100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: For JW Who Believe "Jesus Christ is not God" | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
By the way, aliens want to take over the earth and kill most of the humans, making the rest their slaves.
Now THAT I believe
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 10/01/11 10:43 AM
|
|
Cowboy said:
That is absolutely not what I said. I never said there was no evidence. I said no one's trying to prove anything, we're just having a discussion. The bible is full of evidence, people just wish to dismiss the evidence as it wasn't there.
I did not say you said there was no evidence. I said that according to your philosophy, evidence is meaningless. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 10/01/11 10:59 AM
|
|
That is absolutely not what I said. I never said there was no evidence. I said no one's trying to prove anything, we're just having a discussion. The bible is full of evidence, people just wish to dismiss the evidence as it wasn't there. In Exodus 1:11, we are told that the children of Israel built the treasure cities of Pithom and Raamses for Pharaoh. In Exodus 5, we are informed that they made bricks first using straw, and then using stubble, because no straw was furnished them for that purpose. In 1883, Naville, and in 1908, Kyle, found at Pithom, one of the cities built by Israel, that the lower courses were built of bricks filled with good, chopped straw. The middle courses have less straw including stubble. The upper courses were made of pure clay, with no straw whatever. It is difficult to read the biblical account and not be astonished at the amazing confirmation which archaeology here has given to the Bible. Finding those structures is NOT proof that the "children of Israel" built it. ----------- In Isaiah 20:1, we read, "In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him)..." This is the only mention of King Sargon in the Bible, and the only one in ancient literature. His place in history was severely questioned on this account. But in the years, 1842-1845, P.E. Botta, uncovered the tremendous royal palace of Sargon. Among the other things discovered was an account of the siege of Ashdod mentioned in Isaiah. Once more the Bible was right, the critics wrong ----------- I'm not familiar with that story. But I do know that the Church has spent tons of time and money in an attempt to prove things of the Bible. How do they know the ruins they found was the palace of Sargon? What is the proof? In Genesis 7 and 8 tell us of the destruction of the world by a great flood. To many, the story of the flood is actually a recording of ancient myths. However, we have much evidence outside the Bible to show that the flood was a reality and that the Bible is true. There is scientific proof that the flood did not cover the entire earth at once. There may have been a flood, but there are many floods. That does not prove that the story about Noah is true. That is the most unbelievable ridiculous story in the Bible. If you believe that he collected two of each and every creature on the entire earth you are mistaken. If there is any truth to that story, it has been greatly exaggerated. Notice the flood traditions of ancient peoples. One scholar lists 88 different traditional accounts. Almost all of these agree that there was a universal destruction of the human race and all living creatures by a flood. Almost all agree that an ark or a boat was the means of escape. Almost all are in accord in saying that a seed of mankind was left to perpetuate the race. Many add that wickedness of man brought about the flood. Some even mention Noe. Several speak of the dove and the raven, and some discuss a sacrifice offered by those who were saved. To anyone familiar with the biblical account, the similarity is astounding. The universality of this tradition is such as to establish that the biblical flood was not a figment of someone's imagination. Myths. Myths may have some truth but they are mostly symbolic. The way Christians interpret the story of the flood is simply not true. ------------- Joshua 6, tells how Israel conquered the walled city of Jericho. For six day they marched once around the city. On the seventh day they went around it seven times. The priests blew their trumpets, the people shouted, and when they did, "The wall fell down flat" (Joshua 6:20). The people then rushed strait way into the city and burned it. They took none of it to themselves. They saved Rahab who lived in a house upon the wall and who had helped them previously. Jewish Historian Shlomo Sand and other Jewish historians know that this story never happened. Read his book: "The invention of the Jewish People." Starting in 1929, Dr. John Garstang, excavated the ruins of ancient Jericho. His discoveries corresponded remarkably with the Biblical account. Jericho, he found, had a double wall, with houses built across the two walls. This explains how Rahab's house could have been built upon a wall. He learned that the wall was destroyed by some kind of violent convulsion such as that described in the Bible, and that when the wall feel that it fell outward, down the hillside, or as the Bible says, it fell down flat. Had the wall been destroyed by the battering rams of an enemy army, the walls would have fallen inward instead of outward. Furthermore, the city had been burned. Once again, the spade of archaeology has established the accuracy of the Bible. They did not prove that this was Jericho. Even if they could, they could not prove that the story is true. These are stories. They are fiction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy said: That is absolutely not what I said. I never said there was no evidence. I said no one's trying to prove anything, we're just having a discussion. The bible is full of evidence, people just wish to dismiss the evidence as it wasn't there.
