Thread: God

Dear Clyde,
Your beliefs require that the Roman Empire was full of ridiculously stupid and arrogant people. Your comparison to people who believe the earth is flat despite the fact that people have sailed around the earth and we have satiate pictures of the earth's shape as compared to people believing that Jesus had been resurrected despite having been shown the body does not work, by the numbers alone. Don't even go in to evolution and dating of the earth evolution has been proven among scientist, I know more about then my parents and the proof I've seen is not deceive on proving it, and the dating of the earth is simply scientist saying the dates witch does not give proof to the general public the dates. Had christinity been just a small group of people the Romans and Jewish officals would not have tried so hard to end it.

Now on the fact that you are referring to the Bible as a 2000-year-old book to discredit it is worthless. Using that philosophy I can discredit any old writing. Your demand that I back up every event of the bible by another non-Christian source is absurd. It's not like non-Christians were dying to make every little point in the Bible have an outside reference. The dates in witch the Gospels and Acts were written along with being specific on facts such as where he was crucified where his tomb is combined with when this events took place such as Passover and Pentecost guarantees that the gospels and acts are what people have heard. If I was to claim that 30 years ago New York Jake Ryan had been shot 33 times and then buried in the tomb of a NYC city hall councilor, and that 3 day's latter the tomb and I had been preaching that Jake had risen from the grave and that he preformed miracles unless New York has just suffered a complete brain loss of the last 30 years no one would believe me unless I had done so. The gospels in no way could have changed what the apostles were saying.

"Your beliefs require that the Roman Empire was full of ridiculously stupid and arrogant people"

Uh, why?

"Your comparison to people who believe the earth is flat despite the fact that people have sailed around the earth and we have satiate pictures of the earth's shape as compared to people believing that Jesus had been resurrected despite having been shown the body does not work"

Uh, what?

"Don't even go in to evolution and dating of the earth evolution has been proven among scientist, I know more about then my parents and the proof I've seen is not deceive on proving it"

1) This makes no sense.
2) Are your parents bricks?

"and the dating of the earth is simply scientist saying the dates witch does not give proof to the general public the dates"

What?

"Had christinity been just a small group of people the Romans and Jewish officals would not have tried so hard to end it."

Why not? A small group can still represent a threat. Anyhow all i'm asking for is EVIDENCE to support your arguments, funny how flustered you seem to get from such a simple request.

"Now on the fact that you are referring to the Bible as a 2000-year-old book to discredit it is worthless"

My point is not that a 2000 year old book is worthless, my point is believing something SOLELY because it's in a 2000 year old book who's message is contrary to every observeable phenomenon in the universe, is moronic.

"Your demand that I back up every event of the bible by another non-Christian source is absurd"

Yea sorry, that would mean you actually had a valid case, my bad.... besides i didn't ask for every event, just some evidence that like supported that backbone of your arguments, like that jesus was actually buried in a tomb that was actually guarded by a load of soldiers, that the Romans were really hell bent on destroying Christianity at that time, that they didn't actually produce the body, etc. etc.

"It's not like non-Christians were dying to make every little point in the Bible have an outside reference"

...... Tell me something do you think all historical scholars of the period in question (who weren't indocrinated into Christianity from an early age) believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ? If the answer is no, (and it blatently is no) then how exactly can you claim the FACTS support your case? Did i mention people who are studying theology at university? They study the evidence in a non--bias way and they all (well most anyway) end up concluding that the primary religions are MAN-MADE.

"The dates in witch the Gospels and Acts were written along with being specific on facts such as where he was crucified where his tomb is combined with when this events took place such as Passover and Pentecost guarantees that the gospels and acts are what people have heard"

For heavens sake its W-H-I-C-H, and once again the GOSPELS do not count as historical evidence, you have no way of determining that they are truthfull. Haven't you studied "source-questions" during history yet?

