[quote]smh23 wrote:
It is true that no historical “fact” is absolutely and objectively above doubt or skepticism. For practical intents, however, historians have developed very reliable methods of making sense of a past unfortunately filled with lies, misdirection, and utter bullshit. The trustworthiness of primary (or first-hand) historical accounts depends upon a number of factors, which are perhaps best presented as questions:
–Was this account written soon after the event it describes? How soon? Hours would be best. Days or even months will do. A century is less than optimal to say the least.
–What bias did the authors have? When Procopius was the official historian of Justinian’s court, accounts of the emperor’s life and exploits bordered on hagiography. When the very same author retired and in old age decided to put a lifetime of grudges to paper in a document called secret History, the same wise and benevolent emperor to which he had been subject suddenly looks like a lunatic foaming at the mouth. His every action is guided by malice/jealousy/hubris. His wife, before deified as the purest woman around, is suddenly a complete whore who fucked her stepson and even complained that the holes in her nipples weren’t big enough to take dicks so that she could have more in her at one time.
Keeping this in mind, shouldn’t we consider that the the early Christians who wrote the Gospels had an obvious bias?
–Is the account believable? Homer may have based his writings on a historical war, but we as modern thinking human beings are inclined to ignore the parts about sea monsters and sirens. Why? Because we must assume that the laws of nature and the nature of the world have been uniform, i.e. that the way I have observed the world to operate has always been the way the world has operated and always will be. I’ve never seen sea monsters or Gods and therefore when I read an ancient document that talks about either of them I am immediately and justifiably skeptical.
–Can anything in the account be proven wrong objectively? Scientific evidence has made it nearly impossible for anyone in the modern world to be a true Biblical literalist. Taken at face value, the Bible paints a cosmological picture that is just plain not how the world works. Now, the faithful can ignore flaws in the Bible and continue to have faith in the important parts. I see no problem with that. But don’t tell me that that is analogous to my reading and believing primary accounts of the Civil War, because it isn’t.
[/quote]
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< A typical neato self worshiping post >>>[/quote]If the God who is actually there has decided you are one of His you will be stunned to learn that nothing is about you and everything is about Him. See it’s like this. He’s God and we ain’t. Though we like to delude ourselves into believing that God must conform to us or be either wrong or non existent.
I do not joyously offer to God my most grateful, humble and adoring worship simply because He does for me. Though He does and I am unspeakably grateful. Or because He bows to my pitiful notions of love or justice. I worship Him because He is God and it is natural and right for men to recognize the derivate nature of their existence and render due glory to their creator. It is natural that is where sin does not dominate. In the garden of Eden and the hearts of the redeemed. Death in sin has made the unnatural natural wherein the creatures live in stiff necked rebellion against He to whom they owe their very existence.
[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
God is without a sex, as I understand Him. You can use She if you prefer, I really do not care.
[/quote]
Actually this is incorrect. Well, I am not saying anything on the part you don’t care, but that we can say G-d is a She. G-d is masculine, that is why G-d is referred to in the masculine. Humans and creation are feminine (like Eve from Adam, and the Church from Christ) in nature.
Belief in God is blind faith. That’s all you’ve got. You can’t prove his existance and you can’t disprove it. Your faith is amazing, but it is faith.[/quote]
Five proofs of G-d:
The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence â?? which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
Very interesting, to say the least! I enjoyed how he talks about people who claim to believe in science rather than God. In reality those people are being simply ignorant. Dr. Voddie Baucham Jr. talks about how the Bible never asks for blind faith. People often ask for the Bible to be proven on these boards! but even history can NOT be proven with the scientific method. He is a pastor of the Grace Family Baptist Church, so you all know = ][/quote]
Thanks for the post. That Pastor is fabulous. And he’s basically saying what I’ve repeatedly said on these threads. Science is science and faith is faith. And our faith is really not blind it’s based upon a rich history of strong evidence. As the Pastor puts it: “Eye witness accounts, 66 books almost 2000 years and over 23,000 archeological digs to back it all up.”
