If you believe the Bible is supernatural you are stupid.

[Felix]

Evidence doesn't prove anything.

seriously bud, you're a walking, talking sig producing machine

[battery chucka' one]

the thing that always brings a smile to my face is when people use passages from the bible to prove the bible is real....they simply can't (or won't) recognize the circular reasoning of that whole exercise....

Don't misunderstand, I'm not here to 'prove' God or the Bible to you.

I'm just telling you what the Bible says.

You can believe it or not.

Ditto. We are all free to either choose or deny any belief. However, a choice is always made. I am positive, through my own experience and EVIDENCE that I've experienced personally, that there is a God and that He became man in the person of Jesus Christ. The evidence doesn't prove that He's there. That's a final leap I have to take on my own (though I feel that the Holy Spirit led me to and through it).

I don't understand why so many will simply accept that their belief is the truth, with no personal leap. And then they'll ridicule those who think otherwise. A bit closed minded, don't you think?

[Felix]

I don't understand why so many will simply accept that their belief is the truth, with no personal leap. And then they'll ridicule those who think otherwise. A bit closed minded, don't you think?

it doesn't take some kind of giant leap of faith to believe in the theory of evolution....we've seen evolutionary processes take place over and over and the evidence for evolutionary theory is so supported, most people simply accept is as fact...it's no leap of faith, it's been physically observed, it's testable, and it's repeatable....

is there any observable data (and no, the aforementioned collection of desert scribblings doesn't qualify as "data") that supports the existence of god.....

[battery chucka' one]

I don't understand why so many will simply accept that their belief is the truth, with no personal leap. And then they'll ridicule those who think otherwise. A bit closed minded, don't you think?

it doesn't take some kind of giant leap of faith to believe in the theory of evolution....we've seen evolutionary processes take place over and over and the evidence for evolutionary theory is so supported, most people simply accept is as fact...it's no leap of faith, it's been physically observed, it's testable, and it's repeatable....

is there any observable data (and no, the aforementioned collection of desert scribblings doesn't qualify as "data") that supports the existence of god.....

You still have given me no 'proof'. You believe in something that hasn't been proven and that you can't prove. Therefore, you require faith to believe in it. Until you can prove it, then it'll just be your belief based in your faith. End of story.

By the way, you say that evolutionary processes have been observed. Then please tell me, what historian wrote of Lucy as she lived? Whom traced the supposed route of man from it's life in the sea, to that of an early primate, to its modern state. I want Macro evolution. Perhaps the Tacitus of evolution. One who actually witnessed it personally and can attest that it happened. If all you have is 'evidence', then you have no proof. Just your belief.

Oh, and whom 'supports' these ideas? The same people who gave us ideas of spontaneous generation or those who warned us of global cooling? Which is it? Dare I say, more people don't support than do.

However, you've chosen to have your eyes closed. Go ahead and have another spoonful of your mushroom feed.

[Goober McTuber]

Go ahead and have another spoonful of your mushroom feed.

I-R-O-N-Y.

[Dinsdale]

Iron-clad fucking proof...

If the Christian diety did in fact exist as the Bible claims, and if God indeed did want mankind to hear His message...


You're really going to try and convince me this "perfect entity" who can flood the lands and bring down hellfire and brimstone... appointed BCO as his PR guy?


Pretty much blows the whole christian-theory right out the window, no?


Now, if BCO claimed that God came to him and told him to spend eternity shutting the fuck up... that would be "evidence."

[Felix]

You still have given me no 'proof'. You believe in something that hasn't been proven and that you can't prove. Therefore, you require faith to believe in it. Until you can prove it, then it'll just be your belief based in your faith. End of story.

I'm not trying to "prove" anything, as I came to the conclusion long ago that there is simply no convincing zealots that have predetermined ideas and look for support of those predetermined ideas....you've already concluded that god exists and thus you look for things that prove your belief....you see "his" work everywhere...that's not the way scientific research is performed....

