bible defense

pm9347
Theist
pm9347's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline

James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Wow are you one lazy

Wow are you one lazy Christian eh? Not only does nothing that site say, other then when the bible was writen was a different time, I agree with that, and now we should not follow old teachings morally wrong today.

 

You couldn't even make your first post an introduction in general could you? You just wanted to somehow defend the bible, but you decided to take it to a new lazy factor.

 

You come to the site, sign up, have no intention of writing anything you thought up yourself, your worse then the people who use other peoples logic. Atleast they take the time to write out the other logic. No, you just came here to post a really crap ass site which states stuff untrue, and you actually believed it?

Please, continue living just believing everything you read as long as it's on some Christian site, or maybe actually research for yourself. Maybe you'll learn something. 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


AModestProposal
AModestProposal's picture
Posts: 157
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
These are lousy arguments.

These are lousy arguments.

1. The argument against "higher criticism" is nothing more than Atheist character assassination. No actual defense is even made accept in the subtle use of language, made to make critics of The Bible seem to be merely pushing a political agenda. The article even makes Atheists out to be the majority in the media, claiming "Anyone who doesn't believe in the authenticity of Scripture is given an open forum to launch an attack," when of course, it's been the exact opposite since Christianity became the mainstream. It's also interesting that it's generally acceptable for Jews or Muslims to not believe Jesus was the messiah, but when it comes from the mouth of an Atheist, it's suddenly a bigotted attack on Theism.

2. The Test of Time argument has been made a million times and could be used to justify almost anything. First off, it suggests greater faith in people's intelligence than they are perhaps entitled. Second, it dares suggest that critics have never succeeded in finding errors in it, which is plain nutty. Just Google "Bible contradictions" and you'll see otherwise. Psychology tells us why people are willing to believe in superstitions and supernatural claims of all kinds. It's not because these claims are so incredibly valid.

3. Many of the figures referenced in the testimonies hee are Deists, which are frequently grouped in with Christians by those who know nothing of Deism. Deists don't believe God has anything to do with the present world. They think maybe a creator of some sort began our universe, but this being's influence stopped there. And while Andrew Jackson may very well have been refering to The Bible, the only true book that "is the rock on which this republic rests" is John Locke's "2nd Treatise on Government," which was the basis of our Declaration of Independence, which was written by Jefferson (whom is also quoted here). Jefferson was a Deist, well known for his insistance on the separation of church and state. Here's what else Jefferson said: "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." "Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites." "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." Don't ever misrepresent a founding father on my watch. I'll personally shove an American flag up your ass. Nobody gives a shit what John Quincy Adams thinks about much of anything, let alone spirituality. Newton was a scientist who only believed in an allegorical god. Robert Dick Wilson is a complete unknown and hardly worthy of being quoted, especially amongst several greats. And my last point on this is simply that none of these men ever met Jesus and men as equally capable of being wrong as the next guy. Atheists can pull out just as many equally impressive (or more impressive) critics of The Bible.

Einstein: "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.", "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one.You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from religious indoctrination received in youth." "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." "During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man's own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world... The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old conception of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes... In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vase power in the hands of priests.""Thus I came...to a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true....Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience...an attitude which has never left me.""A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

If you want more testimonies against The Bible from respected people, go here: http://atheistempire.com/greatminds/quotes.php?author=2

4. This just blatantly rewrites history. It's called the Council of Mycea, and it really happened. At the "Council of Mycea" in 320 A.D. the people of that church council actually voted on what was to be included in the bible and what was not. They portrayed Jesus to be god (which was never established until this point), eliminated any trace of Women in his life or works, as well as in the church after him and chose to discard and eliminate all traces of the gospel of Philip, gospel of mary magdalene etc. And for the record, the first known written reference to Jesus wasn't until at least 70 AD, if not later. Apparently Jesus was so important no one thought to write about him until years after his death. Wow. You'd think he'd be in all the tabloids back then.

5. Actually, Christians are the ones who use this translation argument, not Atheists, to avoid explaining how many different interpretations exist if The Bible is so clear. How interesting that each church swears that their interpretation is the only correct one, and yet not a single one subscribes to every single word. They can't all be right, can they?

