Testing my faith

shadowlanddweller
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Testing my faith

Hi, my name is paul and I am a "Born Again" Christian and as far as I know I am allowed to post on this sight so long as I'm respectful and polite. Basically what I want to do is test my faith by exposing it to Atheist rebuttal. So if you wouldn't mind please give me your number 1 damaging argument that, you feel, demolishes Christianity. I will try and respond with an answer. Yes I would love to convert you to Christ (is what we do) but still I do want to test the faith and see if it can stand. Thanks in advance. Paul


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:David

latincanuck wrote:

David Henson wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

I am a life long atheist, never believed, studied religions, but never believed in them, however I don't have 1 argument or 1 statement that devastates christanity, it's a due to a bunch of them all together, the reality for me is, there is no proof that any god(s) exist for any religion. That's it that's all, no theists has ever presented any evidence to prove any god exists.

 

There it is again. I can't prove that ANY GOD exists. I don't understand how anyone can say such a stupid thing. Even to say that "no theists has ever presented any evidence to prove it." necessitates your having to establish an impossible assumption. That is the kind of stupid shit I would expect of theists. LC has read every word of every theist of all time and knows that they have never "proved" any god exists or LC is talking out of his ass again and everyone here agrees?

Wow, you can't even prove your god exists, yet you keep saying your god exist, why should I believe that? What is so wrong with asking for evidence for a positive claim, such as god exists, if god exists, there must be some evidence of it's existence. otherwise it doesn't exist at all. Fuck your stupid at this game aren't ya.

 

You missed the point, buddy. I don't have to prove my god exists because you have already fucked up your own argument. Why should I have to prove anything to you if you can't even make any sense from the start? The best thing I could do is point out your error.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: I

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

I didn't get through all of it but this point you made that I quote below jagged me as a fairly neat encapsulation of our general disagreement.

 

"The incredible lifespan of people before the Deluge when sin was new can be explained by a very different Earth afterwards. I know you don't believe in the deluge and the canopy but from the scriptural perspective it is there."

 

You really rate the bible as a strong source when there's little or no other evidence and accepting that evidence requires leaping over a mental hurdle. I just don't accept people lived to that age - 500 or 600 - ever. And I battle with the garden and with the flood.

Even looking at it from a purely bible perspective it's like 2 great fall stories crammed into the one human history. I don't know why god needed to punish the world again after the cat was out of the bag in the garden of eden. Was he surprised by the sin when he instructed noah to borrow some tools from Halvorsen Brothers?

I don't know. Using the historical method as a marker for the legitimacy of supernatural things doesn't work for me. Sure there are places and names and so forth in the bible that gel and maybe that's half the victory. But there are other things that cannot possibly be unless I just take them at face value and accept them as being real.

 

I never really argue the supernatural. If you take any secular history and examine it, scrutinize it carefully to a lesser or greater extent, it all incorporates myth and legend. In addition to evolution I was taught in school that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and never told a lie. Now, he cheated on Martha and he was a politician so, c'mon. People dismiss the Bible because it relates some supernatural possibilities but if science can't test the supernatural it can't in all fairness make any observations regarding supernatural. The basic premise that it doesn't exist included of course. The assumption that the supernatural can't exist only demonstrates ignorance and the proposition of a paradigm. It isn't a logical excursion. The same could be said for the assumption that the supernatural does exist. That has to be taken on faith. So I don't approach the subject from that angle. I approach it from a Biblical perspective.

 

For example, Dan Barker reads a passage in Matthew which seems to suggest that corpses are walking around which when examined more carefully says that there was an earthquake which projected corpses from their burial place. Now that sounds far fetched but actually there are newspaper reports in our modern times of this happening in the real world on more than one occasion. The Bible is so reliable that after a great deal of interest and study on my behalf I have no choice but to believe what it says . . . even regarding the supernatural. But I don't have to argue the conclusion, just the premise leading up to it. And I know. There is nothing that anyone can say that can change that. Not because I believe it, but because it is beyond reproach. From a logical perspective if I had to choose the winning side in a debate to determine which side I wanted to be on to win, I would have thought hands down be on the atheist side, but much to my surprise that would be a mistake.  


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
neptewn wrote:Paisley

neptewn wrote:

Paisley wrote:

shadowlanddweller wrote:

Hi, my name is paul and I am a "Born Again" Christian and as far as I know I am allowed to post on this sight so long as I'm respectful and polite. Basically what I want to do is test my faith by exposing it to Atheist rebuttal. So if you wouldn't mind please give me your number 1 damaging argument that, you feel, demolishes Christianity. I will try and respond with an answer. Yes I would love to convert you to Christ (is what we do) but still I do want to test the faith and see if it can stand. Thanks in advance. Paul

Jesus said..."Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6 KJV

So if a Chrisitan votes agaisnt Gay marriage, because they interpret the bible to be opposed to it. Does that not qualify as casting one of these hypothetical "pearls" before swine? After all their holy values are being enforced upon potentially non-christian "dogs...

 

Excellent question, Neptewn. Two good points in 1 thread - thats got to be some kind of record in atheism, huh?


Natural_SciGuy
Natural_SciGuy's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-01-23
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:I never

David Henson wrote:

I never really argue the supernatural. If you take any secular history and examine it, scrutinize it carefully to a lesser or greater extent, it all incorporates myth and legend. In addition to evolution I was taught in school that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and never told a lie. Now, he cheated on Martha and he was a politician so, c'mon.