By the way, you say that evolutionary processes have been observed. Then please tell me, what historian wrote of Lucy as she lived?

why do people of your ilk always ask such inane questions? Seriously, you need to educate yourself on genetic biology....if you knew anything about the subject which you so adamantly criticize, you'd know just how stupid this question is....

but if you're really interested in how scientists "know" about Australopithicus afarensis (that's the scientific term), here's a link

http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/lear ... sis-a.html

Whom traced the supposed route of man from it's life in the sea, to that of an early primate, to its modern state. I want Macro evolution. Perhaps the Tacitus of evolution. One who actually witnessed it personally and can attest that it happened. If all you have is 'evidence', then you have no proof. Just your belief.

Once again, before you start criticizing a subject, you should really understand what it is your criticizing.....I'll provide you with some links that will explain (in rudimentary terms even you can understand) what the theory of evolution is....of course you won't read any of it because once again you have a predetermined idea of how things came about and you certainly don't want anything that will disrupt those preconceived notions....but in an effort to expand your thinking, here they are

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-int ... ology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Oh, and whom 'supports' these ideas?

about 99.993% of the scientific community, which includes many scientists that consider themselves Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.

However, you've chosen to have your eyes closed.

of course this is always the last resort of zealots like yourself...really just a reworking of the "you just don't get it" phrase that's a particular favorite of tarts

[poptart]

Felix, life does not arise from non-life.

That being so, how do you come to convincing yourself that life popped up on earth absent a creator?

Where do you imagine life came from?


Curious.

[Felix]

Felix, life does not arise from non-life.

there are experiments that disprove that-not "life" per se, but the building blocks for life have been generated in a labratory setting....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment

That being so, how do you come to convincing yourself that life popped up on earth absent a creator?
Where do you imagine life came from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

abiogenesis is one theory....there are others

but of course when you bring up a "creator" and say that all things must be created then of course you're going to be hit with the "then who created the creator" question.....

biblical passages in 5...4...3...2.....

[poptart]

As to the origin of the Creator ... I don't know.
I have that question.

The Bible doesn't say, either.
It just tells us that He IS.

[battery chucka' one]

Felix, I want somebody who witnessed the evolution, personally, and recorded it so we can hear about what THEY saw it. I don't want conjecture. I want the evolutionary Josephus. I want written word of one who witnessed it. The Bible has stacks of historical evidence written by people who were witnesses. Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection were both seen and recorded for posterity by several witnesses. They happened. This really can't be disputed. Now please, give me the equivalent writings of one who did the same with evolution.

[Felix]

Felix, I want somebody who witnessed the evolution, personally, and recorded it so we can hear about what THEY saw it. I don't want conjecture. I want the evolutionary Josephus.

bad example....I'm assuming your referring to "The Antiquities of the Jews" (which I'd be willing to bet my next months salary that you've never read-I have), wherein it was alleged that Josephus made reference to the existence of Jesus....of course, that's blatantly false....his original writings never made mention of Christ....his references to Jesus were added about 200 years after his death by church "historians" (think Council of Nicaea)....the "writings" of Josephus were brazen forgeries ...

and of course you want "somebody" that witnessed it...but rest assured, if such a being could be produced that still wouldn't be satisfactory ....face it, you believe what you believe and no amount of fossil records, transitional forms, or evidence of any kind is going to sway you from your beliefs....I've debated this many times with people just like you and trust me, there is nothing that will convince you of anything other than your belief in a magical being that simply poofed everything into existence....people like you will simply not be swayed....

believe me when I say this....I truly feel sorry for you.....

I want written word of one who witnessed it. The Bible has stacks of historical evidence written by people who were witnesses. Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection were both seen and recorded for posterity by several witnesses.

really-several witnesses?....well that's it, time to throw out all of the progress we've made as a result of scientific discovery-all of the medicines that are a result of evolutionary biology because "several witnesses" that were about a week ahead of neanderthal man on the evolutionary scale said that they saw the son of god and he told them to tell the rest of us that we'd better behave or else....

that is a fucking outstanding argument....

They happened.
This really can't be disputed.

No they didn't....your only "proof" is your particular edited version of 2,000 year-old desert scribblings-a book that proves itself, proves nothing....

shit dude, do you know how ridiculous and simultaneously funny this whole line of "reasoning" is?

But you know what would convince me of god's existence?

spontaneous regeneration of an amputated human limb would do it...when you find me an example of that, then we'll have something to talk about

[poptart]

Felix, life does not arise from non-life.

Says who?

I do.

It's never happened and it never will.

