Canuckistani Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 How is saying "Christianity is the only truth" any different from saying that "there is no God" is the only truth? Hint. It's not. You got it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted June 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 (edited) I think what Canadien meant is that if all he had was your "facts" to convince him that the Bible is true, he wouldn't believe the Bible is true. Perhaps you should let Canadien speak for himself. My questions are quite specific. I think he's got a mind of his own. It's a bit weird with you reading his mind....like you're staring at your own crystal ball. And it's quite interesting that your reply suggests you consider him to be on your team! I actually thought about that too way back, in fact I thought he is a new atheist....until he explained himself. Well perhaps he should come out. Either he agrees with you and discredit the wonderful things that science had proven: that the Bible is not just a collection of ramblings by simple, primitive men of ancient times....or that science - by the grace of God - is proclaiming (in its own humble way) that the Bible is indeed the Word of God. In short, your "facts" are terrible. They're embarrassingly bad. They're ridiculous. They're hilarious. Nothing you've presented in this vast entire thread does anything to provide evidence that your ancient desert chumps were the recipients of a gift of divine knowledge. Maybe there are good reasons to believe... but this thread doesn't contain any of them. I just can't be bothered to go back through 1200 posts of this stuff to review your "facts", but I think they were pretty easily dismissed as soon as you posted them. However, if there are any "facts" you've provided that you don't think have received enough ridicule, bring it to my attention and I'll heap more derision on it. The ancient Greeks were producing real, actual facts in the fields of science and math long before the Bible was compiled. You gush over the idea that the Bible reports the earth was a "circle" (although, considering they had a word for sphere and chose not to use it, that might not be much to brag about.) Meanwhile, Eratosthenes not only called the earth a sphere, but also calculated its diameter, as well as its distance from the sun and the moon, with surprising accuracy. Archimedes wrote several books, each containing mathematical and scientific discoveries that are still significant. Likewise Aristotle's work in several fields. That's just a quick handful of names from just one ancient civilization. Someone with a broader background in history than I possess could provide you a much more detailed answer to that question, but my response here is good enough to answer your challenge. While your guys were certainly the undisputed experts at harvesting foreskins from their foes, the Greeks certainly contributed far more to our understanding of our natural world. -k I don't care about your derision. You can do a somersault of derisions all you want. You can deride till you're all purple in the face. Because you know why? It's all you have! You're just regurgitating the same thing! I'll keep throwing you the same challenge! We're talking about things that were written in the Bible which were later proven as facts by science! Some even dealt with origin! Give an ancient book along the same caliber! Come back to me when you can actually put your money where your mouth is. Edited June 9, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted June 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 (edited) How is saying "Christianity is the only truth" any different from saying that "there is no God" is the only truth? Hint. It's not. But of course that's according to you. Here's the thing though, AW: See the topic you're in? The Bible facts? Science is actually supporting these facts.....whereas just only recently, atheist guru Richard Dawkins admits he "can't be sure God doesn't exists!" 'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist' World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic By Suzannah Hills UPDATED: 14:45 GMT, 24 February 2012 Professor Richard Dawkins today dismissed his hard-earned reputation as a militant atheist - admitting that he is actually agnostic as he can't prove God doesn't exist. The country's foremost champion of the Darwinist evolution, who wrote The God Delusion, stunned audience members when he made the confession during a lively debate on the origins of the universe with the Archbishop of Canterbury. But when Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams suggested that Professor Darwin is often described as the world's most famous atheist, the geneticist responded: 'Not by me'. More... Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html#ixzz1vFO9iBij Bible facts supported by science - Dawkins saying he's not sure God doesn't exists. Belief that there is no God has been just blown to smithereens by Dawkins. There's the big difference between the two! Edited June 9, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 9, 2012 Report Share Posted June 9, 2012 The more people debate on this forum, the more they all become pro-choice agnostics. Cool! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 It's a bit weird with you reading his mind....like you're staring at your own crystal ball. And it's quite interesting that your reply suggests you consider him to be on your team! I actually thought about that too way back, in fact I thought he is a new atheist....until he explained himself. Well perhaps he should come out. I didn't need to read his mind; I read his message and his meaning was certainly clear enough. I'm not sure what "teams" you're talking about or why you're wondering which "team" Canadien is on. You seem to think there's a Christian Team and an Atheist Team here and that Canadien is playing on the wrong team. In fact, there's only Team Sane and Team Nutso, and the only one playing for Team Nutso is you. It should be obvious by now that the other Christians on this message board, and there are quite a few here, want nothing to do with the nonsense you keep posting. The other Christians on this message board do not