History is also the telling of the past - when people didn't have the same level of understanding of the natural world as we do right now.  Now, I'm convinced that in the world of politics, one will be hard pressed to ever "teach old dogs new tricks," so to speak.  Also, the value of myths is in their ability to confer information, not in the truth contained in this information.  Now, it is widely accepted (in the light of better understanding) that many myths are complete bunk.  That doesn't discredit them as interesting stories, but it certainly does as sources of legitimate information.  When it comes to the realm of methodological naturalism, science, and substantiating explanations with repeatable observations, we have grown considerably since the days when myths were told. They aren't required to convey messages in science, because the scientific method itself enables the rediscovery of everything we currently know, and should we ever lose our vast databases of scientific information, we could (theoretically) figure it all out again.  If you lose the information in a myth, what have you really lost?  Perhaps an entertaining story.  I don't mean to sound trite, but claiming that they are important today simply because they were important in history doesn't amount to much.

David Henson wrote:

People dismiss the Bible because it relates some supernatural possibilities but if science can't test the supernatural it can't in all fairness make any observations regarding supernatural. The basic premise that it doesn't exist included of course. The assumption that the supernatural can't exist only demonstrates ignorance and the proposition of a paradigm. It isn't a logical excursion. The same could be said for the assumption that the supernatural does exist. That has to be taken on faith. So I don't approach the subject from that angle. I approach it from a Biblical perspective.

People dismiss the bible when it is referenced as scientific (ID), or more than myth (Christian faith in general).  I don't think people would dismiss it if it weren't constantly being promoted as something which it isn't.  You realize that science can't test the supernatural, because to a scientist there is no supernatural, right?  Science deals in the realm of the natural, so as soon as somebody uses it to test something, that something must exist within the realm of the natural.  What this usually means is that somebody claims a supernatural occurrence, which is then tested scientifically and found to be completely natural, or a hoax.  I don't think this is proposing any sort of paradigm, because at it's core, the scientific method encourages challenging status quo understandings in order to gain more detailed information about any given subject, or obtain a better explanation of an already explored phenomena.  Proposing and propagating a paradigm is much more the realm of religion, where the beliefs are generally much more static.

 

David Henson wrote:

For example, Dan Barker reads a passage in Matthew which seems to suggest that corpses are walking around which when examined more carefully says that there was an earthquake which projected corpses from their burial place. Now that sounds far fetched but actually there are newspaper reports in our modern times of this happening in the real world on more than one occasion. The Bible is so reliable that after a great deal of interest and study on my behalf I have no choice but to believe what it says . . . even regarding the supernatural. But I don't have to argue the conclusion, just the premise leading up to it. And I know. There is nothing that anyone can say that can change that. Not because I believe it, but because it is beyond reproach. From a logical perspective if I had to choose the winning side in a debate to determine which side I wanted to be on to win, I would have thought hands down be on the atheist side, but much to my surprise that would be a mistake.  

Are you familiar with the technique of "cold reading" in the world of so-called psychics?  Or perhaps the daily horoscopes.  I'm assuming you're probably just as used to perusing them as I am for occasional entertainment.  They work on the same principle you've just described with your passage from Matthew - Look up "Barnum statements."

You absolutely have a choice whether or not to believe it.  I've read it too - It's interesting at points.  Incredibly dry, and totally nihilistic at others - It makes you wonder why anybody would want to follow the god described in either the NT or the OT.  I find it interesting that it can be so convincing to some people, while having virtually no effect on others.  That would suggest to me that it truly is what the reader makes of it.  Self suggestion is a seductive and powerful capability of the human brain.  I think everybody, atheist or theist, probably submits to some degree.

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
-- Richard Dawkins


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
David Henson wrote:You

David Henson wrote:

You missed the point, buddy. I don't have to prove my god exists because you have already fucked up your own argument. Why should I have to prove anything to you if you can't even make any sense from the start? The best thing I could do is point out your error.

Let me get this straight, you make a claim that something exist, in this case god, I ask for the evidence, and I state the so far the evidence presented by theists has not actually met the criteria for evidence, you know what evidence is right?. Then state that you don't have to prove that god exists? Ummm yeah well when you make a positive claim it's best that you actually have evidence to back it up. So far you haven't presented any actual evidence that god exists. So why should anyone believe you? Why should anyone actually believe god exists again?


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 597
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:

smartypants wrote:

 I have a sneaking suspicion that this poster heard more than he was expecting to hear and abandoned the whole enterprise...

 

Shadowdweller. Isn't that an artificial person who posts to stimulate conversation.  I haven't heard anything that would put me off except a lack of challenge and abject stupidity.

*shrugs* After a few replies and a note to say "too busy," he seems to have disappeared.


David Henson
Theist
David Henson's picture
Posts: 491
Joined: 2010-02-15
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:David

latincanuck wrote:

David Henson wrote:

You missed the point, buddy. I don't have to prove my god exists because you have already fucked up your own argument. Why should I have to prove anything to you if you can't even make any sense from the start? The best thing I could do is point out your error.

Let me get this straight, you make a claim that something exist, in this case god, I ask for the evidence, and I state the so far the evidence presented by theists has not actually met the criteria for evidence, you know what evidence is right?. Then state that you don't have to prove that god exists? Ummm yeah well when you make a positive claim it's best that you actually have evidence to back it up. So far you haven't presented any actual evidence that god exists. So why should anyone believe you? Why should anyone actually believe god exists again?

