Ok, I have this very simple question: Why should anyone believe in the bible?

I mean, obviously not everything is true that is written in there, except if you are believing in divine creation and that all humans descended from only two people...

Texts are not running under the names of the appropriate authors, that is true for nearly all texts in the bible. The names were added afterwards, texts were edited from the bible because they did not fit into the concept and so on. Some scriptures are obviously discarded by many people because they think they are not contemporary (like the scriptures of Leviticus, many people do not want to stone people to death because of sodomy...).
So people are only referring to some parts, others are said to be false or not fitting into the time...what the hell? How can the word of god not fit into this time???
So, how can one know what is real and what not considering the bible? It is all just a question of personal preference, even the very explicit laws of god are not heeded or just subjectively interpreted.

So, why believe in it anyway? It may be all wrong, or it may all be considered obsolete. And I do not think that there would be such a problem if the bible is the real word of god, since that would be imperative and universally true.

Ok, I have this very simple question: Why should anyone believe in the bible?

I mean, obviously not everything is true that is written in there, except if you are believing in divine creation and that all humans descended from only two people...

Texts are not running under the names of the appropriate authors, that is true for nearly all texts in the bible. The names were added afterwards, texts were edited from the bible because they did not fit into the concept and so on. Some scriptures are obviously discarded by many people because they think they are not contemporary (like the scriptures of Leviticus, many people do not want to stone people to death because of sodomy...).
So people are only referring to some parts, others are said to be false or not fitting into the time...what the hell? How can the word of god not fit into this time???
So, how can one know what is real and what not considering the bible? It is all just a question of personal preference, even the very explicit laws of god are not heeded or just subjectively interpreted.

So, why believe in it anyway? It may be all wrong, or it may all be considered obsolete. And I do not think that there would be such a problem if the bible is the real word of god, since that would be imperative and universally true.

Why believe it? I can tell you what a Christian can say right now. Heaven and hell are reasons to believe it. Pascal's Wager. The Carrot=heaven, The Stick=hell. "What if you're wrong? If you're wrong, you get the eternal torture pit. If I'm wrong, I just die like a dog." Psychological manipulation from what I can see. The "love of God" in one hand and the "wrath of God" in the other. Or so their reasoning could be. But Pascal's Wager can be applied to other religious constructs. It's not Christianity vs atheism. It's Christianity vs Islam vs Mandaeanism (if that's a word) vs Hinduism vs Buddhism vs Judaism vs Zoroastrianism vs Jainism vs etc.

Also, I suppose they think it could help one to be happy in this life. That depends. There are some people who are happy who are not Christians and some who are Christians who are not happy.

I know what a christian will say about it, but making a wager on a stupid advertisement pamphlet is crazy...

To answer the question as simply as I can muster, it's because without the bible there is no christian god. All you'd be left with are texts describing other gods. As religious people depend on the texts for their beliefs, the bible is an absolute prerequisite, and as follow on from that, 'the truth'.

The bible must be read from the start to the finish. One must understand the significance of Jesus as the central hub. Without belief in God i think it is near impossible to have understanding of the bible. One needs the help of the Holy Spirit to understand. Even the Apostles did not truly understand until the day of Pentecost and they had lived with Jesus for 3 years.

All Praise the Ancient Of Days

Well, I suppose I could answer my question and just say that you need "faith in god", am I right?

But better wait until a christian comes this way...

...and it just happened when I wrote this post.

The bible must be read from the start to the finish. One must understand the significance of Jesus as the central hub. Without belief in God i think it is near impossible to have understanding of the bible. One needs the help of the Holy Spirit to understand. Even the Apostles did not truly understand until the day of Pentecost and they had lived with Jesus for 3 years.

All Praise the Ancient Of Days

As I have told okinrus:

--
That is an incredulously stupid statement.

Without the Bible you wouldn't know what the heck the Holy Spirit is so saying you need to have the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible is a foolish and circular claim.
----

I do not think that you find god in the bible, all you find in that book are fairy tales...or satan.

The bible must be read from the start to the finish. One must understand the significance of Jesus as the central hub. Without belief in God i think it is near impossible to have understanding of the bible. One needs the help of the Holy Spirit to understand. Even the Apostles did not truly understand until the day of Pentecost and they had lived with Jesus for 3 years.

How can you read the bible from one end to the other if the church has deleted/omitted/censored parts of it? There is not complete bible that could be read from one end to the other. Also, founding a believe on the very book that I devalue is not that great an argument. The only "holy spirit" that could help one understand god while reading the bible is delivered in bottles and can make one believe everything...

You're making several very sweeping statements. Perhaps it is best to examine them one at a time.
Ok, I have this very simple question: Why should anyone believe in the bible?

I mean, obviously not everything is true that is written in there, except if you are believing in divine creation and that all humans descended from only two people...
Not so obvious. While creation cannot be proved, neither can evolution. You have a choice here. If you wish to just let that one pass and believe the rest, you can. As long as you don't label Genesis as "false" then you are still fine with the rest of the bible. It's OK to just say "We don't know but we will keep investigating"
Texts are not running under the names of the appropriate authors, that is true for nearly all texts in the bible. The names were added afterwards, texts were edited from the bible because they did not fit into the concept and so on. Some scriptures are obviously discarded by many people because they think they are not contemporary (like the scriptures of Leviticus, many people do not want to stone people to death because of sodomy...).
First let's reexamine what the bible is. The OT is a book of books by various authors which proports to show the history of the Israelite people (sometimes called the Jews, although the word Jew really refers just to the tribe of Judah, but after the Babylonian exile, it became an all-inclusive word referring to the entire Israelite people). It is only in the last few decades that some, whose goal is to discredit the scriptures, have started questioning the authorship of the bible books. Should they be believed? Well, I have checked out the arguments and have found them extremely wanting (absurd) but then you would have to believe me. How about thinking through the question like this... Those who wrote the books believed and those to whom they were passed believed, and those who became caretakers thereafter believed. It is only now, more than 3000 years after the fact, that someone is questioning authorship. How would someone 3000 years later have any idea who wrote the books? If I must choose between the bible and some three-thousand year removed hecklers, which should I believe? Either way, I must believe one or the other.

The NT is a compilation of writings made by some first century Christians, not necessarily all who were disciples of Christ. The writings were gathered into a book by a set of church elite, led by a sun-god worshipper who only took on the guise of Christianity because it was convinient. However, despite this non-auspicious beginning, the NT has still proved to be true. I too am sceptical of the NT. I am much more likely to believe the witnesses of those who were there (the disciples who wrote the gospels) than the writings of a murderer from the camp of the Pharisees who only later saw the light and changed his evil ways (Paul). However, when I read Paul's writings carefully and ignore the misreadings and obvious distortions attributed to him throughout the centuries, I find that Paul too, preaches the gospel of Christ - amazing but true. Shall I trust those who try to malign the disciples but keep the corrupted teachings of the murderer-turned-Christian? I think not. I find it safer to reject the modern distorters and retain the ancient original. But, then again, that is what I believe. You must make up your own mind.
So people are only referring to some parts, others are said to be false or not fitting into the time...what the hell? How can the word of god not fit into this time???
Yes, what the hell? Peoples over many times and in many centuries have asked this question - does the bible apply to me and to my time? Amazingly, the eventual answer has always been - YES. Cultures go in cycles (even the old Jewish culture) and always seem to end up back to the bible original. Our's just hasn't gone full circle yet. In the end, we must retain the scriptures in total.
So, how can one know what is real and what not considering the bible? It is all just a question of personal preference, even the very explicit laws of god are not heeded or just subjectively interpreted.
No matter what society tells you or the intellectualists tell you, you will some day be made to answer for your actions. It has always been a matter of personal preference, but there will come a time when God will judge and you (and I) will be held accountable for our decisions. Just because some have fallen into error and desire to drag you down with them, does not excuse you. You must make a decision.
So, why believe in it anyway? It may be all wrong, or it may all be considered obsolete. And I do not think that there would be such a problem if the bible is the real word of god, since that would be imperative and universally true.
Atheists like to use the patience and long-suffering of God as proof of His absense or demise. Just because God does not jump when an Atheist snaps his fingers, does not proclaim his existance or lack thereof. God is the master, not the servant. Atheists too - especially those on this forum who know the truth (it seems most of the Atheists on the forum are fallen Christians) - must make a choice and must eventually account for their actions.

The Atheist line is: Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

Why believe? That is a choice - a personal preference. If nothing else, believe because the bible has not been proved false.

Not so obvious. While creation cannot be proved, neither can evolution. You have a choice here. If you wish to just let that one pass and believe the rest, you can. As long as you don't label Genesis as "false" then you are still fine with the rest of the bible. It's OK to just say "We don't know but we will keep investigating"

Err...I do not discard creation in general, but the biblical one is suspicious, clearly, there are fossils of animals that are millions of years old, but no human remains, they only appear about 600000 years back... So, discard that 6 day creation.
Also, there are too many different genetic variations, this should not be the case since in the beginning there was Adam and from him, Eve was created, so only one genetic type is available (technically, Adam having sex with Eve was the first case of incest).
Furthermore, there are far too many independed and uninfluenced language to account for a biblical creation history.
There are many more things, but I do not want to make a multiple page response.

Just let me say that I do not know if there was a divine creation or just evolution, this is a moot point, but there surely was no biblical creation. Evolution can be proven for the past, but the beginning is unknown.



Quoting the next two paragraphs would be too lenghty, so I will just give the beginning and end of the referred passage:


First let's reexamine what the bible is. [...]
You must make up your own mind.


Well, there is the problem, isn't it? First, why do I have to choose between only two things? I could also take hinduistic scriptiures, they are in a way just as valid as the bible.
I know that the bible is built by believers who only picked what they wanted and destroyed the rest that was considered heretic by them. As a result, the bible is amorph and not true. Some existing texts also appear to be heavily edited, and their point of view is very one dimensional and a bit questionable in my opinion. If you want to believe in it anyway, that is your problem.
Considering the old testament, I think that it is also lacking in credibility due to the fact that only oral stories were at some point recorded. To base my whole life on something like that doesn't seem right.
As a whole, I would regard the message of the bible with a great deal of suspicion. Of course, not everything that is written in it is total mental bullshit, I agree that it represents some morally acceptable values. Nonetheless, the bible was originally created as an advertisement of christianity, a handbook for wandering preachers that were send out to christianize unbelievers.
So I think that a distant and critic viewpoint is recommendable when the bible is read.

