I agree that faith can be based without reason. But Christianity is one religion that faith can be based on evidence. I think faith is a lot easier to justify when it is based on evidence.
Only empirical/personal evidence. And these evidence can caution every religion. You cannot justify god with logic and rationality, anyway i never saw an argument for god that was not fallacious (not from my point of view; from a logical point of view, by using law of logic)
Here here!
@cystic:
@Mr:
I see you what saying, however, people do not routinely rise for the grave, its not something that happens in the world we know. People do not walk on water and turn water into wine.
There is plenty of evidence to support that the above does not happen.Poeple who wish to see UFOs usually claim they do.
If you chose to belive something enough and want to convice others, who knows what you’ll do.All the porphecies about Jesus, as writing in the bible, came true. correct well that right there makes me wonder.
The Napoleonic war history does nothing that defies my sense of logic, so its easy to accept the general facts about that time period.
It Napoleon’s history was covered in stories of how he was walking on water, rising his soldiers from the dead and was born of immaculate conception, I wouldn’t belive it either.Fair enough. So in your mind, the fact that these miracles are listed in the bible are evidence that the whole thing is a corrupt myth? Or part myth/some history? Or interesting literature piece (except for the book of Numbers and Leviticus)?
I belive the bible has some historic value and is certainly an interesting piece of literature.
I do not belive it has any logical evidence to convince me that its writings are true.
What some people are claiming are as fact/proof , which clearly is not in a logical sense( and I don’t know another way), is what really gets me.
I havn’t read much of the bible, but what I know of it, is suspect right from the beginning.
I’m I suppose to belive that the human race was started with just 2 people. Thats a big family( with a big history of incest).
How does the bible explain the dinosaurs fossils?The history of the bible does not span millions of years.
How does it explain evolution?
Why do humans have different skin color,/facial features/
Just 2 in the beginning, remeber?
How does it explain monkeys on one side of a river having tails and monkeys on the other side of the same river having no tails.
Why are apes and man so close in appearance? Did God run out of imagination?
I dont mean to rant or rag on you in particular CC I just thinking out loud here.
If the Bible has claim to a few “prophecies” which have come true( also, this is subject to Self-fulfilling prophecies) I still think there is enough questionable things running against it.
@Mr:
I belive the bible has some historic value and is certainly an interesting piece of literature.
I do not belive it has any logical evidence to convince me that its writings are true.
What some people are claiming are as fact/proof , which clearly is not in a logical sense( and I don’t know another way), is what really gets me.
I havn’t read much of the bible, but what I know of it, is suspect right from the beginning.
I’m I suppose to belive that the human race was started with just 2 people. Thats a big family( with a big history of incest).How does the bible explain the dinosaurs fossils?The history of the bible does not span millions of years.
How does it explain evolution?
Why do humans have different skin color,/facial features/
Just 2 in the beginning, remeber?How does it explain monkeys on one side of a river having tails and monkeys on the other side of the same river having no tails.
Why are apes and man so close in appearance? Did God run out of imagination?
I dont mean to rant or rag on you in particular CC I just thinking out loud here.
No problem mr. Ghoul :D - we’re both adults here.
wrt the two people, i don’t know if that is a metaphor for the earliest people, or if those are the only people mentioned as being created (i.e. God created others outside of Adam and Eve).
If you take the bible literally, it does not seem to explain fossils very well. Flood proponants have an interesting theory, but as i’ve outlined before an intelligently guided evolution (not a young earth, but a millions years old one) seems to make the most sense out of the findings and does not conflict with the bible - at least not metaphorically.
Different people - well, an anthropoligist might make the best out of that. From a biblical standpoint, one might suggest that the 3 sons of Moses spawned the people of Mongolian descent, the people of African descent, as well as the semetic/aryan races - the slavs would be a mixture of some kind (i don’t know - just postulating).
As for monkeys, apes, chimps, and man - i am a Christian who does not believe that the human form being crafted from a lower primate is such a problem. Our bodies are merely organic casings for the soul - subject to the constraints of this world. They are, in the end, a tomb.