"If I was to claim that 30 years ago New York Jake Ryan had been shot 33 times and then buried in the tomb of a NYC city hall councilor, and that 3 day's latter the tomb and I had been preaching that Jake had risen from the grave and that he preformed miracles unless New York has just suffered a complete brain loss of the last 30 years no one would believe me unless I had done so"

Right, but the people of new York TODAY are far FAR less ignorant (one would hope ) than the people who lived 2000 years ago, at that time tales of miracle cures, magic, even *SHOCK HORROR* resurrections etc. etc. were COMMON, furthermore in todays world information travels amazingly fast because of the printing press, news papers, modern transport and even the internet, in those days they didnt even have PRINT, information crawled along if it was spread at all. What that adds up to is that whilst in todays world people would not believe you because they would EXPECT that such a story would have been spread about if it were true, in those days that expectation would not exist.

Oh AND the life expectancy today is 70 odd years which means that plenty of people who would have been around at the time of your supposed resurrection would still be alive, back then the life expectancy was like 35 or something meaning almost everyone around at the time would have been DEAD by the time the majority of the bible was written.

In short your argument, as usual, is lame.

"The gospels in no way could have changed what the apostles were saying."

Equine fecal material.

I'm quoting both my self and you so my resposes make scence.

"Your beliefs require that the Roman Empire was full of ridiculously stupid and arrogant people"

Uh, why?

"Your comparison to people who believe the earth is flat despite the fact that people have sailed around the earth and we have satiate pictures of the earth's shape as compared to people believing that Jesus had been resurrected despite having been shown the body does not work"

Uh, what?

Had the Roman and Jewish officals shown off the body they would of done so durring Pentecost or when ever they disiples started to preach and ended right there. Your suggesting that the Roman and Jewish officals showed the people the body and yet still belived that what some fisherman and a tax collector said. Big NOTE to clyde: TAX COLLECECTORS AT THIS TIME WERE CONSEDIRED LESS CREATIBLE THEN A USED CAR SALESMAN OF TODAY. This is logical reasoning.

"Don't even go in to evolution and dating of the earth evolution has been proven among scientist, I know more about then my parents and the proof I've seen is not deceive on proving it"

1) This makes no sense.
2) Are your parents bricks?

"and the dating of the earth is simply scientist saying the dates witch does not give proof to the general public the dates"

What?

My parents are not bricks and I would appricate it if you did not say negitive things about my parents. Now on to why this makes scence:
The shape of the earth:
Lets see we have had people sail around it, and we have photographs from space. It does not take a lot knowledge to determin that the earth is a sphere. Also I would love to know how you can have night and day on a flat earth.

Evolution:
I have seen cast of skulls that show the line of species that evolved into modern man. Some skulls are not all that decive in proving evolution. I also know how DNA works and that there are mutations when it is copied I also know how you can add data to DNA. I'm not going to debate evolution anymore as we did that so I'm not going to repost my thoughts on the subject.

Dating:
Science declares rock to be a thousand years old. The rock is a thousand years old because science says so. Simply put science proves to scientist the age of the Rock because they understand how it was dated. The proof is not there for the average Joe.

There is a diffence between what scienctist can prove among them selves, and what is proven among the general public.

-I have homework to do and it is getting late so I will respond to the rest of your post tomorow but for now answer this:

What did Eric Harris's shirt say on 4/20/99? I will give you a hint he also said he loved it on his website.

"Had the Roman and Jewish officals shown off the body they would of done so durring Pentecost or when ever they disiples started to preach and ended right there."

1st off you need to READ what you write before you post it!

2nd Show me evidence that they didn't.

3rd Show me evidence they had access to the body, and that it wasn't chucked into some anonymous grave/mass grave (much like Mozarts was)

4th Show me evidence supporting your claim that it was such an issue to them.

So far all your arguments are from conjecture.

"Your suggesting that the Roman and Jewish officals showed the people the body and yet still belived that what some fisherman and a tax collector said"

Yes...... and?

