How the bible led me to.....

[QUOTE="FamiBox"]

I don't get this "ought" argument.

What does religion teach us we ought to do?

I could name some pretty crazy things.

GabuEx

Well, it obviously depends on the religion, but the overarching point is that the fundamental point of religion is to teach what one ought to do in life, not to teach objective facts about life. To give an example, at one point Jesus said not only that the two greatest commandments effectively were to love basically everything, but also that this principle sums up the entire Old Testament, which to me indicates as far away from a literal, factual interpretation as one can really get.

Yes that's very nice, but isn't that just cherry picking the nice bits of the bible and ignoring the nasty bits?

I mean, the bible tells us to do some pretty horrendous things too.

Yes that's very nice, but isn't that just cherry picking the nice bits of the bible and ignoring the nasty bits?

I mean, the bible tells us to do some pretty horrendous things too.

FamiBox

Sure, if one takes all of the Old Testament to be a collection of universal rules as opposed to instructions given to a different people in a radically different time that is no longer in existence. I don't, and frankly I don't think Jesus did either. Heck, one of the biggest things that Jesus did during his time (and almost assuredly one of the things that contributed to certain people deciding that he needs to go) was to stick it to the religious establishment every occasion he could and to strongly oppose the prevailing rules about purity and segregation with which he obviously did not agree. He was not exactly a terribly good friend to orthodoxy.

And none of this is really relevant, either, to the point that religion and science are not necessarily in conflict because religion and science are fundamentally (except perhaps for the interpretation of fundamentalist preachers) dealing with different and disjoint things.

Hmm...well the Bible leads me away from Islam. To each his own.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="FamiBox"]

Yes that's very nice, but isn't that just cherry picking the nice bits of the bible and ignoring the nasty bits?

I mean, the bible tells us to do some pretty horrendous things too.

GabuEx

Sure, if one takes all of the Old Testament to be a collection of universal rules as opposed to instructions given to a different people in a radically different time that is no longer in existence. I don't, and frankly I don't think Jesus did either. Heck, one of the biggest things that Jesus did during his time (and almost assuredly one of the things that contributed to certain people deciding that he needs to go) was to stick it to the religious establishment every occasion he could and to strongly oppose the prevailing rules about purity and segregation with which he obviously did not agree. He was not exactly a terribly good friend to orthodoxy.

And none of this is really relevant, either, to the point that religion and science are not necessarily in conflict because religion and science are fundamentally (except perhaps for the interpretation of fundamentalist preachers) dealing with different and disjoint things.

Can I just ask. Where do you think non-religious people get their morals from?

It is morals you are talking about way you say "ought" right?

I would say religion isn't necessary at all to have morals. We have the golden rule. Surely it is part of our evolution that makes us moral. We don't do harm to others because we don't want harm brought upon ourselves, we make people happy because we like to be made happy, etc.

I just don't see why religion is necessary at all.

This thread seems to have deviated from its original post awfully quickly...

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="FamiBox"]

Fine then. The flying Spaghetti monster exists cos I say so.

mfp16

You just proved my point. Someone didn't randomly say "Oh, Hey, God's a Cool name for a Being that is Infinite" (Writes Bible with Friends) :|

The Bible is God's progressive revelation to mankind with the central figure being the true living God, revealed in Jesus Christ the Messiah. Understanding the truths it reveals and applying them to our lives and beliefs is the most important thing we will ever do in our lives. We can ignore it, disbelieve it, or pretend it isn't true, but we cannot change it. Our opinion of the truth of the Bible does not determine whether it is the truth or not.

The entire Bible is the inerrant, inspired, preserved, revelation from God of Himself, His interaction with and plan of salvation for His creation with Jesus Christ as the central revelation.

The Bible is composed of 66 separate books, written over approximately 1,600 years, by at least 40 distinct authors, from all walks of life, written in three different languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, on three different continents, all in perfect agreement and revealing a consistent message, the path to salvation in Jesus Christ. The Old Testament contains 39 books written from approximately 1500 to 400 BC, and the New Testament contains 27 books written from approximately 40 to 65 AD.

