Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part (Civ3)! Part 2

[DrFell]

Wow. All this started out as one ignorant troll...

[Ethelred]

Yeah it did. The troll was ignorant but we are stubborn and have forced it to gain a semblance of meaning.


Most threads on religion start as trolls.

I have tried trolling for Scientologists myself but they won't take the bait. I can't tell if its because of training or the paucity of people that will admit to being so gullible that they have bought into L. Ron. Hubbards fake religion.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Ethelred
When you start showing an error on my part you can claim I was wrong. Not till then. Are you getting paid for posting here? So then YOU are an amatuer. As for maturity you are only saying 'no tisn't'. Not exactly mature now is that.

I think have rather convincingly proved error on your part. Your statement that since Noah's Ark was either a local flood or allegory disproves the existance of the Judeo-Christian god was obviously in error. Therefore, such a ridiculous statement clearly shows that your stated infaliability is greatly exaggerated, to say the least.
Also, to simplify my arguements as a juvenile "no tisn't" would be no better than simplifying yours as a simple "tis".

If you want to engage in more of this puerile name calling be prepared to recieve a broadside. Consider this a mere swival gun.

The so-called "name-calling" you seem to be referring to were merely my attempts to call you at some of the ridiculous and immature statements you have been making, referring to the bible as a crock, your whole "tisn't" arguement, etc. Surely you wouldn't disagree that these statements would be considered immature to throw in by any standards.

A lot of things can seem reasonable without being true. There are parts of the Bible that are clearly stories. They are labeled that way. Noah is cosistently treated as a true fact in the Bible.

Making such a statement shows that
1. You possess the ability to know the exact thoughts of the original writers
2. You possess the ability to know the exact thoughts of any further biblical figures who mention Noah.

Again this is modern thinking. No one the Bible seems to think of it as allegory.
Again neither are presented that way. Now Job is pretty clearly a story. I don't know why its in the Bible at all. Its like putting the Oddessy in a book of Greek history as a historical event.

To what degree do you argue that Job is a story? There is surely nothing scientifically impossible about it. Is it only a "story" because the bible is a "crock"? Circular reasoning on your part if so.

Care to give an example of something in Genesis that is clearly labeled as allegory or metephor? I can't think of any offhand.

I think the seven-day creation could be fairly clearly labeled as metaphor, when viewed in conjunction with other verses in the bible (To God, a day is like a thousand years).

So you are now claiming that Noah is only mentioned once elsewhere in the Bible and that is treated as allegory there. Otherwise its your statement that is false. Lets see what a search for Noah turns up.

I didn't say that it was mentioned once, but merely that it wasn't mentioned a host of other times. Now who is putting words in the mouth of who?

Well not counting Genesis and some where it might be different person with the same name.

Noah isn't mentioned in Luke. At least not by name.
Ah found what you were referring too
Luk 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
Looks like Luke thought of it as real.

Noe?? In any event, Again, you seem to assume absolute omniscience when it comes to the thoughts of biblical figures. Certainly there is no way to prove with certainty Jesus was referring to an actual historical event or an allegory. But there is nothing about the passage that couldn't suggest that he was referring to a popular story of morality to make his point.

Now for Noah as opposed to Noe.

1Ch 1:4 Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Now here you bring up an interesting point. The simple fact that Noah is mentioned in many of the "begats" has added to the localized flood arguement. However, this doesn't discount the possibilty of Noah's Ark being an allegory either. Noah most likely was a historical figure to be sure, and most likely a righteous man, from all appearances. The fact that he was a righteous man therefore may have played a part in a tale of morality being attributed to him.

as real by Jehovah. Of course if Jehovah is a mere allegory why are you arguing with me?

Oh come now Ethel, I know you are able of stringing together a coherent thought, why must you make ridiculous statements such as this one?
1. The Bible refers to the God. Jehovah
2. Several stories in the first book of the bible are possibly allegory
3. Therefore, Jehovah is an allegory
You say that no one here is proving you in err, however I think statements such as that one speak for themselves.
I do give you credit for referring to the Peter referances to Noah, I was not aware of any further mentions of Noah in the New Testament.

I don't exactly see that as an aplogy for putting words in my mouth. I mention that because you had the gall to call me immature. Without that I wouldn't mention it.

Some of the statments you have made would clearly be defined as immature by even the most loose standards. You surely don't see me making statements such as "Darwin is an old, out of date coot" or "Origin of the Species is a bunch of ad hoc hokum" (the fact that I agree with the majority of Darwin's teachings notwithstanding of course). I think you are a bright fellow, you just rely too much throwing out insults or preposterous allegations to make a point. Such things may work in some cases, but are not smiled upon in intelligent debate.

IF the Bible is not the word of god then why believe?

Simply put, I believe it is the word of God.

IF it is the Word of God then why does it have so many errors like the non existent Flood.

The Bible is remarkably accurate, regarding it's history of the Hebrews, and prophecies and so forth. The fact that flood was either localized or an allegory does nothing to invalidate it.

There was nothing fantastic in my arguement.

Oh Ethel! Abandon this preposterous logic!
1. The flood of Genesis didn't place literally, and was either a local flood or an allegory.
2. Therefore the God of Genesis doesn't exist
Simply put, one does not imply two! It *is* a fantastic claim by any logical standards!

If you think the Bible is always dealing with allegory when it fails a test against reality then why do you think any parts of it that can't be tested is real?

I had a feeling that you would make a statement like this, so I tried to deal with it in one of my earlier posts, but you may have missed it. It is not unreasonable that God used allegory to explain grandiose things to simple people. Surely God couldn't explain the physics involved in the Big Bang to Moses. There is no reason to think that the use of allegory in a few early stories creates a purely allegorical bible.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by monkspider

I think have rather convincingly proved error on your part. Your statement that since Noah's Ark was either a local flood or allegory disproves the existance of the Judeo-Christian god was obviously in error. Therefore, such a ridiculous statement clearly shows that your stated infaliability is greatly exaggerated, to say the least.

You have yet to show error on my part. The statements I made were not ridiculous. The one you just made however is nearly incomprehensible.

Also, to simplify my arguements as a juvenile "no tisn't" would be no better than simplifying yours as a simple "tis".

You are doing it again I see.

I showed what the Bible actually says.

You claimed it is allegory.

I showed the Bible treats it as real.

You claimed otherwise but did not give any evidence to support you.

Thats just gainsaying on your part. Support yourself.

The so-called "name-calling" you seem to be referring to were merely my attempts to call you at some of the ridiculous and immature statements you have been making, referring to the bible as a crock, your whole "tisn't" arguement, etc.

It was name calling. You inability to support your arguement in anyway is exactly like saying "tisn't". That you don't like me calling the Bible a crock is not a sign that I was immature. Its a sign I think the Bible is a crock.

Surely you wouldn't disagree that these statements would be considered immature to throw in by any standards.

So far you have done little that resembeled a mature action.

Making such a statement shows that
1. You possess the ability to know the exact thoughts of the original writers

I never claimed to know their thoughts. I only dealt with what was written. YOU claimed to know not only their intent but what they were actually writing about.

2. You possess the ability to know the exact thoughts of any further biblical figures who mention Noah.

That too is utterly false. I SHOWED what they said. It did not require divination or mind reading of the dead to understand what was said. Nothing was said the even remotely hinted at allegory.

