Re: The Greatest News Ever! -- Multiposted religious spam
Vanguard
news:1111937251.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.<spammeraccount>.blogspot.com << The Greatest News Ever!
>
Reported.
kurttrail
> kurttrail wrote:
>>
>> Shh!
>
> Haha! BUSTED!
>
>>
>>
>>> This might some interesting reading for you:
>>> http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/
>>>
>>> In my mind I have no problem having faith and reason co-exist.
>>
>>
>> Then you have no problem living with a paradox.
>
> Nope. Existence is paradoxical.
Not if your beliefs are based in reason.
>
>>
>> Faith can't co-exist with reason, if you need to throw reason away to
>> have faith in something.
>
> "If" being your qualifier. No "if" here.
> Reason this out Kurt, how do you have a reasonable asumption that you
> will wake up in the morning? Is it reason, faith, or some paradoxical
> combination of the two?
I don't necessarily assume I will wake up tomorrow morning. I would say
I may wake up tomorrow morning, based on certain reasonable beliefs that
I'm in relatively good health, but I would never be so presumptuous as
to say the I know I'm waking up tomorrow.
>
>>
>> If you don't throw reason out with the bathwater, then faith is not
>> necessary for your belief in it.
>
> Sorry, you lost me with this.
Faith is not just belief, but belief that does not rest on reason.
>
>>
>> When it comes down to it, the main difference between those of faith
>> and those of reason is that those of faith know everthing through
>> faith, and are fearful to admit that faith can fail them, while
>> those of reason know that they don't know everything, and aren't
>> afraid to admit it.
>
> I suggest that you experiment with faith. It couldn't hurt.
Couldn't help either.
Prove the existence or non-existence of God through the scientific
method. Neither has yet been done, so all a reasonable man can really
say is that he doesn't know whether God exists or not. Only through
faith can one believe that God either exists or doesn't exist, a
reasonable man just doesn't know, one way or another.
What faith is, is a way to replace reasonable doubt with some
unreasonable knowledge, therefore faith is a means to fool one's self
that there is nothing to doubt. Wisdom is understanding that there is
no real knowledge, just reasonable belief, and doubt.
>
>>
>>
>>> In
>>> fact, I can't really imagine one without the other.
>>
>>
>> It's like Good and Evil. Love and Hate.
>>
>> Reason and Faith.
>>
>
> I tend to think of it more in terms like male and female, positive and
> negative, yin and yang; you cannot have life (existence) without them
> both. Paradoxical? Well, yeah. Very interesting, as well.
Tell it to the organisms that reproduce asexually!
> Rock on and Happy Easter!
Yes, Happy Rock-rolling Day to you too.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
HeyBub
>
> When it comes down to it, the main difference between those of faith
> and those of reason is that those of faith know everthing through
> faith, and are fearful to admit that faith can fail them, while those
> of reason know that they don't know everything, and aren't afraid to
> admit it.
>> fact, I can't really imagine one without the other.
>
> It's like Good and Evil. Love and Hate.
>
> Reason and Faith.
You really need to keep up.
Maimonides (for the Jews), Thomas Acquinus (for the Church), and some Muslim
great worthy sorted all this out and reconciled the two in the 13th century.
Bottom line: there is no conflict between faith and reason. There may be a
conflict between one's faith and another's ability to reason, but not
between faith and reason per se.
John E. Carty
</Snip>
> You sound like Kurt :)
Oh no, God sounds like Kurt???? :-)
kurttrail
> kurttrail wrote:
>>
>> When it comes down to it, the main difference between those of faith
>> and those of reason is that those of faith know everthing through
>> faith, and are fearful to admit that faith can fail them, while those
>> of reason know that they don't know everything, and aren't afraid to
>> admit it.
>>> In
>>> fact, I can't really imagine one without the other.
>>
>> It's like Good and Evil. Love and Hate.
>>
>> Reason and Faith.
>
> You really need to keep up.
>
> Maimonides (for the Jews), Thomas Acquinus (for the Church), and some
> Muslim great worthy sorted all this out and reconciled the two in the
> 13th century.
For those that rely on faith. Those of use that rely on reason wouldn't
agree.
>
> Bottom line: there is no conflict between faith and reason. There may
> be a conflict between one's faith and another's ability to reason,
> but not between faith and reason per se.
How is one's certainty through faith that either "God" exists, or
doesn't exist, not conflict with the only reasonable answer about
"God's" existence being "I don't know?"
If you KNOW through Faith that "God" exists, you have to disavow reason,
that "God's" existence is not really known and provable. Same goes if
you have faith about "God's" non-existence, as that is not known and
provable.
A reasonable person will say they do not know whether "God" exists or
not, and can live with their doubts about "God's" existence and/or
non-existence. Through Faith, the fool claims absolute knowledge about
something that cannot be actually be known and proven, because they
can't live with their doubt.
Faith - the ability to fool one's self into believing what can not be
known and proven to alleviate their own fear of living with reasonable
doubt.
kurttrail
ROFL! Boy, wouldn't a lot of fundamentalist christians be sh*tting
their pants if that were true!
Lee Chapelle
"HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote
That's true in the sense that faith is by definition the act of deliberately
disregarding reason.
kurttrail
Now you've gone and done it! Using reason to define faith!
K
Noted scientist and author Dr. Flew. "At age 81, after decades of insisting
belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of
intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A
super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and
the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England."
K
"kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
> For those that rely on faith. Those of use that rely on reason wouldn't
> agree.
kurttrail
> Noted scientist and author Dr. Flew. "At age 81, after decades of
> insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some
> sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A
> super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of
> life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview
> from England." K
One old man's belief is not proof of a first cause, or that assuming a
first cause, that it was caused by some sort of intelligence.
The answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything is as likely to be 42,
as it is that it is the result of some sort of super-intelligence. At
age 81, it is more likely that Dr. Flew is suffering from some
age-induced dementia, than the bearer of some new found insight into the
beginning of existence, but being a rational person, and only knowing
that no story of the beginning of existence has been proven or
disproven, my only rational answer is that I don't know how and by what
means existence was created.
Lee Chapelle
"kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote
>K wrote:
>> Noted scientist and author Dr. Flew. "At age 81, after decades of
>> insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some
>> sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A
>> super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of
>> life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview
>> from England." K
>
> One old man's belief is not proof of a first cause, or that assuming a
> first cause, that it was caused by some sort of intelligence.
It is a well known and understandable phenomenon that facing death, people
tend to be attracted to religious ideas, particularly the thought of an
after-life :>)
Don Burnette
Without faith, we really have nothing. No promises, no hope for the eternal
future. I just could not imagine going through life without faith.
I just cannot believe we are all here as the result of some accident. I have
witnessed the birth of my two daughters, and both times, when I saw them
take their first breaths, I wondered how anyone could not have faith and
believe... It has sustained me through much...
--
Don Burnette
"When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
way of the man that's doing it."
kurttrail
Except reason and doubt.
> No promises, no hope for the
> eternal future.
Whose promise? A specific god's? Which god? What version of a eternal
future? Streets paved with gold? The nothingness of Nirvana?
> I just could not imagine going through life without
> faith.
Most people need their faith to overcome their fear of living in doubt.
> I just cannot believe we are all here as the result of some accident.
No, you'd rather have Faith in some nonsense that can't be proven, than
live with reasonable doubt.
> I have witnessed the birth of my two daughters, and both times, when
> I saw them take their first breaths, I wondered how anyone could not
> have faith and believe... It has sustained me through much...
I've been to the mountain top and I've seen the promised land!
You've used faith to bury your doubt, that's all.
Lee Chapelle
"Don Burnette" <d.bur...@clothes.comcast.net> wrote
> kurttrail wrote:
>> Faith - the ability to fool one's self into believing what can not be
>> known and proven to alleviate their own fear of living with reasonable
>> doubt.
>
>
> Without faith, we really have nothing. No promises, no hope for the
> eternal future. I just could not imagine going through life without
> faith.
Hope and faith are not the same. Having hope is another way of expressing
living life with a positive outlook or creative energy.
> I just cannot believe we are all here as the result of some accident. I
> have witnessed the birth of my two daughters, and both times, when I saw
> them take their first breaths, I wondered how anyone could not have faith
> and believe... It has sustained me through much...
If you want or need to believe something that isn't demonstrable through
reason, logic, or science, then you need faith. If you need it, then so be
it. Appeals to emotion won't convince someone who feels no need for it that
they should miss it.
Tom
> my only rational answer is that I don't know how and by what means
> existence was created.
This isn't a logical thought in itself, since "creating" (as per this
particular discussion) suggests intelligent design.
kurttrail
No it doesn't. That is just your assumption. Using reason, is the
creation of a volcano part of an intelligent design, or is the result of
nature? It may end up being both, but all reason can suggest, as of
right now, is the natural processes at work in the creation of a
volcano.
Tom
> Tom wrote:
>> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
>> message news:u1s9O9xM...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> my only rational answer is that I don't know how and by what means
>>> existence was created.
>>
>> This isn't a logical thought in itself, since "creating" (as per this
>> particular discussion) suggests intelligent design.
>
> No it doesn't. That is just your assumption. Using reason, is the
> creation of a volcano part of an intelligent design, or is the result of
> nature? It may end up being both, but all reason can suggest, as of right
> now, is the natural processes at work in the creation of a volcano.
Not my assumption, you stated "existence was created", so you may want to
define existence. A volcano is part of existence, and is a result of it.
LiberalsSuck
Actually, God has never asked anyone to have blind faith that He exists. He
has created us with the ability to discover the world and universe around
us. As we come to see the extreme vastness of time and space, the extreme
precision with which subatomic particles interact, and the balance of
chemistry, physics, and energy, only a fool can conclude that there is no
intelligent designer. From a purely open-minded (remember liberals, you're
supposed to be open-minded!), critical, skeptical standpoint, it is clear
that this existence has come about because of the action of a Creator.
God does call us to have faith in His promises as laid out in the Bible. I
have proved God's Word to be true time and time again. I have deviated from
His Word, always to my detriment just as the Bible said would happen. I
have obeyed Him even when everything and everyone around me said to do
otherwise. In the end (sometimes years later), God turned out to be right
and the "experts" were wrong.
When you consider the archeaological, sociological, and scientific evidence
outside of the Bible, that evidence lends nothing but credibility to what
the Bible says. How could this be if the Bible is not accurate?
If atheists, pagans, and those who worship their own brilliance cannot back
up their own claims of evolution (being debunked more and more every day)
and the "Big Bang" theory, then who do they think that they are to tell
anyone that the Bible is wrong. If these "experts" cannot even change a
flat tire or program their VCR so that it won't flash "12:00" anymore (and
I've met many of them), then who are they to tell us about the creation of
the universe?
From a different angle...
If you, Kurt, are correct, then we turn into dust when we die or become one
with the universe or whatever theory makes you feel good. And all I did was
try to live a good (what is "good" if there is no God?) life albeit
upsetting people like you in the process. Nothing then matters at all.
However, if the Bible is right, if there is a God who has laws for us, and
if Jesus is the only way to make it into Heaven, then...what will you say as
you stand before the Intelligent Designer? Hmmm...
kurttrail
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:u6QSqM5M...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Tom wrote:
>>> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
>>> message news:u1s9O9xM...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>> my only rational answer is that I don't know how and by what means
>>>> existence was created.
>>>
>>> This isn't a logical thought in itself, since "creating" (as per
>>> this particular discussion) suggests intelligent design.
>>
>> No it doesn't. That is just your assumption. Using reason, is the
>> creation of a volcano part of an intelligent design, or is the
>> result of nature? It may end up being both, but all reason can
>> suggest, as of right now, is the natural processes at work in the
>> creation of a volcano.
>
> Not my assumption, you stated "existence was created", so you may
> want to define existence. A volcano is part of existence, and is a
> result of it.
Your assumption is that just because something (existence, a volcano, or
anything) is "created" means that it was brought into existence by some
"intelligent design." I don't make that assumption.
kurttrail
Which God?
> He has created us with the ability to discover the world and
> universe around us.
Whatever God you are talking about, you assume it is a male God.
> As we come to see the extreme vastness of time
> and space, the extreme precision with which subatomic particles
> interact, and the balance of chemistry, physics, and energy, only a
> fool can conclude that there is no intelligent designer.
Ah, and only a fool can conclude that there is an intelligent designer
too. A wise man or woman would come to any conclusion to the existence
or non-existence of a God or gods, the would be secure enough to tell
the only real truth that reason teaches, and that is that they don't
know whether there are gods, intelligent designers, or whatever.
> From a
> purely open-minded (remember liberals, you're supposed to be
> open-minded!), critical, skeptical standpoint, it is clear that this
> existence has come about because of the action of a Creator.
LOL! What is clear to you, based on faith, is just your belief that
can't be known through reason.
>
> God does call us to have faith in His promises as laid out in the
> Bible.
Ah, that GOD! Which bible? There are many different versions you know.
Even the 10 Commandments are different depending on what religion you
believe in.
> I have proved God's Word to be true time and time again.
You have fooled yourself into believing your interpretation of what you
think is "God's Word."
> I
> have deviated from His Word, always to my detriment just as the Bible
> said would happen.
Self-fulfilled Prophesy!
> I have obeyed Him even when everything and
> everyone around me said to do otherwise. In the end (sometimes years
> later), God turned out to be right and the "experts" were wrong.
Like disregarding the teachings of Yehoshua (Jesus was not his name)
about turning the other cheek in regards to 911.
Yehoshua's Israel was under the domination of a brutal Rome, that killed
and maimed his fellow Jews every day, yet Yehoshua NEVER advocated
exacting vengence on the Romans. Yet, a handful of religious zealots
attack this supposedly christian nation, and off we go demanding an eye
for an eye. And actually we go and get a hundred and more eyes for one
eye.
>
> When you consider the archeaological, sociological, and scientific
> evidence outside of the Bible, that evidence lends nothing but
> credibility to what the Bible says.
Really? Please prove that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Where did Cain and Seth get their wives from? Where is the proof that
any man has lived over 200 years?
> How could this be if the Bible
> is not accurate?
Accurate? Which version of the 10 Commandments is accurate?
>
> If atheists, pagans, and those who worship their own brilliance
> cannot back up their own claims of evolution (being debunked more and
> more every day) and the "Big Bang" theory, then who do they think
> that they are to tell anyone that the Bible is wrong.
Please show credible evidence of the debunking of evolution?
> If these
> "experts" cannot even change a flat tire or program their VCR so that
> it won't flash "12:00" anymore (and I've met many of them), then who
> are they to tell us about the creation of the universe?
Who are you to do the same? I don't know how the universe was created,
and ANYONE that claims absolute knowledge about its creation is a fool
in my book.
>
> From a different angle...
>
> If you, Kurt, are correct,
I am telling the truth when I say that I don't know.
> then we turn into dust when we die or
> become one with the universe or whatever theory makes you feel good.
I don't know!
> And all I did was try to live a good (what is "good" if there is no
> God?)
What is "good" if there is a God or gods?
> life albeit upsetting people like you in the process. Nothing
> then matters at all.
Nothing matters except the life you know. "Cognito ego sum." When that
is done, what comes after, nobody knows. Some are honest, and are
willing to admit their lack of knowledge about what comes after death,
and some use faith to fool themselves into believing they KNOW what
comes next.
>
> However, if the Bible is right, if there is a God who has laws for
> us,
Do you live by all the laws of the Old Testament?
> and if Jesus is the only way to make it into Heaven,
How arrogant! You can't even prove the existence of a "god" in general,
and yet you think your specific god is the only true God.
> then...what
> will you say as you stand before the Intelligent Designer? Hmmm...
Compliment Him/Her/It on a very sick sense of humor!
James
reminded of your incredibly insensitve and blasphemous comments.
Frankly, I would NOT want to be in your shoes then... or even now for
that matter. You strike me as a particularly sad individual.
LiberalsSuck
What will it take for you to say that the God of the Bible is the only god?
If you are an open to truth and a reasonable person, then there must be some
evidence or some kind of revelation that will change your mind. Will it
take an actual existential encounter with God? What will it take?
As for me, with my scientific background, I am really only swayed by facts
and evidence. And all the evidence is pointing to the fact that the Bible
is true. I have found nothing that would contradict the Bible. I know that
there are translations that differ, seeming contradictions (which really
aren't if you do more than a cursory investigation), and supernatural events
that defy explanation. All these, including your preceding questions in the
thread, have legitimate answers. Do we have the hundreds of hours to go
back and forth discussing those answers here? Better to just read some
books (both skeptical and supportive) on our own. Although if you really
want to, we can discuss at length ANY skeptical question here.
If there is found some evidence that shows that parts (or even one part) of
the Bible is not true, then I will listen to that evidence and change my
beliefs. I really only care about the truth.
Some quick answers to your questions...
1) I refer to God as a he, not because God has a gender. But because He
refers to Himself in the Bible as a Father, not Mother. In Heaven, there
are no genders or any other human-based classes.
2) All my belief is through reason, and none is through blind faith. I look
at the cosmos around me and conclude, through rationalization, that
something had to create it and set it in motion. Anything/anyone that
created time and space is, by definition, supreme to that time and space.