There is no other book that has ever come close to this remarkable achievement and wisdom. Try getting 40 people in the same room or on the same internet thread to agree on something and it will be clear that the Bible is God's inspired, inerrant, and preserved Word. It has been said, even by secular psychologists, that if one studies the Sermon on the Mount, in the 5th, 6th, and 7th chapters of Matthew, the excellence of the wisdom, guidance, and life lessons of the words and teachings of Jesus in just those verses, surpasses the totality of all advice ever written in the history of man by all psychologists and sociologists that ever lived. Many concede that if all the advice ever written by those experts were condensed down, into one document, the wisdom for living in Jesus' teachings would dwarf them in significance. This is overwhelming evidence for the divine inspiration and truth of the Bible as well as the divinity of Christ.

atheists have no prove that atheism is right. They mostly only focus on Christian's and not much els. far more in the world then just mono theism .

Science talks faith as well. Seems like every day Science changes its mind about some thing . You need faith to trust the science we have now is right.

People think cus you cant see or touch god he is not real. But i guess its like Dark matter you cant see , touch , smell or even taste it. yet they think its real .

dontshackzmii

Well said. Atheism requires faith as well, some say more faith than a belief in a Divine Creator. The difference in the two faiths is the object of the respective faith.

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door." Darwinist Richard Lewontin of Harvard University

"Now the real truth comes out. It's not that the evidence supports Darwinism—in fact, according to Lewontin and our own common sense, Darwinist explanations are "counterintuitive." The real truth is that the Darwinists have defined science in such a way that the only possible answer is Darwinism. Any other definition would, God forbid, allow God to get his "foot in the door"!" Source: I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist

[QUOTE="ushotdead"]

So you're saying you just believe those scientists? They publish a book and voila! It's suddenly fact? Couldn't you say the same thing for God and people claiming they've seen evidence of God and then publishing a book about it? (bible)

mfp16

Then show me the repeatable scientific, observable evidence that the universe self-created, or that life came from non-life, or that the language coded in DNA self-created.

The bible led me to atheism... I think that's probably a better story.mfp16

nah the bible led me to crusade for the holy land and slay all the infidels would make for much better family viewing

[QUOTE="ushotdead"]

So you're saying you just believe those scientists?

FamiBox

Scientific evidence is continually scrutinised by scientists themselves. It goes under incredible amounts of lengthy testing and demonstration before is is considered evidence.

It's not like scientists are some kind of cult, trying to prove a particular thing. The evidence leads them to conclusion, not the other way round (like religion.)

*cough, cough* global warming climate gate, lucy, piltdown man, nebraska man, Haeckel's embryos.

People often use the term science as an umbrella without making a distinction between practical science and the pseudo science of origins.

There is no other book that has ever come close to this remarkable achievement and wisdom. Try getting 40 people in the same room or on the same internet thread to agree on something and it will be clear that the Bible is God's inspired, inerrant, and preserved Word.blackregiment

Atheism requires faith as wellblackregiment

[QUOTE="mfp16"][QUOTE="ushotdead"]

I'm saying I believe in both.

danwallacefan

But moving on, to say that the only things that we can be certain of or even reasonably certain of are things that we can perceive is, well, absurd.

Well said. Atheism requires faith as well, some say more faith than a belief in a Divine Creator. The difference in the two faiths is the object of the respective faith.

blackregiment

Will we compare everything that encompasses even an ounce of faith with a religion; for which religion faith is not just something it encompasses but a major parametre?

[QUOTE="FamiBox"]

[QUOTE="ushotdead"]

So you're saying you just believe those scientists?

blackregiment

Scientific evidence is continually scrutinised by scientists themselves. It goes under incredible amounts of lengthy testing and demonstration before is is considered evidence.

It's not like scientists are some kind of cult, trying to prove a particular thing. The evidence leads them to conclusion, not the other way round (like religion.)

*cough, cough* global warming climate gate, lucy, piltdown man, nebraska man, Haeckel's embryos.

People often use the term science as an umbrella without making a distinction between practical science and the pseudo science of origins.

Hello. Science makes mistakes and is always improving. Some things turn out to be wrong, and mistakes are corrected.

Religion however just says "It's like this" and then tries to squirm around every gap science continues to fill in.

All three of the major monotheistic religions share the belief in God (the same god actually). I've never understood the need for religion on a personal level, but when squillions of people have been killing eachother for millenia because they believe in basically the same thing is way beyond me...eeejits.