Yes, what the hell? Peoples over many times and in many centuries have asked this question - does the bible apply to me and to my time? Amazingly, the eventual answer has always been - YES. Cultures go in cycles (even the old Jewish culture) and always seem to end up back to the bible original. Our's just hasn't gone full circle yet. In the end, we must retain the scriptures in total.

Oh, now we are getting into communism? Culture/history is cicular?
I do not think so, perhaps a spiral but no circle. Why should out culture be a circle? Would that not mean that everything else also goes around in circles? Then we have to die out at some point and dinosaurs have to appear again...
No, I do not see a way that would make us just the way we were 6000 or 10000 or 100000 years ago.

No matter what society tells you or the intellectualists tell you, you will some day be made to answer for your actions. It has always been a matter of personal preference, but there will come a time when God will judge and you (and I) will be held accountable for our decisions. Just because some have fallen into error and desire to drag you down with them, does not excuse you. You must make a decision.

I do not have a problem with that, I am doing what I believe in, and I am prepared to answer to whomever interrogates. But that doesn't mean that I need any kind of god or religion.
If some are afraid of their own personality than it might be recommendable to give in to their weakness and submit to a god-figure.
But we cannot know the way of god, he/she/it may be a cruel being that despises the weak and honours the strong, not the other way round.

Anyway, if I ever meet god, I will not move an inch from my beliefs and my self.


[quote]Why believe? That is a choice - a personal preference. If nothing else, believe because the bible has not been proved false.[quote]

Great, then all religion are worth the same.

Are all religions the same? Well, you get to decide, and so do I. My choice is just as valid as yours.

Yes, history is circular - have you never read "Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it"?

On meeting God - I would think when that happens, you would quickly discard any unbelief you have. Thankfully God seems to like exactly your position.
Revelations 3
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
At least you are fervent in your beliefs - whether they are hot or cold - it seems God disapproves of non-comital more than outright rejection!

Whew, lucky me... :D

I still do not think history is circular, I would stick to "those who do not know history will repeat the mistakes of the past"...

And I did not say that all religions are the same, but all have the same validity.

As I have told okinrus:

--
That is an incredulously stupid statement.

Without the Bible you wouldn't know what the heck the Holy Spirit is so saying you need to have the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible is a foolish and circular claim.
----
Now, SouthStar, I know you're not this foolish.

You are trying to turn AdStar's statement into a "which came first, the Chicken or the Egg?" scenario - and I know you know better. The Holy Spirit came first - and the Holy Spirit taught all the patriarchs, including Moses who wrote the first scriptures (perhaps with some source material). The only way you get to your conclusion is by denying that God exists at all - which you know AdStar does not believe.

You are purposely misunderstanding what AdStar wrote just to mock him - and that makes you a hypocrite.

Whew, lucky me... :D

I still do not think history is circular, I would stick to "those who do not know history will repeat the mistakes of the past"...

And I did not say that all religions are the same, but all have the same validity.
Yes, and from my vantage point, it seems that today's society (shall I include you in that group?) is making the same mistakes which have been made over and over throughout history - to reject God and his principles.

As is often said, history will be the judge.

Perhaps, but it may be another group that makes the mistake of insisting on the existence of god.

So subjective... good that I have subjective beliefs. I tried to learn from history, that is partially a reason why I do not believe in god (unlike every past culture, even ancient human tribes had gods...)

You are not the first. Even if you don't know it, you are following the teachings of Plato and Aristotle. That has been tried and rejected - I reject it.

I know I am not the first, neither are you. This could go on with no end... so I will end it now if no new point arises.

Are all religions the same? Well, you get to decide, and so do I. My choice is just as valid as yours.

You get to decide? Based upon what? Dude, it isn't as simple as picking a name out of a hat, and I resent people who think otherwise.

Remember how much of a hissy fit you threw over the word 'evolution'. Why is it now different in this scenario?

Where is your evidence, your proof?

Your 'choice' is not valid, and neither is anyone elses when it comes to religion. You're all making it up as you go along, based upon what sounds particularly pleasing to you, or indeed what mummy told you was true.

Surely you would be smart enough to be as scrupulous in your analysis of religious texts as you would be when debating evolution? Where are all the numbers you were reeling off, where are the 'statistics' and other such bunkem you couldn't help but relay to me?

Is this not hypocricy of the gravest order? Why so lenient now, when you have shown just how different you can be regarding something you don't personally appreciate?

Still, I don't want to judge too harshly, so I hereby give you the opportunity to present some evidence. I wont do what you did, (which is to ignore every question and every piece of evidence- and to indeed not understand what the thing you were debating against means).

Bring it on.

You get to decide? Based upon what? Dude, it isn't as simple as picking a name out of a hat, and I resent people who think otherwise.

Remember how much of a hissy fit you threw over the word 'evolution'. Why is it now different in this scenario?

Where is your evidence, your proof?

Your 'choice' is not valid, and neither is anyone elses when it comes to religion. You're all making it up as you go along, based upon what sounds particularly pleasing to you, or indeed what mummy told you was true.

Surely you would be smart enough to be as scrupulous in your analysis of religious texts as you would be when debating evolution? Where are all the numbers you were reeling off, where are the 'statistics' and other such bunkem you couldn't help but relay to me?

Is this not hypocricy of the gravest order? Why so lenient now, when you have shown just how different you can be regarding something you don't personally appreciate?

Still, I don't want to judge too harshly, so I hereby give you the opportunity to present some evidence. I wont do what you did, (which is to ignore every question and every piece of evidence- and to indeed not understand what the thing you were debating against means).

Bring it on.
I will not present evidence. I have only witnesses - which is good enough for any court of law. I can neither prove nor disprove my religion (which is why it is called religion and not science). I do not ask you to believe what I cannot prove, not now and certainly not in any previous posts. I believe it out of choice. You do not believe it out of the same choice.

What I can do is prove the falsehood of evolution as I have already done for you. That's why evolution is called science. However, if you choose to believe in evolution despite the proof of falsehood, then you have made it into a religion. I have nothing to say to you concerning your "religion" of evolution. Go ahead and believe - that is your choice.

I will not present evidence. I have only witnesses - which is good enough for any court of law. I can neither prove nor disprove my religion (which is why it is called religion and not science). I do not ask you to believe what I cannot prove, not now and certainly not in any previous posts. I believe it out of choice. You do not believe it out of the same choice.

What I can do is prove the falsehood of evolution as I have already done for you. That's why evolution is called science. However, if you choose to believe in evolution despite the proof of falsehood, then you have made it into a religion. I have nothing to say to you concerning your "religion" of evolution. Go ahead and believe - that is your choice.

The problem though David is that your alleged witnesses are dead. What court of law would take a book which has many, many "alleged discrepancies", and is a thousand+ years old and put it on the stand and accept it as fact without the ability to cross examine? Your book is not an acceptable witness in a court of law, at least that I'm aware of.

You mentioned that people didn't question the Bible in the past and just relatively recently started criticizing it. Not true from my understanding. For instance, the book of Daniel was attacked as a forgery by Porphyry, and he lived in the 4th century from my undertstanding. And look at the alleged writings of the "church fathers". In it there are criticisms of Christianity by opponents. Ever hear of Celsus and Trypho? This is not new David. And even if the Bible was completely accepted by everyone, so what? Also, openly attacking the Bible was not really allowed for much of the past. Do you think someone could, in the 5th century, attack the Bible in a Christian controlled area? Look at today in Muslim countries, can you openly attack Jesus? Blasphemy laws were in effect and still are in some places. Many, many people believed the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth. That was the dominant position, wasn't it? The amount of people who believe something doesn't make it true.

I don't have a problem with believing there's a God. I don't have a problem with believing that God created the universe. Science will never explain everything. There will always be, at the least, the "God of the gaps". "God" as an explanation for what we don't, or can't understand.

And the reverse, I don't have a problem with you believing that your alleged witnesses were telling the truth. Christianity is fine, along with other religions, as long as they don't try to enforce their worldview on others through mental manipulation, laws, war, etc.

I have only witnesses - which is good enough for any court of law.

You're wrong. Invisible witnesses are not good enough for a court of law.

I can neither prove nor disprove my religion (which is why it is called religion and not science)

Well, at least you understand the difference.

You do not believe it out of the same choice.

You're wrong again. I do not believe it for the very same reason I don't believe in dragons: Lack of any evidence whatsoever.

It's not a choice, it's a rational demand.

What I can do is prove the falsehood of evolution as I have already done for you.

Oh please.

A) You haven't done anything except ignore all the counter arguments

B) What we were debating isn't "evolution". How many times I have to drill that into your concrete head is beyond me.

However, if you choose to believe in evolution despite the proof of falsehood,

I'm sorry, where was this proof? Oh, it's invisible.. nm then.

I have nothing to say to you concerning your "religion" of evolution.

Fucking hell, you haven't even learnt what 'religion' means. How much further can we get when you haven't even established the very basics?

Go ahead and believe - that is your choice.

It's not a choice, it's a rational demand.

Oops 1, best delete this before David grows too big a head and explodes.. although that doesn't actually sound all that bad :bugeye:

Oops 2, best delete this before David grows too big a head and explodes.. although that doesn't actually sound all that bad :bugeye:

No, religion is always a choice, a belief - that is why it is called faith. I do not have to prove my faith to you, nor do I need to justify it. It is mine. If you reject my witnesses, then so-be-it. I accept them - and that is my choice.

It is not I, but you who ignore the facts of evolution. Since you don't even know the meaning of the word, perhaps you might define the following concepts and put your own words to them:

1) The rise of Cells from non-organic material
2) The change from one-celled life to multi-cellular organisms
3) The diversification of multi-cellular organisms into Kingdoms/Phylum/Class/Order...
4) The variations within a species - speciation.

