• Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
  • Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex

Should Christians support Obama?

Muscle Gelz Transdermals
IronMag Labs Prohormones
No, I have not studied that at all.

I'm not sure on your position, are you of the opinion that the bible is the word of god, or the word of many different men? I'm surprised if you are convinced it's the word of god, because in your postings here, you require strict factual evidence of any claim made, yet would have to completely ignore that requirement to believe anything in the bible.

I Googled Textual Criticism and randomly chose a short explanation contained in the following link. Read it carefully and look at the examples of one word in one verse. Scholars spend an immense amount of time trying to get the meanings of the original writings. The old King James has bias as do most translations but once you learn the differences and why, its not really a huge deal to the overall meaning of the manuscripts.
http://legacy.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/text_crit.html


I'm not really sure what to believe to be honest.

There is also an area of study on the theories of inspiration. Some believe the bible is a direct dictation from god. Others believe he used men and their own styles to convey general ideas or thoughts. Mechanical, Verbal and Plenary are various ways scholars try to define types of inspiration therefore looking at every little word or spelling in a verse as an error is assuming mechanical inspiration. Otherwise, slight variances are irrelevant as long as the general meaning is there. Here is a random link on different theories on inspiration;
What Are the Different Views Regarding the Inspiration of the Bible? - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

I love science but remember that science is the study of the natural world not the supernatural. Science kind of starts with a preconceived bias. Science discounts that which cannot be reproduced or observed. Therefore it is logical that scientists would not believe in the supernatural. They are trained to only believe the natural reproducible and observable data in front of them. When it comes to the natural world I rely heavily on observable and reproducible data. When it comes to the supernatural, science has virtually no application.
 
If evolution is real, why did we stop evolving? As a surface example, why are apes no longer turning into humans? Evolution, IMO, is science fiction.
Another question. If there was evolution, that means there would have been many life forms dying over the millions of years. So if these lifeforms were evolving. then there should be many transitional fossils easily found.

Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution


[TD="width: 100%"]
Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution
By Andy Butcher Bugged by a beetle, a scientist changes his beliefs on how the world began.
JobeMartin.jpg
Creationists used to bug Jobe Martin, until a bug helped make Jobe Martin a creationist. Only half an inch long, the Bombardier Beetle may not be very big, but it helped chew great big holes in his long-held views on evolution. Or, more accurately, burn them.
For on closer inspection the modest beetle is a marvel of nature, a sort of six-legged tiny tank. It defends itself by mixing chemicals that explode; firing through twin tail tubes that can swivel like gun turrets. The bubbling liquid that shoots out at 212 degrees Fahrenheit is enough to deter most predators. The force of the "round" fired should be enough to blast the little beetle into orbit,if not pieces, and it would be if it was discharged at one time. But
beetle.jpg
slow motion photography has revealed that the crafty beetle actually lets go with a stream of up to 1,000 little explosions. Together they are enough to put off would-be attackers while leaving the small defender with its feet still on the ground.
As Martin marveled at the intricate design, he realized that there was simply no way the Bombardier Beetle could have evolved its sophisticated defense system over time, adding swiveling "gun barrels" or its "repeater" firing mechanism at different stages. It needed them all in one package, at the same time. A beetle that blew itself up would not be around to develop a more refined firing system. A beetle that could not keep the enemy in firing range would not survive to work on more maneuverable firepower. "There's simply no way a slow, gradual process will produce this beetle," says the former science major who, over a five-year, period made a complete about-face in his beliefs about the origins of the earth. Now in an entertaining and enlightening new video he shows how the Bombardier Beetle and a host of other remarkable members of the animal kingdom undermine Darwin's widely accepted theory. The Bombardier Beetle is one of the unlikely stars of "Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution," a 50-minute Discovery Channel-style documentary that encapsulates Martin's years of research for church, school and family viewing. Host David Hames, who experienced firsthand the firepower of the Bombardier Beetle and said, "It felt like someone put a cigarette out on my leg!" guides the film crew as they capture animals on film and as Martin explains their various intricacies.
giraffe.jpg
There is the giraffe, whose long neck necessitates a powerful heart to pump blood all the way to the brain. By rights the blood flow should blow its brains out when it bends to drink water, but the lofty animal has a delicate series of spigots and a sponge that dissipate and absorb the rush of blood. "How could that evolve?" muses Martin. "He needs all these parts there all the time, or he is dead..."
Then there's the woodpecker, whose rat-a-tat hunt for tree grubs should send it home each night with a mighty
woodpecker.jpg
migraine. Instead it is studied by surgeons who want to learn more about head trauma in humans. The bird has a piece of cartilage that acts as a shock absorber and an extra-long tongue that can reach into the tree to pluck out its meal. It also has a glue factory that makes the bug stick until it is in the woodpecker's throat and produces another secretion to dissolve the glue on swallowing.
A college professor, Martin had been a Christian for several years when two students challenged him to examine the validity of evolutionary theory. His gradual complete switch of views eventually led him out of dentistry and into ministry. For more than a decade he has shared some of his discoveries at churches and conferences through his Rockwall, Texas-based Biblical Discipleship Ministries. Through his studies he has developed cogent biblical answers to the typical questions thrown out against creation-about the age of the earth, the flood, fossils, dinosaurs and the missing link. But he points to the world around him to challenge the central claim of evolution. The Australian incubator bird, the beaver and the gecko lizard are among the other subjects of Martin's video,
foot.jpg