6. Historical Witnesses - None of the writers of the Gospels ever met Jesus. Many Christians refute the argument of there being no evidence of Jesus by claiming there's no real evidence of any historical figure. They ironically usually use examples like Aristotle or Julius Caesar who either have actual texts credited in their name or have their faces memorialized on coins and statues. Jesus has no evidence except a book written by multiple sources who never met each other, never met Jesus, and which contradict each other. That's it. And Flavius Josephus, who always gets cited for his early mentions of Jesus, wasn't even born until circa 37-38 CE. That'd make Jesus in his late 30's when this guy was born. Great source there. Every other source came way later. You might as well be taking the testimony of someone today regarding Jesus. C'mon, give me one source from during Jesus' life.

7. The old Old Testament supports the New Testament argument is like saying Fellowship of the Ring supports Return of the King. Therefore there really are hobbits and a ring that rules them all. Give me a break! Of course The New Testament builds on the Old Testament. The authors read the original and wrote a bloody sequel. End of story.

8. The true human experience argument - so you're honestly sticking with this argument that people aren't capable to writing 3 dimensional fictional characters? This one really defeats itself without any argument on my part.

9. God is no fool - this is circular reasoning. You're suggesting god had to write the bible because he'd never let his word be translated by men. I can fix their contradiction right now. God doen't exist. Therefore, men wrote the book without his permission. Done.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
My response to some choice

My response to some choice quotes from the article:

Quote:
If the Word of God had a fatal flaw, somebody would have found it by now--after nearly 2000 years of scrutiny.

Yeah, right. According to the Bible, the age of most of the things in the universe (plants, animals, heavenly bodies) is around 6000 years. This is demonstratively false.

Quote:
Dan Brown's novel, The Da Vinci Code, claims the Bible is full of error, but it only took investigators a few weeks to show that Brown's writings are totally based on collection of fraudulent views of history.

So what? The Da Vinci Code is a novel. There fiction in a novel? No shit, Sherlock!

Quote:
The church accepted the New Testament books almost as soon as they were written.

Where's the evidence for this? Many texts were taken as scripture (some are not currently regarded as scripture). The decision about what exact books were in the New Testament (and what wasn't in) was decided on much later.

Quote:
The scribes who copied Hebrew manuscripts were keenly aware of the fact that they were handling a sacred and precious revelation. They were trained to exercise the greatest care.

This argument doesn't apply to the NT. There wasn't a professional class of scribes copying the NT initially. The quality control wasn't there until later.

Quote:
Many people seem to think there are only a handful of master copies of the biblical test. The truth is that there are more than 24,000 manuscripts of New Testament writings.

A sizable chunk of these 24,000 manuscripts are later, medieval copies. There's not that many early, more reliable texts.

Quote:
When one compares the text of one manuscript with another, the match is amazing. Sometimes the spelling may vary, or words may be transposed, but that is of little consequence.

This is a strawman argument. There are significant parts of the NT that have been changed. Much more that word order or spelling. Is the author ignorant of these changes? or is he being dishonest? Why doesn't the author mention them?

Quote:
The Dead Sea Scrolls have proven to be an excellent resource for proving the accuracy of the Bible.

This is almost dishonest. The Dead Sea Scrolls only apply to the OT, not the whole Bible.

Quote:
Some people claim that Jesus never existed. One reason for their argument is fact that Jesus never wrote anything himself.

Does any serious critic use this argument? Another strawman.

Quote:
My final defense of the Bible is the statement that God is no fool. If he is the Lord of the universe, there would be no reason why He would allow His Holy Word to be monkeyed with by common man.

The Bible has been "monkeyed with by common man." Anyone with even a superficial knowledge of textual criticism of the Bible knows this. I guess God has been made a fool.

Quote:
The Lord’s protective hand is one reason some people see the Bible as a collection of random events.

WTF? Who thinks the bible is "a collection random events"? Another strawman.

