# If the Bible is God's word shouldn't the contents be in agreement with God's knowledg



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2014)

I asked this a few times in the middle of a thread but no one wanted to touch it. I thought maybe it was just missed. 

Does anyone agree or not agree that if God exists and he is all knowing that it would make sense His Word would match His Knowledge?
If the Bible is God's word shouldn't the contents be in agreement with God's knowledge?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 26, 2014)

I'm not quite following you. Could you give an example of God's knowledge


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> I'm not quite following you. Could you give an example of God's knowledge



I am under the impression that anything worthy of being called "God" especially the God of the Bible would know everything there is to know about everything.

If his word was given to the authors of the Bible why would there be errors in the writings? I am not talking about punctuation, grammar, etc... I am talking about known facts now that do not hold true in the Bible. The Bible is loaded with scientific errors, historical errors, geographical errors, conflicting reports of how creation began etc etc etc...
How could a God know that the Earth revolves around the Sun but have the people responsible for getting his Word right not get it correct? How could there be so many scientific errors in the Bible?
I am constantly told the Bible is not a scientific book but is that supposed to mean God did not understand science? Wouldn't God's knowledge be unchallengeable or at least hold up to any and all scrutiny?
Just in Genesis alone there are so many disputed occurrences that do not go along with, in fact are the total opposite of, anything we know through science.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2014)

I would think God would be an Expert on all subjects, actually not just an expert but THE source of all Knowledge that precise information comes from. Why doesn't that transcend into his work of the Bible?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2014)

In Genesis 1 and 2 the Creation story not only differs in order but many things just are not accurate as to how things really were/are.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2014)

Another problem is the references in the current Canon to the books that did not make it into Canon.
In Genesis for a brief few sentences it talks about Angels breeding with human women and having Giants as offspring....Paul writes that women should keep their heads covered so as not to entice Angels....yet the Book of Enoch that tells about all of those Angels, Giants and Mortals in detail and was popular with early Jews and Christians did not make a Canonical inclusion. 
These "other Books and stories" were not allowed to be included into the Bible because they did not stay consistent with what Church leaders wanted told, yet the writings that did make the Bible reference these other writings so the Authors must have taken them as also inspired.
If the Bibles authors reference these other writings in their own writings what was God's purpose? Did God inspire the Bibles authors to write about parts of non Canonized books but did not also inspire the authors of the non Canonized stories?

Or is ALL of it yet just more examples of man's poor attempt to piece together stories(both in whole and intertwine parts of one with parts of others) in order to tell what wanted to be told and try to pass it off as Divine?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 26, 2014)

I'm probably not  your targeted audience. They don't play with us much these days. Anyway, unlike the others, I don't see the bible as God's word. If it were so, it should be perfect. Without error, contridiction, and mistranslating. And I would think that God would also protect "his word" from anything or anybody who would change it, disrespect it, misuse it, etc. This is one of Erhman's first problems. He figured that if God inspired it that he would also preserve it. Strange though.. that within this very human book, I see inspiration. I would have a hard time explaining what it is that I see. I have tried before with no luck. So.... asking myself ... how can I see inspiration in the context, but not call it God's word? Hmmmm.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 26, 2014)

A friend was surprised that I would point out contridictions. As if I were challenging God's word. I told him that the bible is what it is, that God does not expect me to cover for him.... And then our conversation moved on to one of my rants on how we should teach these things, where they are, and especially how to deal with them. Those who have not learned to deal with them will never have the respect needed or seen as credable by the athiest they wish to reach.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 27, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> A friend was surprised that I would point out contridictions. As if I were challenging God's word. I told him that the bible is what it is, that God does not expect me to cover for him.... And then our conversation moved on to one of my rants on how we should teach these things, where they are, and especially how to deal with them. Those who have not learned to deal with them will never have the respect needed or seen as credable by the athiest they wish to reach.



My views line up closely with yours. I see nothing wrong with teaching and learning every aspect of the bible. doubters will pick out the Bible's descrepancies, why not be ready with answers, even if you must agree with them.
I don't see it a challenging God, perhaps he put them in their to test our faith. 
Like the way we can use science to explain things God made or did. It's not a contradiction, God must be the greatest scientist ever.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 27, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Another problem is the references in the current Canon to the books that did not make it into Canon.
> In Genesis for a brief few sentences it talks about Angels breeding with human women and having Giants as offspring....Paul writes that women should keep their heads covered so as not to entice Angels....yet the Book of Enoch that tells about all of those Angels, Giants and Mortals in detail and was popular with early Jews and Christians did not make a Canonical inclusion.
> These "other Books and stories" were not allowed to be included into the Bible because they did not stay consistent with what Church leaders wanted told, yet the writings that did make the Bible reference these other writings so the Authors must have taken them as also inspired.
> If the Bibles authors reference these other writings in their own writings what was God's purpose? Did God inspire the Bibles authors to write about parts of non Canonized books but did not also inspire the authors of the non Canonized stories?
> ...



I agree, why leave the actual books you are referencing out? God would have known the earth wasn't flat, he made it. He also knows none of our emotions come from our heart as once thought. 
Maybe he thought it better to explain it differently to a different group. "Explain it to me like I'm a four year old."


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 27, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I am not talking about punctuation, grammar, etc... I am talking about known facts now that do not hold true in the Bible.



Your entire point is based on this statement which is an OPINION and in no way is either accurate or provable, but by all means rail on.


----------



## Four (Jan 27, 2014)

This post made me think of this flowchart.. I didn't embed it because the image is a bit large and i didn't want it exploding the forums.

http://i.imgur.com/fpbK1Wy.jpg?1


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 27, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Another problem is the references in the current Canon to the books that did not make it into Canon.
> In Genesis for a brief few sentences it talks about Angels breeding with human women and having Giants as offspring....Paul writes that women should keep their heads covered so as not to entice Angels....yet the Book of Enoch that tells about all of those Angels, Giants and Mortals in detail and was popular with early Jews and Christians did not make a Canonical inclusion.
> These "other Books and stories" were not allowed to be included into the Bible because they did not stay consistent with what Church leaders wanted told, yet the writings that did make the Bible reference these other writings so the Authors must have taken them as also inspired.
> If the Bibles authors reference these other writings in their own writings what was God's purpose? Did God inspire the Bibles authors to write about parts of non Canonized books but did not also inspire the authors of the non Canonized stories?
> ...


You hit on many of my thoughts about the Bible.
How long it took to produce it.
That a panel of men argued, disagreed, negotiated etc on what was supposedly "inspired" and what was not.
The political atmosphere at the time.
That it allows for multiple interpretations.
The very "man like" prejudices.
Then add in what we now know is false.
Just doesn't add up for me nor can I ignore or explain away all that to myself. Unfortunately the Bible is all there is to tell us about God so Im not left with much choice.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 27, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> How long it took to produce it.
> That a panel of men argued, disagreed, negotiated etc on what was supposedly "inspired" and what was not.
> The political atmosphere at the time.
> Then add in what we now know is false.
> ...



Are you talking about the Bible or the U.S. Constitution?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Your entire point is based on this statement which is an OPINION and in no way is either accurate or provable, but by all means rail on.



SFD it has been accurately proved. Stay in your bubble of comfort.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 27, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Are you talking about the Bible or the U.S. Constitution?


You must have accidently cut off the first line of my post which I think addresses your question -


> You hit on many of my thoughts about the Bible.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> You must have accidently cut off the first line of my post which I think addresses your question -



And WE get accused of taking things out of context to suit.....


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 27, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> You must have accidently cut off the first line of my post which I think addresses your question -



No, I did it on purpose.  Other than the word "inspired", those same arguments can be applied to the U.S. Constitution.  So, I was wondering if the Constitution "adds up" for you.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2014)

Some of these rogue books were so popular with Christians back then that they are still included and used in their Bible today. The Church's reach fell a little short in a few spots.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> No, I did it on purpose.  Other than the word "inspired", those same arguments can be applied to the U.S. Constitution.  So, I was wondering if the Constitution "adds up" for you.



Bad cover job...


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 27, 2014)

bullethead said:


> And WE get accused of taking things out of context to suit.....



How about you, BH?  You can't be too happy about a "man-produced" document like the Constitution.  Maybe the anti-Federalists were right, but their opinions were shut out by Constantine and his toady, Eusebius.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 27, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> How about you, BH?  You can't be too happy about a "man-produced" document like the Constitution.  Maybe the anti-Federalists were right, but their opinions were shut out by Constantine and his toady, Eusebius.



I don't get the comparison.  I thought the following were reasons to believe that the writing was man-made.



WaltL1 said:


> You hit on many of my thoughts about the Bible.
> How long it took to produce it.
> That a panel of men argued, disagreed, negotiated etc on what was supposedly "inspired" and what was not.
> The political atmosphere at the time.
> ...



Is anyone denying that the U S Constitution is man-made?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> How about you, BH?  You can't be too happy about a "man-produced" document like the Constitution.  Maybe the anti-Federalists were right, but their opinions were shut out by Constantine and his toady, Eusebius.



I am absolutely fine with it. Man took full credit for writing it. If "man-produced" writings were a problem for me I would be out of options....


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> I don't get the comparison.  I thought the following were reasons to believe that the writing was man-made.
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone denying that the U S Constitution is man-made?




It is in order to deflect the conversation away from the topic at hand. Like when mother grouse fakes a broken wing to lead the fox away from the nest.
We got too close to home.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 27, 2014)

bullethead said:


> It is in order to deflect the conversation away from the topic at hand.



Nope, just asking the logical follow-up question.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Nope, just asking the logical follow-up question.



Well it was a badly worded follow up question.
Walt CLEARLY stated exactly what he was talking about in his first sentence and you replied with a cut/paste that left out his first sentence and then asked:
"Are you talking about the Bible or the U.S. Constitution?"


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 27, 2014)

bullethead said:


> If his word was given to the authors of the Bible why would there be errors in the writings? I am not talking about punctuation, grammar, etc... I am talking about known facts now that do not hold true in the Bible. The Bible is loaded with scientific errors, historical errors, geographical errors, conflicting reports of how creation began etc etc etc....



The only people who actually believe that are either ignorant of the truth or actively engaged in suppressing or denying it.  An intellectually honest person could not make the statements you have and maintain their credibility, nor can you.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 27, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> No, I did it on purpose.  Other than the word "inspired", those same arguments can be applied to the U.S. Constitution.  So, I was wondering if the Constitution "adds up" for you.


I'll be honest, I think its kinda silly to compare the Constitution to the Bible so I'll pass.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 27, 2014)

That a panel of men argued, disagreed, negotiated etc on what was supposedly "inspired" and what was not.

I often wondered why God would need a panel of men. How many months did it take for them to figure what was inspired?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The only people who actually believe that are either ignorant of the truth or actively engaged in suppressing or denying it.  An intellectually honest person could not make the statements you have and maintain their credibility, nor can you.



SFD, please stop. You are trying to look around the elephant in the room and pretend that it is not there.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 27, 2014)

bullethead said:


> SFD, please stop. You are trying to look around the elephant in the room and pretend that it is not there.



Did you say that from the bottom of your heart?


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 27, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> That a panel of men argued, disagreed, negotiated etc on what was supposedly "inspired" and what was not.
> 
> I often wondered why God would need a panel of men. How many months did it take for them to figure what was inspired?



Throughout the Bible, miracles were performed in order to give credibility to the following message, so that it would be clear that the speaker was relaying God's word.

When the Bible was being assembled, would have been a perfect time for a man, chosen by God to speak for God, to perform a miracle to establish His credibility and then be the sole authority on what is God's word and what is not God's word.  No need for a panel.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Did you say that from the bottom of your heart?



Yes.
When you are in a hole it is best to stop digging and I am trying to talk him out of his shovel.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jan 27, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I asked this a few times in the middle of a thread but no one wanted to touch it. I thought maybe it was just missed.
> 
> Does anyone agree or not agree that if God exists and he is all knowing that it would make sense His Word would match His Knowledge?
> If the Bible is God's word shouldn't the contents be in agreement with God's knowledge?




Many people have incorrect assumption and ideas about scripture. It is my belief that scripture is not the word of God, it is the inspired word of God.

 "If it is the word of God ideas" lead to rabbit hole thinking on spiritual matters.


The books of scripture are written by people who are inspired of/by God. They are people of different epocs, times, interests, cultures, geography, education, temprements, who are living with differing spiritual issues, politics, economics, conflicts etc.

Look at it this way. Americans view the world and spiritual matters through the america and for the values of it they know. Canadians or Brazilians view the world and spiritual matters through their societies and for the values of their societies.

This does not mean that the people of these three nations cannot know  more profound  values of  liberty, justice and peace that the divine has inspired people to write about, which are in addition values beyond the values their societies might promote.

Many books in scripture are poetic. Jesus thought in parables. There must be a good reason why this is so or why people and God chose and permit to write and teach this way. Perhaps the simple mind must be lifted out of simple values by simple stories who have uncommon and real messages, from the only source of real truth.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2014)

gordon 2 said:


> Many people have incorrect assumption and ideas about scripture. It is my belief that scripture is not the word of God, it is the inspired word of God.
> 
> "If it is the word of God ideas" lead to rabbit hole thinking on spiritual matters.
> 
> ...



Lots of people do things because of a God's inspiration. Inspired is a broad brush.

How can you explain to me why "inspired" writing is accurate writing?
How can you explain to me how man can accurately decide what is inspired and what is not without ever meeting or knowing the authors?

"Inspired" in this case seems a lot like "use the stuff that matches the story we want told".

If you had influence over someone telling your story would you use that influence to make the story as accurate as possible?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 27, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Lots of people do things because of a God's inspiration. Inspired is a broad brush.
> 
> How can you explain to me why "inspired" writing is accurate writing?
> How can you explain to me how man can accurately decide what is inspired and what is not without ever meeting or knowing the authors?
> ...


Its a slippery slope indeed.
"Inspired" to deny medical treatment to kids.
"Inspired" to fight wars
"Inspired" to commit murder
"Inspired" to make up stories??
Sorry Im not "inspired" to jump on somebodys bandwagon because they are "inspired".
I need a little more before I go all in.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2014)

gordon 2 said:


> Many people have incorrect assumption and ideas about scripture. It is my belief that scripture is not the word of God, it is the inspired word of God.
> 
> "If it is the word of God ideas" lead to rabbit hole thinking on spiritual matters.
> 
> ...



Are you suggesting that God has been at work in the form of the Holy Spirit which has qualified it to receive and communicate sacred revelation? In other words the Bible wasn’t just inspired by the idea of God, but was actually influenced through the Holy Spirit’s interactions with men by God literally?

Do you think these guys were just thinking random thoughts or do you think that God put these thoughts in their head?

What "level" of inspiration do YOU think God used and how does that compare to what Christianity claims?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 27, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> That a panel of men argued, disagreed, negotiated etc on what was supposedly "inspired" and what was not.
> 
> I often wondered why God would need a panel of men. How many months did it take for them to figure what was inspired?


If you ever get or come up with a better answer than I have been given which is "never mind all that, it all worked out just as God planned", please post it up.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2014)

Gordon, I am having a hard time trying to figure out just what your definition or level of inspired is.

Do you mean inspired like the authors were thinking of God and decided to write something down? Much like someone would be inspired to write something down when a beautiful scene inspired them?

or

Are you talking about God having a direct interaction with them in order to produce what God wanted known recorded?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> If you ever get or come up with a better answer than I have been given which is "never mind all that, it all worked out just as God planned", please post it up.



I have got the feeling it is more like if a person likes what they read THAT is the part God had a hand in, if what they read doesn't sit well with them or what common knowledge tells us, then the writer screwed it up.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 27, 2014)

http://writetodone.com/31-ways-to-find-inspiration-for-your-writing/

Wouldn't you think if God wanted a book, he would have 'blinked' one up.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2014)

660griz said:


> http://writetodone.com/31-ways-to-find-inspiration-for-your-writing/
> 
> Wouldn't you think if God wanted a book, he would have 'blinked' one up.



