Jump to content
The Big Bang Theory Forums
Sign in to follow this  
walnutcowboy

Bible On The History Channel.

Recommended Posts

That wasn't my point, nor was I trying to imply anything about the Bible (although I could conjure up a number of Biblical contradictions, false claims and failed prophecies if you like; in fact, it'd be more on topic!). I was pointing out that you used a logical fallacy, namely the argument from consensus. 

 

If you like, I shall use another analogy. Centuries ago, people used to think that the Earth was the centre of the universe and that the sun orbited the Earth. Anybody who disagreed would have been arrested for heresy by the religious authorities, because it contradicted the solipsistic, anthropocentric and hubristic religious view that humans were the centre of a divine plan. Just because there were a large numbers of people who believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe, and that the sun orbited the Earth, doesn't mean they were correct.

 

Similarly, just because there are more people who believe in gods than fairies, it doesn't mean that the chance that a god exists is any higher than the chance that a fairy exists. They're both unfalsifiable claims , thus we should, as the falsification principle tells us to do, dismiss them and forget about them. 

 

There are no contradictions in the Bible or failed prophesy, so what you would conjure up will be your misunderstanding of the Bible. However, You are not alone in failure to comprehend scripture, most of Christendom also fails . In fact it is the divided and disagreeing churches of Christendom that creates the supposed contradictions!!

 

With regard to your second analogy, the Bible make no claim to earth being at the centre of the universe, or that the sun orbited the earth. Those false beliefs were upheld and promoted by the ignorant church leaders who created the biblical contradictions!! Hense God's word is not to blame for false belief.

 

Clearly you choose to ignore that fact that billions of people worshipping a God, that you don't believe in, lends huge support of existence. While the obvious non-existence of fairies is supported by absence of worship, investigation and study.

 

BTW, you still given a sensible comparison to why billions of people believe in God. What other supposed none provable thing commands the attention of billions of people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Viddy9,

 Let me start by saying you seem to be very bright person.

 

I agree. An admirable intellect for a 15 year old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. An admirable intellect for a 15 year old.

 

Wow only 15?  Cool...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no contradictions in the Bible or failed prophesy, so what you would conjure up will be your misunderstanding of the Bible. However, You are not alone in failure to comprehend scripture, most of Christendom also fails . In fact it is the divided and disagreeing churches of Christendom that creates the supposed contradictions!!

 

With regard to your second analogy, the Bible make no claim to earth being at the centre of the universe, or that the sun orbited the earth. Those false beliefs were upheld and promoted by the ignorant church leaders who created the biblical contradictions!! Hense God's word is not to blame for false belief.

 

Clearly you choose to ignore that fact that billions of people worshipping a God, that you don't believe in, lends huge support of existence. While the obvious non-existence of fairies is supported by absence of worship, investigation and study.

 

BTW, you still given a sensible comparison to why billions of people believe in God. What other supposed none provable thing commands the attention of billions of people?

 

I still get the feeling that you missed my point. All I was pointing out is that many people believed that the Sun orbited the Earth. Many people also believe in a god. The fact that billions of people believe in something doesn't give credence to an argument arguing for the existence of whatever the something is, at all. There are quite a few well-documented anthropological reasons as to why people believe in gods. Firstly, fear: people didn't like the idea of death, and so they invented a god who could give you eternal life. Secondly, ignorance: people couldn't explain things, which is why they invented gods who controlled every aspect of nature that they did not understand, such as the moon, the sun, life, rain, thunderstorms and eclipses. One by one, these aspects of nature were explained by science, and so there did not need to be a god of the moon, or of the sun, or of rain. Evolution by natural selection explained how humans came to be, which has ensured that most religious people (apart from the evolution-deniers) don't believe that god literally created us; rather, he guided the process of evolution. (To you fundamentalists, I agree, very far-fetched - I personally don't believe that evolution can be compatible with religion, but the denial of evolution is as far-fetched, so it's a lose-lose situation for religion, I submit). Now, physics is slowly unravelling the mysteries of the universe, and this is where most religious people have been forced to.

