Due to archeological findings, manuscripts matching the bible (people places things), cave drawings, etc, the Bible has more validity than a lot of the crap we take as gold in our history books.
The dead sea scrolls were dated to BC and showed how very little things had been changed in the Bible. That was one of the most impressive things about it. It was dated BC,
And I say again, God doesn't wear a Tag Heuer, the Bible doesn't give an exact time on creation. Mankind who is full of mistakes that you hang your atheist hats on are the ones that try to come up with dates.
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
Nice try tmstr, did I hit a nerve? Trying to change my words up now huh? I would too being in your shoes. I would too.
So according to your logic, the fact that parts of the Bible's historical records have been evidentially supported, that means everything's true? If that's the case, I'll write you a story:
I am God. The Eiffel Tower is in France, and it is made of marshmallows and ice cream cones. Berlin is located in Germany. I parted the Red Sea yesterday, and the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776.
There are facts in there, so that means the whole paragraph is true.
Quote Originally Posted by offensivestr:
#2817
Posted: 12/22/2011 2:31:41 PM
Sugarbear you are dead wrong,
Due to archeological findings, manuscripts matching the bible (people places things), cave drawings, etc, the Bible has more validity than a lot of the crap we take as gold in our history books.
The dead sea scrolls were dated to BC and showed how very little things had been changed in the Bible. That was one of the most impressive things about it. It was dated BC,
And I say again, God doesn't wear a Tag Heuer, the Bible doesn't give an exact time on creation. Mankind who is full of mistakes that you hang your atheist hats on are the ones that try to come up with dates.
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
Nice try tmstr, did I hit a nerve? Trying to change my words up now huh? I would too being in your shoes. I would too.
So according to your logic, the fact that parts of the Bible's historical records have been evidentially supported, that means everything's true? If that's the case, I'll write you a story:
I am God. The Eiffel Tower is in France, and it is made of marshmallows and ice cream cones. Berlin is located in Germany. I parted the Red Sea yesterday, and the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776.
There are facts in there, so that means the whole paragraph is true.
1) Ex4Life, Rostos, Smoothd have ALL admitted that the Bible has been edited, changed, rewritten, parts lost, etc. By comparison, if I showed you an old history book and said: "Out of 20 chapters, 8 of them are historically inaccurate because of rewrites or missing pieces," you wouldn't give the book a second look. In Ex4Life's masterpiece composition of idiocy (where he uses lines from the BIBLE to prove that the BIBLE is true, a method that would get him laughed out of even special education classes), even he admits that it's a book that's been written by 50+ authors over 1000+, not to mention we have NO IDEA what's supposed to be "metaphor" and what's "real." So:
a) How can you trust a single word in that book when you ACCEPT that parts of it are changed from its original state?
b) How can you use any shred of it as evidence for anything when you know parts of the book are incorrect as they were originally intended, AND that "supposively" (as SirJohnDrake might say) some of it is to be taken metaphorically?
2)How do you justify Christianity over any other religion? How is it any more valid than say Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, Magicology, Santaology, TheWorldSprangFromAdam'sErectPenisOlogy, etc...?
3) If you REALLY believe the world is 6,000 years old, how do you explain dinosaurs? Or ancient Egyptians? Or Mesopotamians?
4) Why, if Christianity such a peaceful religion (and if we are all "God's children," does the Bible condone killing (a) homosexuals, (b) non-virgins, (c) for hitting one's parents, among other things?
a) "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to
death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
(Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
b) But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a
virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not
found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there
her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against
Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil
from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
c) Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to
death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
5) Why do we have a "spiritual void" if we don't believe in Christianity? Since a huge majority of the world ISN'T Christian, are they spiritually blind as well? Are only Christians correct? This refers to question two as well.
AND IF ANYBODY TRIES TO REFERENCE THE BIBLE FOR ANY ANSWERS, YOU'RE A MORON. YOU CAN'T USE THE BIBLE AS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
I have some questions, and I want some answers:
1) Ex4Life, Rostos, Smoothd have ALL admitted that the Bible has been edited, changed, rewritten, parts lost, etc. By comparison, if I showed you an old history book and said: "Out of 20 chapters, 8 of them are historically inaccurate because of rewrites or missing pieces," you wouldn't give the book a second look. In Ex4Life's masterpiece composition of idiocy (where he uses lines from the BIBLE to prove that the BIBLE is true, a method that would get him laughed out of even special education classes), even he admits that it's a book that's been written by 50+ authors over 1000+, not to mention we have NO IDEA what's supposed to be "metaphor" and what's "real." So:
a) How can you trust a single word in that book when you ACCEPT that parts of it are changed from its original state?
b) How can you use any shred of it as evidence for anything when you know parts of the book are incorrect as they were originally intended, AND that "supposively" (as SirJohnDrake might say) some of it is to be taken metaphorically?