Writing seems to be the only thing believers think their God is incapable of.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 27, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Writing seems to be the only thing believers think their God is incapable of.



If they would just read the bible. 

He is also incapable of killing everyone on the planet, and repopulating it, without natural disasters and a big boat. 
Sad, really.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2014)

660griz said:


> If they would just read the bible.
> 
> He is also incapable of killing everyone on the planet, and repopulating it, without natural disasters and a big boat.
> Sad, really.



I have been accused (by my wife) of having selective hearing but selective reading seems to be an epidemic in some areas.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jan 27, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Are you suggesting that God has been at work in the form of the Holy Spirit which has qualified it to receive and communicate sacred revelation? In other words the Bible wasn’t just inspired by the idea of God, but was actually influenced through the Holy Spirit’s interactions with men by God literally?
> 
> Do you think these guys were just thinking random thoughts or do you think that God put these thoughts in their head?
> 
> What "level" of inspiration do YOU think God used and how does that compare to what Christianity claims?




They were thinking for themselves  and writing on subjects they were experts on because they knew God and man's spiritual traditions. Same deal with the fathers of Christianity--their interpretations of what they meant -- by their many letters and correspondences to each other and the churches---,  is the standard of what Christianity claims.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2014)

gordon 2 said:


> They were thinking for themselves  and writing on subjects they were experts on because they knew God and man's spiritual traditions. Same deal with the fathers of Christianity--their interpretations of what they meant -- by their many letters and correspondences to each other and the churches---,  is the standard of what Christianity claims.



That is a very honest and interesting explanation on your behalf. Refreshing and appreciated.

Do you think that God/Holy Spirit had no real part in the Bible other than the men thinking of them while they wrote? That they were basing their writings off of spiritual oral traditions and putting them down into words to be read.?.?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jan 27, 2014)

bullethead said:


> That is a very honest and interesting explanation on your behalf. Refreshing and appreciated.
> 
> Do you think that God/Holy Spirit had no real part in the Bible other than the men thinking of them while they wrote? That they were basing their writings off of spiritual oral traditions and putting them down into words to be read.?.?[/QUOTe
> 
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2014)

gordon 2 said:


> The Holy Spirit had a tremendous part in scripture because the people who wrote it, and lived the events described, could not have related what they did, or could the words scripture reveals they said and understood, have been said and elaborated,  without their knowing God and man's spiritual traditions,---knowing God as at least one of the three persons that Christians attribute to the Divine.
> 
> Saintly persons wrote scripture, that they joined their person to the Devine's is a prerequisite even before they set about recording what they deemed important to put down so others might/could read and understand.
> 
> Could you see that some Christians might say, "Scripture is the inspired word of God,( the words of man inspired by God) yet Jesus is the word of God made flesh." ?



We really do not know much about who wrote most of the scriptures let alone any specifics about them.
What you are telling me now is a good opinion to have but is based off of unknown factors.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jan 27, 2014)

I wonder if the Council of Nicea had lobbyists?


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Jan 27, 2014)

gordon 2 said:


> Many people have incorrect assumption and ideas about scripture. It is my belief that scripture is not the word of God, it is the inspired word of God.



I am sorry, but I am very stupid. What does this mean exactly? What was god's roll in the writing of the bible? And how did you come to the conclusion that it is not the direct word of god? And why do some people believe that it is the direct word of god?

I hope you understand that this is the sort of thing that keeps a non-believer such as myself non-believing. A group that can't even agree what gods roll in the making of the bible was. You would think he would have been a little more clear in something so important. One of my first jobs 20 something years ago was Burger King. They made it very clear..... Every whopper gets 4 pickles and 2 tomato slices only. Any more or any less and you outta here. But god can't make his position clear?


----------



## Nerf Warrior (Jan 27, 2014)

If you go to www.blueletterbible.org and read their faq's on the canon of the scripture, it addresses a few of these questions.  Whether you're a believer or not , its still pretty interesting reading.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2014)

Nerf Warrior said:


> If you go to www.blueletterbible.org and read their faq's on the canon of the scripture, it addresses a few of these questions.  Whether you're a believer or not , its still pretty interesting reading.



From the site:


> How God Guided The Writing Of Scripture
> 
> God guided the writing of Scripture through the inward working of the Holy Spirit in the lives of people whom He chose to infallibly write the books of the Bible. This guaranteed that the final result would be exactly what God intended. Thus, the Bible is the written Word of God to humanity, and, when originally written, was without error. It is the final authority for all matters of faith and practice.
> 
> ...



The reality does not back the claims


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> From the site:
> 
> 
> The reality does not back the claims


There are so many contradictions just in this article alone. One that jumps out at me immediately is -


> Exactly how this process worked is a mystery.


Yet the entire article is telling you how this processed worked and that it is error free


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> There are so many contradictions just in this article alone. One that jumps out at me immediately is -
> 
> Yet the entire article is telling you how this processed worked and that it is error free



Another perfect example of how man makes excuses for a non-existent God AND why there is so much disagreement within the religion.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Another perfect example of how man makes excuses for a non-existent God AND why there is so much disagreement within the religion.


And another -


> Thus the Spirit of God guaranteed the accuracy of every thing that was written. This process extended until the time the document was written.


So we have the Spirit of God guaranteeing the accuracy of the documents written.
And after that we have men deciding which documents were accurate and which were not to produce the Bible.
And -


> The author was guided to go where God wanted him to go, not where he wanted to go.


Apparently these men decided God sent some authors in the wrong direction and therefore rejected their writings.
Me personally... Im not buying it. 
God? I don't know. 
Using the Bible to prove God is real? For me, nope.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2014)

Yeah sometimes the Apologetics of it all paints a supposedly All-Knowing being as an idiot.


> The author was guided to go where God wanted him to go, not where he wanted to go.


Then after all that guidance God did not bother to proof read it or make sure it was accurate?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 30, 2014)

Terminal Idiot said:


> I am sorry, but I am very stupid. What does this mean exactly? What was god's roll in the writing of the bible? And how did you come to the conclusion that it is not the direct word of god? And why do some people believe that it is the direct word of god?
> 
> I hope you understand that this is the sort of thing that keeps a non-believer such as myself non-believing. A group that can't even agree what gods roll in the making of the bible was. You would think he would have been a little more clear in something so important. One of my first jobs 20 something years ago was Burger King. They made it very clear..... Every whopper gets 4 pickles and 2 tomato slices only. Any more or any less and you outta here. But god can't make his position clear?



Term the best advice I can give you is drop all of your presuppositions, assumptions, and everything you have seen and heard, read it for yourself and ask God to reveal the truth of it to you.  That's it.  Period.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Term the best advice I can give you is drop all of your presuppositions, assumptions, and everything you have seen and heard, read it for yourself and ask God to reveal the truth of it to you.  That's it.  Period.



SFD I am living breathing typing proof that what you have just suggested is not a cure all. Not only have I done that but I had a few years where I put myself totally in the Lord's hands. No different then than before or after. You have to understand that some of us on here are here because we have exhausted all other options.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> SFD I am living breathing typing proof that what you have just suggested is not a cure all. Not only have I done that but I had a few years where I put myself totally in the Lord's hands. No different then than before or after. You have to understand that some of us on here are here because we have exhausted all other options.



I don't doubt what you say is true, but it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of Christians come to believe in that exact way.  It's the best advice I can give, but I'm in no position to guarantee it.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't doubt what you say is true, but it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of Christians come to believe in that exact way.  It's the best advice I can give, but I'm in no position to guarantee it.



Yeah I understand that, but that advice can be given for believers in all religions.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Yeah I understand that, but that advice can be given for believers in all religions.



Not really.  Not if you really think about it.  Judaism and Christianity are the only two I am aware in which the believer can actually approach God on an individual, personal basis: Judaism not nearly so much as Christianity though.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 30, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't doubt what you say is true, but it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of Christians come to believe in that exact way.



I don't believe that. In my personal experience, the vast majority of Christians come to believe because...just in case. Fear of he!!.


----------



## Four (Jan 30, 2014)

660griz said:


> I don't believe that. In my personal experience, the vast majority of Christians come to believe because...just in case. Fear of he!!.



My list would be..

1. Born into it / Indoctrinated
2. Social / Cultural Pressure
3. Fear 
4. Pascals Wager
5. Perceived miracles (near death experiences, funny tingling when reading the bible, etc)


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 30, 2014)

Four said:


> My list would be..
> 
> 1. Born into it / Indoctrinated
> 2. Social / Cultural Pressure
> ...


Not sure if this may fit into one of your categories but time after time you hear -
My life was miserable ....
I was an alcoholic....
I was on drugs.....


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 30, 2014)

I think we are now discussing 2 separate issues.  My point was most HOW most come to believe: ie hearing or reading scripture, not WHY.  There are a millions of WHYS.  Everyone has their own path to the Cross so-to-speak.  Personally I don't deny those you listed don't exist.  I will say this however, if you think they represent the consensus or even the majority I would have to adamantly disagree.   You could post a poll in the above forums and get a sampling.  Might be interesting in what we all learn.  I would probably suprised by the results also?  

Edit added


Just saw Walt's post.  I think He is hitting closer to the truth.


----------



## Four (Jan 30, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think we are now discussing 2 separate issues.  My point was most HOW most come to believe: ie hearing or reading scripture, not WHY.  There are a millions of WHYS.  Everyone has their own path to the Cross so-to-speak.  Personally I don't deny those you listed don't exist.  I will say this however, if you think they represent the consensus or even the majority I would have to adamantly disagree.   You could post a poll in the above forums and get a sampling.  Might be interesting in what we all learn.  I would probably suprised by the results also?
> 
> Edit added
> 
> Just saw Walt's post.  I think He is hitting closer to the truth.



Walt does make a good point, one i had forgot about...

There is an issue with self reporting things though, a self identifying christian would almost never say they were indoctrinated, or culturally pressured into it. They might admit they were born into it, or that they've witness miracles though.

Then again we can get all tied up with if they are just identifying as christian, or actually "believing" etc


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Not really.  Not if you really think about it.  Judaism and Christianity are the only two I am aware in which the believer can actually approach God on an individual, personal basis: Judaism not nearly so much as Christianity though.



Followers of Islam would certainly disagree. Same God of Abraham.

Christians have 3 to chat with


----------



## 660griz (Jan 30, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> ...the believer can actually approach God on an individual, personal basis:



Take a picture next time. Sheesh!


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 30, 2014)

Four said:


> Walt does make a good point, one i had forgot about...
> 
> There is an issue with self reporting things though, a self identifying christian would almost never say they were indoctrinated, or culturally pressured into it. They might admit they were born into it, or that they've witness miracles though.
> 
> Then again we can get all tied up with if they are just identifying as christian, or actually "believing" etc


While I don't have the numbers in front of me I think there is no way around this being #1 -


> 1. Born into it / Indoctrinated


Kids don't drive themselves to church while mommy and daddy stay home, they don't sign themselves up for Christian school versus public, they don't walk past the store book shelves with Harry Potter books to get to the shelve with Bibles on it, Christian parents don't ask their kids if they "feel like" going to church today etc.
Of course there is the segment that become Christian later in life despite their upbringing just as there is the segment that reject Christianity later in life despite their upbringing.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 30, 2014)

I agree that explains the religion they pick or deny. 
Why, after the age or reason, do they still believe?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> While I don't have the numbers in front of me I think there is no way around this being #1 -
> 
> Kids don't drive themselves to church while mommy and daddy stay home, they don't sign themselves up for Christian school versus public, they don't walk past the store book shelves with Harry Potter books to get to the shelve with Bibles on it, Christian parents don't ask their kids if they "feel like" going to church today etc.
> Of course there is the segment that become Christian later in life despite their upbringing just as there is the segment that reject Christianity later in life despite their upbringing.



And over the years Native Americans, remote tribes, and people involved in other religions did not suddenly have Jesus visit them. The word got spread one way or the other.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> And over the years Native Americans, remote tribes, and people involved in other religions did not suddenly have Jesus visit them.



Worse. Missionaries!


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 30, 2014)

660griz said:


> I agree that explains the religion they pick or deny.
> Why, after the age or reason, do they still believe?


Because indoctrination is not an easy thing to shed. Particularly when your indoctrination is -


> Fear of he!!.


How many times have we heard "what have you got to lose"? The safer bet is to hold with 17.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2014)

660griz said:


> Worse. Missionaries!



Missionaries with swords and rifles clear up a lot of beliefs real quick.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 1, 2014)

Hey bullethead. Could you give me 5 scientific errors for me to ponder on? 

Also, to answer the 2 creation stories, I would have to suggest you study them deeper. Get a good commentary to follow. One story is a basic telling from an upclose perspective. The other is a broadened view, like a telescope or binoculars panning out. This is my take anyways. Remember the times of the writing of the bible as well. Based on the bible, God inspired man to write His Word. Now technology back then wasnt up to our standards, lol! These people werent concerned with the shape of the earth, gravity, etc. God knew, but it obviously wasnt important enough for Him to elaborate on. I gave you my central theme in the other thread. He had 1 message and molecular biology and physics didnt have anything to do with it.
Here is food for thought that just hit me. What if God is still writing "off the record"? What if He is responsible for mans advancements in technology and science? I dont know why I brought that up, and dont know if it is even a valid arguement. It just made me think. What say you? And please give me 5 errors to pondr. Thanks buddy.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 1, 2014)

warmouth said:


> Hey bullethead. Could you give me 5 scientific errors for me to ponder on?
> 
> Also, to answer the 2 creation stories, I would have to suggest you study them deeper. Get a good commentary to follow. One story is a basic telling from an upclose perspective. The other is a broadened view, like a telescope or binoculars panning out. This is my take anyways. Remember the times of the writing of the bible as well. Based on the bible, God inspired man to write His Word. Now technology back then wasnt up to our standards, lol! These people werent concerned with the shape of the earth, gravity, etc. God knew, but it obviously wasnt important enough for Him to elaborate on. I gave you my central theme in the other thread. He had 1 message and molecular biology and physics didnt have anything to do with it.
> Here is food for thought that just hit me. What if God is still writing "off the record"? What if He is responsible for mans advancements in technology and science? I dont know why I brought that up, and dont know if it is even a valid arguement. It just made me think. What say you? And please give me 5 errors to pondr. Thanks buddy.



http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/genesis.html
After you skim through that we can chat.


----------



## Cullen Bohannon (Feb 1, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Missionaries with swords and rifles clear up a lot of beliefs real quick.



Yep.  "Let's turn them into Christians", or, "Let's help them through this emergency and then turn them into Christians".  "Gotta pay to play".  Why can't they just help people in trouble, then leave them alone?  Maybe leave them a way to reach the missionaries if they choose to learn more about religion?  But forcing religion down their throats as "payment" for being helped is quite un-Christian-like, in my opinion.

Pretty much every single indigenous society that has ever been visited by missionaries has been destroyed.  Just think of all the genocide in this world done "in the name of God".


----------



## warmouth (Feb 1, 2014)

bullethead said:


> http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/genesis.html
> After you skim through that we can chat.



