# can somebody anwser?



## stringmusic (Oct 5, 2010)

the bible was written over about a 1500 year period, on three different continents, with over forty different authors... and none of the stories contradict each other. People saying things about God and Jesus in the old testament and  people in the new testament are saying the same things. And they had really bad internet service in those days so these people didn't talk or communicate in any shape form or fashion. Even if they could communicate in a way, if you have ever heard of the telephone game you know how that goes. The question is how can this not be from God?


----------



## apoint (Oct 5, 2010)

Because it is from God.


----------



## DS7418 (Oct 5, 2010)

Best story ever engineered by man,, my hats off to them.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Oct 6, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> ... and none of the stories contradict each other



Here's a question....how many times did Jesus ascend into heaven and when did he do this?


----------



## Achilles Return (Oct 6, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> and none of the stories contradict each other.



You're joking, right?



> The question is how can this not be from God?



Argument from incredulity fallacy, anyone?


----------



## pnome (Oct 6, 2010)

Achilles Return said:


> Argument from incredulity fallacy, anyone?



No, "shifting the burden of proof"


----------



## earl (Oct 6, 2010)

The Jews that Jesus came from, grew up with , taught ,and was killed by , deny that he is the messiah ,there by denying the New Testament . Some times you gotta go with the home team .


----------



## mickbear (Oct 7, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> the bible was written over about a 1500 year period, on three different continents, with over forty different authors... and none of the stories contradict each other. People saying things about God and Jesus in the old testament and  people in the new testament are saying the same things. And they had really bad internet service in those days so these people didn't talk or communicate in any shape form or fashion. Even if they could communicate in a way, if you have ever heard of the telephone game you know how that goes. The question is how can this not be from God?


first chapter in the bible---gen:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and so on.

ok we move on to the second chapter 

verse 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

which way was it ?did he create man and woman first as it says or did he create man then women?


----------



## VisionCasting (Oct 7, 2010)

pnome said:


> No, "shifting the burden of proof"



Moot.  

There is no 'burden of proof' on the follower of Christ.  Quite the contrary.  To a Christian, this is a settled matter.  Isa 42:20 - "You have seen many things, but have paid no attention; your ears are open, but you hear nothing." 

Christians are compelled to share their faith (Matthew 28/Acts 1) but the results are up to God.  

Christians receive no benefit, topically or eternally, for the salvation of a non-believer.

You need to understand motive.  To share Christ, to the Christian, is either an act of love (for you) or obedience (to God).  

To an Atheist, the motive to discredit is a self-serving "I told you so".


----------



## apoint (Oct 7, 2010)

earl said:


> The Jews that Jesus came from, grew up with , taught ,and was killed by , deny that he is the messiah ,there by denying the New Testament . Some times you gotta go with the home team .


 
It was the leadership that did not believe, and even some of them did believe, like Nicodemus, Joseph were priest. The 12 deciples how about the 5000 Jesus feed. How about all he healed.
  Forget about everyone else, He proved He was the Christ.
 So how are you gona believe?


----------



## earl (Oct 7, 2010)

Great big broad brush trying to be all inclusive. Even today there are only a HALF a million Jews, out of about 14,000,000 , who believe in Jesus as the Messiah. When you look at the FACTS ,things sure do look different ,don't they ?

I have learned to be careful of who and how I believe .


----------



## apoint (Oct 7, 2010)

earl said:


> Great big broad brush trying to be all inclusive. Even today there are only a HALF a million Jews, out of about 14,000,000 , who believe in Jesus as the Messiah. When you look at the FACTS ,things sure do look different ,don't they ?
> 
> I have learned to be careful of who and how I believe .



 Another Rasmussen pole huh? Better be careful believing in those Rasmussen poles.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 7, 2010)

mickbear said:


> first chapter in the bible---gen:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
> 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and so on.
> 
> ok we move on to the second chapter
> ...



not being rude but the question doesn't make alot of sense, God created man *then* women from what I understand, the first chapter doesn't say anything different from that, it just says he created man and women, the first chapter also never says he created them at the same time.


----------



## mickbear (Oct 7, 2010)

"in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them".i'm just courious which way it was .it reads to me like he does things in a certian order in chapter one then in a different order in chapter two.when i read the bible quite a few years ago i all ways wondered why it came across like that.


----------



## earl (Oct 7, 2010)

apoint said:


> Another Rasmussen pole huh? Better be careful believing in those Rasmussen poles.





I certainly did not mean to offend any Russians or Polish folks. They have always been believable in my experience .


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 15, 2010)

nobody else care to answer?


----------



## Achilles Return (Oct 15, 2010)

The question is fallacious. I'm not sure what you're expecting.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 15, 2010)

Achilles Return said:


> The question is fallacious. I'm not sure what you're expecting.



*the bible was written over about a 1500 year period, on three different continents, with over forty different authors..*.* and none of the stories contradict each other*. People saying things about God and Jesus in the old testament and people in the new testament are saying the same things. And they had really bad internet service in those days so these people didn't talk or communicate in any shape form or fashion. Even if they could communicate in a way, if you have ever heard of the telephone game you know how that goes. The question is how can this not be from God? 

these are all facts are they not?


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 15, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> *the bible was written over about a 1500 year period, on three different continents, with over forty different authors..*.* and none of the stories contradict each other*. People saying things about God and Jesus in the old testament and people in the new testament are saying the same things. And they had really bad internet service in those days so these people didn't talk or communicate in any shape form or fashion. Even if they could communicate in a way, if you have ever heard of the telephone game you know how that goes. *The question is how can this not be from God? *
> 
> these are all facts are they not?


ok, maybe I should have asked a different question. What is this from? or how did this happen?


----------



## Achilles Return (Oct 15, 2010)

Your premises and "facts" are incorrect. The bible is riddled with contradictions and the books of the new testament were handpicked by the religious elite of the eastern roman empire. The question does not follow because there is nothing demonstrably supernatural about any of this - christianity is clearly man-made.


----------



## earl (Oct 15, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> ok, maybe I should have asked a different question. What is this from? or how did this happen?



Do a little research on the history of the Torah. It was an oral tradition that not to long ago was written. Or how about Japanese. These religions all make the same claims.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 17, 2010)

Achilles Return said:


> Your premises and "facts" are incorrect. The bible is *riddled with contradictions* and the books of the new testament were handpicked by the religious elite of the eastern roman empire. The question does not follow because there is nothing demonstrably supernatural about any of this - christianity is clearly man-made.



what are some of the contradictions?