But you waste your time posting this on T Nation. The non-believers will not suddenly become believers because of this video. You are simply casting your pearls before swine. They will continue to be blinded by their over blown ego’s and ultimately their own ignorance. And a good verse for them is from Philippians.
Philippians 3:19 Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things.
[/quote]
Science is a faith in so far as believing breathing oxygen keeps us alive; there is PROOF of scientific validity. There is no PROOF other than abstract BELIEF in religion. If you try and refute this I can’t try and convince you that evidence is evidence…it would be relatively pointless.
[/quote]
Just as it’s pointless to explain to you how confused you are about the word “him” as it is referenced in the Bible regarding God.
And you’re all wet about it being an “abstract belief”. It is no more abstract than any other part of history where evidence is offered up and a logical conclusion is drawn.
Science is science and faith is faith… [/quote]
Sorry…apparently satirical projections of christian misogyny are over your head…and I love the fact you’re justifying religious beliefs with logic…seriously I lol’ed a bit.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The Holy Ghost was such a kidder right?
[/quote]
No, women are not to be in the priesthood and women are to wear veils to Mass or Divine Liturgy.[/quote]
Can you provide any reasonable argument why women aren’t suitable for the priesthood and must wear uniforms to pray where as men do not? WITHOUT using the excuse that it is the word of god and without insulting women?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The Holy Ghost was such a kidder right?
[/quote]
No, women are not to be in the priesthood and women are to wear veils to Mass or Divine Liturgy.[/quote]
Can you provide any reasonable argument why women aren’t suitable for the priesthood and must wear uniforms to pray where as men do not? WITHOUT using the excuse that it is the word of god and without insulting women?[/quote]
Yes, but first answer me this (it pertains to the answer I’ll give), when did I say women have to wear uniforms to pray?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The Holy Ghost was such a kidder right?
[/quote]
No, women are not to be in the priesthood and women are to wear veils to Mass or Divine Liturgy.[/quote]
Can you provide any reasonable argument why women aren’t suitable for the priesthood and must wear uniforms to pray where as men do not? WITHOUT using the excuse that it is the word of god and without insulting women?[/quote]
Yes, but first answer me this (it pertains to the answer I’ll give), when did I say women have to wear uniforms to pray?[/quote]
“women are to wear veils to mass or Divine Liturgy” when a it is required of a people to wear a particular piece or pieces of clothing in order for them to engage in a social act (work, etc.,) that I’d qualify as a uniform. Do you disagree? I suppose my question is, why do women have to wear a certain piece of clothing in order for their prayers to count as men’s do?
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
God is without a sex, as I understand Him. You can use She if you prefer, I really do not care.
[/quote]
Actually this is incorrect. Well, I am not saying anything on the part you don’t care, but that we can say G-d is a She. G-d is masculine, that is why G-d is referred to in the masculine. Humans and creation are feminine (like Eve from Adam, and the Church from Christ) in nature.[/quote]
I note that we start life biologically female, and laugh at your arrogance. You can’t have the ultimate creator feminine, that would just be atrocious.
Belief in God is blind faith. That’s all you’ve got. You can’t prove his existance and you can’t disprove it. Your faith is amazing, but it is faith.[/quote]
Five proofs of G-d:
The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence â?? which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.[/quote]
Are you fucking high? You wrote all that, most of which is some permutation or the other of a first cause? In an eternal universe, there is no first cause. Now what?
Last time I made an attempt to show forth the high glorious and indispensable role of women in God’s kingdom it was hijacked into an abhorrent attempt to justify rank whoredom in the name of Jesus so I’ll leave that for now. I will say though (again) that I do not believe that gender applies to God the way it does to us. In the beginning He created them in His image and likeness male and female and called their name Adam (man in the Hebrew, same word)(Genesis 3).
I see the 2 sexes in scripture as together completing the image of God in man which is exemplified in the holy marriage of a man and his wife as instituted in the garden before sin and which in turn reflects the covenant love of Christ for His church (Ephesians 5:22 -->)
God does however refer to Himself everywhere in the masculine and therefore so do I not daring to presume to improve upon His own language.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Last time I made an attempt to show forth the high glorious and indispensable role of women in God’s kingdom it was hijacked into an abhorrent attempt to justify rank whoredom in the name of Jesus so I’ll leave that for now. I will say though (again) that I do not believe that gender applies to God the way it does to us. In the beginning He created them in His image and likeness male and female and called their name Adam (man in the Hebrew, same word)(Genesis 3). I see the 2 sexes in scripture as together completing the image of God in man which is exemplified in the holy marriage of a man and his wife as instituted in the garden before sin and which in turn reflects the covenant love of Christ for His church (Ephesians 5:22 -->)
God does however refer to Himself everywhere in the masculine and therefore so do I not daring to presume to improve upon His own language.[/quote]
You just can’t see the symbolism right before you eyes can you? It must be pretty easy to sell you a car sir. And, you’re still “doing the devil’s work” here.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
God is without a sex, as I understand Him. You can use She if you prefer, I really do not care.
Larger than our entire universe is how I think of Him, He is larger, bigger and better than what we can wrap our insufficient minds around. We can NOT understand what His plans are, for me or the world. Plus did I use the word ignorant? Pretty sure I only loosely quoted the pastor shrug
edit I did use the word ignorant but I was also loosely quoting the Pastor, my bad if you took it the wrong way. This is an example of how I often fail at transcribing the words I intend to say ; ) Hopefully, no offense taken.
[quote]Mackk wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
In my mind you can NOT define God because that would limit and quantify the abilities of Him, someone who is larger than our whole universe.
[quote]Mackk wrote:
Just a quick question, please define for me ‘god’ and then explain, based on this definition, why YOU believe it is ignorant to deny the existence of god.[/quote]
[/quote]
Well you’ve already defined as a singular being and male by referring to it as ‘him’. What do you mean by larger? and again…why is it ignorant to not believe in a singular male god?[/quote]
[/quote]
Thanks for the vid.
I don’t think that most people demand “the scientific method” to be applied to the case of the bible. Or if they do, they’re talking loosely about the burden of proof + standard of evidence required rather than lab testing. Most people talk about the problem of evidence when speaking of the bible.
It is pretty disingenuous for the guy not to mention any of the specifics of the 23,000 archeological digs. What did these digs show? Also, sentences like “2000 years” doesn’t really achieve anything - 2000 years of what? 2000 years of people believing in christ’s divinity? Fair enough. That’s no evidence for it actually happening though.
Also, all of his prophetic proofs and logic can be applied to the koran. [/quote]
Just google man, it doesn’t get any easier than that. If you want the truth it’s out there. But with that said anything can be picked apart that’s what human beings do.
Here’s only a fraction of the amount of evidence which demonstrates the validity of the Bible.
Apologies for replying so late, your site just sent me an alert telling me there had been a reply.
In any case, I’m sure you can understand my confusion about your intentions: this is a religious site setup to discuss the Bible from a Christian perspective. For example, as I write this, there is a link to an article entitled “Jesus Christ is the Fulfillment of Prophecy” in which you use a common trick of circular logic: you use the Bible to try and prove the Bible is true. (BTW, the fundamental flaw in that argument comes from here “Additionally, He would be connected to the lineage of King David, who was from the tribe of Judah.” JOSEPH was from the line of David, but JOSEPH wasn’t Jesus’ father, was he?) Why would I think this article is any different?
But, I see where my confusion crept in. Your article starts from a false premise: “the Old and New Testament writings of the Bible have long been considered fables and mythsÃ?¢??thereby, deemed untrustworthy. For some critics, if you cannot prove something with empirical evidence, it is not to be taken seriously.”
That’s absolutely not true (the “considered myths” bit, not the “empirical evidence” bit). Even the devoutest atheist understands that the Bible is a collection of stories passed down through generations. We get that there is a lot in the Bible that his historically accurate, but also find the fantastical bits are hard to swallow. We believe that there was a man named Joshua who conquered the Canaanites, and started that campaign by destroying the city of Jericho. We do NOT believe, however, that there was a supernatural component to it. The STORY was made into a myth by the addition of the supernatural, but the act and historical event were not myths.
