod prince. Which is more believable, as-is?

 

With all due respect, there were many myths that centered around what one may call a Christ-like figure (Mythras, Tammuz {Baal}, Heracles {and other Greek deities and demigods}, etc.). In fact, the Mythras character was preceded by the Baal/Tammuz mythology by thousands of years. Does that mean that, since Baal was the first of the figures to be given such a high position in world mythology and religion, he is the real Savior? Not necessarily. Whether or not you believe there is a Savior, you must realize that, if there be a savior, He would have certain characteristics that no other candidate for the role would have: compassion for the people, willing self-sacrifice for a greater goal, and tried and tested teachings. Who on here can honestly say that none of Christ's teachings are true? However, Christ couldn't have been exposed to such religious teachings as those of the Mythraic cult, or the mother-goddess worshippers, or even shamans. The two main religious beliefs in His day, to which He was exposed, were Greco-Roman paganism and Judaism. Clearly, Christ gravitated toward Judaism, and thus couldn't base His Way on any other pagan religion: no Jew would base their faith on a pagan perspective, because they believed it would dilute the basis of their faith, and God commanded to not combine the worship of Him with any other religious practice (like the worship of Mythras would have been).

 

Christ came at a time when the Romans, Greeks, Persians and other groups had given up on any more demigods, and were looking to their leaders as gods incarnate. The Jews, however, retaining the monotheistic base of their religion, were looking forward to a messiah. If Christ were based on another religion's messianic prophecies, or character, no Jew would have followed Him. Yet, today, as in His own day, there are some Jews who follow Him and His Way.

 

Besides, what proof do you have that Mythraism, or any other pagan religion for that matter, was used by Christianity to for it's tenets of faith?

 

"If My people, which are called by My name, will humble themselves and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from Heaven, and forgive their sins, and heal their land." There are other passages, but they say pretty much the same thing.

 

~AOH~

[Skankboy]

Christ came at a time when the Romans, Greeks, Persians and other groups had given up on any more demigods, and were looking to their leaders as gods incarnate. The Jews, however, retaining the monotheistic base of their religion, were looking forward to a messiah. If Christ were based on another religion's messianic prophecies, or character, no Jew would have followed Him. Yet, today, as in His own day, there are some Jews who follow Him and His Way.

 

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's exactly what happened and why Paul changed many aspects of early christian theology to make it more palatable to the gentiles. The jews just weren't buying it.

 

As for the "gods incarnate" - remember that this was enforced from the top down, not from the bottom up. The God-Emporers basically told their people "I'm god. If you dont' like it, meet my army".

 

Mystery religions were VERY popular in Rome/Greece during this peroid and many of them share basic characteristics with christianity. So did they influence each other? I'm willing to bet they were. Paul applied very hellenstic ideas to a fledling jewish cult and made it into, basically, the ultimate mystery religion. A form that the gentiles were already familiar with. Even then, they were a very small backwater kind of religion until Constantine made it the religion of the empire for political reasons.

 

All of this seems to be getting pretty far off the mark of the original post though.

 

Again, I may be wrong, but it seems you have issues understanding that atheism is, for most people, a conditional stance. We are open to new evidence. A lack of evidence is why I am an atheist in the first place. I don't go around saying "there's no possible way a god of any type could possibly exist". In a way, we are not much different from Thomas. All we want is proof. Thomas got it, so I don't think it's to unreasonable.

 

As for logical - again, to me - it seems more logical to say "we don't know for sure, but there doesn't appear to be any compelling evidence" than it is to say "there's a god because my friends/family says so and this book agrees".

 

We're just looking for answers to honest questions, isn't that logical?

 

IMOHO,

[florduh]

"some people will find any reason they can to not accept the evidence."

I sure there are some atheists (skeptics might be a better term) who would indeed reject evidence if it were presented to them. Most atheists I know, however, are open to new information and would not hesitate to change their views in light of a new discovery. So far, any real evidence for god has not been forthcoming.

 

Conversely, I think Christians, fundies in particular, ignore daily the evidence before their eyes. Many discount well established scientific discoveries that don't jibe with their Biblical world-view. Christians ignore the fact that prayer has no effect in the real world. Right now there is a local controversy over an innocuous looking sculpture in Clearwater that happens to be named "Sorcerer's Gate." Some Christians say it's "demonic."