 

Nevertheless, as the first reason for the fabrication of gods suggests, the belief in god gives people hope, and so they believe in a god. Now, even if there are billions of people who do believe in a god, it's partially due to indoctrination but more importantly, these billions of people don't even agree on each other, demonstrating that the idea of a god is nothing more than a meme which people wanted to make their own. It's true that people don't believe in fairies - my analogy only holds to a certain extent - but that's because fairies aren't the father figure that humans so desire. For more psychological and anthropological reasons backed up by research, I'd recommend 'The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies' by Michael Shermer.

 

As for the Biblical false claims, I touched on the Flood myth, and my disproof of it still stands.

 

As for failed Biblical prophecies and contradictions, I'm always happy to learn, so if they are a misunderstanding, and a valid argument is presented for my claims being a misunderstanding, or stemming from a lack of context, I'd be perfectly happy to stand corrected. However, I've encountered the "context" and "misunderstanding" argument many times before and I don't deem it to be convincing, but we'll see.

 

Contradictions

 

 Acts 10:34 says "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:"

BUT

 

Exodus 2:25 says "And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them."

 

Numbers 23:19 says "God is not like men, who lie; He is not a human who changes his mind. Whatever he promises, he does; He speaks and it is done."

 

BUT

 

Exodus 32:14 says "So the Lord changed his mind and did not bring on his people the disaster he threatened."

Matthew 27:34 says "They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink."

 

BUT

 
Mark 15:23 says "And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not."
 
Exodus 33:11 says "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."

 

BUT
 
John 1:18 says "No man hath seen God at any time."
 
I agree that there were many different writers who contributed to the Bible, but you'd have thought that writings inspired by God would have been more clearer and less prone to contradiction (if they are contradictions, which insofar as I know, they are).
 
A few of the Failed Prophecies
 
Ezekiel 29:10-11 says "therefore I am against you and against your streams, and I will make the land of Egypt a ruin and a desolate waste from Migdol to Aswan, as far as the border of Cush. The foot of neither man nor beast will pass through it; no one will live there for forty years."
 
HOWEVER: Never in its long history has Egypt been uninhabited for 40 years.
 
Matthew 16:28 says "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Matthew 23:36 says "I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation." Matthew 24:34 says "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
 
HOWEVER: Jesus states in Matthew that all the signs marking the end of the world would be fulfilled before his generation ended, before the people that were standing in front of him "taste death." Those people have been dead for over 2000 years and the world did not come to an end, neither have all those signs been fulfilled.
 
@WalnutCowboy, I wasn't brought up to be a theist nor an atheist, but some of my family are Hindu. Though for a period of around 3 years, I was very religious, until I became an atheist, viewing faith as a suspension of critical thinking. I then proceeded to read the Bible. I notice that you used the word "context", but the problem is that (and Catweazle may have alluded to this) people can use the supposed "context" to support many interpretations of the Bible, which seems slightly troublesome. As I mentioned though, you'd have thought that the inspired word of God would have been more clearer. Anyway, I've started reading the Qu'ran now (luckily I have an Arabic friend who can supply me with the context). Finally, it's not true that nothing will sway my position - if evidence were to come to light for the opposing position, I would take that position. It seems to me that it is you whose position will not be swayed, but isn't that always the case with two people in an argument like this. Having said that, I believe that I've supplied sufficient evidence, sourcing and reference for you to adopt my position. EDIT: Thanks for the compliments though, from all three of you.
 