If you've got some Nobel Prize winnning info that shoots those statments down, post it.



Btw, it was significantly more than 'a few witnesses' who saw and interacted with the risen Christ.

1Corinthians 15:6 records that the risen Christ appeared to more than 500 people, and Acts 1:3 records that He appeared over the course of 40 days, speaking of the Kingdom of God.

[Felix]

I do.

It's never happened and it never will.

If you've got some Nobel Prize winnning info that shoots those statments down, post it.

did you bother to read the link I posted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment

of course you didn't....you're like bco in that nothing will ever shake your fundamental beliefs in an almighty (and unseen) creator....

1Corinthians 15:6 records that the risen Christ appeared to more than 500 people, and Acts 1:3 records that He appeared over the course of 40 days, speaking of the Kingdom of God.

what Bible passages that prove the Bible?
Color me shocked....

[poptart]

Felix, as I posted earlier ...

Don't misunderstand, I'm not here to 'prove' God or the Bible to you.

I'm just telling you what the Bible says.

You can believe it or not.

This is a theology forum.

Some Scripture can be expected to be posted in here.



The experiment link?

Life coming from non-life.
Pretty ... HUGE ... leap.

LOTS of 'could have beens' ... 'is thought to have beens' ... 'is believed to have beens' are found there.

If your truth is in there, so be it.

I'm not IN.

[Felix]

The experiment link?

Life coming from non-life.
Pretty ... HUGE ... leap.

LOTS of 'could have beens' ... 'is thought to have beens' ... 'is believed to have beens' are found there.

and of course your beliefs are founded on much more solid ground the multi-edited, voted on "word" of god cobbled together by an ignorant group of goat-herders that thought the sun revolved around a flat-earth

solid, substanative stuff there

[battery chucka' one]

It's abundantly obvious that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. If life cannot come from non-life, where does your precious god come from? Or are you saying he/she/it isn't alive?

You're missing the point. God IS. He wasn't created. He created all. Does your mind have troubles comprehending the concepts of 'always was' and 'always has been'? You think that something always must have an age, yes? You judge based upon time. But what if that object actually CREATED time? As a result, from God, came time itself. That's why He's described as the alpha and omega. The beginning and end. When time ceases to be, God still is.

Again, I understand that this might be hard for you to comprehend.

[battery chucka' one]

Felix, I want somebody who witnessed the evolution, personally, and recorded it so we can hear about what THEY saw it. I don't want conjecture. I want the evolutionary Josephus.

bad example....I'm assuming your referring to "The Antiquities of the Jews" (which I'd be willing to bet my next months salary that you've never read-I have), wherein it was alleged that Josephus made reference to the existence of Jesus....of course, that's blatantly false....his original writings never made mention of Christ....his references to Jesus were added about 200 years after his death by church "historians" (think Council of Nicaea)....the "writings" of Josephus were brazen forgeries ...

No, actually, I don't look at Josephus to either prove or disprove Christ. I look at him as one who was a historian. I earlier mentioned Tacitus. I want the historian who was there watching evolution happen and wrote it down as it did so. Can you produce such historical documents?

[poptart]

and of course your beliefs are founded on much more solid ground the multi-edited, voted on "word" of god cobbled together by an ignorant group of goat-herders that thought the sun revolved around a flat-earth

solid, substanative stuff there

It really is.

The Bible is a PHENOMENAL book.
Nothing remotely close to it has ever been written.
It is an incredible and jaw-dropping Book on many levels.


The 'experiment' didn't produce life from non-life.
No experiment ever will.

God is the creator who gives life.

[Goober McTuber]

God IS.

Well, that depends on what your definition of "is" is.

[Screw_Michigan]

The Bible is a PHENOMENAL book.
Nothing remotely close to it has ever been written.
It is an incredible and jaw-dropping Book on many levels.

Go fuck yourself, tard.

[Felix]

The Bible is a PHENOMENAL book.
It is an incredible and jaw-dropping Book on many levels.

if you mean jaw-droppingly stupid-then yes on that we can agree....

why do you think so many religions don't expose young children to the "scriptures" until they've been fully indoctrinated to the "holiness" of it all?

because children easily recognize the fairy tale qualities of the Bible

[battery chucka' one]

Felix, this is where your argument falls on its face.