I never made any such claim of God's existence, I only ever said that I believe in the Bible. You project pretty much everything upon me which is why you are so bad at discussion.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
David Henson

David Henson wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

David Henson wrote:

You missed the point, buddy. I don't have to prove my god exists because you have already fucked up your own argument. Why should I have to prove anything to you if you can't even make any sense from the start? The best thing I could do is point out your error.

Let me get this straight, you make a claim that something exist, in this case god, I ask for the evidence, and I state the so far the evidence presented by theists has not actually met the criteria for evidence, you know what evidence is right?. Then state that you don't have to prove that god exists? Ummm yeah well when you make a positive claim it's best that you actually have evidence to back it up. So far you haven't presented any actual evidence that god exists. So why should anyone believe you? Why should anyone actually believe god exists again?

I never made any such claim of God's existence, I only ever said that I believe in the Bible. You project pretty much everything upon me which is why you are so bad at discussion.

I said that if you (as in a general statement someone) makes the claim that a god exists, they should present the evidence that such a being exists, why is that so hard for you to comprehend? Your an idiot if you believe that making a positive claim requires no evidence to back up the claim.

If you believe in the bible to be true, then you believe god exists?  Or do you believe in the bible but god doesn't exist? Which one is it? Because your starting to sound stupid again.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
You believe in the water

You believe in the water canopy, Dave?

May I direct you to Thunderf00t's "Why people laugh at creationists" series

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


shadowlanddweller
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Biblical inerrancy

 Hi everyone, thank you for your responses. Nothing faith shattering as yet. whew! Smiling

Okay I'll make it easier. Show me one error or contradiction in the Bible. Though keep in mind that Christianity claims the infallibility of the original manuscripts and that we can piece together a 95+% accurate rendering of the originals by comparing the numerous existing copies. So allowances are made for a few copyist mistakes. So I will need something thats obviously not a copying error something substantial.  Thanks in advance.


shadowlanddweller
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Biblical inerrancy

 Hi everyone, thank you for your responses. Nothing faith shattering as yet. whew! Smiling

Okay I'll make it easier. Show me one error or contradiction in the Bible. Though keep in mind that Christianity claims the infallibility of the original manuscripts and that we can piece together a 95+% accurate rendering of the originals by comparing the numerous existing copies. So allowances are made for a few copyist mistakes. So I will need something thats obviously not a copying error something substantial. 


shadowlanddweller
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Biblical inerrancy

 Hi everyone, thank you for your responses. Nothing faith shattering as yet. whew! Smiling

Okay I'll make it easier. Show me one error or contradiction in the Bible. Though keep in mind that Christianity claims the infallibility of the original manuscripts and that we can piece together a 95+% accurate rendering of the originals by comparing the numerous existing copies. So allowances are made for a few copyist mistakes. So I will need something thats obviously not a copying error something substantial. 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
the creation of the earth and heavens

shadowlanddweller wrote:

 Hi everyone, thank you for your responses. Nothing faith shattering as yet. whew! Smiling

Okay I'll make it easier. Show me one error or contradiction in the Bible. Though keep in mind that Christianity claims the infallibility of the original manuscripts and that we can piece together a 95+% accurate rendering of the originals by comparing the numerous existing copies. So allowances are made for a few copyist mistakes. So I will need something thats obviously not a copying error something substantial. 

Please try to post only once.

Genesis Chapter 1 and Chapter 2.

I'll give you a hint.  The order in which the earth and heavens and creatures were created is not the same in both chapters.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


neptewn
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
shadowlanddweller wrote: Hi

shadowlanddweller wrote:

 Hi everyone, thank you for your responses. Nothing faith shattering as yet. whew! Smiling

Okay I'll make it easier. Show me one error or contradiction in the Bible. Though keep in mind that Christianity claims the infallibility of the original manuscripts and that we can piece together a 95+% accurate rendering of the originals by comparing the numerous existing copies. So allowances are made for a few copyist mistakes. So I will need something thats obviously not a copying error something substantial. 

Hi everyone, thank you for your responses. Nothing faith shattering as yet. whew! Smiling

Okay I'll make it easier. Show me one error or contradiction in the Qur'an. Though keep in mind that Islam claims the infallibility of the original manuscripts and that we can piece together a 95+% accurate rendering of the originals by comparing the numerous existing copies. So allowances are made for a few copyist mistakes. So I will need something thats obviously not a copying error something substantial.

 

Who needs contradictions in the bible? You're Christian by proximty, and simply a fanboy of the home team. Do they sell the big sponge hands at church yet?

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
shadowlanddweller wrote: Hi

shadowlanddweller wrote:

 Hi everyone, thank you for your responses. Nothing faith shattering as yet. whew! Smiling

Okay I'll make it easier. Show me one error or contradiction in the Bible. Though keep in mind that Christianity claims the infallibility of the original manuscripts and that we can piece together a 95+% accurate rendering of the originals by comparing the numerous existing copies. So allowances are made for a few copyist mistakes. So I will need something thats obviously not a copying error something substantial. 

 

Virtually the entire Book of Daniel is Sci-Fi and contradicted by Babylonian cuneiform tablets. And since Jesus references the Book of Daniel, what does that say about Jesus' knowledge of reality?

Some examples:

The King of Babylon when Persia conquered it was Nabonidus not Belshazzar his son. The handwriting on the wall tale claimed Darius would soon conquer Babylon, it was Cyrus who did. Daniel supposedly died in the 1st year of Cyrus ruling Babylon which means he never met Darius who became king of Persia 16 years later.

