Originally posted by Devil King
Not one that requires money; conformity from others; preaches a doctrine of fear or reprisal; pomp and pageantry or funny hats; a pantheon of practically deified humans in a position to tell you what to think; a building or staff that takes care of it. So, basically I don't think so.
So basically, if you were, it would be one with no structure whatsoever?
Originally posted by Tim RoutSo if I go around and collect the work of people that share my point of view and discard all the ones that are different , that make that work creditable? What about all the non-canonized writtings?
No. My argument relies on the eyewitness accounts contained in the Bible. Those who reject the Bible (and the New Testament in particular) are unlikely to be impressed with my argument. That said, one might argue the same thing for evolutionists, were they required to make their case without the scholarship of secular humanists behind them.Your demand for so called "extraordinary evidence" is arbitrary. My premise is simple; the New Testament contains 27 documents written by at least 8 independant historians. If you like, then, each book of the New Testament can be seen as corroboration for other Bible books. There you go -- multiple sources.
Keep in mind, there is no contemporary evidence supporting the authenticity of Homer's Iliad. All available manuscript evidence for his great epic dates more than three centuries after he wrote it. Yet no serious scholar challenges its authorship or authenticity. The internal evidence of Homer's work is self-supporting.
While the Iliad is by nature pseudo-fictional epic, the New Testament Gospels are by nature carefully recorded historical biography. It is inequitable of you to impose a higher critical standard on the New Testament than objective scholarship demands.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
So if I go around and collect the work of people that share my point of view and discard all the ones that are different , that make that work creditable? What about all the non-canonized writtings?
I think we are trying to take he somewhere he will not go.
He will not even admit that at the core of his belief is a blind faith in the bible. Most likely he was indoctrinated when he was a child by his parents.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
So if I go around and collect the work of people that share my point of view and discard all the ones that are different , that make that work creditable? What about all the non-canonized writtings?
I believe scholars need to employ a certain degree of objectivity in their science. While it is impossible for even the most honest researcher to eliminate all bias, it is important that we carefully examine how a scholar handles the evidence. Bible critics often accuse Christian scholars of undue bias. But such assusations generally assume secular scientists are free from such proclivities...and they're not.
Take Richard Dawkins, for example. His argument against God as creator goes something like this:
1. The Bible says God made everything.
2. There is no evidence for the existence of God.
3. Therefore, we may resonably conclude that there is no God.
4. Therefore, however the universe came into being, God did not create it.
5. Therefore, the Bible is wrong.
That isn't science. That's pure speculation, and I don't buy it. Peter Slezak and other noted atheists support Dawkins' hypothesis that there is no evidence for the existence of God, and even go as far as to base their whole atheistic platform on this one point. But they're wrong. Dr. William Lane Craig debated Slezak on this issue and shot a thousand holes through his argument, easily winning the debate. Here's a brief clip of Craig's rebuttal.
http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1201
I believe we should listen to careful, humble, objective scholars who take their work seriously and don't hand you their conclusion before they've even looked at the data. That said, I nevertheless believe that the evidence stands firmly in support of the Bible.
As to the gnostic gospels and other pseudoepigraphal works, they lack the substance and character to be seriously considered as additions to the canon. Unlike the New Testament Gospels, the "piggies" were all written after the first century. None were authored by an Apostle or someone closely connected with an Apostle. None were written by the person to whom they are attributed. None are consistent with the literary style of the New Testament. And none propose a theology consistent with previously revealed Scripture. In short, THEY'RE JUNK! Dan Brown can have all the fun he likes toying around with the "Gospel of Judas", but serious Bible scholars don't give the pseudo-piggies a second thought. Surely you're not suggesting they should?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think we are trying to take he somewhere he will not go.He will not even admit that at the core of his belief is a blind faith in the bible. Most likely he was indoctrinated when he was a child by his parents.
You know, for an obviously intelligent person, you sure do make a lot of silly assumptions. I didn't become a Christian until the age of 20.
Furthermore, I maintain that the Bible can and should be believed on the weight of the evidence. Of course, if it comforts you to put words in my mouth and insist that my ultimate motivation is "blind faith", I guess I can't blame you for saying as much. Heaven knows you need comfort. But in the end, you do little more than demonstrate your extraordinary prejudice and volitional myopia, since I have always argued the opposite.