I would call 1-3 (or at least 2-3 since no evolutionist seems to be able to explain 1 at all) as Macro-Evolution while I would call 4 Micro-Evolution. What would you call these things?

Thus far I have shown how 1 is impossible and I have read your many links concerning 2-3 and have responded as requested (some of which have actually taken days to go through - I notice you are not responding when I give you a link). I have never disputed the truth of 4, which is called adaptability of a species.

BTW, is there some difference between the last three posts? They all look the same? What's the matter, am I getting under your skin... Ah, too bad!

non-organic and organic consist of the same things, so why should one exist but not the other?

I think it funny that people accept an omnipotent and all encompassing god that just exists instead of believing in a universe that just exists and developes...

Anyway, your reasons are strange... betting your life while walking on a razors edge of doubt and falsehood. Go ahead...

The problem though David is that your alleged witnesses are dead. What court of law would take a book which has many, many "alleged discrepancies", and is a thousand+ years old and put it on the stand and accept it as fact without the ability to cross examine? Your book is not an acceptable witness in a court of law, at least that I'm aware of.

You mentioned that people didn't question the Bible in the past and just relatively recently started criticizing it. Not true from my understanding. For instance, the book of Daniel was attacked as a forgery by Porphyry, and he lived in the 4th century from my undertstanding. And look at the alleged writings of the "church fathers". In it there are criticisms of Christianity by opponents. Ever hear of Celsus and Trypho? This is not new David. And even if the Bible was completely accepted by everyone, so what? Also, openly attacking the Bible was not really allowed for much of the past. Do you think someone could, in the 5th century, attack the Bible in a Christian controlled area? Look at today in Muslim countries, can you openly attack Jesus? Blasphemy laws were in effect and still are in some places. Many, many people believed the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth. That was the dominant position, wasn't it? The amount of people who believe something doesn't make it true.

I don't have a problem with believing there's a God. I don't have a problem with believing that God created the universe. Science will never explain everything. There will always be, at the least, the "God of the gaps". "God" as an explanation for what we don't, or can't understand.

And the reverse, I don't have a problem with you believing that your alleged witnesses were telling the truth. Christianity is fine, along with other religions, as long as they don't try to enforce their worldview on others through mental manipulation, laws, war, etc.
I really don't think you and I are all that far apart. I am happy to discuss my "religion" with those who share it but I will not try to defend or "prove" it to those who don't - it is unprovable. Yes, sometimes written testimony of dead people is acceptable in court but it is never as acceptable as live witnesses. However, in this case, it is all we have. This does not relate at all to the truth or falsehood of the witnesses, only the avialability for cross-examination. However, those who challenge those witnesses know no more about the verasity of their statements than I do. Their claims of false witness or ghost witnesses, falls on deaf ears (although I will be happy to discuss any discrepencies between witnesses). I don't ask you, or anyone, to believe because I can prove my religion, I can't. Yet, I personally (just for me) nonetheless believe it is true. That is my choice and my Faith.

non-organic and organic consist of the same things, so why should one exist but not the other?
Organic is truely made of the same things as inorganic, the vast differences is that organic copies iteself and reproduces, which inorganic does not (growing crystals are not reproducing themselves). What is it that imparts life to a cell and makes all the "organic machines" move about and do work? The activity in a cell is far more than can be explained by valences or chemical imbalances. Further, if the cell, which is actually quite fragile and sensitive to chemical imbalance, dies, restoring the chemical balance does not bring it back to life. Why? What got it started in the first place? There is a vast difference between non-organic and organic which we do not understand.

You're wrong again. I do not believe it for the very same reason I don't believe in dragons: Lack of any evidence whatsoever.



Komodo dragon

http://www.7is7.com/otto/komodo/dragon-looking.jpg

;)

I know, but what got god started in the first place? If the universe needs a start, god also does.


c20H25N3o

You are aware that that thing is only called "dragon" on English?

c20H25N3o

You are aware that that thing is only called "dragon" on English?


We are speaking English.

Still your (albeit funny) statement has no worth... Hablan Espanol? :p

Komodo dragon ;)
Thanks for the light humor, it is much appreciated!
I know, but what got god started in the first place? If the universe needs a start, god also does.
I don't know. God did not see fit to tell us that. I am His follower, not His father.

No, religion is always a choice, a belief - that is why it is called faith. I do not have to prove my faith to you, nor do I need to justify it. It is mine.

My.. Precioussssssssss.

You remind me of Golem.. Not only by what you say, but the evident lack of sanity that goes with them.

If you reject my witnesses, then so-be-it.

As would a court of law. Why you felt the need to mention a 'court of law', as if it somehow made your argument more pertinent, is beyond me.

But tell me David, why reject the witnesses of say.. Gilgamesh, or Zeus? Kindly give a reason.

I accept them - and that is my choice.

Sure, but you must then appreciate and acknowledge that it doesn't make you right, and nor does it make you sane.

One could only question why you would try to impress that belief upon others when you yourself must acknowledge it's inherent worthlessness to reality?

It is not I, but you who ignore the facts of evolution. Since you don't even know the meaning of the word, perhaps you might define the following concepts and put your own words to them:

1) The rise of Cells from non-organic material
2) The change from one-celled life to multi-cellular organisms
3) The diversification of multi-cellular organisms into Kingdoms/Phylum/Class/Order...
4) The variations within a species - speciation.

I would call 1-3 (or at least 2-3 since no evolutionist seems to be able to explain 1 at all) as Macro-Evolution while I would call 4 Micro-Evolution. What would you call these things?

Thus far I have shown how 1 is impossible and I have read your many links concerning 2-3 and have responded as requested (some of which have actually taken days to go through - I notice you are not responding when I give you a link). I have never disputed the truth of 4, which is called adaptability of a species.

Again? Ffs.. you didn't pay attention the first 50,000 times round. I'm not going through it all again merely for the sake of someone who is both blind and incompetent.

As a question though, (and unlike all the others, I have the feeling this one wont be ignored).. Could you repost the link? I either missed it or it was so worthless my brain forgot all about what it said.

BTW, is there some difference between the last three posts? They all look the same? What's the matter, am I getting under your skin... Ah, too bad!

Yeah, you are.. :rolleyes: There's no chance it had something to do with my internet explorer.. That's right David, accept the stupid answer - as per usual.

Komodo dragon

That's actually rather amusing. Congratulations.

Mr. Snake

Ah, you won't answer my questions - yet again. It seems you won't hold yourself to the standard you yourself demand from others. If you capitulate then I declare yet again!

EVOLUTION IS DEAD!

Still your (albeit funny) statement has no worth... Hablan Espanol? :p

The point was that I can stick a picture up of an incredibly beautiful creature that looks like a dragon and is called a 'dragon' in the tongue we are speaking in. Someone said in the same tongue that the creature 'dragon' did not exist.
I was merley pointing out that sometimes things are right under your nose and they are so beautiful that we miss them.

but it's probably of no worth. I am like that

Oh, there are questions in what you wrote? You know, it kinda lacks question marks... besides those:
Why? What got it started in the first place?

Just as you cannot answer the questions about god...

In that sense: GOD IS DEAD!

Ah, you won't answer my questions - yet again.

If you say so. Oh btw, you obviously missed it:

"But tell me David, why reject the witnesses of say.. Gilgamesh, or Zeus?"

"One could only question why you would try to impress that belief upon others when you yourself must acknowledge it's inherent worthlessness to reality?"

"As a question though, (and unlike all the others, I have the feeling this one wont be ignored).. Could you repost the link?"

Who wont answer questions? Lol.

It seems you won't hold yourself to the standard you yourself demand from others.

You and I both know I answered every single one of your questions, although you seemingly ignored the answers and then ignored the return questions. I do understand that you have little choice now but to try and repair this reputation you give yourself, with fallacies and fraudulent statements, but it doesn't change the reality.

Yes yes yes, I know I know.. you'll just say "I do not have to prove my faith to you, nor do I need to justify it. It is mine", but this doesn't change the reality of the situation either.

Btw, think you could answer the questions yet?

EVOLUTION IS DEAD!

Based upon what? You spent 3 weeks debating something that isn't even "evolution". Fuck knows how many times I've told you that now.

I won't try to impress belief of Gilgamesh, or Zeus upon others... if you think it is worthwhile, then you do it. I don't even try to impress my own beliefs on others - I just state them as my opinion and go on.

Why should I answer your questions when you won't answer mine? I asked first - answer the questions! Obviously you can't, or won't (I don't know how to get to a single post url... any help?) BTW, you offered to list all the hypocricies of Jesus from the NT and I accepted - I'm still waiting.
Based upon what? You spent 3 weeks debating something that isn't even "evolution". Fuck knows how many times I've told you that now.
OK, then what is evolution - it's your religion after all, so I guess you can define it however you want.

Ok, so religion is just a matter of subjective preference? Do I understand that right?

HAIL WOTAN!

It is to those who "have no eyes to see" Isn't the old adage "you can't describe a rainbow to a blind man"? Faith in God is, to the lost, foolishness.
1 Corinthians 1
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence

I won't try to impress belief of Gilgamesh, or Zeus upon others... if you think it is worthwhile, then you do it. I don't even try to impress my own beliefs on others - I just state them as my opinion and go on.

And here we clearly see your inability to comprehend simple English. I didn't ask you to impress belief in these beings on anyone. I merely asked why you reject the witnesses of them.

I have a tendency to talk in my sleep. It seems you have a tendency to type in your sleep.

Why should I answer your questions when you won't answer mine?

You've asked this a hundred times now, and I keep giving the same answer: I answer all of your questions.

See, that's an answer, and yet you'll probably ask the exact same question again in a few minutes time. I do answer, you're just not awake yet.

I asked first - answer the questions!

Save me scrolling back.. Asked what?

Obviously you can't, or won't (I don't know how to get to a single post url... any help?)

Laziness does not imply inability.