(i havn’t nailed down this all yet, but they are some of my more “heretical” musings :D)
wrt the two people, i don’t know if that is a metaphor for the earliest people, or if those are the only people mentioned as being created (i.e. God created others outside of Adam and Eve).
What kind of metaphor ? I mean… are’nt you using the term “metaphor” a little too much ? When i argue such concept as good & evil were stupid you answer me Christianism was made to be simple (agreed!!!), well it does not seem to be so simple if everything is a metaphor.
Flood proponants have an interesting theory, but as i’ve outlined before an intelligently guided evolution (not a young earth, but a millions years old one) seems to make the most sense out of the findings and does not conflict with the bible - at least not metaphorically.
As a matter of fact it does conflict with the bible and you are not going to say the “ark of noah” is metaphorical ? Also are you really serious when you say the flood can be consider a “Theory” ?
As for monkeys, apes, chimps, and man - i am a Christian who does not believe that the human form being crafted from a lower primate is such a problem. Our bodies are merely organic casings for the soul - subject to the constraints of this world. They are, in the end, a tomb.
You still did’nt answer me and falk about why animals does not have souls but we have ?
wrt the two people, i don’t know if that is a metaphor for the earliest people, or if those are the only people mentioned as being created (i.e. God created others outside of Adam and Eve).
What kind of metaphor ? I mean… are’nt you using the term “metaphor” a little too much ? When i argue such concept as good & evil were stupid you answer me Christianism was made to be simple (agreed!!!), well it does not seem to be so simple if everything is a metaphor.
I don’t know what kind of metaphor. I said at the outset i didn’t know. God did not make me omniscient. Sure i am using the term “metaphor” but i don’t where i don’t think it likely applies. Jesus used metaphors all over the place. So did the prophets. You nicely took one aspect of a speculation in answer to a question and tried to tear that apart leaving the rest of my argument alone. Stop that.
Flood proponants have an interesting theory, but as i’ve outlined before an intelligently guided evolution (not a young earth, but a millions years old one) seems to make the most sense out of the findings and does not conflict with the bible - at least not metaphorically.
As a matter of fact it does conflict with the bible and you are not going to say the “ark of noah” is metaphorical ? Also are you really serious when you say the flood can be consider a “Theory” ?
A) It does not conflict with the bible if you do not believe in a 7 24-hour creation
B) I believe the flood happened. People who believe in the flood have a theory about the young earth that i find interesting.
C) I never said the flood was a theory.
now you’re just misquoting me. Stop that.
You still did’nt answer me and falk about why animals does not have souls but we have ?
Right. I asked my friend’s pet cat about that the other day and it told me that it was because they asked not to have a soul, thinking that meant that they would have to wear afro’s, listen to Mo-town, and eat weird food. I guess they confused “having soul” with “having a soul”.
Give me a break. I don’t know.
Does my lack of knowledge on the subject discredit me?
Wild2000 - Exactly. Matters of faith cannot be proven true or false. What “evidence” do you refer to when saying Christianity is based on it?
I don’t know what kind of metaphor. I said at the outset i didn’t know. God did not make me omniscient. Sure i am using the term “metaphor” but i don’t where i don’t think it likely applies. Jesus used metaphors all over the place. So did the prophets. You nicely took one aspect of a speculation in answer to a question and tried to tear that apart leaving the rest of my argument alone. Stop that.
I am just argumenting about what i think is inconsistent.
B) I believe the flood happened. People who believe in the flood have a theory about the young earth that i find interesting.
C) I never said the flood was a theory.
Again i don,t know how you can believe such thing. Young Earth Creationist method and rethoric are completely illogical. They are only trying to find thing that can caution their theory while ignoring all other thing. The ark of noah is as fool as the finnish (norse?) history about how the blood of a bleeding troll had created the earth.
now you’re just misquoting me. Stop that.
Right, i have made an error. Sorry. (but as far as i know it is the first time).
Does my lack of knowledge on the subject discredit me?
It only show you have no reason to believe animal have no souls.
B) I believe the flood happened. People who believe in the flood have a theory about the young earth that i find interesting.
C) I never said the flood was a theory.Again i don,t know how you can believe such thing. Young Earth Creationist method and rethoric are completely illogical. They are only trying to find thing that can caution their theory while ignoring all other thing. The ark of noah is as fool as the finnish (norse?) history about how the blood of a bleeding troll had created the earth.