There is nothing blind about biblical faith. In fact, it is beyond any doubt the most insightful, intelligent thing a person can espouse. While biblical faith moves beyond the limited scope of science, it is rooted in unshakable reality. Thus a Christian is never required to put his brain in a pickle jar; rather, he is required to think with a renewed mind [Romans 12:2].
Originally posted by Tim Rout
You know, for an obviously intelligent person, you sure do make a lot of silly assumptions. I didn't become a Christian until the age of 20.Furthermore, I maintain that the Bible can and should be believed on the weight of the evidence. Of course, if it comforts you to put words in my mouth and insist that my ultimate motivation is "blind faith", I guess I can't blame you for saying as much. Heaven knows you need comfort. But in the end, you do little more than demonstrate your extraordinary prejudice and volitional myopia, since I have always argued the opposite.
There is nothing blind about biblical faith. In fact, it is beyond any doubt the most insightful, intelligent thing a person can espouse. While biblical faith moves beyond the limited scope of science, it is rooted in unshakable reality. Thus a Christian is never required to put his brain in a pickle jar; rather, he is required to think with a renewed mind [Romans 12:2].
LOL
"volitional myopia"
translation
obvious or purposeful short sightedness...
BRILLIANT!!!
I will have to use that in the future when I want to pontificate.
Originally posted by Tim Rout
You know, for an obviously intelligent person, you sure do make a lot of silly assumptions. I didn't become a Christian until the age of 20.Furthermore, I maintain that the Bible can and should be believed on the weight of the evidence. Of course, if it comforts you to put words in my mouth and insist that my ultimate motivation is "blind faith", I guess I can't blame you for saying as much. Heaven knows you need comfort. But in the end, you do little more than demonstrate your extraordinary prejudice and volitional myopia, since I have always argued the opposite.
There is nothing blind about biblical faith. In fact, it is beyond any doubt the most insightful, intelligent thing a person can espouse. While biblical faith moves beyond the limited scope of science, it is rooted in unshakable reality. Thus a Christian is never required to put his brain in a pickle jar; rather, he is required to think with a renewed mind [Romans 12:2].
If you go back a bit to Romans 11:34 we get to the famous note that no one has ever known the mind of the Lord. All faith requires a certain level of acceptance of something that cannot be proven (and must be believed 'blindly'😉
Originally posted by Tim Routyour blinded by a book. there is no physical proof of gods existance. theres a book, written by humans. now i dunno bout you but ive seen some damn good liars in my time on earth. im sure you have. it is certainly not farfetched to believe that multiple good liars made a book about a god as a control mechanism. you keep claiming the bible is right yet you have provided little to no proof. substantiate your claims or GTFO NOOB
You know, for an obviously intelligent person, you sure do make a lot of silly assumptions. I didn't become a Christian until the age of 20.Furthermore, I maintain that the Bible can and should be believed on the weight of the evidence. Of course, if it comforts you to put words in my mouth and insist that my ultimate motivation is "blind faith", I guess I can't blame you for saying as much. Heaven knows you need comfort. But in the end, you do little more than demonstrate your extraordinary prejudice and volitional myopia, since I have always argued the opposite.
There is nothing blind about biblical faith. In fact, it is beyond any doubt the most insightful, intelligent thing a person can espouse. While biblical faith moves beyond the limited scope of science, it is rooted in unshakable reality. Thus a Christian is never required to put his brain in a pickle jar; rather, he is required to think with a renewed mind [Romans 12:2].
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaoswhich is basically propaganda in its simplest form
If you go back a bit to Romans 11:34 we get to the famous note that no one has ever known the mind of the Lord. All faith requires a certain level of acceptance of something that cannot be proven (and must be believed 'blindly'😉
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you go back a bit to Romans 11:34 we get to the famous note that no one has ever known the mind of the Lord. All faith requires a certain level of acceptance of something that cannot be proven (and must be believed 'blindly'😉
Romans 11:34 says, "For who can know what the Lord is thinking? Who knows enough to be His counselor?" [NLT]
No one can read God's mind. In fact, the only way we can gain access to the mind of God, is for God to reveal Himself to us. And that's just what God has done in the pages of Scripture, and more acutely in the person of Jesus Christ, who is God the Son.
