# I Will Rise (Why Christians have faith in the Judeo Christian God)



## Thanatos (Apr 1, 2013)

I hope you guys will visit the link below and listen to the sermon at the top of the page "Chip Miller: Resurrected from a Borrowed Tomb  Mark 15:42-16:8." There is no fire and brim stone preaching or yelling at you to to reform to save your soul. It is a matter-of-fact speech letting you know why we believe what we do. He even uses a quote from Christopher Hitchens in this Easter sermon...lol.  

You guys wanted to know why we have faith in a person that we do not have proof existed, or why do we have faith that he is the God he claimed to be. We've all established humans make the best choices we can on the best available information we can obtain at this time. I can not put it any better than the sermon below. It wont take long and you can download it as a podcast too. I hope you will listen to it. If not, that is fine too. From now on when you make fun of, or ridicule our faith I will link to this post. Thanks and God bless.  

http://www.buzzsprout.com/329.rss


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2013)

I am listening as I type...
I understand why people have faith. I understand it because it is the only thing that anyone could possibly have that blurs out the writings of the bible and keeps a person from understanding just how poorly the bible is written. 
Chip is using Marks version of the story. Ask Chip why it doesn't match Matthew, Luke and John's versions.
His whole sermon is based off of Mark's version. Mark wasn't there. Mark didn't talk to the women. Mark was not present when the Roman guards told their superiors anything. NONE of the Gospel writers were. And it shows.
I appreciate your time to post it, but it is not some of the better things I've heard from a believer. I believe INTO other things.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2013)

I think Jesus lived and I think the earliest of christians believed his spirit would ascend into heaven. I believe the writers all those years later took the liberty of embellishing it all.


----------



## Thanatos (Apr 2, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I am listening as I type...
> I understand why people have faith. I understand it because it is the only thing that anyone could possibly have that blurs out the writings of the bible and keeps a person from understanding just how poorly the bible is written.
> Chip is using Marks version of the story. Ask Chip why it doesn't match Matthew, Luke and John's versions.
> His whole sermon is based off of Mark's version. Mark wasn't there. Mark didn't talk to the women. Mark was not present when the Roman guards told their superiors anything. NONE of the Gospel writers were. And it shows.
> I appreciate your time to post it, but it is not some of the better things I've heard from a believer. I believe INTO other things.



How many historical occurrences would we have to discount if you had to have the first person source write about what they saw for us to consider it to be true? 

The books are different and that is a good speaking to the validity of what happened and the accurancy of the Bible. I would be worried about it being fake if all accounts are were the same. The fact that there are variances in the Gospel is nothing new.

Here is a decent write up about what I am talking about. 

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/273-examining-the-four-gospels

I know you can keep "explaining" away Christ and how he was nothing more than a really nice guy. It is my hope that one day you will see what he is and what he did for you.


----------



## Four (Apr 2, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> How many historical occurrences would we have to discount if you had to have the first person source write about what they saw for us to consider it to be true?



Depends on what they are claimiing happened...

When we hear from ancient second hand (or even first hand) sources that some army had a million troops at a battle... we doubt it.. because it's an obvious embellishment. The logistics just dont make sense.. so we would read between the lines and figure maybe it was a big battle.

Likewise, if you hear that there were miracles performed that are unverifiable and reported from second hand sources.... well its just not credible. heck, even if a guy i know personally told me that he saw someone resurrect, i wouldn't believe him without more proof.

However, if someone told me they knew someone who knew someone who won the lottery, i would believe him more easily than the above examples.. I know the lottery is won all the time, its not that much of a stretch.

I hate to beat the same old drum, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 2, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> How many historical occurrences would we have to discount if you had to have the first person source write about what they saw for us to consider it to be true?
> 
> The books are different and that is a good speaking to the validity of what happened and the accurancy of the Bible. I would be worried about it being fake if all accounts are were the same. The fact that there are variances in the Gospel is nothing new.
> 
> ...



Listen in all other Historical instances NONE of them claim ANY Divine intervention. NONE of them say a God did it. NONE of them say that what is written about those instances is Infallible and Inerrant.
THOSE things are all claimed by your Bible. Those things are claimed by the believers and followers of the Bible.
Those things just are not so. Not because I said they are not so, but because when looked into they just do not hold up against the scrutiny that IF ANY super deity were involve, those things would pass with flying colors. "The fact that there are variances in the Gospels are nothing new"...yeah, I know. From day one they wreak of man only involvement but the people then that believed it are in the same situation as the people today that do. They want it and need it so badly that they are blind to the errors. When they see the errors they are quick to make an excuse to defend a being that should need no excuses.
It makes me come to two conclusions.
1. Either there is a deity responsible and it has done a horrible job seeing that it's one shot to tell all of mankind it's story has so many detractors. if so, then it is not worthy of my worship. The book is nowhere what itself claims to be. The book is great work for humans a few thousand years old (when all the pieces are matched together) but sub-standard for any god worth their claim to creating EVERYTHING else.
2. There is no deity. Man wrote it all from thoughts of what his God should be.


----------



## Four (Apr 2, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> The books are different and that is a good speaking to the validity of what happened and the accurancy of the Bible. I would be worried about it being fake if all accounts are were the same. The fact that there are variances in the Gospel is nothing new.



Be honest, if it was all consistent you would use it as proof of divinity.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Apr 2, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> The books are different and that is a good speaking to the validity of what happened and the accurancy of the Bible. I would be worried about it being fake if all accounts are were the same. The fact that there are variances in the Gospel is nothing new.



So now inconsistencies show validity? I agree that if they were exactly the same it would also look suspect, but inconsistencies don't really help the matter...


