T1B

Posted: **Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:48 am**

poptart wrote:The Ark was HUGE.
About the size of 520 standard railroad cars.

Aside from the fact that you might actually be trolling everyone, and I'm still giving you the benefit of the doubt of being outside of the mouth-breathing "yes, sir" Bible-thumping, brain-dead fuckwits (which I seriously doubt, since you seem to be able to quote the Bible so well ... ah nevermind)

I don't even know where to begin with this gem.

How many cubic feet are in "520 standard railraod cars"? Enough to hold 5 million species? That's roughly how many species there were 10,000 years ago, mensa, even according to your "theory."

Seriously, reread this thread, before you go to church, heathen.

Posted: **Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:25 am**

RF,

That actually helped a lot.

Like I said, ICR was the first thing I hit on google, looking for geological signs of a flood, I just wanted to see how quickly someone would attack the source and ignore the points made.

Now if you could just throw in some ad hominems against Setterfield and Schroeder while avoiding anything they have to say, that would be great.

And do you really want to discuss the social consequences of scientific materialism?

http://www.crisismagazine.com/march2005/book5.htm

Posted: **Sat Jan 07, 2006 12:46 pm**

Diogenes wrote:RF,

That actually helped a lot.

Like I said, ICR was the first thing I hit on google, looking for geological signs of a flood, I just wanted to see how quickly someone would attack the source and ignore the points made.

Now if you could just throw in some ad hominems against Setterfield and Schroeder while avoiding anything they have to say, that would be great.

And do you really want to discuss the social consequences of scientific materialism?

http://www.crisismagazine.com/march2005/book5.htm

Now, what's a nice Jewish boy like you doing, getting all the stupid goy all riled up?

Yes, it's that transparent.

Posted: **Sat Jan 07, 2006 1:23 pm**

I think they were already riled up for the first five pages.

Just pointing out possible answers to the questions they are posing.

Not that I think any of them are sincere or anything...

Posted: **Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:58 pm**

Enough to hold 5 million species....?? no, no, no...

First of all, the Ark had to carry just mammals, birds, and reptiles.

Also...

Genesis 6:20.......two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Two of every 'sort' came into the Ark.

Not every species of mammal, bird, reptile, just every sort.

Dio seems to have stirred some of you up a lot.

Lots of fun diatribes here.
Wow.

You can feel free to poo-poo the ICR if you'd like. I wouldn't really expect a different reaction from y'all. But marine fossils and sedimentary rocks found near the summit of many mountains of the world is interesting, isn't it...?

Or, maybe not.

Take it as you wish.

Posted: **Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:28 pm**

Now that school's started up again and I'm simultaneously trying to juggle getting one set of kids ready for the end-of-semester state exam (we're semestered, so the kids take h.s. courses at 2x speed), getting prepped for my new incoming kids, and creating my AP Bio couse, I don't have as much time to play as the last week and a half....

Quick shots:

- anyone who honestly buys into a literal interpretation of the Bible and insists on its accuracy in science, history, etc. has already handed over any semblance of rational thought and isn't worth debating with, other than as an exercise in viewing blind faith. I've met some absolutely wonderful people who I personally like and otherwise respect (like pop) but have come to the "agree to disagree" spot because I find their Biblical literalism to be abhorrent to me intellectually (including scientifically and theologically). I love the part of the Bible where they tell us that God keeps snow and hail in a closet. Biblical literalists get tied into knots trying to simultaneously argue for poetic license while trying to keep the "literal" part. Jesus taught in allegories because folks (including those closest to him) were too dense/primitive to get the direct truth.....the concept that God the Father did the same when "dictating"/inspiring the books of the Bible seems a bit much for them.

- the depth of the scientific ignorance in the U.S. is scary. Reading the complete misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of current evolutionary theory, physics, earth science by creationists/pro-ID folks ("backed" by the deliberate lies of ICR's pseudo-experts) continually frustrates this science teacher. They show nicely why the U.S. is falling further behind its competitors globally in science.

- Going to the ICR for scientific evidence is like going to a neo-Nazi site for Holocaust information. The ICR has a demonstrated history of outright academic fraud and has been staffed with "experts" with questionable and/or fraudulent academic credentials. The Discovery institute isn't much better.