To what degree do you argue that Job is a story? There is surely nothing scientifically impossible about it.

There is no way for a fish to swallow Jonah. Nor is there a way for Jonah to survive such action even if he could be swallowed whole. People tend to need to breathe now and then. Hadn't you notice that you need air? So did Jonah.

Is it only a "story" because the bible is a "crock"? Circular reasoning on your part if so.

Well then you can quit pretending it was circular can't you. Jonah and the fish possible? Now that is ridiculous.

I think the seven-day creation could be fairly clearly labeled as metaphor, when viewed in conjunction with other verses in the bible (To God, a day is like a thousand years).

I was not asking for something that you could claim was metaphor but for something that was actually LABELED that way IN the Bible rather than your head. There are such things in the Bible. Just not in Genesis.

After all I allready knew that you are willing to call things allegories.

I didn't say that it was mentioned once, but merely that it wasn't mentioned a host of other times. Now who is putting words in the mouth of who?

You do it to me. However that wasn't what I was doing to you.

Didn't you notice the use of the word OTHERWISE. I said it was treated as real in the Bible. You said it wasn't and gave a vague reference. That means that there was no reference in the Bible that treated it as real. If there was a reference that treated it as real I was right and you were wrong. That limits the Bible to the one reference you made if it was correct in the first place. It wasn't correct.

Sorry if what I said was too complex for you.

Noe??

Thats what it said in the KJV. I cut an paste those things. If you don't like it take it up with the late King James. I am sure he would apreciate the oportunity to discuss anything after all this time.

In any event, Again, you seem to assume absolute omniscience when it comes to the thoughts of biblical figures.

I just copied it. Its meaning is pretty clear. Its YOU who are claiming it doesn't mean what it says. Takes a lot of brass to accuse me of claiming omniscience when its you who are doing the mind reading.

Certainly there is no way to prove with certainty Jesus was referring to an actual historical event or an allegory. But there is nothing about the passage that couldn't suggest that he was referring to a popular story of morality to make his point.

Nor is there anything to suggest that he was. I don't claim to be a mind reader. Its you that are doing that.

However, this doesn't discount the possibilty of Noah's Ark being an allegory either. Noah most likely was a historical figure to be sure, and most likely a righteous man, from all appearances. The fact that he was a righteous man therefore may have played a part in a tale of morality being attributed to him.

It doesn't discount in your made up mind anyway. Do you make much money rewriting the Bible and does Jehovah pay cash?

Oh come now Ethel, I know you are able of stringing together a coherent thought, why must you make ridiculous statements such as this one?

The only thing ridiculous is believing the Bible. I certainly was coherent. Sometimes I am not but in this instance I think I even managed to spell everything right.

1. The Bible refers to the God. Jehovah

Yes.

2. Several stories in the first book of the bible are possibly allegory

Well you want to think that way. There is no evidence that the writers though of it that way.

3. Therefore, Jehovah is an allegory

No Jehovah is non-existant.

Do you understand the concept of a conditional statement? Thats twice you have acted as if you don't in one post.

You say that no one here is proving you in err, however I think statements such as that one speak for themselves.

I said YOU hadn't. I don't think anyone else has either so far.

I do give you credit for referring to the Peter referances to Noah, I was not aware of any further mentions of Noah in the New Testament.

Neither was I. I knew it was mentioned but not how often or where.

Some of the statments you have made would clearly be defined as immature by even the most loose standards

More like by the standards of a believer dealing with an unbeliever.

You surely don't see me making statements such as "Darwin is an old, out of date coot" or "Origin of the Species is a bunch of ad hoc hokum" (the fact that I agree with the majority of Darwin's teachings notwithstanding of course).

Which would not be immature. It would be partly wrong and I would show why without calling you immature.

Besides it is out of date. Darwin didn't know about genetics for instance. Blame that on Mendel. He was even worse about publishing than Darwin was.

I think you are a bright fellow, you just rely too much throwing out insults or preposterous allegations to make a point. Such things may work in some cases, but are not smiled upon in intelligent debate.

Let me know when you want to engage in an inteligent debate. You sure aren't trying here. There is nothing preposterous about calling the Bible a crock. Its full of nonsense especially in Genesis. I didn't throw out any insults except in return for yours.

Simply put, I believe it is the word of God.

Simply asked WHY?

You keep rewriting it so you clearly don't really believe its the word of god or you wouldn't do that. I sure wouldn't, Jehovah is kind of intolerant about false prophets. I am pretty sure the penalty is stoning.

Which was the point of my questions that annoyed you so much you ranted about them. If you don't think it means what it says why do you believe in the god that is in the passages you don't believe in.

You don't believe in the creation story. You don't believe in the Flood. What else have you picked over?

The Bible is remarkably accurate, regarding it's history of the Hebrews, and prophecies and so forth. The fact that flood was either localized or an allegory does nothing to invalidate it.

The flood in the Bible is not localized nor is there any indication of it being allegory. There are few actual prophecies. I am amazed at some of the things that people try to pass of as prophecy. Its mostly backwards filtering.

Real prophecy is labeled as such. Psalms written by David were not prophetic they were songs intended for worship. There ARE a few real prophecies but most of them are something that anyone could have either predicted or expected the Jews to say. Failed prophecies were filtered out so that leaves only proven prophecies being in the present Bible.

Try to find 10 real prophecies. They have to labeled as prophecy or at least be clearly intended as somethng that will happen in the future. Which leaves out the Psalms for instance. The cannot have been subjected to filtering. That is the predicted event must have occured after the Bible was assembled since it is know that writing that were clearly wrong were left out. I know you can get some. Ten will be quite difficult. I am not sure it can be done.

Just ten though. If you have more wait till I have gone over the first ten. It can be quite time consuming.

I know I can show failed prophecies. At least one that is in the Bible both for the prophecy and the evidence of its failure.

As for the history. Well lets just say that the Egyptian records don't agree. Some is real of course. Accurate history however is not a sign of divine guidance or we would all worship Tacitus.

I suppose the sort that watch Jerry Springer would worship Suetonious.

Oh Ethel! Abandon this preposterous logic!

On you your say so? How about you find some logic. I keep giving you logic and you keep failing to comprehend.

1. The flood of Genesis didn't place literally, and was either a local flood or an allegory.

That isn't what the Bible says. Its what you say. And you claim I make fantastic statements. You try to rewrite the Bible.

2. Therefore the God of Genesis doesn't exist
Simply put, one does not imply two! It *is* a fantastic claim by any logical standards!

1. is what YOU say not me. 2. is what I say and there is nothing fantastic about it.

Genises has a ludicrous creation story that even has the order of creation wrong. It has a second creation story with a different and even less accurate order. It has all humans descending from two individuals a mere 6000 or so years ago. It has Cain marrying even though he his dead brother and his parents were the only ones around. It has a flood story that is clear in its meaning and in its failure to match the world we live in. It has a story about the Tower of Bable that just makes thing worse. It has loads of begatting that set the dates with remarkable precision but fail to match the real world.

And that just in Genesis. Exodus is a horror story passed off as great thing.

The Bible is not the word of god unless its a lying god. I think the Bibles many errors are adequate evidence that it is no more of divine origin than the Illiad and I don't think those gods exist either. You wouldn't call it fanastic if I said they didn't exist now would you? Yet for the same thing with Jehovah you pitch a fit.