I did not say you said there was no evidence. I said that according to your philosophy, evidence is meaningless. Sure evidence is important. The evidence is all around us. Where do you get evidence is meaningless? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is absolutely not what I said. I never said there was no evidence. I said no one's trying to prove anything, we're just having a discussion. The bible is full of evidence, people just wish to dismiss the evidence as it wasn't there. In Exodus 1:11, we are told that the children of Israel built the treasure cities of Pithom and Raamses for Pharaoh. In Exodus 5, we are informed that they made bricks first using straw, and then using stubble, because no straw was furnished them for that purpose. In 1883, Naville, and in 1908, Kyle, found at Pithom, one of the cities built by Israel, that the lower courses were built of bricks filled with good, chopped straw. The middle courses have less straw including stubble. The upper courses were made of pure clay, with no straw whatever. It is difficult to read the biblical account and not be astonished at the amazing confirmation which archaeology here has given to the Bible. Finding those structures is NOT proof that the "children of Israel" built it. ----------- In Isaiah 20:1, we read, "In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him)..." This is the only mention of King Sargon in the Bible, and the only one in ancient literature. His place in history was severely questioned on this account. But in the years, 1842-1845, P.E. Botta, uncovered the tremendous royal palace of Sargon. Among the other things discovered was an account of the siege of Ashdod mentioned in Isaiah. Once more the Bible was right, the critics wrong ----------- I'm not familiar with that story. But I do know that the Church has spent tons of time and money in an attempt to prove things of the Bible. How do they know the ruins they found was the palace of Sargon? What is the proof? In Genesis 7 and 8 tell us of the destruction of the world by a great flood. To many, the story of the flood is actually a recording of ancient myths. However, we have much evidence outside the Bible to show that the flood was a reality and that the Bible is true. There is scientific proof that the flood did not cover the entire earth at once. There may have been a flood, but there are many floods. That does not prove that the story about Noah is true. That is the most unbelievable ridiculous story in the Bible. If you believe that he collected two of each and every creature on the entire earth you are mistaken. If there is any truth to that story, it has been greatly exaggerated. Notice the flood traditions of ancient peoples. One scholar lists 88 different traditional accounts. Almost all of these agree that there was a universal destruction of the human race and all living creatures by a flood. Almost all agree that an ark or a boat was the means of escape. Almost all are in accord in saying that a seed of mankind was left to perpetuate the race. Many add that wickedness of man brought about the flood. Some even mention Noe. Several speak of the dove and the raven, and some discuss a sacrifice offered by those who were saved. To anyone familiar with the biblical account, the similarity is astounding. The universality of this tradition is such as to establish that the biblical flood was not a figment of someone's imagination. Myths. Myths may have some truth but they are mostly symbolic. The way Christians interpret the story of the flood is simply not true. ------------- Joshua 6, tells how Israel conquered the walled city of Jericho. For six day they marched once around the city. On the seventh day they went around it seven times. The priests blew their trumpets, the people shouted, and when they did, "The wall fell down flat" (Joshua 6:20). The people then rushed strait way into the city and burned it. They took none of it to themselves. They saved Rahab who lived in a house upon the wall and who had helped them previously. Jewish Historian Shlomo Sand and other Jewish historians know that this story never happened. Read his book: "The invention of the Jewish People." Starting in 1929, Dr. John Garstang, excavated the ruins of ancient Jericho. His discoveries corresponded remarkably with the Biblical account. Jericho, he found, had a double wall, with houses built across the two walls. This explains how Rahab's house could have been built upon a wall. He learned that the wall was destroyed by some kind of violent convulsion such as that described in the Bible, and that when the wall feel that it fell outward, down the hillside, or as the Bible says, it fell down flat. Had the wall been destroyed by the battering rams of an enemy army, the walls would have fallen inward instead of outward. Furthermore, the city had been burned. Once again, the spade of archaeology has established the accuracy of the Bible. They did not prove that this was Jericho. Even if they could, they could not prove that the story is true. These are stories. They are fiction. Evidence is only as relevant as one allows it to be to them. Evidence can prove absolutely nothing, even outside of religious beliefs. Say for instance in a court room, the evidence doesn't "prove" anything, less the judge allows it to persuade them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy said: That is absolutely not what I said. I never said there was no evidence. I said no one's trying to prove anything, we're just having a discussion. The bible is full of evidence, people just wish to dismiss the evidence as it wasn't there.
I did not say you said there was no evidence. I said that according to your philosophy, evidence is meaningless. Sure evidence is important. The evidence is all around us. Where do you get evidence is meaningless? I said ACCORDING TO YOUR BELIEFS evidence is meaningless. I don't think evidence is meaningless. I demand real evidence. You reject evidence that you don't want to believe. I don't. Your flimsy evidence mentioned above does not prove the Bible is "true." It is not enough proof. It is sorely lacking. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy said: That is absolutely not what I said. I never said there was no evidence. I said no one's trying to prove anything, we're just having a discussion. The bible is full of evidence, people just wish to dismiss the evidence as it wasn't there.
I did not say you said there was no evidence. I said that according to your philosophy, evidence is meaningless. Sure evidence is important. The evidence is all around us. Where do you get evidence is meaningless? I said ACCORDING TO YOUR BELIEFS evidence is meaningless. I don't think evidence is meaningless. I demand real evidence. You reject evidence that you don't want to believe. I don't. Your flimsy evidence mentioned above does not prove the Bible is "true." It is not enough proof. It is sorely lacking. Again, how is evidence meaningless? You think people put blind faith into their beliefs? And never said it proved the bible true, nothing can prove anything true to another unless they are willing to allow it to. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evidence is only as relevant as one allows it to be to them. Evidence can prove absolutely nothing, even outside of religious beliefs. Say for instance in a court room, the evidence doesn't "prove" anything, less the judge allows it to persuade them.
The evidence must be weighed and considered. When the evidence is overwhelming and it convinces a jury and or judge of something, they say that it has "proved" something. That's how evidence works. Your evidence is not enough to convince me and if anyone believes that the Bible is true because of your evidence, then it is because they chose to believe on faith. If you have enough evidence to convince a skeptic, then you have proof. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evidence is only as relevant as one allows it to be to them. Evidence can prove absolutely nothing, even outside of religious beliefs. Say for instance in a court room, the evidence doesn't "prove" anything, less the judge allows it to persuade them.
The evidence must be weighed and considered. When the evidence is overwhelming and it convinces a jury and or judge of something, they say that it has "proved" something. That's how evidence works. Your evidence is not enough to convince me and if anyone believes that the Bible is true because of your evidence, then it is because they chose to believe on faith. If you have enough evidence to convince a skeptic, then you have proof. You act like I'm out to prove anything. Again, no matter how much evidence one can present, it's up to the person in question to put faith in it or not. Evidence can not change a person's mind, only that person has that power. And again, not trying to convince anyone of anything. We're here having a DISCUSSION. Sharing our own personal beliefs with one another. No debating or anything. Just sharing and discussing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 10/01/11 11:13 AM
|
|
Cowboy said: That is absolutely not what I said. I never said there was no evidence. I said no one's trying to prove anything, we're just having a discussion. The bible is full of evidence, people just wish to dismiss the evidence as it wasn't there.