Ok. I actually spent some time here taking notes. Now, you havent given me 5 scientific errors yet, but I'm ok with that for now. I do expect an answer though
Now the site you linked here is set out to debunk genesis, and is coming across as one sided and completely biased towards the authors view, which is no different than what we are doing here. Even though I have a page of notes from it, after writing a bit, it seems pointless because you have to agree with me that this is theoretical,  which all of this is unless we can have valid points to our arguements. The author has his theories, then uses them as a trandescendal arguement strictly based on his thoeries. You and I both know we can have a decent conversation based on someone elses theory. He continually claims science has proven this and that, and for the most part, he might be right, be might be wrong. Its all theory. You are very intellegent, and I can tell from many of your posts. You want concrete evidence and valid arguments, and I will do my very best from what knowledge I do have. But giving me this link to look over is no different than me sending you a link proving genesis to be fact. It is the ultimate offence to do such things if we want to accomplish a good conversation because is shows a lack of understanding and a lack of reason to post links based on theory. It would be the same for you if I sent you a link of some guys take or opinion on a subject. So lets me and you please stick to this and ask each other questions, if you want too. I enjoy this type of thing and I dont get offended by insulting God or anything. I only get offended when my intelligence (as little as I have) gets tried, such as that link. Now if there are points you'd like me to try to explain in that article, I'd be more than happy to do whatever I can. I might make sense, and then again, I might do a terrible job. All I can do is make a feeble attempt to make a decent defence of what is in question. I did enjoy the link, and I did read it thoroughly.  So if there is anything from the article you want to bring to light, shoot. Good stuff here and I apprieciate your respect in a matter that you are on the fence about. It is nice talking to someone with differing views in a civilized manner.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 1, 2014)

Cullen Bohannon said:


> Yep.  "Let's turn them into Christians", or, "Let's help them through this emergency and then turn them into Christians".  "Gotta pay to play".  Why can't they just help people in trouble, then leave them alone?  Maybe leave them a way to reach the missionaries if they choose to learn more about religion?  But forcing religion down their throats as "payment" for being helped is quite un-Christian-like, in my opinion.
> 
> Pretty much every single indigenous society that has ever been visited by missionaries has been destroyed.  Just think of all the genocide in this world done "in the name of God".



And this is a fundamental problem we see alot of. Christians, for the most part, somehow feel they have the power to change people. Now I am a firm believer in sharing my faith and testimony, but I never push or force my beliefs. That is not my decision to make. And that is a broad statement about societies being destroyed after missionaries. That is you being bitter
and opinionated. That is simply not true. If christians all held to the original plan set forth in the book of Acts, the world would be a better place. Athiests, diests, and agnostics can all agree on that. If christians were actually christians, we'd all be in better shape. The fact is, many who claim to be christians arent, plain and simple. If christians strived to live as Jesus did, there wouldnt be animosity towards christians, to the extent it is today. The bible teaches love your neighbor. Jesus said the greatest commandment was to love God with all, and the second was like it. Love one another as I have loved you. Thats the fundmental teaching of the Bible. What about the Quaran? "In the name of god" is more of the elohim term. You dont see "in the name of Jesus Christ", who is my God. Just my thoughts.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 1, 2014)

Cullen Bohannon said:


> Pretty much every single indigenous society that has ever been visited by missionaries has been destroyed.



Disagree.  




Cullen Bohannon said:


> Just think of all the genocide in this world done "in the name of God".



Examples?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 1, 2014)

warmouth said:


> Ok. I actually spent some time here taking notes. Now, you havent given me 5 scientific errors yet, but I'm ok with that for now. I do expect an answer though
> Now the site you linked here is set out to debunk genesis, and is coming across as one sided and completely biased towards the authors view, which is no different than what we are doing here. Even though I have a page of notes from it, after writing a bit, it seems pointless because you have to agree with me that this is theoretical,  which all of this is unless we can have valid points to our arguements. The author has his theories, then uses them as a trandescendal arguement strictly based on his thoeries. You and I both know we can have a decent conversation based on someone elses theory. He continually claims science has proven this and that, and for the most part, he might be right, be might be wrong. Its all theory. You are very intellegent, and I can tell from many of your posts. You want concrete evidence and valid arguments, and I will do my very best from what knowledge I do have. But giving me this link to look over is no different than me sending you a link proving genesis to be fact. It is the ultimate offence to do such things if we want to accomplish a good conversation because is shows a lack of understanding and a lack of reason to post links based on theory. It would be the same for you if I sent you a link of some guys take or opinion on a subject. So lets me and you please stick to this and ask each other questions, if you want too. I enjoy this type of thing and I dont get offended by insulting God or anything. I only get offended when my intelligence (as little as I have) gets tried, such as that link. Now if there are points you'd like me to try to explain in that article, I'd be more than happy to do whatever I can. I might make sense, and then again, I might do a terrible job. All I can do is make a feeble attempt to make a decent defence of what is in question. I did enjoy the link, and I did read it thoroughly.  So if there is anything from the article you want to bring to light, shoot. Good stuff here and I apprieciate your respect in a matter that you are on the fence about. It is nice talking to someone with differing views in a civilized manner.



We can go one at a time....Lets start with Animals on the Ark
 Amount of Animals, How they Got there, How they fit, What they Ate, Where the waste went....


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 1, 2014)

What is the subject of what you guys are discussing, so I can follow along. Is it scientific error in the bible... or more generalized?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 1, 2014)

Yeah pretty much just scientific errors.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 1, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> What is the subject of what you guys are discussing, so I can follow along. Is it scientific error in the bible... or more generalized?



I know some are thinking that Animals on the Ark is not scientific but I can back it up with Physics.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 1, 2014)

Are there any animals around today that weren't on the Ark that have evolved from those animals? Were viruses on the Ark and did certain viruses and bacterial infections such as Aids evolve from those or were Aids and STD's on the Ark? Maybe they had a special Center for Disease Control compartment.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 1, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Yeah pretty much just scientific errors.


Never given that much thought..... Maybe in the dbl creation story????


----------



## bullethead (Feb 1, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Are there any animals around today that weren't on the Ark that have evolved from those animals?


Yes but No:
Not enough time has passed to see an evolution of a species from only 5000-6000 years ago.
And IF an ARK story actually took place the Ark would have been very small...nowhere near big enough to fit many animals on for any length of time.



Artfuldodger said:


> Were viruses on the Ark and did certain viruses and bacterial infections such as Aids evolve from those or were Aids and STD's on the Ark? Maybe they had a special Center for Disease Control compartment.


Highly Doubtful


----------



## bullethead (Feb 1, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Never given that much thought..... Maybe in the dbl creation story????



An example would be: 



> 2:18  And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
> 
> 2:19  And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
> 
> 2:20  And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.



Considering that there are MILLIONS of species of animals,birds, and "beasts" of the field...I think that would take quite a while for EVERY species of animal to have been brought past Adam so he can name them.....Let alone have animals that do not and could not survive in that climate get there and get back to wherever they came from.........Only for me to think that science discovers NEW species daily that have never been named.
We won't even begin to get into the amount of "beasts" that were already extinct for millions of years before 6000 years ago.

There are literally dozens upon dozens of Biblical claims that do not match what Science knows just in Genesis alone, not to mention hundreds throughout the Bible.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Feb 2, 2014)

warmouth said:


> Ok. I actually spent some time here taking notes. Now, you havent given me 5 scientific errors yet, but I'm ok with that for now. I do expect an answer though
> Now the site you linked here is set out to debunk genesis, and is coming across as one sided and completely biased towards the authors view, which is no different than what we are doing here. Even though I have a page of notes from it, after writing a bit, it seems pointless because you have to agree with me that this is theoretical,  which all of this is unless we can have valid points to our arguements. The author has his theories, then uses them as a trandescendal arguement strictly based on his thoeries. You and I both know we can have a decent conversation based on someone elses theory. He continually claims science has proven this and that, and for the most part, he might be right, be might be wrong. Its all theory. You are very intellegent, and I can tell from many of your posts. You want concrete evidence and valid arguments, and I will do my very best from what knowledge I do have. But giving me this link to look over is no different than me sending you a link proving genesis to be fact. It is the ultimate offence to do such things if we want to accomplish a good conversation because is shows a lack of understanding and a lack of reason to post links based on theory. It would be the same for you if I sent you a link of some guys take or opinion on a subject. So lets me and you please stick to this and ask each other questions, if you want too. I enjoy this type of thing and I dont get offended by insulting God or anything. I only get offended when my intelligence (as little as I have) gets tried, such as that link. Now if there are points you'd like me to try to explain in that article, I'd be more than happy to do whatever I can. I might make sense, and then again, I might do a terrible job. All I can do is make a feeble attempt to make a decent defence of what is in question. I did enjoy the link, and I did read it thoroughly.  So if there is anything from the article you want to bring to light, shoot. Good stuff here and I apprieciate your respect in a matter that you are on the fence about. It is nice talking to someone with differing views in a civilized manner.



Mercy, that is a lot of words, with little substance.

I know you didn't ask me, but a few scientific errors for you.
1. The earth is flat
2. The earth is 8000 years old
3. The sun revolves around the earth
And here are a few more for you to look at
4-24. http://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featblunders/#.Uu5g6H-9KSM

So, with that being said, why won't you respond to the link he posted? Why in the world is your intelligence insulted by the link. The link seems to offer some good arguments to the theories you hold as sacred.

Interesting.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 2, 2014)

I see problems in the creation story, scientific, in that the writer apparently did not realize that everything involves the sun. That a "day" is such because of the sun. That the seasons, etc, that were made a day before the "greater light" could not be until the next day. It reveals that this was an early writing. But it also reveals it was not written as the words of God for he would have known all about that which he created. It is not clear whether the writer believed that the moon was it's own light source, the lesser light. Which we know as only reflecting the suns light


----------



## bullethead (Feb 2, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> I see problems in the creation story, scientific, in that the writer apparently did not realize that everything involves the sun. That a "day" is such because of the sun. That the seasons, etc, that were made a day before the "greater light" could not be until the next day. It reveals that this was an early writing. But it also reveals it was not written as the words of God for he would have known all about that which he created. It is not clear whether the writer believed that the moon was it's own light source, the lesser light. Which we know as only reflecting the suns light



All spot on. None of it is Scientifically correct. Much of it goes directly against what science has learned and tells us.

I am waiting with high anticipation for replies that show me how these claims are backed scientifically. God would be the Ultimate Scientist with total understanding of how HIS creation worked yet he could not convey that to the people he chose to write the stories.

In my opinion the Bible could and should have been filled with things that went against much of what was known to man at that time only to be more understood as we advanced with our knowledge and even still containing things that are beyond our wildest imaginations.
The Bible is none of that.
It contains explanations that are just untrue.
It contains the guesses of men that are flat out wrong.
It contains miracles that the best minds of the time could conjure up then but in today's time are parlor tricks.

The Word in the Book just does not match up with the Knowledge of a God.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 2, 2014)

> Originally Posted by Cullen Bohannon View Post
> Just think of all the genocide in this world done "in the name of God".





centerpin fan said:


> Examples?



Exodus, Chapter 34, verses 11-14
Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite. Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images (For you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.)

Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 7-9
You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you. You shall eat the old harvest, and clear out the old because of the new.

Kind of makes a guy wonder why God did not bring Jesus into the mix a Thousand years earlier to deter all this bloodshed instead of Command that it happens.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Feb 2, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right here in the good ol' US of A
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/1801-1900/manifest-destiny/the-components-of-manifest-destiny.php


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 2, 2014)

If God is all-powerful and knows the future, then God would know that there would be great controversy in the present day concerning things written in the Bible that seem to be inaccurate.

If God intended the Bible to provide us with important information and He wanted us to believe the Bible to be true and accurate, then God would not want inaccurate information to infiltrate the Bible.

If God played a role in the writing and assembly of the Bible, He would want to ensure that the information that He wanted relayed, was relayed in an accurate and believable manner.

If God created everything, He would have absolutely no problem in communicating effectively with His creation in a way that would be completely understood.

There is no reasonable explanation for a divine message from God being anything other than completely understood, accurate, and believable.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 2, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> If God is all-powerful and knows the future, then God would know that there would be great controversy in the present day concerning things written in the Bible that seem to be inaccurate.
> 
> If God intended the Bible to provide us with important information and He wanted us to believe the Bible to be true and accurate, then God would not want inaccurate information to infiltrate the Bible.
> 
> ...



Only a believer in God could find a way to make excuses to dumb down his God enough in order to disagree with what you have just said.


----------



## Cullen Bohannon (Feb 2, 2014)

Terminal Idiot said:


> Right here in the good ol' US of A
> http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/1801-1900/manifest-destiny/the-components-of-manifest-destiny.php



That's the gist of where I was coming from.  I didn't have specific links to anything to back up what I wrote.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 2, 2014)

Terminal Idiot said:


> Right here in the good ol' US of A
> http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/1801-1900/manifest-destiny/the-components-of-manifest-destiny.php



From: http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocide5.htm

The population of North America prior to the first sustained European contact in 1492 CE is a matter of active debate. Various estimates of the pre-contact Native population of the continental U.S. and Canada range from 1.8 to over 12 million. 4 Over the next four centuries, their numbers were reduced to about 237,000 as Natives were almost wiped out. Author Carmen Bernand estimates that the Native population of what is now Mexico was reduced from 30 million to only 3 million over four decades. 13 Peter Montague estimates that Europeans once ruled over 100 million Natives throughout the Americas.

European extermination of Natives started with Christopher Columbus' arrival in San Salvador in 1492. Native population dropped dramatically over the next few decades. Some were directly murdered by Europeans. Others died indirectly as a result of contact with introduced diseases for which they had no resistance -- mainly smallpox, influenza, and measles.

Later European Christian invaders systematically murdered additional Aboriginal people, from the Canadian Arctic to South America. They used warfare, death marches, forced relocation to barren lands, destruction of their main food supply -- the Buffalo -- and poisoning. Some Europeans actually shot at Indians for target practice. 14

Oppression continued into the 20th century, through actions by governments and religious organizations which systematically destroyed Native culture and religious heritage. One present-day byproduct of this oppression is suicide. Today, Canadian Natives have the highest suicide rate of any identifiable population group in the world. Native North Americans are not far behind.

The genocide against American Natives was one of the most massive, and longest lasting genocidal campaigns in human history. It started, like all genocides, with the oppressor treating the victims as sub-humans. It continued until almost all Natives were wiped of the face of the earth, along with much of their language, culture and religion.

We believe that:
bullet	Only the mass murder of European Jews by Christians from 306 to 1945 CE was of longer duration.
bullet	Only the mass murder by the government of the USSR of about 41 million of its citizens  (1917 to 1987), and by the government of China of about 35 million of its citizens  (1949 to 1987) may have involved greater loss of life.

The following essay contains only a small sampling of the horrendous atrocities inflicted on Natives by Europeans.

horizontal rule
Christopher Columbus:

"Christopher Columbus has been a genuine American hero since at least 1792 when the Society of St. Tammany in New York City first held a dinner to honor the man and his deeds." Columbus Day has been celebrated as a national holiday since 1934 in honor of this dedicated and courageous explorer. Unfortunately, his character had a dark side.

Columbus described the Arawaks -- the Native people in the West Indies -- as timid, artless, free, and generous. He rewarded them with death and slavery. For his second voyage to the Americas:

    "Columbus took the title 'Admiral of the Ocean Sea' and proceeded to unleash a reign of terror unlike anything seen before or since. When he was finished, eight million Arawaks -- virtually the entire native population of Hispaniola -- had been exterminated by torture, murder, forced labor, starvation, disease and despair." 1

A Spanish missionary, Bartolome de las Casas, described eye-witness accounts of mass murder, torture and rape. 2 Author Barry Lopez, summarizing Las Casas' report wrote:

    "One day, in front of Las Casas, the Spanish dismembered, beheaded, or raped 3000 people. 'Such inhumanities and barbarisms were committed in my sight,' he says, 'as no age can parallel....' The Spanish cut off the legs of children who ran from them. They poured people full of boiling soap. They made bets as to who, with one sweep of his sword, could cut a person in half. They loosed dogs that 'devoured an Indian like a hog, at first sight, in less than a moment.' They used nursing infants for dog food." 3

The Spaniards eventually went on to conquer Mexico and the southern U.S.

horizontal rule

horizontal rule
The British:

The British occupied areas from Virginia northward. Hans Koning wrote:

    "From the beginning, the Spaniards saw the native Americans as natural slaves, beasts of burden, part of the loot. When working them to death was more economical than treating them somewhat humanely, they worked them to death. The English, on the other hand, had no use for the native peoples. They saw them as devil worshippers, savages who were beyond salvation by the church, and exterminating them increasingly became accepted policy." 5

David E. Stannard wrote:

    "Hundreds of Indians were killed in skirmish after skirmish. Other hundreds were killed in successful plots of mass poisoning. They were hunted down by dogs, 'blood-Hounds to draw after them, and Mastives [mastiffs] to seize them.' Their canoes and fishing weirs were smashed, their villages and agricultural fields burned to the ground. Indian peace offers were accepted by the English only until their prisoners were returned; then, having lulled the natives into false security, the colonists returned to the attack. It was the colonists' expressed desire that the Indians be exterminated, rooted 'out from being longer a people upon the face of the earth.' In a single raid the settlers destroyed corn sufficient to feed four thousand people for a year. Starvation and the massacre of non-combatants was becoming the preferred British approach to dealing with the natives." 4

horizontal rule
The Americans:

In the early 18th century, the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey promoted a genocide of their local Natives by imposing a "scalp bounty" on dead Indians. "In 1703, Massachusetts paid 12 pounds for an Indian scalp. By 1723 the price had soared to 100 pounds." 10 Ward Churchill wrote: "Indeed, in many areas it [murdering Indians] became an outright business." 6 This practice of paying a bounty for Indian scalps continued into the 19th century before the public put an end to the practice. 10

In the 18th century, George Washington compared them to wolves, "beasts of prey" and called for their total destruction. 4 In 1814, Andrew Jackson "supervised the mutilation of 800 or more Creek Indian corpses" that his troops had killed.  6

Extermination of all of the surviving natives was urged by the Governor of California officially in 1851. 4 An editorial from the Rocky Mountain News in Denver, CO in 1863; and from the Santa Fe New Mexican in 1863 expressed the same sentiment. 6 In 1867, General William Tecumseh Sherman said, "We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux [Lakotas] even to their extermination: men, women and children." 6

In 1848, before the gold rush in California, that state's native population is estimated to have been 150,000. In 1870, after the gold rush, only about 31,000 were still alive. "Over 60 percent of these indigenous people died from disease introduced by hundreds of thousands of so-called 49ers. However, local tribes were also systematically chased off their lands, marched to missions and reservations, enslaved and brutally massacred." 12 The price paid for a native scalp had dropped as low as $0.25. Native historian, Jack Forbes, wrote:

    "The bulk of California's Indians were conquered, and died, in innumerable little episodes rather than in large campaigns. it serves to indict not a group of cruel leaders, or a few squads of rough soldiers, but in effect, an entire people; for ...the conquest of the Native Californian was above all else a popular, mass, enterprise." 11


----------



## Cullen Bohannon (Feb 2, 2014)

And then there's the truth about the fabled first Thanksgiving feast:

http://www.manataka.org/page269.html

Not at all the garbage most of us read in our school textbooks.  As is said, "The victor always writes the history".

They were, in effect, thanking their God for being able to murder.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Exodus, Chapter 34, verses 11-14
> Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite. Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images (For you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.)
> 
> Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 7-9
> You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you. You shall eat the old harvest, and clear out the old because of the new.



None of that really happened.  It's all figurative.  It's a metaphor.  Moses just plagiarized a Babylonian myth he learned from some illiterate goat herders.  Bart Ehrman said so.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 2, 2014)

Terminal Idiot said:


> Right here in the good ol' US of A
> http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/1801-1900/manifest-destiny/the-components-of-manifest-destiny.php



So, ministers were riding across the plains "killin' Injuns for Jesus"?  Is that what you believe?


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 2, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> There is no reasonable explanation for a divine message from God being anything other than completely understood, accurate, and believable.



There's a perfectly reasonable explanation:  human beings were involved.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 2, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> None of that really happened.  It's all figurative.  It's a metaphor.  Moses just plagiarized a Babylonian myth he learned from some illiterate goat herders.  Bart Ehrman said so.



If I were you I would hope what you said above is true.

So is that your best attempt?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 2, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> There's a perfectly reasonable explanation:  human beings were involved.



I agree.
No God necessary.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> So is that your best attempt?



1.  It's Super Bowl Sunday, so I'm just phoning it in today.

2.  As a general rule, there is no more appropriate response on this forum than "Bart Ehrman said so".


----------



## bullethead (Feb 2, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> 1.  It's Super Bowl Sunday, so I'm just phoning it in today.
> 
> 2.  As a general rule, there is no more appropriate response on this forum than "Bart Ehrman said so".



1. As a specific rule, it is rare that anyone comes up with anything that refutes Ehrman's "said so's". 

2. Your attempts at deflections show us that you cannot refute the charges .


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> 1. As a specific rule, it is rare that anyone comes up with anything that refutes Ehrman's "said so's".



Why bother?  I'm all out of kryptonite, so I'm powerless against the Great and Powerful Ehrman.




bullethead said:


> Your attempts at deflections show us that you cannot refute the charges .



It shows I'm not that interested in pursuing yet another "God is a genocidal Maniac" thread.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 2, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Why bother?  I'm all out of kryptonite, so I'm powerless against the Great and Powerful Ehrman.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



CPF I am just going to point out the obvious here.....
You DID bother.
You made it a point to pop in and make multiple posts and now you are acting like you could debunk everything that was said but play it off by using Ehrman as an excuse so you won't. ONLY none of it was by Ehrman and YOU brought him into the conversation to use as some sort of scape goat. 
By your own book God IS a genocidal maniac. His followers also have been because of his commands in that book.
You seem pretty involved for not interested in getting involved.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 2, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> 1.  It's Super Bowl Sunday, so I'm just phoning it in today.
> 
> 2.  As a general rule, there is no more appropriate response on this forum than "Bart Ehrman said so".


Glad you said "general rule" because I couldn't tell you one word that he has written. Never saw the need to.


----------



## drippin' rock (Feb 2, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Why bother?  I'm all out of kryptonite, so I'm powerless against the Great and Powerful Ehrman.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You asked for examples.  

Do you think you are going to trip someone up over wording?  Millions of people have been killed in the name of God.  Whether it was God himself, man under direct influence of God, or misguided man, the result is the same.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Feb 2, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> So, ministers were riding across the plains "killin' Injuns for Jesus"?  Is that what you believe?



You asked for examples of genocide in the name of god. I gave one. Manifest destiny. The Christians thought it was gods will to take over the land at any cost. I did not say there were ministers doing anything. Not sure why you made that silly comment. Now, the football game is a bust - perhaps you can enlighten us as to why I am incorrect.

Unless you are one of those Super Bowl "commercial watcher" types


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Feb 2, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> It shows I'm not that interested in pursuing yet another "God is a genocidal Maniac" thread.



Who said anything about god? It's the people that are the kooks


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 2, 2014)

While we are on this subject, I'm amazed at how people over the years have justified the treatment of their fellow man by considering them to be sub-human or not having souls. It happens in many religions and Native Americans & Blacks are the first to come to mind. I think people knew or felt like Jews had souls but had committed such a feat that warranted Earthly punishment from Christians.
Either way it was and is wrong. They must have forgot about the commandment of love. 
Now in the present and past few decades during times of war it is taught or brainwashed that the members of the country the US is fighting are again sub-human or at least not having souls our God cares about converting. Military men are brainwashed into thinking they are somehow doing the work of God by killing the enemy. Not only the US military but the military of Japan in WWII and the present middle east enemies of the US. Maybe it makes killing the enemy easier if you believe they are sub-human or enemies of our God. Do it in the name of Heaven, you'll be justified in the end.
The Bible is full of wars and God taking sides. Generations have used this as an excuse to go to war. Now if someone has declared war on us, I'm OK with retaliation. I don't feel comfortable with always using God as an excuse to conquer. Why don't we just do it as a defense? Why would God want the US to defend countries with oil and not poor African countries? I don't feel our motivation is always God even if we try to say it is.
There is no doubt we will always have enemies both as individuals and as a country. That doesn't give the excuse to treat our enemies as less than Christians or prospective Christians.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 2, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> While we are on this subject, I'm amazed at how people over the years have justified the treatment of their fellow man by considering them to be sub-human or not having souls. It happens in many religions and Native Americans & Blacks are the first to come to mind. I think people knew or felt like Jews had souls but had committed such a feat that warranted Earthly punishment from Christians.
> Either way it was and is wrong. They must have forgot about the commandment of love.
> Now in the present and past few decades during times of war it is taught or brainwashed that the members of the country the US is fighting are again sub-human or at least not having souls our God cares about converting. Military men are brainwashed into thinking they are somehow doing the work of God by killing the enemy. Not only the US military but the military of Japan in WWII and the present middle east enemies of the US. Maybe it makes killing the enemy easier if you believe they are sub-human or enemies of our God. Do it in the name of Heaven, you'll be justified in the end.
> The Bible is full of wars and God taking sides. Generations have used this as an excuse to go to war. Now if someone has declared war on us, I'm OK with retaliation. I don't feel comfortable with always using God as an excuse to conquer. Why don't we just do it as a defense? Why would God want the US to defend countries with oil and not poor African countries? I don't feel our motivation is always God even if we try to say it is.
> There is no doubt we will always have enemies both as individuals and as a country. That doesn't give the excuse to treat our enemies as less than Christians or prospective Christians.



I cannot understand how we can claim to get such high morals from a God and completely alter those morals for his name to carry out atrocities.
I have no problem with War or carrying it out to the fullest when the need arises especially if it is to preserve our freedom but to try to justify it by linking it to a higher power so we can feel good about lowering moral standards is indoctrination at it's finest.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 3, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> If God is all-powerful and knows the future, then God would know that there would be great controversy in the present day concerning things written in the Bible that seem to be inaccurate.
> 
> If God intended the Bible to provide us with important information and He wanted us to believe the Bible to be true and accurate, then God would not want inaccurate information to infiltrate the Bible.
> 
> ...





centerpin fan said:


> There's a perfectly reasonable explanation:  human beings were involved.



Break it down for me, please.

Do you disagree with the above train of thought or do you think that man has the ability to undermine something that God wants to do?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 3, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Break it down for me, please.
> 
> Do you disagree with the above train of thought or do you think that man has the ability to undermine something that God wants to do?



It seems as though God is powerless against the Pen.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 3, 2014)

bullethead said:


> We can go one at a time....Lets start with Animals on the Ark
> Amount of Animals, How they Got there, How they fit, What they Ate, Where the waste went....



Hey buddy. I reallyam sorry for just getting back. Ive been under the weather and felt like pure garbage. Not out of the woods just yet, but hopefully the worst is over!
Noah was commanded by God (Who was Yaweh at this point), to take every clean animal by sevens, male and female. And of the unclean animals, 2....male and female. Birds by sevens with the same regulations. I cant comment on how many animals were brought aboard, but we wouldnt needevery single animal we have today due to hybridization, micro (not macro) evolution, lol, and gene changes, which could also have been brought on by the dramatic climate change after the flood subsided. Thats something we dont think about too much.
As far as where they stayed, Scripture isnt clear of the precise instructions given to Noah. He was told to build rooms, and cover inside and out with pitch. The ark itself was pretty enormous going by the measurements given. Im sure there were store rooms for food, as it took a very long time to build this thing. Im certain all the instructions for the details were given, yet isnt necessary to mention due to the story being told, for me anyways. And I'm sure the waste was discarded with whatever they used as shovels and such.
Now as how the animals got there. I find it is easiest for me to think about a migration type march. It isnt that they all had to come all at once. It doesnt say, but we know how migration works, and to me it makes since. Even if it didnt make sense, if God is indeed Creator, and mans wickedness is what caused the flood, I find it is not without reason that God commanded the animals and guided them to the ark. Actually, I thought of something else. When it is about to rain, notice how animals seek shelter, even if it is clear. I can tell when it is about to storm by watching the cows get under the pole barn or under trees. Hmmm. This makes me want to watch the new Noah movie coming out! 
I hope I made sense bullethead. If I didnt, or mislead, or even didnt give an appropriate answer, let me know.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 3, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Are there any animals around today that weren't on the Ark that have evolved from those animals? Were viruses on the Ark and did certain viruses and bacterial infections such as Aids evolve from those or were Aids and STD's on the Ark? Maybe they had a special Center for Disease Control compartment.



We all know the government created AIDS bwhahahahaha


----------



## warmouth (Feb 3, 2014)

Terminal Idiot said:


> Mercy, that is a lot of words, with little substance.
> 
> I know you didn't ask me, but a few scientific errors for you.
> 1. The earth is flat
> ...


Well, considering we are being civil and respectful, do you have anything to offer in those terms. What if I'd have posted an article by a theologian debunking athiest? See what I'm saying. And no, there was no substance due to me wanting his own personal thoughts. And as far as your numbers.... have you ever opened a bible? Serious question because you just showed as much ignorance in your post as your bad attitude to start it with. None of your "list" is even in the bible. Sounded good if you had knowledge of the source you hate, but until you at least educate yourself on a subject, I'd sit this one out big guy.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 3, 2014)

bullethead said:


> All spot on. None of it is Scientifically correct. Much of it goes directly against what science has learned and tells us.
> 
> I am waiting with high anticipation for replies that show me how these claims are backed scientifically. God would be the Ultimate Scientist with total understanding of how HIS creation worked yet he could not convey that to the people he chose to write the stories.
> 
> ...



Hold up Bullet! Dang, I miss 1 or 2 days and cant catch up, lol. Arecurring theme here is trying to make the bible what it is not. It is not a science book. Think of how old the old testament is. These men might have even been told about gravity or physics, but look at the resources they had. Technology then was a stick with a rock on the end of it. That was the xbox360 of the day. They had no way to describe anything we know today. We arent smarter todzy than they were. Id actually argue they were smarter than us. But what we have now is information, not a more advanced brain. Let me catch up!!!!!!!! Just kidding. Carry on and keep me thinking. I like working out the ol' brain. And even more, I like being stumpt.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 3, 2014)

Talking about Noah is a good time to point out the intended parrallel. Adam named all of the new creation animals. Jesus renames those new creation followers. Your name is Cepas and you will be called Peter. Now all these animals were gathered to be delivered from the coming wrath. They were "caught up" above the waters. Same caught up Paul speaks of to be protected from the coming wrath. See where I'm going? The flood is a picture of what is often called the rapture. The earth was destroyed by water, the present days will be destroyed by fire, Sodom being an example given. Just as the wicked were destroyed and were no more in the flood, so to will the wicked be destroyed by fire and be no more.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 3, 2014)

Terminal Idiot said:


> You asked for examples of genocide in the name of god. I gave one. Manifest destiny. The Christians thought it was gods will to take over the land at any cost. I did not say there were ministers doing anything. Not sure why you made that silly comment. Now, the football game is a bust - perhaps you can enlighten us as to why I am incorrect.
> 
> Unless you are one of those Super Bowl "commercial watcher" types



Once again, ignorance. What land is this you speak of at any cost? And who were the "christians". Please realize I'm not being condescending towards you, but your lack of understanding is somewhat bewildering being this is an intellegent, and for the most part, respectful of one anotherviews. From my perspective we arent bashing or flaming others for not believing one way or another. I dont see a debate either. Just some questions getting answered. Please be respectful of the other members here. Not everyone has a masters degree in here, but it seems many want to contribute. Let them be and kindly offer a valid reason they are wrong.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 3, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> While we are on this subject, I'm amazed at how people over the years have justified the treatment of their fellow man by considering them to be sub-human or not having souls. It happens in many religions and Native Americans & Blacks are the first to come to mind. I think people knew or felt like Jews had souls but had committed such a feat that warranted Earthly punishment from Christians.
> Either way it was and is wrong. They must have forgot about the commandment of love.
> Now in the present and past few decades during times of war it is taught or brainwashed that the members of the country the US is fighting are again sub-human or at least not having souls our God cares about converting. Military men are brainwashed into thinking they are somehow doing the work of God by killing the enemy. Not only the US military but the military of Japan in WWII and the present middle east enemies of the US. Maybe it makes killing the enemy easier if you believe they are sub-human or enemies of our God. Do it in the name of Heaven, you'll be justified in the end.
> The Bible is full of wars and God taking sides. Generations have used this as an excuse to go to war. Now if someone has declared war on us, I'm OK with retaliation. I don't feel comfortable with always using God as an excuse to conquer. Why don't we just do it as a defense? Why would God want the US to defend countries with oil and not poor African countries? I don't feel our motivation is always God even if we try to say it is.
> There is no doubt we will always have enemies both as individuals and as a country. That doesn't give the excuse to treat our enemies as less than Christians or prospective Christians.


Well said.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 4, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Talking about Noah is a good time to point out the intended parrallel. Adam named all of the new creation animals. Jesus renames those new creation followers. Your name is Cepas and you will be called Peter. Now all these animals were gathered to be delivered from the coming wrath. They were "caught up" above the waters. Same caught up Paul speaks of to be protected from the coming wrath. See where I'm going? The flood is a picture of what is often called the rapture. The earth was destroyed by water, the present days will be destroyed by fire, Sodom being an example given. Just as the wicked were destroyed and were no more in the flood, so to will the wicked be destroyed by fire and be no more.



That is a great parallel. I no longer believe in the rapture, as the dispensationalist or premillinials do, but I am outnumbered in the contemporary evangelical churches. Really good stuff there that would make for a great discussion.


----------



## drippin' rock (Feb 4, 2014)

The upcoming Noah's Ark theme park in Kentucky should answer all questions nicely.


----------



## 660griz (Feb 4, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> The upcoming Noah's Ark theme park in Kentucky should answer all questions nicely.



Well, that doesn't sound like much fun. Either you have a ticket to get on the boat or you die.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 4, 2014)

warmouth said:


> Hey buddy. I reallyam sorry for just getting back. Ive been under the weather and felt like pure garbage. Not out of the woods just yet, but hopefully the worst is over!
> Noah was commanded by God (Who was Yaweh at this point), to take every clean animal by sevens, male and female. And of the unclean animals, 2....male and female. Birds by sevens with the same regulations. I cant comment on how many animals were brought aboard, but we wouldnt needevery single animal we have today due to hybridization, micro (not macro) evolution, lol, and gene changes, which could also have been brought on by the dramatic climate change after the flood subsided. Thats something we dont think about too much.
> As far as where they stayed, Scripture isnt clear of the precise instructions given to Noah. He was told to build rooms, and cover inside and out with pitch. The ark itself was pretty enormous going by the measurements given. Im sure there were store rooms for food, as it took a very long time to build this thing. Im certain all the instructions for the details were given, yet isnt necessary to mention due to the story being told, for me anyways. And I'm sure the waste was discarded with whatever they used as shovels and such.
> Now as how the animals got there. I find it is easiest for me to think about a migration type march. It isnt that they all had to come all at once. It doesnt say, but we know how migration works, and to me it makes since. Even if it didnt make sense, if God is indeed Creator, and mans wickedness is what caused the flood, I find it is not without reason that God commanded the animals and guided them to the ark. Actually, I thought of something else. When it is about to rain, notice how animals seek shelter, even if it is clear. I can tell when it is about to storm by watching the cows get under the pole barn or under trees. Hmmm. This makes me want to watch the new Noah movie coming out!
> I hope I made sense bullethead. If I didnt, or mislead, or even didnt give an appropriate answer, let me know.



 I was under the assumption that you were going to back up what we are talking about scientifically. You asked for 5 things and I gave you one to start out with. With all due respect, your reply did not use an ounce of science to show how the Bible IS accurate scientifically.
You did stick to your word when you originally said you were going to make a feeble attempt.....and that was certainly it.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 4, 2014)

warmouth said:


> Hold up Bullet! Dang, I miss 1 or 2 days and cant catch up, lol. Arecurring theme here is trying to make the bible what it is not. It is not a science book. Think of how old the old testament is. These men might have even been told about gravity or physics, but look at the resources they had. Technology then was a stick with a rock on the end of it. That was the xbox360 of the day. They had no way to describe anything we know today. We arent smarter todzy than they were. Id actually argue they were smarter than us. But what we have now is information, not a more advanced brain. Let me catch up!!!!!!!! Just kidding. Carry on and keep me thinking. I like working out the ol' brain. And even more, I like being stumpt.



Now you are telling me the Bible is not a science book.
That is CLEAR!
It is also clear that if an all-knowing God had anything to do with the Bible, he certainly is not all-knowing.
Technology......How technical is your God?


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 4, 2014)

> Originally Posted by warmouth
> I find it is easiest for me to think about a migration type march. It isnt that they all had to come all at once. It doesnt say, but we know how migration works, and to me it makes since.


Im curious how on this migration "march" the oceans that separated land masses were dealt with?


----------



## warmouth (Feb 4, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I was under the assumption that you were going to back up what we are talking about scientifically. You asked for 5 things and I gave you one to start out with. With all due respect, your reply did not use an ounce of science to show how the Bible IS accurate scientifically.
> You did stick to your word when you originally said you were going to make a feeble attempt.....and that was certainly it.



But youre the scientific one. I thought you wanted an explaination from a christian worldview. Im not a science buff, although I love science, so I can only give a reasonable explantion based on faith because my arguments will always tradescend from a creation standpoint. The bible is the only guide I can stand on and give reason from because it is my only source of evidence that I believe to be true. I am not comfortable even using christian works as a source of my arguments unless it is an exerpt just because man is so flawed and able to err. I believe the bible is true, and even though youmdont think so, it is the center of my faith, not my own knowledge becauss as a man with opinions, alot of times my opinions are wrong. I can try science, but I feel I covered my opinion in a way that is scientifically prudent such as the migration theory I had or the fact that animals had years to enter the ark as opposed to all coming at once. Hey, I tried, lol.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 4, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Im curious how on this migration "march" the oceans that separated land masses were dealt with?



Do you mean how when the waters subsided and pooled up into low areas to make up oceans and lakes and such? I think the animals entered the ark before the rains came and exited after. Im sure science has proven lands have dramatically changes and shifted within the last 5000 years even. We know the land mass of ice fro asia to the americas existed, and if I'm remebering correctly, this is how the native americans came from asia to the americas. There could have been even more being it was so long ago. If humans could walk across it, surely animals could too.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 4, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Now you are telling me the Bible is not a science book.
> That is CLEAR!
> It is also clear that if an all-knowing God had anything to do with the Bible, he certainly is not all-knowing.
> Technology......How technical is your God?



How would He not be all knowing? If God, who is immaterial,  created everything in existance from a word of His mouth, how technological does He have to be? That is rhetorical of course, but if He really did create everything and existed eternally past, He would be the most powerful force that ever was, is, or will be. Im not makijg an arguemnet aboht that, and younhave every right not to believe a word in the bible, but what if God is who the bible says He is? Its the side I choose, and if I'm wrong about it and youre right, I have nothing to lose other than being wrong about something. But if I am right, and God is all powerful and knowing, youll be wrong, but have alot more to lose than if I am wrong. You dont have to believe, and you can believe you are correct, but I can as well. One of us is wrong, but if is me, according to your beliefs, all I have to lose is being an ignorant idiot, which wont matter in the end because I'll be dead and no one can prove me wrong then, or now for that matter because I live by faith that the bible is true. Its dumb to some, but to me, it is everything and makes me who I am. It certainly changed me from being a very evil person,  which means alot to me and the people who care about me. If it makes me a better person, and I'm not good, then I'm happy with it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 5, 2014)

warmouth said:


> Do you mean how when the waters subsided and pooled up into low areas to make up oceans and lakes and such? I think the animals entered the ark before the rains came and exited after. Im sure science has proven lands have dramatically changes and shifted within the last 5000 years even. We know the land mass of ice fro asia to the americas existed, and if I'm remebering correctly, this is how the native americans came from asia to the americas. There could have been even more being it was so long ago. If humans could walk across it, surely animals could too.


Ah yes I forgot the claim was that there was only one land mass prior to the flood.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 5, 2014)

> and if I'm wrong about it and youre right, I have nothing to lose other than being wrong about something. But if I am right, and God is all powerful and knowing, youll be wrong, but have alot more to lose than if I am wrong.


The ol' what have I got to lose argument.
So using that thought process Im sure you believe in all other cultures Gods past and present right? I mean if they are right you will have a lot to lose right?


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 5, 2014)

warmouth said:


> But youre the scientific one. I thought you wanted an explaination from a christian worldview. Im not a science buff, although I love science, so I can only give a reasonable explantion based on faith because my arguments will always tradescend from a creation standpoint. The bible is the only guide I can stand on and give reason from because it is my only source of evidence that I believe to be true. I am not comfortable even using christian works as a source of my arguments unless it is an exerpt just because man is so flawed and able to err. I believe the bible is true, and even though youmdont think so, it is the center of my faith, not my own knowledge becauss as a man with opinions, alot of times my opinions are wrong. I can try science, but I feel I covered my opinion in a way that is scientifically prudent such as the migration theory I had or the fact that animals had years to enter the ark as opposed to all coming at once. Hey, I tried, lol.



A very basic scientific argument regarding the arc would be to use the diminsions provided in scripture to calculate the volume of the arc and then based upon the number of animals in existence, determine if they would all fit inside that volume.  That has been calculated by other people so all you would have to do is a quick internet search for your answer.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2014)

warmouth said:


> But youre the scientific one. I thought you wanted an explaination from a christian worldview. Im not a science buff, although I love science, so I can only give a reasonable explantion based on faith because my arguments will always tradescend from a creation standpoint. The bible is the only guide I can stand on and give reason from because it is my only source of evidence that I believe to be true. I am not comfortable even using christian works as a source of my arguments unless it is an exerpt just because man is so flawed and able to err. I believe the bible is true, and even though youmdont think so, it is the center of my faith, not my own knowledge becauss as a man with opinions, alot of times my opinions are wrong. I can try science, but I feel I covered my opinion in a way that is scientifically prudent such as the migration theory I had or the fact that animals had years to enter the ark as opposed to all coming at once. Hey, I tried, lol.



I don't need you to tell me what I have already read in the bible and experienced as a (ex)Christian myself.
I know what the Bible says and I know what theistic view is....THAT is my problem....they do not match up with what science tells us. The argument is that some people say science does match up with the Bible, that the Bible does NOT contain scientific errors......but that is incorrect.

I wrongly thought you were going to show me how the errors were not errors.

The migration theory is a decent start but being there are Millions of species there is no possible way they would all fit on the Ark once they got there, there is no possible way there would be enough food for them to eat, there is no way 8 people could tend to all the waste and mess. And just for ONE instance if Koala bears could somehow "migrate" over the ocean from Australia....HOW in the heck did Noah feed the Koala bears? They eat ONE thing..Eucalyptus tree leaves...and at that time in history they were only found in Australia! Many animals would need the same special diet so their "food" did not migrate with them.
And after the flood when literally every other living thing of plants and animals was completely wiped out....what did the animals on the ark eat when they went back on the migration home?
On the "migration" back home...If the meat eaters eat just ONE out of the pairs of another animal that were on the Ark then that species is wiped out....extinct. What do all the plant eaters eat?

Don't bother to answer with miracle biblical nonsense. Science does not support it.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2014)

warmouth said:


> Do you mean how when the waters subsided and pooled up into low areas to make up oceans and lakes and such? I think the animals entered the ark before the rains came and exited after. Im sure science has proven lands have dramatically changes and shifted within the last 5000 years even. We know the land mass of ice fro asia to the americas existed, and if I'm remebering correctly, this is how the native americans came from asia to the americas. There could have been even more being it was so long ago. If humans could walk across it, surely animals could too.



Where did the water subside to? If the Earth was covered, there is nowhere for the water to go.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2014)

warmouth said:


> How would He not be all knowing? If God, who is immaterial,  created everything in existance from a word of His mouth, how technological does He have to be? That is rhetorical of course, but if He really did create everything and existed eternally past, He would be the most powerful force that ever was, is, or will be. Im not makijg an arguemnet aboht that, and younhave every right not to believe a word in the bible, but what if God is who the bible says He is? Its the side I choose, and if I'm wrong about it and youre right, I have nothing to lose other than being wrong about something. But if I am right, and God is all powerful and knowing, youll be wrong, but have alot more to lose than if I am wrong. You dont have to believe, and you can believe you are correct, but I can as well. One of us is wrong, but if is me, according to your beliefs, all I have to lose is being an ignorant idiot, which wont matter in the end because I'll be dead and no one can prove me wrong then, or now for that matter because I live by faith that the bible is true. Its dumb to some, but to me, it is everything and makes me who I am. It certainly changed me from being a very evil person,  which means alot to me and the people who care about me. If it makes me a better person, and I'm not good, then I'm happy with it.



Typical christian answer...."If I am wrong I have nothing to lose"......
What if you and I are BOTH wrong?
What are you gonna lose then? Maybe there are consequences that you have not thought of.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> A very basic scientific argument regarding the arc would be to use the diminsions provided in scripture to calculate the volume of the arc and then based upon the number of animals in existence, determine if they would all fit inside that volume.  That has been calculated by other people so all you would have to do is a quick internet search for your answer.



That is EXACTLY it. The Bible "infallible word of God" tells us exactly how big the Ark was. Guess what....A small percentage of all the animals could not fit on it, let alone 2 of each and 7 of others of ALL the animals in the world.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 5, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I don't need you to tell me what I have already read in the bible and experienced as a (ex)Christian myself.
> I know what the Bible says and I know what theistic view is....THAT is my problem....they do not match up with what science tells us. The argument is that some people say science does match up with the Bible, that the Bible does NOT contain scientific errors......but that is incorrect.
> 
> I wrongly thought you were going to show me how the errors were not errors.
> ...


I think you are asking questions that warmouth, although with good intentions, will never be able to answer in any other way because -


> The bible is the only guide I can stand on and give reason from because it is my only source of evidence that I believe to be true.


He has already dismissed any common sense argument or evidence against that.


----------



## drippin' rock (Feb 5, 2014)

Turn or BURN, Sodomites!!!!


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I think you are asking questions that warmouth, although with good intentions, will never be able to answer in any other way because -
> 
> He has already dismissed any common sense argument or evidence against that.



Well that is just it! The Word does not match Man's Knowledge (it might have back then) and it certainly does not match a God's knowledge so I cannot agree that the contents of the Bible are nothing but Mans best attempt at explaining what was unexplainable to them at the time. The contents and knowledge within have not transcended time, time has caught up, passed and left the writings in the dust.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2014)

warmouth said:


> Do you mean how when the waters subsided and pooled up into low areas to make up oceans and lakes and such? I think the animals entered the ark before the rains came and exited after. Im sure science has proven lands have dramatically changes and shifted within the last 5000 years even. We know the land mass of ice fro asia to the americas existed, and if I'm remebering correctly, this is how the native americans came from asia to the americas. There could have been even more being it was so long ago. If humans could walk across it, surely animals could too.



It would be wise to check and see what you are "sure" of. Check how long ago people first crossed the land bridge and just how long the Americas have been inhabited. For starters your 5000 years ago example can be extended to TEN times that amount.
Animals/Dinosaurs/etc were already here hundreds of MILLIONS of years prior to that.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Feb 5, 2014)

warmouth said:


> Well, considering we are being civil and respectful, do you have anything to offer in those terms. What if I'd have posted an article by a theologian debunking athiest? See what I'm saying. And no, there was no substance due to me wanting his own personal thoughts. And as far as your numbers.... have you ever opened a bible? Serious question because you just showed as much ignorance in your post as your bad attitude to start it with. None of your "list" is even in the bible. Sounded good if you had knowledge of the source you hate, but until you at least educate yourself on a subject, I'd sit this one out big guy.



1. Ok, post that article. I am up for some reading. And no, I don't see what you are saying.
2. I have opened the bible. I really, really gave it a try.... For about 50 or 100 pages. I just couldn't hang. So, you will slam me because you think I don't understand. We'll I understand plenty. I understand that there is so much unbelievable stuff in the first 100 pages that I need not go further. That is not to say that there are not some wise and useful things in the book. But I will never get from it what you would like me too. Adam was created from dust and eve from Adam's rib. Really? Is that what happened.
3. Ignorant? Maybe. But you have been unable to answer any of my questions. Would it be ignorant to read the first 100 pages of Harry potter and decide it is not for you? Please keep in mind that I have never told you that you were wrong. I just keep asking pertinent questions. And for the most part, they go ignored.
4. Bad attitude? Probably. But you still haven't answered any of my questions. And for the record, I know that I have few answers to give myself. The good news is, I have nothing to prove. Can't prove a negative. Can't prove there is no Sasquatch or tooth fairy. 
5. My list was not from the bible. Excellent. I was only responding to your sentence "post scientific errors". It did not say scientific errors in the bible. My apologies if you had clarified that in a different post. I thought you were going with the "Christians may not have it figured out - but neither do the scientists" angle.
6. I don't hate the bible. And I think it odd that if I ask questions about it or point out perceivable flaws, that you think I hate it. I don't have enough energy to muster hate for a book. That sounds more like something a Christian would do. Ooooooo good one... See what I did there? Book burnings and whatnot. Yeow, I am on fire baby!
7. Sit this one out? Nah. It is a game of verbal chess. My book burning line was check. Whatchu got?


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Feb 5, 2014)

warmouth said:


> Once again, ignorance. What land is this you speak of at any cost? And who were the "christians". Please realize I'm not being condescending towards you, but your lack of understanding is somewhat bewildering being this is an intellegent, and for the most part, respectful of one anotherviews. From my perspective we arent bashing or flaming others for not believing one way or another. I dont see a debate either. Just some questions getting answered. Please be respectful of the other members here. Not everyone has a masters degree in here, but it seems many want to contribute. Let them be and kindly offer a valid reason they are wrong.



Oh, I get it. At this point you are just goofing on me. Nice one. I have totally fallen for it. 

But, given my ignorance - I continue on.

Perhaps you didn't click on and read the link I posted. Please take the time. I believe it will answer your questions. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/1801-1900/manifest-destiny/the-components-of-manifest-destiny.php 

So, 
1. The western United States 
2. The Christian that started it all was named Fred. That is a lie. I made that up. I just don't know how to respond to the question of "who were the Christians?" I don't know their names or sects. I just know that SOME Christians felt it their god given duty to kill Indians (and buffalo and who knows what else) and take as much land as they could while moving west. You disagree or think this is wrong? I would be glad to hear what you have to say to the contrary.
4. For you to be condescending to me you would have to..... Aw never mind
5. Lack of understanding? Me? Man, you done went .... Aw never mind. You don't even know where manifest destiny.... Aw, never mind
6. These forums are clearly debates. They almost always end up as debates.
7. Almost no questions get answered
8. So, you calling me ignorant ( in 2 different posts, I might add) is respectful?
9. I don't have a masters degree, but thank you for thinking that highly of me.
10. I think he (presumably a he) is a big boy and can fend for himself. I gave a great response, by the way.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 6, 2014)

How does one determine that the United States or any country for that matter has a divine providence? Is it Biblical? We had a discussion about the United States and how a certain verse pertained to the US in prophesy.


----------



## 660griz (Feb 6, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> How does one determine that the United States or any country for that matter has a divine providence? Is it Biblical? We had a discussion about the United States and how a certain verse pertained to the US in prophesy.



Yes, it is biblical.
http://www.gotquestions.org/divine-providence.html


----------



## bullethead (Feb 6, 2014)

660griz said:


> Yes, it is biblical.
> http://www.gotquestions.org/divine-providence.html



That is one heck of a link


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 6, 2014)

> Yes, it is biblical.
> http://www.gotquestions.org/divine-providence.html





bullethead said:


> That is one heck of a link


And one heck of a contradiction. As usual -


> The same goes for human choice. In a very real sense we are not free to choose or act apart from God’s will. Everything we do and everything we choose is in full accordance to God’s will—even our sinful choices (Genesis 50:20). The bottom line is that God controls our choices and actions (Genesis 45:5; Deuteronomy 8:18; Proverbs 21:1),





> yet He does so in such a way that does not violate our responsibility as free moral agents, nor does it negate the reality of our choice.


----------



## 660griz (Feb 6, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> And one heck of a contradiction. As usual -



Indeed.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 6, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> And one heck of a contradiction. As usual -



Walt, these contradictions....these "One size fits all"(but they give you two sizes), these circular excuses are exactly why I don't buy the bull snot. I KNOW most believers in here see it...especially because we point it out over and over...but they feel awkward to admit it and they just ignore the examples that do not coincide with their own thoughts and wishes.
Those statements above that contradict each other are actually said with a straight face because those enamored with the faith refuse to acknowledge it or call them out on it.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 6, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> The ol' what have I got to lose argument.
> So using that thought process Im sure you believe in all other cultures Gods past and present right? I mean if they are right you will have a lot to lose right?



Lol. No sir. I believe in 1 God, the one who was and is and is to come. Most ancient religions have long since died off, and the ones that remain have thier "books", yet the one I use I hold absolute too. And the argument of me having nothing to lose if I am wrong is prudent, even in your worldview.  If you say any different,  then you're absolutely going against your own belief system, and you know I'm spot on in that. You claim you are unsure because for you there is no proof to prove the existance of a god, yet you, nor anyone who has ever lived can prove there isnt. If I choose to believe in
an all powerful creator, it is no different than you choosing to believe in an all powerful you, with the exception that I have a concrete source for my evidence in the bible. Sure, you have 10s of thousands of scientific literature to complie from, but in the end, there hasnt been a single shred of evidence the prove the non existance of a creative god. To me, science shows the existance of a god, but this is because I dont believe in chance. I believe in a sovereign power in control of His creation. 
I am not, and will not try to disprove you lr be critical of what you choose to believe or not. I havent been condescending,  and have been very respectful of all of you agnostics (I dont believe in athiests) and I would truely appreciate the same. I know some of the christians can be idiotic and pushy, and its fine to prod at them as they are doing the same. I just enjoy dialog with other worldviews. If you guys woukd rather me not post here, I wont, but I dont want to be made out as foolish because I have given as much intelligence from my point of view as many with differing points. I have studied for many years on topic like this because I used to be agnostic as well. I tried to prove God didnt exist and couldnt. I realized that with all the genius peoples arguments for the non existance, they were all flawed in that none could prove it. They were so arrogant towards christians and belittled them because they thought they were so smart,  but yet they never could discredit them. So to me, when you make comments to me like that, it is trying to discredit a statement made that is relevant, and im not the typical uneducated zealot christian you have become accustomed too. I used to be like you. And now I am on the other side and study diligently to sharpen my knowledge of what I believe to be absolute. It is by faith I live, just like the "athiests" of the world. I put my faith in a creator, they put their faith in their smarts or the smarts of other men, which as we both know is wishy washy because I dont know of anyone who is right about everything. I certainly dont have much faith in myself.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 6, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I don't need you to tell me what I have already read in the bible and experienced as a (ex)Christian myself.
> I know what the Bible says and I know what theistic view is....THAT is my problem....they do not match up with what science tells us. The argument is that some people say science does match up with the Bible, that the Bible does NOT contain scientific errors......but that is incorrect.
> 
> I wrongly thought you were going to show me how the errors were not errors.
> ...


But youre looking at this from a secular view Bullet. Btw, I wasnt saying the earth was 5000 years old, onky that alot has changed in just 5000 years. Anyways, to my point. God destroyed the earth by flood, yet chosed to reservesome things. My point is this, and this is coming from a creationist standpoint, if God, who is all powerful in nature, can provide anything He needs to to preserve. If the koala needed eucalyptus,  then He would have gave them that. And maybe if they were hungry enough they would have eaten something else? He could have also supressed appetites, suspend animation, have them eat what He wanted them to eat (like the manna during the exodus), or anything He so choosed to do. These are all theoretical, and I dont really like using theories because I find Scripture sufficient for me, but I'm just saying that if God is in fact what the bible says He is, then there is nothing He couldnt do if He so chose too, within His nature that is.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 6, 2014)

warmouth said:


> But youre looking at this from a secular view Bullet. Btw, I wasnt saying the earth was 5000 years old, onky that alot has changed in just 5000 years. Anyways, to my point. God destroyed the earth by flood, yet chosed to reservesome things. My point is this, and this is coming from a creationist standpoint, if God, who is all powerful in nature, can provide anything He needs to to preserve. If the koala needed eucalyptus,  then He would have gave them that. And maybe if they were hungry enough they would have eaten something else? He could have also supressed appetites, suspend animation, have them eat what He wanted them to eat (like the manna during the exodus), or anything He so choosed to do. These are all theoretical, and I dont really like using theories because I find Scripture sufficient for me, but I'm just saying that if God is in fact what the bible says He is, then there is nothing He couldnt do if He so chose too, within His nature that is.



Yes! Yes I am looking at it from a secular and scientific view point. If your God is smart the facts would back up his words. 

I used 5000 years because you used 5000 years. For what you used it for the timeline would not add up.

You keep on proving my point over and over. Point is: what is claimed in the Bible is not backed up scientifically. 
The numbers of animals that exist in the world would not fit on the Ark. If you have to interject unprovable miracles into the mix in order to try to explain things that go directly against physics it does not help to the Bible's accuracy.

What happened to all the water of this flood?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 6, 2014)

warmouth said:


> But youre looking at this from a secular view Bullet. Btw, I wasnt saying the earth was 5000 years old, onky that alot has changed in just 5000 years. Anyways, to my point. God destroyed the earth by flood, yet chosed to reservesome things. My point is this, and this is coming from a creationist standpoint, if God, who is all powerful in nature, can provide anything He needs to to preserve. If the koala needed eucalyptus,  then He would have gave them that. And maybe if they were hungry enough they would have eaten something else? He could have also supressed appetites, suspend animation, have them eat what He wanted them to eat (like the manna during the exodus), or anything He so choosed to do. These are all theoretical, and I dont really like using theories because I find Scripture sufficient for me, but I'm just saying that if God is in fact what the bible says He is, then there is nothing He couldnt do if He so chose too, within His nature that is.



This is the cost of your belief.

You will believe someone that tells you a rock can fall up.  You're one nervous breakdown from drinking the Jim Jones kool aid or chasing Hale-Bop.  

"I find scripture sufficient for me."  Despite the fact that it contradicts things right in your face every day.  

Of course if there were a God he could do all the things that happened in the Bible.  Did you ever wonder if the God of Abraham might be a "Middle Manger" in the Cosmic chain of command?  Maybe "He" has a boss that you don't know about yet.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 6, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Yes! Yes I am looking at it from a secular and scientific view point. If your God is smart the facts would back up his words.
> 
> I used 5000 years because you used 5000 years. For what you used it for the timeline would not add up.
> 
> ...


Alright Bullet, I promise you I will take the notes I wrote down from your article and give you what I think. But you have to please keep in mind and respect my point of view on the matter because it does differ from yours. I have been in close to 100 debates in the past, and have learned alot from doing them. With that said, I promise you this, my argument will not sway you, nor will yours mine. We are both set in our ways regarding the matter, and even though people might say "then whats the point", I find that 2 sides are better than 1, and it is beneficial to both sides if it can make either one of us at least think. I find that you are extremely intelligent,  and I have the utmost respect for you. Youre intelligence shows brightly, especially concerning your worldview. I hope that mine is equally impressive concerning mine. With that in mind, Scripture will be what I have to base my argument from, as it holds all the answers I can come up with because it is what I stand on. You can seek whatever source you like, but when my arguement circles back to Scripture, and it will, you have to respect that because my arguement for the existance of God starts and ends with God, the God of the bible that is. I really enjoy this, and I hope you do to because I dont get to talk to people as much as I would like to that has different views concerning the existance of God. i promise I will get you something up as quick as I can, no matter how dumb you think it is, lol.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 6, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> This is the cost of your belief.
> 
> You will believe someone that tells you a rock can fall up.  You're one nervous breakdown from drinking the Jim Jones kool aid or chasing Hale-Bop.
> 
> "I find scripture sufficient for me."  Despite the fact that it contradicts things right in your face every day.



Honstly, I think youre out of your element with this one. While I do apprieciate input, you are classifying me, and all "christians" as the same. If you read my posts, I am always telling people to let Scripture interpret Scripture (christian section). As you know, there are alot of weak willed people on this earth that will believe anything.  Jim Jones was a cult leader. As well as many, many more. They prey on the weak willed. All I am asking of you is to put your concept of christians on hold until you understand that many who claim to be christians, including on this forum,  arent. So many think they are, but they arent. Just dont label me as something I am not, especially since I am trying to give validity to the topic in an intelligent way. Even if I give the stupidest answer of all time trying to prove the existance of God, it will hold up to the smartest person trying to disprove the existance if because, well, no one can disprove it. Lets just be real and tell it like it is. Now this thread isnt about the existance of God, so I am going to get to work on the topic for Bullets sake.



> Of course if there were a God he could do all the things that happened in the Bible.


Thank you.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 6, 2014)

warmouth said:


> Alright Bullet, I promise you I will take the notes I wrote down from your article and give you what I think. But you have to please keep in mind and respect my point of view on the matter because it does differ from yours. I have been in close to 100 debates in the past, and have learned alot from doing them. With that said, I promise you this, my argument will not sway you, nor will yours mine. We are both set in our ways regarding the matter, and even though people might say "then whats the point", I find that 2 sides are better than 1, and it is beneficial to both sides if it can make either one of us at least think. I find that you are extremely intelligent,  and I have the utmost respect for you. Youre intelligence shows brightly, especially concerning your worldview. I hope that mine is equally impressive concerning mine. With that in mind, Scripture will be what I have to base my argument from, as it holds all the answers I can come up with because it is what I stand on. You can seek whatever source you like, but when my arguement circles back to Scripture, and it will, you have to respect that because my arguement for the existance of God starts and ends with God, the God of the bible that is. I really enjoy this, and I hope you do to because I dont get to talk to people as much as I would like to that has different views concerning the existance of God. i promise I will get you something up as quick as I can, no matter how dumb you think it is, lol.



I have spent 20 years following scripture and now 20 years trying to back it up.
If you have something outside of Scripture that backs up Scripture by all means share it. If you are going to use the Atlanta Braves program in order to prove to me the Atlanta Braves are the best team in baseball I am gonna have to ask you for an outside source.