"TAX COLLECECTORS AT THIS TIME WERE CONSEDIRED LESS CREATIBLE THEN A USED CAR SALESMAN OF TODAY"

........ did you miss my rebuttal of your "resurrection in New york today" argument? If someone tells you something nice, that doesn't actually seem too outlandish then people will believe it. Anyhow you have no idea about the situation at all, how many people would have spent a large amount of time with jesus, enough so they could recognise a fairly badly battered corpse? Especially when they are LOOKING not to believe it. All your arguments are based on conjecture.

Show me some E-V-D-E-N-C-E.

"My parents are not bricks and I would appricate it if you did not say negitive things about my parents"

Oh I meant no disrespect, its just you said that they knew less than you, and..... well..... surely that makes them some kind of inanimate objects no?

"Now on to why this makes scence"

......... are you dyslexic? - Serious question. From the looks of things you might be, if you haven't had it checked out, you should. You can get extra time on exams and special tuition to help with grammar, spelling, etc.

"I have seen cast of skulls that show the line of species that evolved into modern man. Some skulls are not all that decive in proving evolution"

Please, PLEASE stop, its hurting my brain reading this piffel. You have seen a few skulls....... and from that you think you can evaluate how favourable the theory of evolution is better than a legion of paleontologists??? Thats absurd.

Besides how exactly do YOU know how to evaluate skulls without knowing what you are looking for?

Right.......... so belief that the Earth is flat is *drum roll*.......... illogical! My whole point was to demonstrate that illogical beliefs are foolish.

"Science declares rock to be a thousand years old. The rock is a thousand years old because science says so. Simply put science proves to scientist the age of the Rock because they understand how it was dated. The proof is not there for the average Joe."

What kind of insane argument is this? You think because you are ignorant of the workings of science that makes it less valid?

The proof IS there for the average Joe IF he spends some time looking for it and getting explanations. Besides the fact that if its proof for scientists should be good enough for you!

Its like saying "Mechanics say my car runs because of combustion of hydrocarbons, well i don't know about such things so i'm gonna stick with my belief that it works using a giant gerbil that eats petrol"

"There is a diffence between what scienctist can prove among them selves, and what is proven among the general public"

No..... there isn't because people accept that people who know vastly more about a topic than them a in a far more apt position to make conclusions based on it.

People believe planes fly because of pressure differences between the wings because scientists tell them so, people believe that illness is caused by bacteria and viruses because scientists tell them so, people believe that the stars are upteen zillion light years away because the scientists tell them so. Why? Because they know that the scientists know a heck of a lot more than they do. If they want more proof they go ask a scientist with an OPEN MIND, not looking to deliberately misunderstand.

"What did Eric Harris's shirt say on 4/20/99? I will give you a hint he also said he loved it on his website"

What the juice are you talking about now?

Incidently what about my examples of your "benevolent" God having people stoned to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath and condoning beating slaves? Hmmmmm forgot about those did you?

"Had the Roman and Jewish officals shown off the body they would of done so durring Pentecost or when ever they disiples started to preach and ended right there."

1st off you need to READ what you write before you post it!

2nd Show me evidence that they didn't.

3rd Show me evidence they had access to the body, and that it wasn't chucked into some anonymous grave/mass grave (much like Mozarts was)

4th Show me evidence supporting your claim that it was such an issue to them.

So far all your arguments are from conjecture.

The tomb:
Point 1.

The Toledoth Jesu states that Jesus' tomb was empty and that it occurred by theft, is that good enough? The Toledoth Jesu is a Jewish writing. Now this is what the bible says:

And when they had assembled with the elders and counseled together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, and said, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’ (NASB) Matt. 28:12-13

Point 2.
The discovers of the empty tomb was by woman. Now givin that you belive that they made the idea of the tomb being empty and in fact the entire tomb, you must also give a good reason woman were the first to have found the tomb, no offence to any one here, but there testomony was not considred worth any thing at the time.


