1000.

0

2112

42

~ The Answer To The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

83-79 says it all... /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Hail the Hippy Dippy Weatherman :D

This has been a very entertaining thread. I needed something to keep me busy today at work!

I was born and raised catholic. I spent most of my teen years realizing alot of what the nuns had told me were lies, fear tactics. It's ashame. Jesus had the right ideas on how man should behave. I'm just [censored] these old ladies felt they had to scare me into believing, did they not realize I was eventually going to grow up and see through it?

My only problem with religion is the fact that it keeps mankind from truly and properly evolving. We've barely scratched the surface of reality, and there's alot of religious types trying to prevent any further digging by truth seekers. Enter politics and mankind is stuck in the mud. Devolution generation.

George Carlin on Jesus

I find it discouraging- and a bit depressing- when I notice the unequal treatment afforded by the media to UFO believers on the one hand, and on the other, to those who believe in an invisible supreme being who inhabits the sky. Especially as the latter belief applies to the whole Jesus-Messiah-Son-of-God fable.
You may have noticed that, in the media, UFO believers are usually referred to as buffs, a term used to diminish and marginalize them by relegating them to the ranks of hobbyists and mere enthusiasts. They are made to seem like kooks and quaint dingbats who have the nerve to believe that, in an observable universe of trillions upon trillions of stars, and most likely many hundreds of billions of potentially inhabitable planets, some of those planets may have produced life-forms capable of doing things that we can�t do.
On the other hand those who believe in an eternal, all-powerful being, a being who demands to be loved and adored unconditionally and who punishes and rewards according to his whims are thought to be worthy, upright, credible people. This, in spite of the large numbers of believers who are clearly close-minded fanatics.
To my way of thinking, there is every bit as much evidence for the existence of UFOs as there is for the existence of God. Probably far more. At least in the case of UFOs there have been countless taped and filmed-- and, by the way, unexplained-- sightings from all over the world, along with documented radar evidence seen by experienced military and civilian radar operators.
This does not even begin to include the widespread testimony of not only highly trained, experienced military and civilian pilots who are selected for their jobs, in part, for their above-average eyesight and mental stability, but also of equally well-trained, experienced law-enforcement officers. Such pilots and law-enforcement people are known to be serious, sober individuals who would have quite a bit to lose were they to be associated with anything resembling kooky, outlandish beliefs. Nonetheless, they have taken the risk of revealing their experiences because they are convinced they have seen something objectively real that they consider important.
All of those accounts are ignored by the media.
Granted, the world of UFO-belief has its share of kooks, nuts and fringe people, but have you ever listened to some of these religious true-believers? Have you ever heard of any extreme, bizarre behavior and outlandish claims associated with religious zealots? Could any of them be considered kooks, nuts or dingbats? A fair person would have to say yes.
But the marginal people in these two groups don�t matter in this argument. What matters is the prejudice and superstition built into the media coverage of the two sets of beliefs. One is treated reverently and accepted as received truth, the other is treated laughingly and dismissed out of hand.
As evidence of the above premise, I offer one version of a typical television news story heard each year on the final Friday of Lent:
Today is Good Friday, observed by Christians worldwide as a day that commemorates the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whose death redeemed the sins of mankind.
Here is the way it should be written:
Today is Good Friday, observed worldwide by Jesus buffs as the day on which the popular, bearded cultural figure, sometimes referred to as The Messiah, was allegedly crucified and-- according to legend-- died for mankind�s so-called sins. Today kicks off a �holy� weekend that culminates on Easter Sunday, when, it is widely believed, this dead

�savior�-- who also, by the way, claimed to be the son of a sky-dwelling, invisible being known as God, mysteriously �rose from the dead.�
According to the legend, by volunteering to be killed and actually going through with it, Jesus saved every person who has ever lived-- and every person who ever will live-- from an eternity of suffering in a fiery region popularly known as hell, providing-- so the story goes-- that the person to be �saved� firmly believes this rather fanciful tale.
That would be an example of unbiased news reporting. Don�t wait around for it to happen. The aliens will land first."



I love this! Thanks for posting. BTW, why do bible thumpers call the birth of a child a "miracle" when we spend so much time, money and energy educating our kids on how NOT to get pregnant?

Jesus said, "Come to Me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest...Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle, and you will find rest for your souls."

BTW, why do bible thumpers call the birth of a child a "miracle" when we spend so much time, money and energy educating our kids on how NOT to get pregnant?[/b]

[/QUOTE]

Probably because they are believers! And probably reaching logical conclusions based upon those beliefs, unlike someone who would go on a christian disc golfer forum and bash it!

You sound like you have a problem with us teaching kids to not get pregnant? You don't see the problem with kids having kids? Have a dif. opinion, that's fine, but use a little logic, that would be miraculous! A child being born is a miracle, no matter what age, but common sense would tell you that a kid shouldn't be having a kid.

I told myself I wouldn't get sucked into this... grrrrrr!

I absolutely have a problem with kids having kids! you're completely missing my point.

My point is, how is it a "miracle" when we are trying our hardest to PREVENT it. If it were to start raining frogs right now, THAT would be a miracle. Giving birth is not.

Giving birth is a miracle no matter what we do IMO. Trying to prevent it doesn't change how miraculous it is. All that aside, I agree with your main point, that giving birth to frogs is miraculous! I think we're on the same side here :D

Playtowin,

Are you a follower of Jesus? You can email me at playdiscgolf @gmail.com if you prefer.

Giving birth is a miracle no matter what we do IMO.



As a certified Bible thumper I'd have to say that although giving birth to a baby is incredibly complex and beautiful I don't think that it technically qualifies as a miracle. I'm not even sure who said that it is a miracle. A miracle is the supernatural intervention of God to produce something outside of regular natural occurrences. As marvelous as it is, birth doesn't qualify here. There have been at least 10 billion human births, so it's also too common to be called a miracle.

I told myself I wouldn't get sucked into this... grrrrrr! :mad:

Yes I am, and I believe that there's been around 10 billion miracles that have had the breath of life breathed into'em and given the greatest gift of all, life. That's the apidimy of a miracle and that my friend is not subject to our seeing it as normal or commonplace. IMO!

Hey, Dave. How are you doing?
I agree with you on the miracle of birth --- the miracle of life. I thank God everyday for my son that He gave to Don and I.
Michelle, don't forget about the time, money and energy spent by people trying for years to have children.
BTW, I'm a Christian AND a huge George Carlin fan. :)

Hey Laura, I'm doing "moderately neato!" (Carlin)... Good to hear from you, hope ya'll are "substantially adequate" (carlin!) down there...

http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2008/01/12-1822366919M.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/user_imageredirect.php?iid=1940075)

A changed life may be the best evidence you could ever show someone... Just a thought for the day! :)

"Christ Air"

A move invented in the 80's by skating legend Christian Hosoi. This was his signature move. It began with a massive air (up to 30ft!!!) that allowed for a free floating cross symbol made with his arms extended side to side. While the board floated beneath his body that flew parallel to the ground, he'd somehow get a hold of the board and land it. Hosoi was on par with any skater going. It was quite often a battle between Tony Hawk and Hosoi as to who was better at vert.

The year that the X games began, known then as the "Extreme Games," he was offered a competition between him and Hawk. But he turned it down and seemed to fade away. "Holmes" as he was knick-named, got into a lot of trouble with drugs in 2000, but then turned his life around by putting his trust in God. He is now a cool example to kids (and adults) of how a life can be changed from drugs and utter confusion, to sobriety, direction and contentment. He was my favorite skater in the 80's when I was a "pozer" skater growing up in Seattle. Half pipe competition was one of my dreams that was shattered because of drugs.

It's really nice to have people like him as an example of a changed life. Having someone who plays (or excells at) a sport you love and is a possitive influence is an awesome thing. The skateboarding scene wasn't/isn't always the best influence. Likewise, disc golf isn't always the best scene for some young people, or adults. I know from years of experience. But like any other sport, hobby or group of poeple, it isn't because of the sport itself. Different influences at various levels are just a part of life. Granted, the negative influences in disc golf can sometimes be high, sorta speak, and maybe that's something you personally need to consider. But disc golf is not why those influences exist. They are everywhere.

Please remember, if you have experienced "the change" you can be an awesome influence to someone who is struggling and can't seem to find help. Disc golf could be where you are used by God. It's not always dramatic and you may not always do or say the right thing. In fact you will probably fall flat on your face, repeatedly. I know I do, daily. I can't believe my attitude at times, even recently on some of these threads. You may be looked at as a hypocrite. Everyone has made mistakes and needs to grow up (especially me). You may loose friends that mean alot to you. Pray for them. Your every move may be analyzed, challenged or rudly mocked. Trust the truth, it isn't gonna leave! When you want to quit, know that you are not alone. If you have experienced the change that Jesus can make, you've made the most important choice of all. But don't stop now, this ain't over! Your choice in trying to "live it out" while you "air it out" isn't easy, but it's worth trying. ;) In spite of my failures, and I know they're many, I'm gonna keep trying...



http://img5.glowfoto.com/images/2008/01/19-1340446993T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=19-134044L&y=2008&m=01&t=jpg&rand=6993&srv=img5)

Two of my favorite things in life are disc golf and Jesus. Both are very important to me. I was wondering if anybody knows of ...

The other day I was wondering if there was any streaming internet Christian music sites that played contempory Christian music. I did some looking around and found www.allworship.com (http://www.allworship.com) . I just thought I'd share that with those of you who might care.

This has been a very entertaining thread. I needed something to keep me busy today at work!

I was born and raised catholic. I spent most of my teen years realizing alot of what the nuns had told me were lies, fear tactics. It's ashame. Jesus had the right ideas on how man should behave. I'm just [censored] these old ladies felt they had to scare me into believing, did they not realize I was eventually going to grow up and see through it?

My only problem with religion is the fact that it keeps mankind from truly and properly evolving. We've barely scratched the surface of reality, and there's alot of religious types trying to prevent any further digging by truth seekers. Enter politics and mankind is stuck in the mud. Devolution generation.



I feel the same way...I know that most religous/spiritual types, pretty much all the ones I have contact with anyways, have honest intentions and are wonderful people. I do wonder however, they can insist they are right. I have no answers, but can admit this. I need no circular logic or book (or laws) to tell me what is right or wrong, and most of the time all three actually overlap. I personally denounce anything and everything except LOVE . Beyond that, the details are made up to fit your liking, for better or worse. Shouldn't that be all that counts!?

This has been a very entertaining thread. I needed something to keep me busy today at work!

I was born and raised catholic. I spent most of my teen years realizing alot of what the nuns had told me were lies, fear tactics. It's ashame. Jesus had the right ideas on how man should behave. I'm just [censored] these old ladies felt they had to scare me into believing, did they not realize I was eventually going to grow up and see through it?

My only problem with religion is the fact that it keeps mankind from truly and properly evolving. We've barely scratched the surface of reality, and there's alot of religious types trying to prevent any further digging by truth seekers. Enter politics and mankind is stuck in the mud. Devolution generation.



I feel the same way...I know that most religous/spiritual types, pretty much all the ones I have contact with anyways, have honest intentions and are wonderful people. I do wonder however, they can insist they are right. I have no answers, but can admit this. I need no circular logic or book (or laws) to tell me what is right or wrong, and most of the time all three actually overlap. I personally denounce anything and everything except LOVE . Beyond that, the details are made up to fit your liking, for better or worse. Shouldn't that be all that counts!?



Good point Chris. My Friends an I were having this same conversation the other day. Mostly around the Idea that Jesus gave mankind a commandment to love! In the face of religious oppression and injustice.

I like what you say about you don't need any of the circle jerk logic and all the theory and Law to help you decide right from wrong. Thats because you are not an animal, you are a human! Just one of the perks of being apart of Mankind ;)

I will come back and read this thread when the page number hits 666.

Just one of the perks of being a part of Mankind



"Maybe in order to understand mankind we have to look at that word itself. MANKIND. Basically, it's made up of two separate words 'mank' and 'ind.' What do these words mean? It's a mystery and that's why so is mankind." -by Jack Handey

No offense intended but, scientifically speaking, humans are in fact animals, and part of the Animal Kingdom. That all has nothing to do with evolution and god. Since Linnaeus, who preceded Darwin by many years, all biologists use that taxonomy: Animal, Mammal, Primate, Human.

all dogs go to heaven!

http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2008/01/22-0813582319T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=22-081358L&y=2008&m=01&t=jpg&rand=2319&srv=img3)

all dogs go to heaven!

http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2008/01/22-0813582319T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=22-081358L&y=2008&m=01&t=jpg&rand=2319&srv=img3)



Not unless they accept Christ in their hearts though, right? And because they aren't as evolved/designed (I'm being fair) they don't think on the levels we do, and therefore will not be in heaven wating for us with wagging tails on Rainbow Road. But are they eternally damned, thats the greater question. What does god have against dogs?

I normally try to stay out of this thread because of the futility associated with it.

However, I'm just wondering if any of you 'believers' have read The God Delusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion) by Richard Dawkins. If you have, what are your comments? If you haven't, why not?

"God...has spoken to us by His Son...He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature, and He upholds the universe by the word of His power." (Hebrews 1:1-3)

(Sorry, I just couldn't resist the urge to do a little Bible thumpin'.) :cool:

Switzer... do you side with the opinions of Dawkins or are you just posing that as a question? just curious to know where you're coming from (other than Charlotte! ;)

Hi Stack! I whole-heartedly side with Dawkins' opinion. I have since I was about 6. He just puts the arguments so much more eloquently and well thought out than I could.

"grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; ... (Jesus) has made Him known." (John 1:17-18)

"Christ is the visible image of the invisible God." (Colossians 1:15)

all dogs go to heaven!

http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2008/01/22-0813582319T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=22-081358L&y=2008&m=01&t=jpg&rand=2319&srv=img3)



Cats too!
http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2008/01/23-0627326340T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=23-062732L&y=2008&m=01&t=jpg&rand=6340&srv=img3)

I have not read the book mainly because I did not know it exists. I will put it on my to-read list. It is quite a long list, and I find less time to read these days. However, I will take a look at it next time I am looking around in the bookstore, when I finish the book I'm reading right now, Quiet Strength, by Tony Dungy.

From reading the synopsis supplied in the Wikipedia entry, I will say that I agree with some of his main points:
atheists can be happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled; and,
children should not be labeled by their parents' religion. Terms like "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should make people flinch.

I feel likewise any label given to a child based upon his or her parents should make people flinch. I personally don't like blind labels attached to a person without knowing the individual.)

I believe that, whether a Christian, Muslim, Athiest or other, if the decision was made by free-will of the individual and is truly the belief of that individual it is evidence of a healthy, independent mind.

However, my belief regarding the beginning of life on the planet Earth and other planets is more of a combination of the two. Many things mentioned in the Bible have been scientifically proven. No, I do not believe that in six days as we know it on our current Julian calendar everything was created. Even in the Bible life progresses from heavens and earth to mankind. That is evolution. Our calendar did not exist at the time the book of Genisis was originally written. However, I do believe God created everything. Whatever theory you choose to believe regarding life on our planet, it all had to start somewhere. I believe that somewhere was God. I also believe we all evolve. Nothing is stagnant except smelly water. That is not really stagnant either, with the bacteria growing in it, causing the smell. :)

all dogs go to heaven!

http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2008/01/22-0813582319T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=22-081358L&y=2008&m=01&t=jpg&rand=2319&srv=img3)



Not unless they accept Christ in their hearts though, right? And because they aren't as evolved/designed (I'm being fair) they don't think on the levels we do, and therefore will not be in heaven wating for us with wagging tails on Rainbow Road. But are they eternally damned, thats the greater question. What does god have against dogs?



Chris, your hostility is clear. What isn't clear is why. Perhaps you've been hurt, or have "gotten into it" with someone who went off on you religiously, but didn't know the first thing about what he was saying, I don't know. What I do know, is that these aren't the questions of someone needing a religious debate. These are the questions of someone who doesn't even know what to ask. I think that just under the surface, what's really going on with you is that your hurting. Ego, pride, "what would the guys think" type of thoughts, are keeping you from asking the really important questions that could actually make a difference in your life. Unprovoked hostility towards something, or someone usually means that you are drawn towards it. The examples are plenty, but I don't want to give the impression of equating any of them with this.

I don't know what you've been through in your life. My guess is you've been through alot, most of us have. You dug up a quote from Tanner that was over 3 years old, something tells me your experience was simular to his. I'm sorry to hear that if that's true. There are countless stories out there of people who were spiritually abused by people who for whatever reason, couldn't hold true to the simple, life changing, love centered message of the Gospel, "the good news."

Unfortunately, there are some on here who are still caught up in "Christianeze" speak, where everything that comes out of there mouth just makes someone like yourself even more hostile. They mean well, deep down they want to help and are strong in there convictions, but have a hard time putting themselves in other peoples shoes and get caught up in wanting to be right, or fall prey to the heat of a debate. What usually happens is they say things they regret, or simply don't know what to say and quote a scripture that they can stand on with there convictions, but doesn't really apply or help the situation

You are free to slam, mischaracterize, or downright curse God and Christians on here. That's just a part of our freedom of speach in America. But don't think for a second that the answers to what's really going on with you aren't there, cuz they are. Your hostility isn't unique. There is nothing refreshing, new or encouraging about it. At the end of the day, you have to deal with the question of hope. What is your hope? Those who believe have asked the questions that make for changed lives. You're not going to get into a fruitless debate with me, just save it. If you have a genuine question concerning God, the bible, Christianity that's great. But please don't think your being clever or remotely original with these types of remarks.

One last thing. The Christians who play disc golf and come to this thread aren't making you come on here! You make a choice to do that yourself. But you somehow, and many like you, come on here and want to slam people for there beliefs? I am asking you a question Chris, and anyone who does the same, how much sense does that make? When you see that there is a thread for a tourney in "Podunk Egypt" do you get on it and start slaming people there for playing a tourney you don't even want to attend? Of course you don't, so why would you even come on this thread, let alone voice a hostile opinion about something you claim to not even believe in!!! Do you not see the faulty logic in these actions? I mean really, please give me an intellegent answer to this question and please have the courage, integrity, and "you know what" to admit the lack of logic in those actions. Or do you frequent every single thread and voice your opinion because your measly 80 bucks bought you into another year of membership? It makes no sense. But I'm glad you are here because who knows, this may be the opportunity that God is allowing in your (and others) life to learn more about Him. I'm glad you read a thread called "Disc Golfers for Jesus." Personally, I don't think you could stay away from it if you tried! "Your world" is disc golf Chris. I've met you, I've partied with you breifly, stayed in the same room with you at Bluegrass. I've personally experienced your unreasonalbe hostility on the course, JB, hole 17, and now, unprovoked again, on this thread where I belive God has provided a way for you to possibly be reached. Your not going anywhere! I believe like many of us, there will be a "basket on your casket" and until that day, however sooner or later it be, you can always know that someone in "your world" cares about you, will shoot you straight, and has "been there." You are not alone...

all dogs go to heaven!

http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2008/01/22-0813582319T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=22-081358L&y=2008&m=01&t=jpg&rand=2319&srv=img3)



Not unless they accept Christ in their hearts though, right? And because they aren't as evolved/designed (I'm being fair) they don't think on the levels we do, and therefore will not be in heaven wating for us with wagging tails on Rainbow Road. But are they eternally damned, thats the greater question. What does god have against dogs?



Chris, your hostility is clear. What isn't clear is why. Perhaps you've been hurt, or have "gotten into it" with someone who went off on you religiously, but didn't know the first thing about what he was saying, I don't know. What I do know, is that these aren't the questions of someone needing a religious debate. These are the questions of someone who doesn't even know what to ask. I think that just under the surface, what's really going on with you is that your hurting. Ego, pride, "what would the guys think" type of thoughts, are keeping you from asking the really important questions that could actually make a difference in your life. Unprovoked hostility towards something, or someone usually means that you are drawn towards it. The examples are plenty, but I don't want to give the impression of equating any of them with this.

I don't know what you've been through in your life. My guess is you've been through alot, most of us have. You dug up a quote from Tanner that was over 3 years old, something tells me your experience was simular to his. I'm sorry to hear that if that's true. There are countless stories out there of people who were spiritually abused by people who for whatever reason, couldn't hold true to the simple, life changing, love centered message of the Gospel, "the good news."

Unfortunately, there are some on here who are still caught up in "Christianeze" speak, where everything that comes out of there mouth just makes someone like yourself even more hostile. They mean well, deep down they want to help and are strong in there convictions, but have a hard time putting themselves in other peoples shoes and get caught up in wanting to be right, or fall prey to the heat of a debate. What usually happens is they say things they regret, or simply don't know what to say and quote a scripture that they can stand on with there convictions, but doesn't really apply or help the situation

You are free to slam, mischaracterize, or downright curse God and Christians on here. That's just a part of our freedom of speach in America. But don't think for a second that the answers to what's really going on with you aren't there, cuz they are. Your hostility isn't unique. There is nothing refreshing, new or encouraging about it. At the end of the day, you have to deal with the question of hope. What is your hope? Those who believe have asked the questions that make for changed lives. You're not going to get into a fruitless debate with me, just save it. If you have a genuine question concerning God, the bible, Christianity that's great. But please don't think your being clever or remotely original with these types of remarks.

One last thing. The Christians who play disc golf and come to this thread aren't making you come on here! You make a choice to do that yourself. But you somehow, and many like you, come on here and want to slam people for there beliefs? I am asking you a question Chris, and anyone who does the same, how much sense does that make? When you see that there is a thread for a tourney in "Podunk Egypt" do you get on it and start slaming people there for playing a tourney you don't even want to attend? Of course you don't, so why would you even come on this thread, let alone voice a hostile opinion about something you claim to not even believe in!!! Do you not see the faulty logic in these actions? I mean really, please give me an intellegent answer to this question and please have the courage, integrity, and "you know what" to admit the lack of logic in those actions. Or do you frequent every single thread and voice your opinion because your measly 80 bucks bought you into another year of membership? It makes no sense. But I'm glad you are here because who knows, this may be the opportunity that God is allowing in your (and others) life to learn more about Him. I'm glad you read a thread called "Disc Golfers for Jesus." Personally, I don't think you could stay away from it if you tried! "Your world" is disc golf Chris. I've met you, I've partied with you breifly, stayed in the same room with you at Bluegrass. I've personally experienced your unreasonalbe hostility on the course, JB, hole 17, and now, unprovoked again, on this thread where I belive God has provided a way for you to possibly be reached. Your not going anywhere! I believe like many of us, there will be a "basket on your casket" and until that day, however sooner or later it be, you can always know that someone in "your world" cares about you, will shoot you straight, and has "been there." You are not alone...



I did read the thread, and I found it a good read, on both ends. I guess I honestly was just bored and presented a few ideas I may not have had I not been trapped indoors. I'm the first to admit I get rather emotional, but I hope that no where in this do you think I am judging anyone. I am a pluralist. While I deep down side with Tanner's thoughts, I respect your rights to think otherwise.

Also, I was more than 2/3 of the way through this thread before I realized it was started before I knew what Disc Golf was!

all dogs go to heaven!

http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2008/01/22-0813582319T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=22-081358L&y=2008&m=01&t=jpg&rand=2319&srv=img3)



Not unless they accept Christ in their hearts though, right? And because they aren't as evolved/designed (I'm being fair) they don't think on the levels we do, and therefore will not be in heaven wating for us with wagging tails on Rainbow Road. But are they eternally damned, thats the greater question. What does god have against dogs?



I think Dogs go to heaven. If not why bother calling it heaven?

lol :D

The other day on "random paste" thread, under "miscilaneous", Jeff_Lag posted this image:
( I probably didn't load it right)

http://img4.glowfoto.com/images/2008/01/29-2259253708T.gif (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=29-225925L&y=2008&m=01&t=gif&rand=3708&srv=img4)

The very next day, I recieved a gift in the mail from Seattle that I never heard of. It was a DVD of this guy named Louie Giglio, a preacher from Atlanta, entitled "How Great is Our God." I highly recomend it and I just wanted to share a couple things that stood out to me.

He started the video by talking about how big the universe is. This emediately caught my attention because it's one of my favorite things to study. I have another video called "Journeys to the Edge of Creation" (highly recomend it) that I think I've played a hundred times. Anyway, he gave a really good presentation of how small earth is by illustrating the size of these planets and the largest stars we know of, very simular thing as Jeff_Lag's post. He did this by saying "if the earth were a golf ball" and then giving alot of numbers to point out how big these planets and stars are in comparison. He does it with illustrations that our brains can almost comprehend! :DVery cool!

Then he got into a little thing on this galaxy:

http://img4.glowfoto.com/images/2008/01/29-2315092735T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=29-231509L&y=2008&m=01&t=jpg&rand=2735&srv=img4)

...it's called the "Whirlpool Galaxy" and it's about 31 million light years away. At it's center is a black hole,
but we can not see it because it is blocked from our view by this image:

http://img5.glowfoto.com/images/2008/01/29-2301275589T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=29-230127L&y=2008&m=01&t=jpg&rand=5589&srv=img5)

He points out some very powerful and meaningful illustrations from this image. Then he talks about a cell adhesion protein molecule called �laminin�.
It�s the �glue� that holds our cells together. Here's a pic of the scientific diagram:


http://img4.glowfoto.com/images/2008/01/29-2345582325T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=29-234558L&y=2008&m=01&t=jpg&rand=2325&srv=img4)

There are tens of thousands of these "things" in the shape of a cross literally holding your body together! He quotes the verse Colossians 1:17 �He (Christ) is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.� I thought it was an awesome video and message. You can order it, or find the majority of it on youtube. (Louie Giglio, "How Great is Our God.") He does a really good job of making sense of all the numbers that get thrown around with this subject. It is truly amazing stuff, check it out...

And your point is?

There is very little, if anything, original in Christianity. Like nearly everything else in Christianity, the symbol of cross was borrowed from another religion.

Based on the information above, since it's obviously a 'message', shouldn't we be following the original religion that used the cross as a symbol?

the symbol of cross was borrowed from another religion.



This is the first time I've heard this. What is this other religion? What is the source of this claim, and how trustworthy is this source?

The symbol of cross was borrowed from another religion.
...shouldn't we be following the original religion that used the cross as a symbol?



How many people beside Jesus claimed to be God, gave evidence during their life that they were God, were killed because they claimed to be God, and then proved that they are God by being resurrected from the dead?

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And your point is?

:)My point is that it's an amazing DVD, I agree with his illustrations and encouraging worldview and being a Christian who plays disc golf, I thought it would be nice to share it with like minded people on a thread called "Disc Golfers for Jesus!" But I do acknowledge the fact that this is a chance to share some things with those who don't have there hope in Jesus. Whatever this thread is called, it's still an opportunity to discuss an important topic and I appreciate your interest no matter how much we disagree.

There is very little, if anything, original in Christianity. Like nearly everything else in Christianity, the symbol of cross was borrowed from another religion.

:)This is simply not factual or true. Christianity is very original and can be backed up with more than adequate, specific evidence. Can you tell me specifically what you think isn't original about it and also tell me what you think the "original" is?

This is also a very good example of how "relative truth" has become the norm. You know the old saying that "perception is your reality?" Well, that may be an accurate statement but perception does not DEFINE truth, the evidence does. What evidence do you have to support such a bold response to my post in this thread? I think you will find alot of those who claim what you said are very lacking in solid, reliable evidence and very full of hostility, misconceptions and post-modern concepts of reality.

Based on the information above, since it's obviously a 'message', shouldn't we be following the original religion that used the cross as a symbol?

:)Yes, it is a "message." A message that is historically reliable, not based upon fables, mythological gods, and hand-me-down theologies. Please explain to me this "original religion" that used the cross as a symbol? A symbol of what? A symbol of hope? Faith? Love? Because that's what this one stands for.

It also stands as a invatation for all who would believe. I know it isn't always easy to understand. The life of someone trusting Jesus is often complicated and can hurt badly. Sometimes I really want to quit because it gets hard! But I "can't get past the evidence and I can't get past the proof." Just learning attributes and qualities of God and His creation is amazing enough, and we will never fully comprehend Him. But just think, He endured the cross, as per His plan, to show you how much He loves. If you don't think there is evidence or proof of Him, you've got a big surprize just waiting to be believed in, open your eyes and see, your on the verge of a miracle...



[/QUOTE]

You should try out some of Sufjan Stevens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufjan_Stevens#Studio_albums) tunes. Seven Swans and Illinois are both good albums.

the symbol of cross was borrowed from another religion.



This is the first time I've heard this. What is this other religion? What is the source of this claim, and how trustworthy is this source?



"Various objects, dating from periods long anterior to the Christian era, have been found, marked with crosses of different designs, in almost every part of the old world. India, Syria, Persia and Egypt have all yielded numberless examples . . . The use of the cross as a religious symbol in pre-Christian times and among non-Christian peoples may probably be regarded as almost universal, and in very many cases it was connected with some form of nature worship"

Encyclopaedia Britannica (1946), Vol. 6, p. 753.

I'm assuming you'll accept Encyclopaedia Britannica as a reliable and trustworthy source. If you'd like a specific example, find a picture of an ankh. It's a symbol that was used by the pre-Christian Egyptians.

This is simply not factual or true. Christianity is very original and can be backed up with more than adequate, specific evidence. Can you tell me specifically what you think isn't original about it and also tell me what you think the "original" is?



Have you ever seen this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LuxorAmenhetep.gif) carving on the Temple of Luxor in Egypt?

It shows:

1. The Annunciation: the god Thoth announcing to the virgin Queen that she is about to become a mother.

2. The Immaculate Conception: the god Kneph (the Holy Spirit) mystically impregnating the virgin by holding a cross, the symbol of life, to her mouth.

3. The Birth of the Man-god.

4. The Adoration of the newly born infant by gods and men, including three kings (or Magi ?), who are offering him gifts. In this sculpture the cross again appears as a symbol.

This image was carved more than 1300 years before the birth of Jesus. Who copied who?

(Before anyone jumps me for this, I used Wikipedia as the source for the pic because they happened to have the best pic of it. This image has been requested for deletion from Wikipedia - not because it doesn't exist, but because of copyright concerns)

This is simply not factual or true. Christianity is very original and can be backed up with more than adequate, specific evidence. Can you tell me specifically what you think isn't original about it and also tell me what you think the "original" is?



Have you ever seen this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LuxorAmenhetep.gif) carving on the Temple of Luxor in Egypt?

It shows:

1. The Annunciation: the god Thoth announcing to the virgin Queen that she is about to become a mother.

2. The Immaculate Conception: the god Kneph (the Holy Spirit) mystically impregnating the virgin by holding a cross, the symbol of life, to her mouth.

3. The Birth of the Man-god.

4. The Adoration of the newly born infant by gods and men, including three kings (or Magi ?), who are offering him gifts. In this sculpture the cross again appears as a symbol.

This image was carved more than 1300 years before the birth of Jesus. Who copied who?

(Before anyone jumps me for this, I used Wikipedia as the source for the pic because they happened to have the best pic of it. This image has been requested for deletion from Wikipedia - not because it doesn't exist, but because of copyright concerns)



You sure see a lot more in that picture than I do. Your words are just an interpretation of a picture, but I assume that you copied those words from someone. That interpretation is a real stretch on many points. I could come up with an equally creative interpretation that is totally different. We have very little way of knowing if that explanation was really a true belief of the time. It's just as probable to me that someone who was trying to disprove the validity of Christianity made up most of that interpretation of the picture.

To the skeptics- First I want to say that that picture of the cross shaped object may be just a coincidence, or it may actually be designed by God. I just looked up "cross" in the encyclopedia and there have been a number of different shapes used. I'm not going to argue over this one.

None of that will change the fact the FACT that Jesus is the all powerful sovereign Lord of the Universe. "From Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things."

Have you ever seen this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LuxorAmenhetep.gif) carving on the Temple of Luxor in Egypt?...



Even if I make a huge leap (of faith) and assume that every detail you describe in that picture really were the religious beliefs of those Egyptians it does not invalidate the historical facts of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. Those facts stand on their own merit.

"Various objects, dating from periods long anterior to the Christian era, have been found, marked with crosses of different designs, in almost every part of the old world. India, Syria, Persia and Egypt have all yielded numberless examples . . . The use of the cross as a religious symbol in pre-Christian times and among non-Christian peoples may probably be regarded as almost universal, and in very many cases it was connected with some form of nature worship"

Encyclopaedia Britannica (1946), Vol. 6, p. 753.

I'm assuming you'll accept Encyclopaedia Britannica as a reliable and trustworthy source. If you'd like a specific example, find a picture of an ankh. It's a symbol that was used by the pre-Christian Egyptians.



Yes, I'll accept the Encyclopedia Britannica as a trustworthy source. Here's part of the Encyclopedia Britannica online entry (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9027990/cross): "Cross- the principal symbol of the Christian religion, recalling the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ and the redeeming benefits of his Passion and death."

Even if other religions do have a cross, for Christians the cross is just a symbol that reminds us of a historical event-- the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. It was a real event that happened in a real place at a real time and there is historical evidence for it's validity.

Where's the evidence for what happened three days later?

You sure see a lot more in that picture than I do. Your words are just an interpretation of a picture, but I assume that you copied those words from someone. That interpretation is a real stretch on many points. I could come up with an equally creative interpretation that is totally different. We have very little way of knowing if that explanation was really a true belief of the time. It's just as probable to me that someone who was trying to disprove the validity of Christianity made up most of that interpretation of the picture.



Um..sorry to burst your bubble but, if you'll notice, there are hieroglyphics at the top of both left panels. No interpretation is necessary. Some translation was needed, but not interpretation.

Now, I'm going out on a limb and trusting the people who translated the writing. Of course, you're trusting that the Bible you read in English was properly tranlated from its original language as well.

Where's the evidence for what happened three days later?



There's plenty of evidence. Some of it has been discussed several times earlier in this thread, so that would be the place to start looking. There is so much material that it can't all be presented here, nor do I even have time to do so.

There is evidence from non-Christian Roman historians.
There is also the biblical record, which can be shown to be historically reliable.

If you're really interested in finding answers then two places to start would be these books:
<ul type="square"> Who Moved the Stone? (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=95610&amp;netp_id=107445&amp;event=ESRCN&amp;i tem_code=WW&amp;view=details) by Frank Morrison. ISBN: 0310295610
The Case for Christ (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=20930&amp;netp_id=115837&amp;event=ESRCN&amp;i tem_code=WW&amp;view=details) by Lee Strobel, ISBN: 0310209307 [/list] Anyone who wants honest answers to honest questions and sincerely wants to dialog can also email me at playdiscgolf @gmail.com

I think the history of monotheism is a very interesting subject. I majored in philosophy for a reason: to me it is one of the most interesting studies of human nature and capability that can ever be debated.

The biggest problem I have with religious discussions is that they tend to focus on the here and now in one respect (only discussing the religions that exists here and now) and then they tend to focus on loose history on the other hand (quoting unverifiable sources of unreliable data). I, for one, am very happy to see the Luxor carving become a part of this discussion. I also hope that those dicussing can remain mature adults and not get hurt feelers while they discuss :)

One of the brightest and most charismatic people I have ever known is a Christian. I respect that man more than most, even if I do not share his beliefs. There *are* good christians. there *are* good jews. there *are* good &lt;insert religios moniker here&gt;. There *are* also good atheists, good pagans, and good people of every type you could list.

There is one insurmountable fact that has always prevented me from becoming religious: Nobody truly knows for sure if there is a god and if so, what form that god takes. people can believe what they choose, but they cannot know.

one more fact to add: any study of the human psyche (religious or otherwise) confirms that we can talk ourselves into or out of just about anything. If a human wants to believe something, he has the power to convince himself. This is not an indication one way or the other... it can be applied to either side of the argument.

You sure see a lot more in that picture than I do. Your words are just an interpretation of a picture, but I assume that you copied those words from someone. That interpretation is a real stretch on many points. I could come up with an equally creative interpretation that is totally different. We have very little way of knowing if that explanation was really a true belief of the time. It's just as probable to me that someone who was trying to disprove the validity of Christianity made up most of that interpretation of the picture.



Um..sorry to burst your bubble but, if you'll notice, there are hieroglyphics at the top of both left panels. No interpretation is necessary. Some translation was needed, but not interpretation.

Now, I'm going out on a limb and trusting the people who translated the writing. Of course, you're trusting that the Bible you read in English was properly tranlated from its original language as well.



Those few hieroglyphics (if that's even what they are-- they look more like scratch marks to me) can tell all of the details that you gave? That strains my credulity.

But as I said before, even if every detail of what you outlined is true, the coincidental similarity does not change the fact that the death and resurrection of Jesus were historical events.

P.S.- Since Egypt is so close to Israel many years before Jesus there were Jews who lived in Egypt and they shared what they believed. Some of the items that you mentioned were first recorded in Old Testament prophecies long before Jesus lived. It's possible that the Egyptians got those ideas from Jews. This is just a possibility, and not something that I'd spend much effort trying to defend, though.

the coincidental similarity does not change the fact that the death and resurrection of Jesus were historical events.



actually, this is untrue. It can be supposed that Jesus lived based on historical accounts. If he lived, then it can be assumed he died. His resurrection was not as well documented. If you read the bible a bit more closely, you'll notice that only a few witnessed him as a ghost (which is not actually a resurrection, but an apparition - to be fair) and the accounts of those few were never corroborated. It is true that there were reports of a missing body, but he was killed by people who hated him (the Romans). his body could just as easily have been removed by those people for the purposes of desecration. where in the bible does it say that his body was witnessed to have regained life? And how does that explain where the body went? physical bodies don't go to heaven, right? just souls? either way, this "resurrection" is certainly not a historical event any more than the appearance of UFOs are historical events. it *is* a storied event.

don't take my meaning wrong, I'm not knocking your religion. I believe that the core of the bible teaches very good morals and ethics (with a few exceptions). Just please don't use fables as facts.

I feel like I should amend my last post to make a few points.

There is no doubt that Jesus was a very powerful and influential man. There is no doubt that people followed him as a leader and that many then believed he was a deity, as many do today. I think there is also a pretty strong case to support the idea that he was a generous and caring man who had a firm grip on what it means to be a good human.

There's also a strong case to support the idea that he never claimed to be a deity. many accounts (outside the ones deemed worthy of incorporation into the new testament) recall Jesus as a very humble man who had some very "enthusiastic" followers. Many people believe that his status as deity was created well after his death based on a few select written texts. There has been a very strong argument to support the idea that Christianity was deliberately created more than a millennium after Jesus's death in order to combat division of religious sects and create a following for a particular Roman leader.

When considering history, one must consider all of it, not just the parts that pertain to one's argument :)

Just please don't use fables as facts.



This is so on point and important. Using fables as fact does much to discredit religion. Failure to see that dooms them to being ridiculed. If religion would tout its stronger points - community, morality, brotherly love, to name a few - they would anger far fewer people. Touting supernatural events as factual events without offering any non-biased corroboration is futile and only sets religion up for more ridicule.

I hate to see any group with good intentions fail because they don't know how to effectively send the message.

I feel like I should amend my last post to make a few points.

There is no doubt that Jesus was a very powerful and influential man. There is no doubt that people followed him as a leader and that many then believed he was a deity, as many do today. I think there is also a pretty strong case to support the idea that he was a generous and caring man who had a firm grip on what it means to be a good human.

There's also a strong case to support the idea that he never claimed to be a deity. many accounts (outside the ones deemed worthy of incorporation into the new testament) recall Jesus as a very humble man who had some very "enthusiastic" followers. Many people believe that his status as deity was created well after his death based on a few select written texts. There has been a very strong argument to support the idea that Christianity was deliberately created more than a millennium after Jesus's death in order to combat division of religious sects and create a following for a particular Roman leader.

When considering history, one must consider all of it, not just the parts that pertain to one's argument :)



I thoroughly enjoy reading someone that has a non-biased view of this argument with the non-biased research, knowledge and common sense to back it. No offense to the other posters

I thoroughly enjoy reading someone that has a non-biased view of this argument with the non-biased research, knowledge and common sense to back it.



Non-biased?? That's impossible! His bias is clearly naturalistic. That's just intended as a statement of fact, not a put down. When it comes to a person's views about God it's impossible to be non-biased. You either believe in God (theist, deist, pantheist), you're not sure God exists (agnostic), or you believe there is no God (atheist). In my understanding, those are the only 3 possibilities, but whichever one you side with will make you biased. One may be open minded and even undecided, but never unbiased.

To me, it would be make dialog more fruitful if people would just be up front about their bias.

In case you haven't guessed, I'm a theist and a follower of Jesus.

where in the bible does it say that his body was witnessed to have regained life? And how does that explain where the body went? physical bodies don't go to heaven, right? just souls? either way, this "resurrection" is certainly not a historical event any more than the appearance of UFOs are historical events. it *is* a storied event.




<ul type="square"> "where in the bible does it say that his body was witnessed to have regained life?"
a) 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 was taken from one of the earliest creeds of the the first Christians. It probably began to circulate within a few years of Jesus' death and resurrection. You'll have to look it up. (You can look it up here in the New Living Translation (http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/05discoverthenlt/scripturesearch.asp).
b) In John 20:24-29 Thomas feels Jesus' physical body.
c) John 21:12-14 Jesus ate fish for breakfast. Ghosts don't eat.
"And how does that explain where the body went? physical bodies don't go to heaven, right? just souls?"
-Jesus had a glorified body after the resurrection. It was more "real" than a physical body. He later went to Heaven in bodily form. The nature of a believer's body in Heaven is not completely described so I won't speculate. Believers will have some sort of glorified body that is spiritual and not just an ethereal soul.
"this "resurrection" is certainly not a historical event any more than the appearance of UFOs are historical events. it *is* a storied event."
-I have to respectfully disagree. Christianity is based on this historical event,and this is one way that Christianity is different from every other religion. It's not based only on a set of beliefs but on a historical fact.
-Every one of Jesus' 11 first disciples, plus the Apostle Paul, proclaimed and died for the belief that Jesus really was resurrected on a certain day in history.
-Jesus still changes lives today. He can only do that because He is indeed still alive. [/list]

I agree with what you're saying, but somewhere in there I think there is a baseline which is where I try to put myself, especially for discussions like these (this is a good one. no sh*t-slinging so far :)).

The baseline I try to put myself at is a position of research and observation without a tendency to believe or disbelieve. It is true that I'm an atheist, but I'm honestly also agnostic. I don't believe that there is one power controlling the universe, but I also do believe that we just don't know the absolute truth in the matter. There is a pretty big difference between believing something and knowing something. I don't think I have to tell you that since you're a man of faith.

I've studied a lot of different religions, mainly because I find them all very interesting. I'm not an expert nor do I profess to have any answers. I do have opinions. It's refreshing to know that you're listening to my opinions without getting your feelings hurt because we disagree :). I have spent more time studying Christianity because there was a time in my life that I considered myself a Christian. To give you a bit of insight into my background, there was a point in my life that I actually wanted to become a youth minister and pursued an internship with a Methodist church. During that internship I started real studies in philosophy and my beliefs changed. I formed my own opinions and they didn't agree with what I had been taught the first 18 or so years of my life. So, I left the church but I continued to learn about religion because I personally found the subject fascinating.

By the By, have you ever studied the religions of ancient egypt? It doesn't take any real hard book burning (sorry, couldn't resist), you can find some very interesting stuff on your local cable/satellite provider. If that piques your interest, there's a wealth of information in any local library (and *some* good stuff on the internet) and from there it just gets bigger and better. Read some of that literature beore you head to an Ancient Egypt museum exhibit and I assure you it will be a much better experience. They are the true "monotheistic pioneers". Even if you don't focus on their religion, those people are amazingly interesting!

Anyway, back on topic: I try to remain as unbiased on this topic as one can be. Hopefully you'll agree but I won't be upset if you don't :).

<ul type="square"> "where in the bible does it say that his body was witnessed to have regained life?"
a) 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 was taken from one of the earliest creeds of the the first Christians. It probably began to circulate within a few years of Jesus' death and resurrection. You'll have to look it up. (You can look it up here in the New Living Translation (http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/05discoverthenlt/scripturesearch.asp).
b) In John 20:24-29 Thomas feels Jesus' physical body.
c) John 21:12-14 Jesus ate fish for breakfast. Ghosts don't eat.
"And how does that explain where the body went? physical bodies don't go to heaven, right? just souls?"
-Jesus had a glorified body after the resurrection. It was more "real" than a physical body. He later went to Heaven in bodily form. The nature of a believer's body in Heaven is not completely described so I won't speculate. Believers will have some sort of glorified body that is spiritual and not just an ethereal soul.
"this "resurrection" is certainly not a historical event any more than the appearance of UFOs are historical events. it *is* a storied event."
-I have to respectfully disagree. Christianity is based on this historical event,and this is one way that Christianity is different from every other religion. It's not based only on a set of beliefs but on a historical fact.
-Every one of Jesus' 11 first disciples, plus the Apostle Paul, proclaimed and died for the belief that Jesus really was resurrected on a certain day in history.
-Jesus still changes lives today. He can only do that because He is indeed still alive. [/list]



once again, I'm not discounting what you're saying. I just want to poke a hole in your logic :)

If these are "facts" based on the evidence provided, then so are the hundreds of thousands of UFOs that have been spotted. So is the existence of the loch ness monster. I think there are at least 3 people who believe Mickey Mouse is real. I'm not trying to be condescending but I do want you to get my point :)

Just please don't use fables as facts.



This is so on point and important. Using fables as fact does much to discredit religion. Failure to see that dooms them to being ridiculed. If religion would tout its stronger points - community, morality, brotherly love, to name a few - they would anger far fewer people. Touting supernatural events as factual events without offering any non-biased corroboration is futile and only sets religion up for more ridicule.

I hate to see any group with good intentions fail because they don't know how to effectively send the message.



From post #719763 - 07/27/07 08:23 AM (You can find it here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=45898&amp;page=0&amp;fpart=5&amp;vc= 1).)

"Please consider this from a non-Christian, Roman historian:

Tacitus, Annals, xv. 44, 64 A.D.
Writing about the Neronian persecution- �And so, to get rid of this rumor, Nero set up as the culprits and punished with the utmost refinement of cruelty a class hated for their abominations, who are commonly called Christians. Christus, from whom their name is derived, was executes at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. Checked for the moment, this pernicious superstition again broke out, not only in Judea, the source of the evil, but even in Rome,"

----------------------------------------------------------
If the belief that Jesus had been resurrected was only a fable what led people to continue to believe it in the face of severe persecution?

From post #719763 - 07/27/07 08:23 AM

"Please consider this from a non-Christian, Roman historian:

Tacitus, Annals, xv. 44, 64 A.D.
Writing about the Neronian persecution- �And so, to get rid of this rumor, Nero set up as the culprits and punished with the utmost refinement of cruelty a class hated for their abominations, who are commonly called Christians. Christus, from whom their name is derived, was executes at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. Checked for the moment, this pernicious superstition again broke out, not only in Judea, the source of the evil, but even in Rome,"

----------------------------------------------------------
If the belief that Jesus had been resurrected was only a fable what led people to continue to believe it in the face of severe persecution?


this post assumes that the term "Christian" meant the same back then as it does now.

edited for clarity: just because they followed the teachings of Jesus does not mean that they believed he was a deity.

Just please don't use fables as facts.



This is so on point and important. Using fables as fact does much to discredit religion. Failure to see that dooms them to being ridiculed.



Mike,

I think that the word "fable" is too innocuous and ultimately misleading. If the accounts about Jesus' resurrection in the New Testament never happened then they are lies, and the person who first told that account was a liar. If Christianity is based on lies then I'll stop believing it. Who wants to believe a lie? If Jesus said that He is God but He isn't then He was a liar too. If that's the case then it would be best for all Christians to abandon the lies.

remember that not all accounts of Jesus's time are included in the new testament. Just the ones that fit together to make what really is a good story, regardless of your beliefs. "The Greatest Story Ever Told", as it were.

also, the term "fable" is generally a story used to convey a specific ideal or moral.

fa�ble [fey-buhl] noun, verb, -bled, -bling.
�noun
1. a short tale to teach a moral lesson, often with animals or inanimate objects as characters; apologue: the fable of the tortoise and the hare; Aesop's fables.
2. a story not founded on fact: This biography is largely a self-laudatory fable.
3. a story about supernatural or extraordinary persons or incidents; legend: the fables of gods and heroes.
4. legends or myths collectively: the heroes of Greek fable.


these are the common connotations of the word, and I intended it in a benevolent context, however received.

If these are "facts" based on the evidence provided, then so are the hundreds of thousands of UFOs that have been spotted. So is the existence of the loch ness monster.



Baldguy,

I'm glad that we can have a cordial discussion. Thanks for telling us more about your background. I was just the opposite. I grew up as an agnostic who couldn't care less about God, but when I was 17 I became a follower of Christ because I was attracted by His love and character. I've had times of very serious doubt which led me to study more and ultimately strengthened my faith in Jesus.

As to your UFO statement-- of those believers in UFOs how many have been told that they would be put to death for those beliefs? If there were any would they really stick to the story or abandon it to save their skin? I suppose there may be some insane people who would keep to their story, but a lucid rational person wouldn't. (Then again there may really be UFOs and Loch Ness monster. I'm serious. Does that further brand me as wacko?)

there are many occasions in history where *lots* of people were killed because they would not proclaim faith in God and Jesus as their savior.

Also, I have been told on more than one occasion that I will suffer eternal damnation ( a fate worse than death) if I refuse to accept Jesus as my lord and savior. Yet I hold firm to my beliefs. Millions do. Does that prove anything? not really.

If the belief that Jesus had been resurrected was only a fable what led people to continue to believe it in the face of severe persecution?



I think that's a good human behaviour question. For whatever reason though, I think they must have truly believed it for them to risk persecution. Take the civil rights movement for example. Black people risked being killed for what they believed in - their civil rights - but that didn't stop them from marching.

For the record I'm only commenting on the fact that both groups practiced what they believed in despite the risk of persecution. The rest of it is a different discussion.

Just please don't use fables as facts.



This is so on point and important. Using fables as fact does much to discredit religion. Failure to see that dooms them to being ridiculed.



Mike,

I think that the word "fable" is too innocuous and ultimately misleading. If the accounts about Jesus' resurrection in the New Testament never happened then they are lies, and the person who first told that account was a liar. If Christianity is based on lies then I'll stop believing it. Who wants to believe a lie? If Jesus said that He is God but He isn't then He was a liar too. If that's the case then it would be best for all Christians to abandon the lies.



Lowe - If you find "fable" objectionable, then I apologize. Nonetheless, I do believe that the Bible is a collection of stories meant to teach morals and life lessons.

As for whether or not it is full of lies, I think "lies" is probably too strong. Again, I feel that they are stories as mentioned above. In any event, there is no universally agreed upon way to verify whether they are lies or not. Believing these stories as fact is completely based on faith. I have no problem with that. But for people to say that Jesus was the son of God because he said so is not a valid proof. That is something you believe completely on faith.

When I read about how The Church persecuted people for believing that the earth revolved around the sun, in contradiction to Church teaching, I find that as good evidence of religion being used to control people, not to instill them with brotherly love and other good morals. Organized religion is not needed to teach good morals.

And with that, I'm backing out of this circle. Christians are free to believe what they want. Non-Christians are free to believe what they want, at least in this country. Arguments to try and "prove" to the other side of the argument that they are wrong, are in the end, futile and only lead to discourse.

also, the term "fable" is generally a story used to convey a specific ideal or moral.

fa�ble [fey-buhl] noun, verb, -bled, -bling.
�noun
1. a short tale to teach a moral lesson, often with animals or inanimate objects as characters; apologue: the fable of the tortoise and the hare; Aesop's fables.
2. a story not founded on fact: This biography is largely a self-laudatory fable.
3. a story about supernatural or extraordinary persons or incidents; legend: the fables of gods and heroes.
4. legends or myths collectively: the heroes of Greek fable.


these are the common connotations of the word, and I intended it in a benevolent context, however received.



Tone is so difficult to convey on this MB. I was in no way upset by the word "fable". I can see how you might call those stories fables or legends. Def'n 2. says Fable = "a story not founded on fact". My point is that Christianity is founded on fact. Unlike all other religions, if the historical facts of Jesus' resurrection aren't true then Christianity collapses.

there are many occasions in history where *lots* of people were killed because they would not proclaim faith in God and Jesus as their savior.



I think that's missing my point. The first 11 Christians were threatened with death unless they denied what they believed. If it weren't true would every one have died for what they knew to be false? For me, only the truth could give them the courage to face death for it.

When I read about how The Church persecuted people for believing that the earth revolved around the sun, in contradiction to Church teaching, I find that as good evidence of religion being used to control people, not to instill them with brotherly love and other good morals.



I agree. These people were acting contrary to the teachings of Jesus. First, they were mistaken in their man made teaching that misinterpreted the Bible. I don't consider these people true followers of Christ since they didn't follow His ways. Many things have been done by people who used the label "Christian" but were not really true followers of Jesus. I consider these people merely religious. Man made religion often leads to pride, seeking power, seeking wealth, and controlling people. All of these are the opposite of what Jesus taught and lived.

Lowe - If you find "fable" objectionable, then I apologize. Nonetheless, I do believe that the Bible is a collection of stories meant to teach morals and life lessons.

As for whether or not it is full of lies, I think "lies" is probably too strong. Again, I feel that they are stories as mentioned above.



Mike,
I'm not upset by the word "fable" so you don't need to apologize. I was only seeking accuracy. I also wasn't saying the record is "full of lies". I was trying to say that if the central point-- that Jesus was resurrected-- didn't really happen, then it's a lie to say that it did. The people who made up those stories were lying, and thus Christianity would be built on a lie. If it's built on a lie then it isn't moral, so the whole story of Jesus should be thrown out. One thing Jesus would never want to be known as was "a good moral teacher". Either He's God or He isn't.

God Bless You All

My point is that Christianity is founded on fact. Unlike all other religions, if the historical facts of Jesus' resurrection aren't true then Christianity collapses.



I have to disagree with this for two reasons.

1) The reality is that there is no way to prove that it's founded on fact. There is no reliable evidence that any of the god-like acts attributed to Jesus were actually performed.

2) If people don't believe "the historical facts of Jesus' resurrection" then Christianity collapses. In my opinion, truth (and objectivity, for that matter) don't often play a role in most Christians' thinking.

Aliens could land and show videos and scientific details of how they faked Jesus, Mohammed and Moses to see if we were smart enough to figure it out and I'll bet you'd be really shocked at the number of people who would believe it was a trick of Satan's.

Aliens could land and show videos and scientific details of how they faked Jesus, Mohammed and Moses to see if we were smart enough to figure it out and I'll bet you'd be really shocked at the number of people who would believe it was a trick of Satan's.



This is my biggest problem with religion.

Lowe had it right when he said we are all biased. But, there are different degrees of being biased. We're all going to be skeptical in different ways regarding any evidence or lack of evidence we are exposed to. Lowe is going to look through the eyes of a Christian and I am going to look through the eyes of an atheist. Because of this, we could look at the same evidence in completely different ways.

However, imagine this scenario. A Christian, a Muslim, a Jew (all devout believers) and an atheist are sitting around a table talking about their beliefs. This talk will probably go nowhere because only one of these four people is willing to admit he could be wrong. The evidence could clearly point to one truth and only the atheist would be willing to objectively look at the evidence and make a decision based on that evidence and find the truth.

Like it or not, the truth is that there is no hard, objective, undeniable evidence of gods. The Bible and the Qur'an don't count. They are no more proof of gods than Moby Dick is proof that Captain Ahab existed.

I do not doubt that Jesus and Muhammed were real people. In Muhammed's case, there is no question. In the case of Jesus, there are some mentions of him in non-Christian records. (Although nothing in these records claims that he was a god.)

But gods? Prophets? They were flesh and blood people just like me and you. They were probably intelligent, motivated people like Martin Luther King or Ghandi who ultimately led great social movements. But, there is no objective evidence that they were anything other than people.

But, there is no objective evidence that they were anything other than people.



So, what is your theory on the beginning of 'People'?

You left one choice off the ballot:

"I'm not arrogant enough to suggest I have the answer to the ultimate question." :D

You left one choice off the ballot:

"I'm not arrogant enough to suggest I have the answer to the ultimate question." :D


I'm with switzerdan on this one.

I have an opinion on the matter, as do millions of people. nobody knows, as it would be literally impossible to know without proof that can't exist given our current technology. My opinion is that man evolved just like every other being on earth. there is a ton of fact to support this theory. hard, provable evidence that isn't based on a story passed down from generation to generation and re-told in who knows how many ways. Does this mean there definitely wasn't a higher power orchestrating the whole thing? of course not.

history has proven that humans find a way to rationalize what they do not understand. this is the very basis of religion. events occurred that nobody could explain, so it was obvious to them at the time that something beyond their comprehension made those things happen. That much is fact. where it deviates from fact is when the stories that told of the event started being taken literally and assumed to be the truth. People can't always put what they see or experience into words that others will understand... so they tend to phrase it the best way they know how. "Jesus walked on water." "Jesus rose from the dead." Christians take this as fact because they are taught that the bible has an unwarranted exlusive right to truth. The same thing happened in ancient egypt and in many of the ancient south american cultures when a leader would explain a frightening event (like a solar eclipse) as proof of a angry god. To those people at that time, it was an explanation that made absolute sense. Now that we have telescopes... we know why it really happens.

The idea of god being in the sky dates back to just about every ancient culture that existed in segregated parts of the world. Some wil claim this is proof of a universal deity. Others will say (myself included) that the sky was a universally present entity from which life was sustained. rain, sunshine... without those, there is no life. therefore, life comes from above. The technologically challenged had to explain this phenomenon somehow, therefore... god is (or "the gods are") above us all, giving us life. Some (actually, most) cultural leaders went as far as to claim a kinship with their gods. They had th smartest scientists of their time working for them, helping to predict natural events that they could then claim the gods told them about and "if you don't behave and let me have all of your children as slaves, the gods will surely take it out on you"... I think you get my drift.

religion has historically been and to this day continues to be a collection of scare tactics designed for the purposes of controlling a population. Politicians fight over the christian vote. In some countries, they rule based solely on their religious heritage. religion has (and continues to be) at the heart of the majority of all wars and minor military conflict. all in the name of "how can you be right if I'm right. I'll kill you if you don't say I'm right".

To claim that the apostles dying for their beliefs proves their beliefs as fact isn't going to hold much water. How many soldiers have died for their beliefs? How many religious groups have been threatened death unless they renounced their faith... yet chose death anyway? the apostles certainly do not hold a patent on that idea. Does this mean that every time a group has died for its beliefs, that they were always right? I don't think that's even possible.

I wont argue that the apostles didn't die for what they believed to be true. I'm sure they believed it in their heart of hearts... but in no way does that prove it as fact.

i just thought of a really good example that I should have cited in my last post.

Nazi Germany. *millions* of people exterminated because they were of a competing religious group. Yes, it was ultimately heritage and not faith that got them branded, but that heritage was one of religion. If there ever was an act of Satan, surely this was it. But it wasn't satan's name being invoked, now was it?

it's easy to blow off religious persecution performed *by christians* as a "misinterpretation of the bible by man". what I don't understand is how you can at the same time cite religious persecution *against christians* as proof that the christians were doing god's work.

There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death. - Proverbs 16:25

quoting scripture doesn't get you anywhere. there's some lovely prose in there, but it's not a reference book that can help prove a point. Throwing out a proverb doesn't explain the paradox I was talking about in my last post.

Nazi Germany. *millions* of people exterminated because they were of a competing religious group. Yes, it was ultimately heritage and not faith that got them branded, but that heritage was one of religion. If there ever was an act of Satan, surely this was it. But it wasn't satan's name being invoked, now was it?

it's easy to blow off religious persecution performed *by christians* as a "misinterpretation of the bible by man".



Baldguy,

I've read your post 4 times now, and I still don't really understand the point you're trying to make. Can you please clarify it a little? Surely you're not saying that the Nazis were calling themselves Christians as they exterminated the Jews? Or are you? Are you saying that Nazi "Christians" killed the Jews?

quoting scripture doesn't get you anywhere. there's some lovely prose in there, but it's not a reference book that can help prove a point. Throwing out a proverb doesn't explain the paradox I was talking about in my last post.



(Sarcasm on) Sure it does! Don't you know all the answers are in one of those good books? (Sarcasm off)

This is what I meant with hard, undeniable, objective evidence. The side that believes in gods has none, so they resort to quoting scripture.

I want to hear some facts - corroborated by an unbiased source. I want to see a video tape of Jesus working a miracle. I want a god to stand before me and tell me why I should believe in him and worship him.

For believers, it's a lot like being the prosecution in a court case. You believe somebody did something and you have to make the case that he did. For those of us on the other side, it's like being on the defense. I only have to show that your case doesn't stand up. I don't have to have an alternative theory.

If religion were dealt with an an objective court, the judge would have to throw out the case due to a lack of evidence.

quoting scripture doesn't get you anywhere. there's some lovely prose in there, but it's not a reference book that can help prove a point. Throwing out a proverb doesn't explain the paradox I was talking about in my last post.



(Sarcasm on) Sure it does! Don't you know all the answers are in one of those good books? (Sarcasm off)

This is what I meant with hard, undeniable, objective evidence. The side that believes in gods has none, so they resort to quoting scripture.

I want to hear some facts - corroborated by an unbiased source. I want to see a video tape of Jesus working a miracle. I want a god to stand before me and tell me why I should believe in him and worship him.

For believers, it's a lot like being the prosecution in a court case. You believe somebody did something and you have to make the case that he did. For those of us on the other side, it's like being on the defense. I only have to show that your case doesn't stand up. I don't have to have an alternative theory.

If religion were dealt with an an objective court, the judge would have to throw out the case due to a lack of evidence. The Bible would be dismissed as hearsay.

Nazi Germany. *millions* of people exterminated because they were of a competing religious group. Yes, it was ultimately heritage and not faith that got them branded, but that heritage was one of religion. If there ever was an act of Satan, surely this was it. But it wasn't satan's name being invoked, now was it?

it's easy to blow off religious persecution performed *by christians* as a "misinterpretation of the bible by man".



Baldguy,

I've read your post 4 times now, and I still don't really understand the point you're trying to make. Can you please clarify it a little? Surely you're not saying that the Nazis were calling themselves Christians as they exterminated the Jews? Or are you? Are you saying that Nazi "Christians" killed the Jews?


http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm

Bald guy, your snide, misleading and self professing coments for the last two days are too numerous and exhausting to respond to. They are only matched by the presumptous (sp) tone in your last post. I wasnt trying to "get anywhere" or "prove" anything by quoting scripture. You see, the world doesn't revolve around your coments. Not every Christian on this thread is gonna "take your bait" and get caught up in mind numbing arguments that take away from the actual living of life.

I certainly did not "resort" to quoting scripture for lack of "evidence" Switzer. I could spend hours upon hours on here giving you "evidence" that would help someone WHO IS ACTUALLY SEARCHING for answers. I don't think that describes you or the great hairless one. The arrogant and argumentative tone in nearly all of the "anti" posts ever since my post "how great is our God" tells me you probably wouldn't believe no matter what "evidence" was in front of you. The Lord himself doing something in front of you, someone showing the reliability of scripture, or the daily miracle that is yourself are not enough to convince someone who isn't searching or broken by the weight of sin. BTW, I wonder if you even looked at the video, or just went off based upon my post that described it FOR THOSE WHO WOULD ENJOY IT!

This isn't my first rodeo, I've been down this road with the coments I've seen lately before. This "modern view" of scripture is not valid or valuable. It's sophisticated ranting that in the end is nothing more than unbelief, pure and simple. Think about what you've posted, it's there for all to see, and ask yourself, does that sound like someone who is searching for the truth? Or does it sound like someone looking for a philosophical or religious fight?

In your imaginary courtroom, of which you laid down all the groundrules(!) do you have room for objectivity? If bonafide evidence is presented are you willing or even able to draw conclusions from that basis? With all the philisophical presuppositions I see here I would seriously doubt it. "The critical view is in fact not so much a view of the Bible as it is the kind of opposition to the truth that Paul warned about: Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in doing so have wandered away from the faith." 1 Tim. 6:20-21

This "critical view" of the Bible is not worthy of the fight! It's pointless to get into it with someone who doesn't really want answers or "evidence" for purposes of actual consideration, but rather just one more thing to refute with opinionated so called "scholorship." Ultimately, it is far more worse than just fruitless, it becomes destructive. Just like so many "Christians" who do ungodly things in the name of God. They give Christianity a bad name and give the "anti crowd" fuel for there fire. Knowing full well that not all Christians blow up abortion clinics, start wars, donate to Benny Hinns new suit, get there marching oders from a pope, ect., they are all lumped together under the same name in the unbelievers theology. I will not participate in that kind of fueling of the fire.

If a question concerning a biblical topic is presented by someone who is honestly searching, I would probably give every bit of evidence I could in your imaginary courtroom. However, I will not be a part of an endless argument with someone isn't honestly wanting to learn, but rather just lookin' for religious or philisophical fight. To be honest, that's all I've seen for days now. Maybe I should just post the evidence continuously without coment or rebutal (sp) and just "put it out there." I don't know, it's something I'm praying about. All I know is those who are not believers who come on this thread for various reasons are doing nothing productive or possitive and it takes alot for someone like me to just watch it happen when the eveidence/truth is available.

Is it evidence you want, or an argument? Because everything I've seen so far would say "argument."

Nazi Germany. *millions* of people exterminated because they were of a competing religious group. Yes, it was ultimately heritage and not faith that got them branded, but that heritage was one of religion. If there ever was an act of Satan, surely this was it. But it wasn't satan's name being invoked, now was it?

it's easy to blow off religious persecution performed *by christians* as a "misinterpretation of the bible by man".



Baldguy,

I've read your post 4 times now, and I still don't really understand the point you're trying to make. Can you please clarify it a little? Surely you're not saying that the Nazis were calling themselves Christians as they exterminated the Jews? Or are you? Are you saying that Nazi "Christians" killed the Jews?


http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm



After reading some of Hitler's words on nobeliefs.com I'd have to say that this may be the best example of an evil person using the name of God, Christianity, and the Bible for his own evil ends. An evil person can twist almost anything that will help them help them accomplish their evil goals. It�s totally in character for an evil person to corrupt that which is good to accomplish evil.

But in spite of any words that Hitler and the Nazis said they were NOT followers of Jesus!! An evil group who acts totally contrary to Jesus teaching are not His followers.

The nobeliefs article is trying to make a case that Hitler was a Christian, and I find that deeply offensive. You are endorsing that article, so I assume that you agree with it. You also said above that the Nazi Holocaust was �religious persecution performed *by christians*�. It's highly debatable to say that the Nazis called themselves Christians, but even if they did use those words they weren't true followers of Christ, and I find it very offensive to imply that they were Christians.

... does that sound like someone who is searching for the truth? Or does it sound like someone looking for a philosophical or religious fight?



Why is it that so many Christian Evangelicals characterize those who present opposing viewpoints as not legitimately "searching for the truth?" It seems they fancy themselves a beacon that people with alternate beliefs either gaze upon with wonderment waiting for "truth" to be bestowed upon them or turn away from because they are not truly "searching".

If anyone believes that Hitler was a Christian, then their credulity is off the scale. A person like that should have no problem believing that the Loch Ness monster is God.

An evil person can twist almost anything that will help them help them accomplish their evil goals. It�s totally in character for an evil person to corrupt that which is good to accomplish evil.



Lowe,

What about this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada), or the actions and beliefs of Popes past and present? Sorry, again the truth is that your religion has been and continues to be used to justify any number of atrocities.

You can argue that these people weren't true believers until you're blue in the face, but don't expect me to believe that the Popes and other high officials of the Catholic Church aren't and weren't Christians.

Of course, maybe you don't consider not allowing freedom of religion, not condoning women's rights, and the failure to speak out against the Holocaust evil.

I certainly did not "resort" to quoting scripture for lack of "evidence" Switzer. I could spend hours upon hours on here giving you "evidence" that would help someone WHO IS ACTUALLY SEARCHING for answers. I don't think that describes you or the great hairless one.



Let's be honest here. Who is the one that is not searching?

Is it me who claims not to know the answers but wants proof concerning any potential answer?

or

is it you and other Christians like you who have closed your minds to the possibility that you could be wrong because you have your 'answer'?

PS. Sorry, I don't know what video you're talking about me not having seen? If you have something you want me to see, I will certainly look at it. Don't be too upset by this comment but, unlike you, I will actually look at something before I start to bash it.

(If you're wondering what I'm talking about, think back to your PM to me where you started your bashing of Richard Dawkins by saying that you'd never actually read his books. Sort of takes the steam out of your criticisms. At least I've read the Bible. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif)

Belief in God is just that, a belief. I do not ask anyone to prove anything. I choose to believe in my God. It would be nice if all my friends and family do likewise, but I cannot make them. I believe that even the God I believe in gives us all free will and the ability to choose whether to believe, using faith -- not evidence. If the God I believe in allows you to make up your own mind, then surely lowly I can do the same. Therefore, I choose to believe what I believe and allow all of you to believe whatever you choose to believe. All people are human. We do good things and bad things.
Becoming a Christian involves the act of making a decision to have faith in God and believing that God sent His Son, Jesus, to live in human form among humans, then to die a mortal death on a cross to be resurrected. Therefore, it is there for you to either make a decision to believe or to not believe.
I know that my faith in my God gives me strength to make it to another day through the daily struggles I encounter. However, I know that people gain strength to various sources, some just from throwing discs others by entering debates about religion, history, or other topics of philosophy.

I have no problem saying that Tomas de Torquemada, first Inquisitor General of Spain, was not a true Christian. And I only get pink in the cheeks by saying so. :D

read "THE GOD DELUSION"

I have no problem saying that Tomas de Torquemada, first Inquisitor General of Spain, was not a true Christian. And I only get pink in the cheeks by saying so. :D



Thanks Lowe. That made me chuckle. :D

Bald guy, your snide, misleading and self professing coments for the last two days are too numerous and exhausting to respond to. They are only matched by the presumptous (sp) tone in your last post. I wasnt trying to "get anywhere" or "prove" anything by quoting scripture. You see, the world doesn't revolve around your coments. Not every Christian on this thread is gonna "take your bait" and get caught up in mind numbing arguments that take away from the actual living of life.

--snip--

Is it evidence you want, or an argument? Because everything I've seen so far would say "argument."


I think you're the only one arguing. the rest of us are discussing.

If you want to represent your bretheren on this board, you might consider a little common courtesy. There's no reason to resort to name-calling and being rude. I think anyone reading your last post would call it defensive. Nobody is attacking you or your faith, we're just discussing our beliefs. why is it that you are welcome to speak your mind, but if I speak mine, then i'm being snide or I'm trying to bait people?

Lowe, I appreciate your ability to maintain a calm and respectful demeanor in this discussion even more after reading this ridiculous post.

If anyone believes that Hitler was a Christian, then their credulity is off the scale. A person like that should have no problem believing that the Loch Ness monster is God.


So then, how does one define "Christian?" I've always thought that to be christian meant to believe that Jesus was the son of God and the he died for the world's sins. I assure you, Hitler believed that too.

Every sect, every walk of life, has evil people in its ranks just like it has good people. It always has been that way, it always will be that way. It's just human nature. Is it fair that Christians can exclude believers from their "group" based on evil acts, but atheists cannot exclude non-believers based on the same thing? I would love it if I could say that an evildoer atheist was not a true atheist. Perhaps I should call myself a humanist, though I don't really like being branded in any way... it makes people assume too much about me.

okay, okay, I work full time and don't have time to even play a round if I still wanted to, so I will get around to reading "THE GOD DELUSION" when I have time. I started a book at the beginning of the January, after making a promise to myself to read at least one book a month this year. I still have four-and-a-half chapters to go. I responded to the posted suggestion to read the book a while back when it was first suggested (on 1/23/08).
The only little bit of free time I get is when I sneak away to this discussion board while I am supposed to be working.
Please explain, in more detail, why you want ME to read it so much?

PS - all I do ask is that if you do believe in God, please pray for me and my family. I've gone some tough times in the last year and a half. I need your support and prayers and God's strength.

I certainly did not "resort" to quoting scripture for lack of "evidence" Switzer. I could spend hours upon hours on here giving you "evidence" that would help someone WHO IS ACTUALLY SEARCHING for answers. I don't think that describes you or the great hairless one.



Let's be honest here. Who is the one that is not searching?

Is it me who claims not to know the answers but wants proof concerning any potential answer?

or

is it you and other Christians like you who have closed your minds to the possibility that you could be wrong because you have your 'answer'?

PS. Sorry, I don't know what video you're talking about me not having seen? If you have something you want me to see, I will certainly look at it. Don't be too upset by this comment but, unlike you, I will actually look at something before I start to bash it.

(If you're wondering what I'm talking about, think back to your PM to me where you started your bashing of Richard Dawkins by saying that you'd never actually read his books. Sort of takes the steam out of your criticisms. At least I've read the Bible. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif)



Once again, you only see what you want to see. Don't take what I say to mean what is said, read into it, assume and come up with what you think I said! You asked me why I think Dawkins isn't worth studying, I answered you personally, and for that I get misquoted, and characterized publically as someone who doesn't read something, but has the you know what to "bash" it. As I told you in the pm, "I would never purchase his book" I also told you that IN FACT I DID READ THE MAJORITY OF IT." But you come on here and say the exact opposite!!!!! I won't even dignify the rest of the junk you two are spouting about me. It never ends! This is exactly why I don't like to get into your arguments. You only hear what you want to hear, and then mislable what was actually said. Sounds like an argument to me, and nothing I want to be a part of. Especially on a thread entitled "Disc Golfers For Jesus!"Forgive me, I will get defensive when I say exactly what I mean and have it "read into" like some rumor around the playground and then thrown back out as fact.

Accusing me of not reading Dawkins is a lie, what else do you call an accusitory statement that isn't true? Then to say "unlike you, I read something before I bash it" is not true either. You were invited to watch the video clips on youtube just before your rant about "nothing is original about Christianity," and now you act like you don't know what I'm talking about. Not only do my words get twisted, you have selective memory!

I can't keep up with all the misquoting and reductionism of scripture, misquoting posts, lumping anything that is remotely Christian into one belief, and the constant misconceptions. So say what you want about me, I'll have to learn to let it go more. I find it way too easy to let your coments get to me, for that, I am in need of growth. I am passionate about God, and the eveidences that support my belief in Him. But I've obviously let your coments get to me instead of simply posting the evidences needed.

Or perhaps "disc golfers for hopelessness" could be where you take it! You could say Christianity is "unoriginal, just a bunch of morals and rules, fables and stories that were made up, Jesus was just a good guy, a caring guy, there's a stong argument that He never claimed to be deity, He never was raised from the dead," on and on and on to your hearts content without anyone apposing you. (ANY OF THOSE COMENTS SOUND FAMILIAR?) You say you don't want to argue, well, there ya go, problem solved. But no, you come on here and make these coments and MANY more like them to believers, and then say you don't want to argue! I think I've found my answer and said it erlier, you want the answers, that's obvious, but what are you going to do when you get the "evidence that demads a verdict" that sides with Jesus? Lowe has made effort after effort to show you evidences but everytime he does you come up with something to distract from the issue at hand!

BTW, if the evidence for Christ being raised wasn't so compelling, I'd be right there with you because EVERY SINGLE CLAIM in scripture hinges on that one event. Without it, it ALL falls down, and the writers are either lunatics or liars. I thank God for the evidence that points to a risen savior. I thank God for what He did on the cross for me and you. I thank God for giving us His word and the forgiveness of fools like me...

By the way, I don't have a closed mind. Like I said to you, and you choose to forget, I've read Dawkins, and I have read and continue to read many things that are very antifaith, the thing is, I've found the answers that make sense to believe in Jesus. So yes, I do claim to have "the" answer, it's Jesus the Christ and accepting Him into your life. I believe it, I have evidence to believe it, that makes me close minded? I am constantly searching, but I've never been convinced by anything as compelling as the evidence I see in Jesus. So you ask, "who is it that is not searching?" I don't know, but it isn't me! You should see my bookshelf, it certainly looks like someone who has been searching and continues to search all his life!

So then, how does one define "Christian?" I've always thought that to be christian meant to believe that Jesus was the son of God and the he died for the world's sins. I assure you, Hitler believed that too.



That's amazing and so unbelievably repugnant to me!

To Dan or any other skeptics out there-- I'm sincerely curious, do you also think that Hitler was a Christian?

Is it fair that Christians can exclude believers from their "group" based on evil acts, but atheists cannot exclude non-believers based on the same thing? I would love it if I could say that an evildoer atheist was not a true atheist.



Yeah, I guess that is a drawback to being an atheist :) Since by definition atheists don't believe in something there is no set moral code that they need to follow. At least they're not intolerant ! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I don't think that Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, an Pol Pot of Cambodia were good role models for the cause of atheism. I wonder how many tens of millions of people were killed because of their influence?

Belief in God is just that, a belief. I do not ask anyone to prove anything...the God I believe in gives us all free will and the ability to choose whether to believe, using faith -- not evidence.



Lauraq,
I guess we see things differently. I agree that ultimately we have to believe, but I think that faith is based on evidence. We simply have to believe in what has the strongest weight of evidence. It is based on inductive reasoning, the same method that is used in a court of Law and by historians because the events cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.

Baldguy &amp; Switzerdan,
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you guys too. There is good, solid evidence for faith in Jesus. But it is evidence not proof. With inductive reasoning 100% certainty is never possible. BTW, if you're an atheist you're also living by faith. You don't have that 100% certainty that there is no god; that's something I can definitely demonstrate.

I've presented some sources of evidence earlier on, now I'll add one more for anyone who seriously wants to examine the evidence. It is a book called
Evidence that Demands a Verdict (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=42199&amp;netp_id=157655&amp;event=ESRCN&amp;i tem_code=WW&amp;view=details) by Josh McDowell. There are also a plethora of websites that one could go to for answers to honest questions.

If religion were dealt with an an objective court, the judge would have to throw out the case due to a lack of evidence. The Bible would be dismissed as hearsay.



Actually, the New Testament is the most historically accurate document of antiquity. Everywhere that the historical facts of the New Testament can be checked by archeology or other sources the documents have been proven to be historically accurate.

I love to post multiple times when no one else is on this thread. :D

So then, how does one define "Christian?" I've always thought that to be christian meant to believe that Jesus was the son of God and the he died for the world's sins. I assure you, Hitler believed that too.



That's amazing and so unbelievably repugnant to me!

To Dan or any other skeptics out there-- I'm sincerely curious, do you also think that Hitler was a Christian?


I find him repugnant as well, but he did call himself a Christian. This may seem silly, but who gets to approve membership in Christianity? Is there like a weekly meeting or...

I think we're getting a bit off track. My point in bringing up the holocaust was to show an example of a time that millions of people died because of their religion. These people were Jewish. If the 11 apostles' deaths prove the basis of Christianity as fact, then how do millions of deaths not prove anything for the Jews?

Actually, the New Testament is the most historically accurate document of antiquity. Everywhere that the historical facts of the New Testament can be checked by archeology or other sources the documents have been proven to be historically accurate.


There is a lot of fact in the New Testament. We know it's fact because it's backed up by hard evidence. Christianity isn't built on those facts, though. Otherwise it wouldn't be called "faith" ;).

I also told you that IN FACT I DID READ THE MAJORITY OF IT." But you come on here and say the exact opposite!!!!!



I went back and read your PM and I have to explain my accusation here. While you may have read Dawkins on the internet and in book stores, this, academically speaking, does not qualify as having read him. If I had tried to tell my senior History thesis professor in college that internet readings and bookstore sessions were my sources, I'm pretty sure I would have failed the course and not graduated.

So, I retract my statement that you haven't read Dawkins (in general) but stand by my assertion that it was not an objective, concentrated, academic reading.

My apologies.


You were invited to watch the video clips on youtube just before your rant about "nothing is original about Christianity," and now you act like you don't know what I'm talking about. Not only do my words get twisted, you have selective memory!



Sorry, I really didn't find the links. (I'm human and fallable.) Could you either tell me what page they're on or repost them? Thanks.


I am passionate about God, and the eveidences that support my belief in Him. But I've obviously let your coments get to me instead of simply posting the evidences needed.



I'm still waiting on some hard, undeniable evidence that would hold up in court. (And just so you'll know, I'm not offended by your 'emotional' involvement and letting that passion get the better of you. I find that typically, since they can't argue with logic and evidence, Christians get more emotional about this than atheists. ;))



[/QUOTE]what are you going to do when you get the "evidence that demads a verdict" that sides with Jesus? [QUOTE]


Then I will side with Jesus.

As I said before, I simply don't believe that religion has proven its case. If it does, I'll accept it. But until that time I will to continue to argue that we haven't found the answer to the big question. (You'll notice that I am not on here trying to prove any alternative theory. Why? Because I know there isn't enough evidence to say conclusively.)

The question is, will you change your mind if evidence shows that you're wrong?

So then, how does one define "Christian?" I've always thought that to be christian meant to believe that Jesus was the son of God and the he died for the world's sins. I assure you, Hitler believed that too.



To Dan or any other skeptics out there-- I'm sincerely curious, do you also think that Hitler was a Christian?



Dan,

Would you mind answering this question too? I'm not trying to be contentious or look for ammunition I just want to know what "the other side" really thinks.

I also told you that IN FACT I DID READ THE MAJORITY OF IT." But you come on here and say the exact opposite!!!!!



I went back and read your PM and I have to explain my accusation here. While you may have read Dawkins on the internet and in book stores, this, academically speaking, does not qualify as having read him. If I had tried to tell my senior History thesis professor in college that internet readings and bookstore sessions were my sources, I'm pretty sure I would have failed the course and not graduated.

So, I retract my statement that you haven't read Dawkins (in general) but stand by my assertion that it was not an objective, concentrated, academic reading.

My apologies.


You were invited to watch the video clips on youtube just before your rant about "nothing is original about Christianity," and now you act like you don't know what I'm talking about. Not only do my words get twisted, you have selective memory!



Sorry, I really didn't find the links. (I'm human and fallable.) Could you either tell me what page they're on or repost them? Thanks.


I am passionate about God, and the eveidences that support my belief in Him. But I've obviously let your coments get to me instead of simply posting the evidences needed.



I'm still waiting on some hard, undeniable evidence that would hold up in court. (And just so you'll know, I'm not offended by your 'emotional' involvement and letting that passion get the better of you. I find that typically, since they can't argue with logic and evidence, Christians get more emotional about this than atheists. ;))



what are you going to do when you get the "evidence that demads a verdict" that sides with Jesus?


Then I will side with Jesus.

As I said before, I simply don't believe that religion has proven its case. If it does, I'll accept it. But until that time I will to continue to argue that we haven't found the answer to the big question. (You'll notice that I am not on here trying to prove any alternative theory. Why? Because I know there isn't enough evidence to say conclusively.)

The question is, will you change your mind if evidence shows that you're wrong?



you'll probably have to give me until mid-week, I am housesitting for my uncle in law til tuesday in about an hour and don't know the computer situation over there...

So what exactly is "reading" in your opinion? My wife and I went to Borders last night, I "read" about half of the God Delusion, but that doesn't count? I don't get it... I thought that was me reading it, cross referencing it, making ocasional notes, discussing it with my wife, ect. maybe I was dreaming. I'll ask my wife later... BTW, what school did you go to where your "senior History thesis professor" is more concerned about your purchasing habits of books than the knowledge of their content? :confused: Seems a bit silly to me, and knit picky. You either have read it and can speak of it's contents or not. To be honest with you, the majority of it I've already heard before. Like I said, this isn't my first rodeo. I've been studying this stuff for almost twenty year. By no means does that make me any kind of expert, just fairly informed as someone who reads it would be. It's not new, just reshaped and repackaged.

Like I already said, just type Louie Giglio "How great is our God" in your google search. This doesn't "prove" anything, never said it did. You asked me "what is your point?" and I told you.( Also, in that sort of thread of view, "Journey to the edge of Creation" is one of my favs. ) You weren't being "human or fallable", just a little lazy, :D:, just click back a few pages and read!