A) I do not necessarily believe the “Young Earth Creation method” (i don’t have the wherewithal to immediately disbelieve it either) and i don’t know how many times i have said this. With regards to the “rhetoric” - there is a LOT of that going on both sides, with little proof other than circumstantial evidence.
And enough with the insults please. The use of “fanatic” “lunatic” “fool” . . . there really is no point in a reasonable discussion with you, is there? I never indulge a discussion with a person in front of me who is nearly as insulting as you. One more, and i am finished.
Lot’s of evidence out there wrt a/the Genesis flood. Many other cultures have a flood story that supports the biblical account (the biblical account being quite specific). There appears to be an ark atop mt. Ararat, the flood supports the findings of many anomalous fossils as well as sediment layers.
A) I do not necessarily believe the “Young Earth Creation method” (i don’t have the wherewithal to immediately disbelieve it either) and i don’t know how many times i have said this.
I know that but i never heard of any argument for the flood other than from young earth creationist
And enough with the insults please. The use of “fanatic” “lunatic” “fool” . . . there really is no point in a reasonable discussion with you, is there?
I think there is no more point about these discussion anyway…
About the “fanatic”, “lunatic” and “fool”, only one is true; Fanatic and i really find something that your method is those of a fanatic; sorry if that is an insult and i would understand if you think the same about me. Lunatic; never said that about you and about Fool i only said it was not more reasonable than the history of the Troll…
I never indulge a discussion with a person in front of me who is nearly as insulting as you. One more, and i am finished.
It is finished, we are going in circle.
the christian bible is full of lies (along with any other “bible”) because its doctrine contridicts the VERY NATURE OF HUMAN BEINGS. they bible says we should not engage in sex outside of marriage because it is a sin. well, let us ask why we engage in sexual relations in the first place? BECAUSE WE ARE SEXUAL BEINGS who lust for sex. abstaining from our natural acts like sex is the only real sin there is–it is the sin of robbing the people of thier lives in exchange for a “spirtual passport” to a fabricated literary place known as heaven. do yourself a favor, throw out the bible and listen TO YOURSELF. the only god you may save is yourself…
the christian bible is full of lies (along with any other “bible”) because its doctrine contridicts the VERY NATURE OF HUMAN BEINGS.
Exact ! The christian moral code is the enemy of the human code of survival, christianism is against what is human; lust, sex, passions…
Sex outside marriage… There is NOTHING unethical about having sex outside marriage (i am not speaking of adultery), it is normal, perfectly normal and it hurt anyone as long as the people engage in sex are mature. Christian are lacking jugement when they do not want distributor in school because sex is not moral for teenager… We should teach our children how to be mature while having sex, not to say it’s sins, they’ll do it anyway, it’s instinct and it’s what make us survive…
A) The “Nature of Human Beings” as the Bible describes is exactly how you say it is. We desire sex outside of marriage, we want to let out a loud obscenity when we stub our toe, and we want to generally look out for Number One. The Bible, however, never claims that doing right is natural. The Bible is clear that doing right ( at least, Biblical Morals) is very difficult and can only be done consistently with direct assistance from God. Our “Nature” didn’t even KNOW WHAT wrong was at first. Then Adam and Eve ate of the tree of THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. From then on, all humanity had what Christians call a sin nature… a NATURAL tendency towards ones one ways… it is natural…
B) Finsternis… If you throw away all religion, what foundation can declare a difference between premarital sex and adultery? Neither is wrong, IF YOU SAY SO. Who am I, or who is CC to tell you otherwise?