If you want to see how people can believe the veracity of the Bible in a historical context and not a supernatural one, I HIGHLY recommend Battles BC on the History Channel. The season’s over, but you might be able to catch a rerun, or you can buy the DVDs. The stories of Joshua, Moses and David are all covered in detail from a historical and archeological perspective. "
In addition, there are many other recounts of the past from different religions, such as the Aztecs, which involve mention of supernatural dieties’ influence on real events. These deities are not the god discussed above, yet the documents are verified recounts of historical events. Do you believe in the Atzec gods because their ancestors recounts of historical events mention the gods influence? [/quote]
Yeah, I’ve read similar responses before on this site many times in past debates over the years. When someone posts something from a religious site it’s as if it doesn’t count. Yet, when one wants information about museums he would in fact contact an entity affiliated with museums. If you want to know about Baseball certainly get on a good baseball site. But when it comes to something like biblical archeologial digs by all means DO NOT use any sort of religious affiliated sites that have studied or been involved with those digs…they MUST be biased. Funny stuff. Like I said human beings find a position and then work like the devil (no pun intended) to defend it. No problem.
Hey, I’m not going to convince anyone as I said you can pick apart anything that I post. So go for it.
But I am going to make a hard and fast rule that I’m not going to post back and forth with anyone regarding the Bible who has not actually read the entire Bible. I just don’t consider those people serious. Atheists are usually (not always) young males full of testosterone and head strong. They KNOW there is no God. Anyway the Bible is pretty much the only book that people feel they can critique and pick apart without having actually read it.
Not that I am accusing you or anyone else of not having read the Bible but as I said from this point forward I want to know.
Very interesting, to say the least! I enjoyed how he talks about people who claim to believe in science rather than God. In reality those people are being simply ignorant. Dr. Voddie Baucham Jr. talks about how the Bible never asks for blind faith. People often ask for the Bible to be proven on these boards! but even history can NOT be proven with the scientific method. He is a pastor of the Grace Family Baptist Church, so you all know = ][/quote]
Thanks for the post. That Pastor is fabulous. And he’s basically saying what I’ve repeatedly said on these threads. Science is science and faith is faith. And our faith is really not blind it’s based upon a rich history of strong evidence. As the Pastor puts it: “Eye witness accounts, 66 books almost 2000 years and over 23,000 archeological digs to back it all up.”
But you waste your time posting this on T Nation. The non-believers will not suddenly become believers because of this video. You are simply casting your pearls before swine. They will continue to be blinded by their over blown ego’s and ultimately their own ignorance. And a good verse for them is from Philippians.
Philippians 3:19 Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things.
[/quote]
Science is a faith in so far as believing breathing oxygen keeps us alive; there is PROOF of scientific validity. There is no PROOF other than abstract BELIEF in religion. If you try and refute this I can’t try and convince you that evidence is evidence…it would be relatively pointless.
[/quote]
Just as it’s pointless to explain to you how confused you are about the word “him” as it is referenced in the Bible regarding God.
And you’re all wet about it being an “abstract belief”. It is no more abstract than any other part of history where evidence is offered up and a logical conclusion is drawn.
Science is science and faith is faith… [/quote]
Sorry…apparently satirical projections of christian misogyny are over your head…and I love the fact you’re justifying religious beliefs with logic…seriously I lol’ed a bit.[/quote]
This coming from someone who doesn’t understand the word “abstract” or how the masculine tense is used in the Bible. Have you read the Bible junior? Or, are you getting all your information from one of your college profs?
I love T Nation, where else can you find 20 year old experts?
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
God is without a sex, as I understand Him. You can use She if you prefer, I really do not care.
Larger than our entire universe is how I think of Him, He is larger, bigger and better than what we can wrap our insufficient minds around. We can NOT understand what His plans are, for me or the world. Plus did I use the word ignorant? Pretty sure I only loosely quoted the pastor shrug
edit I did use the word ignorant but I was also loosely quoting the Pastor, my bad if you took it the wrong way. This is an example of how I often fail at transcribing the words I intend to say ; ) Hopefully, no offense taken.
