Islam is a peaceful religion is it..

[Robert]

Oh well, that makes sava's argument invalid.

I believe that one day bad people will trow a nuke on good people. Those people will burn and die.
Am I an evil person because I believe this will happen one day?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by CyberShy


The question is if you are happy with yourself, and believe that you're a good person, or do you see the corruption in yourself. Do you see that there's something wrong with us.

Avoiding the issue I guess.

[Robert]

No, I'm answering the issue.
You don't need to know God or Jesus to answer 'yes' to the question I raised.

I believe that if you answer 'yes' to that question, without knowing God or Jesus, God will renew you as well.

That's an answer, isn't it?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Oh well, that makes sava's argument invalid.

OMFG!!
This has NEVER happened before.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by CyberShy
No, I'm answering the issue.
You don't need to know God or Jesus to answer 'yes' to the question I raised.

I believe that if you answer 'yes' to that question, without knowing God or Jesus, God will renew you as well.

That's an answer, isn't it?

I know him as a ficticious character since I don't believe in his existence. Will I be sent to hell for that?

[Dinner]

Burn you nonbeliever burn!

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Molly:



where the hell did you get this lie?

Amun created the world by masturbation! Amun!

Oh, I dunno, same place you get some of yours?


Remember how you asserted the Indies were so called because the Spanish named them after 'in Dios' ?

In any case, I'm happy to correct Osiris to Ra-Atum.

'With this foundation, the Heliopolitan cosmogony develops the myth further. The first event was the creation of Atum, the god of Heliopolis. There is dispute over whether he created himself, or was the son of Nu. Some texts say he first appeared over the hill, others say he was, himself, the hill. Eventually, Atum became associated with Ra, the sun-god. Ra-Atum at this point is said to be the coming of the light to disperse the darkness of Nu. Ra-Atum is symbolized by the Phoenix in this context. His next task was to create other gods. He did this by masturbation, not having a mate. This was not offensive to ancient Egyptians, but in fact intensified his power in their minds. '

http://www.touregypt.net/gods1.htm

That's courtesy the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism.

I can't recall pretending I was infallible. Perhaps you have me confused with the Pope, or Obi Gyn.

If you want to suggest someone has knowingly purveyed information they knew to be a lie, do so.

If you're simply pointing out an error, there are more civil ways of doing so.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I know him as a ficticious character since I don't believe in his existence. Will I be sent to hell for that?

You know what hell is? It's being seperated from God, from Jesus, forever.

I can't answer your question straight, I am not God.
I can ask some counter-questions though.

- you don't believe Jesus exists. Do you want Him to exist in the way the Bible describes Him?
- Are you happy to be seperated from God for eternity, in case He exists?

Anyway, hell is seperation from God.
The seperation came into existance in the beginning when mankind chosed to be their own God, and thus claim they don't need thé God.

If you still claim you don't need thé God, apart from the question if He exists or not, and if you claim you can make things allright yourself, you can try to for eternity.
And you don't have to be with the God you don't want for eternity.

It's not a matter of believing into his existance.
It's a matter of believing in the truth behind yourself. I believe that the truth behind mankind, how corrupted we are and how we can't help ourselves, still stands even seperated from the question if God exists or not.

But I wonder if you want a serious question on your answer, since I already said this before.
I think you just want me to say one specific things so you can give your pre-made reaction on that.

I'm sorry, I won't give you a simplistic answer that suits your needs.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by CyberShy
You know what hell is? It's being seperated from God, from Jesus, forever.

Oh, is that all. See I didn't know that. Jesus seems like a cool guy from the stories about him, but I don't believe those stories, so I'm not really worried about being seperated from someone who I don't believe in.

Originally posted by CyberShy
- Are you happy to be seperated from God for eternity, in case He exists?

This question doesn't make sense. Do you want to ask me if I would be happy to be seperated from him for eternity if I believed that he existed?

Originally posted by CyberShy
It's not a matter of believing into his existance.
It's a matter of believing in the truth behind yourself. I believe that the truth behind mankind, how corrupted we are and how we can't help ourselves, still stands even seperated from the question if God exists or not.

I certainly wouldn't say that I'm corrupted, but I'm no benevolent God either. Is this something that you wanted to hear.