BTW, you offered to list all the hypocricies of Jesus from the NT and I accepted - I'm still waiting

I didn't offer, I said "Need I?". However I am getting to it. You might not know this, but the bible is a reasonably large book, and although I can skip a large portion of it, it's still a lot to work through. What is it people say? Ah yes.. "patience is a virtue".

I know a massive hour has passed, but could you perhaps wait just a little while longer?

OK, then what is evolution- it's your religion after all, so I guess you can define it however you want.

That is what you need to find out, and preferably from a source that you don't just ignore for the sake of it. What you would be happier debating is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life)

There are many people, and many scientists that attempt to answer the origins of life through differing methods. However, this is not 'evolution'. To answer your question, as I always do..

Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html)

That should hopefully be sufficient.

It is to those who "have no eyes to see" Isn't the old adage "you can't describe a rainbow to a blind man"? Faith in God is, to the lost, foolishness.

1 Corinthians 1
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence

And that is an answer for what? Sorry, I fail to see the relevance...

David F.: While creation cannot be proved, neither can evolution.
*************
M*W: I believe creation has long been proven as factual as has evolution. We don't have archeologists for nothing. Therefore, creation and evolution have both be proven. I believe creation came about randomly by the very evolution of the Big Bang -- not by any creator god. We are still evoling in the continuing ripple of the Big Bang.
*************
David F.: As long as you don't label Genesis as "false" then you are still fine with the rest of the bible.
*************
M*W: Genesis as well as the rest of the bible was written in symbolic language. There was no man named Adam nor was their a woman named Eve. Adam represents the Earth and Eve represents the living people and things on the Earth as well as wisdom. Eve and the Serpent are one and the same. The Serpent represents wisdom, too. There wasn't a real snake in Eden.
*************
David F.: The OT is a book of books by various authors which proports to show the history of the Israelite people (sometimes called the Jews, although the word Jew really refers just to the tribe of Judah, but after the Babylonian exile, it became an all-inclusive word referring to the entire Israelite people).
*************
M*W: Shall we call the bible a 'bibliography?' IF Moses wrote the Pentateuch books, he would have had to have written them down in Egypt. He was born there and he died there. Moses was never an Israelite nor a Jew.
*************
David F.: It is only in the last few decades that some, whose goal is to discredit the scriptures, have started questioning the authorship of the bible books. Should they be believed? Well, I have checked out the arguments and have found them extremely wanting (absurd) but then you would have to believe me.
*************
M*W: Even before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947, there have been many biblical researchers and archeologists who have questioned the authenticity of the bible. Why shouldn't they be believed? I cannot believe you've checked out the arguments and found them to be absurd! That is, unless you only the works Christian authors! That tends to be the trend among christians who block every non-Christian writer out of their awareness. Name some non-Jew and non-christian biblical researchers and anthropologists whom you've read but still don't believe them to be true.
*************
David F.: Those who wrote the books believed and those to whom they were passed believed, and those who became caretakers thereafter believed. It is only now, more than 3000 years after the fact, that someone is questioning authorship. How would someone 3000 years later have any idea who wrote the books? If I must choose between the bible and some three-thousand year removed hecklers, which should I believe? Either way, I must believe one or the other.
*************
M*W: David, sadly you are incorrect. Take Moses -- he allegedly wrote the Pentateuch, although some scholars can prove he didn't. Until I am convinced otherwise, I will continue to believe that Moses wrote it. The question here is what was Moses' motivation to write it? It was his fanatical belief that the Sun-Aten-God. It's that simple. He wanted his people, all of Egypt, to believe that the sun was god. When Moses went upon the mountain tops to pray, as did believers in his day and later, he prayed to the sun and no other natural or supernatural entity. He wrote the Ten Commandments, not the sun. He wrote them to keep control of his sojourners in the Sinai desert. Moses saw himself as the Son of the Sun. That's why he gave himself the name/title Akhen-Aten, which means sun worshipper. The original Pentateuch was written in Egyptian language of the day -- not in Hebrew. The Pentateuch was translated from Egyptian into Hebrew, probably by one of the Habiru who made it over to the Promised Land, although these folks were uneducated shepherds. So translating the Egyptian writings into Hebrew, and the Hebrew version into English, has lost much from the original Egyptian. Even the first translator of the Pentateuch probably made many errors. Some things are believed on faith but more is believed by science. The god of the OT, Moses believed, was himself. Further, Moses wasn't the ORIGINAL penman. The Pentateuch was copied from a much earlier civilization -- the Sumerians.
*************
David F.: The NT is a compilation of writings made by some first century Christians, not necessarily all who were disciples of Christ. The writings were gathered into a book by a set of church elite, led by a sun-god worshipper who only took on the guise of Christianity because it was convinient. However, despite this non-auspicious beginning, the NT has still proved to be true.
*************
M*W: The birth of the NT books were written late in the first century, and Paul's epistles were written before the gospels. Matthew, Mark and Luke never knew Jesus. All they had read about Jesus was what Paul had written, and Paul never knew Jesus. It seems strange to me how all these people who didn't know Jesus wrote about him. The Dead Sea Scrolls were written by people who did know Jesus personally. The church 'doctors' probably had them hidden because they made references to Jesus and MM being intimate. In what way do you think the 'NT has still proved to be true?' Christians WANT to believe the NT is true so they can perpetuate their religious addiction!
*************
David F.: I too am sceptical of the NT. I am much more likely to believe the witnesses of those who were there (the disciples who wrote the gospels) than the writings of a murderer from the camp of the Pharisees who only later saw the light and changed his evil ways (Paul).
*************
M*W: You say you're 'sceptical of the NT,' but you believe the 'witnesses' who were 'there.' John was the only gospel writer who knew Jesus personally. There are several biblical scholars/linguists who now believe MM wrote the Gospel of John and Revelations under the name 'John.' You're smart to not believe what Paul wrote. Paul never knew Jesus. His epistles were written at least about 50 years after Jesus' death. In fact, it's very possible that Paul made the myth of Jesus up, and there was no such person. The greatest accomplishment of Jesus was him becoming a rabbi. The name Saul/Paul in Aramaic means 'deceiver.'
*************
David F.: However, when I read Paul's writings carefully and ignore the misreadings and obvious distortions attributed to him throughout the centuries, I find that Paul too, preaches the gospel of Christ - amazing but true.
*************
M*W: No, this is not amazing but true! Paul had a bad reputation as a liar, thief and murderer. He was also epileptic and was known to have seizures. That's why he saw a bright light and heard the voice of whom he thought was god after falling off his horse. I will give Paul credit for being a learned man who created some interesting characters in his writings, but that's all they were -- characters -- maybe even Jesus.
*************
David F.: Shall I trust those who try to malign the disciples but keep the corrupted teachings of the murderer-turned-Christian? I think not. I find it safer to reject the modern distorters and retain the ancient original. But, then again, that is what I believe. You must make up your own mind.
*************
M*W: Paul wrote most of the NT and what he didn't personally write, he coerced Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the precisely few others who may have contributed to his-Paul's message. Everything you read in the NT about Jesus said this, Jesus said that, are Paul's words -- not Jesus' words -- the Lord's Prayer, Beatitudes, etc..
*************
David F.: Peoples over many times and in many centuries have asked this question - does the bible apply to me and to my time? Amazingly, the eventual answer has always been - YES. Cultures go in cycles (even the old Jewish culture) and always seem to end up back to the bible original. Our's just hasn't gone full circle yet. In the end, we must retain the scriptures in total.
*************
M*W: If what you say is true, cultures come and go, but people always come back to believing the bible applies to those in their times, I just don't think this is logical reasoning. If what you state as truth, then the only religion we would have would be Judaism and Christianity. Obviously, the Bible doesn't hold any truth to 75% of the world's population, and christianity is dying fast worldwide. Why do you think? Retaining the scriptures in total would mean that the Dead Sea Scrolls, the gospels hidden in the Vatican, plus the many other writings the Church suppressed -- this is what I call 'total.'
*************
David F.: No matter what society tells you or the intellectualists tell you, you will some day be made to answer for your actions. It has always been a matter of personal preference, but there will come a time when God will judge and you (and I) will be held accountable for our decisions. Just because some have fallen into error and desire to drag you down with them, does not excuse you. You must make a decision.
*************
M*W: David, you sound a lot like c20. It amazes me how some christians come onto a site like sciforums Religion forum and preach to those of us who couldn't care less about any assumed god or dying demigod savior. There are many christian forums out there in cyberspace, and you would be among believers like yourself. I was an ex-christian when I came to sciforums, but I still believed in a creator god. Thanks to sciforums religion forum, not only have I become an anti-christian, because of fanatical christians like you, but I've have also happily become an atheist. One day the light bulb went on in my head, and I saw the light. No god will judge us, we are responsible to ourselves and all of humanity for our actions. If you feel as if you're being 'dragged down' by sciforums religion forum, I suggest you move to another forum or join a christian web site. You knew when you came here that this wasn't a christian forum, and those of us who use logical reasoning will continue to drag you down. I'm not trying to run you off, because I believe you are an intelligent man, and your knowledge of Hebrew is especially helpful. I told you my story on this forum, and if you have any doubts about christianity, this is definitely the place for you to be. If you're worried about losing your faith like I did, then you should protect your circular beliefs and go elsewhere.
*************
David F.: Atheists like to use the patience and long-suffering of God as proof of His absense or demise. Just because God does not jump when an Atheist snaps his fingers, does not proclaim his existance or lack thereof. God is the master, not the servant. Atheists too - especially those on this forum who know the truth (it seems most of the Atheists on the forum are fallen Christians) - must make a choice and must eventually account for their actions.
*************
M*W: Your first statement is just not true. This is not what atheists do. When one gives power and glory to some unknown creator godly being, he has a masochistic personality. Atheists let go of the 'fear' of God to the point of not believing in a god exists. We are certainly more content to give up that childish brainwashing. Yes, it IS brainwashing. An atheist doesn't snap his or her fingers and expect God to jump. There would be no reason for an atheist to even snap his fingers at all except to call his dog. The choice I've made to disbelieve in any god or dying demigod savior serves me well. I'm a happy and loving person. I smile at everyone I pass by and I speak if I'm able. I see strangers all the time. When I see them the second time, they remember me and smile or speak first. This is my nature. I love people. I love humanity. I have created myself, even though my parents did the work to have me and surely went through hell when I was a rebellious teenager. Back in those days we all said about The Establishment, "Don't trust anyone over 30." How fast 30 has come and gone, but life goes on. My parents weren't religious people. My dad never believed in god even when he was a Navy Seal in the oceans around Japan in WWII. I can guarantee you that he was responsible for his own actions. There was no god in those undersea mines he diffused.
I stopped being the rebellious hippie that I was growing up in the 60s, and I became a rebellious adult who found 'religion' in the form of Roman Catholicism. I did this mainly to rear my kids in a religious environment. My husband was Roman Catholic, but I dumped him in Germany in 1978. He's since become a holy roller, like I care. He's insane. What does that tell you? There are so many religously believing people locked up in nuthouses all over the world! He should be there, too.
*************
David F.: The Atheist line is: Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.
*************
M*W: This is not an atheist line. I've heard this all of my life even when I was a christian. It applies to everybody, especially liars. That's how christianity perpetuated -- lies that people continue to believe! Liars, and the people who believe them, are pathetic losers. I took instructions to become a Roman Catholic, and I was more zealous than those who were raised as one. I taught catechism for a number of years, and I had convinced myself it was all truth. Now I'm spending the rest of my life finding out what the truth really was, because it's NOT in the bible.
*************
David F.: Why believe? That is a choice - a personal preference. If nothing else, believe because the bible has not been proved false.
*************
M*W: Yes, it is a choice, and I've made mine. I'm sorry to tell you that the bible has long been proven false. Christianity forces you to believe in the bible. Therefore, that makes christianity false. Don't be afraid to seek the truth, and don't fight with your conscience for doing so. The more you dedicate your life to some dying demigod savior, the less you have for yourself. This is the only life you've got. Don't smother it with religion. Believe in yourself as the only god there is.