My passion didn't get the better of me, sir! lol, The many blasphemous and illogical remarks about Jesus did! :mad:I've quoted a few that came to mind recently. There were many more but like I've already said, grrrr, I can't keep up with all of it... Do you even read what I post or just react? lol I constantly have to repeat myself! Always try to keep in mind, not everything gets interpreted correctly online. Reading someones post incorectly is easy to do, for anyone including me...

I'll post some of my favorite and IMO best evidence's for why I personally believe. You can take'm or leave'm. By the way, did you look up Lowe's recomendation of Josh Mcdowells "Evidence that demands a verdict?" I don't agree with everytthing in it, but I like that one alot. Just go to the book store, I won't hold you to the standards of your "senior History thesis professor!" lol :D

I belive in Jesus Christ for many reasons, especially biblical evidences. It is truly the most "documentable" of ALL the antiquities. His Word is so amazing that it blows my mind to see the evidiences as to it's legitimacy. As important and HUGE as that is, it doesn't stop there. I hope that someday you see what I've seen, and come to know what I've come to know, the "renewing of a mind," the "changing of a heart" and "the power of His resurrection."

Dan,

Would you mind answering this question too? I'm not trying to be contentious or look for ammunition I just want to know what "the other side" really thinks.



I'm not sure if Hitler was a 'Christian' or not. However, he made liberal use of both the Bible and Christian imagery in his speeches and propoganda. (Since I speak German, I was able to read/hear some of this information from original sources like speeches and their texts.) Even if he wasn't a believer, he certainly used Christianity to further his causes.

Although, to be honest, I think he believed he was doing 'God's work'. I think he believed this as much as Torquemada; as much as any of the Popes that called for Crusades or suppressed Galileo; as much as the current Pope who continues the Church's policy of being against women's rights and birth control.

There has been a long history of anti-Semitism within the Christian churches. I think Hitler thought he was continuing that work on a grander scale. He never once spoke out against Christianity - at least in the speeches I read/saw. If the vast majority of people in Germany in the early 1930's had been atheists, there is no way Hitler would have been able to do what he did to the Jews.

For me, this is the crux of the problem with religion.

It has been, continues to be, and will be used as the justification for any number of atrocities. You may argue that the people leading / committing these atrocities are only pretending to be be (insert religion of your choice here) but the religion is still being used as a motivation.

Atheists simply don't use religious differences as a reason to commit such atrocities. (Some people will try to have you believe that since Stalin attempted to destroy the Church in the Soviet Union and since he was an atheist, this is a case of an atheist committing a crime against religion. These people need to study their Soviet history again and discover the real reasons that Stalin tried to destroy the Church.)

If we woke up tomorrow in a world full of atheists, I'd bet that most of the world's problems would be infinitely more solvable than they are now.

If we woke up tomorrow in a world full of atheists, I'd bet that most of the world's problems would be infinitely more solvable than they are now.



I believe there is a lot of truth to that statement, particularly in the Middle East. Throughout history, I think religion has been the favored vehicle of the powerful to further their causes. Even the secular Sadaam Hussein tried to play the religious (jihad!) card when we attacked him this last time -- it didn't work but it was his best chance to mobilize some forces to repel the invasion. A religious fanatic is a powerful warrior indeed -- most atheists do not have any causes they are willing to die for.

You know, I haven't been a part of this thread because I really don't care to get involved with a drawn out debate that can not be won, but I can't help myself right here...


It has been, continues to be, and will be used as the justification for any number of atrocities.



If Religion didn't exist, there would be other justifications. I'm sorry, but people will always believe in something. Be that oneself, a God entity, the equal rights of animals... it doesn't matter. Everyone believes in something, even when that something is nothing. In the end, regardless of the existence of religion people will commit atrocities. People will act in extreme ways against the social mores of the goodly people of the world.

Religion isn't a cause, it is a scapegoat.


-Chris.
[a fairly confused, generally apathetic, non-participating Christian]

What's a Chrisian? :D

What's a Chrisian? :D



Oh come on. You haven't heard about the followers of Chris? :eek:

I watched the "How great is our God" video. The first part of it where he was simply talking about science and the vastness of the universe was pretty cool.

And he made me laugh. I had no idea that "We're worshipping a star-breathing god."

Of course, then he reverted to witchdoctor mode and started preaching and I got a migraine... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I also looked up some stuff about Josh McDowell. I can't get a copy of any of his books here, because it's just too expensive to import and no one here has anything like that as we're a pretty secular society.

However, I went to his website and looked around a bit. He's got this section where he answers questions sent in from readers. Not knowing him, I'd like some of you who have read him to help me out here.

It seems to me that he ultimately answers almost every question by saying that since much of Bible is true (i.e. - places, people, certain historical events) that we must accept the whole thing as true and therefore accept that Jesus was who he said he was. Is this fairly accurate or does he have anything else?

Lowe and playtowin,

I have a few questions for you guys. They don't really have anything to do with our conversation per se; I'm just curious.

1) If you have or plan to have children, when they reach / reached that age when they start / started asking rudimentary philosophical questions such as 'What happens when we die?', would / did you simply tell them that they go to heaven to be with God, or would / did you tell them that different people believe different things, but you believe this?
(I ask this because my wife and I were discussing how we're going to approach this when my son gets to that age. Obviously, I'm going with the some believe this and some believe this route and telling him that he's going to have to make up his own mind in time.)

2) How do you feel about homosexual rights? Homosexual marriages? Partner insurance benefits for homosexuals?

3) How do you feel about creationism...erm...intelligent design theory being taught in schools? How do you feel about evolution being taught in schools?

Thanks in advance for the answers.

Anybody participating in Lent this year? I look forward to this time of year, a time of personal housecleaning. I'm giving up some food stuff this year.

Thread drift, but i didn't know where else to post it.

I used to do the Lent thing, when I was a nominal Catholic, but since I became a (you-know-what), I am not as much into things that, with the way I am, can become ritualistic instead of worshipful.

Yeah, I did not grow up doing the Lent thing. Just started observing it a couple of years ago. When it becomes and empty ritual for me, I will take a break from it. For now it is very meaningful.

Lowe and playtowin,

I have a few questions for you guys. They don't really have anything to do with our conversation per se; I'm just curious.

1) If you have or plan to have children, when they reach / reached that age when they start / started asking rudimentary philosophical questions such as 'What happens when we die?', would / did you simply tell them that they go to heaven to be with God, or would / did you tell them that different people believe different things, but you believe this?
(I ask this because my wife and I were discussing how we're going to approach this when my son gets to that age. Obviously, I'm going with the some believe this and some believe this route and telling him that he's going to have to make up his own mind in time.)

2) How do you feel about homosexual rights? Homosexual marriages? Partner insurance benefits for homosexuals?

3) How do you feel about creationism...erm...intelligent design theory being taught in schools? How do you feel about evolution being taught in schools?

Thanks in advance for the answers.



Wow! Ask a couple of simple questions and the room goes quiet...

Any particular reason you guys aren't answering the questions? :confused:

I should point out that I meant to say public schools in question #3. I didn't want to give the impression that I was talking about private schools as well.

Wow! Once agian, do you ever read my posts or just react? I'm serious Dan, it gets old. I said, I'd be away for a few days. Does your computer have a way to look at previous posts? geesh!

I'll answer your questions as soon as you can give me an honest answer as to why your asking? You've picked several controversial questions, you must have a point other than "I was curious."

Dan, in response to your question of �what evidence� I�d first like to say thanks for asking. I hope you are sincere in your search and in your evaluation of the evidence offered. I�ll be honest, some of your comments have really made me question your seriousness, but I will give you the benefit of doubt on that for now. Not only because I would want to be treated that way, but because I know you are not the only one who will read this. You have said that you are, quote: �not on here to prove any alternative theory because there isn�t enough evidence to say conclusively.� I don�t believe that for a second! Please be more honest with the people you mock on this thread! Anyone who has read Dawkins and then, without being provoked, actively recommend him and support him on this and other threads is definitely �trying to prove an alternative theory!� Please, despite your definition of what true reading is, I know what Dawkins is about.

I disagree with your statement that �there isn�t enough evidence to say conclusively.� At least, as far as Christianity is concerned. I do believe there�s enough material for any honest student to conclude that it must be true. Otherwise, I wouldn�t be trusting it, or certainly writing about it. To put it bluntly, sorta speak, if I didn�t believe (trust) in God, I�d pack some doobage and hit the course for a permanent vacation. Afterwards, I�d hit the bars and see what I could drag out�a there! In other words, I�d simply do whatever I feel like doing. When my focus wasn�t on the truth, that�s exactly what I did, and until I die, I will need to be mindful of the things that would trip me up.

I�ve never understood the �moral atheist� because ultimately, what is the point? If all we are is �worm-food� that is forgotten in a matter of two or three generations, why not do whatever appeals to our senses? Who determines our moral compass? Who�s to say what is right or wrong without a universal standard? Relativism is a religion for the lazy student of life and a close relative to the morally bankrupt. The kid who defiantly proclaims �I don�t follow God because I don�t need a bunch of rules and laws man!� is the moral equivalent of a leaf in the wind. Sadly, when his short life is over, he will have no hope because he never trusted anything bigger than himself. For years, I did exactly what I wanted, when I wanted. It wasn�t until I turned back to the Bible that I found answers that were worth anything. If you are looking for a miraculous sign or personal appearance from Jesus himself to make you believe, then I can�t help you. If you would like �enough evidence to say conclusively� that Christianity makes sense, then I believe it�s there for you.

I really like your scenario of a court scene because it is a universal concept, not just an American one, and a good idea for the purpose of this subject. As in all court cases, unless somehow you were there to see �it,� your decision is based on the evidences. It is that idea that I would urge you to focus on. I will try to present some of my favorite evidences, both �pro-Christianity� as well as �anti-alternative� (meaning why the alternatives don�t work), and you can decide for yourself.

BTW, I don�t study Dawkins or any other anti-Christian theory to find out the truth. Over twenty years ago I did that, and I made up my mind based upon the evidence. So when you ask about my reading of such �stuff,� please keep that in mind, it�s a settled issue in my life because I believe the Word of God is true and I want to share it with anyone who will listen. The holes in atheism, evolution, pantheism, relativism, Catholicism, Mormonisn, Frisbeetarianism, on and on, are wide enough for me to see right through them, so I reject them based on the evidence, not my upbringing, my country, my feelings or anything else. It�s based on the evidence.

Please keep in mind, this is a big subject, with literally thousands of evidences. I have not yet written on this subject. (I say �yet� because I recently had an idea for a book. It would be a collection of all the lies and collaborative conspiracies that would have had to taken place if the Bible wasn�t the true. It would be an amazing portrait of just how deep the human mind can go to avoid the truth.) I can give you my opinion and the few things I�ve personally seen as evidences, but most likely I will be referring you to the work of other people on this subject that I personally know, or have read. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that, do you? If someone wanted to give me evidence for evolution, I would have no problem with them quoting the work of others who know more about it then themselves. Kinda like you pointing to Dawkins. The content of there evidence is more important than whether you personally penned it or not. I hope this is not a problem with you, otherwise I�ll have to just say goodnight, and good luck, because up this point, I haven�t written a book on Christian evidences!

Below is a book I would highly recommend. It is entitled �Christianity, a Clear Case of History,� by Ed Wharton. The entire book has been copied online for you to read for free. I was a student of his 17 years ago, and to this day if I have a question, I can count on him to speak the truth in love. I consider him a mentor and friend. If you truly are searching for answers, this book is an excellent way to go. No matter how limited you are in your town as far as materials go, if you have web access then the resources are there. It�s just a matter of your seeking them out and avoiding liberal pitfalls, which I know, are many. I will help you anyway I can, but if you are waiting for me to type out everything I�ve read you�re going to be waiting a long time. I will include specific evidences I find interesting and persuasive from time to time, but I can�t just sit here and copy everything that you can find and read for yourself. I am sure that you �get that.� This is an excellent book that contains many evidences. Enjoy!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=ed+wharton+a+clear+case+of+history&amp; btnG=Google+Search

It is the second link down. E book


The appeal of the modern religious experience is not something I agree or am comfortable with. The draw of what is called �the emerging church� is nothing more than �making it up as you go theology� in my opinion. The tv evangelism of health and wealth doctrines is disgusting. It is these distortions and many more that have produced the Biblical atmosphere we live in today. An atmosphere where the simple believer can find their time spent defining all that they are not, instead of simply sharing the truth. I would encourage anyone to seek a more of an historic outlook on the Bible, because it is only there that any of it makes sense. Any religious experience that is not backed by knowledge of the Scripture, is a leap into subjectivism. I love the way Ed Wharton puts it in this book:

�It is a tragic, if interesting, quirk of the present religious era that Bible things are being discussed and conclusions are being reached without any reference to the Bible. It appears as if people are pooling their Bible ignorance in the name of Jesus and calling it Christianity! Evidence for the living Christ, we are told, is supposed to be found in the joyful feelings of the heart. This is expressed in the church hymn:

He lives! He lives!
You ask me how I know He lives:
He lives within my heart.

However, it is a practical impossibility to know whether or not Jesus is presently living by an appeal to the swelling emotions of the human heart. The feeling of joy in Christianity is the result of faith, not the proof of the thing believed. The only way known to man to confirm the living Christ today is by an appeal to the historical testimony of the apostles. The testimony of the Holy Spirit to the living Lord is not in the feelings which he produces, but in the written word which he revealed and had written.�

So, with that in mind, the answer to your question about Josh McDowell, if I understood it correctly would be yes! If the majority of evidence in the Bible were accurate, then why wouldn�t you believe all of it? Is it because it involves the supernatural? Well how do you explain your existence? You are covered with the fingerprints of God! That seems pretty supernatural to me, in light of the evidence! I don�t speak for Josh McDowell, in fact, as I�ve already said �I don�t agree with some of his stuff,� even major �stuff� but I agree with the idea that you either believe the Bible as a whole, or not at all. I don�t believe you can just pick and choose the parts you like! This isn�t a religious buffet, it�s God revealing himself to mankind in a form that all can relate to, words! This is why I�m not Catholic! (Bring on the �fan mail!�) I don�t choose parts or add parts to fit my tradition or way of seeing things. Words mean things! There are claims in there! Claims that can be verified and backed up by historical evidence. Can I prove that a certain miracle took place? Of course not, but I can give you evidence as to why I believe it took place and you can judge for yourself. When the stack of evidence gets tall enough, something�s got to give! It is what you do in nearly every situation in life. You make judgements on a second by second basis in light of the evidence stored in your brain. That is all the more reason why it is critical to renew your mind to the things that will last.

I didn�t just give you one piece of evidence and let you �go at it� here today. I pointed you to an entire book of evidences and reasons to believe the reliability of the Bible. You can access it day or night, for free. You can choose to examine the evidence, or you can chose to gloss over it. That is up to you. By no means does this book reference complete any study of evidences, but it is a great place to start for those who are sincere in their search. I hope that you can find some answers to your quest for evidence there. If not, I�m sure you�ll let me hear about it!

You have said that you are, quote: �not on here to prove any alternative theory because there isn�t enough evidence to say conclusively.� I don�t believe that for a second! Please be more honest with the people you mock on this thread! Anyone who has read Dawkins and then, without being provoked, actively recommend him and support him on this and other threads is definitely �trying to prove an alternative theory!� Please, despite your definition of what true reading is, I know what Dawkins is about.



<font color="red">If you can find the post where I say I have an alternate theory that I'm trying to prove, I'll accept that. Saying your theory is wrong doesn't mean that I'm espousing a theory of my own. I haven't suggested that Dawkins be used for anything other than examining the flaws in your theory. </font>


I�ve never understood the �moral atheist� because ultimately, what is the point? If all we are is �worm-food� that is forgotten in a matter of two or three generations, why not do whatever appeals to our senses? Who determines our moral compass? Who�s to say what is right or wrong without a universal standard?



<font color="red">I'm a moral atheist. My moral compass is guided by respect for my fellow human.

What's the point if there is a god? We're just playthings for him as he knows all of our choices and the story of our lives ahead of time. Can you even comprehend the number of souls he's allowed to be born knowing that they were doomed to an eternity in Hell?

More importantly, why would a god need us? </font>


The holes in atheism, evolution, pantheism, relativism, Catholicism, Mormonisn, Frisbeetarianism, on and on, are wide enough for me to see right through them, so I reject them based on the evidence, not my upbringing, my country, my feelings or anything else. It�s based on the evidence.




<font color="red">What holes do you see in the theory of evolution? How about Catholicism? </font>


Below is a book I would highly recommend. It is entitled �Christianity, a Clear Case of History,� by Ed Wharton. The entire book has been copied online for you to read for free. I was a student of his 17 years ago, and to this day if I have a question, I can count on him to speak the truth in love. I consider him a mentor and friend. If you truly are searching for answers, this book is an excellent way to go. No matter how limited you are in your town as far as materials go, if you have web access then the resources are there. It�s just a matter of your seeking them out and avoiding liberal pitfalls, which I know, are many. I will help you anyway I can, but if you are waiting for me to type out everything I�ve read you�re going to be waiting a long time. I will include specific evidences I find interesting and persuasive from time to time, but I can�t just sit here and copy everything that you can find and read for yourself. I am sure that you �get that.� This is an excellent book that contains many evidences. Enjoy!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=ed+wharton+a+clear+case+of+history&amp; btnG=Google+Search

It is the second link down. E book




<font color="red">I'll have a look at this when I get back in town next week. </font>


So, with that in mind, the answer to your question about Josh McDowell, if I understood it correctly would be yes! If the majority of evidence in the Bible were accurate, then why wouldn�t you believe all of it?



<font color="red"> As the Qur'an is full of historical truths as well (people, places, events), doesn't that mean that we should accept all of it as true also? </font>

<font color="red">Incidentally, I'm glad you edited your post calling me out for being impatient. If you had read my whole 'questions' post before you started writing you would have noticed it wasn't just addressed to you but to Lowe as well. I've seen him posting since I submitted that. I knew you wouldn't be back until mid-week.

So, are you going to answer the questions? The reason I want to know is because I want to know if I'm dealing with a tolerant, caring, open-minded person or something else entirely. </font>

Dan,

I was also away on a trip for a few days, but I'm lurking around and pondering my reply. I've got other things going on in my life and higher priorities, plus I've already spent way more time on this thread than I should have. I'll try to chime in as I'm able.

If you can find the post where I say I have an alternate theory that I'm trying to prove, I'll accept that. Saying your theory is wrong doesn't mean that I'm espousing a theory of my own. I haven't suggested that Dawkins be used for anything other than examining the flaws in your theory.

quote:

Hi Stack! I whole-heartedly side with Dawkins' opinion. I have since I was about 6. He just puts the arguments so much more eloquently and well thought out than I could.


unquote

<font color="green"> </font>

I'm a moral atheist. My moral compass is guided by respect for my fellow human.

<font color="green"> </font> Can your moral compass tell me what is right or wrong? If so, on what basis, your opinion? Why should your opinion govern my actions? Is there nothing greater than Dan's opinion in the universe? What if my moral compass tells me something vastly diferent than yours? Who's is right? I could go on for days with this one Dan, moral relativism is not a hard one to punch holes in...

What's the point if there is a god?

<font color="green"> </font> You answered a question with a question BTW. It's ok, nothing new. You seem to gloss over much of what I say anyway. Just don't be surprised if this well runs dry someday! The point of living a life that is attemtpting to live to God's moral code is to first and foremost do what He said. Also, because He knows best for you, He created you! Is there any question in your brain as to what makes more sense in this example of morality: One man and one woman for life, or hit'n anything with a pulse? The examples and results of living for God could go on for days, but you know what the point of living by God's standard is Dan, it's to do what He has told you to do, for your own sake. If you really need me to clarify this more I will, but please, for the sake of intellectual honesty, think about this one for a minute and I am sure you will see that "the point" is not hard to figure out.
<font color="green"> </font> Just a thought came to me. You know, when God's word comands us to do something, it also tells us what we are going to get out of it! Look it up Dan, I think you'll be surprised to learn what God has in store for those who obey Him. Take a look at what Jesus asks of you, then look at what He promisses you in return, not only in Heaven, but here and now! Don't get me wrong, the life of a Christian can be tough, but His promises never cease. It's an awesome study that will give a powerful view of His mercy (not getting what you deserve) and His grace (getting more than you deserve).



We're just playthings for him as he knows all of our choices and the story of our lives ahead of time. Can you even comprehend the number of souls he's allowed to be born knowing that they were doomed to an eternity in Hell?

<font color="green"> </font> You have made it abundantly clear that you don't believe that God exists so how can He be or do any of this baloney? We can't grasp how big He is Dan, but all of us who recognize the gift of free will can choose life instead of death. We can also choose to see Him as His word describes him, not some death crazed lunatic in the sky who likes to watch his people burn. He loves you with an everlasting love. Your crazy example of God's interaction with His creation I believe comes from a place of frustration and hostility to what you can't grasp. The Bible is extremely clear on Hell Dan. It's twisted scenario's like the one above that make the simple complex. They also make God out to be a liar..

More importantly, why would a god need us?

<font color="green"> </font> I've studied the Bible a good deal and have never come across a passage that says God "needs us." But I guess if you absolutely had to put those words into a senctence to describe God, I guess you could say God "needs us" to fulfull His plan. But honestly, I never look at God as "needing" anything! Once again, I think this is another question that comes from a place in you that is confused and a bit hostile towards the things of God.


What holes do you see in the theory of evolution? How about Catholicism?

<font color="green"> </font> What holes? Dan, please tell me you read more than Richard Dawkins? There is a line from a song I'd like to quote to you, (can anyone name that tune?) Dan it's "time to play B sides!" There are literally volumes of books, stacks and stacks of books dedicated to exposing the holes in evolutionary thinking. Yes, I know what your "leader" (just joking) has to say about evolution, but once he chips away all the misconceptions of scietific evolution, is there anything left? Besides, why would you want to open up a can of worms like that, I thought you had "no other alternative theory to Christianity" to prove? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

<font color="green"> </font> The Catholic religion has an incredible amount of man made elements that are found nowhere in the New Testament documents. A study of what the Catholic Church believes compared to what the Bible actually teaches would reveal an amazing amount of discrepency to anyone who places more importance on the Word of God than "Church" tradition. I will refer you to the first line of the quote I made in my previous post of Ed Whartons book, "Christianity a Clear Case of History." I think that would be an excellent answer to this question.


As the Qur'an is full of historical truths as well (people, places, events), doesn't that mean that we should accept all of it as true also?

<font color="green"> </font> In my opinion, the list of contradictions and historical evidences of being tampered with do not make the Quran a reliable text. So, although it contains many factual places, people and events, it over all is not a reliable guide to my life. Not to mention the things that don't line up with the Bible, which the Quran approves repeatedly. For the same reason, I don't follow the book of Mormon or hold a copy of "The Gospel According to Thomas." All these I reject based on the evidence that shows them all to be less than reliable. .

Incidentally, I'm glad you edited your post calling me out for being impatient. If you had read my whole 'questions' post before you started writing you would have noticed it wasn't just addressed to you but to Lowe as well. I've seen him posting since I submitted that. I knew you wouldn't be back until mid-week.

<font color="green"> </font> I must have clicked the wrong button, because I never edited it! I thought it was posted. I'll post it again! You were jokingly impatient and you specifially mentioned my name and "you guys." Was I suppose to guess which one of us you really were asking? Man! I've read everyone of your questions Dan, you ask alot of them. To give you an adequate answer to everyone of them takes alot of time. And to judge your motives in asking them in the slightest seems to be an excercise in futility.

So, are you going to answer the questions? The reason I want to know is because I want to know if I'm dealing with a tolerant, caring, open-minded person or something else entirely. <font color="purple"> </font>

<font color="green"> </font> You are dealing with Christian, if you want to know what that means, just ask! Don't mask your motives behind "hot-topic" questioning. I am not affraid to answer any of your homosexual, or creationism questions Dan, but in light of all the questions I've already taken the time to adequately answer, I really don't see the point! I hope you will spend a little time thinking about what has taken a long time to respond to, rather than shooting "buckshot" with your questioning. Perhaps you could respond with a little more indepth analysis of the answers to your already many questions. I think your wondering of "who your dealing with here" is indicative of someone who doesn't appreciate the answers he's already been given by someone who obviously cares.

Tried to edit the color thing to seperate my words from yours but I can't figure it out. There's a question for you Dan, just so I'll know who I'm dealing with! Ha Ha :D

I apologize in advance if I missed something on one of those posts. I'll be honest and say that I skimmed some parts.

Dan's not the only one interested in how you will answer his questions.

As for the "moral code" discussion, I also agree with Dan. I don't need a rulebook to know right from wrong. I also don't agree with some of the rules that the bible espouses. That said... I've never met a christian who follows all of them anyway. I believe that an individual is responsible for developing his own moral code. Every moral decision we make in every day that we live is guided by something. you say that yours is guided by a supreme being. Please don't take this the wrong way, but are you saying that you only act morally out of fear of this being?

Yes, I'm an atheist... yet somehow I've managed to avoid pillaging villages and rap[/b]ing women. I don't steal things from the mentally challenged or fling poo at passers-by. I've never once burned a cross or blown up a family clinic. I even manage to show respect for those who have viewpoints different from my own. How is that possible? Why would I ever act in such a way if I don't have someone to tell me how to act?

I know I'm being a bit extreme here and some of it is simply to bring a bit of humor back to this thread. The underlying point though is that there are millions upon millions of people who do not believe in a higher power but still carry on normal lives and somehow co-exist with the rest of society. We lead successful, productive lives in spite of our complete failure to embrace "facts" based on faith alone.

One last thing (for now ;)): Do you believe the following story?

"I went to work yesterday. I had four meetings before noon that lasted an average of 45 minutes each. I had a hamburger for lunch that was cooked by a man wearing an apron and a hair net. That man was 27 feet tall and had over a thousand fingers on his left hand. After eating, I returned to work and finished my day at my desk. I left work at about 6:00pm and drove the 20 miles home in just about 30 minutes. My lovely fiancee cooked dinner and we watched television until bedtime."

Do you believe the following story?

"I went to work yesterday. I had four meetings before noon that lasted an average of 45 minutes each. I had a hamburger for lunch that was cooked by a man wearing an apron and a hair net. That man was 27 feet tall and had over a thousand fingers on his left hand. After eating, I returned to work and finished my day at my desk. I left work at about 6:00pm and drove the 20 miles home in just about 30 minutes. My lovely fiancee cooked dinner and we watched television until bedtime."



That's incredible! We eat lunch at the same place!! :D

One last thing (for now ;)): Do you believe the following story?

"I went to work yesterday. I had four meetings before noon that lasted an average of 45 minutes each. I had a hamburger for lunch that was cooked by a man wearing an apron and a hair net. That man was 27 feet tall and had over a thousand fingers on his left hand. After eating, I returned to work and finished my day at my desk. I left work at about 6:00pm and drove the 20 miles home in just about 30 minutes. My lovely fiancee cooked dinner and we watched television until bedtime."



Nice touch! This is an effective way to make your point about historical facts! :)

Tried to edit the color thing to seperate my words from yours but I can't figure it out.



To do colors just click on the Font color, on the right side. <font color="red"> Red </font> , <font color="blue">blue </font> , etc. You have to put the text you want in color inside of the code that's in brackets [].

You can also set them off as quoted with {quote}...{/quote} (but use square brackets [] instead of {})
Bold = {b}...{/b}
Italics = {i}...{/i}

Mere Christianity (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=2926x&amp;event=68636SBF|582991|68636) by C.S. Lewis is another book that many people have found helpful in their spiritual journey. It's written in a very readable style.

Just to make this simpler for all:

<font color="red">The red words were my original questions.</font>
<font color="green">The green words were playtowin's answers. </font>
<font color="blue">The blue words are my new responses.</font>
<font color="red">If you can find the post where I say I have an alternate theory that I'm trying to prove, I'll accept that. Saying your theory is wrong doesn't mean that I'm espousing a theory of my own. I haven't suggested that Dawkins be used for anything other than examining the flaws in your theory.

