Thread: Religion Vs Science.

Wow, what a topic.This topic may cause a lot of controversy. So if it does just close this please. That's not what i wanted. I want to have a good, clean, debate on the matter. I, although am not the most religious person in the world, do believe in god, and have my own ideas, but here are some things that the church says that i do not believe. Please do not flame.


1. Religion:The earth is tilted at a 23.5 degree angle, and we wouldn't be able to live without that.- I completely agree and disagree with this.

My explanation: Yes, the earth is tilted so, but it is that factor that led to our development as humans. If it was not tilted, and was closer or farther from the sun, we would have possibly ended up on another planet in the universe, with somewhat of the same factors as our current earth. As i'm fairly certain there are with many other extra solar planets.

2. Religion: God created the Earth and all that inhabit.


My explanation: Why would god create an entire universe so much bigger than the earth just for us? If we were made on earth, wouldn't there just be earth and sun? The big bang, being probably the best theory right now, can explain a lot more than just, god created the earth, the end.

Another thing- If the earth was created when the bible was set - about 10,000 years ago, how does all the scientific evidence point to the earth being around 4.5 billion years old?


I know this make some religious people angry, but I'm just saying what's put in front of us. There is probably many more controversies, but here are some that i think about a lot. .


Another note- The bible was writing in a pre-scientific era, also, in the bible, there are many things that are against the word of god, such as condoning slavery, and against womens rights. I'm very sure that religion has some very interesting, and convincing arguments as well, but these are my conceptions. I believe there is a god. I do pray. I am not anti Christ, i just believe there are some things that need to be worked out between them .

As Einstein once said:"After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated, they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge."


(I apologize for my non-professionalism, I'm only in 8th grade)

And once again, i'd love for some friendly debating .

Citations:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sci_rel.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relatio...on_and_science

and myself

Thank you .
-Shane

Some interesting points, Shane. One thing to remember with the religion vs. science debate, is that science deals with that which is 'testable,' in other words, experimentation must be part of the 'scientific method.' Religious claims of gods, devils, angels and any other miracles or supernatural events are not testable, hence they cannot be compared to science.

If you still have beliefs in god, then try using 'experimentation' to demonstrate your gods existence, if you can. You'll find that you cannot.

Originally Posted by Shaneisan8thgrader

Please do not flame.

I'm afraid that you aren't going to get lucky on this one, there are people here who love a good flame, thats why my dinners are in the religion sub forum.

1. Religion:The earth is tilted at a 23.5 degree angle, and we wouldn't be able to live without that.- I completely agree and disagree with this.

Just out of curiosity how exactly is the Earth's tilt a religious observation?

My explanation: Yes, the earth is tilted so, but it is that factor that led to our development as humans. If it was not tilted, and was closer or farther from the sun, we would have possibly ended up on another planet in the universe, with somewhat of the same factors as our current earth. As i'm fairly certain there are with many other extra solar planets.

So what your saying is that if Earth had not been in the ideal place for life then we would have not been put here on this Earth by 'it'? I also assume that this is the reason for your religious explanation of why the Earth is at a tilt. As far as I'm aware the Earth had an early collision with another planetary forming debris which caused the axis to tilt after re forming.

This is interesting because you are saying that 'God' chose the ideal planet for us to evolve into what we are and did not create it. Am I right here?

Also so you are saying that God wants us to look the way we do because of the enviroment on earth makes us look like what we are? This still makes not much sense to me because if we were put on another planet similar to earth, the unpredicatability of how we can form is just pure randomness, it would have to be a damn smart God to do such a thing knowing how it would turn out. But that makes no sense, why not just make people people and shove them where they can breath. That sounds a lot easier to me...

2. Religion: God created the Earth and all that inhabit.

You just said that God chose to put us on Earth because of what it was and would have put us on another one if Earth was not ideal, but you just said that Earth is ideal because he made it so there would be no reason to put us on another planet would there if he made it for us? I smell dogma trying to intervene with your thinking. Smash it.

My explanation: Why would god create an entire universe so much bigger than the earth just for us? If we were made on earth, wouldn't there just be earth and sun? The big bang, being probably the best theory right now, can explain a lot more than just, god created the earth, the end.

He didn't because God does not do such things, why create a universe. If God is love and order, why make chaos when He would have perfect order with Himself/Herself, or It. Yes the big bang can and seems a lot damn more probable than blaming God for everything, stick with the big bang, humans do not yet need a God to lean on so His existence is currently irrelevant...

Another thing- If the earth was created when the bible was set - about 10,000 years ago, how does all the scientific evidence point to the earth being around 4.5 billion years old?

Because:

a) God did not make the world 10,000 years ago, it was about 6,000 (roughly), but that is you just estimating
b) Science points to it being 4.5 billion years old because it is. well, I say it is, well.....

I know this make some religious people angry, but I'm just saying what's put in front of us. There is probably many more controversies, but here are some that i think about a lot. .

There are no controversies, because its a load of bull to keep people in a rut of belief and to be a slave and mindless drone so the intelligent people that run religion can abuse you and take advantage.

Another note- The bible was writing in a pre-scientific era,

Science has been around a long time before the bible. Take the Egyptians for instance, what they did was science in the construction of their monuments. The time of the Greeks and their science. You seem to have adopted the modern definition of science and that science has only existed or rather came into existence only recently. Which is understandable

...also, in the bible, there are many things that are against the word of god, such as condoning slavery, and against womens rights.

But in the old testament god does not condone (over look) slavery or womens rights. In fact, he's a murdering, slave driving, cruel bastard. Any God like that should be removed from power, I can understand Lucifer's revolt against him, would you want a god like that to rule the universe? I god damn wouldn't.

I'm very sure that religion has some very interesting, and convincing arguments as well,

They don't have arguments, they have excuses; god's plan, his will, etc etc etc.

...but these are my conceptions: I believe there is a god. I do pray. I am not anti Christ, i just believe there are some things that need to be worked out between them.

Between who? God and the devil? God does not exist, although the idea of the Devil does and people make that live more than the idea of God so in my eyes the idea of the devil lives. Praying did work for me, or at least I thought, but maybe it was me who did what I prayed for? It was me I know it....

As Einstein once said:"After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated, they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge."

Einsteins a dead man in the sand... A great man of science is a grain of sand against the universe which is religion. His words are nothing and will not change anything. Religion needs to be abolished, people need to stop turning outside of themselves for salvation and should turn inward, that is true strength. Help yourself...

(I apologize for my non-professionalism, I'm only in 8th grade)

I am glad and in my post I did not know this was your age. You have some bright ideas and it seems that the dogma you have is slowing being eaten away by truth. Do not let religion slave you, it is evil. It is the devils biggest tact. The only true sage of religion are Jesus and Buddha, they are the most wisest people to ever walk the Earth and look to them, not a God if you need guidance. Not to appease some God. We live in this universe, we live in a horrible world without all knowing powers, without all presence and without the perfections god has. We are because of that so much more than he is.

And once again, i'd love for some friendly debating .

I really do hope you get some. Even though it will be hard to see friendliness because you are entering an 'adult' enviroment and contrary to popular belief, adults aren't wise or mature; they're ignorant, self righteous, obnoixious fools. A child is more wiser and a better human being than an adult one, you see the world corrupts a child. AH! I finally see what Jesus meant now.... ah life is good... :-D

Thank you .
-Shane

There is no need to thank, I aim to help humanity by releasing its shackles. Where you go from there is a choice I leave to you.

To clarify, In the points where i say "religion:" i mean what a religious leader such as priest or aunt has said to me. Not what i believe, When i say that earth is 23.5 degrees i mean to say that thats what let humans evolve. I am in favor of science in this post. I just say that i have mixed feelings on religion. in my explanation i am trying to prove science.


Also thank you Q, and BadWolf for your responses.
They are highly appreciated

i will just address the OP at this time only:

1. Religion:The earth is tilted at a 23.5 degree angle, and we wouldn't be able to live without that.- I completely agree and disagree with this

this is NOT a religious observation but a scientific one of what God had done for this particular case. He had ulimited options at His dispoal for creation so this is rather a moot point because God chose how things wil be, He was not subject to them.

