[Custom900]

Originally Posted by RSheffi649

have any of you ever considered that the reason that there is no "slap you in the face" evidence for or against the existance of GOD, is because if it were it would take away your choice. if GOD were to show up on earth tomorrow and make his presence known and tell everyone that his word is true, and that heaven and hell are real, then people would not choose to follow him out of love, they would do it out of fear.

I like that response. It really does nothing as far as "Proof" goes in the topic of the debate, but it is a very good answer, I like it.

[phobiaphobe]

Spider Man, Spider Man
Does whatever a spider can
Spins a web
Any size
Catches thieves
Just like flies
Look out!
Here comes the Spider Man.

-Anonymous

[Custom900]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

Spider Man, Spider Man
Does whatever a spider can
Spins a web
Any size
Catches thieves
Just like flies
Look out!
Here comes the Spider Man.

-Anonymous

Just when I start to think Phobe is normal he drops right back off the deepend.

You just never know what to expect.

[jaim]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

Spider Man, Spider Man
Does whatever a spider can
Spins a web
Any size
Catches thieves
Just like flies
Look out!
Here comes the Spider Man.

-Anonymous

I hear ya.

[CBRVFR]

Updated: 10:46 AM EDT
Fossil Called Missing Link From Sea to Land Animals
http://cdn.news.aol.com/aolnews_prov...4_article_logo
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD, The New York Times

In two reports today in the journal Nature, a team of scientists led by Neil H. Shubin of the University of Chicago say they have uncovered several well-preserved skeletons of the fossil fish in sediments of former streambeds in the Canadian Arctic, 600 miles from the North Pole.
The skeletons have the fins, scales and other attributes of a giant fish, four to nine feet long. But on closer examination, the scientists found telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but has changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals — and is thus a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans.
In the fishes' forward fins, the scientists found evidence of limbs in the making. There are the beginnings of digits, proto-wrists, elbows and shoulders. The fish also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's, a neck, ribs and other parts that were similar to four-legged land animals known as tetrapods.

In other news, a troll was found using my keyboard...

[Custom900]

And that still proves nothing.
So what. Now there's one more extinct animal we can place beside the Carolina Parrot, the Dodo Bird, and others.

[symonjester]

Originally Posted by Custom900

I'm surprised that no one has challenged you on this.
Have you read Lee Strobel's books, in particular "A Case for a Creator"?
If not get it - you will appreciate what it has to offer.

Good subject

I read Strobel's book for a second time. Not a particularily solid read IMHO. Unfortunately his choice of 'standards' by which he made his conclusions and his lack of overall challenges to answers left me with many more questions than answers. Even obvious questions seemed to be glazed passed.

Note: I read it a second time b/c the first time I wasn't even familiar with what an apostle was, so it didn't carry much context for me. Which brings me to another point - if you aren't familiar with the bible (King James preferrably) or the general premise of how the document was thrown together, you might find it a frustrating read.

[Custom900]

Originally Posted by symonjester

I read Strobel's book for a second time. Not a particularily solid read IMHO. Unfortunately his choice of 'standards' by which he made his conclusions and his lack of overall challenges to answers left me with many more questions than answers. Even obvious questions seemed to be glazed passed.

Note: I read it a second time b/c the first time I wasn't even familiar with what an apostle was, so it didn't carry much context for me. Which brings me to another point - if you aren't familiar with the bible (King James preferrably) or the general premise of how the document was thrown together, you might find it a frustrating read.

The book can be confusing.

I've been in your shoes. I can remember not knowing a thing about the Bible or the terms within it. I don't like to read the KJV I like updated versions of the Bible. If I'm going to read something I want to understand it.
As far as questions concerning the Bible, "Feel free to PM me anytime. I will gladly give you any answers I have at hand. And if I don't know the answer I'll tell you and do my best to find the correct answer, not make something up.
I might as well use the degrees in Theology for something .

I took my time reading Strobel's book(s). I took them apart word for word and enjoyed it. They make a lot of sense, but it takes a lot of research to understand many of the Scientific terms and analogies.

[symonjester]

Originally Posted by Custom900

The book can be confusing.