In the NT, which version of the Garden of Gethsemane scene do you think is correct? They are different. Or how about which resurrection version, as they are different. How many went to the tomb? Names? Why did the women have different instructions? Don't touch or they touched Jesus all over. When Jesus forms his group of followers, why are the accounts and places not the same in all of them. After the picnic for the 5000, who sent away the people? Jesus or the disciples. Were they planning on making him king so he fled or did he send them away? And exactly where did they go after the feeding of the 5000?

Did the idea that Peter was a rock come from him sinking like a rock when he tried to walk on the water?

There of course is the multiple choice events after the birth of Jesus as well.

 a)Fled to Egypt  -Matt

b)Went home to Nazareth after the required ceremony in the Temple. Luke

 

During Jesus' questioning when he has been betrayed which of the following is the right choice?

a)He is tortured as in Mark or Matt. Simon carries the cross.

b)He is taken to Pilate who sends him to Herod as Jesus is from Galilee. as in Luke. No torture mentioned.

c)No mention of Herod, no beating, no crown of thorns, no Simon to carry the cross, in other words the version in John

 

Enough for you to begin? I could go on endlessly on the OT and also discuss the writings of Paul the Myth-maker.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
One more: What day did Jesus

One more: What day did Jesus die? Was it the day of the passover (Mark) or the day before the passover (John)?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
shadowlanddweller wrote:Hi

shadowlanddweller wrote:
Hi everyone, thank you for your responses. Nothing faith shattering as yet. whew! Smiling

Your "faith" seems pretty strong, dude. I don't think anything we write can even put a dent in it.   

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


shadowlanddweller
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
 One more: What day did

 One more: What day did Jesus die? Was it the day of the passover (Mark) or the day before the passover (John)?

  Hi, I picked this one to use as an example. As time permits I'll look at the others though new ones are coming in daily. But if I choose various examples of contradiction / error randomly sooner or latter I should find one that is not defendable. So my faith will remain at least until then, actually it will be strengthened. I would like to state that I'm not "against" any one of you. I like atheists for the most part and I am a guest on this site. This is a personal thing for my own benefit. I admit that I "want" Christianity to be true. Although, if I find out it's not, there are some sins I'd like too indulge in that I am currently resisting. Also for Christianity to be beneficial it has to be believed. For me to believe it it has to stand the test. Faith, to me, is not believing what I know is not true. Though if Christianity is true then that's kind of exciting because I will live forever in Heaven. Yea! Mark: Christ was crucified on the 3rd hour (9 a.m. Jewish time) John: Christ was still on trial on the 6th hour (12 noon Jewish time) Mark is using the Jewish time system, John is using the Roman time system. Both were in "use" at the time. Right now in my area it's 7º but my buddy 20 mins away in Buffalo says it's 44º. Who's right? We both are. I'm using Celsius he's using Fahrenheit.

 


shadowlanddweller
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
 One more: What day did

 One more: What day did Jesus die? Was it the day of the passover (Mark) or the day before the passover (John)?

  Hi, I picked this one to use as an example. As time permits I'll look at the others though new ones are coming in daily. But if I choose various examples of contradiction / error randomly sooner or latter I should find one that is not defendable. So my faith will remain at least until then, actually it will be strengthened. I would like to state that I'm not "against" any one of you. I like atheists for the most part and I am a guest on this site. This is a personal thing for my own benefit. I admit that I "want" Christianity to be true. Although, if I find out it's not, there are some sins I'd like too indulge in that I am currently resisting. Also for Christianity to be beneficial it has to be believed. For me to believe it it has to stand the test. Faith, to me, is not believing what I know is not true. Though if Christianity is true then that's kind of exciting because I will live forever in Heaven. Yea! Mark: Christ was crucified on the 3rd hour (9 a.m. Jewish time) John: Christ was still on trial on the 6th hour (12 noon Jewish time) Mark is using the Jewish time system, John is using the Roman time system. Both were in "use" at the time. Right now in my area it's 7º but my buddy 20 mins away in Buffalo says it's 44º. Who's right? We both are. I'm using Celsius he's using Fahrenheit.

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4108
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
shadowlanddweller wrote: Hi

shadowlanddweller wrote:

 Hi everyone, thank you for your responses. Nothing faith shattering as yet. whew! Smiling

Okay I'll make it easier. Show me one error or contradiction in the Bible. Though keep in mind that Christianity claims the infallibility of the original manuscripts and that we can piece together a 95+% accurate rendering of the originals by comparing the numerous existing copies. So allowances are made for a few copyist mistakes. So I will need something thats obviously not a copying error something substantial. 

Tell us the standard by which something is judged an "error or contradiction in the Bible"? I'm assuming you don't believe the Koran, Book of Mormon, Greek mythology, legends, Flying Spagetti Monstor, Santa Claus, Easter bunny, etc... So show us one "error or contradiction" in any of these stories that has caused you to not believe in them, then we will use the same standard for the Christian bible.

Sound fair enough?

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
tell me

shadowlanddweller wrote:

I admit that I "want" Christianity to be true. Although, if I find out it's not, there are some sins I'd like too indulge in that I am currently resisting.

What "sins" are you wanting to indulge in?  Lust, pride, gluttony, envy, sloth, anger, greed?  Or is it the 8th one - PIZZA!  (Thanks to Jimmy Buffett.)  You have already done pride. 

Any christian who claims that their religion is better than anyone's, is best for some stranger, is already prideful - in their religion.  Looks like you hit envy as well - "all those nasty atheists can have fun and I can't!" 

Or are you going for the 10 commandments?  Other gods or idols? Murder, robbery, adultery, coveting, lying, saying goddamn?  Weeding the garden on Sunday?  Going to beat up your parents?