John 1:18 says, "No one has ever seen God. But His only Son, who is Himself God, is near to the Father's heart; He has told us about Him." [NLT]
Originally posted by Tim Rout
Romans 11:34 says, "For who can know what the Lord is thinking? Who knows enough to be His counselor?" [NLT]No one can read God's mind. In fact, the only way we can gain access to the mind of God, is for God to reveal Himself to us. And that's just what God has done in the pages of Scripture, and more acutely in the person of Jesus Christ, who is God the Son.
John 1:18 says, "No one has ever seen God. But His only Son, who is Himself God, is near to the Father's heart; He has told us about Him." [NLT]
John 1:18 fails...seriously. Stuff like John 1:18 is why people think Christians are idiots.
Tim, can you think of any situation in which any man has seen God? Also, the NLT takes upon itself to think that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are one entity...something Christians are called idiots for as well.
Originally posted by Tim Rout
Propaganda? No my friend. Propaganda is stating that science supports atheism, when in fact it strongly supports both theism and the Bible.
No, science almost completely supports atheism. 😐
Originally posted by chickenlover98
your blinded by a book. there is no physical proof of gods existance. theres a book, written by humans. now i dunno bout you but ive seen some damn good liars in my time on earth. im sure you have. it is certainly not farfetched to believe that multiple good liars made a book about a god as a control mechanism. you keep claiming the bible is right yet you have provided little to no proof. substantiate your claims or GTFO NOOB
RESPONSE SECTION 1
You know Chicken, it troubles me greatly how some critics of the Bible misrepresent the fundamentals of science in making their case. Whether one develops a hypothesis from an examination of data, or constructs it intuitively, it is considered valid provided that it is testable. For example, the Bible says that God created the universe in an instant [Psalm 33:9]. Evolutionary theory suggests the universe formed slowly over many billions of years; usually, this developmental period is attributed to the Big Bang, though technically evolution and BB are independent theoretical systems. But if we test both the biblical hypothesis and the secular hypothesis against the evidence, what do we find?
In 1988, nuclear physicist Robert V. Gentry conducted a study of polonium isotopes found in a series of Precambrian granite samples. Standish reports the following with regard to Gentry's research:
“To understand the findings of Gentry we will explain the process critical to his investigation. Three radioactive atoms are the initiators of a decay chain. The one relevant to Gentry's research is Uranium-238 which initiates a decay chain that ultimately ends in Lead-206. The half-life of a radioactive isotope3 is the time it takes for half of the radioactive atoms to decay. Uranium-238 presently decays at the rate of a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. Further, after another 4.5 billion years, a total of three-quarters of the uranium atoms would have decayed and after yet another 4.5 billion years (providing the decay-rate remained constant during this vast period of time) seven-eighths of all the uranium-238 would have decayed.
However, the decay from Uranium-238 to Lead-206 is a complex process involving 14 steps: Uranium-238 Thorium-234 Protactium-234 Uranium-234 Thorium-230 Radium-226 Radon-222 Polonium-218 Lead-214 Bismuth-214 Polonium-214 Lead-210 Bismuth-210 Polonium-210 Lead-206.
Within this decay chain, Gentry became interested particularly in the three polonium isotopes in the decay chain--Polonium-218, 214 and 210. These polonium isotopes all have short half-lives. Polonium-218 has a half-life of 3 minutes, decaying into Lead-214. Polonium-214 has a half-life of 164 micro seconds, decaying into Lead-210. Polonium-210 has a half-life of 138.4 days decaying into Lead-206 which concludes the uranium decay chain.
During the decay process, all three polonium isotopes emit heavy alpha particles4 which travel a microscopic distance in minerals when emitted in the decay process. Each leaves a damage trail of a predictable length. When billions of alpha particles are emitted from the same center they collectively form a spherical damage pattern around the center causing color changes which microscopically appear as radio-halos. These halos are darker at the edge because damage is greater at the end of their alpha particle's "travel." Because the different isotopes travel different identifiable distances, it is possible to identify which isotopes (there are eight of the 14 isotopes in the uranium-lead decay chain that emit alpha particles) have produced the halo. Therefore it was possible for Gentry to make definite identifications of each of the three different polonium halos.
