This should ruffle the feathers of the usual suspects.

*popcorn is ready*

*popcorn is ready*

Indeed!

Believing the Bible is infallible is not a condition for being a Christian.

"Christianity has never been about the Bible being the inerrant word of God," Ehrman says. "Christianity is about the belief in Christ."

Some scholarly critics say Ehrman is saying nothing new.

Bishop William H. Willimon, an author and United Methodist Church bishop based in Alabama, says he doesn't like the "breathless tone" of Ehrman's work.

"He keeps presenting this stuff as if this is wonderful new knowledge that has been kept from you backward lay people and this is the stuff your preachers don't have the guts to tell, and I have," Willimon says.

"There's a touch of arrogance in it."

At least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries.

Posted by Manypaths

I know you guys won't believe this, but I used to identify myself as a christian, when i was young.

I started studying and the more I learned, the more the sham was exposed.

I suggest people read about the Council of Nicea. This is where Jesus became god (500 years after he was dead). Between the time he died and 500 yrs later, he was a great man who had some great things to say. Then after the council, he became God and the catholic church appointed itself the gatekeeper, Just as the Jews had appointed themselves gatekeeper up until Jesus came along.

Another thing. The years of Jesus were at the beginning of our current age (the age of pisces). That age ends in 2150, when the Age of Aquarius starts. Even if you are a hard core fundamentalist, you cannot deny that the bible clearly states that Jesus' reign will end at the end of this age.

Oh, and the council of nicea is where they decided that the book of phillip and the book of mary magdelene would not be included because they didn't support the 'jesus is god' modality.

This is also where mary magdelene went from being the daughter of kings to a prostitute.

Once you start seeing the lies, it's hard to ignore them anymore or what their purpose was.

@ #4 Lipzoidal

I was raised growing up going to a Baptist Church. I was baptised and "washed in the blood" as an early teenager.

I began doubting my beliefs once I was out from under the daily influence of my family. You know that feeling Christians describe when they're "in the spirit" or the "holy ghost has come upon them" or when "god is talking to them"?

I never felt it.

I felt guilt. Not because I had actually done anything wrong, but instead, because someone told me I had done wrong and I should repent for all my sins.

Repenting for sins that only existed in my mind. You know the coveting, the frequent self-abuse, the lust, the swearing and smoking.

Another thing. The years of Jesus were at the beginning of our current age (the age of pisces). That age ends in 2150, when the Age of Aquarius starts. Even if you are a hard core fundamentalist, you cannot deny that the bible clearly states that Jesus' reign will end at the end of this age.

It wasn't a coincidence because the Age that preceded Pisces was Aries. References to lamb and fish are used throughout the gospels. Jesus personified the sun passing through those two ages.

#4
Pisces? You mean like the fish? Interesting.

Just kidding. I already knew this.

Just kidding. I already knew this.

#8 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Yes, the 'ages' move backwards through the zodiac and it changes every 2200 yrs or so (not sure of the exact number).

The Age of Aquarius - 5th Dimension

When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius
The age of Aquarius
Aquarius!
Aquarius!

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revelation
And the mind's true liberation
Aquarius!
Aquarius!

#9
Its called precession of the equinoxes I believe. Related to the wobble in the earth's rotation. Its why what is considered to be your astrological sun sign is actually about a month off. If you are a gemini, for example, the sun actually rises in Taurus on your birthday. Pokes a big hole in what are supposed to be your zodiac determined personality traits when they are based on what the name of your sun sign is.

Screw that! I'm a virgo and I'm very proud of that.

See "Mithraism".

By the way, Taurus rules.

A virgo? LOL. At least you're not a virgo woman like my wife.

What I think we do when we learn about the zodiac is develop those traits which appeal to us and disavow those which do not. In other words, we become our signs; its not that our signs have some type of a priori control over who we are.

That may be, but I've been a stubborn, hard-headed bull before I knew what a Taurus was.

#14
Well that could be a trait of an aries too which is probably what sign the sun rises in on your birthday. Rams are the ones who but heads of course.

That may be, but I've been a stubborn, hard-headed bull before I knew what a Taurus was.

#14 | Posted by LetUsPrey at 2009-05-15 12:06 PM

TAURUS - those born between April 20 and May 20

"Believing the Bible is infallible is not a condition for being a Christian."

Don't tell this to today's Christians!

Don't tell this to today's Christians!

#17 | Posted by donnerboy

Uhm, I'm a Christian today, and I don't believe the Bible is literal or infallible.

This should ruffle the feathers of the usual suspects.

*popcorn is ready*

#1 | Posted by Axiom at 2009-05-15 11:02 AM

So true. Nothing gets our resident DR atheists and heathens more flustered and worked into a lather than a raucous debate about the Bible and the existence of God.

This thread should be good for 250 posts.

You serving melted butter with your popcorn, Axiom?
I'll join ya and we can sit back and watch the fireworks. lol

Two more sources on the Jesus sun myth.

This is an author who has found that it is easier and more profitable to prey upon the vast ignorance about the Bible as his own way of creating Jesus Junk to sell to agnostics.

Here is a review of his first book

And the second book.

Uhm, I'm a Christian today, and I don't believe the Bible is literal or infallible.

#18 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-05-15 12:22 PM

Well that is a good start. Now do you believe in Evolution, dinosaurs, an Earth that is billions of years old and the possibility that the Universe may have begun without the help of a God?

"One of the problems however with some of Bart's popular work, including this book, is that it does not follow the age old adage--- "before you boil down, you need to have first boiled it up". By this I mean Bart Ehrman, so far as I can see, and I would be glad to be proved wrong about this fact, has never done the necessary laboring in the scholarly vineyard to be in a position to write a book like Jesus, Interrupted from a position of long study and knowledge of New Testament Studies. He has never written a scholarly monograph on NT theology or exegesis. He has never written a scholarly commentary on any New Testament book whatsoever! His area of expertise is in textual criticism, and he has certainly written works like The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, which have been variously reviewed, not to mention severely critiqued by other textual critics such as Gordon D. Fee, and his own mentor Bruce Metzger (whom I also did some study with). He is thus, in the guild of the Society of Biblical Literature a specialist in text criticism, but even in this realm he does not represent what might be called a majority view on such matters.
It is understandable how a textual critic might write a book like Misquoting Jesus, on the basis of long study of the underpinnings of textual criticism and its history and praxis. It is mystifying however why he would attempt to write a book like Jesus, Interrupted which frankly reflect no in-depth interaction at all with exegetes, theologians, and even most historians of the NT period of whatever faith or no faith at all. A quick perusal of the footnotes to this book, reveal mostly cross-references to Ehrman's earlier popular works, with a few exceptions sprinkled infor example Raymond Brown and E.P Sanders, the former long dead, the latter long retired. What is especially telling and odd about this is Bart does not much reflect a knowledge of the exegetical or historical study of the text in the last thirty years. It's as if he is basing his judgments on things he read whilst in Princeton Seminary. And that was a long time ago frankly."

from the second link

"This is an author who has found that it is easier and more profitable to prey upon the vast ignorance about the Bible as his own way of creating Jesus Junk to sell to agnostics."