[QUOTE]
Hi Stack! I whole-heartedly side with Dawkins' opinion. I have since I was about 6. He just puts the arguments so much more eloquently and well thought out than I could. </font>



<font color="blue">So what theory am I putting forth here? I said that 'I whole-heartedly side with Dawkins' opinion.' First, please note the use of the singular. One opinion. Which one? The one that there is no god. I am not offering another theory. I am merely saying that your theory is wrong.

As any freshman debate student will tell you, the burden of proof lies with the person who believes in the existence of something. I haven't tried to prove the existence of anything nor am I offering a theory to be discredited. </font>


<font color="red">I'm a moral atheist. My moral compass is guided by respect for my fellow human.</font>

<font color="green">Can your moral compass tell me what is right or wrong? If so, on what basis, your opinion? Why should your opinion govern my actions? Is there nothing greater than Dan's opinion in the universe? What if my moral compass tells me something vastly diferent than yours? Who's is right? I could go on for days with this one Dan, moral relativism is not a hard one to punch holes in... </font>

<font color="blue">I could ask you the same things and we could go around in circles forever. I base my moral compass on a philosophy called Objectivism. It was formulated by a philosopher called Ayn Rand. (And yes, this is something that I will not only defend, but recommend.) I don't want to get into that on this thread, but I encourage you to read her books and then decide whether I am capable of making moral judgements about right or wrong.</font>

[QUOTE]
<font color="red">What holes do you see in the theory of evolution?</font>

<font color="green">What holes? Dan, please tell me you read more than Richard Dawkins? There is a line from a song I'd like to quote to you, (can anyone name that tune?) Dan it's "time to play B sides!" There are literally volumes of books, stacks and stacks of books dedicated to exposing the holes in evolutionary thinking. Yes, I know what your "leader" (just joking) has to say about evolution, but once he chips away all the misconceptions of scietific evolution, is there anything left? Besides, why would you want to open up a can of worms like that, I thought you had "no other alternative theory to Christianity" to prove? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif</font>

<font color="blue">Again, I think you should read my words a bit more carefully. I didn't say that evolution was true. I've read arguments on both sides of this issue, I just wanted to know I what you thought the holes in it were. </font>




<font color="red">How about Catholicism?</font>

<font color="green"> The Catholic religion has an incredible amount of man made elements that are found nowhere in the New Testament documents. A study of what the Catholic Church believes compared to what the Bible actually teaches would reveal an amazing amount of discrepency to anyone who places more importance on the Word of God than "Church" tradition.</font>

<font color="blue"> At last, something we agree on! :D </font>




<font color="red">As the Qur'an is full of historical truths as well (people, places, events), doesn't that mean that we should accept all of it as true also? </font>

<font color="green">In my opinion, the list of contradictions and historical evidences of being tampered with do not make the Quran a reliable text. </font>

<font color="blue">The Bible also has contradictions. At least the Muslims try to explain the ones in the Qur'an through 'Abrogation'.

As far as being tampered with, the Qur'an was written down completely within 20 years of Muhammed's death. (Before that it existed in written form but not as a complete work.) Several original copies of this exist. Additionally, the language is basically the same one that is spoken today in the Arab world. So, I have to ask, what tampering are you talking about?</font>




<font color="red">So, are you going to answer the questions? The reason I want to know is because I want to know if I'm dealing with a tolerant, caring, open-minded person or something else entirely. </font>

<font color="green">You are dealing with Christian, if you want to know what that means, just ask! </font>

<font color="blue"> I think I have to ask what being a Christian means in this case. I'm pretty sure, based on your posts, that you're not a Catholic or a Mormon. Are you a Baptist? A Methodist? A Jehovah's Witness? A Presbytarian? A Unitarian? (By the way, it seems that you guys (Christians) can't even agree on how to worship your own god and what is and isn't true about him. How do you ever convince non-believers that your denomination is the right one?)</font>

so how long did it take you to get from TX to Switzerland after lunch? where were all these tall guys when I was younger? I bet that 27' man at the restaurant is dating some 4 foot girl. That always made me angry. (for those that don't know me, I'm 6'1")
Gee, I really need to work on that jealousy thing. Speaking of which, wish i could have been on trips for the last few days like all you guys, sounds like fun.
Dave are you coming to any of the Big Show? Need a place to stay?
BTW, Josh is correct, many of us want to see your responses to Dan's questions. Remember when answering, our God is a loving god and created each of us out of love.
BTW, Josh, while I'm addressing you, thanks for all you have done for disc golf in the area and tell Deidre "hello" for me.

Gee, I really need to work on that jealousy thing. Speaking of which, wish i could have been on trips for the last few days like all you guys, sounds like fun.



Laura,

And just to add to your jealousy, I got to play 4 new disc golf courses in the far western part of NC on my trip. It was fun! Sorry to gloat.

Its okay, my disc golf addiction is almost completely gone. That's a whole other story.
Seriously, how do you feel about homosexual rights and what is taught, or not taught, in public schools regarding the origin of the universe? I'll add one more: what about mandatory prayer in public schools?
I pm'd Dan my beliefs because he didn't directly ask me the questions. I'll tell anyone if they want to know. I'll probably run for school board in a few years...trying to influence my son's education. Private school will get expensive, but may be worth it. I've just recently got him accepted to start in a Montessori program for 1/2 day pre-school next year in a school that goes through sixth grade.

BTW, Josh, while I'm addressing you, thanks for all you have done for disc golf in the area and tell Deidre "hello" for me.



Thanks back atcha. you and Don have fed me more than once with delicious BBQ :). I'll never play another VPO without Don Q's cookin :D

BTW, I'm not sure if you caught it in my post or if you heard otherwise, but Deidre is officially almost-Mrs-baldguy. She doesn't wear the ring during DG but as soon as the round's over, on it goes :). You guys will get an invite to the (on-topic: non-religious) wedding. After all... I was at yours :)

well, with the 27 foot guy part, wasn't sure whether congrats were actually in order for you two or not...so, glad to hear it's true &amp; congrats!
I'll pass the comments on to DonQ. He's catering the Big Show, probably just hamburgers and hotdogs for Cedar Hill, but perhaps chopped brisket for ZBoaz, just perhaps. You guys will have to ask a bunch for him to do the brisket for him to get the incentive to do it. He does not make much on it when he does the brisket, partially because he trims it so much and spends so much time slicing, chopping, and smoking.
wow, don't think any of this post was on topic. quick, let me think of something...well, Don's mom said she prayed for many years that he would find someone a good Christian woman that makes her son happy like me and also for the grandson. So, there ya' have it, answered prayers.
BTW, since this was my third marriage, it just seemed more appropriate to have it in between rounds at a disc golf tourny since disc golf is how we met, than to have it at a church. My first wedding was a full church thing. It was at a Baptist church without any alcohol or dancing being allowed, except what was sneaked in by the bestman.
My second wedding was a full party. Ate, drank, and danced for a couple hours. He was an attorney I met here in the courthouse, so one of our judge friends married us, then the party continued for a couple more hours. He's a judge downstairs now.
I look forward to attending your wedding. It's about time! :cool: I wish you both many, many happy years together!

Sorry to bud back in, but I'd like to know how I'm viewed as a non-beleiver by a beleiver. Am I a lower existance or source of pitty? Moral codes were being mentioned, and I was wondering how beleivers think I go about life. This is my main grievance with religion, judgment.

Sorry to bud back in, but I'd like to know how I'm viewed as a non-beleiver by a beleiver. Am I a lower existance or source of pitty? Moral codes were being mentioned, and I was wondering how beleivers think I go about life. This is my main grievance with religion, judgment.



Which in turn, I begin to resent and judge religous folk...sort of a cycle, huh?

Sorry to bud back in, but I'd like to know how I'm viewed as a non-beleiver by a beleiver. Am I a lower existance or source of pitty? Moral codes were being mentioned, and I was wondering how beleivers think I go about life. This is my main grievance with religion, judgment.



<font color="green"> As a believer, if somone asked me about your faith Chris, I would have to say that you are an "un-believer" because that's what you've said. That's not being judgmental. That's answering a question truthfully by quoting you. It's without any emotion, attitude or prejudice. You asking "Am I a lower existance or source of pitty?" is nothing more than you trying to "draw a believer off sides" so that you can say "he's judging me!" Not too cool. I award you no points and scold you briefly for waisting the panels time! Ha Ha :D

I try not to judge. I allow God to judge. Of couse, everyone judges each other. We all have prejudices, as basic humans that is unavoidable. If you say you don't then you are lying to yourself and everyone else. I have said, in my posts . . . well, it may have actually been in some PM's I sent and not in my posts, that I believe people are good. People do bad actions. No one is perfect.
Personally, I am attracted toward people that think. Whether you are a Christian or a non-believer, I like you just the same. Being from Nebraska -- well gotta rethink 'bout you /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif . j/k.
(Drive careful to the Big Show and good luck. I'll have to come out and meet you and to personally congratulate Josh and Deidre. Have you already left before getting a chance to read the replies?)
My belief is that God created us out of love for each of us. Because He loves us, He gives us free will. Whether you choose to believe in Him or not, He still loves you. Why should I be any different? I think no less of you either way.
Pitty, well, again it's your choice. I do not pitty you so much. I don't see pitty as a constructive way to spend my time.
As far as moral codes, gee, I don't know, how do you go about life? Everyone has a set of moral codes. What are your moral codes? What are they based upon?

Laura, I agree with 90% of you post. The only person that I would "judge", would be a believer with whom I have a close relationship. I have great relationships with disc golfers that don't see a need for God in their lives. I don't think I have ever made anyone uncomfortable during a round, because I simply don't talk about this stuff unless I am asked point blank.

I consider myself a follower of Christ and I know that I am not a good person when living apart from God. Can I do nice things, and be kind to others without being a Christian? Of course, but my natural inclination is not to do what is right all the time. I know many people claiming to be Christians that are not nearly as kind or thoughtful as my friends that make no claim at all.

I see this inclination in my 3 year old all the time. She is a wonderful kid, but her natural desire is to do what she wants to do when she wants to do it and many times it is not the good or right thing to do.

It seems to me that if we are already good people, we have no need for Christ to work in our lives.

I've been hesitant to join this conversation, because I don't want to be seen as arguing, rather discussing. This is just my opinion on the goodness of man/woman, take it for what it is worth.

Levi is good people, I can vouch for that. I have even more respect for a man who can believe what he chooses without forcing it on anyone else. I welcome a philosophical discussion with you anytime brother. I know it will remain an intelligent one :)

no arguments desired here...but I love discussions.
okay, well, I edited my reply to Chris probably a dozen times before moving on...I didn't mean anything negative by the statement that we all judge. What are our PDGA ratings for if not to judge? (don't look at mine)
I bet our agreement is more than 90%, if we understood each other more which is difficult when only discussing via message board.
To follow Christ is to follow perfection. To be Christlike is to become closer to perfection. I believe no one is perfect, but we are all good. The old saying goes, "God don't make no junk." Sometimes we have to look harder to find the good in people. Boiled down to the core, we are all good.

Obviously, you can't handle a joke. Your hyper-sensativity seems to only show up when the truth of your words is exposed. Nothing I said was untrue. Those are the things that you and Bald guy do. Your sarcasm is acceptable, but mine is not because somehow it is not showing the love you expect from a Christian. I've deleated my joke portion to show I'm not on here to fight, I'm here to post the truth, and I did, and I did it in a very funny way, but you couldn't handle it. You can do it yourself, and do, but I can't. You and Bald guy do everything I said you did in these posts of yours, but somehow because I show them in a humorus light, I'm threatened with being reported? For what? Describing to people what it is you are doing? These are the posts of yours that I posted erlier, they show just how you two have dealt with this topic recently, minus my humorous and sarcastic way of exposing it.

These are quotes of what Bald Guy and Dan think is acceptable and logical (but me quoting them in a very sarcastic and humorous way is not)

If these are "facts" based on the evidence provided, then so are the hundreds of thousands of UFOs that have been spotted. So is the existence of the loch ness monster. I think there are at least 3 people who believe Mickey Mouse is real. I'm not trying to be condescending

just because they followed the teachings of Jesus does not mean that they believed he was a deity.

not all accounts of Jesus's time are included in the new testament. Just the ones that fit together to make what really is a good story

a story passed down from generation to generation and re-told in who knows how many ways

history has proven that humans find a way to rationalize what they do not understand. this is the very basis of religion

religion has historically been and to this day continues to be a collection of scare tactics designed for the purposes of controlling a population

quoting scripture doesn't get you anywhere

Nobody is attacking you or your faith

I assure you, Hitler believed that too.

though I don't really like being branded in any way... it makes people assume too much about me.

I find him repugnant as well, but he did call himself a Christian

This may seem silly, but who gets to approve membership in Christianity?

There is a lot of fact in the New Testament. We know it's fact because it's backed up by hard evidence. Christianity isn't built on those facts, though. Otherwise it wouldn't be called "faith" .

As for the "moral code" discussion, I also agree with Dan. I don't need a rulebook to know right from wrong.

There is very little, if anything, original in Christianity

shouldn't we be following the original religion that used the cross as a symbol?

he never claimed to be a deity

There has been a very strong argument to support the idea that Christianity was deliberately created more than a millennium after Jesus's death

When considering history, one must consider all of it

There is no reliable evidence that any of the god-like acts attributed to Jesus were actually performed.

Aliens could land and show videos and scientific details of how they faked Jesus, Mohammed and Moses to see if we were smart enough to figure it out

only the atheist would be willing to objectively look at the evidence

Bible and the Qur'an don't count. They are no more proof of gods than Moby Dick is proof that Captain Ahab existed.

But, there is no objective evidence that they were anything other than people

"I'm not arrogant enough to suggest I have the answer to the ultimate question."

I want to hear some facts - corroborated by an unbiased source.

I want to see a video tape of Jesus working a miracle.

I want a god to stand before me and tell me why I should believe in him and worship him.

I don't have to have an alternative theory.

don't expect me to believe that the Popes and other high officials of the Catholic Church aren't and weren't Christians.

unlike you, I will actually look at something before I start to bash it.

I'm not sure if Hitler was a 'Christian' or not

If we woke up tomorrow in a world full of atheists, I'd bet that most of the world's problems would be infinitely more solvable than they are now

I had no idea that "We're worshipping a star-breathing god."

then he reverted to witchdoctor mode and started preaching and I got a migraine

Wow! Ask a couple of simple questions

How do you feel about homosexual rights? Homosexual marriages? Partner insurance benefits for homosexuals?

I'm just curious.

The reason I want to know is because I want to know if I'm dealing with a tolerant, caring, open-minded person

<font color="green">and my latest favorite: </font>

At least the Muslims try to explain

As any freshman debate student will tell you, the burden of proof lies with the person who believes in the existence of something. I haven't tried to prove the existence of anything nor am I offering a theory to be discredited.



Dan,

In response to this condescending remark-- you're right that the positive assertion needs to be defended, but it's also nearly impossible to defend the non-existence of something. Do you at least agree that you're arguing for this proposition: "There is no god."?

where's the punch line?

One last thing (for now ;)): Do you believe the following story?

"I went to work yesterday. I had four meetings before noon that lasted an average of 45 minutes each. I had a hamburger for lunch that was cooked by a man wearing an apron and a hair net. That man was 27 feet tall and had over a thousand fingers on his left hand. After eating, I returned to work and finished my day at my desk. I left work at about 6:00pm and drove the 20 miles home in just about 30 minutes. My lovely fiancee cooked dinner and we watched television until bedtime."



I don't believe your story! I don't think that you went to work because you were too busy posting on this message board. /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif Since you didn't go to work then you didn't leave at 6:00 either. :cool: I definitely don't believe that you watched TV all night because you're way too intelligent for that! I'm sure you studied Dawkins until bedtime instead. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif I do believe that you have a lovely fiancee, though. :) Oh, and just for Dan's sake-- I believe in the 27' tall hamburger cook too. :D

Lowe and playtowin,

I have a few questions for you guys. They don't really have anything to do with our conversation per se; I'm just curious.

1) If you have or plan to have children, when they reach / reached that age when they start / started asking rudimentary philosophical questions such as 'What happens when we die?', would / did you simply tell them that they go to heaven to be with God, or would / did you tell them that different people believe different things, but you believe this?
(I ask this because my wife and I were discussing how we're going to approach this when my son gets to that age. Obviously, I'm going with the some believe this and some believe this route and telling him that he's going to have to make up his own mind in time.)

2) How do you feel about homosexual rights? Homosexual marriages? Partner insurance benefits for homosexuals?

3) How do you feel about creationism...erm...intelligent design theory being taught in schools? How do you feel about evolution being taught in schools?

Thanks in advance for the answers.



Wow! Ask a couple of simple questions and the room goes quiet...

Any particular reason you guys aren't answering the questions? :confused:

I should point out that I meant to say public schools in question #3. I didn't want to give the impression that I was talking about private schools as well.


Well you didn't answer me when I shattered your "religion causes war" post, so maybe they're just keeping things on an even keel?

Hi Chris,

Unless I'm mistaken about the post you're talking about, there was no question to be answered. Is there a question you'd like me answer or did you just want a comment?

Cheers,

Dan

As a lead in in response to your above post, I kind of got booted before I could post this 15 minutes ago, haha, fun days, eh? Anyway, I was more looking for some debate. I always enjoy good intellectual debate, I was about to come edit my post because it was a bit more callous than I'd intended, I start to act like a jerk when I feel ignored I guess, ha, apologies. Anyway, here are the answers to your questions from my point of view...

Lowe and playtowin,

I have a few questions for you guys. They don't really have anything to do with our conversation per se; I'm just curious.

1) If you have or plan to have children, when they reach / reached that age when they start / started asking rudimentary philosophical questions such as 'What happens when we die?', would / did you simply tell them that they go to heaven to be with God, or would / did you tell them that different people believe different things, but you believe this?


I plan on raising them on the idea that there are multiple destinations for those with differing moral compasses, because I believe that it works as a strong visual for children, who work on visuals and don't understand if you simply start out talking about morals in plain terms. However, I will also raise my children to ask questions. When I reached the age of 13 and was going through the process toward being confirmed as a Catholic, I spent a lot of time questioning my faith and what it is I believed in before deciding that I do believe in a God beneath all other thoughts and that Catholicism was the religion for me (this has since changed). I expect my own children to do the same thing, decide for themselves when they reach an age when they are capable of doing so (what age that is, well that'll be up to them to decide).


2) How do you feel about homosexual rights? Homosexual marriages? Partner insurance benefits for homosexuals?


I believe that I have a very "common sense" line of reasoning here. I don't see any problems with homosexuals receiving a king and a queen in the same suit. ... ... Okay, bad joke, sorry. I believe in homosexual marriage within the law, although I don't believe that the Church should be forced to marry them as forcing that from the outside is a violation of Church and State and I do believe in a hands-off religion/state relationship. However, if they want full rights of marriage within the law, if other religions choose to marry them, I'm fine. Same goes with insurance benefits. There is no reason that one particular religion should deprive two people of the benefits everyone else receives.


3) How do you feel about creationism...erm...intelligent design theory being taught in schools? How do you feel about evolution being taught in schools?

Thanks in advance for the answers.


I believe that there should be acknowledgment that differing beliefs exist. Some people believe in evolution (I do) and others believe in intelligent design (by any name, although the snideness in the way you referred to it is kind of irksome even to myself, someone that believes the Biblical tale is an analogy for evolution). I believe evolution is the best theory, but in all sciences differing theories are frequently taught, if only for the sake of debate as some may be out of favor (ex: environmental determinism in anthropological courses).

As any freshman debate student will tell you, the burden of proof lies with the person who believes in the existence of something. I haven't tried to prove the existence of anything nor am I offering a theory to be discredited.



Dan,

In response to this condescending remark-- you're right that the positive assertion needs to be defended, but it's also nearly impossible to defend the non-existence of something. Do you at least agree that you're arguing for this proposition: "There is no god."?



No, I'm simply arguing that until the god side can incontrovertibly prove their case, then they shouldn't have the audacity to proclaim that they, and only they, are right.

As I've said before, I don't have the answers. The difference is that I'm not willing to say that I do.

I know what I think happened, but I could be way off base. And, since I don't have the evidence to prove what I think happened, it would be wrong of me to proclaim that my answer is right.

As for defending the non-existence of something goes, do you believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists? I can't say positively that he (she? it?) doesn't even though there is no empirical evidence for its existence. Does this mean that I have to accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a fact? I mean it has a 'bible' and its 'bible' says that it created the world after drinking heavily. Can you prove this isn't true? Can anyone?

Hi again Chris,

Thanks for answering the questions. As far as your other post goes, I think it's hard to say that people would find something else to fight about if there were no religion. We've never lived on a planet free of religious beliefs.

I mean maybe they would and we would see that religion has simply been used as a scapegoat. On the other hand, maybe we'd all finally get along and we'd discover how divisive religion has been throughout our history.

Dave,

I have tried to be civil during this conversation as we are on an open, semi-public forum and, even if we weren't, arguments ad hominem are less than effective and uncalled for. I have mocked your religion, but I have never mocked you personally.

I believe, under the new message board rules, that much of what you have posted is in fact a personal atttack and I think I could report it to the mods and have it deleted. (I may be wrong here.) However, I don't want to because I want people to see what kind of arguments you are forced to make.

Incidentally, I can take a joke as well as the next guy. However, I find nothing humorous about being libeled with your 'out of context' method of quoting.

Chris,

you and I have more in common than I initially realized. Without boring the room with details, it suffices to say that I'm very glad to hear that you've got a rational side :)

Now, I will tear you apart with my keen wit and superior intellect!!! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif. Seriously though, I can't get on board with the idea that creationism should be taught in public schools. Religious schools are free to teach whatever they like, but public schools should *never* enter into the realm of teaching beliefs as science. There is absolutely zero factual evidence to support creationism, so it should never be represented as factual, no matter who believes it to be true. If they want to start offering a class focused on studying religion, then there's no problem, but it should always be clear what is fact at what is theory (even when it comes to evolution).

As I said before, I find the history of religion to be very interesting and it definitely should be taught, but it should be unbiased. I think that a major reason people get so involved with one faith is lack of exposure to others. At least if students can be assured of equal exposure to *all* theories, they can form their own opinions. The worst violation of the church/state separation I can imagine would be for the state to intentionally bias its people to a particular church.

While we're on the topic, how does the room feel about this situation: Every child in America is required to receive a basic education, by law. However, it is perfectly legal for a child to receive a religiously biased education in lieu of public schooling. to be more specific: If a child does not attend any sort of school, then the parents can be fined, do jailtime, even lose custody of the child. but if the parents choose to put the child in a school where fact is ignored and belief is taught as the only form of information, essentially depriving the child of the factual knowledge he's otherwise legally entitled to, there are no repercussions.

Lest I be accused of trying to "draw someone out", please feel free to sit this one out if it bothers you. This is something that I feel very passionate about. I don't have a problem with religion being taught alongside fact, but the idea that it is a legal substitute *really* gets to me. children are impressionable and should be afforded the opportunity to form a subjective opinion. I can even buy into parents pushing a bias towards their own religion... but I cannot condone the intentional omission of fact to shape the minds of children.

Rejoice in the Lord always!

Dave,

I have tried to be civil during this conversation as we are on an open, semi-public forum and, even if we weren't, arguments ad hominem are less than effective and uncalled for. <font color="green"> But perfectly acceptable from you right? </font> I have mocked your religion, but I have never mocked you personally. <font color="green"> Thats not hard for anyone to see, but I do appreciate you admitting that. However you can't say that one word of it wasn't true </font>

I believe, under the new message board rules, that much of what you have posted is in fact a personal atttack and I think I could report it to the mods and have it deleted. (I may be wrong here.) <font color="green"> I think you would be </font> However, I don't want to because I want people to see what kind of arguments you are forced to make. <font color="green"> ditto, and now they can without the your selective hyper-sensativity influencing them </font>

Incidentally, I can take a joke as well as the next guy. <font color="green"> Really? When you reduce Christianity to a joke about "following (someone called) Chris" and then act offended at my sarcastic joke, that was taking a joke as well as the next guy? </font> However, I find nothing humorous about being libeled with your 'out of context' method of quoting.

<font color="green"> Libel would apply if what I said was unjust, but every word was true. Not one quote was, or is now taken out of context because there is no direct comentary associated with any individual quote that is false. These quotes are of you, and Bald Guy, as you have posted and responded to posts. They show the logic that you use to convince people that Christianity is a lie. That is the truth, and because I got creative with my passion to defend the truth by using humor and sarcasm like yourself, you suddenly get sensative. Using the absurd to illustrate the absurd is lost on you, guess I know who I'm dealing with now, so much for your claims of open mindedness.There is a difference between being meek, and being a punching bag for your falsehoods about Christianity...</font>

*pet peeve alert*

libel only applies to something that is published. It is commonly mistaken for anything that is printed (meaning like a message board).

Message boards represent thoughts of individuals and therefore is slander for that reason and well, it is not published.

You may return to your regularly scheduled argument.

Chris,

you and I have more in common than I initially realized. Without boring the room with details, it suffices to say that I'm very glad to hear that you've got a rational side :)


Shocking, isn't it? Even my professors would be surprised to hear you say that! *grin* Today a girl told a prof she was intimidated by all of the smart people in class, response from Prof: "Only 3-4 intelligent people actually talk in class, the rest are Chris."

Sorry, felt like it was sharing time for some reason. ;)


Now, I will tear you apart with my keen wit and superior intellect!!! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif.


*hide*


Seriously though, I can't get on board with the idea that creationism should be taught in public schools. Religious schools are free to teach whatever they like, but public schools should *never* enter into the realm of teaching beliefs as science. There is absolutely zero factual evidence to support creationism, so it should never be represented as factual, no matter who believes it to be true. If they want to start offering a class focused on studying religion, then there's no problem, but it should always be clear what is fact at what is theory (even when it comes to evolution).


You see, this is where I have to go with Dan's argument that even if you don't believe it is possible, you need to teach children that there ARE other schools of thought out there. Do I think that weeks out of a semester of Biology need to be thrown into Intelligent Design? No. I think that *a* week should be put together on various creation theories of the world. Not simply the Catholic one, but the ones put forth by other religions of the world as well.

As you can see, I also equated it to environmental determinism, if you look up the way E.D. is looked at in the anthropological community you'd understand where I'm going with what I'm saying by putting it forth if only for debate purposes.


As I said before, I find the history of religion to be very interesting and it definitely should be taught, but it should be unbiased. I think that a major reason people get so involved with one faith is lack of exposure to others. At least if students can be assured of equal exposure to *all* theories, they can form their own opinions. The worst violation of the church/state separation I can imagine would be for the state to intentionally bias its people to a particular church.


100% Agreement.


While we're on the topic, how does the room feel about this situation: Every child in America is required to receive a basic education, by law. However, it is perfectly legal for a child to receive a religiously biased education in lieu of public schooling. to be more specific: If a child does not attend any sort of school, then the parents can be fined, do jailtime, even lose custody of the child. but if the parents choose to put the child in a school where fact is ignored and belief is taught as the only form of information, essentially depriving the child of the factual knowledge he's otherwise legally entitled to, there are no repercussions.


I can't argue out of a lack of experience with Catholic/Christian schools, and judging by the fantastic students of science at UToledo that came out of our local Parochial Schools I believe we may have come away with completely different opinions had I come out of one of them, they're amazing places to learn from everything I've heard.


Lest I be accused of trying to "draw someone out", please feel free to sit this one out if it bothers you. This is something that I feel very passionate about. I don't have a problem with religion being taught alongside fact, but the idea that it is a legal substitute *really* gets to me. children are impressionable and should be afforded the opportunity to form a subjective opinion. I can even buy into parents pushing a bias towards their own religion... but I cannot condone the intentional omission of fact to shape the minds of children.


I fully understand what you're saying and agree, children should ALWAYS be given the best opportunity to learn the sciences. I hate to hear that many Christian schools are very deficient in their teachings.


-Chris.