Gentry's research evidenced that polonium halos were indeed in granite rock separate from uranium. Because of the fleeting half-life of polonium, the evolutionary, big bang model, has found no credible explanation for this discovery. If molten magma had cooled into granite rock over long ages of earth's history, given the fleeting half-life of polonium isotopes, all traces of their radioactive decay would have been obliterated long before the magma cooled into granite rock.” [Colin Standish, Sundaylaw.net]
In order to be scientific in our interpretation of the evidence, we must ask ourselves which hypothesis best fits with the data. Of course, it is possible that both hypotheses are incorrect. As it is, however, there are only two major camps within this field of study – evolution and creation – so we are safe to limit our test to the two. (It should be noted that some scholars espouse a hybrid position called Theistic Evolution).
The physical evidence from Gentry's research demonstrates that the Bible's account is the more likely explanation for the presence of polonium halos in Precambrian granite. The extraordinary import of Gentry's research led to immediate malediction from many of his peers. After all, if Gentry is right, evolution is wrong. But we must realize that such baseless ridicule is to be expected from secular scientists whose entire world view is dependent on a godless universe.
Consider also the second law of thermodynamics. Assuming no outside influence, matter has a tendency to move from a state of organization to a state of disorganization, and energy has a tendency to move from a state of concentration to a state of dissipation. This flies in the face of evolution, which requires that life spontaneously erupt from inanimate building blocks all on its own. Furthermore, evolution insists that all living things, despite their great diversity, have a common ancestry and have developed into various species through an extensive process of positive mutation. The second law of thermodynamics makes this impossible. In fact, nature containes no examples of mutations that result in the increase of genetic information. All naturally occurring mutations are degenerative.
Now, just to be clear, one must distinguish between natural selection and evolution. Natural selection involves genetic variations and adaptations within a species. Evolution involves genetic interchange between species, such that one kind of creature evolves into another. Natural selection is scientifically verifiable and, by the way, consistent with Scripture. Evolution runs contrary to the laws of science and is inconsistent with Scripture. In my view, believers who espouse Theistic Evolution are unnecessarily compromising both the Bible and good science. Nevertheless, there are plenty of heaven-bound souls who attempt to harmonize secular theories with biblical truth. I'm simply not one of them.
Sooner or later, once I've made it known that I am a young earth creationist, someone will stick up his hand and say, “What about the dinosaurs? Doesn't the evidence show that they lived millions of years before mankind?” The only accurate answer I can give is, NO. The evidence DOES NOT show that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. In fact, the evidence shows very clearly that dinosaurs lived on this earth right alongside human beings, and were even present on Noah's arc. The fossil record repeatedly shows the remains of so called “pre-historic” dinosaurs right alongside human skeletons. In one case, they even found an iron hammer lodged in the same Lower Cretaceous Limestone that secular scientists insist is some 140 million years old. Here's an interesting site to visit if you want to see more:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-fossils.htm
Dr. Steve Austin's study of sedimentary rock in the Grand Canyon shows that secular theorists are wrong when they say that it takes millions of years for fossils to form. In fact, certain fossils can consummate in as little as a few decades under the right conditions. Many of the giant dinosaurs paleontologists have dug up over the years are many thousands of years old, yes, but not millions. In fact, the bulk of the evidence suggests the great mass extinction that killed off many of these enormous creatures was likely the global flood described in Genesis 6-9, and not a catastrophic meteor strike.
Perhaps most surprising to Bible critics is the fact that the Bible contains several references to living dinosaurs. The popular apologetics site “Clarifying Christianity” reports the following about the Hebrew word TANNIYN (dinosaur):
“Although we alter the spelling of Behemoth and Leviathan slightly, we still use those same words in bibles today. However, tanniyn is always translated into another word when we write it in English. Tanniyn occurs 28 times in the Bible and is normally translated “dragon.” It is also translated “serpent,” “sea monster,” “dinosaur,” “great creature,” and “reptile.” Behemoth and Leviathan are relatively specific creatures, perhaps each was a single kind of animal. Tanniyn is a more general term, and it can be thought of as the original version of the word “dinosaur.” The word “dinosaur” was originally coined in 1841, more than three thousand years after the Bible first referred to Tanniyn.”
[http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml]