Oh this should be good

Post by silverchip

Oh u guyz,logic will definatelly work with her :p

off course, making sense is the first thing that comes to mind when reading such a blog, lol

Post by 313135

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by silverchip

Vdask and dave won the comments, /cheer :D
round of wow wine and beer on the house !

Post by Arathian

/highfives
for the horde

Post by 283199

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Orranis

"What would Jesus do?" Bad, bad, bad argument. Just horrible. Amusing as heck though.

Since Jesus never saw a computer, I'm guessing he'd have a hard time getting started. I don't think he was fluent in English either, so the tutorials wouldn't be much use. If he avoided stoning the computer long enough to play I think he'd roll a hunter because he was 'sick of healing all the time'.

I'm guessing Jesus would have more important things to do than WoW. Unless of course he wasn't the son of God...

Post by 313135

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Nitewalkr

wow...That person simply gave in to his wife's "I heared footsteps"

Whats next? "I saw an Orc warrior hitting our house bubbled shield with his mace?"

I remember I saw bloody footsteps leading from the livingroom to the kitchen...oh wait I was playing silent hill 4: the room, that time. =\

@mapled013: you cant just throw yourself in to troll market.....just saying. <.<

Post by silverchip

Post by 273605

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Arathian

Pressing the 1 button to throw that fireball is srs bsness

Post by Orranis

If someone were able to present me with credible evidence that the Bible is true, and that accepting their belief structure is the only way to avoid an eternity of torment, then I would convert to Christianity. However, they don't do that; instead, they simply shout loudly that their beliefs are true because they believe them, and tell me that I should believe the same as they to avoid the eternal torment in which they believe.

If you would like some credible logical evidence about the bible being true, then I recommend reading "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis and "Letters to a Skeptic" (don't remember the authors name). You'd be suprised at how much proof there actually is and that's been shown to be true by historical scholars.

I'd recommend you throw a few quotes at us. Most of the time this 'proof' is actually something perfectly explainable with science that you use to bend to your own ideas, and when confronted with other explanation of what happened you remain purposefully ignorant.

Faceshield, someone said they wanted evidence. I'm giving you a place to go look for both logical explainations on why God exists, and a place that talks about historical proof that the bible is real and events that are documented happened. Right now I live outside the US and my book collection is still in the US. So if you're interested this is on you, if not, then nothing I can do about it.

Definition of Ingnorant: 1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>
2 : unaware, uninformed

Nothing in my statement implies any lack of knowledge or education or comprehension. In fact, siting sources usually implies quite the opposite.

Now making assumptions about me (who you don't know) or my beliefs (which you don't know) and my lack of understanding and reasoning, would probably fall more into that catergory....so you decide who best fills these shoes.

But if you think yourself clever, then:
How about you proof to me that $1 million dollars exists or something called oxygen exists? Can you proof someone named Christopher Columbus existed and discovered the "americas"? Can you?

No I can't. But that's not adding to your argument in the least... I can take what I perceive I know and find the most probable situation, whatever is actually true. With all the biblical contradictions and the lack of evidence in the majority of the cases, with their being evidence for much of what I believe, then until better evidence is found I shall remain to doubt God, though I am fully agnostic. If nothing can truly be proved then how can you say with 100% certainty that the people who wrote the beliefs you put your faith in were speaking the words of a deity?

I am fully making assumptions about your beliefs, based on the statements you have made that I believe to be most likely, just like the fact that I assume that oxygen exists based on all the knowledge I am currently being shown.

Furthermore, if you cannot even remember what is written in the book, how can you be so sure these proofs are logical? For all you know, you could go back and it says that Pastafarianism is the only real Religion, and that Jay Leno's chin is second in command. I am quite sure that with the internet connection you evidently have, you could pull at least one quote from this book. Also, this statement is contradictory of your final one, because you cannot prove these logical by your own logic. Your logic is circular, you use it against me when it fits and fail to mention what holes it leaves in your other statements.

I never directly called you out for ignorance, I was making a generalization about most biblical "evidence". I never said all, and I admit there are some holes in my beliefs as well, which is why I've adopted the belief of doubt. Anything is possible, I outwardly deny nothing. I'm simply stating what I think makes the most sense.

Post by Ksero

God says “Abstain from all appearances of evil. I didn’t write it God did.

So Christians can't drive cars right, i mean cars create evil gases that pollute god's air, and anything that hurts anything created by god is evil right.

If you could reason with religious people, there wouldn't be any religious people.

Post by 313135

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by 313135

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Orranis

Faceshield, you see my point at least. It's pretty much impossible to prove something b/c most of our believes in something as simple as $1 million dollars or oxygen are based on believing what others tell us. If someone doesnt want to believe or they live outside of the realm of something like that being possible b/c of the world they grew up in, then that is where faith comes in. Believing in something that you've never seen. Take for example a poor asian or african. $1 million dollars is way outside of their comprehension, but does it make it less likely to exist (maybe to them)? Most of us haven't seen $1 million dollars, but our country/world view makes it more believable. Faith and Believe are strongly set on your perceptions.

