Religious debate (split from main board)

#929
#929
As I said SOW, read Polycarp's writings. I mentioned this for several reasons - one of which was to a previous reference saying there was no proof of the gospels until several centuries after Christ. If anything, Irenaeus, Polycarp, and numerous other writers point to the gospels, or letters as they were referred to then well before several centuries after Christ. As I said, read most of these early writings.

Walking into that one? Actually if you read in context and even in the Greek the reference of "Many" is to the believers, NOT to some large population within the city. So the "gotcha" is FAIL. I know what the Bible says. I know what the original Greek and Aramaic say as well. So if you want to challenge me on this feel free. I can go all day. Selecting something and taking it out of context backfires. The Saints would have only held value to appear to those believing. But even if they appeared to many - what does that matter? What is your point? You did not respond to motivations to not mention this. You only selected something not even in context and tried to play gotcha.

So the ground quaked to the point that tombs broke open. Rocks split. You know this happens with earthquakes in California right? Even slight low level quakes cause this. In an area that this happens, why would someone think this out of the ordinary? You make a typical low scale quake out to sound like the big San Francisco quake in the early 1900's. Again, quite an extreme response for taking something out of context. Zero evidence that quakes happen? Quakes happened all the time. Archealogy of the area plus simple geology proves this. So try again on the proof. Historians did not document every single event in the period. Perhaps the Jews did and that evidence was destroyed in the burning of Jerusalem. Still haven't disproven it.

As for the centurion, we have no idea these quotes were from the exact same person and if there was an entire set of sentences with him saying all of that. Matthew and Mark say "son of God", Luke says "righteous". Matthew's Greek says all of them as a group said "son of God" - not attributing this to one particular person. Luke's use of the Greek for righteous is an elevated holy term used to denote someone above a saint. So "son of God" could easily fit that description.

You are making a pointless effort to disprove the same story. We have several guards mentioned. Nothing stated the same person said something specifically. But everything points to the same thing - this man is beyond the point of a saint and ordinary man. For Roman centurions and supporting personel with no knowledge of who this person was, saying the same thing in various forms still does not contradict anything.

I will try you. Your beliefs are based on whatever is found at a particular time. Evolution is not some set theory. It varies. Scientists within that 'realm' even have varying theories as to what happened. The same goes for the Big Bang. "evidence" constantly is "discovered" making changes in those theories. So basically your 'faith' is in something that is fluid - something that is based on some concept that constantly changes and is not even a uniform scientific value. The goalpost changes with every "new discovery" even if it completely changes a previous tenet within a theory. but yet I am criticised for believing something supposedly with nothing tangible.
 
#933
#933
Snakes on a Wii said:
* No. My "beliefs" in the sense of what I believe to be true, are based on what can be shown to be true, rather than thought to be true.
Click to expand...

Snakes on a Wii said:
And yes, the Big Bang is the only theory that fits with all the evidence.
Click to expand...

So your beliefs are based on things that can be shown to be true, and yet you believe in the BB theory even though it is just that... a theory. Which, by definition, is an explanation which correlates and interprets the facts. And as all scientists would agree, facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves. This, however, is not true for theories.

I really liked your quote below... I could make some of the same exaggerations as you and replace the word "legends" with "theories" and it would seem to apply to you.

Snakes on a Wii said:
I love how you just dismiss all of the arguments about tall tales and legends. You don't even care if the story is a tall tale or legend, you just want to believe it and so you do.
Click to expand...
 
#934
#934
As you are taught evolution and the BBT. By the way, which model of the BBT do you believe? And which principles within those models do you agree with? Since there is no single universal BBT or evolution for that matter.
 
#937
#937
CSpindizzy said:
As I said SOW, read Polycarp's writings. I mentioned this for several reasons - one of which was to a previous reference saying there was no proof of the gospels until several centuries after Christ. If anything, Irenaeus, Polycarp, and numerous other writers point to the gospels, or letters as they were referred to then well before several centuries after Christ. As I said, read most of these early writings.
Click to expand...