[quote]Mackk wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
In my mind you can NOT define God because that would limit and quantify the abilities of Him, someone who is larger than our whole universe.
[quote]Mackk wrote:
Just a quick question, please define for me ‘god’ and then explain, based on this definition, why YOU believe it is ignorant to deny the existence of god.[/quote]
[/quote]
Well you’ve already defined as a singular being and male by referring to it as ‘him’. What do you mean by larger? and again…why is it ignorant to not believe in a singular male god?[/quote]
[/quote]
Thanks for the vid.
I don’t think that most people demand “the scientific method” to be applied to the case of the bible. Or if they do, they’re talking loosely about the burden of proof + standard of evidence required rather than lab testing. Most people talk about the problem of evidence when speaking of the bible.
It is pretty disingenuous for the guy not to mention any of the specifics of the 23,000 archeological digs. What did these digs show? Also, sentences like “2000 years” doesn’t really achieve anything - 2000 years of what? 2000 years of people believing in christ’s divinity? Fair enough. That’s no evidence for it actually happening though.
Also, all of his prophetic proofs and logic can be applied to the koran. [/quote]
Just google man, it doesn’t get any easier than that. If you want the truth it’s out there. But with that said anything can be picked apart that’s what human beings do.
Here’s only a fraction of the amount of evidence which demonstrates the validity of the Bible.
Apologies for replying so late, your site just sent me an alert telling me there had been a reply.
In any case, I’m sure you can understand my confusion about your intentions: this is a religious site setup to discuss the Bible from a Christian perspective. For example, as I write this, there is a link to an article entitled “Jesus Christ is the Fulfillment of Prophecy” in which you use a common trick of circular logic: you use the Bible to try and prove the Bible is true. (BTW, the fundamental flaw in that argument comes from here “Additionally, He would be connected to the lineage of King David, who was from the tribe of Judah.” JOSEPH was from the line of David, but JOSEPH wasn’t Jesus’ father, was he?) Why would I think this article is any different?
But, I see where my confusion crept in. Your article starts from a false premise: “the Old and New Testament writings of the Bible have long been considered fables and mythsÃ??Ã?¢??thereby, deemed untrustworthy. For some critics, if you cannot prove something with empirical evidence, it is not to be taken seriously.”
That’s absolutely not true (the “considered myths” bit, not the “empirical evidence” bit). Even the devoutest atheist understands that the Bible is a collection of stories passed down through generations. We get that there is a lot in the Bible that his historically accurate, but also find the fantastical bits are hard to swallow. We believe that there was a man named Joshua who conquered the Canaanites, and started that campaign by destroying the city of Jericho. We do NOT believe, however, that there was a supernatural component to it. The STORY was made into a myth by the addition of the supernatural, but the act and historical event were not myths.
If you want to see how people can believe the veracity of the Bible in a historical context and not a supernatural one, I HIGHLY recommend Battles BC on the History Channel. The season’s over, but you might be able to catch a rerun, or you can buy the DVDs. The stories of Joshua, Moses and David are all covered in detail from a historical and archeological perspective. "
In addition, there are many other recounts of the past from different religions, such as the Aztecs, which involve mention of supernatural dieties’ influence on real events. These deities are not the god discussed above, yet the documents are verified recounts of historical events. Do you believe in the Atzec gods because their ancestors recounts of historical events mention the gods influence? [/quote]
Yeah, I’ve read similar responses before on this site many times in past debates over the years. When someone posts something from a religious site it’s as if it doesn’t count. Yet, when one wants information about museums he would in fact contact an entity affiliated with museums. If you want to know about Baseball certainly get on a good baseball site. But when it comes to something like biblical archeologial digs by all means DO NOT use any sort of religious affiliated sites that have studied or been involved with those digs…they MUST be biased. Funny stuff. Like I said human beings find a position and then work like the devil (no pun intended) to defend it. No problem.
Hey, I’m not going to convince anyone as I said you can pick apart anything that I post. So go for it.