 
 

 

 

 
 
 

 

Edited by viddy9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I still get the feeling that you missed my point. All I was pointing out is that many people believed that the Sun orbited the Earth. Many people also believe in a god. The fact that billions of people believe in something doesn't give credence to an argument arguing for the existence of whatever the something is, at all. There are quite a few well-documented anthropological reasons as to why people believe in gods. Firstly, fear: people didn't like the idea of death, and so they invented a god who could give you eternal life. Secondly, ignorance: people couldn't explain things, which is why they invented gods who controlled every aspect of nature that they did not understand, such as the moon, the sun, life, rain, thunderstorms and eclipses. One by one, these aspects of nature were explained by science, and so there did not need to be a god of the moon, or of the sun, or of rain. Evolution by natural selection explained how humans came to be, which has ensured that most religious people (apart from the evolution-deniers) don't believe that god literally created us; rather, he guided the process of evolution. (To you fundamentalists, I agree, very far-fetched - I personally don't believe that evolution can be compatible with religion, but the denial of evolution is as far-fetched, so it's a lose-lose situation for religion, I submit). Now, physics is slowly unravelling the mysteries of the universe, and this is where most religious people have been forced to.

 

Nevertheless, as the first reason for the fabrication of gods suggests, the belief in god gives people hope, and so they believe in a god. Now, even if there are billions of people who do believe in a god, it's partially due to indoctrination but more importantly, these billions of people don't even agree on each other, demonstrating that the idea of a god is nothing more than a meme which people wanted to make their own. It's true that people don't believe in fairies - my analogy only holds to a certain extent - but that's because fairies aren't the father figure that humans so desire. For more psychological and anthropological reasons backed up by research, I'd recommend 'The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies' by Michael Shermer.

 

As for the Biblical false claims, I touched on the Flood myth, and my disproof of it still stands.

 

As for failed Biblical prophecies and contradictions, I'm always happy to learn, so if they are a misunderstanding, and a valid argument is presented for my claims being a misunderstanding, or stemming from a lack of context, I'd be perfectly happy to stand corrected. However, I've encountered the "context" and "misunderstanding" argument many times before and I don't deem it to be convincing, but we'll see.

 

Contradictions

 

 Acts 10:34 says "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:"

BUT

 

Exodus 2:25 says "And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them."

 

Numbers 23:19 says "God is not like men, who lie; He is not a human who changes his mind. Whatever he promises, he does; He speaks and it is done."

 

BUT

 

Exodus 32:14 says "So the Lord changed his mind and did not bring on his people the disaster he threatened."

Matthew 27:34 says "They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink."

 

BUT

 
Mark 15:23 says "And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not."
 
Exodus 33:11 says "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."

 

BUT
 
John 1:18 says "No man hath seen God at any time."
 
I agree that there were many different writers who contributed to the Bible, but you'd have thought that writings inspired by God would have been more clearer and less prone to contradiction (if they are contradictions, which insofar as I know, they are).
 
A few of the Failed Prophecies
 
Ezekiel 29:10-11 says "therefore I am against you and against your streams, and I will make the land of Egypt a ruin and a desolate waste from Migdol to Aswan, as far as the border of Cush. The foot of neither man nor beast will pass through it; no one will live there for forty years."
 
HOWEVER: Never in its long history has Egypt been uninhabited for 40 years.
 
Matthew 16:28 says "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Matthew 23:36 says "I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation." Matthew 24:34 says "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
 
HOWEVER: Jesus states in Matthew that all the signs marking the end of the world would be fulfilled before his generation ended, before the people that were standing in front of him "taste death." Those people have been dead for over 2000 years and the world did not come to an end, neither have all those signs been fulfilled.
 

 

Your feeling that I missed your point is incorrect, I get your point, but your point is a fixation in your mindset which is all likelihood is unchangeable. You seem to miss the simplicity of a clear answer, thus failing to comprehend it, unless you do comprehend it but can't accept it due to pride. You seem to believe that giving an over exaggerated example and anolgy will change the outcome of facts. That can't work. Or, you may be attempting misdirection using smoke and mirrors. That also won't work.

 

You may have too much time on your hands, or you may like playing games. Try to except you have less than zero chance of convincing billions of theist to accept the myths promoted by atheists. Try to accept that you have less than zero chance of convincing me that the false science that promotes the evolution myth is true. If you can't except it you will find yourself carrying a burden that will only increase in weight. I accept than you can't see what billons of people clearly can. That gives me the ability to shake the dust from my feet.