You're arguing against a position that no one holds. No one is disputing that the gospels were written after 60 AD. We're just questioning the authorship.

CSpindizzy said:
Walking into that one? Actually if you read in context and even in the Greek the reference of "Many" is to the believers, NOT to some large population within the city. So the "gotcha" is FAIL. I know what the Bible says. I know what the original Greek and Aramaic say as well. So if you want to challenge me on this feel free. I can go all day. Selecting something and taking it out of context backfires. The Saints would have only held value to appear to those believing. But even if they appeared to many - what does that matter? What is your point? You did not respond to motivations to not mention this. You only selected something not even in context and tried to play gotcha.
Click to expand...

Nice backpedal. It still doesn't get you out of the fact that Matthew mentioned a bunch of zombies walking through the streets and no one else did.

CSpindizzy said:
So the ground quaked to the point that tombs broke open. Rocks split. You know this happens with earthquakes in California right? Even slight low level quakes cause this. In an area that this happens, why would someone think this out of the ordinary? You make a typical low scale quake out to sound like the big San Francisco quake in the early 1900's. Again, quite an extreme response for taking something out of context. Zero evidence that quakes happen? Quakes happened all the time. Archealogy of the area plus simple geology proves this. So try again on the proof. Historians did not document every single event in the period. Perhaps the Jews did and that evidence was destroyed in the burning of Jerusalem. Still haven't disproven it.
Click to expand...

Concoct as many "just-so" stories you want, if this were any other prophet than the one you happen to believe in you would have the same skepticism. The fact remains that a major earthquake went undocumented by 3 different gospels and is completely nonexistent in the records.

CSpindizzy said:
As for the centurion, we have no idea these quotes were from the exact same person and if there was an entire set of sentences with him saying all of that. Matthew and Mark say "son of God", Luke says "righteous". Matthew's Greek says all of them as a group said "son of God" - not attributing this to one particular person. Luke's use of the Greek for righteous is an elevated holy term used to denote someone above a saint. So "son of God" could easily fit that description.
Click to expand...

I am not a biblical scholar, so I will take your word for it.

CSpindizzy said:
You are making a pointless effort to disprove the same story. We have several guards mentioned. Nothing stated the same person said something specifically. But everything points to the same thing - this man is beyond the point of a saint and ordinary man. For Roman centurions and supporting personel with no knowledge of who this person was, saying the same thing in various forms still does not contradict anything.
Click to expand...

You're probably right, but in that case it would mean that in two different gospels two different authors got two different quotes and they happened to be from two different centurions. What are the chances of that as opposed to only one centurion actually said anything in the original story and what he said changed as it was retold?

CSpindizzy said:
I will try you. Your beliefs are based on whatever is found at a particular time. Evolution is not some set theory. It varies. Scientists within that 'realm' even have varying theories as to what happened. The same goes for the Big Bang. "evidence" constantly is "discovered" making changes in those theories. So basically your 'faith' is in something that is fluid - something that is based on some concept that constantly changes and is not even a uniform scientific value. The goalpost changes with every "new discovery" even if it completely changes a previous tenet within a theory. but yet I am criticised for believing something supposedly with nothing tangible.
Click to expand...

I don't have any faith. Faith is belief without evidence. The reason theories change is that we find new evidence. But these changes do not cast doubt on the theory. Evolution, for instance, is changing because we find new fossils dated earlier than the previous oldest specimen. For instance, we could find a tetrapod from 300 million years ago, but that doesn't mean we found one of the first. So the "constant changes" in evolution are mostly getting more accurate dates, not overturning what we already know.

And yet you make it seem like these changes somehow cast doubt on the theory. There is no disputing that evolution happened. The tree of life may not be complete, but you don't need a complete video documentary on a murder to know that it happened.
 
Last edited:
#938
#938
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Wouldn't agonistic seem more appropriate? Unless, of course, you were born knowing that God didn't exist.
Click to expand...

