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


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
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.  

So let me get this straight. You answer a question about a discrepancy by pulling some boilerplate crap out of your ass. Then you completely ignore requests to substantiate said crap. You then continue to repeat the crap as if repeating it made it true. When pressed, you fail at some middle school level math. In other words, you are inept at history, math and apologetics. Then, you say that we need to give better arguments? Congratulations, you make an excellent born again christian, you have all the required traits, and you even surpass the requirements on arrogance.


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

shadowlandweller - You get an E for effort and a P for participation.  But we do expect a higher level of support than this for your assertions.

shadowlandweller wrote:

________________________  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

Wow - you must have spent some real time googling to find this obscure reference to an 1898 "Camillus: a study of Indo-European religion as Roman history".   It does not, however,  mention time keeping in hours based on this midnight to midnight time scale - only that it was used for determining cultic and administrative observances.  Roman determination of hours was based on hours after dawn, as can be found in numerous sites, including the ones I referenced earlier.

 

The http://www.beaglesoft.com/timehistoryroman.htm reference that you have provided as a proof has an unclear suggestion of roman days starting at midnight at some point in later Roman history (321 ad?).  Though they say nothing about counting hours from this point.  In fact, later in the same article, they list this table:

 

http://www.beaglesoft.com/timehistoryroman.htm wrote:

Thus at the winter solstice the day hours were as follows:

 

I.    Hora prima from 7:33 to 8:17 A.M. VII. septima 12:00  to 12:44 P.M.
II.  secunda  8:17  to 9:02 VIII. octava 12:44 to 1.29
III. tertia 9:02 to 9:46 IX. nona  1:29  to 2:13
IV. quarta 9:46  to 10:31  X.  decima  2:13 to 2:58
V.  quinta 10:31 to  11:15  XI. undecima  2:58 to 3:42
VI. sexta  11:15  to 12.00 noon. XII. duodecima 3:42 to 4:27 P.M.

 The night hours naturally reproduced in rigorous antithesis the equivalent fluctuations, with their maximum length at the winter solstice and their minimum at the summer solstice.

So I don't see this article (on a non-history site) as being supportive of your argument.  

 

http://www.roman-colosseum.info/roman-life/julian-calendar.htm

This one, like the other references you provided, does not mention anything supporting two systems of hours in use. 

 

Yes, I will agree that this does seem to be the official Christian rebuttal.  The sad thing is that whoever made up this rebuttal must have realized how disingenuous it is.  And they rely on the christians to not question or verify these rebuttals, but merely be grateful that someone has already provided them with the ammunition to throw at infidels.  Unfortunately for you your ammunition is caca.  While it might be odious, it is still laughable.

Monty Python wrote:

Man:
Oh look, this isn't an argument!

(pause)

Other Man:
Yes it is!

Man:
No it isn't!

(pause)

Man:
It's just contradiction!

Other Man:
No it isn't!

Man:
It IS!

Other Man:
It is NOT!

Man:
You just contradicted me!

Other Man:
No I didn't!

Man:
You DID!

Other Man:
No no no!


"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


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

butterbattle wrote:

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.   

 

IAWTC


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
shadowlanddweller

shadowlanddweller wrote:

DINOSAUR FOSSILS: Please give a link to a "transitional" fossil. (something between a spider and a monkey would do) STARVING CHILDREN: AAARRGGGHH not that one! Yep is the most difficult obstacle to belief in the Christian God. God is good, God is all powerful yet evil exists. Conclusion- God is either not good or not omnipotent! either way he can't exist. Unless it goes like this. God is good and omnipotent and he allows evil to exist for a reason we can not grasp. Kind of like the time I help cause my 4 year old Son to get a disease on purpose. Maybe.  THE LOST SOUL IN THE REMOT ISLAND: A common objection. Everyone has the "light" of creation and conscience. Theologians state that if a soul responds to that, God is able to "reach" them. That is, no one will be able to stand before God on judgement day and accuse him of not being fair. If there is a God I have no way of knowing for sure that he hasn't set up some way of being fair. WOMEN 2nd CLASS: Please, if you have time, give the reference in the Bible that states / infers that women are second class. ANIMAL SACRIFICE: Yep the bible is full of weird stuff. Though it does explain why the sacrifices were done. Also the meat was put to good use. It also doesn't prove God doesn't exist just that he does things that are hard to understand. We slaughter animals every day for food, doesn't mean we are evil or don't exist. Just hungry. KILLING FIRST BORN: ??? SLAVERY: In the list of evils there is a reference to "slave traders"in the Bible. Also the term "slave" doesn't always mean the same thing as the movie "Roots" depicts. Most slavery was self induced. That is, people would sell themselves into slavery. It was a legal contract not unlike a professions sports player "selling" him self to a sports franchise and signing a contract. Most of the references in the Bible concerning slaves was on how they were to be fairly treated, how they could be released from there "contract" etc. Slaves were allowed to own property, make investments and some became rich. They could "buy" a year off if they wanted to. While you can't substitute the word employee for the word slave a slave in the OT was closer to that then the "roots" kind of slave. I don't know about you but monday morning I "have" to go to work. Plus many "slaves" stayed with there owner and lived as a family even after the allotted 6 years maximum. As for slaves taken in war that was an act of mercy. You could either execute them, imprison them, or give them a place to live, food to eat and so on. (releasing them would either be a security threat or abandonment). War is not a "good" thing neither is "slavery" a good thing. The Bible acknowledges that there are many things in the world that are not right but that one day everything will be restored.  Smiling  thanks for your thoughts.