- as far as why there are shells and marine fossils on mountain tops....even middle school science students in NY understand exactly why that happens, as well as the fact that those finding support our current understanding of an ancient earth and evolutionary theory. Then again, NY's science standards are among the best in the country (as judged by a panel of scientists recently).

I have to go back to grading unit exams (appropriately enough, on evolution), so I won't have time to play "internet tag" for awhile or go post-for-post, link-for-link on the usual go-round.

Have fun kids....

Posted: **Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:03 pm**

Ang wrote: as for the Egyptian myths on flooding, I couldn't find any except for the one that explains the beginning of life. A minor thing, ya know...that whole beginning of life thing. :)

Some Egyptian Study Page

It's a time line thing. at the time of Noahs flood, there is no record of a flood occurring in egypt.

You might recall the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh (written several hundred years before Noah opened his own water park), is essentially a story of the ancient King of Uruk (Gilgamesh), and Utnapishtim & his wife ( the only immortal humans) who were secretly chosen by a god (EA) to build a boat and put all living things on it, except the rest of humanity (or most of it). The rest of the gods had agreed to wipe all humans out. The gods then flooded the earth for 7 days and 7 nights to wipe out the bad stuff and turn the people to stone. Utnapishtim even released a dove after they landed on a mountain top to find land!

Here's a link if you wish to read up on the translation, but it's a bit interpretive. There are 12 tablets:

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mes ... h/tab1.htm

Many cultures have tales of floods. The romans, American indians, it's a common story because floods occur everywhere at one time or another, and to a local who is in a flood, the water does indeed appear to cover the entire earth - for as far as they can see or journey, except for the mountaintops, where ( in the Nez Perce version) the surviving humans take refuge.

As for the animals and the movement of the earth - the bible believers have one trump card, that being when they bump into stuff that has no easy explanation - like immense land animals that can't swim traveling 15,000 miles over the open ocean to get to the ark, or that the flood apparently upthrust mountains 20,000 feet or more in 40 days despite the fact that the measured rate of movement for mountains and the earths plates is now and has been for centuries measured at fractions of an inch per year - They just say "God did that"

There's no arguing with a magician.

Posted: **Sat Jan 07, 2006 10:53 pm**

Or with a 3rd century BC priest in the service of Ptolmey.

Most of the pre 3rd dynasty history recognized by Egyptologists is entirely dependant on secondhand accounts of Mantheo's kinglist, which is based on now defunct material.

as far as how widespread flood tales are....

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

Posted: **Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:01 pm**

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:I find their Biblical literalism to be abhorrent to me intellectually (including scientifically and theologically). I love the part of the Bible where they tell us that God keeps snow and hail in a closet.

Theologically...?

You never answered my 'theological' question about how there could have been millions of years of chaos, death, disorder and destruction before Satan deceived man.
The Bible tells us when death came into the world.

Where is the verse(s) telling of God's fun with snow, Mike...?

I'd like to look at it.

Bushy, there are 'miraculous' aspects to what happened with the flood.

Was it not 'miraculous' for a man to rise from the dead....?

Millions of folks believe this to have happened, yet you don't get overly wound up over it.

Somehow the flood gets your panties bunched.

Whatever.

Posted: **Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:04 pm**

poptart wrote:
Mike the Lab Rat wrote:I find their Biblical literalism to be abhorrent to me intellectually (including scientifically and theologically). I love the part of the Bible where they tell us that God keeps snow and hail in a closet.
Theologically...?

You never answered my 'theological' question about how there could have been millions of years of chaos, death, disorder and destruction before Satan deceived man.

Setterfield did though.

Posted: **Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:10 pm**

poptart wrote:
Mike the Lab Rat wrote:I find their Biblical literalism to be abhorrent to me intellectually (including scientifically and theologically). I love the part of the Bible where they tell us that God keeps snow and hail in a closet.
Theologically...?

You never answered my 'theological' question about how there could have been millions of years of chaos, death, disorder and destruction before Satan deceived man.
The Bible tells us when death came into the world.

So do JRr Tolkeins novels. doesn't make em true.

Bushy, there are 'miraculous' aspects to what happened with the flood.

Was it not 'miraculous' for a man to rise from the dead....?

Millions of folks believe this to have happened, yet you don't get overly wound up over it.

Mostly because it never happened. 35 year old recounts of the event by zealous followers notwithstanding.

Somehow the flood gets your panties bunched.