3) While humans are screwed with many translations of the Bible, a reading
of the original (as original that you can find) Hebrew texts show what is
more accurate. Some translations into English are highly accurate. A
comparison between the King James Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, for
example, show about a 99.9% accuracy with the only discrepancies in
non-doctrinal and word order details ("candlestick" versus "candle", "Jesus
Christ" v. "Christ Jesus", etc.). Do I know Hebrew? Yes. I am studying
Biblical Hebrew because I wanted to logically know if modern Bibles are
accurate. Again, my belief is based on rationalization, not blind faith or
emotion.
4) I have not fooled myself at all. I am open to whatever God's Word is
found to say, even if it turns out to not say anything because it was just
made up. I want to know for sure so that I don't waste my life and your
time on a lie. But, so far, my analysis is that the KJV Bible is extremely
accurate to ancient texts.
5) I know all about fooling myself and self-fulfilling prophecies. I have
taken care to look at every event of my life in simple, unemotional terms to
see if I am fooling myself into believing a lie. Is it so difficult to
trust someone when they say that they really have tested what the Bible
says?
6) I know the Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew names for Jesus. I use the name of
Jesus because we're speaking English.
7) The Bible teaches us to turn the other cheek and not seek revenge. But,
self-defense is not revenge. Preservation of one's way of life is not
revenge, although this preservation could become evil if one goes too far.
When the Bible talks about an eye for an eye, it is talking about justice
which comes from God. Justice is not revenge. If America acts to defend
itself and seeks to bring justice to its enemies, then this is not only
permissible by God's standards but also demanded. God created governments,
which man can corrupt, to bring about good from evil and protect the rights
of its people. Let us not confuse the fouled-up attempts of a government to
control our lives with its God-ordained role at executor of justice.
8) I don't believe the the earth is 10,000 years old. I think that it is
several billion. I just think that God didn't place a human being (with a
soul) on the planet until 8,000 years or so ago.
9) Cain and Abel maybe got their wives from some pre-existing humans
(without souls). Maybe, God created other humans after Adam and Eve. Who
knows for sure? The preceding ideas are theoretically possible...just like
your "Big Bang" theory right?
10) I have no proof that anyone lived over 200 years. From a genetics
standpoint, we can see that a life over 200 is possible...if our genes were
changed. If an atheist's theory of evolution is even somewhat correct, then
we know that genetics is the most powerful earthly force in our human
bodies. Why then is life over 200 years such a strain to imagine? Perhaps,
some refuse to believe it simply because the Bible said that it happened.
Where is the open-mindedness now?
11) All of the Ten Commandments are accurate.
12) The #1 FACT debunking evolution, which CANNOT be disputed by even the
most hardcore atheists, is this:
No one has ever found a fossil of any kind of a species which is in the
middle of evolving.
There are over 10,000 fossils on record, all from differing parts of the
world and depths of soil and rock. We have found bird fossils. We have
found fish fossils. No one has ever found a fossil of a creature that looks
half-bird and half-fish. You can interpose whatever species you want in the
above statement. There have been attempts to trick the scientific community
with supposed finds, but these were quickly found out and discredited.
Kurt, if there was a mid-species fossil find, then I would begin to believe
in macro-evolution. I really would. I do believe in micro-evolution or
variation within a species.
13) I can tell you more about the creation of the universe because I have
read a book which, statistically speaking, is more accurate than any science
book or white paper. How many times have atheistic scientists stated "facts"
and then had to recant them years later? While this does not prove facts
one way or the other, it certainly detracts from any absolute trust in what
they state.
Can I announce, scientifically speaking, the origin of the universe? No. I
did not witness it nor can I reproduce it in a laboratory. But, then again,
I witness it every day as scientists discover more about how the universe
was created and admit their change of belief, albeit to one of an
intelligent designer, not God.
14) Only God creates the standard of absolute (applicable to all people) of
good and evil.
15) I live by all the Gentile laws of the Old Testament. You have to study
the Bible to see what was designated for the Jewish people to do and what is
God's intention for all people.
16) Yes. Jesus is the only way to Heaven. This is just as seemingly
arrogant as a biology teacher telling a child that he or she is definitely
not a beautiful creation of a perfect and holy God, just an evolved blob of
genetically superior protoplasm. Arrogance knows not what is spoken. Is it
arrogance if one is correct?
Your last entry betrays your attitude. If you are really open-minded to the
truth, then why would you not say to God, if/when you stand before Him, that
you were wrong? If I am wrong about the Bible, then I'll say so in the next
life (if there is such a thing then). Why wouldn't you?
kurttrail
> LOL... wrong.
Yeah, you should be laughing,because you'd have absolutely no idea how
I'd react.
> You'll be flat on your face pleading for mercy but being
> reminded of your incredibly insensitve and blasphemous comments.
Very funny. I didn't know that "I don't know" is incredibly insensitive
and blasphemous.
> Frankly, I would NOT want to be in your shoes then... or even now for
> that matter. You strike me as a particularly sad individual.
Why? I'm not willing to lie to myself to soothe the reality of my
reasonable doubt. I don't find that sad at all. What I find sad, are
all you people that need to lie to hide from your doubt.
kurttrail
> [All preceding snipped]
>
> What will it take for you to say that the God of the Bible is the
> only god?
What would it take for me to say that any god is the only god? First,
god would have to convince me that there is such a thing as a god.
>
> If you are an open to truth
Your truth, based on your faith? Why the hell would I be open to your
beliefs that aren't based in reason? Your faith is not "truth," anymore
than the Big Bang is the "truth."
The only truth is "I don't know," but for some reason many people can't
deal with the truth of their reasonable doubt, so need believe in some
fantasy. Whether the fantasy is the Big Bang or God creating everything
in 6 literal days, it is just fantasy.
> and a reasonable person,
I am a reasonable person. I'm willing to admit what I don't really
know.
> then there must
> be some evidence or some kind of revelation that will change your
> mind. Will it take an actual existential encounter with God? What
> will it take?
God and me having a Guinness together.
>
> As for me, with my scientific background, I am really only swayed by
> facts and evidence.
LOL! WHAT FACT PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF ANY GOD?
> And all the evidence is pointing to the fact
> that the Bible is true.
LOL! So where did Cain and Seth, the sons of Adam and Eve find there
wives?
> I have found nothing that would contradict
> the Bible.
LOL! Like the 4 gospels tell the same story! You are blinded by your
faith, if you cannot see the obvious contradiction in the Bible.
> I know that there are translations that differ, seeming
> contradictions (which really aren't if you do more than a cursory
> investigation), and supernatural events that defy explanation.
LOL! For much for relying on "facts and evidence!"
> All
> these, including your preceding questions in the thread, have
> legitimate answers.
Really? Then why didn't you answer them?!
> Do we have the hundreds of hours to go back and
> forth discussing those answers here? Better to just read some books
> (both skeptical and supportive) on our own. Although if you really
> want to, we can discuss at length ANY skeptical question here.
Not really. I grew up in fundamentalist Christianity and I am already
well versed in its hypocrisy.
>
> If there is found some evidence that shows that parts (or even one
> part) of the Bible is not true, then I will listen to that evidence
> and change my beliefs. I really only care about the truth.
>
> Some quick answers to your questions...
>
> 1) I refer to God as a he, not because God has a gender. But because
> He refers to Himself in the Bible as a Father, not Mother. In
> Heaven, there are no genders or any other human-based classes.
So God wrote the Bible? No humans wrote the Bible, and committees of
men edited it over the ages.
>
> 2) All my belief is through reason, and none is through blind faith.
> I look at the cosmos around me and conclude, through rationalization,
> that something had to create it and set it in motion.
Cosmic Fart-bubble. No intelligent design is necessary.
> Anything/anyone that created time and space is, by definition,
> supreme to that time and space.
Bow down to the Cosmic Fart-bubble.
>
> 3) While humans are screwed with many translations of the Bible, a
> reading of the original (as original that you can find) Hebrew texts
> show what is more accurate.
Only the old testament is written in Hebrew.
> Some translations into English are
> highly accurate. A comparison between the King James Bible and the
> Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, show about a 99.9% accuracy with the
> only discrepancies in non-doctrinal and word order details
> ("candlestick" versus "candle", "Jesus Christ" v. "Christ Jesus",
> etc.). Do I know Hebrew? Yes. I am studying Biblical Hebrew
> because I wanted to logically know if modern Bibles are accurate.
> Again, my belief is based on rationalization, not blind faith or
> emotion.
Then you should know that his name wasn't "Jesus." And the so-called
"Virgin Mary's" name was Miriam.
>
> 4) I have not fooled myself at all.
Keep repeating it over and over again, and you may convince yourself.
> I am open to whatever God's Word
> is found to say, even if it turns out to not say anything because it
> was just made up. I want to know for sure so that I don't waste my
> life and your time on a lie. But, so far, my analysis is that the
> KJV Bible is extremely accurate to ancient texts.
Doesn't mean that the stories are literally true.
>
> 5) I know all about fooling myself and self-fulfilling prophecies. I
> have taken care to look at every event of my life in simple,
> unemotional terms to see if I am fooling myself into believing a lie.
> Is it so difficult to trust someone when they say that they really
> have tested what the Bible says?
When they have to rely on statements like, "supernatural events that
defy explanation," yes, it is impossible to trust someone that says that
while at the same time lying that their faith relies on "facts and
evidence."
>
> 6) I know the Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew names for Jesus. I use the
> name of Jesus because we're speaking English.
LOL! He was a Jew, and you should respect that, and call him by his
REAL name.
>
> 7) The Bible teaches us to turn the other cheek and not seek revenge.
> But, self-defense is not revenge.
Iraq was not self-defense. Going after the Taliban, was not
self-defense. Self-defense is an immediate act to defend one's self for
an attack in the midst of an attack.
> Preservation of one's way of life
> is not revenge, although this preservation could become evil if one
> goes too far. When the Bible talks about an eye for an eye, it is
> talking about justice which comes from God.
GWB is God now? Yehoshua taught his followers not to get caught up in
the affairs of this world.
> Justice is not revenge.
> If America acts to defend itself and seeks to bring justice to its
> enemies, then this is not only permissible by God's standards but
> also demanded. God created governments, which man can corrupt, to
> bring about good from evil and protect the rights of its people. Let
> us not confuse the fouled-up attempts of a government to control our
> lives with its God-ordained role at executor of justice.
Where is the Justice of blowing up Iraqi children?
>
> 8) I don't believe the the earth is 10,000 years old. I think that
> it is several billion. I just think that God didn't place a human
> being (with a soul) on the planet until 8,000 years or so ago.
You mean the Bible is wrong? ROFL!
>
> 9) Cain and Abel maybe got their wives from some pre-existing humans
> (without souls). Maybe, God created other humans after Adam and Eve.
> Who knows for sure? The preceding ideas are theoretically
> possible...just like your "Big Bang" theory right?
I don't believe in the "Big Bang" theory. I understand the only truth
about the Universe that is known to me, that I don't know.
>
> 10) I have no proof that anyone lived over 200 years. From a
> genetics standpoint, we can see that a life over 200 is possible...if
> our genes were changed. If an atheist's theory of evolution is even
> somewhat correct, then we know that genetics is the most powerful
> earthly force in our human bodies. Why then is life over 200 years
> such a strain to imagine? Perhaps, some refuse to believe it simply
> because the Bible said that it happened. Where is the open-mindedness
> now?
Because it has yet to be proven possible.
>
> 11) All of the Ten Commandments are accurate.
Which set? The Catholic ones or the Protestant ones?
> 12) The #1 FACT debunking evolution, which CANNOT be disputed by even
> the most hardcore atheists, is this:
>
> No one has ever found a fossil of any kind of a species which is in
> the middle of evolving.
>
> There are over 10,000 fossils on record, all from differing parts of
> the world and depths of soil and rock. We have found bird fossils.
> We have found fish fossils. No one has ever found a fossil of a
> creature that looks half-bird and half-fish. You can interpose
> whatever species you want in the above statement. There have been
> attempts to trick the scientific community with supposed finds, but
> these were quickly found out and discredited.
>
> Kurt, if there was a mid-species fossil find, then I would begin to
> believe in macro-evolution. I really would. I do believe in
> micro-evolution or variation within a species.
Gee, I don't see the lack a fossil find as clearly debunking the whole
theory of evolution. Hell, after a couple of hundred years of finding
dinosaur fossils, we just recently discovered dinosaur fossils with soft
tissue in them, making it possible to read the DNA.
Just a decade ago, no serios paleontologist would have thought that was
possible.
>
> 13) I can tell you more about the creation of the universe because I
> have read a book which, statistically speaking, is more accurate than
> any science book or white paper. How many times have atheistic
> scientists stated "facts" and then had to recant them years later?
> While this does not prove facts one way or the other, it certainly
> detracts from any absolute trust in what they state.
"Statistically speaking!" LOL!
>
> Can I announce, scientifically speaking, the origin of the universe?
> No. I did not witness it nor can I reproduce it in a laboratory.
> But, then again, I witness it every day as scientists discover more
> about how the universe was created and admit their change of belief,
> albeit to one of an intelligent designer, not God.
LOL! Where is this mad rush of scientists changing their beliefs?
>
> 14) Only God creates the standard of absolute (applicable to all
> people) of good and evil.
LOL! Did God tell you that himself?
>
> 15) I live by all the Gentile laws of the Old Testament. You have to
> study the Bible to see what was designated for the Jewish people to
> do and what is God's intention for all people.
Since Yehoshua's message was to Jews, nothing he said is applicable to
Gentiles.
>
> 16) Yes. Jesus is the only way to Heaven. This is just as seemingly
> arrogant as a biology teacher telling a child that he or she is
> definitely not a beautiful creation of a perfect and holy God, just
> an evolved blob of genetically superior protoplasm. Arrogance knows
> not what is spoken. Is it arrogance if one is correct?
You haven't proven that you are correct, so your arrogance is not
justifiable.
>
> Your last entry betrays your attitude. If you are really open-minded
> to the truth, then why would you not say to God, if/when you stand
> before Him, that you were wrong?
I'm not wrong. All I admit is the truth, that I don't know. Until I
know that God exists or doesn't exist, saying anything other than "I
don't know," is not any form of the truth.
> If I am wrong about the Bible, then
> I'll say so in the next life (if there is such a thing then). Why
> wouldn't you?
Because I'm not wrong. I am willing to tell the truth as I know it
right now, and that is "I don't know."
And the Devil didn't make me do it!
LiberalsSuck
Kurt, my friend, I never wanted to upset, antagonize, or anger you. We're
just two men with a lot of questions trying to find our place in the world.
But, it does comes down to this:
If you are open to the truth...if you are open to the possibility that there
might be a Supreme Being...then prove it! Forget what I or anyone else has
said. Try what the Bible says...and prove God.
Pray to whomever or whatever in your mind could be the Supreme Being.
Ask Him/Her/It to prove His/Her/It's existence. Ask for some revelation.
If there is no such thing, then your prayers be will nothing more than
echoes in time and space.
But, if God does exist, then He'll respond...I guarantee you, with
everything that is in my being, that God will respond in such a way that you
will begin to know what is truth.
What have you got to lose other than a few seconds of time...
Thanks for the discussion, Kurt. Peace.
Your response to this request will show if you really are open to the truth.
frogspawn
a few) are not pleasing to the Intelligent Designer and are condemned to a
bad outcome after death? Hellooo! The intelligent Designer designed them! He
should kick himself, repeatedly, for being such a dunce.
"LiberalsSuck" <a...@a.com> wrote in message
news:efVEez6M...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Jason Bowen
Why does a supreme omnipotent being with the ability to create all we
see around us need you to tell people about it and how to find truth
from it?
LiberalsSuck
news:e2i2hb9M...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Dear LS: So you are saying that Muslims, Hindus, Animists and Jews (to
name
> a few) are not pleasing to the Intelligent Designer and are condemned to a
> bad outcome after death? Hellooo! The intelligent Designer designed them!
He
> should kick himself, repeatedly, for being such a dunce.
No sir (frogspawn, I assume that you're male). It is our actions, not our
existence, that may become unpleasing.
God loves every single human being, even when they do things that are not
pleasing to Him. However, without having accepted Jesus' sacrifice on the
cross, everyone's outcome will, unfortunately, be condemnation regardless of
their skin color, ethnicity, heritage, church/synagague/mosque that they
belong to, or quantity of good deeds.
I know that God designed everyone. He gave each of us the capacity to
choose, to various extents, good or evil. When we do good, God smiles on
us. When we do evil, including worshipping other gods, He is,
understandably, not pleased. As we continue to do evil, His disappointment
may become anger which may become wrath.
It is our free choices that mold us into what we become. It is our immortal
soul and ability to choose right from wrong which are God's gifts to us.
What we do with these gifts is our worship of Him.
Are we now questioning God's plan for humankind because many of us divert
from that plan and follow our own desires? Is it our free will that is now
under suspicion?
Are we now questioning God's sovereign decision to give us free will?
Without free will, how would we ever make the choice to question Him?
I know what you are getting at. How can a supposedly loving God condemn
people who are probably just trying their best to worship some supreme
being? Why would God condemn us for poorly using that free will with which
He has burdened us?