As long as you don't label Genesis as "false" then you are still fine with the rest of the bible.

I only noticed that because MW put it in her post, did you really say that? Damn, I must have overlooked it...

In fact, I have repeatedly labeled "Genesis" false in this thread... So, for me, the bible is a waste of paper.

And here we clearly see your inability to comprehend simple English. I didn't ask you to impress belief in these beings on anyone. I merely asked why you reject the witnesses of them.

I have a tendency to talk in my sleep. It seems you have a tendency to type in your sleep.

You've asked this a hundred times now, and I keep giving the same answer: I answer all of your questions.

See, that's an answer, and yet you'll probably ask the exact same question again in a few minutes time. I do answer, you're just not awake yet.

Save me scrolling back.. Asked what?

Oh, you're such a funny guy (your lieing but you're still funny).

OK, just for you 'cause I like ya so much:

It is not I, but you who ignore the facts of evolution. Since you don't even know the meaning of the word, perhaps you might define the following concepts and put your own words to them:

1) The rise of Cells from non-organic material
2) The change from one-celled life to multi-cellular organisms
3) The diversification of multi-cellular organisms into Kingdoms/Phylum/Class/Order...
4) The variations within a species - speciation.

I asked for your definition of these processes since you obviously don't like mine.
Laziness does not imply inability.

I didn't offer, I said "Need I?". However I am getting to it. You might not know this, but the bible is a reasonably large book, and although I can skip a large portion of it, it's still a lot to work through. What is it people say? Ah yes.. "patience is a virtue".

I know a massive hour has passed, but could you perhaps wait just a little while longer?[
Thank you, I'll be waiting with baited breath... :bugeye:
That is what you need to find out, and preferably from a source that you don't just ignore for the sake of it. What you would be happier debating is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life)
You know, I'm tired of running off on your wild-goose chases. Why don't you save me from scrolling, or linking, and just answer the question. What do YOU think evolution is?
There are many people, and many scientists that attempt to answer the origins of life through differing methods. However, this is not 'evolution'. To answer your question, as I always do..

Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html)

That should hopefully be sufficient.
Come on now... give me an answer. These are other people's answers. I want YOUR answer.

Dreamwalker: I only noticed that because MW put it in her post, did you really say that? Damn, I must have overlooked it...

In fact, I have repeatedly labeled "Genesis" false in this thread... So, for me, the bible is a waste of paper.
*************
M*W: ...and what a waste of paper it is! Your comment made another light bulb turn on in my head! I just remembered (from 4th grade many, many moons ago), that paper was first made in Egypt from papyrus plants, and interestingly, Moses was supposed to have written Genesis. How convenient he had papyrus plants to write on, otherwise he used stone tablets, and we would have never known the lies he penned in Genesis!

But, I'll not deny miracles! It was truly a miracle that I remembered this from the 4th grade.

It is not I, but you who ignore the facts of evolution. Since you don't even know the meaning of the word

Don't know the meaning of the word? But you clearly don't want the actual meaning of the word, as seen later on in your post, (even refusing to click the link), so with what position can you say I don't know the meaning?

It has become very apparent that you feel personal opinion of word's meaning, is more important than the word's actual meaning. As this is the case, it is no surprise that you are constantly stumbling over this very simple thing.

perhaps you might define the following concepts and put your own words to them:

My own words? Fair enough:

"1) The rise of Cells from non-organic material" --- oibala joibala
"2) The change from one-celled life to multi-cellular organisms" --- hoogala boogala.

Now tell me David.. do you want my own words, or actual words? Would you like me to specify a personal meaning or an actual meaning? What are you after, if not what is actually what? My personal opinion and words mean bugger all at the end of the day, as do yours. What you should learn to do instead is to apply a meaning to the word it belongs to. As such, you cannot apply the origins of life to "evolution".

"1) The rise of Cells from non-organic material" -- The origins of life are not 'evolution'.

You're going in the right direction with numbers 2, 3 and 4.

You know, I'm tired of running off on your wild-goose chases. Why don't you save me from scrolling, or linking, and just answer the question. What do YOU think evolution is?

It is irrelevant what a specific individual thinks evolution is, if they don't actually know what evolution is. The only way you'll find out, without me copy/pasting, is to click the link.

The reason I send you their way, is because these guys work with the topic, and as such would know the meaning better than you or I. While I could write it in my own words, nothing beats hearing it from the experts. Would you disagree?

Come on now... give me an answer. These are other people's answers. I want YOUR answer.

Fine, fine.. Evolution put simply is change. Not just change mind, but change that becomes inheritable. Change in a person for example, is mutation. When that mutation becomes inheritable in the population, it is evolution.

As a result, the very first instance of life is not 'evolution', but what happened beyond that is.

This was explained for the general layman, and not a complete essay on evolution. If you have problem with it, feel free to click the link and get a more lengthy explanation.

Fine, since you can't seem to define Evolution, I will give you a quote:
"Evolution is a flexible word. It can be used by one person to mean something as simple as change over time, or by another person to mean the descent of all life forms from a common ancestor, leaving the mechanism of change unspecified. In its full-throated, biological sense, however, evolution means a process whereby life arose from non-living matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means. That is the sense that Darwin gave to the word, and the meaning that it holds in the scientific community."- Dr. Michael J. Behe, Phd., Professor of Biochemistry - Lehigh University, Pennsylvania. Darwin's Black Box, 1996, p.x, ISBN 0-684-83493-6
I am using the word Evolution in the Darwinian/Scientific sense. Do you have some problem with this definition?

M*W: ...and what a waste of paper it is!

Response from C20 : Yes a terrible waste. Burn it immediatley :rolleyes:

M*W: Your comment made another light bulb turn on in my head!

Response from C20 : :eek:

M*W: I just remembered (from 4th grade many, many moons ago), that paper was first made in Egypt from papyrus plants ...

Response from C20: At school. They taught me that too.

M*W: ...and interestingly, Moses was supposed to have written Genesis.

Response from C20: They taught me that too. Freaky coincidence or what!

M*W:How convenient he had papyrus plants to write on, otherwise he used stone tablets

Response from C20: Yep yep I concur! This is freaky!

M*W: ...and we would have never known the lies he penned in Genesis!

Response from C20: Sorry, at which point did we lose track? I was told in school that the Bible was the Bible, The Holy Bible of the Christian Faith. I read Genesis. It makes sense to me. What lies do you mean? Who has led you astray? Do you not remember what you were taught in school? Darn, I thought it was like gonna be the coincidence of all coincidences :-(

M*W: But, I'll not deny miracles! It was truly a miracle that I remembered this from the 4th grade.

Response from C20: :m:

Well, I ahve read the sagas of the norse gods. They are written much better than the bible and feature all the stuff that is in you holy book. World creation, creation of animals and men and loads of gods that are no such wimps as your, and they do not care about weak little christians.

Following David's reasoning it is all right to believe that. So from now on, I am a believer. I believe in Wotan, the god of battle and death, but also wisdom and art. My believe is just as well founded as the christian one. Great, isn't it. And I do not need to read an overextended self-contradictory pamphlet. Isn't religion great.

Now, SouthStar, I know you're not this foolish.

You are trying to turn AdStar's statement into a "which came first, the Chicken or the Egg?" scenario - and I know you know better. The Holy Spirit came first - and the Holy Spirit taught all the patriarchs, including Moses who wrote the first scriptures (perhaps with some source material). The only way you get to your conclusion is by denying that God exists at all - which you know AdStar does not believe.

You are purposely misunderstanding what AdStar wrote just to mock him - and that makes you a hypocrite.

Excuse my question, are you that much of an idiot? The very reason you think this:

--
The Holy Spirit came first - and the Holy Spirit taught all the patriarchs, including Moses who wrote the first scriptures (perhaps with some source material).
--

is because the Bible says so therefore the argument is circular. Again you want me to see things your (plural) way in order to understand "correctly". Can you be this arbitrary?

I really don't want you to think anything in particular or see things in any particular way. You have made a choice - and it is your choice to make.