Whatever.

Because it is an obvious fallacy, there are just too many bizarre, unbelieveable aspect to it.

Not to mention the fact that the story was told before by another culture, eerily similar, too.

I'm not bunched at all. I do find it fascinating how doggedly you will stick by biblical quotes as fact.

Posted: **Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:45 am**

(Quick break from football watching...)

poptart wrote:You never answered my 'theological' question about how there could have been millions of years of chaos, death, disorder and destruction before Satan deceived man.
The Bible tells us when death came into the world.

If you take it literally, then the Bible is wrong. There was death and disease prior to man being on the planet.

That's a fact.

poptart wrote:Where is the verse(s) telling of God's fun with snow, Mike...?

I'd like to look at it.

Job 38:22,23 "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, or have you seen the storehouses of the hail which I have reserved for the time of trouble, for the day of battle and war?"

If you insist on taking the Bible literally, then you cannot with any consistancy turn around and try to say that the Book of Job is just an allegorical poem attempting to explore theology (which it is). If taken literally, then the Bible is wrong. Simple solution - don't take it literally.

Some people have waaaayyyyyyy too much time on their hands, like this guy who devoted a frigging web page to chasing down Biblical errors and contradictions.

For a lot of folks, myself included, the Bible is meant to describe our relationship with God and each other and how we should conduct our lives. Using it as a science text or accurate historical text is a gross misapplication. And claiming that if it is in error in even area of science, math, or chronology, that the whole thing is null and void is an incredibly idiotic argument from both a logical and theological point of view. That goes for both fundamentalists fighting so hard to "make it true" that they're willing to twist or ignore physics, geology, chemistry, astronomy, and biology as well as atheists trying to attack Christianity.

Posted: **Sun Jan 08, 2006 6:01 am**

he Bible is meant to describe our relationship with God and each other and how we should conduct our lives.

This I can agree with.

Posted: **Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:31 pm**

Jesus' resurrection is a historical fact, in that it was witnessed and documented.

Death and disease prior to man being on the planet is not a fact.

King James Bible
Job 38:22,23: Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,
Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?

There's nothing there about any 'storehouses' or 'closets.'

What the Bible is meant to describe, 1, 2, 3:

1. Satan has deceived man. Man has a sin problem that goes back to Adam. All men are born sinful. The sin separates us from God, and will lead us to inevitable death. The moment man sinned, God promised man that he will provide a way out of the problem, and that Satan will be crushed.

Romans 5:12: Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Genesis 3:15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

2. The Christ will come, and God will be with man, as he was originally in the garden.

Isaiah 7:14: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (God with us)

3. The reason there is a Christ is so that for the believer in Christ, Satan's works are stopped.

1 Jn 3:8: For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Got freedom....?

Posted: **Sun Jan 08, 2006 6:50 pm**

poptart wrote:Jesus' resurrection is a historical fact, in that it was witnessed and documented.

Documented 30-40 years after the fact. How well do you describe events, in their proper order, from 30 years ago?

My feeling is either:

A: he survived the crucifixion, and was removed from the grave, recovering from his wounds to reappear later.

B: was removed from the grave, and the rumors of his resurrection were started to keep christianity alive while his followers fled and hid.

Posted: **Sun Jan 08, 2006 7:42 pm**

Mister Bushice wrote:
poptart wrote:Jesus' resurrection is a historical fact, in that it was witnessed and documented.
Documented 30-40 years after the fact. How well do you describe events, in their proper order, from 30 years ago?

My feeling is either:

A: he survived the crucifixion, and was removed from the grave, recovering from his wounds to reappear later.

B: was removed from the grave, and the rumors of his resurrection were started to keep christianity alive while his followers fled and hid.

So Mantheo is credible after over 2 millennia, but Christ's contemporaries aren't after a couple decades?

A) You seriously underestimate the professionalism (and the consequenses of failing to preform their duties) of the Roman centurions.

B) What the hell for? The privilage of being laughed at, persecuted, and if you're lucky, tortured and murdered?

As far as being removed from the grave, see A.

Posted: **Sun Jan 08, 2006 8:37 pm**

And yet, he was removed from the grave so apparently the Roman Centurions missed something, eh?

And as for the gap of 30-40 years, details might very well be present in the mind, but fanaticism and fear have a tendency to cause embellishment and alteration.