Answer: Every human being, who honestly seeks God, will find Him. God will
somehow reveal Himself, to one extent or another, to every human who seeks
Him. Everyone has or will make a choice through their lives to accept the
God of Israel as the only true god. He has engineered every human's life to
make that decision at some point in their lives. No one can ever claim to
have not been given a choice in the matter.
Some people, much like Kurtrail, do not believe in God (or any god) because
there is no proof. But, how much proof does one need? If I have to guess,
I'd say that Kurttrail has already been given enough evidence to believe in
God. He just CHOOSES not to believe. Actually, with his need for evidence,
he probably cannot prove even his own existence.
frogspawn
found a fossil of a creature that looks half-bird and half-fish."
http://ology.amnh.org/biodiversity/treeoflife/pages/cladogram.html
Have you never seen a cladogram, O Man of Science? Does the term "common
ancestor" have no resonance with you? I have never seen a religion that was
half-Jewish and half-Muslim. This does not disprove religious evolution.
"LiberalsSuck" <a...@a.com> wrote in message
news:uzi4xJ8M...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
frogspawn
does a devout Muslim.
As a man of science, you should know that frogspawn (not frogsperm!)
consists of a mass of eggs, usually fertilized ones. Are you an engineer, by
any chance. Engineers are not, by definition, scientists. They apply
scientific knowledge, not discover it.
"LiberalsSuck" <a...@a.com> wrote in message
news:O0xbPv9M...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
kurttrail
>
> Kurt, my friend, I never wanted to upset, antagonize, or anger you.
Don't worry, you didn't. And you don't know me, so please don't
bullshit me with feigned civility. I'm not your friend.
> We're just two men with a lot of questions trying to find our place
> in the world. But, it does comes down to this:
>
> If you are open to the truth...if you are open to the possibility
> that there might be a Supreme Being...then prove it! Forget what I
> or anyone else has said. Try what the Bible says...and prove God.
Can't do it without Faith, and that wouldn't be truthful, since faith is
not based on reason.
> Pray to whomever or whatever in your mind could be the Supreme Being.
I don't know whether there is a "Supreme Being," so why would I pray to
something I don't know?
>
> Ask Him/Her/It to prove His/Her/It's existence. Ask for some
> revelation. If there is no such thing, then your prayers be will
> nothing more than echoes in time and space.
Like I said, I grew up in fundamentalist christianity. Nothing was
revelatory, except the hypocrisy.
>
> But, if God does exist, then He'll respond...I guarantee you, with
> everything that is in my being, that God will respond in such a way
> that you will begin to know what is truth.
LOL! And the Son of Sam got a response to his next door neighbors dog!
> What have you got to lose other than a few seconds of time...
Been there, done that, and no Christian God ever revealed him/her/itself
to me.
Now that doesn't mean I'm not a spiritual person, all it means is that
I'm openminded enough to understand that when it comes down to it, my
spiritual beliefs are open to my reasonable doubt.
>
> Thanks for the discussion, Kurt. Peace.
>
> Your response to this request will show if you really are open to the
> truth.
Whose truth? Yours based on your faith, or my truth, that "I don't
know?"
Your truth is based "supernatural events that defy explanation."
My truth is based on the FACT that "I don't know."
LiberalsSuck
news:xJWdnSmmmOX...@pcisys.net...
>
> Why does a supreme omnipotent being with the ability to create all we
> see around us need you to tell people about it and how to find truth
> from it?
He doesn't.
But, because God is loving to us, He reveals Himself as He sees fit. In
this way, different people will be given varying amounts of revelation,
discernment, and wisdom based on: their obedience, their ability to handle
this information, God's plan for that person, and probably hundreds of other
reasons that are beyond our ability to comprehend.
God wants to have a relationship with us, His creation. This would be
impossible if He didn't tell us anything about Himself. It would be
impossible if He kept His existence a secret.
kurttrail
<snip>
>
> Some people, much like Kurtrail, do not believe in God (or any god)
> because there is no proof.
Liar! I never said that. I said I don't know if God exists or not.
That's a friggin' conservative religious moralists for ya! Lie about
what your opponent says, when you can't back up your own beliefs with
reason!
> But, how much proof does one need?
Sharing some Guinness would be a good start.
> If I
> have to guess, I'd say that Kurttrail has already been given enough
> evidence to believe in God.
I have been given absolutely NO evidence of any specific God.
> He just CHOOSES not to believe.
No, I choose to follow what reason teaches me, and that is that "I don't
know."
> Actually, with his need for evidence, he probably cannot prove even
> his own existence.
Cognito ergo sum.
LiberalsSuck
OK. I'll leave everyone out of this but you and me. I didn't mean to
offend. I was just using a previous discussion as an example.
A devout Jew believes in the God of Israel as described in the Old
Testament. 99% of them do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of
God, and God the Son. 99% of them are still waiting for God to send a
Messiah to save Israel.
A devout Muslim does NOT believe in the God of Israel. They believe in
Allah, whose characteristics have little in common with God. They believe
that Jesus was a prophet who performed miracles and, interestingly, was
without sin. They believe that Mohammed was the greatest prophet,
eventhough he did no miracles and violated some of the Koran's own
teachings.
By the way, did you know that the Koran teaches that the Bible is a holy
book that is to be obeyed. Most Muslims don't know this because they, like
some Christians, get their knowledge of a supreme being from their religious
leaders and hierarchy, not from their personal study of the Bible or Koran.
Yes! I am an engineer by schooling and practice. How did you know that?
Maybe you have a God-given gift of discernment.
I do, however, seek knowledge through science. I guess that I am an
engineer by trade, but scientist at heart. And I am not content to have
religion, science, or any knowledge force- or spoon-fed to me. I analyze
everything on its own merits, which rarely have anything to do with what
others believe.
Please tell me that you're not going to label and categorize me based on how
others in my profession think and act.
kurttrail
See, basically you really don't know either. You just aren't
open-minded enough to the truth to admit it overtly.
LiberalsSuck
If you don't know whether there is a god or not, then you don't believe in
one. You either believe or you don't. It's fine that you don't. It's cool
that you don't really know. But, let's not start calling each other a liar.
Until you make a choice to believe that something or someone exists, then
you don't believe that they exist. Not knowing is the same as disbelief.
Please relax, Kurt. This isn't about you. This is about the topic of the
existence of a god. So what if I took what you said and made an example out
of it. I did so because of the tough stance that you took. It is a stance
that many, especially those in the scientific community, take. And to
interact with those scientists, "friggin' conservative religious moralists"
like me strive to understand those positions.
That's all. Did you try praying yet?
kurttrail
<snip>
> Please tell me that you're not going to label and categorize me based
> on how others in my profession think and act.
ROFL! That's really hypocritical coming from a guy that named himself
"LiberalsSuck!"
LiberalsSuck
You're right. I don't know for certain. However, everything is pointing to
the fact that God exists as desrcibed in the Bible. Therefore, until the
thousands of scientists who work every day to prove evolution, "Big Bang",
or whatever can provide one ounce of proof, I'll believe in the Bible.
Overt enough? :-)
Jason Bowen
> "Jason Bowen" <h...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:xJWdnSmmmOX...@pcisys.net...
>
>>Why does a supreme omnipotent being with the ability to create all we
>>see around us need you to tell people about it and how to find truth
>>from it?
>
>
> He doesn't.
There you go speaking for "him" again.
>
> But, because God is loving to us, He reveals Himself as He sees fit. In
> this way, different people will be given varying amounts of revelation,
> discernment, and wisdom based on: their obedience, their ability to handle
> this information, God's plan for that person, and probably hundreds of other
> reasons that are beyond our ability to comprehend.
>
"He" told you this? Why are you so special?
> God wants to have a relationship with us, His creation. This would be
> impossible if He didn't tell us anything about Himself. It would be
> impossible if He kept His existence a secret.
>
Let "him" do it then. You think "he" has a wife since you call him a man?
>
LiberalsSuck
were accurate. Now, I believe that they "evolve" like any other scientific
explanation. Cladograms change over time as previous ones are found to be
unsupportive and erroneous. That's why I don't believe in them.
"Common ancestor" resonates with me. It's a term used to describe a
characteristic of the theory of evolution. The common ancestor of man,
amphibia, bird, etc., etc. seems to change over the years as new discoveries
are made. This does not lend credibility to what the "experts" are saying.
When theories stabilize over time, then I'll take another look.
Many of you in this thread bemoan the apparent discrepances and changes in
the Bible over the years. This, you may say, is proof (PROOF!) that the
Bible cannot be trusted. Hmm...1) An extensive analysis of the Bible and
Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic shows that there are only a few discrepancies
(King James version, at least. 2) If you were to use the same level of
incredulity on science, then 99% of all textbooks and white papers would be
disregarded as mere changing suppositions at best and blatant lies at worst.
It's OK that you view the Bible in such a critical manner. But, to be
intellectually honest, let's use the same level of skepticism in the
scientific community.
A half-Jewish and half-Muslim religion would not work well since the two are
opposed on almost every aspect of God, creation, revelation, and salvation.
You're right, however. Religions, like science, evolves over time. Both go
forward, and both sometimes go backward. Hopefully, the goal of each is to
find out the truth free from emotion and prejudice.
"frogspawn" <bu...@hatespam.com> wrote in message
news:eLnNAw9M...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
LiberalsSuck
Bible says.
I am no more special to God than you, Jason. I'm no better or worse than
you. I believe the Bible to be accurate, in which case, I'm just saying
what I believe to be the truth.
God is not an exalted man, as the Mormon church believes. He is a spirit
being. Having a wife is simply an earthly institution. In Heaven (and
Hell), no one is married. Not God, not the angels, not the people.
If you are waiting for God to physically come down and talk with you, don't
hold your breath. Just as there are hundreds of ways for mankind to
communicate, I'm sure that there are millions of ways for God to reveal
Himself to you personally. Maybe God will speak to you. Maybe He already
has. In that case, find a Bible and read it for yourself. Ask God if He
does exist. Pray that He shows Himself to you. I guarantee that He will.
"Jason Bowen" <h...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:sb-dndzFJOg...@pcisys.net...
frogspawn
engineers are dogmatic, you belong with the ones who are.
And please, never mention the silly half-fish, half-bird again. You
jeopardize your right to call yourself a scientist at heart by clinging to
such silliness.
I would like to put a group of fundamentalist Muslims, Christians and Jews
together in a locked room. Within minutes, they would
realize they are all of a kind, stop worrying about faith, and sit down for
a nice game of cards.
"LiberalsSuck" <a...@a.com> wrote in message
news:uVAgfD#MFHA...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name
"Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name"
Ahhh....much better.
"kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:e1zgAK%23MFH...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
frogspawn
unsupportive and erroneous. That's why I don't believe in them."
science, which is constantly changing. And you ought to stay away from the
practitioners of this science. Perhaps exercise is actually bad for us.
"LiberalsSuck" <a...@a.com> wrote in message
news:OzIuzU#MFHA...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
kurttrail
Knowledge and belief are two different things.
> You either believe or you don't. It's fine that you
> don't. It's cool that you don't really know. But, let's not start
> calling each other a liar. Until you make a choice to believe that
> something or someone exists, then you don't believe that they exist.
> Not knowing is the same as disbelief.
LOL! No it's not. I have my beliefs, but that is not the same as what
I know.
>
> Please relax, Kurt.
I'm much more relaxed than you, since I have no need to conform to idea
of a Specific God.
> This isn't about you. This is about the topic
> of the existence of a god.
Yeah, its about you and your insistence that there is some specific God
that is knowable through faith, yet is "beyond our ability to
comprehend," and "supernatural events that defy explanation." And the
really funny part is that you believe that you have arrived your faith
in your specific God through reason!
> So what if I took what you said and made
> an example out of it.
Again, you are a liar! I never said that I don't BELIEVE in a god, what
I said is that I don't KNOW whether a god exists or not.
Belief does NOT equal knowledge.
> I did so because of the tough stance that you
> took.
That I am willing to admit that I don't know is a tough stance only to
those that have throw reason out the door to use faith to fool
themselves into thinking that they KNOW something that by their own
admission "beyond our ability to comprehend."
You are a total hypocrite. You know God, yet he is beyond your ability
to comprehend, and defies explanation.
> It is a stance that many, especially those in the scientific
> community, take. And to interact with those scientists, "friggin'
> conservative religious moralists" like me strive to understand those
> positions.
What don't you understand about "I don't know?"
>
> That's all. Did you try praying yet?
Long ago.
kurttrail
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:OLoJzE%23MFH...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> LiberalsSuck wrote:
>>> "Jason Bowen" <h...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>>> news:xJWdnSmmmOX...@pcisys.net...
>>>>
>>>> Why does a supreme omnipotent being with the ability to create all
>>>> we see around us need you to tell people about it and how to find
>>>> truth from it?
>>>
>>> He doesn't.
>>>
>>> But, because God is loving to us, He reveals Himself as He sees fit.
>>> In this way, different people will be given varying amounts of
>>> revelation, discernment, and wisdom based on: their obedience, their
>>> ability to handle this information, God's plan for that person, and
>>> probably hundreds of other reasons that are beyond our ability to
>>> comprehend.
>>>
>>> God wants to have a relationship with us, His creation. This would
>>> be impossible if He didn't tell us anything about Himself. It
>>> would be impossible if He kept His existence a secret.
>>
>> "that are beyond our ability to comprehend."
>>
>> See, basically you really don't know either. You just aren't
>> open-minded enough to the truth to admit it overtly.
>
> pointing to the fact that God exists as desrcibed in the Bible.
Really? Like what exactly do you mean by everything?
> Therefore, until the thousands of scientists who work every day to
> prove evolution, "Big Bang", or whatever can provide one ounce of
> proof, I'll believe in the Bible.
Sure. Just don't think that you are any better them, as you haven't
provided one ounce of proof in the Bible and your God.
>
> Overt enough? :-)
Yes, you have shown that your faith is based on nothing but irrational
belief. Thanks.
Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name
stick to it? Please don't think that I wouldn't change my mind if presented
with new evidence. I would.
Do you believe that a scientist finds out facts, but never treats the
newfound knowledge as facts? Do you believe that scientists look at facts
as something temporary or transitory and continue to seek the underlying
knowledge behind those facts?
I like the "half-fish, half-bird" analysis. Unfortunately, it has damaged
the careers and reputations of many atheistic "dogmatic" scientists who
engineered their whole careers on the premise ("it's gotta be true...it's
just gotta be") that humans evolved from amoebas. By the way, the
"half-bird, half-fish" thing is one of the reasons that scientists kept
changing their cladogram time and time again. They must have believed in
the "half-bird, half-fish" thing to change such a reputable and accurate
scientific theory as the cladogram.
Even those dogmatic types saw the writing on the wall...
"frogspawn" <bu...@hatespam.com> wrote in message
news:eKZRZb%23MFH...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
kurttrail
> So as to not offend anyone, allow me to change to the following:
> "Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name"
>
> Ahhh....much better.
In other words, now that you have been caught in hypocrisy, it's time to
play the chameleon.
Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name
chemicals and trial-and-error.
If scientists really understood chemistry, then there would be no medicine
trials, double-blind studies, massive government oversight, peer reviews,
etc.
Next time that you're in the doctor's office or hospital (God forbid), start
asking probing questions about medicines and procedures. Half of the
doctors and most nurses understand very little of the why's. They know what
to do based on procedure manuals and medical textbooks which they have to
follow religiously. Hmm...sounds like a cult to me.
Actually, going onto the Internet, studying books yourselves, and your own
trial-and-error with chemicals can teach you more about medicine than most
(not all) doctors. And they call Christians, who believe and follow
something that they cannot touch, mind-numbed robots. :-)
"frogspawn" <bu...@hatespam.com> wrote in message
news:uGbhRe%23MFH...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Jason Bowen
> God doesn't need me or anyone to speak for Him. I'm just telling what the
> Bible says.
>
You seem to think so, like so many others that think they need to.
> I am no more special to God than you, Jason. I'm no better or worse than
> you. I believe the Bible to be accurate, in which case, I'm just saying
> what I believe to be the truth.
>
What you believe is accurate, though you can't prove it.
> God is not an exalted man, as the Mormon church believes. He is a spirit
> being. Having a wife is simply an earthly institution. In Heaven (and
> Hell), no one is married. Not God, not the angels, not the people.
>
Wow, where is this keen handbook he gave you?
> If you are waiting for God to physically come down and talk with you, don't
> hold your breath. Just as there are hundreds of ways for mankind to
> communicate, I'm sure that there are millions of ways for God to reveal
> Himself to you personally. Maybe God will speak to you. Maybe He already
> has. In that case, find a Bible and read it for yourself. Ask God if He
> does exist. Pray that He shows Himself to you. I guarantee that He will.
>
I used to be really into religion. I followed my churches teachings,
even wanted to get involved in the church... then I started to think for
myself. All that time I believed something, nothing was revealed to me.
I suppose that God knew that was going to happen and that is why he
didn't reveal himself to me....or he did and I just didn't see it
because I wasn't advanced enough because surely if he did I wouldn't be
the heretic I am. Of course you would think he would make sure I saw
him, unless he had something against me. If he revealed himself to me,
I would believe and I think he knows that. And lest you try to question
my prior belief, I prayed every night to my crucifix, thought others
were going to hell for non-belief etc... I just realized that all
relgions are lumped together, silly belief systems that have some good
tenets but overall are human creations for the concentration of power.