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 2, 2013)

I hate to be the one to say it but the gospels are not exactly just different viewpoints of the same story. Think of it like a college term paper. My sister writes one on the subject of the civil war. years later, I need a term paper. Do I write on the civil war from my own study or do I plagerize her paper, changing things to "make it my own". I know some already about the civil war, and I have another friend's old paper, we will call it Q. So, I copy 70% of my sisters, and a little from Q. But I become suspect and as the teacher points out, it is easy to spot the proof. Several examples exist. Personal lingo, such as "let the reader understand" found in the same exact story, in the same sentence, story found in the same order. Another, if my sister misquoted a quote from a general from the civil war and I also misquote him, revealing that I may have copied her. Another, she writes about the events, conflicts and personal players in one order and I then use that exact order. If I have a couple missing pages from her copy, yet did not know it and connected the last story I have before the unknown missing pages to the first story of what I have, making a disjointed story such as "after the general died, he went fishing". Another, while making it my own, I changed things slightly at the beginning of a story but in my concentration of copying, I neglected to change the end of the story to fit the beginning change. All this is undeniable proof of plagerism. All of this I can easily show in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Actually very disappointing but super interesting. It does not mean that the civil war never took place. And it does not mean that their was not a victor.


----------



## vowell462 (Apr 2, 2013)

Taking word for it. Reminds me of a situation I was in last week. There is an industrial park in Columbus that I have the ground maintenance contract with. Within this industrial park, there has been a stray dog that showed up weak with ribs showing, just a very sickly looking dog and very skiddish of humans. Hes some sort of mixed breed, and over the past couple months, the residents of the park and my crew have been feeding this fella and even have him a dog house. We appropriately named him " Brown Dog".                                                                                                               Last week a guy working for the city stopped me while I was on my tractor over there to ask me some questions about my John Deere. The fella didn't seem like an idiot or anything, had extensive knowledge of hydraulics ( way more than me) and was just getting my input on how I liked it since he was in the market. Then, out of nowhere, this guy looks at me dead in the face and says " Hey, did you know there is a jackal running around here"? I looked at him for a moment because I had no idea what he was talking about. " Ya know, a jackal, those mean dogs that live over in Africa"? Now im thinking to myself, I don't know where a jackal is native to, but I know its not Muscogee County Ga. So I replied, " oh, well we do have a few coyotes running around here". I was shot back with a very quick " naw...naw...this was a jackal! It had a round face just like one! I didn't know we had them here but im telling you it was a jackal!" After another thought, I realized he was talking about Brown Dog. " naw! naw! this wasn't no dog either! This was a jackal!" It was then I realized it would take an act of congress to convince this guy that what he saw was just a stray dog. So I complied, and said, " yea, we get those sometimes".

       About that time Brown Dog came strolling out of the woodline in search for some scraps. The man saw him and went into a frenzy. " See there he is, theres the jackal"! I said " Oh that's our local stray, Brown Dog. Hes harmless. We feed him daily." The man kinda looked at me funny, said thanks and rapidly went to his truck, and im pretty sure he still wasn't convinced that Brown Dog was just a dog.

     Point is, if I took his word, I would believe there are jackals in Ga. The other point is, some people just have to whiz on the electric fence.


----------



## Snackdaddy66 (Apr 2, 2013)

1) If the body was taken by the guards - why not just prove it.  IF you believe the disciples took it - they were actually hiding after the crucifixtion and would not have attempted to fight the guards.

2) An author or story teller would not have chosen the 2 Mary's to be the ones that reported the resurrection.  During those times, women were considered second class citizens and their account would have been discredited.  They were cited for the discovery because they became holy matriaches that could dispute the naysayers.

3) 1Corinthians 15:6 - Paul says if you don't believe me go ask some of the 500 witnesses, some are asleep(dead), but others are still alive.  Would have to be a major conspiracy that many people were involved in to cover up.

4)James was openly skeptical about Jesus the Messiah, but was changed after the resurrection, leading to him being stoned to death for his faith.

5) The 11 Jesus appeared to were not brave men by any sorts.  They were commoners like fisherman (like us), and they followed his direction leading to many of them becoming martyrs.

I know there is nothing that will make the naysayers on these posting believe, but I not only believe in the resurrection, I am counting on it.  If I am right, which I believe I am, then everlasting life awaits, if I am wrong (like many of you believe) then what have I lost??  It is only the non-believers that have reason to be concerned, if they are wrong.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 2, 2013)

The work does not fitting of a Divine Author.
We get to read it took 6 days to create EVERYTHING on one page. Then we need 4 books to tell us that to save all of mankind it took 33 years and the best a god could do was have a son with a human lady and his sole purpose was to be killed for the rest of us. Heck of a childhood kid.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 2, 2013)

Whether it was a big bang, creation, or evolution, it happened and we are here now, but as BH pointed out, none of the scientist that speculate of what happened were there at the time, so it is all theories and embellishments based on speculation and not fact.

Funny how that works both ways.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 2, 2013)

Snackdaddy66 said:


> 1) If the body was taken by the guards - why not just prove it.  IF you believe the disciples took it - they were actually hiding after the crucifixtion and would not have attempted to fight the guards.


Or the body was buried where no one could find it so there was no martyr and the rest is  fabricated folklore.



Snackdaddy66 said:


> 2) An author or story teller would not have chosen the 2 Mary's to be the ones that reported the resurrection.  During those times, women were considered second class citizens and their account would have been discredited.  They were cited for the discovery because they became holy matriaches that could dispute the naysayers.


4 authors all have different accounts of the story which inclide who found who, who was there, who they saw and who they talked to.



Snackdaddy66 said:


> 3) 1Corinthians 15:6 - Paul says if you don't believe me go ask some of the 500 witnesses, some are asleep(dead), but others are still alive.  Would have to be a major conspiracy that many people were involved in to cover up.


An even 500



Snackdaddy66 said:


> 4)James was openly skeptical about Jesus the Messiah, but was changed after the resurrection, leading to him being stoned to death for his faith.


Which James?



Snackdaddy66 said:


> 5) The 11 Jesus appeared to were not brave men by any sorts.  They were commoners like fisherman (like us), and they followed his direction leading to many of them becoming martyrs.


 The Bible lists 2 deaths.....tell us about the others



Snackdaddy66 said:


> I know there is nothing that will make the naysayers on these posting believe, but I not only believe in the resurrection, I am counting on it.  If I am right, which I believe I am, then everlasting life awaits, if I am wrong (like many of you believe) then what have I lost??  It is only the non-believers that have reason to be concerned, if they are wrong.


You, like a few million others seem to narrow it down to 2 choices. Either I am right and get the rewards or I am wrong and have lost nothing. well you have a thousand more religions to go before you cover all the bases. If your wrong and it is some other religions way.........well now what??


----------



## bullethead (Apr 2, 2013)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Whether it was a big bang, creation, or evolution, it happened and we are here now, but as BH pointed out, none of the scientist that speculate of what happened were there at the time, so it is all theories and embellishments based on speculation and not fact.
> 
> Funny how that works both ways.



Ummm no it is not funny. No scientist is claiming he has a book that says it was the work of a God. There lies the difference.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 2, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Ummm no it is not funny. No scientist is claiming he has a book that says it was the work of a God. There lies the difference.


You failed to get the parallel point. Now that IS funny.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Apr 2, 2013)

Snackdaddy66 said:


> 1)
> 
> I know there is nothing that will make the naysayers on these posting believe, but I not only believe in the resurrection, I am counting on it.  If I am right, which I believe I am, then everlasting life awaits, if I am wrong (like many of you believe) then what have I lost??  It is only the non-believers that have reason to be concerned, if they are wrong.



You will have wasted the one life you have chasing a fairy tale. But you won't be able to regret it by that time, so it's all good.


----------



## Snackdaddy66 (Apr 2, 2013)

The Bible is not intended to be a novel.  It is an account of how we got here, how we should live, the love that God has for us, and the sin that we all have since the first bite of the apple.  The fallen angel, Lucifer is explained.  It also shows examples of times that people, nations, etc have fallen into so much sin that God hit the reset button.  I believe the 4 gospels take up so many pages because their significance and importance for generations.  If you believe and understand the Holy Trinity, God sent us his son, really God in human form) to "prove" once again the right path and to die for us as sinners.  Everyone sins on a regular basis, but you have to recognize it and ask for forgiveness.  If you are sincere in your repentance, he knows.  Bullethead, I am only giving you my viewpoint as a Christian believer that has seen things that I can't explain, but do know until I really took the time to listen and pray, never recognized the impact it has on my life.  Don't get me wrong, I sin quite frequently, but have comfort that I recognize and ask for forgiveness that it is done.  Finally, again, if I am right then everlasting life is in the cards.  If non-believers are wrong, there is a heavier price to pay.  That too is discussed in the good book.


----------



## Snackdaddy66 (Apr 2, 2013)

TripleXBullies - I have wasted nothing because I do what I want to anyway.  I do tithe so I could use that money to buy more hunting, fishing, golf,etc things, but the money is used to help other people in need, which I feel better about than taxes  I am probably no better a person than you and others because I imagine most people on here adhere to most of the 10 commandments.  The only difference is after I cuss out and wish great pain on someone that still a hunting camera, I eventually get around to asking for forgiveness for me and the thief.

Bullethead - on the 1000's of other religions, I don't need to get around to covering them.  Let's take the Jews for one.  They do not accept Jesus Christ as the son of God, IMHO, the Jews will have the same issue as non-believers and have a second opportunity during the Tribulation.


----------



## Thanatos (Apr 2, 2013)

Four said:


> Be honest, if it was all consistent you would use it as proof of divinity.



And you would use it as proof of collusion...


----------



## Thanatos (Apr 2, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> I hate to be the one to say it but the gospels are not exactly just different viewpoints of the same story. Think of it like a college term paper. My sister writes one on the subject of the civil war. years later, I need a term paper. Do I write on the civil war from my own study or do I plagerize her paper, changing things to "make it my own". I know some already about the civil war, and I have another friend's old paper, we will call it Q. So, I copy 70% of my sisters, and a little from Q. But I become suspect and as the teacher points out, it is easy to spot the proof. Several examples exist. Personal lingo, such as "let the reader understand" found in the same exact story, in the same sentence, story found in the same order. Another, if my sister misquoted a quote from a general from the civil war and I also misquote him, revealing that I may have copied her. Another, she writes about the events, conflicts and personal players in one order and I then use that exact order. If I have a couple missing pages from her copy, yet did not know it and connected the last story I have before the unknown missing pages to the first story of what I have, making a disjointed story such as "after the general died, he went fishing". Another, while making it my own, I changed things slightly at the beginning of a story but in my concentration of copying, I neglected to change the end of the story to fit the beginning change. All this is undeniable proof of plagerism. All of this I can easily show in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Actually very disappointing but super interesting. It does not mean that the civil war never took place. And it does not mean that their was not a victor.



Read this 

https://www.christiancourier.com/art...e-four-gospels


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 2, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> Read this
> 
> https://www.christiancourier.com/art...e-four-gospels


Check the link, when I click on it, it says it does not exist.


----------



## JFS (Apr 2, 2013)

Snackdaddy66 said:


> The Bible is not intended to be a novel.



I hope not, it's not a very good story.  If you picked up the book and read the back cover summary about how a talking snake and magic fruit lead the all powerful god of the universe to pop out of a "virgin" just to die, but not really, just to do, well, do what he could presumably do without getting off the couch, but all in obscurity and then wrathfully condemn everyone who doesn't believe this crazy story, you'd move on to Harry Potter for sure.


----------



## Thanatos (Apr 2, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Check the link, when I click on it, it says it does not exist.



https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/273-examining-the-four-gospels

Try this one. Worked for me.


----------



## Thanatos (Apr 2, 2013)

JFS said:


> I hope not, it's not a very good story.  If you picked up the book and read the back cover summary about how a talking snake and magic fruit lead the all powerful god of the universe to pop out of a "virgin" just to die, but not really, just to do, well, do what he could presumably do without getting off the couch, but all in obscurity and then wrathfully condemn everyone who doesn't believe this crazy story, you'd move on to Harry Potter for sure.



Awesome. Another post void of any education, perception or any time spent trying to understand the context and language of a book written by it's authors thousands of years ago. 

:Golf clap


----------



## JFS (Apr 2, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> the context and language of a book written by it's authors thousands of years ago.