First, you lump Christianity in with all other world RELIGIONS, when it's actually not a religion.

Second, in all churches I've attended (fundamentalist, all), they teach children about scripture. They do shield them somewhat from the more brutal elements/stories, but I don't know of many young Christian children who don't know about Daniel and the lion's den, Noah's ark, and Christ's death on the cross/resurrection. Those are all quite supernatural in nature.

[Dinsdale]

And the Sig Machine just keeps on churning.

[poptart]

Christianity isn't a religion? Really? What is it? A rubber ball? Paper airplane? A pair of shitted drawers?

It is a faith.

Faith in the risen Christ.

[poptart]

If you want to call it a religion, that's fine.
It's understandable.

Mvscal, have you read any or all of the Bible?

Just wondering.

[Dinsdale]

If you want to call it a religion, that's fine.

Oh, thanks... since it is pretty much the quintessential definition of the word "religion," I think I'll go ahead and roll with it.


But you don't know how much better I feel having your blessing.


Pop... I know deep down it pains you to be under the same umbrella in this forum as Siggy...


But don't let his retardation become contagious.

[battery chucka' one]

First, you lump Christianity in with all other world RELIGIONS, when it's actually not a religion.

Christianity isn't a religion? Really? What is it? A rubber ball? Paper airplane? A pair of shitted drawers?

It's a relationship with the risen Christ. How hard is that to understand?

[Dinsdale]

It's a relationship with the risen Christ. How hard is that to understand?

It's actually quite easy to understand.

It's also perfectly consistant with the definition of the word "religion."


How do you think Jesus feels about your irrational arrogance?


Wait... he was kind of an arrogant guy in his own right.

[poptart]

You can use the words interchangeably, Dins, yes, that is why there in not really a big need to belabor the point.

The difference between the two terms, as I see it, and for what it's worth, is that I have a faith (belief) in the risen Christ.
I confessed that truth and I am not required to do anything else.

If I am a muslim, for just one example, I am required by my 'religion' to kneel and pray toward Mecca five times a day (along with many other acts of devotion) or I won't have a chance to gain supposed salvation.

That is religion.


But again, it's not a big deal, at least to me.

[Dinsdale]

that is why there in not really a big need to belabor the point.

Says you...


But since I'm on a hopeless quest to rid the world of stupidity, I feel it's my duty.

[battery chucka' one]

I like Pop's line, so I'll steal it for this post.

I have a faith (belief) in the risen Christ.
I confessed that truth and I am not required to do anything else.

Another case in point, Catholics are required by their RELIGION to attend mass, attend confession, and partake of the sacrament in order to be saved. In their eyes, their salvation fluctuates between being saved and damned and the rites are necessary to assure this salvation.

My church practices communion. Not because it saves souls, but in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice. There is no confession of sins. There is no required attendance at church (nor required tithe). We confess sins to God (some have accountability groups) and attend church because it helps strengthen our relationship with our Savior. Not because it attains for us salvation. Our acceptance of God's Grace has given us salvation.

[Dinsdale]

For Christ's fucking sake, crack a fucking dictionary, you flaming moron.

[battery chucka' one]

re⋅li⋅gion [ri-lij-uhn]

–noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

—Idiom

9. get religion, Informal.
a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

None of these definitions has anything to do with a relationship with God. Instead, they are about rules (and I don't really care about that definition 2 that mentions the 'Christian' religion) and requirements. Maybe it's one of those 'if you don't get it, you don't know' type arguments. However, with me, my church, my wife, my fellow parishioners, and those who follow the teachings of the Christian Bible, being a Christian is more than merely following rules, beliefs, and procedures (religion). It's about having a relationship with Christ.

[Felix]

First, you lump Christianity in with all other world RELIGIONS, when it's actually not a religion.

I would have taken this one, but Dins beat me to it

Second, in all churches I've attended (fundamentalist, all), they teach children about scripture.

no they don't......they wrap it up in fanciful coloring books and pop-up folders that are designed to make the bible fun and scary at the same time....it's the worst kind of indoctrination there is...if parents had any fucking ethics, they'd let their children make up their own minds about what they want to believe when their old enough to make those decisions for themselves....but no, parents do everything in their power to insure their children believe exactly what they believe.....and so the myth is perpetuated...

it's a fucking travesty

[battery chucka' one]

You speak as if an expert on the subject of children, Felix. I find this funny as I doubt you've been to either my church or any evangelical church or spent time in their youth groups/sunday school classes. Or am I wrong? About what denominations do you speak (and on this I want specifics)? Again, it's about none that I've ever seen and I've seen a few.

