What's interesting, is the bible is about a specific time, in mans history, and a specific region, but doesn't account at all, for the bigger world, or civilizations, of other parts of the Earth, and we do have proof that man was all over the planet, and not just in the middle east. So to make one region superior, as the be all of all human truth, is ridiculous. Man is more than his middle eastern roots. Why do we ignore the rest of our heritage?


Good point and very true. The Mayans are a perfect example of this. Here are a people that we know existed during at least the times the NT was written, and they have there own stories and beliefs and even predictions, some of which have also come true.

Man has a choice, and God lets you chose.
And if you don't choose what he wants you to, you'll BURN IN HELL. Loving god.

In other words, it is only a theory without all the facts. Otherwise, if it were a fact, it would be impossible for anyone to argue against it.

Someone who knows nothing on the subject they are arguing about can agrue regardless of facts.

Here is the final deal with evolution the end all be all of why its used.
1. It has never been proven wrong.
2. All evidence that has so far been collected over the last 150years has pointed towards evolution.
3. Every experiment ever done on the subject has proven evolution.
4. No one has come up with a theory that fits the evidence better.

Until you have some evidence that contradicts one of those 4 points your argument that evolution is flawed is wrong.

and if you don't choose what he wants you to, you'll BURN IN HELL. loving god.
The God that I understand lets you pay your own consequences for your actions. Or reap the fruit of your labors, that burning in hell stuff is some man's idea to keep you in line, and follow his agenda, which has nothing to do with your soul. I worry about right here on this earth, at this time, and my own choices. I doubt you can make me accountable for yours.

This is why it's called the Big Bang "Theory". It's taught in school's as a theory, based on no more likely scenarios being discovered so far. It's still not acceptable in most places to teach this as more than a theory. Noone can be certain where the universe came from.

Btw, I don't see the problem in believeing in both God and evolution. Seriously, what's so bad about believeing that God made his creatures able to adapt over time? And you don't need to read about evolution to know that it happens. Selective breeding happens all around you, you can see it on a day to day basis! Life forms change over time, there are natural mutations that become part of the mainstream if they're able to be successful enough to reproduce. You don't need to be a scientist to see that!

I'm not saying you don't have a right to believe in what you want. My points were not designed to make people see anything other than the fact that even though schools teach that Evolution is a theory, it is ASSUMED and therefore being brought forth (Through media, Universities, schools... etc.. ) as Scientific fact, which is causing our next generation to turn their minds off to self thinking. To be fully scientific, you have to know and except that we don't know it all and allow a young mind to have ALL the information in front of them to make THEIR OWN educated decision. I speak for myself, because I thought growing up that this is the way it is... there is nothing else to learn or compare. You can go to museums, schools, etc. It is all being "presented" as truth and factual, whether they are saying it is still a theory or not. And somehow over time and generations, Creation Theory has been thrown to the wayside and taken out of thought. As for Creation, I am not going to even try to make or teach someone about Creation that doesn't want to hear it, because I cannot explain it properly enough without possibly leading someone astray. I can tell people what I know, but that is all. Its my personal choice and its in my faith try and understand myself better as God changes my heart through prayer as I submit my will to Him. That's nobody's business but my own. If people want to know what I know about it truthfully, they'll ask in an intelligent manner. In answering your response, I agree with you that this is NOT SUPPOSED to be acceptable to teach evolution as fact in schools, and yet here we are. My point exactly.

Feel free to add me to your "ignore" list if my words are so meaningless. In fact, feel encouraged! :)
My point exactly regarding your control issues. So typical of a "Controlling personality" by feeling you have to get the last word in... You will hear nothing else from me after this regardless of what you say from this point on. So feel free to respond to "Get that last word in". I don't need a computer to ignore you. You are transparent to all in this discussion.

This is a useless discussion that has turned into a childish arguement and I'll have no part in it.
And yet, you keep on posting.

You can go to museums, schools, etc. It is all being "presented" as truth and factual

That's because the information that they do present is truthful and factual.

The reason creation theory isn't accepted is because it doesn't hold up to scientific testing in order to be considered a scientific theory there has to be supporting evidence and experimentation that proves some part of that theory true and there has to be no evidence that contradicts it. Both of those requirements are true for evolution but not for creationism. That is why evolution is science and creationism is religion. Science has to have facts behind it or it isn't science. Religion can make up anything they want even if it doesn't make sense or have facts behind it and it is still considered religion.

De Maria,,

I loved reading your response to my post, you will keep me on my toes for sure. I have a lot of respect for you because of the time you have spent on it

Thanks.


and quite frankly it was the type of post I was expecting from Chuck.

HOWEVER

I still have a lot of problems, and I will try to address all of them if I have the time, your post was quite long. I guess I will start at the beginning and work my way down.

No problem. Its better to take time and consider each point in detail.


This is just hearsay, there really is no proof of it, or that the stories are true.

True. But hearsay evidence is not necessarily false. And evidence in history is hearsay..

This is the definition of hearsay evidence:

Evidence based on what the witness has heard someone else say, rather than what the witness has personally experienced or observed.
Judicial System Glossary (http://www.court.state.nd.us/court/glossary.htm)

For instance, I never met George Washington. But I believed my teachers, whom I trusted were telling me the truth concerning his existence and role in American History. And they never met George Washington either. They were relying on sources of information that they could trust.

Now, apparently you don't trust the Church. Because it is the Church which has preserved the knowledge of its original members which asserts that the Authors of the Gospels are who they say they are.

But I do trust the Church. I find no credible evidence to overturn the history of the Gospels as they explain it.

So, you are free to distrust the Church as I am free to trust the Church.

The testimony of St. Irenæus is of special importance. He was born in Asia Minor, where he heard St. Polycarp give his reminiscences of St. John the Apostle, and in his numerous writings he frequently mentions other disciples of the Apostles. He was priest in Lyons during the persecution in 177, and was the bearer of the letter of the confessors to Rome. His bishop, Pothinus, whom be succeeded, was ninety years of age when he gained the crown of martyrdom in 177, and must have been born while some of the Apostles and very many of their hearers were still living. St. Irenæus, who was born about A.D. 130 (some say much earlier), is, therefore, a witness for the early tradition of Asia Minor, Rome, and Gaul. He quotes the Gospels just as any modern bishop would do, he calls them Scripture, believes even in their verbal inspiration; shows how congruous it is that there are four and only four Gospels; and says that Luke, who begins with the priesthood and sacrifice of Zachary, is the calf. When we compare his quotations with those of Clement of Alexandria, variant readings of text present themselves. There was already established an Alexandrian type of text different from that used in the West. The Gospels had been copied and recopied so often, that, through errors of copying, etc., distinct families of text had time to establish themselves. The Gospels were so widespread that they became known to pagans. Celsus in his attack on the Christian religion was acquainted with the genealogy in St. Luke's Gospel, and his quotations show the same phenomena of variant readings.

The next witness, St. Justin Martyr, shows the position of honour the Gospels held in the Church, in the early portion of the century. Justin was born in Palestine about A.D. 105, and converted in 132-135. In his "Apology" he speaks of the memoirs of the Lord which are called Gospels, and which were written by Apostles (Matthew, John) and disciples of the Apostles (Mark, Luke). In connection with the disciples of the Apostles he cites the verses of St. Luke on the Sweat of Blood, and he has numerous quotations from all four. Westcott shows that there is no trace in Justin of the use of any written document on the life of Christ except our Gospels. "He [Justin] tells us that Christ was descended from Abraham through Jacob, Judah, Phares, Jesse, David--that the Angel Gabriel was sent to announce His birth to the Virgin Mary--that it was in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah . . . that His parents went thither [to Bethlehem] in consequence of an enrolment under Cyrinius--that as they could not find a lodging in the village they lodged in a cave close by it, where Christ was born, and laid by Mary in a manger", etc. (Westcott, "Canon", 104). There is a constant intermixture in Justin's quotations of the narratives of St. Matthew and St. Luke. As usual in apologetical works, such as the apologies of Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and Eusebius, he does not name his sources because he was addressing outsiders. He states, however, that the memoirs which were called Gospels were read in the churches on Sunday along with the writings of the Prophets, in other words, they were placed on an equal rank with the Old Testament. In the "Dialogue", cv, we have a passage peculiar to St. Luke. "Jesus as He gave up His Spirit upon the Cross said, Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit?' [Luke, xxiii. 46], even as I learned from the Memoirs of this fact also." These Gospels which were read every Sunday must be the same as our four, which soon after, in the time of Irenæus, were in such long established honour, and regarded by him as inspired by the Holy Ghost. We never hear, says Salmon, of any revolution dethroning one set of Gospels and replacing them by another; so we may be sure that the Gospels honoured by the Church in Justin's day were the same as those to which the same respect was paid in the days of Irenæus, not many years after. This conclusion is strengthened not only by the nature of Justin's quotations, but by the evidence afforded by his pupil Tatian, the Assyrian, who lived a long time with him in Rome, and afterwards compiled his harmony of the Gospels, his famous "Diatessaron", in Syriac, from our four Gospels. He had travelled a great deal, and the fact that he uses only those shows that they alone were recognized by St. Justin and the Catholic Church between 130-150. This takes us back to the time when many of the hearers of the Apostles and Evangelists were still alive; for it is held by many scholars that St. Luke lived till towards the end of the first century.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Gospel of Saint Luke (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm)


It's not a recent thing, people

You mean skeptics.


has been questioning the validity of the story and it's writers since the beginning.

Like who? And what are you questioning at this point? The authorship of the Gospels or the existence of Jesus Christ? Lets not mix apples and oranges. We can move to proving the existence of Jesus Christ later in this discussion.


That's why people like Justin Martyr had to defend the story.

From skeptics. Just as today there are people who don't believe that man has set foot on the moon and many other things which most of us believe. The existence of skeptics does not invalidate the truth.


Lets not forget, the Jews have never accepted the story

Again, you are mixing apples and oranges. Jews have always accepted the existence of Jesus Christ. They simply do not believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah. However, their witness of the historical truth of His existence is independent confirmation that Jesus Christ lived.

Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.{20} The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."{21}

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.{22} So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.{23} If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!{24}

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?
Probe Ministries - Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources (http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/)


and have been skeptics from day one. Throughout the years there have always been skeptics. Have you ever read the works of Thomas Paine? I wouldn't consider that very recent either.


The existence of skeptics does not invalidate the truth. I have read Thomas Paine, many years ago. His opinions are simply that, opinions. They are not founded on faith.


By the time people started putting these books together there was no way of knowing who actually "walked or talked" with Jesus.

Putting the books together. Sure that happened 200 years later. But you forget that they were writing the papers while Jesus was still walking. And these were being circulated immediately after His death and resurrection. So much so that St. Peter was already calling St. Paul's letters Scripture while they were both still alive.