Let's see, personally, I don't bother with the whole sabbath thing and didn't when I was church going either.  I figure whoever wrote the commandments wasn't mother to a 2-year-old.  The baby doesn't care if it is Sunday or not, they want fed, they want their diaper changed, they want entertained and they need to be kept out of trouble.  Getting the family fed and to church was a lot of work.  So I always figured this one was written by the guy sitting in front of the TV, "is breakfast ready?  are the kids dressed?"

I try not to swear - in company.  My family owned a trucking company and I knew all the words by the time I was 18 months old according to my mom.  So that one is a lost cause.

Coveting - who doesn't?

For the others, I try to make an effort to be pleasant to everyone, including my family.  I'm not interested in screwing around - I did all that before I was married.  And murder and stealing and such is just too much trouble.  Gluttony makes me feel physically unwell anymore.  Anger is too fatiguing.  Greed?  I just want a job, thanks.  I envy those who have jobs.  Sloth?  I'd be a lot less slothful if I had a job.  Pride?  In what?  Maybe in my job skills that no one else seems to be impressed with.  I think I am rapidly losing any pride in that as well.

I don't know dweller, just what are you contemplating that is so awful?

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
So John left that

So John left that inconsistency in because getting his facts straight was unimportant to him (or at least not important enough for a clarification)?

Or was he just a lazy researcher?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1478
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
hmm ultimate test of faith

hmm ultimate test of faith here 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
shadowlanddweller

shadowlanddweller wrote:

 One more: What day did Jesus die? Was it the day of the passover (Mark) or the day before the passover (John)?

  Hi, I picked this one to use as an example. As time permits I'll look at the others though new ones are coming in daily. But if I choose various examples of contradiction / error randomly sooner or latter I should find one that is not defendable. So my faith will remain at least until then, actually it will be strengthened. I would like to state that I'm not "against" any one of you. I like atheists for the most part and I am a guest on this site. This is a personal thing for my own benefit. I admit that I "want" Christianity to be true. Although, if I find out it's not, there are some sins I'd like too indulge in that I am currently resisting. Also for Christianity to be beneficial it has to be believed. For me to believe it it has to stand the test. Faith, to me, is not believing what I know is not true. Though if Christianity is true then that's kind of exciting because I will live forever in Heaven. Yea! Mark: Christ was crucified on the 3rd hour (9 a.m. Jewish time) John: Christ was still on trial on the 6th hour (12 noon Jewish time) Mark is using the Jewish time system, John is using the Roman time system. Both were in "use" at the time. Right now in my area it's 7º but my buddy 20 mins away in Buffalo says it's 44º. Who's right? We both are. I'm using Celsius he's using Fahrenheit.

 

You may as well go ahead and commit those sins as you obviously have already done so in your mind, so you are already guilty according to the NT.

Extremely well thought out choice to avoid issues.

Nice dodge.

Try issues that don't allow such an out such as Matt or Luke, fled to Egypt or went home to Nazareth.

Also what exactly are you doing that causes double posts?

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
shadowlanddweller

shadowlanddweller wrote:
Faith, to me, is not believing what I know is not true.

Lol. That's a hilarious definition. Never heard that one before. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


everlastingxxx
atheist
everlastingxxx's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
shadowlanddweller

shadowlanddweller wrote:
Although, if I find out it's not, there are some sins I'd like too indulge in that I am currently resisting.

Like what? Sexual lust? You do know that god can read your every thought? He sees you looking at the girl in the pew in front of you with that nice ass. He sees you when you are masterbating at night looking at online porno. Then you use that same hand to pray with or shake the pastors hand with. Do you realize the Holy Ghost is right there next to you when you are blowing your load? Now if you are in a relationship, then not only will you endanger your own faith, but your mates. Two sins. If lust of the flesh is your issue, then i feel sorry for you and your lifetime of guilt and shame you will feel for years and years.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
shadowlanddweller wrote:One

shadowlanddweller wrote:
One more: What day did Jesus die? Was it the day of the passover (Mark) or the day before the passover (John)?

 

  Hi, I picked this one to use as an example. As time permits I'll look at the others though new ones are coming in daily. But if I choose various examples of contradiction / error randomly sooner or latter I should find one that is not defendable. So my faith will remain at least until then, actually it will be strengthened. I would like to state that I'm not "against" any one of you. I like atheists for the most part and I am a guest on this site. This is a personal thing for my own benefit. I admit that I "want" Christianity to be true. Although, if I find out it's not, there are some sins I'd like too indulge in that I am currently resisting. Also for Christianity to be beneficial it has to be believed. For me to believe it it has to stand the test. Faith, to me, is not believing what I know is not true. Though if Christianity is true then that's kind of exciting because I will live forever in Heaven. Yea! Mark: Christ was crucified on the 3rd hour (9 a.m. Jewish time) John: Christ was still on trial on the 6th hour (12 noon Jewish time) Mark is using the Jewish time system, John is using the Roman time system. Both were in "use" at the time. Right now in my area it's 7º but my buddy 20 mins away in Buffalo says it's 44º. Who's right? We both are. I'm using Celsius he's using Fahrenheit.
Bullshit analogy. Completely unsubstantiated claim. Back up this "John is using roman time system"-claim or admit you are making shit up to defend your dear delusion.

 


shadowlanddweller
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
LOL wasn't expecting that!