People make up things to help them cope. It is scary thought that once
you get past those last futile death breaths, and your mind is starving
for oxygen giving you all kinds of warm fuzzy feelings, you will cease
to exist like everything else. It's all about entropy.
kurttrail
> and stick to it? Please don't think that I wouldn't change my mind
> if presented with new evidence. I would.
<snip>
LOL! You believe in a specific God based on absolutely no evidence at
all other than a bunch of old dead guys wrote some stories, thousands of
years ago, that has been re-edited and recompiled many times in the
intervening years!
frogspawn
"In other words, now that you have been caught in hypocrisy, it's time to
play the chameleon."
"Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name" <a...@a.com> wrote in message
news:OdFDtk#MFHA...@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
frogspawn
problems that arise from any blinkered way of dealing with the world.
"If scientists really understood chemistry, then there would be no medicine
trials, double-blind studies, massive government oversight, peer reviews,
etc."
there would be no need for experiments, as the results could be predicted by
deduction. But first, pigs will fly.
"Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name" <a...@a.com> wrote in message
news:ubrLto#MFHA...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
frogspawn
whether a fly or a human, but fuel for the cycle of life. With reproductive
rates what they are, the cycle could not go on long without death being a
regular part of it.
I think most animals accept inevitable death. Humans have a lot of
self-awaremess, and this seems to interfere with the acceptance of death.
"Jason Bowen" <h...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:QOOdneZFINO...@pcisys.net...
Jason Bowen
> "It's all about entropy."
> I would call it Dynamic Entropy. Entropy for the individual, perhaps,
> whether a fly or a human, but fuel for the cycle of life. With reproductive
> rates what they are, the cycle could not go on long without death being a
> regular part of it.
>
> I think most animals accept inevitable death. Humans have a lot of
> self-awaremess, and this seems to interfere with the acceptance of death.
>
It's inevitable but we all fight it, including the animals. I think it
is quite ironic that Christians cry at death, given that if they really
believe, they should be happy and realize that they will get to meet
them again soon enough. I'm not buying the crying because they are sad,
they are crying because they really deep down know they will never see
that person again. If they would really rationalize their beliefs, they
might be sad for having their relationship interrupted but realize it
would continue and it would all be good in the end.
Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name
name in order to make Kurttrail feel better. He called me a hypocrite, and
I wanted to show that I wasn't.
Would you like me to change it back? Will you stick to the topic at hand,
or revert back to grade school when you got picked on a lot and stood up by
your cousin for the prom? Just a little humor. Lighten up Kurttrail and
Frogspawn.
Can we not discuss beliefs in a supreme being and trust in the scientific
community without all the name calling?
Good. Now, let us continue.
OK. Hit me with your one best argument that shows that the Bible is
unreliable and inaccurate. Please use specific examples.
"kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:OQZRRq%23MFH...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name
You said that beliefs and knowledge are different. "Belief does NOT equal
knowledge." OK.
When you say that you don't know if there is a god, do you mean that you
have no (or not enough) knowledge to make a decision, or do you mean that
you don't "believe" that there could be a god?
Am I right to say that knowledge is intellectual whereas belief is in one's
heart?
"kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:OpVfsf%23MFH...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name
The funerals with all the depair and hopeless crying that I've been to are
the ones for people that were really "church" people. Oh, they went to
church now and then, especially on Christmas, Easter, or when running for
reelection. But, if I had to guess, they never really believed. It was
just something else to add color to their lives.
On the other hand, funerals for evangelical Christians, especially in some
Black churches, are filled with crying, yes, but much singing, happiness,
and praise of God. The people (most of them, at least) know that their
loved ones were taken home to be with the Lord.
I guess this exemplifies one of the big differences discussed in this
thread - book knowledge of the Bible and actual belief that changes lives.
Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name
nothing to say, or confirms what the Bible says.
Let's begin with the quick and easy stuff. Here's one ounce of supporting
evidence to show that the Bible is accurate.
Here are 18 of the many other Old Testament prophecies concerning the
Messiah. If there was no prophetic discernment (and no God to impart that
knowledge), then it would be an amazing statistical chance for all these to
have taken place. Right?
Genesis 49:10 The Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah
Deuteronomy 18:15-18 God promised another prophet like Moses
Psalm 22:1,7,8,16,17,18 Psalm 22 foreshadowed the crucifixion of Jesus
Isaiah 11:1-10 Nations would seek the counsel of Jesse's descendant
Isaiah 40:3 The Messiah would be preceded by a messenger
Isaiah 42:1-9 Jesus' life was foreshadowed by the prophet Isaiah
Isaiah 49:6 God's salvation would reach the ends of the earth
Isaiah 53:3 The Messiah would suffer and be rejected
Isaiah 53:5 God's servant would be wounded and whipped
Isaiah 53:7 God's servant would be silent before His accusers
Isaiah 53:9 God's servant would be buried in a rich man's tomb
Isaiah 53:12 God's servant would be crucified with criminals
Isaiah 61:1-2 Isaiah foreshadows the ministry of Jesus
Jeremiah 23:3-6 The Messiah will appear after the Jews return to Israel
Daniel 9:24-26 Daniel predicted when an anointed one would be rejected
Micah 5:2 The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem
Zechariah 9:9 The Messiah would enter Jerusalem while riding on a donkey
Zechariah 11:12-13 Zechariah foreshadowed the betrayal of Jesus for 30
pieces of silver
How would it be possible for an text to accurately predict the future like
this several hundreds years in advance?
Of course, this, by itself, proves nothing. It is just the beginning of a
proper analysis to see if the Bible is indeed accurate.
Is it irrational to believe that prophecy could actually happen? No.
"kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:uTioBk%23MFH...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name
about from two amino acids attaching in the middle of a swamp of premordial
goo, he is looked upon with piousness and intellectual curiosity? His is a
premise which can neither be supported with supposition and theory, much
less reproducable science. It is OK that he cannot support it. It's
arrogance, however, when he promotes it as "solid" and "fact-based".
But, when a Christian stands up and proclaims the existence of a being who
created humanity, the cosmos, gravity, time, and energy, the scientist,
still giddy from his applause, looks with disdain upon that idea and has
confidence that his ideas are the only correct ones.
There's nothing inherently wrong with promoting a theory. Let's just be as
intellectually honest with competing theories. The best theory that I have
right now is that the Bible is accurate. In fact, this rationalization is
dependable enough that I can say that there is a God...and base my life on
it.
"frogspawn" <bu...@hatespam.com> wrote in message
news:uPbHYx%23MFH...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
kurttrail
> I'm not trying to hide. Anyone can see that I have publicly changed
> the name in order to make Kurttrail feel better.
LOL! All it did was amuse me.
> He called me a
> hypocrite, and I wanted to show that I wasn't.
It was already too late. Changing your name doesn't absolve your past
hypocrisy.
>
> Would you like me to change it back?
Couldn't care less.
> Will you stick to the topic at
> hand, or revert back to grade school when you got picked on a lot and
> stood up by your cousin for the prom? Just a little humor.
Very little.
> Lighten
> up Kurttrail and Frogspawn.
ROFL! I'm enjoying myself. I'm not the one that is doing all the
backpeddling, nor having to lie about what you have said.
>
> Can we not discuss beliefs in a supreme being and trust in the
> scientific community without all the name calling?
You assume that I trust the scientific community. Have I said that I
trust them, any more than I trust you religous wackjobs?
I pretty much lumped them into the same cracked-pot as you.
>
> Good. Now, let us continue.
With what? You have yet to have even attempt to give a convincing
argument about your faith in God, and have pretty much have proven that
you don't anything more about the existence or non-existence of God than
anybody else I've ever met.
>
> OK. Hit me with your one best argument that shows that the Bible is
> unreliable and inaccurate. Please use specific examples.
LOL! I already said plenty, but you came back that it is "beyond our
ability to comprehend," that it is based on "supernatural events that
defy explanation."
If you are gonna play like that, you aren't open to listen to reason,
because anything I would mention you will counter with your faith-based
hocus pocus.
kurttrail
> degree.
Oy Vey! What is there to understand about "I don't know?"
>
> You said that beliefs and knowledge are different. "Belief does NOT
> equal knowledge." OK.
>
> When you say that you don't know if there is a god, do you mean that
> you have no (or not enough) knowledge to make a decision, or do you
> mean that you don't "believe" that there could be a god?
"I DON'T F*#KIN' KNOW!" as God, Creator, Intelligent Designer, in
general, has yet to be proven to exist, or not to exist. As for any
specific God, now that is just plain fairy tales, made up by men to fill
in the whole in there knowledge of existence.
> Am I right to say that knowledge is intellectual whereas belief is in
> one's heart?
No.
kurttrail
> has nothing to say, or confirms what the Bible says.
>
> Let's begin with the quick and easy stuff. Here's one ounce of
> supporting evidence to show that the Bible is accurate.
>
> Here are 18 of the many other Old Testament prophecies concerning the
> Messiah. If there was no prophetic discernment (and no God to impart
> that knowledge), then it would be an amazing statistical chance for
> all these to have taken place. Right?
>
> Genesis 49:10 The Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah
And proof that the messiah has appear on earth?
>
> Deuteronomy 18:15-18 God promised another prophet like Moses
And which prophet after Moses, brought plagues, and led the children of
Isreal around the desert for forty years?
>
> Psalm 22:1,7,8,16,17,18 Psalm 22 foreshadowed the crucifixion of
> Jesus
Psalm 22:1 [[To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of
David.]] My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so]
far from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring?
Yeah, Your guy quotes a Psalm and that is a fullfillment of prophesy!
Oh my God, are you really that moronic?
>
> Isaiah 11:1-10 Nations would seek the counsel of Jesse's descendant
What nation sought his counsel during his life?
>
> Isaiah 40:3 The Messiah would be preceded by a messenger
LOL! Would that be AOL IM, or MSN Messenger.
>
> Isaiah 42:1-9 Jesus' life was foreshadowed by the prophet Isaiah
>
> Isaiah 49:6 God's salvation would reach the ends of the earth
>
> Isaiah 53:3 The Messiah would suffer and be rejected
>
> Isaiah 53:5 God's servant would be wounded and whipped
>
> Isaiah 53:7 God's servant would be silent before His accusers
>
> Isaiah 53:9 God's servant would be buried in a rich man's tomb
>
> Isaiah 53:12 God's servant would be crucified with criminals
>
> Isaiah 61:1-2 Isaiah foreshadows the ministry of Jesus
>
> Jeremiah 23:3-6 The Messiah will appear after the Jews return to
> Israel
>
> Daniel 9:24-26 Daniel predicted when an anointed one would be
> rejected
>
> Micah 5:2 The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem
>
> Zechariah 9:9 The Messiah would enter Jerusalem while riding on a
> donkey
>
> Zechariah 11:12-13 Zechariah foreshadowed the betrayal of Jesus for
> 30 pieces of silver
>
> How would it be possible for an text to accurately predict the future
> like this several hundreds years in advance?
Did it? Or did the authors of the Bible re-write the "Jesus" story to
fit the prophesies?
> Of course, this, by itself, proves nothing. It is just the beginning
> of a proper analysis to see if the Bible is indeed accurate.
It is nothing, period.
>
> Is it irrational to believe that prophecy could actually happen? No.
Yeah, it is.
Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name
It will make me defend my position. Because I believe that there is a God
and I believe that my position is supportable, I would very much like to
hear your #1 argument against the Bible.
Let me start with these two:
1) We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that at least one version of the Bible
today is accurate to texts from 2,000 years ago. That in and of itself is
rather interesting as a story told around a room tends to change within
minutes as it passes from person to person.
Does this prove that God exists? No. Does it prove that the Bible is
accurate to reality? No. But it destroyed one of the best arguments against
the Bible which had been put forth by skeptics until 1947 (when the Scrolls
began to be discovered).
2) We have better historical (extra-Biblical) documentation for Jesus than
for the founder of any other ancient religion. Up to 39 ancient sources
outside the Bible corroborate more than 100 facts concerning Jesus' life,
death, and resurrection.
Does this prove that God exists and the Bible is accurate to reality? No.
But, as the Roman, Greek, and other countries' documentations become known,
this begins to lend more and more credibility that the Bible, at the very
least, records history accurately. Even non-religious documents describe a
man named Jesus as one who people said had performed miracles. This is from
documents at that time period.
Kurt, there is no single piece of evidence that I can present. I wish that
I could. It's all a compilation of thousands of sources, analysis of the
universe, and personal experience. I know, from your posts, that you would
believe if God had a beer with you. I would like to be there when it
happens.
Even if you don't want to be, I am your friend.
"kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:%236NGGb$MFHA...@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name
Good question about rewriting history...
Here's the answer:
Critics have said that the early Christians were so eager to make Jesus fit
the Messianic profile, that they made up parts of the Gospels. However, the
Gospel writers intended to accurately record history. Consider the way the
Gospels were written - details, timelines, places, people, actions, and
rationale for events. They were written in a way to be verified. Even the
supernatural parts could be verified as many of the witnesses to such events
were still alive when the Gospels were written. If there were errors, there
would have been an outcry among the Jewish, Roman, and even the Christian
community. Instead, we find that all supporting document never accuses the
Gospels of lies. We find no evidence that there were any redactions,
changes, or competing versions until 200 years or so later (Gnostic
gospels).
Again, nothing conclusive to prove one way or another. Just another bit of
supporting evidence, slowing whittling away the skeptics claims one by one.
Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name
> Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name wrote:
> > OK. "Everything" means every piece of evidence either does not deny,
> > has nothing to say, or confirms what the Bible says.
> >
> > Let's begin with the quick and easy stuff. Here's one ounce of
> > supporting evidence to show that the Bible is accurate.
> >
> > Here are 18 of the many other Old Testament prophecies concerning the
> > Messiah. If there was no prophetic discernment (and no God to impart
> > that knowledge), then it would be an amazing statistical chance for
> > all these to have taken place. Right?
> >
> > Genesis 49:10 The Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah
>
> And proof that the messiah has appear on earth?
Where shall we begin?
We can elaborate on any or all of the following if you like:
1) The Biblical biographies of Jesus can be trusted and stand up to
scrutiny.
2) The Gospels were preserved (99.9%) accurately over these 2,000 years as
shown by religious and non-religious documents of that time and over the
years.
3) Archaeology confirms parts of the Gospels.
4) Psychologically speaking, Jesus was not crazy and was convinced that He
was the Messiah. He fulfilled the attributes of God.
5) Jesus matched the identity of the Messiah.
6) Jesus' death and resurrection can be shown to not be a hoax.
7) Jesus' body was absent from the tomb.
8) Jesus was seen alive after His death.
All of the above is supported by extra-Biblical material, including much
from the Jewish historian Josephus, who did not believe that Jesus was the
Messiah.
>
> >
> > Deuteronomy 18:15-18 God promised another prophet like Moses
>
> And which prophet after Moses, brought plagues, and led the children of
> Isreal around the desert for forty years?
>
Jesus matched the characteristics of a prophet of God. Just as all
engineers don't design the same things, doctors heal the same diseases, and
contractors build the same homes, so Jesus had the same prophetic qualities
but had a different mission.
> >
> > Psalm 22:1,7,8,16,17,18 Psalm 22 foreshadowed the crucifixion of
> > Jesus
>
> Psalm 22:1 [[To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of
> David.]] My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so]
> far from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring?
>
> Yeah, Your guy quotes a Psalm and that is a fullfillment of prophesy!
> Oh my God, are you really that moronic?
>
One Psalm quoted means nothing. One Psalm quoted at just the right point in
history along with the over hundred other prophecies really break the law of
statistical chance.
> >
> > Isaiah 11:1-10 Nations would seek the counsel of Jesse's descendant
>
> What nation sought his counsel during his life?
>
Do not many nations of the world, including America, seek His counsel even
2,000 years later? Is not the Bible the most printed book in all of human
history? Would it not be printed if there were no market for it? Name one
other book of literature or scientific resource with that desire for it.
> >
> > Isaiah 40:3 The Messiah would be preceded by a messenger
>
> LOL! Would that be AOL IM, or MSN Messenger.
>
AOL sucks, and I know that you don't care for Microsoft. It's noteworthy
that, with the Internet, comes more communication than ever before...but the
truth still has not changed.
> >
> > Isaiah 42:1-9 Jesus' life was foreshadowed by the prophet Isaiah
OK.
> > Isaiah 49:6 God's salvation would reach the ends of the earth
Now, how on earth could Isaiah guarantee that? How could the Christians
claim that Old Testament verse? Even the great system of Roman roads didn't
go anywhere near that far.
> > Isaiah 53:3 The Messiah would suffer and be rejected
Maybe...maybe not. Some so-called prophets at that time were ignored. Some
weren't. 50% that this would be true.
> > Isaiah 53:5 God's servant would be wounded and whipped
If your being persecuted by Roman, this would be typical...but only if you
were being persecuted.