But I am going to make a hard and fast rule that I’m not going to post back and forth with anyone regarding the Bible who has not actually read the entire Bible. I just don’t consider those people serious. Atheists are usually (not always) young males full of testosterone and head strong. They KNOW there is no God. Anyway the Bible is pretty much the only book that people feel they can critique and pick apart without having actually read it.
Not that I am accusing you or anyone else of not having read the Bible but as I said from this point forward I want to know. [/quote]
I’ve read most of the old testament (just not all of Numbers) numerous times (especially Psalms, Genesis, Proverbs, and the Song of Solomon more times than I can count), have memorized most of Romans and Hebrews, and a good portion of the gospels. All of this was under the instruction of the church, a woman who was raised by missionaries and her husband who studied theology, which led to a history lesson with just about every new chapter. To this day, I still think the parables are great and like reading the bible. However, I’ve come to accept that it’s a historical document written through the eyes of a people with a certain way of describing and justifying events they didn’t understand through the supernatural, the same way that all other ancient transcripts from different cultures are. As I mentioned (and this is one of thousands of examples), the Aztecs have documents of when the Spanish arrived, and these documents match real life events. However, the Aztecs state in these documents that their Gods warned them through omens of the Spanish’s arrival and that the Spanish were Gods. Many of the surrounding tribes converted to Christianity because they saw a God that was more blood-thirsty than their own, and thus was to be feared and respected more. At least, that’s what their recounts state. They also made numerous terrible war decisions because they were scared of the Spanish gods (as in, the spanish were gods, not they were scared of the gods of the spanish).
In light of the fact that nearly all cultures have historical recounts that match historical events, but are spun in a light that says their particular deity influenced those events, I don’t know why you would believe the Bible more or how stating that the Bible’s recount of historical events is accurate is proof of the Bible’s God. If that’s true, there are thousands of other gods we also need to pay attention to.
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< A typical neato self worshiping post >>>[/quote]If the God who is actually there has decided you are one of His you will be stunned to learn that nothing is about you and everything is about Him. See it’s like this. He’s God and we ain’t. Though we like to delude ourselves into believing that God must conform to us or be either wrong or non existent.
I do not joyously offer to God my most grateful, humble and adoring worship simply because He does for me. Though He does and I am unspeakably grateful. Or because He bows to my pitiful notions of love or justice. I worship Him because He is God and it is natural and right for men to recognize the derivate nature of their existence and render due glory to their creator. It is natural that is where sin does not dominate. In the garden of Eden and the hearts of the redeemed. Death in sin has made the unnatural natural wherein the creatures live in stiff necked rebellion against He to whom they owe their very existence.
[/quote]
You clearly don’t realize that not believing in God doesn’t make one think of themselves as more important; it makes them come to terms with the fact that they are not the specially chosen children of an all-powerful force who watches out for them.
Right now, you consider yourself more enlightened than me because you believe in God. You feel that he’s granted you a special place with him that I, unfortunately, haven’t chosen. Whether you admit to thinking this or not, that makes you superior to me and, in your mind, because he said so, deserving of better treatment than me.
I am simply proposing that no one is going to get special treatment in the end; we’re just going to turn into dust and not matter AT ALL. How is that conclusion self-worshiping?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Last time I made an attempt to show forth the high glorious and indispensable role of women in God’s kingdom it was hijacked into an abhorrent attempt to justify rank whoredom in the name of Jesus so I’ll leave that for now. I will say though (again) that I do not believe that gender applies to God the way it does to us. In the beginning He created them in His image and likeness male and female and called their name Adam (man in the Hebrew, same word)(Genesis 3).
I see the 2 sexes in scripture as together completing the image of God in man which is exemplified in the holy marriage of a man and his wife as instituted in the garden before sin and which in turn reflects the covenant love of Christ for His church (Ephesians 5:22 -->)
God does however refer to Himself everywhere in the masculine and therefore so do I not daring to presume to improve upon His own language.[/quote]
Well it turns out that there are 5 sexes in reality (male, female, none, and combinations) and more than 2 genders, so now what?