LOL wasn't expecting that! So let me get this straight. As well as believing that there is no God you also don't believe there are various time / calendar methods? So you guys are not omniscient after all.  Smiling

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar

 

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/charts/jewishtimedivision.htm

 


shadowlanddweller
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
 Hey yo it's every mans

 Hey yo it's every mans battle. Everyone has to deal with it even if your not a Christian. What do you do masturbate every time you feel like it? Thats like any obsession it just leads to boredom. Besides you might be at the library or something. Porn? Just leads to frustration and more explicate stuff. Hey who's going to enjoy a burger more? Some one who's been pigging out on donuts and pop all day or someone that hasn't had any thing to eat all day? Indulgence doesn't always bring the satisfaction we crave. The battle isn't easy but it's worth it and God picks us up when we fail. Any way that's not the sin I was thinking of and I can't tell you what it is because it's illegal.  Eye-wink


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
shadowlanddweller

shadowlanddweller wrote:

 Hey yo it's every mans battle. Everyone has to deal with it even if your not a Christian. What do you do masturbate every time you feel like it? Thats like any obsession it just leads to boredom. Besides you might be at the library or something. Porn? Just leads to frustration and more explicate stuff. Hey who's going to enjoy a burger more? Some one who's been pigging out on donuts and pop all day or someone that hasn't had any thing to eat all day? Indulgence doesn't always bring the satisfaction we crave. The battle isn't easy but it's worth it and God picks us up when we fail. Any way that's not the sin I was thinking of and I can't tell you what it is because it's illegal.  Eye-wink

Don't tell me you're worried about man's law? I thought you "under grace" types weren't bothered by any law of God or man.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


shadowlanddweller
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
So John left that

 Well no John used the Roman time system and Mark the Jewish. May be because of who they were writing to or just personal preference. But either way it's historic fact that both Roman and Jewish time methods were in use at the time so I don't see the contradiction.


shadowlanddweller
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
 But should we continue in

 But should we continue in sin because we are saved by Gods grace? No, God forbid, why live in the shadows when we can live in the light?


shadowlanddweller
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
 But should we continue in

 But should we continue in sin because we are saved by Gods grace? No, God forbid, why live in the shadows when we can live in the light?


shadowlanddweller
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
 When I hit "reply" it

 When I hit "reply" it seems to just make another post. Am I doing something wrong? Or is that how it works. How do you get your "reply" incorporated within the post you are replying to. Year I'm getting 2 posts sometimes, might be hitting the post button twice.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
shadowlanddweller wrote:Well

shadowlanddweller wrote:
Well no John used the Roman time system and Mark the Jewish. May be because of who they were writing to or just personal preference. But either way it's historic fact that both Roman and Jewish time methods were in use at the time so I don't see the contradiction.

Did you not see the request to substantiate this? Just stating stuff you pulled out of your ass may work in born again circles, but it won't work here. Explain why you think some writer writing about the Jewish messiah being a sacrificial lamb on the Jewish passover is using the Roman time system? Show exactly where you get this and most importantly, how you are able to differentiate the two systems from the texts. Once you have done all this, you may go on to all the other contradictions you so far ignored.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
shadowlanddweller

shadowlanddweller wrote:

 But should we continue in sin because we are saved by Gods grace? No, God forbid, why live in the shadows when we can live in the light?

Your friend Paul couldn't keep his own story straight from Romans 4 to Romans 6, could he?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
shadowlanddweller

shadowlanddweller wrote:

 Hey yo it's every mans battle. Everyone has to deal with it even if your not a Christian. What do you do masturbate every time you feel like it? Thats like any obsession it just leads to boredom. Besides you might be at the library or something. Porn? Just leads to frustration and more explicate stuff. Hey who's going to enjoy a burger more? Some one who's been pigging out on donuts and pop all day or someone that hasn't had any thing to eat all day? Indulgence doesn't always bring the satisfaction we crave. The battle isn't easy but it's worth it and God picks us up when we fail. Any way that's not the sin I was thinking of and I can't tell you what it is because it's illegal.  Eye-wink

Yeah, well, smoking a little dope is illegal.  But it isn't mentioned in the bible as a sin.

What I don't understand is if it is illegal, and you would do it anyway if not for your religion, how does being religious help if it isn't a sin?

Anyway, I always thought John in the desert must have found some fine peyote otherwise, he couldn't have done such a bang up job in Revelations.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
Sins of the fathers, etc.

shadowlanddweller wrote:

 Hi everyone, thank you for your responses. Nothing faith shattering as yet. whew! Smiling

Okay I'll make it easier. Show me one error or contradiction in the Bible. Though keep in mind that Christianity claims the infallibility of the original manuscripts and that we can piece together a 95+% accurate rendering of the originals by comparing the numerous existing copies. So allowances are made for a few copyist mistakes. So I will need something thats obviously not a copying error something substantial. 

Are we punished for the sins of others or only for our own personal sins?

Yes:

Genesis 9:21-25

Genesis 20:18

Exodus 20:5

Deuteronomy 5:9

Exodus 34:7

Numbers 14:18

Deuteronomy 23:2

Deuteronomy 28:18

1 Samuel 3:12-13

2 Samuel 12:14

2 Samuel 21:6-9

1 Kings 2:33

1 Kings 11:11-12

1 Kings 21:29

2 Kings 5:27

Isaiah 14:21

Jeremiah 16:10-11

Jeremiah 29:32

Jeremiah 32:18

Zephaniah 1:8

 

No:

Deuteronomy 24:16

2 Kings 14:6

Jeremiah 31:29-30

Ezekiel18:20

(Lifted from here.)