 

Now on to your supposed condictions.

 

Let me explain Exodus v John.

 

Jesus Christ is the God of the OT. Even millions of pew filling Christians don't understand that. Moses was taking to the Word who later became Jesus Christ, he was not talking to the father. This is comfirmed by Jesus in....

 

John 6:45-46 It is written in the prophets, "And they shall be taught by God". Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.

 

The same applies to all you supposed contradictions, failure to comprehend.

 

As for supposed failed prophesy, none has failed. Again this is down to misunderstanding. But you are not alone, even professing Christians fail to understand that much of biblical prophesy is still to come. Much of Bible prophesy is dual.

 

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Anyway, I've started reading the Qu'ran now (luckily I have an Arabic friend who can supply me with the context).
 
 

 

Your friend will confirm that translation from from Arabic to English doesn't always work and much is lost in the process. The same is true of both Hewbrew and Greek scriptures. Some meaning is lost actually causing supposed contradiction.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 VIDDY 9,

 I'm starting to have problems "debating" with you.

Part of the time you sound like you're quoting from a book.

You say you've read the BIBLE, but in your quotes, you take your quotes OUT OF CONTEXT as I've said MANY will do to "PROVE" their points !!!

 

 

I still get the feeling that you missed my point. All I was pointing out is that many people believed that the Sun orbited the Earth. Many people also believe in a god. The fact that billions of people believe in something doesn't give credence to an argument arguing for the existence of whatever the something is, at all. There are quite a few well-documented anthropological reasons as to why people believe in gods. Firstly, fear: people didn't like the idea of death, and so they invented a god who could give you eternal life. Secondly, ignorance: people couldn't explain things, which is why they invented gods who controlled every aspect of nature that they did not understand, such as the moon, the sun, life, rain, thunderstorms and eclipses. One by one, these aspects of nature were explained by science, and so there did not need to be a god of the moon, or of the sun, or of rain. Evolution by natural selection explained how humans came to be, which has ensured that most religious people (apart from the evolution-deniers) don't believe that god literally created us; rather, he guided the process of evolution. (To you fundamentalists, I agree, very far-fetched - I personally don't believe that evolution can be compatible with religion, but the denial of evolution is as far-fetched, so it's a lose-lose situation for religion, I submit). Now, physics is slowly unravelling the mysteries of the universe, and this is where most religious people have been forced to.

 

Nevertheless, as the first reason for the fabrication of gods suggests, the belief in god gives people hope, and so they believe in a god. Now, even if there are billions of people who do believe in a god, it's partially due to indoctrination but more importantly, these billions of people don't even agree on each other, demonstrating that the idea of a god is nothing more than a meme which people wanted to make their own. It's true that people don't believe in fairies - my analogy only holds to a certain extent - but that's because fairies aren't the father figure that humans so desire. For more psychological and anthropological reasons backed up by research, I'd recommend 'The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies' by Michael Shermer.

 

As for the Biblical false claims, I touched on the Flood myth, and my disproof of it still stands.

 

As for failed Biblical prophecies and contradictions, I'm always happy to learn, so if they are a misunderstanding, and a valid argument is presented for my claims being a misunderstanding, or stemming from a lack of context, I'd be perfectly happy to stand corrected. However, I've encountered the "context" and "misunderstanding" argument many times before and I don't deem it to be convincing, but we'll see.

 

Contradictions

 

 Acts 10:34 says "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:"

BUT

 

Exodus 2:25 says "And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them."

@ if you were to read EXODUS  2:24 & ACTS 10:35, you will see in BOTH cases, The verses were talking about NATIONS !!

ISRAEL as a nation & ANY nation !

 

 

 

Numbers 23:19 says "God is not like men, who lie; He is not a human who changes his mind. Whatever he promises, he does; He speaks and it is done."

 

BUT

 

Exodus 32:14 says "So the Lord changed his mind and did not bring on his people the disaster he threatened."

 @ I'm surprised you didn't use the most used verse most used to "prove" your point that GOD changes HIS mind.