Interestingly... this statement is also true then.

Pat Robertson (and any charlatan like him) has found that it is easier and more profitable to prey upon the vast ignorance about the Bible as his own way of creating Jesus Junk to sell to Christians."

Correct, DB. Your point?

"He is thus, in the guild of the Society of Biblical Literature a specialist in text criticism, but even in this realm he does not represent what might be called a majority view on such matters."

That's a roundabout way of saying that if you don't write from the point of view of a believer that your opinions are irrelevant.

Now do you believe in Evolution, dinosaurs, an Earth that is billions of years old and the possibility that the Universe may have begun without the help of a God?

#23 | Posted by donnerboy

Yes. Yes. Yes. No.

HB

No, he is saying that even within his specialty, Erman's opinions are in a minority, much less out of his specialty as in this second book.

HB

No, he is saying that even within his specialty, Erman's opinions are in a minority, much less out of his specialty as in this second book.

Hic!

Hic!
#31 | Posted by Corky

God bless you.

;)

Where's BuffaloBob to weigh in on this?

Thanks, HB. I'm sure she'll do what you tell her.

While wandering through the wilderness, a man came to me and said "god is dead". Prove me wrong.

Thanks, HB. I'm sure she'll do what you tell her.
#34 | Posted by Corky

Blasphemy!

Too bad tone doesn't come across is text, or you would have heard it as a request and not a demand.

I guess I should've thrown a "please" in there somewhere.

And corky, stay out of this one. This is fundie bait. You are not going to put the brakes on this flogging session.

Where's BuffaloBob to weigh in on this?
#33 | Posted by CalifChris

Hell (LOL), where's Zed?

So true. Nothing gets our resident DR atheists and heathens more flustered and worked into a lather than a raucous debate about the Bible and the existence of God.

This thread should be good for 250 posts.

You serving melted butter with your popcorn, Axiom?
I'll join ya and we can sit back and watch the fireworks. lol

I don't share popcorn with Christians!

Get your own! Well, okay maybe a little.

Nope, no butter. I've had to cut back on those things. Not doctor's orders. I'm just making a severe change in diet.

So. You get organic popcorn with Himalayan Crystal Salt. Yes, I know it's just another fancy, new age salt, but I like it more than kosher and sea salt.

- fundie bait

Fundie bashing is fun, I do it all the time with takeitez, and I gave Gnostic Gnubsy his name.

The only problem I see with it is that Fundies are a vocal minority, and all the bashing tends to make casual observers think that they are the majority.

Plus, they are the low-hanging fruit, easy to pick. The rest of us, well, not so much.

"The only problem I see with it is that Fundies are a vocal minority, and all the bashing tends to make casual observers think that they are the majority."

The thing is that many of your non-fundy types (not you for the most part) would rather ignore them than challenge them and the silence comes accross as tacit approval to non-believers.

Why is that? I don't know. Perhaps out of a fear that the fundies may be right.

A hedge move methinks.

Ignoring them may be better than giving them standing by acknowledging them.

But it's not as much fun.

- Perhaps out of a fear that the fundies may be right.

A hedge move methinks.

That's very cynical. And untrue for the most part I think.

"Ignoring them may be better than giving them standing by acknowledging them."

better for whom? If their ideas are dangerously off the mark, then more light, more challenge is what is necessary; it will not lend standing. Like I said, to do otherwise makes it seem like you agree with them.

"That's very cynical."

LMAO. Me? Never.

HB

You'll appreciate this I think, as it addresses your concerns intelligently.

How's the "lil shitter", as Mao likes to put it, btw?
#45 | Posted by Corky

Awesome, thanks. be 19 mos in a couple of weeks. Definitely starting to test her boundaries. I think she's trying to get a head start on the terrible twos.

I'm insanely in love.

I'm checking out that link now. Thanks.

Nothing gets our resident DR atheists and heathens more flustered and worked into a lather than a raucous debate about the Bible and the existence of God.....

....I'll join ya and we can sit back and watch the fireworks. lol

#19 | Posted by CalifChris

Really? As the DR religious zealots being worked up about this issue go, you're often in the top ten.

-Awesome, thanks. be 19 mos in a couple of weeks. Definitely starting to test her boundaries.

lol, mine just turned 26, and she is testing the boundaries of her education, having been accepted to a PhD program in Environmental Studies.

Your journey is just beginning, Grasshopper, and you will always remain insanely in love.

Correct, DB. Your point?

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2009-05-15 12:44 PM

hmm I thought that was obvious...

You were concerned that Bart may be doing this just for the money... I think that in his case it goes much deeper. Regardless, there are a lot of so called "Christians" out there that are making money off of selling "Jesus Junk". I think it is a matter of motive and intent. I believe Bart is truly trying to get to the Truth of the Matter. Unlike most Christians who are not really open to the Truth.

Yes. Yes. Yes. No.

#28 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

I am impressed Rogue! You do indeed have an open mind. Most Christians would not tolerate a heathen like me (or Bart) questioning the inconsistencies of the Bible. You see that defeats the Wedge Strategy that the Discovery Institute is spending millions of dollars a year to promote.

Yes. Yes. Yes. No.

#28 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

I am impressed Rogue! You do indeed have an open mind. Most Christians would not tolerate a heathen like me (or Bart) questioning the inconsistencies of the Bible. You see that defeats the Wedge Strategy that the Discovery Institute is spending millions of dollars a year to promote.

Wedge Strategy

#50 | Posted by donnerboy

I believe in science - and I don't see where science precludes the existence of God, once one understands that the OT, in particular, is more of a human response from ancient people to God and their perceptions of God's character and will.

Marcus Borg uses a Buddhist metaphor of a finger pointing to the moon. As applied to the Bible, it is a caution not to make the mistake of believing so much in the finger, that you lose sight of what the finger is pointing to.

"lol, mine just turned 26, and she is testing the boundaries of her education, having been accepted to a PhD program in Environmental Studies."

LOL... mine is being homeschooled in physics and medicine. That is falling down and getting sick.

I didn't know you had a little one too. A belated congratulations.

-That is falling down and getting sick.

That still happens, but love overcomes all. I just have to be careful not to let her know that I still see the 19 month old sometimes when I look.

"I believe in science - and I don't see where science precludes the existence of God, once one understands that the OT, in particular, is more of a human response from ancient people to God and their perceptions of God's character and will."

I agree. If one REALLY considers the mysteries of the universe (and we don't know about all of the universe or even if it's the only one,) It's difficult to believe all this was some accident of "nature" and that there is not some higher entity involved. In my opinion, it can't be entirely explained with "pure" science.