Christian/Muslim/Jew = all the same to me tbh, they are just rehashes of eachother (obviously judaism is the oldest but you get what i mean).

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="FamiBox"]

Scientific evidence is continually scrutinised by scientists themselves. It goes under incredible amounts of lengthy testing and demonstration before is is considered evidence.

It's not like scientists are some kind of cult, trying to prove a particular thing. The evidence leads them to conclusion, not the other way round (like religion.)

FamiBox

*cough, cough* global warming climate gate, lucy, piltdown man, nebraska man, Haeckel's embryos.

People often use the term science as an umbrella without making a distinction between practical science and the pseudo science of origins.

Hello. Science makes mistakes and is always improving. Some things turn out to be wrong, and mistakes are corrected.

Religion however just says "It's like this" and then tries to squirm around every gap science continues to fill in.

Not in my view of religion. I think it would really depend on the religion and whom you talk to. You can not say religion iteself "squirms around every gap science continues to fill in" because there are many different religions out there. There are people though that have their own religiousbeliefs and will try and do this, but there are also many who have religious beliefs that love Science and will not try and squirm around anything. Personally I am religious and I am also very open minded to anything I learn. I happen to loveboth Science andGod.

What examples do you have of someone who is religious squirming aroundScience? I'm just interested my friend.

[QUOTE="FamiBox"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

*cough, cough* global warming climate gate, lucy, piltdown man, nebraska man, Haeckel's embryos.

People often use the term science as an umbrella without making a distinction between practical science and the pseudo science of origins.

stepnkev

Hello. Science makes mistakes and is always improving. Some things turn out to be wrong, and mistakes are corrected.

Religion however just says "It's like this" and then tries to squirm around every gap science continues to fill in.

Not in my view of religion. I think it would really depend on the religion and whom you talk to. You can not say religion iteself "squirms around every gap science continues to fill in" because there are many different religions out there. There are people though that have their own religiousbeliefs and will try and do this, but there are also many who have religious beliefs that love Science and will not try and squirm around anything. Personally I am religious and I am also very open minded to anything I learn. I happen to loveboth Science andGod.

What examples do you have of someone who is religious squirming aroundScience? I'm just interested my friend.

Blackregiment believes evolution, global warming, age dating methods (and the list goes on) are all a big fat lie; and that belief of his of course is based on the information that he finds in the Bible which phenomenically contradict science.

And of course blackregiment isnt the only one.

What is amusing though is that whatever science does not mingle in Bible-issues, blackregiment considers science, while if science even dares to give an alternative response to what the Bible proposes, then he labels it as pseudo-science. I think its clear how he draws the line between the two and if that line is to betaken seriously.

[QUOTE="ushotdead"]

[QUOTE="mfp16"] you would like me to list the evidence I have seen about natural selection, evolution, the origins of the universe, and probably a million scientific topics? There probably isn't enough room to post all that sorry... I can however post the evidence I have seen that even suggests there is a god... it's none.mfp16

So I guess you know what humans looked like before eh? You saw them grow and adapt to their surroundings. And learn more efficient ways to live. You were there when the first speck of dust in space formed. Just as any christian was there when Jesus turned water into wine right?

One of the best evidences is the Resurrection.

The Bible testifies to the existence of over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ, many of whom gave their lives rather than recant what they knew was true because they had witnessed it with their own eyes.

How many eyewitnesses can you bring forth that were there during that period and state that Christ was not resurrected?

How many eyewitnesses can you bring forth during the period of the alleged early evolution of man that testify to its truth?

The resurrection of Christ is one of the best evidenced events in all of antiquity as those that have researched the issue have found. Here is one example.

"Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection — Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:

"it was impossible that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus Christ actually risen from the dead. . . ."
(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).

Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of ancient history!

And not only that, Dr. Greenleaf was so convinced by the overwhelming evidence, he committed his life to Jesus Christ!" Source: Evidence That Demands a Verdict.

[QUOTE="stepnkev"]

[QUOTE="FamiBox"]

Hello. Science makes mistakes and is always improving. Some things turn out to be wrong, and mistakes are corrected.

Religion however just says "It's like this" and then tries to squirm around every gap science continues to fill in.