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 6, 2014)

warmouth said:


> Lol. No sir. I believe in 1 God, the one who was and is and is to come. Most ancient religions have long since died off, and the ones that remain have thier "books", yet the one I use I hold absolute too. And the argument of me having nothing to lose if I am wrong is prudent, even in your worldview.  If you say any different,  then you're absolutely going against your own belief system, and you know I'm spot on in that. You claim you are unsure because for you there is no proof to prove the existance of a god, yet you, nor anyone who has ever lived can prove there isnt. If I choose to believe in
> an all powerful creator, it is no different than you choosing to believe in an all powerful you, with the exception that I have a concrete source for my evidence in the bible. Sure, you have 10s of thousands of scientific literature to complie from, but in the end, there hasnt been a single shred of evidence the prove the non existance of a creative god. To me, science shows the existance of a god, but this is because I dont believe in chance. I believe in a sovereign power in control of His creation.
> I am not, and will not try to disprove you lr be critical of what you choose to believe or not. I havent been condescending,  and have been very respectful of all of you agnostics (I dont believe in athiests) and I would truely appreciate the same. I know some of the christians can be idiotic and pushy, and its fine to prod at them as they are doing the same. I just enjoy dialog with other worldviews. If you guys woukd rather me not post here, I wont, but I dont want to be made out as foolish because I have given as much intelligence from my point of view as many with differing points. I have studied for many years on topic like this because I used to be agnostic as well. I tried to prove God didnt exist and couldnt. I realized that with all the genius peoples arguments for the non existance, they were all flawed in that none could prove it. They were so arrogant towards christians and belittled them because they thought they were so smart,  but yet they never could discredit them. So to me, when you make comments to me like that, it is trying to discredit a statement made that is relevant, and im not the typical uneducated zealot christian you have become accustomed too. I used to be like you. And now I am on the other side and study diligently to sharpen my knowledge of what I believe to be absolute. It is by faith I live, just like the "athiests" of the world. I put my faith in a creator, they put their faith in their smarts or the smarts of other men, which as we both know is wishy washy because I dont know of anyone who is right about everything. I certainly dont have much faith in myself.


I'm going to work backwards on your post -


> I used to be like you. And now I am on the other side and study diligently to sharpen my knowledge


And I used to be like you. And now I am on the other side because I studied diligently to sharpen my knowledge.


> So to me, when you make comments to me like that, it is trying to discredit a statement made that is relevant


In this particular forum that's what we do. We debate and we question each others beliefs. You can learn a lot from debating and questioning if you choose to. 


> im not the typical uneducated zealot christian you have become accustomed too.


Its interesting you would say that because I am not accustomed to uneducated, zealot Christians. Ive met a few but the vast majority of Christians I know, particularly the ones on this forum, strike me as intelligent, good folks, We just disagree on this subject. And as far as their level of education it would be pretty hypocritical of me to judge them on that because its pretty likely the majority, if not all of them on this forum, have a higher level of education than I do.


> I have studied for many years on topic like this because I used to be agnostic as well. I tried to prove God didnt exist and couldnt. I realized that with all the genius peoples arguments for the non existance, they were all flawed in that none could prove it.


Nor have you or the genius peoples proven that God DOES exist. Its what you believe, its not a fact. Your argument works both ways.


> I know some of the christians can be idiotic and pushy


As can people of any faith or no faith. People are people.


> Sure, you have 10s of thousands of scientific literature to complie from, but in the end, there hasnt been a single shred of evidence the prove the non existance of a creative god.


If you are using the Bible as your proof that God exists then you need to study a bit a more about that no shred of evidence thing.


> I have a concrete source for my evidence in the bible.


The Bible isn't proof of God. Its proof that the men who wrote the Bible believed in God. I can hand you a book about Harry Potter but that isn't proof that Harry Potter actually exists.


> You claim you are unsure because for you there is no proof to prove the existance of a god, yet you, nor anyone who has ever lived can prove there isnt.


Again, not being able to prove there isn't, doesn't prove there is. Prove to me there isnt a 12 headed flying donkey who is a whiz at algebra, speaks 7 different languages and bakes a heck of a chocolate cake.
You cant prove there isn't? Why not? Does that prove that there is one?


> And the argument of me having nothing to lose if I am wrong is prudent


Really? If you have chosen the wrong god you have nothing to lose? Think about what you believe and Im sure you will be able to think of something you are going to lose. Heres a hint - go outside and look straight up.


> If I choose to believe in
> an all powerful creator, it is no different than you choosing to believe in an all powerful you,


I don't believe Im all powerful. The only all powerful people are in stories, movies and comic books.
Oh and the Bible.


> Most ancient religions have long since died off, and the ones that remain have thier "books"


Think about that. Now fast forward 5000 years. I'm sure you don't think that could happen to your religion just as they didn't.
And last but not least -


> If you guys would rather me not post here, I wont


You are confusing challenging/debating you with not wanting you to be here. I don't think there is a person here that would rather you didn't participate.
Here's the bottom line. You are in a A/A/A forum. Expect to be challenged. We expect you to challenge us. That's how we roll here.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 6, 2014)

Fair enough. Walt, even though you just basically tried to turn my statements based in response to your response, I'm ok with that. As far as me having nothing to lose based on if I believe in God or not, based on what you know of me, you know I believe in one God, the God of the bible. It isnt quite fair to ask the question of if I'm wrong and others are right because the arguement isnt about other religions, but about my faith in the one God. If by chance they are right and I'm wrong, then I'll be - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -ed based on thier view of eternity. But either there is or isnt a god, and if there isnt, then none of us need to worry. But if there is, then maybe we should consider that worry is a natural fear.
I love this forum, and this is why I want to be here. Not to prove you or anyone else wrong, but to provide another side. I realize youve probably heard the same arguements time and time again, but maybe myself, or someone else can provoke a thought youve not had before. Im not trying to convert, so please keep that in mind. If you choose to believe in whatever you want, as it is not my job, nor my responsibility for the path you choose in this life. All I want is good conversation and intelligent questions and answers, which you, bullet, and I think myself are totally capable of. And sure, being yall arent men of faith, some things are far fetched, but I am a believer, so I do believe in some things supernatural, but I do believe that God uses His creation to do extraordinary works, without magic and the likes. I look forward to this. And dont worry about offending me. I have tough skin. All I ask is respect in my beliefs, and you guys will definitley get the same.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 6, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I have spent 20 years following scripture and now 20 years trying to back it up.
> If you have something outside of Scripture that backs up Scripture by all means share it. If you are going to use the Atlanta Braves program in order to prove to me the Atlanta Braves are the best team in baseball I am gonna have to ask you for an outside source.



I will use outside info only as a means to relate, but not as a final authority. I do believe the bible is capable of being proved accurate solely within itself, but I will use references that I do trust. But you have to understand my arguement will circle back to God. It has to. I believe it starts and ends with God, and without God, there is no other explaination for anything, scientifically or else. Now with that said in those words, I know I have my work cut out, lol.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 7, 2014)

Due to the topic at hand, I believe the only way to expresz my point of view is throughthe existance of God. I do not believe the bible contradicts itself, yet only expresses differing views based on eyewitness accounts, such as in the Gospels. Even though the creation account was given to one man, there is not 2 different accounts, but one with 2 separate messages. A broad and narrow view. If the bible can be credited as true, then God must be real, and all accounts or miracles, no matter how outrageous they may seem, must also be valid. This is only logical. My view is that Scripture is absolute truth, and therefore I will stick to the belief there is a God, who is immaterial, all powerful, all good, and all knowing. If the bible is true, all of these mentioned qualities are true, and God can work outside of the material (physical), which we can see, touch, and taste. There is no limitations as to what God can do (within His nature), and that even though we cant explain materially how some of these things occurred,  they can occur because God can work outside of the laws we understand if He so chooses, yet He still works through the material as well as immaterial. So before we delve into the ark/flood story, we must first discuss with reason and logic, the existance or the non existance of God. The reasoning is, is that if God is who He says He is through His Word, then there is nothing we have to explain because He can do all things regardless of our own understanding.
Bullet, I guess this would be considered my opening statement if you want to go this way. If so, no rebuttals yet, just your opening. If you dont want to, thats cool. I just thought this might be fun for us both. Or we could start a new thread. Up to you. Thanks for your time in this.


----------



## 660griz (Feb 7, 2014)

warmouth said:


> As you know, there are alot of weak willed people on this earth that will believe anything.  Jim Jones was a cult leader. As well as many, many more. They prey on the weak willed.



What do you call someone that gets hooked on (insert drug here), or other weaknesses, and needs an imaginary deity(redundant) to pull them up from the depths of despair?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 7, 2014)

warmouth said:


> Due to the topic at hand, I believe the only way to expresz my point of view is throughthe existance of God. I do not believe the bible contradicts itself, yet only expresses differing views based on eyewitness accounts, such as in the Gospels. Even though the creation account was given to one man, there is not 2 different accounts, but one with 2 separate messages. A broad and narrow view. If the bible can be credited as true, then God must be real, and all accounts or miracles, no matter how outrageous they may seem, must also be valid. This is only logical. My view is that Scripture is absolute truth, and therefore I will stick to the belief there is a God, who is immaterial, all powerful, all good, and all knowing. If the bible is true, all of these mentioned qualities are true, and God can work outside of the material (physical), which we can see, touch, and taste. There is no limitations as to what God can do (within His nature), and that even though we cant explain materially how some of these things occurred,  they can occur because God can work outside of the laws we understand if He so chooses, yet He still works through the material as well as immaterial. So before we delve into the ark/flood story, we must first discuss with reason and logic, the existance or the non existance of God. The reasoning is, is that if God is who He says He is through His Word, then there is nothing we have to explain because He can do all things regardless of our own understanding.
> Bullet, I guess this would be considered my opening statement if you want to go this way. If so, no rebuttals yet, just your opening. If you dont want to, thats cool. I just thought this might be fun for us both. Or we could start a new thread. Up to you. Thanks for your time in this.



warmouth just post whatever you want to share. Be advised that everything you have touched on above is open to scrutiny and will be challenged. Continue however you see fit either in here or a new thread.


----------



## 660griz (Feb 7, 2014)

Going back to the original question, first we have to answer the question, "Is the Bible the word of God?" That question cannot be answered by anyone. Even Christians disagree. Some say the bible is just a book and the Jesus is the word of God. A point is made that the Bible is worshipped more than God. The Church's Idol, the Golden Calf. I tend to agree. 

Having blind faith in a God is one thing but, not holding a book to the same scrutiny as any other non-fiction book is quite another.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 7, 2014)

warmouth said:


> Due to the topic at hand, I believe the only way to expresz my point of view is throughthe existance of God. I do not believe the bible contradicts itself, yet only expresses differing views based on eyewitness accounts, such as in the Gospels. Even though the creation account was given to one man, there is not 2 different accounts, but one with 2 separate messages. A broad and narrow view. If the bible can be credited as true, then God must be real, and all accounts or miracles, no matter how outrageous they may seem, must also be valid. This is only logical. My view is that Scripture is absolute truth, and therefore I will stick to the belief there is a God, who is immaterial, all powerful, all good, and all knowing. If the bible is true, all of these mentioned qualities are true, and God can work outside of the material (physical), which we can see, touch, and taste. There is no limitations as to what God can do (within His nature), and that even though we cant explain materially how some of these things occurred,  they can occur because God can work outside of the laws we understand if He so chooses, yet He still works through the material as well as immaterial. So before we delve into the ark/flood story, we must first discuss with reason and logic, the existance or the non existance of God. The reasoning is, is that if God is who He says He is through His Word, then there is nothing we have to explain because He can do all things regardless of our own understanding.
> Bullet, I guess this would be considered my opening statement if you want to go this way. If so, no rebuttals yet, just your opening. If you dont want to, thats cool. I just thought this might be fun for us both. Or we could start a new thread. Up to you. Thanks for your time in this.



Do you know what Apologetics is?

How fast can Superman fly?  
Well, he can fly because he came from another planet with a different color Sun and different gravity.  So, there should be a formula that considers his mass, the difference in gravitational acceleration between Krypton and Earth and the prevailing headwind.  
Wait, you don't believe in Superman?  Nevermind.

My point is that if you want to assume an all powerful being, capable of feats that _defy reason_, why do you try to use _reason_ to discuss "his" nature?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 7, 2014)

I see Biblical contradictions pertaining to things other than different eyewitness accounts. This includes topics such as free will vs predestination and grace vs decipleship salvation as examples. This has nothing to do with different eyewitness accounts of creation, the flood, or the story of Jesus' birth.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 7, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I see Biblical contradictions pertaining to things other than different eyewitness accounts. This includes topics such as free will vs predestination and grace vs decipleship salvation as examples. This has nothing to do with different eyewitness accounts of creation, the flood, or the story of Jesus' birth.




And yet you continue to struggle to have it make sense.  I don't envy your struggle but I'm pretty sure that if you keep at it you'll find yourself at a place that you're satisfied.  You may end up becoming one of those "Lay it at the foot of the Cross" types.  If that happens, I'll miss you down here.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 7, 2014)

warmouth said:


> I do not believe the bible contradicts itself, yet only expresses differing views based on eyewitness accounts, such as in the Gospels.
> 
> If the bible can be credited as true, then God must be real, and all accounts or miracles, no matter how outrageous they may seem, must also be valid. This is only logical. My view is that Scripture is absolute truth, and therefore I will stick to the belief there is a God, who is immaterial, all powerful, all good, and all knowing. If the bible is true, all of these mentioned qualities are true, and God can work outside of the material (physical), which we can see, touch, and taste.



Is the converse true?

If I can show you a false statement in the Bible, is it only logical to conclude the opposite of what you posted above?


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Feb 7, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Do you know what Apologetics is?
> 
> How fast can Superman fly?
> Well, he can fly because he came from another planet with a different color Sun and different gravity.  So, there should be a formula that considers his mass, the difference in gravitational acceleration between Krypton and Earth and the prevailing headwind.
> ...



You probably made a good point here, but I would never know cuz I keep staring at that amazingly tall chick in your avatar. I wonder how tall she is. Or is it some sort of forced perspective thing? Interesting.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 7, 2014)

660griz said:


> What do you call someone that gets hooked on (insert drug here), or other weaknesses, and needs an imaginary deity(redundant) to pull them up from the depths of despair?



An addict. This isnt quite part of the discussion, and if you would like to PM me, please do. I have sufferd from addiction before, and am dealing with it now, so if youd like to discuss this in depth due to personal issues, I'd be glad to help. I know for me, the only way to shake an addiction is the will to want to quit. It isnt that I want to quit, it is the fact I dont want to go to pain management. I want to manage my chronic and debilitating pain on my own without the dependance on a substance. It is - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH - trying to quit something that helps deal with this excruciating pain. This is the reason I am not as active as I want to be on here because I try to keep busy. It dors help.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> warmouth just post whatever you want to share. Be advised that everything you have touched on above is open to scrutiny and will be challenged. Continue however you see fit either in here or a new thread.



I understand Bullet, and this is expected. I will try to present my point, even with challenges and scrutiny, as you will for other questions too. Do you want to discuss it in this thread? I know it is off topic a bit, so I dont want your thread sidetracked unless you dont care.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 7, 2014)

660griz said:


> Going back to the original question, first we have to answer the question, "Is the Bible the word of God?" That question cannot be answered by anyone. Even Christians disagree. Some say the bible is just a book and the Jesus is the word of God. A point is made that the Bible is worshipped more than God. The Church's Idol, the Golden Calf. I tend to agree.
> 
> Having blind faith in a God is one thing but, not holding a book to the same scrutiny as any other non-fiction book is quite another.


No, first we have to give a logical reason for the existance of God.without that, no one can say the bible is the word of God because there has to be a god to have a word.
And I also tend to agree that the bible is an idol because without it, from a christian standpoint, one cant know God without it. Coming from a christan worldview, the bible is how we come to an understanding of God. You cannot label all christians as one lump of people. Sure, there are differning views on nonessential topics, but true christianity and people who claim to be christians is quite different. Many that claim to be christains arent. And any christians who say the bible is not the word of God, or that the bible isnt true, they are not christians. So many denominations are not christians, so they will make absurd claims based upon what they believe that is contrary to the bible, as well as the church's rich 2000 year old history. So I will present my case based on that I believe thebible to be the foundation of my view, as well as my final authority based on my faith.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 7, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Do you know what Apologetics is?
> 
> How fast can Superman fly?
> Well, he can fly because he came from another planet with a different color Sun and different gravity.  So, there should be a formula that considers his mass, the difference in gravitational acceleration between Krypton and Earth and the prevailing headwind.
> ...


