The bible

[Continuum]

 

When there's hundreds of eyewitnesses around who will read your account, somebody's going to make sure you get the facts right, even if you don't have divine inspiration.

 

 

 

So by that reasoning, evolutionists have the facts right (considering its 95% or better of the scientific community who endorse evolution, which is a fair bit more than 'hundreds of eye witnesses'). I know this looks like I'm attacking your post, but the intention is purely to compare my point to yours (and yes, I know your post had nothing to do with evolution).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes. The scientists are right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

destroy anything which is contrary to love.

Forgive me for questioning the unquestionable god, but this sounds like a dictatorship to me, even if it is intended to maxamise something as pure as love.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're acting as if God was human, which he's not. If you want to see God as human, then compare Jesus with whoever. Let's say Jesus to a dictator. Who wins? I'd put my money on Jesus. Also, God created everything. Everything. I think he gets to decide what to do with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The one thing not possible is that everything happened by chance.

Not quite. Scientists find it to be very possible due to the undisputed fact that DNA nucleotide mispairing is random as are the possibilities of a beneficial or a detrimental outcome to that offspring organism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

True. But what created those nucleotides. Well, everything comes back to the Big Bang. What created the Big Bang? God. That's not me speaking, that's Saint Thomas Aquinas speaking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If god would want his word to be taken seriously, it makes me wonder why he didn't send some obvious heavanly prophet-like creature incarnate to do it. The idea of having human write something godly, no matter how so aparrantly inspired they were, is just fundamentally flawed in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He tried that. Ever heard of Adam and Eve? God was in some obvious heavenly prophet-like creature incarnate when he told them "Don't do that" and they went and did it. He also had angels with flaming swords. Didn't work.

[lordkrohn1626]

hehe, well speaking of the "magical divine created" incestuous couple Adam and Eve......hmmmmm isn't that one of the "Sins"? let's see one man and one woman created the world's population, that means father and daughter, mother and son or some version or such had to happen... *gag*

[jackalope14]

hehe, well speaking of the "magical divine created" incestuous couple Adam and Eve......hmmmmm isn't that one of the "Sins"? let's see one man and one woman created the world's population, that means father and daughter, mother and son or some version or such had to happen... *gag*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The rule against incest would have been established after the time of Adam and Eve wouldnt it?

[x_giva]

 

 

 

The one thing not possible is that everything happened by chance.

Not quite. Scientists find it to be very possible due to the undisputed fact that DNA nucleotide mispairing is random as are the possibilities of a beneficial or a detrimental outcome to that offspring organism.

You may have missed the point, sir. I said it is not possible fo Everything to happen by chance. Put it this way: If you spill ink on a paper 300 billion times, not once will you get a piece of modern literature.

[x_giva]

 

If god would want his word to be taken seriously, it makes me wonder why he didn't send some obvious heavanly prophet-like creature incarnate to do it. The idea of having human write something godly, no matter how so aparrantly inspired they were, is just fundamentally flawed in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He tried that. Ever heard of Adam and Eve? God was in some obvious heavenly prophet-like creature incarnate when he told them "Don't do that" and they went and did it. He also had angels with flaming swords. Didn't work.

 

 

 

Um.. no, after the 7th day of creation, G-d removed his obvious presence in the world, aside from a few special instances (splitting of the sea, etc..). However, in principle you are correct, but the question wasn't answered by that ( the bit w/ the angels).

[Defender2516]

God does not believe in Atheists, therefor Atheists do not exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Defender~

[Rebdragon]

God does not believe in Atheists, therefor Atheists do not exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Defender~

 

 

 

You can't make a proof like that where you're assuming p when you aren't sure that your p statement is true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

p being "God exists".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Besides, we already know your conclusion is false :-s . At least consciously anyways.

[Defender2516]

 

God does not believe in Atheists, therefor Atheists do not exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Defender~

 

 

 

You can't make a proof like that where you're assuming p when you aren't sure that your p statement is true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

p being "God exists".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Besides, we already know your conclusion is false :-s . At least consciously anyways.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RedDragon doesn't believe in my quote. Therefor, my quote does not exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Defender~

[x_giva]

 

 

God does not believe in Atheists, therefor Atheists do not exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Defender~

 

 

 

You can't make a proof like that where you're assuming p when you aren't sure that your p statement is true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

p being "God exists".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Besides, we already know your conclusion is false :-s . At least consciously anyways.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RedDragon doesn't believe in my quote. Therefor, my quote does not exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Defender~

 

 

 

you know, you're a funny person. What does it mean to "not believe in Atheists"? If G-d believed that pagans existed, why doesn't he believe that Atheists exist? You are making false conclusions, and/or being stupid (sometimes it's best to be blunt).

 

 

 

[in regards to Rebdragon] He believes your quote exists, all right, but he doesn't believe it's valid. Maybe that's why you're an atheist...

[Rebdragon]

1) It's "therefore".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) Do you know how proofs work?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3) I believe your quote exists. That's both making a false statement and accepting it as a conclusion at the same time.