produced by Monument, Colorado-based Reel Productions, who specialize in on-location documentaries. Although it is well filmed and paced, Martin maintains "Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution" is far more than just an entertaining diversion. It actually providing clear examples of what creationists call the "irreducible complexity" of life that challenges the idea of slow development.
He believes it is part of a crucial battle not just for Christians' minds, but their hearts, too. "It comes down to a matter of how you decide you are going to interpret the Scriptures," he says. "Will you take it in its literal, historical form or are you going to say these early chapters are probably poetry, probably written from the perspective of some guys who lived between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers? How will you take Scripture? If you can't take these early chapters literally, for just what they mean, well then, how do you know what to do with the rest? When it comes right down to it, it interferes with our view of doctrine. The foundational doctrines are all there in the early chapters of Genesis: man, sin, the family, and all that." Martin says that the academic world knows the big and difficult questions the likes of the Bombardier Beetle ask of evolution, but conveniently ignores them. In the rarefied scientific circles most lay people don't follow or understand, he says, more and more people are admitting that, like an attractive jar with a hole in the bottom, Darwin's theory just doesn't hold water.
chickenegg.jpg
"There are changes going on in the evolutionary community because of the growing evidence for design and it is beginning to realize there's no way mindless chance processes could create an ordered, artistic, complex universe like we have; explosions don't create order. The problem is, once people start to talk about a designer, are they willing to name him?" And it is the name Jesus and Martin’s love for his Savior, not some dry scientific debate, that motivates him. Martin presents his evidence not with the pinched determination of a fussy academic, but with the delight and wonder of someone who sees the marvelous hand of a brilliant creator in the world around him. His appreciation makes his video defense of the trustworthiness of creation not just a considered explanation, but a considerable celebration.



[/TD]



[TD="colspan: 3"] Scotch biologist J Arthur Thomson observed, "We speak of the body as a machine, but it is hardly necessary to say that none of the most ingenious machines set up by modern science can for a moment compare with it. The body is a self-building machine, a self-stoking, self-regulating, self-repairing machine - the most marvelous and unique automatic mechanism in the universe." THE EYE
eye4.jpg
In 1802, William Paley, the 59 year-old Anglican archdeacon of Carlisle, already had a reputation as an apologist. That year he published a design argument based on the mind-boggling organizational intricacies of the human eye. Like the top-of-the-line modern camera, the eye contains a self-adjusting aperture, an automatic focus system, and inner surfaces surrounded by a dark pigment to minimize the scattering of stray light. But no camera that small is so complete. The sensitivity range of the eye, which gives us excellent vision in bright sunlight as well as in the dimmest moonlight, far surpasses any film. The eye adjusts to 10 billion-fold changes in brightness. Its neural circuitry enables the eye to automatically enhance contrast. Its color-analysis system enables the eye to distinguish millions of shades of color and quickly adjust to lighting conditions (incandescent, fluorescent, underwater, or sunlight) that would require a photographer to change filters, films, and housings. The eye-brain combination produces depth perception that is beyond the range of any camera. Engineers have yet to design a system that will, e.g., calculate the exact force required for an athlete to sink a basket, on the run, from 25 feet away, in a split-second glance. Consider the combination of nerves, sensory cells, muscles, and lens tissue in the eye. Light passes through the cornea, which has the greatest effect on focus. It is the cornea that determines whether someone is nearsighted, or has astigmatism. This is the part of the eye corrected by Lasik surgery. The cornea is alive, one cell layer thick, getting its food and oxygen from tears. The tear gland not only feeds and lubricates the eye, but also packs enzymes into the tears that kill bacteria. Then light passes through the iris, the aperture. People had no idea how intricate irises are until we started making biometric scanners for identification purposes. Whereas each human fingerprint has 35 measurable characteristics, each iris has 266. The chance that two people will have matching irises is one in 10[SUP]78[/SUP]. Passing through the lens, the light is further focused, a fine-tuning. Then it strikes the pigmented retina. The retina has 127 million photovoltaic receptors - only 7 million of which provide color awareness and fine detail. The information of these 127 million receptors is converted from light to electricity and transmitted along one million nerve fibers to the 1% of the cortex of the brain. As little as one photon can trigger a photoelectric cell; a flashlight, eg, fires 10[SUP]18[/SUP] photons per second. On a clear dark night, the eye can see a solitary candle flame from 30 miles away. Think in terms of Polaroid Instamatic cameras that printed out photos rapidly, and compare. The retina never stops "shooting" pictures, and each fiber of the optic nerve processes one hundred "photos" each second. Each of those individual photos would be represented mathematically by 50,000 nonlinear differential equations, to be solved simultaneously. Considering both eyes, and allowing only five synapses (connections) to other nerves from the retina to the brain cortex, a 1983 Cray supercomputer would require one hundred years to process the information that your eye transmits every hundredth of a second. How could chance, acting with one gene at a time, start with a sightless organism and produce an eye with so many interdependent precision parts? The retina would be useless without a lens; a lens would be useless without a retina. Paley asks, "Is it possible to believe that the eye was formed without any regard to vision; that it was the animal itself which found out that, although formed with no such intention, it would serve to see with?" "...There cannot be design without a designer, contrivance without a contriver...The marks of design are too strong to be got over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person must have been God." Darwin himself suggested the complexities of the human eye negate his own theory of evolution. More than 50 years later, Charles Darwin himself wrote, (in a chapter from his Origin of the Species entitled "Difficulties with the Theory"), "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Jeremy Rifkin, evolutionist, writes in his book Algeny that Darwin confided to a friend, years later, "The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder."

[/TD]
 
I bet he can't make a rock too big for him to lift up. And, if he can do anything, then he knowingly allows the suffering of humans on a daily basis, which makes him an awful example to live by, not to mention all the innocent women and children he massacred in the old testament.

God is just and Holy from His perspective not ours.
 
I Googled Textual Criticism and randomly chose a short explanation contained in the following link. Read it carefully and look at the examples of one word in one verse. Scholars spend an immense amount of time trying to get the meanings of the original writings. The old King James has bias as do most translations but once you learn the differences and why, its not really a huge deal to the overall meaning of the manuscripts.
http://legacy.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/text_crit.html


I'm not really sure what to believe to be honest.

There is also an area of study on the theories of inspiration. Some believe the bible is a direct dictation from god. Others believe he used men and their own styles to convey general ideas or thoughts. Mechanical, Verbal and Plenary are various ways scholars try to define types of inspiration therefore looking at every little word or spelling in a verse as an error is assuming mechanical inspiration. Otherwise, slight variances are irrelevant as long as the general meaning is there. Here is a random link on different theories on inspiration;
What Are the Different Views Regarding the Inspiration of the Bible? - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

I love science but remember that science is the study of the natural world not the supernatural. Science kind of starts with a preconceived bias. Science discounts that which cannot be reproduced or observed. Therefore it is logical that scientists would not believe in the supernatural. They are trained to only believe the natural reproducible and observable data in front of them. When it comes to the natural world I rely heavily on observable and reproducible data. When it comes to the supernatural, science has virtually no application.

Thanks, I will look at those. Do you study all religions or just christianity and the bible? I frequently ask christians if they think they are christian for the sole reason that they were born in a christian country and are surrounded with christian ideas, and I usually get the answer that even if they were born in iran, they would have found jesus, lol. If we were in another country with a completely different religion, we'd be discussing their religious text. My point is that we can't actually study the supernatural (if one exists) in any way, and we can randomly make up ideas about it and nobody can prove or disprove them, so what's the point? Can't we live happy, prosperous lives without making up ideas about a supposedly supernatural world? I can
 
Another question. If there was evolution, that means there would have been many life forms dying over the millions of years. So if these lifeforms were evolving. then there should be many transitional fossils easily found.

Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution

Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution

By Andy Butcher
Bugged by a beetle, a scientist changes his beliefs on how the world began.
JobeMartin.jpg
Creationists used to bug Jobe Martin, until a bug helped make Jobe Martin a creationist. Only half an inch long, the Bombardier Beetle may not be very big, but it helped chew great big holes in his long-held views on evolution. Or, more accurately, burn them.