I had a feeling that you would make a statement like this, so I tried to deal with it in one of my earlier posts, but you may have missed it. It is not unreasonable that God used allegory to explain grandiose things to simple people. Surely God couldn't explain the physics involved in the Big Bang to Moses. There is no reason to think that the use of allegory in a few early stories creates a purely allegorical bible.

Since I have made that statement in nearly every reply to you it shouldn't have come as surprise this time either. I didn't miss what you said. In fact I responed to it directly. YOU missed that.

The Big Bang is no more fantastic than the biblical story and surely Moses would have taken the word of a burning bush anyway.

I never claimed that Bible was purely allegorical. In fact I don't think ANY of Genesis was intended as allegory in the first place. I see no reaon to believe any of the fantastic stuff that can't be checked when ALL the fantastic stuff that can be checked suddenly gets called allegories because they failed the test.

For over two thousand years all those stories were thought of as absolute truth. Suddenly they conviently turn into allegory when proven false.

If its all true how come so much is wrong?

Here are two questions that shouldn't bother you like they do people that actually believe what the Bible says.

Has anyone seen the face of god? (not counting Jesus. The authors of the Bible were clearly not Trinitarians)

What were the last words of Jesus on the cross?

[monkspider]

Ethel, I had an extremely long post typed out that was accidentally closed out when my internet kept booting me, so I will try to salvage what I could of it. I know this sounds like a cop-out, I appologize.

Originally posted by Ethelred

You have yet to show error on my part. The statements I made were not ridiculous. The one you just made however is nearly incomprehensible.

Your statement is of faulty logic, therefore in error.
1. The flood didn't take place as literally described
2. Therefore, God doesn't exist

that too is utterly false. I SHOWED what they said. It did not require divination or mind reading of the dead to understand what was said. Nothing was said the even remotely hinted at allegory.

I only said that it was possible that it was an allegory, you said that it was without question not an allegory. i don't think your verses prove your case as many are still open to the "popular story of morality" interpretation.

Try to find 10 real prophecies. They have to labeled as prophecy or at least be clearly intended as somethng that will happen in the future. Which leaves out the Psalms for instance. The cannot have been subjected to filtering. That is the predicted event must have occured after the Bible was assembled since it is know that writing that were clearly wrong were left out. I know you can get some. Ten will be quite difficult. I am not sure it can be done.

1. Nineveh would be destroyed, permanently
Bible passage: Nahum 3:19
Written: perhaps 614 BC
Fulfilled: 612 BC
In Nahum 3:19 (and 1:9), the prophet said that Nineveh, which was the Assyrian Empire's capital and perhaps the most powerful city of the ancient world, would suffer a wound that would never heal. In 612 BC (about 2600 years ago), a coalition of Babylonians, Scythians and Medes conquered the heavily fortified city. According to the Bible, Nineveh was to be punished for the empire's inhumane treatment of Israel. It is unknown as to when Nahum delivered this prophecy - some scholars speculate that it was delivered a few years before the conquest. But, it is known that Nahum was correct - Nineveh and the Assyrian empire never did recover from their defeat. (Incidentally, the Assyrian empire had conquered Babylon many years beforehand, but Babylon was able to recover from that defeat).
Here is Nahum 3:19
Nothing can heal your wound; your injury is fatal. Everyone who hears the news about you claps his hands at your fall, for who has not felt your endless cruelty?

2. Babylon would rule Judah for 70 years
Bible passage: Jeremiah 25:11-12
Written: sometime from 626 to about 586 BC
Fulfilled: about 605 BC to about 538 BC
In Jeremiah 25:11-12, the prophet said that the Jews would live under Babylonian rule for 70 years. Jeremiah also said Babylon would be punished after the 70 years. Both parts of this prophecy were fulfilled. Sometime around 605 BC, Babylon began dominating Judah and taking many Jews as captives to Babylon. About 70 years later, in 539 BC, Cyrus, a leader of Persians and Medes, conquered Babylon and brought an end to the Babylonian empire. Cyrus later offered the Jews the freedom to return to their homeland. The prophecy might have been fulfilled in another way too: The Babylonians had destroyed Jerusalem's Temple in 586 BC, and the Jews rebuilt it and consecrated it 70 years later, in 516 BC. Having the Temple again was a clear signal that the effects of Babylon rule had come to a complete end.
Here is Jeremiah 25:11-12
"…This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their guilt," declares the Lord, "and will make it desolate forever."

3. Tyre would never again be found
Bible passage: Ezekiel 26:21
Written: between 587-586 BC
Fulfilled: after 332 BC
In Ezekiel 26:21, the prophet said that the Phoenician city of Tyre would be brought to an end and would never again be found. When Alexander the Great destroyed the city in 332 BC, he brought an end to the Phoenician Empire. The Empire was never revived or "found" again. As for the city itself, it has been torn down and built upon by a succession of world powers. Today, finding artifacts from the original Phoenician Tyre is difficult. Many of the original buildings were destroyed by Greeks, Romans, Crusaders and Moslems. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition: "The principal ruins of the city today are those of buildings erected by the Crusaders. There are some Greco-Roman remains, but any left by the Phoenicians lie underneath the present town."
Here is Ezekiel 26:21
I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign Lord."

4. Babylon would be reduced to swampland
Bible passage: Isaiah 14:23
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: 539 BC
In Isaiah 14:23, the prophet said that Babylon, which had been a world power at two different times in history, would be brought to a humble and final end. It would be reduced to swampland. After Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BC, the kingdom never again rose to power. The buildings of Babylon fell into a gradual state of ruin during the next several centuries. Archaeologists excavated Babylon during the 1800s. Some parts of the city could not be dug up because they were under a water table that had risen over the years.
Here is Isaiah 14:23
"I will turn her into a place for owls and into swampland; I will sweep her with the broom of destruction," declares the Lord Almighty.

5. The Jews would regain control of Israel
Bible passage: Amos 9:14-15

In Amos 9:14-15, the prophet said that there would come a time when the Jews would again have Israel as their own land and that they would never be uprooted again. Amos delivered this prophecy about 2700 years ago, shortly before the kingdom of Israel lost its independence to the Assyrian Empire. Israel was not an independent nation again until May 14, 1948. Within hours of declaring independence in 1948, the surrounding countries attacked tiny Israel. But Israel prevailed and was able to expand Israel's borders.
Here is Amos 9:14-15
I will bring back my exiled people Israel; they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit. I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them," says the Lord your God.