[Celt23]

God does not believe in Atheists, therefor Atheists do not exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Defender~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We can see Atheists, and observe them, talk to them ect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But where's God?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A long time ago we used to think gods lived in trees, ponds ect but we started exploring our surroundings and then began to think the gods lived on mountains. Then we began to explore the mountains and found no gods.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then we started believing they lived in the sky, but our knowledge grew and found that preposterous. Now we got space probes poking around the far reaches of the solar system, and now think God is way out there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now we got telescopes looking at distant superclusters and quasars 13 billion light years away (which disproves young earth), and are smart enough to know that there's no gods.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Simply put: we cannot observe God, it's highly unlikely that such a being exists.

[Rebdragon]

^ Let's stay off "God" debates, prove his proof is illogical, and get back to talking about the Bible please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, your reasoning is also illogical Celt. What, just because people thousands of years ago couldn't view microorganisms nor see any proof of them affecting the world means that microorganisms don't exist? To them it would seem highly improbable that they existed, yet we know that they do, and know that they affect our life in an indefinite number of ways. For all we know, [a] God could be just like that.

[Defender2516]

When you can see my Spirit physically, you can see God, for he is Spirit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Defender~

[Celt23]

^ Let's stay off "God" debates, prove his proof is illogical, and get back to talking about the Bible please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, your reasoning is also illogical Celt. What, just because people thousands of years ago couldn't view microorganisms nor see any proof of them affecting the world means that microorganisms don't exist? To them it would seem highly improbable that they existed, yet we know that they do, and know that they affect our life in an indefinite number of ways. For all we know, [a] God could be just like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's exactly what this debate involves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So there was gods in ponds and trees back then? No. Just like I doubt there's a god ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[Celt23]

When you can see my Spirit physically, you can see God, for he is Spirit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Defender~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oky doky then. I sure can't see it.

[Rebdragon]

 

^ Let's stay off "God" debates, prove his proof is illogical, and get back to talking about the Bible please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, your reasoning is also illogical Celt. What, just because people thousands of years ago couldn't view microorganisms nor see any proof of them affecting the world means that microorganisms don't exist? To them it would seem highly improbable that they existed, yet we know that they do, and know that they affect our life in an indefinite number of ways. For all we know, [a] God could be just like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's exactly what this debate involves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So there was gods in ponds and trees back then? No. Just like I doubt there's a god ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

[Defender2516]

Science has proved Micro Organisms but not till this century, so they have existed ever since day 1 effecting people whether they knew they existed or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But it will most likely never get to the point where it can show spiritual proof.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Therefor, God is like a spirit micro organism. Who is always around, thus justifying the requirement of Faith.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So our current debate will always exist of those who do believe in him and those who do not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Defender~

[Celt23]

Science has proved Micro Organisms but not till this century, so they have existed ever since day 1 effecting people whether they knew they existed or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But it will most likely never get to the point where it can show spiritual proof.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Therefor, God is like a spirit micro organism. Who is always around, thus justifying the requirement of Faith.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So our current debate will always exist of those who do believe in him and those who do not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Defender~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spiritual proof has only been decreasing, whereas scientific proof (as in microorganisms) has only been increasing.

[warri0r45]

 

 

 

 

The one thing not possible is that everything happened by chance.

Not quite. Scientists find it to be very possible due to the undisputed fact that DNA nucleotide mispairing is random as are the possibilities of a beneficial or a detrimental outcome to that offspring organism.

You may have missed the point, sir. I said it is not possible fo Everything to happen by chance. Put it this way: If you spill ink on a paper 300 billion times, not once will you get a piece of modern literature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I suppose if you put all of the pieces of a broken watch in a bag and shaked it 300 billion times you could expect to get a watch according to evolution, right? This, your example and everything like it is so far from an evolutionary evironment that it's been beaten up time after time after time. Seriously, try not to compare the chance of electronic interactions between fundamental particles, atoms and compounds to form more complex molecular systems with spilling ink on a page and miraculously forming writing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Think about this: Carbon (arguably the basis of life) has four electrons which can bond with other elements to fill thier outer shell and therefore stabalise its own outer shell. Due to this fact, compounds of a carbonacious nature number more than those any other element. Have a look at protiens for a second. The possibility of making different protiens is just about unlimited (far beyond any cosmological number) even though there are a limited number of protiens that are actually synthesised in life. Why? Because not all possible protiens you can make will actually have a biological function, in any organism. So no doubt your probably wondering what the hell I'm getting at here. The point is that biological systems are all so purposeful and so direct and determined at replicating themselves (i.e. via reproduction) that organisms came to be formed out of an organic brine (I don't intend to be politically correct here). Comparing such systems with spilling ink on a page to demonstrate your point on chance is just plain wrong as the ink has no chemically natural reason or action required of it to form words on a page miraculously.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just in case you're all wondering how many different protiens are possible, I'll give explaining it a shot. A small protien is 50 amino acid sub units long (a conservative estimate compared to the majority of protiens in your body that are longer than this). If each of these 50 can be one of 20 basic amino acids, then you have the possibility of 20^50 different protiens (or 50^20, forgive me, my maths isn't as good as my science so I welcome you to correct me). Now compare this example to that of an average protien which is around 300-400 amino acid sub units in length and you'll get many more possibilities than stars in the universe. So why aren't there this many protiens? Because not that many actually perform a function. I guess what I'm getting at here is that evolution is less about chance and more about what actually chemically works in the given system of compounds and thier interactions with others. Take from it what you will.

