A Challenge, Need Some Help From Heathens And Believers

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

As Paul stated, without the resurrection we are fools. I am going to see if I am a fool. I have made up my mind to see by this time next year to find the truth. I need to decide this once and for all. Enough of this crap. No fear of hell back pedaling. I need to research Christianity so fully that I will never have a doubt either way.

Got any skeptic recommendations.

 

Christians got any good apologetics book to recommend.

 

 

Also any good way to go about looking about how to be a better skeptic/debator/arguer.

[Guest Marty]

As Paul stated, without the resurrection we are fools. I am going to see if I am a fool. I have made up my mind to see by this time next year to find the truth. I need to decide this once and for all. Enough of this crap. No fear of hell back pedaling. I need to research Christianity so fully that I will never have a doubt either way.

Got any skeptic recommendations.

 

Christians got any good apologetics book to recommend.

 

 

Also any good way to go about looking about how to be a better skeptic/debator/arguer.

 

I would read a science book and an apologetics book at the same time. It really helped me see how science at least tries to understand things, even if we don't have all the answers. Then while my mind was still primed with the scientific method, I would pick up an apologetic book and I could so easily see how they stretch things, and even just make shit up in desperation for you to agree with them. Their lack of real research and any evidence to back up their (sometimes) outrageous claims was so completely obvious to me and soon enough I stopped reading the apologetics and read pretty much science and history now.

[Shyone]

I found it useful to look into each area where I had questions one at a time, and I had a lot of questions (like "Where did the idea of "God" come from?).

 

As for the resurrection, the different accounts are irreconcilable and "fishy." For the single most important even in the history of religion, you would think the four (or five) accounts would at least get that straight.

 

Below is a web site called "Resurrection Challenge." Take the challenge alone first and answer the questions as you determine from the Bible. Then read the apologetics and see if you think they have cleared up all of the contradictions and inconsistencies.

 

http://de-conversion.com/2007/04/08/taking-the-resurrection-challenge/

 

Of course, there are a lot of other problems with religion in general, faith versus reason, the Church, and "miracles." Start simple, then work your way through the problems.

 

Kenneth Daniels, the author of Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary, approached the task exactly as you have: Search for the answers and be willing to accept the results even if they don't support your preconceptions and teaching.

 

The book is really good too.

[ghost_warlock]

We just talked briefly about this in the Shoutbox, but I suppose I could expand what I said a bit.

 

You asked me what made me leave the faith, and I replied:

"Mostly, it was because I didn't feel my attempts to reach out to a god were being answered."

"And I just couldn't reconcile the amount of suffering in the world with the type of god Christianity claims exists."

 

Both of these are deeply personal and not at all about a rational argument for the existence or non-existence of a god. Logic and reason came later. For me deconversion started out being entirely about feelings.

 

I didn't feel the love of god that other Christians proclaimed and, seeing all the other suffering people, it didn't look like they were feeling it, either. If the god of Christianity was really a "god of love," it was doing a horrible job of showing it. The assurances of my fellow Christians that god loved me seemed hollow. How could they be so sure of that when everything I did to feel that love just made me feel more unwanted and alone?

 

So, I turned to the Bible. Maybe if I read the Bible I'd find out what I'd been missing but they'd apparently found. I'd read parts of it before, especially the bits Christians seem to love quoting, the ones we've all heard hundreds of times before. The story of Adam and Eve, of Christ in the manger, the sermon on the mount, the Easter story of the resurrection, and the horribleness of Hell. But I resolved to dig further, read the bits I'd never read before.

 

Naturally, I started with the Old Testament.

 

I got through the first parts of Genesis okay, though I did wonder about why god placed the tree of knowledge in the garden in the first place if he didn't want people eating from it - especially since, being omniscient, he should have known with complete certainty that they going to eat from the tree. And I also wondered where Cain's wife (and his sons' wives, and Adam's other sons' wives) came from if the only people God had created so far were Adam and Eve.