> > Isaiah 53:7 God's servant would be silent before His accusers
Boy, if Jesus knew that he wasn't the Messiah, then would he have spoken up
right here to clear Himself. Why be persecuted and die for a lie?
> > Isaiah 53:9 God's servant would be buried in a rich man's tomb
What are the chances that this could be arranged? Maybe 50%...maybe. A lot
of 50% chances are beginning to add up.
> > Isaiah 53:12 God's servant would be crucified with criminals
Tell me how the Christians of that time managed to convince the Roman
authorities, who were trying to kiss the rearends of the Jewish leadership,
to arrange this kind of crucifixion?
> > Isaiah 61:1-2 Isaiah foreshadows the ministry of Jesus
OK
> > Jeremiah 23:3-6 The Messiah will appear after the Jews return to
> > Israel
How could Jeremiah have any clue when or even if the Jewish people would
ever return? Wishful thinking? Just a guess? What a coincidence though.
> > Daniel 9:24-26 Daniel predicted when an anointed one would be
> > rejected
Hmm...
> > Micah 5:2 The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem
Apart from God, how would any engineer this?
> > Zechariah 9:9 The Messiah would enter Jerusalem while riding on a
> > donkey
OK. So the disciples found a donkey for Jesus to ride. That could be
faked. But, along with everything else, it would have to be choreographed
fairly well.
> > Zechariah 11:12-13 Zechariah foreshadowed the betrayal of Jesus for
> > 30 pieces of silver
Unless everyone was in collusion with everyone else and all this was one big
epic play, how could anyone fake or engineer this? The Jewish leadership
and Judas were opposed to Jesus. Why would they purposely do something that
would lend credibility to the whole Messianic prophecy?
kurttrail
And you know their intentions because of what?
> Consider the way the Gospels were written - details,
> timelines, places, people, actions, and rationale for events. They
> were written in a way to be verified. Even the supernatural parts
> could be verified as many of the witnesses to such events were still
> alive when the Gospels were written.
LOL! I'm not even gonna bother with your convoluted attempt to explain
your nonsense. You just will believe anything you want to believe.
> If there were errors, there
> would have been an outcry among the Jewish, Roman, and even the
> Christian community. Instead, we find that all supporting document
> never accuses the Gospels of lies.
There are no independant supporting documents to the Gospels.
> We find no evidence that there
> were any redactions, changes, or competing versions until 200 years
> or so later (Gnostic gospels).
>
> Again, nothing conclusive to prove one way or another. Just another
> bit of supporting evidence, slowing whittling away the skeptics
> claims one by one.
And no 1st Century originals of the Gospels have been found. Only 2nd
Century copies, and no contemporary of Yehoshua was still alive to
testify to their veracity. And in the meantime, Jerusalem was burned,
and the temple destroyed, and Christians were being persecuted
throughout the Roman world.
Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name
Exactly. Why would all these Christians maintain a belief in a lie all the
while being persecuted? Even the 2nd century was not far enough into the
future for any kind of false legend to develop. Also, Josephus wrote a good
amount about the 1st century Christians and this man called Jesus. Josephus
had nothing to do with the Gospels. In fact, he was antagonistic towards
Jesus as the Messiah. And the fact that Jerusalem was destroyed in or
around 70 A.D. lends credibility to the Old Testament and Jesus' prophecies.
You know Kurt, I'm beginning to think that there is no (other than the beer
thing with God) evidence that exists that would satisfy you to where you
would make a decision about a supreme being. And that's OK. I'm not trying
to push anything over on you...in fact, I doubt that anyone could push
anything over on you.
Thank you for a spirited discussion and making me think about my own
beliefs.
kurttrail
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:ubW$Eq$MFHA...@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name wrote:
>>> OK. "Everything" means every piece of evidence either does not
>>> deny, has nothing to say, or confirms what the Bible says.
>>>
>>> Let's begin with the quick and easy stuff. Here's one ounce of
>>> supporting evidence to show that the Bible is accurate.
>>>
>>> Here are 18 of the many other Old Testament prophecies concerning
>>> the Messiah. If there was no prophetic discernment (and no God to
>>> impart that knowledge), then it would be an amazing statistical
>>> chance for all these to have taken place. Right?
>>>
>>> Genesis 49:10 The Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah
>>
>> And proof that the messiah has appear on earth?
>
> Where shall we begin?
>
> We can elaborate on any or all of the following if you like:
> 1) The Biblical biographies of Jesus can be trusted and stand up to
> scrutiny.
Why? Because you say so?
> 2) The Gospels were preserved (99.9%) accurately over these 2,000
> years as shown by religious and non-religious documents of that time
> and over the years.
LOL! Since there are no orginals of the Gospels, how can you claim the
accuracy of later copies?
> 3) Archaeology confirms parts of the Gospels.
LOL! Yeah, and George Washington slept all over the Colonies.
> 4) Psychologically speaking, Jesus was not crazy and was convinced
> that He was the Messiah. He fulfilled the attributes of God.
And whose psychological opinion are you using to back up this claim?
> 5) Jesus matched the identity of the Messiah.
Not really. He wasn't part of the lineage of David, if Mary was a
virgin.
> 6) Jesus' death and resurrection can be shown to not be a hoax.
Really? How? That the Bible says so isn't a reliable source.
> 7) Jesus' body was absent from the tomb.
Was it even in the tomb to begin with?
> 8) Jesus was seen alive after His death.
According to Luke 24:50&51, Jesus' ascension took place in Bethany, on
the same day as his resurrection.
Luke 24:50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up
his hands, and blessed them.
51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them,
and carried up into heaven.
According to Acts 1:1-12, Jesus' ascension took place at Mount Olivet,
forty days after his resurrection.
Acts 1:1 The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus
began both to do and teach,
2 until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy
Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen,
3 to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many
infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of
the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to
depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father,
"which," He said, "you have heard from Me;
5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the
Holy Spirit not many days from now."
6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord,
will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"
7 And He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which
the Father has put in His own authority.
8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you;
and you shall be *witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and
Samaria, and to the end of the earth."
9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken
up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up,
behold, two men stood by them in white apparel,
11 who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into
heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so
come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven."
12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which
is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey.
> All of the above is supported by extra-Biblical material, including
> much from the Jewish historian Josephus, who did not believe that
> Jesus was the Messiah.
And he wrote about him around 60 years after "Jesus's" death. Josephus
had no first or even second-hand knowledge of "Jesus." And there is no
record of what Josephus wrote for around 250 years after that, as no
contemporaneous copies of his history exists.
>>
>>>
>>> Deuteronomy 18:15-18 God promised another prophet like Moses
>>
>> And which prophet after Moses, brought plagues, and led the children
>> of Isreal around the desert for forty years?
>>
>
> Jesus matched the characteristics of a prophet of God. Just as all
> engineers don't design the same things, doctors heal the same
> diseases, and contractors build the same homes, so Jesus had the same
> prophetic qualities but had a different mission.
Then he wasn't a prophet like Moses, he was his own kind of prophet.
What kind of prophet?
Matt. 12:39 But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous
generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except
the sign of the prophet Jonah.
40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the
great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the
heart of the earth."
Oops! If the Resurrection Story is to believed, then Jesus goofed with
his "sign," as according to the Easter Story he only spent 2 nights in
the tomb, Friday & Saturday night, and arose Sunday morning.
>
>>>
>>> Psalm 22:1,7,8,16,17,18 Psalm 22 foreshadowed the crucifixion of
>>> Jesus
>>
>> Psalm 22:1 [[To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of
>> David.]] My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so]
>> far from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring?
>>
>> Yeah, Your guy quotes a Psalm and that is a fullfillment of prophesy!
>> Oh my God, are you really that moronic?
>>
>
> One Psalm quoted means nothing. One Psalm quoted at just the right
> point in history along with the over hundred other prophecies really
> break the law of statistical chance.
Tell that to those that believe in the vageries of Nostradamus! They'll
believe you!
>
>>>
>>> Isaiah 11:1-10 Nations would seek the counsel of Jesse's descendant
>>
>> What nation sought his counsel during his life?
>>
>
> Do not many nations of the world, including America, seek His counsel
> even 2,000 years later?
No. They pervert religion to suit their political purposes.
> Is not the Bible the most printed book in
> all of human history? Would it not be printed if there were no
> market for it? Name one other book of literature or scientific
> resource with that desire for it.
>
>>>
>>> Isaiah 40:3 The Messiah would be preceded by a messenger
>>
>> LOL! Would that be AOL IM, or MSN Messenger.
>>
>
> AOL sucks, and I know that you don't care for Microsoft. It's
> noteworthy that, with the Internet, comes more communication than
> ever before...but the truth still has not changed.
What truth? The truth of the Jews. The Protestants. The Catholics. The
Jehovahs Witnesses?
>
>>>
>>> Isaiah 42:1-9 Jesus' life was foreshadowed by the prophet Isaiah
>
> OK.
No. His Bios were written to fit the prophesies.
>
>>> Isaiah 49:6 God's salvation would reach the ends of the earth
>
> Now, how on earth could Isaiah guarantee that? How could the
> Christians claim that Old Testament verse? Even the great system of
> Roman roads didn't go anywhere near that far.
LOL! Where are the ends of the Earth? I didn't know that a globe has
ends? Maybe they were talking about a flat earth?
>
>>> Isaiah 53:3 The Messiah would suffer and be rejected
>
> Maybe...maybe not. Some so-called prophets at that time were
> ignored. Some weren't. 50% that this would be true.
Yeah, it would be true of Judas.
>
>>> Isaiah 53:5 God's servant would be wounded and whipped
>
> If your being persecuted by Roman, this would be typical...but only
> if you were being persecuted.
It didn't take much.
>
>>> Isaiah 53:7 God's servant would be silent before His accusers
>
> Boy, if Jesus knew that he wasn't the Messiah, then would he have
> spoken up right here to clear Himself. Why be persecuted and die for
> a lie?
Why does any martyr?
>
>>> Isaiah 53:9 God's servant would be buried in a rich man's tomb
>
> What are the chances that this could be arranged? Maybe 50%...maybe.
> A lot of 50% chances are beginning to add up.
LOL! The Gospels are inconstistent about who actually finds the tomb
empty.
>
>>> Isaiah 53:12 God's servant would be crucified with criminals
>
> Tell me how the Christians of that time managed to convince the Roman
> authorities, who were trying to kiss the rearends of the Jewish
> leadership, to arrange this kind of crucifixion?
LOL! Most of those that were crucified were criminals, even "Jesus" was
a criminal. His crime was that he claimed to be the "King of the Jews."
>
>>> Isaiah 61:1-2 Isaiah foreshadows the ministry of Jesus
>
> OK
No.
>
>>> Jeremiah 23:3-6 The Messiah will appear after the Jews return to
>>> Israel
>
> How could Jeremiah have any clue when or even if the Jewish people
> would ever return? Wishful thinking? Just a guess? What a
> coincidence though.
He made it up, and the early christians in their grief had a mass
delusion. And they were prone to mass delusions. Remember the speaking
in tongues incident!
Aren't the Jews still waiting for the prophesy of the return of Elijah?
>
>>> Daniel 9:24-26 Daniel predicted when an anointed one would be
>>> rejected
>
> Hmm...
Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.
25 "Know therefore and understand,
That from the going forth of the command
To restore and build Jerusalem
Until Messiah the Prince,
There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;
The *street shall be built again, and the *wall,
Even in troublesome times.
26 "And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood,
And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate."
So when was the "flood" in the Gospels?
>
>>> Micah 5:2 The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem
>
> Apart from God, how would any engineer this?
Is there any birth record that independantly verifies his birth in
Bethlehem?
>
>>> Zechariah 9:9 The Messiah would enter Jerusalem while riding on a
>>> donkey
>
> OK. So the disciples found a donkey for Jesus to ride. That could be
> faked. But, along with everything else, it would have to be
> choreographed fairly well.
Matt. 21:1 Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to *Bethphage, at
the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples,
2 saying to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you
will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Loose them and bring them
to Me.
3 And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, 'The Lord has need
of them,' and immediately he will send them."
4 *All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the
prophet, saying:
5 "Tell the daughter of Zion,
'Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.'"
6 So the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them.
7 They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and
set Him on them.
Matthew has Jesus riding on both animals at the same time, for verse 7
literally says, "on them he sat." Why does Matthew have Jesus riding on
two donkeys at the same time? Because he misread Zechariah 9:9 which
reads in part, "mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a
donkey."
Anyone familiar with Old Testament Hebrew would know that the word
translated "and" in this passage does not indicate another animal but is
used in the sense of "even" for emphasis. The Old Testament often uses
parallel phrases which refer to the same thing for emphasis, but Matthew
was evidently not familiar with this usage. Although the result is
rather humorous, it is also very revealing. It demonstrates that Matthew
created events in Jesus' life to fulfill Old Testament prophecies, even
if it meant creating an absurd event.
Mark 11:7 Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their clothes on
it, and He sat on it.
Luke 19:35 Then they brought him to Jesus. And they threw their own
clothes on the colt, and they set Jesus on him.
John 12:14Then Jesus, when He had found a young donkey, sat on it; as it
is written:
15 "Fear not, daughter of Zion;
Behold, your King is coming,
Sitting on a donkey's colt."
16 His disciples did not understand these things at first; but when
Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written
about Him and that they had done these things to Him.
And the last line of John is the most telling, that they remembered this
long after it is supposed to have happened. No wonder why the author of
Matthew screwed it up so badly, like anyone can ride 2 asses at one
time.
>
>>> Zechariah 11:12-13 Zechariah foreshadowed the betrayal of Jesus for
>>> 30 pieces of silver
>
> Unless everyone was in collusion with everyone else and all this was
> one big epic play, how could anyone fake or engineer this? The
> Jewish leadership and Judas were opposed to Jesus. Why would they
> purposely do something that would lend credibility to the whole
> Messianic prophecy?
According to Matthew 26:15, the chief priests "weighed out thirty pieces
of silver" to give to Judas. There are two things wrong with this:
There were no "pieces of silver" used as currency in Jesus' time - they
had gone out of circulation about 300 years before.
In Jesus' time, minted coins were used - currency was not "weighed out."
By using phrases that made sense in Zechariah's time but not in Jesus'
time Matthew once again gives away the fact that he creates events in
his gospel to match "prophecies" he finds in the Old Testament.
>
>>> How would it be possible for an text to accurately predict the
>>> future like this several hundreds years in advance?
>>
>> Did it? Or did the authors of the Bible re-write the "Jesus" story
>> to fit the prophesies?
No answer? Gee, I wonder why? ROFL! I think we can see that the
authors of the Gospel, especially the authors of Matthew, were willing
to twist things to fit their understanding of prophesy.
kurttrail
You are not my friend. You are a stranger to me.
>
> It will make me defend my position.
Which isn't defensible by reason. I don't blame you.
> Because I believe that there is
> a God and I believe that my position is supportable, I would very
> much like to hear your #1 argument against the Bible.
It was written, edited, and compiled by men. All through human history,
there is nothing that man has touched that he hasn't perverted.
>
> Let me start with these two:
>
> 1) We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that at least one version of
> the Bible today is accurate to texts from 2,000 years ago.
LOL! That covers the old testament. And doesn't cover the 2,000 or
more years of it's development up to that point.
> That in
> and of itself is rather interesting as a story told around a room
> tends to change within minutes as it passes from person to person.
Really? Take a story, write it down, and then pass it around to be
copied. More than likely the written copies will be nearly the same.
>
> Does this prove that God exists? No. Does it prove that the Bible is
> accurate to reality? No. But it destroyed one of the best arguments
> against the Bible which had been put forth by skeptics until 1947
> (when the Scrolls began to be discovered).
Which is?
>
> 2) We have better historical (extra-Biblical) documentation for
> Jesus than for the founder of any other ancient religion. Up to 39
> ancient sources outside the Bible corroborate more than 100 facts
> concerning Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.
LOL! Total Bullsh*t! There is absolutely NO extra-biblical
contemporaneous historical corraberation concerning the life, death, and
so-called resurrection of the Man mistakenly called Jesus.
>
> Does this prove that God exists and the Bible is accurate to reality?
> No. But, as the Roman, Greek, and other countries' documentations
> become known, this begins to lend more and more credibility that the
> Bible, at the very least, records history accurately.
LOL! What documentation from the time of his life? You are just full
of it.
> Even
> non-religious documents describe a man named Jesus as one who people
> said had performed miracles. This is from documents at that time
> period.
LOL! And there are non-religious documents that describe a man named
Elvis that people have seen in malls after his death!
>
> Kurt, there is no single piece of evidence that I can present. I
> wish that I could. It's all a compilation of thousands of sources,
> analysis of the universe, and personal experience. I know, from your
> posts, that you would believe if God had a beer with you. I would
> like to be there when it happens.
>
> Even if you don't want to be, I am your friend.
No, you're not. You don't know me.
Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name
When your heart is set against God's Word, nothing...not a million words
answering all of your skeptical questions...not a man rising from the dead
in front of your eyes...not even God having a Guiness with you...will
convince you otherwise. Not even Jesus returning in the clouds with great
power and glory will change you heart.
How does it feel to know that you will turn into dust and your
conscienceness will cease when you die? Does it make you a happy man? Does
it make your life fulfilling? Do you even care that you might...MIGHT...be
wrong?