[lordkrohn1626]

 

hehe, well speaking of the "magical divine created" incestuous couple Adam and Eve......hmmmmm isn't that one of the "Sins"? let's see one man and one woman created the world's population, that means father and daughter, mother and son or some version or such had to happen... *gag*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The rule against incest would have been established after the time of Adam and Eve wouldnt it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of course, well in accordance with that fable book commonly referred to as the Bible. So that means all the incestuous acts prior spanning all the way back to the dawn of Man, were ....okay? hehe anyway......whatever floated their boat....speaking of floating boats, I'll once again pick just one of the over 1300 innacuracies/falsehoods of the Bible and put a condensed version here, since most of this threads readers are probably reading first couple of pages then posting...I'll choose my favorite, the flood didnt happen, which is undeniable:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The magical Great Flood never happened, at least to the extent purported by the Bible, in which it supposedly covered all land and killed all land beings/animals.......well mr Lord Krohn, how can you say that? ...easy, ever heard of the Eygptians? obviously the delusional writers of the Bible (Nicene Council 321-325 AD) had not, because they had a thriving civilization 5,000 years ago when this magical event allegedly happened....and they still exist today...they were avid historians, and there is no mention of their deserts being covered in water and killing everyone...because it never happened. If it had, they would have ALL DROWNED....can you visualize the simplicity of this? Let alone their is no worldwide fossil record of a massive killing of every land based life, a big slurry of mixed up bodies that would have occurred with a world wide flood......interesting how we have fresh water lakes, freshwater fish and non salted lands which flourish with vegatation to this day...hehe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is a clue, the Eygptians didnt get wiped out, or even get wet.....no flood, all fable. I am sure the village of these delusional superstitious root chewing, shroom eating witnesses might have gotten a flood from some rain, and through the passage of time, it got bigger with each telling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Open your mind, think logically, Bible is a fable loosely based on some basic events, and exaggerated beyond belief, and the sad thing is some people belive it explicitly... :XD: :ohnoes: :uhh: :XD:

[Continuum]

Did you know the Sphinx shows signs of water erosion?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But I don't believe in a lot of the stuff in the New Testament. Yes, it's mostly all fluff based around some true events.

[Tigra00]

Did you know the Sphinx shows signs of water erosion?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But I don't believe in a lot of the stuff in the New Testament. Yes, it's mostly all fluff based around some true events.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...Did you know that the Nile river floods like, every year?

[supercanon14]

i take it your a ancehest dont think i'll see u in heven :shame:

[Satenza]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What in here supports that the New Testament was heavily edited? If it is widely copied, it is easier to assure that changes have not been made. Everything you quoted supports the textual integrity of the NT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, 2 days late. Had a powercut yesterday. The point I was making is that the contents of the bible where decided by man.

 

 

 

 

 

 

We'll return to the question of how the "canonical" books of the New Testament were determined in the fifth and last installment of this answer. For now we'll just say that Iraneus, the bishop of Lyons in 180 AD, decided that the validity of any work had to be judged by whether it was "apostolic." That is, it should have been written by or for one of the twelve apostles. But, as Pagels goes on to say, regardless of whether the names given to the Gospels are those of the actual authors or merely reflect a claim to apostolic authority, "we know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the Gospels.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet people put 100% faith into something they know little of who wrote? We don't know for sure that Matthew, Mark, Luke Or John wrote anything. Since we don't even have the scriptures they where written on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since I've never seen any two which directly contradict in any way other than wording, I believe both.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the matter of "How did Judas die?" -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew 27:5 - And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acts 1:18 - Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't mean to be difficult, but I can't get anything on that page to load correctly. Would you mind copy-pasting some of the argument for me?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not so much an argument, than it is a list. And the list is very, very long.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who am I to question an all-powerful being? If the God of the Bible exists, He has the right to do whatever He wishes with His creation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He can do as he wishes with his creation? So a father and mother can do whatever they like to their children. They created their children, so who are you to question them?

[Satenza]

 

hehe, well speaking of the "magical divine created" incestuous couple Adam and Eve......hmmmmm isn't that one of the "Sins"? let's see one man and one woman created the world's population, that means father and daughter, mother and son or some version or such had to happen... *gag*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The rule against incest would have been established after the time of Adam and Eve wouldnt it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If that where the case the Bible's morality would not be absolute as it's subject to change at any time. Therefore holding any form of society on the basis that the Bible is absolute you are infact holding it on subjective and deeply conservative morals.