That's not what atheism means. Atheism refers to a state of belief, whereas agnosticism refers to a state of knowledge. To be an agnostic means to lack knowledge of whether or not something is true, to be atheistic is to lack a belief (in God).
 
#940
#940
have seen this thread pop up alot and thought why not!

Think I better get outta here quick.

And by the way Jesus of Nazareth did live. Even the scientist say at least that is true. And the all agree he was a true revolutionary. I dont yell religon to no one. But I do believe that Jesus is the son of God. And no one taught me that. I came to him my own way. I am a bad boy. Dont know how else to say it. I am not proud of how bad I am, but I know that my faith is always with him.

Never have really talk about that to anybody.
Feel better! Like I said, think I better leave this thread alone.
 
#941
#941
IBlvNTmWrk said:
So your beliefs are based on things that can be shown to be true, and yet you believe in the BB theory even though it is just that... a theory. Which, by definition, is an explanation which correlates and interprets the facts. And as all scientists would agree, facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves. This, however, is not true for theories.

I really liked your quote below... I could make some of the same exaggerations as you and replace the word "legends" with "theories" and it would seem to apply to you.
Click to expand...

You don't understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. Theories do not interpret facts, they explain them with mechanisms and predict future facts, which if confirmed, validate the theory. There are many ways to explain a fact, but there are only a few ways to explain a collection of facts. A big bang model is the only model that fits the facts we have about the universe. In fact, it made predictions about the universe that were later shown to be true.
 
#942
#942
VOLnVEGAS said:
have seen this thread pop up alot and thought why not!

Think I better get outta here quick.

And by the way Jesus of Nazareth did live. Even the scientist say at least that is true. And the all agree he was a true revolutionary. I dont yell religon to no one. But I do believe that Jesus is the son of God. And no one taught me that. I came to him my own way. I am a bad boy. Dont know how else to say it. I am not proud of how bad I am, but I know that my faith is always with him.

Never have really talk about that to anybody.
Feel better! Like I said, think I better leave this thread alone.
Click to expand...

There are a few people who doubt that Jesus actually existed. Even I think they're crazy. I don't doubt he was a real person, and I think he had some real wisdom, but I do doubt that he was the son of God. That's just my beliefs though.
 
#943
#943
I hear ya Wii. I understand you completely. And I dont blame you one bit.

I dont care about heaven or hell. I dont care about none of that jazz. And who knows maybe I am wrong for believing in him like I do. God knows I am no model American citizen. Have been bad for a helluva long time. I guess when you are in your darkest hour, you see and feel something. I saw Him. And I am an unworthy sinner.

I guess it all goes back to guilt though!
 
#944
#944
Snakes on a Wii said:
That's not what atheism means. Atheism refers to a state of belief, whereas agnosticism refers to a state of knowledge. To be an agnostic means to lack knowledge of whether or not something is true, to be atheistic is to lack a belief (in God).
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight. To be agnostic, which is what I was suggesting, means to "lack knowledge of whether or not something is true". So if you weren't lacking the knowledge, therefore you must have been in possession of the knowledge. Are you really stating that at the moment you were born that you knew that God didn't exist?

I no longer feel worthy to question or doubt anything you say. My sincerest apologies.

:worship::worship::worship::worship:
 
#945
#945
BeecherVol said:
No different, than being born christian.

They are both choices.

I don't remember making many choices as an infant, at least to that magnitude.

I was born a VOL tho.:yes:
Click to expand...

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any gods, not someone who actively believes in no gods. A newborn has never heard of god, and hasn't been indoctrinated into belief. Thus, all newborns are atheists (until their parents - sadly - get a hold of them).

Ignore this repeat...my bad.
 
Last edited:
#946
#946
VOLnVEGAS said:
I hear ya Wii. I understand you completely. And I dont blame you one bit.

I dont care about heaven or hell. I dont care about none of that jazz. And who knows maybe I am wrong for believing in him like I do. God knows I am no model American citizen. Have been bad for a helluva long time. I guess when you are in your darkest hour, you see and feel something. I saw Him. And I am an unworthy sinner.