 

If we're punished for the sins of our ancestors, how does that work?  Is sin in the genes or what?

 

By the way, if you ever want to spend quite a bit of time digesting a bunch contradictions in the Bible, there's a pretty fun list of them here.

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
The Bible contradicts reality

What I find even more fun than the way the Bible contradicts itself is the way that it contradicts reality.

One of the most glaring examples, of course, is the creation myth in Genesis.  The world and its critters quite obviously took a fair bit long than six days to get into place (i.e. evolution is a fact).  Some believers claim that Genesis 1, taken as an allegory, is compatible with the scientific explanation of how our planet and its inhabitants came to be.  That really doesn't work either, though.  Before there was light, there was water.  Huh?  Before the sun came to be, not only was there light but there was a division between the light and the darkness -- day and night.  Huh?  Before the sun came to be, there were plants and seasons.  Huh?

 

 

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This is true

David Henson wrote:

Most people choose to avoid the narrow way.  

 

Only 2 and a half per cent of the world's population describes itself as atheistic. All the rest are on the broad, easy highway of self delusion. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


fortitude
Science Freak
fortitude's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
funny...

To the OP:  The only place where I can find a decription of a roman time scale that you use is on the Christan apologist website you referenced. 

Likewise funny.....  There is no mention of the word 'hours' in your wiki reference to roman hours, only their annual calendar.  No description of what you refer to or what the apologetics website refers to as roman hours.

The romans and jews both split the daylight hours into 12 equal periods, with the result that the 6th hour is consistently close to noon.  This was done since the beginnings of civilization.

Check this site: 

"Like us, the Romans divided each day into 24 hours, and they assigned 12 to the daytime and 12 to the night. These did not run from midnight to midnight as our modern method of timekeeping does, but from sunrise to sunrise." http://www.roman-britain.org/calendar.htm

Likewise these ones:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Hora.html

http://www.dl.ket.org/latin2/mores/calendar/calendar.htm

If I was able to find this with a few minutes of googling, how is it that you can't make the effort to check your apologist claims?   

In fact, based on my googleing, time as we know it (minight being the first hour of the day) seems to be a relatively recent invention, not even possible until the invention of mechanical timepieces in about the 16th century. 

 

So the problem still appears to exist with the gospel accounts of the time of Jesus' death. 

"There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right." Martin Luther King


fortitude
Science Freak
fortitude's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
mmm...too bad

shadowlandweller wrote:
Hey yo it's every mans battle. Everyone has to deal with it even if your not a Christian. What do you do masturbate every time you feel like it? Thats like any obsession it just leads to boredom. Besides you might be at the library or something. Porn? Just leads to frustration and more explicate stuff. Hey who's going to enjoy a burger more? Some one who's been pigging out on donuts and pop all day or someone that hasn't had any thing to eat all day? Indulgence doesn't always bring the satisfaction we crave. The battle isn't easy but it's worth it and God picks us up when we fail. Any way that's not the sin I was thinking of and I can't tell you what it is because it's illegal. 

 

lol  Maybe its one of those silly laws in place in quite a few US states that stipulates what one can and can't do in bed. 

Huzzah for Canada - the land of the polite - where the government stays out of our bedrooms.

"There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right." Martin Luther King


shadowlanddweller
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
The Christian answer to the

The Christian answer to the apparent discrepancy between Marks gospel stating that Christ was crucified on the third hour and Johns gospel stating that Christ was still on trial on the 6th hour is that they were using different time systems. Mark using the Jewish method and John using the Roman. The question is, did the Roman day go from midnight to midnight and did the Jewish day go from sunset to sunset? The links below state that the Roman day was indeed from midnight to midnight. Though the Romans ALSO divided the day into 2 12 hour periods. 12 daylight (fluid) hours and 12 night time (fluid) hours. So the Romans used a "civil" day method and a "natural" day method. Therefore it is possible that John was using the Roman Civil time system and Christ was on trial at 6.00 AM (the 6th hour) and Mark (using Jewish time) states that Christ was crucified on the 3rd hour (9.00 AM).  

This is at least feasible and not faith shattering. How about giving me one of your best of the best arguments against Christianity one that leaves no doubt at all. Please just give one since that is all thats needed. Thank you for your time.  

________________________  ROMAN TIME http://books.google.ca/books?id=GLVpSyzhto0C&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=roman+day+from+midnight+to+midnight&source=bl&ots=DnHffgirPU&sig=RRcx-wR1Z4SZnC2F2KqpI2O-w0c&hl=en&ei=g06jS8OoOo2Ptgfa28GJCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CBcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=roman%20day%20from%20midnight%20to%20midnight&f=false__________________________  http://www.roman-colosseum.info/roman-life/julian-calendar.htm_________________________  http://www.beaglesoft.com/timehistoryroman.htm ______________________  JEWISH TIME http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_the_Jewish_day_start_at_sundownWhy does the Jewish day start at sundown?
by Rabbi Mendy Hecht

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
shadowlanddweller wrote:The

shadowlanddweller wrote:

The Christian answer to the apparent discrepancy between Marks gospel stating that Christ was crucified on the third hour and Johns gospel stating that Christ was still on trial on the 6th hour is that they were using different time systems. Mark using the Jewish method and John using the Roman. The question is, did the Roman day go from midnight to midnight and did the Jewish day go from sunset to sunset? The links below state that the Roman day was indeed from midnight to midnight. Though the Romans ALSO divided the day into 2 12 hour periods. 12 daylight (fluid) hours and 12 night time (fluid) hours. So the Romans used a "civil" day method and a "natural" day method. Therefore it is possible that John was using the Roman Civil time system and Christ was on trial at 6.00 AM (the 6th hour) and Mark (using Jewish time) states that Christ was crucified on the 3rd hour (9.00 AM).  