I did not say you said there was no evidence. I said that according to your philosophy, evidence is meaningless. Sure evidence is important. The evidence is all around us. Where do you get evidence is meaningless? I said ACCORDING TO YOUR BELIEFS evidence is meaningless. I don't think evidence is meaningless. I demand real evidence. You reject evidence that you don't want to believe. I don't. Your flimsy evidence mentioned above does not prove the Bible is "true." It is not enough proof. It is sorely lacking. Again, how is evidence meaningless? You think people put blind faith into their beliefs? And never said it proved the bible true, nothing can prove anything true to another unless they are willing to allow it to. To you, evidence is meaningless. To me, it is required. I can show you lots of evidence that the Bible is not true, but you will not consider it because you will not turn loose of your belief. For you, my evidence is meaningless. Your mind is closed and locked like a vault. And you DID say or post this: "To many, the story of the flood is actually a recording of ancient myths. However, we have much evidence outside the Bible to show that the flood was a reality and that the Bible is true. and now you are denying that you said that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy said: That is absolutely not what I said. I never said there was no evidence. I said no one's trying to prove anything, we're just having a discussion. The bible is full of evidence, people just wish to dismiss the evidence as it wasn't there.
I did not say you said there was no evidence. I said that according to your philosophy, evidence is meaningless. Sure evidence is important. The evidence is all around us. Where do you get evidence is meaningless? I said ACCORDING TO YOUR BELIEFS evidence is meaningless. I don't think evidence is meaningless. I demand real evidence. You reject evidence that you don't want to believe. I don't. Your flimsy evidence mentioned above does not prove the Bible is "true." It is not enough proof. It is sorely lacking. Again, how is evidence meaningless? You think people put blind faith into their beliefs? And never said it proved the bible true, nothing can prove anything true to another unless they are willing to allow it to. To you, evidence is meaningless. To me, it is required. I can show you lots of evidence that the Bible is not true, but you will not consider it because you will not turn loose of your belief. For you, my evidence is meaningless. Your mind is closed and locked like a vault. And you DID say or post this: "To many, the story of the flood is actually a recording of ancient myths. However, we have much evidence outside the Bible to show that the flood was a reality and that the Bible is true. and now you are denying that you said that. And so is yours, what's your point? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So is my what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
That is absolutely not what I said. I never said there was no evidence. I said no one's trying to prove anything, we're just having a discussion. The bible is full of evidence, people just wish to dismiss the evidence as it wasn't there. If the Bible is "God's Word" to humanity and a human isn't impressed by what's written in the bible then who's fault is that? Clearly the God would have failed to impress his very own creation. That would be a failure on God's part. So if you're complaining about people not being impressed by the Bible then you're actually complaining about God's failure to communicate with the objects of his own creation. ~~~~ Moreover, what "evidence" are you talking about? There is no evidence that Jesus was born of a virgin. That's hearsay nonsense. There is no evidence that Jesus was any promised messiah. He was never handed the throne of King David, and therefore it's meaningless to try to claim that he fulfilled that prophesy. There is no evidence that Jesus "rose from the dead", or that a multitude of saints were jostled from their graves and rose from the dead at the same time. There is no evidence that Jesus went around the countryside healing all manner of sicknesses. There is no evidence that any of the outrageous things that are being claimed in these biblical stories ever happened. You keep claiming that there is 'evidence' but I don't see it. As far as I'm concerned it makes far more sense to believe that the fables about Jesus are nothing more than superstitious rumors, or even outright lies created by a very few authors for the purpose of trying to use rumors about some guy (possibly named Jesus or something along those lines) as fodder for their religious agenda. ~~~~~ I have countless solid sound reasons for rejecting the biblical stories. And no good reason for believing them. There's no evidence that any God spoke from the clouds saying "This is my beloved son, hear him". Moreover, why should I believe that the creator of the entire planet Earth would do this with just a single culture? If a creator of humanity had a message for humanity surely he could find a way to deliver that message to ALL of humanity, not just some sniffling male-chauvinistic society who claims to be "God's chosen people". That's a dead give-away right there that these fables are the creation of an arrogant society of humans. ~~~~~~ Why should I believe that some supposedly all-wise, all-perfect, all-intelligent creator would lower himself to becoming associated with the brutal crucifixion of someone for the purpose of trying to communicate ideas of LOVE and MORALITY. To be perfectly honest with you Cowboy that very idea right there is truly utterly absurd to me. Why would an all-powerful, all-wise, all-perfect, all-intelligent being be associated with such ignorant stupidity? That makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever, and is an extremely profoundly powerful reason to reject these ancient myths as being utterly absurd. ~~~~~~ If you're going to go through your entire life judging other people to be "rejecting" God without sufficient reasons simply because they refuse to buy into Christianity, then you will forever have problems "discussing" religion with anyone. Because all you keep doing is basically "accusing" everyone else of simply "choosing" to not believe something that you claim has more than enough 'evidence' to be believed. ~~~~~~~ That seems to be the bottom line right there Cowboy. All you're basically doing is trying to convince (or arguing) that everyone has more than sufficient "evidence" to justify believing in the biblical picture of God. And thus you are basically "judging" them to be rejecting God simply because they "refuse" to accept this evidence. But everyone does not agree with you on that point. Other people simple don't agree that there is sufficient 'evidence' to support the outrageous claims made in the biblical texts. You continually claim that "evidence" exists, and other people are telling that this they disagree. What you call 'evidence' is simply not acceptable to them. In fact, what "evidence" are you even talking about? 