Or are you speaking about a book you read, written by a sociologist who maybe had attended one class in a church and based it upon such? Maybe you just watched an episode of Dr. Phil or MTV news and gleamed it from there. Would that be the case?

[Felix]

You speak as if an expert on the subject of children, Felix.

an expert? hardly, but I do have experience having raised children...

I find this funny as I doubt you've been to either my church or any evangelical church or spent time in their youth groups/sunday school classes. Or am I wrong?

your particular church? no, but I'm sure I've spent a lot of time attending something similar to your church (let me guess, a non-denominational christian church right?)

About what denominations do you speak (and on this I want specifics)? Again, it's about none that I've ever seen and I've seen a few.

I've spent time (not just passing by type attendance, but sustained participation) in virtually every denomination as well as non-denominational christian churches....Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, etc. the only "major" religions I haven't engaged in are LDS (other than having lived in SLC for 3 years) and Seventh Day Adventist, because they're both just too fucking weird...and of course I was raised Catholic....

Or are you speaking about a book you read, written by a sociologist who maybe had attended one class in a church and based it upon such? Maybe you just watched an episode of Dr. Phil or MTV news and gleamed it from there. Would that be the case?

is this supposed to be some type of "smack" or something?

Here's a little test, one that should be relatively easy for you to pass with flying colors

explain to me why Buddhism and Islam are wrong without invoking the name of Jesus/Christ in your rationale

[battery chucka' one]

Yes, my church is non-denominational and Christian. It's also a Bible based church. Everything that is taught is verifiable through scripture. Our church, as with all of such type churches I've attended, don't 'indoctrinate' children in the manner that you've accused them. The foundation is lain for the children when they're young (not unlike any other foundation such as we teach in school). If they want to take it from there, then they can. If they want to deny it, that's their choice, sad as it may be. That's how our, and most fundamentalist/evangelical Bible churches, operate, from my experience. If yours was different, it's regrettable. They've done a disservice to the children and built a poor foundation, from what I can see.

In answering your question, I don't think that proving another religion to be wrong is necessary. When held up beside Christianity (yes, I invoked the Lord's name), all pale in comparison. Each can rather easily be deconstructed but that's like receiving three separate sets of travel instructions to a particular restaurant and one gets you there, perfectly. Do you still need to follow the other two to see that they are wrong or do you delight in the one that was found to be correct?

However, not speaking as an expert, but to comment on Buddhism, it's more rules based upon how to live in dealing with others and the world. I believe it's based upon reward in the next life, but might be wrong.

With Islam, again, not as an expert, it's based upon unquestioning submission to the rule of Allah. Very legalistic. I have a dear friend from Egypt and was raised a Muslim. He became a Christian and first his parents viewed him as dead. They've since softened in their approach. He's incredibly strong in his walk as a Christian. Good friend, too.

[Dinsdale]

I would have taken this one, but Dins beat me to it

A couple of options here --

You're more than welcome to usurp it, since you brought it on...

Or alternately, just wait it out about 3 more posts, and Siggy will come up with an even funnier one.

Your call.

[poptart]

Here's a little test, one that should be relatively easy for you to pass with flying colors

explain to me why Buddhism and Islam are wrong without invoking the name of Jesus/Christ in your rationale

We know that Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity can't all be right.

Either one of them is right, or all of them are wrong.

Aspects of Buddhism and Islam are VERY right, imo.
Many great concepts for dealing with life issues.

But they will NEVER solve man's fundamental problem, as described in Genesis 3.

To the point, man is spiritually captured and will fail, eternally, unless his fundamental spiritual problem is solved.

Only the Messiah can resolve that, and there is just one man in history who could be that Messiah.

He proved it by fulfilling, in truly INCREDIBLE fashion, a slew of prophecies, many of which were beyond His control.

He rose from the dead.


Of course one can believe that, or not.