JOHAH 3:10, and GOD saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and GOD returned from the evil, that HE said that HE would do unto them, and HE did it not.

GOD's word in the cases above involved, not GOD changing, but instead, man is the one who changes. 

When the Niveveh-ites repented, GOD was no longer to be held to HIS word of destroying the city of the Wicked (since they were NO LONGER wicked!)

 

 

Matthew 27:34 says "They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink."

 

BUT

 
Mark 15:23 says "And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not."
  @ Vinegar is wine gone bad.
According to STRONG'S Exhaustive Concordance of the BIBLE;
Gall is green bile/ poison.
Myrrh is a bitter "narcotic".
The point was, you didn't want to taste it !
You can have 2 people (MATTHEW & MARK in this case) see the same thing and describe it differently WITHOUT either one being wrong.
 
 
Exodus 33:11 says "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."
 
BUT
 
John 1:18 says "No man hath seen God at any time."
 @ LORD is used several times in the BIBLE describing JESUS before HE was born of woman.
 
I agree that there were many different writers who contributed to the Bible, but you'd have thought that writings inspired by God would have been more clearer and less prone to contradiction (if they are contradictions, which insofar as I know, they are).
 
A few of the Failed Prophecies
 
Ezekiel 29:10-11 says "therefore I am against you and against your streams, and I will make the land of Egypt a ruin and a desolate waste from Migdol to Aswan, as far as the border of Cush. The foot of neither man nor beast will pass through it; no one will live there for forty years."
 
HOWEVER: Never in its long history has Egypt been uninhabited for 40 years.
 
Matthew 16:28 says "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Matthew 23:36 says "I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation." Matthew 24:34 says "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
 
HOWEVER: Jesus states in Matthew that all the signs marking the end of the world would be fulfilled before his generation ended, before the people that were standing in front of him "taste death." Those people have been dead for over 2000 years and the world did not come to an end, neither have all those signs been fulfilled.
 
@WalnutCowboy, I wasn't brought up to be a theist nor an atheist, but some of my family are Hindu. Though for a period of around 3 years, I was very religious, until I became an atheist, viewing faith as a suspension of critical thinking. I then proceeded to read the Bible. I notice that you used the word "context", but the problem is that (and Catweazle may have alluded to this) people can use the supposed "context" to support many interpretations of the Bible, which seems slightly troublesome. As I mentioned though, you'd have thought that the inspired word of God would have been more clearer. Anyway, I've started reading the Qu'ran now (luckily I have an Arabic friend who can supply me with the context). Finally, it's not true that nothing will sway my position - if evidence were to come to light for the opposing position, I would take that position. It seems to me that it is you whose position will not be swayed, but isn't that always the case with two people in an argument like this. Having said that, I believe that I've supplied sufficient evidence, sourcing and reference for you to adopt my position. EDIT: Thanks for the compliments though, from all three of you.
 
  @ I think I see a (the) problem with your way you think !!
You say you view "faith as a suspension of critical thinking".
For ME faith is the end all/be all of  "critical thinking".
I know you all hate this line of thinking, but I'll keep using it until it's answered !
 
HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN METAMORPHOSIS, SCIENTIFICALLY  ON HOW A CATERPILLAR BECOMES A BUTTERFLY ??!!??
NOT the DEFINATION OF WHAT IT IS, BUT HOW IT FIRST HAPPENED !!
 
That IS "CRITICAL THINKING" at it's best ! 
 

 

 
 
 
 



 

 

Edited by walnutcowboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 VIDDY 9,

 I'm starting to have problems "debating" with you.

 

 

I'm ok with him, I find him entertaining.

 

I see plagiarism in his posts, clearly he's not as bright as you thought!

 

I'd like to continue to debate with him until he is exposed, or I am proved wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggest annoyance to me in christianity is this:

 

If I ask ten priests how one gets to Heaven/paradise, I get ten different answers.

 

And if I ask the same question from hundred priests, I get hundred different answers!!!

 

This mean that christian church does not know how one gets to Heaven!!!