[Angel of Hope]

Neon, you are really reaching with the "Pascal's Wager" argument. His argument wasn't based on Catholic theology; it was based on Christian belief. It would be like a Krishna Hindu arguing in favour of general Hinduism. Does that mean his case is only for Krishna? It's for Hinduism, not just his theology. Thus, your globalistic statement is confused at best, and a shoddy attempt at a trap at worst.

 

Who says we can be given the same kind of lenience those before Christ got? Intention drives the decision, but the decision is the culmination of the intent. Try to understand that it's not an argument for good works, or good intentions, but rather an argument for God's grace.

 

Sheol was the name the Jews gave to Hell. Only when the gentiles became involved did the name change, because not everyone could get the concept of a place called "Sheol", but everyone knew about a place called "Hell".

 

That's why I don't use the NKJV: it's based on the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus, rather than the Greek text. They even admit in their preface that, where the texts disagree, the Roman Catholic Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were used over the Greek. Thus, it doesn't surprise me that that last part of Mark is missing from your bible, because the Roman Catholic church added lots of texts to their bibles, and took lots of texts out of the Bible, to justify their activities.

 

I go to college online; but, by your argument, nothing I learn from that institution is reliable, because it's on the internet. If the information on Wikipedia were correct, and couldn't be changed to say something entirely different, there would be no problem. However, everybody and their grandma can change just about any and all the Wikipedia articles. So, if you're going to use them as information, even their site suggests you use the references listed to get a better understanding of the subject at hand. That's why they have warnings on the articles that don't have sufficient resources, though they still use them. The point about Sheol where we differ isn't the name, but your interpretation of what the name refers to. It obviously is a reference to Hell, rather than being merely laid to rest in the grave. Jewish graves don't connect together, but the Bible says the spirits in Sheol all react the same as if they were in a world they shared. If that's not an image of Hell, and is instead an image of a mere grave, what is an image of Hell?

 

Why would God send Christ once, and then have to send Him again, to do the same job all over again? That's the point: Christ had to be sent at a time when the job could be completed once, and for all. Otherwise, the task would be a failure.

 

If people could grasp the concept back then, God wouldn't have to have sent Christ.

 

It is your choice to either want to believe, or not... to believe, or not believe: that is the question... 2 Thessalonians 2:11 says,

For this cause, God shall give them up to strong delusion, so that they would believe the lie

According to this verse, because the people didn't want to believe what God taught, God let them go their own way, and even let the deceiving influences they so loved lead them. Where you get the idea that God wanted people to go astray is beyond me. It's a warning. How is warning someone you love of imminent danger a threat? You use the "kidnapper" argument loosely with this. It's more like when you were younger, and your parents told you not to put your hand on the hot stove-top, because it would burn you. If you did it anyway, you got burned. It was your choice, but they warned you, because they loved you: not because they wanted to stop you from having your own experiences, or they wanted you to get burned. Now, replace the child with us, the parent with God, and the hot stove's feeling on our bare skin with Hell. How is that not love? Wouldn't it be more cruel of God to not warn us; or, instead, to let unrepentant rebels into Heaven, to ruin it for everybody?

 

In other words, I don't want to see people suffer for someone else's crimes when they are already dead. Is that so wrong that we hold the criminal responsible, and not the victims? Christ told us to forgive those who persecute us, but God said He would repay them for their deeds against us, right? So, doesn't that mean that we should leave the vengeance up to God, and not pursue it ourselves? Why wouldn't I care if some rapist came to Heaven, and decided to try to warp the place into his vision of a paradise? Would you want to live in such a place for all eternity? So, even if there is no separate Hell in the spiritual world, there is a Hell... it's just a matter of whether people pay for their own crimes, or if everyone pays for the crimes of one person for the rest of eternity, because they keep committing them. Apparently, you are perfectly blinded to my point, and want to remain that way. Why do I even bother, if you're not going to listen and try to understand? Don't you believe that other peoples' opinions matter as much as yours, or are you a hypocrite? What is the purpose of prison? That is the purpose of Hell, but you obviously won't be happy until everyone agrees with you... which just won't happen. Why do you think you're better than everyone else? I thought you were supposed to be able to understand simple concepts, and respect other peoples' ideals, but apparently not. IMO, anyone who would allow others to needlessly suffer for all eternity, just because there is no Hell, is just as immoral as the people who cause the suffering in the first place... and anyone who claims to be open-minded, and puts their case in such a prejudiced manner as you put yours is practicing hypocrisy. You ask if I'm using a separation of trouble-makers from innocent bystanders as an excuse for cruelty. Aren't you just using your disbelief in such justice as justification of your own disbelief? If you need to not believe in justice to prove your point, how weak and flimsy is that point?