6. Ezekiel predicted when Israel would be re- established
Bible passage: Ezekiel 4:3-6
Written: between 593-571 BC
Fulfilled: 1948
In Ezekiel 4:3-6, the prophet said the Jews, who had lost control of their homeland, would be punished for 430 years. This prophecy, according to Bible scholar Grant Jeffrey, pinpointed the 1948 rebirth of Israel. Here's a summary of Jeffrey's theory:
1. Ezekiel said the Jews were to be punished for 430 years because they had turned away from God. As part of the punishment, the Jews lost control of their homeland to Babylon. Many Jews were taken as captives to Babylon.
2. Babylon was later conquered by Cyrus the Great, in 539 BC. Cyrus allowed the Jews to leave Babylon and to return to their homeland. But, only a small number of the Jews returned. The return had taken place sometime around 536 BC, about 70 years after Judah lost independence to Babylon.
3. Because most of the Jews chose to stay in pagan Babylon rather than return to the Holy Land, the remaining 360 years of their punishment was to be multiplied by 7. The reason is explained in Bible's book of Leviticus. (Leviticus 26:18, 26:21, 26:24 and 26:28). In Leviticus, the Bible says that if the people did not repent while being punished, the punishment would be multiplied by 7. And, by staying in pagan Babylon, most of the people had refused to repent for turning away from God.
4. So, if you take the remaining 360 years of punishment and multiply by 7, you get 2,520 years. But, Jeffrey says those years are actually "lunar" years, based on a 360-day lunar calendar that was in use during the time of this prophecy. If you convert the 2,520 lunar years to our modern solar calendar, the result is 2,484 years.
5. And, there were exactly 2,484 years from 536 BC to 1948, which is the year that Israel regained independence.
Here is Ezekiel 4:3-6
(In this Bible passage, Ezekiel is asked by God to symbolically act out the 430 years of punishment)
… Then take an iron pan, place it as an iron wall between you and the city and turn your face toward it. It will be under siege, and you shall besiege it. This will be a sign to the house of Israel. "Then lie on your left side and put the sin of the house of Israel upon yourself. You are to bear their sin for the number of days you lie on your side. I have assigned you the same number of days as the years of their sin. So for 390 days you will bear the sin of the house of Israel. "After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on your right side, and bear the sin of the house of Judah. I have assigned you 40 days, a day for each year.

7. Babylon's captive Jews would be freed by Cyrus
Bible passage: Isaiah 44:28

In Isaiah 44:28, the prophet Isaiah said that a king named Cyrus would one day release the Jews from their captivity in Babylon so that they could return to their homeland. History shows that a king named Cyrus did release the Jews about 150 years after Isaiah is believed to have delivered this prophecy.
Here is Isaiah 44:28
who says of Cyrus, `He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid."'

8. The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem
Bible passage: Micah 5:2
Written: sometime between 750-686 BC
Fulfilled: 5 BC
In Micah 5:2, there is a prophecy that many Christians point to as evidence that Jesus is the Messiah. In this Bible passage, Micah said that a great ruler would be born in Bethlehem, a small town in southern Israel. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, as recorded in Matthew 2:1, about 2000 years ago. Aside from being the spiritual leader of 2 billion Christians worldwide, Christians believe that Jesus will return in the future to rule over an everlasting kingdom.

There is disagreement regarding the translation of Micah 5:2. Some people say that the reference to "Bethlehem" is simply a reference to the bloodline of King David. Other people say that it is a reference to the town of Bethlehem. However, as explained in the book of Matthew, Jesus meets both criteria - He is a descendant of King David and He was born in Bethlehem.
Here is Micah 5:2
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

9. God will save the Jews and destroy their enemies
Bible passage: Jeremiah 30:11
Written: sometime from 626 to about 586 BC
Fulfilled: Throughout history
In Jeremiah 30:11, the prophet Jeremiah said the enemies of Israel will be destroyed but that the Jews will never perish. History has many examples of how nations have tried to destroy Israel and the Jews:
• In about 721 BC (about 2700 years ago), Assyria destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel. They tortured, killed and exiled many Jews.
• In 586 BC (about 2600 years ago), Babylon destroyed the southern kingdom of Judah. They killed and exiled many Jews.
• In 70 AD (about 1900 years ago), the Romans killed an estimated 1.1 million Jews and destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple.
• In 135 AD, the Romans killed an estimated 580,000 Jews and exiled many others.
• In the 1930s and 1940s, the Nazis killed an estimated 6 million Jews. The Nazi plan, called the "final solution," was to kill all Jews.
Since then, millions of Jews worldwide have returned to their ancient homeland. Today, Israel again is a vibrant, independent country. But, the empires of the Nazis, Romans, Babylonians and Assyrians have vanished. Today, we can judge with our own eyes as to whether Jeremiah was correct when he said, 2600 years ago, that the enemies of the Jews would be destroyed, but that the Jews would be preserved.
Here is Jeremiah 30:11
I am with you and will save you,' declares the Lord. `Though I completely destroy all the nations among which I scatter you, I will not completely destroy you. I will discipline you but only with justice; I will not let you go entirely unpunished.'

10. God's servant would be crucified with criminals
Bible passage: Isaiah 53:12
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: 32 AD
In Isaiah 53:12, the prophet wrote about a servant who would bear the sins of many people and be punished side-by-side with criminals. Christians believe that Isaiah's description of this servant was a prophecy that was fulfilled during the life of Jesus Christ. As explained in the book of Matthew, Jesus, though sinless, was "numbered with the transgressors" and crucified along with two criminals.
Here is Isaiah 53:12
Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

H.as anyone seen the face of god? (not counting Jesus. The authors of the Bible were clearly not Trinitarians)

I'm not sure where you are going with this, but I honestly don't know. I don't think that God would have a face, as such.

[/QUOTE]What were the last words of Jesus on the cross? [/QUOTE] I assume you are making this into a contradiction of some sort, so visit here to have his last words explained.
http://www.tektonics.org/crosswords.html

[loinburger]

Originally posted by monkspider
Your statement is of faulty logic, therefore in error.
1. The flood didn't take place as literally described
2. Therefore, God doesn't exist

Why are you still claiming that Ethelred made this statement, when in fact he never did so? From what I've skimmed on this thread, he has corrected you on this at least two or three times in this matter, yet still you misquote him. Are you ignoring his posts, or do you just find it easier to argue against words that you've put in his mouth rather than against what he's really said?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
Look out there, and you're bound to find scientific evidence pointing towards creation.

There indeed very possible be isolated bits and pieces of observations that can be construed as evidence towards creation. I still maintain, however, that a person cannot be a creationist if he accepts all the scientific facts (data if you will) ranging from genetics to anthropology.

Originally posted by LordAzreal
But don't dismiss Creationist scientists as less intelligent than evolutionist scientists. That is simply an arrogant generalisation. Most of them do have university degrees.

A couple of them even have doctoral degrees, including Duane Gish and Michael Behe.

Their problem is they are dishonest. Gish has been shown wrong over and over again, yet he still sticks to the same old tired diatribe. Same with Behe.

[monkspider]

WHAT?!!!?! Ethel never said that word for word, but it was implied several times, and he essentially affirmed that he believed this to be correct in his last post.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
Gen 1:1- "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

This fact is in dispute, and more precisely, the actual time of this event is in dispute. Wether you believe in a god that can create things from nothingness is a matter of faith, though the very existance of the universe proves that "His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" Rom 1:20.

If one argues that this Universe needs a creator, the same logic will demand that this creator needs a meta-creator, the meta-creator needs a meta-meta-creator, ad infinitum.

I cannot see how the bible can be used as proof for the existence of the Judeo-Christian god because that simply is circular reasoning.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
If one argues that this Universe needs a creator, the same logic will demand that this creator needs a meta-creator, the meta-creator needs a meta-meta-creator, ad infinitum.

How does causality apply to something that would by definition have to be outside of space-time?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by monkspider
WHAT?!!!?! Ethel never said that word for word, but it was implied several times, and he essentially affirmed that he believed this to be correct in his last post.