2 Peter 3 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.


A christian teacher named Tatian produced a harmony of the four gospels to avoid difficulties and iron out the differences between he and Marcion(you have heard of him right? ) His harmony was called the 'Diatessaron' which means 'through the four (and into the one gospel)'.

Later on the early church was forced to say why it wanted only four gospels? Irenaeus the great Christian Bishop of Lyon in 180AD answered saying this, "the earth has four corners, there are four living creatures, there are four winds and there are four covenants. So there should be four gospels to match".

That's pretty much why and how the four gospels were chosen from the many others. At one time though all of the gospels were believed and used by different sects.

These things are true to a point. But the spin you put on these facts is the problem. Yes, Christians have harmonized the Gospels and have had differences in interpretation throughout the centuries. But Christians who understand the three legged stool upon which Christian revelation stands have always been able to confirm the true meaning of Scripture by comparing to the Traditions which were established by Jesus Christ to emphasize His Teachings and to the Magisterial interpretations of the Church which He commanded to continue teaching what He had said.

Like you, many historians have focused on only one source. The Scriptures. But that makes their arguments circular since they have no independent data upon which to confirm their assertions. But Church logic has always used at least three forms of evidence, Scripture, Tradition and Magisterial Teaching. And has never ruled out outside witnesses, secular historical documents, and other credible historical material. In fact, even otherwise "incredible" material has been used to obtain confirming evidence as to the culture and the living conditions of the people of the time.

Your statement that the number four was preselected before the actual selection took place is simply a false conclusion based on limited evidence. It wasn't. History proves that Christians used many Gospels and many other letters and documents in their worship gatherings in the first century. That is why so many Gospels proliferated even after the year 180AD. History also proves that the Gospels were selected on the basis of authorship and inspiration. But the Four Gospels stood the test of time, being the only ones proved to be authored by companions of Jesus Christ.

Those writings which possessed the unmistakable stamp and guarantee of Apostolic origin must from the very first have been specially prized and venerated, and their copies eagerly sought by local Churches and individual Christians of means, in preference to the narratives and Logia, or Sayings of Christ, coming from less authorized sources. Already in the New Testament itself there is some evidence of a certain diffusion of canonical books: II Peter, iii, 15, 16, supposes its readers to be acquainted with some of St. Paul's Epistles; St. John's Gospel implicitly presupposes the existence of the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke).
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the New Testament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm)


Many religions claim the same thing.

But none can prove it. The Catholic Church can list its leaders from St. Peter to Pope Benedict XVI. The next oldest religion which claims continual existence since the 7th century is Islam. Yet since the death of Mohammed, Islam has never been practiced as Mohammed described. There are Shiite and Sunni each claiming inheritance of the religion and many forms of practicing the religion. Unlike the Church, none can point to one leader who can officially speak for all Muslims.

Hinduism is next and the Chinese philosophies. They have never had any organization to speak of. Finally, there are the Pagan religions which all practice what they want and worship what they want. No leaders or many. But no central organization.

Continued

Sorry for the extreme length of the response. Maybe in the future we can focus on one element of our discussion rather than on so many at one time.

continued

Oh and I forgot Judaism. Which has never been the same since the advent of Jesus Christ. Each Jewish sect functions independently of the other without a central leader.

So, they can claim anything they want but only the Catholic Church can trace its organization for 2000 years without a break.


Have you seen it? Again that's just hearsay. I believe if you were to take a tour of the erea they would show you three different places of the supposed spot. The same thing for his birth.

True, there are many claims for the empty tomb of Jesus Christ. But you have to use discernment to believe which is which. In my opinion, the evidence points to the tomb in Jerusalem.

Since the Church of the Holy Sepulchre has the oldest claim and since Jesus had to be buried in an extreme hurry due to the proximity of the Sabbath, that is where the wealthy man, Joseph of Arimethea would have buried Jesus.


Proof of an empty tomb is not given in the form of words written or told.

I think you mean that just because the tomb is empty does not mean it is Jesus' tomb. But that fails to take into account cultural memory. Christians, although most were chased out of Jerusalem by the Romans in the year 70 AD, would have remembered where their Master was buried and would have gone directly back to the Christians who remained in Jerusalem and begun to worship at the site of His burial at the first possible opportunity.

History records that Christians have been doing just that from the 4th Century when was the first opportunity for exiled Christians to return to Jerusalem.


This has already been exposed as a fake, they found traces of paint on it for crying out loud. After reading this whole post I found it really hard to believe that you would have brought up the Shroud. Don't worry though, none of us are perfect... lol


Well I guess you didn't keep up with the news about the Shroud. Seems that the tests which seemed to invalidate the authenticity of the Shroud were flawed. The Shroud has been retested and dates back to the first Century. In addition, other components of the burial cloth have been found which match exactly the pattern of the Shroud of Turn where they were laid one on top of the other.

So, perhaps you need to read up on the new developments:

Read: Biggest Radiocarbon Dating Mistake Ever
The Biggest Radiocarbon Dating Mistake Ever (http://www.innoval.com/C14/)

Photomicrograph of fibers from warp segment of carbon 14 sample. It is chemically unlike the rest of the shroud. That is a problem.