I guess it all goes back to guilt though!
Click to expand...

That's a great post VnV. And for what it's worth... we are all unworthy. The Bible provides numerous examples of some of the "most unworthy" being the ones God chose to serve. Sounds to me like you are serving Him well!
 
#947
#947
IBlvNTmWrk said:
So let me get this straight. To be agnostic, which is what I was suggesting, means to "lack knowledge of whether or not something is true". So if you weren't lacking the knowledge, therefore you must have been in possession of the knowledge. Are you really stating that at the moment you were born that you knew that God didn't exist?

I no longer feel worthy to question or doubt anything you say. My sincerest apologies.

:worship::worship::worship::worship:
Click to expand...

Never said any of that, just saying that babies are by definition both agnostic and atheist.
 
#948
#948
IBlvNTmWrk said:
That's a great post VnV. And for what it's worth... we are all unworthy. The Bible provides numerous examples of some of the "most unworthy" being the ones God chose to serve. Sounds to me like you are serving Him well!
Click to expand...
I truely appreciate your kind words. Thank you
 
#949
#949
CSpindizzy said:
I will try you. Your beliefs are based on whatever is found at a particular time. Evolution is not some set theory. It varies. Scientists within that 'realm' even have varying theories as to what happened. The same goes for the Big Bang. "evidence" constantly is "discovered" making changes in those theories. So basically your 'faith' is in something that is fluid - something that is based on some concept that constantly changes and is not even a uniform scientific value. The goalpost changes with every "new discovery" even if it completely changes a previous tenet within a theory. but yet I am criticised for believing something supposedly with nothing tangible.
Click to expand...

Evolution is a set theory. Evolution doesn't vary. Evolution is an incontrovertible scientific fact. The mechanisms for evolution, and the rate at which it operates, are 'variable' and subject to reasonable scientific disagreement. There is an important distinction between evolution and natural selection that you need to get a handle of.

Second, you seem to have a curious definition of faith. Faith necessarily has in it the idea that the person of faith holds onto the belief despite, or in spite of, evidence to the contrary. Faith precedes and supercedes reason. You would not say that a Christian had faith if she said something like "right now I guess I believe in god because it is the most reasonable hypothesis I have encountered. However, I will keep looking, and if something more sensible comes along, I am all over it." You wouldn't bat an eyelash in saying that she is not a person of faith. Similarly, faith doesn't apply to scientific theories or people with secular mindsets. I don't think I need to elaborate anymore, I'm sure you get the point.
 
#950
#950
Nice backpedal? I'm not the one grasping for straws here. You admit you are no scholar. You'd be doing yourself a favor and leaving it at that. Please tell me what your point is in referencing Matthew telling a story of the dead saints walking the streets and the others not. Are you implying that since no one else did, his must be fake? Or that because no one else did, therefore it contradicts and therefore must be false?

You keep running with this example but are really going nowhere with it. Run through the Gospels. Also study who the intended audiences are. Different authors still told the same stories. Some chose to omit certain stories while others included them. Just because one omits, it doesn't make it contradictory or false. Your understanding of documentation in general makes me question if the attacks on your age are for a reason.

I will try to make this easy for you. Matthew, being a Jew and targeting a Jewish audience would ensure events that would correspond with the Jewish understanding of the Messiah. Regarding this particular event, recalling saints of old being raised from the dead would appeal to the Jews for understanding they had been judged and returned briefly to prove Jesus' deity. He preached resurrection and this offered proof to the ones it would mean the most to - the Jews.

John's audience was Greek - mostly to the ethnic Greek or those well versed in Greek philosophy. He would omit more of the supernatural acts because his appeal was to the philosophical debates - John 1:1 - in the beginning was the Word - logos - logic, reason, order. What these schools of thought were teaching and/or debating was as John said represented by God. Certain stories again being omitted or included did not make them false, inaccurate, or contradictory.

So by all means, keep trying to make an effort to prove a non-existent point.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top