2. Religion: God created the Earth and all that inhabit.

why did He create a universe larger than all of humans could possibly fill? as the Bible says to 'show the Glory of God' His power, versatility, creativity and so on. He has provided physical evience for His existence but some people ignore, dismiss or attribute it to alternatives.

Another thing- If the earth was created when the bible was set - about 10,000 years ago, how does all the scientific evidence point to the earth being around 4.5 billion years old?

secular science does things backwards. they look atthe result of creation and then calculate time etc. then leap to a false conclusion. there is a furniture builer who builds an exquisite table and chairs in 5 days. some non-carpenter comes along and does tests on the table and claims that woood is 400 years old and screws weren't invented back then, you could not have built the table in 5 days, it is impossible.

looking at things backwards always gives the wrong information.

The bible was writing in a pre-scientific era,

you mean the 'modern scientific' era. science was going on from the begining people, that is why you study history and archaeology, to learn these things. pythagorium theorum was used by the babylonians 2,000 years BEFORE pythagorius 'discovered' it.

As Einstein once said:"After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated, they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge."

what einstein and other 'scientists' do not realize is that not all people can study what they did or some ignore what has been written or whatever thus they make these pathetic statements which distorts and insults good people.

not ALL science is good science. there is evil, bad, corrupt, manipulated science as well and you need to learn the difference between good and bad science. the scientists arrogance is a key to their detours from GOOD science.

Einstein was a christian. as was Volta, Tesla, Maxwell, and many other scientists that discovered things that disagreed with the bible. was their arrogance the reason they were 'deluded' and couldn't find an answer that agreed with god? were they 'bad' scientists? Or, maybe, just maybe, they discovered something that let them explain the universe with respect to the things God put in motion.

Einstein was a christian

really??? not according to most scientists and atheists. i think you need to research that statement a bit more.

many other scientists that discovered things that disagreed with the bible

i think you need to research this a lot more as well. what you say disagrees with the Bible is actually disagreeing with people's thoughts.

maybe, just maybe, they discovered something that let them explain the universe with respect to the things God put in motion.

depends upon their conclusions. if it supports evolution then they would be wrong for God did not use evolution, He use His power so that there would be no doubt who created all things.

get off of evolution arch, everything doesn't boil down to evolution.

The age of the universe, though, is taken, in part, from Einstein's theories of relativity, and they GREATLY contradict the biblical age of the universe.

you're the one that needs the research, I can site my sources, can you?

and, fyi, he was raised christian

I didn't know that there was a "Biblical" age for the universe. Does that come from the Bible?

I think that science and religion are different in that science is testable as Q noted, and is based on evidence that is reproducible.

Religion is based on faith. However, that does not mean that there is not "evidence" for the existence of God. It just means that the evidence is not the same as scientific evidence.

For example, there are numerous Biblical descriptions of God revealing His existence to man in different ways. So I guess God gives evidence for His existence to believers.

The only way to know if this is true is to seek God.

maybe, that could lead to revelation and opened eyes. I don't know, I found that God just isn't there in my search, but that's all over another thread.

Scientific age of universe at between billion years as opposed to precisely 6000... you decide, is the bible infallible?

The age of the universe, though, is taken, in part, from Einstein's theories of relativity, and they GREATLY contradict the biblical age of the universe.

the bible never states how old the earth is, it just says 'in the begining...' there is no 'biblical age' and 6,000 years was an ussher fallacy grabbed onto by religious people of all persuasions.

in that science is testable

when it pertains to evolution and other 'scientific' ideas science is NOT testable.

but that uses Dates, in terms of years, from events that happened in the Bible, how is it false? When did the flood REALLY happen then?

but that uses Dates, in terms of years, from events that happened in the Bible, how is it false? When did the flood REALLY happen then?

the flood happened in the 600th year of noah's life. now you know when.

ussher is false because he assumed many things and didnot understand how the israelites recorded their history. both the kingdoms of judah and israel used different systems from each other.

but a year is still a year, and the dating can't be off by too much more than a couple months. One by lunar calender and one by solar, right?

Originally Posted by archaeologist

but that uses Dates, in terms of years, from events that happened in the Bible, how is it false? When did the flood REALLY happen then?

the flood happened in the 600th year of noah's life. now you know when.

Incidentally, about 3 paragraphs before this in the bible, there is a verse that says:

'and god said; "man is mortal: he shall not live forever. From now on, his years shall number one hundred and twenty six"'

So, no, you can't quote the bible as fact.

technically if we forget the "and noah lived to blahblah years" bullshit, that statement is "true" for now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_people

Although, with the advent of better and better medicine, it won't be for very long.

but a year is still a year, and the dating can't be off by too much more than a couple months. One by lunar calender and one by solar, right?

you would be surprised. no the people of israel and many nations did not use the solar or lunar calendar when marking time. that is why you read things like 'in the 5th year of the reign of...' or 'when there was no king over...'

they did not have b.c. nor a.d. back then since that was the invention by a r.c.c. and named the julian calendar.

So, no, you can't quote the bible as fact.

yes I can, you just do not grasp what God was saying

Originally Posted by archaeologist

So, no, you can't quote the bible as fact.

yes I can, you just do not grasp what God was saying

You're wrong, you just do not grasp what Drowsy was saying.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition

maybe, that could lead to revelation and opened eyes. I don't know, I found that God just isn't there in my search, but that's all over another thread.

Scientific age of universe at between billion years as opposed to precisely 6000... you decide, is the bible infallible?

I think you are right in that the answer is "revelation and opened eyes". It seems that the Bible supports the idea that God will reveal Himself (John 14: 16-21). However, many people do not experience something that gives them confidence that God exists. I have not heard anyone give a good talk on how to achieve this, but I believe it is achievable for the average person. I think a couple other relevant passages are: Matt. 11: 28-30, and Luke 15: 10-32.

I am not sure which part of the Bible involving dating is inconsistent with science; however, I am sure that there are inconsistencies. For example, I do not know if the ancestry of Jesus to Adam in Luke 3: 23-38 is consistent w/ human fossils. It may not be.

I have heard priests, ministers, scholars etc. differ in their opinions about how to interpret the Bible. Some say literally, others disagree. For myself, I would say that if there is some question a person has about a particular inconsistency or issue in the Bible, then research the question, but also ask God.

I once had a particular question about how free will could coexist with the idea that God can "see the future". This was really bothering me. Then "coincidentally" I picked up a book of religious fiction that explained it. At least the book gave a possible explanation. I think the book was called "Blink" by Ted Dekker.

religion=faith. science= piratical experiments and scientific theory. certainly one didn't gain faith in GOD by undertaking theoretical experiment or any other scientific means, so how can you compare religion to science. there are completely different subjects.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

So, no, you can't quote the bible as fact.

yes I can, you just do not grasp what God was saying

He was saying that no man shall live beyond the age of 126 years.

Noah, after this was written, still lived to the age of several hundred years of age.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

no the people of israel and many nations did not use the solar or lunar calendar when marking time. that is why you read things like 'in the 5th year of the reign of...'

The word 'year' indicates a solar calendar, but OK.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

the flood happened in the 600th year of noah's life. now you know when.

So, you actually believe those mythical characters lived hundreds of years, even though we know most people back then barely made it to 45 years?

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition

Einstein was a christian. as was Volta, Tesla, Maxwell, and many other scientists that discovered things that disagreed with the bible. was their arrogance the reason they were 'deluded' and couldn't find an answer that agreed with god? were they 'bad' scientists? Or, maybe, just maybe, they discovered something that let them explain the universe with respect to the things God put in motion.

Einstein's views were complex, hardly Christian or a believer in a creator, he believed in a God of order, this too conflicted a little with science. 'God does not play dice' is an attack on quantum mechanics.

He was saying that no man shall live beyond the age of 126 years.

Noah, after this was written, still lived to the age of several hundred years of age

noah was already given his age limit but tell me how many people have lived beyond 120 years in the past 5,000 years? aside from shem there are very, very few.

you actually believe those mythical characters lived hundreds of years, even though we know most people back then barely made it to 45 years?

your use of adjectives undermines any credibility you thought you had. i have run intothat idea before post your proof before i comment further.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

you actually believe those mythical characters lived hundreds of years, even though we know most people back then barely made it to 45 years?

your use of adjectives undermines any credibility you thought you had. i have run intothat idea before post your proof before i comment further.