Teenaged

Not in my view of religion. I think it would really depend on the religion and whom you talk to. You can not say religion iteself "squirms around every gap science continues to fill in" because there are many different religions out there. There are people though that have their own religiousbeliefs and will try and do this, but there are also many who have religious beliefs that love Science and will not try and squirm around anything. Personally I am religious and I am also very open minded to anything I learn. I happen to loveboth Science andGod.

What examples do you have of someone who is religious squirming aroundScience? I'm just interested my friend.

Blackregiment believes evolution, global warming, age dating methods (and the list goes on) are all a big fat lie; and that belief of his of course is based on the information that he finds in the Bible which phenomenically contradict science.

Ah, I see

I'll just let the debating carry on then :P

[QUOTE="mfp16"][QUOTE="ushotdead"]

So I guess you know what humans looked like before eh? You saw them grow and adapt to their surroundings. And learn more efficient ways to live. You were there when the first speck of dust in space formed. Just as any christian was there when Jesus turned water into wine right?

blackregiment

One of the best evidences is the Resurrection.

The Bible testifies to the existence of over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ, many of whom gave their lives rather than recant what they knew was true because they had witnessed it with their own eyes.

How many eyewitnesses can you bring forth that were there during that period and state that Christ was not resurrected?

How many eyewitnesses can you bring forth during the period of the alleged early evolution of man that testify to its truth?

The resurrection of Christ is one of the best evidenced events in all of antiquity as those that have researched the issue have found. Here is one example.

"Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection — Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:

"it was impossible that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus Christ actually risen from the dead. . . ."
(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).

Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of ancient history!

And not only that, Dr. Greenleaf was so convinced by the overwhelming evidence, he committed his life to Jesus Christ!" Source: Evidence That Demands a Verdict.

EDIT: And I guess the story of an individual (Dr, Greenleaf [Legolas hehe]) that was convinced by the "evidence" ( = speculations and assumptions) is proof enough that the evidence is indeed evidence...

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="mfp16"] why is acceptable to choose parts of the "whole book" that are acceptable and parts that are not... who gets to choose the validity of statements?mfp16

Actually, there have been hundreds of archaeological discoveries that confirm people, places, and events recorded in the Bible and not one that has disproved the historical recording of people, places, or events recorded in the Bible. The Bible is an extremely accurate historical record.

[QUOTE="mfp16"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] Its not like you either accept the entire book as infallible or completely dismiss it out of hand, you have to take individual parts and determine if they are reliable, that's how history works.

blackregiment

Actually, there have been hundreds of archaeological discoveries that confirm people, places, and events recorded in the Bible and not one that has disproved the historical recording of people, places, or events recorded in the Bible. The Bible is an extremely accurate historical record.

But that sort of lack of counter-evidence is never and never will be the "material"/base for "extremely accurate historical records".

So perhaps absence of evidence doesnt equate to evidence of absence but historical records do not abide by that.

Hmm. I'm not that qualified to give an in-depth opinion on this. But from what I've read of the Koran the coresponding characters in the OT seem a lot more believable. In shared stories (like Abraham) the Torah depicts doubt, rbellion, as well as faith. While all their coresponding characters in the Koran show perfect obedience. alphamale1989

That's actually a proof of the truth of the Bible. The Bible records the failings of even the people of faith. It does not try to hide their failings and weaknesses. The Bible does not present an account of man, even those with faith, as a recount of perfect saints, it reveals the fallen state of man including, their imperfections, and their need for a Savior.

The Bible is God's progressive revelation to mankind with the central figure being the true living God, revealed in Jesus Christ the Messiah.

In the Old Testament

The books of Law reveal the foundation for Christ the Messiah

The historical books reveal the preparation for Christ the Messiah

The poetic books aspire to Christ the Messiah

The books of prophecy reveal the expectation of Christ the Messiah

In the New Testament

The Gospels reveal the historical manifestation of Christ the Messiah

The Acts reveal the propagation of Christ the messiah

The Epistles reveal the interpretation of Christ the Messiah

Revelation reveals the consummation of all things in Christ the Messiah

God has not revealed His entire plan and everything regarding the natural world to man. Man could not possibly comprehend it with our finite mind. He has revealed what He, as our Creator, wants us to know.

