Creationism
- Thread starter Erik
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
You are confused between biblical teaching and the bible as a historical record.
Wow this thread is moving so fast it is hard to keep up with.
1. I am a firm believer in God and Jesus, yet wont label myself a "Christian", for fear of what Christianity has come to.
The 6 day creation is common misconception, if you look within the original Hebrew the word Yom (which we translate day) is used much as in the same context you would use the old saying back in my fathers day
2. The evidence for Jesus existing, is on the same level as that of Julius Ceaser, it is not so much
3. "Did Jesus exist", but rather "Do you believe in Jesus". This was one of the major falls in "The God Delusion" (which I finished last month, and yet I somehow remained unconvinced despite the start telling me otherwise), he seemed to skip segments within his arguments, attacking religion on its weakest points, and completely disregarding some of its stronger points. For this argument Dawkins simply said (or roughly, please dont quote me it was a month ago) "Of course it is debatable weather Jesus ever existed at all", and simply moved on. This is untrue, and most likely why he did move on, and he knew there is no strong argument for this case. With this said is worth noting that Richard Dawkins did write some very true points, yet the fact most of these where known about within religion, to me, made the "God Delusion" unconvincing.
In terms of belief in creationism, it depends on your definition as to weather I am a "creationist". Yes I do believe God created the world, 4. (and the world didn't simply form from nothing), yet I donââ¬â¢t believe he created each animal, rather when you look into the Bible you find humans are only unique because they are the chosen "race", of which God wants to redeem, yet this is not so much a theology thread so I wont get into that.
5. The "Why wont God simply show himself ?" argument is decades old, and is best explained by it simply being against free will, one of the most important aspects of life.
1. You believe in Christ, you're a Christian. You can't say "'oh it has its bad points so I'll avoid the stigma and deny what my faith really is".
2. Incorrect - Who tells you guys this ****? There are written accounts by both his allies and his enemies, as well as by social commentators of the time, artefacts, coins with his image on them, etc. He wrote first hand accounts of his battles and empire, which are supported by archaeological evidence and other accounts, and he had his own biographer.
3. Well, if we knew that Jesus existed, there would be no need at all for anyone to say they didn't believe in him. That's part of the reason that nobody denies Caesar's existence but they do Jebus's.
4. I take it that this is a reference to the Big Bang Theory and Earth Formation Theory. If you are attempting to be satirical, you should be a bit clearer. If you are being serious, you clearly have zero understanding of the two things.
5. This is ridiculous. There are literally thousands of rebuttals to that, but I'll stick with one - those born with disabilities didn't choose to be born with an ailment, and thus no 'free will' regarding it, so why doesn't God help them?
A "Christian" was originally used as a derogatory term to followers of Jesus. Though you are unlikely to know what I am on about, Jesus was perhaps the least "religious" man in terms of Christianity. He took religion out of Christianity, only for Christians to restore it a couple of hundred years latter, he destroyed the corrupt hierarchy system within Christianity, that now has weaved its way back into place. That is my problem with Christianity, Jesus would probably have nothing to do with it now. The church would most likely kick Jesus out for being "blasemephous"
2.)There where many written accounts outside that of the bible from numerous documenters at the time, (mainly Roman) who described a man named Jesus, performing acts throughout Nazareth and so on. (okay maybe not as much as Julius ceaser but his existence is unquestionable)
3.) What, so you are saying if a man claimed to your house and claimed to be the son of god you would belie him. You know that man exists, because he is standing in front of you, but you donââ¬â¢t have to believe him! There is a huge difference between a man existing and believing in him.
4.) I've followed science through to high level, I know the in's and outs of various theoryââ¬â¢s to do with the "begging". In order for this world to have come about, there most be some existence out of time, even if you believe in infinity, to create matter. This is not "God of the Gaps" but perfect logic, the scientists from Issac Netwon, to Einstein believed in.
5.) This is more a theological question then anything else so I wont explain in full as this is not a theological debate. However, imperfection is something man caused upon himself, (i.e god appeared to man before he decided to go his own way, according to biblical records). However I must say I will think about this question and get back to you tomorrow, as I am tired.
So how the f**k do the hear-say based writings of Tacitus and Josephus qualify as contemporary in any way, as you claimed previously?
I don't deny that they wrote about him, I deny that their writings on Jesus, which are limited in quantity or detail anyway, are of any value, especially when considering contemporary accounts.
Circa. AD 20:
"Oh look there's the Son of God preaching, performing miracles and healing the sick. Let's keep it to ourselves".
Circa. AD 40:
"Do you remember the Son of God? Saw him years ago in Nazareth, raising the dead and **** like that? Well he's died".
"Oh. Well given that we've now somehow learnt to write, let's write it down so that our word can be used as contemporary evidence for his existence in 2,000 years".
Because they're not contemporary ffs!
It is simply a few people recounting hearsay about a man who died years before they were born!And if that's the strongest evidence, is it any wonder I doubt the mans existence?
Good argument! Conjecture, unfounded presumptions and guesswork. I guess that Odin, Zeus, etc existed as well. After all, nobody would make it up...
Josephus again... It's not contemporary, so it's irrelevant.
And evidence is unlikely? In your opinion, yes. What do you even base that opinion on anyway?
NO!
Hello? Not the same thing as you believe then...
A "Christian" was originally used as a derogatory term to followers of Jesus. Though you are unlikely to know what I am on about, Jesus was perhaps the least "religious" man in terms of Christianity. He took religion out of Christianity, only for Christians to restore it a couple of hundred years latter, he destroyed the corrupt hierarchy system within Christianity, that now has weaved its way back into place. That is my problem with Christianity, Jesus would probably have nothing to do with it now. The church would most likely kick Jesus out for being "blasemephous"
2.)There where many written accounts outside that of the bible from numerous documenters at the time, (mainly Roman) who described a man named Jesus, performing acts throughout Nazareth and so on. (okay maybe not as much as Julius ceaser but his existence is unquestionable)
3.) What, so you are saying if a man claimed to your house and claimed to be the son of god you would belie him. You know that man exists, because he is standing in front of you, but you don’t have to believe him! There is a huge difference between a man existing and believing in him.
4.) I've followed science through to high level, I know the in's and outs of various theory’s to do with the "begging". In order for this world to have come about, there most be some existence out of time, even if you believe in infinity, to create matter. This is not "God of the Gaps" but perfect logic, the scientists from Issac Netwon, to Einstein believed in.
5.) This is more a theological question then anything else so I wont explain in full as this is not a theological debate. However, imperfection is something man caused upon himself, (i.e god appeared to man before he decided to go his own way, according to biblical records). However I must say I will think about this question and get back to you tomorrow, as I am tired.
1. I don't really understand your point. A Christian is someone who believes in the existence and follows the teachings of Christ, not somebody who belongs to a particular denomination (which itself often shares a view on how those teachings should be interpreted). You ARE undeniably a Christian, though not necessarily Catholic/Protestant/etc, if you understand what I mean.
2. What are they then? I keep being told about them, but so far no-one has been kind enough to reveal what they are or who wrote them!
3. Well from your man-outside-the-house analogy, it appears that in your original post you meant we cannot deny his physical existence but we can deny his word. However, I refute his physical existence too, given the lack of available evidence.
4. Why must (pretty strong choice of word there Ossie) there be some existence outside of time? Why? And who cares whether Newton or Einstein (religious beliefs debatable) believed in a God? That's not evidence at all. And why is it logical?
5. I love the way mankind is ridiculously described as a collective entity with a single conscious state.
To be honest, I did actually write a rather long reply. So long, in fact, that I timed out and lost it.
However, I feel the
smilies in my re-write summarise my views on the crap in your previous post fairly well. 
PS. Let's be honest, the only quotes that weren't answered with anything other than
were answered elsewhere and, I have to say, fairly ******ed.
I'm not pointing at anyone in particular here (honest!), but there are a surprisingly large number of people who refuse to admit that it would have been of immense benefit to a fledgling religion to simply have made stuff up about their founder.
PS. Let's be honest, the only quotes that weren't answered with anything other than
Well at least you concede your response was ******ed.
Either answer the points, or don't. If you are not able to, that is fine as well.
so go on, tell me then. who would have written these contemporary accounts? the fishermen or the publican?
Historically speaking, it makes perfect sense to gild the lilly. But do you think that a decade after him being alive it would be reasonable to invent his entire existence. so much so that well respected historians and political commentators make reference to him. It is very very very very very very very very unlikely.
But that clown wants contemporary reports from 1st century middle eastern fishermen who, as we all know were famed for their writing skills. the evidence available is so compelling that WRT believes it.
Jesus one guy amongst hundreds recycling the same stories handed down to them, Jesus was spouting the exact same drivel as those hundreds of others.
Passed down verbally and altered to suit who ever was recounting it, Jesus coming out on top of those hundreds of others for some unknown reason
Editing out what was clearly bullshit to fit what goes along with knowledge at that time.
Writing it down when capable, throwing out whole tracts of it which didn't suit their way of thinking.
Adding bits to make their beliefs look stronger and give themselves more power.
If the church could re-edit the Bible they would remove 90% of it because of modern knowledge.
Modern believers, nothing has changed, anything that is clearly bullshit like the making of the Earth's timescale is now put down to mistranslation.
When asked why God won't show himself we hear the same old clichés.
Any chance of anyone giving me a cohesive answer as to why he allows the misery that exists today?
Also someone please explain to me why this almighty "being" couldn't just snap his fingers and the earth was there?
And why did he waste his time making all the billions of stars in our galaxy?
Strange thing to do surely?
But he then proceeded to make BILLIONS of more GALAXIES with BILLIONS of STARS in each of those BILLIONS of GALAXIES?
Just watching Louis Theroux right now, with those lovely Christians the Westboro Baptist Church.
Ardent believers in the bible, what a lovely bunch of people.
Thank God I'm an Atheist.
Passed down verbally and altered to suit who ever was recounting it, Jesus coming out on top of those hundreds of others for some unknown reason
Editing out what was clearly bullshit to fit what goes along with knowledge at that time.
Writing it down when capable, throwing out whole tracts of it which didn't suit their way of thinking.
Adding bits to make their beliefs look stronger and give themselves more power.
If the church could re-edit the Bible they would remove 90% of it because of modern knowledge.
Modern believers, nothing has changed, anything that is clearly bullshit like the making of the Earth's timescale is now put down to mistranslation.
When asked why God won't show himself we hear the same old clichés.
Any chance of anyone giving me a cohesive answer as to why he allows the misery that exists today?
Also someone please explain to me why this almighty "being" couldn't just snap his fingers and the earth was there?
And why did he waste his time making all the billions of stars in our galaxy?
Strange thing to do surely?
But he then proceeded to make BILLIONS of more GALAXIES with BILLIONS of STARS in each of those BILLIONS of GALAXIES?
Just watching Louis Theroux right now, with those lovely Christians the Westboro Baptist Church.
Ardent believers in the bible, what a lovely bunch of people.
Thank God I'm an Atheist.
Whiterosetiger, top stuff mate but sadly some people will not listen to reason. There will be idiots in a thousand years who think Star Wars was a historical document. I've met a couple who practically believe that now.
The Romans were pretty good at documenting stuff and they had no contemperary documentation of anyone called Cheesus from that time. ABSOLUTELY no documentation. No proof. None. Nada. Nil.
And although most were illiterate there were people of the time who could write. Wasn't the one of Cheesus's desciples an educated chap?
He must have made some impression for nobody to bother writing about him until decades after his death.
Add to that the whole Cheesus story is just just a mishmash of earlier, older, saviours from other religions. The virgin birth? Been done. The star? Been done. The manger? Been done. The son of God? Been done. The crucifixtion? Been done. The rising from the dead? Been done.
Nice story about an early mythical superhero. A bit like Spiderman. Good for teaching your kids some decent morals but certainly not to be confused with reality.
The Romans were pretty good at documenting stuff and they had no contemperary documentation of anyone called Cheesus from that time. ABSOLUTELY no documentation. No proof. None. Nada. Nil.
And although most were illiterate there were people of the time who could write. Wasn't the one of Cheesus's desciples an educated chap?
He must have made some impression for nobody to bother writing about him until decades after his death.
Add to that the whole Cheesus story is just just a mishmash of earlier, older, saviours from other religions. The virgin birth? Been done. The star? Been done. The manger? Been done. The son of God? Been done. The crucifixtion? Been done. The rising from the dead? Been done.
Nice story about an early mythical superhero. A bit like Spiderman. Good for teaching your kids some decent morals but certainly not to be confused with reality.
Well at least you concede your response was ******ed.
Either answer the points, or don't. If you are not able to, that is fine as well.
so go on, tell me then. who would have written these contemporary accounts? the fishermen or the publican?
Where did I say my post was ******ed? I said that the only quotes of yours that weren't answered with anything other than
were ******ed.Sorry, full marks for effort but that's a fail.
PS. Love the way you're laughing at me because of your failure to explain what happened to the accounts that were written, and why you believe that poor people should be the only ones to have documented Jesus' life.
Yeah, the Romans took great care to preserve all historical records of Jerusalem when they smashed it up and were particularly fastidious about making sure records of a lowly preacher were kept.
Great stuff lads.