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 17, 2010)

earl said:


> Do a little research on the history of the Torah. It was an oral tradition that not to long ago was written. Or how about Japanese. *These religions all make the same claims.*



what claims do they make.
FYI Jesus is not a religion.


----------



## earl (Oct 17, 2010)

That their 's is the only true one.
Yes Jesus is a religion . Christianity to be specific . Use your MerriamWebster for the definition of religion. It looks like it has become quite trendy to say that Jesus isn't a religion . Very , very few can honestly claim it as a way of life.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Oct 17, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> what are some of the contradictions?



See my heretofore post above in which I asked about how many times Jesus ascended into heaven and when and where this took place.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 18, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> See my heretofore post above in which I asked about how many times Jesus ascended into heaven and when and where this took place.



sorry man, I have been posting here and there so I forgot to answer. The only time I can recall that Jesus Ascended into heaven was about 40 days after his resurrection as for where exactly this took place I would have to go back and read, I dont think that it tells the exact place but like I said I'm not really sure.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 18, 2010)

People need to understand that questioning and doubting are healthy, human activities to be encouraged not to be feared." 

By the way I like your tag line.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 18, 2010)

dont like your avatar though.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Oct 18, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> dont like your avatar though.



I'm not wild about penned in deer personally so there. 

At any rate the ascension is one of the core aspects of Christ's story, the bible, basically you wouldn't be a Christian without it.  Suffice it to say it's pretty important.  I'm not ribbing you about not knowing the when and where but I do want you to look into the details of it.  

Speaking of contradictions, John 3:13 tells us:


> And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.



But Genesis 5:24 says:


> And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; For God took him.



Interesting.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 18, 2010)

Six million dollar ham said:


> I'm not wild about penned in deer personally so there.
> 
> At any rate the ascension is one of the core aspects of Christ's story, the bible, basically you wouldn't be a Christian without it.  Suffice it to say it's pretty important.  I'm not ribbing you about not knowing the when and where but I do want you to look into the details of it.
> 
> ...



how are these contradictions? in Genesis it just says God took him away, it says nothing about ascension into Heaven, maybe he died before God took him away.

If you have anymore things you think are contradictions i would like to know, I'm not saying that I know everything, But I like learning more about the bible. Also it wasnt that I didnt know anything about the time after Jesus resurrected or ascended it was just a time for specifics and i could not recall at the time.


----------



## dexrusjak (Oct 19, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> how are these contradictions? in Genesis it just says God took him away, it says nothing about ascension into Heaven, maybe he died before God took him away.
> 
> If you have anymore things you think are contradictions i would like to know, I'm not saying that I know everything, But I like learning more about the bible. Also it wasnt that I didnt know anything about the time after Jesus resurrected or ascended it was just a time for specifics and i could not recall at the time.



Who was Joseph's father?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.


----------



## Gabassmaster (Oct 19, 2010)

Stringmusic:

These people will never understand. Your trying to talk spiritual to non- spiritual people. to poeple who are not saved the bible makes no since...when you get saved it makes perfect since.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 19, 2010)

dexrusjak said:


> Who was Joseph's father?
> 
> MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
> 
> LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.



I believe the careful Bible student is likely to conclude that Matthew and Luke present two different genealogies. Following through the genealogies, one will notice that there are some names which are common to both, but also, an great number of differences. Matthew begins at the patriarch Abraham, and works his way to Jesus the Christ. Luke begins at Jesus, and works his way back to Adam. There are two genealogies, with two distinct purposes. Matthew, it appears reveals the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke, presents the genealogy of Mary.

Matthew, penning his gospel with the Jews in mind sets out to establish Jesus' qualifications to be the Messiah through Joseph's genealogy. Thus, beginning with Abraham, he maps the Lord's genealogy through David, and the kings which followed. He presents Jesus royal lineage (through the males) through "...Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..."

Luke, writes to the Gentiles with a view toward the humanity of Christ. The concept of one being both God and man would seem strange and foreign to those accustomed to Greek and Roman gods. Thus, Luke begins at Jesus, and follows the genealogy of Mary, passing through the patriarchs, ending with the very first man, Adam.

If Luke is tracing the genealogy of Mary, why does he cite Joseph's name? Today, it would be politically incorrect to map a woman's genealogy through her husband, however, in Luke's day, it was proper and correct. Luke follows Mary's genealogy, beginning with the name of Joseph, her husband, Heli's son-in-law (in legal terms, his son by marriage).

There is no contradiction.
i found this out, didnt take the time to type it into my own words. there is a ton out there on contradictions and there is a ton of answers. I guess we could go on for years going back and forth. The bottom line is that nothing that i have heard contradicts the the true meaning of Christ and his death and resurrection, yea we can go back and forth forever on who was his grandpappy on his mothers side married to his sister in law's uncle's cousin. It just wont get us anywhere and it don't matter. The only thing that matters is one day I hope ALL you guys can get past the whoopla of some and find the TRUTH. I really mean that, I am only trying to help in that process by answering and commenting when I think it is necessary. I hope that yall can at least respect that.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 19, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> Stringmusic:
> 
> These people will never understand. Your trying to talk spiritual to non- spiritual people. to poeple who are not saved the bible makes no since...when you get saved it makes perfect since.



first of all before you read any of this thanks for your comments and I don't mean any harm in what i am going to say. NOBODY is beyond help and understanding, I have learned from the questions these guys asked and I hope that they have done the same from me. Also if the people of Jesus don't talk to "non-spiritual people" then who will?  For the last part of your statement, I hope that the Bible makes perfect since to you but it don't to me, I am always learning new things about it daily, and I think that if you go into a deep study of it, you will find that there is alot of things you will learn and also tons of questions you will have. Alot of these guys just let those questions get in the way to much.IMO Dont forget the first sentence of this post and agian thank you very much for the comments.