 

I understand not everyone on here is as offensive and closed-minded as Neon behaves, and I don't put anyone on here in his category (unless they prove otherwise). None of us are perfect, myself included. However, the old saying still holds: a mistake is only a mistake if you refuse to correct it. If Neon doesn't want to believe, then that's his perrogative. However, to devalue the ideals of others, and claim their belief in justice in the here-after is just a way of exercising cruelty and immorality... it's just offensive and prejudiced. I have admitted on this board that I have a problem, and I am trying to get rid of it... let's see if the same holds true for Neon...

 

~AOH~

 

(quotes removed, because the message board says I left too many of them in)...

 

"You have posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text"

[Neon Genesis]

It might take more effort, but surely at least one of the 6-7 billion people in this world would be able to achieve it... not to mention the quadrillions who have died since the Earth first came into being.

That's not what the bible says. The bible says that there is no one who is righteous in Romans 3:10

As it is written:

 

 

“ There is none righteous, no, not one

 

 

Firstly, the reason it's not all over the news, and people haven't converted and re-converted in droves, is because - quite frankly, - most people don't care. The majority of the people care more about American Idol and TMZ than they do about an ancient box-shaped boat in some far-away and obscure mountainous region. Besides, with all due respect to everyone on this board (and I'm certainly not insinuating anyone in particular is this way), some people will find any reason they can to not accept the evidence.

Way to go and make presumptions about people. What was that about judge not lest thee be judged? Aren't you judging the hearts of others by making presumptions about how they would accept evidence? What the hell does American Idol have to do with anything? Last I checked, there was no biblical commandment that said thou shalt not watch American Idol and even many Christians watch it, too. Are you saying those Christians don't care yet they believe in the same religion you do? Your assumptions about the motivations of people are nonsensical and quite frankly, insulting.

 

Secondly, though there are other myths and legends based on the same idea, couldn't they all come from the same source? I tend to believe the Bible more on the subject of the Deluge than other myths, because it goes into greater detail about the event (and the events surrounding it), but it doesn't put the cause of the flood on such a base level as some giant babies up in the spirit-world flooding the Earth, to stop all the noise so they can sleep... And, it doesn't put the hero of the story into an unbelievable character. Noah is a righteous man, who tries to do God's Will, while Gilgamesh is a demigod prince. Which is more believable, as-is?

How is the story of Noah's Ark in any way believable? Do you honestly expect anyone to take a story that claims the entire world was flooded by a magical sky fairy who told Noah and his family to put TWO OF EVERY ANIMAL ON EARTH in a ship big enough to hold all of them? How could Noah fit all those animals on the ark when it was only three hundred cubits long? Even the Titanic was bigger than Noah's Ark and you expect us to believe that he could fit all those animals on it? What did they do for food? How did they provide for all the animals? What about the animal poop? How were they able to survive with all those wild and dangerous beasts on board? What about all the plants? The bible says Noah took only the animals but what happened to the plants? Did they drown in the flood? If the plants drowned in the flood, how was Moses able to find the leaf of an olive tree just seven days after the flood?

 

And how did Noah and his family sexually reproduce after the flood was over since his family were the only ones alive? Did they have incestuous sex with each other? Genesis 6:4 claims there were giants on Earth during Noah's time. Do you honestly expect us to believe that giants existed? How can an ark made of gopher wood survive the strength of a world-wide flood that lasted 40 days? And in Genesis 6:6 it says

And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

Wait, I thought the bible said god was perfect in everything, so if god is perfect, how can he be sorry that he did something? And what about all the children on Earth who weren't in Noah's family? What happened to them? Did god murder all those innocent babies in the flood? And you expect us to accept that Noah's Ark is a believable story? And since when was Noah a righteous man? I thought the bible said no one was righteous? You've obviously never read Genesis 9:19-25

These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.