 

However, I figured that I must be over-thinking it or something and I moved on. I came to Genesis 6 and this is where real trouble began. In Genesis 6, god sees that humans are only capable of evil, don't think of anything but evil, and god feels sorry that he ever made humans in the first place. And so he decides to destroy all life on Earth with the flood.

 

This really bothered me. First off, we have god indisputably saying that humans are completely evil and will never amount to anything good. Second, we again have a problem with god's omniscience. If god knows everything he should have known humans were going to be evil before he even created them. Why did he create humans, knowing they were going to be evil, and then seem surprised that they turned out to be evil? Third, if humans are evil, why not just wipe out all the humans? Why did god need to kill everything else on earth if the humans were the ones who were evil? Surely, being omnipotent, he could just wipe out humans - even just the evil humans - and leave everything else alone. What I saw was a supposedly loving god whose first impluse in the face of evil is to destroy everything - innnocent and guilty alike.

 

This was not a god I felt was worthy of worship; this god was not loving, not benevolent. Instead, this god was thoroughly evil. Further readings, some with web searches to speed them along, further confirmed my feelings.

 

So began the raging antitheism stage of my deconversion - where I grew to despise a god I still (somewhat) believed in. I'll openly admit that much of my deconversion at this point was fueled by anger and by feelings of betrayal. I ranted about the evils perpetrated by the god of Christianity and its followers on my MySpace blog and I sought out websites that compared god and/or Jesus to other evil beings, such as Cthulhu.

 

From there, I stumbled upon a livejournal community by the name of antitheism. What I read there while lurking and the conversations I eventually had with the members of that community slowly pushed me towards the logical arguments against the existence of god(s). I gobbled up Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion, Sam Harris' The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, and Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great. I moved on to Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained, David Lewis-Williams' The Mind in the Cave, Daniel C. Dennett's Breaking the Spell, and Victor J. Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis. I read Carl Sagan's Cosmos, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, and The Demon-Haunted World (some passages of which bring me to tears and inspire me more than anything I've read in the Bible). My collection of 'atheist' literature continues to grow - particularly with regards to missing pieces of my collection of Sagan's work as well as Dawkins' (I majored in biology for two years during college so his more technical books on evolution are still accessible for me).

 

Am I 100% certain that a god doesn't exist? No. Am I certain that the god of Christianity is imaginary? Yes.

[Shyone]

However, I figured that I must be over-thinking it or something and I moved on. I came to Genesis 6 and this is where real trouble began. In Genesis 6, god sees that humans are only capable of evil, don't think of anything but evil, and god feels sorry that he ever made humans in the first place. And so he decides to destroy all life on Earth with the flood.

 

This really bothered me. First off, we have god indisputably saying that humans are completely evil and will never amount to anything good. Second, we again have a problem with god's omniscience. If god knows everything he should have known humans were going to be evil before he even created them. Why did he create humans, knowing they were going to be evil, and then seem surprised that they turned out to be evil? Third, if humans are evil, why not just wipe out all the humans? Why did god need to kill everything else on earth if the humans were the ones who were evil? Surely, being omnipotent, he could just wipe out humans - even just the evil humans - and leave everything else alone. What I saw was a supposedly loving god whose first impluse in the face of evil is to destroy everything - innnocent and guilty alike.

 

Reading this, I was struck with something that I had never considered before.

 

God decided Noah was righteous and "saved" him and his family from the flood, but the rest of humanity God couldn't be bothered with as they were all "evil." Does God think that righteousness is hereditary? Can't the unrighteous become righteous? Did God think he had wiped out "unrighteousness" with the flood? That would be preposterous. Surely you would think that there could have been a better way to manage this apparent problem than the merciless slaughter of all of mankind but Noah and his immediate family.

[Gobbler]

"Misqouting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman would also be a good place to start.

[Sybaris]

GW posted most of the essential reading list.

 

A good online site is Paul Tobins Rejection of Pascals Wager: http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/central.html

[Legion]

Valk considerations of truth often reside in the domain of philosophy. And I think that many disagreements arise as a result of different parties using different epistemologies. Now that's a big word, epistemology. But it's just a branch of philosophy which addresses the nature and scope of knowledge. Among the questions it asks are...

 

What is knowledge?

How is knowledge acquired?

What do people know?

How do we know what we know?

 

Anyway, I think you're a contemplative guy. And so you might be interested to see the roots of many disagreements.

 

That's my two cents with a ten dollar word. Epistemology.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Similar to the issue regarding the Resurrection Challenge already posted in this thread, below is something I wrote a few years back and shared on another board at Easter time. I tried to be as fair as possible, and even granted a couple apologists' arguments. Even so, the stories still end up a contradictory mess. Check it out:

 

"He is Risen!" -- ???

 

As we are well aware, the crux of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus. It has been summed up like this: "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable" (I Corinthians 15:17-19).

 

So, with Christianity hinging on this very issue, one would expect that the Christian's "divine text" (the Bible) would be very consistent with the details surrounding Jesus' resurrection, right? Let's take a look.

 

As far as the women visiting the tomb, Matthew mentions "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary" (Matt 28:1), Mark mentions "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome" (Mark 16:1), Luke mentions "Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them" (Luke 24:10), and John mentions only "Mary Magdalene" (John 20:1). Some contend that this represents a contradiction, while apologists suggest that all of them were present, but that the various authors only mentioned certain ones. It does not seem unreasonable to me to consider the possibility that people could mention any number of names of people in a group and not necessarily mean that they were the only ones there. In fact, while John's account only mentions Mary Magdalene, it has her using the term "we" when talking to the disciples (John 20:2), thus implying that she was not alone. So, I will grant the apologists the benefit of the doubt on this one and let it slide.

 

Another issue is the timing of the women's visit. John's account says, "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre" (John 20:1). Mark, on the other hand, says, "They came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun" (Mark 16:2); in other words, "When the sun had risen" (NASB), or, "Just after sunrise" (NIV). Matthew is stuck in the middle, claiming that they came "as it began to dawn" (Matt 28:1). This presents a more difficult problem than the previous issue. Apologists claim that what we're dealing with is events unfolding as the sun was rising. In other words, John was referring to it still being dark when the women set out to go to the tomb, Matthew was referring to the dawn breaking while they were on their way, and Mark was referring to the sun having risen by the time that they arrived at the tomb. On the surface, this may sound acceptable. However, John's account refers to when Mary "cometh... unto the sepulchre" (John 20:1), and not when she started her journey there. Thus, I personally don't see validity in the apologists' claim.

 

Another issue is the angels. Matthew and Mark mention only one "angel" (Matt 28:2,5) or "young man" in a "long white garment" (Mark 16:5), while Luke and John mention "two men" in "shining garments" (Luke 24:4) or "two angels in white" (John 20:12). As with the issue of what women were present, apologists suggest that Matthew and Mark only mention the angel who spoke, while not necessarily meaning that the angel was alone. While I find this one less convincing than with the women, due to contextual issues, I will let it slide as a possibility and move on to more pressing problems.

 

As with the women, there is a serious timing issue with when the angel(s) appear(s). Matthew records that the angel "rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it" (Matt 28:2). With the angel sitting on the stone, we read, "And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you" (Matt 28:5-7). So, according to Matthew, the women encounter the angel outside the tomb, and the angel invites them to go in and see where Jesus had been laid.

 

Mark, however, tells a different version, saying, "And when they (the women) looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you" (Mark 16:4-7). The angel says much the same thing as in Matthew's account, but one striking difference is that there is no invitation into the tomb, because the women are already inside! The statement, "And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man" (Mark 16:5), implies that the angel was seen fairly immediately upon the entry of the women. So, according to Mark, the women did not encounter the angel until entering the tomb!

 

Luke, who has two angels in his story, says, "And they (the women) entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered his words" (Luke 24:3-8). So, Luke places the angels inside the tomb, just like Mark. However, while Mark has the angel appearing as they entered the tomb (Mark 16:5), Luke has the two angels holding off until "it came to pass, as" the women stood there "perplexed" (Luke 24:4). It could be contended that not much time had passed yet, and therefore there is no real timing contradiction between Mark and Luke, but even so, there is still a huge timing problem between Luke and Matthew (just like between Mark and Matthew), because Matthew has the women encounter the angel before entering the tomb.