Or have you resigned yourself that it is next to impossible to ever find out
the truth? Why go on living, Kurt, if there can be found no reason for
doing so?
You haven't tried praying yet. I know because of your words. You quoted a
lot of scripture. You're still searching. You still remember God's Word,
Kurt. It hasn't left you and never will. Please, pray to God tonight. Ask
Him to do the impossible and show Himself to you. Ask Jesus into your
heart, and it will all be revealed to you like never before.
Your friend,
Brian
Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name
> even wanted to get involved in the church... then I started to think for
> myself. All that time I believed something, nothing was revealed to me.
> I suppose that God knew that was going to happen and that is why he
> didn't reveal himself to me....or he did and I just didn't see it
> because I wasn't advanced enough because surely if he did I wouldn't be
> the heretic I am. Of course you would think he would make sure I saw
> him, unless he had something against me. If he revealed himself to me,
> I would believe and I think he knows that. And lest you try to question
> my prior belief, I prayed every night to my crucifix, thought others
> were going to hell for non-belief etc... I just realized that all
> relgions are lumped together, silly belief systems that have some good
> tenets but overall are human creations for the concentration of power.
> People make up things to help them cope. It is scary thought that once
> you get past those last futile death breaths, and your mind is starving
> for oxygen giving you all kinds of warm fuzzy feelings, you will cease
> to exist like everything else. It's all about entropy.
Jason,
It sounds that you were more dedicated in your prayers than most Chrisitians
today. I wish that God had revealed more than He did to you. Please do not
give up on Him. Do not quit trying to do His will. I know that you no
longer believe in any religion, as they are all lumped together as corrupt
human creations.
If you would like to try again...just one more time...than do this:
Don't just pray like some priest taught you to. You don't need a crucifix
or rosary beads. You don't need to have a Bible in your hands. All you
need is a humble heart and a few minutes.
Find a quiet place so you can concentrate and not be disturbed. Believe me,
it helps.
Pray to God and ask Him if He really exists. Ask Him to reveal Himself to
you. Ask Him to forgive you of your sins. Most crucial - Pray to receive
His Son Jesus as your Lord and Savior. After all, it was Jesus' death on
the cross that bought your freedom. It was His sacrifice that paid the debt
for your sin and mine. Jesus is the only Way to be made right with God
before you pass on from this world. You cannot earn it through good works,
church membership, or positive thinking. Jesus is the key to unlocking all
other revelation from God. Without accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior,
nothing else...not even prayers for revelation...will matter.
kurttrail
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
Huh? Saul of Tarsus was already perverting the message of Yehoshua just
a few years after his death.
> Why would all these Christians maintain a belief in a lie
> all the while being persecuted?
LOL! The Trinity! Do you know the story? Christians didn't believe the
same thing in the 1st and second centuries! Hell, first century
Christians fought over whether he was the messiah of the Gentiles too,
with Jesus's own brother, the titular head of the church, after Jesus's
death, on the side against Paul's message to the Gentiles.
> Even the 2nd century was not far
> enough into the future for any kind of false legend to develop.
LOL! Elvis.
> Also, Josephus wrote a good amount about the 1st century Christians
> and this man called Jesus. Josephus had nothing to do with the
> Gospels. In fact, he was antagonistic towards Jesus as the Messiah.
And wrote about Jesus 93AD. Some nearly 60 years after his death. What
will some moron be writing about Elvis in another 30 years?
> And the fact that Jerusalem was destroyed in or around 70 A.D. lends
> credibility to the Old Testament and Jesus' prophecies.
Like Jesus's prophesy that he spent three night in the tomb, but
according to the Gospels he only spent two nights?
>
> You know Kurt, I'm beginning to think that there is no (other than
> the beer thing with God) evidence that exists that would satisfy you
> to where you would make a decision about a supreme being.
You haven't presented evidence? While you haven't proved it, I believe
that Yehoshua lived and died. That he was God's Son is another matter.
Even according to the Bible, he mostly said he was the Son of Man.
You have yet to prove ANYTHING about any GOD. All you have done is
repeat a bunch of stories from a couple of thousand years ago.
I'd have more respect for you if you made up your own stories, than
simply regurgitate old ones.
> And that's
> OK. I'm not trying to push anything over on you...in fact, I doubt
> that anyone could push anything over on you.
Nope. Especially about RELIGION.
Like I said, I don't know whether god exists or not, though I do have my
own spiritual beliefs. And all I really know is that what Man touches
he perverts. And groups of men pervert things even more that a man on
his own.
All religions are corrupted by men, so I preferred to come to my own
spiritual beliefs on my own, and believe that everyone else would be a
lot better off finding their own spirituality, than believe in the
perversions of Organized Religion.
> Thank you for a spirited discussion and making me think about my own
> beliefs.
Sure.
Jason Bowen
hammered to a stick and saves me as a result. It is amazing that the
same people that called Galileo and his contemporaries heretics because
their real world observations conflicted with the "word of god" still
get credence to this day. Yes, the world would be much better off
without fundamentalism and proselytizing.
kurttrail
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
How do you know that the Bible is God's Word? All evidence points to
the Bible being written by many different men.
> , nothing...not a million
> words answering all of your skeptical questions...not a man rising
> from the dead in front of your eyes...not even God having a Guiness
> with you...will convince you otherwise.
Naw, the Guinness would do it!
http://www.microscum.com/bgzone/bgaando/
> Not even Jesus returning in
> the clouds with great power and glory will change you heart.
LOL! You don't know what is in my heart, other than blood.
>
> How does it feel to know that you will turn into dust and your
> conscienceness will cease when you die?
I don't KNOW that. You still don't understand. Faith make you stupid.
> Does it make you a happy
> man? Does it make your life fulfilling? Do you even care that you
> might...MIGHT...be wrong?
How can I be wrong? I DON'T KNOW. The only way I can end up being
wrong is if I am lying about KNOWING, and I can guarantee to you that I
really don't KNOW!
>
> Or have you resigned yourself that it is next to impossible to ever
> find out the truth? Why go on living, Kurt, if there can be found no
> reason for doing so?
Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll!
To watch my niece grow up. To help teach the next generation come to
better decisions than my generation has.
To boldly go where no man has gone before!
Why go on living this life, when you "know" the next life will be so
much better?
>
> You haven't tried praying yet.
Dude. You don't KNOW what I have and haven't tried.
> I know because of your words.
No, you are again deluding yourself.
> You
> quoted a lot of scripture.
Yep. I notice that even though I pointed out some contradictions, you
aren't giving up the Holy Ghost!
> You're still searching.
Nope. I'm quite content with my reasonable doubt.
> You still
> remember God's Word, Kurt.
No. I know how to use Google.
> It hasn't left you and never will.
Sounds like brainwashing.
> Please, pray to God tonight.
Which one?
The Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit?
Which one of your God's multiple personalities should I pray to?
> Ask Him to do the impossible and show
> Himself to you.
Just did. No answer yet. How long do I have to wait?
> Ask Jesus into your heart, and it will all be
> revealed to you like never before.
LOL! Again you contradict yourself. Remember that belief in God relies
on "supernatural events that defy explanation."
> Your friend,
> Brian
You don't know me.
--
kurttrail
Amen! ;-)
Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name
> Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name wrote:
> > No my friend.
>
> You are not my friend. You are a stranger to me.
>
> >
> > It will make me defend my position.
>
> Which isn't defensible by reason. I don't blame you.
I wouldn't believe unless there was some reason for me to do so. Is it so
difficult for you to believe that a rational human being can see the world
so much differently than you? Are you so blinded by your own religion
(Cognito Ergo Sum) that you cannot see the forest for the trees?
>
> > Because I believe that there is
> > a God and I believe that my position is supportable, I would very
> > much like to hear your #1 argument against the Bible.
>
> It was written, edited, and compiled by men. All through human history,
> there is nothing that man has touched that he hasn't perverted.
A rather absolute, all-encompassing statement coming from a one who is quick
to point out what one can and cannot know. How do you KNOW that EVERYTHING
that man has trouched has been perverted...unless you have personally
examined EVERYTHING in a before and after state?
You can't. You've now fallen into the trap set by your own intellectual
boundaries. Please trust me when I say that greater men than you and I have
tried unsuccessful to set their lives by the agnostic standard. They have
ended up miserable and despondent as their lives close to an end and they
realized that they were might be wrong.
Please don't let that happen to you.
>
> >
> > Let me start with these two:
> >
> > 1) We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that at least one version of
> > the Bible today is accurate to texts from 2,000 years ago.
>
> LOL! That covers the old testament. And doesn't cover the 2,000 or
> more years of it's development up to that point.
>
> > That in
> > and of itself is rather interesting as a story told around a room
> > tends to change within minutes as it passes from person to person.
>
> Really? Take a story, write it down, and then pass it around to be
> copied. More than likely the written copies will be nearly the same.
More than likely? Think about the near-impossibility of 66 books being
written and copied over 2,000 years with 99.9% accuracy. In this case,
using your own highly-regarded Ockham's Razor theory, it is much more likely
that some kind of supernatural influence was at work. Again, pure agnostic
and atheistic science has painted themselves into a corner with their blind
allegiance to only what they can see.
> > Does this prove that God exists? No. Does it prove that the Bible is
> > accurate to reality? No. But it destroyed one of the best arguments
> > against the Bible which had been put forth by skeptics until 1947
> > (when the Scrolls began to be discovered).
>
> Which is?
Why, that the Bible CANNOT ("It just can't, I tell you!") be accurate given
the amount of time that has past from its first writings. Skeptics pushed
this arguments as their best ("best" - their words) argument that the Bible,
as a historical document, cannot be trusted. Of course, they shut up rather
quickly when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and analyzed.
Look at it like this...a theory tends to be more and more credible as the
arguments against it are shown to be false. You may never prove 100% that
something is true, but then at what point will you, or any agnostic, begin
to believe in something?
I know about the beer and God. What about this question? Do you, Kurt,
really exist? Yes? Why? Because you can see yourself in a mirror? When
do you draw the line on anything?
>
> >
> > 2) We have better historical (extra-Biblical) documentation for
> > Jesus than for the founder of any other ancient religion. Up to 39
> > ancient sources outside the Bible corroborate more than 100 facts
> > concerning Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.
>
> LOL! Total Bullsh*t! There is absolutely NO extra-biblical
> contemporaneous historical corraberation concerning the life, death, and
> so-called resurrection of the Man mistakenly called Jesus.
Not true. But don't take my word for it. This is just one of thousands of
pieces of evidence that show how the Bible is accurate.
http://dejnarde.ms11.net//archa.htm
> >
> > Does this prove that God exists and the Bible is accurate to reality?
> > No. But, as the Roman, Greek, and other countries' documentations
> > become known, this begins to lend more and more credibility that the
> > Bible, at the very least, records history accurately.
>
> LOL! What documentation from the time of his life? You are just full
> of it.
Do you really need me to explain everything when you, yourself, have said
that you can use Google.
>
> > Even
> > non-religious documents describe a man named Jesus as one who people
> > said had performed miracles. This is from documents at that time
> > period.
>
> LOL! And there are non-religious documents that describe a man named
> Elvis that people have seen in malls after his death!
Wasn't it Nero who laughed when Rome burned around him. Many people use
humor to deflect attention from an argument.
>
> >
> > Kurt, there is no single piece of evidence that I can present. I
> > wish that I could. It's all a compilation of thousands of sources,
> > analysis of the universe, and personal experience. I know, from your
> > posts, that you would believe if God had a beer with you. I would
> > like to be there when it happens.
> >
> > Even if you don't want to be, I am your friend.
>
> No, you're not. You don't know me.
From this conversation, I'm getting to know you much better. You can learn
a lot about a person from their words.
Oh...by the way...I have never seen you or had a beer with you...HOW DO I
KNOW THAT YOU REALLY EXIST?
Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name
> Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name wrote:
> > Ah! Now, I'm beginning to learn about your position to a better
> > degree.
>
> Oy Vey! What is there to understand about "I don't know?"
>
> >
> > You said that beliefs and knowledge are different. "Belief does NOT
> > equal knowledge." OK.
> >
> > When you say that you don't know if there is a god, do you mean that
> > you have no (or not enough) knowledge to make a decision, or do you
> > mean that you don't "believe" that there could be a god?
>
> "I DON'T F*#KIN' KNOW!" as God, Creator, Intelligent Designer, in
> general, has yet to be proven to exist, or not to exist. As for any
> specific God, now that is just plain fairy tales, made up by men to fill
> in the whole in there knowledge of existence.
If you really do not know, as you have labored over and over to us, then...
How do you know that such stories are mere fairy tales? How do you know
that men created them?
You don't know. Alas, your own intellectualism has caught up with you and
smacked you in the back of the head. You, like so many foolish scientists
and thinkers over the centuries, have created a system of agnostic belief
that implodes when tested. And you dare to call others hypocrites.
Why not put your pride aside, rise up, and declare that such "fables" have
the same possibility of being true as any other belief?
But, you don't. You do not because your heart is set against God and His
Bible. You are no longer open-minded. You may say that you do not know.
But, you are a fool because you have said, in your heart not your mind, that
there is no God.
Nothing more can be said or done. Only God can show you your foolishness
now...and you will not allow Him to do it. What a sad, doomed way to go
through life.
Please repent, my friend.
kurttrail
>> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
>> message news:%234IAouB...@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>> Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name wrote:
>>>> No my friend.
>>>
>>> You are not my friend. You are a stranger to me.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It will make me defend my position.
>>>
>>> Which isn't defensible by reason. I don't blame you.
>>
>> I wouldn't believe unless there was some reason for me to do so.
>
>
A rational and logical reason. Most people use their Faith to hide the
FACT that they really don't know.
>
>> Is
>> it so difficult for you to believe that a rational human being can
>> see the world so much differently than you?
>
>
Not at all. I've met many irrational people.
>
>> Are you so blinded by
>> your own religion (Cognito Ergo Sum) that you cannot see the forest
>> for the trees?
>
>
That is not my religion, it is just why I believe in my own existence.
>
>>>> Because I believe that there is
>>>> a God and I believe that my position is supportable, I would very
>>>> much like to hear your #1 argument against the Bible.
>>>
>>> It was written, edited, and compiled by men. All through human
>>> history, there is nothing that man has touched that he hasn't
>>> perverted.
>>
>> A rather absolute, all-encompassing statement coming from a one who
>> is quick to point out what one can and cannot know. How do you KNOW
>> that EVERYTHING that man has trouched has been perverted...unless you
>> have personally examined EVERYTHING in a before and after state?
>
>
As of right now, I know of nothing that men haven't perverted for their
own purposes, but I'd be willing to change my belief if there is some
rational and logical reason to believe otherwise. Please, be my guest.
>
>
>> You can't. You've now fallen into the trap set by your own
>> intellectual boundaries.
>
>
Nope. That is my belief, that no one has been able to reasonably
disputed yet. I don't claim it as knowledge, but then again I hardly
claim anything as knowledge.
>
>> Please trust me when I say that greater men
>> than you and I have tried unsuccessful to set their lives by the
>> agnostic standard.
>
>
I don't claim to be perfect. But I am content to live my reasonable
doubt.
>
>> They have ended up miserable and despondent as
>> their lives close to an end and they realized that they were might be
>> wrong.
>
>
Again, how can I be wrong. I don't know. That is the TRUTH. I sorry
that you are unwilling and have hardened your heart to reasonable doubt.
If you want to FOOL yourself with your FAITH, that is your business, but
don't think you can ever convince a rational human being that YOUR
SPECIFIC FAITH is based on reason.
>
>> Please don't let that happen to you.
>
>
LOL! It sounds like your the one who has the problem. Believing that
the words of men are really the words of a specific God.
>
>>>> Let me start with these two:
>>>>
>>>> 1) We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that at least one version of
>>>> the Bible today is accurate to texts from 2,000 years ago.
>>>
>>> LOL! That covers the old testament. And doesn't cover the 2,000 or
>>> more years of it's development up to that point.
>>>
>>>> That in
>>>> and of itself is rather interesting as a story told around a room
>>>> tends to change within minutes as it passes from person to person.
>>>
>>> Really? Take a story, write it down, and then pass it around to be
>>> copied. More than likely the written copies will be nearly the
>>> same.
>>
>> More than likely? Think about the near-impossibility of 66 books
>> being written and copied over 2,000 years with 99.9% accuracy. In
>> this case, using your own highly-regarded Ockham's Razor theory, it
>> is much more likely that some kind of supernatural influence was at
>> work. Again, pure agnostic and atheistic science has painted
>> themselves into a corner with their blind allegiance to only what
>> they can see.
>
>
What? First of all you have yet to show this 99.9% accuracy. Second,
you have yet to show any supernatural force is around.
>
>>
>>>> Does this prove that God exists? No. Does it prove that the Bible
>>>> is accurate to reality? No. But it destroyed one of the best
>>>> arguments against the Bible which had been put forth by skeptics
>>>> until 1947 (when the Scrolls began to be discovered).
>>>
>>> Which is?
>>
>> Why, that the Bible CANNOT ("It just can't, I tell you!") be accurate
>> given the amount of time that has past from its first writings.
>> Skeptics pushed this arguments as their best ("best" - their words)
>> argument that the Bible, as a historical document, cannot be trusted.
>> Of course, they shut up rather quickly when the Dead Sea Scrolls were
>> found and analyzed.
>
>
And most of the Bible previous to the making the Dead Sea Scrolls were
around long before that.
http://www.threetwoone.org/diagrams/hebrew-bible-sources-timeline.gif
http://groups.msn.com/judaismfaqs/doesoccamsrazorfavorthedocumentarytheory.msnw
>
>>
>> Look at it like this...a theory tends to be more and more credible as
>> the arguments against it are shown to be false. You may never prove
>> 100% that something is true, but then at what point will you, or any
>> agnostic, begin to believe in something?
Since you are trying to disprove arguments of others not mine, you are
on a fools errand.
>>
>> I know about the beer and God. What about this question? Do you,
>> Kurt, really exist? Yes? Why? Because you can see yourself in a
>> mirror? When do you draw the line on anything?
Cognito ergo sum. Why must I repeat myself?
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) We have better historical (extra-Biblical) documentation for
>>>> Jesus than for the founder of any other ancient religion. Up to 39
>>>> ancient sources outside the Bible corroborate more than 100 facts
>>>> concerning Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.
>>>
>>> LOL! Total Bullsh*t! There is absolutely NO extra-biblical
>>> contemporaneous historical corraberation concerning the life, death,
>>> and so-called resurrection of the Man mistakenly called Jesus.
>>
>> Not true. But don't take my word for it. This is just one of
>> thousands of pieces of evidence that show how the Bible is accurate.
>> http://dejnarde.ms11.net//archa.htm
LOL! What does some archaeological finds that corroborate some of the
historical references in the Old Testament do to prove "Jesus"
resurrection, or that there is even a God of the Jews?
It would be like saying that just because Troy was found that means the
Greek Pantheon of gods is proven.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Does this prove that God exists and the Bible is accurate to
>>>> reality? No. But, as the Roman, Greek, and other countries'
>>>> documentations become known, this begins to lend more and more
>>>> credibility that the Bible, at the very least, records history
>>>> accurately.
>>>
>>> LOL! What documentation from the time of his life? You are just
>>> full of it.
>>
>> Do you really need me to explain everything when you, yourself, have
>> said that you can use Google.
Yeah, and Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus. He wrote about him
60 years after his death. And the earliest source of what Josephus is
supposed to have written about Jesus is from the THIRD CENTURY!
>>
>>>
>>>> Even
>>>> non-religious documents describe a man named Jesus as one who
>>>> people
>>>> said had performed miracles. This is from documents at that time
>>>> period.
>>>
>>> LOL! And there are non-religious documents that describe a man
>>> named
>>> Elvis that people have seen in malls after his death!
>>
>> Wasn't it Nero who laughed when Rome burned around him. Many people
>> use humor to deflect attention from an argument.
While I was being funny, I was also making a point. Too bad you are too
thick-headed to see it.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kurt, there is no single piece of evidence that I can present. I
>>>> wish that I could. It's all a compilation of thousands of sources,
>>>> analysis of the universe, and personal experience. I know, from
>>>> your posts, that you would believe if God had a beer with you. I
>>>> would like to be there when it happens.
>>>>
>>>> Even if you don't want to be, I am your friend.
>>>
>>> No, you're not. You don't know me.
>>
>> From this conversation, I'm getting to know you much better. You can
>> learn a lot about a person from their words.
LOL! You still don't really know most of what I believe.
>>
>> Oh...by the way...I have never seen you or had a beer with you...HOW
>> DO I KNOW THAT YOU REALLY EXIST?
That's right. I couldn't just be your conscience trying to point out
your folly.
Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name
Then, we have come to the point where there is no evidence that a human can
provide that will fulfill your requirements...no documentation, no
archaeology, nothing. Anything that I can show you will just meet with more
skepticism.
All that is left is for God to act. Maybe He will today. Please be
receptive when it happens...because it may only happen just once in your
life.
My time in this conversation has ended. I trust that you'll do the right
thing. Even though I have never seen or heard you, I have...faith...in you.
kurttrail
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:u3FKZf$MFHA...@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name wrote:
>>> Ah! Now, I'm beginning to learn about your position to a better
>>> degree.
>>
>> Oy Vey! What is there to understand about "I don't know?"
>>
>>>
>>> You said that beliefs and knowledge are different. "Belief does NOT
>>> equal knowledge." OK.
>>>
>>> When you say that you don't know if there is a god, do you mean that
>>> you have no (or not enough) knowledge to make a decision, or do you
>>> mean that you don't "believe" that there could be a god?
>>
>> "I DON'T F*#KIN' KNOW!" as God, Creator, Intelligent Designer, in
>> general, has yet to be proven to exist, or not to exist. As for any
>> specific God, now that is just plain fairy tales, made up by men to
>> fill in the whole in there knowledge of existence.
>
> If you really do not know, as you have labored over and over to us,
> then...
>
> How do you know that such stories are mere fairy tales?
I don't, I believe through reason. If you can't even prove a God, in
general, then having Faith in any specific God is totally irrational.
> How do you
> know that men created them?
Because men wrote the words. You brought up Ockam's Razor.
Is it more likely that men over the centuries wrote the Bible, or some
magical unknowable super-intelligence wrote the Bible?
>
> You don't know.
Of course I didn't say that I did KNOW. That is my belief, not based on
faith, but on reason.
> Alas, your own intellectualism has caught up with
> you and smacked you in the back of the head.
No. You disingenuously called my stated reason-based belief, as a claim
of knowledge, which of course, I never claimed.
> You, like so many
> foolish scientists and thinkers over the centuries, have created a
> system of agnostic belief that implodes when tested. And you dare to
> call others hypocrites.
I dare. You have imploded nothing. All you have done is confused the
issue of my rational beliefs with what I know. Too bad you cannot
understand the difference between, faith, belief, and knowledge. But
those of Faith, almost always have to confuse them, in order to convince
themselves that they know the TRUTH.
>
> Why not put your pride aside, rise up, and declare that such "fables"
> have the same possibility of being true as any other belief?
Yeah, sure. As much of a chance as our universe is just a hemorroid on
a cosmic dog's ass.
> But, you don't.
I just did.
> You do not because your heart is set against God and
> His Bible.
My heart pumps my blood. My spiritual beliefs are based on my own
personal experiences, not on what some long dead men made up thousands
of years ago.
> You are no longer open-minded.
LOL! You are the one that has to cling to some idea of a specific God,
who is the ONLY way to salvation. I'm sorry, but it is Christians that
are the one's that are no longer open-minded.
> You may say that you do
> not know. But, you are a fool because you have said, in your heart
> not your mind, that there is no God.
No, I haven't. Why must you lie? Is that what they teach you in your
church?
I don't know whether there is a God or not. What I believe is another
matter entirely.
>
> Nothing more can be said or done.
LOL! Prove there is some specific God that hates his own creation so
much that he made up some cock & bull story to separate those he will
save from those he will condemn to everlasting torture.
> Only God can show you your
> foolishness now...
I've been waiting for that to happen. Hasn't yet.
> and you will not allow Him to do it.
Again, you need to lie. You are not God. I don't believe your idea of
GOD.
> What a sad,
> doomed way to go through life.
No. What is sad is that you have doomed your life to spreading the
words of men off your Word of God.
>
> Please repent, my friend.
Repent what? My reasonable doubt? To me, that would be a sin, as I
would have to lie to repent my reasonable doubt.
BC
Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name wrote:
Hmmm....it must be that the frustration of keeping Windows
XP stable and fast has driven some people over the edge.
The best evidence is that there was at one time a very
persuasive preacher whom we now call Jesus (while all
this happened 2000 years, that was a civilized period then
and not a time for generating new mythical beings from
scratch.) The details of his life, from truth to rumor to
myth, will always be impossible to sort out without some
major, major new archeological find.
With that said, if Jesus was around today, he would mock
the fake piety of conservative Republicans and ask His Old
Man to reserve a special place in Hell for them. He would
also be Linux user and would try to show Windows users the
error of their slow, insecure, pro-monopoly ways. He would
banish Bill Gates from the temple and ask the Angel of
Death for a favor and pay a courtesy call on Bush, Fox
News, and all the Republican leaders.
Hope this divinely clarifies and purifies.
-BC
Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name
news:1112119406.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
BC,
We were having just a wonderful time of conversing and you had to go and
bring politics into it.
...And to top it all off, you raised the Linux v. Windows battle to the
religious level. Now you've done it!
kurttrail
>
> Then, we have come to the point where there is no evidence that a
> human can provide that will fulfill your requirements...no
> documentation, no archaeology, nothing.
Is there any words, evidence or anything that prove the existence of a
god in general? Not yet, so until you can find a way to prove a god, in
general, I'd have absolutely no reason to believe your very specific
GOD.
> Anything that I can show you
> will just meet with more skepticism.
You haven't shown anything other that "stories" that are based on
reason.
>
> All that is left is for God to act.
Let him restore Terri's mind and body, before working on proving
him/her/itself to me.
> Maybe He will today.
I won't be holding my breath, but you feel free to do so.
> Please be
> receptive when it happens...
Not "when," IF!
> because it may only happen just once in
> your life.
Well then your God really is a f*#ked up super-intelligence! If
he/she/it exists and created my and my doubt, and then will only give me
one chance to overcome a lifetime of doubt! What an a**hole you have
faith in.
>
> My time in this conversation has ended.
It was rather sad to read your lame attempts to prove your God.
> I trust that you'll do the
> right thing.
I tell the truth, as I see it, and that truth is that "I don't know."
> Even though I have never seen or heard you, I
> have...faith...in you.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! For all you know, I might be the DEVIL! ;-)
http://kurttrail.com/katmain/kurtdevil.gif
BOOO! :-p
Michael Stevens
kurttrail <donte...@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> respectfully replied
;-)
> Lee Chapelle wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> kurttrail wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When it comes down to it, the main difference between those of
>>>> faith and those of reason is that those of faith know everthing
>>>> through faith, and are fearful to admit that faith can fail them,
>>>> while those of reason know that they don't know everything, and
>>>> aren't afraid to admit it.
>>>>> In
>>>>> fact, I can't really imagine one without the other.
>>>>
>>>> It's like Good and Evil. Love and Hate.
>>>>
>>>> Reason and Faith.
>>>
>>> You really need to keep up.
>>>
>>> Maimonides (for the Jews), Thomas Acquinus (for the Church), and
>>> some Muslim great worthy sorted all this out and reconciled the two
>>> in the 13th century.
>>>
>>> Bottom line: there is no conflict between faith and reason. There
>>> may be a conflict between one's faith and another's ability to
>>> reason, but not between faith and reason per se.
>>
>> That's true in the sense that faith is by definition the act of
>> deliberately disregarding reason.
>
> Now you've gone and done it! Using reason to define faith!
Lee has that innate talent to define the indefinable. He is a cool glass of
water when you need it even if you didn't know you did.
--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
xpn...@bogusmichaelstevenstech.com
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
Donald L McDaniel
used to prove anything, as long as the premises are accepted. So what use
is Reason, unless it is applied to the understanding of Reason?
Reason has been used by evil men(such as Hitler and his cronies, and their
intellectuall heirs, the modern-day Neo-Nazis) to prove the worth of White
Supremacy.
At least those who apply their faith to their lives have surety about the
Universe, something which is lacking in those who use baseless Reason.
By the way, a man of faith is sometimes a very reasonable man, something
which is also lacking in many men of reason. Of course, a man of faith,
because of his deeply held convictions, can also be unreasonable, but should
he try to reason out moral issues? Many moral issues are not subject to
reason.
There is a place for Reason and a place for Faith in the Universe.
While it may take reason to discover the foundations of the physical
Universe, it takes Faith to go further back than the Big Bang.
Even evolutionists mix Faith into their belief-systems. It takes Faith to
stand on the proposition that simple things are evolving into complex ones,
when the Laws of Physics tell us that the Universe is devolving, not
evolving. To believe that a single atom caused other atoms to join it and
create complex molecules takes great Faith.
If an evolutionist uses the word "somehow" in his "Reasoning", he has
stepped into the boundary of Faith, not Reason.
To even reduce "Random Chance" to a Law proves that "Random Chance" does not
exist(if it is truly Random, how can it be defined by a Law?), other than in
the mind of the law-creator. So even "Random Chance" takes Faith to hold on
to. Yet evolutionists hold on to their "Random Chance" theory of the
creation of more complex molecules out of simple atoms.
Christianity, which was founded on the testimony of men, not physical proof,
tells us that God created the Universe out of Nothing, not simple atoms.
However, it is possible to hold to that Faith, and hold to Reason. All that
is necessary is to hold to the faith that God created simple atoms out of
nothing, then set into motion the Laws of Chance, which caused Random Chance
to somehow create more complex molecules out of single atoms.
Anyway, I have rambled enough. Have a nice day....
--
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may be kept intact.
==============================
"Michael Stevens" <mste...@bogusmvps.org> wrote in message
news:O$iWi9cNF...@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
kurttrail
>> While Faith and Reason may APPEAR to be mutually exclusive, Reason
>> may be used to prove anything, as long as the premises are accepted.
>> So what use is Reason, unless it is applied to the understanding of
>> Reason? Reason has been used by evil men(such as Hitler and his
>> cronies, and
>> their intellectuall heirs, the modern-day Neo-Nazis) to prove the
>> worth of White Supremacy.
Actually, they didn't use reason at all. They had Faith that they were
superior to all other human beings.
And look at the religious kooks that used the Bible to support their
views on slavery.
>> At least those who apply their faith to their lives have surety about
>> the Universe, something which is lacking in those who use baseless
>> Reason.
False Surety. Why false, because they have to ignore their reasonable
doubt. In other words, they have to lie to themselves that they don't
have any doubts.
>> By the way, a man of faith is sometimes a very reasonable man,
Except when it comes to their faith.
>> something which is also lacking in many men of reason.
Really? I would say that, like Hitler, they aren't really men of
reason, just men that have faith in themselves.
>> Of course, a
>> man of faith, because of his deeply held convictions, can also be
>> unreasonable, but should he try to reason out moral issues? Many
>> moral issues are not subject to reason.
Most. Morality is in the eye in the beholder.
>> There is a place for Reason
With those that are willing to admit what they don't know.
>> and a place for Faith in the Universe.
With those that aren't willing to admit that they don't know.
>> While it may take reason to discover the foundations of the physical
>> Universe, it takes Faith to go further back than the Big Bang.
There are people of science that are searching for the cause of the Big
Bang.
>> Even evolutionists mix Faith into their belief-systems.
No, not all beliefs are based on faith. Most of my belief system is
based on reason and logic, but as a man of reason, I know that they are
still just beliefs, not knowledge, and I'm willing to admit it.
People of Faith can and do base there beliefs outside the realm of logic
and reason and use their Faith to claim "surety" of the Faith as true
knowledge. Again they lie to themselves, to hide their own doubt, from
both themselves and others.
>> It takes
>> Faith to stand on the proposition that simple things are evolving
>> into complex ones, when the Laws of Physics tell us that the Universe
>> is devolving, not evolving.
No it takes a fossil record to believe that biological earth organisms
have evolved which has little to do with the Laws of Universal Physics.
>> To believe that a single atom caused
>> other atoms to join it and create complex molecules takes great
>> Faith.
No. It is just something we don't quite understand just yet. There is
no need to ascribe all we don't understand to a higher being. The
pursuit of science and reason only has been going on for the last few
hundred years, thanks to the Dark Ages of religious dogma.
The Enlightment is just beginning, though those of Faith have gotten
their second wind and are trying to bring back the Dark Ages.
>> If an evolutionist uses the word "somehow" in his "Reasoning", he has
>> stepped into the boundary of Faith, not Reason.
No. He is properly admitting to what he doesn't know YET.
>> To even reduce "Random Chance" to a Law proves that "Random Chance"
>> does not exist(if it is truly Random, how can it be defined by a
>> Law?), other than in the mind of the law-creator. So even "Random
>> Chance" takes Faith to hold on to. Yet evolutionists hold on to
>> their "Random Chance" theory of the creation of more complex
>> molecules out of simple atoms.
Theory, not fact. I'd like to see a fundamentalist Christian describe
their beliefs in a specific god as a THEORY!
>> Christianity, which was founded on the testimony of men, not physical
>> proof, tells us that God created the Universe out of Nothing, not
>> simple atoms.
Now there is flawed logic! If there was "Nothing," then there was no
God around to do any creating.
>> However, it is possible to hold to that Faith, and hold to Reason.
Not really. Once you throw away reason to have faith in something, you
have decided that faith is better than reason.
>> All that is necessary is to hold to the faith that God created simple
>> atoms out of nothing, then set into motion the Laws of Chance, which
>> caused Random Chance to somehow create more complex molecules out of
>> single atoms.
Which God? You only mentioned the Christian one in regards to the
Creation out of nothingness. You only assume a god exists because he
humans haven't figured out all the answers, but that is not proof at all
that any god in general exists. All that proves is that we humans don't
have all the answers.