Pretty basic logic here - you know syllogisms like this one:

A: Most people have a very poor understanding of the rules of logic.

B: Therefore "drowsy turtle" has a very poor understanding of the rules of logic.

(The interesting thing about this syllogism is that, whether you understand that there is something wrong with it or not, the conclusion is the same.)

religion=faith. science= piratical experiments and scientific theory. certainly one didn't gain faith in GOD by undertaking theoretical experiment or any other scientific means, so how can you compare religion to science. there are completely different subjects.

actually you can gain faith in God through proper sience, not secular science but proper. through a variety of sciences we can see what God did just by speaking. case in point: His intelligence, His creativity, His use of variety, His design abilities, and so much more. by witnessing those things we get confidence that God will see us through many troubles.

but if you pervert proper science then you will attribute everything to the wrong source and miss the lessons one needs to learn about God.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

but if you pervert proper science then you will attribute everything to the wrong source and miss the lessons one needs to learn about God.

Around the world today and every day, there are researchers working on problems in biochemistry, physics, cosmology, palaeontology, ethology and a hundred other disciplines. A significant number of these (I won't even claim a majority) are committed to and passionate about their work. They are enthused by the subject, they are in awe of the intracies of nature, they are humbled by the majesty of what they are discovering, and sometimes - the human touch - they pat themselves on the back for being smart enough and dedicated enough to add another brick to the structure of our understanding.

Some of them are devout Christians, some are Dawkins like atheists; some are Hindus, some Moslems. They represent every major creed and culture and nation on the planet.

These are the people whom you say, in your self centred, self absorbed, self righteous ignorance, pervert science. Shame on you. Shame on your ignorance. Shame on your wilful ignorance. Shame on your blindness to the true glories of the universe. Shame on your petty, narrow, ungodly views. Shame on you.

archaeologist states: "no the people of Israel and many nations did not use the solar or lunar calendar when marking time."

I don't have proof, but common sense would tell me that any and all agrarian societies would have used the lunar calender to keep track of time.

Other than common sense, the Jews have 13 lunar months and have kept track of years using 13 lunar months for thousands of years now. Some(maybe all but I don't know for sure) of their holidays are celebrated during phases of the moon, not on specific dates.

The 7 day week is a division of the approximately 28 day lunar cycle. So as long as there has been rest on the 7th day, there has been time measured by the moon. The people of Israel lived their lives completely around the moon and agriculture, that is, at least ever since Moses got a hold of them.

I don't know of any other way of marking time BUT to have either a solar or lunar calender, and I won't argue who had which, because time is still time, and you need cyclical behavior to measure it

Originally Posted by archaeologist

actually you can gain faith in God through proper sience

Correct. All you have to do is look at all the REAL scientists that have come to a belief in God from their studies in science.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

, not secular science but proper.

Incorrect. Simple logic here. A person who comes to a belief in God is one who starts out without a belief in God and therefore they are obviously not going to be involved in the kind of pseudo-science that archie calls "proper science". The only people involved in archies pseudo-science are those who already have a belief in God, but these are not people with any faith because people with faith don't need to deceive themselves like this. Furthermore, by participating in such deception we can hardly expect that they are gaining any faith, now can we?

I guess we must conclude that what archie is talking about is this making-oneself-immune-and-inaccessible-to-reason-and-the-evidence like a brainwashed zombie which some people might call "blind faith" but I would not call this wilfull self-deception any kind of faith at all.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

but if you pervert proper science then you will attribute everything to the wrong source and miss the lessons one needs to learn about God.

Correct. If you pervert science in these pseudo-scientific activities like creationism then you will indeed attribute everyting to your canned theology created by men and to this God concept you and other legalistic religious extremists have created, rather than to the real God who can be understood by looking at the things of nature which He has actually created. Indeed by this perversion you will make it all about you and your secret Gnostic knowledge to puff up your head and swagger about rather than humbling yourself to the evidence of nature as the scientists do.

---------------------

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

A nation of hatred and fear is ruled by despots who abuse their power. A nation of love and freedom is protected by those who have no power.

Despots get their power from the people who obey them and from the people who do nothing to oppose them. A nation of love and freedom is protected by those who use whatever power of voice, hand and foot they have and are required to defend the ideals of religious liberty and tolerance. Therefore do not be not silent when you hear rhetoric denouncing tolerance and advocating the imposition of the religion and peculiar moral ideas of some people upon other people. Tolerance and religious liberty must be the universal ideals and highest moral commitments of the people in a free society.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

The age of the universe, though, is taken, in part, from Einstein's theories of relativity, and they GREATLY contradict the biblical age of the universe.

the bible never states how old the earth is, it just says 'in the begining...' there is no 'biblical age' and 6,000 years was an ussher fallacy grabbed onto by religious people of all persuasions.

Ya makes sense, there's only a couple thousand generations not mentioned in the bible after Adam and Eve.

don't have proof, but common sense would tell me that any and all agrarian societies would have used the lunar calender to keep track of time

maybe i was being too general. yes farmers used the lunar clalendar for planting and harvest BUT to record events, they used many different forms of noting the time.

there's only a couple thousand generations not mentioned in the bible after Adam and Eve.

you would be wrong. there were only 7 from adam to noah.

The only people involved in archies pseudo-science

if you are going to lie and then lie about me, stop calling yourself a christian.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

there's only a couple thousand generations not mentioned in the bible after Adam and Eve.

you would be wrong. there were only 7 from adam to noah.

And this is how you trace the age of the Earth, according to the bible.

It tells you the ages of various people when they had children, and this can be used to work out the time of creation to within a few years.

Unless god lied?

because a year, is, after all, by definition, a year. Lunar or Solar, it's a difference of days a year, which could lead to what, a problem of at most 200 years (VERY liberal).

"I don't know of any other way of marking time BUT to have either a solar or lunar calender, and I won't argue who had which, because time is still time, and you need cyclical behavior to measure it"

The mayans used two methods, the solar cycle which was used, NOT to measure time but for taxes, you were taxed once every solar year based on the goods you procured during that solar year.

They measured time with a 260 day "year" which was divided into 13 weeks of 20 days or 20 week of 13 days, sorry I forgot which. What cycle they were measuring is unknown, it may be a flawed calculation of venus' orbit, but with such advanced math and astronomy, why would it be so far off as 6 or so days... unless orbits have changed, OR unless they were measuring a spiritual/biological/psychological/natural cycle.

And archaeologist: do the math; 13 lunar months of approx. 28 days each = 364 days. This is the archaic equivalent of a solar year. This doesn't include some holidays which were not counted as part of the year.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

The only people involved in archies pseudo-science

if you are going to lie and then lie about me, stop calling yourself a christian.

No, Chrisitan refers to Christ to whom I give all the honor, admiration and committment, for He is the one who has done something worthy of this. To you and your anti-science cult I give nothing at all for it has nothing of value for the world.

It is you who should stop calling yourself Christian, for it is you who bad mouth all of historical Christianity that disagrees with the bigotry and the man-made dogmas of you and your cult. It is you who has replaced the creeds of the eccumenical councils which are the foundation of historical Christianity, in order point away from Christ and God to your anti-science propaganda. It is you who have cast aspersions on the church of the 4rth and 5th centuries that established the Biblical canon which has been the word of God for historical Christianity, just so you can hold up your legalistic gospel like the Judaizers. But we shall heed the warning of Paul in the Bible not to be lured and deceived by another gospel which has been fabricated by those that make God a TOOL for their own glory and profit.

Oh, go on Mitchell, tell us what you really think. :wink:

its like winding up a toy doll and watching him spin around or stumble.

MM has rarely been close to the truth. Scientists become christians because they see the truth about God and the falseness of evolution. it is that simple.

people like MM want to redesign christinaity after their own image which is sad as such make it far more difficult for true christians to do their work.

But we shall heed the warning of Paul in the Bible not to be lured and deceived by another gospel which has been fabricated by those that make God a TOOL for their own glory and profit.

he proves my point with this statement. i have yet to preach another gospel and have stuck with the Bible from beginning to end.