I've been in your shoes. I can remember not knowing a thing about the Bible or the terms within it. I don't like to read the KJV I like updated versions of the Bible. If I'm going to read something I want to understand it.
As far as questions concerning the Bible, "Feel free to PM me anytime. I will gladly give you any answers I have at hand. And if I don't know the answer I'll tell you and do my best to find the correct answer, not make something up.
I might as well use the degrees in Theology for something .

I took my time reading Strobel's book(s). I took them apart word for word and enjoyed it. They make a lot of sense, but it takes a lot of research to understand many of the Scientific terms and analogies.

Super, I appreciate the offer. I'm coming to some conclusions in life, and being ever the engineer, I like to make sure I have as much knowledge as I can before drawing a conclusion. Obviously this isn't a topic I"ve been able to 'thumb through' quickly

What frustrated me about Strobels book was not pushing issues - some rhetorical, some more quantitative. For example: (and I could be wrong, please correct me if this is the case) wasn't Luke's gospel written as second hand verbal accounts of events some 40 years after the fact? I'm not arguing their legitamacy here, but that Strobel didn't seem to push the journalistic envelop on issues that most atheists/agnostics have a field day with.

[Custom900]

When Luke wrote what we have in the collection of Books we call The Bible there were still people alive that could attest to the fact that Luke wasn't a liar or lunitic. Josephus (who was not a Christian), a very credible Historian from what we have come to know as Biblical times gives Jesus credit for many miracles and healings. His works also site the Crucifixion of Jesus.

History in any account has never questioned the existence of Jesus or His works. The Book (The Gospel) of Luke only confirms what History proclaims. It does so from the First hand perspective of a very, very educated man - "Luke".

The Bible isn't something you will understand in a day, or even an year for that matter. One literally has to become a Student of the Bible. I've been a Christian for more than 12 years and will quickly tell anyone that I don't have all the answers.


Just in time for Easter:
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. Then He appeared to over 500 brothers at one time,most of whom remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.
1 Cor 15:3-6 (HCSB)

This basically backs up what I stated before. This is a different book - I Corinthians, written by Paul, but proclaims that there were witnesses that were able to testify of the truth concerning the document at hand. There were a few that had passed away \ died, but many were still alive at the time of the writing and could be asked for verification of the truth.

[symonjester]

Originally Posted by Custom900

When Luke wrote ....

Removed and going to put into a PM instead. Again, thanks for the info Custom.

-SJ

[Custom900]

I used to be - I guess you would say and Athiest. I've been in your shoes.

As for the Muslims, that is a subject all in itself. I will just put it bluntly and leave it at that on this board. "It is my opinion that most Muslims have been brainwashed. How else can we explain the extremist actions around the world?"

I'm not going to say that Christianity hasn't had it's flaws through History. But I can say that nothing, and I mean nothing compares to the ideas the Koran pushes. Muhammad (Still in his grave by the way) proclaims that one should kill the infidels. That is people that refuse to believe in Allah. When speaking of Allah these guys are not speaking about the same God I serve, Preach, and Teach.

[JBODIE]

I have a few questions if anyone can answer?

1) why are so many religions if there is only God?
2) why are there so many versions of the same religion : baptist, southern baptist etc?
3) can you be religious or have faith and not attend church? Is this wrong?
4) what is the Trinity?
5) God is God and Jesus is God's son, so why do people refer to God as Jesus?
6) some people go to church in suit and tie and others do not, which is correct?
7) some people knowingly do wrong expecting to ask forgiveness when they are finished sinning, are they really forgiven?
8) some clergy live better than the church goers, does this not seem wrong?
9) are they any true christians in the military considering we are fighting man made wars as opposed to biblical wars from back in the day?
Anybody have any answers ?

[Custom900]

Originally Posted by JBODIE

I have a few questions if anyone can answer?

I thought this thread had died. Oh well. Here we go again.

1) why are so many religions if there is only God?
Religion is just that - a religion. There are many out there with a claim to many different gods. I'm sure that my answer to this can and will open a great deal of debate, but the only religion that has claim to a true God is Christianity and Judaism. Christianity was introduced through Christ, God's own Son.
How can I make this claim? I'll keep it simple and leave plenty of room for the flame artists. No other religion in the world can claim to serve a living God. Jesus rose from the dead.