I've covered points 1-3 and the reason is took so long is because well the emptyness of the tomb is not debated.

So far all your arguments are from conjecture.

"Your suggesting that the Roman and Jewish officals showed the people the body and yet still belived that what some fisherman and a tax collector said"

Yes...... and?

"TAX COLLECECTORS AT THIS TIME WERE CONSEDIRED LESS CREATIBLE THEN A USED CAR SALESMAN OF TODAY"

........ did you miss my rebuttal of your "resurrection in New york today" argument? If someone tells you something nice, that doesn't actually seem too outlandish then people will believe it. Anyhow you have no idea about the situation at all, how many people would have spent a large amount of time with jesus, enough so they could recognise a fairly badly battered corpse? Especially when they are LOOKING not to believe it. All your arguments are based on conjecture.

Show me some E-V-D-E-N-C-E.

I don't know Jerusalem just so happens to be the center of the Jewish faith and it just so happens that on Passover and Pentecost people go there a lot of them.

Peters speach was a turning point in history, it was the anoncment that Jesus had risen from the dead. I don't know but I don't think that people would of convintiluy forgoten when the speech was made so that Luke could make it happen over Penticost.

If your going to debate that, you must prove it wrong.

Oh I meant no disrespect, its just you said that they knew less than you, and..... well..... surely that makes them some kind of inanimate objects no?

I said they knew less then me in evolution.
Also drop the evolution debate, we have been through it already.

......... are you dyslexic? - Serious question. From the looks of things you might be, if you haven't had it checked out, you should. You can get extra time on exams and special tuition to help with grammar, spelling, etc.

My spelling sucks, like kirmi's. I have been cheaked out and I do happen to have mental problems at least from what I've been told though I don't think I am considred dyslexic I forget what I have. As for extra time on my PSAT's I could of taken 1 and a half times as long as given but i did not because simply I didn't need it. (I can't tell you how I did becasue for some stupid reason I havn't gotten my results back). I also took a Practice Sat test after school in which was harder then the PSAT, and by the time 4th block comes around I'm normaly not into it as much as I am earler in the day. I scored a 1000 on that test.

What kind of insane argument is this? You think because you are ignorant of the workings of science that makes it less valid?

The proof IS there for the average Joe IF he spends some time looking for it and getting explanations. Besides the fact that if its proof for scientists should be good enough for you!

Its like saying "Mechanics say my car runs because of combustion of hydrocarbons, well i don't know about such things so i'm gonna stick with my belief that it works using a giant gerbil that eats petrol"

I didn't say the science is made less valid. I simply stated there is a diffence between showing off a body, or photos of the earth,ect to simply claimng that the earth is a few billion years old.

As for your gerbal example, I want those people to pay for my engine because gerbals don't heat up that much.

No..... there isn't because people accept that people who know vastly more about a topic than them a in a far more apt position to make conclusions based on it.

People believe planes fly because of pressure differences between the wings because scientists tell them so, people believe that illness is caused by bacteria and viruses because scientists tell them so, people believe that the stars are upteen zillion light years away because the scientists tell them so. Why? Because they know that the scientists know a heck of a lot more than they do. If they want more proof they go ask a scientist with an OPEN MIND, not looking to deliberately misunderstand.

Planes - wll they fly obviosly they are right
Bactera and viruses- well there are Vacinees and Cures for illnesses so hmm they seem to exist.

If two groups of people can explain something and both seem resonable at a glance and the one is the same as you have always belived peopel are going to go to the one that supports there belives.

What the juice are you talking about now?

Funny do you know what that date is? If you can get the link to work as the site seems to be down cheak out the May 19 2000 article "What the columbine report didn't tell you," by Gavin DeBecker www.apbnews.com

Incidently what about my examples of your "benevolent" God having people stoned to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath and condoning beating slaves? Hmmmmm forgot about those did you?

First off those rules only applied to those of the Jewish faith, and second Jesus condumed the Pharisees for obeying the tradions that the law created but missed the point of the laws meaning.

Second I find it funny you seemed to have missed that every 7 years that Slaves were to be freed, and depts are to be relesed.

Ask a biblical scholer questions you have, actuly have a very good reason for existing.

Yea sorry, that would mean you actually had a valid case, my bad.... besides i didn't ask for every event, just some evidence that like supported that backbone of your arguments, like that jesus was actually buried in a tomb that was actually guarded by a load of soldiers, that the Romans were really hell bent on destroying Christianity at that time, that they didn't actually produce the body, etc. etc.

Lets see I proved the body, tomb. I have not found any evidence of there not being guards at the tomb nor any one claiming there were no guards. Now if a and b c events are proven true and given what the apposles did it is safe to assume they are not lying about there being guards. Also guads at a tomb such as the one jesus was in for the reason it was guared probly was not uncomen and therefor had no real historical value at the time, and would of ment death after peter proclamed that Christ had risen

Now I have yet to prove C

1. My history book in 8th grade when I learned about ancient rome claimed that the christians were proscocuted durring the first 300 years.

2. We have the roman fires that Nero blamed on Christians.

now why did rome and Pharisees so bent on killing the christians

1. The Pharisees have a lot as risk, this new religon dosn't include them and Jesus was not there bigest fan.

Romans
1. The comman belif at this time is that the Messiah would over throw the Roman Empire. (and it in a funny way Jesus did)

2. In order to win Wars people needed to pray to the Roman Gods, Christians did not. Jewdisum has protection and was allowed to not pray, Christians had no such protection.

"The Toledoth Jesu states that Jesus' tomb was empty and that it occurred by theft, is that good enough? "

Hmm, well its not really what i was looking for, religious texts tell people what they want hear, they do not offer objective descriptions of events.

However for sake of argument i'll take the two texts as evidence to a certain degree of Yeshu not being in his tomb.

Anyhow i'm intrigued, presumeably you don't believe the Toldoth Yeshu, why not?

"The discovers of the empty tomb was by woman"

How do you know?

"Now givin that you belive that they made the idea of the tomb being empty and in fact the entire tomb, you must also give a good reason woman were the first to have found the tomb, no offence to any one here, but there testomony was not considred worth any thing at the time."

Like i said how do you know a woman found the tomb?

"I've covered points 1-3 and the reason is took so long is because well the emptyness of the tomb is not debated."

I'm not saying it is i just wanted some kind of evidence, now so far your only evidence seems to be coming from religious texts these aren't exactly known for their historical accuracy but like i said above i'll let it go.......for now.

"Peters speach was a turning point in history, it was the anoncment that Jesus had risen from the dead"

Do you have any idea how many people actually HEARD peter's speech? If so, how do you know?

"Also drop the evolution debate, we have been through it already"

Yea, we have been through it, and you got demolished, evolution = true.

"I didn't say the science is made less valid. I simply stated there is a diffence between showing off a body, or photos of the earth,ect to simply claimng that the earth is a few billion years old."

Not really. We don't "simply claim" the Earth is a few billion years old, ALL the information is there to be looked at just like the photos of the Earth, it just takes a bit more mental effort to understand the age of the Earth.

"As for your gerbal example, I want those people to pay for my engine because gerbals don't heat up that much."

Thats not a refutation of my argument!

"Planes - wll they fly obviosly they are right"

How do you know they fly due to pressure differences between the wings?

"Bactera and viruses- well there are Vacinees and Cures for illnesses so hmm they seem to exist."

And how do you know the vacines and cures work by attacking the viruses/bacteria?

"If two groups of people can explain something and both seem resonable at a glance and the one is the same as you have always belived peopel are going to go to the one that supports there belives"

If one group knows VASTLY more about the subject than the other group, which one is more likely to be correct?