" i have yet to preach another gospel and have stuck with the Bible from beginning to end.

where did you get these metaphores then?

"its like winding up a toy doll and watching him spin around or stumble. "

"MM has rarely been close to the truth." Is there a passage that defines an openness or a closeness to the truth for which you can clearly discern who is who and which is which?

"Scientists become christians because they see the truth about God and the falseness of evolution."

This isn't described in the bible is it?

"make it far more difficult for true christians to do their work."

Is there something in the bible that makes you think it is possible to get in god's way? Because I'm pretty sure true Christians are doing God's work, not their own.

Your arguments don't come from the bible, they come from you, your faith might come from the bible, but your reasoning still comes from you.

Your arguments don't come from the bible, they come from you, your faith might come from the bible, but your reasoning still comes from you.

you would be wrong. i compare his words with the biblical words has little to do with me.

your comparisons have little to do with you? care to explain?

Originally Posted by archaeologist

Your arguments don't come from the bible, they come from you, your faith might come from the bible, but your reasoning still comes from you.

you would be wrong. i compare his words with the biblical words has little to do with me.

Then why are your opinions so controversial?

If they come from the bible and not from you, one would expect them to be widely accepted.

its not so amazing when you take into account all the earths that failed.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

" i have yet to preach another gospel and have stuck with the Bible from beginning to end.

where did you get these metaphores then?

"its like winding up a toy doll and watching him spin around or stumble. "

"MM has rarely been close to the truth." Is there a passage that defines an openness or a closeness to the truth for which you can clearly discern who is who and which is which?

"Scientists become christians because they see the truth about God and the falseness of evolution."

This isn't described in the bible is it?

"make it far more difficult for true christians to do their work."

Is there something in the bible that makes you think it is possible to get in god's way? Because I'm pretty sure true Christians are doing God's work, not their own.

Your arguments don't come from the bible, they come from you, your faith might come from the bible, but your reasoning still comes from you.

Jesus had one word for people like him. You can find it 13 times in the gospel of Matthew. The word is hypocrite.

You see this is the problem with liars. Since their "truth" is a fabrication, there is no reality behind them to make their lies consistent and so they constantly trip over themselves. Now when I call him a liar, I don't mean that archie does not believe what he says. The most effective liars are those that believe their lies. But regardless, it is the inconsistencies and contradictions (both between the different lies they tell and between what they say and what they do) that give them away. However if their delusions are strong enough then they have made themselves incapable of seeing these inconsistencies and contradictions themselves.

True to form, I am sure that he is quite religious. Doing all kinds of things that he finds in the Bible to do in order to demonstrate his worth before God - to prove that he is one who is truly christian unlike all those poor sinners out there. But however much admiration he has gathered from those that see him do these things, he has his reward already. Of course in archies case I would guess that the things he does primarily consists of words - spouting nonsense to prove that he believes in the literal word of the Bible. These are his works by which he seeks to pay his way into heaven.

Then why are your opinions so controversial?

If they come from the bible and not from you, one would expect them to be widely accepted

Read Luke 12: 49-53

Noah preached for 120 years without a single convert not everyone has their words accepted. One has to stay true to Christ and say what he wants inspite of the backlash from people like MM.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

Then why are your opinions so controversial?

If they come from the bible and not from you, one would expect them to be widely accepted

Read Luke 12: 49-53

Noah preached for 120 years without a single convert not everyone has their words accepted. One has to stay true to Christ and say what he wants inspite of the backlash from people like MM.

Nevertheless, the fact that a bigot or a nazi really believe the garbage they promote will not stop me from denouncing it in the strongest possible terms or stop me from exposing their true motivations for it, so that people can see them clearly for what they are.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

Read Luke 12: 49-53

Noah preached for 120 years without a single convert

Ya we're sure of that
Luke had zero credible evidence, other than echoing a myth he happened to believe in because his reasoning skills probably weren't so great.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

Then why are your opinions so controversial?

If they come from the bible and not from you, one would expect them to be widely accepted

Read Luke 12: 49-53

Noah preached for 120 years without a single convert not everyone has their words accepted. One has to stay true to Christ and say what he wants inspite of the backlash from people like MM.

Noah was a Jew, as he lived before Jesus. So staying true to christ is not applicable.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

True to form, I am sure that he is quite religious. Doing all kinds of things that he finds in the Bible to do in order to demonstrate his worth before God - to prove that he is one who is truly christian unlike all those poor sinners out there. But however much admiration he has gathered from those that see him do these things, he has his reward already. Of course in archies case I would guess that the things he does primarily consists of words - spouting nonsense to prove that he believes in the literal word of the Bible. These are his works by which he seeks to pay his way into heaven.

Quite frankly, archy is more of a Christian than others, especially Mitchell, who cherry picks what he wants from the bible and 'tweaks' it to suit his beliefs.

Archy is simply following the dogma he's supposed to follow.

If anyone is the "Christian" hypocrite, it's Mitchell.

Worse christian, better human being.

MM is more typical of christians, despite not taking the bible literally.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

True to form, I am sure that he is quite religious. Doing all kinds of things that he finds in the Bible to do in order to demonstrate his worth before God - to prove that he is one who is truly christian unlike all those poor sinners out there. But however much admiration he has gathered from those that see him do these things, he has his reward already. Of course in archies case I would guess that the things he does primarily consists of words - spouting nonsense to prove that he believes in the literal word of the Bible. These are his works by which he seeks to pay his way into heaven.

Quite frankly, archy is more of a Christian than others, especially Mitchell, who cherry picks what he wants from the bible and 'tweaks' it to suit his beliefs.

Archy is simply following the dogma he's supposed to follow.

If anyone is the "Christian" hypocrite, it's Mitchell.

LOL So the former fundie-Xtian retains much of his former programming and definitions after switching ideologies. It is a shame really since he has kind of missed the point. For him the world is still one dimensional black and white. I guess he just decided that his team was losing and wanted to be on the side with the power. I am not picking teams and Q finds it inconsistent that I refuse to play the game and stick with one of these brainless extremes.

No I have never been much of a ideolog team player. I guess the anonymous safety of the herd has never appealed to me that much. I am non-partisan when it comes to politics too. I don't need people to pick my candidates any more than I need people to pick my beliefs for me. So yeah I pick them myself. They may be just football teams and cherries to him, but they actually mean something to the person who thinks for himself and makes his choices based on reasons rather than just trying to guess which side is going to win.

It will tickle me to no end if Q and archie decide to join forces against me, a little non-aggression pact of their own. LOL The Hitlers and Stalins of the world work together when it comes to this black-and-white with-them-or-against-them bull crap. I am not buying into their baloney because you see for me it is not about winning. Even if I am doomed to lose, it does not change the truth, because even if they suceed in their efforts to force everyone to think like they do, it is just a delusion and eventually reality will come crashing down on them.

Archy is simply following the dogma he's supposed to follow.

God has taught me a lot over the years and it is NOT dogma but truth.

It will tickle me to no end if Q and archie decide to join forces against me

sorry but i couldn't do that. i appreciate his kind words but i could never partner with him until he became a believer.

Doing all kinds of things that he finds in the Bible to do in order to demonstrate his worth before God - to prove that he is one who is truly christian unlike all those poor sinners out there

we do not follow Christ to demonstrate our worthiness, we simply humble ourselves and obey. but i am not the only true christian out there and i still sin every i just do not practice it.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

Archy is simply following the dogma he's supposed to follow.

God has taught me a lot over the years

Really? He ignores me...

Originally Posted by archaeologist

and it is NOT dogma but truth.

Exactly what I would expect you to say if it was dogma...

Originally Posted by archaeologist

It will tickle me to no end if Q and archie decide to join forces against me

sorry but i couldn't do that. i appreciate his kind words but i could never partner with him until he became a believer.

Wow, that's fairly extreme prejudice...

Originally Posted by archaeologist

Doing all kinds of things that he finds in the Bible to do in order to demonstrate his worth before God - to prove that he is one who is truly christian unlike all those poor sinners out there

we do not follow Christ to demonstrate our worthiness, we simply humble ourselves and obey.

Obey what?

I have never talked to god or Jesus to get any commands to obey. And I don't trust the bible.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

but i am not the only true christian out there and i still sin every i just do not practice it.

That's why you're going to burn in hell.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

I am non-partisan when it comes to politics too. I don't need people to pick my candidates any more than I need people to pick my beliefs for me. So yeah I pick them myself. They may be just football teams and cherries to him, but they actually mean something to the person who thinks for himself and makes his choices based on reasons rather than just trying to guess which side is going to win.

Marvelous! Mitchell believes that he himself is the arbiter of what he will accept or not accept from his god. It matters not to Mitchell that his gods truth is to be obeyed and not judged. And, anyone who does follow that truth without question is someone Mitchell would never have anything to do with; ie. archeologist.

Clearly, Mitchell is no Christian at all and isn't interested in Christianity, but has created his own cult based on what he decides to 'cheery pick'.

In essence, we have the cult of "Mitchianity."

We would also wonder what the connection between picking political parties and supernatural entities is, but the closest I can figure is that both tell lies in order for you to follow them. Is that it, Mitchell?

It will tickle me to no end if Q and archie decide to join forces against me, a little non-aggression pact of their own.

Hardly, but I would support archie only in the fact that he follows his religion as best he can, without judgment. You don't. A simple, factual observation.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

God has taught me a lot over the years and it is NOT dogma but truth.

I would ask you again, why aren't you living in a cave? The realities of science do not fit with tour biblical truths.

sorry but i couldn't do that. i appreciate his kind words but i could never partner with him until he became a believer.

The bigotry of your cult and your beliefs would have mankind divided forever.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

I am non-partisan when it comes to politics too. I don't need people to pick my candidates any more than I need people to pick my beliefs for me. So yeah I pick them myself. They may be just football teams and cherries to him, but they actually mean something to the person who thinks for himself and makes his choices based on reasons rather than just trying to guess which side is going to win.

Marvelous! Mitchell believes that he himself is the arbiter of what he will accept or not accept from his god. It matters not to Mitchell that his gods truth is to be obeyed and not judged. And, anyone who does follow that truth without question is someone Mitchell would never have anything to do with; ie. archeologist.

Clearly, Mitchell is no Christian at all and isn't interested in Christianity, but has created his own cult based on what he decides to 'cheery pick'.

In essence, we have the cult of "Mitchianity."

We would also wonder what the connection between picking political parties and supernatural entities is, but the closest I can figure is that both tell lies in order for you to follow them. Is that it, Mitchell?

It will tickle me to no end if Q and archie decide to join forces against me, a little non-aggression pact of their own.

Hardly, but I would support archie only in the fact that he follows his religion as best he can, without judgment. You don't. A simple, factual observation.

Uh, your proof dearest Q? I mean you seem to enjoy thumping the cherry picking drum whenever you can, but what exactly is Mckain cherrypicking and what evidence do you have? Do you have in depth, personal knowledge of McKain's beliefs and the reasons for them, or are you just attempting to start an argument with no support behind it because you are so assured of your position that must inevitably be right?

Originally Posted by KomradRed

are you just attempting to start an argument

Or, are you?

No, I am just asking you to tell my why exactly you think Mckainis cherry picking, examples, and whatnot. You know, actually backing up what you are saying instead of making inflammatory remarks. Unless this is some forum inside joke where Q pretends to be ignorant atheist just for a good satirical laugh.

Originally Posted by KomradRed

No, I am just asking you to tell my why exactly you think Mckainis cherry picking, examples, and whatnot. You know, actually backing up what you are saying instead of making inflammatory remarks. Unless this is some forum inside joke where Q pretends to be ignorant atheist just for a good satirical laugh.

Q is not pretending.

It should strike you how similar Q and archaeologist are. Very little changed when Q became an atheist. The only difference is that Q admits that he does not believe in God, but he never really did any more than archaeologist does now. What Q once believed and what archie still believes in is a group of people and the line they have been feeding him. That is what their so called "being a christian" and "belief in God" are code words for. Since you ask them for evidence for their accusations, I shall provide evidence for mine. The evidence is in the fact that they make this very same equivalence themselves in their own words when talking to people. If you don't believe in their cult and in the rhetoric/dogma that this cult uses then they quickly conclude that you are not a Christian and that you do not believe in God. It is exactly like they do not believe there is a God out there apart from their cult, who can use and speak to whomever He chooses.

However, my being Christian, has nothing to do with being accepted by any group or cult and that is why the verdicts of such as Q and archaeologist mean nothing to me. The church I go to which is a Vineyard church (a group of evangelical churches which is an offshoot of Calvary Chapel) and they believe in the open set view of ministry, which means that they do not believe that the Chrisitan ministry is about getting people to become a member of a group, but just about doing our best to help each other grow in our relationship with God to become more like Christ. Yes I believe that there is such a thing as the body of Christ but I think that is something that is brought together, organized and administrated by Christ alone and not by any human agency and so I do not expect it line up at all with appearances and superficial judgements of human beings let alone with some human organization.

And no I am not doing the same thing as they are. I am only drawing the logical conclusion that their words force on me. I would be delighted if they would prove me wrong. I know that all kinds of people that do not agree with me, who believe in God and many of whom are Christian. I generally take people at their word and accept that they believe whatever they say they believe, but part of the purpose of discussions like these is to look at the implications of what people say. In the case of being Christian I support a rather minimal condition or definition of Christianity in the creed of the first eccumenical council alone.

The bigotry of your cult and your beliefs would have mankind divided forever.

The division of mankind is a work of God and a good thing. It is mankind united that is dangerous. And thus we must understand, that the fact that Q and archaeologist push for a different uniformity is really a superficial difference - as superficial as the difference between Hitler and Stalin. For their declarations of emnity towards each other does not change the fact that World War 2 began with their agreement with each other. Just like Q and archaeologist, they are two peas in a pod in the way that they cannot abide by people thinking and deciding for themselves what to believe.

Originally Posted by KomradRed

No, I am just asking you to tell my why exactly you think Mckainis cherry picking, examples, and whatnot. You know, actually backing up what you are saying instead of making inflammatory remarks. Unless this is some forum inside joke where Q pretends to be ignorant atheist just for a good satirical laugh.

So, after quite a bit of discussion between Mitch and I, you're demanding I stop and give you a full recap?

On your bike.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Very little changed when Q became an atheist.

Your unfounded belief system knows no boundaries, Mitch. At least you're beginning to show some consistency.

The only difference is that Q admits that he does not believe in God

Really? I wonder where I made that admittance?

Once again, Mitchianity has ruled in favor of delusion. What I admit is not accepting the unfounded myths and superstitious claims spouted by theists. Big difference.

archie still believes in is a group of people and the line they have been feeding him.

Arch follows the bible, you follow Mitchianity.

The church I go to which is a Vineyard church (a group of evangelical churches which is an offshoot of Calvary Chapel)

So, they would be a group of people feeding you a line?

I believe that there is such a thing as the body of Christ but I think that is something that is brought together, organized and administrated by Christ alone and not by any human agency

Christianity (or for that matter Mitchianity) wouldn't exist without those human agencies organizing and administering.

I know that all kinds of people that do not agree with me, who believe in God and many of whom are Christian.

The logic and rationale of that statement is dumbfounding. Shouldn't you all simply follow your gods commands?

I support a rather minimal condition or definition of Christianity in the creed of the first eccumenical council alone.

Cherry picking.

Q and archaeologist push for a different uniformity is really a superficial difference - as superficial as the difference between Hitler and Stalin. For their declarations of emnity towards each other does not change the fact that World War 2 began with their agreement with each other.

Well placed strawman, Mitch.

Originally Posted by (Q)

The church I go to which is a Vineyard church (a group of evangelical churches which is an offshoot of Calvary Chapel)

So, they would be a group of people feeding you a line?

Ah... but as you have repeatedly observed, I think and decide for myself what to believe - what you call cherry picking and Mitchianity because you cannot stand the idea that anyone can and would do such a thing. LOL And NO this does NOT by any strange coincidence happen to coincide to any great degree with what the other people attending this Vineyard church believes. This is why you see my belief statements prefaced with "I believe" and "they believe" and not just "we believe" in front of everything.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by KomradRed

No, I am just asking you to tell my why exactly you think Mckainis cherry picking, examples, and whatnot. You know, actually backing up what you are saying instead of making inflammatory remarks. Unless this is some forum inside joke where Q pretends to be ignorant atheist just for a good satirical laugh.

So, after quite a bit of discussion between Mitch and I, you're demanding I stop and give you a full recap?

Amazingly similar to the discussions with archaeologist isn't it? Repeated declarations that he has proved his case and allusions to evidence provided when no evidence has been given.

I'd go more with the fact that MM has a more "thought provoked" take on christianity that Archy, for sure, as he (I'm assuming from your posts, MM) has questioned his faith, and questioned the words that people in a state of religous "authority" have tolds him. Cherry picking is the right word, but it's practically meaningless, as EVERYONE WITH A FULLY FUNCTIONAL BRAIN cherry picks. Otherwise, you are just like archy and, from what I gather from his posts, (Q).

Just because someone makes a choice on what they feel is real doesn't make them a person of no credibility, quite the contrary, I feel it makes someone out to be an intelligent human being capable of making decisions.

In fact, even archaeologist cherry picks, since he ignores certain parts of the bible.

The difference is, he refuses to accept that he does it, and so refuses to accept that he could be wrong on certain points.

This is almost exactly the deffinition of closed-minded: refusal to accept the extent and limitations of one's own beliefs, and refusal to allocate credibility to ideas of others that do not match your own beliefs.

So, really, the most religiously open-minded person would be an agnostic, and the least an extremist atheist or theist.

I confess to being religiously fairly closed-minded.

By contrast, I think many of the posts Mitchel has made show him to be relatively open-minded.

I would ask you again, why aren't you living in a cave? The realities of science do not fit with tour biblical truths.

this is so only if you blindly believe in science and ignore the fact that that field can and is used by evil to undermine God's work and words.

not all science is good science.

vineyard...i should have known as no real evangelical church speaks like MM.

here is just one website and theni willpost a search find fo ryour convenience to research that 'church'

http://www.apostasyalert.org/vineyardpastor.htm

this is also good;

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/vineyard_churches.html

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=...SVKH4rU3a9fHiA

Why do people dig so much trying to find something when all they are doing is burring topic after topic in useless discussion. Every religious discussion does not have to become a topic on archie, and if it does, we should at least share how it has to do with the original subject.

"God has taught me a lot over the years and it is NOT dogma but truth."

the dogma of truth-seeking and understanding is science, the belief in truth is religion. to bring this back to topic, the two are not incompatible, but they are both distrusted due to the corruption of universal understanding by subjective experience. The tree of Knowledge and the tree of life grow in the same garden.

for the faithful:

god grant me the grace to except the things I can't change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.

Lets not just think this and idealizing ourselves for repeating meaningless words, lets try to practice it in our daily interactions, including those interactions with people you will never meet face to face. Contrarily, our words should be more cautious through this indirect medium. It's a matter of statistics: we have less chance to correct our wrong doing.

Every religious discussion does not have to become a topic on archie, and if it does, we should at least share how it has to do with the original subject

marcus--this is a natural phenomenom that happens on every forum i post at. 1 had at least 50 threads with my name in the title and about me. i was gone for about a year and when i went back they were still talking about me.

in fact i have a couple stalkers from that fourm and a couple more from another one. they try to follow me around from forum to forum to cause trouble. so far this one has been free of their insanity.


why? because i believe the Bible and do not deviate from its words and people like MM just do not like that for it makes them look gulty of something. notice his unwarranted attacks on me--i said nothing that deserves such abuse yet it happens over and over again.

Even if you discount Josephus's account, there is still Tacitus's reference to Christ when he talks of the Great Fire of Rome during Augustus Nero's reign. Not only that, but there is an series of messages between Augustus Trajanus and one of his provincial governors, I believe the one in Illyria, about the Christian sect and what the treatment of it should be. Tacitus is very anti-Christian and saw Christianity as debauched and disgusting. Trajan advised a more peaceable approach to Christianity. In the end, there is historical evidence for Christ's existence.

btw, could you link to this article about Josephus's account being a forgery, the part about Jesust the brother of james. Not the testimonium Flavianum?

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition

I'd go more with the fact that MM has a more "thought provoked" take on christianity that Archy, for sure, as he (I'm assuming from your posts, MM) has questioned his faith, and questioned the words that people in a state of religous "authority" have tolds him.

If there is no questioning then it is not faith but wilfullness and self-delusion. But let us recall that I did not start out Christian and in fact have come to that position gradually over a long period of time.

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

In fact, even archaeologist cherry picks, since he ignores certain parts of the bible.

The difference is, he refuses to accept that he does it, and so refuses to accept that he could be wrong on certain points.

This is almost exactly the deffinition of closed-minded: refusal to accept the extent and limitations of one's own beliefs, and refusal to allocate credibility to ideas of others that do not match your own beliefs.

Yes that is correct. Many Catholics can point out how the Protestant fundamentalist has wilfully blinded himself to the role of tradition in how one understands the Bible, taking the nonsensical position that interpretation plays no role in their understanding of the Bible. This is an irrational twist on the Protestant dictum of Sola Scriptura, which was originally meant to say only that the Bible requires no human being to act as interpreter in order for God's word to be understood correctly. The result is that the Protestant fundamentalist has blinded himself to the fact that he simply believes that the Bible says what others have told him it says, and the result is that he has thus made God's word unable to communicate anything to him except interpretations and doctrines of men.

The alternative understanding of Sola Scriptura is that the Bible is the living word of God with which God can communicate directly to the reader via the participation of the Holy Spirit in the process of personal interpretation and God given conscience. Many shy away from this alternative because it disempowers christianity as a religion of men and removes its teeth as a tool of power and manipulation because it truly makes God the only authority in a persons life. The Catholic does so because he sees the Catholic church as the visible manifestation of the body of Christ and thus the vehicle through which God works. The Protestant Fundamentalist does so because he has replaced God and the Holy Spirit with the tradition that he has made himself blind to. One of the great ironies is that this tends to make the Protestant Fundamentalism unable to see that they have fallen into the error of the same kind of legalism as the Pharisees and the Judaizers, and this becomes really absurd when they hypocritically turn around and accuse the Catholics of legalism.

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

So, really, the most religiously open-minded person would be an agnostic, and the least an extremist atheist or theist.

Except that "agnostic" can mean many different things. The agnostic who simply decides that relgious questions are simply unknowable and therefore of no value of any kind are effectively atheist and no more open-minded than they are. The person who simply does not make up his mind about anything does not constitute a admirable sort open-mindedness. Instead we can see the best example of openmindedness in the practice of science, which certainly does make up its mind and adopts theories like evolution and relativity as tools of further inquiry but continues to call them theories because it never stops exploring and challenging the basic assumptions behind the original theory.

After all, consider what it is about open mindedness that we see worthwhile. It is not remaining the innocent/ignorant state of no knowledge, but remaining able to learn new things even after one has acquired knowledge, and thus necessarily decided that one does know certain things.

Well archaeologist, maybe you haven't noticed, but anyone who believes anything, even things you disagree with, seem to be targeted by those who disagree with them.

Taking a stand on anything, whether it is true or not, will attract opposition. Sometimes it seems people care more about proving themselves than learning and when it comes to truth, there is nothing to prove except to others. Saying something is true is not proof that it is, and talking about the truth is not the same as learning about it.

Opposition is not a measure of righteousness, if it was then I would waver either gypsies or criminals were the chosen ones. One could still say that plants and animals we domesticate, consume and otherwise use are the most prosecuted beings on earth.

I'm not using trying to degrade you or anything you stand for, but many people have and will make the claim that they are closest to the truth because they are the most prosecuted.

For some standing against opposition is easily confused as faith. Even though it is obvious that cultivating an observational-open-mindedness

I was raised Jehova's Witness, they were those type of people. They gave me a good understanding of how one can preach "uninterpreted" scripture, but still manage to interpret it in their own way.

The ability to rise above your own perspective and see things as they absolutely are is the work of science and the practice of religion.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Ah... but as you have repeatedly observed, I think and decide for myself what to believe - what you call cherry picking and Mitchianity because you cannot stand the idea that anyone can and would do such a thing.

You should curb your imaginative comments, Mitch. I never said I cannot stand that idea, those are your words. I've merely commented that you follow your own version of a cult. I gave it a well-deserving label; Mitchianity. You've been unable to demonstrate otherwise.

Originally Posted by KomradRed

Even if you discount Josephus's account, there is still Tacitus's reference to Christ when he talks of the Great Fire of Rome during Augustus Nero's reign. Not only that, but there is an series of messages between Augustus Trajanus and one of his provincial governors, I believe the one in Illyria, about the Christian sect and what the treatment of it should be. Tacitus is very anti-Christian and saw Christianity as debauched and disgusting. Trajan advised a more peaceable approach to Christianity. In the end, there is historical evidence for Christ's existence.

btw, could you link to this article about Josephus's account being a forgery, the part about Jesust the brother of james. Not the testimonium Flavianum?

You're free to research those claims rather than post typical Christian propaganda.

I can add this to the poll:

The Israeli's have dumped their YHWH as impotent and have adopted the 'gun and the cannon as their deity.

So IMO, the source of the jewish deity is dead. He is being flushed down the toilets in large numbers to be ineffective.

Cosmo

imo, MMcCains beliefs are a lot more tolerable than Archeologists, since he doesn't let his belief get in the way of the truth.
i'd rather have a million Mitchellmccains preaching about god than a million archeologists. he's still wrong, but not on such an epic tower of ignorance scale as Archie.

he's like a policeman coming to a crime scene where the evidence points overwhelmingly towards a murder, and yet he says nothing can be said with certainty, and therefore most likely it was a suicide.

I would consider myself agnostic since I do not know if God exists, i only believe God exists. To me, proof of God's existence would nullify any notion that human beings have free will since there would be no need to make a choice of whether you believe or not. If God's existence was an undeniable fact then we would merely be automatons. There would be no drive for self improvement, no desire to be a good person. In the end, if you proved God's existence you would in fact render life meaningless.

he's like a policeman coming to a crime scene where the evidence points overwhelmingly towards a murder, and yet he says nothing can be said with certainty, and therefore most likely it was a suicide.

you watch too many csi episodes. 'the evidence' can say just about anything you want it to say if you are unscrupolous. it can be used used to frame people, which has been done more than once, or it can set innocent people free, which has also been done more than once.

you omit too many mitigating factors in that statement which leads you away fom the reality.

To me, proof of God's existence would nullify any notion that human beings have free will since there would be no need to make a choice of whether you believe or not. If God's existence was an undeniable fact then we would merely be automatons. There would be no drive for self improvement, no desire to be a good person. In the end, if you proved God's existence you would in fact render life meaningless.

believing God exists does NOt make you a christian and you still have freedom of choice to accept His way of salvation or reject it. that last statement would be in error as all non-christians who convert say they have finally found purpose in life.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

To me, proof of God's existence would nullify any notion that human beings have free will since there would be no need to make a choice of whether you believe or not. If God's existence was an undeniable fact then we would merely be automatons. There would be no drive for self improvement, no desire to be a good person. In the end, if you proved God's existence you would in fact render life meaningless.

believing God exists does NOt make you a christian and you still have freedom of choice to accept His way of salvation or reject it. that last statement would be in error as all non-christians who convert say they have finally found purpose in life.

Since KomradRed and I think alike in this to some degree I think I can speak for him to that degree on this. By "if you proved God's existence" he does not refer to the subjective kind of proof by which someone comes to the conclusion that God exists. It is by such a proof and conclusion as this that one finds his purpose in life. Instead he is refering to the kind of objective proof that no rational mind would easily refute. I come to the same conclusion as KomradRed on this from the simple fact that God does not provide such proof to make His existence more obvious and this agrees completely with the words of Scripture that tell of the unavoidable need for faith.

I think alike in this to some degree I think I can speak for him to that degree on this

please don't.

I come to the same conclusion as KomradRed on this from the simple fact that God does not provide such proof to make His existence more obvious and this agrees completely with the words of Scripture that tell of the unavoidable need for faith

actually he does you just do not accept it.

i do not think you grasp what 'faith' is or 'existence'.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

I think alike in this to some degree I think I can speak for him to that degree on this

please don't.

Please do the world a favor and drop dead.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

I come to the same conclusion as KomradRed on this from the simple fact that God does not provide such proof to make His existence more obvious and this agrees completely with the words of Scripture that tell of the unavoidable need for faith

actually he does you just do not accept it.

I don't accept what?

Ahhhhh YOU... I don't accept you... yeah you are right!
most people here would see you as proof that God does not exist.
But no, I don't accept this proof.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

i do not think you grasp what 'faith' is or 'existence'.

Oh but I do grasp your, faith = secret knowledge and willfullness, equation. I reject it, but I can see it clear as day in your words.

As for existence, nothing could be easier than distinguishing that from your delusions.

But faith is not this game of pretend that you play. You think that by pretending certainty you can escape the requirement of faith. But without faith you have nothing real at all.

Originally Posted by dejawolf

imo, MMcCains beliefs are a lot more tolerable than Archeologists, since he doesn't let his belief get in the way of the truth.
i'd rather have a million Mitchellmccains preaching about god than a million archeologists. he's still wrong, but not on such an epic tower of ignorance scale as Archie.

I'm guessing you prefer Mitchianity over Christianity?

Originally Posted by KomradRed

If God's existence was an undeniable fact then we would merely be automatons. There would be no drive for self improvement, no desire to be a good person. In the end, if you proved God's existence you would in fact render life meaningless.

Utter nonsense. Theists ARE automatons. They must follow a certain set of programming just like robots. In that, there already exists no desire or drive for self-improvement. That is made only too apparent with religion vs. science.

It's only when one frees themselves from the slavery of cult doctrine does one start down the path of self improvement.

Evidence sir, articles, books, and the like?

Originally Posted by KomradRed

Evidence sir, articles, books, and the like?

Absolutely, I await patiently for you to provide such for your initial claim.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by dejawolf

imo, MMcCains beliefs are a lot more tolerable than Archeologists, since he doesn't let his belief get in the way of the truth.
i'd rather have a million Mitchellmccains preaching about god than a million archeologists. he's still wrong, but not on such an epic tower of ignorance scale as Archie.

I'm guessing you prefer Mitchianity over Christianity?

I think we prefer what I call Christianity over what you and archaeologist call Christianity, yes. Q'ianity or archianity with its insane anti-science propaganda and it irrational pretense that it does not interpret the Bible is a modern aberration which is a stain on your past and archies present. Because whether dejawolf believes in it or not, he can at least recognize what is more compatable with the principles of free society, tolerance and religious freedom. Thus we can both reject and denounce the commonality between you and archie in your fascist with-me-or-against-me ideological approach to the world.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Because whether dejawolf believes in it or not, he can at least recognize what is more compatable with the principles of free society, tolerance and religious freedom.

Let's hope he can also recognize the hypocrisy of Mitchianity; ie. the cherry picking of Christianity to suit ones so-called "principles of free society, tolerance and religious freedom."

I suspect you have your own version of "religious freedom" that entails the "freedom" to cherry pick your beliefs?

Does a "free society" allow you to undermine your god?

Ummmm, Q, what exactly are you trying to prove? You don't appear to be making a point, only mocking the beliefs of another...

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

Ummmm, Q, what exactly are you trying to prove? You don't appear to be making a point, only mocking the beliefs of another...

You don't see the point of cherry picking beliefs as opposed to following a religion? What does that have to do with mocking?

Are you saying that all christians believe every word of the bible? They do not. Religion is a matter of opinion, it need not be, and should not be, based on popularity.

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

Are you saying that all christians believe every word of the bible? They do not.

Then, they aren't Christians, are they? They are non-believers, by definition.

Religion is a matter of opinion, it need not be, and should not be, based on popularity.

Popularity has nothing to do with it.

Here, I'll give a hint...

... obeying the word of your god.

Does that make any sense to you?

Would anyone like to remind me what the topic was? Or are we all just going to shout at each other?

