Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe all the details in the New Testament are correct. None of Paul's letters are based on hearsay nor tales.
You have given me not one PROOF the Bible is not reliable. What you have given me are snippets here and there saying this or that about the genealogies disproving Christ to be the legal heir to the throne. But that is just your understanding of which I am not obliged to believe. And I have explained to you where you are wrong.
No, faith is not a criterion for believing anything. If that were the case I would meld your unbelief statements with mine.
You grossly water down the total disproof in the matters we discussed, just as you water down the museumsfuls of fossil evidence of a development of life from cell to man as 'a few bones'. You dismiss and ignore evidence and say there isn't any. You present argument that are either unworkable or far -fetched, self serving or plucked out of thin air and here claim that you 'explained to me where I was wrong'.
You demonstrably misrepresent me on the genealogies. I have only ever argued that they both purport to be the genealogy of Joseph and yet they disagree. You misrepresent me on Paul. I have NEVER said that his letters were not written by him or did not reflect what he thought. That is nothing to do with my criticism of Acts or the gospels. I wish that I didn't have to show you up to be dishonest, but in pure self respect, I have to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_human_being
Why are so many atheists and agnostics afraid to admit to a Creator?
We are not afraid to admit to anything that seems supported by the evidence. Unfortunately for belief, a creator of life, the universe and everything does not seem necessary and a Creator and creation as described in Genesis is disproved by the evidence. That and that alone is what we are saying. Why are so many believers afraid to admit that the evidence points that way? Some here plainly do, and it doesn't affect their belief at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner
I am not aware of any 'threat' from science.
The Great Architect of the Universe, designed everything we see. Whether that required 100 Billion years, or a Billion Billion years, does not change anything.
I am delighted to hear it. Then I can assume that science (in the science -class) doesn't have to expect any threat from you. If not, then I have no quarrel with you or what you believe.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-16-2015 at 07:07 AM..
You mean you don't know what Paul believed about Adam and Eve yet you think you know what he believed concerning a flat earth? Simply amazing. Could you tell me whether he was a Republican or a Democrat?
You missed my point. Apparently Paul believed Adam and Eve to be real people. My point is, what does it matter what Paul believed about that particular subject? Was he all-knowing? Could it not be that in 2000 years we have gained a slightly better understanding of human history that they had in Paul's day?
Exactly. That's the futility of the whole issue. Neither side has any real proof of anything, yet the argument goes on and on.
I agree. The argument only goes on because the need for a Creator to have made the Universe, Big Bang and started everything is a stock argument presented to anyone who doubted the claims of religion.
I agree that it is futile. It is unprovable either way and is irrelevant to the reliability of the Bible or the claims of Christianity. Yet we keep getting 'Who made everything, then?' presented to us. Then we have to make exactly the response that you did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_human_being
You mean you don't know what Paul believed about Adam and Eve yet you think you know what he believed concerning a flat earth? Simply amazing. Could you tell me whether he was a Republican or a Democrat?
Don't be unreasonable. The post only suggested that Paul probably believed in a flat earth as was the common view at the time. Especially if he accepted the cosmology of the Bible). The evidence makes that reasonable supposition. The post
" Leo58Paul probably also believed, like most in his day, that the world is flat. Nothing against Paul, he did the best with the knowledge at hand, but saying he believed Adam and Eve to be real people doesn't make it so."
made the point that his views were just his own views, evidently based on the Bible. If the Bible is wrong about Adam and Eve and a flat earth, then Paul was wrong, too.
You missed my point. Apparently Paul believed Adam and Eve to be real people. My point is, what does it matter what Paul believed about that particular subject? Was he all-knowing? Could it not be that in 2000 years we have gained a slightly better understanding of human history that they had in Paul's day?
It is actually irrational to accept micro-evolution, as no one ever speculated how micro-evolution forms, say, a monkey from a single cell.
Science follow strict criteria (predictability and falsifiability) to determine and confirm a truth. You thus need to predictably make use of micro-evolution to form the different living organisms exist nowadays (such as monkeys and cats and so forth) from single cell organisms.
Theories without predictability is just a 'suggested explanation' but not a scientifically confirmed truth.
You are quite correct. But I wonder whether you realise what you just said.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't be unreasonable. The post only suggested that Paul probably believed in a flat earth as was the common view at the time. Especially if he accepted the cosmology of the Bible). The evidence makes that reasonable supposition. The post 