For on closer inspection the modest beetle is a marvel of nature, a sort of six-legged tiny tank. It defends itself by mixing chemicals that explode; firing through twin tail tubes that can swivel like gun turrets. The bubbling liquid that shoots out at 212 degrees Fahrenheit is enough to deter most predators.
The force of the "round" fired should be enough to blast the little beetle into orbit,if not pieces, and it would be if it was discharged at one time. But
beetle.jpg
slow motion photography has revealed that the crafty beetle actually lets go with a stream of up to 1,000 little explosions. Together they are enough to put off would-be attackers while leaving the small defender with its feet still on the ground.

As Martin marveled at the intricate design, he realized that there was simply no way the Bombardier Beetle could have evolved its sophisticated defense system over time, adding swiveling "gun barrels" or its "repeater" firing mechanism at different stages. It needed them all in one package, at the same time. A beetle that blew itself up would not be around to develop a more refined firing system. A beetle that could not keep the enemy in firing range would not survive to work on more maneuverable firepower. "There's simply no way a slow, gradual process will produce this beetle," says the former science major who, over a five-year, period made a complete about-face in his beliefs about the origins of the earth. Now in an entertaining and enlightening new video he shows how the Bombardier Beetle and a host of other remarkable members of the animal kingdom undermine Darwin's widely accepted theory.
The Bombardier Beetle is one of the unlikely stars of "Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution," a 50-minute Discovery Channel-style documentary that encapsulates Martin's years of research for church, school and family viewing. Host David Hames, who experienced firsthand the firepower of the Bombardier Beetle and said, "It felt like someone put a cigarette out on my leg!" guides the film crew as they capture animals on film and as Martin explains their various intricacies.
giraffe.jpg
There is the giraffe, whose long neck necessitates a powerful heart to pump blood all the way to the brain. By rights the blood flow should blow its brains out when it bends to drink water, but the lofty animal has a delicate series of spigots and a sponge that dissipate and absorb the rush of blood. "How could that evolve?" muses Martin. "He needs all these parts there all the time, or he is dead..."

Then there's the woodpecker, whose rat-a-tat hunt for tree grubs should send it home each night with a mighty
woodpecker.jpg
migraine. Instead it is studied by surgeons who want to learn more about head trauma in humans. The bird has a piece of cartilage that acts as a shock absorber and an extra-long tongue that can reach into the tree to pluck out its meal. It also has a glue factory that makes the bug stick until it is in the woodpecker's throat and produces another secretion to dissolve the glue on swallowing.

A college professor, Martin had been a Christian for several years when two students challenged him to examine the validity of evolutionary theory. His gradual complete switch of views eventually led him out of dentistry and into ministry. For more than a decade he has shared some of his discoveries at churches and conferences through his Rockwall, Texas-based Biblical Discipleship Ministries.
Through his studies he has developed cogent biblical answers to the typical questions thrown out against creation-about the age of the earth, the flood, fossils, dinosaurs and the missing link. But he points to the world around him to challenge the central claim of evolution.
The Australian incubator bird, the beaver and the gecko lizard are among the other subjects of Martin's video,
foot.jpg

produced by Monument, Colorado-based Reel Productions, who specialize in on-location documentaries. Although it is well filmed and paced, Martin maintains "Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution" is far more than just an entertaining diversion. It actually providing clear examples of what creationists call the "irreducible complexity" of life that challenges the idea of slow development.

He believes it is part of a crucial battle not just for Christians' minds, but their hearts, too. "It comes down to a matter of how you decide you are going to interpret the Scriptures," he says. "Will you take it in its literal, historical form or are you going to say these early chapters are probably poetry, probably written from the perspective of some guys who lived between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers? How will you take Scripture? If you can't take these early chapters literally, for just what they mean, well then, how do you know what to do with the rest? When it comes right down to it, it interferes with our view of doctrine. The foundational doctrines are all there in the early chapters of Genesis: man, sin, the family, and all that." Martin says that the academic world knows the big and difficult questions the likes of the Bombardier Beetle ask of evolution, but conveniently ignores them. In the rarefied scientific circles most lay people don't follow or understand, he says, more and more people are admitting that, like an attractive jar with a hole in the bottom, Darwin's theory just doesn't hold water.
chickenegg.jpg
"There are changes going on in the evolutionary community because of the growing evidence for design and it is beginning to realize there's no way mindless chance processes could create an ordered, artistic, complex universe like we have; explosions don't create order. The problem is, once people start to talk about a designer, are they willing to name him?" And it is the name Jesus and Martin’s love for his Savior, not some dry scientific debate, that motivates him. Martin presents his evidence not with the pinched determination of a fussy academic, but with the delight and wonder of someone who sees the marvelous hand of a brilliant creator in the world around him. His appreciation makes his video defense of the trustworthiness of creation not just a considered explanation, but a considerable celebration.