Quote:
Paul, the Apostle and great hero of the faith, had this to say about those who see the Bible as anything other than the very Word of God: [Quotes 1 Cor. 2:11-14]

Classic Christian circular logic.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Ha! The Test of Time

Ha! The Test of Time argument. "No fatal flaw has ever been discovered" well actually loads of flaws have been found but you're too stubborn to listen. The guy doesn't seek to reconcile the faults which he himself admits to. Just says Uhh... but that was a different culture to ours. True enough, but surely if you believe the bible to be the word of God you have to follow the message that both testaments set - that means adopting a bronze age/ iron age culture of violence and brutality. It's surely harder to pick and choose as a fundy than say a liberal Christian who doesn't believe it to be God's word although you can't pick and choose at all anyway.


Colby R
Theist
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
AModestProposal

AModestProposal wrote:

These are lousy arguments.

1. The argument against "higher criticism" is nothing more than Atheist character assassination. No actual defense is even made accept in the subtle use of language, made to make critics of The Bible seem to be merely pushing a political agenda. The article even makes Atheists out to be the majority in the media, claiming "Anyone who doesn't believe in the authenticity of Scripture is given an open forum to launch an attack," when of course, it's been the exact opposite since Christianity became the mainstream. It's also interesting that it's generally acceptable for Jews or Muslims to not believe Jesus was the messiah, but when it comes from the mouth of an Atheist, it's suddenly a bigotted attack on Theism.

2. The Test of Time argument has been made a million times and could be used to justify almost anything. First off, it suggests greater faith in people's intelligence than they are perhaps entitled. Second, it dares suggest that critics have never succeeded in finding errors in it, which is plain nutty. Just Google "Bible contradictions" and you'll see otherwise. Psychology tells us why people are willing to believe in superstitions and supernatural claims of all kinds. It's not because these claims are so incredibly valid.

3. Many of the figures referenced in the testimonies hee are Deists, which are frequently grouped in with Christians by those who know nothing of Deism. Deists don't believe God has anything to do with the present world. They think maybe a creator of some sort began our universe, but this being's influence stopped there. And while Andrew Jackson may very well have been refering to The Bible, the only true book that "is the rock on which this republic rests" is John Locke's "2nd Treatise on Government," which was the basis of our Declaration of Independence, which was written by Jefferson (whom is also quoted here). Jefferson was a Deist, well known for his insistance on the separation of church and state. Here's what else Jefferson said: "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." "Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites." "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." Don't ever misrepresent a founding father on my watch. I'll personally shove an American flag up your ass. Nobody gives a shit what John Quincy Adams thinks about much of anything, let alone spirituality. Newton was a scientist who only believed in an allegorical god. Robert Dick Wilson is a complete unknown and hardly worthy of being quoted, especially amongst several greats. And my last point on this is simply that none of these men ever met Jesus and men as equally capable of being wrong as the next guy. Atheists can pull out just as many equally impressive (or more impressive) critics of The Bible.

Einstein: "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.", "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one.You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from religious indoctrination received in youth." "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." "During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man's own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world... The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old conception of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes... In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vase power in the hands of priests.""Thus I came...to a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true....Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience...an attitude which has never left me.""A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

If you want more testimonies against The Bible from respected people, go here: http://atheistempire.com/greatminds/quotes.php?author=2

4. This just blatantly rewrites history. It's called the Council of Mycea, and it really happened. At the "Council of Mycea" in 320 A.D. the people of that church council actually voted on what was to be included in the bible and what was not. They portrayed Jesus to be god (which was never established until this point), eliminated any trace of Women in his life or works, as well as in the church after him and chose to discard and eliminate all traces of the gospel of Philip, gospel of mary magdalene etc. And for the record, the first known written reference to Jesus wasn't until at least 70 AD, if not later. Apparently Jesus was so important no one thought to write about him until years after his death. Wow. You'd think he'd be in all the tabloids back then.

5. Actually, Christians are the ones who use this translation argument, not Atheists, to avoid explaining how many different interpretations exist if The Bible is so clear. How interesting that each church swears that their interpretation is the only correct one, and yet not a single one subscribes to every single word. They can't all be right, can they?