"Funny do you know what that date is?"

I have no idea what you are talking about.

"First off those rules only applied to those of the Jewish faith"

That response doesn't make any sense in light of my question.

"and second Jesus condumed the Pharisees for obeying the tradions that the law created but missed the point of the laws meaning."

And neither does this response.

"Second I find it funny you seemed to have missed that every 7 years that Slaves were to be freed, and depts are to be relesed"

LOL, that makes it OK then!! It ok to beat the slaves so badly they DIE a few days later, because every 7 years you free them and capture a few more.

"Ask a biblical scholer questions you have, actuly have a very good reason for existing."

So you have no idea, you can live with the fantastic paradox, that God is "benevolent" and yet the stuff he does demonstrates his petty minded, obnoxious, egocentric nature.

HE PUT A MAN TO DEATH FOR PICKING UP STICKS.

HE CONDONES SLAVERY.

thats two examples and there are many many MANY more.

How can you live with that? How can you live with the fact the the BIBLE which you deem TRUE shows God to be....... well...... a bastard.

" have not found any evidence of there not being guards at the tomb nor any one claiming there were no guards"

And you have not provided any evidence there were guards.

"Now if a and b c events are proven true and given what the apposles did it is safe to assume they are not lying about there being guards."

......... thats its not safe to assume at all.

". My history book in 8th grade when I learned about ancient rome claimed that the christians were proscocuted durring the first 300 years"

That in itself does not mean Christianity was a big deal for the Romans: Note here that i am NOT saying that the Romans definately didn't have a problem with Christianity, I am saying that the impetus is on YOU to provide evidence supporting your beliefs.

"2. We have the roman fires that Nero blamed on Christians.

now why did rome and Pharisees so bent on killing the christians

1. The Pharisees have a lot as risk, this new religon dosn't include them and Jesus was not there bigest fan.

Romans
1. The comman belif at this time is that the Messiah would over throw the Roman Empire. (and it in a funny way Jesus did)
"

Just tell me how many Christians there were during this time. That should be support enough. Oh and give me a damn source.

All these points demanding evidence, is not me challenging your argument, its me asking you to provide a decent argument, before i can actually debate it!

"2. In order to win Wars people needed to pray to the Roman Gods, Christians did not. Jewdisum has protection and was allowed to not pray, Christians had no such protection"

What? Listen you just telling me random stuff does not constitute evidence i want to see sources.

Now on to much bigger things than quibling about historical obscurities:

Tell me why you believe.

What i mean here is, do you think you believe because there is good evidence for the resurrection OR do you believe there is good evidence for the resurrection because you believe?

Think about it before you answer. Did you believe BEFORE you read up about it? The fact that you don't really have any evidence bar another religious text that you looked up on the net seems to imply you did.

You believe because you were TAUGHT to believe, if you had been brought a muslim you would be a muslim, your beliefs are NOT based upon evidence nor on reasoning, they are based on upbringing.

Think about it, why do you actually believe, your arguments here(whilst generally spectacularly weak anyhow) are not the reasons you believe they are purely to attempt to battle against me in this debate.

Why is it that HISTORY, as in professional historians and real UNBIASED history books do NOT note the resurrection of christ as an occurance? Why is that? Clearly there is not enough evidence to justify such an outlandish claim.

Sentaku's beliefs are irrational, irrational beliefs damage society in a myriad of ways.

You on the have on the other hand have dismissed blatant facts calling them a joke. You consider religious text useless because they are biased, yet so is ancient Egyptian writings as any other historical account. There is no evidence that supports your claim that they showed off the body, nor do you have a valid reason for believing that they were lying about the guards these were common things that happened at this time. Name another time in history that 11 people were tortured and 10 of them died for something they knew to be a lie well at the same time having no motives for lying. On top of that, Jesus appeared to 500 people, that is many witnesses to something and at the time that was declared most of them was still living. You also seem to believe that everyone was gullible at this time, unfortunately Jesus resurrection differs from both Jewish and Greek beliefs of the period dramatically, to top this if you dare consider Paul (Saul) to be gullible your a fool your self. During this age there were a few dozen people calling them selves a Messiah as we have had over the last 2000 years. Every one of them have died and as a result no longer had followers.