Actually, we're going to see Angels & Demons together later today.

"The only problem I see with it is that Fundies are a vocal minority, and all the bashing tends to make casual observers think that they are the majority." -- Corky

"I am impressed Rogue! You do indeed have an open mind. Most Christians would not tolerate a heathen like me (or Bart) questioning the inconsistencies of the Bible." -- DonnerBoy

Did you guys plan that out??

We're not that good.

I know you guys won't believe this, but I used to identify myself as a christian, when i was young.

I started studying and the more I learned, the more the sham was exposed.

I suggest people read about the Council of Nicea. This is where Jesus became god (500 years after he was dead). Between the time he died and 500 yrs later, he was a great man who had some great things to say. Then after the council, he became God and the catholic church appointed itself the gatekeeper, Just as the Jews had appointed themselves gatekeeper up until Jesus came along.

#4 | Posted by Lipzoidial

You're right, I don't believe it. Maybe you should find another book on the Council of Nicaea, held in AD 325, and not AD 500. Further, Jesus did not become God by this council. It was already the belief of the Church, which was being challenged by bishop Arius.

Me thinks your true source Lipshit, is Dan Brown's Da Vinci code, something Bart Ehrman has laughed at as ridiculous.

Go back to school.

"Well that is a good start. Now do you believe in Evolution, dinosaurs, an Earth that is billions of years old and the possibility that the Universe may have begun without the help of a God?"

I was always taught, and tried to practice, that the first rule of dealing with an issue is to get as full an understanding of it as possible. Apparently that has stopped being taught.

Yeah, ZH, you are right. This thread is fundie bait. However, it is also fun to slap at the other ignorant extreme. Zombies exist everywhere, as you know.

the possibility that the Universe may have begun without the help of a God? ZH

The existence of the universe does not account for its origin. You're in the realm of faith ZH...something you ridicule, but now embrace? LOL

Nothing gets our resident DR atheists and heathens more flustered and worked into a lather than a raucous debate about the Bible and the existence of God.....

....I'll join ya and we can sit back and watch the fireworks. lol

#19 | Posted by CalifChris

Really? As the DR religious zealots being worked up about this issue go, you're often in the top ten.

#48 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2009-05-15 01:33 PM

Find one single post of mine where I go into some long debate on the Bible and Christianity and religious teachings. You won't. I honestly (and sadly) don't know enough about the teachings of the Bible and religion to even begin to talk about it.

I was baptized a Catholic who learned my Catechism and received the Sacraments while attending Catholic schools growing up but that was the extent of it.

I'm now what you call a "cafeteria Catholic" -- one who picks which teachings of the Church I agree with. The closest I've been to church the last few years is watching the Pope say Midnight Christmas Eve Mass on tv -- something I've done every year. Haven't been to church in awhile except for a personal quiet visit I made in church this past March 10th.

The most "radical" religious statement I think I've made on DR is to say "God" should be spelled with a capital "G". Oh yeah, and I like to jokingly toss around the words "heathen" and "pagans" a lot as it so often applies to a number of people on here. lol

But if once in a blue moon for any particular reason I'll mention to someone on here I'll say a prayer for them then always keep my word and I do say it. But you sure don't find me talking about religion in any depth. I don't know where you came up with that one. Besides, I don't believe in preaching religion to others. I'm content and satisfied with my own faith and feel it's personal matter between me and God -- no one else.

Would it make you happy if I end this post with "Amen" lol?

*ooops...Donnerboy, not ZH in post #60

Ray debunked the bible years ago.

Ray debunked the bible years ago.

#63 | Posted by rastaninja

While Nanc was going through penciling in corrections.

Screw that! I'm a virgo and I'm very proud of that.

I'm have both my Sun and Moon signs in Sagittarius.

"Ray debunked the bible years ago."

And Takitez sent him to hell for it. Do you want to suffer the same fate? (not the going to hell part, the having to deal with Taki part)

On the 8th day, God created Wrestlemania. But it took the Hulkster to create the Atomic Legdrop.

HULKAMANIA FOREVER

-While Nanc was going through penciling in corrections.

"Wine and FRIED bread. There, that's better!" - Nanc

I think that the Bible was created to soften people up so that they could someday find themseleves believing in the book of Mormon.

The Book of Norman was only a forerunner to the true Saint....

Jesus was my co-pilot. But we crashed in the mountains and I was forced to eat him to stay alive.

Mental note: Next time travel with Buddha, far more to eat.

lol....

And if Jesus IS your co-pilot maybe he can explain to you the concept of the fucking Turn Signal.

And if Jesus IS your co-pilot maybe he can explain to you the concept of the fucking Turn Signal.

#72 | Posted by Manypaths

What's that clickin' noise?

I LIKE "Cafeteria Catholic." No one should be forced into affirming myths he/she is too intelligent to believe. My Unitarians evolved from a disbelief in THREE gods; our martyr Michael Servetus was burned at the stake by John Calvin for writing "On the Errors of The Trinity." Today some of us still believe in just one god, but generally add "at most." herm

Most Christians would not tolerate a heathen like me (or Bart) questioning the inconsistencies of the Bible.

What are those inconsistencies you are referring too? Maybe I can help you understand.

Ken's guide to the bible has them all buzz. Go read it.

At least no one will put a rattlesnake in his mailbox.

-Former Fundamentalist 'Debunks' Bible

Former Atheist Debunks Atheism

Famous Atheist Philosopher Antony Flew Changes Mind, Believes in God

Have fun with that, and a great weekend to all!

Going to see Angels & Demons... the Illuminati--bwahahahahaha!!

"The Council of Nicea did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Rather, the Council of Nicea affirmed the Apostles' teaching of who Christ is"

"Famous Atheist Philosopher Antony Flew Changes Mind, Believes in God"

Big deal. An 80-something year-old starts to wish for an afterlife. Some people just can't handle the finality of death.

He doesn't believe in an afterlife, Bill.

"Famous Atheist Philosopher Antony Flew Changes Mind, Believes in God"

And so did Sartre...on his death bed...Little Pascal's Wager comes to mind.

Nope, sorry. He follows the science and sees intelligence in new theories of biology. Try reading the links.

"And so did Sartre...on his death bed."

Death bed (or old age) conversions are pretty meaningless.

Christianity is about Jesus Christ and the Bible --- Matthew 4 and Luke 4.

Bart is dead wrong, but he is entitled to his opinion: 1 Corinthians 2:5 and Genesis 3.

Satan is alive and deceiving and he got a big fish in the person of Bart --- and Oprah.

(My internet connection is undergoing repair, hence I couldn't respond earlier; still limited).