2) why are there so many versions of the same religion : baptist, southern baptist etc?
Denominations are man made. Basically they are divisions of a religion. For example: Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Pentecostal, Holiness, and such are all Christian organizations. They have different views about worship for the most part, but all believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, died for the sin of man-kind, and rose from the dead defeating death, hell, and satan.

3) can you be religious or have faith and not attend church? Is this wrong?
Yes you can and many people do. Is it wrong? Let me just put it this way: A Church environment can be compared to a bike gathering or track day. When you go you have the ability to learn more. You may already know a great deal about a certain matter, but surrounding yourself with a crowd of people with the same mind or mind of interest will help you understand and see things better.
Not only that; Using the bike example from above, if there is a person in need of help that person can recieve that help.

4) what is the Trinity?
See #5

5) God is God and Jesus is God's son, so why do people refer to God as Jesus?
The Trinity is God in 3 persons.
It really can be tough to explain, but I'll do my best.
Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit make up the Trinity.
Some people have described the Trinity in this manner. This example will have to serve for now. Take a look at your father. He is your dad. At the same time if he has siblings he is also considered to be a brother. To your Gradparents your father is a son.
Right there you can see 3 people in one person - a father, a son, and a brother. They are all the same person.

God the Father is the Creator of all things. Jesus being God was there in the beginning just as the 1st Chapter of John claims. In the beginning was God and the Word (Jesus) was with God.
Jesus is claimed as the Son of God because He was born into the world and made a man for the sake of man.
The Holy Spirit - God - leads and guides mankind throughout life after the acceptance of God.

6) some people go to church in suit and tie and others do not, which is correct?
There is no correct way in all honesty. Different Churches do things differently. Different Churches have different personalities. I'm a Pastor and most of the time speak in Khaki pants and a Golf Shirt - No Jacket. I like to keep things informal. People are more open and comfortable.

7) some people knowingly do wrong expecting to ask forgiveness when they are finished sinning, are they really forgiven?

God knew the sin they were going to commit long before that person was born and loved them. God allowed Jesus to die on the cross as a sacrifice for the sin of man.
We are told to repent from the sin in our lives and to repent means to turn away. At the same time we are commanded to do such God knows that we are flawed because of sin and will continue to sin even though we have asked forgiveness.
The question in reality is whether or not the heart of the person asking forgiveness is sincere.

8) some clergy live better than the church goers, does this not seem wrong?

Great, I would end up with a question in which I can be pinned as being biased.
The problem many times isn't the well being of the Pastor compared to a few members of the Congregation. The problem lies within the Church's neglect to help those in need.
Another way to see things. A Pastor serves in some fashion as a CEO. He is in charge and takes responsibility for everything that is conducted within a Church. Does a Pastor make his salary from the gifts and donanions of the Church? Yes, but he doesn't recieve all of the money taken in.
Take me for example: I recieve a set salary every year. I'm sure I make more than a few people that attend my Church. I can't feel guilty about that. I have worked hard for the position I have and do a very hard job. I counsel, I lead, I motivate, I teach, I have to study, organize, and perform many, many other tasks. A workman is worth his wages.

9) are they any true christians in the military considering we are fighting man made wars as opposed to biblical wars from back in the day?
Yes.
What makes today any different from 10,000 years ago? Nothing except a date. The people's lives recorded in the Bible were all ordinary people. They were men and women just like you and I.
Soldiers have a job to do. Their job can be daunting and hard, but it's still a job that has to be done. Yes, there are many, many Christians serving the Military.

Hilliard Galloway - Sgt Major (ret)
Roland Galloway - Sgt Major (ret) now serves as a Pastor.
Oli North who now works with Fox News
George Washington

I could go on listing names, but I won't. Every one of these men fought for their Country and were still Christians.

[JBODIE]

thanx , that cleared up a few things for me!

[Custom900]

Originally Posted by JBODIE

thanx , that cleared up a few things for me!

PM me. I am more than willing to answer anything I can for you.

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by Custom900

No matter what the theory, everything leads to a Creator, or to put it in a politically correct term, "Intelligent Design".

Logical fallacy #1
Assumes the universe was 'created'.
There is no evidence for this and it is quite possible that the universe has ALWAYS existed.