2)How do you justify Christianity over any other religion? How is it any more valid than say Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, Magicology, Santaology, TheWorldSprangFromAdam'sErectPenisOlogy, etc...?
3) If you REALLY believe the world is 6,000 years old, how do you explain dinosaurs? Or ancient Egyptians? Or Mesopotamians?
4) Why, if Christianity such a peaceful religion (and if we are all "God's children," does the Bible condone killing (a) homosexuals, (b) non-virgins, (c) for hitting one's parents, among other things?
a) "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to
death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
(Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
b) But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a
virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not
found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there
her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against
Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil
from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
c) Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to
death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
5) Why do we have a "spiritual void" if we don't believe in Christianity? Since a huge majority of the world ISN'T Christian, are they spiritually blind as well? Are only Christians correct? This refers to question two as well.
AND IF ANYBODY TRIES TO REFERENCE THE BIBLE FOR ANY ANSWERS, YOU'RE A MORON. YOU CAN'T USE THE BIBLE AS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
It wasn't. I'm glad Josh Hamilton was able to turn his life around and if believing in magic helps him do that, then who am I to tell him otherwise. But he is a rare case. For the most part belief in god is stupid and a waste of time while alive.
How do you know he is a rare case?
I mention him because he is famous in the states.
There are plenty of sports stars here in Aus who found God and turned there lives around accordingly....
What a stupid comment you make, if it helps one person then that is enough.
Name me one person who had religion, then when they dumped religion, there lives improved? Name me one, ie, while they had religion, they were drugs, booze, in the gutter etc etc, then they dumped religion and it turned around for them and they solely blamed religion for their downfall.......
Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:
It wasn't. I'm glad Josh Hamilton was able to turn his life around and if believing in magic helps him do that, then who am I to tell him otherwise. But he is a rare case. For the most part belief in god is stupid and a waste of time while alive.
How do you know he is a rare case?
I mention him because he is famous in the states.
There are plenty of sports stars here in Aus who found God and turned there lives around accordingly....
What a stupid comment you make, if it helps one person then that is enough.
Name me one person who had religion, then when they dumped religion, there lives improved? Name me one, ie, while they had religion, they were drugs, booze, in the gutter etc etc, then they dumped religion and it turned around for them and they solely blamed religion for their downfall.......
If I thought that I turned back to dirt and nothing happened after I died I sure as hell wouldnt spend much time on this forum.
What I said was in response to this Rostos. All I'm saying is that he thinks believing in heaven gives someone the option to waste their life here on earth...
#2846 offensivestr 12/22/11 8:41 PM
If I thought that I turned back to dirt and nothing happened after I died I sure as hell wouldnt spend much time on this forum.
What I said was in response to this Rostos. All I'm saying is that he thinks believing in heaven gives someone the option to waste their life here on earth...
There are plenty of sports stars here in Aus who found God and turned there lives around accordingly....
What a stupid comment you make, if it helps one person then that is enough.
Name me one person who had religion, then when they dumped religion, there lives improved? Name me one, ie, while they had religion, they were drugs, booze, in the gutter etc etc, then they dumped religion and it turned around for them and they solely blamed religion for their downfall.......
Well, my life has gotten much better since I stopped believing in magic.
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
How do you know he is a rare case?
I mention him because he is famous in the states.
There are plenty of sports stars here in Aus who found God and turned there lives around accordingly....
What a stupid comment you make, if it helps one person then that is enough.
Name me one person who had religion, then when they dumped religion, there lives improved? Name me one, ie, while they had religion, they were drugs, booze, in the gutter etc etc, then they dumped religion and it turned around for them and they solely blamed religion for their downfall.......
Well, my life has gotten much better since I stopped believing in magic.
KK CHOOSES to put his faith in Quantam mechanics and we choose to put our faith in a supreme being....
IMO, just my opinion, i think it is much more plausable to believe in a supereme that exists outside space, time and matter, a realm we cannot observe that caused space, time and matter, rather than something coming into existence uncaused in this natural universe...
Each to their own i suppose.
KK CHOOSES to put his faith in Quantam mechanics and we choose to put our faith in a supreme being....