[TD="colspan: 3"] Scotch biologist J Arthur Thomson observed, "We speak of the body as a machine, but it is hardly necessary to say that none of the most ingenious machines set up by modern science can for a moment compare with it. The body is a self-building machine, a self-stoking, self-regulating, self-repairing machine - the most marvelous and unique automatic mechanism in the universe." THE EYE
eye4.jpg
In 1802, William Paley, the 59 year-old Anglican archdeacon of Carlisle, already had a reputation as an apologist. That year he published a design argument based on the mind-boggling organizational intricacies of the human eye. Like the top-of-the-line modern camera, the eye contains a self-adjusting aperture, an automatic focus system, and inner surfaces surrounded by a dark pigment to minimize the scattering of stray light. But no camera that small is so complete. The sensitivity range of the eye, which gives us excellent vision in bright sunlight as well as in the dimmest moonlight, far surpasses any film. The eye adjusts to 10 billion-fold changes in brightness. Its neural circuitry enables the eye to automatically enhance contrast. Its color-analysis system enables the eye to distinguish millions of shades of color and quickly adjust to lighting conditions (incandescent, fluorescent, underwater, or sunlight) that would require a photographer to change filters, films, and housings. The eye-brain combination produces depth perception that is beyond the range of any camera. Engineers have yet to design a system that will, e.g., calculate the exact force required for an athlete to sink a basket, on the run, from 25 feet away, in a split-second glance. Consider the combination of nerves, sensory cells, muscles, and lens tissue in the eye. Light passes through the cornea, which has the greatest effect on focus. It is the cornea that determines whether someone is nearsighted, or has astigmatism. This is the part of the eye corrected by Lasik surgery. The cornea is alive, one cell layer thick, getting its food and oxygen from tears. The tear gland not only feeds and lubricates the eye, but also packs enzymes into the tears that kill bacteria. Then light passes through the iris, the aperture. People had no idea how intricate irises are until we started making biometric scanners for identification purposes. Whereas each human fingerprint has 35 measurable characteristics, each iris has 266. The chance that two people will have matching irises is one in 10[SUP]78[/SUP]. Passing through the lens, the light is further focused, a fine-tuning. Then it strikes the pigmented retina. The retina has 127 million photovoltaic receptors - only 7 million of which provide color awareness and fine detail. The information of these 127 million receptors is converted from light to electricity and transmitted along one million nerve fibers to the 1% of the cortex of the brain. As little as one photon can trigger a photoelectric cell; a flashlight, eg, fires 10[SUP]18[/SUP] photons per second. On a clear dark night, the eye can see a solitary candle flame from 30 miles away. Think in terms of Polaroid Instamatic cameras that printed out photos rapidly, and compare. The retina never stops "shooting" pictures, and each fiber of the optic nerve processes one hundred "photos" each second. Each of those individual photos would be represented mathematically by 50,000 nonlinear differential equations, to be solved simultaneously. Considering both eyes, and allowing only five synapses (connections) to other nerves from the retina to the brain cortex, a 1983 Cray supercomputer would require one hundred years to process the information that your eye transmits every hundredth of a second. How could chance, acting with one gene at a time, start with a sightless organism and produce an eye with so many interdependent precision parts? The retina would be useless without a lens; a lens would be useless without a retina. Paley asks, "Is it possible to believe that the eye was formed without any regard to vision; that it was the animal itself which found out that, although formed with no such intention, it would serve to see with?" "...There cannot be design without a designer, contrivance without a contriver...The marks of design are too strong to be got over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person must have been God." Darwin himself suggested the complexities of the human eye negate his own theory of evolution. More than 50 years later, Charles Darwin himself wrote, (in a chapter from his Origin of the Species entitled "Difficulties with the Theory"), "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Jeremy Rifkin, evolutionist, writes in his book Algeny that Darwin confided to a friend, years later, "The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder."
[/TD]

Here is your problem, it's "the called god of the gaps theory" (creationism) and it's quite funny.

creationists point out holes in evolution, questions that haven't been answered yet, we call these "gaps." They (creationists) think that because there are things that we don't understand about evolution, their idea automatically wins the argument by default even though there is zero evidence for creationism. I could easily point out these gaps and say "see, there are things that we don't understand about evolution, therefore my idea that we were all created by a spaghetti monster and are living on the skin of a pig is proven to be true."