----------



## Gabassmaster (Oct 19, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> first of all before you read any of this thanks for your comments and I don't mean any harm in what i am going to say. NOBODY is beyond help and understanding, I have learned from the questions these guys asked and I hope that they have done the same from me. Also if the people of Jesus don't talk to "non-spiritual people" then who will?  For the last part of your statement, I hope that the Bible makes perfect since to you but it don't to me, I am always learning new things about it daily, and I think that if you go into a deep study of it, you will find that there is alot of things you will learn and also tons of questions you will have. Alot of these guys just let those questions get in the way to much.IMO Dont forget the first sentence of this post and agian thank you very much for the comments.




oh i fully understand im not saying i know everything i learn somthing new everytime the church doors open. And yes it is our jobs as christians to spread the word of the gospel im just saying its hard to talk spiritual to someone who isnt spiritual. im not saying dont try but if you are trying to teach someone about god you better watch out because the devil will throw everything he has at you to stop.


----------



## VisionCasting (Oct 19, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> I believe the careful Bible student is likely to conclude that Matthew and Luke present two different genealogies. Following through the genealogies, one will notice that there are some names which are common to both, but also, an great number of differences. Matthew begins at the patriarch Abraham, and works his way to Jesus the Christ. Luke begins at Jesus, and works his way back to Adam. There are two genealogies, with two distinct purposes. Matthew, it appears reveals the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke, presents the genealogy of Mary.
> 
> Matthew, penning his gospel with the Jews in mind sets out to establish Jesus' qualifications to be the Messiah through Joseph's genealogy. Thus, beginning with Abraham, he maps the Lord's genealogy through David, and the kings which followed. He presents Jesus royal lineage (through the males) through "...Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..."
> 
> ...



CORRECT! 

Begat does not mean "is the son of".  It's a term used to describe a descendant or lineage.  

Your father 'begat' you, so did your grandfather, great grand, and so on.

@stringmusic - yours was a common misunderstanding.  But remember that in a patriarchal  society your blood line was everything.  People would often refer to "significant" relatives, even far departed, in their family lineage.

This isn't a contradiction, only a lack of understanding.


----------



## davidstaples (Oct 19, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> Stringmusic:
> 
> These people will never understand. Your trying to talk spiritual to non- spiritual people. to poeple who are not saved the bible makes no since...when you get saved it makes perfect since.



Though some of us (atheists and agnostics) grew up in church and may even be a bit more knowledgeable about the Bible than you are.  Perhaps it's not that it doesn't make *sense*, it's just that we don't believe it to be true.  The Harry Potter books make *sense*... I just don't believe they're a work of nonfiction.

PS - you may want to look up the difference between the words since and sense.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Oct 19, 2010)

davidstaples said:


> PS - you may want to look up the difference between the words since and sense.



 Beat me to it.  Normally I just let them slide but I found this one particularly egregious. 

But seriously though...claims and assertions are much more believable when words are spelled correctly.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Oct 19, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> Stringmusic:
> 
> These people will never understand. Your trying to talk spiritual to non- spiritual people. to poeple who are not saved the bible makes no since...when you get saved it makes perfect since.



It's "You're" instead of "Your" in this case.  I'm inclined to guess it's "spirituality" instead of "spiritual" also.  Have you ever prayed to be blessed with grammar and spelling skills?


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Oct 24, 2010)

What does the HB tell us about judging?



> Matthew 7:1 - Judge not, that ye be not judged.





> Leviticus 19:15 - In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.


----------



## Gabassmaster (Oct 25, 2010)

six million dollar ham said:


> it's "you're" instead of "your" in this case.  I'm inclined to guess it's "spirituality" instead of "spiritual" also.  Have you ever prayed to be blessed with grammar and spelling skills?



no in georgia thats how we say it. In new york its you're


----------



## davidstaples (Oct 25, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> no in georgia thats how we say it. In new york its you're



I'm from Georgia and the correct usage where you used it was "you're".  Perhaps the uneducated use "your", but then again you also believe that whole Christianity scam.


----------



## Sterlo58 (Oct 27, 2010)

davidstaples said:


> Though some of us (atheists and agnostics) grew up in church and may even be a bit more knowledgeable about the Bible than you are.  Perhaps it's not that it doesn't make *sense*, it's just that we don't believe it to be true.  The Harry Potter books make *sense*... I just don't believe they're a work of nonfiction.
> 
> PS - you may want to look up the difference between the words since and sense.



Touche.


----------



## Sterlo58 (Oct 27, 2010)

OOPS...there I go doing what I say i will not do. Open my yap on the spiritual forum. 

Oh well


----------



## RThomas (Oct 27, 2010)

Nice sig line, Sterlo.  I also like this one from The Onion horoscope: "Virgo - There's no worse fate than dying alone. Thankfully, you'll be surrounded by hundreds of airline passengers when it happens".


----------



## Sterlo58 (Oct 27, 2010)

OK...to answer your question, NO...nobody can answer because nobody knows the answer. Dang it...there I go again. I got to stay away from these insane arguments.
The plain truth is nobody has the answers to any of the mysteries surrounding creation, evolution, salvation and a few other "tions".  Fact is nobody knows the answers to the eternally asked questions. 

I got to stop lurking in here. It frustrates me to no end.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2010)

Sterlo58 said:


> OK...to answer your question, NO...nobody can answer because nobody knows the answer. Dang it...there I go again. I got to stay away from these insane arguments.
> The plain truth is nobody has the answers to any of the mysteries surrounding creation, evolution, salvation and a few other "tions".  Fact is nobody knows the answers to the eternally asked questions.
> 
> I got to stop lurking in here. It frustrates me to no end.



You like it!!!!   Can you imagine what would happen if people quit asking those questions?


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 27, 2010)

Sterlo58 said:


> OK...to answer your question, NO...nobody can answer because nobody knows the answer. Dang it...there I go again. I got to stay away from these insane arguments.
> The plain truth is nobody has the answers to any of the mysteries surrounding creation, evolution, salvation and a few other "tions".  Fact is nobody knows the answers to the eternally asked questions.
> 
> I got to stop lurking in here. It frustrates me to no end.



If you were driving in a place that you didnt know where you were at, stopped and asked for directions and some guy told you if you go 3  more miles down the road you will run off a cliff. would you turn around or go 100 m.p.h for the next 3 miles and just see what happens?


----------



## Achilles Return (Oct 27, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> If you were driving in a place that you didnt know where you were at, stopped and asked for directions and some guy told you if you go 3  more miles down the road you will run off a cliff. would you turn around or go 100 m.p.h for the next 3 miles and just see what happens?