 

Transitional fossils, between a spider and a monkey, lol. I don't believe we would ever find such a thing as this, why would you even infer it. Probably because you totally reject evolution and have done no study, nor have you really taken a look at nature.

God allows evil things to happen to innocents who have no hope, because he works in mysterious ways, is what I gather from your statement on this. Typical response when you really just don't know.

So the lost souls on a remote island can go to heaven even though they worship idols and drink animal blood? Very nice indeed. Theres an excuse for anything, the sun is yellow because I peed on it.

Women as second class citizens, yes, you better read your bible again, there are many passages about women, and how they should not speak in church and should "obey" their husbands. Society nowdays is breaking free from this.

Animal sacrifice, yes from what I understand satanists did this as well. There is a difference in slaughtering an animal to eat, and randomly killing a young animal on a big rock in the name of a god. What would this garner for a supreme being in the sky? One that is all knowing and wise. You don't know but it must be something huh.

Who told you slavery was self induced? Here is one passage   "When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property"How is this good again? Oh it's not good OR bad, it's just the will of "god". Nice

When is the last time you stoned a child to death for disobeying their parents?

Religion is a blight and in the future we will look back and ponder why man had to believe in such things to get by.

It seems like you are not so much wanting to debate or look at the other side but to simply throw "faith" around.

I can say I have given the theist side a fair shake, I tried so fukin hard to believe and did as a child. There is just too much evidence that MAN wrote the bible, MAN invented god. This is almost infuriating to say, it is so obvious after all, it's like saying the sky is blue and someone wants to say it's not just because they read it in a book.

Now read Deuteronomy 13 and tell me you have complied.

As an afterthought, attempt to argue my signature. That would be fun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Oh, found a spider-monkey

Oh, found a spider-monkey


metalbandsinger
metalbandsinger's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2009-04-04
User is offlineOffline
Allegory

if you read the bible, there are a lot of people, places, things, and even events that we have multiple historical records to support. and i don't doubt you know about the numerous other faiths and religions of the world that pre-date chrisitanity. that being said...almost all of them echo the same stories of creation, great flood, etc. this traces back all the way to what we understand to be the earliest records of human civilization; ancient Sumeria and Mesopotamia.

has it ever entered your thoughts that perhaps the stories, not just in the christian bible, but of all religions are merely allegory? meaning, because we hadn't stumbled into the understanding of certain sciences that we do now, ancient tales were handed down from generation to generation, eventually changing and mutating with each telling, to the point where we are today, with hundreds of religions that all say the same thing.

ever read original KJV bibles? kinda interesting how in genisis, God says "Let US make man in OUR own image." now why would it say "we" and "our". who was god talking to? angels? other gods? or is it possible that because of our ignorance, we perceived beings more intelligent than us to be gods? i'm very sure that i will be raked over the coals by every other member of this board, and at the risk of sounding like a complete moron...is it out of the realm of possibility that things didn't go down exactly, word for word, the way the bible says? instead of God saying "let us make man in our own image", could it be that it was actually beings from other worlds? being an athiest, i don't neccessairly subscribe to any 1 particular idea, but my rationale says to me that with so many different theories on life, and it's origins, that it would be very foolish for me to say, "yes, this one is right. beyone a shadow of a doubt, this one is it. it has all the answers, and all the others are wrong."