Now let me end your dance around 4/20/99:
April 20 1999 is the date of Columbine in which Eric Harris and Derrick Klebold assaulted Columbine High School—killing fifteen students and wounding numerous others. The autopsy report of Eric Harris:

HISTORY: This is the case of an 18-year-old, white male who was the alleged victim of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head that occurred in the Columbine High School library on 4/20/99. No other history is available at the time of autopsy.

EXTERNAL EXAMINATION: The body is clothed in a bloodstained white T-short with the inscription "Natural Selection" on the front...

Erick Harris hated many things that he listed on his Web page but there is one thing that he did not hate:

YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE???
Natural SELECTION!...it's the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms…but it's all natural! YES!

Your rights to claim that is not what natural selection means ended with you claim that religion is wrong because people have said in means things it does not. Doing so makes you a hypocrite nothing else.

Sentaku, all he wants you to do is give some other evidence that these things happened OTHER than the bible. To put ALL your faith into a 2000 year old book without ANY OTHER EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER is what he is calling irrational.

And I'll try and catch you before you do it, just because so many people believe in Christianity now or at any time in the past does not in any way constitute proof. Human beings are extremely gullible, especially when it comes to good news (ie even if you die a horrible death for your beliefs you'll be rewarded with eternity in a wonderful place called heaven).

Of course.. it took me awhile to write this and.. well.. you got a couple new posts on there by the time I was done :P specially since I was kind of writing it on and off(at work.. didnt get done at lunch so I saved it for break time) anyway here's my message in it's entirety:



I haven't had a chance to read much on the whole debate yet (as usual, it's a long one ), but Here are a couple thoughts on the last few posts.

>>"Also drop the evolution debate, we have been through it
>>already"

>Yea, we have been through it, and you got demolished,
>evolution = true.

lol, prove it.
go ahead. try and prove it.
you can't.

Oh, and by the way, if you can, you might be interested in following this link, since the man is offering $250,000(US$, I believe) to anyone who can prove evolution (formerly it was only $10,000, which offer has stood since 1990):
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k


>>"I didn't say the science is made less valid. I simply stated
>>there is a diffence between showing off a body, or photos of
>>the earth,ect to simply claimng that the earth is a few billion
>>years old."

>Not really. We don't "simply claim" the Earth is a few billion
>years old, ALL the information is there to be looked at just like
>the photos of the Earth, it just takes a bit more mental effort to
>understand the age of the Earth.

yes, actually.. it's about 6-10 thousand years old. maximum.
Source:
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=2
lol try it I dare you
If you really want to talk to one of the "one group" that "knows VASTLY more about the subject than the other group", here's your chance. Of course, I am assuming that you don't have 12 years of science teaching in public school under your belt.. I may be wrong


>HE PUT A MAN TO DEATH FOR PICKING UP STICKS.
If God is God and God is all he says, he can put a man to death for whatever he wants. He gave you your life.. who are you to say he can't take it back?

>How can you live with that? How can you live with the fact the
>the BIBLE which you deem TRUE shows God to be....... well...... a

You ought to be thankfull (again, if God is who he says he is) that he even gave you life to begin with.

>Just tell me how many Christians there were during this time.
>That should be support enough. Oh and give me a damn source.

How am I, or anyone, to know how many christians there were at that time? Personally, if I had been alive at that time, I'd probably be at least attempting to lay low, and making sure that nobody wrote a book about me.. cause if they did I'd probably get a visit the next day from some roman officer with a hungry lion in tow.