Terrible analogy.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> If you were driving in a place that you didnt know where you were at, stopped and asked for directions and some guy told you if you go 3  more miles down the road you will run off a cliff. would you turn around or go 100 m.p.h for the next 3 miles and just see what happens?



If the guy who warned me thought that the Earth was 6000 years old, I would consider his judgement suspect.  Further more, I would like to see for myself this cliff.  What's that?  I can't see it?  Because it only exists in some imperceptible astral plane?


----------



## Sterlo58 (Oct 27, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> If you were driving in a place that you didnt know where you were at, stopped and asked for directions and some guy told you if you go 3  more miles down the road you will run off a cliff. would you turn around or go 100 m.p.h for the next 3 miles and just see what happens?



Proceed cautiously and weigh the risks as I got closer. I do not blindly follow anyones directions.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2010)

Sterlo58 said:


> Proceed cautiously and weigh the risks as I got closer. I do not blindly follow anyones directions.



Good man.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 27, 2010)

Achilles Return said:


> Terrible analogy.



maybe so, I at least get one don't I?
The gist is that alot if you guys seem to have just thrown your hands in the air when it comes to eternity.


----------



## Sterlo58 (Oct 27, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> maybe so, I at least get one don't I?
> The gist is that alot if you guys seem to have just thrown your hands in the air when it comes to eternity.



That seems to be what drives this whole debate...ETERNITY...why can't you accept that there is no eternity?


----------



## Achilles Return (Oct 27, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> maybe so, I at least get one don't I?
> The gist is that alot if you guys seem to have just thrown your hands in the air when it comes to eternity.



The gist is that we have no reason to believe it exists. The christian versions certainly don't make a lot of sense.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 28, 2010)

Achilles Return said:


> The gist is that we have no reason to believe it exists. The christian versions certainly don't make a lot of sense.



They read like fantasy.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 28, 2010)

Sterlo58 said:


> That seems to be what drives this whole debate...ETERNITY...why can't you accept that there is no eternity?



How do you know there isnt?


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 28, 2010)

Achilles Return said:


> *The gist is that we have no reason to believe it exists.* The christian versions certainly don't make a lot of sense.



You have plenty of reason. In what was does it not make sense?


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 28, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> They read like fantasy.



because I read and learn and think wow thats the truth and you dont, I read like its a fantasy?
 You think that you are so much smarter and wiser than everyone who has ever believed, bold statement.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 28, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> because I read and learn and think wow thats the truth and you dont, I read like its a fantasy?
> You think that you are so much smarter and wiser than everyone who has ever believed, bold statement.



First off, do you believe in the literal translation of Samson and the pillars, Jonah and the big fish, the talking serpent and the talking burning bush (among the other FANTASTIC stories)?


----------



## davidstaples (Oct 28, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> because I read and learn and think wow thats the truth and you dont, I read like its a fantasy?



Do you do the same with say, Harry Potter?  The Twilight series?  Any John Grisham novel?  Or a Nora Roberts novel?  How about Dan Brown?  I'm sure all of his books are true, right?  Are you biased when you read the Bible because someone else has told you it's true?


----------



## Gabassmaster (Oct 28, 2010)

davidstaples said:


> do you do the same with say, harry potter?  The twilight series?  Any john grisham novel?  Or a nora roberts novel?  How about dan brown?  I'm sure all of his books are true, right?  Are you biased when you read the bible because someone else has told you it's true?



that someone is god


----------



## dexrusjak (Oct 28, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> that someone is god



How did god tell you this?


----------



## Gabassmaster (Oct 28, 2010)

dexrusjak said:


> How did god tell you this?



somthing called the BIBLE


----------



## dexrusjak (Oct 28, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> somthing called the BIBLE



So god used the Bible to tell you that the Bible is true.  And you see no problem here?


----------



## davidstaples (Oct 28, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> somthing called the BIBLE



So let me get this straight... God told you, through the Bible, that the Bible is true?    Looks like this is going to be another day of priceless quotes from you, eh?  

Let me ask you this... don't you think that God tells Muslims, through the Qur'an, that the Qur'an is true?


----------



## Gabassmaster (Oct 28, 2010)

davidstaples said:


> so let me get this straight... God told you, through the bible, that the bible is true?    Looks like this is going to be another day of priceless quotes from you, eh?
> 
> Let me ask you this... Don't you think that god tells muslims, through the qur'an, that the qur'an is true?



so you think in the bible it says "this is a lie" all through it?


----------



## davidstaples (Oct 28, 2010)

dexrusjak said:


> So god used the Bible to tell you that the Bible is true.  And you see no problem here?



He has that child-like faith, remember?  Perhaps we should sing him that old children's song... everyone together now...

Jesus loves me! this I know,
For the Bible tells me so.
Little ones to Him belong;
they are weak but He is strong.

Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
The Bible tells me so.


----------



## davidstaples (Oct 28, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> so you think in the bible it says "this is a lie" all through it?



Not at all.  Do you think the Qur'an says "this is a lie" all through it?


----------



## Gabassmaster (Oct 28, 2010)

davidstaples said:


> not at all.  Do you think the qur'an says "this is a lie" all through it?



the qur'an tells the readers to kill white people. Does that sound true?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 28, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> the qur'an tells the readers to kill white people. Does that sound true?



Oh My........


----------



## dexrusjak (Oct 28, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> the qur'an tells the readers to kill white people. Does that sound true?



The Bible tells parents to stone disobedient children.  Does that sound true?


----------



## davidstaples (Oct 28, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> the qur'an tells the readers to kill white people. Does that sound true?



The Bible also tells women to cover their head when they pray.  How many women in your church cover their heads when they pray?


----------



## Gabassmaster (Oct 28, 2010)

davidstaples said:


> The Bible also tells women to cover their head when they pray.  How many women in your church cover their heads when they pray?



thats in the nrsv not the King James so its worng. My bible dosent say that because mine wasnt re worded by gays or lesbians or had the devil help write it.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 28, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> thats in the nrsv not the King James so its worng. My bible dosent say that because mine wasnt re worded by gays or lesbians or had the devil help write it.



You are a treat.


----------



## Achilles Return (Oct 28, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> You have plenty of reason. In what was does it not make sense?



I've talked about it before. I think it was actually in response to _you_, and you simply ignored it.