20 And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard. 21 Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.

24 So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him. 25 Then he said:

“ Cursed be Canaan;

A servant of servants

He shall be to his brethren.â€

 

 

With all due respect, there were many myths that centered around what one may call a Christ-like figure (Mythras, Tammuz {Baal}, Heracles {and other Greek deities and demigods}, etc.). In fact, the Mythras character was preceded by the Baal/Tammuz mythology by thousands of years. Does that mean that, since Baal was the first of the figures to be given such a high position in world mythology and religion, he is the real Savior? Not necessarily. Whether or not you believe there is a Savior, you must realize that, if there be a savior, He would have certain characteristics that no other candidate for the role would have: compassion for the people, willing self-sacrifice for a greater goal, and tried and tested teachings.

When you say Jesus has compassion for people, do you mean like how in Luke 19:27 where Jesus commands Christians to murder anyone who doesn't worship him?

But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me

 

Christ came at a time when the Romans, Greeks, Persians and other groups had given up on any more demigods, and were looking to their leaders as gods incarnate. The Jews, however, retaining the monotheistic base of their religion, were looking forward to a messiah. If Christ were based on another religion's messianic prophecies, or character, no Jew would have followed Him. Yet, today, as in His own day, there are some Jews who follow Him and His Way.

Since when? Even in Christianity there are many modern Christian traditions that are plagiziried from pagan traditions like how Christmas plagiziried Saturnalia yet Christians parcticipate in those pagan traditions without a care in the world. Tell me, doesn't this sound like a familiar "Christian" tradition to you? Jeremiah 10:2-5

Thus says the LORD:

 

 

“ Do not learn the way of the Gentiles;

Do not be dismayed at the signs of heaven,

For the Gentiles are dismayed at them.

3 For the customs of the peoples are futile;

For one cuts a tree from the forest,

The work of the hands of the workman, with the ax.

4 They decorate it with silver and gold;

They fasten it with nails and hammers

So that it will not topple.

[Antlerman]

Firstly, the reason it's not all over the news, and people haven't converted and re-converted in droves, is because - quite frankly, - most people don't care.

Respectfully, let me be blunt. Bunk! Absolute bunk. Are you joking? Evidence of Noah’s Ark, solid evidence, not side-news worthy “phenomena” like seeing the face of Jesus in the shadows cast on the side of a refrigerator (which this is essentially), would make front page news! It would sell like hot cakes! News people would be clamoring all over the place to announce they’ve found something in real life out of a classic story like Noah’s Ark.

 

I guarantee they would plaster it all over every paper in the world, considering the Trillions of people who believe in God and would buy it, or at the least all the Christians which are 2.1 billion alone, not to mention all Muslims and Jews as well since it’s in their holy books! Economics man. Simple economics. It would sell like the story of millennium! Billions of dollars in sales would result from a scoop like that! You doubt this?

 

 

I noticed you haven’t responded to the lengthy post I made yesterday. I’m hoping you will as, respectfully, it’s in areas of thought like this where you are go from otherwise meaningful thought into repeating fallacious rhetoric and lose people like me. I’d like to see if you’re willing to talk with someone like me who actually is quite open to possibilities. But I am a challenge because I’m not willing to ignore or sacrifice good reason in order to believe, and nor am I willing to be mischaracterized as being in “rebellion” or some foolish dismal like that.

 

Rather than going after evangelizing Neon who clearly is hostile about it, I welcome you to talk with me. Care to dialog? How could any one with an evangelist’s heart pass up an offer like I’m giving you? It’s no set up, it’s just a desire for a straight up, honest, no nonsense discussion.

 

 

some people will find any reason they can to not accept the evidence.