 

NOw, every other religions has very clear cut and simple guidelines as to how one gets to Heaven/paradise/better reincarnation.

 

Crhistianity is the only one where theologians are still debating the issue!!!

 

I mean can they not get even this basic tnigh sorted???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggest annoyance to me in christianity is this:

 

If I ask ten priests how one gets to Heaven/paradise, I get ten different answers.

 

And if I ask the same question from hundred priests, I get hundred different answers!!!

 

This mean that christian church does not know how one gets to Heaven!!!

 

NOw, every other religions has very clear cut and simple guidelines as to how one gets to Heaven/paradise/better reincarnation.

 

Crhistianity is the only one where theologians are still debating the issue!!!

 

I mean can they not get even this basic tnigh sorted???

 

Maybe because you keep asking a man how to get to heaven and not God...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walnut cowboy you will never learn because you don't want to see the truth. There is no evidence of God, but there is evidence in all the examples viddy9 presents. As Professor Hawking said, god is a creation of man because of his innate fear of the darkness. Fact is that waht you believe is just that, an unproven belief. Scientific facts are are real and proven. 

 

Back on June 20th I wrote this to Mike (Walnutcowboy). After that, I half-heartedly apologized,but the fact of the matter is I am ashamed of myself, and wanted to apologize again. In trying to defend my point of view I got carried away, expressed myself in a way I shouldn't have and that is inexcusable. I feel strongly about those issues, as Mike (and others ) do too. But if I am not able to "agree to disagree" with every person who has an opinion different than mine I am not being the kind of person I want to be.

 

Thanks,

 

Carlos

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 CARLOS,

 Now THAT was a heartfelt apology !!

I would love to "agree to disagree" on these posts to end these endless debates.

But I will continue to talk about my FAITH as long  "THEY" as continue theirs.

 

 CARLOS, consider the issue forgotten and forgiven !

 

 Your Friend,

    Mike

 

PS Is your avatar you own eye?

Edited by walnutcowboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggest annoyance to me in christianity is this:

 

If I ask ten priests how one gets to Heaven/paradise, I get ten different answers.

 

And if I ask the same question from hundred priests, I get hundred different answers!!!

 

This mean that christian church does not know how one gets to Heaven!!!

 

NOw, every other religions has very clear cut and simple guidelines as to how one gets to Heaven/paradise/better reincarnation.

 

Crhistianity is the only one where theologians are still debating the issue!!!

 

I mean can they not get even this basic tnigh sorted???

 

I feel compelled to say this to Sherminator.

Nobody can tell what is in the afterlife. We do not know because ever one comes back after the passing.

It's a matter of faith only. No matter in what shape and form this faith is made of.

Theologians are concerned with matters of ethics and religion belief. But even them cannot agree amongst themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With total respect, that everyone has a right to their own beliefs. I believe that God is a concept, that only exists in our minds. The concept was designed to unify the polytheistic pagan tribes. I see religion, as a phase that humanity passes through(like communism), giving us much needed morality, and guidence. If you grow up in a religious society, and decide you don't believe, then the ideas and concepts, you'll find yourself using, to disagree, come from that very religious indoctination,(ie: you use the 'language' of religion, in an attempt to disprove it). I do believe that Jesus was a real person, who spoke Aramaic.

Edited by gaqo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With total respect, that everyone has a right to their own beliefs. I believe that God is a concept, that only exists in our minds. The concept was designed to unify the polytheistic pagan tribes. I see religion, as a phase that humanity passes through(like communism), giving us much needed morality, and guidence. If you grow up in a religious society, and decide you don't believe, then the ideas and concepts, you'll find yourself using, to disagree, come from that very religious indoctination,(ie: you use the 'language' of religion, in an attempt to disprove it). I do believe that Jesus was a real person, who spoke Aramaic.

 

If you are talking to me gaqo prove to me that Jesus was born there. Can you mention a document or birth certificate? Only the gospels mention him and his miracles. Does the sacred shroud of Turin (Italy) prove that Jesus was in it? No scientists are never ever certain. No matter how much the scientific carbon-dating or whatever they have tested on that garment. The say that the imprint of a body of a man it's a medieval forge.