LOL, my bad, my point is that I was not "slandering" you Dan, I was exposing the truth of your absurd quotes by being absurd, an expression lost on the selectively sensative. I never meant to hurt your feelings or give you a bad taste in your mouth about Christianity and I apologize if I did that. As open minded as you say you are, and as intellegent as you seem to be, I just thought you could take it as much as you dish it out. I will leave the sarcasm out when exposing the reductionism of everything I hold true next time, and that my friend is not sarcasm, but the truth.

Playtowin he wasn't making fun of Christianity with the "Chris" comment he was making fun of a typo in the header "Hitler was a Chrisian" or something along those lines.

I never noticed the header thing, my bad, but the point I was making is that he's constantly mocking Christianity on this thread. In fact he just said he mocks it today! BTW, what does he do in the post emediately following the "Hitler was a Chrisian" post? He mocks Christianity! After I provide the evidence that he's asking for, he's busy mocking and avoiding the evidence. That sounds fair...

Oh! I have the sarcasm right here!
http://www.cafepress.com/ath3i5t

I never noticed the header thing, my bad, but the point I was making is that he's constantly mocking Christianity on this thread. In fact he just said he mocks it today! BTW, what does he do in the post emediately following the "Hitler was a Chrisian" post? He mocks Christianity! After I provide the evidence that he's asking for, he's busy mocking and avoiding the evidence. That sounds fair...



Yes, Dave, I have mocked Christianlity. I will continue to mock Christianity. Why? Because I think it is an absolutely, completely absurd, ancient way of looking at the world that people should let go of.

The difference is that that I have tried not to misquote you or take you out of context. I have done my best not to make this personal. Whereas you have made it personal. Argue your case until you're blue in the face, I will as well. But I will never make it personal. And I expect you to do the same.

Incidentitally, as far as avoiding evidence goes, I've looked at Josh McDowell (as I stated) and said I would read your other book when I got back next week. I haven't 'avoided' your 'evidence'. Please, if you do have to resort to personal attacks, get your facts straight.

Dave,

I have tried to be civil during this conversation as we are on an open, semi-public forum and, even if we weren't, arguments ad hominem are less than effective and uncalled for. <font color="green"> But perfectly acceptable from you right? </font> <font color="red">Again, I have not attacked your person, just your arguments. </font> I have mocked your religion, but I have never mocked you personally. <font color="green"> Thats not hard for anyone to see, but I do appreciate you admitting that. However you can't say that one word of it wasn't true </font>

I believe, under the new message board rules, that much of what you have posted is in fact a personal atttack and I think I could report it to the mods and have it deleted. (I may be wrong here.) <font color="green"> I think you would be </font> However, I don't want to because I want people to see what kind of arguments you are forced to make. <font color="green"> ditto, and now they can without the your selective hyper-sensativity influencing them </font> <font color="red">I do not have 'hyper-sensativity' (sic). You can poke fun of me all day long. Just not in the context of trying to counter my points. </font>

Incidentally, I can take a joke as well as the next guy. <font color="green"> Really? When you reduce Christianity to a joke about "following (someone called) Chris" and then act offended at my sarcastic joke, that was taking a joke as well as the next guy? <font color="red">I think this one has been covered. </font> </font> However, I find nothing humorous about being libeled with your 'out of context' method of quoting.

<font color="green"> Libel would apply if what I said was unjust, but every word was true. Not one quote was, or is now taken out of context because there is no direct comentary associated with any individual quote that is false. These quotes are of you, and Bald Guy, as you have posted and responded to posts. They show the logic that you use to convince people that Christianity is a lie. That is the truth, and because I got creative with my passion to defend the truth by using humor and sarcasm like yourself, you suddenly get sensative. Using the absurd to illustrate the absurd is lost on you, guess I know who I'm dealing with now, so much for your claims of open mindedness.There is a difference between being meek, and being a punching bag for your falsehoods about Christianity...</font>



<font color="red">Here are two examples of what I mean by out of context:

1) Your 'quotation' was: <font color="orange">"Aliens could land and show videos and scientific details of how they faked Jesus, Mohammed and Moses to see if we were smart enough to figure it out" </font> Your quotation makes it seem not only as If I believe this could happen but as if I expect it to happen. The reality is that I said this: <font color="purple">"Aliens could land and show videos and scientific details of how they faked Jesus, Mohammed and Moses to see if we were smart enough to figure it out and I'll bet you'd be really shocked at the number of people who would believe it was a trick of Satan's." </font> I was making a point about the nature of faith. </font>

<font color="red">2) Your quote was: <font color="orange">"At least the Muslims try to explain". </font> Explain what? I don't believe I would just leave a sentence like that our there. You make it seem like I'm saying the Muslims try to explain all the answers and that the Christians don't.

What I really said was: <font color="purple"> The Bible also has contradictions. At least the Muslims try to explain the ones in the Qur'an through 'Abrogation'. </font>

There is a big difference here between what I was saying and what you made it seem like a I said.</font>

I also resent the fact that you said I do not have openmindedness. If you knew me, you would understand that I am open-minded, willing to change my mind when I'm wrong, and willing to admit my mistakes.

I'll continue to read your evidence (when I have a bit of time) and I'l continue to think about it objectively. But it's going to have to convince me.

Incidentally, I'm going to make a huge public confession here. I would really like to believe in a god. I'm sure it must be very comforting and make life less stressful and more fulfilling for a lot of people. However, I refuse to accept it on faith. I'm not equipped with that software.

*pet peeve alert*

libel only applies to something that is published. It is commonly mistaken for anything that is printed (meaning like a message board).

Message boards represent thoughts of individuals and therefore is slander for that reason and well, it is not published.

You may return to your regularly scheduled argument.



Sorry MTL. I'm not a lawyer. I thought the difference between slander and libel was that libel was something in writing and slander was something said (not written) to a third person.

I stand corrected.

Josh, this would fill a whole other thread.
Actually, i liked the way the beginnings of life was addressed in my 9th grade public school science class. We were taught, all in one day -- one 50 minute period, all the different theories of the origins of life, including creation. That is it. That is all I remember hearing about the origins of life throughout my public school time. There are way more important things that need to be addressed in our public schools that turn out kids that can't read, write, multiply, or even state the current President of USA.
About your question to the room about parents being allowed to enroll their children in a biased school "where fact is ignored", I have less problem with that than so-called home-schooling. As a child support enforcement officer, the problem I see all too often are children enrolled in a home school program just so that the child support will continue. These kids are not being taught anything by parent or teacher. Some of these parents use religion as an excuse for the home schooling, but I truly believe from my professional experience it only has to do with money.
As long as a public or private school meets the guideline requirements, I have no problem with whatever bias they teach under. However, home schooling cannot be watched as closely as any private school. There are too many kids falling through the cracks. I do feel passionately about the current education system, so much so I couldn't sit it out.

David,

I agree that sarcasm isn't going to win anybody any points here, and I also agree with your long list of points taken from earlier posts. I support you and all of the time that you've put into this discussion!

I would really like to believe in a god. I'm sure it must be very comforting and make life less stressful and more fulfilling for a lot of people. However, I refuse to accept it on faith. I'm not equipped with that software.



Now don't sell yourself short. You've got plenty of faith. You've got the software to believe that "there is no god". That's a statement of faith. Whatever you believe about God is done by faith because it's a spiritual matter.

Some of these parents use religion as an excuse for the home schooling, but I truly believe from my professional experience it only has to do with money.


How right you are. The same is true for many aspects of religion. The nature of "faith" makes it a veritable honeypot for corruption. You have a group of people that believe what they are told without any supporting facts. A powerful personality can easily push his ideas, goals, whatever on a group like that. Tie it in with what they already believe, and you can make a ton of money.

I know that's brutal but it's undeniable. Televangelists make *millions* of dollars. Local pastors have sex with the children trusted to their care. People dedicate a chunk of money from every paycheck to "tithe", and then 95% of them never even consider where its going. Religion has always and continues to be a vehicle for the corrupt to gain power. It's almost worse now than it ever has been because we actually *protect* this corruption and arean't allowed to question it because it's done in the name of religion.

/rant off

<font color="red"> Here are two examples of what I mean by out of context:

1) Your 'quotation' was: "Aliens could land and show videos and scientific details of how they faked Jesus, Mohammed and Moses to see if we were smart enough to figure it out" Your quotation makes it seem not only as If I believe this could happen but as if I expect it to happen. The reality is that I said this: "Aliens could land and show videos and scientific details of how they faked Jesus, Mohammed and Moses to see if we were smart enough to figure it out and I'll bet you'd be really shocked at the number of people who would believe it was a trick of Satan's." I was making a point about the nature of faith.

2) Your quote was: "At least the Muslims try to explain". Explain what? I don't believe I would just leave a sentence like that our there. You make it seem like I'm saying the Muslims try to explain all the answers and that the Christians don't.

What I really said was: The Bible also has contradictions. At least the Muslims try to explain the ones in the Qur'an through 'Abrogation'.

There is a big difference here between what I was saying and what you made it seem like a I said </font>

<font color="green"> As far as the quotes go, with all the respect I can convey, I respectfully disagree with your response due to the intent in which I posted them. I would imagine you don't agree with that, but I hope that we can agree to disagree about it and move forward. After much back and forth, having seeminly only agree'd upon one thing so far, maybe this could be number two! Baby-steps...

<font color="red"> I also resent the fact that you said I do not have openmindedness. If you knew me, you would understand that I am open-minded, willing to change my mind when I'm wrong, and willing to admit my mistakes.</font>

My remark concerning your open-mindedness had nothing to do with your willingness to admit your mistakes. It had to do with your inability to laugh at yourself and your double standard concerning sarcasm. Also, as I've mentioned, your extremely selective sensativity. I thought my original sarcastic post entitled "Reductionism 101" was absolutly hilarious, clever and a very truthful way to expose the way you two have been "debating." But even as I introduced it as being a "humorous and sarcastic look at your logic" I will admit, for a discussion as this, in a public forum, it was not a good way to exhibit the love of God. For that alone I am very regretful...

<font color="red"> I also resent the fact that you said I do not have openmindedness. If you knew me, you would understand that I am open-minded, willing to change my mind when I'm wrong, and willing to admit my mistakes. </font>

That's would be great. And if along the way of your reading "A Clear Case" you have any questions, I'd be more than willing to help.

<font color="red"> I'll continue to read your evidence (when I have a bit of time) and I'l continue to think about it objectively. But it's going to have to convince me. </font>

<font color="red"> Incidentally, I'm going to make a huge public confession here. I would really like to believe in a god. I'm sure it must be very comforting and make life less stressful and more fulfilling for a lot of people. However, I refuse to accept it on faith. I'm not equipped with that software </font>

I have to admit, this last statement of yours is kind of a mixed bag. I appreciate more than you know your public confession, I would imagine that was not easy for you to do. Incidentally, I would like a stronger belief in God too sometimes! Not to get preachy on ya, but just to clarify that thought, Paul once said "I believe, please help my unbelief?" No matter how convinced I am by the evidences Dan, I still struggle with how much I trust Him, which is essentially belief. This is hard to say to an atheist because I don't want to give the wrong impression, but no matter how spiritually minded I can be at times, I am still here in the flesh. It's a battle man!

Perhaps someday I could tell you my testimoy (my story) and you would understand where I'm coming from better. I think you would gain a better understanding of my passion for this, beyond the normal "well, his parents must'a taught him what to believe" stories. Not that there isn't any legitimacy with the testimonies of those preacher kids and those who were more or less "force-fed religion, I just find a bit more genuiness from those who were given the opportunity to make there own mistakes in life. Long story...

"Fullfilling," yes, easier, in my experience, not exactly! The New Testament never says it would be easy. I know that sounds cheesy, but it never does. In fact it says the opposite. But you are right, it is extremely "comforting" to not only believe, but to know who you are. I'm not talking about brainwashing yourself into believing some "pie in the sky" theology, I'm talking about knowing the truth about a God who created everything. Who's love is more than your mind can ever imagine. Who reached into time and space to do the unthinkable. Who's fingerprint on history can assure your mind of His "believability."

I have been through alot, as most of us have, but there are two things I've come to know more than anything else: #1. GOD IS REAL. Let someone share the historic reliability of Him with you Biblically, not their church tradition. #2. LIFE IS SHORT. Seek Him while you can, your life is like a water vapor and will soon be gone...

I think you'd be surprised to find out just how compatable your "software" is! That being said, I fully understand the need for evidence. There is nothing wrong with asking questions. Just remember that just like any court case, it is the cumulative information that produces a verdict, not just one side, or one peice of evidence. That's why I enjoy studying evidences so much. Apologetics is amazing because as you learn more about the evidences of God, you begin to understand that faith isn't neccessarily a blind leap at all! Faith, properly defined is not mystic or blind, it can be a well thought out, educated step in someone's life. Enjoy the read on your trip...

</font>

Thanks Lowe, I appreciate that!

Politicians make *millions* of dollars. Presidents have relations with the interns taken under their wing. People dedicate a chunk of money from every paycheck for "taxes", and then 95% of them never ever consider where its going. Politics has always and continues to be a vehicle for the corrupt to gain power. It's almost worse now than it ever has been because we actually *protect* this corruption and arean't allowed to question it because it's done in the name of patriotism.

/sarcastic rant off.

Insert Hollywood/entertainment/sports figures and you can come up with the same rant. Your overgeneralizations of religion are tired.

I'm failing to find the point of your comment. are you saying that because politicians are corrupt that it's okay for religious figure heads to be the same?

Also, it's nearly impossbile to "overgeneralize" in this context. we're discussing generalities. I'm sorry if you don't like what I have to say, but it's very true. I've lived through it myself.

My point is that your argument only shows the depravity of man. I could use your same argument that since a couple of teachers have had in appropriate relations with students that I should keep my kids out of the public schools. Any inferences from your argument that religion should be avoided is weak at best.

Making wide generalizations is a great way to try to avoid dealing with the personal ramifications of the true issues.

okay, i couldn't decide whether to reply or send a pm.
finally decided to reply and suggest you check out Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (www.au.org). It may be a better place for you to concentrate you concerns about religious activities in our public schools. Additionally, because you are in TX, check out the Texas Freedom Network. They are both good organizations that are fighting a good fight. Good luck. I hope our educational system makes marked improvements in the next few years, before Ian enters it. :)
add to the organizations list: ACLU and NAACP.
One more I thought of, Sojourners.
Thanks.

My point is that your argument only shows the depravity of man. I could use your same argument that since a couple of teachers have had in appropriate relations with students that I should keep my kids out of the public schools. Any inferences from your argument that religion should be avoided is weak at best.

Making wide generalizations is a great way to try to avoid dealing with the personal ramifications of the true issues.


OK, so the topic of discussion is religion. I'm making points about how depraved man has used religion. Perhaps I haven't been clear enough.

consider this: if a group believes something to be true based solely on what they have been told and not actual fact, are they not then more susceptible to manipulation by those supplying the "truth"?

Playtowin aside, most Christians won't argue that their beliefs can be backed up by hard evidence. That's why it's called "faith". This is an accepted concept. I contend that this allows other non-factual evidence to be mixed in by those in power and subsequently believed by followers on "faith". The Catholic church is probably the most widespread example. Even playtowin himself has argued that the catholic church teaches things outside the scope of Jesus's curriculum.

I'm not saying that it is impossible to be religious without being gullible, but I think there is a very large intersection. The reason I'm arguing this point is that we're talking about the education of children. If they are taught to gather facts and make their own decisions, then they become intellectually stronger. If they are taught to simply accept what they are told and never question, they become intellectually weaker.

This is why good science teachers rely on experimentation. students are required to prove things by doing. they are required to investigate and gather conclusions and not rely solely on the memorization of texts.

If I believe as I stated that one is a Christian because he or she chooses to accept the Gospel upon faith, then that means he or she had to have the choice. If it is forced upon, it is not really a choice. God gave us free will.

oops

I have a few questions:
Were there ONLY 2 people on this earth at one point?

and if so were they Adam and Eve?
If they were Adam and eve, what race were they?




Can 2 Caucasians have sex and have an Asian baby?

How would you explain the Races we have today if its not evolution?

READ THIS... (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/noah.asp)

The difference in races started after the great flood. Evolution in the sense of adapting to a region...Not evolving from a lightning bolt striking amino acids...

consider this: if a group believes something to be true based solely on what they have been told and not actual fact, are they not then more susceptible to manipulation by those supplying the "truth"?

<font color="green"> With this line of reasoning, nothing could be considered factual if it were simply told to you. When your wife comes home and say's, "man, I had a good round today." You don't beleive her? I mean you weren't there. You don't know, you have no, as you say "actual fact" that she had a good round, or that she even played today.

The "actual fact" is, you wholeheartedly would believe her, because she is trustworthy. Her eyewitness account of what took place is believable. You have no evidence to believe she's lying to you. In fact, why would she? What would be the point? You have massive amounts of evidence to believe she's telling you the truth. You could even find eyewitness accounts of her friends and people she doesn't even know who could testify to the claim she has made.This simple analogy could go on for days supporting one thing, that the evidence shows that what she told you was true, and you can count on it no matter what anybody else says.

Your presumption that there are no "actual facts" concerning the reliability of Chrisianity is false. If you would like to know them, just ask. Like Dan, are you willing to investagate my recomendations? Whether you ever agree with them or not, does the claim of everlasting life appeal to you enough to give it a fighting chance? Or does the appeal of telling people that it's false give you more satisfaction? Honestly, I'm not trying to be ugly about it, I'm trying my darndest to help you, and anyone who will listen, understand that the misconceptions of Christianity are dangerous. There is more to this life than just living and dying...

I agree, many people believe the bible and don't know the supporting evidence that is "actual fact." As a result, what you have is alot of Christians, who will fall prey to manipulation of many different things, even evil, hatefilled, backwards, bigoted, contradictory things. In simpler terms, if you don't know why you believe what you believe about Christianity, then it's hard to defend it. My only suggestion to you, and Dan has been, don't give up searching, there is a distinct possibility that there are things you don't know about the validity of Christianity. </font>

I have spent *years* of my life dedicated to christianity and bible study. I have seen the "evidence". I'm sure there's more to be seen, but I have seen enough to know that it all boils down to faith. every argument I've ever gotten into about this subject has consisted of the christian side using bible stories as fact. sometimes they realize the folly in their statements and admit that it is really faith and not fact... just not in this case.

it doesn't matter how many times you argue that these stories are true. the basis of your faith is that you believe they are true. I know that and I understand it. you don't have to convince me any more.

Playtowin aside, most Christians won't argue that their beliefs can be backed up by hard evidence. That's why it's called "faith".

<font color="green"> Most Christian that you've met have obvioisly not been aware of the evidences, or felt it to be needed to defend the Gospel. This is a trend that is becoming very apparent in this day and age where non-believers have become more, um what's the word, "active." Brain fart, I seriously couldn't think of the word I was trying to remember! :D

I am sorry Bald Guy, but your definition of faith is not a biblical one, it is yours. Biblical faith is rooted in history and factual claims. If you get a chance to read my book recomendation, please do so. It might just open your eyes to some things you may not be aware of... </font>

What race were Adam and eve?



Tongan.

Not evolving from a lightning bolt striking amino acids...



This is a description of abiogenesis, not evolution. The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life.

where did you get Tongan?
I used to have a friend that was Tongan. We went to the Tejano music awards show together in San Antonio. That was a blast.
She's a full time mom now.
Her name was Fapiona, not Eve.

John, was there an "Ace Race" in the garden?

I have a few questions:
Were there ONLY 2 people on this earth at one point?

and if so were they Adam and Eve?
If they were Adam and eve, what race were they?




Can 2 Caucasians have sex and have an Asian baby?

How would you explain the Races we have today if its not evolution?



dont confuse adaptation w/ evolution

confusion is dripping from the original question, and I doubt it's by accident! :eek:

Not evolving from a lightning bolt striking amino acids...



This is a description of abiogenesis, not evolution. The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life.



I know the difference, I was using the term "evolution" in the general sense...Like the argument of "evolution" v. creationism...

where did you get Tongan?
I used to have a friend that was Tongan. We went to the Tejano music awards show together in San Antonio. That was a blast.
She's a full time mom now.
Her name was Fapiona, not Eve.



Just making sure everyone knows that EVE was not a tiny little innocent girl. She needed much more than 3 leaves to cover herself. She needed a least 3 bags of Dole spinach leaves. In fact, she was so fat that her measurements were 38-24-36, and that was just her left arm. :D

I know the difference, I was using the term "evolution" in the general sense...Like the argument of "evolution" v. creationism...



That is an unfortunate generalization, and one fostered by Johnson, Dembsky, Meyer, Behe, Wells, et al. to introduce faith into the public school classroom. The more people confuse abiogenesis with evolution the more likely they are to support "Intelligent Design".

"Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message." -- Phillip Johnson. Keeping the Darwinists Honest, an interview with Phillip Johnson. Citizen Magazine. April 1999

READ THIS... (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/noah.asp)

The difference in races started after the great flood.



Some may find this analysis of repopulation after the flood (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/may04.html) interesting.

I know the difference, I was using the term "evolution" in the general sense...Like the argument of "evolution" v. creationism...



That is an unfortunate generalization, and one fostered by Johnson, Dembsky, Meyer, Behe, Wells, et al. to introduce faith into the public school classroom. The more people confuse abiogenesis with evolution the more likely they are to support "Intelligent Design".

"Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message." -- Phillip Johnson. Keeping the Darwinists Honest, an interview with Phillip Johnson. Citizen Magazine. April 1999



In public high school biology we were taught that evolution started with abiogenesis...It was not a device used to confound the opinion of people to sway them to intelligent design, quite the opposite intent really.

Well, there are good teachers and there are crappy teachers. Evidently you had the latter. ;)

Anyone who claims to know the origin of life is either lying or speaking on faith.

Well, there are good teachers and there are crappy teachers. Evidently you had the latter. ;)

Anyone who claims to know the origin of life is either lying or speaking on faith.



Or speaking based on a lack of faith...

Jesus said, "I came that they might have life, and that they might have it abundantly." (John 10:10)

I'm just glad Noah took the time to go to Australia before the ark was built and before the flood to gather up a couple of koalas and kangaroos. Those little guys are cute.

I was reading Leviticus last night and apparently I am way behind on the animal sacrifice. This is going to cut into my practice time. I have about 150 goats, turtle doves and oxen to kill (not to mention the washing of the entrails).

Wouldn't you think that the book that contains all of the answers would just once mention that the world was round and not flat?

Also, I sat in a chair that my wife sat in while she was on her period, so even after a shower I won't really be clean until this evening.

That's a good question, that I've also wondered. Without ever having really studied it, I'd say it's microevolution vs. macroevolution. Many Christians, including myself, believe that micorevolution happens, but macroevolution does not. Micorevoluton is the observable changes within a species. Macorevolution is the change from one species to another.



Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in the wild. See (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220) as an example. (From this FAQ on speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html))

Ok, Ive read read it and I guess I'm missing something.

Everyone on noah's ark were the same race, Caucasian and most were related to each other.
So what happened to make the different races?


Where did the races come from, like mongoloid and negro? not the different ethnic groups within the race.

Let me get this straight;
People adapted to their region by evolving their looks, skin and hair color, eye shape, etc..????

so the appearance of people have evolved over time based on where they lived, but theres no chance that man himself didn't evolve over time?

Thats interesting! :confused:

Ok looked it up myself.

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Lifescience/HumanRaces/RacesMan/RacesMan.htm

havent read it all but got to the part where man and chimp's DNA are 99% the same.

does anyone know the next closest species to man?
like what % is a dog to man or any other 2 species?

you aren't supposed to look behind the curtain! pay no attention to the DNA behind the curtain! (crap, he's seen it.) Well, then it was put there to test you. Obviously you have failed the test.

If you used the bible for reference, the people on the ark would be semites.

Playtowin aside, most Christians won't argue that their beliefs can be backed up by hard evidence. That's why it's called "faith".

<font color="green"> Most Christian that you've met have obvioisly not been aware of the evidences, or felt it to be needed to defend the Gospel. This is a trend that is becoming very apparent in this day and age where non-believers have become more, um what's the word, "active." Brain fart, I seriously couldn't think of the word I was trying to remember! :D

I am sorry Bald Guy, but your definition of faith is not a biblical one, it is yours. Biblical faith is rooted in history and factual claims. If you get a chance to read my book recomendation, please do so. It might just open your eyes to some things you may not be aware of... </font>


Mind posting the listing of books again? This thread is very large and I'm very new to it. I am honestly curious and after my semester I would gladly check a few out of the library system.

Here's my thought, though, on your fact v. faith thing: If we were able to explain everything about God with FACTS it wouldn't be right. God's entire plan would be ruined. Being a Christian is about more than just morals, it is about having the capacity to believe in something larger than simple fact can explain. If it could be explained by fact, it would be EASY.

You could just say "Well, here are the facts, 100% proof that every last thing in the Bible is true and God exists." Suddenly everybody is converted, everyone goes to Heaven, there is no trial by life, there is no actual test to it. It makes absolutely no sense to say that Christianity is all about easily provable facts.

Christianity is Faith.

<font color="green"> Woj, below is a quote from me to Dan, in the interest of time, I simply cut and pasted it to you. I cut most of the things directed to Dan, but left the things related towards you and your question. Enjoy! </font>



.
I really like your scenario of a court scene because it is a universal concept, not just an American one, and a good idea for the purpose of this subject. As in all court cases, unless somehow you were there to see �it,� your decision is based on the evidences. It is that idea that I would urge you to focus on. I will try to present some of my favorite evidences, both �pro-Christianity� as well as �anti-alternative� (meaning why the alternatives don�t work), and you can decide for yourself.

BTW, I don�t study Dawkins or any other anti-Christian theory to find out the truth. Over twenty years ago I did that, and I made up my mind based upon the evidence. So when you ask about my reading of such �stuff,� please keep that in mind, it�s a settled issue in my life because I believe the Word of God is true and I want to share it with anyone who will listen. The holes in atheism, evolution, pantheism, relativism, Catholicism, Mormonisn, Frisbeetarianism, on and on, are wide enough for me to see right through them, so I reject them based on the evidence, not my upbringing, my country, my feelings or anything else. It�s based on the evidence.

Please keep in mind, this is a big subject, with literally thousands of evidences. I have not yet written on this subject. (I say �yet� because I recently had an idea for a book. It would be a collection of all the lies and collaborative conspiracies that would have had to taken place if the Bible wasn�t the true. It would be an amazing portrait of just how deep the human mind can go to avoid the truth.) I can give you my opinion and the few things I�ve personally seen as evidences, but most likely I will be referring you to the work of other people on this subject that I personally know, or have read. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that, do you? If someone wanted to give me evidence for evolution, I would have no problem with them quoting the work of others who know more about it then themselves. Kinda like you pointing to Dawkins. The content of there evidence is more important than whether you personally penned it or not. I hope this is not a problem with you, otherwise I�ll have to just say goodnight, and good luck, because up this point, I haven�t written a book on Christian evidences!

Below is a book I would highly recommend. It is entitled �Christianity, a Clear Case of History,� by Ed Wharton. The entire book has been copied online for you to read for free. I was a student of his 17 years ago, and to this day if I have a question, I can count on him to speak the truth in love. I consider him a mentor and friend. If you truly are searching for answers, this book is an excellent way to go. No matter how limited you are in your town as far as materials go, if you have web access then the resources are there. It�s just a matter of your seeking them out and avoiding liberal pitfalls, which I know, are many. I will help you anyway I can, but if you are waiting for me to type out everything I�ve read you�re going to be waiting a long time. I will include specific evidences I find interesting and persuasive from time to time, but I can�t just sit here and copy everything that you can find and read for yourself. I am sure that you �get that.� This is an excellent book that contains many evidences. Enjoy!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=ed+wharton+a+clear+case+of+history&amp; btnG=Google+Search

It is the second link down. E book


The appeal of the modern religious experience is not something I agree or am comfortable with. The draw of what is called �the emerging church� is nothing more than �making it up as you go theology� in my opinion. The tv evangelism of health and wealth doctrines is disgusting. It is these distortions and many more that have produced the Biblical atmosphere we live in today. An atmosphere where the simple believer can find their time spent defining all that they are not, instead of simply sharing the truth. I would encourage anyone to seek a more of an historic outlook on the Bible, because it is only there that any of it makes sense. Any religious experience that is not backed by knowledge of the Scripture, is a leap into subjectivism. I love the way Ed Wharton puts it in this book:

�It is a tragic, if interesting, quirk of the present religious era that Bible things are being discussed and conclusions are being reached without any reference to the Bible. It appears as if people are pooling their Bible ignorance in the name of Jesus and calling it Christianity! Evidence for the living Christ, we are told, is supposed to be found in the joyful feelings of the heart. This is expressed in the church hymn:

He lives! He lives!
You ask me how I know He lives:
He lives within my heart.