You do realize how much this applies to religious thinking? I always choke when someone asks me if I “believe” in evolution. My answer is always, “I accept evolution as valid science.” There is very little in the way of faith necessary. However, how many non-scientific people outright disbelieve science, ignoring or denying its evidences without valid scientific reasons for doing so? In my experience as a Christian, and as now an ExChristian, what you said above applies almost universally to most religious people, better than those who don't have a vested belief they're trying to defend.

 

To me, not being in a religion means I can be open to any possibility. I have no doctrines to defend. Can you say the same?

 

I tell you what, I should start a poll here on this site and ask a straight-up question, “How many would believe in God if there was indisputable evidence?” I’ve been here a long time, and can tell you that the answer would probably in the 98% plus range of those who would. I would.

 

Frankly, saying this as you do is just dismissive and not really a valid criticism at all. In its own right, it’s a way to ignore differences of belief.

 

It is your choice to either want to believe, or not... to believe, or not believe: that is the question... 2 Thessalonians 2:11 says,

For this cause, God shall give them up to strong delusion, so that they would believe the lie

According to this verse, because the people didn't want to believe what God taught, God let them go their own way, and even let the deceiving influences they so loved lead them.

Let’s think about this. Isn’t it a little too convenient that critics can be dismissed as deluded, deceived, influenced by Satan, hard hearted, sinful, etc, etc? Isn’t there room for valid disagreement in there? This is a built in mechanism to deal with criticism. Just dismiss them as deceived.

 

This is a form of an ad hominem argument, straight out of the Bible! You don’t listen to your opponent, and ignore their arguments by attacking their character. This avoids having to have one's views challenged though the consideration of other points of view. Actually, it was verses like this one that in part made me begin to question that validity of the argument of the Bible itself. If it's so clearly truth from God, why stoop to this tactic?

 

Paul was a human being, and I’ve seen plenty of religious zealots take this same, totally fallacious tact in dismissing critics through attacking their integrity ("They can't see the truth because their sin has blinded them!" I've heard this touted again and again from the pulpit at anyone who doesn't agree with their views, no matter if they're 'saved' or not). This does not match up with reality, and I can guarantee you I am living proof this is not valid. And I can say with confidence from this and other things, that Paul was an egotistical ass who promoted himself at the expense of his critics. Whether you believe that or not is inconsequential. The fact is I am sincere, not deceived, an open minded truth seeker, and as such I may see things in ways that aren’t the same. That does not make one deceived.

 

 

Ok, the ball’s in your court (twice now). I await your response.

[godsfavoritecolor]

Quote from Neon Genesis: “But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.” Luke 19:27.

 

Neon, I’m on your side, but if I were you, I would not claim that the above quote from Luke 19:27 is the command of Jesus. If you look at the context, you will see that it can be argued that this statement is part of a parable spoken by Jesus in which he is quoting the words of a “certain nobleman” to his inadequate servant.

 

There are plenty of other evil and ridiculous quotations of Jesus which are not so equivocal.

[Neon Genesis]

Quote from Neon Genesis: “But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.†Luke 19:27.

 

Neon, I’m on your side, but if I were you, I would not claim that the above quote from Luke 19:27 is the command of Jesus. If you look at the context, you will see that it can be argued that this statement is part of a parable spoken by Jesus in which he is quoting the words of a “certain nobleman†to his inadequate servant.

 

There are plenty of other evil and ridiculous quotations of Jesus which are not so equivocal.

I've heard explanations that it's not Jesus speaking it but the character in the parable speaking it as a metaphor, but what is it a metaphor of? Christians say the verse is metaphorical, not literally said by Jesus, but it seems obvious to me that the man in the parable who said that is a metaphor for Jesus in real life. It also just seems strangely convenient to me that whenever there are bible verses that don't jive with Christians' rose-colored glasses view of Jesus, suddenly it's being "taken out of context." For some reason, Christians have no problem with this idea of Jesus sending everyone who doesn't believe in him to burn in hell, but suddenly it's heresy to suggest Jesus made a direct commandment for Christians to do it. Don't some Christians believe that they'll battle against non-Christians in the book of Revelation too, or am I misremembering? I just really like to know what this verse is supposed to be a metaphor for if it's meant to be metaphorical since the bible never says what the meaning of that verse in the parable is and just goes on to a completely different story.