Originally posted by CyberShy
But I wonder if you want a serious question on your answer, since I already said this before.
I think you just want me to say one specific things so you can give your pre-made reaction on that.

I'm sorry, I won't give you a simplistic answer that suits your needs.

I was really checking to see if you had a decent answer for my question.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Remember how you asserted the Indies were so called because the Spanish named them after 'in Dios' ?

I'll never cease to be puzzled for what obscure end this lie has been created and spread. I've heard that crap just so often now.

[Ben Kenobi]

Tonight, I'm going to pray. I'll take a leap of faith and say something to this effect.

How did I miss this yesterday?

"Ask, and it will be given you, seek and you shall find. Knock, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. "

[Ben Kenobi]

It's not about tolerating sin... it's about condemning us to a life of sin from birth. That seems unfair and not the work of a just God. And what about God's sins? If he is creator of all, is he not responsible for allowing sin? If he's God, he could create a world without sin.

He could, but that would require a world of automatons, that would not have free will. Free will must entail the possibility of rebellion as well as to love him freely.

As for original sin, why would God condemn us to a life of sin at birth? You are right, he should not condemn us to such an end, which is why we are offered something more than existence in sin.

We are given the capability of responding to God in our hearts, and God is always trying to draw us to him. So he has not forsaken us.

He promises us that the vagarities of the flesh will fade away, to be replaced by something better, in the next world. So we will not always be held by our sin. Everyone who opens his heart to God will receive this life, and only God can examine all hearts to see that this is true.

Why would God need his creations to do this?

Why does God need us at all? He gave us these things because they are good for us, and not for him. We needed these things, so he gave them to us.

Would it have been better for him not to have created us in the first place? Perhaps, and we would not be the wiser.

That's a good question, but how could anything be better or worse for him? God is sufficient in himself, and cannot be added onto or taken away from.

The only thing I can see is that it would be better for us, if he did so, and not for him.

But sin is subjective in God's eyes. Is something a "sin" just because God says so? What is the reason that say, premarital sex, is a sin?

Sin is many things. A good way to sum up all of sin, is that it is an attempt to replace God with something else. This can take a wide variety of forms. Sin not only is what God says, but it has a very real effect on our lives. We are not made to work well with sin, yet we delight in sin to our own detriment. So it is not arbitrary, yet it is defined by God.

If what we do in this world is of little importance (peaks and valleys, etc) then what does it matter IF we sin?

The effect that it has on ourselves. If we are immortal, in the sense that our souls do not perish, then the effects of sin on ourselves are of great importance.

Why would God create us with a desire to sin if he doesn't want us to sin?

Why is there any suffering at all in this life? Why does rain fall on the righteous and the wicked? It's the same question in different forms. The best answer that I can see is that in order for God to know our hearts, he must test them.

What kind of a sick demented God would create such a scenario and let it play out for the hundreds of billions (or so) of human beings that have ever lived?

Because the alternative is non-existence, and because he offers us a time, where this suffering will not exist, and he offers this to everyone.

A father tests his child to prepare him for adulthood in building character. The same is with God. It hurts now, and we can't see why this has to happen, but it will make more sense later.

well, to be precise, the big bang says matter is finite, but space extends without boundaries... forever...

Space and time come to a point, and origin. Space is finite, though expanding.

A previous theory stated that the universe was infinitely old, and static, and it has only been the last 75 years that has provided the evidence for an expanding universe, that has not existed forever. That theory I believe was Ptolemy's but originated with Aristotle, that the universe has no beginning or end.

I don't quite believe in that theory. I think its quite possible that there is infinite matter in the universe and that "big bangs" may be localized events. If space extends forever, who is to say there isn't more matter beyond our detection?

It only makes sense to say that you have an infinite universe, if the universe is static. If the universe expands, then it has to be finite. It cannot expand without having an edge.

That analogy doesn't quite relate in any way to our existence. Since there is no way of knowing the "chance" of our random existence, it's not possible to form such an analogy.

From what we know, and the principle that you were saying, the chance is infinitesimal that the requirements for the universe such that human life exists could have arisen through chance.

It's called the Weak Anthroscopic Principle, and it involves a whole host of physical constants that a small change would vastly alter the fundamental principles of the universe.