In January, 2005, things changed. An article appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta, which proved that the carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin was flawed because the sample used was invalid. Moreover, this article, by Raymond N. Rogers, a well-published chemist and a Fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, explained why the Shroud of Turin was much older. The Shroud of Turin was at least twice as old as the radiocarbon date, and possibly 2000 years old.
Shroud of Turin Story Guide to the Facts 2007 (http://www.shroudstory.com/)


No there's not. Most things brough up by other historians only mention the word christian, which only proves christians walked the Earth, not it's founder(if you are to believe it was Jesus who founded christianity, some believe it was Paul)

But St. Paul says it was Christ and St. Paul expounds the teachings of Christ. And Christians also say it was Christ and I think we know the difference between St. Paul and Jesus Christ.

And no, actually other historians do mention, Jesus Christ or Yeshu, as in the Masoteric Text above. I believe I already quoted Josephus in the previous message. If not, I'm sure you are aware of the text in which he uses Jesus name.
Josephus and Jesus Christ (http://www.theistic-evolution.com/josephus.html)


I'm sorry to say, but the same applys to the Jesus story. All evidence points to myth. As in every God and Demi God.

Wrong. The evidence is supported by the testimony of four eyewitnesses. Now, I know that much of which is attributed to Jesus Christ is beyond the ability of normal man. But that doesn't on its own make it incredible. In addition, I have studied the sincerity of the men who went to their deaths proclaiming the truth of their testimonies. Therefore I believe the evidence.

Again, you are free to disbelieve. But that is your opinion IN SPITE of the evidence, not because of it.

And if you compare the eyewitness testimony and evidence for Jesus Christ to any mythological hero or even to an actual historical figure of that era, you will find that evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ is hands down superior to any of them. I repeat, any of them.


But is thrown out if the witnesses don't tell the same story, which is the case in the gospels. They can't agree on things from JCs last words to how many people went to the empty tomb. This would not be a good case in court at all.

Spoken like a true novice to evidence gathering and to determining the value of evidence.

The fact is that the differences in the Gospels are the strength of the testimony. Not its weakness.

If the four Gospels simply repeated what each said verbatim, that would be evidence of simple plagiarism. The same Gospel with four different names.

But since the four Gospels have minor differences which corroborate and confirm the order, sequence and pattern of events during the life of Jesus Christ. And which confirm the major events of His life as well, this is independent verification by four witnesses.

Lets compare to a common scene. Four people witness an accident. Will the four people see the same thing? No. One may be fashion consicence and may focus on the colors and appearance of the cars and people in question. One may be time conscience and may focus on the time of the events. The others may have other differences which mean they focus on other elements of the event. But each will contribute enough information in common to identify the same event and enough individual observation that the investigator may be able to piece together the entire event.

This is the strength of eyewitness testimony and the strength of the testimony in the Gospels.


There is none that support the Jesus story. Yes it would be powerful if they came up with some. For instance if they found Roman records of the crucifixion. Romans kept detailed records of these things. I'm sure if it took place these records would be dug up. Until then, there is no proof.

Really? We may safely assume that many people were crucified by the Romans during the 33 years that Jesus lived. Please provide the reference which includes the detailed records of each one of those individuals.

However the architectural evidence to which I am referring are the Churches and other worship sites which were and have been continuously used for the Christian worship since the time of the Apostles. See the Church of Our Lady of the Pillar in Saragosa Spain. A Church which has been in continuous use since the before our Lady was assumed into heaven.


Including Jesus,

I agree fully, however one would expect more from eye witnesses.

Only if one were unfamiliar with the nature of eyewitness testimony.


One would expect from a person who actually walked and talked with JC to have a better record of the accounts. Maybe the subject never came up? I can buy that I guess. Of course I have revealed my birth date on many occasions for different reasons, some of them just BSing with coworkers. So I do find it hard to believe that we don't have a birth date given to us from the people who actually walked and talked with him. I'm sure if the gospels were written by eyewitnesses they would have known just what Herod they were talking about and given the full name. I don't buy into the fact that there were many so it could have been any of them. I knew of the other Herods, I just feel someone should have gotten the names right if the story was valid.

I guess you don't even know that keeping up with birthdays is a very modern phenomenon. In the past, in the time of Jesus, people kept up as best they could with approximate year of birth. What you are doing is reading current cultural norms back into a society which was oblivious to such customs. It never even occurred to them to keep up with the date of birth.

The best they could do is what St. Luke did to mark the birth of Jesus Christ:

St. Luke 2 1 And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled.


This has been in debate for a long time, it's not fact either way really. The only reason why it's such a huge debate is because Josephus says one thing and Luke says another. This debate will never end, because some will believe the Bible and some will believe a historian. So here we are, as one of each... lol

But Scripture testimony is confirmed by archaeological evidence which points to Quirinius being Tetrarch twice.


Augustus said this when he heard Herod killed his sons Aristobulus and Antipater, who were adults at the time and who's death had nothing to do with the hunt and destruction of babies who might be considered a future king of the Jews. It is in fact an interesting story though, and one I would recommend people to read. It's actually a common story among royal families back in the day.

That's my point,, if it had happened, something of this magnitude would have been recorded. Were talking about a massacre of many children. This would be big news then as it would be today. Something like that would not go unmentioned today. It wouldn't have back then either, especially from a guy everyone hated.

Again, you act as though they had TV and news at 10. They didn't. People back then were mostly concerned with staying alive and feeding their families. Josephus however, pretty much confirmed that Herod could have committed the atrocity. And it is very possible that if Josephus did not mention the atrocity because either Herod or his children may have still been alive and may not have wanted that atrocity mentioned by him or anyone else.


I hope I addressed everything, and am looking forward to the response.

You did a wonderful job.

I'm looking forward to another round of discussion. However, I'll be leaving for eight days. God willing I'll be back to continue our discussion.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Someone who knows nothing on the subject they are arguing about can agrue regardless of facts.

But anyone who would argue that what goes up must continue to go up would be easily disproven by the empirical evidence. All I have to do is hold up a stone and let it go. It will fall.


Here is the final deal with evolution the end all be all of why its used.

No, its just your opinion. Your opinion doesn't carry as much weight as you seem to think.


1. It has never been proven wrong.

And has never been proven true.


2. All evidence that has so far been collected over the last 150years has pointed towards evolution.

Towards micro evolution as well as towards intelligent design. But macro evolution, which is the subject being discussed has not been proven.



3. Every experiment ever done on the subject has proven evolution.

There can be no experiment just speculation on the reason for certain bones and their similarity to other bones.


4. No one has come up with a theory that fits the evidence better.

That doesn't make it true or factual. Many theories have been disproven after years of being considered true.


Until you have some evidence that contradicts one of those 4 points your argument that evolution is flawed is wrong.

Until you have any proof that the theory of evolution is a fact, evolution remains a theory.

My point exactly regarding your control issues. So typical of a "Controlling personality" by feeling you have to get the last word in......You will hear nothing else from me after this regardless of what you say from this point on. So feel free to respond to "Get that last word in". I don't need a computer to ignore you. You are transparent to all in this discussion.

I think it's interesting that all she did was reword your argument for her side and she is the bully because she pointed out how silly you were making things sound. Of course it seems that Christians on this sight are allowed to spew nonsense and hatred, but no is allowed to call them on it.

Dealing with the "Christians" on this site has made me more proud to be an atheist.

Now thats the best statement of this whole thread. Men may lie, and exaggerate, but nature is the best proof of life adopting to its environment. That includes man. Change over time............evolution.
One part that I agree on is the Natural selection of people. Also one way to back this up is travelling abroad for instance. You travel to another country that has poor water quality. That culture has learned to adapt and the strong genes survived and the weak died off. When people from the US or Canada travel abroad we have to be careful, because we might have that "Weak" immunity in our genes that could be harmed from these issues because we come from a clean and sanitary environment compared to them. It that respect, it cannot be refuted. The primary difference between Creation and Evolution are the "Time Frames" involved with the changes.

I think it's interesting that all she did was reword your argument for her side and she is the bully because she pointed out how silly you were making things sound. Of course it seems that Christians on this sight are allowed to spew nonsense and hatred, but no is allowed to call them on it.

Dealing with the "Christians" on this site has made me more proud to be an athiest.
We are more alike than you think. I am not perfect and neither are you. I'm sorry if I come off this way, it is not my intention.

I think it's interesting that all she did was reword your argument for her side and she is the bully because she pointed out how silly you were making things sound. Of course it seems that Christians on this sight are allowed to spew nonsense and hatred, but no is allowed to call them on it.

Dealing with the "Christians" on this site has made me more proud to be an athiest.
By the way... its a Chrsitian debate... what would a person like you be doing in this discussion anyway if you don't want a Christian viewpoint? Are you more agnostic?

Yes Buzzman I have often wondered the motive of someone who claims they don't believe in a God, to come to a religious or christian thread and argue about something that should mean nothing to them.

I have often proposed the thought that those that come to attack Christian faith have other beleifs than that of "No Beleif" and wish to attack Christian because of a dislike or hate for it that goes far beyond their stated ideas.

Would a person who cares less about history go to the history threads and make fun of people giving proper history info. Would a person go to the cooking area and do nothing but make fun of or attack those that are giving cooking ideas. Of course they would not. And to be honest you don't see them going to the Muslim areas making fun of their faith, they pick speciflcly Chrsitianity. One of the posters here ( temp banned) even has a web site set up to specificly state they come to christian sites on purpose to cause trouble.

And yet, you keep on posting.
Can I ask who all these people are who think that I am perfect ever got the picture that I WAS? Please... I am not the Messiah and I do not ever profess to be. Everyone here is a hypocrite in one way or another. Lets get this straight. So we can either discuss like adults or stay out of the discussions with your petty shots!

Thats because the information that they do present is truthful and factual.

The reason creation theory isn't accepted is because it doesn't hold up to scientific testing in order to be considered a scientific theory there has to be supporting evidence and experimentation that proves some part of that theory true and there has to be no evidence that contradicts it. Both of those requirements are true for evolution but not for creationism. That is why evolution is science and creationism is religion. Science has to have facts behind it or it isn't science. Religion can make up anything they want even if it doesn't make sense or have facts behind it and it is still considered religion.
But he Bible is also considered to be a historical record of its own. It represents the Genealogy of Jesus from His prophisised birth the end of His life and beyond the setting up of His church. So to a Christian, it is a history book. Why do we call 2008"AD" if he did not exist on this earth. As most know "AD" stands for "After Death". After "Jesus's" death. Is that not factual?

Yes Buzzman I have often wondered the motive of someone who claims they don't beleive in a God, to come to a religious or christian thread and argue about something that should mean nothing to them.

I have often proposed the thought that those that come to attack Christian faith have other beleifs than that of "No Beleif" and wish to attack Christian because of a dislike or hate for it that goes far beyond thier stated ideas.