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
metalbandsinger wrote:if you

metalbandsinger wrote:

if you read the bible, there are a lot of people, places, things, and even events that we have multiple historical records to support. and i don't doubt you know about the numerous other faiths and religions of the world that pre-date chrisitanity. that being said...almost all of them echo the same stories of creation, great flood, etc. this traces back all the way to what we understand to be the earliest records of human civilization; ancient Sumeria and Mesopotamia.

has it ever entered your thoughts that perhaps the stories, not just in the christian bible, but of all religions are merely allegory? meaning, because we hadn't stumbled into the understanding of certain sciences that we do now, ancient tales were handed down from generation to generation, eventually changing and mutating with each telling, to the point where we are today, with hundreds of religions that all say the same thing.

ever read original KJV bibles? kinda interesting how in genisis, God says "Let US make man in OUR own image." now why would it say "we" and "our". who was god talking to? angels? other gods? or is it possible that because of our ignorance, we perceived beings more intelligent than us to be gods? i'm very sure that i will be raked over the coals by every other member of this board, and at the risk of sounding like a complete moron...is it out of the realm of possibility that things didn't go down exactly, word for word, the way the bible says? instead of God saying "let us make man in our own image", could it be that it was actually beings from other worlds? being an athiest, i don't neccessairly subscribe to any 1 particular idea, but my rationale says to me that with so many different theories on life, and it's origins, that it would be very foolish for me to say, "yes, this one is right. beyone a shadow of a doubt, this one is it. it has all the answers, and all the others are wrong."

 

That much of the Hebrew Bible has origins in other cultures such as Sumer and Egypt is something that I also consider as likely.

KJV is not an original Bible but a very poorly put together English translation, see Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman.

As to the god saying "Let us make man in out own image" is really support for the god coming out of a polytheistic system such as Sumer, Egypt or even Canaanite where multiple gods were involved in creation.

As to did high tech aliens develop life on Earth as a science project or for a colony or even as a source of lab rats is certainly a possibility but there is so little to support the idea. Bring in the relic of the crashed spaceship that first brought life to Earth for a start. Same standard for all conjecture, hard evidence.

____________________________________________________________
"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.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
The whole we are made in his

The whole we are made in his image thing has always been flaky to me as well. We have 10 toes, 10 fingers, a mouth to breathe and talk ears to hear with a nose to smell and breathe through etc etc, yet we have no extra, wouldn't a supreme being have "extra" stuff?  Does an all powerful being even need hands? Does he even need a body for that matter? Could he be just a pop of energy, perhaps even just the energy required to flow from an axon, and therefore simply a thought? If he is a thought who's brain is he in anyway.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


metalbandsinger
metalbandsinger's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2009-04-04
User is offlineOffline
total agreement

thanks for commenting pauljohn....

when i meant the original KJV, i did not actually mean the original. i absolutely understand that it is not the original version. if i'm not mistaken the KJV was written by Shakespeare. so yeah...really bad english translation. being raised southern baptist though, whenever our ministers would refer to the different editions of the bible, i would always hear the KJV referred to as th "original KJV". my bad bro. old habits die hard.

i totally agree though. what evidence is there that we were made by ancient astronauts? the only credible scientist that swears up and down he's right about it, is Zachariah Sitchin...and thanks to a lovely little lexicon, anyone can now translate those Sumerian cylindar scrolls and find out that there were a lot of mistranslations on Sitchin's part. which is a perfect example of science. a new theory is posed...research is done...too many holes poked in the new theory from the reseach to support it...theory is set aside until new evidence that relates to it can be examined.

my argument with this to christians is that there is no evidence to support the ancient astronaut theory (or at least not enough). the same is said for the christian bible. there's just not enough evidence to support all of its outrageous claims. so if it's silly to think that aliens engineered us, then in the same right, wouldn't it be silly to believe the bible as well? that was my point...or counter argument for the original poster.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
There is as much evidence

There is as much evidence the Sumerian gods orginated life on Earth as the volcano/thunder god Yahweh did and the stories are more fun. Enki loved beer and sex, Yahweh is never mentioned having erotic adventures like he was. A really good site for Sumerian Lit is ETCSL from Oxford if you are into it.

I would more likely accept alien origins than the fantasy claims of the poorly misinterpreted myths of the ancient archaic Hebrew nomads. Just show me the spaceship. It will probably turn out Vger time travelled back to early Earth. (Star Trek)

The KJV was an authorized English translation by a group of 47 bible scholars of the Church of England by King James I began in 1604 and completed in 1611. There are many problems with this version. The NT used Greek texts that were patched together earlier, see Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus for specifics. The OT was supposedly translated from the Hebrew Masoretic text while the Apocrypha used mostly  the Greek Septugint. I don't think Willy Shakespeare wrote any of the KJV, though he was alive at the time and the English is just as hard to grasp at times as what he wrote.

____________________________________________________________
"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.