You think parts weren't destroyed but if any were how would you know they even existed?
There could have been hundreds of drafts by many people that were destroyed.
why do we blank out the word god?
- Thread starter helpimcrap
- Start date
You think parts weren't destroyed but if any were how would you know they even existed?
There could have been hundreds of drafts by many people that were destroyed.
well that's just a total guess.
you didnt answer my question either, which church had exclusive rights to the contents of the then non-exsistant bible for hundreds of years?
there are lot's of acounts that the church never even had any possesion of, which are also availbable, for example various roman and jewish acounts.
possible, but that is just guessing? you could say that about anything though, there could have been something, which got destroyed, so you cant give any evidence either way. so you can't make statements like that really, unless you have some kind of divine inspiration.
Of course I'm guessing, in order to show you that your belief is based on nothing but faith. You have no evidence or reason to believe the bible has not had many different parts/been contributed to by many authors/been changed repeatedly. If the evidence of changes hadn't survived to the present.
I wouldn't stand here and argue that parts of the bible were destroyed. I played devil's advocate for a second. It's possible, but there is no evidence for it so it doesn't require thought.
I find it hard to believe that a book written by God (through man) would be so contradictory. Especially as God is portrayed as omniscient.
i dont see it as contradictory.
and I do have evidence, i have just stated lots of historical evidence.
it seems to be that you cannot bleive in the supernatural, as the historical evidence, is just as strong if not stronger than for any other acient event.
1. I'm not asking if it's contradictory, I'm telling you.
2 Samuel 8:4- And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen
1 Chronicles 18:4- And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen
There's one. I know you'll probably say it's minor and you're right it is. But God is meant to be omniscient so he would not make those mistakes. There are hundreds just like that one too.
Or is it more likely that the bible was written by many men, thus not infallible and likely to yield mistakes?
2. You have no evidence that stuff wasn't left out the bible and then destroyed. That was the point.
3. There is no historical evidence that i'm aware of that concerns miracles, etc, and other supernatural stuff other than the bible. Jesus as a person is mentioned in other writings but not that he's the son of God or supernatural in any way. Unless you can link to some for me?
The Da Vinci code is correct in as far as dates, places, buildings, etc, is concerned. Do you believe the story contained in the book? Would you believe it if it had passed through generations and there was no indication of its author?
Do you believe in the Greek gods? There is plenty of historical evidence that the places, people described in the Iliad etc, are real Does that mean Zeus is real?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 4,375
personally i would like to beleive in god but there is no evidence whatsoever that its true. u can recreate scientific stuff and see it with your own eyes, but no-one has ever seen god do anything. in my opinion, people in every religion just quote from a book and never give direct and straight answers. Sceintists can at least physically show you their theory and put it in practice before your eyes.
Also, i dont understand why, when god created us, he gave us the capability to 'sin' but doesn't want us to do so?? free will??? well he gave us that so that is the same thing is it not, he gave us that skill.
why do people who believe in any religion feel the need to defend or preach it?? surely if they truely belive its the truth they they wouldnt need to?
Also, i dont understand why, when god created us, he gave us the capability to 'sin' but doesn't want us to do so?? free will??? well he gave us that so that is the same thing is it not, he gave us that skill.
why do people who believe in any religion feel the need to defend or preach it?? surely if they truely belive its the truth they they wouldnt need to?
Religion easily has the greatest ******** story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end of time...but he loves you. -George Carlin
No offence meant.
No offence meant.
God has done loads, that what "experiances" usually means.
you have a very naive understanding of christianity.
and you don't understand free will either clearly. if you couldnt make bad desisions then you wouldnt have free will, God wants people to love him, but not like robots, but actually love him, now that can only be true love if it is from free will. free will is what is allowing you to think against the bible/god etc.. what allows you to do as you please good and bad. it's better than everyone being robots.
Last edited:
Arguing with a religious person is just pointless, they're just so blinded by the brainwashing, that all rational logical thought goes out of the window. Regardless of religion/cult. They don't see it as brainwashing, and that's how it works. Those in power use politics and religion to gain a power base. You might notice that many politicans / presidents / prime ministers are religious therefore have backing (financial and in votes) by fellow religious people.
If you were to walk up to a total stranger and say "santa is real" would he reply "Wow thanks I now believe in Santa!" Not a chance. Yet religion has pulled it off. This is because of the length of time that religion has played into cultures, and families.
It's purely social/parental/cultural upbringing, nothing more. Grow up in a religious family- or with racist KKK parents and the chance of you being a black hating person who'll eventually join the KKK is far far higher than someone joining the KKK at 18 who deals with blacks and actually likes blacks.