If any Christian is here disturbed by Bart's assertions/opinions, please don't be. The historicity of the death and resurrection of Jesus is real and the power of God is real. Both facts and experience testifies to the realities of God and the life after.

Well that is a good start. Now do you believe in Evolution, dinosaurs, an Earth that is billions of years old and the possibility that the Universe may have begun without the help of a God?
#23 | Posted by donnerboy

Why is it that most of the anti-religious folk think most Christians don't believe in science? I find no inconsistencies in believing in science and in christianity.

For the record, it's yes, yes, yes (it helped that dad was a geologist!) and no. I think you'd be surprised how many religious folks answer the same way.

There will always be the literalists and the fundies that will say the earth is 6000 years old and we are unchangeable. But these are a very vocal, very small minority.

#86 | Posted by takitez at 2009-05-15 05:10 PM | Reply | Flag: Needs to get back on the Xanax.

Christianity is about Jesus Christ and the Bible --- Matthew 4 and Luke 4.

Bart is dead wrong, but he is entitled to his opinion: 1 Corinthians 2:5 and Genesis 3.

Okay, Sandwich Board Boy, I remember reading some stuff about this Jesus fella in the Bible. No problem there. But who's this "Bart"? Some sort of Old Testament prophet?

Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (Exodus 20:1-3)

All you folks that suck Jesus' Dick are fucking screwed.

Oh, and you can't Judge me either or you go to hell again.

.

Ha ha!!!

(It's great to make fun of you pathetic fucks!!!!!)

But who's this "Bart"?
#89 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

No relation...

*ooops...Donnerboy, not ZH in post #60

#62 | Posted by TheOneBS at 2009-05-15 03:03 PM

Yeah that was me and I see no reason why a Universe needs a God to exist(not that I am saying that there is NOT one mind you just that it is not required!). The Universe(s) just IS and is beautiful just the way it is and does not require a reason to exist as hard as some might try to find one.

Life appears to be the natural result of this Universe and the laws that govern it. Other Universes might not be so conducive to life arising naturally.

Takeitsleazy (The Gods of the interwebs are apparently messing with him) seems to need to justify his existence by blaming a God. I do not require that.

Imagine there is no Heaven...It is easy if you try.

You might be a Fundie if:

You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

What are those inconsistencies you are referring too? Maybe I can help you understand.

#75 | Posted by Beachbuzz at 2009-05-15 03:57 PM

Ok I'll byte!

HERE WE GO!

Explain the apparent contradiction between Matthew and Luke regarding the birth of Jesus.

let's start with the contradiction between the supposedly "eyewitness" accounts , which explain the birth in Bethlehem in different ways (Luke says they lived in Nazareth and only moved to Bethlehem briefly for the census, Matthew implies that they lived in Bethlehem and only moved to Nazareth on their return from Egypt) they also give two different genealogies of Jesus, and they appear to use a contradictory time frame (Matthew's account places the birth during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC, but Luke dates it to the census of Quirinius ten years after Herod's death).

Do this and maybe we will go for the biggie... " the resurrection".

You might be a fundie if:

You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

DBoy, nothing in your post surprise me: I've seen them all.

Call me what you will, I take the credibility of Jesus Christ above anyone else on planet earth.

He predicted He will be be put to death and He will rise again, and He did. No one can beat that. This alone cancels all the naysayers: 1 million Oprahs, 1 million Donnerboys, 1 million Barts, including Satan himself who is the Father of lies. All those who deny Christ will be proven liars on judgment day.

Hallelujah!!!!!! God's truth is marching on....

"Some people can't handle the finality of death...."

Now, THAT'S a convenient bolt-hole useful in ignoring inconvenient opinions.

There were TWO Quirinius' in Syria, serving at different times, research has established.

That MIGHT serve to reduce an identified discrepancy between Mark and Luke, provided there was any true interest on the part of the original poster to resolve anything.

Explain the apparent contradiction between Matthew and Luke regarding the birth of Jesus.

Genology: The difference in nearly all the names in Luke's genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew's is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David's son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus' natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus' legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus' father. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus' actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: "Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ." (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say Joseph became father to Jesus' but that he was "the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born." Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: "Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli."Lu 3:23

He will rise again, and He did.

Really? And you know this how? Oh yeah .. that inerrant book written by men in tents.

This alone cancels all the naysayers: 1 million Oprahs, 1 million Donnerboys, 1 million Barts...

Yeah but remember I am the minority here. It is you that is running with the Lemmings over the cliff.

You might be a fundie if:

You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

Let's talk about that resurrection shall we?

you might be a fundie if:

You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

It's interesting to me that alleged discrepancies in the Bible always serve to disprove the Bible but proven consistencies never seem to have the opposite effect.

A smart boy might conclude there's some sort of bias afoot.

Some people can't handle the finality of death....

"Now, THAT'S a convenient bolt-hole useful in ignoring inconvenient opinions."

Whatever. It's simply true that people on their death bed tend to get religious. It's human nature. Whatever the current feelings of an elderly Antony Flew, it doesn't negate the solid arguments he made previously.

"Let's talk about the Resurrection, shall we...?"

One of my favorite topics. But, having just gotten your ass kicked, perhaps you'd prefer not?

"Whatever..."

No, the "whatever" is that Flew still deosn't believe in life after death, because he still doesn't accept the Christian God.

But he does now believe in God, alright. So much for a life of atheism.

#89.... just google him and find out more....

Though Bart's pet doctrine is a bit different, I have put him right in this passage: 2 Timothy 2:16-18. He may have overthrown the faith of some, but I dread for him when he is rewarded with Matthew 18:6-7.

(Sad that Bart is getting carried away by his own opinion and delving deeper into deception).
******************************
************

As for Christians, please be courageous as you stand on this: 2 timothy 2:19.

How firm a foundation....

"But he does now believe in God, alright. So much for a life of atheism."

Yeah, now that he's in his 80s. Big deal. In any event, he's one atheist in a world of millions. I'm sure theists have fun with this, but it doesn't prove anything other than that old people tend to get religious. Some combination of human nature and pascal's wager is all it is.

Who was the first to see Jesus "resurrected"?

Was the Stone rolled away before or after Mary arrived.

I dare any Christian to create an accurate timeline of the death and resurrection that is not contradicted by one or more books of the bible.

So why do the resurrection stories (pretty critical to this faith) seem to contradict each other?
So why is it that Matthew Mark Luke and John the four MAIN GOSPELS cannot agree on the story of the resurrection which is a main tenant of the Jesus is
God theory. If these authors were really guided by the Holy Spirit or a omniscient, omnipotent deity then why is this maze of inconsistencies. Wouldn't God make sure there was perfect harmony on telling such an important event so that the Truth would reach us all?

There is a very simple explanation for this.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Occam's Razor

"So why is it that Matthew, etc., etc., cannot agree on teh story of the Resurrection...?