----------



## dexrusjak (Oct 28, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> thats in the nrsv not the King James so its worng. My bible dosent say that because mine wasnt re worded by gays or lesbians or had the devil help write it.



Actually, you are worng (sic).

From the King James Version... 

"But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven."  (1 Cor. 11:5)


----------



## Achilles Return (Oct 28, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> thats in the nrsv not the King James so its worng. My bible dosent say that because mine wasnt re worded by gays or lesbians or had the devil help write it.



No, you are incorrect.


1 Corinthians 11:5 KJV
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.


----------



## Achilles Return (Oct 28, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> the qur'an tells the readers to kill white people. Does that sound true?



Mind giving the passage for this?


----------



## Gabassmaster (Oct 28, 2010)

dexrusjak said:


> Actually, you are worng (sic).
> 
> From the King James Version...
> 
> "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven."  (1 Cor. 11:5)



a real man of god would know that her hair is her covering. it is talking about if their head is shaved that it is a discrace that they need to cover it.


----------



## Achilles Return (Oct 28, 2010)

Actually, it's saying that not covering her heard makes her as if she was shaven before god. You don't need to be a "man of god" (this doesn't exist) to understand that, just have some basic comprehension of the english language.


----------



## Gabassmaster (Oct 28, 2010)

Achilles Return said:


> Actually, it's saying that not covering her heard makes her as if she was shaven before god. You don't need to be a "man of god" (this doesn't exist) to understand that, just have some basic comprehension of the english language.



her hair is her cover if you read the bible it tells that throughout that her hair is her gift etc.


----------



## dexrusjak (Oct 28, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> thats in the nrsv not the King James so its worng. My bible dosent say that because mine wasnt re worded by gays or lesbians or had the devil help write it.





Gabassmaster said:


> a real man of god would know that her hair is her covering. it is talking about if their head is shaved that it is a discrace that they need to cover it.



Wrong again.  "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven." (1 Cor. 11:5) The word "as" indicates a comparison.  The writer is comparing a lack of head-covering with a lack of hair.  (A fancy word for this is "simile.")


----------



## Gabassmaster (Oct 28, 2010)

dexrusjak said:


> Wrong again.  "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven." (1 Cor. 11:5) The word "as" indicates a comparison.  The writer is comparing a lack of head-covering with a lack of hair.  (A fancy word for this is "simile.")



thats your opinion. ive got too much bible to back it up.


----------



## Achilles Return (Oct 28, 2010)

For instance, here is the same verse in several other standard versions.

New American Standard Bible


> 5But every (B)woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is (C)shaved.



New International Version


> 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved.



English Standard Version


> 5but every wife[a] who prays or(A) prophesies(B) with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same(C) as if her head were shaven.



New King James Version


> 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.




You would think that a "man of god" such as yourself would have a better grasp of the bible than an atheist like me. Interesting.


----------



## Achilles Return (Oct 28, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> thats your opinion. ive got too much bible to back it up.



Actually, _I'm_ the one with the bibles to back up.


----------



## Achilles Return (Oct 28, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> her hair is her cover if you read the bible it tells that throughout that her hair is her gift etc.



All this does is show how silly and contradictive the bible appears to be overall. Are you sure that's the message you want to send me?


----------



## Gabassmaster (Oct 28, 2010)

The key to understanding this passage of Scripture in 1 Corinthians 11 concerning the head covering is this: Long hair is given to a woman for a covering (v.15) and it is a shame for a woman to have short hair (v.6); therefore, if a woman is not covered with her long hair…she is not only in a shameful condition but she dishonors her head (husband or father).
the head of man is Christ and the head of woman is man, not Christ (v. 3). 
it is a shame for a woman to have short hair (v. 6).
man is the glory of God, and woman is the glory of man, not God (v. 7).
a woman should have long hair because it is symbolic of her husband or father or spiritual head having authority over her, and because of the angels (v. 10). 
and in Hebrews 1:12 it is translated “mantle.” This clearly shows that a woman’s long hair is given to her as a covering…If a woman has long hair she is covered…


----------



## dexrusjak (Oct 28, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> thats your opinion. ive got too much bible to back it up.



No, that's the English language.


----------



## Achilles Return (Oct 28, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> The key to understanding this passage of Scripture in 1 Corinthians 11 concerning the head covering is this: Long hair is given to a woman for a covering (v.15) and it is a shame for a woman to have short hair (v.6); therefore, if a woman is not covered with her long hair…she is not only in a shameful condition but she dishonors her head (husband or father).
> the head of man is Christ and the head of woman is man, not Christ (v. 3).
> it is a shame for a woman to have short hair (v. 6).
> man is the glory of God, and woman is the glory of man, not God (v. 7).
> ...



Except this is just as ridiculous. Now women with short hair are sinning as they pay? Why would an omnipotent god care about something as trivial as hair length?


----------



## Gabassmaster (Oct 28, 2010)

Achilles Return said:


> Actually, _I'm_ the one with the bibles to back up.



there is only one bible


----------



## Gabassmaster (Oct 28, 2010)

Achilles Return said:


> Except this is just as ridiculous. Now women with short hair are sinning as they pay? Why would an omnipotent god care about something as trivial as hair length?



god like women to have long hair and men to have short hair. even jesus had short hair thats just a misconception of man.


----------



## Achilles Return (Oct 28, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> there is only one bible



Reality disagrees.


----------



## Gabassmaster (Oct 28, 2010)

Achilles Return said:


> Reality disagrees.



only one true bible


----------



## Achilles Return (Oct 28, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> god like women to have long hair and men to have short hair. even jesus had short hair thats just a misconception of man.



And why is that? Why does the "almighty", "perfect" god need to worry about the length of hair between genders? What does that have do with being a decent human being?

And almost every representation in western culture of jesus shows him with longer hair. Did you meet him? How do you know what his hair was like?


----------



## Achilles Return (Oct 28, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> only one true bible



Let me guess - the one true bible is the one _you_ adhere to. Can you say why your favorite bible is the "true" one? Any objective reason?


----------



## Gabassmaster (Oct 28, 2010)

Achilles Return said:


> And why is that? Why does the "almighty", "perfect" god need to worry about the length of hair between genders? What does that have do with being a decent human being?
> 
> And almost every representation in western culture of jesus shows him with longer hair. Did you meet him? How do you know what his hair was like?



1st corinthians 11 15-15
doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.


----------



## Gabassmaster (Oct 28, 2010)

http://www.albatrus.org/english/living/modesty/jesus_wore_long_hair_beard.htm


----------



## davidstaples (Oct 28, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> The key to understanding this passage of Scripture in 1 Corinthians 11 concerning the head covering is this: Long hair is given to a woman for a covering (v.15) and it is a shame for a woman to have short hair (v.6); therefore, if a woman is not covered with her long hair…she is not only in a shameful condition but she dishonors her head (husband or father).
> the head of man is Christ and the head of woman is man, not Christ (v. 3).
> it is a shame for a woman to have short hair (v. 6).
> man is the glory of God, and woman is the glory of man, not God (v. 7).
> ...



So have you told the women at your church that have short hair how they're shaming themselves and God?


----------



## Ridge Walker (Oct 28, 2010)

Achilles Return said:


> Actually, it's saying that not covering her heard makes her as if she was shaven before god. You don't need to be a "man of god" (this doesn't exist) to understand that, just have some basic comprehension of the english language.



I do believe you've discovered the problem. It's either that or a whole lot of  before noon on a Thursday.

RW


----------



## Gabassmaster (Oct 28, 2010)

davidstaples said:


> So have you told the women at your church that have short hair how they're shaming themselves and God?



No women at my church have long hair because when they got in with god they went all in and didnt just say im saved but im gonna drink and cuss and go bald just cause i want to.


----------



## dexrusjak (Oct 28, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> No women at my church have long hair because when they got in with god they went all in and didnt just say im saved but im gonna drink and cuss and go bald just cause i want to.



What happens if a woman at your church gets cancer and loses her hair due to the chemotherapy?  Is she sinning against god?


----------



## Achilles Return (Oct 28, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> No women at my church have long hair because when they got in with god they went all in and didnt just say im saved but im gonna drink and cuss and go bald just cause i want to.



Should this be my new signature?


----------



## davidstaples (Oct 28, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> No women at my church have long hair because when they got in with god they went all in and didnt just say im saved but im gonna drink and cuss and go bald just cause i want to.



So... to clarify...

No women at your church have long hair?

or

Women at your church have long hair because they went all in (were they playing poker?) and that's what made them decide not to go bald?


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 1, 2011)

Entire books have been written detailing the contradictions in the bible. You should read a few of them. And this is despite the fact the canonization process was meant to eliminate contradictions by cherry picking what to include or not include in the bible. In other words men made a conscious effort to engineer a perfect bible and they failed. Now a question for you. If no contradictions prove divinity, does the fact that the bible does contain many contradictions serve as proof for you that it is the work of fallible men rather than an infallible god?


----------



## apoint (Jan 1, 2011)

Which contradiction are you talking about? The author of confusion, the father of lies, the angel of darkness, seeking who he may devour.
   Depends who you get your information from, who do you believe, who do you trust.
 I can say, I made two bikes today for him and her. But I didn't make them simultaneously or the same. So goes with writing history of creation.
 Jesus talked in parables to confuse the ones that did not belong to Him. Who do you belong to?
  As my friend say's, You tell children a frog turning into a prince is a fairy tale.You tell adults a frog turning into a prince is science.

 Pretty crazy huh.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 1, 2011)

apoint said:


> Which contradiction are you talking about? The author of confusion, the father of lies, the angel of darkness, seeking who he may devour.
> Depends who you get your information from, who do you believe, who do you trust.
> I can say, I made two bikes today for him and her. But I didn't make them simultaneously or the same. So goes with writing history of creation.
> Jesus talked in parables to confuse the ones that did not belong to Him. Who do you belong to?
> As my friend say's, They teach children a frog becomes a prince, and adults, a frog becomes a human. Pretty crazy huh.



Contradictions between the gospels such as on what day and at what time Jesus was crucified, how Judas died, the details surrounding Jesus' resurrection, etc. You even just contradicted yourself and the bible in your post. You said Jesus purposely confused the ones that did not belong to him. Paul says God is not the author of confusion. But as Dan Barker says, can you think of another book that has brought more confusion than the bible? Even christians can't agree on what the scriptures say or mean yet they can still back up their differing doctrines with scripture. That should tell you something.

Anyone who takes an honest look and spends some time reading about the history of the scriptures, how they evolved over time, the battles between early christians over differing theology, how some of those sects won and others lost, how and why the bible ultimately came to be what it is now, will see that the bible is a man made product. It's filled with violence. It sanctions slavery and murder. It places women as inferior to men. If there is a god and if that god is all good and infallible then it is self evident the bible is not from that god.


----------



## fish hawk (Jan 2, 2011)

most atheist generally see themselves as more intelligent than other people and may ask questions, not to learn, but in an attempt to trip them up so as to prove themselves superior.


----------



## apoint (Jan 2, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Contradictions between the gospels such as on what day and at what time Jesus was crucified, how Judas died, the details surrounding Jesus' resurrection, etc. You even just contradicted yourself and the bible in your post. You said Jesus purposely confused the ones that did not belong to him. Paul says God is not the author of confusion. But as Dan Barker says, can you think of another book that has brought more confusion than the bible? Even christians can't agree on what the scriptures say or mean yet they can still back up their differing doctrines with scripture. That should tell you something.
> 
> Anyone who takes an honest look and spends some time reading about the history of the scriptures, how they evolved over time, the battles between early Christians over differing theology, how some of those sects won and others lost, how and why the bible ultimately came to be what it is now, will see that the bible is a man made product. It's filled with violence. It sanctions slavery and murder. It places women as inferior to men. If there is a god and if that god is all good and infallible then it is self evident the bible is not from that god.



 Scripture Say's Jesus was put on the cross at passover, no contradiction there. Yep the world is and was full of violence, even more so in the barbarian day's.
 Bible says to love your wife as yourself.
   God is infallible and when you understand the bible it is to.
   God has been on an unending project trying to get his people to be righteous.  His ways are higher than our ways.
   I see most people are finding contradictions only in mans religion, not in what God has actually said in the bible.


----------



## apoint (Jan 2, 2011)

fish hawk said:


> most atheist generally see themselves as more intelligent than other people and may ask questions, not to learn, but in an attempt to trip them up so as to prove themselves superior.