He has always held that the fact that Genesis is flawed invalidates all "evidence" within Genesis that Jehovah (or, "the god of Genesis"), exists. There is nothing that is faulty with this logic--if you find that a source is flawed (and Genesis is flawed, since it makes several claims that are objectively false), then all other data derived from that source are in question.

He has repeatedly corrected you when you misquote him as saying that the errors in Genesis prove that God cannot exist. The errors in Genesis invalidate all "evidence" of the god described in Genesis (making it illogical for somebody who recognizes the errors in Genesis to nevertheless believe in Jehovah as described in Genesis), just like Ethelred has said. Ethelred never made the claim that the errors within Genesis invalidate all beliefs of all gods--that claim is yours and yours alone.

[monkspider]

Exactly Dino, something that did not begin to exist has no cause

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I agree with this. I would like to point out though that the problem of 'They would still have to explain who created God, of course' is there anyway. You have to explain where the 'Theory of Everything' came from.

From us, of course.

Scientific theories are just our attempts to explain things in this universe. "Theory of Everything" (another name for the yet to be derived Grand Unifed Theory) is no exception. What it seeks to do is to present a coherent explanation of the four known basic forces in this universe.

Now what does that have anything to do with an infinite, personal being?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How does causality apply to something that would by definition have to be outside of space-time?

You tell me. Singularities are outside of space-time since they break down the laws that govern space-time, yet people still insist that another entity outside of space-time is required to create the singularity from which the Universe was sprung. If you've already made one entity outside of space-time in order to create another entity outside of space-time, what's wrong with making a few more entities outside of space-time? A few more can't hurt anything...

Also, how is an entity that exists outside of space-time supposed to interact with entities (like us) who exist within space-time?

Also, if this entity God exists outside of space-time, how can we claim to know anything about it? From where do we derive our evidence of, for instance, God's omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence?

As you see, introducing God into the equation increases the complexity of the equation without actually solving anything at all.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How does causality apply to something that would by definition have to be outside of space-time?

Causality does not point to any supernatural origin of this universe at all. Such arguments must be theological/philosophical/logical.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Cauality does not point to any supernatural origin of this universe at all.

Which isn't what I asked. I asked why something (God, Odin, or whatever.) that by definition would exist outside of space-time (cause and effect, etc.) would need a creator?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by loinburger
You tell me.

I asked first though.

[monkspider]

That can be answered Loinburger, however it would be a long typing, so be patient

[monkspider]

God's omnibenvolence provides the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values in the world. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Many theists and atheists alike concur on this point. For example, the late J.L. Mackie of Oxford University, one of the most influential atheists of our time, admitted, "If...there are...objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them. Thus we have a...defensible...argument from morality to the existence of a god.

But in order to deny God's existence, Mackie therefore denied that objective values exist. He wrote, "It is easy to explain this moral sense as a natural product of biological and social evolution." Professor Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science at the University of Guelph, agrees. He explains:

Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth.... Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, [ethics] is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says, `Love thy neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves.... Nevertheless,... such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction,... and any deeper meaning is illusory....

Friedrich Nietzsche, the great atheist of the last century who proclaimed the death of God, understood that the death of God meant the destruction of all meaning and value in life. I think that Friedrich Nietzsche was right. But we've got to be very careful here. The question here is not, "Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?" I'm not claiming that we must. Nor is the question, "Can we recognize objective moral values without believing in God?" I think that we can. Rather, the question is, "If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?" Like Mackie and Ruse, I just don't see any reason to think that in the absence of God, the morality evolved by homo sapiens is objective. After all, if there is no God, then what's so special about human beings? They're just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on a infinitesimal speck of dust called the planet Earth, lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe, and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time.

On the atheistic view, some action, say, rape, may not be socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo. But that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really wrong. On the atheistic view, if you can escape the social consequences, there's nothing really wrong with your raping someone. Thus, without God there is no absolute right and wrong which imposes itself on our conscience.

But the fact is that objective moral values do exist, and we all know it. There's no more reason to deny the objective existence of moral values than to deny the objective reality of the physical world. Actions like rape, torture, and child abuse aren't just socially unacceptable behavior. They're moral abominations. Even Ruse himself admits, "The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says two plus two equals five." Some things are really wrong. Similarly, love, equality, and self-sacrifice are really good.

But if objective values cannot exist without God, and objective values do exist, then it follows logically and inescapably that God exists.

In regards to God's Omnipotence, God provides the best explanation for the existence of abstract entities In addition to tangible, concrete objects like people and trees and chairs, philosophers have noticed that there also appear to be abstract objects, things like numbers, propositions, sets, and properties. These things have a sort of conceptual reality, rather like ideas in your mind. And yet it's obvious that they're not just ideas in any human mind. So what is the metaphysical foundation of such abstract entities? The theist has a plausible answer to that question. They are grounded in the mind of God. Alvin Plantinga, one of America's foremost philosophers, explains:

It seems plausible to think of numbers as dependent upon or even constituted by intellectual activity. But there are too many of them to arise as a result of human intellectual activity. We should therefore think of them as... the concepts of an unlimited mind: a divine, omnipotent mind.

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Please say what you think don't just post links...Tell WHY YOU think the links are important. Tell us what YOU think. Just posting links is not debate. I can post them just as well.

I already did say what I thought. I just wanted to post these links because I found one of the articles I found through them to be interesting.

And I am glad to see that you have been elected Debate Regulator of Apolyton; I will have to be more careful not to deviate from your prescribed guidelines in the future.

But in truth, I am not trying to convince anyone anyhow (as doing that here at Apolyton is nigh an impossibilty).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by monkspider
1. Nineveh would be destroyed, permanently
Bible passage: Nahum 3:19
Written: perhaps 614 BC
Fulfilled: 612 BC

That's correct, but it hardly is a prophecy. Considerinf that the enemies of Assyria were bearing down on Nineveh around the time where Nahum wrote his book, it wouldn't take much to predict a grim outcome for that country.

Originally posted by monkspider
2. Babylon would rule Judah for 70 years
Bible passage: Jeremiah 25:11-12
Written: sometime from 626 to about 586 BC
Fulfilled: about 605 BC to about 538 BC

From Biblical Prophecy by Tim Callahan:

"Actually, the period from the fall of Jerusalem to the Chaldeans in 586 BCE to the proclamation by Cyrus the Great of Persia in 538 BCE, allowing the Jews to return to Judah, is not quite 49 years."

Originally posted by monkspider
3. Tyre would never again be found
Bible passage: Ezekiel 26:21
Written: between 587-586 BC
Fulfilled: after 332 BC

Originally posted by monkspider
When Alexander the Great destroyed the city in 332 BC, he brought an end to the Phoenician Empire. The Empire was never revived or "found" again. As for the city itself, it has been torn down and built upon by a succession of world powers. Today, finding artifacts from the original Phoenician Tyre is difficult.

Hmm, since Tyre had been rebuit many times, that makes (26:14) wrong. It seems that when Ezekiel wrote this part, Nebuchadrezzar was seiging Tyre, and might have destroyed the mainland portion already. Taken into context, Ezekiel was predicting Nebuchadrezzar was going to destroy Tyre utterly, which, unfortunately for him, didn't happen.

Originally posted by monkspider
4. Babylon would be reduced to swampland
Bible passage: Isaiah 14:23
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: 539 BC

Hm, how would that be surprising considering the original site of the city was swampy?