Edited by wannamaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As for the Biblical false claims, I touched on the Flood myth, and my disproof of it still stands.

 

As for failed Biblical prophecies and contradictions, I'm always happy to learn, so if they are a misunderstanding, and a valid argument is presented for my claims being a misunderstanding, or stemming from a lack of context, I'd be perfectly happy to stand corrected. However, I've encountered the "context" and "misunderstanding" argument many times before and I don't deem it to be convincing, but we'll see.

 

Contradictions

 

 Acts 10:34 says "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:"

BUT

 

Exodus 2:25 says "And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them."

 

Numbers 23:19 says "God is not like men, who lie; He is not a human who changes his mind. Whatever he promises, he does; He speaks and it is done."

 

BUT

 

Exodus 32:14 says "So the Lord changed his mind and did not bring on his people the disaster he threatened."

Matthew 27:34 says "They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink."

 

BUT

 
Mark 15:23 says "And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not."
 
Exodus 33:11 says "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."

 

BUT
 
John 1:18 says "No man hath seen God at any time."
 
I agree that there were many different writers who contributed to the Bible, but you'd have thought that writings inspired by God would have been more clearer and less prone to contradiction (if they are contradictions, which insofar as I know, they are).
 
A few of the Failed Prophecies
 
Ezekiel 29:10-11 says "therefore I am against you and against your streams, and I will make the land of Egypt a ruin and a desolate waste from Migdol to Aswan, as far as the border of Cush. The foot of neither man nor beast will pass through it; no one will live there for forty years."
 
HOWEVER: Never in its long history has Egypt been uninhabited for 40 years.
 
Matthew 16:28 says "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Matthew 23:36 says "I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation." Matthew 24:34 says "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
 
HOWEVER: Jesus states in Matthew that all the signs marking the end of the world would be fulfilled before his generation ended, before the people that were standing in front of him "taste death." Those people have been dead for over 2000 years and the world did not come to an end, neither have all those signs been fulfilled.

 
 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

This all thing is a shamble. What all of this means? :icon_rolleyes: Do it again if you really wish to prove something consistent to people.

Edited by wannamaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are talking to me gaqo prove to me that Jesus was born there. Can you mention a document or birth certificate? Only the gospels mention him and his miracles. Can the sacre shroud of Turin (Italy) prove that Jesus was in it? No scientists are never ever certain. No matter how much the scientific carbon date or whatever they have tested. The say the inprint of a body of a man it is medieval forge. .

I was just giving my viewpoint. Proving that Jesus was a real person, now that's a challenge! I may not be able to come up with a birth certificate!!!!!!!(and if I do I'll probably be made a saint), I'll do some research. I'm sure he's mentioned in other texts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 WANNAMAKER,

 GAQO states that "proving JESUS was a real person, now that's a challenge".

I see NO challenge that at all !

MOST Jews and even MOST Muslims believe/know JESUS was a real person !!

The question you should be asking is "who was JESUS?".

If I remember correctly, the Jewish people think HE was just some nice Jewish boy and MAYBE a Prophet.

But they didn't/don't believe HE was the MESSIAH,

.While the Muslims believe that JESUS didn't finish HIS job so GOD sent Mohamad.

 

 I would like to now turn the question of JESUS's Birth Certificate around.

Please show proof of your Great, Great, Great, Great, Great Grand parents birth.

I'm only asking for 6 generations back !

That's only ABOUT 450 years ago +/-.

 If YOU can't prove THAT short of distance, WHY would you think ANYONE could go back 2,000 years and find JESUS's certificate ???

 

 GAQO, I hope that this info. helps you to find out more about JESUS !

Edited by walnutcowboy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Please show proof of your Great, Great, Great, Great, Great Grand parents birth.

I'm only asking for 6 generations back !

That's only ABOUT 450 years ago +/-.