The Bible is boring, text was changed through generations to fit certain theories.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]There is no other book that has ever come close to this remarkable achievement and wisdom. Try getting 40 people in the same room or on the same internet thread to agree on something and it will be clear that the Bible is God's inspired, inerrant, and preserved Word.Hewkii

...and your statement confirms the point I was making. Getting 40 people together from differing backgrounds. writing in different periods and places, and getting their message to agree, as the authors God used to write the books of the Bible did, is next to impossible, yet this is exactly what the Bible reveals in their revelations of Christ the Messiah.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]Atheism requires faith as wellsmc91352

An agnostic has faith in their belief that the existence of God cannot be known. An atheist has faith in their belief that God does not exist. Both require faith.

[QUOTE="smc91352"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]Atheism requires faith as wellblackregiment

No faith is required. :| I think you are referring to gnostics.[spoiler] also, agnostics may also refer to groups ignorant of the concept of a god and are therefore agnostics [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="mfp16"] Its not like you either accept the entire book as infallible or completely dismiss it out of hand, you have to take individual parts and determine if they are reliable, that's how history works.

Actually, there have been hundreds of archaeological discoveries that confirm people, places, and events recorded in the Bible and not one that has disproved the historical recording of people, places, or events recorded in the Bible. The Bible is an extremely accurate historical record.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="mfp16"] well, I see concrete evidence of the evolution of man, but none for Jesus turning water into wine...Teenaged

One of the best evidences is the Resurrection.

The Bible testifies to the existence of over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ, many of whom gave their lives rather than recant what they knew was true because they had witnessed it with their own eyes.

How many eyewitnesses can you bring forth that were there during that period and state that Christ was not resurrected?

How many eyewitnesses can you bring forth during the period of the alleged early evolution of man that testify to its truth?

The resurrection of Christ is one of the best evidenced events in all of antiquity as those that have researched the issue have found. Here is one example.

"Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection — Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:

"it was impossible that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus Christ actually risen from the dead. . . ."
(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).

Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of ancient history!

And not only that, Dr. Greenleaf was so convinced by the overwhelming evidence, he committed his life to Jesus Christ!" Source: Evidence That Demands a Verdict.

I beg to differ.

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;

1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures:

1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one

Luk 24:33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,

Luk 24:34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.

Luk 24:35 And they told what things weredone in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

Luk 24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

Luk 24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

Luk 24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

Luk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Luk 24:40 And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet.

Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Act 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Act 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

2Pe 1:17 For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

2Pe 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

One of the best evidences is the Resurrection.

The Bible testifies to the existence of over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ, many of whom gave their lives rather than recant what they knew was true because they had witnessed it with their own eyes.

How many eyewitnesses can you bring forth that were there during that period and state that Christ was not resurrected?

How many eyewitnesses can you bring forth during the period of the alleged early evolution of man that testify to its truth?

The resurrection of Christ is one of the best evidenced events in all of antiquity as those that have researched the issue have found. Here is one example.

"Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection — Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:

"it was impossible that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus Christ actually risen from the dead. . . ."
(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).

Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of ancient history!

And not only that, Dr. Greenleaf was so convinced by the overwhelming evidence, he committed his life to Jesus Christ!" Source: Evidence That Demands a Verdict.

blackregiment

I beg to differ.

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;

1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures:

1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one

Luk 24:33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,

Luk 24:34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.

Luk 24:35 And they told what things weredone in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

Luk 24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

Luk 24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

Luk 24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

Luk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Luk 24:40 And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet.

Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Act 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Act 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

2Pe 1:17 For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

2Pe 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="mfp16"] that is fine if you are using it as a historical record (a pretty poor one at that but I will indulge you) rather than a "spiritual" (whatever that word truly means in reality) guide to live by.Teenaged

Actually, there have been hundreds of archaeological discoveries that confirm people, places, and events recorded in the Bible and not one that has disproved the historical recording of people, places, or events recorded in the Bible. The Bible is an extremely accurate historical record.

But that sort of lack of counter-evidence is never and never will be the "material"/base for "extremely accurate historical records".

So perhaps absence of evidence doesnt equate to evidence of absence but historical records do not abide by that.