Add to that the desire to cement the reputation and keep alive the memory, and what you have is a story that reflects the truth but is not necessarily an accurate description of reality.

There was a psychiatrist who was asked if he thought OJ really believed he did not Kill Nicole. The answer was yes, he believed OJ had so thoroughly convinced himself that he didn't do it that it became true in his mind.

The human mind is so capable of forgetting, altering, making something be what it is not or what it wants it to be, I have little doubt that some of the fantastic stories of Jesus life were based somewhat on want and opinion rather than actual fact.

Jesus was the champion of the forgotten, helping them to live better, take care of themselves better, even simple health care, diet and hygiene practices can be interpreted by the ignorant as miracles.

Have you never been amazed at anyones talents or abilities?

Posted: **Sun Jan 08, 2006 8:55 pm**

Mister Bushice wrote:And yet, he was removed from the grave so apparently the Roman Centurions missed something, eh?

And as for the gap of 30-40 years, details might very well be present in the mind, but fanaticism and fear have a tendency to cause embellishment and alteration.

Add to that the desire to cement the reputation and keep alive the memory, and what you have is a story that reflects the truth but is not necessarily an accurate description of reality.

They obviously were overpowered by a bunch of fishermen.

Fanatacism over someone who promised to return from the dead and didn't?

Fear of something other than being tortured to death?

Keeping alive the memory of a fraud?

Posted: **Sun Jan 08, 2006 9:27 pm**

Diogenes wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:And yet, he was removed from the grave so apparently the Roman Centurions missed something, eh?

And as for the gap of 30-40 years, details might very well be present in the mind, but fanaticism and fear have a tendency to cause embellishment and alteration.

Add to that the desire to cement the reputation and keep alive the memory, and what you have is a story that reflects the truth but is not necessarily an accurate description of reality.
They obviously were overpowered by a bunch of fishermen.

No, they stopped watching the grave. A failure, given the status of Jesus at the time.

Fanatacism over someone who promised to return from the dead and didn't?

Fear of something other than being tortured to death?

Keeping alive the memory of a fraud?

Jesus wasn't a fraud in the sense of him being an excellent teacher and a good man. His message was a good one. He just wasn't a supernatural being, but you would never get his followers to believe that. The Xtians were persecuted for a long time after his death.

Ever play that game where you start a story and whisper it to someone sitting next to you, ad they to them? After ten people, the original story is not exactly the same.

Posted: **Sun Jan 08, 2006 9:55 pm**

Peter - crucified
Andrew - crucified
James (son of Alphaeus) - crucified
Philip - crucified
Simon - crucified
Bartholomew - crucified
Matthew - sword
James (son of Zebedee) - sword
Thaddaeus - arrows
Thomas - spear
James (brother of Jesus) - stoned

If the resurrection did not take place, the disciples knew it.

In that case, these men not only died (horrible deaths) for a lie, but they knew it was a lie.

Those kooky Christians.

Posted: **Sun Jan 08, 2006 9:57 pm**

Mister Bushice wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:And yet, he was removed from the grave so apparently the Roman Centurions missed something, eh?

And as for the gap of 30-40 years, details might very well be present in the mind, but fanaticism and fear have a tendency to cause embellishment and alteration.

Add to that the desire to cement the reputation and keep alive the memory, and what you have is a story that reflects the truth but is not necessarily an accurate description of reality.
They obviously were overpowered by a bunch of fishermen.
No, they stopped watching the grave. A failure, given the status of Jesus at the time.

Diogenes wrote:A) You seriously underestimate the professionalism (and the consequenses of failing to preform their duties) of the Roman centurions

Fanatacism over someone who promised to return from the dead and didn't?

Fear of something other than being tortured to death?

Keeping alive the memory of a fraud?

Mister Bushice wrote:Jesus wasn't a fraud in the sense of him being an excellent teacher and a good man. His message was a good one. He just wasn't a supernatural being, but you would never get his followers to believe that. The Xtians were persecuted for a long time after his death.

Ever play that game where you start a story and whisper it to someone sitting next to you, ad they to them? After ten people, the original story is not exactly the same.

If he wasn't the Messiah, he was a false prophet and Blasphemer.

And HE was the message, if he was a liar or a lunatic, there was nothing good about it.

As far as him mearly being a mortal liar, that is your bias speaking not the evidence.