6. Historical Witnesses - None of the writers of the Gospels ever met Jesus. Many Christians refute the argument of there being no evidence of Jesus by claiming there's no real evidence of any historical figure. They ironically usually use examples like Aristotle or Julius Caesar who either have actual texts credited in their name or have their faces memorialized on coins and statues. Jesus has no evidence except a book written by multiple sources who never met each other, never met Jesus, and which contradict each other. That's it. And Flavius Josephus, who always gets cited for his early mentions of Jesus, wasn't even born until circa 37-38 CE. That'd make Jesus in his late 30's when this guy was born. Great source there. Every other source came way later. You might as well be taking the testimony of someone today regarding Jesus. C'mon, give me one source from during Jesus' life.

7. The old Old Testament supports the New Testament argument is like saying Fellowship of the Ring supports Return of the King. Therefore there really are hobbits and a ring that rules them all. Give me a break! Of course The New Testament builds on the Old Testament. The authors read the original and wrote a bloody sequel. End of story.

8. The true human experience argument - so you're honestly sticking with this argument that people aren't capable to writing 3 dimensional fictional characters? This one really defeats itself without any argument on my part.

9. God is no fool - this is circular reasoning. You're suggesting god had to write the bible because he'd never let his word be translated by men. I can fix their contradiction right now. God doen't exist. Therefore, men wrote the book without his permission. Done.

Agreed on Jefferson and Franklin but what about the most important person in American history do you care to quote any George Washington on his religious views. I mean if your going to throw quotes out there from the great Americans in history. Did you know that it used to be a law in most states the in order to hold public office you had to profess faith in God.

http://home.aol.com/TestOath/22leaders.htm

 


pm9347
Theist
pm9347's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
wow i got some really interesting views here

in reply to my former posters im really new to the site, and im also new to defending my christian principals, to those who say im a lazy christian live my life and then you might see my time constraints as well as responsiblites. i dont have the time to type in a long rebuttal to a different point of view, im fully aware of what im doing on this site i like you are trying to understand the truth, however in my life experiances the presence of jesus christ has to be a reality. so therefore im trying to bring to lite the proof that i see day to day the rapture ready site to me provides real evidence that god exist, and will soon return if my choice of evidence seems poor to you sorry more will be on the way.  ohhh and was that long enough for you i had some more free time today


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Posting links is frowned

Posting links is frowned upon as a "debate" method, especially when you start a thread and say, "Look at this stuff that convinced me."  Many of us don't have the time to peruse an entire site, so your argument that you don't have time to post your own arguments is a little, well...silly.  If I post a link, I usually don't absolutely insist someone look at it.  It's just a suggestion that supports other arguments I may have laid out. 

 

pm9347 wrote:
however in my life experiances the presence of jesus christ has to be a reality.

Perhaps you could explain why Christ's existence must be a reality.  I see no "need" for Christ's existence. 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


pm9347
Theist
pm9347's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
to modest proposal

i found your comments really interesting, and well thought out. the founders of this country lived their life according to the bible, the puritans came here to get away from religous persecution, when the founding fathers formed this country they most certanly had god and christian principals on their minds. and the fact that they left quotes regarding the bible as a source of how to conduct themselves. i thank god for . its the bible's moral code and ethics that was applied to writting the consitution that is why our country is a super power in the first place. and as for shoving an american flag up my but, try it im sure you wont like the results. regarding the old testament writings how can you argue 125 prophecies that come true hundreds of years later? jesus filled in these writings exactly so all would know he is the christ. im at a loss to understand why atheist dont see in the world that god does not exist. im here for understanding and to reason like everybody else


pm9347
Theist
pm9347's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2007-03-12
User is offlineOffline
thanks

ill keep that in mind for my future comments .


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
You clearly are deluded if

You clearly are deluded if you think the US was founded on Christian principals. Also, read some of what Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson had to say about Christianity. This is a great notract answering "Is the US a Christian Nation?":

 

http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
pm9347 wrote: ill keep that

pm9347 wrote:
ill keep that in mind for my future comments .

Thanks. Eye-wink 


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
I'm not interested in

I'm not interested in discussing the "the founding fathers established the US as a Christian nation" argument, so I'm going to skip a bit.

pm9347 wrote:
regarding the old testament writings how can you argue 125 prophecies that come true hundreds of years later? jesus filled in these writings exactly so all would know he is the christ.

The "Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy" argument begs the question. We haven't established that the NT is reliable. We can't rule out that the writers of the NT wrote the story to fit their interpretations of the prophecies.

pm9347 wrote:
im at a loss to understand why atheist dont see in the world that god does not exist. im here for understanding and to reason like everybody else

That's good to hear. Hopefully we can have a good discussion, and you can find what you're looking for.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I forgot  who said it, but

I forgot  who said it, but I remember reading that using the argument that the New testament confirms prophecies made in the OT is like saying "Lord of the Rings" is true because "The Return of the King" is consistant with "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The 2 Towers."

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
pm9347 wrote: in reply to

pm9347 wrote:

in reply to my former posters im really new to the site, and im also new to defending my christian principals, to those who say im a lazy christian live my life and then you might see my time constraints as well as responsiblites. i dont have the time to type in a long rebuttal to a different point of view, im fully aware of what im doing on this site i like you are trying to understand the truth, however in my life experiances the presence of jesus christ has to be a reality. so therefore im trying to bring to lite the proof that i see day to day the rapture ready site to me provides real evidence that god exist, and will soon return if my choice of evidence seems poor to you sorry more will be on the way. ohhh and was that long enough for you i had some more free time today

Evidence? Thats not evidence. Evidence has to be proven to be evidence, not proven to be false.

 

This nation was not founded on Christian beliefs.

 

125 prophecies eh? Are their exact dates given? No? Then thats not proof. I can say the world will be destroyed. I know this to be fact, theres no evidence you can provide to refute that claim. Until of course I try to give a date, because if I say something vague without a date, eventually it will happen.

 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
James Cizuz wrote: 125

James Cizuz wrote:

125 prophecies eh? Are their exact dates given? No? Then thats not proof. I can say the world will be destroyed. I know this to be fact, theres no evidence you can provide to refute that claim. Until of course I try to give a date, because if I say something vague without a date, eventually it will happen.

 

That's an important distinction that most people miss.  If I predict that the #1 team in the NCAA will win their first round playoff game against the #16 team, is that a prophecy?  Even if I predict by how many points; bet the spread, is that prophecy?  People do this with less obvious odds and win; are they prophets, or able to predict the future?


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Spewn wrote: James Cizuz

Spewn wrote:
James Cizuz wrote:

125 prophecies eh? Are their exact dates given? No? Then thats not proof. I can say the world will be destroyed. I know this to be fact, theres no evidence you can provide to refute that claim. Until of course I try to give a date, because if I say something vague without a date, eventually it will happen.

 

That's an important distinction that most people miss. If I predict that the #1 team in the NCAA will win their first round playoff game against the #16 team, is that a prophecy? Even if I predict by how many points; bet the spread, is that prophecy? People do this with less obvious odds and win; are they prophets, or able to predict the future?

And you don't even have to say in which year that's going to happen for some people to think it's prophesy! 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

how can you argue 125 prophecies that come true hundreds of years later

Pick a random headline from tomorrow's paper, and I will find a passage in Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter (take your pick) which prophesized about it.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
I feel that the whole "was

I feel that the whole "was the U.S. founded by christians or not" argument is a waste of time.  Who cares if they were or not?  These were people who owned slaves, had little knowledge of electricity, thought tomatoes were poisonous, etc.  Just because they believed in freedom and were probably smarter than the average person at time doesn't mean we should follow their every word over 200 years later(of course, that a theist would should come as no surprise).  Should Egyptians worship beetles today, because the country was "founded" by people who did?  Should Peruvians hold ballgames in which the loser is beheaded because their ancestors did?  The statements made by any of the "founding fathers" made regarding religion need to be taken in context.  Not blindly deemed infallible for eternity.

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."