Like I said I don't have the books. To quote a book in a forum like this is silly. It takes things out of context as much as the lady's article that started this thread. These books build on themselves quite nicely. "Mere Christianty" is a book that was written by an atheist that was trying to proof that God didn't exist. he converted after his research. He actually did indepth research, where most people don't. It is a logical process on how he decided God exists. The first half or 3 quarters of the book don't even talk about Christianity, its all about the logic of why God or a higher power exists.

The second book is about a historian who is a Christian is in a conversation with his dad who isn't. Over about a 3 year time period they correspondended about this. The book is those letters. Basically, the son challenges the dad to ask him why he is a Christian. The dad asks alot of the questions that most nonChristians ask, "why does a good God allow bad things to happen? how do you know the bible is true? etc". The son answers from not only a historians perspective, but a christian on the answers to these questions.

Both books are easy reads, but I'm not going to quote things, and have things taken out of context. becuase like history and reality, it's often about context. I do remembe what they are about, and like I siad, this is on you if you want more information. Good luck if you wish to pursue it.

Now as far as the Bible goes. It has been proven to be historically accurate by historians, scholars, and archealogist. If you even use the internet as a source (which isn't really advisable), and type in a search of "is the bible true/real" or something of that nature. You will find most sources say that the dates/names/events in the bible have been shown to be accurate. A man named Jesus exists. As far as the message of the bible, that is something that is taken on faith or not taken on faith. Can I proof that Jesus did miracles and God exists, no. Can I proof that oxygen exists, no. Both times you are relying on others' ideas, assumptions, research, and views. Its about which we sources of information that we find to be believable. I challenge you to read these books, they may change your perspective.

I agree. I am about 80% sure a man named Jesus existed, and about 90% sure he was a really cool guy. I am about .05% sure he is the son of God. However, when I look at biblical stories, they seem to me like stories that were once very realistic, but over time became more and more inflated. I am about 50% sure that at one point the Jews were enslaved to the ancient Egyptians. However, I am about .0005% sure that Moses parted the red seas. This could easily have been the result of a large sand bank, or he crossed on rafts or whatnot. I would actually love to read these books, but the current school curriculum I have does not allow it. Going from "I don't know who my father is" to "Obviously, the boy has no father and is the son of God, because he's a cool dude" is kind of a large step. For every historically correct thing in the bible, which in most cases could be explained by other means, there is at least one that doesn't make sense. Finding a Pharaoh's corpse in the Red Sea hardly makes up for the armies that followed him in. It is much more likely this Pharaoh was assassinated.

I think that most people that don't believe in God, deep down don't want to be held accountable for how they think, feel, live their lives, etc. As kids, we can't wait to grow up so we don't have to listen to our parents, as workers, we want to be the boss, so we don't have to follow someone elses directives. Most people strive very hard to be the ones in conrol, the boss.

I don't know what to say to this. How about all the thousands of people that kill in the name of God? I've hardly ever seen a war over Darwin vs. Lamarck. You don't need God to be a good person, and God does not automatically make you a good person.

My perspective on Christianity is that, its about a relationship with God. Humans are social creatures and seek companionship b/c it is in our nature. It was put there (in my opinion) by God who also seeks this. Like any relationship to be good and to work, you need love, trust, communication, faith in the other, etc. You also need to constantly work on and time to develop these things it b/c it isn't easy to love, trust, etc. Do you get mad, angry, resentful, upset...yes! Is it also rewarding, worth it to be in a relationship...yes!

Again, I hope you take the time to read these books or do some indepth research. I hope you see my point/perspective.

and one more random point on creationism vs big bang type theories. Big bang theory: taking stacks of paper and jars of ink and putting them in a room. Throw in a bomb, and after words you have a novel. Creationism: taking said materials, and having someone go in and use them to write a novel. Which is more likely?

Umm... Wow. That's the worst analogy for Big Bang vs. Creationism I've ever heard. I don't have anything to say to that... Look at it this way. Let's say you took paper and ink and put them into a room. Now let's say you carefully measured the blast of the explosion, the position of the ink, it's weight, the position of the paper, and got them all down to the last detail so that when the bomb exploded, it would do so in the exact way that the novel would be written.

Not to mention there is the randomness. It is still fully possible that the bomb did work, and from my point of view there is more evidence behind it. It's not "What is more likely to make it", but "What has more evidence showing that that's how it was made." It already happened.

Post by Orranis

I do want to make a point about contradictions that you say are in the bible. Most people talk about the contradictions of the old vs. the new testament. I want to start somewhere else before addressing this though.

History can be taken much like, interviewing witnesses to a crime. You have alot of people who saw the exact same thing. When police question them, they get a lot of different answers to what the criminal looked like (height, hair color, etc), to the sequence of how things happened. How is this possible with everyone seeing the exact same thing? Well two reasons, first humans are fallible and their memories are fallible. Second some things like for example height are perspective. I might consider someone tall, and you might consider them short or of average height.