want to be associated with your insanity, because it is embarrassing to Christians. Either he agrees with you and discredit the wonderful things that science had proven: that the Bible is not just a collection of ramblings by simple, primitive men of ancient times....or that science - by the grace of God - is proclaiming (in its own humble way) that the Bible is indeed the Word of God. Nothing you've provided supports that claim. I don't care about your derision. You can do a somersault of derisions all you want. You can deride till you're all purple in the face. Because you know why? It's all you have! You're just regurgitating the same thing! I'll keep throwing you the same challenge! I answered your challenge; you didn't answer mine. Go back through your collection of "facts" and retrieve any that you think deserve further discussion, and we'll discuss them. I am always up for that. We're talking about things that were written in the Bible which were later proven as facts by science! Some even dealt with origin! Give an ancient book along the same caliber! Come back to me when you can actually put your money where your mouth is. I exceeded your request. I didn't just give one book, I gave many. The collected works of Aristotle, Archimedes, and Eratosthenes. However, if you insist on just 1 book, I will go with Eratosthenes "On the measurement of the earth", containing calculations of the circumference of the earth, the distance of the moon, and the distance of the sun, all accurate to within a couple of percent. One book, with at least 3 scientific facts. The Bible: 66 books, zero scientific facts. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 I can't watch this any longer. It's like a soccer player kicking around an infant. It's just sad really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted June 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 (edited) I didn't need to read his mind; I read his message and his meaning was certainly clear enough. I'm not sure what "teams" you're talking about or why you're wondering which "team" Canadien is on. You seem to think there's a Christian Team and an Atheist Team here and that Canadien is playing on the wrong team. In fact, there's only Team Sane and Team Nutso, and the only one playing for Team Nutso is you. You're the one who brought up "team!" Team Jesus you said. When you're reduced to calling people names - that means you've got nothing else. Didn't you suffer from paranoia, thinking religious folks are judging you? If you think I'm nuts, then why do you follow me around and insists on arguing with "the nut?" You're much more nuttier than I! It should be obvious by now that the other Christians on this message board, and there are quite a few here, want nothing to do with the nonsense you keep posting. The other Christians on this message board do not want to be associated with your insanity, because it is embarrassing to Christians. So you speculate on other Christians on this forum too? Anyway, what's that got to do with the issue? Again, it is so interesting that religion topics - especially my topics seem to be getting to you. You're like a pin to the magnet - can't keep away. Obviously you don't want to debate at all. You want me to shut up. Why is that, I wonder? Nothing you've provided supports that claim. I answered your challenge; you didn't answer mine. Go back through your collection of "facts" and retrieve any that you think deserve further discussion, and we'll discuss them. I am always up for that. I exceeded your request. I didn't just give one book, I gave many. The collected works of Aristotle, Archimedes, and Eratosthenes. However, if you insist on just 1 book, I will go with Eratosthenes "On the measurement of the earth", containing calculations of the circumference of the earth, the distance of the moon, and the distance of the sun, all accurate to within a couple of percent. One book, with at least 3 scientific facts. The Bible: 66 books, zero scientific facts. -k Nada, You didn't answer anything. At all. Read what I've said in this topic. Understand what you read. I can't help you if you don't. Bye-bye. I don't have much time to waste. Edited June 18, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted June 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 (edited) deleted. Edited June 18, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 Well you've got faith! So do I! We both got faith! You and I have no problem in accepting the Bible as the Word of God. But what about those who don't have it? Those who are searching for it? Those that are confused. Those that are skeptics about the truth in Christianity? Those are the ones this topic is trying to address. Yup! And the christmas fable about Santa Clause mentions the North Pole! And the North POle really exists!!!! Like OMG!!! And small children have plenty of faith in that story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted June 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) I exceeded your request. I didn't just give one book, I gave many. The collected works of Aristotle, Archimedes, and Eratosthenes. However, if you insist on just 1 book, I will go with Eratosthenes "On the measurement of the earth", containing calculations of the circumference of the earth, the distance of the moon, and the distance of the sun, all accurate to within a couple of percent. One book, with at least 3 scientific facts. The Bible: 66 books, zero scientific facts. -k Aristotle existed somewhere between 465-399 BC. Genesis is a thousand years older than Aristotle. Aristotle's book is nowhere near as ancient as the Bible. Edited June 19, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Aristotle existed somewhere between 465-399 BC. Genesis is a thousand years older than Aristotle. Aristotle's book is nowhere near as ancient as the Bible. You should maybe be more specific about what time era you want to deal with regarding ancient texts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Aristotle existed somewhere between 465-399 BC. Genesis is a thousand years older than Aristotle. Aristotle's book is nowhere near as ancient as the Bible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 That's right. The Bible was written before there was even writing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 That's right. The Bible was written before there was even writing. I thought maybe I misread her post. I'm glad someone else thought the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Did you know that the Game of Thrones series by R.R. Martin was written in the Middle Ages? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 I think the idea is that the bible encoded stories that came from an oral tradition of indeterminate age. That's pretty much understood, and acknowledged by historians in the common elements of narrative from different cultures at that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted June 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) You should maybe be more specific about what time era you want to deal with regarding ancient texts. Michael Hardner is right as to the oral tradition before the information got wtitten in the Bible. I hope the point I'm trying to make is not lost. There are several information in the Bible that pertains to creation and origin - information that could only come from someone with an intimate knowledge of it. The fact about mountains and deep trenches under the ocean is one such information that is bang-on! And the description of the stretching universe is another.... That all these information in the Bible written by different authors, from different walks of life, from different time lines....and yet, are now supported by modern science, is just quite so incredible! Perhaps one or two or three such information can be just "coincidental." But, we're talking about all these right now, not to mention others that can be discovered as technology keeps improving. As I've stated sometime ago, it does seem that the information given in ancient times is actually meant for the modern times. Could it be that since there wouldn't be any more major miracles in the modern times (as indicated by Jesus), could it be perhaps that science's purpose is to serve as the tool that is meant to open our eyes? I am a believer, and I do understand your skepticism as a non-believer. All I ask is to just consider these with an open mind, and just chew on it. Edited June 22, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 As I've stated sometime ago, it does seem that the information given in ancient times is actually meant for the modern times. Could it be that since there wouldn't be any more major miracles in the modern times (as indicated by Jesus), could it be perhaps that science's purpose is to serve as the tool that is meant to open our eyes? I understand the idea, but wouldn't you have to conclude that, so far at least, this has been a failure? People have turned away from faith because of science more than for any other single reason, I believe. (It's not the only reason, but probably the primary one.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 I think the idea is that the bible encoded stories that came from an oral tradition of indeterminate age. That's pretty much understood, and acknowledged by historians in the common elements of narrative from different cultures at that time. Yes, but the idea that the meaning if not the sounds themselves that were being orally transmitted were actually God's and not the person who's mouth or mind had been taken over by Him/Her is really weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) You're the one who brought up "team!" Team Jesus you said. When you're reduced to calling people names - that means you've got nothing else. Didn't you suffer from paranoia, thinking religious folks are judging you? If you think I'm nuts, then why do you follow me around and insists on arguing with "the nut?" You're much more nuttier than I! So you speculate on other Christians on this forum too? Anyway, what's that got to do with the issue? Again, it is so interesting that religion topics - especially my topics seem to be getting to you. You're like a pin to the magnet - can't keep away. Obviously you don't want to debate at all. You want me to shut up. Why is that, I wonder? As long as there's still Hatfields prowling in these hills, I'll keep my musket loaded. Y'know what I mean? Nada, You didn't answer anything. At all. Read what I've said in this topic. Understand what you read. I believe I answered each of your "facts" one by one as you introduced them. If you feel I missed one, feel free to point it out. I can't help you if you don't. I'm not the one here who needs help. And while I can't provide you with the kind of professional help you need, I'm doing my best to try to at least encourage you to think critically about the stuff you're saying. Sadly, it seems to be a hopeless cause. Bye-bye. I don't have much time to waste. oh. ok. Bye bye! Aristotle existed somewhere between 465-399 BC. oh, you're back! How delightful! Genesis is a thousand years older than Aristotle. Aristotle's book is nowhere near as ancient as the Bible. Genesis is nowhere near that old. I'll repost this fascinating video that invites you to to consider how reliable the "oral history" of the Israelites really is and how much it might have been altered over the years. -k Edited June 25, 2012 by kimmy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Bible vs YouTube video. Hey I thought you said your Dad was a "Hatfield", or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 Hey I thought you said your Dad was a "Hatfield", or something. Nope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 Nope. Really? Are you speaking for another poster? Because I wasn't asking you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 Really? Are you speaking for another poster? Because I wasn't asking you. No,...I'm not "speaking for" her, but simply answering your direct question with a factual answer. In fact, she was intimating that she was a McCoy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 No,...I'm not "speaking for" her, but simply answering your direct question with a factual answer. In fact, she was intimating that she was a McCoy. This conversation goes beyond your comprehension, since you have no idea what I'm talking about. But kimmy probably does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.