However, you are now maligning others who have not made that choice and have not rejected the truth as you have. Your choice is yours to make but so is theirs. You argue from the advantage of knowing the faith of those you malign and intentionally misrepresenting them and misinterpretting their ideas and thoughts. You know what you are doing, which makes your actions fairly dispicable.

You may make your choice, and I for one will not fault you for your choice. If that is your path, then go to it - but don't expect the rest of us to burn with you. If, some day, you choose to return, you know we will all welcome you back.

Well, I ahve read the sagas of the norse gods. They are written much better than the bible and feature all the stuff that is in you holy book. World creation, creation of animals and men and loads of gods that are no such wimps as your, and they do not care about weak little christians.

Following David's reasoning it is all right to believe that. So from now on, I am a believer. I believe in Wotan, the god of battle and death, but also wisdom and art. My believe is just as well founded as the christian one. Great, isn't it. And I do not need to read an overextended self-contradictory pamphlet. Isn't religion great.
Yes DW, you have the right to believe a lie - go to it, but don't expect me to follow.

The truth of Christanity has been proved to me beyond any reasonable doubt, by methods you would not understand (but I imagine C2o might understand). But that proof to me cannot be extended to you - so go follow a lie. But, if you ever decide to seek the truth, there are many on this forum which will be happy to help you.

c20H25N3o: Sorry, at which point did we lose track? I was told in school that the Bible was the Bible, The Holy Bible of the Christian Faith. I read Genesis. It makes sense to me. What lies do you mean? Who has led you astray? Do you not remember what you were taught in school? Darn, I thought it was like gonna be the coincidence of all coincidences :-(
*************
M*W: I, too, was taught all throughout my school days that the Bible spoke the truth, that being a Christian is what everyone was supposed to be, that God created me, and Jesus died for me, blah blah blah. It was Paul who led us all astray. He never knew Jesus, so how can we unless we believe his lies. This is what they didn't teach me in school. I had to learn this from my own research.

Why believe? What else is there to believe in?
Science may satisfy the analytical, but it will never satisfy man's inherent mysticism. We're a superstitious creature, we thrive on that stuff.

The bible is a nice thing to buy into because it solves our natural fear of death, our need for mysticism and answering why, and because 8 out of 10 Americans can't be wrong. (About 77% of Americans were Christian in 2001)

I really don't want you to think anything in particular or see things in any particular way. You have made a choice - and it is your choice to make.

However, you are now maligning others who have not made that choice and have not rejected the truth as you have. Your choice is yours to make but so is theirs. You argue from the advantage of knowing the faith of those you malign and intentionally misrepresenting them and misinterpretting their ideas and thoughts. You know what you are doing, which makes your actions fairly dispicable.

You may make your choice, and I for one will not fault you for your choice. If that is your path, then go to it - but don't expect the rest of us to burn with you. If, some day, you choose to return, you know we will all welcome you back.

Do tell me how I intentionally misrepresent and misinterpret their ideas and thoughts. I don't expect to burn because I was unable to be arbitrary.. that would be God's 'problem' for making me that way in the first place. Some people he makes gullible, some he makes "dispicable" I suppose.

Some people he makes gullible, some he makes "dispicable" I suppose.

Why would God intentionally trip you up? Did you not hear the voice that says "Make the path straight..."?

You have tripped yourself up. You forget yourself. You forget your own reflection in the mirror. You did not choose the colour of your hair nor the number of days that you will live. You depend on God's goodness like the birds know there will be food for them each day but I tell you those birds thank God in their hearts more readily than you do.
I say this not so that you might think i despise you, nor do I say it because I believe you to be dispicable, I just say it because in causing others weak in faith to stumble, you are piling up trouble for your self.
I appeal to you in all conscious to leave those little ones alone.
I am aware you too were probably torn down by wolves no sooner than the seed was planted but I tell you this and I do not lie "Nothing can seperate you from God's love."
But God's love does rebuke, and it is not wise to cause these little ones to stumble. I implore you not to put God's patience to the test. I say this because I know how terrible His wrath is.
Remember the people of Sodom became mighty arrogant in their sin and God hated what they did! In fact God put an end to it with fire from Heaven because He couldn't let it continue for their sakes. He put an end to it to spare flesh from further sin.
You who say "God is bad because of this and that", who are you to question His Authority? I am a speck of dust in the longest, widest, deepest space I can perceive. Mighty fiery giants burn all around me, galaxies swirl and black holes suck up light such are their mysterious powers. The moon catches sun light and throws silver onto the dew soaked grass for me to ponder upon and as I sit by the lake in the dead of night I know that it was my appreciation for these things and who I accredited them to that anulled my arrogance. I am just a man and I know it is by God's good grace that I have life and I know it is through prayer and fellowship with Him that I may know what it is to be loved completely and in a way that no other human can manage. You see if the Spirit of God was allowed to do His work in all men, then we would see everything submitting to the will of man even as man submits to the will of God. But since the atheist refuses to submit to the will of God, all men suffer as a result and nothing is in submission to us. This is why the wheat and the chaff must be seperated.
If you atheist's are saying " Well God made us to be chaff", then we Christians will believe you. We have no choice, however we know all things are possible for God. We have faith in Him. We Christians would not be hear speaking of the Good News that was told to us if it were not for you.
You see we feel God's heart for those that have gone astray and for those of us that have lost children we have an even deeper understanding of God's anguish. In fact it is our suffering that brings the Good News here because the sufferings of Jesus spill out onto us that we may share in His suffering and also therefore His glory. To be united in suffering is to be released in joy.
Whoever saves His own life will lose it but whoever loses his life on account of Him will save it.

peace

c20

In one of The Onions' fake horoscopes, the one for Libra was "The solution to all of your problems can be found by reading the mistranslated myths of a stone-age desert nomad tribe."

You might as well believe a giant Twinkie ™ created and rules the universe. All hail the mighty Twinkie ™! Do not doubt the power of its light cake or creamy lard laden filling!

In one of The Onions' fake horoscopes, the one for Libra was "The solution to all of your problems can be found by reading the mistranslated myths of a stone-age desert nomad tribe."

You might as well believe a giant Twinkie[&reg] created and rules the universe. All hail the mighty Twinkie! Do not doubt the power of its light cake or creamy lard laden filling!

I find it amusing that you could put store by the words of The Onion's fake horoscopes but dismiss these words from the New Testament ...

Matthew 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

To love God with all your heart and soul and mind is to put Him first, to trust unto Him to care for you. This produces a deep humilty in man and it is most pleasing to God who made you. When you are tested ( and not by God I stress, God does not do the testing) there is only one place you can turn to for support.
The believer then sees the fruit of their humility as The Lord rescues them from Egypt faithfully as He has done since time began.
Then we have a little more faith because of the mustard seed we have already presented. And so to those who have more will be given but for those who have little even the tiny bit they have will be taken away because they do not trust God to deliver them but instead try to save their own lives.
Those who trust God's nature, delight in God's nature and therefore become like Him through witness of His nature. In becoming like Him they then love there neighbour even as they are loved themselves. The Christian witnesses God's great love for them and they are justified by it. The Christian then has the tools to love his neighbour even as he is loved fully because the Christian appreciates what it is to be loved in his inner being. The Christian also understands God's anger and in knowing His anger, comes to rely upon His mercy which as I have said is greater than His anger. For those that love Him, He remembereth not their sin, but for those who do not love Him, the very law itself that ought bring life, brings judgement and punishment which it of course must to show that the law is right.
What is the purpose of the law? Is it not to bring correction to the transgressor of it? How could it bring correction if it did not punish? And yet the unbeliever sees the wages of sin in the world and blames it on God, thus piling up their own sins further.
The full weight of the Law was exacted upon Jesus that you might not taste death, for in Him the purpose of the Law was fulfilled leaving you off the hook so to speak. But for those who do not accept His offering, you are still under penalty of Law because you reject Him still and in doing so say "I will take my own punishment thank you!". You atheists have it your own way! As for me and mine, we will accept the free gift of eternal life in the knowledge that the Law now has no power to condemn us to death because we have believed on Him and trust that 'It is done'. In trusting we fulfill every commandment that there is, but I may summarise by saying that now we do not have any other gods before Him and are therefore obedient to the very first commandment "Though shalt have no other God's before me".
Incidently I may call Jesus a Giant Twinkie. He find's it quite funny :D
Big star that He is!

peace

c20

The bible must be read from the start to the finish. One must understand the significance of Jesus as the central hub. Without belief in God i think it is near impossible to have understanding of the bible. One needs the help of the Holy Spirit to understand. Even the Apostles did not truly understand until the day of Pentecost and they had lived with Jesus for 3 years.

All Praise the Ancient Of Days

Such a convenient philosophy. Using your approach one may believe pretty much anything no matter how stupid it appears to non believers. Bible, Universal mind, Allah, Extraterrestials, Scientology, you name it. You can "uderstand"/believe pretty much anything you like using your approach.

LSD, I don't put any store in ancient desert superstitions. None. At all. Whatsoever. A cobbled together mishmash of creation myths.

When I say giant Twinkie ™, I mean literally. And to doubt the existence of the giant Twinkie ™ is to incur the wrath of the giant Twinkie ™!

Can you prove the giant Twinkie ™ didn't create the universe? Then what right do you have to doubt its existence?

The giant Twinkie ™ makes more sense than anything in the bible, and it also tastes better.

P.S.: The Onion © , and everything contained within, is a joke (just in case you didn't know).

Can you prove the giant Twinkie didn't create the universe? Then what right do you have to doubt its existence?


I have already said that the Giant Twinkie did create the Universe although I tell you the truth that I have to ask permission to be so bold on this matter lest I trip you up.
Jesus is the Giant Twinkie that you speak of. Now believe on Him.

peace

c20

c20H25N3o; I your the most recent post place "JOE" instead God, Joe worshippers instead of Christians and you'll get nice apologetics for the Joe worshiping (for people wishing to believe in anything to make their lives meaningful). As long as you want to believe, it makes you happy whole, etc., nothing really matters (Bible's absurdities, for example). Personal "senses"/feelings is all what counts. That's why Christians using logical arguments to defend their belief seem ridiculous for non Christian minds. Desire and logic are two different things. You want to believe, it makes your world more frienly, more structured, more meaningful - Enjoy! Just try not to use "hard" arguments to defend your choise of worshiping, it looks ridiculous.