You continually claim that Jesus "fulfilled" all the prophecies. I strongly disagree with you on that point for the very same reason that the Jews disagree. Jesus was never handed the throne of King David or officially pronounced the King of the Jews by God or anyone else. Therefore he failed to satisfy the most important requirement of the prophecy for the messiah. Without that, there is no case, for Jesus having been any messiah. And what other "evidence" is there? There's no evidence that Jesus was born of a virgin, or rose from the dead, or healed all manner of sickness, or anything else. It's all just in the biblical stories. In fact, there isn't even any other independent historical accounts of any of these outrageous things. In short there is no 'evidence' at all, really. Sure some guy named "Jesus: may have existed, became popular butting heads with the Pharisees on spiritual matters, renounced the ugly immortal teachings of the Torah, and was unjustly crucified for his views. But even if that happened, that doesn't support the rumors about this guy that ended up becoming what we call today the "New Testament". It simply doesn't follow. So where is there any 'evidence' that the God of the Old Testament was "real" or that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of that God? There is no 'evidence'. If you want to believe in these things you must do so on pure faith. It's that simple. ~~~~ And I've already made it clear that I truly have no desire to believe "on pure faith" that our creator is as rude and crude as the biblical stories require. So I personally see no reason to believe these stories on 'pure faith'. To be perfectly honest and sincere I would much rather they be false. 
And that's the truth. So I'm not about to believe in them on "pure faith", it would be silly to place my "faith" in something that I would actually prefer is not even true. If I'm going to have 'faith' in something I may as well believe in something that's worthy of believing in. So Eastern Mysticism wins my attention for that purpose. It's a far prettier picture of "god" if you ask me. 
I'm just not impressed by a male-chauvinistic God who punishes women with painful childbirth because of Eve's mistakes, and who thinks that having his son nailed to a pole is going to impress someone. That might have impressed you, but it certainly doesn't impress me. That's all I know to tell you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
You act like I'm out to prove anything. Again, no matter how much evidence one can present, it's up to the person in question to put faith in it or not. Evidence can not change a person's mind, only that person has that power. And again, not trying to convince anyone of anything. We're here having a DISCUSSION. Sharing our own personal beliefs with one another. No debating or anything. Just sharing and discussing. I don't believe you Cowboy. You had previously held the position that you are a "servant of God" out to spread his word. You have claimed to have "personal discussions" with God on a regular basis, etc. And you also continually "argue" with people about what God supposedly expects from them. You even argue with other Christains about this. You constantly speak as though you hold the LAST WORD for what Jesus and God expect from people, and on how things from the Bible should be interpreted. You also continually accuse people of the FOLLOWING: Cowboy wrote:
That is absolutely not what I said. I never said there was no evidence. I said no one's trying to prove anything, we're just having a discussion. The bible is full of evidence, people just wish to dismiss the evidence as it wasn't there. So you are indeed out to PROVE to people that they are simply dismissing evidence, that you claim exists. ~~~~~~~ Jeanniebean wrote:
To you, evidence is meaningless. To me, it is required. I can show you lots of evidence that the Bible is not true, but you will not consider it because you will not turn loose of your belief. For you, my evidence is meaningless. Your mind is closed and locked like a vault. And you DID say or post this: "To many, the story of the flood is actually a recording of ancient myths. However, we have much evidence outside the Bible to show that the flood was a reality and that the Bible is true. and now you are denying that you said that. Exactly. And a lot of people disagree with this conclusion, including myself. There is no scientific evidence to back up any such thing as a world-wide flood during the time when humans existed on this planet. Moreover, the human genome project shows the evolution of mankind out of Africa. They have collected enough DNA samples from bones of dead humans to see how humans have migrated out of Africa and have evolved to become technological beings. There is no possible way that a world-wide flood could have existed during the time that humans were capable of building cities and writing stories. Such a catastrophic event would have shown up in the DNA evidence of humanity in a profound way, yet there is no break in the DNA evidence. Therefore no such catastrophic world-wide flood could have possibly occurred during this period of time. The DNA evidence would have been profound and striking. So that story is necessarily a fable. Some Christians would like to argue that maybe it was just a local flood. But then there would have been no need for an ark to save the animal kingdom. So it's not even a salvageable story at all. If anything, there exists evidence that proves that the Bible is false, not the other way around. ~~~~~~ Death, disease, and thorny plants also existed long before mankind appeared on the planet. Thus the idea that mankind's "Fall from Grace" is what brought death and imperfection into the world is also clearly false. The bible is as false as Greek Mythology. Period Amen. There was no God who cursed women with painful childbirth to pay for Eve's sins. Giving birth is simply a naturally difficult process. It's even painful for many animals. Not just humans. We see this in our pets and in farm animals too. So this is just baloney. No God cursed women with painful childbirth as a punishment for Eve's sins. The Biblical God is as false as Zeus. That's where the "evidence" points. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
You act like I'm out to prove anything. Again, no matter how much evidence one can present, it's up to the person in question to put faith in it or not. Evidence can not change a person's mind, only that person has that power. And again, not trying to convince anyone of anything. We're here having a DISCUSSION. Sharing our own personal beliefs with one another. No debating or anything. Just sharing and discussing. I don't believe you Cowboy. You had previously held the position that you are a "servant of God" out to spread his word. You have claimed to have "personal discussions" with God on a regular basis, etc. And you also continually "argue" with people about what God supposedly expects from them. You even argue with other Christains about this. You constantly speak as though you hold the LAST WORD for what Jesus and God expect from people, and on how things from the Bible should be interpreted. You also continually accuse people of the FOLLOWING: Cowboy wrote:
That is absolutely not what I said. I never said there was no evidence. I said no one's trying to prove anything, we're just having a discussion. The bible is full of evidence, people just wish to dismiss the evidence as it wasn't there. So you are indeed out to PROVE to people that they are simply dismissing evidence, that you claim exists. ~~~~~~~ Jeanniebean wrote:
