You may be right! I don't know.

That's sort of the problem ;-). On this don't know solid history from pure conjecture!

Out of interest, where have you been doing your reading?

There is a magnificent web site maintained by Peter Kirby.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

There is also an early jewish writings companion site.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/

While you will find the works of Origen on Kirby's site for Eusebius you need to do a little work.

Here's a list.

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/works.htm

Many are available if you search for an English translation.[/quote]

(December 10, 2013 at 3:38 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: As to the question of original sin and/or the sins of the father passing to the son. The answer is yes and no based upon the circumstance. The apparent condradiction has to do with the distinction between a "sinfull nature" and the "specific sins of a person" (in this case that person being a father). In the case of Deuteronomy 24:16 ("Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.") if a father were to commit murder his son should not be put to death for his fathers sin of murder, the son should only be put to death for his own sin. This differs from children inheriting a "sinful nature" from their father. For example Romans 5:12 ( Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned). Sinfull nature passes from father to children, punishment for specific sins do not. For further reading, http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genes...ers-or-not

However - when I brought up the subject = I was specific in talking about Babies and INFANTS - who do not sin - because they have not reached the age of reason and responsibility.

And that is where the case you mention fails - since Babies and infants are supposedly innocent until they come of age. Even a sinful nature requires reason and responsibility.

---

(December 10, 2013 at 3:35 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: The problem with including people who believe nothing in particular is that the 'nothing in particular' they believe in often includes a vague sort of God or cosmic force. I call these people 'somethingists'. Their theological statement usually goes along the lines of 'I don't know what it is, but I believe in something greater than myself'. I think the 'nothing in particulars' may include a lot of somethingists. Apparently, somethingism is the majority religion of Iceland, according to polls.

Obviously - they were given the choice of "Atheist" and did not agree with that classification - which alone says that they are not atheists.

AS I said - and atheist does not accept the existence of supernatural "gods".
People who believe in nothing in particular - are not saying that.

---

(December 10, 2013 at 5:09 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Evidence of what specifically?

That reasonably solid historical evidence from outside the bible that you mentioned.

Let's see

THERE is no evidence that the solar system was created the way it was stated in geneis
THere is no evidence that humans were created as stated in the bible

THERE is no evidence that a great flood covered the entire earth to the highest mountain in the last 6000 years.

THERE is not a single document that we have - from the supposed time of the christ that even mentions his name.

WE have no evidence that the Israelis even existed at the time of the supposed bondage to Egypt. (They claimed nearly a million people in the Exodus - no evidence it ever happened)

WE have no evidence of a group of a million wandered in the Israeli desert

There is Evidence that Jericho did not exist at the time of the mention in the bible

There is evidence that Nazareth existed ONLY as a burial site at the supposed time of the christ.

We KNOW that Rome was a country of law at that time - and they ONLY crucified Traitors - Pirates - and enemies of the state - the mythical christ was none of that. WE know they sent "thieves" to the lions too - another problem with the story.

SO - if YOU have evidence otherwise - please by all means post it.

Did you perhaps not bother to read what I posted a few pages back? Allow me to restore (all of this IMO of course)

If you're talking about proof of the supernatural, that is both absent and impossible. The only means of recording anything was to write it down and anything written down is only as reliable as the person writing it. 

If you're talking about proof of the events of the late Old testament, for the most part, so far as I know, there is not very much. For the early Old testament, none, and the events within contradict things we think we know to be true (like the age of the earth).

I have a question for you Thom. Why does it matter to you so much? Your posts come across as if you are personally offended by people believing something which is untrue. Ancient history is always going to be controversial in places. If some people choose to believe something happened when you think the evidence states otherwise (or indeed for for which there is no evidence) how does this impact on you?

THERE isn't really a need for the caps bomb is THERE?

(December 10, 2013 at 5:32 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(December 7, 2013 at 5:54 am)Rayaan Wrote: Speaking of Biblical literacy, I think that Christians are especially hazy on the numerous 'Jesus is God' bits, which is the core and one of the most essential concepts for Christians to understand.

I think that issue is a good example of the difficulty in reaching a consensus on a book that is so open to interpretation. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus and god (Jehovah) are two distinctly separate beings and that the Holy Spirit is not a person at all, but "god's active force." Which is one of those things that defies a clear definition, IMO. Still, they can provide a fair number of Biblical texts and build an explanation that seems quite convincing. The only problem they run into is any passage which speaks of Jesus and god 'being one' or a similar sentiment, which they simply wave off with "that's not really what he meant" or "that is a misunderstanding or mistranslation or misinterpretation" of scripture.