However, it is a practical impossibility to know whether or not Jesus is presently living by an appeal to the swelling emotions of the human heart. The feeling of joy in Christianity is the result of faith, not the proof of the thing believed. The only way known to man to confirm the living Christ today is by an appeal to the historical testimony of the apostles. The testimony of the Holy Spirit to the living Lord is not in the feelings which he produces, but in the written word which he revealed and had written.�

Words mean things! There are claims in there! Claims that can be verified and backed up by historical evidence. Can I prove that a certain miracle took place? Of course not, but I can give you evidence as to why I believe it took place and you can judge for yourself. When the stack of evidence gets tall enough, something�s got to give! It is what you do in nearly every situation in life. You make judgements on a second by second basis in light of the evidence stored in your brain. That is all the more reason why it is critical to renew your mind to the things that will last.

I didn�t just give you one piece of evidence and let you �go at it� here today. I pointed you to an entire book of evidences and reasons to believe the reliability of the Bible. You can access it day or night, for free. You can choose to examine the evidence, or you can chose to gloss over it. That is up to you. By no means does this book reference complete any study of evidences, but it is a great place to start for those who are sincere in their search. I hope that you can find some answers to your quest for evidence there. If not, I�m sure you�ll let me hear about it!

Here's my thought, though, on your fact v. faith thing: If we were able to explain everything about God with FACTS it wouldn't be right. God's entire plan would be ruined. Being a Christian is about more than just morals, it is about having the capacity to believe in something larger than simple fact can explain. If it could be explained by fact, it would be EASY.

<font color="green"> Just to clarify, I never said "everything about God could be explained." I said there is more than enough evidence for any skeptic who studies it, to conclude that Christianity is true and it's claims are believable. Big difference.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, "Christianity IS more than just morals." I don't mean to be a smart ace, but you kinda lost me on the second part of that statement though :confused: I will say this about the last part of that, I am possitive that it won't all be explained this side of Heaven. Personally I believe we will never fullly understand God! I believe it will take an eternity (never ending) to learn about God. That's how big the God of the Bible is! That's the kind of God I'm impressed with, want to know, and want to share. The kind of God that is that big, bigger than my brain can barely comprehend, and yet He loves just as big. That's the kind of God that is worthy of all that you and I are.
</font>

You could just say "Well, here are the facts, 100% proof that every last thing in the Bible is true and God exists." Suddenly everybody is converted, everyone goes to Heaven, there is no trial by life, there is no actual test to it. It makes absolutely no sense to say that Christianity is all about easily provable facts.

<font color="green"> Three things:

1. I never said it is "all about easily provable facts." I believe you've fallen prey to the habit of "over-generalizing" my statements. It's something that Dan and Bald Guy do alot. I hope they get better at it, I think I deserve at least that much. No biggie, it's nothing new. Reductionism is when you take something, in this case, something incrediblly complex, and reduce it to only one of it's parts, or mockingly simplify it. Take a look at Dave Mac's question, perfect example. Giggle. :DOnce again, I said there is enough evidence, for those who search, to conclude that Christianity is believable and true. BTW, I didn't get the impression you were mocking anthing at all, just over-simpifying something very big.

2. That's not true. People can see everything they need to have faith and still make the wrong choice. The examples are endless in the Bible, and life in general.

3. Do you know what Judas did when he realized what he had done? He knew more than most, and his experience was priceless.</font>

Christianity is Faith. <font color="green"> No doubt, but faith is not soley a "blind leap" into the dark as you tend to describe it. There are ALOT of aspects to what faith really is. It's not confined to one.

I appreciate your asking about the book reference. Hope you get a chance to give it a good read. Ed Wharton is a fantastic person who has written a very encouraging look into the evidences of Christianity.

The last time I (quite harmlessly) quoted a scripture on here I was emediately dismissed, mis-interpreted and mocked. You would have thought I tried to prove ball golf was more fun that disc golf or something! The fact is, I wasn't trying to "prove" anything." I am not trying to prove anything by quoting it now either. I simply want to point out one aspect of Biblical faith...</font>

<font color="purple"> Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." </font>

<font color="green"> I don't know about you, but I am not "sure" of anything I don't have at least a bit of evidence for, let alone stacks of it! </font>

Thanks for taking the time to explain those viewpoints. I'm glad the Wharton book is online, I can put it in my bookmarks, saves me a trip to the library. :) (and the money on gas, yikes) I didn't mean to overgeneralize, I think I just read that particular post without having much knowledge of your previous posts back in the line, y'know? I'll keep what you've said in mind in the future when I read what you write.


-Chris.
[would rather be golfing right now *grumbles*]

you aren't supposed to look behind the curtain! pay no attention to the DNA behind the curtain! (crap, he's seen it.) Well, then it was put there to test you. Obviously you have failed the test.



<font color="green"> Speaking of "paying attention to the DNA behind the curtain," you may wand to start yourself. The simularities are not proof of evolution. In fact, if you study evelutionary theory more, you'd see that your reductionism of it down to simply implying we came from chimps is foolish. That's what one of the biggest evolusionists in the world would tell you! But I am not too concerned about you mucking the water of evolutionary theory! :DSo go ahead! I'd rather point out how the DNA is evidence for a common creator.

Human and ape similarities?

Teaching about Evolution emphasizes physical and especially DNA similarities between human and other living organisms, and this is alleged to be evidence for evolution. However, again this is not a direct finding, but an interpretation of the data.

A common designer is another interpretation that makes sense of the same data. An architect commonly uses the same building material for different buildings, and a carmaker commonly uses the same parts in different cars. So we shouldn't be surprised if a Designer for life used the same biochemistry and structures in many different creatures. Conversely, if all living organisms were totally different, this might look like there were many designers instead of one.

Another good thing about the common biochemistry is that we can gain nourishment from other living things. Our digestive systems can break down food into its building blocks, which are then used either as fuel or for our own building blocks.

Since DNA contains the coding for structures and biochemical molecules, we should expect the most similar creatures to have the most similar DNA. Apes and humans are both mammals, with similar shapes, so have similar DNA. We should expect humans to have more DNA similarities with another mammal like a pig than with a reptile like a rattlesnake. And this is so. Humans are very different from yeast but they have some biochemistry in common, so we should expect human and yeast DNA to be only slightly similar.

So the general pattern of similarities need not be explained by common-ancestry evolution.


</font>

you aren't supposed to look behind the curtain! pay no attention to the DNA behind the curtain! (crap, he's seen it.) Well, then it was put there to test you. Obviously you have failed the test.



<font color="green"> Speaking of "paying attention to the DNA behind the curtain," you may wand to start yourself. The simularities are not proof of evolution. In fact, if you study evelutionary theory more, you'd see that your reductionism of it down to simply implying we came from chimps is foolish. That's what one of the biggest evolusionists in the world would tell you! But I am not too concerned about you mucking the water of evolutionary theory! :DSo go ahead! I'd rather point out how the DNA is evidence for a common creator.

Human and ape similarities?

Teaching about Evolution emphasizes physical and especially DNA similarities between human and other living organisms, and this is alleged to be evidence for evolution. However, again this is not a direct finding, but an interpretation of the data.

A common designer is another interpretation that makes sense of the same data. An architect commonly uses the same building material for different buildings, and a carmaker commonly uses the same parts in different cars. So we shouldn't be surprised if a Designer for life used the same biochemistry and structures in many different creatures. Conversely, if all living organisms were totally different, this might look like there were many designers instead of one.

Another good thing about the common biochemistry is that we can gain nourishment from other living things. Our digestive systems can break down food into its building blocks, which are then used either as fuel or for our own building blocks.

Since DNA contains the coding for structures and biochemical molecules, we should expect the most similar creatures to have the most similar DNA. Apes and humans are both mammals, with similar shapes, so have similar DNA. We should expect humans to have more DNA similarities with another mammal like a pig than with a reptile like a rattlesnake. And this is so. Humans are very different from yeast but they have some biochemistry in common, so we should expect human and yeast DNA to be only slightly similar.

So the general pattern of similarities need not be explained by common-ancestry evolution.


</font>



playtowin, I'm wondering why you bother to cut and paste instead of just posting a link directing us to the site from which you copied this (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/RE2/chapter6.asp)? I'd rather read the entire article than your little snippets. Just a thought.

Regarding the Wharton Book, I decided to give it a look see. I picked a chapter that I thought might be interesting and read it to get a flavor for the book. The chapter I selected was Evidence From the Burial Tomb: The Resurrection of Jesus Christ (1) (http://www.scripturessay.com/article.php?cat=books&amp;id=7&amp;pagenumber=8). My impression is ... well, let's just say it wouldn't hold up in court. Following is an exerpt from the conclusion to the chapter (emphasis added):

"But how can we know ? We can know by the evidence. The facts are that there was a historical Jesus who was crucified on a Roman cross, who was buried, and whose tomb was found empty on the third day, even as he had foretold. If Jesus were not raised by the power of God, then what possible alternative can be suggested in answer to the facts as we have them? What reasonable alternative is there to the resurrection?" -- Edward C. Wharton, [i]Christianity, a Clear Case of History (http://www.scripturessay.com/article.php?cat=books&amp;id=7&amp;pagenumber=1)

Hmmmm...

I posted exactly what I wanted to, the entire post had about five dif subject on it. Sorry to disappoint you. I also thought I color coded it in quotes, but obviously I didn't, the color thing is new to me, I just learned like two days ago how to do. All apologies...

Regarding the Wharton Book, I decided to give it a look see. I picked a chapter that I thought might be interesting and read it to get a flavor for the book. The chapter I selected was Evidence From the Burial Tomb: The Resurrection of Jesus Christ (1). My impression is ... well, let's just say it wouldn't hold up in court. Following is an exerpt from the conclusion to the chapter (emphasis added):

"But how can we know [if Jesus was raised from the dead]? We can know by the evidence. The facts are that there was a historical Jesus who was crucified on a Roman cross, who was buried, and whose tomb was found empty on the third day, even as he had foretold. If Jesus were not raised by the power of God, then what possible alternative can be suggested in answer to the facts as we have them? What reasonable alternative is there to the resurrection?" -- Edward C. Wharton, Christianity, a Clear Case of History

Hmmmm...

<font color="green"> What is your point? You proclaim that "it wouldn't hold up in court," that's fine, that's your opinion. Judging by the evidecnce he put forth, I feel it would. You quoted a paragraph and then say "Hmmmmm." Is that your evidence in court. Uh, judge I'd like to submit my evidence for why Jesus wasn't resurected, hmmmm." lol :D

All he said in your quote is that Jesus died, was buried, and the tomb was found empty, "just as he foretold."

What is your "reasonable explanation" to the resurection in light of these facts, hmmm? (just havin' a little fun with you) ;)</font>

I posted exactly what I wanted to, ...



Well, that's fine then. I just thought you might want to appear more honest by referencing your sources while you liberally copy entire paragraphs of other peoples' work. My bad.

<font color="green"> What is your point? You proclaim that "it wouldn't hold up in court," that's fine, that's your opinion. Judging by the evidecnce he put forth, I feel it would. You quoted a paragraph and then say "Hmmmmm." Is that your evidence in court. Uh, judge I'd like to submit my evidence for why Jesus wasn't resurected, hmmmm." lol :D</font>



Again, he hasn't and doesn't have to put forth an alternative theory. The defense in a court case wouldn't have to do that either. They only have to show that there is reasonable doubt that the theory of the plaintiff has flaws and the plaintiff loses. Sorry, but that's how it works. I really wish people would figure out the whole 'burden of proof' thing.

Edited because I should never write in the morning!! :o

<font color="green"> What is your point? You proclaim that "it wouldn't hold up in court," that's fine, that's your opinion. Judging by the evidecnce he put forth, I feel it would. You quoted a paragraph and then say "Hmmmmm." Is that your evidence in court. Uh, judge I'd like to submit my evidence for why Jesus wasn't resurected, hmmmm." lol :D</font>



Again, he hasn't and doesn't have to put forth an alternative theory. The defense in a court case wouldn't have to do that either. They only have to show that there is reasonable doubt that the theory of the plaintiff has flaws and the plaintiff loses. Sorry, but that's how it works. I really wish people would figure out there whole 'burden of proof' thing.



You're an English teacher?

So then, how does one define "Christian?" I've always thought that to be christian meant to believe that Jesus was the son of God and the he died for the world's sins. I assure you, Hitler believed that too.



A Christian is a follower of Jesus. A Christian is a person who, through the power of the Holy Spirit, tries to live their life like Jesus (1 John 3:2-3 (http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/05discoverthenlt/ssresults.asp?txtSearchString=1+john+3%3A2-3&amp;find.x=0&amp;find.y=0)). A Christian �should live their lives as Jesus did.� (1 John 2:6). A Christian is a person whose life and words say, �Jesus is Lord� (Romans 10:7). Jesus Himself berated people who said they were His followers and did not do what He said. Jesus said, �Why do you call me Lord, and do not do what I say?� (Luke 6:46) Jesus also said, �He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me.� (John 14:21). God is love, so the person who does not love people does not know God (1 John 4:8).

Being a Christian is not a merely intellectual assent to some beliefs, but it�s a relationship with the Creator of the Universe. Being a Christian is not just quoting the Bible, or saying words in a speech to get people to follow your plans.

I hope it is clear that according to the above criteria that Adolf Hitler was NOT a Christian! He was an evil person who twisted the Bible to his own evil ends. He was clearly trying to get religious people on his side, so he would say anything to get them to do what he wanted. To call Hitler a Christian is deeply offensive to me, but maybe this was said because of a lack of understanding! I�m saddened that there can be such an abysmal lack of knowledge of what it means to be a Christian, and I hope that I�ve at least cleared up that point.

<font color="green"> What is your point? You proclaim that "it wouldn't hold up in court," that's fine, that's your opinion. Judging by the evidecnce he put forth, I feel it would. You quoted a paragraph and then say "Hmmmmm." Is that your evidence in court. Uh, judge I'd like to submit my evidence for why Jesus wasn't resurected, hmmmm." lol :D</font>



Again, he hasn't and doesn't have to put forth an alternative theory. The defense in a court case wouldn't have to do that either. They only have to show that there is reasonable doubt that the theory of the plaintiff has flaws and the plaintiff loses. Sorry, but that's how it works. I really wish people would figure out there whole 'burden of proof' thing.



You're an English teacher?



Doh!! :o

There went my 2008 award for grammatical perfection! Maybe next year!

**WARNING! Preaching and Bible thumping ahead! If you don't want it, then don't read any further!!

There may be someone lurking out there who has a sincere desire to know God in a personal way. Since there seems to be such a great amount of misunderstanding about what a Christian is, I want to explain how a person becomes a Christian.

Most of the important points are found in these 2 verses:
John 3:16 (http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/05discoverthenlt/ssresults.asp?txtSearchString=john+3%3A16&amp;find.x=0 &amp;find.y=0) and John 3:36.
Jn 3:16 �For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.�
John 3:36 �And anyone who believes in God's Son has eternal life. Anyone who doesn't obey the Son will never experience eternal life but remains under God's angry judgment."

God loves all the people of the world.
He showed His love by giving us His Son, Jesus.
All people have sinned and are separated from God. (Isaiah 59:2)
Jesus died to pay the penalty of our sin on our behalf, so that we can be reconciled to God, become His children, and have eternal life. He offers this as a free gift; we don't have to earn it.
If we refuse to trust in Jesus as our Savior then we will go to Hell and be separated from God for eternity.
Being a Christian means living as a grateful child of the God of all grace who is the Lord of the Universe. We desire to please Him, and to be like Jesus. Since God loves us He�s shown us the best way to live. He also gives us His Holy Spirit to live in us and give us the power to be the people that He wants us to be. Through the Holy Spirit we can experience love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness.

If you want to know more you can read a short presentation that will describe how you can know God personally (http://www.greatcom.org/laws/englishkgp/KnowGod1.html).

If you're sincere about wanting to know more about how begin a relationship with God you can always email me at &lt;playdiscgolf @gmail.com&gt;.

I posted exactly what I wanted to, ...



Well, that's fine then. I just thought you might want to appear more honest by referencing your sources while you liberally copy entire paragraphs of other peoples' work. My bad.



<font color="green"> You are beating a dead horse dude! I said that I didn't post it correctly, this isn't about honesty, and if you took a moment to read my last post concerning this, you'd know that. To continue to insinuate (sp) my intentions of being something other than honest, then you are correct sir, it is "your bad." Honestly! </font>

<font color="green"> What is your point? You proclaim that "it wouldn't hold up in court," that's fine, that's your opinion. Judging by the evidecnce he put forth, I feel it would. You quoted a paragraph and then say "Hmmmmm." Is that your evidence in court. Uh, judge I'd like to submit my evidence for why Jesus wasn't resurected, hmmmm." lol :D</font>



Again, he hasn't and doesn't have to put forth an alternative theory. The defense in a court case wouldn't have to do that either. They only have to show that there is reasonable doubt that the theory of the plaintiff has flaws and the plaintiff loses. Sorry, but that's how it works. I really wish people would figure out the whole 'burden of proof' thing.

Edited because I should never write in the morning!! :o






<font color="green"> What is your point? You proclaim that "it wouldn't hold up in court," that's fine, that's your opinion. Judging by the evidecnce he put forth, I feel it would. You quoted a paragraph and then say "Hmmmmm." Is that your evidence in court. Uh, judge I'd like to submit my evidence for why Jesus wasn't resurected, hmmmm." lol :D</font>



Again, he hasn't and doesn't have to put forth an alternative theory. The defense in a court case wouldn't have to do that either. They only have to show that there is reasonable doubt that the theory of the plaintiff has flaws and the plaintiff loses. Sorry, but that's how it works. I really wish people would figure out the whole 'burden of proof' thing.

Edited because I should never write in the morning!! :o



<font color="green"> Easy slugger! Chill with the court stuff, I like the court room ANOLOGY stuff too, but I am not bound by any courtroom procedure here! That is an analogy!

Besides, I wasn't reffering to his opinion in the first paragraph, I was referring to his quote, the second paragraph! He just quoted it and said "Hmmm." Do you expect me, or anyone else (but Dan ;) ) to not believe that quote by quoting it and then saying "Hmmmm?" Once again I'll simply ask, what is YOUR point? :DI know your point Dan! I'm going to bed....
</font>

"But how can we know [if Jesus was raised from the dead]? We can know by the evidence. The facts are that there was a historical Jesus who was crucified on a Roman cross, who was buried, and whose tomb was found empty on the third day, even as he had foretold. If Jesus were not raised by the power of God, then what possible alternative can be suggested in answer to the facts as we have them? What reasonable alternative is there to the resurrection?" -- Edward C. Wharton, Christianity, a Clear Case of History

Hmmmm...

Hmmmm....there are many LOGICAL explanations not including people rising from the dead and moving a HUGE slab of rock by himself.

1) Grave robbers were very common at the time of Jesus and him being such a notable figure in society he would be an obvious target.

2) Jesus had many followers that could of moved his body to a more protective place or doubters that could of done the same

3) Jesus's followers could of also moved him on the third so as to not look like fools, (sorry couldn't think of a better word) worshiping a man that claimed he will rise from the dead. Remember people were often murdered for believing these things especially after the public finds out your beliefs are untrue. The entire religion would of died that day if he was still in that tomb....do you think that any of his followers at the time would of let that happen?

Again these are just logical ideas that seem of little more "reasonable" than him resurrecting from the dead and moving the huge stone slab himself or floating through it in his ghostlike state...

and whoever said this could be held up in a court of law is attending a fantasy courthouse where the judge is Mr. Wharton and the attorney is Ted Haggard

but faith over reason is the empowerment of all religions...

Besides, I wasn't reffering to his opinion in the first paragraph, I was referring to his quote, the second paragraph! He just quoted it and said "Hmmm." Do you expect me, or anyone else (but Dan ;) ) to not believe that quote by quoting it and then saying "Hmmmm?" Once again I'll simply ask, what is YOUR point? :DI know your point Dan! I'm going to bed....



My point is the logical fallacy expressed in that statement. Wharton is trying to put forth a deductive argument, one in which there is no possibility that if the premise is true the conclusion can be false. Wharton's premise: "there was a historical Jesus who was crucified on a Roman cross, who was buried, and whose tomb was found empty on the third day, even as he had foretold." Wharton's conclusion: resurrection. Assuming for a moment that the premise is true, is Wharton's the only possible conlusion? Of course not. Any number of possibilities exist, some more plausible than others. Perhaps an earthquake moved the stone, scaring the snot out of the guards and scattering them like sheep. A lion then entered the tomb and devoured the body. The disciples cleaned up the mess and hushed up the story. Do I believe that? No. But as an explanation for an empty tomb, it has as much evidence going for it as resurrection.

What actual evidence does Wharton present, anyway? He says the gospels are "accepted by the church as accurate representations of the life of Christ Jesus." Really? Does that include the Jewish church? Islam? Hinduism? Oh... just the Christian church (which was exclusively the Catholic church for 1500 years). Well, THAT church is kind if dependant on the Bible, isn't it? What would happen to the church if it said something along the lines of "don't believe that, we don't think it's true?" You don't accept the testimony of someone with a vested interest without corroboration. What corroboration does Wharton offer? He alludes to archeological evidence and non-Biblical contemporary documents, but does he cite any? Not a one! Not a single quote, not a single picture, not a single reference, not a single footnote. In fact, the only "evidence" he sites comes from the Bible itself. Kind of a circular argument, no?

What about the veracity of the "testimony" itself? Wharton is using as "evidence" an account written at best thirty years after the event, and then translated and transcribed for nearly two thousand years after that. Again, where is his corroboration? How is it that this document, written from recollection many years after the event is incontrovertible yet we can't even keep track of the physical tomb itself? It seems to me that in the Christian world that tomb would be a bigger draw than the salt stains in the form of the Virgin in an underpass in Chicago!

Of course, some say the tomb has been found (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus). Along with the remains of Jesus. Do I think so? I'm highly sceptical.

Look, I neither question nor begrudge you your faith. But to present Wharton as a scholarly work proving the resurection of Christ is just ludicrous.

The entire religion would of died that day if he was still in that tomb....



Now there's something we can agree on! :D

As to your other theories, they can be refuted by a closer look at the facts, and I'm sorry that I don't have the time to go into the lengthy and detailed explanations that would require. Some of the evidence has been given on this thread over the years, so if you're really interested you can start by looking at earlier posts.

you have to admit though... the entire circumstance of Jesus's death and alleged resurrection could be recreated without much trouble.

for example, any man on death row right now could say "I am God. after I'm executed tomorrow, my body will disappear and I will ascend unto the heavens to be at the right hand of [...]", etc. Some people are bound to believe him, even if only a few. Then he could be executed (just like Jesus) and those believers could find his body in the morgue (or wherever executed prisoners are kept the day after) and remove it, burn it, and clean up any evidence.

If that happened, we would have another man who some people thought was a god, who was executed, and whose prophecy appeared to come true after his death. Without any proof to the contrary, who would any of us be to say that he wasn't telling the truth?

...could of ...could of ... could of ... would of ... would of ...



could HAVE
could HAVE
could HAVE
would HAVE
would HAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:mad:

Sorry, but it just gets to me sometimes.

This ends your third grade English lesson for the day.
You may now return to debating the origin of life and the nature of our existence.
/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

...to present Wharton as a scholarly work proving the resurection of Christ is just ludicrous.



I started reading the Wharton book last weekend. I have already found at least one piece of evidence that is a blatant lie and found several questionable remarks that I'm researching now. I have to reserve final judgement until I've read the whole thing, but, at this point, I'd have to agree that the work is less than aceptable as a scholarly work

...to present Wharton as a scholarly work proving the resurection of Christ is just ludicrous.



I started reading the Wharton book last weekend. I have already found at least one piece of evidence that is a blatant lie and found several questionable remarks that I'm researching now. I have to reserve final judgement until I've read the whole thing, but, at this point, I'd have to agree that the work is less than aceptable as a scholarly work




<font color="green"> You call it "a blatant lie" then say "you'll have to reserve final judgement?" :confused: Alrightythen!

You and I have pm'ed about this, I have not given you my response yet, but that is your opinion Dan. I've read the evidence as to why you think Josephus's references to Jesus that Wharton quoted wasn't accurate, but have you seen the other side of that coin? Don't believe every site you google Dan! To just come out and call it a lie, and the writer one in your pm, is over the line man... </font>

Quote:

Besides, I wasn't reffering to his opinion in the first paragraph, I was referring to his quote, the second paragraph! He just quoted it and said "Hmmm." Do you expect me, or anyone else (but Dan ) to not believe that quote by quoting it and then saying "Hmmmm?" Once again I'll simply ask, what is YOUR point? I know your point Dan! I'm going to bed....

<font color="red"> My point is the logical fallacy expressed in that statement. Wharton is trying to put forth a deductive argument, one in which there is no possibility that if the premise is true the conclusion can be false. Wharton's premise: "there was a historical Jesus who was crucified on a Roman cross, who was buried, and whose tomb was found empty on the third day, even as he had foretold." Wharton's conclusion: resurrection. Assuming for a moment that the premise is true, is Wharton's the only possible conclusion? Of course not. Any number of possibilities exist, some more plausible than others. Perhaps an earthquake moved the stone, scaring the snot out of the guards and scattering them like sheep. A lion then entered the tomb and devoured the body. The disciples cleaned up the mess and hushed up the story. Do I believe that? No. But as an explanation for an empty tomb, it has as much evidence going for it as resurrection. </font>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instead of saying �Wharton is trying to put forth a deductive argument, I�d say he didn�t �try,� he nailed it on the head! You say there isn�t, but there actually IS �the possibility that if the premise is true the conclusion can be false� but you have none!!! The majority of the chapter you read was dedicated to the reasons why most popular possibilities are dismissed! You present no "possibility" whatsoever. He makes a claim, he backs it up with evdidence that supports that claim. You, do not! The only one you could come up with, YOU even say yourself that you don�t believe! Come up with something more plausible than an isolated �earthquake� that only affected a sealed, Jewish-styled burial tomb and a �Jesus-eating lion� and we�ll hold it up to the evidence to see if it fits! Otherwise what you said about Mr. Whartons claim is patently false.

After presenting some popular historical arguments (non as convincing as an �earthquake and a lion though!) and good evidence (that you skipped over) as to why they don�t make sense, Ed Wharton simply asks the question: �what possible alternative can be suggested in answer to the facts as we have them?� Then he asks, �what reasonable alternative is there to the resurrection?

Please don�t give me the line (that others have suggested) of �I don�t have to offer an alternative theory� because Ed has just given you one that fits with the facts as we know them in the story. Believe it, disprove it with something better, or frankly, keep quiet! But don't say it isn't true when he just showed you something that fits the facts of the story. This notion that people who don�t believe in Christianity, and all that implies, don�t have to have an alternate theory is bunk. He has written all kinds of logical evidence that fits the story and your coming up with �earthquakes and big lions� to explain the resurrection!

And this line about �the disciples could have cleaned up the mess of a Lion eating Jesus� body and then they hushed the story up� so nobody would know is crazy man! Even if you try to put that into, as you put it, �the premise� it doesn�t fit! Did you not read what Ed Wharton wrote earlier, like maybe two pages earlier, under the bold lettered heading WAS IT THE DECIPLES? I haven�t looked on the E Book lately, I have the paperback from 17 years ago, but I�d assume that on the E Book it might even be on the same page you are getting all this from the conclusion! Talk about selective reading!