Originally Posted by KomradRed

I would consider myself agnostic since I do not know if God exists, i only believe God exists. To me, proof of God's existence would nullify any notion that human beings have free will since there would be no need to make a choice of whether you believe or not. If God's existence was an undeniable fact then we would merely be automatons.

No sure I follow the logic there.
To me that amounts to saying that god would prefer we put our stock into faith rather than reason. Any god which did that, even if I was convinced did exist, is not a god I would worship--in fact quite the opposite--I'd put it into the same catagory of monstous genicidal abomination as dispicted in the OT.

There would be no drive for self improvement, no desire to be a good person. In the end, if you proved God's existence you would in fact render life meaningless.

Why? What difference would it make? Almost everything which people considering good, such as altruism, caring for others and many other examples, would still be good--having a rubber stamp of approval from a being that might not even exist should have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Q actually seems to be worse than Archles. At least Archles attempts to discuss while all Q does is 1.) Accuse someone of hypocrisy/stupidity and 2.) resorts to intellectual haughtiness when somebody doesn't agree with him or questions what he is saying.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

Are you saying that all christians believe every word of the bible? They do not.

Then, they aren't Christians, are they? They are non-believers, by definition.

By who's deffinition? They believe in the christian god, and Jesus' miracles, so they are christian.

Or do they have to be extremists to be christians?

Don't bother answering; I don't ccare.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Religion is a matter of opinion, it need not be, and should not be, based on popularity.

Popularity has nothing to do with it.

Here, I'll give a hint...

... obeying the word of your god.

Does that make any sense to you?

Nope, not at all, that's why I'm atheist.

The first part is deciding on the word of your god, hence the difference in opinion from different members of the same religion.

By who's deffinition? They believe in the christian god, and Jesus' miracles, so they are christian.

By Christ's and God. being a christian is not just believing in 'the christian' God or Jesus' miracles, it is repenting of your sins, accepting Jesus as your Saviour then following His ways.

One does not get tolive any way they want, they have to now follow Christ's commands, God's lessons and accept the fact that God created everything through His spoken word and not evolution.

Jesus linked belief in His words to belief in Moses' in John 5:42 which makes believing Gen. crucial to believing John 3:16 and the rest of the new testament.

... obeying the word of your god.

Does that make any sense to you?

Q is correct here as God said 'why do you call me Lord Lord et do not do the things i say?'

And Jesus said 'to obey is better than sacrifice'

Originally Posted by archaeologist

By who's deffinition? They believe in the christian god, and Jesus' miracles, so they are christian.

By Christ's and God. being a christian is not just believing in 'the christian' God or Jesus' miracles, it is repenting of your sins, accepting Jesus as your Saviour then following His ways.

One does not get tolive any way they want, they have to now follow Christ's commands, God's lessons and accept the fact that God created everything through His spoken word and not evolution.

This is why you are a christian, but it is not what a christian is.

A christian is one who believe is jesus/the christian god. Even if they break every law in the bible, they are still a christian, just not a very good one. Agreed?

Just like those back in time who did unspeakable things were christian, even though they didn't believe in what you do.

Am I making sense, or should I give up?

This is why you are a christian, but it is not what a christian is.

no,

christian = Christ like.

why one is a christian comes from the realization one is in need of a savior and chooses to change.

Even if they break every law in the bible, they are still a christian, just not a very good one. Agreed?

they do not lose their faith when they sin but they still have to repent of that disobedience.

Just like those back in time who did unspeakable things were christian, even though they didn't believe in what you do

no. read 1 john for a better definition of a christian.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

Q is correct here

No surprise there. You and Q are a lot alike.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

God said 'why do you call me Lord Lord et do not do the things i say?'

Lets look at the context:

Luke 6:45-46 "The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?"

I will never call you Lord, let alone do the things you say. Nor will I serve your god of power.

My God is is Love. "You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve."

Originally Posted by archaeologist

And Jesus said 'to obey is better than sacrifice'

You read the Bible? What Bible is that? You see I have read it enough to know when something sound pretty off the wall and that is my reaction to this one.

Isaiha chapter 1 and Samuel 15:22 says "obedience is better than sacrifice"

But JESUS, in Matthew 12:7 says "Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'" This goes hand and hand with his declaration about love being what all the law and the prophets are all about. Indeed obedience is better than sacrifice, but love is better than obedience. This is the difference between Jesus and the Pharisees (and other legalists like the Judaizers and archaeologist).

Lets look at the context:

typical of you to spin the context to fit your way of thinking. according ot the NIV verse 46 begins the contextual passage:

The Wise and Foolish Builders
46"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? 47I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. 48He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete."

quite a different point than what you are trying to make.

i do not know which version of the Bible you are using but the NIV has it this way:

1 Samuel 15:22
But Samuel replied: "Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD ? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams

are you changing scripture in an attempt to make me look foolish or to allow yoou to make false accusations?

here is the context for your mat. ref:

5Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6I tell you that one[a] greater than the temple is here. 7If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,'[b] you would not have condemned the innocent. 8For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

it is not talking about love being above the law, but read the entire context from verse 1. it is talking about how to treat others properly. your weak insult undermines your claims.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

typical of you to spin the context to fit your way of thinking. according ot the NIV verse 46 begins the contextual passage:

And any Biblical scholar knows that the scripture and chapter numbers as well as paragraph breaks were added much later. This change was accepted to be something that we should only use for convienience and not to color the meaning of the contents. So yes it is my habit to completely ignore these in order to help filter out the bias of those who have added these to the Bible.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

quite a different point than what you are trying to make.

No it does not. We can include as much of the context as you want. The point is as you have demonstrated in your previous post is that you want to ignore the previous sentence and so you have removed it. Here lets put it back in again:

Originally Posted by Luke chapter 6

45The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. 46"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? 47I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. 48He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete."

The only editing going on is YOU changing the word "mercy" to "obedience" in your original post when you confuse Matthew 12:7 with the verses in Isaiha and Samuel incorrectly attributing the latter to Jesus, and then cutting out the sentence in Luke chapter 6 that you don't want people to read.

In Luke chapter 6 verse 46 does not say what you want it to say even when you cut out verse 45 and add verses 47-49. Verses 47-49 only adds the simple sensible advice that, since God is clearly the one who knows what is best, following the direction of God is obviously the wisest course in life. But twisting this to support your legalist agenda in direct contradiction to Jesus' whole ministry not to mention Paul's ministry is what is really appalling. Yes we need to do what Jesus is telling us and put it into practice. Repeat that one thousand times and it still CANNOT change the condemnation that Jesus and Paul have for a legalistic approach to a relationship with God. And THEN there is verse 46, which you cannot erase either, however much you may want to.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

1 Samuel 15:22
But Samuel replied: "Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD ? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams

are you changing scripture in an attempt to make me look foolish or to allow yoou to make false accusations?

Excuse me? You are going to call the fact that I told you where you could actual find what you eroneously attributed to Jesus, "changing scripture" unless you mean changing your inaccurate reference to the correct scripture. I think a "thank you" would be more appropriate and maybe a promise to do some more reading of the Bible.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

it is not talking about love being above the law, but read the entire context from verse 1. it is talking about how to treat others properly. your weak insult undermines your claims.

This is YOU twisting things again. The wider context is Jesus' continuing battle with the legalistic attitudes of the Pharisees. LOL So this does indeed give the example of Jesus concerning the proper response to those who misuse the scripture for a legalistic agenda and it is not one of respect at all. You are funny.

Originally Posted by Matthew chapter 12:1-15

At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, 'I will have mercy, and not sacrifice', ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue: And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days. Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other. Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.

There is no doubt that in Matt 12:7 (bolded above) Jesus is refering to the passage in Isaiha, but when Jesus quotes it, the word "obedience" is changed into the word "mercy". My post was commenting on this change by refering to Matthew 22:36-40, because this helps to explain WHY. In fact if you go back to Isaiha chapter 1, you will find that even there the "obedience" that God is talking about is summed up in "seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, pead for the widow." And thus we can see that Jesus understanding of this passage is actual 100% correct for the obedience that God wants IS NOT an obedience to a bunch of laws but about compassion and mercy for other people. Love is the fulfillment of the law.