To try and confuse the giant Twinkie ™ with non existent deities is blasphemy! The giant Twinkie ™ demands a sacrifice for your sins of confusing it with some non existent deity! Or you'll face the wrath of the Twinkie ™ !

Just so you're clear: Jesus, jew dead for over 2,000 years, no cake, no creamy filling. Giant Twinkie ™, creator of the universe, moist golden cake, creamy filling. Not the same!

To try and confuse the giant Twinkie with non existent deities is blasphemy! The giant Twinkie demands a sacrifice for your sins of confusing it with some non existent deity! Or you'll face the wrath of the Twinkie!


Even if that were true (which it is not), the Law that condemned blasphemy could not hold me because I fulfill the first commandment in believing on Jesus Christ.

Which is good news for you given that you transgress the law with your blasphemy right here ...

Just so you're clear: Jesus, jew dead for over 2,000 years, no cake, no creamy filling.

but nevertheless, your following statement does make my mouth water :drool:


Giant Twinkie, creator of the universe, moist golden cake, creamy filling.


Not the same!


lol

peace

c20

Fine, since you can't seem to define Evolution, I will give you a quote

This is obviously fallacious seeings as I did just that on the post right before yours. I guess I need to go back to speaking about your habit of typing in your sleep.

- Dr. Michael J. Behe, Phd., Professor of Biochemistry - Lehigh University, Pennsylvania. Darwin's Black Box, 1996, p.x, ISBN 0-684-83493-6

I am using the word Evolution in the Darwinian/Scientific sense. Do you have some problem with this definition?

Yes I do. The quote has been made by an anti-evolutionist who has made a rather strange claim to what evolution is considering several things:

A) He very often mentions "theistic evolution" - (i.e god did it, evolution carried the process on). Are you now saying that 'god' is a part of evolution? Even to the very man you quote, evolution is not about how it all began - that's god's job, but how evolution continued the process afterwards.

B) Even if that was Darwin's "sense"? some things have changed since 1859.

However, there are 5 key inferences and observations drawn from Darwin's theory of evolution:

First, species have great fertility. They make more offspring than can grow to adulthood.
Second, populations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations.
Third, food resources are limited, but are relatively constant most of the time. From these three observations it may be inferred that in such an environment there will be a struggle for survival among individuals.
Fourth, in sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical. Variation is rampant.
And fifth, much of this variation is heritable. - Ernst Mayr

These do not include "who/what set the ball in motion".

Further to which, evolution does not deny you believers from your existence in god. (as I mentioned earlier, "theistic evolution" is supported by some), and whether it was god, lenny the leprechaun or a big pot of carrot soup would not in any way hinder evolution.

What you really need to do is find out exactly what evolution is, and just as importantly - what evolution is not. You don't have to of course, and I'm not going to force you - It is entirely upto you.

If you wish to do so, click Here (http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm) (Not TalkOrigins website)

Good luck.

Yes DW, you have the right to believe a lie - go to it, but don't expect me to follow.

The truth of Christanity has been proved to me beyond any reasonable doubt, by methods you would not understand (but I imagine C2o might understand). But that proof to me cannot be extended to you - so go follow a lie. But, if you ever decide to seek the truth, there are many on this forum which will be happy to help you.


Wotan has proven himself to me. The history is written on runestones, for all to see and genuine. You are the one who beliefs a lie! You are just too blind to see that truth. But when you stand in the river of icy blades, where all the dead hypocrites are send, you will see that I am right.

:bugeye:

I haven't read all the posts here, but here's my oppinion.
I believe in god, and even the commandments, but i'm very sceptical about the bible itself. I didn't even realise others thought the same until i read the da vinci code, but the way i have come to think of it, even if the words in there are real, they were filtered through biased thought of the lifestyle back then. A good example is original sin, women back then were thought to be less than men. Men wrote the entire bible. And perhaps even if it was written as per god wanted it, it was written for the people back then, relevant back then, not now.

C20's comment on the Snakelord and David F debate

David F trusts that God made the Universe and everything in it including him. He believes that the Lord Jesus Christ died for his sins and it is to the book of Genesis that David puts faith in. David has looked scientifically at the evidence of creation and evolution. He has not blindly accepted one or the another but has studied and has come to the conclusion that the book of Genesis can be born out by the non-conclusivity of science. In fact as clever as David F is (and he is undoubtedly a much cleverer man than I), David humbly accepts that the Universe is too well ordered and carries purpose that can only be atrributed to the First Mover. David F seeks God and God reveals Himself to David by the Holy Spirit because David F accepts that Jesus was the Way, The Truth and The Light. This is David's faith and should be respected.

Snakelord has once in his life accepted Jesus as his saviour. But now finds that this was a little too much like having to accept that there is something greater than him out there even if that thing was a Jewish carpenter who rallied against everyone and had the most popular book written about him because of it. Snakelord cannot bear the thought that there might be someone who he must bow his head too especially this Jewish carpenter who apparently was killed for shooting his mouth off. And so seeks to prove that God does not exist, because that would mean that he is the only thing that truly matters. No sin, no judgement, no burny hot lakes of fire because he didn't believe in someone who was killed for running his mouth off. He does this (proving God does not exist) by pointing to scientific claims which do seem at least to suggest that the book of Genesis is a lie.
If the book of Genesis is a lie then Jesus is a lie. If Jesus is a lie then what more of sin and judgement and death which all sound rather nasty thank you very much. Snakelord has accepted his imminent death and feels unanswerable to anyone, not needing to give account to anyone for his life on earth. Snakelord is essentially a 'good' man. In him there is no falsehood when it comes to basic common sense. This is basic common sense to Snakelord for which he must not be judged.

Now if I may add my purpose here in all of these discussions ...

C20 believes that there have been too many evil atrocities in this life. He himself has been a victim of one person's terribly selfish act in which he gave all of his strength to something that was then taken away without warning namely his wife and daughter. He himself then was maligned and judged as deserving his suffering and the people who held him in judgement (and still do 12 years on) were his own parents, the very people he needed to restore him and make him feel ok about himself again. But they stand against him. Now what of the adulteress? What answer's does Atheism have regarding justice. A terrible wrong has been done to C20, he has been deprived of his first child whom he loves with all of his being. What of that? C20 would be able to say in all good conscious "There is no God because this is more than I can bear." What father can bear to hear that they may not see their child whom they brought into the world? And yet for C20 this is reality!
C20 has sought answers to the questions of justice and has found them in Jesus Christ. C20 has seen a man on a cross in his mind and seen him saying "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."
Now it doesn't matter to C20 that he has not actually seen this man, the spirit in which they were written is the important thing here. Jesus (of the Bible) knew that what was happening to him was a terrible thing. This character had only ever talked about God and how much he loved God and how he wished everyone loved God like he did. He trusted this God character so much that this character Jesus called God Father. C20 was pleased that in the story God approved of Jesus and raised him to life. To C20 anything else would have been injustice - which of course C20 hates.
The more C20 has explored the spirit of the Bible the more he 'sees' God and 'hears' God but again it is by spirit. C20 understands that no one can actually see or hear God. C20 calls God Father now and as such understands the character Jesus in the story of the Bible. The more C20 understands, the more the Spirit reveals itself to him.
Until in C20's mind, the Spirit takes on life of it's own and as this happens C20 sees that God is his Father and that the Spirit itself is God. This Spirit we may call The Word because it is The Word unto us. Now how may C20 know he isn't going mad?
I mean Spirits, God, Words blah blah all that mixed up with a little bit of acid and weed and you have a nut job right? Well because God is Who He is, he doesn't let C20 fall. C20 is weak as many of you have determined. He is like a cripple actually. Torn spine, multiple head injuries and so on, the result of a death-defying 160kph car accident. C20 clings to the Spirit of Love with all his strength terrified that he might slip away from that which gives him hope. C20 has been given many spiritual gifts as I am sure the other Christians here will testify to as a result of his humility. God is love. He is not angry with you. He loves you. << This is The Word to C20 and he is set free by it. C20 want's you to know The Word to.

C20 loves David F because David F speaks the truth. C20's faith is strengthed by David F's faith. David F is strengthened by C20's faith.

Snakelord calls both C20 and David F a liar. Snakelord to them is like a man sticking out a foot as the waiter carries a tray of food because Snakelord knows exactly what it is to fall over after having believed and does not believe God picked him up again. Snakelord says right if I can be tripped, I am going to trip. Snakelord does not realise that his own strength has kept him from falling and that now in all faith he should shepard the weak rather than trip them up. Snakelord however fears punishment for falling. Snakelord forgets that the Father holds the childs hand to prevent him from falling. If the child hurts their knees the father feels terrible for them and seeks to put a bandage on the pain. The father may even feel guilty for not holding their little hand tight enough. God only asks that you be humble because He himself is humble. It is when we get arrogant that God must use his rod and staff. Humble shepard, humble sheep. But if the sheep stray, the Shepard will leave the rest and come fetch the one that has gone astray caring not for the attack of the wolves along the way. He is protecting those lost sheep from the wolves. Hear the Word.


c20

Uhh, I can understand your waiter parable, but keep in mind that there are people who grew up without believing in god, so they never tripped. I know that I never did.

Uhh, I can understand your waiter parable, but keep in mind that there are people who grew up without believing in god, so they never tripped. I know that I never did.

Indeed. God loves everyone no matter who they are. But to see that one must believe. No matter who they are.

I do not claim to be any greater than anyone else. I just know that you would love to hear me play the blues harmonica and I would love to play it for you. Music is such a universal language. We all understand it.

peace

c20

:confused: Pardon... what?

Perhaps I did not formulate it directly enough: I never believed in a god and was never forced to do so. I was never indoctrinated on god's behalf by anyone and I do not love. I like and enjoy things, but not on a level that I would call love. And the only thing I believe in, or rather trust in, is me.

:confused: Pardon... what?