However, here is one excerpt(sorry, at the moment I don't have time to go looking for more.. but it's not difficult to find);

"In the fourth century, Emporor Constantine had over 3000 Christians executed because their interpretation of the Bible did not agree with his. That is more than the number of Christians who died at the hands of the Romans during the well known 1st century "Christians to the lions" persecutions. "

The above are from William Manchester's "A World Lit Only by Fire- The Medieval Mind and The Renaissance"..Little, Brown & Company, 1992

As far as I know, there were many more than that.. this was the results of about 6 minutes of searching the net.


>All these points demanding evidence, is not me challenging your
>argument, its me asking you to provide a decent argument,
>before i can actually debate it!

>>"2. In order to win Wars people needed to pray to the Roman
>>Gods, Christians did not. Jewdisum has protection and was >>allowed to not pray, Christians had no such protection"

>What? Listen you just telling me random stuff does not
>constitute evidence i want to see sources.

>Now on to much bigger things than quibling about historical
>obscurities:

>Tell me why you believe.

Because I am so absolutely blessed as to have been saved.

>What i mean here is, do you think you believe because there is
>good evidence for the resurrection OR do you believe there is
>good evidence for the resurrection because you believe?

I have never seen any evidence that anything in the bible is incorrect, although many men have set out to prove that it contains errors.
No, I have never seen evidence with my eyes, that Jesus rose from the dead...
but "Faith is the evidence of things not seen."

>Think about it before you answer. Did you believe BEFORE you
>read up about it? The fact that you don't really have any
>evidence bar another religious text that you looked up on the
>net seems to imply you did.

And why do you have to bar all religious texts?
How do *you* know that those non-religious texts are more correct than the religious ones?
I don't remember a time when I didn't believe this; but I have never seen any evidence whatsoever that makes me think my belief is wrong.
However; I reverse the question. Did you believe or not believe in Christ's resurrection before you read up on the subject? Do you interpret things fairly, or like all the rest of humanity, do you interpret things based on prior experience, things you learned while growing up, things you decided to be true for no good reason except you wanted it to be true, etc?

>You believe because you were TAUGHT to believe, if you had
>been brought a muslim you would be a muslim, your beliefs are
>NOT based upon evidence nor on reasoning, they are based on
>upbringing.

Just a matter of interest.. are yours any different, or do your parents believe the same as you?
And if they don't, do those who taught you in school believe the same things as you?


>Why is it that HISTORY, as in professional historians and real
>UNBIASED history books do NOT note the resurrection of christ
>as an occurance? Why is that? Clearly there is not enough
>evidence to justify such an outlandish claim.

And how do you know they are unbiased?
The ONLY WAY to know if a history book is unbiased is if YOU WERE THERE and you recorded things EXACTLY as they happened; without mentioning your beliefs at all.
Maybe they *are* biased,and that's why they don't note Christ's resurrection.
To sum it up: everything everyone writes is biased, unless it is an exact, word for word, deed for deed, account, nothing more, nothing less.

>> I have never seen any evidence that anything in the bible is incorrect,

Have you actually read this thread? ... I didnt think so. All your questions have already been asked and answered.

>>but "Faith is the evidence of things not seen."

Go. Read. This. Thread.
Then you can post.

Ay yi yi! People arguing for God's existance, or possible existance, may have some points, but most of the Bible fanatics posting to this thread are just delusional. It's really pointless to argue with them. How they can understand basic logic necessary to write programs is beyond me. Or maybe one or two of them got their fellow headcases to join in, I don't know. These people are immune to reason, fact, or logic. Let them be.

i am not religios. i beleive in GOD but i dont have to. i was never Baptised, budded, whatever. im non-religiose. but i still beleive in the bible because i want to, and thats good enough for me. if i beleive in it, then i do, but i dont beleive in the "easter bunny" or "santa" or "tooth fairy" or "country music" and other fairy tales like that.