 If YOU can't prove THAT short of distance, WHY would you think ANYONE could go back 2,000 years and find JESUS's certificate ???

 

 GAQO, I hope that this info. helps you to find out more about JESUS !

 

In the UK birth certificate go back to 1837, prior to that one needs to search church records of baptisms.

 

I can go back to 1755 only.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was quite serious above. I mean I watch a lot of religious programs and listen a lot of religious radio, and it goes like this:

 

Priest 1: You get saved if you do this and this.

Priest2: no, you have to do this and that to be saved!

Priest3: Oh NO, you do not have to do, you have to be!

Priest4: NO no no! You do not do or be, you just have to believe!

Priest5: actually, you get saved if you are babtised! That's all.

Priest6: No, you have to be babtised twize!

Priest7: no no no, you have to babtised with the Holy Spirit, not water!

Priest8: Lets cut the BS, you are saved if you belong to our church!

Priest9: actually, our church is the only one giving salvation.

 

and so it goes. On and on and on. Every christian priest and theologician has his own opinion on how one gets saved and thus gets to HEaven.

 

And each priest is adamant that his wiew is the only real one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Every christian priest and theologician has his own opinion on how one gets saved and thus gets to HEaven.

 

 

I'm a theologian but I don't go on my own opinion. I go on what the Bible states, and the Bible states that the reward of the saved is not going to heaven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a theologian but I don't go on my own opinion. I go on what the Bible states, and the Bible states that the reward of the saved is not going to heaven.

 

Huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was quite serious above. I mean I watch a lot of religious programs and listen a lot of religious radio, and it goes like this:

 

Priest 1: You get saved if you do this and this.

Priest2: no, you have to do this and that to be saved!

Priest3: Oh NO, you do not have to do, you have to be!

Priest4: NO no no! You do not do or be, you just have to believe!

Priest5: actually, you get saved if you are babtised! That's all.

Priest6: No, you have to be babtised twize!

Priest7: no no no, you have to babtised with the Holy Spirit, not water!

Priest8: Lets cut the BS, you are saved if you belong to our church!

Priest9: actually, our church is the only one giving salvation.

 

and so it goes. On and on and on. Every christian priest and theologician has his own opinion on how one gets saved and thus gets to HEaven.

 

And each priest is adamant that his wiew is the only real one.

 

I totally got what you were saying and it is very true that every person seems to want their two minutes of "fame" in telling people how to get saved and get to Heaven.  My point was simply "what does God say?"  I mean if there was anyone with the correct information on how to do that it would be God.

 

If you would agree that the Bible is the inspired Word of God (and that comes by faith) then you (or anyone) could see for themselves what it means to be saved, how to be saved and thus inherit eternal life.  But human nature finds just "believing" in something to be too hard.  They need to place qualifiers and conditions onto everything.  They need to tell you that you have to stand up, sit down and turn around three times in order to enter into the Kingdom of God.  But is that what Jesus taught.  If a person believes in the Bible yet hears something from a person that contradicts the Bible, then they have to throw out what the person has said.

 

That is why it is so important for anyone who is speaking about God and/or trying to share their beliefs to proceed with care. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a theologian but I don't go on my own opinion. I go on what the Bible states, and the Bible states that the reward of the saved is not going to heaven.

 

Well what is it then Catweazle? :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you would agree that the Bible is the inspired Word of God (and that comes by faith) then you (or anyone) could see for themselves what it means to be saved, how to be saved and thus inherit eternal life.  But human nature finds just "believing" in something to be too hard.   

 

It also requires accepting the notion that we are all "damned" and need "saving" to begin with...

 

Jesus told us to DO things, not just to "believe." His expectations are simple (not to be mistaken for "easy"): to take care of one another.  Did you feed me when I was hungry - give me drink when I was thirsty - clothe me when I was naked -care for me when i was sick, visit me when I was in prison. 

 

This is what he defines as a righteous person worthy of eternal life. He doesn't ask if you demanded the sick, the hungry, the imprisoned "believe" that he is the son of God. He asks what you DID for the needy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.