To your first question, you know the answer. It is the defense of faith, and reason will be used, whether you believe or not. Without reason or logic, then what is the point? And I love the superman (strawman) arguement. You cant base reason on sarcasm, which you did, and is the reason I dont believe you are capable of providing a valid arguement from either worldview because I dont think you have a logical arguement based on logical reason as Bullet does. You make fun of something just because you dont understand it. Grab the popcorn, kick back, and just listen. Youll be better off in the long run.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 7, 2014)

warmouth said:


> To your first question, you know the answer. It is the defense of faith, and reason will be used, whether you believe or not. Without reason or logic, then what is the point? And I love the superman (strawman) arguement. You cant base reason on sarcasm, which you did, and is the reason I dont believe you are capable of providing a valid arguement from either worldview because I dont think you have a logical arguement based on logical reason as Bullet does. You make fun of something just because you dont understand it. Grab the popcorn, kick back, and just listen. Youll be better off in the long run.




You don't even get it.  You want to talk about what Superman can do and why he can do it but you want us to believe in Superman first.  Don't you see that?

If Superman is real, then I'm absolutely sure that he can fly faster than a speeding bullet.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Feb 7, 2014)

660griz said:


> What do you call someone that gets hooked on (insert drug here), or other weaknesses, and needs an imaginary deity(redundant) to pull them up from the depths of despair?



Dang it griz, you called it. Good one. I didn't see it coming. Spot on!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 7, 2014)

warmouth said:


> An addict. This isnt quite part of the discussion, and if you would like to PM me, please do. I have sufferd from addiction before, and am dealing with it now, so if youd like to discuss this in depth due to personal issues, I'd be glad to help. I know for me, the only way to shake an addiction is the will to want to quit. It isnt that I want to quit, it is the fact I dont want to go to pain management. I want to manage my chronic and debilitating pain on my own without the dependance on a substance. It is - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH - trying to quit something that helps deal with this excruciating pain. This is the reason I am not as active as I want to be on here because I try to keep busy. It dors help.



I'm glad that you shared that with everyone and I'm sure we will all help you in any way we can. It takes a lot of courage to do that. We don't all agree with why or who causes everything but we can agree on personal responsibility to help. 
Remember you said it takes a will to quit. I can't hold this against you in your time of need and perhaps God's will is your will. You might humble yourself well on this forum by realizing many on here have studied and know more about God than many Christians. 
There are many Christians including myself that don't meet your description of uneducated, zealot Christians who do debate with the Atheist on this forum. Have you researched any old threads before making this statement?
We all sincerely do welcome you and again will help in any way we can. 
Personally I believe we as individuals can receive help from many sources including God. The first step in any problem is to admit it is a problem which you have done.
Many prayers will start to flow in your direction.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 8, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> You don't even get it.  You want to talk about what Superman can do and why he can do it but you want us to believe in Superman first.  Don't you see that?
> 
> If Superman is real, then I'm absolutely sure that he can fly faster than a speeding bullet.



No buddy, you dont get it. You created a silly response based on what we all know is a fictional childs comic story, that even the authors claim to be fiction. You have no arguement ir grounds to stand on if you cant give 1 intellegent arguement, which you havent. Youve just been "cute" and tried to get a few cyber hifives. Dont you see that you have to start with God to show validity that there is a possibility that He actually has interacted through this "comic"? Of course you dont. You have no grounds to stand on with this arguement. Let me ask you this... how would you logically explain to someone that there is no god and that he is just a fictional fairytale? Keep in mind, logic. A logical explaination.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 8, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm glad that you shared that with everyone and I'm sure we will all help you in any way we can. It takes a lot of courage to do that. We don't all agree with why or who causes everything but we can agree on personal responsibility to help.
> Remember you said it takes a will to quit. I can't hold this against you in your time of need and perhaps God's will is your will. You might humble yourself well on this forum by realizing many on here have studied and know more about God than many Christians.
> There are many Christians including myself that don't meet your description of uneducated, zealot Christians who do debate with the Atheist on this forum. Have you researched any old threads before making this statement?
> We all sincerely do welcome you and again will help in any way we can.
> ...


Thanks alot Artful! That means alot. It is embarrassing, but I know many have and still deal with it. You have been a great example of someone searching, as well as Bullet, and I have enjoyed all dialoge with the ones who actually will listen to a side of belief, whether they agree or not. I havent been here long enough to know of any zealots or uneducated christians, as I defer to the westboro church, unitarian universalists, and all other hate/freak groups portrayed by the media. The facts is, most christians are normal and intellegent people who get scrutinized based on the assumption that we are all like the "God hates f@&$" groups. I judge no one outside those who claim to be christians becauss it isnt my job or responsibility for anyones faith or workdview. I just think there is an intelligent way, with reason, logical, and morally acceptable means of attempting to prove in the possibility of a creator. Mockery to me is funny because it shows ones own flawed logic and misunderstanding in a certain topic. Like the superman illustration. I busted out laughing and woke the wife just because it is a feeble attempt to discredit my reasoning that it all starts and ends with God. I means seriously, it is hilarious! Thank you fornthe kind words in this situation. It is a hard thing to deal with when something is actually needed. Becasue we have dishonest people, it makes us who really need help with pain feel like junkies, which I am not. I dont know what I'm going to do, but I hope my will is ztrong enough to endure the pain and depression that comes along with this. Not to mention the lose ofnfluids, and sickness. It is miserable, and this is the reprocussions of only small prescribed doses for several years. Heck, maybe I need to spend less time here and more time being active, who knows. But thanks alot!


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2014)

warmouth said:


> I understand Bullet, and this is expected. I will try to present my point, even with challenges and scrutiny, as you will for other questions too. Do you want to discuss it in this thread? I know it is off topic a bit, so I dont want your thread sidetracked unless you dont care.



Discussion is discussion and in reality you have to discuss 50 different things in order to try to settle one thing.....post away.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2014)

warmouth said:


> No buddy, you dont get it. You created a silly response based on what we all know is a fictional childs comic story, that even the authors claim to be fiction. You have no arguement ir grounds to stand on if you cant give 1 intellegent arguement, which you havent. Youve just been "cute" and tried to get a few cyber hifives. Dont you see that you have to start with God to show validity that there is a possibility that He actually has interacted through this "comic"? Of course you dont. You have no grounds to stand on with this arguement. Let me ask you this... how would you logically explain to someone that there is no god and that he is just a fictional fairytale? Keep in mind, logic. A logical explaination.



I would start by using a book that is compiled of hand picked stories that were written over a span of 1500 years by over 40 authors which most of whom are anonymous.
Then I would use the same type of oral traditions and writings from even more ancient cultures that tell us about another completely different God and I would continue this until I have covered the Tens of Thousands of Gods that all share the same hurdle. And that hurdle is the "proof" of their existence lies no where else but in those stories.
The ONLY difference between these stories of God(s) and Superman is that YOU believe it. There are thousands of little boys that dress up as Superman for an entire year or more because they believe he is "real". No one can tell them anything different. The difference is there comes a point in their life where they mature and grow out of it only to realize they have a whole new set of REALITY problems concerning life and death...and then they pick the next Superman to believe in so it takes the burden of mortality away.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Feb 8, 2014)

I think that the better analogy (than Superman) would be Santa. Warmouth, when when you were 5, you knew there was a Santa. Hear what I am saying. YOU KNEW THERE WAS A SANTA.

I have a 10 year old an 8 year old. When they were 5 and 6, THEY KNEW there was a Santa. Everyone told them there was a Santa. Santa was on TV. We read them bedtime stories about Santa (there are books that detail his life, his work, his good deads). We used threats of Santa against them (better be good for goodness sake). Heck, they even met Santa. Sat on his lap and everything. Let me say it again. THEY KNEW there was a Santa. There was no other possibility. It is all they had ever known. It is all they had ever been told. There was  a Santa. Well, when my older child was 7 or 8, he came home from school one day and said he had heard that there was no Santa. "daddy, is that true? I kinda think it is. It doesn't really make sense." He had used reasonable evidence to reason with himself that Santa may not be real. How does one dude go to all houses in one night? That many toys? Wait a minute - that have that same toy at walmart in the same box. Flying reindeer? And so on.

So I had a decision to make. Keep lying to him? Or let him in on the secret. Well, I am kind of an - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -, in that I spoil my kids at Christmas (yes, an athiest/agnostic that does Christmas - it is a time of joy and I get to buy my kids stuff. I love it) and there are gifts that I wanted credit for. I buy my boy guns and cool stuff like that. When he is older and using them, I want the memory of that Christmas to be that his daddy gave it to him and not some dude in a red suit. So, I told him that all of his gut feels were correct. The problem we had was that my daughter still believed. My boy ruined that pretty quick. He told her..... And she didn't believe it. SHE KNEW there was a Santa. So we smiled and said, of course there is sweety. So the next Christmas (2 Christmases ago) my son (and some friends at school) kept telling her there is no Santa and it seemed that she was coming around to the idea. She told me and my son that she agreed that there was no Santa. After that Christmas, my wife told me that my daughter had told her that she knew there was a Santa, but she was just going along with me and my son so he would stop talking to her about it. She wasn't ready to give it up. She hadn't yet connected the dots. And finally, this past Christmas, we were Santa free.

Now, you will fight and scream that my analogy stinks and that the bible is a real historical document (which parts of it may very we'll be). But please, start connecting some of the dots. Walking on water? Raising the dead? Curing the blind? Miracles? Selective miracles, I might add. Not seen or heard from for 2000 years? An ark for all the animals in the world? It is just too much to believe.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Feb 8, 2014)

Wow. The sensors built in to this website are good. I got a potty mouth. 



The word was another word for donkey. But I used an A and a $ and another $. Good catch GON.

I didn't really think that was going to be a problem when I posted it.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 8, 2014)

warmouth said:


> No buddy, you dont get it. You created a silly response based on what we all know is a fictional childs comic story, that even the authors claim to be fiction. You have no arguement ir grounds to stand on if you cant give 1 intellegent arguement, which you havent. Youve just been "cute" and tried to get a few cyber hifives. Dont you see that you have to start with God to show validity that there is a possibility that He actually has interacted through this "comic"? Of course you dont. You have no grounds to stand on with this arguement. Let me ask you this... how would you logically explain to someone that there is no god and that he is just a fictional fairytale? Keep in mind, logic. A logical explaination.



There is no evidence of god. The defacto position should be that he doesn't exist.

So, lets start with God.  Now lets have an Apologetic discussion about how the Ark worked.  You talked about suspended animation of the animals or making them eat something else and even suspending their appetites.  How about shrinking them down?  How about they were brought onto the craft as embryos in test tubes? How about He turned them back into dust?

You will say you don't care how He did it and THAT'S the problem.  A HUGE problem.

There's way too many people that think like that and It's a problem for everybody that they interact with.  It makes them unreliable.  It makes their judgement suspect.   A little less so those that view the Ark story as metaphor; a little.


----------



## warmouth (Feb 9, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> There is no evidence of god. The defacto position should be that he doesn't exist.
> 
> So, lets start with God.  Now lets have an Apologetic discussion about how the Ark worked.  You talked about suspended animation of the animals or making them eat something else and even suspending their appetites.  How about shrinking them down?  How about they were brought onto the craft as embryos in test tubes? How about He turned them back into dust?
> 
> ...



Hey guys. Im getting around to this. Im still not out of the woods yet, and im doing all I can. Ill be responding today, at least to the best of my ability if I am not too sick. It isn't that I don't care how He got the animals on the ark, I don't think it matters yet. The reason is I want to give a logical reason for God first, then let the other questions fall in line. I do think that if God is supernatural and immaterial, then He can work outside of our understanding of things. I don't think He is bound by the laws we know as fact such as physics, gravity, logic, yet I do think there is a way to give logical reason for the existence of God within the realm of laws as well as outside.  I don't see the huge problem, but I promise I will give my statement. But I do want some of your guys opening for the non existance just so we can have several sides, and pull from one another's ideals.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 9, 2014)

warmouth said:


> Hey guys. Im getting around to this. Im still not out of the woods yet, and im doing all I can. Ill be responding today, at least to the best of my ability if I am not too sick. It isn't that I don't care how He got the animals on the ark, I don't think it matters yet. The reason is I want to give a logical reason for God first, then let the other questions fall in line. I do think that if God is supernatural and immaterial, then He can work outside of our understanding of things. I don't think He is bound by the laws we know as fact such as physics, gravity, logic, yet I do think there is a way to give logical reason for the existence of God within the realm of laws as well as outside.  I don't see the huge problem, but I promise I will give my statement. But I do want some of your guys opening for the non existance just so we can have several sides, and pull from one another's ideals.




There are many threads and several posters that will give a logical argument for the existence of God.

The argument basically states that there has to be an un-caused cause, a Prime Mover,  a "something" that got the ball rolling.  This entity is often stated to have a will.  Sometimes it is claimed to communicate to humans and it is always infinite.

The arguments against this are that if there exists something that is infinite it can just as easily be All the Stuff in the Universe, all the energy, all the matter, all the time. No need for a First Cause.  As far as the being having a will, well that's just purely made up.  Even if "it" exists there's no reason to think that we might know what "it" wants EXCEPT for the argument that "it" has left instructions in various books or legends, one of which being the Bible; the Bible with the Ark story.

I think that you're going about it the wrong way.  You want to believe what the book says then try (or don't) to explain all the weird stuff in it.  I suggest you look at all the weird stuff, the content, and not just the words in red and then decide if the other lovely, touch-feely claims the book makes are true.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2014)

warmouth said:


> Hey guys. Im getting around to this. Im still not out of the woods yet, and im doing all I can. Ill be responding today, at least to the best of my ability if I am not too sick. It isn't that I don't care how He got the animals on the ark, I don't think it matters yet. The reason is I want to give a logical reason for God first, then let the other questions fall in line. I do think that if God is supernatural and immaterial, then He can work outside of our understanding of things. I don't think He is bound by the laws we know as fact such as physics, gravity, logic, yet I do think there is a way to give logical reason for the existence of God within the realm of laws as well as outside.  I don't see the huge problem, but I promise I will give my statement. But I do want some of your guys opening for the non existance just so we can have several sides, and pull from one another's ideals.



It ALWAYS seems that "God" does not have to work within our physical laws or the laws of science or is beyond our understanding for everything that believers find to challenge their beliefs.
Sticking with the flood....
God seemingly used a very un-god-like tactic when drowning everyone and every thing by making them suffer and flail for safety until they physically gave out from exhaustion..then suffocated under water. Did he WANT or NEED them all to suffer before he sent them to h3ll? BUT being God why didn't he invoke one of those "beyond our understanding" snaps of a finger or blink of an eye mass deaths that involved no suffering? I'll tell you why...because it does not make for good reading. The God of the Bible is a drama queen.....at least that is how his hand picked inspired writers portray him. The followers of these writings have to invoke their own personal ways of making excuses for a God that is !!!!GOD!!!! in one instance and worse than any human in the next.

It is going to take a lot of bandwith in order to prove a God exists let alone narrow it down to God contained within the confines of the Bible. Warmouth you certainly have your work cut out for you.


----------



## Cullen Bohannon (Feb 9, 2014)

If you believe the Bible is the word of God, then you are intellectually dishonest.  Really.


----------