Would a person who cares less about history go to the history threads and make fun of people giving proper history info. Would a person go to the cooking area and do nothing but make fun of or attack those that are giving cooking ideas. Of course they would not. And to be honest you don't see them going to the Muslim areas making fun of thier faith, they pick speciflcly Chrsitianity. One of the posters here ( temp banned) even has a web site set up to specificly state they come to christian sites on purpose to cause trouble.Isn't the premise of this thread "How can we prove the bible is factual?" Doesn't that invite all comers to offer their opinion? Or is it simply restricted to all the "yes" men? Why are you attacking others for their opinions?

Yes Buzzman I have often wondered the motive of someone who claims they don't beleive in a God, to come to a religious or christian thread and argue about something that should mean nothing to them.




This isn't posted in a "Christian" thread, it is under Religious Discussions. That being a very broad topic, I would think it would be open to believers AND non-believers of ALL faiths. Would it not?

The OP asked how can we prove the bible is factual. Those who do not believe that it can be proven to be factual have stated their ideas and when possible backed it up with some pretty impressive information. Those who do believe that it can be proven to be factual have stated their ideas. Also backing it up with impressive information when possible. It has made for very interesting reading, prompted a lot of thought and has probably led a lot of the readers to some self exploration. How is this not a good thing, for believers, non-believers and in-betweens?

To argue about something that "should mean nothing to them?" The very nature of the question itself begs for those who do not believe to voice an opinion. Just as it begs for those who do believe to voice an opinion. Isn't that the point of a discussion thread? What kind of world would this be if everything could only have one point of view?

Where things have gotten off track is where everyone who feels that their point of view was some way personally attacked and the retaliation posts begin!

Isn't the premise of this thread "How can we prove the bible is factual?" Doesn't that invite all comers to offer their opinion? Or is it simply restricted to all the "yes" men? Why are you attacking others for their opinions?
There are opinions, and then there is ignorant responses. Opinions are welcome.

There are opinions, and then there is ignorant responses. Opinions are welcome.You judge and insult others - bad christian, you're going to hell!

Well actually it was orgianally on the christian board it was moved for the reason to allow those who wish to attack to be able to attack,

I still wonder why they have this need to do so.

As most know "AD" stands for "After Death". After "Jesus's" death. Is that not factual?

I was almost impressed with much of your information until you posted that one...

Anno Domini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini)

By the way...its a Chrsitian debate...what would a person like you be doing in this discussion anyway if you don't want a Christian viewpoint?? Are you more agnostic?

I don't see it as a Christian debate. I see it as an open debate. Also if I didn't present my viewpoint it wouldn't be much of a debate would it? Hard to debate anything if everyone just agrees with you. As for me being agnostic it depends on the meaning of the word you are using. I don't believe there is a god. It means I haven't seen proof or reason to say there is a god.

This isn't posted in a "Christian" thread, it is under Religious Discussions. That being a very broad topic, I would think it would be open to believers AND non-believers of ALL faiths. Would it not?

The OP asked how can we prove the bible is factual. Those who do not believe that it can be proven to be factual have stated their ideas and when possible backed it up with some pretty impressive information. Those who do believe that it can be proven to be factual have stated their ideas. also backing it up with impressive information when possible. It has made for very interesting reading, prompted a lot of thought and has probably led a lot of the readers to some self exploration. How is this not a good thing, for believers, non-believers and in-betweens?

To argue about something that "should mean nothing to them?" The very nature of the question itself begs for those who do not believe to voice an opinion. Just as it begs for those who do believe to voice an opinion. Isn't that the point of a discussion thread? What kind of world would this be if everything could only have one point of view?

Where things have gotten off track is where everyone who feels that their point of view was some way personally attacked and the retaliation posts begin!
Agreed... lets keep it going, and agree to be able to express BOTH sides. I find these discussions intriguing and am learning much myself. Note to Christians: You have to allow free thought... It is the will of God. No one is called to be robots.

I was almost impressed with much of your information until you posted that one....

Anno Domini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini)
Sorry... to put more concisely it is "Anno Domini", which means "After the year of our Lord", I was cutting corners...

I don't see it as a Christian debate. I see it as an open debate. Also if I didn't present my viewpoint it wouldn't be much of a debate would it? Hard to debate anything if everyone just agrees with you. As for me being agnostic it depends on the meaning of the word you are using. I don't believe there is a god. It means I haven't seen proof or reason to say there is a god.
The definition of Agnostic is someone who thinks of the existence of God is unknown & unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

You judge and insult others - bad christian, you're going to hell!
He who's without sin cast the first stone my friend...

I am without sin but I cast no stones.

You Just... Believe


I cannot give any facts about how truthful the Bible is. Part of the aspects on being a Christian is faith. You just believe and trust that it is true.
And what is so wrong about having faith and trusting there is something greater than us?
My answer would be this: I can stare at my computer desk for a million years and it will never come to life. Something or someone has to create life. You cannot get life from death but we know you can get death from life.

If I believe in God and I am wrong... that is it I am dead (never existed) but...
If one chooses not to believe... and they are wrong, well I would not want to be in their shoes.

What is so wrong about believing in God? I think I will choose my picture now. I wondered what I would choose. SteveWard3928

But he Bible is also considered to be a historical record of its own. It represents the Geneology of Jesus from His prophisised birth the the end of His life and beyond the setting up of His church. So to a Christian, it is a history book. Why do we call 2008"AD" if he did not exist on this earth. As most know "AD" stands for "After Death". After "Jesus's" death. Is that not factual?

The reason why christians get told they are wrong more than others is because you're the majority. Being the majority you make the laws and the history books because of this even though I'm not christian I need to know what crazy plan you all are trying to implement next. Such as right now trying to teach my child your religious creationist ideas.