Originally posted by monkspider
5. The Jews would regain control of Israel
Bible passage: Amos 9:14-15

That's just a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nothing interesting about that.

Originally posted by monkspider
6. Ezekiel predicted when Israel would be re- established
Bible passage: Ezekiel 4:3-6
Written: between 593-571 BC
Fulfilled: 1948

How is this different from the previous one?

Originally posted by monkspider
7. Babylon's captive Jews would be freed by Cyrus
Bible passage: Isaiah 44:28

Originally posted by monkspider
Here is Isaiah 44:28
who says of Cyrus, `He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid."'

[Emphasis my own.]

Note the use of the present tense. This alone indicates said passage is not a prophecy.

Originally posted by monkspider
8. The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem
Bible passage: Micah 5:2
Written: sometime between 750-686 BC
Fulfilled: 5 BC

Considering that

1. The NT was written long after the OT
2. The life and times of Jesus of Nazareth has no external source
3. Only in Matthew that Jesus was said to be born in Bethlehem.

The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is the author of Matthew fabricated the so-called fulfillment.

Originally posted by monkspider
9. God will save the Jews and destroy their enemies
Bible passage: Jeremiah 30:11
Written: sometime from 626 to about 586 BC
Fulfilled: Throughout history

How, eh, God destroyed their enemies?

Originally posted by monkspider
10. God's servant would be crucified with criminals
Bible passage: Isaiah 53:12
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: 32 AD

Considering that

1. The NT was written long after the OT
2. The life and times of Jesus of Nazareth has no external source
3. Only in Matthew that Jesus was said to be crucified with criminals.

The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is the author of Matthew fabricated the so-called fulfillment.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Which isn't what I asked. I asked why something (God, Odin, or whatever.) that by definition would exist outside of space-time (cause and effect, etc.) would need a creator?

That is not what you asked. This is what you asked:

"How does causality apply to something that would by definition have to be outside of space-time?"

Your original question is different from your modified question.

Get back your your second question:

1. There is nothing in this universe that points to an outside creator.

2. By what definition that your god is outside of spacetime? Clearly, by any scientific definition there is no god, full stop. Theological definitions that are based on the bible do not put the Judeo-Christianity god outside of spacetime.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by monkspider
God's omnibenvolence provides the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values in the world.

If god is omnibenevolent, why does evil exist? Part of the bible said god created evil. How does these two reconcile?

Originally posted by monkspider
If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

There is no evidence that objective moral values exist.

[monkspider]

1. Good question UR, my commie comrade, The problem of evil is certainly the greatest obstacle to belief in the existence of God for most people. However, let’s look first at the intellectual problem of evil. There are two versions of this problem: first, the logical problem of evil and, secondly, the probabilistic problem of evil.
Logical Version
According to the logical problem of evil, it is logically impossible for God and evil to coexist. If God exists, then evil cannot exist. If evil exists, then God cannot exist. Since evil exists, it follows that God does not exist.

However, the problem with this argument is that there is no reason to think that God and evil are logically incompatible. After all, there is no explicit contradiction between them. And if the atheist means that there is some implicit contradiction between God and evil, then he must be presupposing some hidden premises to bring out this implicit contradiction. But the problem is that no philosopher has been able to identify such premises. Therefore, the problem of evil fails to prove any inconsistency between God and evil.

But more than that, we can actually prove that God and evil are logically compatible. You see, the atheist presupposes that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil in the world. But this assumption is not necessarily true. So long as it is even possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, it follows that God and evil are logically consistent. And therefore I am pleased to report to you that it is widely recognized among contemporary philosophers that the logical problem of evil has been dissolved. The coexistence of God and evil is logically possible.

probabilistic Version

But we’re not out of the woods yet, for we now confront the probabilistic problem of evil. According to this version of the problem, the coexistence of God and evil is logically possible, but nevertheless it is highly improbable. The extent and depth of evil in the world are so great that it is improbable that God could have morally sufficient reasons for permitting it. Therefore, given the evil in the world, it is improbable that God exists. This is a much more powerful argument. Thus, I will address this matter in particular detail.
In response to this version of the problem of evil, I want to make three points.

1. We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has a morally sufficient reason for the evils that occur: As finite persons, we’re limited in space, time, intelligence, and insight, but the omniscient and sovereign God, who sees the end from the beginning, providentially orders history so that His purposes are ultimately achieved through human free decisions. In order to achieve His ends, God may have to put up with evils along the way, which humans freely perpetrate. Evils which appear pointless to us within our limited framework may be seen to be justly permitted within God’s wider framework. A brutal murder of an innocent man, for example, could produce a sort of ripple effect throughout history such that God’s morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later or perhaps in another land. When you think of God’s providence over the whole of history, then I think you can see how hopeless it is for limited observers to speculate on the probability that God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting a particular evil. We’re just not in a good position to assess such probabilities.

2. The Christian faith entails doctrines that increase the probability of the coexistence of God and evil. In so doing, these doctrines decrease any improbability of God’s existence thought to issue from the existence of evil. What are some of these doctrines? Let me mention four.

A. The chief purpose of life is not happiness per se, but the knowledge of God. One reason the problem of evil seems so puzzling is that we tend to think that the goal of human life is happiness in this world. But on the Christian view this is false. Man’s end is not happiness as such, but the knowledge of God--which in the end will bring true and everlasting human fulfillment. Many evils occur in life which seem utterly pointless with respect to producing human happiness, but they may not be unjustified with respect to producing the knowledge of God. Innocent human suffering provides an occasion for deeper dependency and trust in God, either on the part of the sufferer or perhaps those around him. Whether God’s purpose is achieved through our suffering all depends on how we freely respond.

B. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and his purpose.Rather than submit to and worship God, people rebel against God and go their own way and so find themselves alienated from God, morally guilty before Him, and groping in spiritual darkness, pursuing false gods of their own making. The terrible human evils in the world are testimony to man’s depravity in this state of alienation from God. The Christian isn’t surprised at the human evils in the world. On the contrary, he expects them! The Bible says that God has given mankind over to the sin it has chosen. He does not interfere to stop it but lets human depravity run its course. This only serves to heighten mankind’s moral responsibility before God as well as our wickedness and our need of forgiveness and moral cleansing.

C. The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life.In the Christian view, this life is not all there is. Jesus promised eternal life to all who place their trust in him as Savior and Lord. In the afterlife God will reward those who have borne their suffering in courage and trust with an eternal life of unspeakable joy. The apostle Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament, lived a life of incredible suffering, and yet he wrote: "We do not lose heart. For this slight, momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison. For we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal" (II Cor. 4. 16-18). Paul imagines a scale, as it were, in which the sufferings of this life are placed on one side, while on the other side is placed the glory which God will bestow upon His children in heaven. The weight of glory is so great that the sufferings of this life literally cannot even be compared to it! Moreover, the longer we spend in eternity, the more the sufferings of this life shrink toward an infinitesimal moment. And that’s why Paul could refer to them as a "slight" and "momentary" affliction. Despite what he suffered, his sufferings were simply overwhelmed by the ocean of divine eternity and joy which God lavishes upon those who trust him.

D. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.To know God, the source of infinite goodness and love, is an incomparable good--the fulfillment of human existence. The sufferings of this life cannot even be compared to it. Thus, the person who knows God--no matter what he suffers, no matter how awful his pain--can still say, "God is good to me" simply in virtue of the fact that he knows God, an incommensurable good and has been granted existence.