Perhaps I did not formulate it directly enough: I never believed in a god and was never forced to do so. I was never indoctrinated on god's behalf by anyone and I do not love. I like and enjoy things, but not on a level that I would call love. And the only thing I believe in, or rather trust in, is me.

Ok. No probs. Sorry.

Sorry for what?

Even if that were true (which it is not), the Law that condemned blasphemy could not hold me because I fulfill the first commandment in believing on Jesus Christ.

duh wrong!. read your kjb

mark 3:28: Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:



mark3:29: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

it's quite clear you've never read the bible from cover to cover, just a small concise specially written version.

start reading it c20/lsd/amoeba-man, ok.

Dreamwalker: Perhaps I did not formulate it directly enough: I never believed in a god and was never forced to do so. I was never indoctrinated on god's behalf by anyone and I do not love. I like and enjoy things, but not on a level that I would call love. And the only thing I believe in, or rather trust in, is me.
*************
M*W: Welcome to the the survivor's club. Some believe a god created them -- so they worship their unseen god. Others believe they are responsible only to themselves -- they are called survivors. It saddens me that christians have so little self-worth -- but, hey, they depend on something that doesn't exist. What a wonderful world it would be if we could just believe in our own self.

M*W: Welcome to the the survivor's club.

Lol - only surviving heh? Surviving what? Life? And this makes you the hero? The big man? Cos little you is surviving?

Surviving what ? Was it the fall out of someone saying "Jesus is the son of God?" and you believing them for a cotton pickin' moment?

Or is it surviving your life?

If it is the latter. Go look in the mirror and give your self a pat as you look - this will be your reward. Make sure you congratulate yourself and pull a satisified face so that the reward is truly pleasing to you. You have survived! Well done.

What have you survived again? What is survival?

from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=survive

sur·vive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sr-vv)
v. sur·vived, sur·viv·ing, sur·vives
v. intr.
To remain alive or in existence.
To carry on despite hardships or trauma; persevere: families that were surviving in tents after the flood.
To remain functional or usable: I dropped the radio, but it survived.

Christians are the same as you medicine woman there is just one slight difference. They see Jesus carrying his cross, carrying on despite hardships and trauma in order to remain alive or in existence by being obedient to God , a God the Christians call Love. Jesus gives hope to the Christian because they know that Jesus spoke of God and 'love' as though in the same breathe and the message of Jesus causes them to call on the name of Jesus for help and in the Christians life, they see God at work and they come to understand Him and see that their love for Him shaped their thoughts and their life is shaped by their thoughts. As are yours. Who is your father? The devil?

The benchmark of my Father is Jesus Christ as son and Jesus was obedient even unto death. In Jesus there was no harm, only harm was done to him. Much harm done to an innocent. But the blood of the innocent seals God's covenant with you. In that there is nothing left to do. "It is done". His creation has survived but at what price?
I dont think that would have been the first plan :eek:

God's weakness is also his strength. God doesn't seek His own way because love isn't like that. Free will would have no place otherwise. We were tripped up by some enemy who took advantage of the weak part of love that believes everything like a child. We are not to blame. We are innocent. He calls to us. Jesus died that we may be witness to God's love. God then raised Jesus to 'prove' to man that He approved of Jesus and that in Jesus we may come to know Him. This is the Good News of the Gospel and literally fills the Christian with Hope and Joy. This phenomena was also witnessed in the Scriptures that you malign so much, so much so that one spoke of the fruits of the Spirit being

love;
joy;
peace;
patience;
kindness;
goodness;
faithfulness;
gentleness;
self-control.

Now the Christian is far from perfect but know that the Spirit is at work in Him when The Christian accepts Jesus into their lives. It all takes time. We the Christian understand this which is why it produces patience in us. The Christian should not be expected to always show patience all of the time. After all he is just a man like the unbeliever, like you. An honest Christian would say that without their new found faith, they would not have experienced change in their lives, whereas now they experience 'joy' because of the changes they note within themselves in particulary their countanence which deals with the fruits as emotions and ideas and in their bodies which are serving more purpose now than before their faith, in new and interesting ways.
The Christian agrees with the sentiment of the Bible that they are indeed a new Creation. The Christian is pleased to have This Holy Book, confirm their faith in what they see happening in their lives. It is like life to them.

Now given that it is written somewhere that the bad side of us is common to all of us, it seems only fair that the Christian be given the same respect as the next man whether he be believer or unbeliever and that each person should allow the Christian room to grow without hinderance. The Christian is bound to be found praising God for the work in their lives such is the nature of joy to give praise to that which is causing their joy. It is particualry likely that you will encounter this phenomena whilst browsing religious forums for it is a haunting ground for this particular species of animal. Give them room to grow. Be patient with them. Please do not argue with them about why they praise God for the work in their lives. It is a work that you know nothing about so why take a sword to it? Be happy for them as some folks are here.
You never know, they may even be nice people once you get to know them. I know I bite sometimes but hey! Who doesn't ;)

PEACE :m:

c20

if this is so c20.
love; joy; peace; patience; kindness; goodness; faithfulness; gentleness; self-control.
why has there been so much killing, in the name of you xian god. and why has you god and is so called son jesus condoned it, sanctioned it, and why is your xian god so inherently evil.

To C20:

David F trusts that God made the Universe and everything in it including him.

And that is his right. Alas, it has nothing to do with 'evolution'. This is the point I have tried to express to him 50 times now. Evolution does not argue against the possibilty that a god, a leprechaun or a mothman started the ball rolling. What it does do, is explain what happened after the ball started rolling.

David has looked scientifically at the evidence of creation and evolution.

Unfortunately, David does not even understand what 'evolution' is and as such has not been looking at it 'scientifically', but using the ideals of an anti-evolutionist, and his personal opinion of what 'evolution' is. Further to which, David could not have been looking at creation 'scientifically', because 'creation' is not scientific.

David humbly accepts that the Universe is too well ordered and carries purpose that can only be atrributed to the First Mover.

Just something you need to be aware of: Humility does not = truth.

Now.. let's move on to me, shall we?

Snakelord has once in his life accepted Jesus as his saviour.

Actually you're wrong.

I was born to a family of differing religions. At an early age, due to the severe post natal depression my mother suffered, I was fostered, and then eventually adopted into a completely non-religious family. They weren't atheists, they just weren't religous. The best way to state it is that: They just didn't care or pay attention to any of it.

Where you would get the notion that I 'once accepted jesus', is beyond me, and most certainly without any validity whatsoever. Of course, this is the natural course of action for a fundamentalist christian, so I would expect nothing less.

I am not a former christian, not a former jew, not a former muslim, not a former anything.

Ok, I haven't checked my birth certificate which may state I was born a particular religion. However, that would be pointless anyway. Religious belief is not genetically inherited, and as such, every child is born with a 'clean slate'. While some will be rude enough to force beliefs onto a child that can't even speak, it has no bearing on what they actually would believe, given the choice.

But now finds that this was a little too much like having to accept that there is something greater than him out there even if that thing was a Jewish carpenter who rallied against everyone and had the most popular book written about him because of it.

Even though we've already established that you're wrong, I will continue responding to your claims and points, merely as a courtesy.

You state it's a little too much to claim theres something greater than me out there. This is simply ludicrous. I would not, and have not 'rejected' jesus because of ego, but because of lack of evidence. It is so simple, and yet nobody can even grasp the concept. This is made even more bizarre by the fact that they do the same when it comes to anything else. These very same people 'reject' other gods without even seeing the hypocrisy in claiming I shouldn't do the same they do, or indeed that I only do so because I think I'm cool.

Time and time again I give people the opportunity to give evidence for their beliefs, and then that person scurries off into the void, only to turn up a short while later and repeat the process.

The really bizarre thing is this:

I have spent a great deal of time working with people who claim to have been abducted, or met aliens, or even had sexual relations with aliens. I turn round and say: "Ok, can you provide any evidence to support your claim?"

These people then provide pictures, video, illustrations.. they ask to be hypnotized, and they do everything in their power to support the claims they make.

Even then, the mass majority do not believe a word they say. But either way, at least these people try. They provide as much as they can, and a lot more than "it's true because I say so". You guys can't even give the simple basics, and yet expect people to just fall at your feet in agreement. Frankly I find it perverse.

Snakelord cannot bear the thought that there might be someone who he must bow his head too especially this Jewish carpenter who apparently was killed for shooting his mouth off.

Again I can only state the worthlessness of such a thing without so much as a solitary droplet of evidence. Would you just bow to Lenny the Leprechaun? Of course not. Why not?

And so seeks to prove that God does not exist

This is a fallacious statement. I argue against the claims that are made, and am forced by sanity to conclude that until such time where evidence is presented, there is no choice but to assign the term 'fantasy' to the specific being. The same would be true of Odin and Zeus, and the reason would be no different than the reason you assign the term 'fantasy' to Odin and Zeus.

I would of course like to know how and why you would assign the word 'fantasy' to Odin and Zeus, but everytime I ask, people just vanish into the void once more.

because that would mean that he is the only thing that truly matters.

This is silly. My wife matters, my daughter matters, my dog matters, my cat matters, my pet goldfish matter, my mother matters, my father matters, my sisters matter, my brothers matter, my grandparents matter, my cousins, uncles, aunts, brother in laws, sister in laws matter. Etc etc etc.

No sin, no judgement, no burny hot lakes of fire because he didn't believe in someone who was killed for running his mouth off.

Not believing someone is what a book claims him to be because there's no evidence, does not instantly apply that sin and judgement are false. There is sin, and there is judgement via the courts, and the legal system.

He does this (proving God does not exist) by pointing to scientific claims which do seem at least to suggest that the book of Genesis is a lie.

Evolution is a fact. It doesn't matter what you say about it, it doesn't change that fact. It also does not extend itself to state that 'god does not exist', because that's not what evolution is. Using a faulty term for the word, doesn't mean it's right. The book of Genesis is in no way completely literal. Only a fool would think so. Especially given that it's little more than a copy of older Sumerian texts, that predate it by 1 and a half millennia.

Nobody can blame the writers, they lived in the times where next to nothin