 So true Fish hawk. I like that deep south blade you have in your avatar. Will have to do some hunting some day.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 2, 2011)

apoint said:


> Scripture Say's Jesus was put on the cross at passover, no contradiction there. Yep the world is and was full of violence, even more so in the barbarian day's.
> Bible says to love your wife as yourself.
> God is infallible and when you understand the bible it is to.
> God has been on an unending project trying to get his people to be righteous.  His ways are higher than our ways.
> I see most people are finding contradictions only in mans religion, not in what God has actually said in the bible.



John has Jesus being turned over at the 6th hour (noon) and crucified on the day of preparation of passover. This fits with John's emphasis that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of God. Mark has Jesus eating the passover meal and being crucified the following morning at the 3rd hour (9am), different day and different time.

In one book Judas hangs himself. In another, he falls and God splits open his chest for his guts to fall out. Christians have tried to merge the stories to reconcile the contradiction, saying he fell after he hung himself and broke apart. But neither account actually says that is what happened.

Yes the bible instructs husbands to love their wives. It also instructs wives to be obedient to their husbands.

God instructs slaves to respect and fear their masters. Do you really think that way is higher than those who reject slavery?


----------



## apoint (Jan 2, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> John has Jesus being turned over at the 6th hour (noon) and crucified on the day of preparation of passover. This fits with John's emphasis that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of God. Mark has Jesus eating the passover meal and being crucified the following morning at the 3rd hour (9am), different day and different time.
> 
> In one book Judas hangs himself. In another, he falls and God splits open his chest for his guts to fall out. Christians have tried to merge the stories to reconcile the contradiction, saying he fell after he hung himself and broke apart. But neither account actually says that is what happened.
> 
> ...



 Please quote chapter and verses so I have something to work from. As for the hour of the crucification, Hebrew time and Roman time are entirely different. John is in Roman time & Mark is in Hebrew time.
   Yes Judas hung himself and he did also fall.
 Yes wives are instructed to be obedient to their husbands, God made man as head of the house and made woman for man.
   About slaves, When you couldn't pay your debt you worked it off as a slave just about as we are slaves to our credit cards. You have to realize in the barbarian days slaves were everywhere and God spoke about the problems of the day.
 Yes Gods ways are always righteous.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 2, 2011)

apoint said:


> Please quote chapter and
> verses so I have something to work from.



John 19:14



apoint said:


> As for the hour of the crucification, Hebrew time and Roman time are entirely different. John is in Roman time & Mark is in Hebrew time.



And you know this how? Did he use Roman time consistently throughout his gospel or only in the instances that is convenient for you? How do you explain the difference in days?



apoint said:


> Yes Judas hung himself and he did also fall.



Neither account says this.



apoint said:


> Yes wives are instructed to be obedient to their husbands, God made man as head of the house and made woman for man.



So much for gender equality.




apoint said:


> About slaves, When you couldn't pay your debt you worked it off as a slave just about as we are slaves to our credit cards. You have to realize in the barbarian days slaves were everywhere and God spoke about the problems of the day.



That was one way someone became a slave in antiquity. There were many others. The verse that instructs slaves to respect and fear their masters makes no distinction among slaves so why are you? Don't you find it a bit uncomfortable that you are trying to defend the morality of slavery because of what is in your bible?




apoint said:


> Yes Gods ways are always righteous.



We will just have to disagree. I don't consider slavery and mass murder righteous but that's just me.


----------



## apoint (Jan 2, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> John 19:14
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Too bad I offer you truth to all your questions but your blindness cripples you. When you read my answers in a nonbias way you would have to agree with my answers as being good answers but your blind pride is keeping you in the dark. Walk towards the light and find your way home to the only truth, Jesus.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 2, 2011)

apoint said:


> Too bad I offer you truth to all your questions but your blindness cripples you. When you read my answers in a nonbias way you would have to agree with my answers as being good answers but your blind pride is keeping you in the dark. Walk towards the light and find your way home to the only truth, Jesus.



I've answered your questions and posed some of my own which you are either unable or unwilling to answer. I think that makes it pretty clear who is really blinded.


----------



## fish hawk (Jan 3, 2011)

apoint said:


> Will have to do some hunting some day.



That sounds like a plan apoint.....Something else i have noticed about atheist, for some reason most stay up late into the night....Guess there trying to figure out the complexities of the universe


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 3, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> John has Jesus being turned over at the 6th hour (noon) and crucified on the day of preparation of passover. This fits with John's emphasis that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of God. Mark has Jesus eating the passover meal and being crucified the following morning at the 3rd hour (9am), different day and different time.
> 
> In one book Judas hangs himself. In another, he falls and God splits open his chest for his guts to fall out. Christians have tried to merge the stories to reconcile the contradiction, saying he fell after he hung himself and broke apart. But neither account actually says that is what happened.
> 
> ...


Just so my position is understood, I have fully entrusted the finished work of Jesus. I think the contridiction as pointed out by historian Bart D. Erhman, is that one or more gospels claim that Jesus ate the passover meal with his disciples yet John's account claims it is preperation day for passover which begs the question of why have they ate the passover meal. I think this is correct.  Bart also points out Jesus's attitude on the cross. Was he distraught, crying out "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me" or was he confidently telling someone "toay you will be with me in paradise". The fact is that there are bible errors. Remember it only takes one. So we are left with; is the bible completly God inspired, without error or is it Godly men motivated to do their best in recording details about the faith that they have been called to. Now, for me, this in no way breaks my faith. If a reporter was covering a game and got some of the details wrong, this does not mean that the game never took place. And, I would assume that although he had made errors in his coverage, that his account of who won would be correct.


----------



## nate2800 (Jan 3, 2011)

youll see!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## pnome (Jan 3, 2011)

nate2800 said:


> youll see!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Thanks nate2800.  Unfortunately, your insightful comment has not convinced me of the validity of your position.  

Emphatic as your delivery may be.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 3, 2011)

pnome said:


> Thanks nate2800.  Unfortunately, your insightful comment has not convinced me of the validity of your position.
> 
> Emphatic as your delivery may be.