So why do we call it AD because the majority do and you refuse to respect us enough to let us do otherwise.

I am without sin but I cast no stones.
Fair enough...

You Just..... Believe


I cannot give any facts about how truthful the Bible is. Part of the aspects on being a Christian is faith. You just believe and trust that it is true.
And what is so wrong about having faith and trusting there is something greater than us?
my answer would be this: I can stare at my computer desk for a million years and it will never come to life. Something or someone has to create life. You cannot get life from death but we know you can get death from life.

If I believe in God and I am wrong...that is it I am dead (never existed) but....
If one chooses not to believe...and they are wrong, well I would not want to be in their shoes.

What is so wrong about believing in God? I think I will choose my picture now. i wondered what I would choose. SteveWard3928
We've kind of been down this path Steve. We are merely trying to discuss some actual truths beyond our faith. What do we have "factually" that backs our beliefs beyond faith. You got any good examples, throw them in the discussion.

I think it's interesting that all she did was reword your argument for her side and she is the bully because she pointed out how silly you were making things sound. Of course it seems that Christians on this sight are allowed to spew nonsense and hatred, but no is allowed to call them on it.

Funny how that works, isn't it? Funny too how these conversations always end up with the Christians saying atheists don't belong because it's a Christian topic, when the thread is in religious discussions and the OP never specified wanting only one type of opinion...


Dealing with the "Christians" on this site has made me more proud to be an atheist.

Amen! :D


If I believe in God and I am wrong... that is it I am dead (never existed) but...
If one chooses not to believe... and they are wrong, well I would not want to be in their shoes.

This is only true if the bible is the "correct" belief; which is the point of this conversation. If the Muslims are right, you're in for it. You can believe in god and still be wrong.

The reason why christians get told they are wrong more than others is because your the majority. Being the majority you make the laws and the history books because of this even though I'm not christian I need to know what crazy plan you all are trying to implement next. Such as right now trying to teach my child your religious creationist ideas. So why do we call it AD because the majority do and you refuse to respect us enough to let us do otherwise.

I cannot totally take away your feelings of how Christians come across some times, because I have struggled with this in my past as well. But I have learned in life that the only one I can control is myself. On the same note, I am no better than anyone that I have a problem with, because sometimes the problem is me. And if you group me in with others (Saying that I am the majority?), well that is your prerogative and I cannot change that. I'm actually not too sure what you even mean by that?
I think the pendulum has swung the other way and people have forgotten Creation and Evolutionists are pushing their views now. It used to be most everyone knew what Creation theory was, and now few can explain the basics, let alone the specifics, yet they refute based on whatever reasons they have. This is just the problem, you are now calling my view a crazy plan without even understanding what the Creation Theory is? Why can we not agree that there are two vantage points out there and have the confidence within ourselves to let people decide one way or another. I think it is more wrong to not see EVERY view without pushing one way or another. It is fairly clear that most everyone has a view in this discussion, but my point has always been to make sure everyone (From the time we are children) has ALL the information in front of them. Whether people in this discussion back my views or not is irrelevant. I am not influencing other Christians. They have a mind just as much as I do. If they back me... great... if they don't that's OK too.

I think it's interesting that all she did was reword your argument for her side

It is really strange that you characterize that vindictive piece of anti-Christian bigotry as a simple rewording of an argument.

Do you really think that calling the God whom we revere and love "the invisible sky wizard" is polite conversation? Or is it rather a demeaning, belittling, insulting attack on our beliefs with the intent of bullying us into acquiescing to hers?

Obviously, you are as biased as she.


and she is the bully because she pointed out how silly you were making things sound.

No. She is the bully because she attacked our beliefs without provocation simply because we disagree. She is the bully because she expects that her insults will cow us into agreement with her simply because she is loud and rude. She is the bully because she thinks that she can force us to accept her argumentation no matter how foolish it might be.


Of course it seems that Christians on this sight are allowed to spew nonsense and hatred, but no is allowed to call them on it.

On the contrary. Christians on this site speak kindly and intelligently until they are attacked by anti-Christian bigots. Then when Christians defend their views, those very same anti-Christian bigots, like yourself start crying like selfish little babies. "Waa!!! The big bad Christian defended himself!!!! They aren't supposed to do that!!! Waaa!!!!"

But Christian is not synonymous with "walk all over me".


Dealing with the "Christians" on this site has made me more proud to be an atheist.

That's because as an atheist you have no morals or conscience. Otherwise you would be ashamed to be associated with a bunch of bullying, insensitive, anti-christian trolls who's intent is simply to disrupt polite religious discussion in any way they can.

Now if you want to continue a polite discussion, carry on. Otherwise quit your lying diatribe and find another forum where you can bully people who won't defend themselves.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

Yeah. Its funny that the one who begins insulting us turns around and cries foul when we defend ourselves.


Funny too how these conversations always end up with the Christians saying atheists don't belong because it's a Christian topic, when the thread is in religious discussions and the OP never specified wanting only one type of opinion...

Actually, I believe Buzzman and the other Christians have been wondering why, whenever your beliefs are questioned, you resort to attacking our beliefs with insulting and demeaning language.

Is it because atheists don't know how to discuss anything politely with people who have opposing opinions?


Amen! :D

Personally, I would be ashamed to be associated with either of you if you think that your style of argumentation is considered remotely civilized.


This is only true if the bible is the "correct" belief;

Which it is.


which is the point of this conversation.