 

John, on the other hand, says that when Mary Magdalene came to the tomb, she "seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him" (John 20:1b-2). So, Mary comes to the tomb and runs off without encountering any angels! John has Mary assuming that Jesus' body had been stolen, while Luke clearly states that "they (the women, including Mary) remembered his (Jesus') words" that on "the third day" he would "rise again" (Luke 24:8)! In John's account, it's not until after Peter and "that other disciple," whom many presume to be John, run to the tomb to check it out (John 20:3-10) that Mary Magdalene has her angelic encounter! It is at that point that she "stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain" (John 20:11-12).

 

As we just saw, John's account has Peter (and another disciple) running to the tomb to check it out before the angels make their appearance (John 20:3-12). Luke, on the other hand, has Peter's trip to the tomb taking place after the angels appear and the women report it to the disciples (Luke 24:4-12)!

 

So, in light of all of these varying details, exactly when did the angel(s) appear? The gospels present a jumbled mess on this matter.

 

But wait, there's more! In Matthew's account, after the women's angelic encounter, we read, "And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail, And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me" (Matt 28:8-10). So, according to Matthew, the women encounter Jesus before making it to the disciples.

 

John, on the other hand, has Mary Magdalene completing her trip from the tomb to the disciples, Peter and another apostle's subsequent trip to the tomb, and then Mary's return to the tomb and subsequent encounter with the angels (John 20:1-13) all taking place before Jesus' first appearance (John 20:14-17)! Not only that, but according to John, this encounter took place right outside the tomb (John 20:11-14), while Matthew has Jesus' first appearance taking place somewhere between the tomb and the disciples, interrupting the women's run to the disciples (Matt 28:8-10)!

 

In summary, then, one has to consider the aforementioned fact that Christianity hinges on the resurrection of Jesus. If God really did raise Jesus back to life to save us from our sins, and if the Bible really is God's Word, then why in the world would the Bible's details surrounding Jesus' resurrection be such a terribly jumbled, contradictory mess? And if those who penned the alleged Word of God couldn't get the details straight on such an important issue as Jesus' resurrection, how in the world are we supposed to be able to trust anything else they've written?

 

P.S. -- Happy Easter!

 

I need to take the time to update this and add Jesus' first post-resurrection appearance to the group of disciples, since Matthew claims that it took place on a hill in Galilee, but Luke and John claim that it happened in a room in Jerusalem.

 

At any rate, with these accounts being such a contradictory mess, there is no way that a reasonable person who has taken notice of these details could consider the gospel accounts to be historically reliable.

[Shyone]

I need to take the time to update this and add Jesus' first post-resurrection appearance to the group of disciples, since Matthew claims that it took place on a hill in Galilee, but Luke and John claim that it happened in a room in Jerusalem.

 

At any rate, with these accounts being such a contradictory mess, there is no way that a reasonable person who has taken notice of these details could consider the gospel accounts to be historically reliable.

Very nice.

 

I note that you mentioned someone touching his feet. Thomas, of course, poked him in the eye (or someplace). But he told one lady not to touch him because he hadn't gone off to heaven.

 

Is that an inconsistency?

[★ Citsonga ★]

I note that you mentioned someone touching his feet. Thomas, of course, poked him in the eye (or someplace). But he told one lady not to touch him because he hadn't gone off to heaven.

 

Is that an inconsistency?

 

It seems to be.

 

In John 20 when Jesus supposedly tells Mary Mag not to touch him he says it's because he hasn't gone to the father, yet in the very same chapter he tells Thomas to touch him. I remember back as a believing youth I wondered if Jesus briefly went to the father in between those incidents. Even if one reads that into the text, offhand it still doesn't seem that it would fit into the Matthew 28 incident where the women touch Jesus while on the way to tell the disciples.

 

The whole story is just one big, cobbled, unbelievable mess between the different gospels.