So, you have yet to come close to reasoning that a god, in general,
exists, and created the universe, and yet you want us to believe that
some specific God created the Universe out of Nothing, which would
preclude the existence of that God, since a god would be a something,
not Nothing.
>> Anyway, I have rambled enough.
Yes. You should have just kept your Faith to yourself.
>>Have a nice day....
Oh. You Too!
Donald L McDaniel
Those who know God are unable to admit that God might not exist. Try saying
that you don't exist, when you know you do. You will be truly lying to
yourself
>
>>> and a place for Faith in the Universe.
>
> With those that aren't willing to admit that they don't know.
>
>>> While it may take reason to discover the foundations of the physical
>>> Universe, it takes Faith to go further back than the Big Bang.
>
> There are people of science that are searching for the cause of the
> Big Bang.
This it completely true. Many of these men are men of faith, and men of
science.
>
>>> Even evolutionists mix Faith into their belief-systems.
>
> No, not all beliefs are based on faith. Most of my belief system is
> based on reason and logic, but as a man of reason, I know that they
> are still just beliefs, not knowledge, and I'm willing to admit it.
To separate the words "belief" and "knowledge" is a vain endeavor. It takes
knowledge to believe.
>
> People of Faith can and do base there beliefs outside the realm of
> logic and reason and use their Faith to claim "surety" of the Faith
> as true knowledge. Again they lie to themselves, to hide their own
> doubt, from both themselves and others.
>
Men of faith do not lie to themselves, unless they are really faithless men
in indisguise. One of the basic tenents of the Christian faith is "Thou
shall not bear false witness."
>>> It takes
>>> Faith to stand on the proposition that simple things are evolving
>>> into complex ones, when the Laws of Physics tell us that the
>>> Universe is devolving, not evolving.
>
> No it takes a fossil record to believe that biological earth organisms
> have evolved which has little to do with the Laws of Universal
> Physics.
Show me the fossil record of the "transitional forms" which evolutionists
claim prove evolution.
>
>>> To believe that a single atom caused
>>> other atoms to join it and create complex molecules takes great
>>> Faith.
>
> No. It is just something we don't quite understand just yet. There
> is no need to ascribe all we don't understand to a higher being. The
> pursuit of science and reason only has been going on for the last few
> hundred years, thanks to the Dark Ages of religious dogma.
>
> The Enlightment is just beginning, though those of Faith have gotten
> their second wind and are trying to bring back the Dark Ages.
>
How about the men of faith, the monks of God in Ireland during the so-called
"Dark Ages"? They kept learning and letters alive by themselves.
I do admit that men of faith went to excesses during the so-called "Dark
Ages". We are recovering from our errors at this time, yet we still hold to
our faith in God. No man (other than Christ Himself) is infallible.
I also must remind you of the great Sir Issac Newton. One of the greatest
scientists of all time, yet he had deeply held convictions of faith, and his
scientific advances helped to entrench him further into his Faith.
>>> If an evolutionist uses the word "somehow" in his "Reasoning", he
>>> has stepped into the boundary of Faith, not Reason.
>
> No. He is properly admitting to what he doesn't know YET.
>
>>> To even reduce "Random Chance" to a Law proves that "Random Chance"
>>> does not exist(if it is truly Random, how can it be defined by a
>>> Law?), other than in the mind of the law-creator. So even "Random
>>> Chance" takes Faith to hold on to. Yet evolutionists hold on to
>>> their "Random Chance" theory of the creation of more complex
>>> molecules out of simple atoms.
>
> Theory, not fact. I'd like to see a fundamentalist Christian describe
> their beliefs in a specific god as a THEORY!
Since I am not a Fundamentalist Christian, I cannot answer that question.
But right off the top of my head, how COULD a Christian (any Christian) call
his belief in God a theory? His complete existence as a human being is tied
to the basic premise that God exists.
>
>>> Christianity, which was founded on the testimony of men, not
>>> physical proof, tells us that God created the Universe out of
>>> Nothing, not simple atoms.
>
> Now there is flawed logic! If there was "Nothing," then there was no
> God around to do any creating.
God is not a "thing". "Things" were ALL created by God, Who is the
Uncreated One.
>
>>> However, it is possible to hold to that Faith, and hold to Reason.
>
> Not really. Once you throw away reason to have faith in something,
> you have decided that faith is better than reason.
>
It is not necessary to throw away Reason to have faith in God, as you
falsely assume. Also, Faith IS superior to Reason. At least the faith of
the Christian Church is.
>>> All that is necessary is to hold to the faith that God created
>>> simple atoms out of nothing, then set into motion the Laws of
>>> Chance, which caused Random Chance to somehow create more >>> complex
>>> molecules out of single atoms.
>
> Which God? You only mentioned the Christian one in regards to the
> Creation out of nothingness. You only assume a god exists because he
> humans haven't figured out all the answers, but that is not proof at
> all that any god in general exists. All that proves is that we
> humans don't have all the answers.
>
> So, you have yet to come close to reasoning that a god, in general,
> exists, and created the universe, and yet you want us to believe that
> some specific God created the Universe out of Nothing, which would
> preclude the existence of that God, since a god would be a something,
> not Nothing.
Here you misunderstand the Nature of God. God Himself is NOT a "thing" (as
in something which can be created or destroyed-) God is Uncreated, and has
always existed, and will always exist, in Himself, and now, in His creation.
>
>>> Anyway, I have rambled enough.
>
> Yes. You should have just kept your Faith to yourself.
How could I keep my faith to myself? My faith is a gift from God. Gifts of
God are not things to keep selfishly to oneself.
>>> Have a nice day....
>
> Oh. You Too!
That God exists is not completely reducible by so-called "blind faith".
Belief in God is PARTIALLY a matter of faith. The only way to truly accept
the existence of God is by faith. St. Paul properly defines faith this way:
"Now, faith is the assurance of things hoped for, and the evidence of
things not [yet] seen."
HE further defines it thusly:
"Without faith it is impossible to believe in God, because he who believes
in God must FIRST believe that HE exists, and THEN he must believe that He
is a Rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."
So reason IS used to define a man's faith. Here St. Paul gives the major
and minor premises of Aristotlean(sic) logic.
In the Koine Greek in which the letters of St. Paul were written, the word
"faith" is expressed as both a noun, and a verb. Actually, the word
translated into English as "faith" is the gerund of the Koine Greek verb
translated into English as "believe." So faith is not so much a "thing" as
an action.
Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name
news:%23FBKEMi...@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
What you say is all true, except maybe for one part...
"Open-minded", "labels are for racists" liberals have labelled me as a
Fundamentalist Christian. However, I do look at the existence of God in
theoretical terms. I believe in my theory to such an extent that I choose
to believe in God. I have now moved from an intellectual argument to an
acceptance of that in my heart...and have now based my whole existence on
that belief.
I cannot prove that God exists. However, I can present the thousands of
pieces of evidence that point away from an atheistic viewpoint to one which
points to the Bible as accurate. It is all of these pieces of evidence and
the lack of ANY scientific evidence to the contrary that leads, if not
drives, me to my once-theory, now-belief.
On the problem of God being something and creating a universe where nothing
previously existed...
1) Perhaps God was in another universe or dimension when He created this
universe. Hey, remember to keep an open mind about the nature of existence.
We don't know what we don't know.
2) My best analysis, however, shows our whole knowledge of existence is
drastically limited. Any attempts to define an existence outside of this
time and space is a pure guess. Unless, of course, there is a God who has
given us knowledge of this world and beyond...which could just as easily be
the case, in theory, as any other possibility.
Regardless of what liberals (religious, not necessarily political) say, I
see a Fundamentalist Christian as one whose belief in God does not change
with culture, time, or attitudes. It may change with new Biblical, divine
revelatory, or even scientific evidence.
In fact, I would rethink my belief if any contradictory evidence were to be
presented because the Bible, revelation, and science cannot contradict each
other and be true at the same time. However, nothing has ever been
presented that contradicts the Bible, and don't think that atheists haven't
been trying. I have heard many people champion various scientific theories
and cultic practices which, at the outset, seemingly show the Bible to be
wrong. But, these always have been solid on style and vapor on substance.
kurttrail
Nobody truely "KNOWS" God. They have FAITH in their GOD, but they do
not truly KNOW HIM.
That how the Faithful lie to themselves by fooling themselves that their
FAITH is KNOWLEDGE.
>>
>>>> and a place for Faith in the Universe.
>>
>> With those that aren't willing to admit that they don't know.
>>
>>>> While it may take reason to discover the foundations of the
>>>> physical Universe, it takes Faith to go further back than the Big
>>>> Bang.
>>
>> There are people of science that are searching for the cause of the
>> Big Bang.
>
> This it completely true. Many of these men are men of faith, and men
> of science.
MEN! ROFL! We got us a mysogynist!
Expect that true men and WOMEN of science don't call their beliefs
KNOWLEDGE.
>>
>>>> Even evolutionists mix Faith into their belief-systems.
>>
>> No, not all beliefs are based on faith. Most of my belief system is
>> based on reason and logic, but as a man of reason, I know that they
>> are still just beliefs, not knowledge, and I'm willing to admit it.
>
> To separate the words "belief" and "knowledge" is a vain endeavor. It
> takes knowledge to believe.
LOL! Only the Faithful cannot truly see the difference.
>
>>
>> People of Faith can and do base there beliefs outside the realm of
>> logic and reason and use their Faith to claim "surety" of the Faith
>> as true knowledge. Again they lie to themselves, to hide their own
>> doubt, from both themselves and others.
>>
> Men of faith do not lie to themselves, unless they are really
> faithless men in indisguise. One of the basic tenents of the
> Christian faith is "Thou shall not bear false witness."
LOL! MEN!
Since those of FAITH are lying to themselves along with everybody else,
they cannot see that they really are bearing false withness.
>
>>>> It takes
>>>> Faith to stand on the proposition that simple things are evolving
>>>> into complex ones, when the Laws of Physics tell us that the
>>>> Universe is devolving, not evolving.
>>
>> No it takes a fossil record to believe that biological earth
>> organisms have evolved which has little to do with the Laws of
>> Universal Physics.
>
> Show me the fossil record of the "transitional forms" which
> evolutionists claim prove evolution.
The fossil record is incomplete. Out of the trillions of life forms
that have existed on this planet we have yet to find the smallest of a
fraction of the fossil record, and yet we have found indirect evidence
to suggest that life has evolved on the earth. We do not call it a
fact, we call it a theory, which has yet to be disproven, by the way.
And that's the difference between people of reason and your MEN of
FAITH. We don't go around saying that WE KNOW when it is only a
reasonable belief based on available evidence, and your MEN of REASON
call their belief in GOD that is based on absolutely no evidense at all
true knowledge.
>>
>>>> To believe that a single atom caused
>>>> other atoms to join it and create complex molecules takes great
>>>> Faith.
>>
>> No. It is just something we don't quite understand just yet. There
>> is no need to ascribe all we don't understand to a higher being. The
>> pursuit of science and reason only has been going on for the last few
>> hundred years, thanks to the Dark Ages of religious dogma.
>>
>> The Enlightment is just beginning, though those of Faith have gotten
>> their second wind and are trying to bring back the Dark Ages.
>>
> How about the men of faith, the monks of God in Ireland during the
> so-called "Dark Ages"? They kept learning and letters alive by
> themselves.
LOL! They saved some, they hardly advanced anything except the brewing
arts.
> I do admit that men of faith went to excesses during the so-called
> "Dark Ages". We are recovering from our errors at this time, yet we
> still hold to our faith in God. No man (other than Christ Himself)
> is infallible.
LOL! How do you KNOW that? Your belief in a story that has been handed
down through the generations?
>
> I also must remind you of the great Sir Issac Newton. One of the
> greatest scientists of all time, yet he had deeply held convictions
> of faith, and his scientific advances helped to entrench him further
> into his Faith.
Like you said, nobody's perfect.
>
>>>> If an evolutionist uses the word "somehow" in his "Reasoning", he
>>>> has stepped into the boundary of Faith, not Reason.
>>
>> No. He is properly admitting to what he doesn't know YET.
>>
>>>> To even reduce "Random Chance" to a Law proves that "Random Chance"
>>>> does not exist(if it is truly Random, how can it be defined by a
>>>> Law?), other than in the mind of the law-creator. So even "Random
>>>> Chance" takes Faith to hold on to. Yet evolutionists hold on to
>>>> their "Random Chance" theory of the creation of more complex
>>>> molecules out of simple atoms.
>>
>> Theory, not fact. I'd like to see a fundamentalist Christian
>> describe their beliefs in a specific god as a THEORY!
>
> Since I am not a Fundamentalist Christian, I cannot answer that
> question. But right off the top of my head, how COULD a Christian
> (any Christian) call his belief in God a theory?
Because even the existence of a god, in general, has yet to be proven.
Belief in a very specific GOD is totally without any foundation in
reason.
> His complete
> existence as a human being is tied to the basic premise that God
> exists.
LOL! Have you met him/her/it? If you haven't then you really don't
KNOW, do you?
>>
>>>> Christianity, which was founded on the testimony of men, not
>>>> physical proof, tells us that God created the Universe out of
>>>> Nothing, not simple atoms.
>>
>> Now there is flawed logic! If there was "Nothing," then there was no
>> God around to do any creating.
>
> God is not a "thing". "Things" were ALL created by God, Who is the
> Uncreated One.
"God is not a 'thing'." LOL!
God is nothing!
"'Things' were ALL created by God, Who is the Uncreated One."
So let it be written, so let it be done!
Give me a break! Your bullsh*t is absolutely meaningless, and totally
without any foundation in reason.
>>
>>>> However, it is possible to hold to that Faith, and hold to Reason.
>>
>> Not really. Once you throw away reason to have faith in something,
>> you have decided that faith is better than reason.
>>
> It is not necessary to throw away Reason to have faith in God, as you
> falsely assume.
Sure it is! Faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or
material evidence, by its very definition.
Of course you believe it to be a false assuption as you falsely equate
your faith as true knowledge.
> Also, Faith IS superior to Reason. At least the
> faith of the Christian Church is.
LOL! Sure it is! ;-)
>
>>>> All that is necessary is to hold to the faith that God created
>>>> simple atoms out of nothing, then set into motion the Laws of
>>>> Chance, which caused Random Chance to somehow create more >>>
>>>> complex molecules out of single atoms.
>>
>> Which God? You only mentioned the Christian one in regards to the
>> Creation out of nothingness. You only assume a god exists because he
>> humans haven't figured out all the answers, but that is not proof at
>> all that any god in general exists. All that proves is that we
>> humans don't have all the answers.
>>
>> So, you have yet to come close to reasoning that a god, in general,
>> exists, and created the universe, and yet you want us to believe that
>> some specific God created the Universe out of Nothing, which would
>> preclude the existence of that God, since a god would be a something,
>> not Nothing.
>
> Here you misunderstand the Nature of God. God Himself is NOT a
> "thing" (as in something which can be created or destroyed-) God is
> Uncreated, and has always existed, and will always exist, in Himself,
> and now, in His creation.
LOL! Whatever you say God is, that is what God is! No problem! You
are gonna believe whatever you want, no matter how kooky it is!
>>
>>>> Anyway, I have rambled enough.
>>
>> Yes. You should have just kept your Faith to yourself.
>
> How could I keep my faith to myself? My faith is a gift from God.
Then your God like making a fool out of you!
> Gifts of God are not things to keep selfishly to oneself.
ROFL! You have no shame.
>
>>>> Have a nice day....
>>
>> Oh. You Too!
>
> That God exists is not completely reducible by so-called "blind
> faith". Belief in God is PARTIALLY a matter of faith. The only way
> to truly accept the existence of God is by faith. St. Paul properly
> defines faith this way:
> "Now, faith is the assurance of things hoped for, and the evidence
> of things not [yet] seen."
You mean Saul of Tarsus? The first persecutor of Christians, who also
was the first Anti-Christ.
>
> HE further defines it thusly:
> "Without faith it is impossible to believe in God, because he who
> believes in God must FIRST believe that HE exists, and THEN he must
> believe that He is a Rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."
>
> So reason IS used to define a man's faith. Here St. Paul gives the
> major and minor premises of Aristotlean(sic) logic.
>
> In the Koine Greek in which the letters of St. Paul were written, the
> word "faith" is expressed as both a noun, and a verb. Actually, the
> word translated into English as "faith" is the gerund of the Koine
> Greek verb translated into English as "believe." So faith is not so
> much a "thing" as an action.
Yes, the ability to lie to oneself.
Yehoshua was a cool dude, from what I've read. Saul, on the other hand,
was nothing more than Judas's replacement, and he even had St. Stephen
killed so you could be the true replacement of the betrayer of
Yeshoshua's true message of love.
kurttrail
Except for the contradictions of the Bible and itself! But you refuse
to acknowledge it, even after it is pointed out to you!
Non-Offensive, Professional Sounding Name
Here we go...
Let's take it one at a time as I am not the multi-tasking, Linux-using,
Xeon-processor-type that many of you are. Atari 800s are more my speed.
And I will not dodge or evade. I will try to answer it to the best of my
ability.
In your view, what is the #1 most blatant, obvious contradiction...I mean,
what is the one that makes professing Christians dodge and run for cover?