Somehow, your suggestion that the hundreds and hundreds of archaeological discoveries that confirm the historical accuracy of the Bible, still don't support the assertion that the Bible is very historically accurate, brings this type of hope and faith to mind....:)

It's all a matter of perspective, worldview, and the object of our faith.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Actually, there have been hundreds of archaeological discoveries that confirm people, places, and events recorded in the Bible and not one that has disproved the historical recording of people, places, or events recorded in the Bible. The Bible is an extremely accurate historical record.

blackregiment

But that sort of lack of counter-evidence is never and never will be the "material"/base for "extremely accurate historical records".

So perhaps absence of evidence doesnt equate to evidence of absence but historical records do not abide by that.

Somehow, your suggestion that the hundreds and hundreds of archaeological discoveries that confirm the historical accuracy of the Bible, still don't support the assertion that the Bible is very historically accurate, brings this type of hope and faith to mind....:)

It's all a matter of perspective, worldview, and the object of our faith.

Just because a book does include some actual places and some actual people doesnt mean that all the info to be found in it is accurate and truthful. I dont know if there's a name for this fallacy but it deffinitely needs one since it occurs so often in these types of threads.

For example the stories of the Trojan war do actually refer to an existing city and a war that occurred most likely but the actual events described in those stories and the "mythos" around it arent proven to be true just because Troy existed and a war did occur.

If that were true, then the Ancient Greek gods exist!

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]The Bible doesnt "bring forth" eyewitnesses, blackregiment. It just records that those eyewitnesses exist. That doesnt constitute "bringing forth" but "claiming". Huge difference.

Teenaged

I beg to differ.

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;

1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures:

1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

1Co 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one

Luk 24:33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,

Luk 24:34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.

Luk 24:35 And they told what things weredone in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

Luk 24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

Luk 24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

Luk 24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

Luk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Luk 24:40 And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet.

Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Act 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Act 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

2Pe 1:17 For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

2Pe 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

You claimed in essence that the Bible did not "bring forth eyewitnesses to the resurrection" and I simply showed that actually, it does.

You claimed in essence that the Bible did not "bring forth eyewitnesses to the resurrection" and I simply showed that actually, it does.

blackregiment

Thats how I distance it from "claim"; thats what the Bible does. It claims that witnesses exist.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Well sure no finding has disproven events in the Bible, in the same sense that it cant be disproven that a giant tea pot is in orbit around the moon.

But that sort of lack of counter-evidence is never and never will be the "material"/base for "extremely accurate historical records".

So perhaps absence of evidence doesnt equate to evidence of absence but historical records do not abide by that.

Teenaged

Somehow, your suggestion that the hundreds and hundreds of archaeological discoveries that confirm the historical accuracy of the Bible, still don't support the assertion that the Bible is very historically accurate, brings this type of hope and faith to mind....:)

It's all a matter of perspective, worldview, and the object of our faith.

Just because a book does include some actual places and some actual people doesnt mean that all the info to be found in it is accurate and truthful. I dont know if there's a name for this fallacy but it deffinitely needs one since it occurs so often in these types of threads.

For example the stories of the Trojan war do actually refer to an existing city and a war that occurred most likely but the actual events described in those stories and the "mythos" around it arent proven to be true just because Troy existed and a war did occur.

If that were true, then the Ancient Greek gods exist!

Now you made me think of this. :)

It's all a matter of worldview, perspective, and the object of our respective faith.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Somehow, your suggestion that the hundreds and hundreds of archaeological discoveries that confirm the historical accuracy of the Bible, still don't support the assertion that the Bible is very historically accurate, brings this type of hope and faith to mind....:)

It's all a matter of perspective, worldview, and the object of our faith.

blackregiment

Just because a book does include some actual places and some actual people doesnt mean that all the info to be found in it is accurate and truthful. I dont know if there's a name for this fallacy but it deffinitely needs one since it occurs so often in these types of threads.

For example the stories of the Trojan war do actually refer to an existing city and a war that occurred most likely but the actual events described in those stories and the "mythos" around it arent proven to be true just because Troy existed and a war did occur.

If that were true, then the Ancient Greek gods exist!

Now you made me think of this. :)

It's all a matter of worldview, perspective, and the object of our respective faith.

Well sure no finding has disproven events in the Bible, in the same sense that it cant be disproven that a giant tea pot is in orbit around the moon.Teenaged

Now you made me think of this. :)

It's all a matter of worldview, perspective, and the object of our respective faith.

blackregiment

Apart from the fact that your rebuttal is a typical "NO U" response (throwing the accusation back at the opposition without first countering it), scientifc jouranls/books/theories and the whole scientific community doesnt work like the Bible or religion in general.