[Non-Redneck]

 

God decided Noah was righteous and "saved" him and his family from the flood, but the rest of humanity God couldn't be bothered with as they were all "evil." Does God think that righteousness is hereditary? Can't the unrighteous become righteous? Did God think he had wiped out "unrighteousness" with the flood? That would be preposterous. Surely you would think that there could have been a better way to manage this apparent problem than the merciless slaughter of all of mankind but Noah and his immediate family.

 

If you have read the Book of Enoch, you get a different (non-biblical) perspective on the biblical flood. This may be hinted at in the Bible, but Enoch makes clear that all humans at that time except for Noah and family were demon/human hybrids. God spared Noah and family because they were not demon/human hybrids. The flood was an attempt to wipe out these creatures. The "Nephillim" I believe is what they are called in the Bible and Enoch.

 

Supposedly they also came back into ancient Canaan after the flood (it obviously failed to accomplish its objective) and they are the "people" that the Hebrews killed in the Biblical account of the invasion of Canaan.

 

Because of this human/demon breeding, both the Christians and the Jews tried to erase this book from existence. They almost succeeded.

[Non-Redneck]

Valkyrie0010,

Study Judaism, particularly the culture of Jesus' day. Study ancient religion in the Middle East, Rome, Greece, Babylon, Persia. Compare the similarities between them and Judaism and Christianity. Decide for yourself if they copied from those religions. Do some research on Biblical archeology to verify if the events in the Bible have an historical basis. Study the historical spread of Christianity and the various sects. Look at the origins of the Bible, the various Church councils and the formation of the Bible.

 

For more advanced stuff, learning Hebrew is good. Learning Greek is good too. I would recommend the Talmud and Mishnah if you have the time.

[ghost_warlock]

 

God decided Noah was righteous and "saved" him and his family from the flood, but the rest of humanity God couldn't be bothered with as they were all "evil." Does God think that righteousness is hereditary? Can't the unrighteous become righteous? Did God think he had wiped out "unrighteousness" with the flood? That would be preposterous. Surely you would think that there could have been a better way to manage this apparent problem than the merciless slaughter of all of mankind but Noah and his immediate family.

 

If you have read the Book of Enoch, you get a different (non-biblical) perspective on the biblical flood. This may be hinted at in the Bible, but Enoch makes clear that all humans at that time except for Noah and family were demon/human hybrids. God spared Noah and family because they were not demon/human hybrids. The flood was an attempt to wipe out these creatures. The "Nephillim" I believe is what they are called in the Bible and Enoch.

 

Supposedly they also came back into ancient Canaan after the flood (it obviously failed to accomplish its objective) and they are the "people" that the Hebrews killed in the Biblical account of the invasion of Canaan.

 

Because of this human/demon breeding, both the Christians and the Jews tried to erase this book from existence. They almost succeeded.

 

So does that mean that the spouses of Noah's children were demon/human hybrids? If not, where did they come from if all the other people on the planet were demon-human hybrids?

 

Also, this still doesn't explain why all the animals (plants, etc.) had to die. If he's omnipotent, he should have been able to kill the hybrids easily while sparing everything else. It's not like they could hide from him, given his omniscience.

 

Edit: come to think of it, the issue of where all these extra people came from might be bigger that it first seems. Take, for instance, the brides of Cain and Seth. If they weren't Adam's children, and thus Cain/Seth's sisters, did god specially create them? If so, why doesn't the Bible tell us this?

 

This also leads to the issue of sin. If god created these people after Adam, did they also eat from tree of knowledge? Were they created inside Eden and subsequently got kicked out? If not, how did they get access to the tree's fruit? Did the serpent also persuade them to eat the fruit or did they do it of their own accord? Did god tell them it was okay to eat the fruit? If they didn't eat the fruit, why are they capable of sin? Did god create them pre-sinful?

[Guest I Love Dog]

 

I need to take the time to update this and add Jesus' first post-resurrection appearance to the group of disciples, since Matthew claims that it took place on a hill in Galilee, but Luke and John claim that it happened in a room in Jerusalem.