Creationism isn't proven by default, they need to provide proof, which has never happened.
 
Last edited:
I Googled Textual Criticism and randomly chose a short explanation contained in the following link. Read it carefully and look at the examples of one word in one verse. Scholars spend an immense amount of time trying to get the meanings of the original writings. The old King James has bias as do most translations but once you learn the differences and why, its not really a huge deal to the overall meaning of the manuscripts.
http://legacy.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/text_crit.html


I'm not really sure what to believe to be honest.

There is also an area of study on the theories of inspiration. Some believe the bible is a direct dictation from god. Others believe he used men and their own styles to convey general ideas or thoughts. Mechanical, Verbal and Plenary are various ways scholars try to define types of inspiration therefore looking at every little word or spelling in a verse as an error is assuming mechanical inspiration. Otherwise, slight variances are irrelevant as long as the general meaning is there. Here is a random link on different theories on inspiration;
What Are the Different Views Regarding the Inspiration of the Bible? - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

I love science but remember that science is the study of the natural world not the supernatural. Science kind of starts with a preconceived bias. Science discounts that which cannot be reproduced or observed. Therefore it is logical that scientists would not believe in the supernatural. They are trained to only believe the natural reproducible and observable data in front of them. When it comes to the natural world I rely heavily on observable and reproducible data. When it comes to the supernatural, science has virtually no application.

The problem is that nothing out there really lends any weight to god having anything to do with the writing of the bible. We have a book that was admittedly written by men who claim god inspired them to write it.

If you're familiar with Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, he claims to have received tablets from an angel in which they laid out the new religion that god intended. Once again, we have men who make miraculous claims about speaking to god, but none can be verified as true. Why on earth should anyone believe anything that these men claim? Men have a terrible history of lying to benefit themselves.
 
Thanks, I will look at those. Do you study all religions or just christianity and the bible? I frequently ask christians if they think they are christian for the sole reason that they were born in a christian country and are surrounded with christian ideas, and I usually get the answer that even if they were born in iran, they would have found jesus, lol. If we were in another country with a completely different religion, we'd be discussing their religious text. My point is that we can't actually study the supernatural (if one exists) in any way, and we can randomly make up ideas about it and nobody can prove or disprove them, so what's the point? Can't we live happy, prosperous lives without making up ideas about a supposedly supernatural world? I can

Yes you can live your life any way you choose, that is "free will" by definition. However...
So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.
 
Thanks, I will look at those. Do you study all religions or just christianity and the bible? I frequently ask christians if they think they are christian for the sole reason that they were born in a christian country and are surrounded with christian ideas, and I usually get the answer that even if they were born in iran, they would have found jesus, lol. If we were in another country with a completely different religion, we'd be discussing their religious text. My point is that we can't actually study the supernatural (if one exists) in any way, and we can randomly make up ideas about it and nobody can prove or disprove them, so what's the point? Can't we live happy, prosperous lives without making up ideas about a supposedly supernatural world? I can

I enjoy Judaism but I'm not Jewish. The Torah and Prophets are interesting to me.

Many Theologians believe that Jesus/god was the creator so if someone believes in a creator they actually are believing in Jesus. I could see that going both ways though.

I don't discount the possibility of a god or creator because I don't know what I don't know. This is not a flippant statement but one I truly believe. I just don't have the information to say god does not exist. Therefore I'm interested in the possibility.
 
The problem is that nothing out there really lends any weight to god having anything to do with the writing of the bible. We have a book that was admittedly written by men who claim god inspired them to write it.

If you're familiar with Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, he claims to have received tablets from an angel in which they laid out the new religion that god intended. Once again, we have men who make miraculous claims about speaking to god, but none can be verified as true. Why on earth should anyone believe anything that these men claim? Men have a terrible history of lying to benefit themselves.

Not sure I would put the book of Mormon in the same category.

With the bible we know the Cities, coins, pottery, leaders and geography existed and are factual. We also have eye witness testimony and third party non biblical writings. Not sure you could say the same of Mr Smiths book.
 
I enjoy Judaism but I'm not Jewish. The Torah and Prophets are interesting to me.

Many Theologians believe that Jesus/god was the creator so if someone believes in a creator they actually are believing in Jesus. I could see that going both ways though.

I don't discount the possibility of a god or creator because I don't know what I don't know. This is not a flippant statement but one I truly believe. I just don't have the information to say god does not exist. Therefore I'm interested in the possibility.

I actually agree with everything said here, and have a similar stance. Except for the part about jesus, because if you believe jesus is god, then you have to believe in the resurrection, divinity etc. You can believe in god, as many religions do, but don't believe that jesus was the son of god and was sacrificed for our sins.
 