To you, evidence is meaningless. To me, it is required. I can show you lots of evidence that the Bible is not true, but you will not consider it because you will not turn loose of your belief. For you, my evidence is meaningless. Your mind is closed and locked like a vault. And you DID say or post this: "To many, the story of the flood is actually a recording of ancient myths. However, we have much evidence outside the Bible to show that the flood was a reality and that the Bible is true. and now you are denying that you said that. Exactly. And a lot of people disagree with this conclusion, including myself. There is no scientific evidence to back up any such thing as a world-wide flood during the time when humans existed on this planet. Moreover, the human genome project shows the evolution of mankind out of Africa. They have collected enough DNA samples from bones of dead humans to see how humans have migrated out of Africa and have evolved to become technological beings. There is no possible way that a world-wide flood could have existed during the time that humans were capable of building cities and writing stories. Such a catastrophic event would have shown up in the DNA evidence of humanity in a profound way, yet there is no break in the DNA evidence. Therefore no such catastrophic world-wide flood could have possibly occurred during this period of time. The DNA evidence would have been profound and striking. So that story is necessarily a fable. Some Christians would like to argue that maybe it was just a local flood. But then there would have been no need for an ark to save the animal kingdom. So it's not even a salvageable story at all. If anything, there exists evidence that proves that the Bible is false, not the other way around. ~~~~~~ Death, disease, and thorny plants also existed long before mankind appeared on the planet. Thus the idea that mankind's "Fall from Grace" is what brought death and imperfection into the world is also clearly false. The bible is as false as Greek Mythology. Period Amen. There was no God who cursed women with painful childbirth to pay for Eve's sins. Giving birth is simply a naturally difficult process. It's even painful for many animals. Not just humans. We see this in our pets and in farm animals too. So this is just baloney. No God cursed women with painful childbirth as a punishment for Eve's sins. The Biblical God is as false as Zeus. That's where the "evidence" points. 1. The genealogical records of many of the European kings can be traced back to Japheth, son of Noah. 2. An analysis of population growth statistics confirms that there was zero population at the estimated time of the end of the flood. This indicates the global demise of humans by Noah's flood. 3. Human palaeontological evidence exists even in the earliest geologic 'ages' (eg human footprints in Cambrian, Carboniferous, and Cretaceous rocks). If the layers of rock were laid down by a global flood and then interpreted as evolutionary long-ages, human remains and artefacts would appear to be in such positions 4. The most ancient human artefacts date to the post-flood era. This indicates that the earlier hardware could have been buried beyond reach by a huge flood. 5. Palaeontological evidence indicates that the early earth had a warm/humid climate. This is consistent with the destruction of the old atmosphere by the processes of a global flood as described in Genesis. 6. The glacial period started very quickly. This would require a cataclysmic event such as a global flood to trigger such a rapid climatic change. 7. Studies show that much of the world's folded beds of sediment have no compression fractures, indicating that they were contorted while they were still wet and soft. For this to occur on a global scale, and on sediment thousands of metres thick, it would have required a catastrophic global flood 8. Globally, there is an almost complete absence of any evidence of animal and plant root activity within the tiny layers of sediment. Slowly deposited layers should show this activity, flood deposits wouldn't. 9. Fossil 'graveyards' are found worldwide, and in rocks of all 'ages'. Only a catastrophic global flood could achieve this. 10. There is a worldwide distribution of most of the fossil types, indicating transportation on a global scale by a global flood. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
You act like I'm out to prove anything. Again, no matter how much evidence one can present, it's up to the person in question to put faith in it or not. Evidence can not change a person's mind, only that person has that power. And again, not trying to convince anyone of anything. We're here having a DISCUSSION. Sharing our own personal beliefs with one another. No debating or anything. Just sharing and discussing. I don't believe you Cowboy. You had previously held the position that you are a "servant of God" out to spread his word. You have claimed to have "personal discussions" with God on a regular basis, etc. And you also continually "argue" with people about what God supposedly expects from them. You even argue with other Christains about this. You constantly speak as though you hold the LAST WORD for what Jesus and God expect from people, and on how things from the Bible should be interpreted. You also continually accuse people of the FOLLOWING: Cowboy wrote:
That is absolutely not what I said. I never said there was no evidence. I said no one's trying to prove anything, we're just having a discussion. The bible is full of evidence, people just wish to dismiss the evidence as it wasn't there. So you are indeed out to PROVE to people that they are simply dismissing evidence, that you claim exists. ~~~~~~~ Jeanniebean wrote:
To you, evidence is meaningless. To me, it is required. I can show you lots of evidence that the Bible is not true, but you will not consider it because you will not turn loose of your belief. For you, my evidence is meaningless. Your mind is closed and locked like a vault. And you DID say or post this: "To many, the story of the flood is actually a recording of ancient myths. However, we have much evidence outside the Bible to show that the flood was a reality and that the Bible is true. and now you are denying that you said that. Exactly. And a lot of people disagree with this conclusion, including myself. There is no scientific evidence to back up any such thing as a world-wide flood during the time when humans existed on this planet. Moreover, the human genome project shows the evolution of mankind out of Africa. They have collected enough DNA samples from bones of dead humans to see how humans have migrated out of Africa and have evolved to become technological beings. There is no possible way that a world-wide flood could have existed during the time that humans were capable of building cities and writing stories. Such a catastrophic event would have shown up in the DNA evidence of humanity in a profound way, yet there is no break in the DNA evidence. Therefore no such catastrophic world-wide flood could have possibly occurred during this period of time. The DNA evidence would have been profound and striking. So that story is necessarily a fable. Some Christians would like to argue that maybe it was just a local flood. But then there would have been no need for an ark to save the animal kingdom. So it's not even a salvageable story at all. If anything, there exists evidence that proves that the Bible is false, not the other way around. ~~~~~~ Death, disease, and thorny plants also existed long before mankind appeared on the planet. Thus the idea that mankind's "Fall from Grace" is what brought death and imperfection into the world is also clearly false. The bible is as false as Greek Mythology. Period Amen. There was no God who cursed women with painful childbirth to pay for Eve's sins. Giving birth is simply a naturally difficult process. It's even painful for many animals. Not just humans. We see this in our pets and in farm animals too. So this is just baloney. No God cursed women with painful childbirth as a punishment for Eve's sins. The Biblical God is as false as Zeus. That's where the "evidence" points. So you are indeed out to PROVE to people that they are simply dismissing evidence, that you claim exists. Merely discussing and sharing the knowledge. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
Merely discussing and sharing the knowledge. Yeah right. 
