The world is coming to an end (1 Viewer)

[emytaylor164]

He believes Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus, so I don't think there is any limit to the insanity they'll convince themselves is real.

What is wrong with believing that, your mind is bound to the things you can touch and science

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

Belief without proof, and especially belief without seeking or even wanting to seek proof, is stupidity beyond what I can believe of a reasonable person. You're only creating a mindset for yourself that'll let you be duped by ridiculous ideas without even questioning them, because the Bible said it, so it must be true. How can you be so credulous? Even the Christians I know are able to debate and question their faith.

 

[boris]

What is wrong with believing that, your mind is bound to the things you can touch and science

Hahaha, I know. What a horrible world I live in.

 

[emytaylor164]

Hahaha, I know. What a horrible world I live in.

i was suggesting you are narrow minded

 

[emytaylor164]

Belief without proof, and especially belief without seeking or even wanting to seek proof, is stupidity beyond what I can believe of a reasonable person. You're only creating a mindset for yourself that'll let you be duped by ridiculous ideas without even questioning them, because the Bible said it, so it must be true. How can you be so credulous? Even the Christians I know are able to debate and question their faith.

just because i do not need proof to believe something it does not make me an idiot, i do not need proof.

btw there is no proof to suggest that it didnt happen or that the bible is false either so dont go on about proof

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

just because i do not need proof to believe something it does not make me an idiot, i do not need proof.

btw there is no proof to suggest that it didnt happen or that the bible is false either so dont go on about proof

There is evidence which stacks up to discredit the Bible quite extensively so I shall go on about proof all I like.

And yes, the fact that you are willing to accept at face value things which are at best, fables or figurative interpretions of fact, without seeking any kind of verification at all, makes you, if not an idiot, then very naiive.

 

[Enteebee]

my faith i dont need proof to believe that the bible is true.

If I believed in a God and an afterlife, personally I would care very little about the pleasures of this life, why do you (without knowing you, but I'll guess) appear to have the same goals and covet the same things etc as someone who does not believe? If a politician was telling me "I'm a free-market libertarian" however continued to institute protectionist policies I would feel they are only really paying lip-service to laissez-faire capitalism for some other reason. I feel that most theists are only paying lip-service to theism/their god through performing the sort of rituals etc because they hope it's true. Most don't seem so incredibly 'different' or 'nutty' from atheist/secular people as I'd expect a true theist to be, they instead appear like people who really hope it's true and think it'd be great if it were true (so they do things like give money to the church, have their wedding in a church etc).

 

[emytaylor164]

There is evidence which stacks up to discredit the Bible quite extensively so I shall go on about proof all I like.

And yes, the fact that you are willing to accept at face value things which are at best, fables or figurative interpretions of fact, without seeking any kind of verification at all, makes you, if not an idiot, then very naiive.

what proof is there possibly to dis-prove it

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

what proof is there possibly to dis-prove it

Genesis 6:15 This is how you shall make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits.

Translation: 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high

It is impossible to build with what noah had available, let alone how he got every species on the boat... let alone there being absolutely no evidence for a worldwide flood...

That's just on the ark issue. All you need to do is read this thread, or any of the others concerning God, or do 5 minutes of Google research and you will come across a lot of scientific explanations for Biblical phenomena which, to my mind at least, explain things more satisfactorily than simply believing that God did it.

Also if you don't mind me asking, if you don't need any proof to believe then what is your faith based on? Why do you believe, is what I'm asking. Because surely you did not just wake up one day, read the Bible and decide to take it as 100% accurate. Something or someone influenced your beliefs, what was it?

 

[emytaylor164]

That's just on the ark issue. All you need to do is read this thread, or any of the others concerning God, or do 5 minutes of Google research and you will come across a lot of scientific explanations for Biblical phenomena which, to my mind at least, explain things more satisfactorily than simply believing that God did it.

Also if you don't mind me asking, if you don't need any proof to believe then what is your faith based on? Why do you believe, is what I'm asking. Because surely you did not just wake up one day, read the Bible and decide to take it as 100% accurate. Something or someone influenced your beliefs, what was it?

i believe it because i believe it, i was told about jesus one day and the bible and i read some, looked into it and i became a christian, I believe that God has given be my faith

"It is impossible to build with what noah had available, let alone how he got every species on the boat... let alone there being absolutely no evidence for a worldwide flood..."

It is possible, anything is possible

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

i believe it because i believe it, i was told about jesus one day and the bible and i read some, looked into it and i became a christian, I believe that God has given be my faith

"It is impossible to build with what noah had available, let alone how he got every species on the boat... let alone there being absolutely no evidence for a worldwide flood..."

It is possible, anything is possible

Okay, theoretically nothing is completely impossible. However, the possibility of getting every single species present on Earth at the time onto a boat that size is about as close to 0 as you can get.

Also if the basis for your faith is "anything is possible" well gee why not believe in the flying spaghetti monster too, anything is possible, right...

 

[brigittaclare]

I believe that noahs ark happened

its great to see that fundamentalism has survived into generation Y.
but i disagree that it should be encouraged

 

[CharlieB]

just wanted to chime in on this debate by saying that:

The bible is NOT the core of Christianity (YA'RLY)

Why? Because the Church pre-dates the Bible. For the first several hundred years of the Church’s existence the Bible DID NOT exist.

The key thing is that living Church, the communion of people under the leadership of bishops and with guidance of the holy trinity is what drives the church.

You can question the bible, but you can't score athiest brownie points by citing stories written thousands of years ago.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

just wanted to chime in on this debate by saying that:

The bible is NOT the core of Christianity (YA'RLY)

Why? Because the Church pre-dates the Bible. For the first several hundred years of the Church’s existence the Bible DID NOT exist.

The key thing is that living Church, the communion of people under the leadership of bishops and with guidance of the holy trinity is what drives the church.

You can question the bible, but you can't score athiest brownie points by citing stories written thousands of years ago.

"The key thing is that living Church, the communion of people under the leadership of bishops and with guidance of the holy trinity is what drives the church."

Okay - but what did Christians pre-Bible base their beliefs on? There had to be something. This is my main argument with Christians, because so often their response to "why do you believe?" is along the lines of "just because" or "It's in the Bible", or "Because God did x things" - none of which really explain anything. And then they get offended and express their outrage that you would even question them on it, because they don't have to justify what they believe to anyone else. Which is not entirely true. You don't have to go around explaining what you believe, but if you can't give a reasonable explanation when someone asks you, doesn't that say something about the nature of your faith? Wouldn't you at least start to think hey, something here doesn't add up? Because I know I would.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Wait did you just say you'd rather believe a Hollywood interpretation of the Bible rather than going straight to the source?

It was a joke, moron. My point is that not only have you not even looked at the source, but you haven't even understood Hollywood interpretations.

And yes, I go straight to the source. See attached for how I read the Old and New Testaments. How do you read it? Let me guess, you read it in English?

Edit: Yes, I have an American evangelical Bible program. Yes, it's called e-Sword, and yes it's got a stupid motto. Yes, you may all laugh at me. If anyone finds a better program which has better font supports, easier modules to install and edit, better ways of comparison, etc let me know.

Edit2: Yes, I know someone will say "/sarcasm/ You're cool I want to be like you". I don't care, so stfu.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Paging emytaylor to discredit you, asap

I thought you knew who to page?

just wanted to chime in on this debate by saying that:

The bible is NOT the core of Christianity (YA'RLY)

Why? Because the Church pre-dates the Bible. For the first several hundred years of the Church’s existence the Bible DID NOT exist.

The key thing is that living Church, the communion of people under the leadership of bishops and with guidance of the holy trinity is what drives the church.

You can question the bible, but you can't score athiest brownie points by citing stories written thousands of years ago.

Weh? I suppose it depends on the definitions, but let's say that the church started around Jesus' death.

Whilst there is a lot of discussion among papyrologists, Biblical scholars, Form Critics, etc etc regarding the authorship and dating of the early Gospels, the problem of Markan Priority, the "Q" Source, etc etc, I think most mainstream scholars would happily date the Gospel of Mark to between 50-80AD. I'd say 95% of well-respected scholars say that it is circa 70AD.

We could have a big discussion about the dating of it (our class spent about four weeks on the dating of the Synoptic Gospels), but that's pretty much the crux of the matter.

Given that Jesus' death was probably near the end of Pilate's prefecture (26-36AD), that means that the earliest forms of the New Testament were definitely around at the latest 40 or so years after Jesus' death. If my opinion mattered, I would say that Mark and the Q-document were first recorded in the authors' retirement so to speak, so probably 25-30 years after Jesus' death. Judging by the evidence, the Gospels were spread, textually, soon thereafter. There are rubbish dumps in southern Egypt (which was like the end of the world for people in the NT's time) from 200AD which have NT fragments; so you would be hard-pressed substantiating what you just said.

If you would like to argue that these fragments don't constitute a Bible, that's just silly use of the modern word. These Gospels were circulated at a very early date, and equate to the closest thing to a Bible.

TL;DR version: New Testament Gospels existed and were circulated quite soon after Jesus' death.

 

[historykidd]

just wanted to chime in on this debate by saying that:

The bible is NOT the core of Christianity (YA'RLY)

Why? Because the Church pre-dates the Bible. For the first several hundred years of the Church’s existence the Bible DID NOT exist.

The key thing is that living Church, the communion of people under the leadership of bishops and with guidance of the holy trinity is what drives the church.

You can question the bible, but you can't score athiest brownie points by citing stories written thousands of years ago.

entirely shit

 

[Kwayera]

Jesus explicitly and specifically prophesied that the temple would be destroyed, I don't see how this is a "confabulation", nobody could have known it was going to happen, and it was predicted well in advance of time.

It was prophesised in a book that was written.. how many years after his death, PwarYuex?

And I was saying that our "current best evidence available" doesn't satisfactorily explain natural phenomena...

Like what?

Any more than we don't need millions of years of fossilization? All is conjecture.

No, not it is not.

Don't take what I'm saying as gospel, I'm not God and I wasn't there to witness the events. But again, on the balance of probabilities it would be a good explanation...certainly better than the current theory that's floating around.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. No, my friend, "God" is not better than any theory "currently floating around". And no, you weren't there - just like we weren't there when the dinosaurs were alive and then fossilised, but hey, at least we have proof of it.

Carbon dating has been shown to be wildly inaccurate in measurements.

ER WRONG. Carbon dating is inaccurate at anything younger than about 10,000 years. Not millions. And radiocarbon dating is not the only long-term radiometric dating method available to scientists: potassium-argon, strontium-rubidium, and uranium-lead.

]Alot of the things you believe in likewise cannot be fully explained, and yet you hold on to them with the same tenacity. Science cannot fully answer for evolution (hence the theory of evolution), dinosaurs and the aforementioned gap in the fossil record (one example is the supposed development of reptiles to birds).

Sorry. Scientists CAN "fully answer" for evolution, because it is a theory, not a hypothesis. Come back to me when you understand the implications of those terms in a scientific sense.

And as for the "gaps in the fossil record", not even your God would be able to make sure every species that ever existed would be fossilised. And THAT is the balance of probability.

We believe what we do on the basis of probabilities,

Yes, and what is more likely? Natural processes, or the hand of God? Occam's razor, my friend.


And the next person who tries to say there is any proof for a) the flood or b) the ark and c) tries to use fossils as proof for the first two will get an extremely long lecture from me about continental drift, the Himalayas and why they are an idiot.

 

[xeuyrawp]

But Rob that science doesn't disprove that Bible is FACTUALLY ACCURATE DOES IT?

I don't think you can talk about the Bible being factual or fictitious. The Bible is a collection of varying texts.

Even in one book, there may be conflicting things which range from disprovable (early Genesis) to entirely possible (late Genesis). There are things which may be historically accurate and have no reason to be doubted (Exodus). There are also things which are conflicting (OT vs NT). There are things which may not be meant to be taken literally (all of Genesis, Jesus' parables, etc), or which may are supposed to be taken literally.

It's all very confusing, and when idiotic Christians talk about the Bible and wave around shit like the Four Horsemen of Apocalypse, you just know that the world truly is coming to an end. I seriously fail to see how we as a society get continually restrained in our intellectual endeavours as religious people actually devolve and continually misinterpret the (generally) good nature of religious texts. It's only a matter of time before an even worse idiotic Christian becomes the US president and starts nuking Muslims. It's also only a matter of time until some Wahabist jerk gets behind the nuclear arsenal of a "rogue state" and starts nuking Christians. I pray to Jesusallahbuddah every day that I'll be dead when that happens.

{Long rational argument}

I cbf addressing anything more than the first errors he makes in his posts.

 

[inasero]

Holy shit man, what about just quoting and putting it into 1 post?

yeah i know it's getting so confusing but the system only lets you quote so many posts