Yet you and other atheists have derailed the conversation to evolution and insulting diatribes because you have been unable to prove your contentions on the topic.


If the Muslims are right, you're in for it. You can believe in god and still be wrong.

Sounds like desperation to me. You are actually relying on a religious group, a group who believes in God to defend your atheist contentions. What a delicious pickle you're in. You can't defend your own ideas so now you call on another religious group to support your contentions. But far from that, Muslims, Christians and all religious will first pick apart your atheist arguments. Because we hold virtually the same apologetic reasons in common against nonbelievers.

In the meantime, when and if a Muslim enters this conversation challenging Christian belief, I'm sure that many Christians on this forum will be happy to answer the challenge.

Can I ask who all these people are who think that I am perfect ever got the picture that I WAS??
I don't know how you got the idea that anybody here thinks you're perfect. I was just pointing out that you kept on posting after saying that you were done because the discussion had no value for you.

Actually, I believe Buzzman and the other Christians have been wondering why, whenever your beliefs are questioned, you resort to attacking our beliefs with insulting and demeaning language.
Speaking of insulting and demeaning language...

Thats because as an atheist you have no morals or conscience. Otherwise you would be ashamed to be associated with a bunch of bullying, insensitive, anti-christian trolls who's intent is simply to disrupt polite religious discussion in any way they can.

Now if you want to continue a polite discussion, carry on. Otherwise quit your lying diatribe and find another forum where you can bully people who won't defend themselves.

Touché.

You Just..... Believe
I cannot give any facts about how truthful the Bible is. Part of the aspects on being a Christian is faith. You just believe and trust that it is true.
And what is so wrong about having faith and trusting there is something greater than us?
my answer would be this: I can stare at my computer desk for a million years and it will never come to life. Something or someone has to create life. You cannot get life from death but we know you can get death from life.

If I believe in God and I am wrong...that is it I am dead (never existed) but....
If one chooses not to believe...and they are wrong, well I would not want to be in their shoes.

What is so wrong about believing in God? I think I will choose my picture now. i wondered what I would choose. SteveWard3928

I think this is really the crux of the matter. We seemed to have moved into a discussion about the existence of God instead. But the point is, the Bible is hearsay. Faith is the driving force of Christian beliefs.

De Maria,
"Thats because as an atheist you have no morals or conscience. Otherwise you would be ashamed to be associated with a bunch of bullying, insensitive, anti-christian trolls who's intent is simply to disrupt polite religious discussion in any way they can."

I find this extremely offensive. You assume that atheists have no morals? Do you imply that morality is purely a product of faith? You think people who don't believe in God are inherently bad?
And I'm seeing bullying from both sides here. Please, you were doing such a good job of rationalising your arguments, don't sink to that level.

Speaking of insulting and demeaning language...
What makes you so different than the rest of us talking here "Ordinary". By the way you write, you seem to think that you fall into a different category of human existence. All we've established here is that we are all the same and NO ONE likes to be pushed around, it doesn't matter who you are, and solved absolutley nothing by doing so.

buzzman,
I believe OG was pointing out an instance of hypocrisy. It really has nothing to do with you.

If the Muslims are right, you're in for it. You can believe in god and still be wrong.
So true!!

Post #192 is the first mention of evolution done by Buzzman. So don't blame Jillian for taking this subject off topic. She was merely correcting the inaccurate statement made by him. When she turned his own argument on him he called foul. I think if actually read her post you will understand what she was doing. You probably won't but you could at least try. All that happened was Buzzman insulted a scientific theory and then Jillian insulted a religious theory. Then several Christian attacked her.
Sounds to me like Christians were unable to prove the bible as factual or even to prove the bible isn't wrong on several occasions. So they derailed the conversation.

De Maria nice how you can insult muslims and atheists in one post. Good going. I'm surprised you didn't throw in a jab at gay people too. How moral of you.

What makes you so different than the rest of us talking here "Ordinary". By the way you write, you seem to think that you fall into a different catagory of human existance.
I make no claim to be anything other than an ordinary guy.

You are all just going around in circles trying to score points from each other... why bother, no one can prove anything, you either have faith or you don't.

It comes from within you can't measure it or see it or touch it but you know it's there.
Why does someone have to be right or wrong?

I think that there is too much emphasize on the bible and what is written there in, is it true or isn't it.
If you're a non believer there will always be a counter argument for your case, you are not going to get prove one way or another.
More to the point is where or how you think this beautiful world was made if you do not believe in god!.

Religion ( faith) in any culture around the world in my opinion is a personal thing, everyone who is religious has their own name for their god and their own book that they follow but basically it is the same god that they worship, their book will have rules for living,passed events etc etc we just call it different things but the principle remains the same where ever you are in the world.

There will be those who believe everything stated word for word, without consideration for updates over the years and yes personal I am sure as in society today bits would have been added or left out but the initial outlay would still remain the same

You say maybe we don't like the thought of living to die and perhaps religion is made up for that purpose... well think about that statement for a second...

Living to die... how pointless would that be in fact why would the world exist just so's a whole load of beings could live to die... this statement says it all.

We live to learn, life is a learning curve whether you believe in god or not we will all go on to the next world with our knowledge to another form of life where we will continue to learn.

No I cannot prove it or would I even bother I just don't feel the need to, suffice to say that there are many things in this world that we will never understand nor are we meant to.

Post appears to have run it course, getting into name calling on all sides, not all posters but all sides

Post closed>>>>>>