Will the police get a 100% accurate idea of what happened/what the criminal looked like? No, not without really great video footage to boot! Will they get a general idea of what happened, or what the criminal looked like? Yes.

The difference to this and history is that they police, can keep asking actual witness questions and continue to narrow down how things happened/what the criminal looks like. With history we have a limited number of sources that we can't continue to question.

You'll find that if you do extensive reseach on any historical subject you get inaccuracies on numbers, who was there, exact time, sequence of events, shirt color, etc. If you do research on something like the civil war, you'll find different sources saying slightly different things. What you do get with historical research is an good general picture of if something happened or who might have been there etc.

With this in mind historians agree that the bible is historically accurate.

Now what most people talk about is the difference in the old and new testament. These difference are going to have to be taken on faith b/c its about the nature of God and his personality. If you don't believe in God, then these difference are going to stop you from believing in the Bible. In the old testament, you had an account of the lineage of Isrealites and their relationship with God. In it he lays down some pretty strick rules on how they live their lives and worship him, etc. In the New testament you have God deciding b/c of the nature of man and his free will, the relationship is doomed under this system. So God, does something drastic and changes his approach in order to keep the relationship alive and possible. He does this b/c the relationship with man is important to him.

I think that if someone for example is in a relationship that is very important to them, but something about it isn't working, then they make an effort to change or make changes to the relationship to make it work (working on the relaionship).

This is the what most people talk about when saying "contradictions in the bible", they are talking about "how God approaches man" so to speak. Now, if you mean something else, by all means tell me. I could have misunderstood what "contradictions" you are referring to.

If you don't believe in God, then this post probably is garbage to you. But at least you can understand the concept of realtionship, and the possible need to change it in order to make it work.

cheers!

Okay... So your saying the bible has fault, and that God is not perfect. You're still being way too vague on these historians that agree. In fact, it is the most conflicted thing in history. I'm fine saying that some of the rules of the Jews needed changing with the new times, (Especially since I'm in a Jewish family) but it just seems to take away the whole 'perfectness' of God.

Post by 313135

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Orranis

Face:

Good reply. I appreciate your responses. Some people tend to be a little immature in this type of discussion.

Like I said, the historical nature of the bible is proven to be accurate, the context is a faith thing. So we just won't see eye to eye on it. Again, I challenge you to check out those books, they would do a better job for someone who seems logical, than I ever could in explaining things.

I never said believing in God makes you a good person, nor would I ever! My point there is why I think people don't want to believe in God. Your point is good and I agree with you, that believing in God doesn't make you a good person. Many misguided people have cause more harm than good for the name of Christianity. Currently, you could say America is doing the same to itself over the last several years with the world. It typically stems from the believe that you are superior. Unfortunately, there are Christians out there that have this mind set.

No, i'll disagree, i think it is an appropriate example. It's implying randomness vs and author to the universe so to speak. Even your's about big bang, implies someone is behind it measuring, weighing, setting it up (or at least I think this is what your trying to say). I agree that "big bang" is based on randomness. Its just strange that its never, ever happened again in the history of the universe, and men haven't been able to recreate it. Like I said I think its more beleive that something is behind something this complex and unexplainable.

But it's not randomness, it's physics. I don't believe in randomness. Also, you're looking at it from the point of view that the reality we're in right now is the only possible one. How do you know we are not just the one product of this randomness that is not the other universes?

And I never said God wasn't perfect. I said he decided what he was doing wasn't working b/c of the nature of man, not becuase of his nature. Hopefully you see the difference. This can lead into a huge dicussion about free will, so we'll leave it at this for now.
The rules he put forth came after humankind was corrupted, and there has been no biblical change of human nature since then. His rules were imperfect, thus he was imperfect. It seems logical to me.

As far as vagueness goes, I'll link a couple of sources, but you would have to do the research on it to find more:

http://www.facingthechallenge.org/arch2.php

http://www.sodahead.com/religion/biblical-archaeology-today-more-proof-the-bible-is-real/blog-230167/?page=1&postId=5305869#post_5305869

http://www.webspawner.com/users/jon200689/

These are 3 that I got from doing "is the bible real" web search.

I see a problem. Most of those links do not say anything about that facts I don't believe in. Yes, Jesus most likely existed. However it cannot be said for sure that Isaiah did tell those events, or if the events happened and then people say he did. I believe that places and people existed, not miracles.

Also, I don't think I said the bible has fault. I'm not sure where I might have implied that. My point was that sometimes in the bible, as many historical records, you find different perspectives of the same event, that my not add up 100%. For example, one person might say 1000 people were present, another says 3,000 and another says 2,000. The point is they are all talking about an event that happened, but abserved different things. Like my crime scene example. With history you will never have 100% matching statements. Actually this typically makes historians think it might be untrue. Again, this goes into a lengthy discussion about how historians go about figuring out if something is accurate.
Yes, but to my understanding they were writing the words of God, and if he is prefect than it is impossible that he was wrong.

Again, great responses, and look forward to hearing from you!

Thanks!

You to :D

Oh this should be good

Post Reply