<font color="red"> What actual evidence does Wharton present, anyway?
</font>
That is a question you should ask yourself! You said that you skipped over the first 5 chapters of his �Case for Christianity� to read, (now paraphrasing you) what you found to be interesting. Not only that, you�ve demonstrated clearly that you glossed over the evidence of the story in the one chapter you said you read. You proved that you did that by presenting your only alternative argument to the resurrection being an �earthquake and a Jesus-eating lion� along with deceptive disciples who �cleaned up the mess and hushed the story.� The evidence for any deception by the disciples was clearly slammed earlier in the chapter. You slamming Ed Wharton for something that he and I never said is what is �ludicrous.�

<font color="red"> He says the gospels are "accepted by the church as accurate representations of the life of Christ Jesus." Really? </font>

Yes really! The body of Christ, which is �the Church� defined by Jesus, not man, accepts the testimony of the Gospels. Look for it in my new book called �Words Mean Things!� Chapter two: �The Church, Clearly Defined.� Really!


<font color="red"> Does that include the Jewish church? Islam? Hinduism? Oh... just the Christian church (which was exclusively the Catholic church for 1500 years). </font>

No, it doesn�t because those of the Jewish faith don�t believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah that was foretold in the OT. They are still waiting for him to come and fulfill all prophecy! The Islamic people believe that Jesus existed, but was not who he claimed to be. Modern Islamic folks would like you to think �Jesus is just alright with me� but in reality, Jesus is the enemy of what they call �Allah� because Jesus claims to be �the only way, truth and life.� Hindu�s believe that Jesus was an incarnation of God, but certainly not the only one. This conflicts radically with each and every one of the four Gospel accounts. Also they believe, at least the ones that try to incorporate Jesus into Hinduism, that Jesus studied in India and got his message from Hindu Guru�s. But Hindu teachings are far different from Christianity and that is pure speculation that doesn�t fit. As far as the Catholic church goes, man, you don�t even wanna get me started!

<font color="red"> Well, THAT church is kind if dependant on the Bible, isn't it? </font>

I think I know what you are asking, but along with the �can of worms� that is the Catholic topic, I don�t want to even speculate. I am very well versed on what I believe concerning the Catholic Chruch, but I have no interest in getting into it right now..(guess I do know how to not respond! New to me!)


<font color="red"> What would happen to the church if it said something along the lines of "don't believe that, we don't think it's true?" </font>

Kurt, the church is the body of believers. It's not a building, or a temple or anything other structure. It is made up of "believers." According to the bible, if someone chooses not to believe, then they are choosing to not be a part of the church. It's a choice Kurt. You choose to accept it or not.

<font color="red"> You don't accept the testimony of someone with a vested interest without corroboration. What corroboration does Wharton offer? He alludes to archeological evidence and non-Biblical contemporary documents, but does he cite any? Not a one! Not a single quote, not a single picture, not a single reference, not a single footnote. In fact, the only "evidence" he sites comes from the Bible itself. Kind of a circular argument, no?
</font>

I suggest you do more than skim over a chapter before you condemn an entire book! When you read the rest of the book, I want you to remember what you said in this paragraph!!!! Not one eh? lol

VERY IMPORTANT!!!!! READ THIS!!!!

For those of you who think that you are going to read one book, or one chapter, or one sentence and POOF! You are going to then believe, you have only fooled yourself. It's this kind of thinking that will keep you from ever coming to believe more than anything else I know. It's almost like the anology of loosing weight. You spend half your life getting fat. Day after day, year after year, burger after burger, and you think by eating one peice of fruit you're gonna get skinny? That's how ridiculous this is!

You may never come to believe in Jesus by reaading one book. Keep reading!!!!! You may not get skinny by eating one peice of fruit. Eat more! While your at it, get off the couch and work out! Same goes for this, you are searching for something far more valuable than getting a smaller waist or even getting physically healthier here! "Seek and you will find. Knock, and the door will open." Don't give up, He rewards those who seek Him.

<font color="red"> What about the veracity of the "testimony" itself? Wharton is using as "evidence" an account written at best thirty years after the event, and then translated and transcribed for nearly two thousand years after that.
</font>

The things that are wrong with that statement could fill a book! In fact they have. I'd recomend one, but I think you have your work cut out for you already! I'm not laughing at you, it just amazes me the amount of misconception about how we arrive at the copy of the Bible we own today. You have either been decieved about how the process works, or you simply are guessing. But either way Kurt, I assure you, this is not the process "they" go by to make the Bible you own, no matter what translation. BTW, the thirty years you refer to is the time from ascention to the first known copies, not the time they were first written. Big difference. Here is a fun fact for you while I'm thinking about it. Did you know there is more evidence for Jesus actually existing than Shakespere? See for yourself: http://www.forerunner.com/blog/2007/11/jesus-mohammed-shakespeare-did-they_07.html

<font color="red"> Again, where is his corroboration? How is it that this document, written from recollection many years after the event is incontrovertible yet we can't even keep track of the physical tomb itself? It seems to me that in the Christian world that tomb would be a bigger draw than the salt stains in the form of the Virgin in an underpass in Chicago! </font>

You are asking Ed Wharton to put everything you want to hear in one chapter! It's amazing, you just keep saying that he's not saying this and he's not saying that, and in my mind I'm saying, yes, he is, just not in the one chapter you choose to read! Man, read the whole thing before you ask stuff like this, please? What would it matter if we knew what tomb it was? If you think abouit it at all, you know it wouldn't. Those things never really did. They were props in the greatest story ever told man! The oddities of life that resemble a religious icon are nothing more than funny little punch lines like your salt stain reference. A craddle, a grave, a robe, a crown of thorns, what would any of these things do for someone who chooses to disbelieve? Once again, you either choose to believe or not.

"Where are the nails that pierced His hands?
Well the nails have turned to rust
But behold the Man
He is risen
And He reigns
In the hearts of the children
Rising up in His name
Where are the thorns that drew His blood?
Well, the thorns have turned to dust
But not so the love
He has given
No, it remains
In the hearts of the children
Who will love while the nations rage"

by Rich Mullins (my all time favorite artist)

<font color="red"> Of course, some say the tomb has been found. Along with the remains of Jesus. Do I think so? I'm highly sceptical. </font>

Of course, you have good reasons to be skeptical of it, ( The neutrality of this article is disputed. ) but you choose to not mention them! And that hasn�t stopped you from posting it in the hopes of drawing up even the hint of skepticism from anyone who would venture to look at your link.

<font color="red"> Look, I neither question nor begrudge you your faith. </font>

The evidence would suggest otherwise! Just because you say that, does not make it true. Can you see the sense in a statement such as, �I don�t question your faith, just everything you have faith in�? Me neither! That�s essentially what you are saying and doing. The gospel account of Jesus is a critical part of my faith.

<font color="red"> But to present Wharton as a scholarly work proving the resurection of Christ is just ludicrous </font>

I said it earlier, I�ll say it again, �you slamming me or Ed Wharton for something that he or I never said is what is ludicrous.� You read one chapter, show me where he said that his work �proved� anything? And show me anywhere in all the pages I�ve posted that I said I can "prove� anything? Words mean things!

At the end of the chapter of your minimal research of Ed Whartons book, �Christianity, A Clear Case of History,� Mr. Wharton asks you a question that you have failed to answer. He asks: �Reason demands an answer to the historical fact of Christ�s empty tomb. What does the evidence say?

I write this because you have boldly condemned a work from a very learned man that I personally have studied for nearly twenty years. I also know he is an honest man with extremely high scholastic integrity. Despite Dan�s extremely unfortunate choice of words in describing what he thinks to be false, Ed Wharton has seen more and learned more than all three of us combined. That I can PROVE! To call his work a lie was very wrong, and to choose to say that now without letting me answer his question in my time is not fair, IMO. But that�s another subject that I might not be able to address tonight due to time.

I don�t know your personal story Kurt. I don�t know how much you�ve really studied when it comes to apologetics. But I do know one thing, you have demonstrated a lot in your post that would indicate that you haven�t gone too deep in the waters of it. It�s an area of study that, like most, takes time to get that �bigger picture� kind of understanding. Your experience with this book, the �jumping the gun� aspect at least, I hope would be a lesson for you to take a broader approach to apologetics. Believe me, it is worth the journey!

I want to share a personal story that many of my disc golfing �buddies� back in Tejas and some here in St. Louie don�t know about. This isn�t easy to say because some reading this only remember me as someone I used to be. Someone who waisted a lot of time in life just drifting. But at one time, I was in what some denominations would call �seminary� for four years. I studied bible, and nothing but, for the better part of those four years. I preached and was a youth minister for more than one church, before and after my schooling. I don�t say that for any other reason than to let you know the scene. My point is that during that time, I can hardly recall a day that went by that I wasn�t nearly brought to, or completely lost in tears. Sometimes, in a room full of grown men. I was pretty much the youngest in the school.

The tears weren�t because I was young and far from home. At least those tears weren�t! They weren�t because of lost love, or the realization of sin in my life. At least those tears weren�t! They were brought out by a wider comprehension and clearer understanding of God, His Son, and His Spirit filled Word. The more I learned, the deeper my appreciation was for how incredibly huge this God I serve is. I want that for everyone I know and come in contact with. I make mistakes, all the time; I am not perfect in the flesh. Not a hard admission, but a needed one.

The time is gonna come when I can�t respond to posts like this. I�ve kinda decided to do what I can, while I can. It�s my passion to share what I know. I hope you can find peace in the search for truth. I hope that any hostility that you feel towards these evidences and those who dedicate their lives to sharing it is seen through eyes of experience and much more study. You are free to ask me anything, but if you make a post directed towards my comments like you did with this one again, I will probably just let it go, not matter how I feel about it. My suggestion is that you pm me, e mail me, or even call me. I would do anything for those who seek to know Him.

I now believe that this form of open debate is not good for the cause I strive to live for. In order to address the topics fully, one must appear to an unbelieving world to be �fighting� and �arguing� by the simple amount of response needed. You might think, �well just don�t type so much!� Well, that�s fine if you don�t want to adequately respond, that�s just not my style. My intention when I decided to start posting on a thread entitled �Disc Golfers for Jesus????� was not to debate or get into never ending clarifications of what I said and the correction of non believers posts concerning a believers topic.

I was na�ve to think that believers would dominate a thread entitled as such. I can not respond to the onslaught of posts and pm�s from unbelievers that wish to slander, rudely question, poke fun at, pick apart, lie about, mock, misquote, redefine terminology, reduce meaningful topics to catch phrases, and the never ending misconceptions about Gods Word and that all Christian groups are the same. I cannot respond to all of that in a way that my work ethic in such topics demands of me, it would take all my free time, and most of my family time and that�s a sacrifice I will not continue to make.

I will continue to post on this thread. I may even from time to time type something lengthy. But I think I am going to take a broader approach to it when it comes to the debate side of things or simply continue to �put it out there� and let those who are truly seeking find what they can in what is given. God will help me figure out what to do. To try and respond to all the falsehoods on here is too much for one person to handle, and I was foolish to even try. Thank God He has a soft spot for fools and little children, cause I�ve been both of those.

In Him,

David

...to present Wharton as a scholarly work proving the resurection of Christ is just ludicrous.



I started reading the Wharton book last weekend. I have already found at least one piece of evidence that is a blatant lie and found several questionable remarks that I'm researching now. I have to reserve final judgement until I've read the whole thing, but, at this point, I'd have to agree that the work is less than aceptable as a scholarly work




<font color="green"> You call it "a blatant lie" then say "you'll have to reserve final judgement?" :confused: Alrightythen!

You and I have pm'ed about this, I have not given you my response yet, but that is your opinion Dan. I've read the evidence as to why you think Josephus's references to Jesus that Wharton quoted wasn't accurate, but have you seen the other side of that coin? Don't believe every site you google Dan! To just come out and call it a lie, and the writer one in your pm, is over the line man... </font>



I said one piece of evidence is a lie and that several others are questionable. I did not say the work in general is untrue. I'll make that judgement after I've read the whole thing. I said at this point I'd have to say the work is less than scholarly, that doesn't mean that is my final opinion. Please, read what I write. (Where have I heard that before? ;))

As far as that one piece of evidence goes, I've been to about 30 different websites from both sides of the coin. And, with the exception of a couple of hard-line Christian apologist websites, there seems to be a general conclusion that the quotation from Josephus has been tampered with. (The only question seems to be how much the quotation was tampered with. Some say the entire thing is a fabrication while others say that only part of it is a fabrication. You can imagine where the lines are drawn there!) Considering that the only sources for this quote are copies of the book that were in Christian hands, what conclusions should I draw about it?

Additionally, any information from Josephus need to be verified through a second source as he has a history of generalization and exaggeration.

When you put all this together, although presented by Wharton as being completely and totally valid, it is not the rock solid piece of evidence that he claims it to be. A little research shows that it is not. Sorry, but in my book this is a lie. And in a scholarly work, this is completely unacceptable.

My bad, I didn't clarify my quote... sorry. I still believe Josephus mentioned Jesus, several times, including Ed's quote. In my opinion, the evidence says otherwise. Keep in mind, it's not to say anything other than that Jesus lived. Do you believe that Jesus lived as a human being?

Good on ya...

okay, I've gotten to where I'm just skimming the thread, so I may have missed it. Did anyone mention the Roman guards set to guard the tomb because the Romans thought Jesus' followers' would steal the body to fulfill the prophecy?
They were assigned by the Romans. They would face severe punishment if found they had assisted Jesus' followers in any way, much more severe punishment than any underpaid Texas prison guard would face in your scenerio.
What do the skeptics say of the guards?

I hate to answer questions with questions, but what do the believers say of the stone being moved without the guards noticing or being able to prevent it from happening?

okay, I've gotten to where I'm just skimming the thread, so I may have missed it. Did anyone mention the Roman guards set to guard the tomb because the Romans thought Jesus' followers' would steal the body to fulfill the prophecy?
They were assigned by the Romans. They would face severe punishment if found they had assisted Jesus' followers in any way, much more severe punishment than any underpaid Texas prison guard would face in your scenerio.
What do the skeptics say of the guards?



Hi Laura,

This is not a definitive answer, just a possibility. The guards could have been bribed.

Yes, they would have faced severe penalties if they had been caught. However, even in today's world people face all kinds of penalties (death, incarceration, fines) for crimes and they still commit those crimes.

I don't think it's outside of the realm of possibility to suggest that they were bribed to look the other way.

I just read quickly through the end of the first four gospels (Yes, I have a Bible. :eek:). The only one that mentions a guarded sepulchre is Matthew.

It says (Matthew 27: 62-66):

62 Now, the next day, that followed the day or preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate.
63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen away from the dead: so the last error shall be worst than the first.
65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
66 So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

Why do we think it was guarded by Romans? It seems to me that Pilate told them that they needed to provide their own guard if it was so important to them. Does anyone else read that differently?

that passage (like so many) can be read many ways. I think the guard could have been Roman (ye have a guard, as in here's your guard), but I don't think it's clear.

Did you find anything about the guard in the passages about the resurrection? It's been a long time since I've dug through there, but I don't ever remember reading a good explanation about why the guard seemed not to notice that the stone had moved, much less put a stop to it.

<font color="green"> The below clip from "Christianity, A Clear Case of History" should help answer any of the collective speculating going on here concerning "who done it" </font>

<font color="green"> Again, anyone who would like a copy of this book, a study on
Chrisitan evidences, can get it for free :by going to </font>

http://www.scripturessay.com/article.php?cat=&amp;id=7

<font color="green"> Also, by no means is this the only place to go. I have countless apologetics references to give anyone who would like them. But with so many just starting to look at one book, I don't want to flood this thread with reference after reference. My allegence is not to this man, or his book, I simply don't want to over do it with material. There's a lot of it! </font>

Evidence From the Burial Tomb: The Resurrection of Jesus Christ (1)
Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples, He is risen
from the dead.
-Matthew

Sometime before A.d. 60-62, the traditional date for the writing of Mark, the first gospel, many took it upon themselves to write narratives of the life of Christ, which we can intimate from Luke's opening remarks, contained some greater or lesser degree of reliability (Luke 1:1-4). Luke, having researched the matter from the apostles themselves, was stirred to write his own account of the historical Christ with such space-time precision that he fully guaranteed to his Roman correspondent, Theophilus, that what he had only heard about Christ to that time was nevertheless true and verifiable. The apostles Matthew and John also contributed their eyewitness accounts and soon these four gospels were accepted by the church as accurate representations of the life of Christ Jesus.

The Evidence Is Factual, Not Fictional
In these four historical narratives, we find the evidence for the resurrection which centers upon the burial tomb. The fact that thousands, who had participated in the events described in these books, were still alive and had become believers and had received the gospels is excellent testimony to their factuality. They have been verified by the same testing methods used to verify the classical histories. Our appeal to them for the real facts in the case is at least as reliable as an appeal to any Greek, Roman, or Jewish writing from that same period. It is not reason's function to determine whether the claim is believable or not before the evidence has come in. When the evidence is trustworthy, it is not difficult to reach a believing conclusion even though it embraces a line of reasoning which extends to the supernatural. No truly objective statement of finality can be honestly pronounced on the reality of the resurrection until the evidence which has been made available to us has been considered. Remember that both archaeology and first century contemporary documents have reflected on the statements in the gospels and have corroborated their historical accuracy so that when we turn to them for the resurrection evidence, we are turning to facts, not to fiction.

John's Evidence
I have chosen to follow the line of reasoning in John 20:1-8 because his evidence makes no appeal to any miraculous event which might be construed as an assumption that the supernatural had happened before it was proven. Even critics and unbelieving historians have admitted this evidence as factual. While we will coordinate the evidence with information from the other gospels, we will base the investigation on John's account.

Now on the first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, while it was yet dark, unto the tomb, and seeth the stone taken away from the tomb. She runneth therefore, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him. Peter therefore went forth, and the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb. And they ran both together: and the other disciple outran Peter, and came first to the tomb; and stooping and looking in, he seeth the linen cloths lying; yet entered he not in. Simon Peter therefore also cometh, following him, and entered into the tomb; and he beholdeth the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, that was upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself. Then entered in therefore the other disciple also, who came first to the tomb, and he saw, and believed.

An Objective Testimony
John was totally objective in reproducing the resurrection evidence. He presented his material without any comment as to the implications which might arise from it. He only says that the disciple who came first to the tomb saw and believed-a statement of fact. But his own belief that Jesus was raised was stated at precisely that point in order to draw our attention to the reason for that belief which he had reached on the basis of the facts. He wanted us to know what it was that he saw and, therefore, why he believed. John's effort was designed to prod our powers of reason to draw a conclusion from the evidence.

Four Facts
The facts as we have them are four in number: (1) the stone had been rolled back and the tomb was standing open, (2) the body of Jesus was gone, (3) the grave cloths in which Jesus was buried were still lying in the tomb, and (4) it was Sunday, the first day of the week-a significant fact we will look at. This sequence will provide the line of study by which we will consider the evidence, combining the first two facts (the tomb was both empty and open) into a single unit in order to avoid repetition.

THE OPEN AND EMPTY TOMB
Who Got the Body?

On the third day, Christ's crucified body was gone. The tomb was empty. Removal of Christ's body was necessarily either a human act or an act of God. Either Christ was raised as is claimed, or his body was removed by some sort of human ingenuity. If we can satisfy a line of inquiry which can eliminate the human element as the cause for emptying the tomb, we are left with the conclusion that the supernatural element was present in the removal, and the resurrection will be sustained.

The question to be answered is: Who would, or even could, have taken away the dead body of Jesus? Was it his disciples or his enemies who had him crucified? Either it was one of these, or he was raised from the dead. There is no evidence for another explanation.

Was It the Disciples?
This is precisely the question which the evidence answers. While it has actually been suggested that the disciples themselves, at some undisclosed time, somehow stole past the guards to spirit away the body of Christ, Matthew tells us that sufficient steps were taken to prevent that very thing from happening. He informs us that the chief priests and Pharisees went to Pilate telling him of Christ's prophecy to rise on the third day after the crucifixion. Their concern was to keep the body in the tomb until the third day against any attempt to steal the body and make it appear as if he had been raised. Pilate was sufficiently impressed with their concern that he gave them a Roman guard and permission to seal the tomb (Matthew 27:62-66). A Roman guard posted at the tomb would discourage any attempt to rob it of its contents.(40)

40. Jewish guards would not have placed Caesar's seal upon the tomb. Nor would it have been necessary for the Sanhedrin to have bribed their own soldiers to lie about the incident. In addition, only a Roman guard would have feared that the matter would come to Pilate's ears. Dereliction of duty by Jewish guards would have been of no consequence to Pilate. The large sum of money, therefore, was given to Roman guards with an assurance from the Sanhedrin that if the matter came before the governor they would rid the soldiers of any reason to worry (Matthew 28:11-15).

It soon became common knowledge that the Jews had bribed the Roman guard to lie about the matter, saying that the disciples had stolen the body while they slept (Matthew 28:11-15). Such an explanation, however, is inadequate, since sleeping men do not know what is happening around them.

Could anyone have seriously accepted this explanation? It's doubtful. Who could believe that the guards were all sleeping at once, or that at least one of them would not have been awakened by several men rolling back the stone, seeing that "it was exceeding great" (Mark 16:4)? Who could believe that not one of the guards was awakened during the time it took to roll back the stone, unwrap the corpse, and then rewrap the burial cloths to make it appear that they had not been tampered with? Who could believe it? It would be easier to believe the resurrection. Any suggestion that the disciples removed the body of Christ is mere speculation without evidence and contrary to existing evidence.

Was It the Jews?
Another speculative theory suggests that the Jews themselves took the body of Christ out of the tomb and put it in another place to keep the disciples from reverencing the tomb. But that action would have been completely contrary to their own statement of purpose to keep the body of Christ in the tomb until the third day after the crucifixion. It would have been a definite advantage to the Jewish position to keep the body entombed until the third day for several reasons. First, Jesus' claim to rise on the third day after his death was common knowledge by the time of the crucifixion (Matthew 27:63), and so it occurred to the Jews that if the disciples stole the body, it would appear as if Jesus had made good his claim. In view of this, their intent was to secure the body under the protection of the Roman guard until the third day. At that time, they could have gone to the tomb and, in the presence of all the disciples, rolled back the stone to expose the corpse and demonstrate conclusively that Jesus had failed to rise from the dead. With that action, Christianity would have been stopped dead, then and there. It's not reasonable to accuse the Jews of emptying the tomb; that puts them at cross-purposes with their stated intentions and their efforts to carry them out.

Another point is that in seven short weeks, Jerusalem was seething with the story of the resurrection. The chief priests were upset because their own Messiah's blood was being brought upon them by the apostles, and they were prepared to go to any lengths to stop it. Well then, if the body had been moved by their order, when the apostles started preaching the resurrection, why didn't they issue an official denial? Why didn't they say, "That's nonsense. The body was moved at our own order"? If that would not have convinced them, then why didn't they call as witnesses those who had carried the body away? If that would not do, then why didn't they tell the people where they had laid the body? That would have exposed the preaching of the apostles as a great lie. Why didn't they do it? Because they had nothing to do with relocating the body, and they could not produce it.

One more valid point about the Jews taking away the body is that all the references to the empty tomb are in the gospels; none come in Acts during the apostles' ministry. Why? Because everyone knew that the tomb was empty and the only question worth discussing was why it was empty and what that proved.

On the outside chance that someone would suggest that a grave robber took away the body, it must be remembered that the same guards would have posed as much a problem for robbers as for anyone else. Besides, graves were robbed for their valuables, not for dead bodies. In this particular case, the only thing of value were the spices which were left behind when Jesus vacated the premises (John 19:39-40).

When the facts are considered, the speculative "possibilities" must be assigned to their place as myths.

Who opened and emptied the tomb of Christ? On the basis of the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the disciples could not have done it and that the Jews certainly would not have done it. It is a logical implication from the facts given to us in the gospels that Jesus was raised from the dead. That is as reasonable and intelligent a conclusion as intelligent reasoning can draw from the facts.

THE GRAVE CLOTHS
One of the most interesting aspects of the evidence for the resurrection is the grave cloths in which Jesus was prepared for burial. This is interesting not only because of their contribution to the evidence but because they are seldom mentioned by unbelievers who readily admit the historical factuality of the empty tomb.

Their Position
John tells us that the grave cloths were left lying in the place where Jesus had been laid to rest. This indicates that Jesus passed through them without disturbing their position. They were lying in the same folded position which formed the outline of the body of Jesus when he had been "Found" in them for burial (Mark 15:46). The burial garments were not disheveled; the tomb was not a strewn mess. Carefully observe what John says and what he does not say. He did not say merely that he and Peter saw the linen cloths. He said they both saw them "lying." Of course, they wouldn't have seen them standing. It would have been enough merely to say, "they entered into the tomb and beholdeth the linen cloths." Why, then, did he say they saw them "lying," unless he was indicating their peculiar position? It seems John is stressing the impact that the position of the grave cloths had on both Peter and John, and he wants to make that impression on his readers. Both Matthew and Mark relate that the women who went early to the tomb were invited to observe the place where the Lord had lain (Matt.28:6; Mark 16:6). If Jesus was not there, and he wasn't, what would they observe if not the grave cloths. The picture which initially met the eyes of the witnesses was telling. The grave cloths were found lying just as they had been originally folded around the body of Christ. Whether they were lying flat or the sticky spices, acting as a bonding agent, held them in a slightly collapsed cocoon shape, the grave cloths were nevertheless still there in their folds and pressing the mind for answers.

Jewish Burial Customs
The manner in which the Jews dressed their dead for burial is described in the resurrection of Lazarus. After Jesus had commanded the resurrection of Lazarus, John testified, "He that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes; and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go" (John 11:44). Though Lazarus was alive again, he was still bound hand and foot with grave clothing and needed some assistance to get out of them. The point is that Jesus was prepared for burial in this same way. He was bound up in a grave cloth with aromatic spices poured into the folds and a face napkin wrapped around his head (John 19:39-40). When Jesus was placed in the tomb, he had been wrapped from head to toe. Now, if Jesus were not raised from the dead, who was it that silently rolled back the stone without the guards knowing it, unwrapped the body of Jesus, then rewrapped the grave cloths with such skill that eyewitnesses could not catch the deception, and finally carried away the body-all without being detected? If you can believe that, you can believe the resurrection.

The Swoon Theory?
The so-called swoon theory contends that Jesus did not actually die, but that he only swooned on the cross and in the cool of the tomb revived. But that is contrary to the fact that all the gospels testify to the death of Jesus while yet on the cross (Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; John 19:30,33). Mark even records Pilate's surprise that Jesus was already dead after only a few hours on the cross, but was satisfied when he learned from the centurion in charge of the execution that Jesus was dead (Mark 15:44-45). The swoon theory also fails to answer some pretty tough questions. How did Jesus manage to release himself from the grave cloths? That would be a tough challenge for any man, but more especially for one who had been battered and severely torn by scourging and crucifixion and deeply wounded by the soldier's spear, thrust upwards into his side, making a wound large enough to spill out his lifeblood onto the ground (John 19:34). And how, after all that, could he have rolled back the stone door from the inside of the tomb seeing that "it was exceeding great" (Mark 16:4)? Finally, in such an emaciated condition, what stretch of the imagination could envision that Jesus would have been able, if only a mere man, to have presented himself to the disciples on that very day as the picture of perfect health and divine power sufficient to inspire in them a confidence that he had triumphed over the power of death?

The problems created by substituting the speculations of prejudice for the facts of history are more difficult to believe than the resurrection.

wow. just wow.

in one sentence saying basically "that wouldn't make sense, so we can't think it's true", then in the next saying "so it must have been a supernatural act"... just... wow.

you know, I watched a movie the other day on ABC called "My Big Fat Greek Wedding". Some of you may be familiar with it, some probably more than others. There is a scene towards the beginning of the film where the main character's father explains how every word we use today can be traced back to roots in the Greek language. The logic used in many of these posts reminds me of that scene.

from IMDB: "Gus Portokalos: Kimono, kimono, kimono. Ha! Of course! Kimono is come from the Greek word himona, is mean winter. So, what do you wear in the wintertime to stay warm? A robe. You see: robe, kimono. There you go! "

"saying basically"

Speaking of Wow!

what's wrong with that? If I didn't paraphrase, I'd never be able to quote any of your posts.