If scientists are throwing their old books away and bring new ones is actually in favor of them and that pic (minus the obvious directed implication it makes) is actually a compliment for science (even if the author of the sketch cannot fathom such a thing).

Realising ones mistakes and then correcting them is a very important thing blackregiment. Thats exactly what scientists do.

If God is the wildcard used to rid a book (or generally a collection of information) of the bad image change (wrongfully) has, then by all means use it but use it for your own convictions. Do not aspire such wildcards to be accepted by others.

Now you made me think of this. :)

It's all a matter of worldview, perspective, and the object of our respective faith.

blackregiment

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Now you made me think of this. :)

It's all a matter of worldview, perspective, and the object of our respective faith.

Teenaged

Do not aspire such wildcards to be accepted by others.

No one is telling you to believe aything different than you choose to believe. I simply defend why I believe what I believe. You, as well as anyone else, are always free to do the same.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Now you made me think of this. :)

It's all a matter of worldview, perspective, and the object of our respective faith.

blackregiment

Do not aspire such wildcards to be accepted by others.

No one is telling you to believe aything different than you choose to believe. I simply defend why I believe what I believe. You, as well as anyone else, are always free to do the same.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Now you made me think of this. :)

It's all a matter of worldview, perspective, and the object of our respective faith.

AirGuitarist87

I accept and understand the point you are making. That is why it is so important to consider all the evidence, even that which is often supressed by the scientific academy which questions the hypothesis of scientific naturalism. Remember, even Einstein used a fudge factor to try and avoid the conclusion that the universe is not eternal and had a beginning. Perhaps I should have used this illustration instead.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Oh wait, now I see your... "point".

Do not aspire such wildcards to be accepted by others.

Teenaged

No one is telling you to believe aything different than you choose to believe. I simply defend why I believe what I believe. You, as well as anyone else, are always free to do the same.

Sure and please let me know when you have done that with more than just an opinion, because as of yet I haven't seen that. :)

In fact, if anyone is interested in evidence that questions scientific naturalism, here is a thread with close to 300 articles that does just that.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/unions/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26358737&union_id=15346

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

No one is telling you to believe aything different than you choose to believe. I simply defend why I believe what I believe. You, as well as anyone else, are always free to do the same.

blackregiment

Sure and please let me know when you have done that with more than just an opinion, because as of yet I haven't seen that. :)

Surely much better than irrelevant and deprived from any proof value Bible verses or comical pics which deviate from the point. :)

Besides, blackregiment, if they were merely opinions, you would be able to easily counter them, no? But you didnt.... hm....

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]I believe I am also free to refute your beliefs and misconceptions, arent I?

Teenaged

Sure and please let me know when you have done that with more than just an opinion, because as of yet I haven't seen that. :)

Surely much better than irrelevant and deprived from any proof value Bible verses or comical pics which deviate from the point. :)

You must have missed this part. :)

In fact, if anyone is interested in evidence that questions scientific naturalism, here is a thread with close to 300 articles that does just that.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/unions/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26358737&union_id=15346

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Sure and please let me know when you have done that with more than just an opinion, because as of yet I haven't seen that. :)

blackregiment

Surely much better than irrelevant and deprived from any proof value Bible verses or comical pics which deviate from the point. :)

You must have missed this part. :)

In fact, if anyone is interested in evidence that questions scientific naturalism, here is a thread with close to 300 articles that does just that.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/unions/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26358737&union_id=15346

And here is another thread with interesting information supporting evolution: http://www.gamespot.com/pages/unions/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26855901&union_id=18142

So what now?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Sure and please let me know when you have done that with more than just an opinion, because as of yet I haven't seen that. :)

blackregiment

Surely much better than irrelevant and deprived from any proof value Bible verses or comical pics which deviate from the point. :)

You must have missed this part. :)

In fact, if anyone is interested in evidence that questions scientific naturalism, here is a thread with close to 300 articles that does just that.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/unions/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26358737&union_id=15346

Yeah we will read that, with articles that argue that the earth is only 10,000 years old.. GL trying to have a debate with sources like that.