I think religious teaching should be banned, parents who enforce belief should have the children removed. It is child mental abuse.
If you were to walk up to a total stranger and say "santa is real" would he reply "Wow thanks I now believe in Santa!" Not a chance. Yet religion has pulled it off. This is because of the length of time that religion has played into cultures, and families.
It's purely social/parental/cultural upbringing, nothing more. Grow up in a religious family- or with racist KKK parents and the chance of you being a black hating person who'll eventually join the KKK is far far higher than someone joining the KKK at 18 who deals with blacks and actually likes blacks.
I think religious teaching should be banned, parents who enforce belief should have the children removed. It is child mental abuse.
i dont believe any real christian parents would, mine certainly didnt, they've let me read lots of athiests books, and other religions books, and allowed me to make my own decision.
I wasn't even baptised.
i also know plenty of people who have converted from various religious points of view to christianity.
and there are famous people to that that applies to, such as Tolkien and CS Lewis.
and what you say about the political side of things is because the anglican and catholic "churches" have major corruptions.
here here!!
the christian church? you mean the church i go to? i don't believe in mass organized overly structured organizations within religion, too much corruption.
my church doesn't have any "power" as such and has know official stances on anything, so therefore cant really be corrupt, there notthing to be corrupt
Even now if we were to collect land based species in a cargo container it would be near impossible, yet somehow people with slow modes of transport, with no technolgy or heavy machinery who didn't know of every land mass in the world at the time somehow collected at least two of every species and packed them into a boat? What are the logistics of that?
1- Would require hundreds, if not thousands of people in direct communication with each other to check they have captured that species.
2- Require transportation to/fro
3- Discovery of unexplored continents
4- Exploration of these new lands
5- Capturing millions of species, from insects all the way upto elephants
6- Amount of food required, for herivores and carnivores. Those capturing the animals would need to find out what they eat, and provide enough food to last for return journey (months if not years)
7- Capture more than one "couple" in case one of them dies
8- Exploration of incredibly harsh enviroments and going into countries that are potentially hostile.
9- Several trips, as certainly one ship could sink on the way home, killing the animals which are supposed to be collected. Therefore another trip would need to be planned.
And people still believe this tosh? As the religious poster above commented "species were not spread across the globe" WRONG! Granted during the super contient phase it was easier to cross the super contient. Except humans didn't exist, for billions of years after that. If we say that Noahs Ark did exist, then the contients would look identical to current world map. 2000-5000 years is nothing for contiental drift.
Of course the Christian church (therefore Christian religion) has power. If you don't believe that, you're a fool. Your exact chursh doesn't have power over the country (but in a small way it does, as the priest preaches what is right and wrong, and brings people into the church) but as a whole- religion does.
It's strange how many many of our laws are based on Christian religion, in much like Islamic states laws following religious laws.
1- Would require hundreds, if not thousands of people in direct communication with each other to check they have captured that species.
2- Require transportation to/fro
3- Discovery of unexplored continents
4- Exploration of these new lands
5- Capturing millions of species, from insects all the way upto elephants
6- Amount of food required, for herivores and carnivores. Those capturing the animals would need to find out what they eat, and provide enough food to last for return journey (months if not years)
7- Capture more than one "couple" in case one of them dies
8- Exploration of incredibly harsh enviroments and going into countries that are potentially hostile.
9- Several trips, as certainly one ship could sink on the way home, killing the animals which are supposed to be collected. Therefore another trip would need to be planned.
And people still believe this tosh? As the religious poster above commented "species were not spread across the globe" WRONG! Granted during the super contient phase it was easier to cross the super contient. Except humans didn't exist, for billions of years after that. If we say that Noahs Ark did exist, then the contients would look identical to current world map. 2000-5000 years is nothing for contiental drift.
Of course the Christian church (therefore Christian religion) has power. If you don't believe that, you're a fool. Your exact chursh doesn't have power over the country (but in a small way it does, as the priest preaches what is right and wrong, and brings people into the church) but as a whole- religion does.
It's strange how many many of our laws are based on Christian religion, in much like Islamic states laws following religious laws.
Last edited:
im not suggesting that isnt anything more than a metaphor, but if it wasnt, i dont believe that the world is 6000 years old or whatever ppl claim the bible says, when it actually doesn't. so it would have been a lot llonger ago.
my church does not have a priest if im being predantic.
and he does not preach what is right and wrong, your clearly naive and base what you think you know on catholic and anglican services.
we live in a Western society (therefore founded supposedly on christian laws) and you find the laws to just be based on morals which we dont need a book to tell us i asume, you consider our morals normal.
but in the middle east where there is islamic law, people consider that normal and moral standard. but you probably wouldnt.
Last edited: