proxis Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 im with faust, give me some proof that we should believe in any religion, or any god for that manner, because christianity has caused more war and more death than any other religion. and no offense, but if you guys are so righteous in saying that you treat your neighbors as you treat your selves (not you personally, christians in general), then how do you explain all the death and torment? how do you justify your nonstop battle to convert the world and bend civilization to your beliefs? why go around handing out bibles and building churches? why not spend that money on the common man like it should be. untill i hear the voice of god in my own heart saying that christendom is right, them i will not beileve it or any religion, or put faith in any god. i am not flaming, i dont hate christians. of course then again, a lot of people hate what i believe in, hey its what makes the world go round! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikeman85 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Still waiting for a response :P Quote: Jesus put forth only two commandments in his lifetime, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul", and "Love your neighbor as yourself". These are the only two principles that real Christians live by. I could argue that he put forth several more (I'll have to wait until I go home though, I didn't bring my three bibles to campus) however I think it's a tad arrogant that you think you are allowed to determine the criteria of a true Christian, and one who is not a true Christian. Isn't there something in the Bible along the lines of "Don't judge the speck in your brother's eye, before removing the plank from your own" Ah, hypocrites! :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faust870 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Hey Doc :P Not to argue or anything but... See...its about christanity... which relates to god, hence it being a religion, so personally, my question is valid... and since he seems to know a lot about christanity... i would to know if he can prove what he believes in...actually ... exists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diplomat Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 I say yes, but he did not. As shown by his tempation in the desert, Jesus did not come to show off, or to defeat the Romans, he came as humanity's Savior, the Servant King. is that why he walked everywhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiel Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Lol. He walked everywhere because he became fully human. It really wouldn't serve any purpose to fly around, Jesus used his authority to help people. A good example of this was when he told a storm to stop and it did. And of course walking on water, water into wine, bringing two people back from the dead and coming back from the dead himself. The only incident when he 'flew' was when his disciples watched him go to heaven, but that what months after his death and many people had spoken to him and seen him. ONce a whole crowd of 300 people did. Although intellectual debate about this sort of thing is pointless, can someone tell me how Jesus fulfilled over 300 seperate prophecies written a thausand years befor he was born? the apparant odds of this are 1/100,000,000,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikeman85 Posted December 11, 2003 Share Posted December 11, 2003 Of course the possibility of someone writing about said person fulfilling many prophecies (Some of which, such as the virgin prophecy, which wasn't in the original version, and uses different words, and refers to one of the prophet's own sons as Immanuel, not Jesus) Also, may I ask why there are three differing genealogies all with various differences and errors? (And don't say that it's because it's Joseph and Mary's, seperately. A) There is not a shred of evidence for this. B) There are other errors that are different in all three of them.) I'll post a link if you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Corbett Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Ah, how exactly do you want me to find physical proof of a spiritual being? Belief in God isn't an empirical thing. In a way, I wish it was (it would make a lot more sense then!) but that kind of cheapens faith. However, there has yet to be a single passage in the Bible [which specifically refers to something, as in not by allegory or symbolism] that has been debunked by archaelogy, and many are correlated by archaeology. IE there are Roman Centurian reports [well, just one] from a fellow on the other side of Israel correlating the sky turning black and there being an earthquake, just like the Bible said happened when Jesus died. Also, the aqueduct under Jerusalem and all of the gates metioned in the Bible have also been found. Many cities have been found using only the Bible as a tool to find them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikeman85 Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Incorrect. Two Roman scientists of the day, one was Pliny the Younger... can't remember the other's name, who were in the general area at the time, and known to record smaller findings /NEVER/ mentioned the sky turning dark. This on top of the fact that no secular account of Jesus exists... shows that he is likely either a myth, or a legend made out of a real man. Hell, the "miracles" he does aren't even that miraculous. Modern science can do just about the same, and in a few decades, it'll be able to do even more. Sure, there are a couple things that are rather difficult to do, but overall, almost every single miracle attributed to him, could be, with sufficient technology, reproduced. As for archaeology, I /JUST/ pointed out something that contradicts with the Bible, and that is Ezekial 30:10 saying that Nebuchadnezer will conquer Egypt, and it will lie desolate for 40 years, and this does not happen. If this is not the Bible being shown wrong in archaeology, I don't know what is. As for regular ordinary claims, like "Such and such a gate existed here" are not extraordinary, and history accepts them, so long as there seems to be no reason the author would lie about it. However a man being raised from the dead, sending demons out of people, etc, IS an extraordinary claims, and in the words of a great man, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Even you must admit there is a big difference between me saying "Hey, I went to the store today" or saying "Hey, I went to the store today and this alien came and told me I'll get magical powers if I wash myself in cranberry juice mixed with garlic!" If I told you the second one in all seriousness, you would likely think me insane. So history basically doesn't accept miracles or extraordinary occurances that wouldn't likely happen. The same reason the miracles of Jesus aren't considered historical, not the miracles of Vespian. Both were said to be able to heal people with a touch. Etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Corbett Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Last time I checked, raising the dead wasn't possible by modern science. Not only that, Jesus did NOT have modern science on His side. By the way, are you sure that you're interpreting all those verses right? I'd make sure. Lying desolate, in the Biblical sense, can mean a whole lot more than it does now. No historical account of Jesus? You need to do a bit of research. By the way, I wouldn't be so quick to declare it incorrect. Someone else completely unrelated DID mention it. Another question. Why does it have to be a secular account to be accurate? Isn't that kind of sectarian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Last time I checked, raising the dead wasn't possible by modern science. And the proof for this is where? Where is this described besides the bible? As for demanding secular accounts, its more a demand for multiple unbiased sources. That's basic science, something has to be proven and repeatable. A story from a single source is not enough to accept it as fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.