Just because something isn't probable, doesn't mean it isn't possible.

True. It's possible that your friend could have drawn all those royal flushes by chance. But honestly, it would seem more probable that he cheated.

quote:

Because I do not believe in something 100% unless it is proven beyond all doubt. I accept that Christianity's explanation of things, however flawed, is possible... I just don't see it likely.

If there were a better explanation, and one that made more sense, then it would be taken. But however improbable, the possible answer should be taken.

It's more likely it is the manmade creation... myth, superstition. How is the myth of Jesus any more or less valid than say, Zeus or Poseidon? It seems arbitrary to accept the myth of Jesus when it is not proven beyond all doubt.

Now, we've made an important distinction. You are right, that from what I have said so far it is impossible to say that one should believe in Christ moreso than Zeus. There needs to be other things put in place to make this point.

It's my position that if we cannot explain something adequately, we shouldn't believe in conjecture or assumptions just because they might "make sense".

Granted. With Christ, I would not ask you to make this leap, and fortunately he doesn't ask us to do so either.

If God has given us anything, he has given us minds with which to use, lose, or abuse. If we cannot explain something, we should continue to seek the truth.If we are content with an unprovable explanation just because it makes sense, we may never KNOW the truth.

Very true. I do not fault someone for questioning. God encourages us to use our minds to their capacities, at the same time as reminding us of our limitations. In fact, if you start to think about things, our limitations become very much more clear.

How would I test God? It wouldn't be a test, necessarily. It might just be a conversation... if God spoke to me in a way no other person is capable of speaking to me, I might believe in him.

Yet he is not subject to our commands. If he were, he would not be God.

For instance, if he were able to take me back in time, or do something beyond the range of what I've come to know as possible in the physical world, then that would be proof enough for me.

Which brings us to miracles, and back to my earlier question. How do we determine in history, whether someone is telling the truth? We may have eyewitnesses, yet eyewitnesses can lie.

I am making the case that Christ has already performed such actions with eyewitnesses to verify his claims, including hostile ones. These hostile witnesses are to be considered much more reliable than those of the facile witnesses, the ones who would be more likely to agree with him.

Now, we can go through the whole host of them, or through one, the Resurrection. If Christ did not rise from the dead, on the cross, then he is worse than a liar and Christians are responsible for misleading many souls across history. If he did, then his claims about himself ought to be accepted as truth.

[Ben Kenobi]

"It is solely to those books of Scripture which are called 'canonic' that I have learned to grant such attention and respect that I firmly believe that their authors have made no errors in writing them. When I encounter in these books a statement which seems to contradict reality, I am in no doubt that either the text (of my copy) is faulty, or that the translator has not been faithful to the original, or that my understanding is deficient."

Yes, what is the problem with that statement, and how does it contradict what I have said earlier? It does nothing of the sort.

"I firmly believe that their authors have made no errors in writing them."

Which is my testimony as well.

[quote]
'The second chapter of the book of Luke states that, shortly before the birth of Jesus, the emperor Augustus ordered a census to be taken throughout the Roman world. Luke states that every person had to travel to the town of his ancestors in order for the census to be taken. He points to the census as the reason that Joseph and Mary traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem, where Jesus is said to have been born. In the book entitled Gospel Fictions, Randal Helms states that no such census was ever taken in the history of the Roman Empire.

He also says that it is ridiculous to think that the practical Romans would require millions of people to travel enormous distances to towns of long-deceased ancestors merely to sign a tax form. '

Let's look at the Gospel accounts first before the rest of this.


Luke 2:1-4

"In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world."

"(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)"

"And everyone went to his own town to register"

"So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David."


Now, the author that you cite doubts this account on two grounds. First, that the Romans did not conduct no 'such' census. It seems to me that the sting lies in the word such. Did Caesar Augustus in the time of Quirinius conduct a census?

Your source does not answer this question Molly.

Secondly, the quote addresses the problem with the fact that Joseph and Mary 'travelled a great distance' in order to be registered, and that obviously the Roman Empire lacks the facilities to deal with this, or to conduct a census. This is false for two reasons.

First of all, the Romans had the capacity to conduct a census over their entire empire.