 LOL, I had much rather hang out with you guys, I'll take a good sense of humor over puffed up any day.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 3, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Just so my position is understood, I have fully entrusted the finished work of Jesus. I think the contridiction as pointed out by historian Bart D. Erhman, is that one or more gospels claim that Jesus ate the passover meal with his disciples yet John's account claims it is preperation day for passover which begs the question of why have they ate the passover meal. I think this is correct.  Bart also points out Jesus's attitude on the cross. Was he distraught, crying out "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me" or was he confidently telling someone "toay you will be with me in paradise". The fact is that there are bible errors. Remember it only takes one. So we are left with; is the bible completly God inspired, without error or is it Godly men motivated to do their best in recording details about the faith that they have been called to. Now, for me, this in no way breaks my faith. If a reporter was covering a game and got some of the details wrong, this does not mean that the game never took place. And, I would assume that although he had made errors in his coverage, that his account of who won would be correct.



Your honesty is refreshing. Like you, Ehrman didn't lose his faith because of this. It was the problem of evil that did it for him. For me, this among many other things was a deal breaker.


----------



## Madman (Jan 3, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Your honesty is refreshing. Like you, Ehrman didn't lose his faith because of this. It was the problem of evil that did it for him. For me, this among many other things was a deal breaker.



atlas,

Do I understand you to say the precsence of evil was one of the problems you have with religion?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 3, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Your honesty is refreshing. Like you, Ehrman didn't lose his faith because of this. It was the problem of evil that did it for him. For me, this among many other things was a deal breaker.


 I've known of this [bible inconsistences] long before I discovered Erhman, which was 2 days ago. I have spent many hours since observing his material. Question, for anyone, Is Erhman popular among Atheist? I ask this cause I am surprised that I never heard of him before 2 days ago. I wonder if I just overlooked him somehow.  I may start a thread about him based on whether he is known or not.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 3, 2011)

Madman said:


> atlas,
> 
> Do I understand you to say the precsence of evil was one of the problems you have with religion?



I was referring to the mark of human fallibility on the bible but yes the problem of evil I think goes unanswered too.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 3, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I've known of this [bible inconsistences] long before I discovered Erhman, which was 2 days ago. I have spent many hours since observing his material. Question, for anyone, Is Erhman popular among Atheist? I ask this cause I am surprised that I never heard of him before 2 days ago. I wonder if I just overlooked him somehow.  I may start a thread about him based on whether he is known or not.



I can't speak to his popularity among atheists but I wouldn't be surprised if other atheists liked his work. There is an excellent debate on youtube between him and William Lane Craig about the historicity of the resurrection. If you watch that I think you'll be able to learn enough about him to know if you would find his books worth reading.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 3, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I can't speak to his popularity among atheists but I wouldn't be surprised if other atheists liked his work. There is an excellent debate on youtube between him and William Lane Craig about the historicity of the resurrection. If you watch that I think you'll be able to learn enough about him to know if you would find his books worth reading.


I think I will make a thread, Thanks, I hope you can give input into it.


----------



## Madman (Jan 3, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I was referring to the mark of human fallibility on the bible but yes the problem of evil I think goes unanswered too.



I understand.  I just have to move a little more slowly and deliberately.    I can't keep too many “balls in the air” at once.

I am a firm believer in the adage “the heart cannot exalt what the mind cannot accept”; therefore I believe it is futile to bludgeon someone with a book or a belief system.   We must begin in some place we can agree.  It may not be on the existence of “god”, or even if the man Jesus was a historical or fictional character, we may only be able to agree that today is January 3, 2011 and begin from there.

My question would be where do you get the concept of evil?  In your view who or what decides what  is evil ?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2011)

Madman said:


> I understand.  I just have to move a little more slowly and deliberately.    I can't keep too many “balls in the air” at once.
> 
> I am a firm believer in the adage “the heart cannot exalt what the mind cannot accept”; therefore I believe it is futile to bludgeon someone with a book or a belief system.   We must begin in some place we can agree.  It may not be on the existence of “god”, or even if the man Jesus was a historical or fictional character, we may only be able to agree that today is January 3, 2011 and begin from there.
> 
> My question would be where do you get the concept of evil?  In your view who or what decides what  is evil ?



Can I play?  My concept of evil continues to change, like my concept of the atom.  When I was young, the atom was better understood by me as "balls connected by sticks".  I know now that it's a bit more complicated than that.  Similarly with "good and evil".

Where does it come from?  There's a lot of biology involved as well as 10,000 years of social development that I've inherited from humans passed.


----------



## Madman (Jan 3, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Can I play?  My concept of evil continues to change, like my concept of the atom.  When I was young, the atom was better understood by me as "balls connected by sticks".  I know now that it's a bit more complicated than that.  Similarly with "good and evil".
> 
> Where does it come from?  There's a lot of biology involved as well as 10,000 years of social development that I've inherited from humans passed.



Hey ambush,

Happy New year!!!  

You and I have been here before.  Your sociological argument falls short on several fronts.  But leave it to pseudo scientist to make something as simple as good and evil difficult.  I put it up there with the definition of economics, “The obvious made difficult”.

So anyone who wants to revisit it can find it in one of the other threads.  

I want to know atlas’ view.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2011)

Madman said:


> Hey ambush,
> 
> Happy New year!!!
> 
> ...



Happy New Year to you too.  

I would like to hear his view as well.

P.S.  Every time I see your name I think of a line from that  _Kansas_ song;

"Though my mind could think I still was a Mad man....."


----------



## Madman (Jan 3, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> P.S.  Every time I see your name I think of a line from that  _Kansas_ song;
> 
> "Though my mind could think I still was a Mad man....."





I forgot about that song!!!  Great music, my kids listen to 
music from that day.

I didn't pull the name from there, but if you don't mind I might use it, I got mine from Luke.

I really was mad.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 3, 2011)

Madman said:


> Hey ambush,
> 
> Happy New year!!!
> 
> ...



Here is a question for you. If good and evil is so simple why do theologians even in the same religion debate each other over questions of morality?

I don't have a quick and easy answer to your questions except to say I think we as humans have an inate basic sense of right and wrong that is further shaped and molded by our cultures, life experiences, etc. We each individually have to determine what is and isn't evil and persuade others of the moral claims we make.


----------



## Achilles Return (Jan 7, 2011)

apoint said:


> Too bad I offer you truth to all your questions but your blindness cripples you. When you read my answers in a nonbias way you would have to agree with my answers as being good answers but your blind pride is keeping you in the dark. Walk towards the light and find your way home to the only truth, Jesus.



Here's more of that atheist arrogance that we were discussing in the other thread.

Oh, wait.


----------