They were persecuted because they believed, which was because they had reasons to. They were persecuted from the start, one of the first Martyrs was James, who would certainly have known if he was voluntaraliy going to his death for a fraud. They died for refusing to renounce said testimony, which would make no sense if they knew it to be false. As far as your 'tenth person account", the original apostles and those who saw Christ after the ressurection were the ones spreading the word. And two of the Gospels were written by them, a third, by Peter's disciple John Mark, and the forth by Paul's traveling compainion, Luke.

But like I said earlier, believe what you like.

No matter how irrational.

Posted: **Sun Jan 08, 2006 9:57 pm**

One has nothing to do with the other.

Posted: **Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:05 pm**

Mister Bushice wrote:One has nothing to do with the other.

Okay, I'm convinced.

Posted: **Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:07 pm**

That post was an answer to Poptarts thread, not yours.

Posted: **Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:11 pm**

Equally lame either way, Pops was making the same point.

The disciples had no reason on Earth to go to their deaths for a supposed lie.

Posted: **Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:15 pm**

Diogenes wrote:
If he wasn't the Messiah, he was a false prophet and Blasphemer.

Wrong. Not being one has nothing to do with the other. He believed his own message.

And HE was the message, if he was a liar or a lunatic, there was nothing good about it.

He was not. His actions were the message.

As far as him mearly being a mortal liar, that is your bias speaking not the evidence.

He wasn't a liar. Not at all. How many of the words written about him were written by him? How much of what was written about him was interpreted by others? How much of the bible was translated centuries later?

They were persecuted because they believed, which was because they had reasons to. They were persecuted from the start, one of the first Martyrs was James, who would certainly have known if he was voluntaraliy going to his death for a fraud. They died for refusing to renounce said testimony, which would make no sense if they knew it to be false.

Who said they believed it to be false? I guess you failed to read up on the manson cult, the Jim jones experience, the David Koresh party, eh? All of them had fanatical believers that their leader was either a second coming or had answers they wanted to hear. Jesus was a cult leader who backed up his words with actions. He DID treat the sick and dying, his message was one of caring for his fellow man, and mostly, he fought against the oppressive government, which was his undoing.

As far as your 'tenth person account", the original apostles and those who saw Christ after the ressurection were the ones spreading the word. And two of the Gospels were written by them, a third, by Peter's disciple John Mark, and the forth by Paul's traveling compainion, Luke.

Yes. 30-40 years after the fact is when they wrote them.

But like I said earlier, believe what you like.

No matter how irrational.

Everyone here does. Why shouldn't I?

Posted: **Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:23 pm**

Diogenes wrote:And do you really want to discuss the social consequences of scientific materialism?

http://www.crisismagazine.com/march2005/book5.htm

I've read about that analogy before. A valid point.

I've also seen the analogy comparing Darwinism as adopted and applied in Capitalism, especially during a and shortly after the Industrial Revolution. It gave the Bosses of the 19th Century valid "rational" to fuck everyone working in the factories over, including children. Even Teddy Roosevelt got the hint that this application of Darwinism wasn't a good thing for the country.

Posted: **Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:31 pm**

Diogenes wrote:Equally lame either way, Pops was making the same point.

The disciples had no reason on Earth to go to their deaths for a supposed lie.

and my contention is they believed, because they fervently wanted to, and thought became reality, time added its own twist to the words.

You think I'm saying they were all used car salesman, I'm not saying that at all.

Posted: **Sun Jan 08, 2006 10:55 pm**

Mister Bushice wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
If he wasn't the Messiah, he was a false prophet and Blasphemer.
Wrong. Not being one has nothing to do with the other. He believed his own message.

So he was a false prophet, a blasphemer and insane.

Good to know.

Mister Bushice wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
And HE was the message, if he was a liar or a lunatic, there was nothing good about it

As far as him mearly being a mortal liar, that is your bias speaking not the evidence.
He was not. His actions were the message

He wasn't a liar. Not at all. How many of the words written about him were written by him? How much of what was written about him was interpreted by others? How much of the bible was translated centuries later?

His message was that he had come to forgive sins, which he couldn't do if he was mearly a man.

His message was the he was the messiah, the redeemer, who would overthrow death.

The words written about him, including his death and resurection, were written by those who saw him die, and saw him alive afterwards. And died for their testimony.