Logical fallacy #2
Assumes that IF the universe was created, it MUST have been the Christian god that created it.
There could be any number of things that we are unaware of that could have caused the universe to have been 'created'.

Everyday Science proves God's existence. Biology proves it. History Proves God. Archeology is constanly digging up proof.

Would you care to provide some of this "proof"?

Originally Posted by ND4SPD

The difference being that Jesus has had followers for thousands of years. The other guys had maybe a few years, and now most of them are dead.

If longevity is proof of God's existence then you had better start worshipping the gods of some of the pagan religions that were in existence long before Christianity, some of which are still practised today.

Makes one wonder a bit...

Not really! It's quite easy to get people to convert to your belief system when you only give them two choices.....convert or die!

Originally Posted by Scout

"I had someone once tell me that they believed in evolution and that white people descended from lions and black people from bears. I was just so stunned. And she was so proud of how modern and scientific she was for believing in evolution. I didn't think to ask her about polar bears until later."

There are idiots in both camps. I've had Christians telling me that if evolution was true...monkeys would be able to give birth to humans and visa-versa.....or if humans evolved from monkeys, how come we still have monkeys!

Originally Posted by Custom900

Amazingly you cannot prove that God "Does Not" exist.

Would you like to prove to me that Zeus doesn't exist --failure to do so will be taken as proof that he does.

I'm sorry, but I see more proof for God than against. The thing you are trying to get straight is no more than opinion.

On both sides!

I've studied, I've researched, I've read, and I have come to the conclusion that there has to be a Creator.

I've researched, I've read, and studied for over 40 years and I have come to the conclusion that there isn't.

I am more than willing to listen to anyone's intellegent theories and thoughts concerning the non-existence of God. What you will find through Science however is the common opinion that the World and Universe had to have a beginning that started from nothing. And again you will find that the majority rules in favor of a Creator.

OK! Let's run with that. The universe was 'created'. Now provide your evidence that 'The Creator' is the Christian god and not any other.

Originally Posted by Custom900

Myself - I believe in placing well documented evidence before a person and allow them to use the grey matter between their ears.

We do that with theists.....but they tend to ignore the evidence and rely instead on the deluded ramblings of desert goatherds who believed that the world was flat.

BTW I'd just love to see this "well documented evidence" that you have.

We all have a free will.

Not if you believe in an omniscient creator god you don't. Let me ask you! Do you believe that your god knows every single thing, down to the minutest detail, about what will happen in the future? If you do believe this...please explain how any of us are able to make any "free will" decisions that will change what your god already knows will be.

Example:
From the time your god (allegedly) created the universe, he knew that I would submit a post to this forum at 6.09pm on Friday 18th April 2008. Could I have made a free will decision NOT to submit a post today.....and thereby prove God wrong in what he has known since creation.

Somewhere in the Bible it says that God has planned everyday of our lives in his book. Where then, is your free will to do something other than what God has planned for you?

Originally Posted by Custom900

The planet we live upon is perfect for sustaining life.

"Look!" said the puddle. "See how this hole fits around me perfectly... it must have been made especially for me."

Originally Posted by RSheffi649

you know what I never understood...what does faith cost?

It costs a great deal my friend. Faith equals denial of reality and it's never a good thing. Faith is what allows people to believe that black cats can bring them bad luck. Faith is what allowed people to throw their own children into volcanoes. Faith is what causes the mass of spam e-mails that prompt people to send out 10-copies to avoid "bad luck" or to attain "good luck". Faith should always be seen as a negative because that's exactly what faith is

Originally Posted by Scout

If there isn't a God, then so what, you learned and decided against believing in God, and some day you die, and are worm food and cease all existance. Or, if there is a God, and you decide not to believe, and some day you die, and instead of ceasing to exist, you burn in eternal flame, writhing in your own burning flesh, forever. Hmm, it would make me want to look into it.

The problem with Pascal's Wager (which you just described) is that it assumes that if a god exists, then it is the Christian god. Now what happens when you and I get to heaven and instead of being greeted by the Christian god, we are greeted by Brahma or Zeus or Mithra or Dionysus or any of the other proclaimed gods? Now in my case, Brahma may accept my plea that I didn't believe in gods because I could never see any evidence for them. On the other hand, I reckon he's going to be well pissed off with the theist who DOES believe in gods......and chose to worship someone other than him.