This is at least feasible and not faith shattering. How about giving me one of your best of the best arguments against Christianity one that leaves no doubt at all. Please just give one since that is all thats needed. Thank you for your time.  

________________________  

That still makes no sense and it only takes third grade math.

If Roman days went from midnight to midnight(12 am), and Jewish days went from sunset to sunset (about 6 pm), that is 6 hours difference. 

So there is only 3 hours difference in the two gospels.  (9am - 6am = 3 hours.  Excel will do time math if you can't figure it out on your fingers.)  Since you claim civil time, not natural time, where are the other three hours?

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Hey, shadowlanddweller.

Hey, shadowlanddweller. Welcome to the forums.

I have two primary arguments against god. One is philosophical, with regards to the destruction an omnipotent, omniscient being does to epistemology. I won't get into that one here, because I think the other one is more pointed.

My A-number-1 argument against god is all the believers.

Seriously. If there was a god, and if that god cared about us as individuals, and if that god wished us to know him/her/it, and if that god chose revelation to impart knowledge of her/it/him, then there would be some sort of consistency in belief. As it is, there is no consistency whatsoever. Whether you are one of the many flavors of Christian, or the almost equally-vast number of Muslim, or Buddhist, or trinitarian panentheist, there would be some sort of consistency within the revelations.

But there is not.

If there is a god, and that god is trying to impart knowledge of it/her/him, that god is doing a bang-up job of confusing everyone.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


shadowlanddweller
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
 Year I know that threw me

 Year I know that threw me for a while as well but Mark is stating the time when Christ was crucified and John is stating the time when Christ was on trial. So the 3 hours is a reasonable time space between the trial and the execution. Hey lets say you have 20 arguments against christianity and one of them turns out not to be so indisputable, neh so what? Nobody's perfect. Maybe you have a better argument.

 


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
When you get around to it,

When you get around to it, please address my question of whether we are punished for the sins of our ancestors or only for our own sins (see post #88 in this thread).

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


shadowlanddweller
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-02-26
User is offlineOffline
 Okay but couldn't the

 Okay but couldn't the problem be with us? Like we can't find the true God the same kind of way a bank robber "can't" find a police officer? For me your argument doesn't disturb my faith too much, whew! (not that it's not a good point). I acknowledge that I "want" christianity to be true. I mean if it is true then when I die I'm going to heaven and will be eternally happy (amongst several other benefits).  Smiling  But I don't want to be like the guy that got the "YOU HAVE WON $1,000,000" ad in the mail and didn't read the fine print. So thats why I'm here, reading the fine print. I want to see if the Christian faith can hold up to the fiercest attack. So hit me with your best shot!  Smiling  scary.... 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
shadowlanddweller wrote:Okay

shadowlanddweller wrote:
Okay but couldn't the problem be with us? Like we can't find the true God the same kind of way a bank robber "can't" find a police officer? For me your argument doesn't disturb my faith too much, whew! (not that it's not a good point). I acknowledge that I "want" christianity to be true. I mean if it is true then when I die I'm going to heaven and will be eternally happy (amongst several other benefits).  Smiling  But I don't want to be like the guy that got the "YOU HAVE WON $1,000,000" ad in the mail and didn't read the fine print. So thats why I'm here, reading the fine print. I want to see if the Christian faith can hold up to the fiercest attack. So hit me with your best shot!  Smiling  scary.... 

Sure, the problem could be with us. But that doesn't solve the problem. That just leads you into the trap of assuming you are somehow special, that god has somehow singled you out for the correct revelation. As so many other people in the world (with completely contradictory faith) believe that they have been selected to receive the correct revelation.

While you are quite sure you have the correct revelation, you do so either by arrogantly assuming you have something special that allows you to have the correct revelation, or ignoring the question, "How do I know?"

Of course, you might also continue on by thinking there are many paths to god, and you have just selected one. But it still doesn't negate the fact that there is a unique revelation for pretty much every believer on earth. And most of those revelations are contradictory.

From where I sit, it seems you're more like the guy who got the email that begins, "My dear fellow Christian. My name is Arthur M'ballo, and for several years my father Richard was in charge of the Foreign Exchange Bank of Nigeria."

 

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
you are getting tangled

shadowlanddweller wrote:

 Year I know that threw me for a while as well but Mark is stating the time when Christ was crucified and John is stating the time when Christ was on trial. So the 3 hours is a reasonable time space between the trial and the execution. Hey lets say you have 20 arguments against christianity and one of them turns out not to be so indisputable, neh so what? Nobody's perfect. Maybe you have a better argument.

Earlier you said:

shadowlanddweller wrote:

Mark: Christ was crucified on the 3rd hour (9 a.m. Jewish time) John: Christ was still on trial on the 6th hour (12 noon Jewish time)

Except you seem to be backwards somewhere.  First you said, christ was crucified before he was on trial, now you say he was on trial before he was crucified.  Make up your mind.

Our point, the bible is NOT inerrant, it is in fact chock full of contradictions.  Not one, not two, lots.  If your faith depends on every word in the bible to be inerrant, you have problems.  If your faith does not rely on an inerrant bible, fine.  Admit the book was written by a bunch of nomadic goat herders who didn't proof read all that well and get on with your life.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.