I think the harder question would be, if the Bible is fiction, why not just write it so the stories agree? At the time or later?

One of my favorite topics. But, having just gotten your ass kicked, perhaps you'd prefer not?

#101 | Posted by Zed at 2009-05-15 06:46 PM

Really.. musta missed that.

Ha, you're reiterating a silly challenge posed by an atheist....

The different versions goes to show that there was no collusion and that the eyewitnesses were genuine.

"Really.. musta missed that."

Funny, I missed that as well.

Any more bible contradictions I can help clear up for you Downerboy? BTW - why do you so despise the Christian faith? Do you have the same feelings for Muslims and Jews as well?

"Seem to contradict each other..."

SEEM. Just as a guess, people were excited. And people had different stories to tell, secondary to different perspectives, or memory that worked better at one time than another.

Surely, nothing extravagant in these theories, Happens every day.

"The different versions goes to show that there was no collusion and that the eyewitnesses were genuine."

Yeah, conflicting evidence proves the evidence is solid. Ok.

"Really? Must have missed that...."

I can only conclude yout don't read the responses you call forth. Scroll up.

# 108... I had Dan Barker in mind....

"Conflicting evidence proves the evidence is solid...."

If the evidence were completely consistent, would that prove anything to you? If not, why are you arguing? Minds like steel traps we expect to remain shut.

It's interesting to me that alleged discrepancies in the Bible always serve to disprove the Bible but proven consistencies never seem to have the opposite effect.

Interesting maybe... but one only needs to prove any of the Bible wrong to crack the Fundies Inerrant Bible Theory to a million Humpty Dumpty pieces...

I am not saying that there is not a God and that there is not SOME Truth in the Bible. There obviously is. It is one of the most important pieces of literature in history. What I am saying is that Bart is right and it is NOT the inerrant word of a God and that they got a lot of it wrong and the authors may or may not have gotten the concept correct at all of what God may be like if God does indeed exist.

sorry if that busts yer bubble Sleazy et all.

#61 | Posted by CalifChris

Say what you'd like. I don't think anyone's given nullifidian more shit about his current username than you.

And with that post you appear to be "flustered". Thanks for the popcorn Axiom. Good stuff....lol

Mary Magdalene saw the resurrected Jesus first.... the stones were rolled away before she arrived.... the earthquake report may have been received from these converted priests (Acts 6:7).

(remember, the credibility of Jesus.... if you go to hell, you will regret eternally with no second chance. The credibility of Jesus and John 14:1-3).

" Minds like steel traps we expect to remain shut.

#115 | Posted by Zed "

Translation: those who disagree with me are closed-minded, those who agree are open-minded.

"Not SOME truth in the Bible..."

In reality just ONE thing needs to be true---Jesus died and came back. This is nothing more than what Paul said. Anything else is trivia.

Don't bother to answer the question, NULL. It's alright.

BTW - why do you so despise the Christian faith? Do you have the same feelings for Muslims and Jews as well?

#110 | Posted by Beachbuzz

"Don't bother to answer the question, NULL. It's alright."

What question? You better find some militant atheist to continue your jihad with. I don't think about theism much, haven't debated it much for years. My non-theism is no more important in my life than my non-leprechaunism or non-locknessmonsterism. Try Ray, he's really into that shit.

In reality just ONE thing needs to be true---Jesus died and came back.

oh dear! you just proved my point Zeddy. Guess you really kicked my ass there didn't you Zed. It IS the most important thing in the Bible and they couldn't even get that story straight!

I guess I would call that a big fat FAIL God.

(Hey! Was that thunder I just heard?)

LOL

#122.... Hell is real! Jesus said so (Luke 16:16-19-31). How is that for parroting What Jesus said.

The credibility of Jesus! --- above any and all human beings from the beginning of time.

"Any more bible contradictions I can help clear up for you"

Jealousy and vengeance are sins correct?

And God proclaims over and over again that he is a "Jealous and vengeful God".

Exodus 20:5
Exodus 34:14
Deuteronomy 4:24
Deuteronomy 5:9

How can God be without sin?

And if I strive to be Godlike, as the Bible commands, am I to do as He says, not as He does?

Mary Magdalene saw the resurrected Jesus first.... the stones were rolled away before she arrived.... the earthquake report may have been received from these converted priests (Acts 6:7).

(remember, the credibility of Jesus.... if you go to hell, you will regret eternally with no second chance. The credibility of Jesus and John 14:1-3).

You may be a fundie if:

You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

The most embarrassing divergence between the narratives revolves around the spectacular scene in Matthew. [A] In this version, the women are treated to the sight of a luminous angel flying down, causing an earthquake, and heaving the stone away from the empty tomb, and all this in full view of posted guards! [B] The problem is that the other evangelists somehow seem to have forgotten to mention the guards and the whole sequence of events!

Matthew:

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. 2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. 5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: `He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you." 8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

Mark:
And they said among themselves, "Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?" 4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled awayfor it was very large. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.
6 But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciplesand Peterthat He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you."
8 So they went out quickly[a] and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Mark 16:2 states "the sun had risen" at the time of this visit, while John 20:1 states "it was still dark."

Matthew 28:2 says "an angel" "came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it"; Mark 16:5 says the women encountered "a young man sitting at the right" of the tomb (rather than upon the stone); Luke 24:4 says they saw "two men" who "suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing"; in John 20:1, Mary Magdalene saw nothing other than a moved stone.

Matthew 28:1 states two women (Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary) came to the tomb; Mark 16:1 states it was three women (Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome); Luke 24:10 agrees it was three women but gives a different list of three than Mark (Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James); John 20:1 states it was only Mary Magdalene.

Hmm so was it dark or light was there guards or angels. Was the stone moved or did an angel move it. How many women were there 1, 2 or 3?

hmm not such good "eyewitness" testimony huh? So how do you know what really happened that fateful day?

Occam's Razor!

#126.... Mrsoul is here: Proverbs 14:12.

(A virtuous woman jealously guards the purity of her marriage.... a mother bear jealously guards over her little ones.... God jealously guards over those who have pledged to follow Him: you shall have no other gods... I find comfort and security in the interest God placed on me. TY Father!)

Donnerboy, please roll it out one at atime, because you might confuse the honest seeker.... I have answers....

There is a way that seems right to a man,but in the end it leads to death. Prov 14:12

Well, isn't that a convenient little verse, pretty much covers any contradiction one might find in your little book, without you Christians ever having to engage your intellect.

Listen, none of the women saw the earthquake and the stone was rolled before they arrived at the spot.... Matthew simply inserted the point to account for all that happenned.... therefore place a parenthesis on Matthew 28:2-5.

Its his writing style that confused some faultfinders.... (Matthew never insisted that there were only two women; he simply named them to place a significance in Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary to erase confusion)

O K ...let's... take... this... one... first...

Matthew 28:1 states two women (Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary) came to the tomb; Mark 16:1 states it was three women (Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome); Luke 24:10 agrees it was three women but gives a different list of three than Mark (Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James); John 20:1 states it was only Mary Magdalene.

Why ...in ....the ...most ...important ...event ...in ..the ...Bible.... we... can't... get... the... identity... and... number... of...eye... witnesses... to... match?

Which Gospel is correct and why?

"Matthew simply inserted the point to account for all that happenned"

Hmmmmm so he "stretched" the Truth on such an important event?

Not a very good witness.In court his entire testimony would be suspect.

gotta go now... keep working on it Takeit... I will check on your progress on getting that "resurrection story" straight when I get home! See if you can create an accurate time line of events right after his death for us!

Good luck!

Mark 16:1, John 20:1 (they reached the spot when its dark, but just split seconds away from sun rise, and the sun rose)... non issue: they both refer to the same event: the resurrection.

Jesus arose! Christianity lives!

#134... accounting for all that happened cannot be equated with 'stretching'

"but in the end it leads to death"

Also, is it death, or an eternity in the fiery bowels of hell?

Death seems like a small price to pay to keep my intellect intact...and to NOT have to spend eternity with the majority of the so-called Christians who post here at the DR.

Jesus is a myth for idiots.

Seems to me that if humans rolled the stone in front of the tomb then it was most likely humans who rolled it back open.

.... the parenthesis on Matthew 28:2-4, not verse 5.

Donner... why are you so narrowminded and insist on the two women in Matthew 28? He simply named two, and that does not mean more than two were not there.

Ohhh... this is good: John 20:1... here John is placing emphasis on Mary M and that is why he narrowed on her story. Matthew named two Marys; John named one Mary. Writing style and point of emphasis.

******************************
**

For the honest seeker: please find a book by Lee Strobel (ex-atheist): The case for the Resurrection!

#140.... The Case for Easter ....

Downerboy,

He makes his views concerning the Bible sound like a "cafeteria". I take some of this and none of those.

I'll just take it at face and implied value. That is my "Cafeteria" choice. I'll have a lot of all of it.

SKIPPING CHURCH
================

Father Norton woke up Sunday morning and realizing it was an
exceptionally beautiful and sunny early spring day, decided he
just had to play golf.

So... he told the Associate Pastor that he was feeling sick and
persuaded him to say Mass for him that day.

As soon as the Associate Pastor left the room, Father Norton
headed out of town to a golf course about forty miles away.

This way he knew he wouldn't accidentally meet anyone he knew
from his parish. Setting up on the first tee, he was alone.
After all, it was Sunday morning and everyone else was in
church!

At about this time, Saint Peter leaned over to the Lord while
looking down from the heavens and exclaimed, "You're not going
to let him get away with this, are you?"

The Lord sighed, and said, "No, I guess not."

Just then Father Norton hit the ball and it shot straight
towards the pin, dropping just short of it, rolled up and fell
into the hole.

IT WAS A 420 YARD HOLE IN ONE!

St. Peter was astonished. He looked at the Lord and asked,
"Why did you let him do that?"

The Lord smiled and replied, "Who's he going to tell?"

Good friends are like stars! You don't always see them, but you know they're always there!

Why aren't the great pyramids of Egypt mentioned in the bible?

A Zebra dies and arrives at the Pearly Gates. As he enters, he asks St. Peter, "I have a question that's haunted me all of my days on earth. Am I white with black stripes, or am I black with white stripes?" St. Peter said, "That's a question only God can answer." So the zebra Went off in search of God.

When he found Him, the zebra asked, "God, please - I must know. Am I white with black stripes, or am I black with White stripes?" God simply replied "You are what you are."

The zebra returned to see St. Peter once more, who asked him, "Well, did God straighten out your query for you?" The zebra looked puzzled. "No sir, God simply said 'You are what you are.'"

St. Peter smiled and said to the zebra, "Well then, there you are. You are white with black stripes." The zebra asked St. Peter, "How do you know that for certain?"

"Because," said St. Peter, "If you were black with white stripes, God would have said, "You is what you is."

Who's ZEDDY?

"Jesus is a myth for idiots..."

Demonstrate some mastery of physics beyond cut and paste for me ZAT, and perhaps I'll consent to be hurt by comments like that.

In another debate, in a universe far away, someone told me Dawkins is NOT and atheist, but just someone with a "provisional position".

Of course, being provisional in his ideas doesn't stop him from making money with BBC specials ridiculing the faithful.

So, the world's leading atheist is a scientist but also dishonest. Just to muddy the waters a bit more, Dawkin's likes to speak of entities "greater than God" from time to time.

A smart man might conclude that the "Atheist Myth" is also for fools.

#148 | Posted by Zed at 2009-05-16 10:25 AM | Reply | Flag: idiot

Hey Zed, I'll give jesus five seconds to show up right here, right now and KISS MY ASS, or you're a mentally retarded joke.

Time's up, joke.

#148 | Posted by Zed at 2009-05-16 10:25 AM | Reply | Flag: Wouldn't know a "smart man" if one kicked him in the ass.

"Is it death, or an eternity in the fiery bowels of Hell....?"

My opinion? Heaven will be something unimagined and unimagineable.

Hell, on the other hand, will be a lot like Cleveland. But without the concept of hope, and with a clear understanding there is no meaning to anyone or anything around you save what you can see and touch.

In both places, your intellect will "be intact". It's just in Hell you'd wish not to be able to think.

I have been kicked in the ass by at least one smart man, ZAT. As I recall, it was an argument over a girl. God was very, very good to me in that circumstance. He got to marry her, I didn't.

Oh, yes---In Hell there will be science and scientists, and experiments. It's just that everyone eventually becomes just so, so bored with it all.

Just to be clear---"God" didn't marry the girl---The "smart" guy did. But, since you be smart, you may have known that.

"Hell, on the other hand, will be a lot like Cleveland. But without the concept of hope, and with a clear understanding there is no meaning to anyone or anything around you save what you can see and touch."

If you're right, Hell isn't going to be "a lot like Cleveland. It'll be exactly like Cleveland.

Donner, with testimony like that the case would be thrown out of court.

Probably never get to court on second thought.

"Probably never get to Court on second thought..."

Fuzzy thinking. If Court were held in 33 A.D. there would be witnesses who could be examined and cross-examined.

Of course, the jury pool would be Pharisees, but since we're being faux-rational to begin with on this topic, why not?

"Hell, on the other hand, will be a lot like Cleveland"

If the alternative is spending eternity with Takeitez, Zed, Nanc, etc...book me a flight to Cleveland.

"Death seems like a small price to pay to keep my intellect intact...and to NOT have to spend eternity with the majority of the so-called Christians who post here at the DR."

Veddy interesting! I wonder if any of the folks who have separated libs from righties have any statistical take on this. My guess is that as many non-believers as believers post here. Rigid bible thumpers don't exactly abound - I can think of about three active ones - and I'd guess many more dig the herm doctrine of I don't know, you don't know and Pope Benny doesn't know. herm

Satan might inflict my annoying presence on you. If you get as far as Heaven I wouldn't worry about me, or anything, for that matter.

"My guess is that as many non-believers as believers post here"

There may be more non-believers here at the DR, and some of the atheists are actually just as self-righteous and arrogant as Takeitez, Nanc, Zed, etc...as you said, no one knows for sure. But too many Christians seem to be just as jealous and vengeful as their insecure Lord and savior. You don't see much of that peace that passes understanding, they all purport to possess.

It's not surprising this man went from one extreme, to the other. What else can someone do who has gone so far in one direction, and has a change of heart? You don't tend to land in the middle.

Although I've been told repeatedly the Bible is the infallible word of God, I never was able to believe ANY translation could be.

I mean...perhaps the original Greek and Hebrew were divinely inspired, but no 2 languages have perfectly equal words and phrases to capture all connotations. No translation could possibly be perfect. It's not logically possible.

I agree that Christianity is not about the Bible. It's about the belief in Christ.

Some churches have made worshipping the Bible part of their doctrine, which ironically is idolatry.

At least you Libs still believe and respect the Koran! get your prayer mats ready lol
Be Well
Darkstar

Darkstar....another fine witness for Christianity.

Do you suppose he's really stupid enough to believe that ONLY liberals would question the Bible?

Liberals are loudest about it ...just a hard cold fact ...but they do seem to respect the Koran though ...just look at all the posts on this site ...full of liberal atheists...its all good though see ya at thanksgiving dinner.
lol
keep it lite
Darkstar

"Liberals are loudest about it"

That's probably true...but their counterparts on the right, fundie-Christians, are equally as loud.

I know several good Christians who aren't judgmental and self-righteous...they don't politicize Jesus...they don't speak in anger against those who disagree with them...they don't see the world in simply black and white terms...they are selfless and very giving individuals. And none happen to call themselves republican or conservative. Most are apolitical, but there are a few who would call themselves liberal.

Gotta run...this independent-agnostic has got some serious sinning to do.

"Hell, on the other hand, will be a lot like Cleveland. But without the concept of hope, and with a clear understanding there is no meaning to anyone or anything around you save what you can see and touch."

If you think Cleveland is bad I must disagree. Every entity has two under arms. Try visiting these two little hell holes and you will know just what deodorant is about.

#1. Barstow, Ca is about as much garbage as it gets. They don't roll up the side walks at an early hour because the don't ever need them at all. If trains are to your liking then maybe you have found heaven.

#2. Yuma, Az where the highlight of your tour is an old federal prison. It needs to be reopened to be a home for anyone dumb enough to live there.

Cleveland is some kind of heaven when compared to these two.

Hell would be Detroit.

Oh, yes---In Hell there will be science and scientists, and experiments. It's just that everyone eventually becomes just so, so bored with it all.

No, the people who would grow bored with that will all be in heaven with you. To people who would not grow tired of that, your "heaven" would be our "hell"...

There are people as disinterested in the spiritual world as you appear to be in the material world...

The Bible aptly warns...

The bible says nothing to people who don't already believe in it. Kinda like that island in Pirates of the Carribean that can only be found by people that have already been there.

If you go by what the fundies say, the bible is nothing more than a heap of self-referential bullshit.

The Bible aptly warns...

The bible says nothing to people who don't already believe in it. Kinda like that island in Pirates of the Carribean that can only be found by people that have already been there.

If you go by what the fundies say, the bible is nothing more than a heap of self-referential bullshit.

#172 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-05-16 10:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Suppose you have to cling to that perspective since the alternative -- that the Bible is the eternal Word of the Judge of all the earth and not even one minor punctuation mark will pass away until all is fulfilled -- means an eternal disaster for you.

Suppose you have to cling to that perspective since the alternative -- that the Bible is the eternal Word of the Judge of all the earth and not even one minor punctuation mark will pass away until all is fulfilled -- means an eternal disaster for you.

The alternative? You mean one alternative among thousands. How many other perspectives threaten eternal disaster if you don't do something (often something strange), yet offer no proof...

What if the Mayans were right? Hope your affairs are in order... 2012 is coming!

What if the Hindus are right? You'll be reincarnated as a dog for sure.

What if the Muslims are right? I guess you don't have much to worry about, but I'm screwed.

What if the Norse are right? Are you ready for Ragnarok? My battleaxe is sharp enough to shave with. What about you?

I can go on all night with this sort of crap. Just because a book says "believe this or else" means nothing. Now, you'll reply that you have your witness of the holy spirit and that somehow makes you special. Every other faith has its equivalent concept to cement the beliefs of the faithful. Christianity is nothing special, nor is any other religion. They're variations of the same theme, but you're too deeply mired in dogma to see that. If Christianity speaks most clearly to you, that's great. It is exceedingly arrogant and misguided to expect it to do so for others.

Your beliefs, and those of all fundamentalists, are repugnant and benefit society about as much as a swine flu-laden sneeze.

Harvard, Yale.... ivy leagues.... all had the Bible as their starting foundation. The Bible made America great: not Mayans, Hindus, Muslims, Norse, Zombies....

The self-revealing God of the Bible is the ultimate standard from which all other claims will be measured --- and all the rest are found to be wanting.

I have found the truth and I'm sticking with with it come hell or high water.

1 Corinthians 1:18.

175 | Posted by takitez

We don't agree often nor even then completely but when it comes to my faith, I find no difference. Failure to believe means eternal separation from God. Good luk to those that fail to believe.

No, the people who would grow bored with that will all be in heaven with you.

"Everybody's trying ...to get to a bar.
Name of the Bar?
The Bar is called Heaven.

The band in Heaven... it plays my favorite song.
Play it one more time.
Play it all night long.

Cos heaven...
Heaven is a place...
A place where nothing...
Nothing ever happens.

When this kiss is over
It will start again
Won't be any different
Will be exactly the same.

Cos Heaven..."

"Heaven"

~Talking Heads.

Be Well.

I knew it. It wasn't Eve that picked the apple from the tree, it was that stupid Adam. After all, wasn't he the one wearing the leaf? It wasn't just to cover up his teeny weeny.

How many other perspectives threaten eternal disaster if you don't do something (often something strange), yet offer no proof...

Zombie - Who is threatening you?