I often found that people who believed differently could provide a similarly convincing explanation (with corroborating texts) to support the idea that Jesus was god, and they could also dismiss a lot of seeming contrary evidence via the misunderstood, mistranslated, or misinterpreted claim. There simply is no way to determine with absolute certainty that one view or the other is the correct one, though the people who hold to one belief or the other insist that they are absolutely certain.

John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2) He was in the beginning with God. 3) All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. 4) In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5) The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Here is a positive statement about Christ being the Son of God and , also God. All else about Christ being or not being God must start from here and match what is said here.

GC

Quote:If some people choose to believe something happened when you think the evidence states otherwise (or indeed for for which there is no evidence) how does this impact on you?

Ah, let me answer this one for Thom.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/6-sneaky-...da-america

Quote:5) What they want: To end the teaching of evolution in schools. This battle has been going on since at least the 1920s, and every time it comes around, the religious right gets a little better at hiding its religious motivations behind secularist claims.

The secular reasons they give: The current strategy is to claim that evolutionary theory is scientifically controversial, and therefore schools should “teach the controversy.” Clearly, they hope to give students reason to doubt the theory of evolution. In reality, there is no controversy. As the National Center for Science Education has stated, "There is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism of evolution.”

The unconstitutional, actual religious reasons: For Biblical literalists, evolution is an uncomfortable topic because the Bible says God created the world in the space of six days. While evolution correctly holds that human beings are primates who evolved from a common ancestor, the Bible teaches that God made them out of “the dust of the ground” (Genesis 2:7). Why that is supposed to be less demeaning is hard to say.

So, I really don't give a rat's ass if you think god is punishing us because rib-woman took a bite from the wrong tree. But when dickheads like the xtian right try to force their bullshit on everyone else THEN I have a problem.

This place is just for fun. The real battle is out in the streets.

Sorry new to the post and missed the context referring only to babies and infants. I was referring to your statement: "AS far as the story of "being saved" by the christ - because of original sin - the bible contradicts that claim. In Isiah - and elsewhere - the bible says that a man is not responsible for the sins of his father - and the father is not responsible for the sins of the son. SO - only Eve (and possibly adam - but 1 Timothy 2 - says otherwise) - needs to be saved." It sounds like to me you are arguing that the doctrine of "original sin" is not Biblical and using that as a premise to argue that being saved by the Christ is a story. Also, am I understanding you correctly that you are saying only Eve and possibly Adam sinned and because we are not punished for their sins we are don't need to "be saved" by the Christ? It is written "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23. "All" means everyone has sinned and need an atonement. Christ provides that atonement for all who put their faith and trust in Him. As for the application to infants and babies, two popular views are 1. infants are covered by grace until the age of accountability and 2. all are born depraved then the doctrine of predestination finishes the work. Either of the two views still involve Christ's sacrifice on the cross to save, infants, babies, and adults.

Uh-huh.

(December 11, 2013 at 1:53 am)orangebox21 Wrote: Christ provides that atonement for all who put their faith and trust in Him.

... Assuming you're of the tribe of Israel.

Seriously, I'm so weirded out that christians never complete that sentence. It's almost like they've never read the new testament!

(December 10, 2013 at 8:01 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:If some people choose to believe something happened when you think the evidence states otherwise (or indeed for for which there is no evidence) how does this impact on you?

Ah, let me answer this one for Thom.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/6-sneaky-...da-america

Quote:5) What they want: To end the teaching of evolution in schools. This battle has been going on since at least the 1920s, and every time it comes around, the religious right gets a little better at hiding its religious motivations behind secularist claims.

The secular reasons they give: The current strategy is to claim that evolutionary theory is scientifically controversial, and therefore schools should “teach the controversy.” Clearly, they hope to give students reason to doubt the theory of evolution. In reality, there is no controversy. As the National Center for Science Education has stated, "There is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism of evolution.”

The unconstitutional, actual religious reasons: For Biblical literalists, evolution is an uncomfortable topic because the Bible says God created the world in the space of six days. While evolution correctly holds that human beings are primates who evolved from a common ancestor, the Bible teaches that God made them out of “the dust of the ground” (Genesis 2:7). Why that is supposed to be less demeaning is hard to say.

So, I really don't give a rat's ass if you think god is punishing us because rib-woman took a bite from the wrong tree. But when dickheads like the xtian right try to force their bullshit on everyone else THEN I have a problem.

This place is just for fun. The real battle is out in the streets.

I'm with you all the way there! It's downright scary that almost half of Americans believe in creationism and downright sinister that people people pushing for that to be taught in schools.

My question then would be this. If you don't give a rats arse what people believe (so long as it's not foisted on you), then why waste the energy on tackling the belief itself? It's the pushing of said belief which us the problem, and I'd be with you on the picket lines for that one.