These four Christian doctrines greatly reduce any improbability which evil would seem to throw upon the existence of God.

However, all this takes us to the emotional problem of evil. I think that most people who reject God because of the evil in the world don’t do so because of intellectual difficulties. Rather, it’s an emotional problem: they just don’t like a God who permits suffering, and therefore they want nothing to do with Him. Theirs is simply an atheism of rejection. Does the Christian faith have something to say to these people?

It certainly does! It tells us that God is not a distant Creator or an impersonal Ground of Being, but a loving Father Who shares our sufferings and hurts with us. Professor Plantinga has written,

As the Christian sees things, God does not stand idly by, cooling observing the suffering of his creatures. He enters into and shares our suffering. He endures the anguish of seeing his Son, the second Person of the Trinity, consigned to the bitterly cruel and shameful death of the cross. . . Christ was prepared to endure the agonies of hell itself . . . in order to overcome sin and death and the evils that afflict our world and to confer on us a life more glorious than we can imagine. . . he was prepared to suffer on our behalf, to accept suffering of which we can form no conception.{6}

So, paradoxically, even though the problem of evil is the greatest objection to the existence of God, at the end of the day, God is the only solution to the problem of what we, as human beings objectively interpret as evil.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. (most atheists will agree on this point)

2. Evil exists.

3. Therefore, objective values exist. (Some things are really evil.)

4. Therefore, God exists.

And thus evil only calls into question God's existence on a superficial level. On a deeper philosophical level evil actually demonstrates the existence of God because evil, as such, could not exist without God.

2. Another good point here comrade, but here the atheist is clearly in a deep existential dilemma The atheist affirms that morality is not objective--it is the invention of human beings--, but he cannot bring himself to say that therefore anything goes. He wants to cling to moral values. But, you see, for an atheist these values are floating in the air: they have no objective basis. On atheism moral values are just social conventions. You could have chosen to go on the red and stop on the green. They're just human inventions, the byproducts of socio-biological evolution. But that means that a society like Nazi Germany or South Africa, where apartheid was practiced, or what happened in Cambodia in the killing fields, that those aren't morally wrong, that is, they are morally indifferent. And I, at least, cannot bring myself to believe that. It seems to me far more plausible that there is objective right and wrong; for example, torturing babies for fun is wrong. And if you agree with me that that is objectively morally wrong, then you would agree with me that therefore God exists. For most any atheist would agree that if we have no God, these things are not objectively wrong, but they're human conventions.

[Capt Dizle]

As far as I know there is no logical, rational or scentific reason to believe God exists; no proof. My belief in God is based on faith in the spirtual realm which must by its nature be taunted and scorned by those who dwell only in the physical.

I have no animosity towards those who doubt God or despise Him. I hope for them and for them I can only say, "God loves you".

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
As far as I know there is no logical, rational or scentific reason to believe God exists; no proof. My belief in God is based on faith in the spirtual realm which must by its nature be taunted and scorned by those who dwell only in the physical.

I have no animosity towards those who doubt God or despise Him. I hope for them and for them I can only say, "God loves you".

And don't forget that there is also no logical, rational or scientific reason to DISPROVE the existance of a God.

I'm not here to question what is perceived as existance, I'm just saying that a huge slogging of "God exists!" "No he doesn't" "Yes he does", etc. is futile, because neither side can win. Neither side has enough proof to gain the upper hand.

And people who taunt and scorn those who have spirituality, dismissing them as narrow-minded, are ironically being narrow-minded themselves.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
And don't forget that there is also no logical, rational or scientific reason to DISPROVE the existance of a God.

First of all, I am dismayed by such a display of old refuted and desperate defense. Let me remind you that the burden of proof lies with the proponents of an assertion, not those who oppose it.

Secondly, depending the definition of your god, it is possible to refute it logically. If your god is just some vague notion, no. However if your god has attributes like that of YHWH, it can be refuted.

Originally posted by LordAzreal
And people who taunt and scorn those who have spirituality, dismissing them as narrow-minded, are ironically being narrow-minded themselves.

So is that it? Only those who somehow believe in a supernatural creator have monopoly on this "spirituality?"

Will you accept the existance of, say, Umguf the Purple with Pink Polka Dot Unicorn? Or an invisible, non-corporeal dragon in my basement? If you don't, are you narrowminded?

[Urban Ranger]

Monkspider,

Will get back to you later.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

First of all, I am dismayed by such a display of old refuted and desperate defense. Let me remind you that the burden of proof lies with the proponents of an assertion, not those who oppose it.

Secondly, depending the definition of your god, it is possible to refute it logically. If your god is just some vague notion, no. However if your god has attributes like that of YHWH, it can be refuted.

I'm not saying that I'm on the creationists side. I'm not even saying that I worship any "God". I am saying that while both theories are in some places flawed, both theories DO have areas which cannot possibly be disproven, and that includes Creationism. And creationism doesn't simply revolve around YHWH, Jehova or Allah (those three are pretty much the same anyway). The purest form, the true form of creationism means that a supreme being of some sort somehow created the world. This supreme being could be a superior race of extra-terrestrials experimenting with sentient life for all we know.

So is that it? Only those who somehow believe in a supernatural creator have monopoly on this "spirituality?"

Will you accept the existance of, say, Umguf the Purple with Pink Polka Dot Unicorn? Or an invisible, non-corporeal dragon in my basement? If you don't, are you narrowminded?

No. I didn't say that. I didn't say that at all. What do unicorns and dragons have to do with spirituality? Another example of narrow-mindedness is your "assumptions" of spirituality. Have you even read into anything to do with Spirituality? Have you ever heard out people like the Dalai Lama? Spirituality is the path to enlightenment, and development of the soul. To some, the worship of a "god" is a means to that end. To others, it isn't. The rest, don't have it, or it lies dormant within their being, creating the illusion that it doesn't.

I'm not saying that those who believe in a supernatural creator hold a monopoly on spirituality. I am a Buddhist. Whether or not a supreme being created the universe means absolutely nothing to me at all. It has no effect on how I live my life. And I don't see the sense in people hurting each other over this.

I say that those who insult the spiritual ones are narrow-minded because they aren't letting them believe what they want. You are an evolutionist. Fine. That's no problem. Stop ramming your beliefs down everyone's throats. Sure the creationists do it too, but AN EYE FOR AN EYE IS NOT JUSTICE!!!

That's what my side of the argument is. You can't just whack insults around like a tennis-ball in a heated match between Sampras and Agassi. It can and will hurt some people. And don't think I'm only saying this to evolutionists. Again, Creationists do it too, and they should also stop it.

Again, don't dismiss me as one of the Creationists. I believe in a combination of both theories, yet also believe that it really has no bearing on how I live my life. I'm simply a third party trying to talk sense into BOTH sides. You can all believe what you want to believe, but just leave it at that.

[Ethelred]

Ethel, I had an extremely long post typed out that was accidentally closed out when my internet kept booting me, so I will try to salvage what I could of it. I know this sounds like a cop-out, I appologize.

Guess what happened to me halfway through my reply to this. I am now typing in Notepad.

Your statement is of faulty logic, therefore in error.
1. The flood didn't take place as literally described
2. Therefore, God doesn't exist

Your misquotation is going beyond the bound of accident. I didn't say that and I am through responding to the falsified version of what I said. Do it again I won't pretend its an accident.