There is an argument out there that faith is genetic. Every civilization known to man has had religious beliefs of some kind and on earth the people that believe far outnumber the people that don't believe. I'm not saying that is a superior position just mentioning fact. You could argue God designed it this way or it is an coping vehicle for man's sentient nature. Alot of people are not absolutist about their beliefs ...for example people that believe in evolution don't advocate sex for 11 year olds just cus nature said they are ready for reproduction. Evolutionists have faith? yes they have to make a brief exception for the scientific method on where life came from, currently life only comes from other life ...no amount of powerbars put in a blender will make life. When pressed most athiests/agnostics i speak to believe aliens were here at one time ...how else can you explain 1 sentient life form over 500 million years of evolution. Anyhow ...believers in traditional religion or science or both need to follow fact and truth if and where possible ...its fun to slam political slants into it but in the long run it doesn't add to the conversation much. Religious people here on DR shouldn't throw scriptures at the scoffers you are wasting your time.
well I rambled enough
be well
Darkstar

#181.... gee, based on your unscientific observation and opinion, people of faith should roll over and stop citing scripture... or disappear. How convenient!

No, faith is a choice. People choose to go to hell. Or choose to repent (Acts 17:29-31).

Heaven, what job will you have in heaven? A muslim fundie thinks he will satisfy 72 virgins, drive him crazy, tell him "the soul has no PeePee"

Heaven, where you can be god's eternal lapdog.

God don't need sex, he just poofs things (or is that poops). Maybe the poofer got no PeePee!

some spend their whole life preparing for something that doesn't exist, when you die that's it - Over! People don't want to die, so they create an afterlife through religion. I don't really die, I go to heaven (no body, no needs, no how), Sure!

Hell is real...

Hell is real...
(From Las Vegas to hell and back)
www.youtube.com

#185 | Posted by takitez at 2009-05-17 10:21 AM

Wow. Mel Kiper has been to heaven and back with the ability to pick the top picks in the NFL draft, yet somehow remain clueless to the meaning of the word "haircut".

VMA is correct, one day he will die. Cannot help but agree.

What I don't agree with is that desperation drives concept of an afterlife.

The sad fact seems to be that desperate people simply tend to become more desperate, and the universe increasingly empty and useless. Simple observation.

There are exceptions, of course. What's funny is the perverted logic that makes those with hope crazier in mind or behavior than those without.

Re-reading Dawkin's "The God Delusion", by the way. He does best when he discusses his own field. Much of the book beyond that is just silly.

#183 | POSTED BY VMA224
"A muslim fundie thinks he will satisfy 72 virgins"

Sorry...but I think you've got it backwards, hehehe.
I don't think they say anything about the VIRGINS being satisfied.

"There are people as disinterested in the spiritual world as you are disinterested in the material world...."

ZOMBIE assures me he and his friends would just be fascinated by Hell. The concept must have it's teeth into you.

ZOMBIE, if you and your social circle get to Hell---To write scientific papers I have no doubt the damned will just line up to read---That should at least from your peculiar point of view put an end to debate about materialism and spirituality.

But you inspire me to speculate----Maybe not? I wonder if even translation into an obviously divergent reality would make a dent in some people?

Just as an aside---Dawkins? I stitched my side laughing when he described multiple universes as "wasteful". If there were any better evidence the man thinks he himself is God immune from the human foibles he enjoyes ridiculing, I don't know what that is.

TakitEZ
Matthew 7:6"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

"pearls before swine"

"#192 | Posted by Zed at 2009-05-17 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag:DEPENDS ON MONEY FROM THE IGNORANT FOR HIS LIVING

LOL who sang that? a young Barnie Frank? or Sylvester the cat? nice 70s sound like something they had on the rack in the Hatch in tv show lost.
Darkstar

TakeIt's "mind" is made up. Please ... no one confuse him with any facts. herm

"A muslim fundie thinks he will satisfy 72 virgins." I always wondered about that. Are they virgins for eternity? If so, what good are they? Are they replaced by a new batch once deflowered by a high-church organ? Is it heaven for those virgins too? Hell, you should pardon the expression, what about those streets paved with gold: was the gold ALWAYS there or was it mined? Was it heaven for the miners too? What were the streets before the gold? Dirt? But one can surely see why them thar Ewenited States marines guard them thar heavenly streets. Against what? With what weaponry? herm

Darkstar you said:

"Evolutionists have faith? yes they have to make a brief exception for the scientific method on where life came from, currently life only comes from other life ...no amount of powerbars put in a blender will make life. When pressed most athiests/agnostics i speak to believe aliens were here at one time ...how else can you explain 1 sentient life form over 500 million years of evolution."

Couple of things. I thought that the definition of sentient was any organism that could feel pleasure and pain. So by that, there are many more than 1 sentient life form.

Two more things. The first is always incorrectly used and that is that evolution does NOT speak to creation of life but only the evolution of life forms. Secondly, have you ever read or heard about in high school chemistry class about the Miller-Urey experiment that showed that the building blocks of life could be easily created by some simple raw materials in our early Earth.

Herm ...sentient means ability to feel or perceive. 500 million years, 500 million species, 150 million extinct species of the remaining 350 million species 1 sentient life form meaning human beings. Your lil spin on "sentient" was an attempt at deflection of my point. there are no other life forms on earth like humans that can do what humans do for better or worse we are the dominant life form on earth. I was speaking on evolutionists that attempt to explain where all life comes from if we want to have an honest discussion you have to include that ...Starting after life is already here is like starting the football game at halftime. Your Miller-Urey experiment made amino acids not life sorry. Louis Pasteur also had an experiment that proved life doesn't spontaneously spawn...for it to pass the scientific method it has to be reproducible in lab and found regularly in nature ...it doesn't happen. Sorry if I sound a lil forward but I'm not trying to promote anything here save discussion and sharing of facts and opinions ...Facts are better but we all have opinions ..hence this website.
peace
Darkstar.

Doh Meant Rosemountbomber my bad

I think you meant to respond to my post rather than Herm.

Evolution is NOT the study of creation so evolutionists do not attempt to explain where all life comes from within the framework of evolution. What you are talking about is a field called Abiogenesis.

Newton's Theory of Gravity described all aspects of gravity but did NOT talk about its origin or its creation. Yet it is still precise enough that NASA uses it for all of its activities in space.

On this planet, amino acids are the basis of life. Considering no one can go back 3-4 billions years to actually see the origin of life on the planet I would say that science has uncovered a tremendous amount of facts that give us some idea of what happened. Contrary to any religion known that has so far supplied us with NO facts.

Ok Rose maybe I should have expanded and said Athiests that believe in evolution or perhaps Abio genesis professors. Newton's theory of gravity passes the scientific method in the lab and in nature. Spontaneous forming of life doesn't. If it happened once on earth it would still continue to happen ...Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Hurricanes other earth style events still happen ...there are plenty of amino acids laying around on earth yet no life forms spontaneously happening. This is specifically what I meant on evolutionists having faith ...they have to have "faith" (i know its a dirty word for science people)that amino acids became alive 1 time 500 million years ago.
be well you seem well read good for you.
respect unto you
Darkstar