Secondly, how far is it from Nazareth to Bethlehem? About 70 miles and would have taken them about 4 or 5 days to travel.

This is by no means impossible.

I suggest you go here Molly, they give an extensive detailed account of Caesar Augustus, perhaps the greatest Emperor in Roman times, and the censes he conducted.

http://users.rcn.com/tlclcms/census.html

There is no 'actual historical confirmation of the incident which Luke recounts.' Luke is our only extant source of information on this subject."

Historical confirmation exists for a census conducted by Caesar Augustus at the time of Christ's birth. I believe that is sufficient evidence to establish the reliability of this statement by Luke, that Joseph did travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem.

As for your second source, from my source:

"The three empire-wide censuses were in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D. In all probability the one in 8 B.C. is the one the Luke mentions in the Christmas story. Even though scholarship normally dates Christ's birth between 4 and 7 B.C., the 8 B.C. census fits because in all likelihood it would have taken several years for the bureaucracy of the census to reach Palestine."

So this would explain the census, which ibri insists,

"It is doubted that there was any decree made by Augustus to "enroll the inhabited earth." No evidence for such an order is known."

I would consider that rather feeble investigation by your source molly to be scooped by Christians.

Now, as for the second contradiction, both quotes from my source above.

"But the problem is, according to records available to us, Quirinius was governor of Syria in 6-7 A.D. -- eleven years too late!"

"This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governing Syria." What does Luke mean by a first census? One theory offered is that the Greek word for "first" (prote) is sometimes translated "prior to" or "before." This is a viable solution because the Greek text of Luke 2:2 can indeed be translated, "This census was before Quirinius was governing Syria."

Now, another explanation, resting on more solid ground.

http://www.scripturessay.com/cev2.html

"He tells us of an inscription found at Rome in 1828 indicating that Quirinius was governor of Syria, not once but twice, and also that William Ramsay, just before World War I, had found a monument in Asia Minor likewise implying two governorships for Quirinius."

Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History, Scripture Press, p. 285.

[Ben Kenobi]

Now for your second attack on the historicity of the Gospels:

'The second chapter of the book of Matthew asserts that, shortly after the birth of Jesus, King Herod ordered the massacre of all male children two years of age or under in Bethlehem and its vicinity. In the book of Luke, which contains the only other New Testament story of Jesus' birth, there is no mention of this order. It is also not mentioned in any of the secular histories of the time, and not even by those writers who carefully described many far less wicked deeds of Herod (such as Josephus). '

Asimov, Isaac, Asimov's Guide to the Bible, (New York: Avenel Books, 1981) p. 796.

Really, we are to believe Isaac Asimov as a biblical authority?



In any case, once again starting from the citation of Scripture, which Asimov does not bother to provide.

Matthew 2:16

"When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. "

Now, to turn Asimov's own statement against him, from none other than the same author as before.

Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History, Scripture Press, p. 285.

"A man who had his own wife and her mother put to death, his brother-in-law forcibly drowned in a swimming pool, and his own sons strangled-such a man would not have even so much as hesitated in giving the order that the children under two years of age in Bethlehem should be slain."

All Asimov offers is an argument from silence that just because Josephus did not mention something, means that it must not have happened. It is consistent from what we know of Herod to issue such an order.

"When we add to that the complete lack of reference in contemporary secular histories to Herod's slaughter of the innocents, we have compelling reason to believe that this event that Matthew claimed was a prophecy fulfillment never even happened."

Now difference here. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We have a compelling reason, from the character of Herod.

Farrell Till. "Prophecy Fulfillment and Probability." The Skeptical Review. 1993. Number Four.

Hardly suprising to see you cite Till, Molly.

[Ben Kenobi]

Or mayhap, this one:

'Matthew 27:45

states that while Jesus was on the cross, there fell over the whole land a darkness which lasted from midday until three in the afternoon. Andrew White states that although Roman observers such as Seneca and Pliny carefully described much less striking occurrences of the same sort in more remote regions, they failed to note any such darkness occurring in Judea.

Once again, an argument from silence.

Farrell Till. "Did Marco Polo Lie?" The Skeptical Review. 1996. July/August.

Infalliability of Till, Molly Bloom?