Mister Bushice wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
They were persecuted because they believed, which was because they had reasons to. They were persecuted from the start, one of the first Martyrs was James, who would certainly have known if he was voluntaraliy going to his death for a fraud. They died for refusing to renounce said testimony, which would make no sense if they knew it to be false.
Who said they believed it to be false? I guess you failed to read up on the manson cult, the Jim jones experience, the David Koresh party, eh? All of them had fanatical believers that their leader was either a second coming or had answers they wanted to hear. Jesus was a cult leader who backed up his words with actions. He DID treat the sick and dying, his message was one of caring for his fellow man, and mostly, he fought against the oppressive government, which was his undoing.

Jesus as revolutionary?

Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasars.....

Bullshit. He healed the sick, raised the dead, predicted his own death as signs of who he was.

And I don't recall either Jones' or Koresh's followers claiming to see them after they died, on pain of execution.

These were his contemporaries, those who knew and walked with him..

Mister Bushice wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
As far as your 'tenth person account", the original apostles and those who saw Christ after the ressurection were the ones spreading the word. And two of the Gospels were written by them, a third, by Peter's disciple John Mark, and the forth by Paul's traveling compainion, Luke.
Yes. 30-40 years after the fact is when they wrote them.

And they still remembered his death and resurection.

Which IS the gospel.

Posted: **Sun Jan 08, 2006 11:07 pm**

RadioFan wrote:
Diogenes wrote:And do you really want to discuss the social consequences of scientific materialism?

http://www.crisismagazine.com/march2005/book5.htm

I've read about that analogy before. A valid point.

I've also seen the analogy comparing Darwinism as adopted and applied in Capitalism, especially during a and shortly after the Industrial Revolution. It gave the Bosses of the 19th Century valid "rational" to fuck everyone working in the factories over, including children. Even Teddy Roosevelt got the hint that this application of Darwinism wasn't a good thing for the country.

Eugenics, genocide, racial superiority..

Don't forget about euthenasia. and selective abortion.

The founder of Planned Parenthood was a big Hitler fan precicely because too many of the 'wrong kind' of people were having too many kids.

All about 'survival of the fittest'.

And since 'fittest' in Darwinian terms is entirely defined by procreation,. you can make an argument for rape and murder.

Don't get me started on Alistair Crowley.....

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:47 am**

Diogenes wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
If he wasn't the Messiah, he was a false prophet and Blasphemer.
Wrong. Not being one has nothing to do with the other. He believed his own message.
So he was a false prophet, a blasphemer and insane.

Good to know.

^reason why I don't usually bother with you.

Bullshit. He healed the sick, raised the dead, predicted his own death as signs of who he was.

He healed the sick using basic health and hygiene practices along with a good does of the power of positive thinking. He supposedly raised one or several from the dead. Were they really dead? There were a lot of ascensions, and visions during that time. It's not an unusual story.

And I don't recall either Jones' or Koresh's followers claiming to see them after they died, on pain of execution.

That was not the comparison I was making. Mine was about fanatic followers.

These were his contemporaries, those who knew and walked with him.[/b].

Yet the words of paul to the Corinthians belie the fact of actual resurrection:

"Christ died for our sins
in accordance with the Scriptures,
and was buried.

"And he was raised on the third day

You'll note he didn't say he was brought back to life. He was raised on the third day. Nothing concrete about a physical resurrection, but easily interpreted as such.

And Jesus did not physically appear to Paul, but Paul said he did. Paul was blinded, and heard a voice. The people that were with Paul didn't see anyone, and the people that were with Paul didn't hear anyone, depending on which account you take. In one account the men did hear the voice [Acts 9:7], and in another account they didn't [Acts 22:9]

If you look at the gospels over time, you can see how the story changes. In Mark, there is no mention of Jesus appearing to anybody. There was no angel at the tomb, it was a man. Luke said there were two men. Matthew said there was one angel, and John, the last writer, said, there were two angels. Nice evolution of story there, eh?

Also, in Marks account there's no earthquake, there's no opening of the graves and of the dead people walking around, there's no eclipse of the sun, none of that. That stuff appears later in the other gospels.

Most early christians believed in a spiritual resurrection, not a physical one. The stories written later - some as late as 50 years - embellished the original to give it more substance. Tales grow in the retelling, they always do.

Mister Bushice wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
As far as your 'tenth person account", the original apostles and those who saw Christ after the ressurection were the ones spreading the word. And two of the Gospels were written by them, a third, by Peter's disciple John Mark, and the forth by Paul's traveling compainion, Luke.
Yes. 30-40 years after the fact is when they wrote them.
And they still remembered his death and resurection.

Which IS the gospel.

Yet, The Gospels are all anonymous. We don't really know who wrote them. It wasn't until the 2nd century that the names were assigned to them. The end of Mark, the last 18 verses are, generally accepted as having been added later than the first 8.

All of the gospel accounts of the trial and execution are close, but the accounts of the resurrection and ascension are markedly different.

And People are still claiming Elvis sightings.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:59 am**

I am left apopleptic with an inner hysteria.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2006 2:40 am**

pop: I used an NEB translation for the Job quote, and the NIV translation gave me the same quote.

Another area of scientific screw-up is when listing bats among the birds that the Jews were forbidden to eat (Leviticus 11:13-19 and Deut 14:11-18). Under no circumstances do milk-producing, fur-bearing, live-young-bearing placental mammals like bats get placed in the "fowl" category if we're going for scientific accuracy.

But, like I said before - count me as one of those who doesn't consider the Bible to be a science text, nor do I believe that its accuracy on cladistics, chronology, etc. has any bearing on the great importance of its message from God to us.

Bushice: For me, the matter of my belief in Christianity comes down to faith. In my heart, I am just as convinced in the truth of Christ's divinity and Resurrection as I am that the earth revolves around the sun, that species evolve, and that the four bases of DNA are adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine. The only difference is that the former truths rely on faith and the latter rely on scientific evidence. I have a colleague who finds it maddening that I refuse to apply scientific evidential criteria to the claims of Christianity....and I feel sorry for him. He doesn't understand that science cannot answer matters of faith, morality, ethics, spirituality. It is not the place of science and never can be. Scientists who attempts to do so (using neurological studies, psychology, etc.) are misapplying their field just as I have accused Biblical literalists of doing when they attempt to use the Bible as a science text.

Ah well, time to close the LabRat house down and get ready for the upcoming school week...

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:48 am**

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: Bushice: For me, the matter of my belief in Christianity comes down to faith. In my heart, I am just as convinced in the truth of Christ's divinity and Resurrection as I am that the earth revolves around the sun, that species evolve, and that the four bases of DNA are adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine. The only difference is that the former truths rely on faith and the latter rely on scientific evidence.

I'm not trying to convert anyone. I believe that Christ was a man of high moral character (excepting perhaps his daillance with M.M. ;) ), who helped the poor and downtrodden, and spread his message of love, peace, brotherhood and kindness through selfless acts, and was killed for the threat he represented to those in power.

However I don't buy the divinity part. I think tales expand in the telling, and that the inaccuracies coupled with the fact that resurrection and miracles are not exactly easily provable events in any context whether it be biblical, scientific, or emotional, show that he was simply a man who's deeds outlived him and thus he became larger than even his own life.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:49 am**

Martyred wrote:I am left apopleptic with an inner hysteria.

So go take your meds.

Mister Bushice wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote: Wrong. Not being one has nothing to do with the other. He believed his own message.
So he was a false prophet, a blasphemer and insane.

Good to know.
^reason why I don't usually bother with you.

My bad habit of pointing out the absurdity of your arguments?

Get in line.

Mister Bushice wrote:
Diogenes wrote: Bullshit. He healed the sick, raised the dead, predicted his own death as signs of who he was.
He healed the sick using basic health and hygiene practices along with a good does of the power of positive thinking. He supposedly raised one or several from the dead. Were they really dead? There were a lot of ascensions, and visions during that time. It's not an unusual story.

Any historical accounts to back up your belief in Jesus the dietician?

Or just your atheist bias?

Mister Bushice wrote:
Diogenes wrote: And I don't recall either Jones' or Koresh's followers claiming to see them after they died, on pain of execution.
That was not the comparison I was making. Mine was about fanatic followers.

And I was mocking it.

The disciples preached things they witnessed personally and died for their testimony.

And not at the hands of their 'cult leader'.

Mister Bushice wrote:
Diogenes wrote: These were his contemporaries, those who knew and walked with him..
Yet the words of paul to the Corinthians belie the fact of actual resurrection:

"Christ died for our sins
in accordance with the Scriptures,
and was buried.

"And he was raised on the third day

You'll note he didn't say he was brought back to life. He was raised on the third day. Nothing concrete about a physical resurrection, but easily interpreted as such.

Do you really want chapter and verse on how many times he was explicity said to arise from the dead?

Paging Poptart......

And Jesus did not physically appear to Paul, but Paul said he did. Paul was blinded, and heard a voice. The people that were with Paul didn't see anyone, and the people that were with Paul didn't hear anyone, depending on which account you take. In one account the men did hear the voice [Acts 9:7], and in another account they didn't [Acts 22:9]

So either Paul was insane, or witnessed a miricle.

I've read the epistles, I know which way I lean.

If you look at the gospels over time, you can see how the story changes. In Mark, there is no mention of Jesus appearing to anybody. There was no angel at the tomb, it was a man. Luke said there were two men. Matthew said there was one angel, and John, the last writer, said, there were two angels. Nice evolution of story there, eh?

Also, in Marks account there's no earthquake, there's no opening of the graves and of the dead people walking around, there's no eclipse of the sun, none of that. That stuff appears later in the other gospels.

Most early christians believed in a spiritual resurrection, not a physical one. The stories written later - some as late as 50 years - embellished the original to give it more substance. Tales grow in the retelling, they always do.

This is the same dull 'higher textual criticism' that claims that the book of Danial was written after Christs death, because it predicts the timeframe of his birth.

I suppose you believe that too.

As far as differances in the gospel accounts-differant authors, differant details.

By the way, my 'belief' in Christ is not based on faith, but on my reading of the evidence.

So maybe I'm not a real Christian after all.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:42 pm**

This is the same dull 'higher textual criticism' that claims that the book of Danial was written after Christs death, because it predicts the timeframe of his birth.
I suppose you believe that too.

No, I believe that the opposite occurred for much of the bible. Self fulfilling prophecy. However, no one including you knows when parts or all of the book of Daniel was written. You just choose to believe it was written in 6 BC so it paints a pretty picture of Daniel as a prophet.

There is no agreement how much of Biblical prophecy falls into the category of. From the point of view of the devout followers of Bible-based religions (Christianity and Judaism), all or almost all of the prophecies are actually prophecies made before the event. Scholars are generally agreed that certain prophecies, such as Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem (Luke 21:24), were inserted into the text after the fact

As far as differances in the gospel accounts-differant authors, differant details.

Weak. All of them were there, and none of the post death detail matches, yet all the accounts of the pre death trial and crucifixion are very close.

By the way, my 'belief' in Christ is not based on faith, but on my reading of the evidence.

It's not "evidence", they're 30 to 50 year old stories about an event. It's an historical recounting.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:09 pm**

Diogenes wrote:
By the way, my 'belief' in Christ is not based on faith, but on my reading of the evidence.

So maybe I'm not a real Christian after all.[/b]

Now I've heard it all.

Lock this thread. It's done.

(reprise)

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:54 pm**

The man, Jesus, fulfilling every prophecy which the said Messiah would fulfill, is one of the most remarkable things you'll ever see.

The most remarkable thing to me is that this man, Jesus, absolutely fulfilled in UNIQUE fashion the 'coming through the family line' prophecies which the Christ needed to fulfill.

This is absolutely stunning stuff, folks.

No other person in world history has come through the family line that was prophesied.

Nobody even remotely close to being in the game.

No other person in world history could possibly be the Christ, and there most certainly won't be anyone coming in the future either.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:59 pm**

poptart wrote:
No other person in world history has come through the family line that was prophesied.

Nobody even remotely close to being in the game.

Frodo Baggins gives him one hell of a run for his money...and somebody wrote a book about it, so it must be true. For goodness' freaking sake, he even fufilled Led Zepplin's prophecy about Gollum and the chick and stuff.

Aaaaand, we're still stuck on the "because the Bible says so" rationalization. The same rationalization that the thumpers can never, ever, ever, ever, ever get past and find another.

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:03 am**

Oh, and that unreliable Carbon Dating that the thumpers hate so much (even though it's science-class basic) has proven that Shroud of Turin to be complete bullshit too, in case you haven't heard.

T1B

Godzillla vs the creator ( The evolution thread)