Not sure I would put the book of Mormon in the same category.

With the bible we know the Cities, coins, pottery, leaders and geography all existed and are factual. We also have eye witness testimony and third party non biblical writings. Not sure you could say the same of Mr Smiths book.

we know that all the people, cities, pottery, leaders that existed during the time of joseph smith, with much more accuracy than the bible, as well as eye witness tesimony.
 
The problem is that nothing out there really lends any weight to god having anything to do with the writing of the bible. We have a book that was admittedly written by men who claim god inspired them to write it.

If you're familiar with Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, he claims to have received tablets from an angel in which they laid out the new religion that god intended. Once again, we have men who make miraculous claims about speaking to god, but none can be verified as true. Why on earth should anyone believe anything that these men claim? Men have a terrible history of lying to benefit themselves.


The Bible is composed of 66 parts, or books, written over a period of approximately 1,500 years (from about 1450 BC to about 90 AD) by over 40 different people. These writers were all different from each other. Some were rich, some poor, some young, some old. Some were priests, some prophets, one was a tax collector (Matthew), one was a doctor (Luke), a tentmaker (Paul), and a fisherman (Peter). Yet they all wrote about the same man who claimed to be God - Jesus Christ. On the surface, there might seem to be disagreement between the writers, (you may tell your account of a situation we both were part of which may differ from my account), but the stories subject matter only has perspective differences which adds to it's truth, as no two people will tell the same story word for word. As you study deeper, you will find that they all agree about Jesus Christ, God, the Holy Spirit, the Bible, the end times, salvation, heaven, hell, etc. exphys, I highly recommend you study and research the Gospels for yourself, ie, Matthew Mark, Luke and John
Not all collections of religious writings can claim this feature. The Koran was entirely written through the revelations of one man, Mohummad. The Book of Mormon was entirely written through one man, Joseph Smith based on his account of a visit form Jesus and God The Father in 1820
 
we know that all the people, cities, pottery, leaders that existed during the time of joseph smith, with much more accuracy than the bible, as well as eye witness tesimony.

Have you read the book of Mormon? I think you may have missed my point. Where are these items Mr Smith wrote about? Who saw them and testified about them? Are the golden plates verifiable? Where is the geography he describes? What things did he write that we cannot verify?
 
The bible is historically accurate;
Luke, a Bible writer, is one example. His details about Roman officials such as "Sergio Paulus of Cyprus," "Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia," "Herod the Great," "Pontius Pilate," and "King Agrippa,"are all confirmed by ancient Roman historical records and archeology. Even unbelieving scholars agree that King David, King Solomon, the Philistines, and countless other persons mentioned in the Bible were real people, and that such cities as Ephesus, Philippi, and Thessalonica were real places. The ancient Ebla Tablets, a collection of 17,000 tablets discovered since 1968 and written around 2,500 B.C. mention the biblical cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar, found in Genesis 14. The Mari Tablets, 25,000 tablets written in 1,900 B.C., mention the names of Abraham, Jacob, Nahor, Dan, Levi, Benjamin, and Ishmael, found in the book of Genesis. Also a Canaanite bronze calf was discovered a couple of years ago and reported in Time magazine, confirming the Bible's account that pagan nations worshipped calves.
 
The Bible is composed of 66 parts, or books, written over a period of approximately 1,500 years (from about 1450 BC to about 90 AD) by over 40 different people. These writers were all different from each other. Some were rich, some poor, some young, some old. Some were priests, some prophets, one was a tax collector (Matthew), one was a doctor (Luke), a tentmaker (Paul), and a fisherman (Peter). Yet they all wrote about the same man who claimed to be God - Jesus Christ. On the surface, there might seem to be disagreement between the writers, (you may tell your account of a situation we both were part of which may differ from my account), but the stories subject matter only has perspective differences which adds to it's truth, as no two people will tell the same story word for word. As you study deeper, you will find that they all agree about Jesus Christ, God, the Holy Spirit, the Bible, the end times, salvation, heaven, hell, etc. exphys, I highly recommend you study and research the Gospels for yourself, ie, Matthew Mark, Luke and John
Not all collections of religious writings can claim this feature. The Koran was entirely written through the revelations of one man, Mohummad. The Book of Mormon was entirely written through one man, Joseph Smith based on his account of a visit form Jesus and God The Father in 1820

How many of these men actually met jesus or witnessed anything that they claimed happened? I've read enough of the bible to conclude that the god of the bible is a murderous psychopath. Here is a quote from Christopher Hitchens that sums it up much better than I can. btw, he was a bible expert.