I think I'll accept the knowledge gained by the Human Genome project and dismiss your religious propaganda that is obviously false. There was no God that cursed women with painful childbirth as a form of punishment. There was no God that instructed some guy to build an ark to save all the animal species on Earth whilst the God drowns out all the "sinners" with a great flood. Get real. These fables don't have any more merit than the fables of Greek mythology. And then you expect people to believe that this God had his son nailed to a pole to pay for the sins of men? It just goes from utterly absurd, to intensely insane. All for what? Just to support a religion that worships the EGO of a dastardly jealous God who will be mean to anyone who doesn't obey him and worship his EGO. What truly amazes me more than anything is the fact anyone actually still believes these ancient superstitions today. These fables were invented by people who believed that the gods controlled the weather, natural disasters, disease, plagues and all sort of things (including painful childbirth). And when they don't feel like attributing these things to the God they blame them on a demon. 
~~~~~ The very story of the flood alone proves that the fables are false in a general sense. We don't even need to show that the flood never happened. It's a contradiction to the central theme of the story. This God is supposed to know what he's doing and be unchanging in character. Well, if he knew that he was going to have his son nailed to a pole to pay for the sins of men he would have never needed to create a flood to flood out sinners. He should have sent Jesus long before things ever got that far out of control. In fact, if he were truly a consistent God who had an actual plan he would have had Jesus appear directly before Adam and Eve and give them the choice right then and there whether or not to repent. These stories don't even stand consistent on their own merit. There's not even any need to speak about looking at external events to see if they warrant serious consideration. We can see just by the stories themselves that they are grossly inconsistent with the character that their "God" is supposed to have. So they don't merit anymore consideration than the fables of Zeus, etc. They are clearly nothing more than a collection of totally incompatible fables. I mean, if someone wants to believe in these things for themselves in some hope that they might be true, then I could understand that to some degree. Perhaps they feel that if the stories aren't true they'll naturally die and they can't handle that, so they need to believe in a religion to believe in "eternal life". I can understand that kind of personal desperation. However, to go around implying and suggesting that other people are refusing to believe in these stories when there is tons of evidence to support them is truly lame. The evidence that they are false superstitions is overwhelming. And far more importantly, the behavior and character of the God that these stories ultimately depict doesn't even remotely match up with the "righteous" or "wise" character that this God is supposed to have. Cursing all women with painful childbirth is nothing short of cruel and mean. Asking people to atone sins by killing animals is utterly stupid, IMHO. Condoning and supporting male-chauvinism is far from a quality that I would personally consider "divine". A God having his son butchered and nailed to a pole as part of his plan to "pay" for the sins of mankind is nonsense. With this God ALL THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE POSSIBLE. Well if that's the case, then this God could surely forgive people without having to have his son beaten raw and nailed to a pole. It's just one contradiction after another endlessly. Nothing adds up. The God depicted in these stories would be an absolute insane mess. If we're going to place FAITH in something, let's have FAITH that these Hebrew stories are absolutely false. As I've often said, a purely atheistic universe would be far more SANE than what these ancient fables require of their God. I would much rather just die at the end of my physical life anyway, than to be offered eternal life worshiping a male-chauvinistic God who is quick to delve out crude punishments to anyone who fails to obey and agree with his insane desires. Just close my eyes, lights-out, and the show's over. That would be FAR BETTER than the Christian story. So even atheism is a prettier picture. ~~~~ Fortunately, the truth of reality doesn't need to come down to being between atheism or some glorified human-like judgmental Mediterranean godhead. Fortunately, there are other possibilities. The Eastern Mystics have come up with some truly wonderful spiritual philosophies that offer both eternal life and a sane picture of God. It's a highly intellectual picture that is hard for many humans to wrap their minds around. But actually that's in its favor! After all, if our creator truly is that far above us in intelligence, power, and wisdom, then it should be a difficult concept for us to grasp. So that makes sense. There's nothing hard to grasp about the Hebrew God, he's got more flaws that most mortal men. In fact, you constantly compare him with mortal parents and act as though he should be just as lame and helpless as mortal parents. Perhaps that's why the Hebrew religion is easy for you to accept. You don't seem to expect God to be much more intelligent, powerful, or omniscient than a mere mortal human. So it's not hard for you to imagine a God doing things pretty much the way mortal humans might try to handle them. I can't even view it like that because I've met far too many mortal humans that even appear to be far more intelligent than the Hebrew picture of God. So the biblical God doesn't even appear to me to be as intelligent as many mortal human's I've met. And clearly that's not going to fly as a model for the creator of this universe and all humanity. ~~~~~~ But evidently it works for you. I hope you get your "gift" of eternal life since that seems to be the major factor that draws you to this religion. It would be a real shame if you missed out on that after all your dedication to supporting this idea. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
Merely discussing and sharing the knowledge. Yeah right.
I think I'll accept the knowledge gained by the Human Genome project and dismiss your religious propaganda that is obviously false. There was no God that cursed women with painful childbirth as a form of punishment. There was no God that instructed some guy to build an ark to save all the animal species on Earth whilst the God drowns out all the "sinners" with a great flood. Get real. These fables don't have any more merit than the fables of Greek mythology. And then you expect people to believe that this God had his son nailed to a pole to pay for the sins of men? It just goes from utterly absurd, to intensely insane. All for what? Just to support a religion that worships the EGO of a dastardly jealous God who will be mean to anyone who doesn't obey him and worship his EGO. What truly amazes me more than anything is the fact anyone actually still believes these ancient superstitions today. These fables were invented by people who believed that the gods controlled the weather, natural disasters, disease, plagues and all sort of things (including painful childbirth). And when they don't feel like attributing these things to the God they blame them on a demon.
~~~~~ The very story of the flood alone proves that the fables are false in a general sense. We don't even need to show that the flood never happened. It's a contradiction to the central theme of the story. This God is supposed to know what he's doing and be unchanging in character. Well, if he knew that he was going to have his son nailed to a pole to pay for the sins of men he would have never needed to create a flood to flood out sinners. He should have sent Jesus long before things ever got that far out of control. In fact, if he were truly a consistent God who had an actual plan he would have had Jesus appear directly before Adam and Eve and give them the choice right then and there whether or not to repent. These stories don't even stand consistent on their own merit. There's not even any need to speak about looking at external events to see if they warrant serious consideration. We can see just by the stories themselves that they are grossly inconsistent with the character that their "God" is supposed to have. So they don't merit anymore consideration than the fables of Zeus, etc. They are clearly nothing more than a collection of totally incompatible fables. I mean, if someone wants to believe in these things for themselves in some hope that they might be true, then I could understand that to some degree. Perhaps they feel that if the stories aren't true they'll naturally die and they can't handle that, so they need to believe in a religion to believe in "eternal life". I can understand that kind of personal desperation. However, to go around implying and suggesting that other people are refusing to believe in these stories when there is tons of evidence to support them is truly lame. The evidence that they are false superstitions is overwhelming. And far more importantly, the behavior and character of the God that these stories ultimately depict doesn't even remotely match up with the "righteous" or "wise" character that this God is supposed to have. Cursing all women with painful childbirth is nothing short of cruel and mean. Asking people to atone sins by killing animals is utterly stupid, IMHO. Condoning and supporting male-chauvinism is far from a quality that I would personally consider "divine". A God having his son butchered and nailed to a pole as part of his plan to "pay" for the sins of mankind is nonsense. With this God ALL THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE POSSIBLE. Well if that's the case, then this God could surely forgive people without having to have his son beaten raw and nailed to a pole. It's just one contradiction after another endlessly. Nothing adds up. The God depicted in these stories would be an absolute insane mess. If we're going to place FAITH in something, let's have FAITH that these Hebrew stories are absolutely false. As I've often said, a purely atheistic universe would be far more SANE than what these ancient fables require of their God. I would much rather just die at the end of my physical life anyway, than to be offered eternal life worshiping a male-chauvinistic God who is quick to delve out crude punishments to anyone who fails to obey and agree with his insane desires. Just close my eyes, lights-out, and the show's over. That would be FAR BETTER than the Christian story. So even atheism is a prettier picture. ~~~~ Fortunately, the truth of reality doesn't need to come down to being between atheism or some glorified human-like judgmental Mediterranean godhead. Fortunately, there are other possibilities. The Eastern Mystics have come up with some truly wonderful spiritual philosophies that offer both eternal life and a sane picture of God. It's a highly intellectual picture that is hard for many humans to wrap their minds around. But actually that's in its favor! After all, if our creator truly is that far above us in intelligence, power, and wisdom, then it should be a difficult concept for us to grasp. So that makes sense. There's nothing hard to grasp about the Hebrew God, he's got more flaws that most mortal men. In fact, you constantly compare him with mortal parents and act as though he should be just as lame and helpless as mortal parents. Perhaps that's why the Hebrew religion is easy for you to accept. You don't seem to expect God to be much more intelligent, powerful, or omniscient than a mere mortal human. So it's not hard for you to imagine a God doing things pretty much the way mortal humans might try to handle them. I can't even view it like that because I've met far too many mortal humans that even appear to be far more intelligent than the Hebrew picture of God. So the biblical God doesn't even appear to me to be as intelligent as many mortal human's I've met. And clearly that's not going to fly as a model for the creator of this universe and all humanity. ~~~~~~ But evidently it works for you. I hope you get your "gift" of eternal life since that seems to be the major factor that draws you to this religion. It would be a real shame if you missed out on that after all your dedication to supporting this idea. Well, if he knew that he was going to have his son nailed to a pole to pay for the sins of men he would have never needed to create a flood to flood out sinners. He should have sent Jesus long before things ever got that far out of control. Jesus was there in the beginning. Genesis 3:9 9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? Who do you think LORD God is? Who is the Lord in the Christian belief? And what would have been the point to flood the Earth then? Jesus does forgive us and may have forgiven them. I know not if it states that Adam and Eve were punished with death, doesn't say they were sent to the Lake of fire or hell for their trespasses. And things aren't and never were "out of control". God doesn't "control" us, nor does he wish to. If he wished to, again he would have just made us mindless in a sense to do everything and anything he said to do. God wants a relationship with us, not a bunch of slaves. He created children, again, not a bunch of slaves. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote:
Merely discussing and sharing the knowledge. Yeah right.
I think I'll accept the knowledge gained by the Human Genome project and dismiss your religious propaganda that is obviously false. There was no God that cursed women with painful childbirth as a form of punishment. There was no God that instructed some guy to build an ark to save all the animal species on Earth whilst the God drowns out all the "sinners" with a great flood. Get real. These fables don't have any more merit than the fables of Greek mythology. And then you expect people to believe that this God had his son nailed to a pole to pay for the sins of men? It just goes from utterly absurd, to intensely insane. All for what? Just to support a religion that worships the EGO of a dastardly jealous God who will be mean to anyone who doesn't obey him and worship his EGO. What truly amazes me more than anything is the fact anyone actually still believes these ancient superstitions today. These fables were invented by people who believed that the gods controlled the weather, natural disasters, disease, plagues and all sort of things (including painful childbirth). And when they don't feel like attributing these things to the God they blame them on a demon.
~~~~~ The very story of the flood alone proves that the fables are false in a general sense. We don't even need to show that the flood never happened. It's a contradiction to the central theme of the story. This God is supposed to know what he's doing and be unchanging in character. Well, if he knew that he was going to have his son nailed to a pole to pay for the sins of men he would have never needed to create a flood to flood out sinners. He should have sent Jesus long before things ever got that far out of control. In fact, if he were truly a consistent God who had an actual plan he would have had Jesus appear directly before Adam and Eve and give them the choice right then and there whether or not to repent. These stories don't even stand consistent on their own merit. There's not even any need to speak about looking at external events to see if they warrant serious consideration. We can see just by the stories themselves that they are grossly inconsistent with the character that their "God" is supposed to have. So they don't merit anymore consideration than the fables of Zeus, etc. They are clearly nothing more than a collection of totally incompatible fables. I mean, if someone wants to believe in these things for themselves in some hope that they might be true, then I could understand that to some degree. Perhaps they feel that if the stories aren't true they'll naturally die and they can't handle that, so they need to believe in a religion to believe in "eternal life". I can understand that kind of personal desperation. However, to go around implying and suggesting that other people are refusing to believe in these stories when there is tons of evidence to support them is truly lame. The evidence that they are false superstitions is overwhelming. And far more importantly, the behavior and character of the God that these stories ultimately depict doesn't even remotely match up with the "righteous" or "wise" character that this God is supposed to have. Cursing all women with painful childbirth is nothing short of cruel and mean. Asking people to atone sins by killing animals is utterly stupid, IMHO. Condoning and supporting male-chauvinism is far from a quality that I would personally consider "divine". A God having his son butchered and nailed to a pole as part of his plan to "pay" for the sins of mankind is nonsense. With this God ALL THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE POSSIBLE. Well if that's the case, then this God could surely forgive people without having to have his son beaten raw and nailed to a pole. It's just one contradiction after another endlessly. Nothing adds up. The God depicted in these stories would be an absolute insane mess. If we're going to place FAITH in something, let's have FAITH that these Hebrew stories are absolutely false. As I've often said, a purely atheistic universe would be far more SANE than what these ancient fables require of their God. I would much rather just die at the end of my physical life anyway, than to be offered eternal life worshiping a male-chauvinistic God who is quick to delve out crude punishments to anyone who fails to obey and agree with his insane desires. Just close my eyes, lights-out, and the show's over. That would be FAR BETTER than the Christian story. So even atheism is a prettier picture. ~~~~ Fortunately, the truth of reality doesn't need to come down to being between atheism or some glorified human-like judgmental Mediterranean godhead. Fortunately, there are other possibilities. The Eastern Mystics have come up with some truly wonderful spiritual philosophies that offer both eternal life and a sane picture of God. It's a highly intellectual picture that is hard for many humans to wrap their minds around. But actually that's in its favor! After all, if our creator truly is that far above us in intelligence, power, and wisdom, then it should be a difficult concept for us to grasp. So that makes sense. There's nothing hard to grasp about the Hebrew God, he's got more flaws that most mortal men. In fact, you constantly compare him with mortal parents and act as though he should be just as lame and helpless as mortal parents. Perhaps that's why the Hebrew religion is easy for you to accept. You don't seem to expect God to be much more intelligent, powerful, or omniscient than a mere mortal human. So it's not hard for you to imagine a God doing things pretty much the way mortal humans might try to handle them. I can't even view it like that because I've met far too many mortal humans that even appear to be far more intelligent than the Hebrew picture of God. So the biblical God doesn't even appear to me to be as intelligent as many mortal human's I've met. And clearly that's not going to fly as a model for the creator of this universe and all humanity. ~~~~~~ But evidently it works for you. I hope you get your "gift" of eternal life since that seems to be the major factor that draws you to this religion. It would be a real shame if you missed out on that after all your dedication to supporting this idea. A God having his son butchered and nailed to a pole as part of his plan to "pay" for the sins of mankind is nonsense. With this God ALL THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE POSSIBLE. Well if that's the case, then this God could surely forgive people without having to have his son beaten raw and nailed to a pole. The crucifixion of Jesus isn't what gets us "forgiven". It's not a blood sacrifice for God, or anything of such. Jesus gave his life for us and died for us, so we would not have to if we accept this gift. Jesus took your place in Hell, so you could have eternal life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So Jesus is in hell?
|
|
|
|
|