 

At any rate, with these accounts being such a contradictory mess, there is no way that a reasonable person who has taken notice of these details could consider the gospel accounts to be historically reliable.

 

The Romans have no record of it happening anywhere! Or the crucifixion!

 

"Many elements of the 'Passion' make no sense historically.

 

A trial for Jesus, when suspected rebels were habitually arrested and executed by the Romans without trial? Philo of Alexandria ((On the embassy to Gaius, XXXVIII) speaks of Pilate's 'continual murders of people untried and uncondemned.'

 

And why would the Romans have allowed a convicted felon to be almost immediately removed from his cross and put in a tomb? Crucifixion was chosen precisely to make a public point that the most cruel and humiliating form of punishment awaits those who oppose Rome's will. Roman disposition on this point was perhaps best summed up by Quintilian (AD 35-95, Decl 274) when he wrote that:

 

"Whenever we crucify the guilty, the most crowded roads are chosen, where most people can see and be moved by this fear. For penalties relate not so much to retribution as to their exemplary effect."

 

 

A century earlier, after the 'slave revolt' led by Spartacus, 6,000 prisoners were thus crucified along the Via Appia between the cities of Rome and Cappua, as a gruesome deterrent to further rebellion. Doubtless the corpses were left on their crosses to rot or to provide food for wild beasts and birds of prey.

 

But of course if the 'Passion' were really a pageant of a re-born sun-god it makes perfect sense that the 'sacrificed' actor be taken off-stage, subsequently reappearing in a later act, 'reborn'…"

 

Courtesy http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

[♦ Fuego ♦]

One of the comments on the Resurrection Challenge page said that the four stories come from four different witnesses, and just like in court, you will get four variations on the truth. This is bogus from the start since according to the stories, none of the alleged gospel writers (even though we don't really know who wrote the stories) were at the tomb to see it happen. You'd think if the story had been relayed to them by God that the story would be even more consistent since there would at least be one authorized version that people were used to hearing. Instead, it seems like each one is creating a new version. This is exactly like the other bits of the gospels they could not have known - Jesus' prayer in the garden, since they were all asleep; the conversation between Pilate and Jesus, since the two were alone; the conversation between Jesus and the woman at the well, since the disciples were not present until the end; etc.

[Non-Redneck]

ghost_warlock,

From what I remember in reading Enoch, everybody in Noah's family was "pure", that would include the spouses of Noah's children. I suppose if you were to assume that they were real, the spouses were somehow one of the last humans to not be a hybrid or possibly uncles/cousins/etc (not uncommon in the middle east, even today)

 

I believe Jewish tradition says Adam and Eve had 56 children. So the brothers and sisters would have married each other. I suppose from a strictly Jewish/Torah point of view, this was OK since the Torah wasn't given to the Hebrews yet.

 

One other theory I've read is that Adam and Eve were like other geneticaly similiar hominoids, but with souls. Their children might have mated with the other hominoids and their offspring would have had souls coming from the "human" parent. This was an attempt to reconcile evolution with the Bible.

 

But as far as I'm concerned, the account of Noah in both the Book of Enoch and the Bible is fiction. Since there is no evidence for a world wide flood, it really doesn't matter, because it's not real.

[mcpng]

I see all the other posters have great advice on how to go about. the only thing i'd add is this: figure out for yourself your view on the bible. Is it divine unmistakable word of god with the meaning kept preserved? was it divine but corrupted by translations? Was it written by man? Did they all collaborate? Did they have different agendas? Are they literal or metaphorical? Et cetera.

 

The entire apologetic industry relies on quotes from the bible, mostly quote mining. So it is important to first understand what you think of the quotes.

 

"Philosophical" apologies are mostly horrible with logical fallacies. Furthermore, they deal with the concept of "Is there a God" while sneakily assuming that an argument for a God is an argument for their (Christian/Muslim/Jewish/xxx) God.

[mcpng]

Oh yes, and on being a better skeptic?