“The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals.”
Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

This is a book that I recommend you read. Even if the god of the bible showed himself to me I wouldn't' worship him because he does not deserve to be worshiped.
 
Fun fact: the Bible contains the formula for π (pi).

but yet, the writers were completely ignorant to the fact that dinosaurs existed before them. Or that the sun is actually older than the earth, or that you cannot possibly start a race of humans with the genes of 2 humans.
 
Muscle Gelz Transdermals
IronMag Labs Prohormones
The bible is historically accurate;
Luke, a Bible writer, is one example. His details about Roman officials such as "Sergio Paulus of Cyprus," "Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia," "Herod the Great," "Pontius Pilate," and "King Agrippa,"are all confirmed by ancient Roman historical records and archeology. Even unbelieving scholars agree that King David, King Solomon, the Philistines, and countless other persons mentioned in the Bible were real people, and that such cities as Ephesus, Philippi, and Thessalonica were real places. The ancient Ebla Tablets, a collection of 17,000 tablets discovered since 1968 and written around 2,500 B.C. mention the biblical cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar, found in Genesis 14. The Mari Tablets, 25,000 tablets written in 1,900 B.C., mention the names of Abraham, Jacob, Nahor, Dan, Levi, Benjamin, and Ishmael, found in the book of Genesis. Also a Canaanite bronze calf was discovered a couple of years ago and reported in Time magazine, confirming the Bible's account that pagan nations worshipped calves.

historically accurate but completely retarded in science and physics.
 
but yet, the writers were completely ignorant to the fact that dinosaurs existed before them. Or that the sun is actually older than the earth, or that you cannot possibly start a race of humans with the genes of 2 humans.

Job describes two creatures that may have been dinosaurs.
 
“One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody-not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms-had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would like to think-though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one-that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.”
Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

“Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience.”
Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

NObody said it quite as good as hitchens
 
Job describes two creatures that may have been dinosaurs.

except dinosaurs did not exist then. Maybe they were actually monsters?

15 ? Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his
sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook
compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he
can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.

sounds like an elephant, maybe a rhinoceros, or a horse?
 
except dinosaurs did not exist then. Maybe they were actually monsters?

15 ? Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his
sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook
compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he
can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.

sounds like an elephant, maybe a rhinoceros, or a horse?

The obvious clue that this is not a hippo or an elephant (as often interpreted) is the description of its tail, which ?he bends?like a cedar tree? (40:17). The cedars of the Middle East, such as the famous cedars of Lebanon, were very large trees. That?s hardly an appropriate description for the tail of a hippo, rhinoceros, horse or an elephant. But it matches perfectly with several different species of dinosaurs, such as the apatosaurus or brontosaurus. His great height is indicated by the phrase, ?the mountains lift up food to him? (40:20). This implies that he stood taller than the trees.
 
Not sure what your earlier point was. You said the authors were ignorant of dinosaurs before them. Based on what?

If the creation story is accurate, then humans would've lived alongside dinosaurs, which is exactly what creationists assert. Surely, living along t-rex would be mentionable. The guys who wrote about creation were ignorant to the fact that dinosaurs existed and therefore left out their existence and extinction.
 
The obvious clue that this is not a hippo or an elephant (as often interpreted) is the description of its tail, which “he bends…like a cedar tree” (40:17). The cedars of the Middle East, such as the famous cedars of Lebanon, were very large trees. That’s hardly an appropriate description for the tail of a hippo or an elephant. But it matches perfectly with several different species of dinosaurs, such as the apatosaurus or brontosaurus. His great height is indicated by the phrase, “the mountains lift up food to him” (40:20). This implies that he stood taller than the trees.

so, you're claiming humans lived alongside dinosaurs? lol
Don't you think there would be more mention of how awful it would've been for humans to have to deal with dinosaurs. And, then there is the problem with making the claim that dinosaurs died in the flood, since some dinosaurs actually lived in the sea.
 
If the creation story is accurate, then humans would've lived alongside dinosaurs, which is exactly what creationists assert. Surely, living along t-rex would be mentionable. The guys who wrote about creation were ignorant to the fact that dinosaurs existed and therefore left out their existence and extinction.

Ok, that's what I thought you meant. So lets assume this. (Big assumption).

That's why I mentioned Job's descriptions of creatures that looked like dinosaurs. Apparently it was written about but not sure I would discount an ancient writing even if it did leave it out. I may never in my life write about a certain animal that is common but that does not mean I'm ignorant of it.
 
Back
Top