The Bible is wrong. Its that simple. There is no reason to believe in a god that is a book that describe some sort of fantasy world. Jehovah has all the reality of Zuess or Odin and the stories in the other religions are better anyway.

I said the predicted must have happened after the Bible was assembled. Few of your prophecies meet that and those are not proved prophecies. The Bible was assembled from parts after the Diaspora. Any disproven prophecies were left out. Others might have been adjusted to fit the facts better. I will go over all of them anyway but you did not try to meet the challenge.

1. Nineveh would be destroyed, permanently
Bible passage: Nahum 3:19
Written: perhaps 614 BC
Fulfilled: 612 BC

Does not fit the challenge. Exactly the sort of prediction that any downtrodden people would make anyway.

2. Babylon would rule Judah for 70 years
Bible passage: Jeremiah 25:11-12
Written: sometime from 626 to about 586 BC
Fulfilled: about 605 BC to about 538 BC

Does not fit the challenge. Exactly the sort of prediction that any downtrodden people would make anyway.

May have had dates massaged after the fact as well. You certainly do that yourself so I see no reason to think others that believe wouldn't do the same.

3. Tyre would never again be found
Bible passage: Ezekiel 26:21
Written: between 587-586 BC
Fulfilled: after 332 BC

Does not fit the challenge. Exactly the sort of prediction that any downtrodden people would make anyway.

Failed prophecy in any case. Tyre has been found many times. You even point it out yourself. This shows the blindness belief can cause. Denial of the obvious to such a degree that you posted a failed prophecy.

4. Babylon would be reduced to swampland
Bible passage: Isaiah 14:23
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: 539 BC

Does not fit the challenge. Exactly the sort of prediction that any downtrodden people would make anyway.

Not much of prophecy either. Babylon started as a swamp. Take away the city and swamp remains.

5. The Jews would regain control of Israel
Bible passage: Amos 9:14-15

This is the first to try to meet the challenge. Not proven yet.

Your version of the Bible has been altered.

KJV
Amo 9:14 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit [them]; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.

It says captivity in the Hebrew as well. You have a very questionable translation there. Still the verses put together can be construed that way.

In any case the Jews have been kicked out of Israel many times. There is no certainty that it won't happen again. Give a few hundred years and I would call it a fulfilled prophecy. However again it is exactly the sort of prophecy that could be expected of a downtrodden people. You have a lot of those. Have a hard time finding others?

6. Ezekiel predicted when Israel would be re- established
Bible passage: Ezekiel 4:3-6
Written: between 593-571 BC
Fulfilled: 1948

False. As even you say the prediction was for 430 years. Thats a failed prophecy. It matters not what excuses someone comes up with later the fact of the matter is that it didn't happen.

I am equally unimpressed by the massageing of the time by a modern man who knew the times he wanted ot match. He just played mix and match with numbers till he manufactured the date he wanted. He ignored a lot of time as well. His manufactured number wouldn't start up till after the Jews were kicked out of Rome in 70 AD. if we were to accept any of the rest of his rewriting.

The propecy was wrong twice at that. The Jews returned in less that 430 year and then took millenia to return again later.

7. Babylon's captive Jews would be freed by Cyrus
Bible passage: Isaiah 44:28

Does not fit the challenge.

Subject to alteration over time. Who knows if it originaly said Cyrus. Its clear that believers are willing to make changes to the Bible if they feel it can't stand on its own. You certainly did that with the flood. You are not unique in that willingness. That is why I gave the time frame I did for the challenge. So far there are only two prophecies that fit the challenge and one is open to question still and the other was a failed prophecy.

Cyrus did not rebuild the temple in any case. The Jews did that.

8. The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem
Bible passage: Micah 5:2
Written: sometime between 750-686 BC
Fulfilled: 5 BC

Does not fit the challenge. There is no reason except the claim in the New Testament to believe Jesus was born is Bethalem. The claim looks suspiciously like it was added to match the prophecy. Not fulfilled in any case. It said the Messiah. The ruler of Israel. Hasn't happened yet. Requires a dead man to rise from the dead to fulfill it. Not very likely. The descent from David has problems as well. Its not possible to check and the version that is in the Bible require that Joseph be the father which denies the Virgin Birth claim.

We can pretend its unfulfilled but it looks like failure to me. Jesus is long dead.

9. God will save the Jews and destroy their enemies
Bible passage: Jeremiah 30:11
Written: sometime from 626 to about 586 BC
Fulfilled: Throughout history

Does not fit the challenge. Exactly the sort of prediction that any downtrodden people would make anyway.

That seven of nine that are the same kind of prediction. You must have had a REALLY hard time finding prophecies.

The Jews have been beaten many times as well. There enemies are still legion. Indeed it was legions that Jehovah failed to save the Jews from in 70AD. It wasn't Jehovah that saved any remaining Jews in Europe from the Halocaust. It was Brits, Americans, and godless Communists. Mostly the Communists by the way.

10. God's servant would be crucified with criminals
Bible passage: Isaiah 53:12
Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: 32 AD

You sure have a strange version of the Bible.

I don't see a mention of any of what you claim there. Its not at all like what you have purported it to be. Its beyound just straining credulity to see anything of Jesus in there.

This is what I call backwards filtering. A christian find a passage in the Bible that with enough use of mind altering substances they can pretend has some relevance to a later event. What drugs were involved in seeing crucifiction in there?

Here is a failed prophecy from the chapter before that I spoted while checking number 10.

Isa 52:1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.

Has anyone noticed that lots of uncircimcised people are walking through the streets of Jerusalem on a daily basis? Failed prophecy.

There are plenty more failed prophcies. Perhaps as many as the claimed numbers of fulfilled ones.

I'm not sure where you are going with this, but I honestly don't know. I don't think that God would have a face, as such.

Well in Genesis Jehovah meets with Abraham face to face. In other parts of the Bible there are claims that no one has seen the face of god. The mention of the Trinity is because most christians believe that Jesus is god so all that saw Jesus saw the face of god but I had no need to go that way because of Abraham seeing Jehovah.

I assume you are making this into a contradiction of some sort, so visit here to have his last words explained.

It is a contradiction and no patch will cover over it.

So by reasonably equating John's "giving up" of the spririt with total event of the final cry, the problem is resolved.

Nothing reasonable about rewriting the Bible that way. Obviously the author of that thought it was a contradiction so he had to add to the Bible in his attempt to patch it. John wasn't at the crucifiction either so that another they have added to try to patch it. None of the Apostles were there. They were all in hiding. Interesting the way the use a chapter that doesn't menition John as being there as evidence that he was.

Heck no one even knows if the John in the Bible is that same as the John that is supposed to have written that gospel. It didn't show up till around 150 AD. It was thought by many to be a fake at the time and there was great controversy about putting into the Bible.

I said the was failed prophecy in Genesis. Posting this got me on Zelots ingnore list a couple of weeks ago. Still its what the Bible really says.

In the first Jehovah says Cain will be a vagabond forever.

Gen 4:12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

Gen 4:13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment [is] greater than I can bear.

Gen 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, [that] every one that findeth me shall slay me.

Gen 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon

Then

Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

This is not a vagabond being described there. He get married, has children and founds a city. If that isn't a failed prophecy nothing is.