IMO, just my opinion, i think it is much more plausable to believe in a supereme that exists outside space, time and matter, a realm we cannot observe that caused space, time and matter, rather than something coming into existence uncaused in this natural universe...
And IMO, believing in something that transcends reality is absurd. I prefer to believe in observable phenomena and theoretically observable and testable theories as opposed to theories that are completely untestable and unobservable.
And IMO, believing in something that transcends reality is absurd. I prefer to believe in observable phenomena and theoretically observable and testable theories as opposed to theories that are completely untestable and unobservable.
So according to your logic, the fact that parts of the Bible's historical records have been evidentially supported, that means everything's true? If that's the case, I'll write you a story:
I am God. The Eiffel Tower is in France, and it is made of marshmallows and ice cream cones. Berlin is located in Germany. I parted the Red Sea yesterday, and the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776.
There are facts in there, so that means the whole paragraph is true.
That's your comeback? Lol
I expected weak but geeeeeeez
Quote Originally Posted by Sugarbear19:
So according to your logic, the fact that parts of the Bible's historical records have been evidentially supported, that means everything's true? If that's the case, I'll write you a story:
I am God. The Eiffel Tower is in France, and it is made of marshmallows and ice cream cones. Berlin is located in Germany. I parted the Red Sea yesterday, and the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776.
There are facts in there, so that means the whole paragraph is true.
And IMO, believing in something that transcends reality is absurd. I prefer to believe in observable phenomena and theoretically observable and testable theories as opposed to theories that are completely untestable and unobservable.
Atheism to a tee. Well said.
Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:
And IMO, believing in something that transcends reality is absurd. I prefer to believe in observable phenomena and theoretically observable and testable theories as opposed to theories that are completely untestable and unobservable.
It's not a "comeback". He is telling you where your logic fails miserably. If there is one part of the bible that is untrue, then how can you believe the rest of it? Understand?
Quote Originally Posted by offensivestr:
That's your comeback? Lol
I expected weak but geeeeeeez
It's not a "comeback". He is telling you where your logic fails miserably. If there is one part of the bible that is untrue, then how can you believe the rest of it? Understand?
Scientists talk about hypothesis and theories. They throw out "maybes" with creation and you will jump on them but if it comes to God its to big for your head to imagine so you bail.
Hypocritical a bit
Scientists talk about hypothesis and theories. They throw out "maybes" with creation and you will jump on them but if it comes to God its to big for your head to imagine so you bail.
Some theories aren't as credible as others. Example: the flying spaghetti monster. Should we not laugh at that theory? By your logic, every theory is equally viable. But we know that not to be the case.
Some theories aren't as credible as others. Example: the flying spaghetti monster. Should we not laugh at that theory? By your logic, every theory is equally viable. But we know that not to be the case.
It's not a "comeback". He is telling you where your logic fails miserably. If there is one part of the bible that is untrue, then how can you believe the rest of it? Understand?
What part of the Bible can you prove that is not true? And don't say the age of creation because it is never specified.
I gave examples of archeology that go right along helping the validity.
So what part of the Bible can you prove is not true?
Quote Originally Posted by Mikniks:
It's not a "comeback". He is telling you where your logic fails miserably. If there is one part of the bible that is untrue, then how can you believe the rest of it? Understand?
What part of the Bible can you prove that is not true? And don't say the age of creation because it is never specified.
I gave examples of archeology that go right along helping the validity.
So what part of the Bible can you prove is not true?
Scientists talk about hypothesis and theories. They throw out "maybes" with creation and you will jump on them but if it comes to God its to big for your head to imagine so you bail.
Hypocritical a bit
You do realize that we can choose to agree or disagree with anything a scientist can not provide evidence for. Just because we don't believe in god, doesn't mean we believe everything scientists tell us.
And you think god is too complicated for our brains? God is simple actually. What is tougher to understand? String theory and Multiverse theory or god? It surely isn't god. One could make the case that just attributing everything to god is a cop-out...
Quote Originally Posted by offensivestr:
Scientists talk about hypothesis and theories. They throw out "maybes" with creation and you will jump on them but if it comes to God its to big for your head to imagine so you bail.
Hypocritical a bit
You do realize that we can choose to agree or disagree with anything a scientist can not provide evidence for. Just because we don't believe in god, doesn't mean we believe everything scientists tell us.
And you think god is too complicated for our brains? God is simple actually. What is tougher to understand? String theory and Multiverse theory or god? It surely isn't god. One could make the case that just attributing everything to god is a cop-out...
this might be one of your problems, your reading skills aren't the best
Hot Forum Topics