 

Really, you just have to doubt EVERYTHING. Research "facts" thrown at you by believers and atheists. Double check your information even you would like to just assume it is true. Question the agenda of the writings you read. It gets extremely tiring eventually and is impossible to go on that way; eventually you'll just have to sometimes take things at face value.

[ghost_warlock]

Hey, Valk, there's a former co-worker of mine that I added on Facebook a while ago. He's a young-earth fundamentalist who loves to argue so I thought I'd link this thread to him so he could take a shot at presenting a case for Christianity (seeing as you're getting a pretty one-sided set of comments here).

 

This was his response:

 

This person has already made up their mind on the path that they want to go. If it was an honest doubt then they would be open to the possibility of God instead of being close minded. They are searching for reinforcement to doubt and ways to doubt and argue against anyone who may offer good info into God and the Bible.

[Shyone]

 

God decided Noah was righteous and "saved" him and his family from the flood, but the rest of humanity God couldn't be bothered with as they were all "evil." Does God think that righteousness is hereditary? Can't the unrighteous become righteous? Did God think he had wiped out "unrighteousness" with the flood? That would be preposterous. Surely you would think that there could have been a better way to manage this apparent problem than the merciless slaughter of all of mankind but Noah and his immediate family.

 

If you have read the Book of Enoch, you get a different (non-biblical) perspective on the biblical flood. This may be hinted at in the Bible, but Enoch makes clear that all humans at that time except for Noah and family were demon/human hybrids. God spared Noah and family because they were not demon/human hybrids. The flood was an attempt to wipe out these creatures. The "Nephillim" I believe is what they are called in the Bible and Enoch.

 

Supposedly they also came back into ancient Canaan after the flood (it obviously failed to accomplish its objective) and they are the "people" that the Hebrews killed in the Biblical account of the invasion of Canaan.

 

Because of this human/demon breeding, both the Christians and the Jews tried to erase this book from existence. They almost succeeded.

Boy, talk about literally "demonizing" your enemies. That takes the cake.

 

I suppose the modern equivalent would be to claim that Nazis, Communists, atheists and Catholics are human/demon hybrids (unless you are a Nazi, Communist, atheist or Catholic).

[Shyone]

One of the comments on the Resurrection Challenge page said that the four stories come from four different witnesses, and just like in court, you will get four variations on the truth. This is bogus from the start since according to the stories, none of the alleged gospel writers (even though we don't really know who wrote the stories) were at the tomb to see it happen. You'd think if the story had been relayed to them by God that the story would be even more consistent since there would at least be one authorized version that people were used to hearing. Instead, it seems like each one is creating a new version. This is exactly like the other bits of the gospels they could not have known - Jesus' prayer in the garden, since they were all asleep; the conversation between Pilate and Jesus, since the two were alone; the conversation between Jesus and the woman at the well, since the disciples were not present until the end; etc.

These are literary devices that allow the writer to act as a third person witness to details that are important, but would not have been witnessed by anyone. When soap operas have those monologues where we hear the thoughts of the actors, they are doing the same thing.

 

Of course, in the bible, it was miraculous and inspired.

[laurie]

when it comes to the evolution/creation debate, answersingenesis.org is a Christian favorite. Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis gives a concise view of basic Christianity, although not completely comprehensive. I would also be willing discuss directly with you any specific concerns you may have about basic Christianity. My understanding is limited, but I would love to help.

[Shyone]

when it comes to the evolution/creation debate, answersingenesis.org is a Christian favorite. Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis gives a concise view of basic Christianity, although not completely comprehensive. I would also be willing discuss directly with you any specific concerns you may have about basic Christianity. My understanding is limited, but I would love to help.

Talkorigins.org is the best reference for reality in research.

 

Answersinfantasy.org doesn't answer questions. It spews mud over the questions, lies, distorts and misleads.

 

As for basic Christianity, surely by now you should realize that this is Ex-Christian.net.

[ghost_warlock]

Answersinfantasy.org doesn't answer questions. It spews mud over the questions, lies, distorts and misleads.

 

To be fair, she didn't say it was accurate; just that it was a Christian favorite.