Originally Posted by QuikMike

ok, well here's a question then?:

Why is it wrong to steal? kill? commit adultery? push an old lady/man down a flight of stairs?

and I know that maybe off the beaten path a bit, but the point is this: there has to be a final authority other than man b/c if there isn't, then killing someone would not be inherently "wrong".

Are you claiming that morality comes from God/religion?

Originally Posted by Custom900

As far as Evolution is concerned there is a missing link within every species. There have been no fossils found that support a gradual move from one species to another. If you look at every fossil and living organism ever found you will see that they are one in their own.

You might like to do a little research into "Transitional Fossils."

If evolution were true we would see millions of fossils which represented half species. Instead we can only find individual animals -

Someone has been visiting too many Bible apologist sites like answersingenisis.com and gotquestions.org

[Zippy]

Dude, you're good. Nice logic well presented.

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by Custom900

When Luke wrote what we have in the collection of Books we call The Bible

I'll just pull you up there friend. The Gospels are anonymous. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were ascribed to these writings by Eusebius in the 4th century CE.

Josephus (who was not a Christian), a very credible Historian from what we have come to know as Biblical times gives Jesus credit for many miracles and healings. His works also site the Crucifixion of Jesus.

The paragraph that allegedly mentions Jesus in Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum is a Christian forgery. We know this from the fact that the 'Jesus' passage did not appear in the Testimonium until 300 years after Josephus had died. The forged passage was even absent from some copies of the work as late as 800CE. We even know who was responsible for this pious forgery....Eusebius. In case you don't know, Eusebius was the guy that said:

"That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment"
{Eusebius. The title for chapter 32 of the twelfth book of Evangelical Preparation}

Also:
"The great religious historian, Eusebius, ingenuously remarks that in his history he carefully omitted whatever tended to discredit the church, and that he piously magnified all that conduced to her glory”
{Robert Green Ingersoll. "The Ghosts". (1877).}

"The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion. Such an acknowledgment will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other; and the suspicion will derive additional credit from the character of Eusebius, which was less tinctured with credulity, and more practised in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries."
{Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 3 (1776).}

"In a book where Eusebius is proving that the pagans got all their good ideas from the Jews, he lists as one of those good ideas Plato's argument that lying, indeed telling completely false tales, for the benefit of the state is good and even necessary. Eusebius then notes quite casually how the Hebrews did this, telling lies about their God, and he even compares such lies with medicine, a healthy and even necessary thing. Someone who can accept this as a 'good idea' worth both taking credit for and following is not the sort of person to be trusted."
{Richard Carrier, Footnote 6 from "The Formation of the New testament Canon"}

History in any account has never questioned the existence of Jesus or His works. The Book (The Gospel) of Luke only confirms what History proclaims. It does so from the First hand perspective of a very, very educated man - "Luke".

On the contrary, many educated men questioned the gospels and Christianity. Just a few of the top of my head:

Celsus, in late 2nd century, attacked the Gospels as fiction based on myths
"Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"

Bardesanes, in mid 2nd century, denied that Christ was physical :
"...assert that the body of the Saviour was spiritual;

Minucius Felix, in mid 2nd century, explicitly denies the incarnation and crucifixion along with other accusations.

Tatian, in later 2nd century, compared Christianity with pagan mythology

Dionysius of Corinth, in late 2nd century, claims Christians were changing and faking his own letters

Caius, claimed the truth about Jesus was falsified. :

Porphyry, in late 3rd century, claimed the Gospels were invented :
"... the evangelists were inventors – not historians”

Julian, in the 4th century, claimed Jesus was spurious and counterfeit :

Just in time for Easter:
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures

Unfortunately for Christianity, it doesn't say it anywhere else.

This basically backs up what I stated before. This is a different book - I Corinthians, written by Paul, but proclaims that there were witnesses that were able to testify of the truth concerning the document at hand. There were a few that had passed away \ died, but many were still alive at the time of the writing and could be asked for verification of the truth.

There are no eye witness reports of your Jesus. All we have is reports from people who were told by other people that it was all true.

[steingar]

Maybe this guy is emulating Jesus by resurrecting old threads from the dead.