@city:
A) The “Nature of Human Beings” as the Bible describes is exactly how you say it is. We desire sex outside of marriage, we want to let out a loud obscenity when we stub our toe, and we want to generally look out for Number One. The Bible, however, never claims that doing right is natural. The Bible is clear that doing right ( at least, Biblical Morals) is very difficult and can only be done consistently with direct assistance from God. Our “Nature” didn’t even KNOW WHAT wrong was at first. Then Adam and Eve ate of the tree of THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. From then on, all humanity had what Christians call a sin nature… a NATURAL tendency towards ones one ways… it is natural…
B) Finsternis… If you throw away all religion, what foundation can declare a difference between premarital sex and adultery? Neither is wrong, IF YOU SAY SO. Who am I, or who is CC to tell you otherwise?
a) agreed. There may be more to sex than just “having a good time” - i know non-Christians who claim it to be an important psycho-social act blah blah blah
b) also agree. There is the golden rule tho’ - i don’t want my hunny cheating on me, so i won’t cheat on her . . . although that also is a biblical principal.
@city:
A) The “Nature of Human Beings” as the Bible describes is exactly how you say it is. We desire sex outside of marriage, we want to let out a loud obscenity when we stub our toe, and we want to generally look out for Number One. The Bible, however, never claims that doing right is natural. The Bible is clear that doing right ( at least, Biblical Morals) is very difficult and can only be done consistently with direct assistance from God. Our “Nature” didn’t even KNOW WHAT wrong was at first. Then Adam and Eve ate of the tree of THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. From then on, all humanity had what Christians call a sin nature… a NATURAL tendency towards ones one ways… it is natural…
If you really believe Adam and Eve have existed, all discussion are pointless…
Anyway it is still like i said; what is natural is sins.
B) Finsternis… If you throw away all religion, what foundation can declare a difference between premarital sex and adultery? Neither is wrong, IF YOU SAY SO. Who am I, or who is CC to tell you otherwise?
Ho… the ultimate lazy argument, if nobody can think for me, what will i do ? No seriously i do not believe something is “evil”, but there is some things i feel are not ok, not evil, just wrong, but i am just not saying it is “universal”, that a little guy out there said it was not ok to commit “adultery”. I have an ethic my friend, like most atheist, i just don’t say it’s “THE” ethic, i don’t believe i have the “truth”, i just have my opinions.
@Mr:
Why are apes and man so close in appearance? Did God run out of imagination?
Hahaha :lol: Sorry but this was so funny to resist
I havn’t read much of the bible, but what I know of it, is suspect right from the beginning.
I’m I suppose to belive that the human race was started with just 2 people. Thats a big family( with a big history of incest).
Using the Law of Endangered and Extinct Species, it is impossible for 2 people to give birth to so many generations, let alone survive after the first few generations. Usually (and this is being conservative), it is 20 or below when the course of extinction is irrecoverable (unless God had access to genetic cloning or genetic engineering of some sort)
@CC:
A) It does not conflict with the bible if you do not believe in a 7 24-hour creation
Do you actually believe in this? Or is it young Earth creationist running amok?
@city:
B) Finsternis… If you throw away all religion, what foundation can declare a difference between premarital sex and adultery
Uh, there is a big difference. It is impossible to have premarital sex (assuming with someone else), while married.
It’s a matter of Faith and what you hold to be the truth. That may not be what someone else holds to be the truth. I’m telling you now that none of this can be proven. It’s a matter of faith. Personally, I believe that the Christian Bible is true as a whole. Some of it might be just stories (like the story of creation-that might be just there to explain why we do things wrong.) The Bible was written down by humans, who are by nature imperfect people, so of course there will be discrepancies. it comes down to what you believe as a person.
TG Moses - your state government…
What’s that?
Do you believe the Qu’ran is true? Do you believe the teachings of the Buda are true? Do you believe the stories of the Ancient Greeks are true?
They all have the same credibility. Some are inspriational, like the Teachings of Buda. However, the Christian Bible is a bond of slavery for it’s worshippers, unlike most teachings.
Do you believe the Qu’ran is true? Do you believe the teachings of the Buda are true? Do you believe the stories of the Ancient Greeks are true?
They all have the same credibility. Some are inspriational, like the Teachings of Buda. However, the Christian Bible is a bond of slavery for it’s worshippers, unlike most teachings.
that is the perspective of someone who is not a Christian. One might say the same of marriage - that it is a bond of slavery. Many married men might agree, however for those happily married it is a bond of love - of give and receive. We do things not so much because of fear or command, but as St. Augustine said “love God and do what you like”. That’s not slavery to me.