Au contraire, mon ami.  The context demonstrates the stories are just the musings and misunderstandings of some bronze age goat herders and make it ridiculous to pretend it's anything more.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 2, 2013)

Thanatos said:


> https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/273-examining-the-four-gospels
> 
> Try this one. Worked for me.


OK, got it. First off, right from the beginning, his opening statement, wrong. Matthew did not write Matthew, and I can prove it. Much more to be said about the rest, but I will skip to the end. This after editing out my first response, these guys, such as the link provided, I call idiots, who do more harm than good, who think they know the bible, who actually prove their ignorance. Self inflicted, is all I can say. He picks out one contradiction from the resurection accout, bends it to fit and declares that no contridictions exist. So how about this; One account says that Mary was told that he is not here, that he is risen. Another says that she spoke to Jesus. So, that I am not using as a contridiction, although it is. Here is the contridiction. In another account, Mary runs to the disciples, crying, saying they have taken his body and we don't know what they have done with him. These guys do more harm than good. They should be aware of these if they know half as much about the bible as they think they know.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 2, 2013)

This is his last statement;

The Gospel accounts are quite harmonious and they continue to enjoy unprecedented popularity as their critics progressively fade into oblivion.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 2, 2013)

This mindset that the bible does not contain contradictions when it does is a major hindrance. We have no credability with the world who knows better. We should be aware of them, not deny they exist. Learn how to deal with them.  Was David the 7th son or was he the 8th? Yes, there are contridictions


----------



## Snackdaddy66 (Apr 2, 2013)

OK, got it. First off, right from the beginning, his opening statement, wrong. Matthew did not write Matthew, and I can prove it. 

Love solid proof - Let's see it..


----------



## Snackdaddy66 (Apr 2, 2013)

Don't disagree there are contradictions.  Kinda like today when there are 5 witnesses to a murder - some say tall white guy, some say tall latino, some say tall light skin black man - still doesn't affect the outcome - someone was murdered.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 2, 2013)

Snackdaddy66 said:


> OK, got it. First off, right from the beginning, his opening statement, wrong. Matthew did not write Matthew, and I can prove it.
> 
> Love solid proof - Let's see it..


OK, what I will try to show is that Matthew copied from Mark. This will show that it is not really Matthew. Mark was a disciple of Peter and never met Jesus. So why would Matthew copy Mark since he knew Jesus well. It should be the other way around. Mark tells us that , in 6:20 that Herod feared John and protected him.... and liked to listen to him. but in vs 26, after his oath, he was greatly distressed. Remember this, "he was greatly distressed". So Matthew changing the story to suit his agenda, to "make it his own", wrote in 14;5 "herod wanted to kill Jesus", but in his concentration in copying Mark, he forgot that he changed the story and reverted back to Mark's . See vs 9, where he says "the King was greatly distressed". This is called "editoral fatigue". Point is that if the writer of Matthew was Matthew ,then why copy Mark? There are any more examples like this one. Let me know if you agree


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 2, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> This mindset that the bible does not contain contradictions when it does is a major hindrance. We have no credability with the world who knows better. We should be aware of them, not deny they exist. Learn how to deal with them.  Was David the 7th son or was he the 8th? Yes, there are contridictions



I would have to agree that we need to admit the contradictions are in the Bible and work with them. To say they don't exist is not the correct path. If they are there then we need to learn to work with them or around them, not just say they don't exist.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 2, 2013)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> You failed to get the parallel point. Now that IS funny.



There really is no parallel point Miguel.

The scientists do not claim that their conclusions are final. They admit that to the best of their understanding what they have found is the best information currently available on a subject and that it could very well change if something else is found out. At the moment what you have with science is the best answer based off of numerous tests to confirm the results.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 2, 2013)

JFS said:


> Au contraire, mon ami.  The context demonstrates the stories are just the musings and misunderstandings _of some bronze age goat herders _and make it ridiculous to pretend it's anything more.



Which is it? Are they bronze age goat herders or are they the geniuses that have written the greatest scam in the history of mankind that has fooled millions upon millions of people? It seems to change to fit the argument at any given time.


----------



## JFS (Apr 2, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Which is it? Are they bronze age goat herders or are they the geniuses that have written the greatest scam in the history of mankind that has fooled millions upon millions of people? It seems to change to fit the argument at any given time.



I can't accept the premise of your questionNo No:

Billions of people have believed all kinds of gibberish for as long as anyone can remember.  No doubt some were or are quite bright.  But to Thantos' point, ironically, the context of the writings really is key, just not in the way I think he intended.  Maybe the whole garden of eden thing was believable then, but not really so much now.  The story maintains traction and some credulity with some simply because it is so deeply embedded in our culture and has the weight of a vast institution behind it.  But if you were to introduce that story now anew I'd hope most people would dismiss it as a fable.  And without the fall of man, why put any stock in a quasi human sacrifice for redemption story?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 2, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Which is it? Are they bronze age goat herders or are they the geniuses that have written the greatest scam in the history of mankind that has fooled millions upon millions of people? It seems to change to fit the argument at any given time.



The writers were talented and wrote stories that were able to capture the beliefs of goat herders. VERY VERY VERY few copies of a Bible ever existed outside of the church and all these writings were read to a majority of people that were mostly uneducated could not read at all. These writings captured their hearts,fears and NEEDS. The majority of people were told what to believe. This stuff was sold as the truth in a time when religious places were the gathering places. It was all they heard. It would have been harder not to believe.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 2, 2013)

JFS said:


> I can't accept the premise of your questionNo No:



Why not?



> Billions of people have believed all kinds of gibberish for as long as anyone can remember.  No doubt some were or are quite bright.  But to Thantos' point, ironically, the context of the writings really is key, just not in the way I think he intended.  Maybe the whole garden of eden thing was believable then, but not really so much now.  The story maintains traction and some credulity with some simply because it is so deeply embedded in our culture and has the weight of a vast institution behind it.  But if you were to introduce that story now anew I'd hope most people would dismiss it as a fable.  And without the fall of man, why put any stock in a quasi human sacrifice for redemption story?


So, you're going with geniuses?


bullethead said:


> The writers were talented and wrote stories that were able to capture the beliefs of goat herders. VERY VERY VERY few copies of a Bible ever existed outside of the church and all these writings were read to a majority of people that were mostly uneducated could not read at all. These writings captured their hearts,fears and NEEDS. The majority of people were told what to believe. This stuff was sold as the truth in a time when religious places were the gathering places. It was all they heard. It would have been harder not to believe.



Geniuses too?

How about just a simple answer, I'm not concerned with how many copies of the bible existed outside the church right now.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 2, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Why not?
> 
> 
> So, you're going with geniuses?
> ...



I read and re-read my post 12 times. Did I say geniuses ever? Please show me if I did.
Your interest wains as soon as you have no answers for legitimate questions. You ask them and receive answers(which are never good enough despite them being legitimate) then you provide nothing in return when you are asked questions (see your resurrection thread).
The writers were obviously educated people or they could not write. No master degree needed to figure that out. The writings were hardly if ever read by any common person. 1. Because the majority of people were absolutely illiterate. 2. The church(es) had all of the few copies of the Bible. 3. The writings were READ to the people.


----------



## Michael F. Gray (Apr 2, 2013)

Thank You for posting. I share your view. Revelation 20:15 is still in the BOOK.


----------



## JFS (Apr 2, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Why not?



False dichotomy.


----------



## Asath (Apr 2, 2013)

I suppose it comes down, yet again, to an exercise in cognitive mapping.

One's neighborhood can be no larger than one's knowledge of it.

Same goes for one's world.  

Remaining willfully ignorant and clinging tightly to a several thousand year old street map, insisting that it defines the world and that all newer maps are frauds, is certainly one approach, and one we're quite used to encountering.

Yet, it remains the truth, beyond denial, that the limits of one's world are the limits of one's knowledge, and that every new exploration expands that world, and seldom for the worse.

There ARE other sources of knowledge other than like-minded folks who also cling desperately to ancient street maps and purport to explain them in 'modern' terms.  Through the simple means of poking ones head out of the carefully cloistered turtle-shell of safe convention, and taking in the view, it becomes difficult if not impossible for a thoughtful person to wish to retreat back behind the walls of thoughtlessness and enforced fear.

The view from out here, unrestrained and unhindered by superstition, ignorance, fear, and dogma, is magnificent.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 2, 2013)

Four said:


> Be honest, if it was all consistent you would use it as proof of divinity.



Wherever you hang out, do all the people present use the exact same words to describe an incident? say a bar fight breaks out, or a thief in walmart runs from the store with a tv and all the witnesses were in different positions in the store or bar or wherever. Is every story describing the incident the exact same words? Or are their different viewpoints depending on when/where the witness was at the moment? Just because each story to the cops is different does that mean it didn't happen? Did the guy still steal the tv or the bar fight didn't happened because each person didn't see everything each of the others saw?

If all the stories were exact, word for word, then I'd consider it more to be false, as staged. 

Why do they have more than one witness in a trial? If 4 accounts were word for word, would you consider it rehearsed? I know I would. Each of the books say, the Gospel according to... even though the accounts were different the outcome is the same, it is consistant....that Christ came and died on the cross and resurrected.... and if you don't believe that then none of the rest of the Bible will make sense.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 2, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> You will have wasted the one life you have chasing a fairy tale. But you won't be able to regret it by that time, so it's all good.



I'm not wasting my life chasing anything. I don't waste my life chasing a 22 point buck or a 100 pound cat fish either....lol. What's the difference? Is anyone condemning you for what you chase after? Why do that to others?

I won't regret it, will you when you're 92 and can't load anything? What's the difference? Why be so condemning of who chases what? You chase bambi, and I'll chase Christ.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 2, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I would have to agree that we need to admit the contradictions are in the Bible and work with them. To say they don't exist is not the correct path. If they are there then we need to learn to work with them or around them, not just say they don't exist.



We will understand nothing until the Holy Spirit reveals it to us. It took me 40 years to comprehend the meaning of the David and Goliath story. God will provide me the tools/weapons it takes to overcome the giants in my life, whether it be to move a large piece of furniture, an addiction, a mental health issue or whatever. I don't have a literal giant in my life but I have giants in my life that I overcome thru Christ, no matter how simple they are or may seem to others...I can do all things thru Christ. Even if it's pnly having the courage to ask a new neighbor to help me do something.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 2, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So now inconsistencies show validity? I agree that if they were exactly the same it would also look suspect, but inconsistencies don't really help the matter...



You think all scientists agree on everything? Well if they don't does it mean some points are not valid?


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 2, 2013)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Funny how that works both ways.



Amen! No disproof I've ever seen by anyone. You'd think ONE person could come up with 'proof', wouldn't ya? Same as the earth is flat theory was proven incorrect. Yet no one can prove the 'Gospel' never happened.

It does work both ways for some of us. Science to me is the proof of....not the creation of.


----------



## JFS (Apr 3, 2013)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Whether it was a big bang, creation, or evolution, it happened and we are here now, but as BH pointed out, none of the scientist that speculate of what happened were there at the time, so it is all theories and embellishments based on speculation and not fact.
> 
> Funny how that works both ways.



Lots of things happened before anyone was here to record it.   Take the extinction of the dinosaurs.  Based on impact craters and global iridium distribution, some people theorize that a meteor impact helped facilitate their demise.  I could theorize that Brahma's fa rts  have lots of iridium, so clearly it was a giant fa rt  that killed them.  You can neither prove or disprove either "theory".     Yet some religious folk get smug thinking that somehow the crap they make up should now be given equal weight as theories with actual natural evidence just because an inferred theory can't actually be tested.   That's whack.  They just aren't the same thing.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 3, 2013)

JFS said:


> False dichotomy.



You're right, they could have been inspired by God, I was just giving the only two options you guys throw out there all the time.

Is there another reasonable argument I haven't read in here?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 3, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I read and re-read my post 12 times. Did I say geniuses ever? Please show me if I did.


It was the implication, or at least it seemed. Either way, I posed it as a questions, there was no assurtion that you stated the writers were geniuses.



> Your interest wains as soon as you have no answers for legitimate questions. You ask them and receive answers(which are never good enough despite them being legitimate) then you provide nothing in return when you are asked questions (see your resurrection thread).


My interest wains when the thread can't stay on topic.



> The writers were obviously educated people or they could not write. No master degree needed to figure that out. The writings were hardly if ever read by any common person. 1. Because the majority of people were absolutely illiterate. 2. The church(es) had all of the few copies of the Bible. 3. The writings were READ to the people.



Where do you suppose ancient fishermen got educated at?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 3, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> It was the implication, or at least it seemed. Either way, I posed it as a questions, there was no assurtion that you stated the writers were geniuses.
> 
> 
> My interest wains when the thread can't stay on topic.
> ...



They got educated on the boat. A hands on education on how to fish like their father and his father before him. No fish, no work, no money, no life. They did not have time to sit down at "sunday school" and learn to read. That privilege was for the rich and elite and done at some churches or palaces.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Apr 3, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> Wherever you hang out, do all the people present use the exact same words to describe an incident? say a bar fight breaks out, or a thief in walmart runs from the store with a tv and all the witnesses were in different positions in the store or bar or wherever. Is every story describing the incident the exact same words? Or are their different viewpoints depending on when/where the witness was at the moment? Just because each story to the cops is different does that mean it didn't happen? Did the guy still steal the tv or the bar fight didn't happened because each person didn't see everything each of the others saw?



Sure it all points to the fact that there was a bar fight, or shoplifting of a TV. Because those things happen...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Apr 3, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Where do you suppose ancient fishermen got educated at?



Are you implying that they weren't educated but wrote their books of the bible themselves?


----------



## JFS (Apr 3, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Is there another reasonable argument I haven't read in here?



Smart and well meaning, but misguided and mistaken?


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 3, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Is there another reasonable argument I haven't read in here?



I was thinking the same thing.  If all the brilliant scholars throughout the past 2000+ years don't have undeniable proof, either way, certainly no one here does.  For me, I have enough proof to believe.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 3, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Sure it all points to the fact that there was a bar fight, or shoplifting of a TV. Because those things happen...



What I ask though, is do you expect all the accounts to be exactly the same? If not, why use that as a reason to discount the accounts of the Gospel?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 3, 2013)

bullethead said:


> They got educated on the boat. A hands on education on how to fish like their father and his father before him. No fish, no work, no money, no life. They did not have time to sit down at "sunday school" and learn to read. That privilege was for the rich and elite and done at some churches or palaces.


I'm confused, are you saying the writers of the bible were rich and elite?


TripleXBullies said:


> Are you implying that they weren't educated but wrote their books of the bible themselves?


No.


JFS said:


> Smart and well meaning, but misguided and mistaken?



Ok, that is a valid answer, but one argument I've never seen made in here.

Like I said before, I was simply giving the two options that are argued in here.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 3, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I'm confused, are you saying the writers of the bible were rich and elite?


Yes you are confused.
You asked me where ancient fisherman got educated.


stringmusic said:


> Where do you suppose ancient fishermen got educated at?


I answered:


> They got educated on the boat. A hands on education on how to fish like their father and his father before him. No fish, no work, no money, no life. They did not have time to sit down at "sunday school" and learn to read. That privilege was for the rich and elite and done at some churches or palaces.



Hopefully this clears things up for you:
Ancient fisherman did not write the Bible.
In order to read and write back in those days you had to be educated. Approximately 3% of the population was literate.

In fact after thinking about it, those ancient fisherman would have been ancient, Ancient fisherman by the time they started to "write" their gospels.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 3, 2013)

Never to late to learn something, especially in the last paragraph:
History of Formal education in ancient civilizations

In many early civilizations, education was associated with wealth and the maintenance of authority, or with prevailing philosophies, beliefs, or religion.
The Middle East

In what became Mesopotamia, the early logographic system of cuneiform script took many years to master. Thus only a limited number of individuals were hired as scribes to be trained in its reading and writing. Only royal offspring and sons of the rich and professionals such as scribes, physicians, and temple administrators, were schooled.[15] Most boys were taught their father's trade or were apprenticed to learn a trade.[16] Girls stayed at home with their mothers to learn housekeeping and cooking, and to look after the younger children. Later, when a syllabic script became more widespread, more of the Mesopotamian population became literate. Later still in Babylonian times there were libraries in most towns and temples; an old Sumerian proverb averred that "he who would excel in the school of the scribes must rise with the dawn." There arose a whole social class of scribes, mostly employed in agriculture, but some as personal secretaries or lawyers.[17] Women as well as men learned to read and write, and for the Semitic Babylonians, this involved knowledge of the extinct Sumerian language, and a complicated and extensive syllabary. Vocabularies, grammars, and interlinear translations were compiled for the use of students, as well as commentaries on the older texts and explanations of obscure words and phrases. Massive archives of texts were recovered from the archaeological contexts of Old Babylonian scribal schools, through which literacy was disseminated. The Epic of Gilgamesh, an epic poem from Ancient Mesopotamia is among the earliest known works of literary fiction. The earliest Sumerian versions of the epic date from as early as the Third Dynasty of Ur (2150-2000 BC) (Dalley 1989: 41-42).

Ashurbanipal (685 – c. 627 BC), a king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, was proud of his scribal education. His youthful scholarly pursuits included oil divination, mathematics, reading and writing as well as the usual horsemanship, hunting, chariotry, soldierliness, craftsmanship, and royal decorum. During his reign he collected cuneiform texts from all over Mesopotamia, and especially Babylonia, in the library in Nineveh, the first systematically organized library in the ancient Middle East,[18] which survives in part today.

In ancient Egypt, literacy was concentrated among an educated elite of scribes. Only people from certain backgrounds were allowed to train to become scribes, in the service of temple, pharaonic, and military authorities. The hieroglyph system was always difficult to learn, but in later centuries was purposely made even more so, as this preserved the scribes' status. The rate of literacy in Pharaonic Egypt during most periods from the third to first millennium BC has been estimated at not more than one percent,[19] or between one half of one percent and one percent.[20]

*In ancient Israel the Torah (the fundamental religious text) includes commands to read, learn, teach and write the Torah, thus requiring literacy and study. In 64 AD the high priest caused schools to be opened .[21] Emphasis was placed on developing good memory skills in addition to comprehension oral repetition. For details of the subjects taught, see History of education in ancient Israel and Judah. Although girls were not provided with formal education in the yeshivah, they were required to know a large part of the subject areas to prepare them to maintain the home after marriage, and to educate the children before the age of seven. Despite this schooling system, it would seem that many children did not learn to read and write, because it has been estimated that "at least ninety percent of the Jewish population of Roman Palestine [in the first centuries AD] could merely write their own name or not write and read at all",[22] or that the literacy rate was about 3 percent.[23]*


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 3, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Yes you are confused.
> You asked me where ancient fisherman got educated.
> 
> I answered:
> ...



And you should check your "facts" and sad generalized statistics.

The Bible is actually a collection of 66 books, which is called the canon of scriptures. These 66 books contain a variety of genres: history, poetry, prophecy, wisdom literature, letters, and apocalyptic, just to name a few.

These 66 books were written by 40 different authors. These authors came from a variety of backgrounds: shepherds, fishermen, doctors, kings, prophets, and others. And most of these authors never knew one another personally.

These 66 books were written over a period of 1,500 years. This is another reminder that many of these authors never knew or collaborated with one another in writing these books.

The 66 books of the Bible were written in 3 different languages. In the Bible we have books that were written in the ancient languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic; a reflection of the historical and cultural circumstances in which each of these books were written.

These 66 books were written on 3 different continents: Africa , Asia , and Europe.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 3, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> And you should check your "facts" and sad generalized statistics.
> 
> The Bible is actually a collection of 66 books, which is called the canon of scriptures. These 66 books contain a variety of genres: history, poetry, prophecy, wisdom literature, letters, and apocalyptic, just to name a few.
> 
> ...



Excellent info but you didn't teach me anything I didn't already know.
Without saying it specifically I was talking about the fisherman in the New Testament that are part of the 12 Apostles who have erroneously been given credit for writing a few of those books. It was not hard to figure out which ones we were talking about Ted.
I am sure you can tell me which authors that helped pen some of those 66 books were fishermen though. John....


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 3, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Excellent info but you didn't teach me anything I didn't already know.
> Without saying it specifically I was talking about the fisherman in the New Testament that are part of the 12 Apostles who have erroneously been given credit for writing a few of those books. It was not hard to figure out which ones we were talking about Ted.
> I am sure you can tell me which authors that helped pen some of those 66 books were fishermen though. John....



Erroneous? How are you the judge of that?


----------



## CAL (Apr 4, 2013)

Just because a person can't read or write does not mean that person can't have the things they have witnessed, or whatever recorded. Being illiterate just means one can't read or write . I personally know people who are illiterate and are extremely smart people. They just never went to school for one reason or another.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2013)

CAL said:


> Just because a person can't read or write does not mean that person can't have the things they have witnessed, or whatever recorded. Being illiterate just means one can't read or write . I personally know people who are illiterate and are extremely smart people. They just never went to school for one reason or another.



Are those people given credit for being Authors?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> Erroneous? How are you the judge of that?



Ted, it isn't because I judged them or just because I say so. Within the church itself there are questions about that information. There are many scholars and historians that have far better evidence than I do(all I have is their work) to say the people given credit for writing the Gospels are not the same people that actually wrote the Gospels. And that goes for many of the other 66 books in the Bible too.

I am not asking you or anyone to take my word on it. All I ask is that you put as much effort into finding it out as you would with any other issue you come across in life.
I don't care either way if you go out to buy a used vehicle and you take the used car salesman's word that it was never in an accident, the information is there to check and your only doing yourself a disservice if you don't. 
Faith in an invisible creature is one thing...it's all someone can have for a non-existent hands off sky buddy, but having information available to you about real tangible items and either not searching for it or totally disregarding it because it might teach you something different than you WANT to be true is on the person. But please spare us the insults when we have done our homework and have found that what you want us to believe and what is really true are 2 entirely different things.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> Erroneous? How are you the judge of that?



While your on your roll, tell me about all the fisherman authors in the bible Ted.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2013)

Seems as though The Holy Mother Church has a lot of doubt and gives a lot of leniency about who wrote those Gospels but all that matters is if they hold it sacred as inspired and as truly the word of God.

Short version, the authors are not who we think they are and the stuff written in there had a lot of outside influence but as long as the Main Mother Church says it is all the work of God, facts be darned.
WHO REALLY WROTE THE GOSPELS?
Fr. William Saunders
I recently attended a religious education workshop, and the teacher said that the Gospels were written by the early Church community probably between the years 200 and 300, not by St. Mark, etc. I find this strange. If this is true, then the Gospels really don't tell us much about Jesus but seem more "made up" by later believers. A straight answer please.—A reader in Sterling

The notion that the Gospels are the product of the early Church community in the third century is "strange" indeed. However, we must be aware that a lot of "strange" things have emerged in some circles of modern Scripture scholarship, where scholars have isolated the texts of Sacred Scripture and examined them without any appreciation for divine intervention or the living Tradition of the Church. Sad to say, some Scripture scholars would have us believe that the only thing we can know for certain is that Jesus existed. Even the pagan Roman historians could tell us that. Such a bent in Scripture is misguided.

Therefore, to answer this question we must be clear on how the Gospels were formed and what constitutes authorship. Citing Vatican II's <Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation>, the <Catechism> has a very succinct presentation on the formation of the Gospels. The foundational premise is that "Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy maintained and continues to maintain, that the four Gospels, whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while He live among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up."

After the ascension of Jesus, the Apostles went forth preaching the Gospel, handing on to others what our Lord had done and taught. Having been instructed by the Lord and then enlightened by the Holy Spirit, they preached with a fuller understanding. Eventually, the "sacred authors" wrote the four Gospels. Each author, guided by the Holy Spirit, selected from the events and teachings of our Lord which perhaps they had witnessed or which had been handed on either orally or in written form. Sometimes the authors may have synthesized some of these events or teachings, or may have underscored parts or explained parts with a view to a certain audience. This is why the Gospels oftentimes tell the same story, but each will have certain details not included by the others. In a similar way, if each member of our family had to write a family history, each member would tell basically the same story, but each member would also highlight certain details he considered important and would keep in mind who would be reading the family history. Nevertheless, the sacred authors wrote "in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus." Therefore to suggest that the third century Church "wrote" the Gospels in some kind of vacuum, almost to "create" Jesus, is without foundation.

So did Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John write the Gospels? Is the sacred author also the saint? Remember only St. Matthew and St. John were among the 12 Apostles. We must keep in mind that the ancient world, authorship was designated in several ways: First, the author was clearly the individual who actually wrote the text with his own pen. Second, the individual who dictated the text to a secretary or scribe was still considered the author. Third, the individual was still considered the author if he only provided the ideas or if the text were written in accord with his though and in his spirit even though a "ghost writer" did the actual composition. In the broadest sense, the individual was even considered the author if the work was written in his tradition; for example, David is given credit for the psalms even though clearly he did not write all of the psalms.

Whether the final version of the Gospels we have is the word-for-word work of the saints is hard to say. Nevertheless, tradition does link the saints to their Gospels. St. Mark, identified with John Mark of Acts 12:12 and the Mark of I Peter 5:13, is mentioned in a quote contained in a letter from Papias (c. 130), Bishop of Hierapolis: "When Mark became Peter's interpreter, he wrote down accurately, although not in order, all that he remembered of what the Lord had said or done." St. Irenaeus (d. 203) and Clement of Alexandria (d. 215) support this identification. The Gospel of Mark is commonly dated about the year 65-70 in conjunction with the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem.

St. Matthew is identified with the tax collector called as an apostle (Mt 9:9-13). Papias again attests to the saint's authorship and indicates that he was the first to compile a collection of Jesus' sayings in the Aramaic language. For this reason, the Gospel of Matthew, at least in a very basic form in Aramaic, is considered the first Gospel and placed first in the New Testament, although the Gospel of Mark is probably the first in a completed form. St. Irenaeus and Origin (d. 253) again support this authorship. Nevertheless, some scholars doubt the saint's direct authorship because we only have the Greek version, not the Aramaic, and no citations are made from the Aramaic version in Church literature. The version of the Gospel we have was probably written between 70-80.

St. Luke, the beloved physician and disciple of St. Paul (Colossians 4:14), has consistently been recognized in Christian tradition as the author of the third Gospel, beginning with St. Irenaeus, Tertullian (d. 220), and Clement of Alexandria. The Gospel was written about 70-80.

St. Irenaeus identified the author of the fourth Gospel as St. John the Apostle. He does so based on the instruction of his teacher, St. Polycarp (d. 155), who himself was a disciple of St. John. Throughout this Gospel, the numerous details indicate the author was an eyewitness. Also scholars generally agree that "the beloved disciple" mentioned in the Gospel is St. John. This Gospel was written probably about 80-90.

Whether the actual saint wrote word-for-word, whether a student did some later editing, or whether a student actually wrote what had been taught by the saint, we must remember the texts—whole and entire—are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yes, the human authors used their skills and language with a view to an audience; however, they wrote what God wanted written. The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation clearly asserted, "Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Sacred Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth, which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." So no matter who actually put the finishing touches on the Sacred Scriptures, each is inspired.

Interestingly, with the recent scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls, new evidence points to the authorship of the traditional authors. Father Reginald Fuller, an Episcopalian and Professor Emeritus at Virginia Theological Seminary, with Dr. Carsten Thiede, have analyzed three papyrus fragments from the 26th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew; the fragments date the year 40, which would indicate that the author was an eyewitness to our Lord's public ministry.

Jesuit Father Jose O'Callaghan, studying fragments of the Gospel of Mark and using paleographic means, dated them at 50, again indicating an eyewitness author. Finally, Episcopalian Bishop John Robinson also posited from his research that all four Gospels were written between 40 and 65, with John's being possibly the earliest. This new research is not only questioning some of the modern scholarship but also supporting the traditional authorship.

Perhaps some mystery surrounds these texts and the identify of the authors. Nevertheless, we hold them as sacred, as inspired, and as truly the Word of God.

Father Saunders is president of Notre Dame Institute and associate pastor of Queen of Apostles Parish, both in Alexandria.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Ted, it isn't because I judged them or just because I say so. Within the church itself there are questions about that information. There are many scholars and historians that have far better evidence than I do(all I have is their work) to say the people given credit for writing the Gospels are not the same people that actually wrote the Gospels. And that goes for many of the other 66 books in the Bible too.
> 
> I am not asking you or anyone to take my word on it. All I ask is that you put as much effort into finding it out as you would with any other issue you come across in life.
> I don't care either way if you go out to buy a used vehicle and you take the used car salesman's word that it was never in an accident, the information is there to check and your only doing yourself a disservice if you don't.
> Faith in an invisible creature is one thing...it's all someone can have for a non-existent hands off sky buddy, but having information available to you about real tangible items and either not searching for it or totally disregarding it because it might teach you something different than you WANT to be true is on the person. But please spare us the insults when we have done our homework and have found that what you want us to believe and what is really true are 2 entirely different things.



BH - it is obvious that you have your beliefs, and I would not presume that I could change them for you. I guess what is annoying is that you assume that I am wrong, and have not done my due diligence. Just because you have reached a different conclusion, it does not mean that people who do not agree with your stance are incompetent. The things that compel me, do not compel you, and vice versa. I guess that is where we all go astray on this forum (myself included). We assume that we are correct, and that those with differing opinions must have screwed it up along the way.

Still, in the end, the absolute truth exists, and some or all of us are wrong.


----------

